ESG Questionnaire Template: 20 Questions for Companies & Suppliers

Every year, companies field dozens of ESG questionnaires from customers, investors, banks, and procurement teams — each with its own structure, its own framework reference, and its own deadline. The experience is familiar: a spreadsheet arrives, the questions look deceptively manageable, and then data gathering turns into a three-week cross-departmental exercise. What separates companies that handle this efficiently from those that scramble is not size or budget. It is preparation, a clear response framework, and a realistic understanding of what different stakeholders actually want to see.

This guide addresses exactly that gap. It covers the 20 most critical ESG questionnaire questions — with sample response language and data requirements — explains how to structure your answers across CSRD, CDP, EcoVadis, and SFDR contexts, and provides benchmarking guidance so you can assess where your responses sit relative to sector peers. Whether you are completing your first supplier questionnaire or preparing for a CSRD-aligned investor due diligence, the following frameworks apply directly to your situation.

The Regulatory Context in 2026: CSRD, Omnibus, and What Changed

The regulatory backdrop for ESG questionnaires shifted significantly with the December 2025 Omnibus provisional agreement between the European Parliament and Council. CSRD now applies only to companies meeting two cumulative thresholds: more than 1,000 employees and more than €450 million in net turnover. The two-year "Stop-the-Clock" delay pushed first reporting under these revised criteria to FY 2027 for in-scope EU companies. Listed SMEs have been removed from mandatory CSRD scope entirely.

What this means practically: companies that were previously preparing for CSRD compliance are now reassessing whether mandatory reporting obligations still apply to them. At the same time, market-driven ESG questionnaires — from customers, supply chain partners, and investors — are not going away. If anything, the Omnibus simplification has shifted the conversation from regulatory compliance toward commercial necessity. Large companies that remain in scope still need ESG data from their supply chains, regardless of whether their SME suppliers have a formal CSRD obligation.

For companies subject to CSRD, reporting follows the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) — 12 standards covering environmental, social, and governance topics. All companies must comply with ESRS 1 and ESRS 2 as cross-cutting standards. The 10 topical standards are subject to a double materiality assessment, which determines which topics require disclosure based on both financial materiality (outside-in risks) and impact materiality (inside-out effects). EFRAG issued draft simplification guidance in July 2025, with final guidance expected in Q1/Q2 2026.

Globally, the picture is converging. California's SB 253 required Scope 1 and 2 reporting from January 2026, with Scope 3 following in January 2027. China issued its first Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Standard in 2025. ESG questionnaire responses that align with CSRD/ESRS are increasingly portable across jurisdictions — a well-structured CSRD response provides a strong foundation for CDP, SFDR, and international investor requests simultaneously.

Framework Comparison: CSRD, CDP, EcoVadis, SFDR, and GRI

One of the most frequent sources of confusion when responding to ESG questionnaires is framework alignment. You receive a questionnaire referencing "GRI indicators," another citing "CDP 2025," and a third from a private equity fund referencing "SFDR PAIs." Understanding how these relate prevents duplicated effort and helps you build a single data set that feeds multiple questionnaire types.

CSRD/ESRS — the EU mandatory baseline

For companies within CSRD scope, ESRS is the primary framework. It integrates and supersedes many earlier voluntary standards. The double materiality logic underpins every disclosure decision: what is financially material to the company, and what impact does the company have on people and environment. ESRS E1 (climate) is the most data-intensive topical standard and forms the backbone of most questionnaire environmental sections.

CDP — climate, water, and forests depth

CDP scores companies on a band from D- to A, with the A List representing the highest level of disclosure and action. CDP questionnaires align with TCFD, SBTi, ISO 14064, and the GHG Protocol. CDP restructured its questionnaire in 2024–2025 into a single integrated module covering Climate Change, Water Security and Forests — a substantial workflow change for companies that previously responded to each module separately. The March 2025 CDP–EFRAG correspondence mapping then established that companies reporting under CSRD can substantially reuse their ESRS E1 data for CDP responses, which is a significant efficiency gain. CDP is particularly relevant for companies with significant environmental footprints seeking investor credibility and supply chain transparency.

