Methodology Updates Q3 2026
The assessment methodology updates in Q3 2026 cover the following topics:
| Release Note | Time needed to read (in minutes) |
|---|---|
| 34.1 Update to reporting questions for ISIC 781/2/3 Employment Agencies | 3 minutes |
| 34.2 Reorganizing Reporting Questions & Introducing New Standardized Metrics | 4 minutes |
| 34.3 Severe Conflict-Affected Countries Update | 2 minutes |
| 34.4 Voluntary Standard (VS) Terminology and Guideline Updates | 2 minutes |
| 34.5 Baseline Year Required for Quantitative Targets | 2 minutes |
| 34.6 Biodiversity Measures Revision | 2 minutes |
| 34.7 Help Content Update for ‘’Other’’ Questionnaire Options | 3 minutes |
| 34.8 Additional Scorecard Granularity Through New Strengths And Improvement Areas (Batch 4) | 1 minute |
34.1 Update to Reporting questions for ISIC 781/2/3 Employment Agencies
Change: Content expansion; Methodology clarification
Affects: Reporting; Coverage; Labor & Human Rights; S, M, L sizes (26-49,999 employees); L size (50,000+ employees)
Objective: To better adapt the questionnaire to the unique profile of employment agencies
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Oct 15, 2026
Summary:
To better align with the unique operations of employment agencies (ISIC 781, 782, and 783), the assessment questionnaire has been updated to further distinguish between direct corporate employees and temporary agency workers. This update introduces dedicated metrics for temporary agency workers and redefines the scope of general Labor & Human Rights metrics to ensure a more accurate evaluation of temporary staffing companies while making the questionnaire more transparent and straightforward for organizations to complete.
Why was this change made?
Feedback from rated companies in the Temporary Staffing sector (ISIC 782) indicated that standard reporting metrics used to track company’s direct, internal workforce do not fully apply to temporary workforces, given the distinct operational control and responsibilities managing each workforce entails.
To address this, the assessment methodology was updated based on sector reporting best practices and international labor standards, including International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 181 and EU Directive 2008/104/EC on Temporary Agency Work. Key benefits of this update include:
- Targeted Evaluation: New and dedicated metrics tailored specifically to temporary agency workers in ISIC 782 companies.
- Enhanced Clarity: The Labor & Human Rights theme now clearly defines the applicable workforce scope for each Reporting and Coverage option for ISIC 782 and 783 companies, removing ambiguity.
- Improved Alignment: The assessment scorecard reflects more accurately industry reporting practices, providing a more accurate evaluation.
What has changed?
Two primary updates take effect, primarily impacting Temporary Staffing agencies (ISIC 782):
1. New reporting options for Temporary Staffing (ISIC 782 only)
The reporting options for temporary agency workers have been expanded.
- Previously limited to health and safety, these options now cover three Labor & Human Rights metrics.
- Two new quantitative metrics have been introduced for medium- and large-sized companies: average hours of training provided per temporary agency worker and percentage of women within the total temporary agency worker population.
- These options are now entirely specific to ISIC 782 agencies and no longer apply to Employment placement (ISIC 781) or Human Resources Provision (ISIC 783) organizations.
- Rated companies maintain the ability to disclose additional metrics specific to temporary workers under the "Other metrics" options.
Score Impact: Companies providing sufficient Labor & Human Rights metrics on temporary agency workers will be rewarded with dedicated strengths on their scorecards and a potential score increase in their reporting scores. This update will not negatively impact the score under the current reporting methodology.
This update does not alter the current reporting scoring methodology. Companies providing sufficient evidence for the new metrics will earn a dedicated strength on their scorecards.
This update does not alter the current scoring methodology. Companies providing sufficient evidence for the new metrics will earn a dedicated strength on their scorecards.
