green quadrant ehs software 2017 - enablon · green quadrant ehs software 2017 this report provides...

Green Quadrant EHS Software 2017

J U L Y 2 0 1 7

W W W . V E R D A N T I X . C O M

This version of the report contains Verdantix’s two-page profile and summary of Enablon’s capabilities

to help prospective customers evaluate whether the vendor is a good fit for their EHS information

management requirements. It does not contain other vendor profiles.


This report provides the fourth detailed fact-based comparison of the 20 most prominent EHS software

vendors. Based on the proprietary Verdantix Green Quadrant methodology, the analysis is based on 2.5 hour

live product demonstrations with pre-set scenarios, vendor responses to a 251-point questionnaire, interviews

with 15 independent customers representing 10 industries who have bought, or are planning to buy, EHS

software, and a survey of 301 EHS decision-makers. The analysis finds that acquisitions and investment rounds

continue to reshape competitive dynamics putting pressure on vendors to invest in innovative technology.

Customer purchase priorities are focused on user interface design, mobile capabilities, integrated EHS platforms

and increasingly international presence. The analysis finds that 10 vendors currently lead the market in both

momentum and software application capabilities whilst the other vendors have strong capabilities in specific

areas such as chemicals management, environmental management, safety and risk.

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

The State Of The Market For EHS Software ................................................................................................................................ 5

EHS Software Vendors Face An Intensely Competitive Market ......................................................................................... 5

Acquisitions, Rebrands, And Investment Continually Reshape The Vendor Landscape

Four Factors Increase Competitive Pressure And Pose Risks To Steady-State Vendors

EHS Software Vendors Must Tackle More Complex Technology Challenges

Customers Prioritize Integrated EHS Platforms To Eliminate Silos And Engage Users ......................................... 9

Survey Data Shows That Incident, Risk, Auditing, And Sustainability Management Drive Purchase Intent

Quality Of The User Interface Is The Key Differentiator For Prospective Buyers

On-Premise And Private Cloud Deployments Are Favoured Over Public Cloud, For Now

Mobile Capability Is Quickly Becoming An Essential Selling Point

Global Brand Awareness For EHS Software Vendors Remains A Major Hurdle

Green Quadrant For EHS Software ................................................................................................................................................ 18

Green Quadrant Methodology

Evaluated Firms: Selection Criteria

Evaluation Criteria For EHS Software

Scope And Methodology Updates For The 2017 EHS Software Green Quadrant

Enablon’s Momentum Holds Steady As It Continues To Offer One Of The Most Robust And Well-Rounded EHS

Software Solutions On The Market

G RE EN QUADRANT E HS S OFTWARE 2 01 7

C O P Y R I G H T © V E R D A N T I X L T D 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 7 . L I C E N S E D C O N T E N T , R E P R O D U C T I O N P R O H I B I T E D 2

TA B L E O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1. EHS Software Market Transactions January 2016 To June 2017 ........................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Benefits Of The EHS Function ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3. EHS Software Penetration By EHSQ Process ............................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Corporate Investment Plans For EHS Software In 2017 .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Importance Of EHS Software Purchasing Criteria ..................................................................................................... 13

Figure 6. EHS Software Deployment Preferences Of EHS Professionals ............................................................................. 15

Figure 7. EHS Software Brand Awareness And Preferences in 2016 ..................................................................................... 17

Figure 8-1. Capabilities Criteria For EHS Software Applications ............................................................................................ 22



Figure 9. Momentum Criteria For EHS Software Applications ................................................................................................ 25

Figure 10. Green Quadrant EHS Software 2017 ........................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 11-1. Criteria Scores .................................................................................................................................................................. 27






O R G A N I Z A T I O N S M E N T I O N E D

3E Company, Actio, AECOM, Airsweb, Alcoa, Amazon, AMGEN, AngloAmerican, Baring Private Equity Asia, BMO

Financial Group, Bombardier, CMO Software, Cority, cr360, Dakota Software, e3 Solutions, Ecocion, EcoIntense,

eCompliance, EMEX, Enablon, Enviance, ErgoAdvocate, EtQ, ExxonMobil, Field ID, Flyabability, General Electric,

Genstar Capital, Georgian Partners, Goodrich, Heddoko, HG Capital, Hitec, Home Depot, IBM, HIS, Intelex, IQS,

IsoMetrix, Locus Technologies, Lumo, Master Lock, Medgate, MetricStream, Microsoft, Mitratech, Modulo,

Morgan Stanley, NordSafety, Norwest Partners, One Peak Partners, Optech4d, Pepsico, Perillon, Potash Corp,

ProcessMAP, Qlik, RealWear, regAction, Rivo Software, SafetyCulture, SAI Global, SAP, SiteHawk, Sphera

Solutions, thinkstep, UL, Unilever, VelocityEHS, Walmart, Wolters Kluwer



The State Of The Market For EHS Software

The market for EHS software has been driven by major business themes over the last 30 years, such as

regulatory compliance, corporate reputation protection, accident avoidance, worker well-being, and process

standardization. In the past five years, the market has been impacted by supply-side factors such as mergers

and acquisitions, the birth of the Internet of Things (IoT), and an abundance of investment capital. At present,

EHS software vendors range from 500-employee firms with revenues over $100 million to founder-managed

firms with less than $5 million in annual revenues.

