EcoVadis help desk: Your questions answered  

“The questions submitted ahead of this session reveal exactly where practitioners get stuck: not on the big-picture concepts, but on the practical details that determine whether evidence is accepted or rejected, and whether a score moves or stalls. This article addresses every one of them.” 

Ahead of the Nexio Projects EcoVadis help desk on 16 June, practitioners from manufacturing, logistics, chemicals, and professional services submitted their most pressing questions. The questions covered every stage of the assessment: first-time setup, evidence submission, scoring mechanics, indicator deep dives, and improvement planning after a disappointing scorecard. 

We have answered all of them here, organised into five sections. You can navigate directly to what is most relevant to your situation. Each answer draws on Nexio Projects’ experience supporting companies through 600+ EcoVadis assessments across sectors and medal levels. Where a question is addressed in detail in a dedicated article, you can find relevant resources linked. 

Getting started 

Can you preview the questionnaire before purchasing or initiating an assessment? 

A full preview of the tailored questionnaire is not available before initiating and paying for the assessment. EcoVadis provides an overview of the four sustainability themes on its website, and its Document Guide outlines the types of evidence accepted. As this depends on  your sector, size, and geography, our experts at Nexio Projects can help you address the scope in a discovery call. 

At what entity level should the assessment be performed? Subsidiary, holding company, or full group? 

The right level depends on who your customer is requesting the rating from, and where your sustainability management is actually governed. An entity-level assessment covers one legal entity and is simpler to manage. A group-level assessment covers all consolidated entities and activates the Coverage indicator, which measures the extent to which sustainability practices are deployed across the group. For the decision framework, see our EcoVadis 2026: Your questions answered guide [1]. 

Once the assessment is purchased, is there a deadline to submit the questionnaire? 

Yes. Once an EcoVadis assessment is purchased, companies typically receive an initial submission deadline of about 6 weeks from the date the questionnaire is created. If more time is needed, companies can extend this deadline themselves by up to 60 business days in total. If the questionnaire is not submitted within this window, the assessment period may expire and require repurchase. However, companies can contact EcoVadis to request a reopening within 6 months of the original questionnaire creation date. Check the specific contract terms for your agreement. Starting the evidence-gathering process early is always preferable to compressing everything into the final weeks. 

Why do non-activated criteria still appear in the questionnaire, and why are answers to these questions rejected as irrelevant? 

This is a platform design feature. EcoVadis uses a universal questionnaire template and activates or deactivates specific criteria based on your company profile such as sector, size, and geography. Questions relating to non-activated criteria may still be visible in the interface, but evidence uploaded against them will be assessed as irrelevant and will not contribute to your score. Focus your effort on the criteria that are active for your profile. Your scorecard and corrective action plan identify which criteria are activated. 

If a score is poor, is it publicly shared or visible to others? 

No. EcoVadis scorecards are not publicly shared by default. Your score is only visible to buyers you actively choose to share it with. A company that receives a poor score can decline to share it. Some buyers who have initiated or co-funded the assessment may be able to see that it was completed without a scorecard being shared, which can itself be a signal — but no third party can access your score without your consent. Sharing settings are entirely within your control on the platform. 

How do I proceed with a reassessment? 

When your scorecard approaches expiry, EcoVadis notifies you to initiate a new cycle. The process follows the same sequence: complete the questionnaire, upload updated evidence, and submit. Importantly, reassessments can be easier than first assessments: some answers are pre-filled based on your previous responses, and all previously submitted documents remain accessible in the Document Library without counting against your new 55-document quota. The practical focus should be on reviewing pre-filled answers, updating any expired/outdated policies and KPIs, adding fresh evidence and addressing any open corrective action plan items. A structured gap analysis before submission is strongly recommended over simply relying on what was pre-filled. 

What other changes to assessment expectations should companies prepare for in 2026? 

Three developments are worth monitoring.  

• The materiality customisation pilot, currently available to specific sectors, allows companies to opt out of non-material environmental topics, which changes the assessment scope.  

• Second, reporting requirements have tightened: a public sustainability report aligned with a recognised standard is increasingly required to achieve Reporting scores above 50/100 [2].  

• Third, medal thresholds continue rising as the rated company database grows. Based on Nexio Projects’ internal benchmarking data, the approximate score for Silver increased from 68 to 73 points between July 2025 and May 2026 [3]. Companies maintaining their score without improving will find their medal tier under pressure at reassessment. 

See our EcoVadis guide for more changes and tips for success! 

For companies not subject to CSRD, what levers exist to ensure sustainability work is recognised in the EcoVadis rating? 

