This document summarizes CDP's methodology for scoring company responses on climate change disclosure and performance. It provides the scoring approach, which involves assigning points to questions based on importance, and calculating disclosure and performance scores as a percentage of total possible points. The performance score also requires a minimum disclosure score of 50. The methodology is intended to assess the level of detail, comprehensiveness, and climate actions reported by companies.
The Hidden Reality of Payroll & HR Administration CostsAdrian Boucek
This document summarizes the findings of a study on the total cost of ownership (TCO) of payroll and HR administration functions. The study analyzed data from 279 organizations to determine key cost drivers and the most cost-effective strategies. It found that organizations tend to underestimate administration costs and can save 18-32% by outsourcing functions or using a common vendor over separate best-of-breed solutions. Providing self-service and integrating time & attendance with payroll also significantly reduce costs. Comprehensive process transformation, not just technology, leads to the greatest cost effectiveness.
Ast 0012359 google-appsforrester_measuringAlex Karas
This document summarizes the key findings of a study conducted by Forrester Consulting that measured the total economic impact of adopting Google Apps. The study was based on interviews with 12 organizations currently using Google Apps as well as a survey of 600 IT and end users. The representative organization modeled had 18,000 employees across three continents. Migrating to Google Apps' messaging platform delivered IT cost savings from reduced licensing and infrastructure costs. End users experienced productivity gains from improved email and collaboration functionality. Over three years, the organization achieved a 307% ROI and $10 million in net benefits from switching to Google Apps.
Aba fall conference_oct2008.authcheckdamvalkyriebird
The survey found that half of small law firms attempt to recover online research costs from clients. Most common practices include reviewing costs on a client-by-client basis and recovering out of plan charges and document retrieval fees, recovering around two-thirds of actual costs on average. Partners typically set cost recovery policies. While a quarter saw increased recovery, half saw no change over two years. Firms not recovering cited traditions of not charging and maintaining client relationships and that recovery takes too much administrative time and costs. Both recovering and non-recovering firms said ABA principles, market research and articles would help improve their strategies.
The passage discusses the growing phenomenon of "metric fixation" in organizations, where performance is judged based on standardized metrics rather than professional judgment. Key negative consequences of metric fixation include professionals gaming the metrics in ways that undermine organizational goals, as well as short-term thinking and neglecting important but unmeasured goals. The passage provides examples showing how metric fixation can incentivize surgeons to avoid complex cases and teachers to focus only on test scores.
Best-in-Class organizations in strategic sourcing source 76% of their total spending through formal processes, 32% based on sustainable approaches, and identify 16% in average yearly savings. They are twice as likely to use scenario optimization and have commodity councils engaged in sourcing. To achieve Best-in-Class performance, companies must establish formal strategic sourcing with standardized processes, leverage e-sourcing to drive higher savings and automate processes, and invest in sustainability initiatives for long-term impacts on savings.
TEI of IBM Information Management SolutionsIBM Analytics
Originally Published on Dec 11, 2014
In October 2014, Forrester Consulting worked with IBM on a commissioned study to analyze the total economic impact that IBM’s Information Management solutions have on three specific big data use cases to help its customers solve important business problems. Through interviews and data aggregation, Forrester concluded that IBM Information Management solutions have the following financial impact on a representative organization: ROI – 148%; total benefit (PV) - $3.2 million.
This document summarizes the findings of a study on the total economic impact of implementing Embarcadero DBArtisan. Key findings include:
1) The customer realized significant productivity gains and labor cost savings among application development, database administration, and IT staff through the use of DBArtisan.
2) DBArtisan enabled more effective collaboration between application developers and DBAs with streamlined database administration tasks, improved performance management, simplified backup/recovery, and automated change management.
3) Over three years, the customer achieved a risk-adjusted ROI of 857% and net present value of $2 million by reducing the number of FTEs needed through increased productivity enabled by DBArtisan.
Given the stringent regulatory requirements in the health care industry, it is important for bio-pharmal companies to develop innovative Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) plans during the commercialization of certain products to ensure an acceptable risk-to-benefit ratio.
This benchmark study published by Best Practices, LLC examines how companies develop and execute successful Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) plans for newly-approved drugs in the U.S. market. This study can help bio-pharma companies in creating successful REMS programs.
Download Full Report: http://bit.ly/2aOt5Id
The Hidden Reality of Payroll & HR Administration CostsAdrian Boucek
This document summarizes the findings of a study on the total cost of ownership (TCO) of payroll and HR administration functions. The study analyzed data from 279 organizations to determine key cost drivers and the most cost-effective strategies. It found that organizations tend to underestimate administration costs and can save 18-32% by outsourcing functions or using a common vendor over separate best-of-breed solutions. Providing self-service and integrating time & attendance with payroll also significantly reduce costs. Comprehensive process transformation, not just technology, leads to the greatest cost effectiveness.
Ast 0012359 google-appsforrester_measuringAlex Karas
This document summarizes the key findings of a study conducted by Forrester Consulting that measured the total economic impact of adopting Google Apps. The study was based on interviews with 12 organizations currently using Google Apps as well as a survey of 600 IT and end users. The representative organization modeled had 18,000 employees across three continents. Migrating to Google Apps' messaging platform delivered IT cost savings from reduced licensing and infrastructure costs. End users experienced productivity gains from improved email and collaboration functionality. Over three years, the organization achieved a 307% ROI and $10 million in net benefits from switching to Google Apps.
Aba fall conference_oct2008.authcheckdamvalkyriebird
The survey found that half of small law firms attempt to recover online research costs from clients. Most common practices include reviewing costs on a client-by-client basis and recovering out of plan charges and document retrieval fees, recovering around two-thirds of actual costs on average. Partners typically set cost recovery policies. While a quarter saw increased recovery, half saw no change over two years. Firms not recovering cited traditions of not charging and maintaining client relationships and that recovery takes too much administrative time and costs. Both recovering and non-recovering firms said ABA principles, market research and articles would help improve their strategies.
The passage discusses the growing phenomenon of "metric fixation" in organizations, where performance is judged based on standardized metrics rather than professional judgment. Key negative consequences of metric fixation include professionals gaming the metrics in ways that undermine organizational goals, as well as short-term thinking and neglecting important but unmeasured goals. The passage provides examples showing how metric fixation can incentivize surgeons to avoid complex cases and teachers to focus only on test scores.
Best-in-Class organizations in strategic sourcing source 76% of their total spending through formal processes, 32% based on sustainable approaches, and identify 16% in average yearly savings. They are twice as likely to use scenario optimization and have commodity councils engaged in sourcing. To achieve Best-in-Class performance, companies must establish formal strategic sourcing with standardized processes, leverage e-sourcing to drive higher savings and automate processes, and invest in sustainability initiatives for long-term impacts on savings.
TEI of IBM Information Management SolutionsIBM Analytics
Originally Published on Dec 11, 2014
In October 2014, Forrester Consulting worked with IBM on a commissioned study to analyze the total economic impact that IBM’s Information Management solutions have on three specific big data use cases to help its customers solve important business problems. Through interviews and data aggregation, Forrester concluded that IBM Information Management solutions have the following financial impact on a representative organization: ROI – 148%; total benefit (PV) - $3.2 million.
This document summarizes the findings of a study on the total economic impact of implementing Embarcadero DBArtisan. Key findings include:
1) The customer realized significant productivity gains and labor cost savings among application development, database administration, and IT staff through the use of DBArtisan.
2) DBArtisan enabled more effective collaboration between application developers and DBAs with streamlined database administration tasks, improved performance management, simplified backup/recovery, and automated change management.
3) Over three years, the customer achieved a risk-adjusted ROI of 857% and net present value of $2 million by reducing the number of FTEs needed through increased productivity enabled by DBArtisan.
Given the stringent regulatory requirements in the health care industry, it is important for bio-pharmal companies to develop innovative Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) plans during the commercialization of certain products to ensure an acceptable risk-to-benefit ratio.
This benchmark study published by Best Practices, LLC examines how companies develop and execute successful Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) plans for newly-approved drugs in the U.S. market. This study can help bio-pharma companies in creating successful REMS programs.
Download Full Report: http://bit.ly/2aOt5Id
Current Automation Purchasing Strategies Fall Short
End users today have a paradoxical relationship with their suppliers. Primary
business drivers in today’s environment include maximizing asset
utilization, enhancing plant performance, and reducing capital, maintenance,
and operational expenditures, but many manufacturers employ
purchasing strategies and supplier relationship management strategies developed
during the heyday of the 1980s. Rather than
focusing on achievement of today’s objectives, the
current environment is characterized by an approach
that relies primarily on initial cost, driving discounts
off list price, and failure to employ a lifecycle costing
perspective.
Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy using Machine Learning Techniques Shantanu Deshpande
Aim is to build a classification model to predict whether company will become bankrupt or not using financial ratios of Polish companies. Applied various machine learning models like Random Forest, KNN, AdaBoost & Decision Tree with pre-processing techniques like SMOTE-ENN (to deal with class imbalance) & feature selection (for identifying ) and trained on Polish Bankruptcy dataset with prediction accuracy of 89%.
This document discusses healthcare organizations outsourcing their information technology (IT) functions due to various pressures they face. It outlines how the rapid growth of healthcare technologies has made managing internal IT departments more challenging and costly. Many healthcare organizations are outsourcing some or all of their IT departments to reduce costs and allow internal staff to focus on patient care. The document describes different outsourcing models and considerations for healthcare organizations evaluating outsourcing partnerships.
The document discusses fraud risks in the general insurance industry in India. It provides an overview of the industry, noting its concentration among the top players and competitive pressures. It then outlines various internal fraud risks like embezzlement and inappropriate financial reporting. External fraud risks discussed include fraudulent claims, investment scams, and data breaches. Several case studies of insurance fraud schemes in India are also presented, such as "crash for cash" auto insurance scams.
Compliance at a Crossroads: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?Accenture Insurance
Compliance functions face increasing demands from growing regulations and complexity, while resources are constrained. To maintain its strategic role, Compliance must (1) clarify its remit between advisory and control roles, (2) improve resource utilization through technology and collaboration, and (3) prioritize high-quality data and technology to support its work. Decisive action is needed to navigate choices around transforming capabilities with limited investments.
Highlights from Tracking & Reporting Aggregate SpendExL Pharma
This document summarizes a conference on tracking and reporting aggregate spend. It discusses why training is critical for accurate data capture and reporting. When is the right time to train on state laws and reporting requirements? It also discusses comprehensive training elements, who should be trained by business area and function, focused training, considerations for training senior management, and monitoring and auditing an aggregate spend system.
This document provides background information on the global IT services industry and the competitive environment facing Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). It discusses key segments of the global IT services market, factors considered in vendor selection, the growth of offshoring and Indian IT services firms, and critiques of offshoring. The Indian IT services sector is highly concentrated, with the top 3-4 firms by revenue accounting for 45% of the market and holding a significant profitability advantage over smaller players. TCS, as one of the largest Indian IT services providers, was preparing to launch a new strategy to differentiate itself in the market and reach $10 billion in revenues by 2010.
Discussion 1 due to increase in the number of cyber attacks on thAMMY30
The documents discuss the importance of effective computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) for organizations. Due to increasing cyber attacks, dedicated CSIRTs are now essential, not luxurious, for companies. Effective CSIRTs are cross-functional, containing specialists to handle different security incidents. Key roles include an executive sponsor, lead investigator, incident manager, legal representative, and communications lead. Performance must also be regularly evaluated at both individual and team levels to ensure quality and maximize effectiveness. Organizations build successful CSIRTs by selecting qualified members, clearly defining roles and responsibilities, and providing proper resources and support.
Claims Process Improvement And AutomationClaire Louis
Presentation to Casualty Actuarial Society November 2007: presents retrospective on claim process improvement; identifies current change drivers; examines future claims process trends
Insurance carriers can accelerate manuscript endorsement processing and other policy document dissemination through some easy reengineering and technology process improvements.
The property and casualty insurance industry has seen declining profits in recent years due to lower investment returns and high claims costs. Fraud represents a significant portion of claims costs, estimated at $30 billion annually in the US alone. Predictive analytics can help insurers more efficiently identify fraudulent claims, recover costs through subrogation, optimize staff scheduling, and improve loss reserving. Early adopters of predictive analytics in claims processing are seeing returns of over 100% and improved customer retention compared to companies that have not adopted these techniques.
CIA Quebec 11 Sept 2015 Presentation C Louis FinalClaire Louis
Digitalization is transforming the insurance claims process. Key technologies impacting claims include predictive analytics, business process management, and the internet of things. These allow for early intervention, optimized claims handling, and a shift to loss prevention. However, insurers face compliance risks regarding good faith, privacy, discrimination, and unfair trade practices. The future claims environment is expected to have larger and shorter claims, new types of claims, and fewer traditional claims due to loss prevention technologies. Performance metrics will also change for the next generation of claims management.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15Cognizant
Cognizant has been recognized as “Market Leader” in Ovum Decision Matrix on Outsourced Testing Service Providers. According to the report, Cognizant stands out for how it articulates the implications of end-to-end responsibility and aligns them with organizational issues around testing services.
Analysis of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERPs) with Technical aspectszillesubhan
In the past few years, the information
technology has emerged as a key driving force for
growth of business organizations. The trend of
implementing the latest tools and technologies has
reached to maximum extent. The majority of business
organizations has adopted new and innovative tools
to manage their business tasks effectively. In this
scenario, an enterprise resource planning (ERP)
system is a huge information system that
organizations implement to manage their business
tasks. This is a huge information system which links
almost all the business departments and functional
areas. This report presents a detailed analysis of an
enterprise resource planning system. The
implementation of an enterprise resource planning
system requires taking into consideration various
critical factors, which are essential to be considered
in order to make this implementation fruitful. This
report presents a detailed discussion on the
advantages provided by ERPs to business
organizations. The basic purpose of this report is to
analyze critical success factors involved in the
implementation of ERPs. This report also presents
recommendations with every factor that an
organization can follow to make best use of these
systems.
G1. a comprehensive-study-of-the-relationship-between-erp-selection-criteria-...Mohamed Hannioui
This document discusses a study that examines the relationship between enterprise resource planning (ERP) selection criteria and ERP system success. The study develops a conceptual framework that investigates how ERP selection criteria are linked to system quality, supplier service quality, and consultant service quality, and how these factors influence ERP implementation success. The study uses a survey of Taiwan's top 5000 companies to analyze how various ERP selection criteria relating to the ERP system, supplier, and consultant affect system quality, service quality, user perspective, and net benefits. The results can help organizations understand which criteria to consider when implementing an ERP system to increase the likelihood of success.
This document discusses research into the connections between ERP systems and decision support. It summarizes previous research on ERP objectives and decision support benefits. It then describes a study conducted by the authors that examined the importance of decision support objectives in ERP planning for 53 organizations. The study also looked at the decision support benefits realized from the implemented ERP systems and relationships between objectives and benefits. Key findings are reported on the importance of objectives, perceived benefits provided, and relationships between objectives and benefits. The research provides new insights for ERP planners, adopters, and vendors.
IT Strategic Sourcing Can Relieve the Squeeze on HealthcareWGroup
See how WGroup helped a major healthcare system develop more cost effective IT sourcing strategies. WGroup's analysis and recommendation will help the client develop more sophisticated IT sourcing strategies — to leverage synergies between institutes, improve patient and employee experiences, and reduce costs.
The document provides guidance on using social media for business purposes, focusing on six key objectives: building brand awareness, providing customer service, adding events, product introductions, sales, and community engagement. It discusses each objective in terms of business case, team roles, example content types, and metrics. For the objective of building brand awareness, example content includes sharing company details and thought leadership, as well as asking questions to engage audiences. Metrics include engagement, reach, network growth, and comments.
Building Bridges with Multicultural Literature: African RefugeesLori VandenBerghe
These three books share stories of refugees from Africa who have resettled in new homes and communities. Whoever You Are tells the story of our shared humanity despite differences. Brothers in Hope tells the fictional story of Garang, a Sudanese boy who becomes separated from his family during civil war and joins a group of Lost Boys who travel to refugee camps. In the Small, Small Night is about a brother and sister from Ghana who have moved to America, and the sister tells folktales from their home country to comfort her brother.
The Bloody Truth About Social Media FinalKarin Ettemo
While social media promises great opportunities, the facts about its impact and effectiveness are sometimes exaggerated. This document seeks to separate fact from fiction regarding social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. It notes that while Twitter saw rapid growth in 2009, its monthly users are still only a fraction of Facebook's. It also explains that there is no guaranteed formula for videos to go viral on YouTube, but maintaining an active YouTube channel can provide engagement and archive video assets over time.