2. Clarified Workforce Definitions and Reporting Scopes (ISIC 782 and 783)
To ensure consistency across the assessment, the questionnaire now explicitly defines two distinct workforce groups for Labor & Human Rights reporting and coverage questions for ISIC 782 and 783 companies:
Workforce Group |
Definition |
Applicable Assessment Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Direct Employees | Individuals in a direct employment relationship with the company who work within its own operations. | Applies to all general Labor & Human Rights reporting and coverage questions for both ISIC 782 and 783 companies. |
| Temporary Agency Workers | Individuals employed by the agency specifically for temporary work placement at client organizations. | Applies solely to the dedicated temporary worker metrics for ISIC 782 companies. |
34.2 Reorganizing Reporting Questions & Introducing New Standardized Metrics
Change: Current methodology change; Help content for answering questionnaire; Strengths & improvement areas
Affects: All themes; Reporting; S, M, L sizes (26-49,999 employees)
Objective: Update quantitative reporting questions to improve disclosure of material and comparable metrics
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Oct 14, 2026
Summary
EcoVadis is updating the reporting questions within the Sustainability Rating questionnaire to focus exclusively on material topics and align with major international frameworks. By tailoring questions specifically to an organization's material impacts, this update streamlines the assessment process and ensures rated companies can report decision-useful, comparable data more efficiently.
This update introduces the following key improvements:
- International Alignment: New metrics have been added to capture standardized data points in line with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), Voluntary Standard (VS), and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (ISSB).
- Materiality Focus: Non-predefined reporting options (e.g., general "Reporting on water" fields) have been transitioned into topic-specific questions. This ensures that custom reporting options are presented strictly when the corresponding topic is material to the rated company.
Why was this change made?
In the Environmental and Social & Human Rights sections of the questionnaire, the question regrouping all non-predefined reporting options (such as "Reporting on water" or “Reporting on Employee Health and Safety”) was not entirely tailored to the company’s materiality (criteria activation). This led to the disclosure of some non-material information. The redesign of the questionnaire, as well as the addition of new metrics aligned with major international frameworks, will allow companies to focus their efforts on the disclosure material, high-impact, standardized and comparable reporting information.
What has changed?
The new questionnaire design implements two primary adjustments to the reporting options, detailed in the tables below:
- The general, non-predefined reporting options (such as “Reporting on Employee Health and Safety”), have been rephrased and moved into topic-specific questions.
- New metrics aligned with major international standards have been added to capture decision-useful, comparable data points.
The table below shows the rephrasing of the general reporting options.
Options texts | |
|---|---|
| Before | After |
Environment Theme | |
| Energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Other energy-related metrics (Specify other energy performance metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Water | Other water-related metrics (Specify other water performance metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Biodiversity | Other metrics related to biodiversity and ecosystems, including animal welfare (Specify other biodiversity, ecosystems & animal welfare performance metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Air pollution | Other air pollution-related metrics (Specify other emissions or air quality metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Materials, chemicals, and waste | Other materials, chemicals & waste-related metrics (Specify other materials, chemicals & waste management metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Materials, chemicals, and waste | Other waste-related metrics (Specify other waste management metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Product end-of-life | Other product end-of-life-related metrics (Specify other product end-of-life metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Product use | Other product use-related metrics (Specify other product use-related metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Customer health and safety | Other customer health and safety-related metrics (Specify other customer health and safety metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Environmental services and advocacy | Other environmental services and advocacy-related metrics (Specify any other environmental services and advocacy metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
Labour & Human Rights Theme | |
| Employee health and safety | Other employee health and safety-related metrics (Specify any other employee health and safety metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Working conditions | Other working conditions-related metrics (Specify any other working conditions metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Social dialogue | Other social dialogue-related metrics (Specify any other social dialogue metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Career management and training | Other career management and training-related metrics (Specify other career management and training metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking | Other child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking-related metrics (Specify any other child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| Discrimination and Harassment | Other discrimination and harassment-related metrics (Specify any other discrimination and harassment metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
| External stakeholder human rights | Other external stakeholder human rights-related metrics (Specify any other external stakeholder human rights metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
Ethics Theme | |
| Ethics | Other ethics-related metrics (Specify any other ethics related metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
Sustainable Procurement Theme | |
| Sustainable Procurement | Other sustainable procurement-related metrics (Specify any other sustainable procurement metrics if you did not disclose any of the metrics listed above) |
The table below shows the newly added options.