CSRD compliance is not a prerequisite for a strong EcoVadis score. Companies outside CSRD scope have several effective routes. The VSME (Voluntary SME Standard), developed by EFRAG, is now formally recognised by EcoVadis as a reporting framework, the Basic Module achieves up to 75/100 in the Reporting indicator, and the full VSME (Basic and Comprehensive) can reach 100/100 [2]. GRI reporting remains highly effective and accessible. Without any public report, the maximum achievable Reporting score is 50/100. Endorsements such as UN Global Compact and Science-Based Targets commitments add score independently of regulatory status. 

Filling in the questionnaire and uploading evidence 

What are the quality requirements for uploaded documents, and what makes a strong policy? 

EcoVadis assesses documents on three dimensions: relevance, completeness, and recency. ). Generic templates minimally adapted for EcoVadis are not accepted; documents must reflect pre-existing, operational systems.  

A strong policy contains a clear statement of intent aligned with the sustainability topic, qualitative and quantitative targets or commitments where applicable, named governance ownership, a date of approval, and a company identifier (name and/or logo. Procedures add strength by demonstrating how commitments are operationalised: who does what, when, and how it is monitored. 

Document validity varies by type and matters significantly at reassessment: 

• Policies and Actions documents are valid for 8 years 

• KPI and Reporting documents are valid for 2 years 

• Certifications are valid until their stated expiry date  

Is documentation issued in the name of a parent or sister company accepted? 

The usability of documentation depends entirely on the assessed scope.  

Parent company documentation can be accepted, provided it covers and is implemented by the assessed entity.  

• Policies and endorsements set by the parent company are accepted. 

• Measures implemented by the parent are accepted. 

• Reporting from the parent is accepted only if results are disaggregated by entity and clearly represent the assessed company’s performance separately. Consolidated group-level results that do not isolate the assessed company’s data are not accepted. 

• Certifications issued for the parent company are not valid unless the assessed company’s scope is explicitly mentioned within the certificate. 

Sister company documentation is not accepted. A sister company is a separate legal entity.  

Should automatically rejected documents be deleted or kept? 

Keep them. Automatically rejected documents do not count against your submission, and the rejection reason is recorded in your Score Details section. Deleting them removes information that may be useful at reassessment — particularly for understanding why certain evidence was redundant or how to consolidate documentation for future cycles. Review the rejection reason in Score Details before deciding whether to revise or replace. 

Why was a KPI attachment accepted one year but rejected on resubmission, and how do you track what changed? 

The most common reason is document expiry. KPI and reporting documents are valid for a maximum of two years from the reporting period. A KPI document submitted in a previous assessment cycle may have been within the validity window at the time, but by reassessment, the reporting period will have aged out.  

Another reason could be a methodology update. EcoVadis periodically revises its requirements for data granularity, coverage thresholds, or framework alignment for specific indicators. These changes are published in the EcoVadis Help Centre, typically ahead of the cycle they apply to, and can result in a previously accepted document no longer meeting current standards. 

The rejection reason in the Score Details section usually identifies the specific gap. If the reason is unclear, a structured review against the current document requirements or a formal debrief with EcoVadis can clarify what needs to be updated. 

What type of evidence best demonstrates actual implementation, versus just having policies on paper? 

EcoVadis applies the PAR framework (Policies, Actions, Results) and strong scores require all three layers.  

A policy alone demonstrates intent. To show that it is being put into practice, the evidence needs to reflect activity actually happening within the organisation. 

The most convincing implementation evidence includes: training records, internal audit or inspection reports, process or procedure documents, employee handbooks, and code of conducts. For higher scores, independent third-party certifications (such as ISO 14001 or SMETA audits) carry significant weight because they involve external verification rather than self-reporting. 

Results evidence goes one step further by showing outcomes: KPIs tracked over time, progress against targets, and measurable performance data.   

For first-time assessors and SMEs: what are the most common documentation gaps? 

Four gaps appear consistently. First, no public sustainability report or multi-year KPI summary, which caps Reporting at 50/100. Second, a Code of Conduct without evidence that employees have received and acknowledged it. Third, a procurement policy with no explicit sustainability requirements for suppliers. Fourth, environmental policies that reference targets without providing baseline data or a tracking mechanism.  

How important is the free-text answer field, and what should be included? How does this interact with the 55-document limit? 

EcoVadis analysts read the comment fields, but EcoVadis will never award points based on comments alone. The comment field supplements documentation; it does not replace it. A well-written comment alongside a weak or missing document will not improve the score for that question.  

The 55-document limit applies to uploaded files, not to text entered in comment fields; the text field has an additional, unrestricted capacity. Prioritise your highest-quality, most directly relevant documents within the limit, and use the text fields to supplement rather than compensate for gaps. 