Given the rapid pace of change in this market, the report provides individuals responsible for selecting,

implementing and deriving value from EHS software with a detailed description of the 20 most prominent

vendors and their products available in the market. Individuals involved in the governance of EHS software

include EHS managers at corporate, division and site-level, as well as managers in IT, operations, finance,

sustainability and quality. Their questions include:

Which EHS software applications lead the market?

Which EHS software applications will best match the requirements of my firm?

How can I benchmark the capabilities of EHS software applications?

What factors indicate that EHS software vendors are a reliable partner for the future?

How much budget should I allocate for an investment in EHS software?

To answer these questions, Verdantix assessed 20 suppliers using a 251-point questionnaire, a 2.5-hour live

product demonstration, and one or more interviews with vendor executives. We also interviewed 15 EHS

software customers from three countries, representing ten unique industries with collective annual revenues

totalling $282 billion. The resulting analysis is based on the proprietary Green Quadrant methodology designed

to provide an evidence-based, objective assessment of suppliers providing comparable products or services.

EHS Software Vendors Face An Intensely Competitive Market

The pace change in the EHS software market is as fast now as it has ever been. Private equity investments,

acquisitions, buy outs, freshly developed modules, technology innovations, and newly formed partnerships

make headlines on a recurring basis. The result? A hyper-competitive market.

Acquisitions, Rebrands And Investment Continually Reshape The Vendor

Landscape

Of the forces at play in altering the EHS software market landscape, none are larger nor more immediate than

acquisitions and investments. Looking only at the period since research for the previous Green Quadrant was

closed, major market events include:

A bevy of acquisitions to deliver broad EHS software platforms.

Since January 2016, there have been 12 major acquisitions involving software vendors featured in this

year’s assessment. Some of the most influential deals include UL’s acquisition of cr360 on February 2,

2016, Wolters Kluwer’s purchase of Enablon in May 2016, Intelex’s acquisition of Ecocion in June 2016,

VelocityEHS’s purchase of e3 solutions in September 2016, and the acquisition of Rivo by Sphera in April

2017 (see Figure 1). Most acquisitions were aimed at eliminating functionality gaps as opposed to

eliminating direct competitors. By no means have these acquisitions resulted in a consolidation of the

market across the 20 providers with the largest market share.





EHS Software Market Transactions January 2016 To June 2017

F IGU RE 1

Source: Verdantix

2016

2/2

2/3

2/29

3/23

5/31

6/1

6/20

6/21

6/29

8/1

8/31

9/29

12/22

2017

2/15

3/2

4/4

4/6

5/22

Event

Acquisition UL acquires cr360

Merger EtQ merges with Verse Solutions

Acquisition VelocityEHS acquires ErgoAdvocate

Investment Cority investment from Norwest Partners, Georgian Partners, BMO

Acquisition Wolters Kluwer acquires Enablon ($278 million)

Buyout by PE Genstar Capital purchases IHS OERM assets to form Sphera

Acquisition Enviance acquires Actio

Acquisition Mitratech acquires CMO Software

Acquisition Intelex acquires Ecocion

Acquisition Mitratech acquires Hitec

Acquisition SAI Global acquires Modulo

Acquisition VelocityEHS acquires e3 Solutions

Buyout by PE Baring Private Equity Asia takes SAI Global private ($1 billion)

Acquisition Cority acquires regAction

Acquisition Cority acquires IQS

Investment Mitratech receives investment from HG Capital ($21.3 million)

Acquisition Sphera Solutions acquires Rivo Software

Investment EcoIntense investment from One Peak Partners & Morgan Stanley

Description

Multiple corporate and private equity buyouts.

Private equity firms pay close attention to the EHS software market as it has crossed the technology

innovation chasm and offers the potential to create profitable cloud-based software businesses. As a

result, two major PE buyouts occurred in the last 18 months: Genstar Capital acquired IHS's Operational

Excellence and Risk Management business in June 2016 and SAI Global was taken private by Baring

Private Equity Asia for $1 billion in a deal that closed in December 2016.

Rebrands to enhance customer perception and future growth.

The new management team rebranded the former IHS assets to Sphera Solutions in September 2016.

Following acquisitions of environment and quality software vendors, Medgate rebranded as Cority in

June 2017 to allow it room to develop a reputation as an enterprise environmental, health, safety and

quality (EHSQ) software application beyond the strong brand resonance it had created for industrial

hygiene and occupational health.

Cash injections for significant product development and sales expansion.