Primer Taller Gold Standard en Colombia: Beneficios proyectos estufas mejorad...Fundación Natura Colombia
Fundación Natura y The Gold Standard Foundation (GSF) llevaron a cabo el Primer Taller Gold Standard en Colombia sobre estándares, metodologías y experiencias nacionales en el desarrollo de estrategias y proyectos de Estufas Eficientes de Leña. Este evento contó con la presencia de expertos nacionales e internacionales. Compartimos una de las presentaciones
Current Automation Purchasing Strategies Fall Short
End users today have a paradoxical relationship with their suppliers. Primary
business drivers in today’s environment include maximizing asset
utilization, enhancing plant performance, and reducing capital, maintenance,
and operational expenditures, but many manufacturers employ
purchasing strategies and supplier relationship management strategies developed
during the heyday of the 1980s. Rather than
focusing on achievement of today’s objectives, the
current environment is characterized by an approach
that relies primarily on initial cost, driving discounts
off list price, and failure to employ a lifecycle costing
perspective.
Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy using Machine Learning Techniques Shantanu Deshpande
Aim is to build a classification model to predict whether company will become bankrupt or not using financial ratios of Polish companies. Applied various machine learning models like Random Forest, KNN, AdaBoost & Decision Tree with pre-processing techniques like SMOTE-ENN (to deal with class imbalance) & feature selection (for identifying ) and trained on Polish Bankruptcy dataset with prediction accuracy of 89%.
This document discusses healthcare organizations outsourcing their information technology (IT) functions due to various pressures they face. It outlines how the rapid growth of healthcare technologies has made managing internal IT departments more challenging and costly. Many healthcare organizations are outsourcing some or all of their IT departments to reduce costs and allow internal staff to focus on patient care. The document describes different outsourcing models and considerations for healthcare organizations evaluating outsourcing partnerships.
The document discusses fraud risks in the general insurance industry in India. It provides an overview of the industry, noting its concentration among the top players and competitive pressures. It then outlines various internal fraud risks like embezzlement and inappropriate financial reporting. External fraud risks discussed include fraudulent claims, investment scams, and data breaches. Several case studies of insurance fraud schemes in India are also presented, such as "crash for cash" auto insurance scams.
Compliance at a Crossroads: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?Accenture Insurance
Compliance functions face increasing demands from growing regulations and complexity, while resources are constrained. To maintain its strategic role, Compliance must (1) clarify its remit between advisory and control roles, (2) improve resource utilization through technology and collaboration, and (3) prioritize high-quality data and technology to support its work. Decisive action is needed to navigate choices around transforming capabilities with limited investments.
Highlights from Tracking & Reporting Aggregate SpendExL Pharma
This document summarizes a conference on tracking and reporting aggregate spend. It discusses why training is critical for accurate data capture and reporting. When is the right time to train on state laws and reporting requirements? It also discusses comprehensive training elements, who should be trained by business area and function, focused training, considerations for training senior management, and monitoring and auditing an aggregate spend system.
This document provides background information on the global IT services industry and the competitive environment facing Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). It discusses key segments of the global IT services market, factors considered in vendor selection, the growth of offshoring and Indian IT services firms, and critiques of offshoring. The Indian IT services sector is highly concentrated, with the top 3-4 firms by revenue accounting for 45% of the market and holding a significant profitability advantage over smaller players. TCS, as one of the largest Indian IT services providers, was preparing to launch a new strategy to differentiate itself in the market and reach $10 billion in revenues by 2010.
Discussion 1 due to increase in the number of cyber attacks on thAMMY30
The documents discuss the importance of effective computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) for organizations. Due to increasing cyber attacks, dedicated CSIRTs are now essential, not luxurious, for companies. Effective CSIRTs are cross-functional, containing specialists to handle different security incidents. Key roles include an executive sponsor, lead investigator, incident manager, legal representative, and communications lead. Performance must also be regularly evaluated at both individual and team levels to ensure quality and maximize effectiveness. Organizations build successful CSIRTs by selecting qualified members, clearly defining roles and responsibilities, and providing proper resources and support.
Claims Process Improvement And AutomationClaire Louis
Presentation to Casualty Actuarial Society November 2007: presents retrospective on claim process improvement; identifies current change drivers; examines future claims process trends
Insurance carriers can accelerate manuscript endorsement processing and other policy document dissemination through some easy reengineering and technology process improvements.
The property and casualty insurance industry has seen declining profits in recent years due to lower investment returns and high claims costs. Fraud represents a significant portion of claims costs, estimated at $30 billion annually in the US alone. Predictive analytics can help insurers more efficiently identify fraudulent claims, recover costs through subrogation, optimize staff scheduling, and improve loss reserving. Early adopters of predictive analytics in claims processing are seeing returns of over 100% and improved customer retention compared to companies that have not adopted these techniques.
CIA Quebec 11 Sept 2015 Presentation C Louis FinalClaire Louis
Digitalization is transforming the insurance claims process. Key technologies impacting claims include predictive analytics, business process management, and the internet of things. These allow for early intervention, optimized claims handling, and a shift to loss prevention. However, insurers face compliance risks regarding good faith, privacy, discrimination, and unfair trade practices. The future claims environment is expected to have larger and shorter claims, new types of claims, and fewer traditional claims due to loss prevention technologies. Performance metrics will also change for the next generation of claims management.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Outsourced Testing Service Provider 2014–15Cognizant
Cognizant has been recognized as “Market Leader” in Ovum Decision Matrix on Outsourced Testing Service Providers. According to the report, Cognizant stands out for how it articulates the implications of end-to-end responsibility and aligns them with organizational issues around testing services.
Analysis of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERPs) with Technical aspectszillesubhan
In the past few years, the information
technology has emerged as a key driving force for
growth of business organizations. The trend of
implementing the latest tools and technologies has
reached to maximum extent. The majority of business
organizations has adopted new and innovative tools
to manage their business tasks effectively. In this
scenario, an enterprise resource planning (ERP)
system is a huge information system that
organizations implement to manage their business
tasks. This is a huge information system which links
almost all the business departments and functional
areas. This report presents a detailed analysis of an
enterprise resource planning system. The
implementation of an enterprise resource planning
system requires taking into consideration various
critical factors, which are essential to be considered
in order to make this implementation fruitful. This
report presents a detailed discussion on the
advantages provided by ERPs to business
organizations. The basic purpose of this report is to
analyze critical success factors involved in the
implementation of ERPs. This report also presents
recommendations with every factor that an
organization can follow to make best use of these
systems.
G1. a comprehensive-study-of-the-relationship-between-erp-selection-criteria-...Mohamed Hannioui
This document discusses a study that examines the relationship between enterprise resource planning (ERP) selection criteria and ERP system success. The study develops a conceptual framework that investigates how ERP selection criteria are linked to system quality, supplier service quality, and consultant service quality, and how these factors influence ERP implementation success. The study uses a survey of Taiwan's top 5000 companies to analyze how various ERP selection criteria relating to the ERP system, supplier, and consultant affect system quality, service quality, user perspective, and net benefits. The results can help organizations understand which criteria to consider when implementing an ERP system to increase the likelihood of success.
This document discusses research into the connections between ERP systems and decision support. It summarizes previous research on ERP objectives and decision support benefits. It then describes a study conducted by the authors that examined the importance of decision support objectives in ERP planning for 53 organizations. The study also looked at the decision support benefits realized from the implemented ERP systems and relationships between objectives and benefits. Key findings are reported on the importance of objectives, perceived benefits provided, and relationships between objectives and benefits. The research provides new insights for ERP planners, adopters, and vendors.
IT Strategic Sourcing Can Relieve the Squeeze on HealthcareWGroup
See how WGroup helped a major healthcare system develop more cost effective IT sourcing strategies. WGroup's analysis and recommendation will help the client develop more sophisticated IT sourcing strategies — to leverage synergies between institutes, improve patient and employee experiences, and reduce costs.
The document provides guidance on using social media for business purposes, focusing on six key objectives: building brand awareness, providing customer service, adding events, product introductions, sales, and community engagement. It discusses each objective in terms of business case, team roles, example content types, and metrics. For the objective of building brand awareness, example content includes sharing company details and thought leadership, as well as asking questions to engage audiences. Metrics include engagement, reach, network growth, and comments.
Building Bridges with Multicultural Literature: African RefugeesLori VandenBerghe
These three books share stories of refugees from Africa who have resettled in new homes and communities. Whoever You Are tells the story of our shared humanity despite differences. Brothers in Hope tells the fictional story of Garang, a Sudanese boy who becomes separated from his family during civil war and joins a group of Lost Boys who travel to refugee camps. In the Small, Small Night is about a brother and sister from Ghana who have moved to America, and the sister tells folktales from their home country to comfort her brother.
The Bloody Truth About Social Media FinalKarin Ettemo
While social media promises great opportunities, the facts about its impact and effectiveness are sometimes exaggerated. This document seeks to separate fact from fiction regarding social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. It notes that while Twitter saw rapid growth in 2009, its monthly users are still only a fraction of Facebook's. It also explains that there is no guaranteed formula for videos to go viral on YouTube, but maintaining an active YouTube channel can provide engagement and archive video assets over time.
Primer Taller Gold Standard en Colombia: Beneficios proyectos estufas mejorad...Fundación Natura Colombia
Fundación Natura y The Gold Standard Foundation (GSF) llevaron a cabo el Primer Taller Gold Standard en Colombia sobre estándares, metodologías y experiencias nacionales en el desarrollo de estrategias y proyectos de Estufas Eficientes de Leña. Este evento contó con la presencia de expertos nacionales e internacionales. Compartimos una de las presentaciones
This document lists the main parts of the human body without descriptions, including the head, hair, face, nose, ear, eye, mouth, teeth, neck, hands, fingers, arms, elbows, knees, shoulders, back, feet and toes.
El documento presenta una discusión sobre los paradigmas y concepciones de la evaluación de los aprendizajes. Describe el paradigma cuantitativo, el cual se enfoca en medir logros de manera empírica y objetiva, y el paradigma cualitativo, el cual interpreta al sujeto y su realidad de manera flexible. También contrasta las concepciones tradicionales positivistas de la evaluación con concepciones alternativas que facilitan el mejoramiento continuo del aprendizaje.
Primer Taller Gold Standard en Colombia: Nuevos desarrollos sobre protocolos ...Fundación Natura Colombia
Fundación Natura y The Gold Standard Foundation (GSF) llevaron a cabo el Primer Taller Gold Standard en Colombia sobre estándares, metodologías y experiencias nacionales en el desarrollo de estrategias y proyectos de Estufas Eficientes de Leña. Este evento contó con la presencia de expertos nacionales e internacionales. Compartimos una de las presentaciones
Términos de Referencia Fundación Natura - Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo...Fundación Natura Colombia
Fundación Natura y el Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible en el marco de la ejecución del proyecto "Assesment of maket conditions and roadmap development for scaling up improved cookstoves NAMA in Colombia" (Evaluación de las condiciones de mercado y desarrollo de una hoja de ruta para la implementación de un NAMA de estufas mejoradas en Colombia), presentan los términos de referencia para la consultoría de: Diseño de mecanismos financieros que faciliten el acceso de los potenciales usuarios de estufas mejoradas a fuentes de financiamiento y creación o modificación de la reglamentación de incentivos tributarios ambientales que ayuden a estimular el desarrollo de un mercado de estufas mejoradas en Colombia.
This document provides guidance on establishing effective metrics for measuring service desk performance. It recommends focusing on internal metrics that are specific to your organization's goals and environment, rather than relying solely on benchmarks. The document outlines steps to take such as defining critical success factors and key performance indicators, choosing action-based metrics that align with goals and can be tracked over time, and establishing dashboards to monitor and report on metrics. It emphasizes the importance of metrics driving productive improvement and measuring what matters most to stakeholders.
Class and Comp Study Gloucester County, VirginiaChuck Thompson
Gloucester, VA Documentation showing very flawed study to justify pay increases for government employees. Document being used for news story on Gloucester, Virginia Links and News website.
CMGT/578 v12
Week 4 Assignment Instructions
CMGT/578 v12
Page 2 of 3IT Budget
This is a two-part assignment. For this assignment, you are the Chief Information Officer, or CIO, of Reynolds Tool & Die. To complete this assignment, you will:
1. Create a Microsoft® Excel® spreadsheet proposing the Reynolds Tool & Die company’s IT operations’ annual budget, including maintenance, licensing, and any proposed new investments, such as hardware, software, cloud services, and/or outsourcing.
2. Create a 1- to 2-page executive summary defending your budget choices in terms of innovation and efficiency.
Part 1: Spreadsheet
The example spreadsheet that begins on page 2 is a rough suggestion of an annual, itemized budget. You will create your budget in Microsoft Excel. Your budget headings may vary, but your budget needs to be as specific as possible. Within each category, you should include purchases for the IT strategic plan. For example, if, as the CIO, you are contemplating moving applications to a cloud solution, your budget needs to reflect that process. If you are implementing or expanding VMWare as a virtualization solution, your budget needs to reflect those purchases.
The actual numbers can be approximate. A little research can point you in the right direction. For example, desktops run about $200-$300. You can use approximate figures for items such as licenses, maintenance agreements, servers, etc. Just make sure you have some justification (i.e., references) for the numbers you use.
Part 2: Executive Summary
Your executive summary needs to explain your budget. Possible headings include:
I. Predictable Annual Expenditures
Simply put, fixed operational expenditures keep the lights on. They are mainly hardware and software maintenance items, licensing, etc. These are expected costs of doing IT business. If, however, you are purchasing more hardware or software that will require additional annual maintenance and license agreements, you’ll need to defend those purchases and the annual expenditures that will remain for the company.
II. New Purchases
Any new purchases you recommend need to be justified. Why are you purchasing them? What benefit do you expect from the purchases? You’ll need to justify the purchases relative to the previous week’s assignments—Reynolds’ business situation and goals. For example, how will a new investment in hardware, software, or services achieve a competitive advantage for the company? What do you think the company needs to purchase to achieve its expansion goals? How much will outsourcing cost?
III. Special Projects and Long-term Strategic IT Investments
As CIO, you need to look at technologies in the context of long-range strategic planning. Think of this section as your wish list. The investments in this category may not help the organization achieve its short-range goals, but they’re considered a long-term investment in innovation to remain competitive. For example, a manufacturing facility may consider a ...
What you'll learn:
Reasoning behind this new guide
Major changes since 2005
Reasonable compensation changes
Expanded audit guidance
Cognizant agency rules
Case AnalysisScenarioThe Senior Vice President of Human Resou.docxtidwellveronique
Case Analysis/Scenario
The Senior Vice President of Human Resources has just informed you that she would like for you to research various HRM practices of Fortune 500 companies. This research will be presented to the board of trustees next month. They want to review other company’s best practices to help them realign their strategic initiatives. In organizational studies, the process of reviewing other organizations’ best practices and adapting them to one’s own organization is called “benchmarking.”
Begin by identifying 2 -3 organizations listed in the Fortune 500. Once you have identified those companies, research best practices used by those organizations, paying particular attention to these HRM functional areas:
· Recruitment/On boarding
· Training & Development
· Employee/Labor Relations
· Performance Management
· Compensation & Benefits Incentives/Practices
To begin your paper, provide a summary of key details about the organizations you are using to benchmark HRM best practices. Who are the organizations? What do they do? Why are they a good candidate for benchmarking? This section of you paper only needs to be a paragraph or two.
For the next section of your paper, evaluate the pros and cons of the best practices you have benchmarked in each functional area. For example, if external recruitment is a “best practice,” what are some pros and cons of external recruitment? As a guide, your evaluation of best practices in each functional area should be 1 to 2 pages.
For the final section of your paper, justify the top best practices recommendation in each HRM functional area that you will make to the board of trustees. Imagine that you are actually going to present the recommendations to the board. What will you recommend? Why? How will you link them altogether to form a cohesive and persuasive presentation? Hint: Based upon your evaluation of those best practices in the earlier sections of the paper, summarize the key arguments and research support for your recommended practices to justify them to the board. This section of your paper should be 2 to 3 pages in length.
Submit your report as an eight to ten page paper written in APA format to the Drop Box.
Paper should include at least 5 references in APA format.
Research hints…
In addition to searching for the specific organization name “and best practices” or “best HRM practices,” you might find it helpful to search for the specific organization name “and recruitment.” “Specific organization name and training & development,” and so forth. For example, if Walmart is one of your organizations, search terms could include:
· Walmart and best practices
· Walmart and best HRM practices
· Walmart and Recruitment
· Walmart and Onboarding
· Walmart and Training & Development
· Walmart and Employee Labor Relations
· Walmart and Performance Management
· Walmart and Compensation
· Walmart and Employee Benefits
· Walmart and Employee Incentives
· Etc.