Have documentation quality expectations become more stringent compared to previous assessment cycles? 

Yes. EcoVadis’s review standards have consistently moved toward more rigorous evidence requirements. Analysts are increasingly looking for documents that demonstrate genuine implementation rather than intent alone, and for data that meets recognised framework criteria such as GRI indicators or ESRS data points. The shift toward requiring “in accordance with” rather than “with reference to” reporting standards is the clearest recent signal of this direction.  

“Understanding the PAR framework is the single most clarifying thing a company can do before preparing its submission. Policies exist in most organisations. What makes the difference is whether the actions that implement those policies are documented and whether the results those actions produce are measured and reported.” 

Scoring methodology 

What are the key traps or pitfalls to avoid in an EcoVadis assessment? 

Six traps consistently cost companies’ score.  

1. Submitting expired documents, anything with a validity date that has passed. 

2. Uploading evidence without any affiliation to the assessed entity.  

3. Over-investing in areas already well-covered while ignoring weak themes. A minimum score of 30/100 must be achieved in each of the four themes individually to qualify for any medal. A very low score in one theme eliminates medal eligibility entirely, regardless of the overall average.   

4. Submitting documents that describe planned actions as though they are already implemented; analysts are trained to distinguish commitment language from implementation evidence.  

5. Missing Coverage requirements in group assessments by assuming that certifications held at one site count for all. 

6. Ignoring 360° Watch findings. A single severe finding, or major findings across multiple themes, triggers medal ineligibility regardless of how well the questionnaire is completed. 

What score is needed to get each medal, and can medals be predicted before submission? 

Since January 2024, EcoVadis awards medals based on percentile ranking, not fixed thresholds. Bronze goes to the top 35% of rated companies, Silver to the top 15%, Gold to the top 5%, and Platinum to the top 1% [6]. Because the database grows over time, the approximate score corresponding to each tier rises continuously. Based on Nexio Projects’ internal benchmarking data as of May 2026, indicative thresholds are approximately 64/100 for Bronze, 73/100 for Silver, 80/100 for Gold and 84/100 for Platinum [3]. These are directional estimates from Nexio Projects’ client portfolio data, not targets published by EcoVadis. Medals can be predicted with reasonable confidence before submission through a structured gap analysis against the EcoVadis scoring indicators. 

What distinguishes evidence that supports a basic score from evidence that drives progress toward Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum? 

The progression follows the PAR framework, but what changes at each level is not just the volume of evidence: it is the depth, coverage, and credibility of what is submitted. 

A basic score (Committed Badge range) comes from having some policies in place across some criteria, with initial measures introduced and some KPIs submitted. Many companies at this stage already have the relevant activities; the gap is documentation and submission. The transition from Committed to Bronze is largely a formalisation exercise: structuring and submitting what the company is already doing. Companies with a Silver medal tend to have structured management systems covering the majority of activated criteria, risk assessments for key themes, at least some third-party certifications, and KPI reporting across most key criteria. 

The defining additions for Gold and Platinum are: SMART quantitative targets; multiple third-party certifications covering the majority of themes and the organisation; and a public sustainability report aligned with a recognised standard and third-party verified. For detailed profiles of what each level looks like in practice, see our dedicated articles: Committed Badge to Bronze [4], Bronze to Silver [5], and Silver to Gold and Gold to Platinum.  

What is the formula or model used for score calculation, including the Coverage indicator? 

EcoVadis does not publicly disclose its exact formula, but the structure is well understood. The overall score is a weighted average of four theme scores: Environment, Labour and Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement. Theme weights are determined by your company profile (sector, size, and geographic operating risk), meaning a chemical manufacturer and a professional services firm will have different weightings per theme.  

Within each theme, scores are built from seven indicators. The confirmed indicator weights as a percentage of the overall score are: Policies 20%, Endorsements 5%, Measures 24%, Certifications 16%, Reporting 14%, and 360° Watch 21% [8]. These sit within three categories: Policies 25%, Actions 40%, and Results 35% [8].  

Coverage is not assigned a fixed percentage, it functions as a multiplying factor applied to Measures and Certifications scores, reflecting how widely those practices are deployed across the group. A high Coverage score amplifies strong Measures and Certifications results; a low Coverage score diminishes them. 

Since companies are rated on a bell curve, will our score decrease if other companies improve? 

Your absolute score will not decrease; it is calculated based solely on the evidence you submit. Your relative position, and therefore your medal tier, can change if the peer group improves faster than your management system. A score of 72/100 that earned Silver in a previous cycle may now sit at the top of Bronze if the Silver threshold has risen. This is exactly what has been happening: Nexio Projects’ benchmarking data shows consistent upward pressure on medal thresholds across all levels [3]. Companies maintaining a score rather than improving it should expect their medal tier to come under pressure at reassessment. 

