The assessment methodology updates in Q1 2026 cover the following topics:
32.1 New methodology disclosure documents published for all solutions
Change: Content expansion
Affects: New regulations
Objective: Align methodology transparency and governance with the EU ESG Rating Regulation
Applies to: Sustainability Rating; Carbon Action Manager; IQ Plus; Vitals
Release date: Apr 1, 2026
Summary:
We are making structural enhancements to our methodology governance and transparency framework in alignment with the EU ESG Rating Regulation. As such, for each EcoVadis rating product (Sustainability Rating, Carbon Rating, Carbon Heatmap, IQ Plus and Vitals), we are publishing a comprehensive methodology disclosure document and a unified methodology versioning system. Our methodology review procedure is also enhanced with a new systematic public consultations for material changes.
Why was this change made?
The upcoming entry of the ESGR into force will establish a level playing field for all ESG raters operating within the EU, in particular, in the field of ratings’ transparency. These changes benefit both rating users and rated companies by providing complete, publicly available information on exactly how our assessments are constructed, maintained, and governed. EcoVadis methodologies are principled to remain rigorous, systematic, independent, and capable of justification,as required by the new ESG Rater regulation. Ultimately, this improves the customer journey by demystifying our analytical processes and giving stakeholders an active voice in shaping major methodological shifts.
What has changed?
Comprehensive Methodology Disclosures: In alignment with EU transparency standards, we have published detailed methodology disclosure documents for all EcoVadis products (Sustainability Rating, Carbon Rating, Carbon Heatmap, IQ Plus, and Vitals). These documents, available in a dedicated “Regulatory disclosures” section on the EcoVadis platform, openly outline the product's objective, scope, ranking system, key assumptions, data sources, data processes, and any inherent limitations in the methodology
Unified Methodology Versioning: To ensure full traceability and regulatory compliance, we have introduced a unified "Major.Minor" versioning system (e.g., V1.0, V1.1, V2.0) across our methodologies. Major version changes reflect material updates to the methodology, while minor versions reflect technical or functional revisions. This system guarantees that every rating outcome can be accurately traced back to a specific, consistent set of rules
New Methodology Review Procedure: We have strengthened our review process for updating our methodologies through a rigorous, six-phase process which includes initiation, proposal, internal validation, impact assessment, public consultation, and approval. Crucially, if a proposed change is deemed material, meaning it is expected to significantly shift the rating outcome for more than 10% of the rated universe, we will conduct a quantitative impact assessment. This will be followed by a mandatory 30-day public consultation period, allowing stakeholders to submit formal feedback before the change is approved and implemented. All methodology reviews and changes will continue to be communicated to rating users and rated entities transparently via our quarterly methodology change communications.
32.2 Removal of turnover when calculating the % of evidence coverage at site level
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: All themes; Assessment scope; Help content for answering questionnaire; Policies; Endorsements; Reporting
Objective: Update on site level 80% and 95% coverage rule for approving evidence is calculated based only on number of employees or number of sites
Applies to: Sustainability Rating; Carbon Action Manager
Release date: Apr 15, 2026
Summary:
We are updating how we calculate evidence coverage for site-level information. Moving forward, coverage will be based exclusively on the number of employees or the number of sites, rather than revenue (turnover). This change applies to Policies, Endorsements, and Reporting indicators.
Why was this change made?
We recognized that sites generating the highest revenue do not always house the majority of a company's employees or physical operations. Removing revenue from the calculation ensures a more accurate representation of your company's footprint. This also aligns the 80% and 95% evidence coverage requirements consistently across all impacted areas of your assessment.
What has changed?
When a company provides documentation at the site level, it must cover a specific percentage of the company's operations (typically 80% or 95%). Previously, you could use revenue (turnover) to demonstrate this coverage.
