Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    Updated 1 October 2026
    Research-based buying guide

    Sustainability goals software: Greenly, Novisto and Watershed

    A goal needs a measurable objective, a baseline you can defend and a named owner. A dashboard displays figures that someone has reported. It cannot by itself show that emissions fell or that a sustainability commitment was met.

    Jump to the 12 products

    Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn

    On this page (13 sections)

    The three products are in alphabetical order, which is not a ranking. Treat them as places to start an evaluation, not as test results, and confirm which modules and services a proposal actually names.

    Greenly vs Novisto vs Watershed: compare the documented scope

    Status labels from each product's sourced record; open the profile for the evidence, conditions and dates. Research dates belong to each product; this table does not establish a fresh source check or a performance ranking.

    Categories describe software types; processes describe work to manage. Category membership does not confirm a specific feature or included module. Check the quoted plan and workflow with each vendor.

    Scroll horizontally on a small screen.

    Offline classification, pricing headline and trial status; full evidence on each profile
    ProductWorks offline?PricingFree trial
    Greenly

    Profile sources: 11 October 2026. Targeted recheck: 19 September 2026.

    		Not yet classified

    No verified starting price. Contact vendor.

    Pricing context    		Not established
    Novisto

    Profile sources: 10 October 2026. Targeted recheck: 2 October 2026.

    		Not yet classified

    No verified starting price. Contact vendor.

    Pricing context    		Not established
    Watershed
    +1 additional category

    Profile sources: 11 October 2026. Targeted recheck: 26 September 2026.

    		Not yet classified

    No verified starting price. Contact vendor.

    Pricing context    		Not established

    Profile links contain the primary sources and unresolved limitations. Vendor documentation is not hands-on testing. AI-assisted explanations may be incomplete and do not replace primary documentation or a demo.

    Greenly

    Profile sources checked 11 October 2026.

    Scoped pricing notes

    Novisto

    Profile sources checked 10 October 2026.

    Scoped pricing notes

    Watershed

    Profile sources checked 11 October 2026.

    Scoped pricing notes

    Run a comparable demonstration

    1. Write down the target, its owner, the measurement period and the boundary it covers.
    2. Show absolute change, intensity change and growth in activity as three separate figures.
    3. Keep the source and method that produced the baseline.
    4. Make a justified correction and show how it alters the progress that gets reported.
    5. Keep the action taken, the measured result and the remaining uncertainty in separate records.

    These are proposed exercises. Confirm permissions, evidence retention, source-system interfaces and the person responsible for each decision.

    Prepare this vendor scorecard

    Fix the baseline before the target: base year, boundary and recalculation

    The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard expects a company to choose a base year with verifiable data and to give its reasons. It allows a multi-year average, which can smooth over an unrepresentative year. The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (version 1.3.1) is narrower for companies seeking validation: the base year may not predate 2015, and scope 1 and scope 2 targets share one base year.

    Both documents expect a written recalculation policy with a significance threshold the company chooses and discloses. The GHG Protocol names three triggers: structural change such as an acquisition, divestment, outsourcing or insourcing; a change of method or of factor and activity-data accuracy; and errors that are significant alone or together. Organic growth is not a trigger. SBTi requires a threshold of 5% or less, applied to total base-year emissions and to the base-year emissions inside the target boundary.

    An absolute target fixes a quantity of emissions. An intensity target divides emissions by a business metric, so absolute emissions can rise while the ratio improves; the GHG Protocol therefore advises reporting absolute emissions for the covered sources next to an intensity result. A target boundary may be a subset of the inventory, but SBTi requires company-wide scope 1 and 2 and sets minimum scope 3 coverage, so record exactly what each target includes.

    For milestones, the GHG Protocol suggests interim targets or regular checks tied to the annual inventory, and it describes board or chief executive commitment as a prerequisite. SBTi expects annual public progress reporting and a review of active targets at least every five years. Software should therefore show who approved each target and each later change, not only the current number.

    What the software has to hold for a target

    RecordEvidence to retainWeak behaviour to challenge
    Baseline snapshotBase year or period, reasons for choosing it, inventory boundary, method and factor versions, approverThe baseline is a live number that silently moves whenever source data is edited.
    Recalculation historyTrigger, threshold applied, original and restated values, affected years, approver and dateAn acquisition changes the baseline with no stated reason, or a restatement overwrites the original.
    Target definitionType, level, completion year, interim milestones, scopes and sources covered, owner and sign-offBoundary is free text that is not linked to the inventory the progress figure uses.
    Progress recordReporting-year value, units, comparison basis, data lineage to source records and review statusA percentage reduction appears without the figures, boundary and corrections behind it.
    Change logEvery edit to target, boundary or baseline with user, time and reason, plus export of the logEdits to a signed-off target are possible without a new approval step.