You can follow the above search ...
Purpose of AssignmentStudents should understand how to use the f.docxmakdul
Purpose of Assignment
Students should understand how to use the financial information and tools learned in the class on a public company, obtain public company SEC reports, and use that data to calculate a company's financial ratios and their comparison to industry or competitor standards.
Assignment Steps
Resources: Tutorial help on Excel® and Word functions can be found on the Microsoft® Office® website. There are also additional tutorials via the web that offer support for office products.
Select one of the publicly traded corporations listed below and obtain the most current SEC Form 10-K (annual financial report) from the company's web site (Do not use the Annual Report that is sent to shareholders):
· Lowes Corporation
· Kroger Corporation
· Harley Davidson Corporation
· Apple Corporation
· Intel Corporation
· Marriott Corporation My choice.
· Berkshire Hathaway Corporation
· PepsiCo Corporation
· Procter and Gamble Corporation
· General Electric Corporation
Calculate and analyze the following ratios for your selected company for the last two years from the SEC Form 10-K:
· Current Ratio
· Inventory Turnover
· Debt Ratio
· Time Interest Earned
· Gross Profit Margin
· Equity Multiplier
· Return on Assets
· Net Profit Margin
· Return on Equity (Use three ratio DuPont method)
Compare and contrast your company's ratios to industry and competitor standard ratios obtained from Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, MotleyFool, Macroaxis or other Internet sources, and provide a detailed answer and analysis as to why your company's ratios are different than the industry/competitor standard.
Prepare your analysis in a minimum of 875 words in Microsoft® Word. The use of Microsoft® Word tables is encouraged.
Cite the source of the industry/competitor ratio information.
Format your assignment consistent with APA guidelines.
DW4Mod - Codes/EMPTY 4-MODULE HTML DOCS/Modules/Module2/Mod2SLP.htmlModule 2 - SLP
BSC Flexibility & the Customer Perspective
For Module 2, consider your organization's mission and strategy from the perspective of its potential, prospective, and present customers. In this section of the assignment you’ll begin to identify objectives and measures relevant to that perspective. Refer back to this presentation on objectives if you need to. SLP Assignment Expectations
Once you’re reasonably clear on what’s involved, think about your organization and its customers/clients/users/service recipients/whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, and then:Identify at least three objectives for the organization's customer service perspective and show how they relate to the mission, vision and strategy of the organization.For each objective, develop at least one meaningful performance measure (metric).For each objective, identify at least one expected level of performance (target).For each objective, identify at least one new action or program that needs to be developed to ensure successful implementation of the organization's strategy (initiative).Comment bri ...
Performance-based equity programs aim to drive corporate, group, and individual performance through linking equity awards to measurable performance metrics. Common metrics include total shareholder return, revenue growth, and profitability measures. Programs can take various forms, from awards triggered solely by performance to awards with vesting contingent on achieving performance thresholds. Well-designed programs with clearly defined and communicated metrics can be an effective incentive, but complex multi-year programs pose challenges to ensure goals do not motivate unintended behaviors.
This document summarizes a webinar on leveraging industry benchmark data to optimize finance shared services. It discusses how top performers deliver services at lower costs with fewer resources than lower performers. Common key performance indicators for finance are presented, such as cycle times, invoices processed per FTE, and total function costs. Examples are given of how benchmarking identified opportunities at one company to reduce headcount by 49 FTEs and save $2.5M annually through consolidation and automation. Common mistakes in benchmarking are also reviewed along with frameworks to properly conduct benchmarking.
DW4Mod - CodesEMPTY 4-MODULE HTML DOCSModulesModule1Mod1SLP..docxsagarlesley
DW4Mod - Codes/EMPTY 4-MODULE HTML DOCS/Modules/Module1/Mod1SLP.htmlModule 1 - SLP
The Balanced Scorecard & the Financial Perspective
The purpose of the Session Long Project is to give you the opportunity to explore the applicability of the Module to your own life, work, and place in space and time, and to experiment with the Module to see how the otherwise academically rigorous presentation of a topic may, with more or less work and/or trauma, become "up close and personal". This is done in a number of different ways -- sometimes cumulative papers, sometimes practical hands-on experimentation with a tool of some sort, sometimes reflections on a place of work or life. The common thread is personal application, aimed at demonstrating a cumulative knowledge and understanding of the course's material.
For this course, the Session Long Project will take the form of putting together background from each of the four perspectives for a balanced scorecard approach to an organization or organizational unit with which you are familiar. In the final module, you will have a go at strategy mapping. You’re not building a complete balanced scorecard -- that would be far beyond our current scope – but you’ll have a chance to see what goes into it and how it gets put together into a coordinated whole. As in the cases, you’ll be drawing on your previous course work to help.
The Module 1 assignment has two parts. First, you need to identify an organization to which you have access to at least some information concerning financial data; staffing and human resource systems; marketing and customer relations; information systems; and operations. While most material on the Balanced Scorecard is written from the private, for-profit point of view, it’s perfectly possible to use this approach with public or non-profit organizations as well.
For the second part of this assignment, consider the organization's mission and strategy from the perspective of its financial operations (from your work on the case, your previous course work, and your background reading, you should be reasonably clear what such operations are). In this section of the assignment you’ll begin to identify objectives and measures relevant to that perspective. If you’re unclear on just what objectives and measures are, here is a presentation that describes what they are and how to write them.SLP Assignment Expectations
When you have thought about it and made your selection, please specify (2-3 pages):The name of your organizationWhat this organization does – its mission, vision and overall strategyThe access you have to information about this organization -- remember, you’ll need information about its financial performance, marketing, internal operations, strategy, and management systems.
Once you’re reasonably clear on what’s involved, think about your organization and its finances, and then:Identify at least three objectives for improving the organization's financial position, and show how they r ...
This presentation contains our view on how data can be Strategically managed and stewarded in an organization, and the categories where rules can be applied to facilitate that process.
Business case development workshop october 2019Ben Carroll
The document provides guidance on developing a business case for large investment requests. It recommends establishing context, opportunities, benefits and stakeholders. The strategic approach and metrics to measure success should then be selected according to the organization's value model. Performance baselines can be set to quantify targeted improvements. Financial impacts are connected to improvements and ROI is calculated. A timeline estimates steps will take 6-12 weeks. Metrics may include sales effectiveness, product development effectiveness and customer responsiveness aggregates. Establishing baselines and selecting sub-initiatives to support targeted improvements is also recommended.
eCompliance, Chris Ferguson_The Business Value of Safety (ROI)eCompliance
As safety professionals, we can often do a better job of
communicating the business value of safety and viewing
safety as an integrated part of business strategy and
daily operations. More often than not, we disregard the
connection and incorrectly evaluate the ROI of safety.
Join Chris Ferguson and Adrian Bartha as they address
the key areas your business should focus on when
evaluating the value of safety.
20120628 building the sfdc business case-ar-madFlorian Zink
1) The document outlines Salesforce's six-step approach to building a business case for implementing their social enterprise solution at Customer X, including identifying key value drivers, defining metrics, benchmarking, and validating assumptions.
2) It provides an overview of Customer X's value drivers around visibility, collaboration, and IT rationalization, and how Salesforce's solution could help achieve benefits in areas like revenue, costs, and productivity.
3) Metrics are defined to measure potential improvements and benchmarks from other companies are presented showing significant gains, with Customer X expected to validate the opportunity.
This document discusses how benchmarking can provide insight and help drive performance improvement for finance and shared services operations. It provides examples of how three organizations used benchmarking data to optimize their operations. A $1B healthcare organization standardized processes and implemented automation to reduce accounting FTEs. A $600M consumer goods company consolidated decentralized finance teams across countries to reduce FTEs. A $2B manufacturer centralized operations and brought in automation to reduce FTEs while improving performance metrics. In all cases, benchmarking revealed opportunities to better align operations with industry peers.
A Robust approach to analysis of Customer Satisfaction Survey feedbackSantanoo Medhi
Customer Satisfaction Survey ( CSS) is a widely used Management tool to gauge the customers’ view of products and services of a company and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses and thereby formulate strategies to address the same. CSS are done on multi-dimensional aspects of the Company consisting of various customer touch points and value proposition. Traditional Customer Satisfaction Surveys treats each of the variables with equal weight and as independent variable. However, the truth is that variables are neither equally weighted nor independent. This paper proposes a different methodology of analyzing Customer Satisfaction Survey feedback considering relative weight and interdependency of the variables. Further it proposes to show how the resulting insight can be used for creating more effective strategies for better performance in areas that really matters to customer.For the purpose of this paper, we will be focusing on B2B organizations.
Watch the recording of this session and learn how to effectively leverage benchmarks to build a roadmap of efficiency opportunities in your Finance & SSC organization through real-world examples.
A Comprehensive Guide to US CMA Syllabus 2022chinuroula
Part 1 and 2 of the US CMA Exam Syllabus 2022 are divided into two sections. The marks weightage assigned by IMA is shown as a percentage alongside the topic. Under each case, an estimate of study time is also offered.
How to improve and map performance metrics to your organization's strategic plan. Results? Higher impact, better communications, and more business success
Similar to Climate change scoring methodology (20)
El Espectador en Alianza con La Fundación Natura (FN) desarrollará el “Foro Magdalena río de Grandes Oportunidades”. Por su parte la FN es una Organización de la Sociedad Civil, dedicada a la conservación, uso y manejo de la biodiversidad para generar beneficio social, económico y ambiental, en el marco del desarrollo humano sostenible, con más de 34 años trabajando por la vida en todo el territorio nacional, con impactos a nivel internacional.
Bajo el anterior contexto y teniendo en cuenta la importancia de la cuenca del Magdalena tanto para las comunidades asentadas a lo largo del río como de las labores pendientes de conservación y restauración ecológica en diferentes sectores de la cuenca, este importante Foro se desprende del “Proyecto GEF – BID: Manejo Sostenible y Conservación de la Biodiversidad en la cuenca del río Magdalena”..
Al inicio del Foro se dará a conocer los detalles del proyecto a través de las alianzas entre el GEF, BID y FN, quienes cuentan con el respaldo y activa participación de las instituciones socias: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible-MADS, IDEAM, Fondo Adaptación y Cormagdalena.
Diagnóstico de la amenaza o vulneración del derecho humano al agua y a la seg...Fundación Natura Colombia
La Fundación Natura está buscando profesionales para realizar encuestas, análisis e informes sobre minería, agua y seguridad alimentaria en seis regiones de Colombia. Se requiere que los candidatos tengan un título de posgrado en ciencias sociales, ambientales o agrarias, al menos 20 meses de experiencia en gestión social o ambiental, y que vivan en la región asignada para facilitar el trabajo de campo. El contrato por $8 millones durará 2 meses y los productos incluyen encuestas, análisis, in
Proyecto “Manejo sostenible y conservación de la biodiversidad en la Cuenca d...Fundación Natura Colombia
El objetivo general del proyecto es contribuir a la conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad en la cuenca del río Magdalena mediante la protección de hábitats prioritarios, la mejora de la salud de los ecosistemas y el fortalecimiento de la gobernanza y las capacidades locales. La intervención se ejecutará a través de tres componen-tes interrelacionados que son: la conservación de áreas prioritarias, la gestión de la salud de los ecosistemas y monitoreo y evaluación.
En 2015 los países del mundo adoptaron un acuerdo histórico que le hace frente a uno de los mayores desafíos de este siglo: el cambio climático. La cita fue en diciembre en París, durante la Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático. Sin embargo, antes de llegar a París, los países tuvieron que presentar sus Contribuciones Previstas y Determinadas a Nivel Nacional (INDC, por su sigla en inglés). Es decir, informar qué están dispuestos a hacer para reducir sus emisiones –mitigación– y , voluntariamente, establecer cuáles son sus planes para enfrentar los impactos del clima cambiante –adaptación– y qué necesitan para implementarlos y financiarlos.
En septiembre de 2015, Colombia le anunció al mundo cuál es su compromiso para hacerle frente al desafío global del cambio climático. En esta publicación, en la que participaron WWF-Colombia, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (MADS) y la Fundación Natura, encontrará toda la información que necesita saber sobre este proceso que es fundamental para que Colombia construya una economía baja en carbono y forme parte del esfuerzo global de ponerle freno al cambio climático.
#Convocatoria | #FundaciónNatura e #Isagén buscan un profesional en Comunicación Social o carreras similares para trabajar en el proyecto 'Monitoreo Climatológico en el área de influencia de la Central Hidroeléctrica Sogamoso'. La persona deberá trabajar en San Vicente de Chucurí/Santander. El principal objetivo del cargo es desarrollar la estrategia de comunicaciones dirigida a las comunidades. Los interesados pueden enviar su hoja de vida al correo arueda@natura.org.co.
- La Fundación Natura es una organización no gubernamental (ONG) sin ánimo de lucro creada en 1.984 con la misión de contribuir a la conservación de la diversidad biológica de Colombia y a la búsqueda de alternativas de uso sostenible de los recursos naturales.
- Líneas de trabajo
Durante los 33 años de operación de Fundación Natura, ha enfocado su trabajo en los siguientes enfoques ambientales y sociales:
1. Áreas protegidas
2. Incentivos y herramientas privadas para la conservación
3. Restauración ecológica
4. Cambio climático
5. Buenas prácticas agrícolas y pecuarias
6. Ordenamiento territorial y planificación
7. Proyectos de investigación
8. Territorios étnicos
9. Reservas y centros de investigación
10. Procesos de fortalecimiento empresarial
11. Turismo
12. Procesos empresariales
13. Educación ambiental, participación y capacitación
14. Formulación, evaluación e instrumentación de políticas
- Iniciativas
Como respuesta a las diferentes necesidades y oportunidades que surgen en la sociedad frente a temas ambientales, Fundación Natura ha abanderado las siguientes iniciativas:
1. Natura Cert
2. Carrera Verde Colombia
3. MVC Colombia
4. Carbono Cero
- Campañas
Si quieres hacer parte del trabajo y la transformación social y ambiental, puedes apoyar las siguientes campañas lideradas por Fundación Natura:
- Adopta una tortuga: con tu aporte contribuirás a la preservación de las tortugas marinas en El Valle, Chocó
- Regala un árbol: siembra un árbol de especies nativas, en nombre propio o de un tercero, y ayuda a la restauración ecológica del país.
- Adopta una hectárea: al adoptar una hectárea aportas a la recuperación y restauración de los bosques colombianos.
- Adopta un tití: apoya al “Proyecto Tití” en la recuperación de los micos titís cabeciblancos, especie en vía de extinción.
Más información en www.natura.org.co – Facebook: Fundación Natura Col – Twitter: @fundacionnatura – Linked In: Fundación Natura
Vacante - Terminos de referencia Profesional en monitoreo de biodiversidad ac...Fundación Natura Colombia
#Vacante3. Profesional monitoreo de la biodiversidad acuática: se requiere profesional en ciencias naturales, biológicas, ambientales, sociales, ingenierías y/o afines, con experiencia profesional mínimo de 4 años, conocimientos y experiencia en monitoreo y/o evaluación de ecosistemas acuáticos, biodiversidad acuática y/o recursos hidrobiológicos y/o recursos pesqueros (mínimo 2 procesos) y experiencia en enfoque ecosistémico, integridad ecológica y/o modelamiento ecosistémico, preferiblemente con énfasis en ecosistemas dulceacuícolas (mínimo 2 procesos).
Si cumple con el perfil favor entregar hoja de vida en sobre cerrado en la sede de la Fundación Natura (Carrera 21 #39 – 43) a nombre de Olga Sandoval o enviar vía mail al correo osandoval@natura.org.co.
La convocatoria estará abierta hasta el próximo 12 de mayo.
#Vacante2. Profesional en Gestión en la salud de los ecosistemas: se requiere profesional hidrólogo o un profesional en ciencias naturales, biológicas, ambientales, ingenierías y/o afines con especialización en hidrología, experiencia no inferior a 4 años, con estudios, trabajos y/o procesos relacionados con modelamiento hidrológico, hidroclimático y/o ecosistémico (mínimo 2 procesos) y experiencia en uso, manejo y/o conservación de biodiversidad acuática y/o ecosistemas acuáticos (mínimo 2 procesos).
Si cumple con el perfil favor entregar hoja de vida en sobre cerrado en la sede de la Fundación Natura (Carrera 21 #39 – 43) a nombre de Olga Sandoval o enviar vía mail al correo osandoval@natura.org.co.
La convocatoria estará abierta hasta el próximo 12 de mayo.
