Greenomy vs Ecocharting: ESG & Carbon Reporting Tools

The European sustainability software market faced significant disruption in December 2025 when Brussels revised CSRD requirements, exempting an estimated 80% of previously covered companies and delaying deadlines by two years. For vendors like Greenomy and Ecocharting, who had built their business models around steadily expanding regulatory mandates, the policy reversal forced a fundamental reassessment of market strategy.

Yet even as politicians scrambled to simplify rules they had only recently written, the underlying market logic remained unchanged. Companies still face mounting pressure from investors, customers, and remaining regulations to demonstrate environmental credentials. The question is no longer whether to invest in ESG reporting infrastructure, but which platform will deliver value beyond mere compliance box-ticking.

Enter two platforms frequently compared by European procurement teams. Greenomy, a Belgium-based veteran acquired by Nordic consolidator Position Green in September 2024, offers comprehensive multi-framework coverage backed by institutional capital and advisory depth. Ecocharting, a Dutch specialist founded in 2022, provides laser-focused CSRD compliance through streamlined software and partner networks. Both address the same fundamental challenge but through markedly different philosophies about what sustainability reporting software should actually do.

From Regulatory Darling to Market Question Mark

The regulatory whiplash has been severe. Large enterprises scheduled to begin reporting in 2026 for the 2025 financial year now face a new 2028 start date, while SMEs with securities listed in the EU had their deadline pushed from 2027 to 2029. More dramatically, reporting will now apply only to EU companies with more than 1,000 employees and more than €450 million in net annual turnover.

The political calculus driving these reversals is straightforward. Following reports from Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi criticizing European regulatory overreach, the Budapest declaration called for a simplification revolution, explicitly targeting administrative burdens on SMEs. What emerged was the Omnibus package, a textbook case of legislators admitting they had overreached.

For Greenomy and its competitors, the immediate impact appears manageable. Wave 1 companies, including public interest entities already preparing reports, remain obligated to comply. But the medium-term picture grows murkier. Vendors had built roadmaps assuming steady expansion to 50,000 companies. They now face a permanently reduced addressable market, intensified competition for remaining mandated clients, and nagging uncertainty about whether further simplifications might follow.

Industry analysis suggests the software market will adapt rather than collapse. Acquirers became more nuanced over the past 18 months, and strategic M&A moves are anticipated within the next 12 to 24 months. The Position Green acquisition of Greenomy fits precisely this pattern: consolidation driven by the need for scale and comprehensive capabilities that smaller point solutions cannot match alone.

Institutional Backing Meets Nordic Consolidation

Founded in 2020, Greenomy built its reputation as a regulatory compliance specialist covering CSRD, EU Taxonomy, and VSME frameworks. The platform digitizes over 100 economic activities and 3,700 data points, emphasizing depth over simplicity. Euroclear’s 2022 majority ownership signaled institutional confidence in both the platform and the regulatory tailwinds that appeared unstoppable at the time.

The Position Green acquisition fundamentally altered Greenomy’s trajectory. Position Green, which reported €15.6 million turnover in 2024, acquired Norwegian carbon management provider Morescope and Greenomy within a two-week span in late summer 2024. The combined entity now offers capabilities spanning sustainability reporting, carbon management, supply chain transparency, and capital markets integration.

For existing Greenomy customers, the acquisition brings access to expanded functionality. For prospective buyers, it creates both opportunity and complexity. Integration timelines remain opaque. Platform migrations may loom. The value proposition has shifted from pure-play CSRD compliance to something broader and potentially more valuable, but also more expensive and complex to implement.

Ecocharting tells a different story. Founded in Utrecht in 2022 by Joris de Bruijn and Niels van Gorsel, the company emerged specifically to address CSRD compliance for small and medium-sized enterprises. The platform focuses exclusively on CSRD, distinguishing itself through specialization rather than breadth. Purpose-built architecture for current regulatory requirements means no legacy system baggage and potentially faster feature deployment as implementation guidance evolves.

The independence matters. While Greenomy navigates post-acquisition integration, Ecocharting maintains focused product development aligned solely with CSRD. For companies wary of vendor consolidation and the inevitable platform changes that follow, this presents genuine appeal.