    Worked example (fictional): a baseline that has to move

    The company, plant and figures below are invented to test software. A manufacturer sets an absolute scope 1 and 2 target of a 30% cut from a 2022 base year of 10,000 tCO2e, giving 7,000 tCO2e by 2030. In 2025 it buys a plant that emitted 1,200 tCO2e in 2022, a 12% change that exceeds its published 5% threshold. It records a structural trigger and restates the base year to 11,200 tCO2e, which moves the 2030 level to 7,840. Reported 2025 emissions of 9,900 tCO2e look like a 1% cut against the old baseline but an 11.6% cut against the restated one.

    Later it finds that a purchased-electricity factor misstated base-year emissions by 1.5%. Alone, that stays below the threshold, so it is logged as cumulative rather than restated. The software should keep both baselines, the reason, the approver and the error entry, and let the reviewer see why the progress figure changed.

    What the profile evidence says about targets

    Greenly's reduction-objective documentation describes objectives set globally, by scope or by sub-scope and compared with a trajectory built from chosen actions; its preset 2030 levels are planning assumptions rather than validation. Watershed's reduction pages cover targets, progress and scenarios, with results that depend on the baseline and assumptions chosen. Novisto's metrics page mentions custom metrics with target progress tracking. Confirm which of these functions are in each proposal.

    Three questions to put to each vendor

    Can you restate a baseline for a stated trigger, keep the original, and show which progress figures were affected?
    Is each target linked to a defined boundary, so adding a site or scope visibly changes what the target covers?
    Can a reviewer open the source records behind a progress figure, and who may edit or sign off a target?

    Researched products that document targets or goals

    Greenly, Novisto and Watershed are the three products compared at the top. This list applies one published rule to every researched profile instead: a product appears when it carries a carbon, ESG or sustainability-data tag and its record describes setting targets, tracking goals or defining reduction objectives. The records behind it cover different scopes, so read each card's capability line before treating two entries as equivalent.

    Having a target screen does not establish a defensible baseline, a recalculation policy or alignment with an external standard. Take the baseline exercise above to each product on the list and compare how it behaves when a base year is restated.

    Ordered by how closely our sources document this process, not by quality. Sponsored placements are labelled. How lists are ordered

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Carbon Accounting”, “Carbon Management”, “ESG Reporting”, “ESG Frameworks Reporting”, “Sustainability Reporting”, “ESG & Sustainability”, “Sustainability & ESG”, “Sustainability Data”, “Scope 3 Emissions”, “Scope 3” or “Emissions Reporting”, with a sourced target-setting or goal-tracking capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. 12 qualify; the first 8 are shown, then the other 4.

    Also meet the rule, in the same order (4)

    How we evaluated this

    The evaluation framework considers functional depth 25%, usability and adoption 20%, implementation and TCO 15%, integrations and API 15%, security and trust 15%, and customer voice 10%. No composite score was calculated. Revised 19 September 2026 using linked vendor research; this is not a product test.

    AI-assisted explanations may be incomplete. Verify primary documentation, contractual scope and the intended output. Software does not establish legal applicability, external assurance, compliant filing or achievement of a target.

    Review current CSRD buying context

    Sources for the target-setting guidance

    4 sources, checked 1 Oct 2026

    GHG Protocol and SBTi documents read 1 October 2026. They describe accounting and validation practice; this guide is buyer context, not advice on your target, and software cannot confer SBTi validation.

    Software categories to explore

    Use this Process to define the work, then explore these software types. Confirm the exact workflow and module with each vendor.

    See all software categories

    Continue the evaluation

    Carbon accounting softwareESG platform comparisonSoftware cost worksheet

    More related guides

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Does software ensure compliance?
    No. Establish applicable requirements, review responsibilities and the required output separately from vendor capability claims.
    Does spreadsheet import prove offline operation?
    No. Demonstrate disconnected work and later synchronization for the actual user role; an import function alone does not establish that workflow.
    Are reporting and carbon calculation the same scope?
    No. Identify where calculations occur, who maintains methods and how reviewed results enter the reporting process.
    Can we compare subscription prices alone?
    Include modules, implementation, integrations, support and internal ownership. Request a written proposal when public terms are incomplete.
    When should a sustainability baseline be recalculated?
    Follow the written policy your organisation has adopted. The GHG Protocol names structural change, method or data-accuracy change and significant errors as triggers, and SBTi sets a threshold of 5% or less for validated targets. Growth or decline in output alone is not a trigger. Ask software to keep the original baseline, the restated one and the approval.
    Should we choose an absolute or an intensity target?
    Decide with the owner of the target. Absolute targets fix a quantity; intensity targets can improve while total emissions rise. If you use intensity, keep absolute emissions for the same boundary visible beside it, and test that the software shows both.