Now, evidence coverage will only be calculated based on either the number of employees or the number of sites. Companies can no longer use revenue to prove operational coverage.
| Before | After |
|
To capture Policies, Endorsements and Reporting for site level, evidence should be available for 80% or above of the assessment scope’s turnover / operations / employees
Example: • If site level evidence corresponds to <80% of the assessment scope’s turnover / operations / employees, then Policy is rejected |
To capture Policies, Endorsements and Reporting for site level, evidence should be available for 80% or above of the assessment scope’s operations / employees
Example: • If site level evidence corresponds to <80% of the assessment scope’s operations / employees, then Policy is rejected |
32.3 Expansion of accepted supporting documents for certifications
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: Certifications
Objective: To broaden the types of valid evidence for certifications to give flexibility and clarity to rated companies
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Apr 15, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis is expanding the scope of acceptable supporting documents for certifications to include additional evidence types, such as database screenshots and communication exchange evidence, specifically when an online public verification database is available for the declared certificate standard. This update aims to simplify the assessment process by allowing companies to provide alternative proofs of their certified management systems, giving them both flexibility and clarity.
Why was this change made?
This update gives you more flexibility when you submit evidence for your certifications. We know that waiting for a formal certificate can delay your progress. By recognizing more document types, especially those linked to verifiable public databases, we make it easier for you to prove compliance and keep your assessment moving forward.
What has changed?
New Acceptable Evidence: While the standard requirement remains that certificates must be issued by an accredited body, you can now submit alternative evidence (like invoices or official communications with certifiers) if the standard has an associated public database (e.g., B Corp).
Public Database Requirements: If you are using a public database screenshot as evidence, the database must be published online by the certificate standard entity or the certification body. To be accepted, your evidence must clearly show all of the following:
- Company name
- Standard name
- Scope of certification
- Validity status
Help Content Updates: To support these methodology changes, we are reformatting our Help Content to provide you with clearer, more focused guidance while you complete your questionnaire.
| Current Help Content Text | Updated Help Content Text |
|
Examples of documents to attach - Environmental certificate (e.g., ISO 14001) - Health and safety certificate (e.g., ISO 45001) - Information security certificate (e.g., ISO 27001 or Cyber Essentials) - Annual or sustainability report with external third-party assurance
Document guidelines The certificate should be issued by an accredited certification body. In the case the certificate is not yet issued, an audit report issued by an accredited certification body can be provided.
Certifications on quality management, such as ISO 9001, are out of scope and will not be considered.
|
Examples of documents to attach: - Environmental certificate (e.g., ISO 14001) - Health and safety certificate (e.g., ISO 45001) - Information security certificate (e.g., ISO 27001 or Cyber Essentials) - Annual or sustainability report with external third-party assurance
Alternative document types that may be attached when the certificate standard has an associated public database (eg. B Corp, ISO standards): - Database screenshot - Audit report - Annual or sustainability report with or without external third-party assurance - Website screenshot - Invoice - Communication exchange with the certifier
Additional Guidelines: - Accreditation: The certificate must follow a clear certifiable standard and must be issued by an accredited certification body. - Public Databases: Valid public databases must be published by the certificate standard entity or the certification body and must include all relevant information (company name, standard name, scope, and validity status). - Other Topics: If your company has sustainable procurement certificates that are specific to your industry or cover a specific sustainable procurement topic other than those mentioned in this answer option, you may attach those as well. - Multiple Documents: If your company holds more than one sustainable procurement certificate, you can attach multiple documents to this answer option." |
32.4 Expanded Use of Audit Reports and Discontinuation of "In-Progress" Certificates
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: All themes; Supporting documents;All sizes
Objective: Allow rated companies to provide external sustainability audits or certification audits as evidence of Policy, Action, or Reporting
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Apr 15, 2026
Summary:
We are updating our methodology to provide more flexibility in how you demonstrate your sustainability practices. We will now accept sustainability and certification audit reports as evidence for policies, actions, and reporting. Additionally, to strengthen the credibility of final ratings, we are discontinuing the acceptance of "in-progress" certificates.
1. Expanded Use of Sustainability and Certification Audit Reports
Why was this change made?
Previously, sustainability audits were only considered under the questions GEN5004 and GEN5004s as evidence of having been audited by an independent, accredited auditor regarding sustainability issues. Similarly, audits related to management system certificates (like ISO 14001, 45001, 27001, etc.) were only considered under the certificate management indicator as evidence of certification in progress. This update allows you to link more options to these types of documents.
What has changed?
You can now provide external sustainability audit reports and certification audit reports as evidence of your company's Policies, Actions, and Reporting.
For Policy and Reporting: Be reminded that the evidence will not be considered if it covers less than 80% of your company’s operations (number of sites, employees, or revenues). Note: This threshold is at 95% for your reporting on KPIs related to Energy & GHG emissions.