When Breadth Becomes Burden

Greenomy offers comprehensive framework coverage including CSRD, EU Taxonomy, and VSME within a unified interface. The platform automatically computes eligibility by Turnover, CapEx, and OpEx across mandatory requirements, reducing manual calculation errors. Participation in key ESG networks including Friends of EFRAG, xBRL, and the FCA Regulatory Sandbox demonstrates active involvement in shaping regulatory interpretation.

This breadth proves valuable for multinational organizations operating across multiple jurisdictions or anticipating future regulatory expansions. The platform’s generative AI-enhanced ESG data libraries assist with interpretation and gap analysis. Cloud-based integration tools enable connections to ERP systems and multiple data sources without extensive manual manipulation.

Yet breadth creates its own problems. For organizations primarily concerned with CSRD compliance, especially those hit by the Omnibus simplifications and potentially no longer mandated to report, multi-framework functionality becomes unused interface complexity. The learning curve steepens. Implementation timelines extend. Costs rise to pay for capabilities that may never activate.

Ecocharting takes the opposite approach. The platform was built exclusively for CSRD compliance, offering step-by-step report builders based on ESRS guidance. Emissions reporting structures across Scopes 1, 2, and 3 use the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and support alignment with the CO₂ Performance Ladder methodology common in Benelux procurement.

The focused approach eliminates interface clutter. Users report appreciating guided workflows that reduce the need for heavy technical or consulting support, making the platform accessible to sustainability teams without dedicated IT resources. Materiality assessment tools help companies define priorities and form decarbonization strategies by discovering quick wins and long-term solutions.

The strategic gamble is whether CSRD remains stable enough to justify single-framework specialization. Given Brussels’ recent track record, that assumption looks shakier than it did 18 months ago.

The Advisory Model Divide

Greenomy distinguishes itself through comprehensive advisory services complementing its software platform. ESG advisors support clients through every phase of the reporting journey, from devising strategy to comprehensive CSRD, VSME, and EU Taxonomy reporting. The advisory model combines hands-on support with double materiality assessments, ESRS readiness reviews, taxonomy alignment, audit preparation, and gap-to-compliance roadmaps.

This human-plus-software approach accelerates time-to-compliance for organizations overwhelmed by regulatory complexity. Specialists have supported companies across various sectors, establishing long-lasting processes and governance structures. Customer testimonials reference Greenomy Advisory team assistance making double materiality assessments proceed smoothly for nervous teams.

The approach carries obvious appeal for enterprises lacking internal ESG expertise or facing their first mandatory reporting cycle. It also locks in revenue beyond software subscriptions, insulating Greenomy somewhat from regulatory uncertainty by monetizing expertise rather than just compliance obligations.

Ecocharting positions itself differently. The company does not provide consultancy services directly but works closely with a network of trusted ESG experts and accountants. Partners include BMD Advies, De Duurzame Adviseurs, and Newtone Advies en Accountancy, who provide consultancy helping businesses improve sustainability, meet environmental regulations, and integrate ESG practices.

This partnership model allows Ecocharting to maintain software development focus while connecting clients with local expertise. For companies with existing advisor relationships, this separation proves advantageous. For organizations seeking turnkey solutions, Greenomy’s integrated model likely holds more appeal, though at presumably higher cost.

Pricing Opacity and Market Positioning

Neither company publicly discloses comprehensive pricing, reflecting enterprise software convention of customized proposals based on company size, complexity, and module selection. Greenomy offers a 14-day trial where companies can begin working on EU Taxonomy and CSRD reporting, with trial requests reviewed within 24 hours. This low-friction evaluation approach helps procurement teams assess platform fit before financial commitment.

Ecocharting emphasizes a simple yet flexible license model determined through short consultations. The company regularly gathers feedback through monthly ESG Expert sessions to shape and prioritize new features, appealing to companies wanting influence over roadmap priorities.

Both target the European mid-market, but positioning differs. Greenomy’s institutional backing, broader framework coverage, and integrated advisory suggest orientation toward larger enterprises willing to pay premium prices for comprehensive solutions. Ecocharting’s CSRD specialization and consultant-partner model targets companies seeking straightforward compliance without the bells and whistles.

