WHAT CHANGED — AND WHEN
8 EcoVadis methodology changes you need to know if you are submitting in 2026
EcoVadis publishes methodology updates on a quarterly cadence: small textual edits, criterion reweightings, new questions, and scoring rule changes that take effect on specific release dates. They’re documented in dense PDFs that few customers read end-to-end, and the release dates rarely align with anyone’s submission window. The cumulative effect is significant. By the time you sit down to resubmit, the questionnaire you completed last year is not the one in front of you, and the scoring grid has moved.
Greenplaces is unpacking eight changes, released between April 2025 and May 2026, that will affect any company resubmitting in 2026. If you’re working from last year’s scorecard, the scoring rules, evidence requirements, and question options have moved — and the cumulative re-mapping work is larger than it looks.
Here’s what each change means for your EcoVadis assessment.
1: LABOR & HUMAN RIGHTS UPDATE
What did EcoVadis change about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Q2 2025?
EcoVadis replaced “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” with “Discrimination & Harassment,” shifting the criterion’s focus from inclusion promotion to prevention. Three older inclusion measures were consolidated into a single “equal opportunities” option, and two new tracking requirements were added: the number of identified discrimination or harassment incidents and/or corrective actions, and the percentage of employees trained on discrimination and harassment — the latter now used for Coverage & Reporting scoring.
If your prior submission relied on DEI-framed policies, you’ll need to re-map them to the new criterion language before resubmitting. More importantly, if you don’t currently track incident or corrective action data, expect a reporting gap on your updated scorecard. Teams that built their Labor & Human Rights evidence around broad inclusion programming will find that resubmission requires a different evidence set than the one they assembled last year.
2: ENDORSEMENTS REFRESH
Which endorsements did EcoVadis remove or rename in Q3 2025?
EcoVadis pruned its endorsements list, removing 16 outdated designations — including AISE Charter, AMR Industry Alliance, WRAP, and UN Academic Impact — and adding seven new ones: ACRO, France Ciment, GSTC, SIFAV, and Repak among them. Three endorsements were renamed, most notably Sustainable Apparel Coalition, which is now Cascale, and NACD, now the Alliance for Chemical Distribution.
Any Strength your prior scorecard earned through a removed endorsement no longer applies. Before you resubmit, re-tag any initiative listed under a renamed designation and cross-check your evidence against the current EcoVadis list. Carrying over last year’s endorsement evidence without this review is one of the most common ways teams accidentally lose Strengths they’ve already earned. A few minutes of verification now can protect scoring momentum built across multiple submission cycles.
3. WORKER VOICE RECOGNITION
Can you now earn EcoVadis credit for third-party worker voice surveys?
Yes — as of Q3 2025, “Third-party Worker Voice Survey” is a recognized scoring option under the Working Conditions criterion for companies of all sizes and industries. To qualify, the platform must be impartial (anonymous and retaliation-free), accessible (multi-channel and multi-language), and actionable (capable of delivering real-time feedback). Valid evidence triggers a dedicated Strength on the scorecard.
If your organization already uses tools like Ulula, &Wider, or EcoVadis Worker Voice, you can now claim credit — provided your evidence shows multi-language coverage. This is a relatively low-lift Strength for companies that have already invested in worker feedback infrastructure but never mapped that evidence to the questionnaire. If you haven’t implemented a worker voice mechanism, this change also signals the direction EcoVadis is heading on supply chain labor standards — and whether your current supply chain risk mitigation strategy accounts for labor transparency at the tier-one level.
4. EXTERNAL AUDIT RULES TIGHTENED
What changed about external sustainability audits in the GEN5004 question?
The GEN5004 question now requires audits to be conducted by an independent, accredited auditor. Management-system certifications — ISO 14001, ISO 45001, ISO 27001 — are explicitly excluded from the audit-report option, and single-topic audits covering only machine safety or cybersecurity are no longer accepted. To qualify, an audit must cover at least two sustainability criteria, and the submitted report must be complete, including cover pages and summary tables.
If your prior submission used ISO audit reports to satisfy GEN5004, those reports now belong under Certifications or Measures — not Audit. A multi-criteria sustainability audit such as SMETA, BSCI, or RBA needs to take their place. This is one of the more consequential changes in the Q4 2025 release because many mid-market companies relied on ISO certifications as their primary evidence here. Identify the gap early, and plan the appropriate audit before your submission window opens.