Conservación de áreas prioritarias se profesional en ciencias naturales, biológicas, ambientales, sociales, ingenierías y/o afines, con experiencia no inferior a 4 años en procesos de manejo y/o declaración de áreas protegidas públicas y/o privadas nacionales y/o regionales (mínimo 2 procesos) y experiencia en coordinación técnica de proyectos relacionados con conservación ambiental y/o declaratoria de áreas protegidas (mínimo 2 procesos).
La convocatoria estará abierta hasta el próximo 12 de mayo. Si cumple con el perfil favor entregar hoja de vida en sobre cerrado en la sede de la Fundación Natura (Carrera 21 #39 – 43) a nombre de Olga Sandoval o enviar vía mail al correo osandoval@natura.org.co
#Taller. La Fundación Konrad Adenauer (KAS), el Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) y Fundación Natura realizarán el foro internacional 'Cambio Climático, ¿cuál es nuestro rol?'. Será el 9 de marzo desde las 8:00 a.m. En el Hotel Four Points by Sheraton, de Cali. Busca promover en las alcaldías del país el reporte de su inventario de gases de efecto invernadero, para identificar oportunidades para la región. Inscripciones https://goo.gl/forms/5sZaiCDcQPzQbD6r1
Vacante Coordinador Administrativo y Financiero, para el proyecto Manejo sostenible y conservación de la biodiversidad en la Cuenca del Río Magdalena – GEF. Buscamos profesional en administración de empresas, contabilidad, finanzas o áreas afines. Con experiencia profesional de mínimo tres (3) años en cargos similares como: Administrador de Proyecto, Responsable Financiero o de presupuesto, Seguimiento financiero en proyectos, preferiblemente financiados con recursos de la Cooperación Internacional (ejemplo BID, o Banca multilateral). Postulaciones hasta 6 de marzo de 2017.
Si cumple con el perfil adjunto, remitir su hoja de vida a recursoshumanos@natura.org.co
Findeter financia proyectos relacionados con cambio climático como granjas solares, pequeñas centrales hidroeléctricas y modernización de alumbrado público. Ofrece financiamiento y asistencia técnica a sectores estratégicos como vivienda, educación, salud, medio ambiente y adaptación al cambio climático. Busca fondeo internacional y alianzas público-privadas para proyectos de desarrollo territorial sostenible.
El documento describe varias fuentes de financiamiento internacional para proyectos de sostenibilidad y cambio climático en países en desarrollo, incluyendo fondos multilaterales como el Fondo Verde para el Clima y fondos bilaterales de agencias de cooperación. Explica los diferentes instrumentos de financiamiento como subvenciones, préstamos concesionales y garantías, e identifica varios tipos de proyectos elegibles para financiamiento como eficiencia energética y energías renovables. También proporciona detalles sobre cómo acceder a los recursos de
El documento discute la importancia del financiamiento climático para los territorios de Colombia. Explica que el financiamiento climático se refiere a los recursos financieros necesarios para la mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático provenientes de fuentes privadas, públicas e internacionales. También destaca la vulnerabilidad de varias regiones de Colombia al cambio climático y sus impactos económicos, e identifica recomendaciones para que los territorios enfrenten este desafío como la actualización de planes de ordenamiento territorial y el uso de asociaciones
Este documento presenta un resumen de un proyecto piloto de pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos implementado en la microcuenca Las Cruces en Santander, Colombia. El proyecto buscó establecer acuerdos voluntarios con propietarios para conservar bosques y mejorar prácticas agrícolas a cambio de incentivos, con el fin de proteger la calidad y cantidad de agua para 14,000 habitantes aguas abajo. Tras 5 años, el proyecto logró firmar 61 acuerdos que conservaron 484 ha de bos
Este documento presenta el Plan Huila 2050 para prepararse para el cambio climático en el departamento de Huila, Colombia. Se destaca que según un estudio realizado en 2014, entre 2002-2012 se invirtieron en promedio $276 mil millones de pesos anuales en el departamento que podrían destinarse a la adaptación al cambio climático. El plan propone tres escenarios para focalizar estos recursos históricos y obtener entre $19.149 millones y $78.248 millones anuales. El plan consiste en 12 proyectos agrupados en 6 program
Este documento describe cómo Colombia abordará el cambio climático en el marco del Acuerdo de París. Explica que Colombia es vulnerable al cambio climático y ha sufrido pérdidas económicas debido a fenómenos como El Niño y La Niña. Detalla los compromisos de Colombia en la COP21 para reducir las emisiones y adaptarse al cambio climático. También enfatiza la importancia de que todos los sectores de la sociedad, incluidos los gobiernos locales y regionales, participen en la implementación de las medidas acordadas.
Este documento fue elaborado por Fundación Natura, WWF Colombia y el Ministerio de Ambiente, sobre los compromisos que adquirió Colombia frente al Cambio Climático
El documento presenta los términos de referencia para contratar a un coordinador institucional para el Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia para el proyecto ADMIRE. El proyecto busca superar las barreras para masificar el uso de estufas mejoradas en zonas rurales del país. Se requiere un profesional con experiencia en proyectos comunitarios o de desarrollo rural para coordinar las actividades del proyecto entre el Ministerio y la Fundación Natura, realizar informes, y apoyar la Mesa Interinstitucional de Estuf
zkStudyClub - LatticeFold: A Lattice-based Folding Scheme and its Application...Alex Pruden
Folding is a recent technique for building efficient recursive SNARKs. Several elegant folding protocols have been proposed, such as Nova, Supernova, Hypernova, Protostar, and others. However, all of them rely on an additively homomorphic commitment scheme based on discrete log, and are therefore not post-quantum secure. In this work we present LatticeFold, the first lattice-based folding protocol based on the Module SIS problem. This folding protocol naturally leads to an efficient recursive lattice-based SNARK and an efficient PCD scheme. LatticeFold supports folding low-degree relations, such as R1CS, as well as high-degree relations, such as CCS. The key challenge is to construct a secure folding protocol that works with the Ajtai commitment scheme. The difficulty, is ensuring that extracted witnesses are low norm through many rounds of folding. We present a novel technique using the sumcheck protocol to ensure that extracted witnesses are always low norm no matter how many rounds of folding are used. Our evaluation of the final proof system suggests that it is as performant as Hypernova, while providing post-quantum security.
Paper Link: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/257
Conversational agents, or chatbots, are increasingly used to access all sorts of services using natural language. While open-domain chatbots - like ChatGPT - can converse on any topic, task-oriented chatbots - the focus of this paper - are designed for specific tasks, like booking a flight, obtaining customer support, or setting an appointment. Like any other software, task-oriented chatbots need to be properly tested, usually by defining and executing test scenarios (i.e., sequences of user-chatbot interactions). However, there is currently a lack of methods to quantify the completeness and strength of such test scenarios, which can lead to low-quality tests, and hence to buggy chatbots.
To fill this gap, we propose adapting mutation testing (MuT) for task-oriented chatbots. To this end, we introduce a set of mutation operators that emulate faults in chatbot designs, an architecture that enables MuT on chatbots built using heterogeneous technologies, and a practical realisation as an Eclipse plugin. Moreover, we evaluate the applicability, effectiveness and efficiency of our approach on open-source chatbots, with promising results.
Freshworks Rethinks NoSQL for Rapid Scaling & Cost-EfficiencyScyllaDB
Freshworks creates AI-boosted business software that helps employees work more efficiently and effectively. Managing data across multiple RDBMS and NoSQL databases was already a challenge at their current scale. To prepare for 10X growth, they knew it was time to rethink their database strategy. Learn how they architected a solution that would simplify scaling while keeping costs under control.
Programming Foundation Models with DSPy - Meetup SlidesZilliz
Prompting language models is hard, while programming language models is easy. In this talk, I will discuss the state-of-the-art framework DSPy for programming foundation models with its powerful optimizers and runtime constraint system.
The Microsoft 365 Migration Tutorial For Beginner.pptxoperationspcvita
This presentation will help you understand the power of Microsoft 365. However, we have mentioned every productivity app included in Office 365. Additionally, we have suggested the migration situation related to Office 365 and how we can help you.
You can also read: https://www.systoolsgroup.com/updates/office-365-tenant-to-tenant-migration-step-by-step-complete-guide/
In the realm of cybersecurity, offensive security practices act as a critical shield. By simulating real-world attacks in a controlled environment, these techniques expose vulnerabilities before malicious actors can exploit them. This proactive approach allows manufacturers to identify and fix weaknesses, significantly enhancing system security.
This presentation delves into the development of a system designed to mimic Galileo's Open Service signal using software-defined radio (SDR) technology. We'll begin with a foundational overview of both Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and the intricacies of digital signal processing.
The presentation culminates in a live demonstration. We'll showcase the manipulation of Galileo's Open Service pilot signal, simulating an attack on various software and hardware systems. This practical demonstration serves to highlight the potential consequences of unaddressed vulnerabilities, emphasizing the importance of offensive security practices in safeguarding critical infrastructure.
[OReilly Superstream] Occupy the Space: A grassroots guide to engineering (an...Jason Yip
The typical problem in product engineering is not bad strategy, so much as “no strategy”. This leads to confusion, lack of motivation, and incoherent action. The next time you look for a strategy and find an empty space, instead of waiting for it to be filled, I will show you how to fill it in yourself. If you’re wrong, it forces a correction. If you’re right, it helps create focus. I’ll share how I’ve approached this in the past, both what works and lessons for what didn’t work so well.
How information systems are built or acquired puts information, which is what they should be about, in a secondary place. Our language adapted accordingly, and we no longer talk about information systems but applications. Applications evolved in a way to break data into diverse fragments, tightly coupled with applications and expensive to integrate. The result is technical debt, which is re-paid by taking even bigger "loans", resulting in an ever-increasing technical debt. Software engineering and procurement practices work in sync with market forces to maintain this trend. This talk demonstrates how natural this situation is. The question is: can something be done to reverse the trend?
Introduction of Cybersecurity with OSS at Code Europe 2024Hiroshi SHIBATA
I develop the Ruby programming language, RubyGems, and Bundler, which are package managers for Ruby. Today, I will introduce how to enhance the security of your application using open-source software (OSS) examples from Ruby and RubyGems.
The first topic is CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures). I have published CVEs many times. But what exactly is a CVE? I'll provide a basic understanding of CVEs and explain how to detect and handle vulnerabilities in OSS.
Next, let's discuss package managers. Package managers play a critical role in the OSS ecosystem. I'll explain how to manage library dependencies in your application.
I'll share insights into how the Ruby and RubyGems core team works to keep our ecosystem safe. By the end of this talk, you'll have a better understanding of how to safeguard your code.
Dandelion Hashtable: beyond billion requests per second on a commodity serverAntonios Katsarakis
This slide deck presents DLHT, a concurrent in-memory hashtable. Despite efforts to optimize hashtables, that go as far as sacrificing core functionality, state-of-the-art designs still incur multiple memory accesses per request and block request processing in three cases. First, most hashtables block while waiting for data to be retrieved from memory. Second, open-addressing designs, which represent the current state-of-the-art, either cannot free index slots on deletes or must block all requests to do so. Third, index resizes block every request until all objects are copied to the new index. Defying folklore wisdom, DLHT forgoes open-addressing and adopts a fully-featured and memory-aware closed-addressing design based on bounded cache-line-chaining. This design offers lock-free index operations and deletes that free slots instantly, (2) completes most requests with a single memory access, (3) utilizes software prefetching to hide memory latencies, and (4) employs a novel non-blocking and parallel resizing. In a commodity server and a memory-resident workload, DLHT surpasses 1.6B requests per second and provides 3.5x (12x) the throughput of the state-of-the-art closed-addressing (open-addressing) resizable hashtable on Gets (Deletes).
Driving Business Innovation: Latest Generative AI Advancements & Success StorySafe Software
Are you ready to revolutionize how you handle data? Join us for a webinar where we’ll bring you up to speed with the latest advancements in Generative AI technology and discover how leveraging FME with tools from giants like Google Gemini, Amazon, and Microsoft OpenAI can supercharge your workflow efficiency.
During the hour, we’ll take you through:
Guest Speaker Segment with Hannah Barrington: Dive into the world of dynamic real estate marketing with Hannah, the Marketing Manager at Workspace Group. Hear firsthand how their team generates engaging descriptions for thousands of office units by integrating diverse data sources—from PDF floorplans to web pages—using FME transformers, like OpenAIVisionConnector and AnthropicVisionConnector. This use case will show you how GenAI can streamline content creation for marketing across the board.
Ollama Use Case: Learn how Scenario Specialist Dmitri Bagh has utilized Ollama within FME to input data, create custom models, and enhance security protocols. This segment will include demos to illustrate the full capabilities of FME in AI-driven processes.
Custom AI Models: Discover how to leverage FME to build personalized AI models using your data. Whether it’s populating a model with local data for added security or integrating public AI tools, find out how FME facilitates a versatile and secure approach to AI.
We’ll wrap up with a live Q&A session where you can engage with our experts on your specific use cases, and learn more about optimizing your data workflows with AI.
This webinar is ideal for professionals seeking to harness the power of AI within their data management systems while ensuring high levels of customization and security. Whether you're a novice or an expert, gain actionable insights and strategies to elevate your data processes. Join us to see how FME and AI can revolutionize how you work with data!
For the full video of this presentation, please visit: https://www.edge-ai-vision.com/2024/06/temporal-event-neural-networks-a-more-efficient-alternative-to-the-transformer-a-presentation-from-brainchip/
Chris Jones, Director of Product Management at BrainChip , presents the “Temporal Event Neural Networks: A More Efficient Alternative to the Transformer” tutorial at the May 2024 Embedded Vision Summit.
The expansion of AI services necessitates enhanced computational capabilities on edge devices. Temporal Event Neural Networks (TENNs), developed by BrainChip, represent a novel and highly efficient state-space network. TENNs demonstrate exceptional proficiency in handling multi-dimensional streaming data, facilitating advancements in object detection, action recognition, speech enhancement and language model/sequence generation. Through the utilization of polynomial-based continuous convolutions, TENNs streamline models, expedite training processes and significantly diminish memory requirements, achieving notable reductions of up to 50x in parameters and 5,000x in energy consumption compared to prevailing methodologies like transformers.
Integration with BrainChip’s Akida neuromorphic hardware IP further enhances TENNs’ capabilities, enabling the realization of highly capable, portable and passively cooled edge devices. This presentation delves into the technical innovations underlying TENNs, presents real-world benchmarks, and elucidates how this cutting-edge approach is positioned to revolutionize edge AI across diverse applications.
5th LF Energy Power Grid Model Meet-up SlidesDanBrown980551
5th Power Grid Model Meet-up
It is with great pleasure that we extend to you an invitation to the 5th Power Grid Model Meet-up, scheduled for 6th June 2024. This event will adopt a hybrid format, allowing participants to join us either through an online Mircosoft Teams session or in person at TU/e located at Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, Netherlands. The meet-up will be hosted by Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), a research university specializing in engineering science & technology.
Power Grid Model
The global energy transition is placing new and unprecedented demands on Distribution System Operators (DSOs). Alongside upgrades to grid capacity, processes such as digitization, capacity optimization, and congestion management are becoming vital for delivering reliable services.
Power Grid Model is an open source project from Linux Foundation Energy and provides a calculation engine that is increasingly essential for DSOs. It offers a standards-based foundation enabling real-time power systems analysis, simulations of electrical power grids, and sophisticated what-if analysis. In addition, it enables in-depth studies and analysis of the electrical power grid’s behavior and performance. This comprehensive model incorporates essential factors such as power generation capacity, electrical losses, voltage levels, power flows, and system stability.
Power Grid Model is currently being applied in a wide variety of use cases, including grid planning, expansion, reliability, and congestion studies. It can also help in analyzing the impact of renewable energy integration, assessing the effects of disturbances or faults, and developing strategies for grid control and optimization.
What to expect
For the upcoming meetup we are organizing, we have an exciting lineup of activities planned:
-Insightful presentations covering two practical applications of the Power Grid Model.
-An update on the latest advancements in Power Grid -Model technology during the first and second quarters of 2024.
-An interactive brainstorming session to discuss and propose new feature requests.
-An opportunity to connect with fellow Power Grid Model enthusiasts and users.
1. CDP 2014 Climate Change Scoring Methodology
Introduction
A methodology to score company responses has been developed by CDP with input from our scoring partners, responding companies, investors, NGOs and other partners.
The scoring methodology provides a disclosure score (see tab "disclosure"), which assesses the level of detail and comprehensiveness in a disclosure, and a performance score (see tab "performance"),
which assesses the level of action taken on climate change evidenced by the company's CDP response. The methodology for both scores is presented in this document.
Essential reading
Before completing the CDP 2014 questionnaire, we strongly encourage you to read the notes in this methodology and the CDP 2014 guidance document. The guidance explains the elements to be covered
in answering the questions and its instructions are reflected in this scoring methodology. The guidance can be downloaded from:
https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/guidance.aspx
Links to the relevant section of the guidance are also available in the Online Response System.