| New Options Added | |
|---|---|
| Criterion | Text |
| Biodiversity | Number of sites owned, leased, or managed in or near a biodiversity-sensitive area |
| Product Use | Percentage of revenue from products with features designed to reduce use-phase environmental impacts |
| Product End-of-life | Percentage of products by weight collected from take-back initiatives for recycling or reuse at end-of-life |
| Product End-of-life | Percentage of primary packaging by weight collected from take-back initiatives for recycling or reuse at end-of-life |
| Customer health & Safety | Number of incidents concerning the health and safety impacts of products or services |
| Environmental Services & Advocacy | Percentage of revenue from products and services producing demonstrable positive environmental impacts or avoiding negative impacts |
| Environmental Services & Advocacy | Percentage of revenue from products and services producing demonstrable positive environmental impacts or avoiding negative impacts |
| Environmental Services & Advocacy | Percentage of capital exposed to sectors with high environmental/nature or climate-related impacts |
| Working Conditions | Employee turnover rate |
| Social Dialogue | Percentage of employees covered by formally-elected employee representatives or collective agreements |
| Child Labor, Forced labor & Human Trafficking | Number of identified child, forced or compulsory labor incidents |
| External Stakeholder Human Rights | Number of identified human rights incidents impacting external stakeholders |
Due to the introduction of the metric "Number of sites owned, leased, or managed in or near a biodiversity-sensitive area", the declarative question "Does your company have sites/operations located in or near to biodiversity-sensitive areas where your activities negatively affect those areas?" has been removed from the questionnaire. The table below details the options removed:
| Options Removed | |
|---|---|
| Criterion | Text |
| Biodiversity | My company doesn't have sites or operations located in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas |
| Biodiversity | My company has sites or operations located in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas, but my activities do not negatively affect those areas |
| Biodiversity | My company has sites or operations located in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas, and my activities negatively affect those areas |
| Biodiversity | No actions yet/I don't know |
34.3 Severe Conflict-Affected Countries Update
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: Country risk profile; All sizes
Objective: Update based on the annual review of the extreme conflict-affected countries
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Sep 16, 2026
Summary:
Following the annual review of the extreme conflict-affected countries, EcoVadis is updating the list of countries with extreme human rights and conflict risks. Companies headquartered in the selected countries are restricted from the Sustainability Rating, as our methodology is not tailored for heightened due diligence in these areas.
Why was this change made?
This annual update ensures the continued integrity of Sustainability Ratings by reflecting current global conditions. The review process identifies regions where heightened due diligence is not feasible, aligning EcoVadis with OECD guidelines on disengagement from areas with extreme institutional fragility and armed conflict.
What has changed?
Following the annual review, Haiti and Syria have been added to the existing list of restricted countries. Companies headquartered in the following locations are restricted from Sustainability Ratings assessments. This maintenance update does not affect companies headquartered elsewhere with operations in these regions.
| Before (Previous List) | After (Updated List) |
|---|---|
|
Afghanistan Democratic Republic of the Congo Myanmar South Sudan Sudan Yemen |
Afghanistan Democratic Republic of the Congo Haiti (New) Myanmar South Sudan Sudan Syria (New) Yemen |
34.4 Voluntary Standard (VS) Terminology and Guideline Updates
Change: Others (Change due to regulatory update)
Affects: All themes; XS, S, M sizes
Objective: Align terminology and guidelines with updated CSRD Voluntary Standard
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Oct 14, 2026
Summary:
In response to the European Commission’s formal adoption of the Delegated Act regarding the Voluntary Standard (VS) under the EU CSRD, EcoVadis has updated its platform terminology from "VSME" to “Voluntary Standard (VS/VSME)” and adjusted its underlying methodology.
This methodology update will not impact company scores or evaluation rules using the current European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) VSME framework for current or previous reporting cycles.
Why was this change made?
- Regulatory Alignment: Synchronizes the assessment platform with official European Union CSRD Voluntary Standard guidelines finalized in the European Commission's Delegated Act.
- Tailored Evaluation: Differentiates required versus voluntary data points for reports adhering to updated Voluntary Standards based on organization headcount, reducing administrative friction for smaller entities.
- Continuity and Clarity: Eliminates terminology ambiguities across questionnaires and scorecard outputs while ensuring previously prepared reports remain valid.
What has changed?
- All platform and documentation references to VSME are updated to Voluntary Standard (VS/VSME) across EcoVadis questionnaires, guidance tools, and scorecard outputs.
- Analysis guidelines for new VS reports are updated to reflect the July Delegated Act's distinction between required and voluntary disclosures for companies above versus below 10 employees.
