Article

What is changing at EcoVadis in 2026? Your questions answered

In brief

Expert insight — François Dequenne: here are the top questions answered, categorised by topic, from the latest ESG Interim Management webinar. The 2026 methodology brings three key updates: (1) enhanced materiality flexibility allowing companies to opt out of non-material environmental topics (currently piloted in specific industries), (2) improved 360° Watch severity assessment incorporating stakeholder consensus, and (3) formal recognition of VSME reporting standards with differentiated scoring for Basic versus Comprehensive modules. Meanwhile, medal thresholds keep rising: the Silver threshold increased from 68 to 72 points between July 2025 and January 2026 alone.

How do assessment scope and structure change?

Does group-level reporting make scoring harder than entity-level? Yes, generally. The primary reason is the Coverage indicator, which only activates for group-level assessments and measures how widely sustainability actions (certifications, training, processes) are deployed across the organisation. If only 20% of subsidiaries hold an ISO certification, Coverage scores lower than at 80%. Consolidating documentation across entities is also a practical challenge. For smaller entities Coverage may not activate, making entity-level assessments more achievable. Match the choice to your operational reality: centrally managed sustainability → group assessment; independently operating entities → entity-level may be more strategic.

In a group assessment, are all sites included — including commercial offices? The scope typically includes all entities in your consolidated financial statements, productive sites and commercial offices alike. For Coverage questions you have flexibility to focus on operational sites; small commercial offices with minimal impact can potentially be excluded if transparently documented and justified. EcoVadis assesses primary activities — for health and safety certifications, the focus is operational locations.

Must a foreign site in our consolidated statements be included? Can we keep only the main site? You can choose an entity assessment covering one site; a group assessment automatically includes all legal entities of the group, determined by EcoVadis from public information. Exclusions are only possible in some instances (recently acquired or sold entities) and in consultation with EcoVadis. Weigh customer requirements and the availability of consolidated data; starting entity-level and expanding later is an option.

How many points are lost reporting group data at entity level? It varies: if group data is disaggregated with the reporting entity's KPIs clearly highlighted, the loss is limited; if only consolidated group KPIs are available, Reporting scores drop — from a few points to 10-15+. Provide group data alongside entity-specific breakdowns and label which is which. The 2026 methodology increases the emphasis on data granularity.

How can I be sure all subsidiaries are considered in our group assessment? Define the organisational scope in the questionnaire's company information section, list all consolidated entities, and provide an organisational chart with locations, employees and activities. The scorecard's first page states the assessment scope; 360° Watch may flag subsidiary-related news, confirming they are tracked.

Could selecting only the best-performing locations be greenwashing? Potentially yes, if it misrepresents overall performance. The scope is declared and visible on the scorecard, but the medal itself doesn't show the limitation — which is why group assessments include Coverage questions whose percentages push the score up or down. Best practice: a scope representative of operations and material impacts, exclusions communicated transparently to customers. From 2026 EcoVadis emphasises scope transparency and materiality alignment; the reputational and regulatory risks of selective disclosure outweigh short-term scoring benefits.

Can we change scope to the overarching group when a client requested a rating on a sub-group? Yes, with coordination: EcoVadis support for the scope change, and your requesting client first — some clients specifically want the entity they do business with. If accepted, a group-level scorecard has the advantage of being shareable with multiple clients.

What are the new reporting and KPI requirements?

"Public disclosure of KPIs is now a scoring variable. The organisations achieving the highest Reporting scores are the ones whose material indicators appear in their sustainability report — accessible, year-on-year, and verifiable by anyone reviewing their EcoVadis submission."

Three consecutive years of KPIs — in one document, or across previous submissions? In documents submitted for the current assessment: EcoVadis does not automatically consider previous submissions. Your 2026 assessment should show trend data for at least three years (e.g. 2023-2025) presented together — one consolidated document is the explicit requirement.

We submit a KPI spreadsheet covering all locations. Is the max 50/100 unless KPIs are public? Yes: from 2026, EcoVadis emphasises public disclosure over private documentation. The spreadsheet still has value, but the highest Reporting scores require KPIs publicly available (sustainability report, website). Also consider the other requirements for 75 or 100/100: a double materiality analysis, verified sustainability data, and compliance with a reporting standard.

Best practice when switching reporting frameworks with different KPI definitions? Continuity and transparency: during the transition, report KPIs under both definitions where feasible, explain the methodological changes, include reconciliation tables. One year of overlap data helps. Transitions towards recognised frameworks (GRI, ESRS, ISSB) are viewed positively when transparently documented.

If our materiality-based report doesn't reach EcoVadis' 67% criteria coverage, how is it scored? From 2026 there is more flexibility to exclude non-material environmental topics, but coverage is still expected for active topics. Not reporting on them likely lowers Coverage. Robust materiality documentation and clearly explained scope decisions help — analysts may consider the context, and transparency about a materiality-based approach is valued.