The Omnibus simplifications complicate both value propositions. Companies newly exempted from mandatory reporting face awkward questions about whether voluntary compliance justifies software investment. Vendors must pivot from selling compliance necessity to selling business value, a substantially harder argument requiring proof of ROI beyond avoiding regulatory penalties.

Consolidation’s Winners and Losers

The Position Green acquisition positioned Greenomy within a broader consolidation wave reshaping the ESG software landscape. In 2024 there were over 270 new module launches globally, with vendors reporting more than 150 updates featuring embedded AI analytics for ESG risk-scenario modelling by early 2025. Strategic M&A, platform consolidation, and channel partnerships are driving vendor valuations in a market where scale increasingly determines survival.

For existing Greenomy customers, consolidation brings access to automated emissions tracking, actionable reduction insights, and real-time supplier performance data through the Position Green ecosystem. However, integration timelines and potential platform migrations create implementation uncertainty that procurement teams must address through vendor discussions. The acquired company’s independence has ended. Product roadmaps now serve a larger corporate strategy that may or may not align with original customer priorities.

Ecocharting’s independence allows focused development aligned with CSRD requirements without multi-product integration distractions. The 2022 founding positions it as purpose-built for current regulatory requirements rather than adapted from legacy systems. This architectural advantage may translate to faster feature deployment. It also leaves Ecocharting more vulnerable to market consolidation, regulatory shifts, and competitive pressure from larger, better-capitalized rivals.

Market dynamics favor consolidation. The global ESG software market was valued at $838.6 million in 2023 and is estimated to register a CAGR of 14.3% between 2024 and 2032. Regulatory pressure drives spending despite political reversals. Companies increasingly recognize ESG reporting delivers business value through transparency, risk mitigation, and stakeholder trust, regardless of legal mandates.

The question is whether independent specialists like Ecocharting can sustain differentiation or whether comprehensive platforms absorb the market through superior capital, broader functionality, and bundled advisory services. Recent history suggests the latter. Software markets tend toward oligopoly, not fragmentation.

Choosing Between Philosophy and Pragmatism

Platform selection ultimately depends on organizational requirements, risk tolerance, and strategic objectives. Companies requiring multi-framework support, seeking comprehensive advisory services, or anticipating complex data integration needs will find Greenomy’s established platform and Position Green ecosystem advantageous. The platform suits enterprises with mature sustainability programs seeking to consolidate disparate reporting processes under unified infrastructure.

Greenomy makes most sense for organizations that view ESG reporting as strategic capability rather than compliance burden. The advisory depth, multi-framework coverage, and institutional backing provide insurance against regulatory uncertainty and future requirement expansion. However, this comes at the cost of complexity, longer implementation timelines, and presumably higher total cost of ownership.

Ecocharting appeals to organizations prioritizing CSRD compliance, preferring software-centric solutions, or maintaining existing advisor relationships. The platform’s focused scope reduces complexity for companies in their first mandatory reporting cycle or those with straightforward requirements. Small and medium-sized enterprises may appreciate the streamlined interface and consultant-partner model that keeps software and advisory cleanly separated.

The strategic risk centers on regulatory stability. If CSRD undergoes further simplification or the market shifts toward different frameworks, Ecocharting’s specialization becomes vulnerability rather than strength. The platform’s youth means less proven track record navigating regulatory changes. Its independence means less financial cushion to weather market turbulence.

Both platforms address the fundamental challenge of transforming complex regulatory requirements into manageable workflows. The Omnibus simplifications have not eliminated this challenge but have redefined its urgency and scope. Neither platform represents a universally superior choice. They embody different philosophies about how software should support sustainability reporting in an environment where regulatory certainty has evaporated.

Procurement teams evaluating platforms should demand trial access, reference customer implementations in similar industries, assess alignment with broader digital transformation roadmaps, and secure clear commitments on integration timelines and product stability. The regulatory foundation upon which these platforms were built has shifted. The software must prove value beyond compliance alone. Whether comprehensive or specialized, integrated or modular, the winner will be the platform that delivers business insight alongside regulatory adherence. Tick-box compliance no longer suffices. The market has moved on.