One simple explanation is just having the name in these leadership indices list promotes brand perception for the companies which in turn increases their brand value. Stakeholder pressure also pressures companies to do so. NGOs, trade associations, government, shareholders and investors are asking for more disclosures – and this trend is growing every day. Walmart, Dell and other companies are requesting disclosure information from their suppliers.

Vendor scorecards have existed for a long time, but what has changed is the amount of information asked. Modern day scorecards rate the Sustainable supply chain, climate change and natural resources management initiatives of the companies.

From an investor’s’ point of view, investing in a company which has assessed its long term climate change risks makes more sense. Sustainable investment, also known as ‘socially responsible investment’ (SRI), has grown enormously in the past decade. In many cases, sustainable funds have outperformed the market. A recent survey , conducted by IISD demonstrates this trend clearly. Of the 300 investment professionals who participated, 33% reported that they or their firms offered Sustainable investment as one of the options for Sustainability Performance Management.

Additional motivation for the companies can be to see their name in the Leadership indices like CDLI and CPLI. Many managers feel that the visibility and the interest of such indices generates translates into investor confidence in the long run.

So, to answer the question I posed in the beginning, companies have to measure and report a lot of data to their various stakeholders. It makes sense to earn more returns on their efforts by reporting it to organizations like CDP and GRI and gain a competitive advantage from it.