Status: DRAFT protocol. This page announces in advance and immutably how the period badges will be awarded; the first-period calculation has not yet been performed and no company has been given the CB-B badge. Once the first production run happens, this notice will be removed and the period archive will be listed here. (The standalone embedded "Transparency Score" badge — Get Your Badge — is independent of this and is live today.)
Definition, criteria formulas, and publication procedure for periodic performance badges · 2026-07-20 · CC BY-ND 4.0. Full normative text: docs/badge-protocol-cb-b.md. English is the reference language for this protocol.
Each badge is a periodic derivative of three metrics already calculated and sealed by the CB-P protocol — Accuracy Estimate (CB-P §9.4.1), Transparency Score v0.2 and Target Quality v2. Badge computation collects no new data and does not change scores; it runs the sealed scores in the period snapshot through closed-form criteria. Any third party using the same snapshot and the same criteria version arrives at the same badge list. The unit of competition is the subsector (v1.0: 17 sector groups).
| Attribution | Where in the badge criteria |
|---|---|
| GHG Protocol Corporate Standard (Rev. ed. 2004; Scope 2 Guidance 2015) | Scope 1/2/3 definitions; the magnitude of Scope 1+2 across all criteria; the comparison band being location-based |
| ISO 14064-1:2018 · 14064-3:2019 | Inventory/disclosure/assurance terminology; a badge is NOT a verification opinion |
| CSRD (EU) 2022/2464 + ESRS E1 (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772) | E1-6 sector intensity comparison framework (in-band disclosure requirement, annex medians); E1-4 targets; EU coverage base |
| SEC climate rule (17 CFR 210, 229, 232, 239, 249 — March 2024) | US disclosure framework reference. Honest note: enforcement is stayed due to litigation (SEC 2024 stay; withdrew defense in 2025) |
| California SB 253 (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) & SB 261 | While the SEC rule is stayed, the de facto driver of reporting in the US universe; rationale for the US coverage base |
| SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard | Target Quality's SBTi + 1.5° pace components → Sector Leader composite |
| IFRS S2 (ISSB, 2023) | Global baseline; TSRS 2 coverage; industry guidance ties to SASB metrics |
| SASB Standards (77 industries; ISSB/IFRS framework) | Metric selection for sector annexes; SICS ↔ NACE mapping; definition of the physical intensity denominator (activity metric) |
| TCFD (2017 — historical; monitoring transferred to IFRS) | Legacy of the Target Quality structure; carried into the new context via IFRS S2 |
| GRI 305: Emissions | Disclosure structure of reports in the universe; breakdown/intensity signals align with this practice |
| CDP climate questionnaire | Only public responses can serve as cross-consistency evidence; a CDP score never enters the criteria through any channel |
Common prerequisites: active + sealed before the period cutoff · most recent record per company · not in "reading under verification" status · no active score cap · badge is awarded to the company+period.
Highest R in the subsector wins. Conditions: min n = 8 eligible companies (if not met, the competition does not open) · in-band disclosure requirement (the disclosure must fall within its own 95% confidence band; anything outside the band cannot take the first badge). Tie-break: Accuracy → narrower band → earlier seal. Each period report publishes whether the winner changes when weights are perturbed by ±0.05 (the "sensitive first place" note).
Highest Transparency Score v0.2 in the subsector (6 components: EF 27 · GWP 13 · methodology 18 · internal consistency 14 · Scope 3 18 · value chain 10). Conditions: min n=8 · absolute floor TS ≥ 70 (the least-bad company in a weak sector cannot be declared "Most Transparent").
Two periods of data are required; a company scored for the first time cannot be a candidate. A score change caused by a formula version update does not count as momentum (per the "reason for change" distinction in the score history). The +5 threshold was chosen to stay above the noise of measured reading variability: it rewards the submission of new evidence, not minor fluctuation.
No competition — anyone who clears the threshold gets it: disclosure within the 95% band · no cap · no gross-error flag during the period · Accuracy Estimate ≥ 70 (an overly wide band "contains" every disclosure; the threshold restricts this to cases where the band is narrow — i.e., the evidence is strong).
An automatically generated appendix added to the periodic report for each sub-sector: cross-section summary (n, whether the contest is open) · Accuracy/Transparency/Target medians (p25/p75) · in applicable sectors, physical intensity bands with source citations (IEA steel ~1.4 tCO₂e/t · GCCA/IEA cement ~0.6 · IAI aluminum; the denominator definition aligned to the SASB activity metric) · period winners + sensitivity note · the "universe = report publishers" notice. Production: a deterministic badge-period generator (planned) that shares the data path of the sector leagues.
Send comments and objections through the Support page (Other / general contact category), citing the clause number. The full normative text is docs/badge-protocol-cb-b.md. The English edition is the reference text. It replaces the Turkish text of July 20, 2026 in that role, and if the two differ, the English text prevails.