Who will be scored using this methodology?
In 2013 most of the Investor CDP samples (e.g. Global 500) as well as CDP Supply Chain responders' responses were scored on the comprehensiveness of their disclosure and aspects of their company’s
performance in relation to climate change. Supply Chain responders were scored for both disclosure and performance.
To check whether your company will be scored in 2014 and whether the scores will be published, please contact the appropriate CDP office which can be found here:
https://www.cdp.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/Pages/cdp-worldwide.aspx
Scores are generally released between September and December each year. CDP Supply Chain scores will not be published and are available only to the responding company and the requesting member.
Data quality and accuracy
CDP's scoring partners produce scores based solely on the data in company responses as disclosed to CDP directly by the companies. Some companies may provide verification statements commissioned
for their own purposes, but neither CDP nor their report-writers verify the information in any individual company response.
Status of this document
This document is intended to provide guidance to companies on how their response will be scored. In common with other scoring processes of this type, we expect to make adjustments in light of the
application of the methodology to the responses received.
Feedback for your company & questions on this methodology
For more information about receiving feedback on your score please contact scorefeedback@cdp.net
To ask questions or to make suggestions about this methodology please contact respond@cdp.net
If you wish to learn about extra support that is available for the disclosure process please contact reporterservices@cdp.net
2. Understanding This Document
Under the heading of "Disclosure score" and "Performance score", you will see columns headed "numerator" and "denominator". The denominator column indicates the maximum number of points attainable
for each question. In some cases, the maximum number of points is awarded automatically and does not require any judgement to be made by the scorer. In these cases, the number of points is given in the
"numerator" column. Otherwise, the numerator column will be left blank to indicate that the scorer will complete it.
The total denominator for the answer route (for both disclosure and performance) is indicated in bold.
If multiple data-sets (such as multiple rows of data in a table are given), in most cases the data-set that gives the organization the highest score will have its points recorded. For many questions, a high-
scoring data-set for performance will have scored the maximum points for disclosure, since the assessment of performance is based on the data provided. However, if the highest-scoring data-set for
disclosure is different from the highest-scoring data-set for performance, the recorded scores will be based on the different data-sets.
In some questions the points will be calculated for all data -sets provided (such as multiple rows on data) in one question (for example, Q CC14.1).
A recorded webinar will be posted on the CDP website explaining how this methodology works. In addition, it may be discussed during the workshops held in March and April. Please see:
https://www.cdp.net/en-US/News/Pages/events.aspx
3. Disclosure Scoring Approach
Points allocation
In general, the number of points allocated to each question depends on the amount of data requested. Some questions have more than one point attached to a single piece of information where the
information is of particularly high importance, e.g. the gross global Scope 1 emissions figure. Questions which allow text responses are usually judged according to how many of the required data points they
achieve. These are set out in the CDP 2014 guidance, and in this methodology document.
At the end of scoring, the number of points a company has been awarded is divided by the maximum number that could have been awarded. The fraction is then converted to a percentage by multiplying by
100 and rounded to the nearest whole number.
(Points awarded / points attainable) x 100 = Disclosure Score
Links, attachments, "Further Information" and references to answers to other questions
Scores will be based on answers entered into CDP’s Online Response System (ORS). Unless otherwise stated, only information provided in the specific question response text box/field will be
assessed.
The ORS has facilities for companies to provide “Further information” and to provide attachments to answers. Whilst this information will be forwarded to investors/requesting members, “Further
information” and website links are not scored. If a question requests an evidence of a document, please attach the document to the correct section of your response . The document can be a
pdf print of a webpage.
Attachments will only be reviewed where the attachment is specifically requested (for example, where verification/assurance statements are requested).
Similarly, only information provided in the specific question response text box/other field for the particular question will be assessed: references made to answers to other questions will not be taken
into account except in the sector-related instances previously mentioned. Where this is the case, it is clearly identified in the guidance document and this methodology.
Unanswered questions
Unanswered questions will be scored zero out of the maximum available points for that question or set of questions. Blank cells will be interpreted as not responding to the question. If a metric is not relevant
to your organisation (eg. you do not have emissions in a given scope), please enter a zero in the box if you have assessed the metric in question, and are sure that it does not apply to your organisation.
Supplying information as requested
If a question has clearly been answered incorrectly, points will not be awarded for that question. This could include a response which clearly does not answer the question, a text response which does not
support the selection made from the drop down menu, or information in the wrong field of a table.
Sector modules
Data given in the sector specific modules (for electric utility, auto/auto component manufacturing, oil and gas, ICT, and FBT companies) is not scored except in a very limited number of cases where there is
overlap between the questions in the core modules of the information request and the sector specific questions. In these cases - which are defined on the worksheet "Sector Modules" - a company may
choose to direct the scorer to a specific answer in the sector module. The information in the sector module will then be scored against the scoring criteria for the question in the core module.
4. Performance Scoring Approach
Points allocation
Performance points are awarded for evidence provided in the CDP response of actions considered to contribute to climate change mitigation, adaptation and transparency. Actions considered to be more
fundamental to progress on combating climate change are awarded more points. External verification/assurance of emissions data is rewarded under the performance scoring as it is considered that this
potentially increases the usefulness of the information to decision makers and can act as a pre-qualifier of the data submitted that should be recognized when evaluating performance.
The performance score is also based solely on a company's CDP response. To receive a performance score, a company must achieve a minimum disclosure score of 50. This is to ensure that the
judgement is based on sufficient information.
Performance scores are converted to percentages in a similar way to the disclosure score percentage is generated (see previous tab). The percentages will be grouped into bands and assigned a letter. The
percentage range of each of the bands will be set once companies have been scored.
• Performance points are awarded where a company highlights that it is undertaking, or has undertaken, a 'positive' climate change action. A positive action is one that contributes to climate change
mitigation, adaptation and transparency;
• Performance scoring is still limited in its consideration of the materiality of actions relative to a company's sector and business; this is an area that CDP intends to investigate in future developments of the
methodology;
• It is based solely on activities and positions disclosed in the CDP response. It therefore does not consider other actions not mentioned in the CDP response and data-users are asked to be mindful that
these may be positive or 'adverse' or 'negative' in terms of climate change.
• It is not a comprehensive metric of the level to which a company is low-carbon or 'green' but rather an indication of the level of action taken by the company to manage its impacts on a yearly basis on, and
from, climate change.
• Performance scoring does not make any assessment of the impact of a company's disclosed activities on engaging with policy-makers around climate change legislation. Transparency in this area is
awarded disclosure points irrespective of the actions reported.
The performance score is a developing metric, and CDP welcomes feedback on how best to assess and portray performance based on the CDP response.
Links, attachments, "Further Information" and references to answers to other questions
Scores will be based on answers entered into CDP’s Online Response System (ORS). Unless otherwise stated, only information provided in the specific question response text box/field will be
assessed.
The ORS has facilities for companies to provide “Further information” and to provide attachments to answers. Whilst this information will be forwarded to investors/requesting members, “Further
information” and website links are not scored. If a question requests an evidence of a document, please attach the document to the correct section of your response . The document can be a
pdf print of a webpage.
Attachments will only be reviewed where the attachment is specifically requested (for example, where verification/assurance statements are requested).
Similarly, only information provided in the specific question response text box/other field for the particular question will be assessed: references made to answers to other questions will not be taken
into account except in the sector-related instances previously mentioned. Where this is the case, it is clearly identified in the guidance document and this methodology.
Unanswered questions
Unanswered questions will be scored zero out of the maximum available points for that question or set of questions. As a general rule, if you are not awarded any disclosure points for a question, you will not
be eligible for performance points either.
5. Supplying information as requested
If a question has clearly been answered incorrectly, points will not be awarded for that question (see disclosure notes). This applies to performance as well as disclosure, as if data is known to be incorrect,
no judgement can be made about its impact.
Sector modules
Data given in the sector specific modules is not scored except in a very limited number of cases where there is overlap between the questions in the core modules of the information request and the sector
specific questions. In these cases - which are defined on the worksheet "Sector Modules" - a company may choose to direct the scorer to a specific answer in the sector module. The information in the
sector module will then be scored against the scoring criteria for the question in the core module.
6. Leadership Indices
Eligibility for inclusion in the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI)
The "disclosure score" replaced what was known as the CDLI score up to 2009. From 2010, the term “CDLI” has been used to indicate the groups of companies with the highest disclosure
Each sample of companies will have a threshold set for inclusion in the CDLI. The threshold is set as the top 10% highest scoring companies, although this threshold may vary between samples. Therefore
while disclosure scores can be compared across samples, inclusion in the CDLI is relative to the scores of other companies within the sample.
In addition to the requirement for a high score, the response must be publically available and it must have been submitted using CDP’s ORS.
CDP reserves the right to exclude a company from the CDLI if there is anything in its response or any other information publicly available that calls into question the transparency of the information provided
to CDP.
Eligibility for inclusion in the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI)
The CPLI is composed of all companies that score over a certain percentage for performance. This figure is the same for all companies, irrespective of sample. In this respect, it differs from the CDLI. In
addition to the requirement for a high score, the company must meet the following criteria.
1. Its response must be publically available and must have been submitted via CDP's ORS;
2. Maximum performance points must have been scored on question CC12.1a (absolute emissions performance in Scopes 1 and 2);
3. The company must have disclosed gross global Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures and score maximum performance points for verification/assurance of Scope 1 and Scope 2 (questions CC8.6a or CC8.6b if
appropriate, and CC8.7a);
4. CDP will review all high-scoring responses in full before determining the CPLI, and reserves the right to exclude a company from the CPLI if there is anything in its response or any other information
publicly available that calls into question its suitability for inclusion or the transparency of the information provided to CDP.
7. Core question being
completed:
Sector module question which can be referred to:
Oil & Gas CC9.2 Oil and gas sector companies are requested to provide breakdowns of emissions by value chain segment and activity as shown in OG2 and
OG3. Question CC9.2 is not scored.
CC10.2 Oil and gas sector companies are requested to provide the breakdown of emissions by value chain segment as shown in OG2. Question
CC10.2 is not scored
Electric Utilities CC9.1a Electric utilities have the option to report emissions by country using the tables in question EU2 in the electric utility module instead of
completing CC9.1a. This information will be scored provided that companies direct data-users to EU2 from CC9.1a.
Auto manufacturing CC14.1 Auto manufacturers may wish to refer to information on methodology given in answer to the auto module question AU2.2 in their answer to
CC14.1. This information will be scored provided that companies direct data-users to AU2.2 from the methodology column of CC14.1.
ICT CC12.4 ICT companies may refer to the intensity metrics in the sector module. This information will be scored provided that the companies direct data-
users to the relevant question from the free-text field in table CC12.4.
FBT - No questions in the core questionnaire may refer to the FBT module
References to Answers in Sector Modules
8. Min Max Min Max
Management
Governance 2 4 6 6
Strategy 11 18 9 9
Targets & Initiatives 9 15.5 11 11
Communications 1 3 1 1
Risks and Opportunities
Climate change risks (regulatory, physical, other) 6 27 0 3
Climate change opportunities (regulatory, physical, other) 6 27 0 3
Emissions
Emissions methodology 3 3 0 0
Emissions data 1: Boundary, Scope 1 & 2 emissions, accuracy, exclusions 22 25 0 0
Emissions data 2: Scope 1 & 2 verification, biologically sequestered CO2 10 11 7 7
Scope 1 breakdown 1 4 0 0
Scope 2 breakdown 1 4 0 0
Energy 5.5 5.5 0 0
Emissions performance 6.5 9.5 12 12
Emissions trading 2 8 0 1
Scope 3 14 19 6 6
Sign Off 1.5 1.5 0 0
Overall total 101.5 185 52 59
Points Overview
The ranges are shown for each page within the ORS and these are then added together to provide the total points available for each of the three core modules of the CDP 2014 information request: 1)
management; 2) risks & opportunities; 3) emissions
Denominator range -
disclosure
Denominator range -
performance
9. Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Group and Individual Responsibility
CC1.1 "Board/Senior Manager/Officer" routes
CC1.1 Where is the highest level of direct responsibility for
climate change within your company?
1 1 Drop-down menu options:
a) Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee
appointed by the Board;
b) Senior Manager/Officer.
0 0
CC1.1a Please identify the position of the individual or name of
the committee with this responsibility
1 Text answer to cover:
i) the job title of the individual or name of the committee
- 0.5 points
ii) a description of its/their position in the corporate
structure - 0.5 points
A text answer that does not contradict the answer in
CC1.1 is eligible for points.
2 Text answer that does not contradict the answer in
CC1.1 will score 2 points.
Total denominator for this route 2 2
CC1.1 "Other Manager/Officer" route
CC1.1 Where is the highest level of direct responsibility for
climate change within your company?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: Other Manager/Officer 0 0
CC1.1a Please identify the position of the individual or name of
the committee with this responsibility
1 Text answer to cover:
i) the job title of the individual or name of the committee
- 0.5 points
ii) a description of its/their position in the corporate
structure - 0.5 points
A text answer that does not contradict the answer in
CC1.1 is eligible for points.
2 Text answer that does not contradict the answer in
CC1.1 will score 1 point.
Note: Max score on this question is 1/2.There are no
situations where a company with an "Other
Manager/Officer" option selected at 1.1 can score 2
points for performance on this question.
Total denominator for this route 2 2
CC1.1 "No individual / committee" route
CC1.1 Where is the highest level of direct responsibility for
climate change within your company?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: No individual or committee
with overall responsibility for climate change
0 0
CC1.1a Please identify the position of the individual or name of
the committee with this responsibility
0 0 0 2
Total denominator for this route 1 2
Performance scoring criteria
Governance page
Disclosure Score Performance Score
Number Question Disclosure scoring criteria
10. CC1.1 Questions not answered
CC1.1 Where is the highest level of direct responsibility for
climate change within your company?
0 1 No selection made from drop-down menu 0 0
CC1.1a Please identify the position of the individual or name of
the committee with this responsibility
0 1 0 2
Total denominator for this route 2 2
CC1.2 "Yes" route
CC1.2 Do you provide incentives for the management of
climate change issues, including the attainment of
targets?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: Yes 0 0
CC1.2a Please provide further details on the incentives
provided for the management of climate change issues
1 The following columns must all be completed to score 1
point:
i) who is entitled to benefit from these incentives
ii) the type of incentives
iii) a description of the incentivized performance
indicator and its link to climate change
All 3 pieces of information must be supplied within 1
row to score 1 point.
4 Performance points will be awarded as follows:
i) all 3 data-points must be covered to score 1 point
ii) if incentive is a monetary reward - 1 point
iii) if the company has a performance indicator that
incentivizes meeting emissions reduction or energy reduction
targets - 1 point
iv) 1 point if one of the following individuals or groups is
eligible for incentives:
Board chairman
Board/Executive board
Director on board
Corporate executive team
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
All employees
Point i) must be covered for any further points to be awarded.
Points ii), iii) and iv) are not dependent on each other, but all
must be provided in one row for maximum points.
Total denominator for this route 2 4
CC1.2 "No" route
CC1.2 Do you provide incentives for the management of
climate change issues, including the attainment of
targets?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: No 0 0
CC1.2a Please complete the table 0 0 0 4
Total denominator for this route 1 1 0 4
CC1.2 "Questions not answered" route
CC1.2 Do you provide incentives for the management of
climate change issues, including the attainment of
targets?
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC1.2a Please complete the table 0 1 0 4
Total denominator for this route 0 2 0 4
Individual Performance
11. Strategy page one - risk management and business strategy
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Risk management approach
CC2.1 "Integrated multi-disciplinary risk management processes" or "specific climate change risk management process" routes.
CC2.1 Please select the option that best describes your risk
management procedures with regard to climate
change risks and opportunities
1 1 Drop-down options:
a) Integrated into multi-disciplinary company wide risk
management processes;
b) A specific climate change risk management
process.
0 0
CC2.1a Please provide further details on your risk
management procedures with regard to climate
change risks and opportunities
2 Selection or answer to cover:
i) frequency of monitoring (in weeks/months/years) -
0.5 points
ii) to whom the results are reported - 0.5 points
iii) geographical areas considered - 0.5 points
iv) how far into the future are risks considered - 0.5
points
3 Performance points will be awarded where:
i) if monitoring is carried out annually or more frequently -
1 point (this point can be awarded even if the first point
has not been awarded.)
ii) if results are reported to the Board - 1 point (this point
can be awarded even if the first point has not been
awarded.)
iii) if "3 to 6 years" or "> 6 years" options selected in the
column 4 - 1 point
CC2.1b Please describe how your risk and opportunity
identification processes are applied at both company
and asset level
1 Disclosure points will be awarded for answering the
question - 1 point
1 Performance points will be awarded where:
i) the risk assessment process covers company level - 0.5
points
ii) the risks assesment process covers asset level - 0.5
points
CC2.1c How do you prioritize the risks and opportunities
identified?