EcoVadis — B2B procurement and supply chain

EcoVadis scores companies on a 0–100 scale with medal ratings (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum). It aligns with ISO 26000, GRI, and the UN Global Compact, covering environment, labour and human rights, ethics, and sustainable procurement. EcoVadis is the most common questionnaire format in B2B procurement — if your customers include large multinationals, a pending EcoVadis assessment is likely. Scores are commercially visible and shared with customers, making them a direct factor in contract decisions. The late-2025 methodology refresh raised the weight of Scope 3 disclosure and supply-chain transparency in the environment pillar and tightened thresholds in the upper performance bands — companies that previously held a Gold or Platinum medal are seeing more pressure to provide actual Scope 3 data rather than narrative-only responses.

SFDR — investor-specific requirements

The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation governs how financial market participants — including VC funds, private equity, and asset managers — communicate on sustainability. Article 8 and Article 9 fund classifications create specific data requirements that flow down to portfolio companies. If you are preparing for a financing round or have institutional investors, you should expect ESG questionnaire questions aligned with SFDR Principal Adverse Impact indicators. The Commission's SFDR 2.0 proposal (20 November 2025) restructures the regime into three product categories — Sustainable, Transition and ESG Basics — each requiring 70% portfolio alignment and removing entity-level PAI disclosure for most managers. Realistic application date is 2027–2028, but investor questionnaires already begin to reflect the new categories. The guide on ESG value for startups and venture capital covers this in more detail.

GRI — voluntary but widely referenced

GRI remains the most widely used global voluntary framework for sustainability reporting. Many custom questionnaires reference GRI indicator numbers. Strong GRI disclosures translate well across CDP, EcoVadis, and ESRS contexts. The new topic-specific standards on Climate Change (GRI 102) and Energy (GRI 103) — consulted in 2024–2025 with final publication expected in 2026 — bring GRI's climate disclosures closer in line with ESRS E1 and the IFRS S2 architecture, reducing duplication for companies that respond to both voluntary and regulatory questionnaires. Companies preparing a full sustainability report typically use GRI as a structural reference.

20 Critical ESG Questionnaire Questions with Response Frameworks

The following 20 questions appear most frequently across CSRD, CDP, EcoVadis, SFDR, and customer supply chain questionnaires. For each question, the response framework describes what data to provide, what level of detail is typically expected, and what a strong versus weak answer looks like in practice. Preparing these responses in advance allows you to complete most incoming questionnaires in hours rather than weeks.

Environmental (Questions 1–8)

1. What are your Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions?
Provide most recent full-year figures in tCO₂e. Separate market-based and location-based Scope 2 values. For Scope 3, disclose which categories you have measured and state your methodology (GHG Protocol, ISO 14064). A weak response gives a single combined figure with no boundary explanation. A strong response shows methodology, boundary, base year, and year-on-year trend. Scope 3 coverage is increasingly scrutinised — even partial disclosure is better than omission. Our Scope 3 decarbonisation guide provides category-level methodology guidance.

2. Do you have a science-based emissions reduction target (SBTi)?
State whether targets are validated, committed, or in development. If no SBTi is in place, describe your reduction goal, base year, and timeline. Link to your SBTi profile or CDP page. Companies that say "we are assessing SBTi" without a commitment date are rated lower than those with a defined timeline — even without validation. See the SBTi guide for commitment pathway details.

3. What percentage of your energy comes from renewable sources?
Report the share of electricity and total energy from renewables as a percentage of total consumption. Specify whether renewable energy is sourced via physical supply, power purchase agreements (PPAs), or energy certificates (RECs/GOs). For ESRS E1 purposes, market-based instruments must be clearly distinguished from actual physical supply. The distinction matters — particularly for companies considering PPAs as a Scope 2 reduction strategy.

4. What is your energy intensity?
Total energy consumption (MWh) divided by revenue (€M). Include reporting boundary and show year-on-year trend. Normalised intensity metrics allow peer comparison even when absolute consumption changes due to business growth.