- Reports aligned with existing VSME guidelines remain fully accepted with no changes to evaluation rules for FY2026 and earlier reporting cycles.
| Before | After |
|---|---|
|
Strength on the Reporting Standard referencing VSME Example:
|
The wording updated to include Voluntary Standard (VS) Example:
|
34.5 Baseline Year Required for Quantitative Targets
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: All themes; All sizes
Objective: To ensure target credibility by requiring a baseline year
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Questionnaires submitted on or after Oct 14, 2026
Summary:
For questionnaires submitted on or after October 14, 2026, quantitative targets submitted under Policy questions must explicitly state a baseline year to be accepted during the rating assessment. This will join the existing requirements to provide a target year and value. This update enhances the credibility and measurability of corporate commitments, ensuring rated companies can more effectively demonstrate data maturity and rigorous progress tracking to their stakeholders.
Why was this change made?
Requiring quantitative targets to have a baseline year is in line with the corporate sustainability best practices. It is a fundamental requirement for companies to track their progress. If no baseline year is mentioned, the quantitative target lacks context and is not measurable. Mentioning a baseline year signals data maturity and rigor from the rated company. It gives buyers and external stakeholders a fixed timeline to measure company performance against, preventing "moving goalposts" if results fluctuate over time. This is why it will now be an additional mandatory condition for quantitative targets to be accepted during the assessment process.
What has changed?
Analysts will only accept quantitative targets if a clear baseline year is specified within supporting evidence. If no baseline year is documented, the declaration will be rejected and will not contribute to the Policy indicator score. This requirement applies universally to relative percentage reductions, absolute targets, and zero-incident commitments.
Examples of compliant quantitative targets include:
- Energy consumption and GHGs: Reduce absolute scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 50% by 2030 from a 2020 baseline,
- Employee Health & Safety (Relative Target): Achieve a 20% reduction in work-related accidents by 2030 compared to 2020.
- Employee Health & Safety (Absolute / Zero Target): Maintain zero work-related accidents through 2027 based on a 2026 baseline year.
Scoring Reminder:
To achieve maximum points on the Policy indicator, organizations are not required to set quantitative targets on every sustainability topic activated for their industry profile. Target setting should prioritize material areas with higher risk exposure where measurable improvements are most needed. For example, for Small, Medium and Large companies, we require quantitative targets on at least 50% of key sustainability criteria for the Environment and Labor & Human Rights themes.
For more information on the scoring principles, please refer to the EcoVadis Ratings Scoring Principles: Framework for All Company Sizes and 360° Watch Findings.
34.6 Biodiversity Measures Revision
Change: Content expansion
Affects: Environment, Measures, Biodiversity theme, M and L sizes
Objective: Update the indicator measure in the Biodiversity criterion to ensure alignment with CSDDD Annex II requirements
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Oct 14, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis has updated the Biodiversity criterion to align with global regulations. A new option "Actions to mitigate impacts on biological diversity from the use of Living Modified Organisms" has been introduced under the Biodiversity criterion for medium and large sized companies. This update provides an explicit pathway for companies to showcase leading practices in managing living modified organisms while supporting further alignment with key CSDDD requirements.
Why was this change made?
- To enable the assessment of suppliers’ best practices regarding the environmental prohibitions and conventions outlined in CSDDD Annex II.
- This update supports suppliers in demonstrating excellence in Living Modified Organisms management and risk control, while allowing requesting companies to easily monitor and identify compliance risks across their supply chain.
- A specialized Living Modified Organisms option delivers a tailored assessment for high-risk operations, giving requesting companies granular data to drive performance improvements and corrective actions.
What has changed?
The change was incorporating the new option “Actions to mitigate impacts on biological diversity from the use of Living Modified Organisms” to the Biodiversity criterion for Medium and Large sized companies. This new option will be available for 20 ISICs, the full list is in the table below.