1 Disclosure points will be awarded for answering the
question - 1 point
1 Performance points will be awarded where:
i) details on determining priorities with regards climate
change risks and opportunities are given - 1 point
CC2.1d Please explain why you do not have a process in place
for assessing and managing risks and opportunities
from climate change and whether you plan to
introduce such a process in the future
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 5 5
Performance scoring criteria
Disclosure Score Performance Score
Number Question Disclosure scoring criteria
12. CC2.1 "No documented processes" route
CC2.1 Please select the option that best describes your risk
management procedures with regard to climate
change risks and opportunities
1 1 Drop-down option: There are no documented
processes for assessing and managing risk and
opportunities from climate change
0 0
CC2.1a Please provide further details on your risk
management procedures with regard to climate
change risks and opportunities
0 0 0 3
CC2.1b Please describe how your risk and opportunity
identification processes are applied at both company
and asset level
0 0 0 1
CC2.1c How do you prioritize the risks and opportunities
identified?
0 0 0 1
CC2.1d Please explain why you do not have a process in place
for assessing and managing risks and opportunities
from climate change and whether you plan to
introduce such a process in the future
2 Selections made:
i) main reason for not having a process - 1 point
ii) plans to introduce a process - 1 point
0 0
Total denominator for this route 3 0 5
CC2.1 "Questions not answered" route
CC2.1 Please select the option that best describes your risk
management procedures with regard to
climate change risks and opportunities
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC2.1a Please provide further details 0 2 0 3
CC2.1b Please describe how your risk and opportunity
identification processes are applied at both company
and asset level
0 1 0 1
CC2.1c How do you prioritize the risks and opportunities
identified?
0 1 0 1
CC2.1d Please explain why you do not have a process in place
for assessing and managing risks and opportunities
from climate change and whether you plan to
introduce such a process in the future
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 5 0 5
13. Business strategy
CC2.2 "Yes" route
CC2.2 Is climate change integrated into your business
strategy?
1 1 Drop-down option: Yes 0 0
CC2.2a Please describe the process and outcomes 3 Text answer to cover:
i) how the strategy has been influenced (the internal
process for collecting and reporting information to
influence the strategy) - 0.5
ii) What aspects of climate change have influenced the
strategy, eg need for adaptation, regulatory changes,
opportunities to develop green business 0.5
iii) the most important components of the short term
strategy that have been influenced by climate change
(or if none, this is stated). Short term can mean
current. - 0.5
iv) the most important components of the long term
strategy that have been influenced by climate change
(or if there is none this is stated) 0.5
v) how this is gaining the company strategic
advantage over competitors - 0.5
vi) what have been the most substantial business
decisions made (or if none, this is stated) (both the
business decision and the aspect of climate change
that has influenced the business decision must be
made clear) - 0.5
For items iii) and iv), if dates are given but short and
long term changes are not clearly identified, the scorer
will award points if the dates are 10+ years apart.
4 Performance points wil be awarded where:
i) if the company has explicitly disclosed how climate
change has influenced its short term business strategy
(can include current) - 1 point
ii) if the company has explicitly disclosed how climate
change has influenced its long term business strategy - 1
point
iii) if the business strategy is linked to an emissions
reduction or energy reduction target - 1 point
iv) if the business strategy is linked to climate change risks
and/or opportunities - 1 point
CC2.2b Please explain why not 0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 4
14. CC2.2 "No" route
CC2.2 Is climate change integrated into your business
strategy?
1 1 Drop-down option: No 0 0
CC2.2a Please describe the process and outcomes 0 0 0 4
CC2.2b Please explain why not 3 Text answer to cover:
i) a clear explanation of why climate change is not
integrated into the business strategy - 1 point
ii) an explanation providing company specific
information - 1 further point
iii) Whether the company expects climate change to
be integrated into the strategy in the future -1 point
(independent of i, ii)
0 0 Please note 0/4 is scored for CC2.2a if "no" is selected at
CC2.2
Total denominator for this route 4 0 4
CC2.2 "Questions not answered" route
CC2.2 Is climate change integrated into your business
strategy?
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC2.2a Please describe the process and outcomes 0 3 0 4
CC2.2b Please explain why not 0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 4 0 4
15. Strategy page two - engaging with policy makers
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Engaging with policy makers
CC2.3 "Direct engagement with policy makers" route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
1 Tick box selection(s):
"Direct engagement with policy makers" selection made - 1 point,
unless a company has selected multiple options including 'no',
when 0 points will be awarded.
0 0
CC2.3a On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers? 1 The focus of legislation and corporate position columns must all
be completed to score any further points.
Text answer to cover:
i) column "Details of engagement" - Description of how
engagagement - 0.5 points
ii) column "Proposed solution" - 0.5 points
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3b Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding
beyond membership?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3c Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to
take a position on climate change legislation
0 0 0 0
CC2.3d Do you publically disclose a list of all the research organizations that
you fund?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3e Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate
public work on climate change?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3f Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on
climate change
0 0 0 0
CC2.3g Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you
undertake
0 0 0 0
CC2.3h What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct
and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your
overall climate change strategy?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Text answer to cover description of the processes in place to
ensure that all engagement is consistent with the overall climate
change strategy - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3i Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers 0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 3 0
Performance scoring
criteria
Number Question
Disclosure Score Disclosure scoring criteria
Performance Score
16. CC2.3 "Trade association" route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
1 Tick box selection(s):
"Trade associations" selection made - 1 point, unless a company
has selected multiple options including 'no', when 0 points will be
awarded.
0 0
CC2.3a On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers? 0 0 0 0
CC2.3b Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding
beyond membership?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Selection from drop down option made - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3c Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to
take a position on climate change legislation
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Trade association's name and if position on climate change
consistent with theirs must be provided to score any further
points.
Text answer to cover:
i) explanation of the trade association's position - 0.5 points
ii) if and how attempting to influence the position - 0.5 points
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3d Do you publically disclose a list of all the research organizations that
you fund?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3e Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate
public work on climate change?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3f Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on
climate change
0 0 0 0
CC2.3g Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you
undertake
0 0 0 0
CC2.3h What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct
and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your
overall climate change strategy?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Text answer to cover description of the processes in place to
ensure that all engagement is consistent with the overall climate
change strategy - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3i Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers 0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 0
17. CC2.3 "Funding research organizations" route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
1 Tick box selection(s):
"Funding research organiztions" selection made - 1 point, unless
a company has selected multiple options including 'no', when 0
points will be awarded.
0 0
CC2.3a On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers? 0 0 0 0
CC2.3b Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding
beyond membership?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3c Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to
take a position on climate change legislation
0 0 0 0
CC2.3d Do you publically disclose a list of all the research organizations that
you fund?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Selection from drop down option made - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3e Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate
public work on climate change?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Selection from drop down option made - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3f Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on
climate change
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Text answer to cover:
i) description of the work - 0.5 points
ii) how it aligns with the company's strategy on climate change -
0.5 points
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3g Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you
undertake
0 0 0 0
CC2.3h What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct
and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your
overall climate change strategy?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Text answer to cover description of the processes in place to
ensure that all engagement is consistent with the overall climate
change strategy - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3i Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers 0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 5 0
18. CC2.3 "Other engagement" route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
1 Tick box selection(s):
"Other" selection made - 1 point, unless a company has selected
multiple options including 'no', when 0 points will be awarded.
0 0
CC2.3a On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers? 0 0 0 0
CC2.3b Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding
beyond membership?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3c Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to
take a position on climate change legislation
0 0 0 0
CC2.3d Do you publically disclose a list of all the research organizations that
you fund?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3e Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate
public work on climate change?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3f Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on
climate change
0 0 0 0
CC2.3g Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you
undertake
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Text answer has to cover all:
i) description of the method of engagement
ii) topic of the engagement
iii) nature of the engagement
iv) actions advocated as part of engagement
to score 1 point
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3h What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct
and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your
overall climate change strategy?
1 This question may be presented, depending on the selection at
CC2.3.
Text answer to cover description of the processes in place to
ensure that all engagement is consistent with the overall climate
change strategy - 1 point.
0 0 This question is not
scored for performance.
CC2.3i Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers 0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 3 0
19. CC2.3 "Multiple engagements" route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
1 Tick box selection(s):
Multiple engagement selections made - 1 point, unless a
company has selected multiple options including 'no', when 0
points will be awarded.
0 0
CC2.3 "No engagement" route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
1 Tick box selection: No
Selection made: 1 point, unless multiple options including "no""
have been selected, in which case 0 points will be awarded.
0 0
CC2.3a On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers? 0 0 0 0
CC2.3b Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding
beyond membership?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3c Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to
take a position on climate change legislation
0 0 0 0
CC2.3d Do you publically disclose a list of all the research organizations that
you fund?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3e Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate
public work on climate change?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3f Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on
climate change
0 0 0 0
CC2.3g Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you
undertake
0 0 0 0
CC2.3h What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct
and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your
overall climate change strategy?
0 0 0 0
CC2.3i Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers 1 Text answer to cover:
i) why the company does not pursue activities that have the
potential to influence climate change policy - 1 point.
0 0
Total denominator for this route 2 0 0
Companies that select multiple engagement options will be presented with all relevant sets of questions related to the selected engagement methods. All relevant questions will be scored and recorded and
calculated together.
20. CC2.3 Question not answered route
CC2.3 Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly
influence policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all
that apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
Funding research organizations
Other
No
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC2.3a On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers? 0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3b Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding
beyond membership?
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3c Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to
take a position on climate change legislation
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3d Do you publically disclose a list of all the research organizations that
you fund?
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3e Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate
public work on climate change?
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3f Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on
climate change
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3g Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you
undertake
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3h What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct
and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your
overall climate change strategy?
0 1 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
CC2.3i Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers 0 0 This question will not be presented if no selection is made at
CC2.3
0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 9 0 0
21. Targets and Initiatives
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Targets
CC3.1 "Absolute target" route
CC3.1 Did you have an emissions reduction target that was
active (ongoing or reached completion) in the reporting
year?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: Absolute target 0 0
CC3.1a Please provide details of your absolute target 2 The following columns must all be completed to score
1.5 points:
i) scope
ii) % reduction from base year
iii) base year
iv) base year emissions
v) target year
If "% of emissions in scope" is given in the same row,
an extra 0.5 point is scored.
2 If 1.5 or 2 points scored for disclosure, 2 points
scored for performance.
CC3.1b Please provide details of your intensity target 0 0 0 0
CC3.1c Please also indicate what change in absolute
emissions this intensity target reflects
0 0 0 0
CC3.1d For all of your targets, please provide details on your
progress against this target made in the reporting year
2 The following columns must both be completed to
score 2 points:
i) % complete (time) and
ii) % complete (emissions)
NOTE: The target under discussion must have scored
1.5 or 2 points at CC3.1a. If not, it scores 0 points for
CC3.1d even if the columns are completed.
3 Performance points will be awarded:
If "% complete (time)" is 100% and "% complete
(emissions)" >= 100%, then this answer scores 3
points.
If "% complete (time)" is 100% and "% complete
(emissions)" <100%, then this answer scores 0
points.
If "% complete (time)" is <100% and "% complete
(emissions)" >= 100%, then this answer scores 3
points.
If "% complete (time)" is <100% and "% complete
(emissions)" <100%, then this answer scores 3
points.
If 0 points scored for disclosure for this target, then 0
points is scored for performance.
CC3.1e Please explain (i) why you do not have a target; and
(ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the
next five years
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 5 5
Where an organization has more than one target, targets will be scored across the entire set of questions that apply to that target (either the set of questions relating to an absolute target or the set
relating to an intensity target). The score which has the most positive impact on the company's score will be recorded.
Targets which are set relative to a future "business as usual" (BAU) scenario are not eligible for points. To be eligible, targets must have a base year in or before the reporting year.
Number Question
Disclosure Score
Disclosure scoring criteria
Performance Score
Performance scoring criteria
22. CC3.1 "Intensity target" route
CC3.1 Did you have an emissions reduction target that was
active (ongoing or reached completion) in the reporting
year?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: Intensity target 0 0
CC3.1a Please provide details of your absolute target 0 0 0 0
CC3.1b Please provide details of your intensity target 2 The following columns must all be completed to score
1.5 points:
i) scope
ii) % reduction from base year
iii) metric
iv) base year
v) normalized base year emissions
vi) target year
If "% of emissions in scope" is given in the same row,
an extra 0.5 point is scored.
2 If 1.5 or 2 points scored for disclosure, 1 point scored
for performance.
Note: Max score on this question is 1/2.There are no
situations where a company with an intensity target
can score 2/2 for performance on this question.
CC3.1c Please also indicate what change in absolute
emissions this intensity target reflects
1 The target under discussion must have scored 1.5 or 2
points for disclosure at 3.1b for this question to be
scored 1 point. Otherwise, score 0 point.
Organizations must complete the relevant columns for
the target to score 1 point. This means if the target
relates to Scope 1 & 2, then the columns relating to
Scope 1 & 2 must be completed.
If not, answer scored 0 points.
1 If 0 points for disclosure have been allocated for 3.1c,
0 points should be awarded for performance.
If 1.5 or 2 for disclosure has been scored at 3.1b and a
decrease in the relevant scope from the intensity
target is described at 3.1c - then 1 is scored. If a
decrease in the relevant absolute emissions in scope
is not described then 0 is scored.
CC3.1d For all of your targets, Please provide details on your
progress against this target made in the reporting year
1 The target under discussion must have scored 1.5 or 2
points for disclosure at CC3.1b for this question to be
scored 1 point. Otherwise, score 0 point.
The following columns must all be completed to score
1 point:
i) % complete (time)
ii) % complete (emissions)
2 Performance points will be awarded:
If "% complete (time)" is 100% and "% complete
(emissions)" >=100%, then this answer scores 2
points.
If "% complete (time)" is 100% and "% complete
(emissions)" <100%, then this answer scores 0
points.
If "% complete (time)" is <100% and "% complete
(emissions)" >= 100%, then this answer scores 2
points.
If "% complete (time)" is <100% and "% complete
(emissions)" <100%, then this answer scores 2
points.
If 0 points scored for disclosure for this target, then 0
points is scored for performance.
CC3.1e Please explain (i) why you do not have a target; and
(ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the
next five years
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 5 5
23. CC3.1 "No" route
CC3.1 Did you have an emissions reduction target that was
active (on-going or reached completion) in the
reporting year?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: No 0 0
CC3.1a Please provide details of your absolute target 0 0 0 0
CC3.1b Please provide details of your intensity target 0 0 0 2
CC3.1c Please also indicate what change in absolute
emissions this intensity target reflects
0 0 0 1
CC3.1d For all of your targets, Please provide details on your
progress against this target made in the reporting year
0 0 0 2
CC3.1e Please explain (i) why you do not have a target; and
(ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the
next five years
3 Text answer to cover:
i) explanation why not - 1 point
ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the
next five years: qualitative - 1 point; OR quantitative
e.g. a predicted increase expressed as a % or an
emissions mass figure - 2 points
0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 0 5
CC3.1 "Questions not answered" route
CC3.1 Did you have an emissions reduction target that was
active (on-going or reached completion) in the
reporting year?
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC3.1a Please provide details of your absolute target 0 0 0 0
CC3.1b Please provide details of your intensity target 0 2 0 2
CC3.1c Please also indicate what change in absolute
emissions this intensity target reflects
0 1 0 1
CC3.1d For all of your targets, Please provide details on your
progress against this target made in the reporting year
0 1 0 2
CC3.1e Please explain (i) why you do not have a target; and
(ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the
next five years
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 5 0 5
CC3.1 "Absolute and intensity targets" route
CC3.1 Did you have an emissions reduction target that was
active (on-going or reached completion) in the
reporting year?
1 1 Drop-down option: Absolute and intensity targets 0 0
Companies that select this drop-down option will be presented with both the set of questions related to absolute targets and the set related to intensity targets. In common with organizations disclosing more than
one absolute target or more than one intensity target, they will have the scores recorded of their overall highest-scoring target. If this is an absolute target, the intensity target questions will be scored 0/0 and
vice versa. If one target is the highest-scoring for disclosure and another is the highest-scoring for performance, the recorded scores will be based on the different targets.