How do questions sitting in multiple themes affect scoring, and do they carry increased weighting? 

Some evidence items can contribute to more than one theme simultaneously. A supplier Code of Conduct, for example, may be counted toward both Ethics (anti-corruption provisions) and Sustainable Procurement (supplier sustainability requirements). This cross-theme benefit is one reason why comprehensive documents carry more weight than narrow, single-topic ones. 

The weighting mechanics depend on the indicator type. Reporting indicators follow the same weighting formula across all pillars. Endorsements and certifications may carry different weights depending on the pillar, so their contribution is not uniform across themes. 

Questions spanning multiple themes do not automatically receive increased weighting within a single theme. The multiplier effect comes from strong cross-theme evidence, which improves multiple theme scores at once, not from any single indicator being scored more heavily. 

What exactly counts as a “measure”? 

A measure is a concrete action your company has implemented, or is actively implementing, to manage a specific sustainability risk or improve performance in a given topic area. It goes beyond a policy, which states intent, and requires evidence of operational deployment. Examples include: a health and safety training programme; an energy efficiency initiative with consumption data; a supplier audit programme with documented results; an anti-corruption due diligence procedure. A measure must be specific, implementable, and evidenced. Stating an intention to introduce a measure, or describing one in general terms without supporting documentation, does not qualify. 

Do we need four or more measures per sub-theme? How is the percentage of key sustainability issues addressed calculated? 

EcoVadis measures scoring is based on the number of “strengths” awarded per activated criterion. A strength is earned by satisfying a specific sub-question in the assessment. 

For Environment and Labour & Human Rights, the score is determined by two factors combined: the number of strengths per activated criterion and the percentage of activated criteria with at least one measure. To achieve 100/100, a company needs 4 or more strengths per criterion, coverage exceeding 65% of activated criteria, and at least one measure in place for every activated criterion.  

Ethics is scored differently, based on whether measures cover Corruption, Information Security, or both, with additional conditions tied to whether a risk assessment is documented for either or both sub-criteria. 

Sustainable Procurement is scored based on the total number of strengths across all criteria, not per criterion. Six or more total strengths are required for a 100/100 score. 

The practical target across all themes is to aim for at least one strength per activated criterion as a minimum, and four or more strengths across the majority of activated criteria to push toward maximum scores. 

For large companies, what actions beyond certifications matter most for reaching 100/100 on the Coverage indicator? 

Coverage at 100/100 requires demonstrating that sustainability practices — certifications, training programmes, and management processes — are deployed across the full group, not just at primary production sites. The most common gaps for large companies are commercial offices and recently acquired subsidiaries that have not been included in certification scope or training programmes. Actions that move Coverage include: extending ISO certifications to all significant sites; ensuring H&S training completion rates are tracked and reported for all locations; deploying supplier sustainability screening across all suppliers; sourcing the majority of energy from renewable sources; and conducting risk assessments across all relevant operations.  

If a company scores 75 points in Reporting but has no public sustainability report, will it drop to 50 in the next assessment? 

This depends on why the 75 was achieved. From 2026, EcoVadis requires a public sustainability report aligned with a recognised framework to unlock the full Reporting score above 50/100 [2]. If a previous cycle awarded 75/100 under a less stringent methodology, and the same documents are resubmitted, they may not achieve the same result in a new cycle. The safest course is to check whether your Reporting score was based on a public report or internal evidence, and to initiate publishing a structured sustainability report ahead of your next assessment. 

How does a company size reclassification impact the EcoVadis score, and are previous years’ scores adjusted? 

When EcoVadis reclassifies a company’s size, the questionnaire may change: more (or different) criteria can be activated, and the standard applied to each indicator may shift. A company that previously scored 71/100 as an SME may find itself below Silver after reclassification, because the scoring standard is now higher. Previous scores are not retroactively adjusted, although historical scorecards remain as issued. The reclassification takes effect at the next assessment cycle. Companies anticipating reclassification should build this into their improvement planning and address newly activating criteria before the next submission. 

Deep dive into indicators: Certifications, endorsements, policies, reporting, and 360° Watch 

Which certifications are realistically achievable in Labour and Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement? Do we need all three ISO accreditations? 

The most commonly recognised certifications by theme are as follows: 

• Labour and Human Rights: ISO 45001 (occupational health and safety), SA8000 (social accountability), SMETA audit by Sedex.  

• Ethics: ISO 37001 (anti-bribery management system), ISO 27001 (information security, scored under the Ethics data protection criterion), SMETA audit by Sedex. 