5. HR DATA NOW IN SCOPE
Is employee turnover now relevant to EcoVadis scoring?
Yes. As of Q4 2025, employee turnover is in scope for the Working Conditions indicator under Labor & Human Rights. Policies addressing turnover, retention, and engagement are now valid evidence in this section, along with supporting data: annual turnover reports, retention dashboards, and employee engagement survey results.
For HR teams whose sustainability evidence has historically been thin in this area, this is an opening. If your organization produces annual people analytics reports or conducts engagement surveys, those materials are newly usable in the EcoVadis questionnaire without requiring new documentation from scratch. The key is mapping existing HR data to the right criterion — which requires understanding both where the evidence lives in your organization and which Working Conditions question it corresponds to in the EcoVadis portal. Organizations using sustainability reporting software that connects HR data to ESG indicators will find this evidence-mapping process significantly more manageable.
6. GRI REPORTING EARNS MORE CREDIT
Do GRI “with reference” reports now count toward a Reporting indicator score?
Yes, starting Q1 2026. Previously, GRI Universal Standards “with reference” compliance earned only a Strength. Under the updated rules, it now qualifies for a Reporting indicator score of 75 out of 100, provided the other reporting quality criteria are met. EcoVadis based this change on internal research finding that “with reference” reports deliver high-quality disclosure in practice — comparable, in many cases, to full “in accordance” reporting.
This change is particularly relevant for mid-market sustainability programs that publish GRI “with reference” reports because they’re not yet ready for the full “in accordance” designation. If that describes your organization, surface this evidence in the GEN600-series questions — it now carries more scoring weight than it did in your last submission. If you’re managing GRI disclosure through a sustainability reporting platform, ensure your report documentation clearly identifies which Universal Standards it references.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SCOPE EXPANDED
How did EcoVadis expand the climate physical risk question in Q1 2026?
EcoVadis expanded its original climate physical risk question into two new questions covering environmental risk assessment and response to environmental disruptions. Scope varies by industry: physical climate risk applies to all companies; water-basin risk has been added for manufacturing, construction, and heavy industry; biodiversity and ecosystem-service risk applies to agriculture, fishing, and forestry. Response options for large companies now include dedicated resilience budgets and resilient facility infrastructure. The legacy “Water risk assessments performed” measure was retired.
These questions are non-scored but generate powerful Strengths for buyers reviewing supply-chain resilience — a detail that matters when your customers use your scorecard to evaluate vendor risk. The expansion also signals EcoVadis’s trajectory: environmental risk assessment is becoming a more granular, industry-specific disclosure requirement, and building that infrastructure now positions you better in future release cycles.
8. SCOPE 2 REPORTING SPLITS
What does the new Scope 2 location-based and market-based split mean for your submission?
Beginning with the May 7, 2026 release, the single Scope 2 metric is replaced by two distinct ones — location-based and market-based — aligned with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard dual-reporting framework. Scoring methodology is unchanged, but Strengths and Improvement Areas now reflect evidence for each metric separately, with reliability levels (low, medium, high, or third-party verified) assigned per metric independently.
Companies that have reported a single, undifferentiated Scope 2 figure need to recompute before May 7. That means separating location-based and market-based figures, documenting the methodology for each, and assembling supporting energy procurement records. This is the most time-sensitive change in the Q1 2026 release. If your organization uses carbon accounting software to manage Scope 2 data, verify whether your current methodology documentation supports the split — and give your team enough lead time to close any gaps before the deadline.
Make it real
What to do before your 2026 submission
- 1
Map your existing evidence against the new option names and scoring rules, prioritizing: the GEN5004 audit requirement shift, the Scope 2 dual-metric deadline of May 7, 2026, and the DEI-to-Discrimination & Harassment re-mapping.
- 2
If your prior submission earned Strengths through endorsements now on the removed list, re-verify that evidence before you resubmit.
- 3
Document your Scope 2 methodology in enough detail to support both location-based and market-based figures.
- 4
If your organization publishes a GRI “with reference” report, make sure it’s surfaced in the GEN600-series questions — it now earns scoring credit it didn’t before.
Eight changes may not sound like many, but each one affects a specific question, a specific evidence requirement, or a specific scoring path. The cumulative re-mapping work is the kind of thing that drains a sustainability team’s capacity right at the deadline.