5. How do you manage water consumption and withdrawal?
Report total withdrawal by source. Identify water-stressed locations using WRI Aqueduct or equivalent. Describe conservation measures and any reduction targets. Companies with operations in water-stressed regions face heightened scrutiny — a water risk assessment is foundational to answering this credibly.

6. What is your waste diversion rate?
Total waste generated (tonnes) and the percentage diverted from landfill through recycling or reuse. Distinguish hazardous from non-hazardous waste streams. Show a multi-year trend — static figures raise questions about whether tracking is actually in place.

7. Are you EU Taxonomy-aligned?
Report the share of Taxonomy-eligible and Taxonomy-aligned revenue, capex, and opex. If you have not yet conducted a Taxonomy assessment, provide your timeline and the eligible activities you expect to identify. The EU Taxonomy checklist covers the technical screening criteria and Do No Significant Harm requirements in detail.

8. Have you conducted a climate risk assessment?
Describe physical and transition climate risks identified, the time horizons used (short, medium, long), and how risks integrate into your strategy and risk management. CSRD requires this under ESRS E1; TCFD-aligned investors expect the same logic. The guide on climate risk assessment and management covers scenario analysis methodology, including how to work with RCP and SSP climate data.

Social (Questions 9–15)

9. What is your employee gender diversity ratio?
Report the percentage of women across total workforce, management, and board. Reference any targets and show progress over time. ESRS S1 requires workforce composition disclosures for in-scope companies.

10. What is your employee turnover rate?
Voluntary and total turnover for the most recent reporting year, compared to industry benchmarks where available. Describe retention initiatives. High turnover without explanatory context is a red flag in social assessments.

11. What is your Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR)?
LTIFR per 1,000,000 hours worked. Include Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) if tracked. Reference any safety management certifications (ISO 45001) and show year-on-year trend.

12. Do you have a living wage policy?
Confirm whether all employees are paid at or above the relevant living wage benchmark. Reference the methodology used (e.g., Anker Research Institute) and disclose any gaps, particularly in high-cost locations or for contractors.

13. How do you assess supply chain human rights risks?
Describe your supplier due diligence process, risk screening methodology, audit standards used (SA8000, SMETA, Sedex), and corrective action procedures. Reference applicable regulation: Germany's LkSG, the EU CSDDD, or sector-specific requirements. This question has gained significant weight post-CSDDD — vague answers score poorly.

14. What is your employee training investment?
Average training hours per employee per year, differentiated by type (technical, ESG, compliance, leadership). Include spend per employee where available. Training data signals investment in human capital and is a proxy for organisational resilience.

15. Do you have a whistleblower or ethics reporting channel?
Confirm the existence of an anonymous reporting channel compliant with the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive. Disclose the number of reports received and resolved in the most recent year. The absence of this mechanism is a governance gap that most frameworks flag explicitly.

Governance (Questions 16–20)

16. What percentage of your board is independent?
Share of independent non-executive directors. Board size, tenure, and compliance with relevant governance code thresholds. For founder-led companies, address the governance transition plan explicitly — this is a common question in VC due diligence.

17. Do you have a board-level ESG or sustainability committee?
Dedicated board committee or embedded ESG mandate within an existing committee (audit/risk). Describe its mandate, meeting frequency, and key decisions taken in the past year.

18. Is executive compensation linked to ESG targets?
Which ESG metrics appear in short- or long-term incentive plans, what weighting is applied, and how targets are set and independently verified. Compensation linkage is one of the strongest signals of genuine ESG integration versus compliance positioning.

19. Have you experienced significant ESG-related fines or controversies in the past three years?
Disclose material fines, regulatory sanctions, or public controversies. Describe the remediation actions taken. Transparency here builds more credibility than omission — assessors cross-check against news databases, and undisclosed controversies that surface later are rated more negatively than disclosed ones.