• Sustainable Procurement: amfori BSCI, Rainforest Alliance, FSC/PEFC (where relevant to product category). 

• Environment: ISO 14001 (environmental management), ISO 50001 (energy management), EU Ecolabel, EMAS, SMETA audit by Sedex. 

You do not need all ISO standards. Each contributes to its respective theme, but the value depends on what is material for your sector. For most companies, ISO 14001 is the highest-impact environmental certification and ISO 45001 is the highest-impact Labour and Human Rights certification. ISO 50001 is most valuable for energy-intensive industries. SMEs should prioritise the certification most aligned with their highest-weighted theme before pursuing secondary standards. 

To what extent do certifications at parent-company or HQ level apply to subsidiaries, particularly those operating only warehouses or sales functions? 

Certifications held at the parent or HQ level contribute to the Certifications indicator in a group assessment, but the Coverage indicator assesses how widely those certifications extend across the group’s sites and operations. The definition of “operational site” matters here. EcoVadis includes all sites that conduct the company’s core business activity and sites that conduct other risky support activities, such as R&D centres and warehouses. Offices and sales representatives can be excluded from the operational site count, unless this is the company’s primary activity. 

Companies should review their certification scope documents to confirm which sites are included, and where feasible, extend the scope to cover significant operational sites such as warehouses. 

How does EcoVadis evaluate the maturity of an existing ISO-based management system? 

EcoVadis does not conduct its own audit. It assesses the documents you provide as evidence of the system’s existence and operation. A valid, in-scope ISO certificate from an accredited body is the primary evidence of management system maturity. Beyond the certificate, analysts look for evidence that the system is actively maintained: recent internal audit reports, management review records, corrective action logs, and performance data. An ISO certificate alone, without any supporting evidence of active operation, scores at the certification level but does not contribute to measures or reporting indicators. The more evidence you provide of the system functioning in practice, the more the indicators benefit. 

Which are the most common endorsements? 

The endorsements most frequently seen in EcoVadis assessments are: UN Global Compact (UNGC) membership with a Communication on Progress (COP); Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) commitments or validated targets; and industry-specific initiatives such as Together for Sustainability (TfS, chemicals sector), Responsible Business Alliance (electronics), and the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Initiative (PSCI). 

Each endorsement contributes to the Endorsements indicator, which carries approximately 5% weight in the overall score [8]. Endorsements are most valuable when combined with strong performance evidence; a UNGC COP that includes detailed multi-year KPI data will score better than one that simply lists memberships. 

Which is more valuable: SBTi or UN Global Compact membership? 

Both contribute to the Endorsements indicator and both can support other indicators depending on supporting documentation. SBTi is generally the stronger signal, specifically for the Environment theme. A validated, science-based target counts as high-quality evidence of a quantitative GHG commitment and can strengthen the Measures indicator, in addition to Endorsements.  

UNGC membership with a substantive COP contributes across multiple themes, including Labour and Human Rights and Ethics. For a company with a high Environment theme weighting and an active GHG programme, SBTi carries more scoring weight. For a company seeking broader multi-theme benefits, UNGC is the more versatile investment. The two are not mutually exclusive and are frequently held simultaneously by companies at Gold and Platinum levels. 

How does EcoVadis evaluate science-based climate targets not formally validated by SBTi? 

EcoVadis includes detailed questions about carbon and science-based targets, including SBTi commitment and validation status, as part of its Carbon section of the questionnaire. These questions generate a separate Carbon scorecard that rates a company’s climate management from Insufficient to Leader. However, the Carbon section questions do not currently contribute to the overall EcoVadis score or medal eligibility. 

Download our SBTi factsheet to learn more about the initiative and requirements! 

What controls should be documented for conflict of interest, confidentiality, and subcontractor competence? What makes a high-quality Ethics policy? 

A high-quality Ethics policy demonstrates: clear anti-corruption, anti-fraud, anti-money laundering and anti-bribery commitments with specific prohibited behaviours listed; information security and confidentiality provisions; conflict of interest procedures with disclosure requirements; grievance and whistleblowing mechanisms; and explicit application to subcontractors and third parties. The policy should cover the entire organisation, carry management approval and a date, and ideally name the legislation it is aligned with, such as the UK Bribery Act, FCPA, or Sapin II. What separates a high-quality Ethics policy from a standard one is specificity: describing the due diligence process applied to third parties and outlining how non-compliance is handled. 

What quantitative objectives does EcoVadis expect for zero-tolerance topics like child labour and anti-corruption, where traditional KPIs do not apply? 