How do you align with the reporting standards?

Will EcoVadis consider CSRD reporting like GRI? Yes: ESRS (the CSRD standards) is recognised as a formal framework. From 2026, formal compliance matters more than "referencing" — reporting in accordance with ESRS earns full points, like GRI "in accordance with".

Is "with reference to GRI" no longer sufficient? Correct — a significant 2026 change. Previously "prepared with reference to GRI" earned points without full compliance; now EcoVadis requires "in accordance with" GRI (or substantial demonstrated use of indicators and principles), and the same for CSRD/ESRS. Partial adoption still receives some credit; the highest scores require formal compliance. This reflects increased greenwashing scrutiny.

Our reassessment window doesn't align with CSRD Wave 1 deadlines. What can we do? EcoVadis offers flexibility: request a scorecard validity extension or postpone reassessment via support with clear justification. Many companies time their submission after CSRD report publication; alternatives are submitting with available information and updating later, or preparing CSRD-aligned documentation specifically for EcoVadis. Contact support early.

Is GRI better than IFRS or ESRS? They serve different purposes: GRI is impact-focused and multi-stakeholder; IFRS is investor-focused (financial materiality); ESRS incorporates both through double materiality and is mandatory under CSRD. All three are recognised — what counts from 2026 is formal compliance. Note: "in accordance with GRI" scores maximum; "with reference to GRI" no longer does.

Can US companies report with VSME? Yes. VSME was developed by EFRAG for European SMEs but its principles apply regardless of geography, and EcoVadis recognises it as legitimate structured disclosure — comprehensive yet less burdensome than full GRI or ESRS. Consider whether VSME meets your stakeholders' expectations versus US-specific frameworks (SASB/IFRS).

Does EcoVadis accept VSME for mid-cap companies (e.g. 750 FTE)? There is no strict prohibition, but at 750 FTE you approach mandatory CSRD territory and analysts might question a simplified standard; GRI "in accordance with" may better match stakeholder expectations at that size.

Will the UK SRS be accepted? Expected yes, once formally implemented — it aligns with ISSB, which EcoVadis already recognises. There may be a lag before methodology guidance lists it explicitly; in the interim, reference UK SRS and note the ISSB alignment.

Does a UNGC Communication on Progress count as an external sustainability report? A COP earns points under Endorsements, and may earn some Reporting credit if it includes relevant KPIs with multi-year trends — but it does not carry the weight of a formal reporting framework. If it is your primary disclosure, make it comprehensive and data-rich, and consider supplementing it.

Does EcoVadis ask about EUDR compliance? Yes — in the Environment and Sustainable Procurement sections, especially for companies dealing in covered commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, wood and derivatives): deforestation policies, due diligence processes, traceability systems, risk management. As enforcement begins, compliance readiness will weigh more.

How does materiality customisation work?

Are there requirements for a materiality analysis to be accepted? Yes: a recognised methodology (GRI materiality process or CSRD double materiality) with stakeholder engagement, a systematic assessment process, formal documentation, governance approval and comprehensive topic coverage — evaluating both impact and financial materiality, with defensible conclusions. Submit the full report with your questionnaire and reference it when requesting topic adjustments.

If a topic was switched off but our DMA says it is material, will they switch it back on? Yes — that works in both directions in the 2026 materiality flexibility. Provide your materiality assessment documentation (methodology and conclusions); analysts review the justification and adjust the active topics. Certain core topics fundamental to EcoVadis may not be switchable.

We plan to renew in September; should we submit in August before the methodology update? It depends on readiness and risk tolerance. An August submission is scored under the current methodology with 12-month validity; September onwards uses the updated criteria. Weigh documentation readiness, the announced changes and the business criticality of your score: if you are well prepared and the updates look more stringent, August can be advantageous; if quality needs more time, the improvement may outweigh the methodology change.

What changes on certifications and audits?

We have ISO for some high-risk sites but not all. Can third-party internal audits evidence group-wide management? Yes — and EcoVadis scores the two elements separately in group assessments: once under Certifications (ISO at at least one entity) and once under Coverage (percentage of sites covered — the higher, the more points). Make audits credible: qualified external auditors, ISO audit methodologies, formal audit reports, and a documented audit programme showing schedule, scope and coverage of non-certified sites. Third-party audits score substantially better than no verification, though not as high as full certification.

Final thoughts

"Every EcoVadis methodology update moves in the same direction: stricter evidence standards, greater transparency, and a closer match between the score and what the organisation actually does. Building the programme first and the documentation second is what that direction rewards."

The evolving methodology reflects the broader trends: transparency, rigorous verification, regulatory alignment (CSRD). Approach EcoVadis not as a compliance exercise but as a strategic tool for continuous improvement. Sustainability maturity is a journey: start where you are, focus on material topics, build incrementally — the companies that succeed in 2026 are not those with the most resources, but those with the clearest strategy and authentic commitment.