20. What ESG reporting framework do you use?
List frameworks used (GRI, ESRS, VSME, SASB, CDP). For EU companies, state your CSRD/ESRS timeline and current preparation status. Include external assurance or third-party verification details. Companies with assured disclosures consistently score higher on credibility across all major ESG rating systems.

How to Answer an ESG Questionnaire: A Step-by-Step Approach

Most ESG questionnaires contain a predictable structure, and yet the majority of companies still approach them reactively — receiving the questionnaire, then starting data collection from scratch. The following workflow changes that dynamic.

Step 1: Read the full questionnaire before answering anything

Identify which sections you can complete immediately from existing data, which require input from colleagues (HR, finance, operations, legal), and which require new information gathering. Flag questions with specific data requirements — precise emission figures, injury rates, financial thresholds — because these take longest. Prioritise document collection early in the process.

Step 2: Assemble your existing documentation

Most companies already have 60–80% of the information they need — scattered across utility bills, HR systems, annual reports, procurement contracts, and previous questionnaire responses. The problem is organisation, not absence. A standardised ESG data folder — shared across relevant functions — reduces response time on repeat questionnaires by more than half. Pull together policies, certifications, previous questionnaire responses, sustainability reports, and financial data before drafting a single answer.

Step 3: Check previous questionnaire responses for reusable content

If you have responded to ESG questionnaires before — even two or three years ago — compare the new questions against your archive. Overlap between questionnaires from different senders is consistently high. Response language from a previous EcoVadis submission often translates directly into a customer supply chain questionnaire. Update the data, not the structure.

Step 4: Calibrate your claims to your evidence

This is where many companies lose points — particularly on EcoVadis and CDP assessments. If you select "systematic approach with continuous improvement," you need documented evidence of both the systematic approach (written procedures, assigned responsibilities) and the continuous improvement (trend data, corrective action records, target-setting). Aspirational language without documentation consistently scores lower than modest claims with strong evidence.

Step 5: Align responses across stakeholders before submission

Inconsistencies between your ESG questionnaire responses and your published sustainability report, annual report, or investor communications are a credibility risk. Large customers and institutional investors cross-reference these sources. A quick internal alignment check before submission prevents avoidable inconsistencies. Avoiding greenwashing is not only a regulatory concern under the Green Claims Directive — it is a rating factor in most ESG assessment systems.

Step 6: Anticipate the most common rejection patterns

Most score drops come from a small set of recurring patterns rather than from new categories of failure. Inconsistent reporting boundaries between questions are the most common — a GHG question covering the consolidated group while the diversity question covers only the parent entity invites assessor doubt. Aspirational language without an associated commitment date ("we are assessing SBTi", "we plan to introduce a supplier code") consistently scores below modest claims with strong evidence. Investor questionnaires increasingly penalise the absence of a Do No Significant Harm explanation under SFDR. Scope 3 figures without a verification statement or a clear data-quality declaration are downgraded by both EcoVadis and CDP. Pre-empt these patterns in your draft and your scores stabilise across cycles.

ESG Questionnaire Best Practice: Benchmarking and Peer Comparison

Listing questions is the easy part. Understanding where your responses sit relative to industry peers — and how they will be rated — requires a different approach: structured benchmarking before, during, and after questionnaire completion.

Absolute benchmarking: measuring against your own baseline

Absolute benchmarking compares your current performance against your own past performance or against fixed standards (GRI, ISO, SDGs). It is the starting point for setting internal targets and demonstrating year-on-year progress. Companies that track even basic ESG metrics across multiple years can demonstrate a performance trajectory — which assessors value significantly more than a single point-in-time figure.

Peer benchmarking: understanding relative performance

Peer benchmarking places your ESG performance in sector context. It requires identifying a relevant peer group (direct competitors, sector leaders, aspiration peers), mapping their public ESG disclosures, and identifying gaps. Europe's more prescriptive regulatory framework means European peer comparisons tend to produce higher absolute disclosure standards than US peers — but within-sector comparison is the relevant benchmark for most questionnaire assessments. A carbon intensity figure that looks high in isolation may be sector-average — or above average — depending on the peer group applied.