For zero-tolerance topics, EcoVadis accepts a different evidence structure in place of reduction targets. The expected evidence is: a documented policy prohibiting the practice; measures implementing due diligence such as supply chain audits, training completion records, and a formal grievance process; and performance data showing the effectiveness of those controls: number of audits conducted, percentage of suppliers screened, number of reported incidents, or training completion rates. The zero-tolerance framing means the objective is operationalised through control processes. Documenting the process and its consistent application year over year is the functional equivalent of a performance KPI for these topics. 

What does “complies with reporting standards” actually require? Is GRI with reference sufficient? What about reports in transition to full compliance? 

EcoVadis scores the Reporting indicator on a tiered basis depending on the level of alignment with a recognised standard: 

• No public sustainability report: Reporting score capped at 50/100, regardless of KPI quality. 

• GRI “with reference to”: As of April 2026, qualifies for up to 75/100, provided other quality criteria are met. This is a meaningful improvement from previous methodology, where “with reference” earned a Strength but no specific score. 

• GRI “in accordance with” / ESRS compliance / VSME adoption: The route to maximum Reporting scores of up to 100/100. 

For companies with reports currently in transition, EcoVadis scores what is demonstrably published at the time of submission. There is no “in transition” scoring tier. A report that has been partially developed or is still in preparation cannot be submitted as evidence and will not be credited in the current assessment cycle. If a GRI “with reference” report can be published before submission, that is preferable to submitting an unaligned report or no report at all. 

If a company publishes an annual CSR/RSE report but it is not audited by an accredited body, is this a barrier to improving the score? 

A non-audited public report can still achieve a significant Reporting score. External assurance adds score in the Reporting indicator, typically unlocking additional points above the threshold achievable with an unverified report. The absence of assurance is not a ceiling-level barrier for most companies below Gold. For companies targeting Gold or Platinum, third-party verification of sustainability data becomes progressively more important. The first step is publishing a well-structured report aligned with a recognised framework; external assurance is the logical next investment once the reporting process is mature. 

How does EcoVadis assess supply chain engagement for small companies? 

Small companies are assessed on the same Sustainable Procurement indicators as large ones, but expectations are calibrated to scale. EcoVadis does not expect an SME to run a complex supplier audit programme. The minimum evidence for this theme is a procurement policy referencing sustainability criteria for suppliers. Beyond that, evidence of supplier questionnaires, self-assessment requests, or contractual sustainability clauses contributes to the Measures indicator.  

For SMEs with a limited supplier base, demonstrating that you apply sustainability criteria to your top suppliers by spend, even informally, with documented outcomes can be sufficient to achieve Bronze or Silver in this theme. 

For asset-light or professional service companies with a low direct operational footprint, how should environmental evidence be presented? 

The Environment theme for asset-light companies typically activates fewer material criteria. Water, biodiversity, and product use impacts may not be material for a consultancy or professional services firm. The criteria most likely to remain active include energy consumption and GHG emissions (Scope 1 and 2), waste management, and services & advocacy. Be precise about your environmental materiality: document which topics are material and which are not, and why.  

For active criteria, provide the data you do have, even if limited to office energy bills and an estimated emissions figure, and demonstrate that you are actively tracking and managing it. A lightweight but honest environmental management approach, documented with real data, scores better than a comprehensive-looking policy with no supporting figures. 

How long does a minor negative 360° Watch event remain in scoring before being removed? 

The 360° Watch scoring starts at 75/100 for each theme. Positive findings increase the score to 100; negative findings decrease it. Minor findings reduce the score by 25 points (to 50), major findings by 50 points (to 25), and severe findings by 75 points (to 0). 

Two separate timelines apply to negative findings: 

• Score impact: findings affect the 360° Watch indicator score for 5 years for Environment, Labour & Human Rights, and Sustainable Procurement; for 5–10 years for Ethics depending on the type of finding (5 years for information security, 7 for corruption, 10 for anti-competitive practices). 

• Medal ineligibility: major and severe findings can block medal eligibility for 3 years for Environment, Labour & Human Rights, and Sustainable Procurement; 5 years for Ethics. 

Companies can only formally appeal a 360° Watch finding if the underlying issue has been fully resolved and the company was found innocent. 

What criteria does EcoVadis use to classify a news article about a company as “positive”? 

EcoVadis evaluates 360° Watch positive signals using criteria related to verified sustainability achievements: third-party awards, independent recognitions, certification announcements, or verified impact data cited in credible external sources. Marketing communications promoting a sustainable product range do not typically qualify unless accompanied by independent verification or measurable claims.  

Articles published by sustainability partners or non-governmental organisations may qualify if they reference specific, verifiable actions or outcomes. Press releases from the company itself are generally not classified as positive signals. The strongest positive signals are award announcements from credible external bodies, certification publications, and media coverage citing independently verified sustainability data. 

How can SMEs improve their Certifications score affordably? 

