Why compare Normative and Watershed?
What you should look for in a real alternative
What you should look for in a real alternative
Dcycle: the ESG platform that adapts to any need
These are the 5 key differences you should know to compare Normative and Watershed in 2025:
1. Methodological approach and calculation accuracy
2. Usability and system integration
3. Flexibility for different ESG frameworks
4. Technical support and expert guidance
5. Business model and scalability
Comparing Normative vs Watershed isn't just a technical exercise.
It's a strategic decision that can shape how we manage sustainability in our companies.
More and more companies are under pressure to measure their ESG impact rigorously, report it properly, and use it as a competitive advantage.
If you don’t do it, your competitors will.
It’s no longer about “doing the right thing” or telling nice stories.
It’s about having real, organized data ready to meet any regulatory or commercial demand.
In this article we’ll look at the differences between these two solutions, what key points to consider, and most of all, how to choose the option that truly fits your goals.
The demand for ESG solutions is growing fast.
Controlling environmental, social, and governance data is no longer optional.
It’s something the market, regulators, and clients are demanding.
Normative and Watershed have gained visibility because they promise to help companies measure and report their impact.
But what matters isn’t who speaks louder, it’s who performs better based on what we really need.
Choosing an ESG solution is not just a technical decision.
It’s a long-term bet on how we’ll work with our data, respond to regulations, and stand out in the market.
Understanding the role of sustainable finance frameworks is part of this process, as they shape how companies align ESG practices with broader financial strategies.
Both platforms use recognized standards like the GHG Protocol or ISO 14064.
But the difference lies in the level of detail and how those standards are implemented.
Not all methodologies are applied the same way.
Some solutions simplify too much or exclude key emissions.
That directly affects the reliability of the results.
What matters is how the data is modeled.
Whether we use generic data or have the ability to work with specific, traceable information from the source.
An ESG solution has to fit our daily operations.
It can’t be something only the technical team understands or that depends on endless spreadsheets.
Clear interface, low learning curve, and direct connection with our systems.
That’s what makes the difference between wasting time and getting results from month one.
If it doesn’t integrate with your ERPs, spreadsheets, or APIs, you end up relying on manual processes.
And that doesn’t scale.
Needs change depending on the sector, country, or objective.
Preparing an EINF report is not the same as getting SBTi validation or complying with the CSRD.
The key is for the solution to adapt to the framework we need.
And to do so without duplicating efforts or creating new reports from scratch every time.
A good ESG solution organizes the data once and distributes it in all the formats we need: regulations, audits, international standards.
This isn’t about someone telling you what to do.
It’s about having a team that helps you understand the data, make use of it, and solve issues when they arise.
Some platforms promise support but only reply to emails.
Others have a team that genuinely supports you through the process.
We’re not looking for external consultancy or audits.
We need a solution with a clear working model, that guides us and clears up doubts when we need it.
Prices, licenses, and conditions matter, of course.
But more important is how the solution scales with us.
A good solution doesn’t fall short if you grow, nor does it become unaffordable if you’re a small company.
It has to adapt to data volume, business complexity, and your goals.
And above all, what you pay should make sense with what you get.
You shouldn't pay for features you don’t use or for reports you don’t need.
Not all companies are at the same stage.
Some are just starting to organize their ESG data, while others already have advanced systems in place.
That’s why comparing Normative and Watershed only makes sense if we start from our specific context.
If we’re a small business, agility is what we value most.
We want to start quickly, without the process turning into a mess.
The platform must be clear, jargon-free, and allow us to measure properly from day one.
On the other hand, if we are a large company with operations in several countries, we need a solution that adapts to the complexity of our data.
One that can scale, integrate with our internal systems, and comply with multiple regulations at the same time.
And if we are a consultancy or part of the internal ESG team? Then what we need is flexibility.
A solution that lets us organize and distribute ESG data based on each case: from CSRD reports to SBTi-validated targets or plans aligned with the EU Taxonomy.
The approach matters. Because it’s useless for a platform to have a thousand features if they don’t adapt to what we truly need to do.
First, that you can centralize all your ESG data in one place.
No matter if it comes from spreadsheets, ERPs, external platforms, or suppliers.
Second, that it’s truly flexible.
That you can work with what you need: CSRD, SBTi, EINF, EU Taxonomy, ISOs…
without duplicating processes or conforming to rigid templates.
And third, that it aligns with your strategy.
It’s not enough to calculate emissions or generate reports.
You need a solution that turns that data into decisions and real outcomes.
Depending on how you enter the data, a tool will be more or less useful when calculating the carbon footprint.
Both use standard methodologies such as the GHG Protocol, but if the input data is not good, the result will not be good either.
It’s not just the tool.
It’s how we configure the system, what sources we use, and how much traceability we can provide.
Both offer support, but it’s not always direct or immediate.
Many times the assistance is limited or handled through forms and tickets that take time to resolve.
If you need real help, what matters is having a solution that not only provides support, but understands your context and helps you move forward without slowing down.
Both are available for any size, but the reality is that their pricing and implementation times can be a barrier for a small business.
In many cases, small businesses need more agile and lower-cost solutions, without sacrificing accuracy or regulatory compliance.
Yes, they can help you comply with CSRD, but they don’t do it alone.
You need to properly structure your data, identify the key indicators, and prepare the reports as required by the regulation.
And if you need to comply with multiple frameworks at once, it’s crucial that the tool doesn’t force you to repeat work for each one.
That’s where Dcycle comes in.
We are not auditors or consultants, we are a solution for companies that need to measure, manage, and communicate their ESG impact without complications.
We centralize all your ESG data in one place, and prepare it for any standard: CSRD, SBTi, EINF, Taxonomy, ISOs... whatever you need, whenever you need it.
If you’re looking for flexibility, speed, and clarity, Dcycle is the platform that adapts to your business. Not the other way around.
.png){kind=small}
Carbon footprint calculation analyzes all emissions generated throughout a product’s life cycle, including raw material extraction, production, transportation, usage, and disposal.
The most recognized methodologies are:
Digital tools like Dcycle simplify the process, providing accurate and actionable insights.
Some strategies require initial investment, but long-term benefits outweigh costs.
Investing in carbon reduction is not just an environmental action, it’s a smart business strategy.
.png)
.png)
