EcoVadis Assessment Framework: Group, Unit, or Location—Which Strategy Is the Right One?

More and more companies in the DACH region are turning to the EcoVadis rating to make their sustainability performance measurable and comparable. But right from the start, a key question arises: Should I have my company assessed as a whole group, as a single legal entity, or even at the site level?

The choice of assessment framework is critical to success in the EcoVadis process. It determines not only what data is collected and analyzed, but also how the results are perceived by customers and business partners.

Why the evaluation framework is so important

EcoVadis works with clearly defined entities. The guiding principle is that the assessment must always align with business practices and sustainability risks. An incorrectly chosen assessment framework can result in:

• important sustainability measures are not visible,
• Scorecards do not reflect actual performance levels,
• Companies have to go through the same process multiple times (e.g., for subsidiaries).

Which valuation frameworks are permissible—and which are not?

In general, EcoVadis evaluates legal entities (companies, subsidiaries, locations) that engage in verifiable business activities. However, certain structures are not permitted, including:

• Diversified conglomerates with highly diverse business units (e.g., chemicals and financial services within a single group)
• Departments or business units that are not separate legal entities
• Purely sales units with no operational activities (e.g., sales or marketing offices)
• Holding companies without operating subsidiaries
• Product names or brands without a company behind them
• NGOs, cooperatives, or government organizations outside the scope of application

An overview of the three options

1. Group Assessment (Corporate / Group Assessment)

A group-level assessment combines multiple subsidiaries or business units.

Advantages:

• A consistent presentation of the sustainability strategy for all stakeholders.
• Less duplication of effort for recurring topics (e.g., policies, global programs).
• Ideal for companies with centrally managed sustainability programs.

Challenges:

• All units must be able to demonstrate compliance with the same guidelines and measures.
• Individual locations with weaker implementation can affect the overall result.
• Increased requirements for documentation and coordination between units.

2. Individual Entity (Entity/Subsidiary Assessment)

Here, a single legal entity—such as a subsidiary or a state-owned enterprise—is being evaluated.

Advantages:

• A targeted assessment that better reflects local conditions.
• Companies with a heterogeneous structure can develop a scorecard specifically for the relevant parts of the supply chain.
• Flexible in dealing with a wide range of industry or risk profiles within the group.

Challenges:

• Greater effort is required when multiple units are evaluated simultaneously.
• Discrepancies between the scorecards may lead to questions from customers.

3. Site Assessment (Site/Facility Level)

In rare cases, a single production site may also be evaluated—especially if customers view that specific site as a supplier.

Advantages:

• A highly accurate representation of local conditions.
• Relevant for industries with strict location requirements (e.g., automotive, chemical).

Challenges:

• Hardly any economies of scale—each site evaluation is a separate process.
• The risk that the company's overall strategic sustainability efforts will not be visible.

‍

‍

Common pitfalls

Based on our project experience, we consistently observe the following mistakes when selecting an evaluation framework:

• “One-size-fits-all” approach: Companies opt for a group-wide assessment even though their units are structured very differently.
• Unclear distinction: Subsidiaries with independent business models are forced into the same valuation category.
• Lack of alignment with customer requirements: Customers often explicitly request an assessment of the specific unit that is relevant in the supply chain.

Best Practices for Making the Right Decision

1. Analysis of the governance structure: Who is responsible for policies, management systems, and measures—at the central or decentralized level?
2. Alignment with customer requirements: What criteria do key customers specify in their supplier evaluations?
3. Check for documentability: Can guidelines, key performance indicators, and supporting documentation be provided equally for all units?
4. Keep scalability in mind: If the company plans to conduct multiple assessments, a structure for documenting and reusing materials should be established early on.
5. Strategic fit: A corporate group with a clear sustainability strategy typically benefits from a group-level valuation, whereas heterogeneous structures often fare better with entity-level valuations.

Regulatory Context: Why It's More Than Just a Technical Decision

The choice of assessment framework depends not only on EcoVadis itself, but also on regulatory developments:

• CSRD / ESRS: Many corporate groups will be required to report on a consolidated basis in the future – a group valuation can create synergies.
• Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG): What matters here is which entity acts as the contractual partner—which often calls for an entity assessment.
• International supply chain requirements: Customers operating globally are increasingly demanding location-specific documentation, particularly in high-risk industries.

Our conclusion

The choice of the EcoVadis assessment framework is relevant from both a strategic and operational perspective. Companies should not make this decision solely for practical reasons, but should always consider it in conjunction with customer requirements, governance structures, and regulatory obligations.

The recommendation:

• Assessment Framework: Group → when sustainability is managed centrally and documented uniformly.
• Assessment framework: Unit → when business models, risks, or customer requirements vary significantly.
• Evaluation Framework: Location → when customers are focusing on specific facilities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Do I need to conduct a new assessment if my parent company already has a scorecard?

A: Yes, EcoVadis often requires a separate assessment if the subsidiary operates as a separate legal entity or if customers request it.

Q: Can I change the size of my business in the assessment framework?

A: Yes, but this must be requested through the EcoVadis platform and supported by appropriate documentation.

Q: What happens if I have multiple units appraised?

A: In that case, you will receive multiple scorecards—these may differ from one another, which has both advantages (tailored results) and disadvantages (inconsistencies).

‍

As an official EcoVadis Consulting Partner, Five Glaciers Consulting helps companies select the most appropriate assessment framework and prepare for the assessment efficiently.