The practical implication: before submitting a questionnaire, run a quick peer comparison on the three to five metrics most heavily weighted in that specific framework. For EcoVadis, environmental and labour topics carry the highest weight. For CDP Climate, Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, targets, and climate governance are primary. For SFDR PAI assessments, GHG intensity, board gender diversity, and controversy exposure are key. Our article on ESG metrics for 2026 covers required and best-practice indicators across frameworks.

What "best practice" looks like in practice

Best practice ESG questionnaire responses share four characteristics: they reference recognised frameworks explicitly, they provide quantified data with a defined reporting boundary, they show year-on-year trend data rather than single-year figures, and they disclose gaps alongside the measures being taken to close them. Assessors review hundreds of questionnaires — responses that are transparent about limitations while describing credible improvement plans consistently outperform responses that present only positive information.

In practice, one frequently overlooked aspect of questionnaire best practice is the governance section. Companies that invest heavily in environmental data collection often provide thin governance responses — partly because governance feels less tangible, partly because it requires input from legal and leadership teams who are less familiar with ESG questionnaire formats. This is precisely where differentiation is possible. Even a founder-led SME can demonstrate strong governance by documenting who makes sustainability-related decisions, how those decisions are recorded, and what the escalation path is for ESG-related risks. The ESG implementation strategy guide covers governance setup in detail.

Building the Data Infrastructure Behind Strong Responses

The quality of an ESG questionnaire response is ultimately constrained by the quality of the underlying data. Companies that struggle with repeated questionnaire cycles typically have one of three problems: data is tracked but scattered across systems and functions, data is tracked inconsistently (different boundaries, different methodologies year-on-year), or data gaps exist where no tracking system is in place at all.

Mapping your current data state

Before investing in new tools, map what you already have. Most companies track energy consumption through utility bills, headcount and HR metrics through payroll or HR systems, procurement spend through finance, and incident records through operations or HSE functions. The gap is typically in CO2 accounting (particularly Scope 3), supply chain data, and formalised policy documentation. Our article on carbon accounting for startups identifies the four most common data collection mistakes — many of which apply equally to mid-sized companies.

Prioritising data collection by questionnaire weight

Not all ESG data points carry equal weight in assessments. Prioritise data collection based on what is most heavily weighted in the questionnaires you receive most frequently. For companies in manufacturing supply chains, Scope 1 and 2 emissions, energy intensity, and supplier due diligence are highest-priority. For companies seeking institutional investment, governance metrics, climate risk disclosures, and SFDR PAI indicators carry the most weight. For companies undergoing CSRD reporting preparation, double materiality assessment outputs define which data points are material and therefore which to invest in tracking.

Aligning ESG data with financial systems

The convergence of ESG and financial reporting — accelerated by CSRD and the EU Taxonomy — means ESG data increasingly needs to meet the same quality standards as financial data. This includes clear data governance (who owns each metric), defined calculation methodologies, audit trails, and version control. Companies preparing for external assurance of their sustainability reports should apply financial-reporting-grade controls to their top 10–15 material ESG metrics well before assurance commences. The sustainability and ESG compliance guide covers technology options for data management at different company scales.

One aspect worth raising explicitly: product-level data is becoming increasingly relevant in ESG questionnaires, particularly in manufacturing and retail supply chains. Questions about life cycle assessment methodology and product carbon footprints are appearing in customer questionnaires with growing frequency, driven by both the Green Claims Directive and EUDR-related traceability requirements. If your product portfolio includes commodities or materials covered by the EUDR, expect questionnaire questions specifically addressing deforestation-free sourcing.

Nature and biodiversity disclosures represent an emerging frontier in ESG questionnaires — still nascent in most commercial questionnaires, but increasingly present in investor assessments aligned with the TNFD framework. Companies operating in sectors with significant land use or biodiversity exposure should begin tracking relevant metrics now, ahead of broader questionnaire adoption.

FAQ

What is an ESG questionnaire template and what should it include?