24. Avoided emissions
CC3.2 "Yes" route
CC3.2 Does the use of your goods and/or services directly
enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: Yes 0 0
CC3.2a Please provide details of how the use of your goods
and/or services directly enable GHG emissions to be
avoided by a third party (see guidance)
2 Any further points will be scored only where it is
specified that the avoided emissions represent the
third party’s Scope 1 emissions, Scope 2 emissions, or
both.
The text answer to cover:
i) explanation on how the Scope 1 and/or 2 emissions
are/were avoided by the third party - 0.5 points
ii) an estimate of the amount of the emissions that
are/were avoided over the time (must include
timescale over which emissions are avoided or
baseline year) - 0.5 points
iii) methodology, assumptions, emission factors and
GWPs (if figure given in CO2e) used for the
estimations - 0.5 points
iv) whether considering originating CERs or ERUs
within the framework of CDM or JI (UNFCCC) - 0.5
points
0 0
Total denominator for this route 3 0 0
CC3.2 "No" route
CC3.2 Does the use of your goods and/or services directly
enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party?
1 1 Drop-down menu option: No 0 0
CC3.2a Please provide details of how the use of your goods
and/or services directly enable GHG emissions to be
avoided by a third party (see guidance)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 1 1 0 0
CC3.2 "Questions not answered" route
CC3.2 Does the use of your goods and/or services directly
enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party?
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC3.2a Please provide details of how the use of your goods
and/or services directly enable GHG emissions to be
avoided by a third party (see guidance)
0 2 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 3 0 0
25. Emissions Reduction Initiatives
CC3.3 "Yes" route
CC3.3 Did you have emissions reduction initiatives that were
active within the reporting year (this can include those
in the planning and implementation phases)
1 1 Drop-down option:
Yes
0 0
CC3.3a Please identify the total number of projects at each
stage of development, and for those in the
implementation stages, the estimated CO2e savings
1 The "Number of projects" column must be completed
to score 0.5 points for this question. If no projects are
in a particular stage of implementation, the company
should state 0.
If "total estimated annual CO2e savings in metric
tonnes CO2e" is given for rows marked * that are not
0, an extra 0.5 point is scored.
It is acknowledged that companies may group
initiatives for reporting purposes, so the numbers
reported under implementation at CC3.3a may not
exactly match the number at CC3.3b. However, if the
responses to CC3.3a and CC3.3b are entirely
inconsistent, scorers will award zero points for
CC3.3a.
0 0
CC3.3b For those initiatives implemented in the reporting year,
please provide details in the table below
4.5 "Activity type" and "Description of activity" columns
must be completed to score any disclosure points for
this question.
Text answer to cover:
i) description of activity covering:
• nature of activity - 0.5 points
• scope type (1, 2 or 3) - 0.5 points
• voluntary/mandatory (in relation to external
regulators) 0.5 points
ii) estimated annual CO2e savings associated with the
action - 1 point
iii) annual monetary savings, investment required &
payback period all covered - 1.5 points
iv) Estimated lifetime of the initiative - 0.5 points
6 "Activity type" and "Description of activity" columns
must be completed.
i) Some initiatives described (ie. description at CC3.3b
covers "nature of activity") - 2 points
ii) actions being implemented which have a carbon
saving attached - 2 additional points
iii) actions which are in the same scope as their target
(reported under CC3.1) - 2 additional points
CC3.3c What methods do you use to drive investment in
emission reduction activities?
1 Selection must be made in column 1 "Method" for 1
point. If "Other" is selected, details must be given in
column 2.
0 0
CC3.3d If you do not have any emission reduction initiatives,
please explain why not
0 0 0 0
7.5 6
26. CC3.3 "No" route
CC3.3 Did you have emissions reduction initiatives that were
active within the reporting year (this can include those
in the planning and implementation phases)
1 1 Drop-down option:
No
0 0
CC3.3a Please identify the total number of projects at each
stage of development, and for those in the
implementation stages, the estimated CO2e savings
0 0 0 0
CC3.3b Please provide details in the table below 0 0 0 6
CC3.3c What methods do you use to drive investment in
emission reduction activities?
0 0 0 0
CC3.3d If you do not have any emission reduction initiatives,
please explain why not
2 Text answer to cover:
i) explanation given: 1 point
ii) explantion contains company-specific detail: 1
further point
0 0
Total denominator for this route 3 6
CC3.3 "Questions not answered" route
CC3.3 Did you have emissions reduction initiatives that were
active within the reporting year (this can include those
in the planning and implementation phases)
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0
CC3.3a Please identify the total number of projects at each
stage of development, and for those in the
implementation stages, the estimated CO2e savings
0 1 0 0
CC3.3b Please provide details in the table below 0 4.5 0 6
CC3.3c What methods do you use to drive investment in
emission reduction activities?
0 1 0 0
CC3.3d If you do not have any emission reduction initiatives,
please explain why not
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 7.5 6
27. Communications
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Communications
CC4.1 Have you published information about your organization’s
response to climate change and GHG emissions performance
for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP
response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
3 Drop-down menu options:
a) In mainstream financial reports* (complete);
b) In mainstream financial reports* (underway) –
previous year attached
Selection made of one of the above plus document
attached (not hyperlinked to an external website),
page/section reference given and attachment
identified.
* The term mainstream financial reports refers to
annual mandatory financial reportings published to
meet regulatory obligations. CDP adopts the Climate
Change Reporting Framework (CCRF) definition of
mainstream financial reportings. Please see CDP's
guidance or the CCRF for further details.
Scorers will confirm that a document is attached, and
that it meets the description in terms of the reporting
year and the nature of the document. If it is accepted,
3 disclosure points are scored.
1 If 3 points scored for
disclosure, then 1 point
scored for performance.
Total denominator for this route 3 1
CC4.1 Have you published information about your organization’s
response to climate change and GHG emissions performance
for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP
response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
1 3 Drop-down menu option:
In mainstream financial reports (underway) - this is our
first year
Selection made of the above. The other two columns
will not be applicable.
0 1
Total denominator for this route 1 3 0 1
Disclosure Score
Number Question
Performance Score
CC4.1 "In mainstream financial reports (complete/ underway - previous year attached)" route
CC4.1 "In mainstream financial reports (underway) – this is our first year" route
Disclosure scoring criteria
Performance scoring
criteria
28. CC4.1 Have you published information about your organization’s
response to climate change and GHG emissions performance
for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP
response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
3 Drop-down menu options:
a) In other regulatory filings (complete);
b) In other regulatory filings (underway) - previous year
attached;
c) In voluntary communications (complete);
d) In voluntary communications (underway) - previous
year attached.
Selection made of one of the above plus document
attached (not hyperlinked to an external website),
page/section reference given and attachment
identified.
Scorers will confirm that a document is attached, that it
meets the description in terms of the reporting year
and the nature of the document. If it is accepted, 3
disclosure points are scored.
1 If 3 points scored for
disclosure, then 0.5
point scored for
performance.
Total denominator for this route 3 1
CC4.1 Have you published information about your organization’s
response to climate change and GHG emissions performance
for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP
response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
1 3 Drop-down menu options:
a) In other regulatory filings (underway) - this is our
first year
b) In voluntary communications (underway) - this is our
first year
Selection made of one of the above. The other two
columns will not be applicable.
0 1
Total denominator for this route 1 3 0 1
CC4.1 Have you published information about your organization’s
response to climate change and GHG emissions performance
for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP
response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
1 1 Drop-down menu option: No 0 1
Total denominator for this route 1 1 0 1
CC4.1
Have you published information about your organization’s
response to climate change and GHG emissions performance
for this reporting year in places other than in your CDP
response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
0 3 No selection made: 0 points 0 1
Total denominator for this route 0 3 0 1
CC4.1 "In other types of publications (complete/underway - previous year attached)" route
CC4.1 "In other types of publications - this is our first year" route
CC4.1 "No" route
CC4.1 "Question not answered" route
29. Climate Change Risks
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Regulatory/Physical/Other risks
"Risks driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" route
CC5.1 Have you identified any climate change risks that
have the potential to generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or
expenditure?
0 0 "Risks driven by changes in regulation" / "Risks driven by changes in physical climate
parameters" / " Risks driven by changes in other climate-related developments" option
selected
0 0
CC5.1a, b, c Please describe your risks driven by changes in
regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments
9 "Risk driver" column must be completed in order to score for subsequent columns.
Potential impact, timeframe, Direct/Indirect, Likelihood and Magnitude of impact columns must be
completed to score 2 points.
Text answer to cover
i) Description:
A clear description of the risk - 1 point
How this risk could affect/is affecting the responding company specifically - 1 further point
ii) Potential financial implications:
· Numerical financial description (figure, open or closed range, % relative to another figure. This
description should indicate the scale and direction of the implication) - 2 points
· Other description given (should indicate the scale and direction of the implication). - 1 points
· No description given - 0 points
iii) Methods used to manage risk:
· The answer contains a clear description of the methods used to manage the risk as well as
specific activities, projects or products/services which are aiming to manage or managing this risk
- 2 points
· The answer contains a clear description of the methods used to manage the risk (no description
of specific activities, projects or products/services) - 1 point
iv) Costs provided for managing the risk - 1 point
To score maximum points, all data-points should be supplied for one risk.
1 If the actions are
being implemented,
1 point.
Actions in the
planning stage will
score 0 points. If a
company's method
to manage a risk is
solely a monitoring
approach, then
they will score 0
points.
CC5.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to risks driven by changes
in regulation that have the potential to generate a
substantive change in your business operations,
revenue or expenditure
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 9 1
The scoring methodology is the same for questions relating to regulatory, physical and other climate related risks. Therefore the scoring methodology is presented only once in this
document. However, companies should respond to each type of risk individually.
The question numbers are relevant to the following types of risk:
CC5.1a, CC5.1d - Regulatory risks
CC5.1b, CC5.1e - Physical risks
CC5.1c, CC5.1f - Other risks
Disclosure Score Performance Performance
scoring criteria
Disclosure scoring criteriaQuestionNumber
30. "No risks driven by changes in regulation / physical climate parameters / other climate-related developments" route AND full performance points achieved in CC2.1a
CC5.1 Have you identified any climate change risks that
have the potential to generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or
expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Risks driven by changes in regulation" / "Risks driven by changes
in physical climate parameters" / "Risks driven by changes in other climate-related
developments" AND full performance points scored in CC2.1
0 0
CC5.1a, b, c Please describe your risks driven by changes in
regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments
0 0 0 0
CC5.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to risks driven by changes
in regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments that have the
potential to generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
2 The text answer to cover:
i) explanation for why risks in this category are not relevant to the company or why they are not
considered substantive:
Clear explanation given - 1 point
An answer containing company specific information, or sector specific information if the
company states it is typical of the sector - 1 further point
When responding to this question, companies should be aware that it refers to inherent risk
rather than residual risk. Inherent Risk is the potential impact of a risk before any actions to
mitigate the risk have been undertaken. If companies consider "Residual risk", i.e. assess the
potential impact of the risk after actions to mitigate the risk have been undertaken they should
select ‘yes’ at CC5.1 and explain their actions and reasoning using the 'yes' route.
0 0
Total denominator for this route 2 0 0
"No risks driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" AND "CC2.1 left blank" route
CC5.1 Have you identified any climate change risks that
have the potential to generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or
expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Risks driven by changes in regulation / changes in physical
parameters / other climate related developments" AND CC2.1 has been left blank
0 0
CC5.1a, b, c Please describe your risks driven by changes in
regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments
0 0 0 1
CC5.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to risks driven by changes
in regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments that have the
potential to generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
9 The text answer to cover:
i) explanation for why risks in this category are not relevant to the company or why they are not
considered substantive:
Clear explanation given - 1 point
An answer containing company specific information, or sector specific information if the
company states it is typical of the sector - 1 further point
Please note that 2/9 are the maximum points that can be achieved in this question if CC2.1
has been left blank where no selection is made of "Risks driven by changes in regulation /
changes in physical parameters / other climate related developments"
0 0
Total denominator for this route 9 0 1
31. CC5.1 Have you identified any climate change risks that
have the potential to generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or
expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Risks driven by changes in regulation / changes in physical
parameters / other climate related developments" AND "No documented process" selected
in CC2.1 or not full performance points achieved in CC2.1a
0 0
CC5.1a, b, c Please describe your risks driven by changes in
regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments
0 0 0 1
CC5.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to risks driven by changes
in regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments that have the
potential to generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
2 The text answer to cover:
i) explanation for why risks in this category are not relevant to the company or why they are not
considered substantive:
Clear explanation given - 1 point
An answer containing company specific information, or sector specific information if the
company states it is typical of the sector - 1 further point
0 0
Total denominator for this route 2 0 1
"Questions not answered" route
CC5.1 Have you identified any climate change risks
(current or future) that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your business
operations, revenue or expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Risks driven by changes in regulation" / "Risks driven by changes
in physical climate parameters" / "Risks driven by changes in other climate-related
developments"
0 0
CC5.1a, b, c Please describe your risks driven by changes in
regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments
0 9 0 1
CC5.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to risks driven by changes
in regulation / in physical climate parameters / other
climate-related developments that have the
potential to generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
0 0 Company has left this field blank. 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 9 0 1
"No risks driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" route AND "No documented process" selected in QCC2.1 or not full performance
points achieved in CC2.1a
32. Climate Change Opportunities
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
"Opportunities driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" route
CC6.1 Have you identified any climate change
opportunities that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure?
0 0 "Opportunities driven by changes in regulation" / "Opportunities driven by changes in physical
parameters" / "Opportunities driven by other climate related developments" option selected
0 0
CC6.1a, b and c Please describe your opportunities that are
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments"
9 "Opportunity driver" column must be completed in order to score for subsequent columns.
Potential impact, timeframe, Direct/Indirect, Likelihood and Magnitude of impact columns must be
completed to score 2 points.
Text answer to cover
i) Description:
A clear description of the opportunity -1 point
How this opportunity could affect/is affecting the responding company specifically -1 further point
ii) Potential financial implications:
· Numerical financial description (figure, open or closed range, % relative to another figure. This
description should indicate the scale and direction of the implication) -2 points
· Other description given (should indicate the scale and direction of the implication).- 1 points
· No description given - 0 points
iii) Methods used to manage opportunity:
· The answer contains a clear description of the methods used to manage the opportunity as well as
specific activities, projects or products/services which are aiming to manage or managing this
opportunity - 2 points
· The answer contains a clear description of the methods used to manage the opportunity (no
description of specific activities, projects or products/services) - 1 point
iv) Costs provided for managing the opportunity -1 point
To score maximum points, all data-points should be supplied for one opportunity.
0 1 If the actions are
being implemented,
1 point.
Actions in the
planning stage will
score 0 points. If a
company's method to
manage an
opportunity is solely a
monitoring approach,
then they will score 0
points.
CC6.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your company to be
exposed to opportunities driven by changes in regulation /
changes in physical parameters / other climate related
developments that have the potential to generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 9 1
Regulatory/Physical/Other opportunities
Number Question
Disclosure Score Performance Score
Disclosure scoring criteria
Performance
scoring criteria
The scoring methodology is the same for questions relating to regulatory, physical and other climate related opportunities. Therefore the scoring methodology is presented only
once in this document. However, companies should respond to each type of opportunity individually.
The question numbers are relevant to the following types of opportunities:
CC6.1a, CC6.1d - Regulatory opportunities
CC6.1b, CC6.1e - Physical opportunities
CC6.1c, CC6.1f - Other opportunities
33. CC6.1 Have you identified any climate change
opportunities that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Opportunities driven by changes in regulation / changes in physical
parameters / other climate related developments" AND full performance points scored in CC2.1
0 0
CC6.1a, b, c Please describe your opportunities that are
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments
0 0 0 0
CC6.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to opportunities
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
2 The text answer to cover:
i) explanation for why opportunities in this category are not relevant to the company or why they are not
considered substantive:
Clear explanation given - 1 point
An answer containing company specific information, or sector specific information if the company
states it is typical of the sector - 1 further point
0 0
Total denominator for this route 2 0 0
"No opportunities driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" AND "CC2.1 left blank" route
CC6.1 Have you identified any climate change
opportunities that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Opportunities driven by changes in regulation / changes in physical
parameters / other climate related developments" AND CC2.1 has been left blank
0 0
CC6.1a, b, c Please describe your opportunities that are
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments
0 0 0 1
CC6.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to opportunities
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
9 The text answer to cover:
i) explanation for why opportunities in this category are not relevant to the company or why they are not
considered substantive:
Clear explanation given - 1 point
An answer containing company specific information, or sector specific information if the company
states it is typical of the sector - 1 further point
Please note that 2/9 are the maximum points that can be achieved in this question if CC2.1 has
been left blank where no selection is made of "Opportunities driven by changes in regulation /
changes in physical parameters / other climate related developments"
0 0
Total denominator for this route 9 0 1
"No opportunities driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" route AND full performance points achieved in CC2.1a
34. CC6.1 Have you identified any climate change
opportunities that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Opportunities driven by changes in regulation / changes in physical
parameters / other climate related developments" AND "No documented process" selected in
CC2.1 or not full performance points achieved in CC2.1a
0 0
CC6.1a, b, c Please describe your opportunities that are
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments
0 0 0 1
CC6.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to opportunities
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
2 The text answer to cover:
i) explanation for why opportunities in this category are not relevant to the company or why they are not
considered substantive:
Clear explanation given - 1 point
An answer containing company specific information, or sector specific information if the company
states it is typical of the sector - 1 further point
0 0
Total denominator for this route 2 0 1
"Questions not answered" route
CC6.1 Have you identified any climate change
opportunities that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure?