| ISIC |
|---|
| 011 Growing of non-perennial crops |
| 0121 Growing of grapes |
| 0122 Growing of tropical and subtropical fruits |
| 0123 Growing of citrus fruits |
| 0124 Growing of pome fruits and stone fruits |
| 0125 Growing of other tree and bush fruits and nuts |
| 0126 Growing of oleaginous fruits |
| 0127 Growing of beverage crops |
| 0128 Growing of spices, aromatic, drug and pharmaceutical crops |
| 0129 Growing of other perennial crops |
| 013 Plant propagation |
| 014 Animal production |
| 015 Mixed farming |
| 0164 Seed processing for propagation |
| 032 Aquaculture |
| 21 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations |
| 72 Scientific research and development |
| 462 Wholesale of agricultural raw materials and live animals |
| 1102 Manufacture of wines |
| 382 Waste treatment and disposal |
34.7 Help Content Update for ‘’Other’’ Questionnaire Options
Change: Methodology clarification
Affects: Questionnaire or Scorecard Update
Objective: Modifying help content wordings for ‘’Other’’ questionnaire options to provide clarity on its usage
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Oct 14, 2026
Summary:
EcoVadis has updated the guidance text for the "other" questionnaire options across the Measures, Endorsements, and Certificates indicators. This change clarifies open-text submission requirements and emphasizes their non-mandatory status, ensuring rated companies can navigate the assessment with confidence and without concern over unintended scoring penalties.
Leaving "other" options unselected will not negatively impact an assessment score, provided that the remaining selected answers meet the scoring requirements and are supported by sufficient evidence.
Why was this change made?
These updates were introduced to enhance the questionnaire completion experience for rated companies through the following key improvements:
- Enhanced Guidance: The questionnaire now provides clearer instructions on using the open-text fields to describe custom practices, endorsements, or certifications so they can be properly evaluated.
- Explicit Optionality: The guidance offers reassurance to organizations that selecting and filling out "other" options is entirely optional.
- Reduced Ambiguity: The update removes unnecessary submission uncertainty by explicitly confirming that unselected "other" fields do not lower assessment results when primary requirements are met.
What has changed?
The description text within the help content for "other" options has been updated across three questionnaire indicators:
| Indicators of the “other” option | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Measures | Please select this option only if the rest of the options listed do not apply |
Please select this option only if the rest of the options listed above do not apply. Describe your practices in the open text field. Without an explanation, this option can not be analyzed. This option is optional. Leaving it unselected will not affect your company’s score as long as your other answers meet the scoring requirements with sufficient evidence. |
| Endorsements | Please select this option only if you have other or additional endorsements, and provide an explanation in the text field. |
Please select this option only if your company has other or additional endorsements not listed in above options. Describe the endorsements in the open text field. Without an explanation in the open text field, this option cannot be analyzed. This option is optional. Leaving it unselected will not affect your company’s score as long as your other answers meet the scoring requirements with sufficient evidence. |
| Certificates | Choose this option only if your company has other valid sustainability certifications or labels not fitting in the answer options above. |
Please select this option only if your company has other or additional sustainability certifications or labels not listed in above options. Describe the certifications or labels in the open text field. Without an explanation, this option cannot be analyzed. This option is optional. Leaving it unselected will not affect your company’s score as long as your other answers meet the scoring requirements with sufficient evidence. |
34.8 Additional Scorecard Granularity Through New Strengths And Improvement Areas (Batch 4)
Change: Current methodology change
Affects: Ethics, Sustainable Procurement, S, M, L sizes (26-49,999 employees); L size (50,000+ employees)
Objective: To increase transparency and clarity of the scorecard
Applies to: Sustainability Rating
Release date: Oct 14, 2026
Summary:
Starting October 14, 2026, the Sustainability Rating will introduce new metric-specific Strengths and Improvement Areas for the Reporting indicator within the Ethics and Sustainable Procurement themes. Each metric evaluated in the questionnaire will now yield dedicated feedback on the scorecard, providing rated companies with clear visibility into their results and actionable insights for continuous improvement.
Why was this change made?
This update was implemented to enhance the overall transparency and clarity of the scorecard through the following improvements:
- Increased Specificity: Previously, scorecards did not specify which individual metrics were evaluated under the Reporting indicator for the Ethics and Sustainable Procurement themes.
- Actionable Guidance: Rated companies will now receive dedicated Strengths and Improvement Areas for each metric, allowing them to better understand scoring requirements and establish targeted corrective actions.
What has changed?
The scorecard now displays new granular Strengths and Improvement areas highlighting the different metrics evaluated for the Reporting indicator under the Ethics and Sustainable procurement themes.
The scoring methodology of the Reporting indicator within the Ethics and Sustainable Procurement themes remains unchanged.