An ESG questionnaire template is a structured document covering environmental, social, and governance topics in a standardised format. A robust template includes questions on GHG emissions (Scope 1, 2, 3), energy and water consumption, waste management, employee diversity and safety, supply chain due diligence, governance structures, and reporting framework alignment. Templates vary by context: CDP and EcoVadis use proprietary formats, while investor questionnaires often reference SFDR Principal Adverse Impact indicators and ESRS data points. The 20 questions in this article represent the core that appears across virtually all major template types.

How should a company respond to an ESG questionnaire?

Effective ESG questionnaire responses are built on three principles: providing quantified data with a defined reporting boundary and methodology, showing year-on-year trends rather than single-year figures, and disclosing gaps alongside credible improvement measures. Before drafting responses, assemble existing documentation (sustainability reports, certifications, utility bills, HR data), check previous questionnaire submissions for reusable content, and calibrate claims to available evidence. Overstating practices without documentation consistently scores lower than modest claims backed by clear proof.

How do CSRD and ESRS relate to ESG questionnaires?

CSRD is the EU regulatory framework requiring sustainability reporting, and ESRS are the standards companies use to report under it. For companies within CSRD scope (post-Omnibus: more than 1,000 employees and more than €450 million turnover), ESRS disclosures provide the data foundation for most ESG questionnaires. The CDP–EFRAG correspondence mapping published in March 2025 means ESRS E1 data can be directly reused in CDP questionnaire responses, significantly reducing duplication. CSRD/ESRS data is increasingly recognised by EcoVadis, SFDR investors, and customer supply chain questionnaires as a credible disclosure standard.

What is ESG questionnaire best practice for peer benchmarking?

Best practice benchmarking involves two steps: absolute benchmarking (comparing your performance against your own past results and fixed standards like GRI) and peer benchmarking (comparing against sector competitors and aspiration peers). Before submitting a questionnaire, run a targeted peer comparison on the three to five metrics most heavily weighted in that specific framework. For EcoVadis, environmental and labour topics carry the most weight. For CDP Climate, Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and climate governance are primary. Publicly available sustainability reports, EcoVadis published benchmarks, and CDP sector summaries are the primary data sources for peer comparison.

How does an ESG questionnaire differ from a sustainability report?

A sustainability report is a comprehensive, company-authored document disclosing ESG performance against selected frameworks (GRI, ESRS, CSRD). An ESG questionnaire is a structured survey sent by an external stakeholder — investor, customer, bank, or procurement team — requesting specific data points in a standardised format. Questionnaires typically require more granular, comparable data than narrative reports and are assessed against peer benchmarks. Strong sustainability reports significantly reduce questionnaire response time because the underlying data is already organised and verified. Companies that maintain a sustainability report alongside a live ESG data set can complete most incoming questionnaires in a fraction of the time required by companies starting from scratch.

Which ESG questionnaire framework is most relevant for B2B companies?

For most B2B companies selling to large European or multinational customers, EcoVadis is the most immediately relevant framework — it is used across industries for supplier assessment and produces a commercially visible score that affects contract decisions. CDP is most relevant for companies with significant environmental footprints or institutional investors. SFDR PAI questionnaires are relevant for companies seeking private equity or VC investment. CSRD/ESRS is the regulatory baseline for in-scope EU companies and provides the data foundation for all other framework responses. Most B2B companies benefit from building a unified ESG data set that feeds all four frameworks simultaneously rather than managing them separately.

What is the most common reason companies score poorly on ESG questionnaires?

The most frequent cause of poor questionnaire scores is not weak ESG performance — it is poor documentation. Companies that have implemented reasonable environmental, social, and governance practices but have not formalised policies, assigned ownership, or tracked metrics consistently will score lower than companies with less mature practices that are well-documented and evidenced. For supply chain questionnaires, thin governance responses and absent supplier due diligence procedures are the most common specific weaknesses. The practical fix is establishing a centralised ESG data file, updating it quarterly, and ensuring key policies (environmental, anti-corruption, whistleblower, health and safety) are formally documented and dated.