What counts as a change in methodology, boundary or reporting year in CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) question 7.1.2?
CDP lists a change in methodology such as new emission factors, a change in boundary, a change in reporting year definition, and a No-type option for significant errors in your previous response. Tick all that happened in the reporting year, and do not tick a Yes option together with the errors option for the same thing.
The options in CDP's own words
- Yes, a change in methodology: modifications in the way the inventory is calculated, for example changes in emission factors used or in the methodology protocol followed.
- Yes, a change in boundary: for example changing your consolidation approach (which entities count as yours) from financial control to operational control. It can also apply if you added facilities, activities or Scope 3 categories that were excluded before, or if you insourced or outsourced an activity.
- Yes, a change in reporting year definition: for example moving from a calendar year to a fiscal year.
- No, but we have discovered significant errors in our previous response(s): CDP says this means one significant error, or a number of errors that are collectively significant.
- No.
What to write in column 2
Up to 2,500 characters, and the column appears only if you ticked a Yes option. CDP asks you to describe how and why the methodology changed, or give the context for any discovered errors. If you added facilities, list them with their location. If you added Scope 3 categories, name them.
Where a new grid factor sits
CDP's methodology example is a change in the emission factors you use. My reading: that describes choosing a different factor or source, for example moving from a state figure to the national one. A Central Electricity Authority (CEA) factor for a later year reflects a real change in the grid, which the linked answer treats as no method change. If you are unsure, tick the option and explain in column 2; a short honest note costs less than a buyer's question.
What it triggers
Any Yes option, or the errors option, makes question 7.1.3 appear. CDP says there that a company may decide not to recalculate the base year when the impact is not material or significant, using the threshold in its own recalculation policy.
Example: three changes in one year
- Last year: Scope 1 and 2 only, financial year April to March, financial control.
- This year: you add Scope 3 category 4 (upstream freight), switch to operational control, and add the new packing unit.
- Tick: change in boundary. Column 2: "Consolidation approach changed from financial control to operational control. Packing unit at Pune added. Scope 3 category 4 added for the first time." No methodology or year change to tick.
Example facts. The wording of your own column 2 should match your recalculation policy.
What Senseible does here
Senseible reads fuel invoices and electricity bills into monthly records, so the litres, kilowatt hours and months are in one place to copy from. It does not enter your answers in the CDP portal, and refrigerant top-ups need your own service records.
- CDP 7.1.3: recalculating a base year
- Past years when the grid factor changes
- Financial or calendar year for a footprint
- Found an error in a reported figure
Sources: CDP, Full Corporate Questionnaire Module 7 reporting guidance (April 2025 edition)
Last reviewed 2026-11-06. Wording is from CDP guidance for its 2025 corporate questionnaire. Check the version your customer sent. The grid factor reading is mine, not CDP's.