For Actions: There needs to be enough evidence that the action is implemented, as indicated under the questionnaire option details.
2. Discontinuing "In-Progress" Certificates
Why was this change made?
Because an "in-progress" status does not guarantee a final certification, and it also creates ambiguity in the scoring process. Removing this status ensures consistency and strengthens the overall credibility and reliability of your final rating.
What has changed?
We will no longer accept management system certificates (e.g., ISO 14001, 45001, 27001) that are marked as "in-progress."
32.5 Scoring Update for GRI 'With Reference' Compliance
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: Reporting
Objective: To recognize and score GRI “with reference” compliance within the rating framework, ensuring companies receive credit for high-quality standardized disclosures.
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Apr 14, 2026
Summary:
Ecovadis is updating our scoring rules for GRI “with reference” Universal disclosures. While this compliance level previously did not impact sustainability scores, it is now eligible for a score of 75, provided all other reporting quality criteria are met. This change ensures that companies providing transparent, standardized disclosures under this level receive appropriate credit in their rating.
Why was this change made?
Evidence-based Assessment: A study conducted one year after the release of the GRI Universal Standards showed that " with reference" reports offer high quality compliance beyond the strict requirements.
Recognition of Effort: The update ensures that the methodology accurately reflects and credits the efforts companies are making toward reporting standardization.
What has changed?
The methodology has been updated to recognize the ' with reference' compliance level. Previously, this level was only eligible for a dedicated Strength. This update ensures that companies reporting “with reference” to GR Universal Standards are better rewarded for their disclosure quality, potentially leading to an increase in their reporting scores.
32.6 Additional scorecard granularity through new Improvement Areas (batch 2)
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: All themes; All sizes
Objective: To Increase Transparency and Clarity of the scorecard
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Apr 15, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis is releasing the second phase of a methodology update designed to provide enhanced visibility into Improvement Areas and scoring requirements. Specifically, scorecards will now feature more granular, diagnostic feedback regarding sector best practices, policy robustness (such as the presence of quantitative targets), the quality of endorsements, and specific certification requirements. By introducing these highly specific alerts, this update aims to give rated companies clearer, more actionable feedback on exactly what is being measured and how scores are achieved.
Why was this change made?
This update was implemented to drastically increase transparency and clarity. Previously, the methodology provided strength and improvement areas that were occasionally too broad. By adding granularity, the scorecard now defines precisely what is being measured. This makes the requirements for corrective actions much clearer, empowering organizations to better understand their results and prioritize their sustainability improvements effectively.
What has changed?
For scorecards published after April 15th, general improvement areas are being replaced with highly specific, diagnostic feedback that points directly to missing best practices.
Important Note: There are no changes to the underlying scoring methodology; this update only changes how feedback is displayed on the scorecard.
This second release of granular Improvement Areas focuses on four key assessment categories:
1. Granular Feedback on Sector Best Practices (Measures)
The scorecard will now show new Improvement Areas that directly map to established sector best practices within the questionnaire. If a specific practice is not identified during the analysis, it will be explicitly flagged. (Note: These are examples of available actions, not a mandatory checklist).
| Theme | Impacted Criteria |
|
Environment
|
|
2. Enhanced Transparency on the Robustness of Policies
Rated companies will now receive new Improvement Areas that specifically highlight the absence of quantitative targets within their submitted policies.
| Theme | Impacted Criteria |
|
Environment
|
|
| Labor & Human Rights |
|
3. New Improvement Areas on the Quality of Endorsements
The feedback structure for endorsements is being refined. Improvement areas will now guide companies to move past general, voluntary pledges and toward robust, sector-specific sustainability initiatives that impose specific constraints and requirements on participants. This applies across all four assessment themes.
4. New Improvement Areas on Certifications
New Improvement Areas will highlight the absence of widespread ethics certifications, specifically noting when there is no supporting evidence for ISO 27001 or ISO 37001 certification.