0 0 No selection made of "Opportunities driven by changes in regulation / changes in physical
parameters / other climate related developments"
0 0
CC6.1a, b, c Please describe your opportunities that are
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments
0 9 0 1
CC6.1d, e, f Please explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to opportunities
driven by changes in regulation / changes in
physical parameters / other climate related
developments that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your
business operations, revenue or expenditure
0 0 Company has left this field blank. 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 9 0 1
"No opportunities driven by changes in regulation, changes in physical parameters or other climate related developments" route AND "No documented process" selected in CC2.1 or not full
performance points achieved in CC2.1a
35. Emissions Methodology
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Base year
CC7.1 Please provide your base year and base year emissions (Scopes
1 & 2)
2 Disclosure points will be awarded where:
i) base year and S1 emissions given - 1 point
ii) base year and S2 emissions given - 1 point
0 0
Total denominator for this question 2
Methodology
CC7.2 "Methodology selected from list" route
CC7.2 Please give the name of the standard, protocol or methodology
you have used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions
1 1 Drop-down menu: one option selected, or if 'other'
selected, details are provided of either a published
methodology, an in-house methodology or a
combination of in-house and published methodologies.
0 0
CC7.2a If you have selected “Other” in CC7.2 Please provide details of the
standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect
activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
0 0 This question will be presented if "other" is selected at
CC7.2.
0 0
Total denominator for this route 1 1 0 0
CC7.2 "Questions not answered" route
CC7.2 Please give the name of the standard, protocol or methodology
you have used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC7.2a If you have selected “Other” in CC7.2 Please provide details of the
standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect
activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 1 0 0
CC7.3 Please give the source for the global warming potentials you have
used
0 0 This question is not scored. 0 0
CC7.4 Please give the emissions factors you have applied and their
origin; alternatively, please attach an Excel spreadsheet with this
data at the bottom of this page
0 0 This question is not scored. 0 0
Performance Score
Number Question
Disclosure Score
Disclosure scoring criteria
36. Emissions data: Boundary, Scope 1 & 2 emissions, exclusions and accuracy
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Boundary and Scope 1 & Scope 2 emissions
CC8.1 Please select the boundary you are using for your Scope 1
and 2 greenhouse gas inventory
1 1 Drop-down options:
a) financial control;
b) operational control;
c) equity share;
d) "Other" selected from the Drop-down list. If "Other" is
selected, an alternative reporting boundary should be
described.
0 0
CC8.2 Please provide your gross global Scope 1 emissions figures
in metric tonnes CO2e
8 Figure provided 0 0
CC8.3 Please provide your gross global Scope 2
emissions figures in metric tonnes CO2e
8 Figure provided 0 0
Total denominator for this route 17 0 0
CC8.1 Please select the boundary you are using for your Scope 1
and 2 greenhouse gas inventory
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC8.2 Please provide your gross global Scope 1 emissions figures
in metric tonnes CO2e
0 8 Figure provided 0 0
CC8.3 Please provide your gross global Scope 2
emissions figures in metric tonnes CO2e
0 8 Figure provided 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 17 0 0
Performance Score
Disclosure scoring criteria
CC8.1 "Operational control/financial control/ equity share/other" route
CC8.1 "Questions not answered" route
Performance
scoring criteria
Number Question
Disclosure Score
37. Exclusions
CC8.4 Are there any sources (e.g. facilities, specific GHGs,
activities, geographies etc.) of Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary
which are not included in your disclosure?
1 1 Drop-down option:
Yes
0 0
CC8.4a Please provide details of the sources of Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary
which are not included in your disclosure
3 Text answer to cover:
i) Column 1 (source) completed - 1 point
ii) Columns 2 & 3 (the relevance of Scope 1 and/or 2
emissions from the source) completed - 1 point
ii) Column 4 ("explanation") completed - 1 point
0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 0 0
CC8.4 Are there any sources (e.g. facilities, specific GHGs,
activities, geographies etc.) of Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary
which are not included in your disclosure?
1 1 Drop-down option:
No
0 0
CC8.4a Please provide details of the sources of Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary
which are not included in your disclosure
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 1 1 0 0
CC8.4 Are there any sources (e.g. facilities, specific GHGs,
activities, geographies etc.) of Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary
which are not included in your disclosure?
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC8.4a Please provide details of the sources of Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary
which are not included in your disclosure
0 3 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 4 0 0
CC8.4 "Yes" route
CC8.4 "No" route
CC8.4 "Questions not answered" route
38. Data accuracy
CC8.5 Please estimate the level of uncertainty of the total gross
global Scope 1 and 2 emissions
figures that you have supplied and specify the sources of
uncertainty in your data gathering, handling and calculations.
4 Scope 1:
i) "Scope 1 emissions uncertainty range" given - 0.5
points
ii) "Scope 1 emissions main sources of uncertainty" given
- 0.5 points
Scope 1 emissions explanation (text answer) - 1 points
Scope 2:
iii) "Scope 2 emissions uncertainty range" given - 0.5
points
iv) "Scope 2 emissions main sources of uncertainty "
given - 0.5 points
Scope 2 emissions explanation (text answer) - 1 points
0 0
4 0 0
39. Verification or assurance of Scope 1 emissions
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
1 1 Drop-down option: Third party verification or
assurance complete
0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
3 The following columns must all be completed
to score 2 points:
i) type of verification or assurance
ii) page/section reference
iii) relevant standard
iv) proportion of reported Scope 1 emissions
verified (%)
For additional point:
v) statement attached in column 2 - 1 point
3.5 If 3 points scored for disclosure, then 0.5 points scored for
performance.
Attachement will be reviewed only as part of the performance scoring (if
the statement is within a bigger document, e.g. CSR report, the
document will still be checked). Documents hyperlinked to external
websites will not be scored.
The following criteria all must be met to score 3.5 performance
points:
i) the statement clearly relates to GHG emissions, or make reference to
other information attached to this section of the response which
confirms that the subject of the assurance engagement included GHG
emissions
ii) it relates to the relevant scope
iii) it relates to the correct reporting year
iv) it states the verification standard used, and this is one accepted by
CDP
v) the document contains a verification opinion or finding
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 3.5
External verification or assurance
Please check CDP's verification requirements at: https://www.cdp.net/verification
If your verification/assurance statement contains confidential information, it is sufficient to attach a letter from your verifier/assurer covering the minimum details required by the scoring methodology. CDP
is also defining a verification template which will be available on our website.
CDP requires third party verification. Statements will be rejected if it is clear that they relate to an internal audit or verification procedure.
A list of accepted verification/assurance standards for 2014 can be found on CDP's website. Please note that “agreed upon procedures”, “pre-assurance” or draft assurance are not accepted as
verification under the scoring methodology. A document will be regarded as final if it has either a signature from the verification practitioner or body, or is on letterheaded paper from the verification body.
Disclosure scoring criteria Performance scoring criteria
CC8.6 "Third party verification or assurance complete" route
Number Question
Disclosure Score Performance Score
40. CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
1 1 Drop-down options:
a) Third party verification or assurance
underway but not yet complete - last year’s
statement attached;
b) Third party verification or assurance
underway but not yet complete - previous
statement of biennial process attached;
c) Third party verification or assurance
underway but not yet complete - previous
statement of triennial process attached.
0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
3 The following columns must all be completed
to score 2 points:
i) type of verification or assurance
ii) page/section reference
iii) relevant standard
iv) proportion of reported Scope 1 emissions
verified (%)
For additional point:
v) statement attached in column 2 - 1 point
3.5 If 3 points scored for disclosure, then 0.5 points scored for
performance.
Attachment will be reviewed only as part of the performance scoring (if
the statement is within a bigger document, e.g. CSR report, the
document will still be checked). Documents hyperlinked to external
websites will not be scored.
The following criteria all must be met to score 3.5 performance
points:
i) the statement clearly relates to GHG emissions, or make reference to
other information attached to this section of the response which
confirms that the subject of the assurance engagement included GHG
emissions
ii) it relates to the relevant scope
iii) it relates to the appropriate reporting year:
- it relates to the twelve month period prior to the current reporting year
where "last year's statement attached" selected in QCC8.6
- it relates to 12 month period 2 years prior to the current reporting year
where "previous statement of biennial process attached" selected in
QCC8.6
- it relates to 12 month period 3 years prior to the current reporting year
where "previous statement of triennial process attached" selected in
QCC8.6
iv) it states the verification standard used, and this is one accepted by
CDP
v) the document contains a verification opinion or finding
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 3.5
CC8.6 "Third party verification or assurance underway for the reporting year but not yet complete - last year’s statement attached", "previous statement of biennial process attached" or "previous
statement of triennial process attached " route
41. CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
1 1 Drop-down options: Third party verification
or assurance underway but not yet complete -
first year it has taken place
0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
3 The following columns must all be completed
to score 1 point:
i) type of verification or assurance
ii) relevant standard
iii) proportion of reported Scope 1 emissions
verified (%)
Companies should answer according to the %
of emissions in the current reporting year that
is being verified/assured.
Note: 1 point is the maximum possible score
if verification/assurance is underway for the
first year - as companies will not be able to
attach a statement.
3.5 If 1 point scored for disclosure then 1 point scored for performance.
Otherwise, 0 points.
Note: 1 point is the maximum possible score if verification/assurance is
underway for the first year - as companies will not be able to attach a
statement.
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 4 3.5
CC8.6 "Third party verification or assurance underway but not yet complete - first year it has taken place" route
42. CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
1 1 Drop-down options: No third party
verification or assurance – regulatory CEMS
required
0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
0 0 0 0
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
3 The following columns must all be completed
to score 2 points:
i) regulation
ii) % of emissions covered by the system
iii) compliance period
For additional point:
iv) attachment attached in the table - 1 point
Disclosure points will not be awarded if the
regulatory regime does not require CEMS
(regardless of whether it allows CEMS) or if
the data collection by CEMS has been done
outside of a regulatory regime. If the regime
requires a further level of third party
verification, this should be reported under
question CC8.6a, so no points will be
awarded for CC8.6b where this is the case.
3.5 If 3 points scored for disclosure, then 0.5 points scored for
performance.
Relevant evidence attached will be checked only as part of the
performance scoring. (If the statement is within a bigger document, e.g.
CSR report, the document will still be checked). Documents
hyperlinked to external websites will not be scored.
3.5 points awarded if all of the following criteria are met:
i) that the date of data submission overlaps with the reporting period
ii) the regulation under which the CEMS data has been submitted
iii) evidence of acceptance of the data by the regulatory authority
iv) the data submitted includes GHG emissions
Performance points will not be awarded if the regulatory regime does
not require CEMS (regardless of whether it allows CEMS) or if the data
collection by CEMS has been done outside of a regulatory regime. If the
regime requires a further level of third party verification, this should be
reported under question CC8.6a, so no points will be awarded for
CC8.6b where this is the case.
Total denominator for this route 4 3.5
CC8.6 "No third party verification or assurance – regulatory CEMS required" route
43. CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
1 1 Drop-down option:
a) Not verified or assured,
b) Biennial process in place but no third party
verification or assurance of reported
emissions, or
c) Triennial process in place but no third party
verification or assurance of reported
emissions
0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
0 3 0 3.5
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 1 4 0 3.5
CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
1 1 Drop-down menu option:
No emissions data provided
0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
0 3 0 3.5
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 1 4 0 3.5
CC8.6 Please indicate the verification/assurance status
that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
0 1 No selection made: 0 points 0 0
CC8.6a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope
1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
0 3 0 3.5
CC8.6b Please provide further details of the regulatory
regime to which you are complying that specifies
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS)
0 0 0 0
Total denominator for this route 0 4 0 3.5
CC8.6 "No third party verification or assurance", "Biennial process in place but no third party verification or assurance of reported emissions" or "Triennial process in place but no third party
verification or assurance of reported emissions" route
CC8.6 "No emissions data provided" route
CC8.6 "Questions not answered" route
44. Verification or assurance of Scope 2 emissions
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
CC8.7 Please indicate the
verification/assurance status that
applies to your reported Scope 2
emissions
1 1 Drop-down option: Third party verification
or assurance complete
0 0
CC8.7a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken
for your Scope 2 emissions, and
attach the relevant statements
3 The following columns must all be
completed to score 2 points:
i) type of verification or assurance
ii) page/section reference
iii) relevant standard
iv) proportion of reported Scope 1
emissions verified (%)
For additional point:
v) statement attached in column 2 - 1 point
3.5 If 3 points scored for disclosure, then 0.5 points scored for
performance.
Attachment will be reviewed only as part of the performance scoring
(if the statement is within a bigger document, e.g. CSR report, the
document will still be checked). Documents hyperlinked to external
websites will not be scored.
The following criteria all must be met to score 3.5 performance
points:
i) the statement clearly relates to GHG emissions, or make reference
to other information attached to this section of the response which
confirms that the subject of the assurance engagement included GHG
emissions
ii) it relates to the relevant scope
iii) it relates to the correct reporting year
iv) it states the verification standard used, and this is one accepted by
CDP
v) the document contains a verification opinion or finding
Total denominator for this route 4 3.5
Disclosure scoring criteria
CC8.7 "Third party verification or assurance complete" route
External verification or assurance
Please check CDP's verification requirements at: https://www.cdp.net/verification
If your verification/assurance statement contains confidential information, it is sufficient to attach a letter from your verifier/assurer covering the minimum details required by the scoring methodology. CDP is
also defining a verification template which will be available on our website.
CDP requires third party verification. Statements will be rejected if it is clear that they relate to an internal audit or verification procedure.
A list of accepted verification/assurance standards for 2014 can be found on CDP's website. Please note that “agreed upon procedures”, “pre-assurance” or draft assurance are not accepted as verification
under the scoring methodology. A document will be regarded as final if it has either a signature from the verification practitioner or body, or is on letterheaded paper from the verification body.
Number Question
Disclosure Score Performance Score
Performance scoring criteria
45. CC8.7 Please indicate the
verification/assurance status that
applies to your reported Scope 2
emissions
1 1 Drop-down options:
a) Third party verification or assurance
underway but not yet complete - last year’s
statement attached;
b) Third party verification or assurance
underway but not yet complete - previous
statement of biennial process attached;
c) Third party verification or assurance
underway but not yet complete - previous
statement of triennial process attached.
0 0
CC8.7a Please provide further details of the
verification/assurance undertaken
for your Scope 2 emissions, and
attach the relevant statements
3 The following columns must all be
completed to score 2 points:
i) type of verification or assurance
ii) page/section reference
iii) relevant standard
iv) proportion of reported Scope 1
emissions verified (%)
For additional point:
v) statement attached in column 2 - 1 point
3.5 If 3 points scored for disclosure, then 0.5 points scored for
performance.
Attachment will be reviewed only as part of the performance scoring
(if the statement is within a bigger document, e.g. CSR report, the
document will still be checked). Documents hyperlinked to external
websites will not be scored.
The following criteria all must be met to score 3.5 performance
points:
i) the statement clearly relates to GHG emissions, or make reference
to other information attached to this section of the response which
confirms that the subject of the assurance engagement included GHG
emissions
ii) it relates to the relevant scope
iii) it relates to the appropriate reporting year:
- it relates to the twelve month period prior to the current reporting
year where "last year's statement attached" selected in QCC8.7
- it relates to 12 month period 2 years prior to the current reporting
year where "previous statement of biennial process attached"
selected in QCC8.7
- it relates to 12 month period 3 years prior to the current reporting
year where "previous statement of triennial process attached"
selected in QCC8.7
iv) it states the verification standard used, and this is one accepted by
CDP
v) the document contains a verification opinion or finding
Total denominator for this route 4 3.5
CC8.7 "Third party verification or assurance underway for the reporting year but not yet complete - last year’s statement attached", "previous statement of biennial process
attached" or "previous statement of triennial process attached " route