Third-party sustainability audits offer the most accessible route to a Certifications score improvement without the full cost of ISO certification. A SMETA (Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit) covers Labour and Human Rights topics, can be conducted at one site, and is widely accepted by EcoVadis. Being BSCI audited covers similar ground.   

Both are typically less expensive than ISO certification and are achievable more quickly. For the Environment theme, EcoVadis also recognises standalone sustainability audits covering more than 30% of operations, conducted by a qualified external auditor, as a partial substitute for ISO 14001. The key conditions are that the audit must be standalone and must produce a complete written report. 

How does the system calculate the questionnaire score and accept answers? 

The system determines your questionnaire scope based on your Activated Criteria, the sustainability topics material to your company, defined by sector classification, size, and geographic operating risk. For each activated criterion, you answer questions and upload supporting documents. EcoVadis analysts independently review the evidence and assign scores across the PAR framework for each indicator. Theme scores are calculated from indicator scores, weighted by materiality. The overall score is a weighted average of your four theme scores, recalibrated against the global rated company database to produce your percentile ranking and medal. Changes to your sector classification, company size, or geographic scope can therefore alter both which criteria are activated and the weightings that apply [8]. 

Is the ADEME “Act pas à pas” method recognised by EcoVadis? 

The ADEME “Act pas à pas” framework is a step-by-step environmental action methodology published by France’s Agency for Ecological Transition. It’s not a formal reporting or certification standard recognised by EcoVadis as equivalent to ISO 14001 or a recognised reporting framework. However, a structured action plan based on this methodology can contribute to the Measures indicator in the Environment theme, provided it is documented as a formal company commitment with named actions, timelines, and outcomes. It functions as credible evidence of an environmental improvement programme, particularly for SMEs working toward structured environmental management without immediately pursuing ISO certification. Pair it with GHG consumption data and a documented emissions reduction plan for maximum relevance. 

What templates or methodology exist for calculating Product Carbon Footprint for submission? 

EcoVadis accepts PCF data calculated in accordance with ISO 14067 (the primary international standard for greenhouse gas quantification of products) or the GHG Protocol Product Standard. Sector-specific PCF methodologies, such as the PACT (Partnership for Carbon Transparency) Pathfinder framework, widely used in manufacturing supply chains, are also accepted as credible evidence. For the EcoVadis submission, the PCF should be documented as part of a product-level environmental management approach, linked to your broader GHG data, and submitted with the methodology and calculation scope clearly stated. Our factsheet PCF explained: Your roadmap for decarbonising products covers the methodology options in detail [9]. 

Does the 2026 materiality pilot influence the score, and how should companies use it? 

EcoVadis launched a materiality customisation pilot in early 2026 for a limited number of sectors. Within those sectors, companies (based on their materiality assessments) can indicate that a specific environmental topic is not material to their operations. If accepted, those questions are deactivated and removed from the assessment scope, which adjusts what the company is scored on. 

It is worth noting that this pilot is still in early rollout. Coverage is limited, and there has been no further public update from EcoVadis on its expansion since January 2026. For the time being, this mechanism is only available to companies in sectors covered by the pilot. 

For those companies, the process requires a formal, documented justification. A standalone double materiality assessment following a recognised methodology, such as the GRI materiality process or CSRD double materiality, is the most credible approach. It should include stakeholder engagement evidence, the assessment methodology, conclusions for each topic, and governance sign-off. EcoVadis analysts will review the justification, so the rigour of the process matters. 

For companies outside the pilot sectors, this mechanism is not currently available. We recommend checking directly with EcoVadis on eligibility before investing time in this route. 

Maintain or improve your score 

Once we have our scorecard, how do we know where to focus first. What does a realistic improvement roadmap look like? 

Your scorecard’s Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is the starting point. EcoVadis ranks improvement priorities by weight within each theme. However, the CAP reflects what EcoVadis sees, not necessarily what is fastest or most achievable for your specific organisation. A realistic improvement roadmap combines three filters: the corrective action plan priorities, the effort required to address each gap, and the score impact of closing it.  

High-weight gaps that can be resolved quickly – an expired policy, a missing KPI summary, a Code of Conduct without acknowledgement records – should be addressed first. Lower-weight gaps that require multi-year programme development like ISO certification, public sustainability reporting, should be planned across the next one to two cycles. A structured gap analysis with an experienced consultant makes this prioritisation significantly faster. 

How should companies prioritise corrective actions when multiple scorecard areas need improvement? 