Additionally, if a certification indicator score is below 100 (and no widespread certification scheme exists for the topic), the scorecard will display the following specific feedback:
| Scenario | Scorecard Feedback Text |
|
Labor & Human Rights certification score is at 75
|
"Current labor and human rights certification(s) are insufficiently stringent in their requirements; the existing frameworks lack the necessary depth and comprehensive scope to effectively address all material issues within the theme." |
| Sustainable Procurement certification score is at 25, 50, or 75 | "Current sustainable procurement certification(s) are insufficiently stringent in their requirements; the existing frameworks lack the necessary depth and comprehensive scope to effectively address all material issues within the theme." |
32.7 Update on CSDDD Annex II requirements within the Environment theme
Change: Content expansion
Affects: Environment; Measures; Biodiversity; Air Pollution; Materials, Chemicals & Waste; All sizes
Objective: Update on measures to ensure alignment with CSDDD Annex II requirements
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Apr 15, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis has updated the Biodiversity, Air Pollution, and Materials, Chemicals, and Waste criteria to align with global regulations. This includes new options developed and reworded options refined for improved clarity. These changes, supported by new examples and clearer guidance, make the assessment more precise and intuitive while ensuring alignment with requirements set out in the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) Annex II on adverse environmental impacts.
Why was this change made?
To ensure the assessment of supplier best practices regarding the environmental prohibitions and conventions outlined in the CSDDD Annex II, the selected options and help content under the Biodiversity, Air Pollution criteria have been updated. A new option has been developed under Materials, Chemicals, and Waste criterion. Illustrative examples of relevant actions have been added to the help content to make it easier to interpret.
What has changed?
The following options and help content were reworded:
| Old option text | Revised option text |
| Formal risk assessment of operations' impacts or dependencies on local biodiversity and ecosystems | Assessment of operations' impacts on local biodiversity and ecosystems |
| Actions to mitigate impact on and physical disturbance of sea and marine life during operations | Actions to protect and avoid impacts to aquatic ecosystems during operations |
| Actions to support and protect native species not used for production purposes | Actions to support and protect ecosystems and native species not used in production |
A new option was created under Materials, Chemicals, and Waste criterion:
- Actions to prevent offshore waste discharge
The Help Content for the above-mentioned options has been updated accordingly. We recommend that you read the Help Content thoroughly while answering the questions to better understand each option.
32.8 Questionnaire update on Environmental Risk Preparedness
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: Environment; All activities (ISICs); S, M, L, and XL
Objective: Update questionnaire on environmental risk preparedness
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Apr 15, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis is introducing new evidence-based questions focused on environmental risk assessments and actions for managing external environmental disruptions. This enhancement strengthens the evaluation of your organizational resilience. Additionally, to reduce redundancy, we are removing one existing measure option under the Water criterion. While the new questions will not have score impact, the related strengths or improvement areas will be reflected on the rating scorecard based on the evidence provided.
Why was this change made?
This update allows assessed companies to showcase their readiness for environmental risks and external disruptions. Environmental risks—including physical climate risk, water basin stress, and ecosystem service disruptions—pose direct threats to supply chain continuity and financial stability, making proactive management essential.
By introducing these questions, EcoVadis enables companies to gain greater visibility and generate new insights for risk identification. Buyers can track and engage their suppliers' environmental risk preparedness, while suppliers gain clarity on the foundational steps needed to safeguard their operations. Providing valid evidence for these new questions can result in a dedicated Strength on the scorecard, ensuring organizations receive recognition for advanced resilience efforts.
What has changed?
The recently added "Climate Physical Risk" question is evolving into two new, broader questions within the Environment theme. This expands the assessment's focus to capture a wider range of environmental risks and preparedness actions.
Important Note on Scoring: These two new questions will not negatively impact the assessment score. However, any strengths or improvement areas identified from the provided evidence will be displayed on the rating scorecard.
New Question 1: What actions has your company implemented to assess potential operational and financial effects of external environmental risks?
This question applies to Small, Medium, and Large companies. The available options are tailored by industry to ensure coverage of relevant hazards:
| Industry | Available Assessment Options |
|
All Industries
|
• Physical climate risk assessment |
| Manufacturing, Construction, Heavy Industries |
Additional option: • Water basin risk assessment |
| Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry |
Additional options: • Water basin risk assessment • Biodiversity and ecosystem service dependency and risk assessment |
New Question 2: What actions has your company implemented to address external environmental disruptions?
This question also applies to Small, Medium, and Large company sizes. However, to reflect the operational complexity of these actions and align with stricter regulatory reporting requirements for larger organizations, the available options are tailored by company size:
| Company Size | Available Action Options |
|
Small, Medium, and Large
|
• Integration of adaptive practices into operations to withstand environmental disruptions • Establishment of emergency reserves or safety nets for environmental disruptions • No actions yet / I don't know |
| Large Only |
• Allocation of dedicated budgets or capital investments for environmental resilience • Implementation of resilient facility infrastructure to withstand environmental hazards |
Removed Measure:
In addition to the new questions, the measure "Water risk assessments performed" is being removed from the Water criterion for rated companies in all sectors to reduce redundancy.
Help Content Updated: Illustrative examples of relevant actions for both new questions have been added to the Help Content. Rated companies are encouraged to review these examples carefully to ensure accurate responses.
32.9 Scope 2 Market- and Location-based Reporting
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: Reporting; Energy Consumption & GHGs; S, M, L and XL
Objective: To align Scope 2 reporting with GHG Protocol standards
Applies to: Sustainability Rating; Carbon Action Manager
Release date: May 7, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis is enhancing the granularity of its greenhouse gas (GHG) data collection by transitioning from a single, undifferentiated Scope 2 metric to two distinct reporting options: Location-based and Market-based. After five years of Carbon Ratings and more than 100,000 Carbon Scorecards issued, the overall maturity of rated companies supports this increased level of detail. This update ensures the questionnaire remains aligned with international carbon accounting standards while providing clearer insights into corporate energy procurement strategies.
Why was this change made?
We implemented this update to achieve three primary goals:
Standardized Interoperability: Adopting the dual reporting framework aligned with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard (and related regulatory and institutional standards) allows rated companies to maintain a consistent and internationally recognized inventory across all regulatory and institutional platforms.
Actionable Insights: Differentiating between the physical grid mix (Location-based) and contractual energy procurement choices (Market-based) allows for a much more accurate evaluation of a company's active decarbonization efforts, such as direct investments in renewable energy. These insights are critical to effectively piloting a decarbonization program.
-
Data Reliability: For all Carbon Metrics, a reliability level (i.e. low, medium, high and third-party verified) is assigned to each corresponding metric. The reliability of a data point is determined by three key indicators:
- Whether the data is supported by well-documented evidence.
- Whether accounting best practices were applied.
- Whether the data appears realistic and plausible.
Differentiating between location-based and market-based Scope 2 GHG emissions allows for a more accurate allocation of data reliability levels, as the assessment of reliability level shifts from a single undifferentiated metric to two distinct reporting options.
What has changed?
The existing option, “Total gross Scope 2 GHG emissions (market- or location-based),” will be removed and replaced with two specific metrics to drive higher-quality disclosure.
| Old options | New options |
| Total gross Scope 2 GHG emissions (market- or location-based) | Total gross location-based Scope 2 GHG emissions |
| Total gross market-based Scope 2 GHG emissions |
There will be no change in the scoring impact. However, the Strengths and Improvement Areas to be triggered will be based on the evidence.
32.10 Launch of Scorecard Pre-Publication Process
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: All themes; All sizes;
Objective: Allow companies to raise factual errors on their scorecard before publication
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Q2 2026
Summary:
As part of an ongoing commitment to methodology integrity and global best practices, EcoVadis is standardizing its assessment workflow to ensure a fairer, more consistent process. During Q2, scorecard results will be visible exclusively to the rated company for two business days prior to network publication. During this period, companies can review their assessment and report any factual errors.
Why was this change made?
This update aligns EcoVadis procedures with evolving global best practices for independent sustainability evaluations. By standardizing this workflow and introducing the two day period, all companies now have a guaranteed, uniform opportunity to review their scorecards prior to publication, ensuring a more consistent and transparent experience across the entire network.
What has changed?
Before scorecard results are shared with requesting partners, the scorecard will remain visible only to the rated company for two business days. If any factual errors are identified during this window, they can be reported, and the support team will follow up via email.
Important Note: The scorecard will automatically publish to the network after the two-day period concludes, even if a factual error has been reported and is under review.
Defining a Factual Error
A factual error is defined strictly as a mistake made regarding the underlying information used for the assessment (due to incorrect information provided or a misinterpretation during analysis).
| Factual error | Not a factual error |
|
|
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.