Apply three criteria simultaneously: theme-level gaps first, then highest-weight indicators within themes, then lowest-effort quick wins. In practice: check all four theme scores first. If any are below 30, address the root cause immediately — a theme score below 30 eliminates medal eligibility regardless of the overall average. Then review the themes with the highest weighting for your profile, as these drive the most overall score movement. Within those themes, identify whether the gap is in Policies (faster to address), Measures (medium-term), Reporting (systematic investment required), or Certifications (longer-term). Quick wins like: 

• Policy updates 

• Formalisation of existing practices  

• KPI documentation  

can close five to ten points within a single cycle if targeted correctly. 

How can we improve when our organisation cannot set Scope 3 targets? How do we improve without entering GHG data at all? 

Scope 3 targets are not a prerequisite for a strong Environment score, and their absence does not limit what a company can achieve in the Environment theme. EcoVadis does not penalise companies for not reporting Scope 3 data. 

The primary expectation for companies where GHG emissions are an active criterion is to track and report Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. A structured inventory covering these two scopes, combined with a SMART reduction target and baseline year, contributes meaningfully to both the Measures and Reporting indicators. This is the realistic minimum for companies beginning their GHG journey. 

For companies that have not yet collected any GHG data at all, the practical starting point is to begin tracking energy consumption and converting it to CO₂ equivalent using a recognised conversion factor. Even a basic annual spreadsheet produced using a consistent methodology constitutes valid evidence at this stage. It does not need to be third-party verified to begin earning a score, though external assurance strengthens the Reporting indicator over time. 

Our takeaways 

The questions answered here represent exactly the kind of specificity that separates a strong EcoVadis submission from an average one. Understanding the mechanics, like what counts as a measure, how indicators are weighted, what the Coverage indicator actually requires, and when evidence is considered implementation rather than intent, allows companies to direct their effort precisely rather than exhaustively. 

If you have questions not addressed here, download the EcoVadis 2026 unlocked guide for a comprehensive guide to the 2026 methodology and how to structure your approach. 

EcoVadis is not a burden with Nexio Projects 

Nexio Projects is an international sustainability consultancy dedicated to guiding organisations on their journey from compliance to purpose. Their mission is to provide expert support across strategy development, ESG ratings, climate solutions, and comprehensive sustainability reporting. We help clients achieve their sustainability goals with a pragmatic, step-by-step approach. Our Ecovadis team has completed more than 600 EcoVadis projects, making us the #1 EcoVadis consultancy worldwide. We’re also an accredited strategic partner since 2018. 

Recognised as a top boutique ESG and sustainability strategy consultancy by Verdantix and as the best ESG consultancy in the Netherlands by Consultancy NL, we are here to help your organisation navigate the EcoVadis assessment with precision and achieve the medal your sustainability work deserves. 

Have a specific question about your EcoVadis assessment?  

References: 

[1] Nexio Projects. EcoVadis 2026: Your questions answered. https://nexioprojects.com/ecovadis-2026-your-questions-answered/ February 2026. 

[2] Nexio Projects. EcoVadis 2026 unlocked: Stay ahead of the rising standards. https://nexioprojects.com/knowledge-centre/stay-ahead-of-the-rising-standards-ecovadis-2026-unlocked/ February 2026. 

[3] Nexio Projects internal benchmarking data. EcoVadis medal threshold tracking, client portfolio data. Updated May 2026. Directional estimates — not independently verified by EcoVadis. 

[4] Nexio Projects. How to move from EcoVadis Committed Badge to Bronze in 2026. https://nexioprojects.com/how-to-move-from-ecovadis-committed-badge-to-bronze-in-2026/ June 2026. 

[5] Nexio Projects. How to move from EcoVadis Bronze to Silver in 2026. https://nexioprojects.com/how-to-move-from-ecovadis-bronze-to-silver-in-2026/ June 2026. 

[6] EcoVadis. Medal and badge methodology — percentile-based ranking system, introduced January 2024. https://ecovadis.com (accessed June 2026). 

[7] Nexio Projects. Going for Gold: What does it take to be an EcoVadis top performer? https://nexioprojects.com/going-for-gold-what-does-it-take-to-be-an-ecovadis-top-performer/ October 2024. 

[8] EcoVadis scoring methodology — indicator weights and 360° Watch impact timelines. Sourced from Nexio Projects training presentations (EcoVadis Supplier Engagement Webinar series, 2025–2026), consistent with EcoVadis public methodology documentation. 

[9] Nexio Projects. PCF explained: Your roadmap for decarbonising products. https://nexioprojects.com/knowledge-centre/pcf-explained-your-roadmap-for-decarbonising-products/ 

[10] Nexio Projects. Stay ahead of the rising standards: EcoVadis 2026 unlocked. https://nexioprojects.com/knowledge-centre/stay-ahead-of-the-rising-standards-ecovadis-2026-unlocked/