EcoIntense, an EHS software vendor which features in the Green Quadrant for the first time, received a

€22 million ($24.6 million USD) investment from One Peak Partners and Morgan Stanley Expansion

Capital in May 2017. Mitratech secured a £16.4 million ($21.3 million USD) investment from HgCapital in

April 2017 and Medgate (now Cority) landed an undisclosed strategic investment from Norwest Venture

Partners, Georgian Partners, and BMO Financial Group in March 2016.

Four Factors Increase Competitive Pressure And Pose Risks To Steady-State

Vendors

Since January 2016, the EHS software market has been shaped by numerous acquisitions, private equity (PE)

investment, and buyouts. Whilst all vendors continue to invest in their products, grow revenues, and win new

customers, the rapid pace of market evolution means that a slow and steady growth trajectory results in relative

stagnation. The four most significant factors ramping up competitive pressure include:

Larger firms backing the growth of EHS software divisions and products.

Whilst there have always been a handful of large firms such as DNV GL, IHS and SAP with EHS software

offerings, these products did not always garner a lot of interest from the firm’s executives. In the last 18

months, the passive approach of large firms has changed. UL has made multiple acquisitions to build a

growth and innovation focused division called UL EHS Sustainability, with over 400 employees. Wolters

Kluwer, an information solutions firm with revenues of approximately €4 billion, invested €250 million to

buy Enablon. DNV GL, which has nearly 14,000 employees, has renewed its commitment to the EHS

software team who develop the Synergi Life product. SAI Global has created an EHS and risk software

division with a dedicated CEO and three related products. Whilst not having the support of a larger firm

won’t mean failure in this market, having access to a broad range of experts, global offices, and a

stronger brand certainly helps the EHS software teams within these organizations.

Enterprise and mobile app usability impacting new business sales and customer retention.

According to the Verdantix annual global survey of 301 EHS decision-makers, 92% stated that the quality

of the user interface is either ‘very important’ or ‘important’ when they make a decision regarding which

EHS software application to purchase. The issue of usability has become even more impactful following

the mainstreaming of EHS mobile apps for usage scenarios such as audit, incidents and safety

observations. An excellent user interface will win a vendor new business and a badly designed user

interface will cause another vendor to lose customers when they come to the end of a three- or four-year



subscription contract. It is only in the last three years that the pace of innovation and the impact of

mobile product strategies has pushed user interface design to the top of the application design priority

list.

Convergence between EHS software workflow, chemical compliance and risk apps.

The pace of the EHS software market has created a functionality breadth and depth arms race – which is

what the Green Quadrant assesses on the Capabilities axis. Management of chemicals compliance is a

significant area of differentiation given the detailed national regulations that apply. The combination of

EHS software and chemicals compliance offerings from vendors such as SAP, Sphera, UL EHS

Sustainability and VelocityEHS has required a response from other vendors to compete effectively in the

petrochemicals market. Many EHS software vendors have partnered with 3E Company to provide

chemicals compliance management capabilities, including Airsweb, Cority, and IsoMetrix. EtQ and Intelex

have partnered with SiteHawk for the same reason. Other vendors such as DNV GL, Enablon, Mitratech

and SAI Global have focused their product investment on stronger risk management tools – pushing their

positioning towards customer business functions such as operations and production.

International growth strategies that resonate with global customers.

North America and Europe are currently the biggest markets for EHS software and together account for

more than three-quarters of the $1.03 billion 2017 global market size (see Verdantix EH&S Software:

Global Market Size And Forecast 2016-2020). But most vendors have at least 75% of their revenues

coming from a single region. Reflecting the desire of Fortune 500 customers to have vendors with multi-

country presence, international web hosting, multi-lingual capabilities and a knowledge of EHS

regulations around the world, most vendors are planning international growth strategies. This previously

overlooked dimension of competitive differentiation will negatively impact the market opportunities for

vendors with their experts located in a single country or continent. For small firms, without investment or

acquisitions, building a substantial international presence is impossible to achieve.

EHS Software Vendors Must Tackle More Complex Technology Challenges

Aggressive growth strategies mean that vendors comfortable with organic growth oriented towards utilizing

existing strengths run a risk of being left behind. It is not that these firms will fail commercially –but their

revenue growth curves may be lower than their peer group. The expanding EHS technology ecosystem has

added another piece to the puzzle for EHS software vendors: every provider is asking itself which technologies,

if any, will bolster its capabilities and provide immediate value to its paying and potential customer base. The

major components of this challenge include:

Incorporating different flavours of analytics into the EHS app.

The overwhelming majority of EHS software firms will bring up analytics and business intelligence (BI)

when talking about future strategy. Some users will expect a simple way to export their EHS data into a

corporate BI tool such as IBM Cognos. Other users will expect the vendor to embed EHS analytics tools

into the software so they can generate insights without needing a BI expert in IT to massage the data.

Building out of the box data cubes in Qlik and figuring out which data sets to interlink in the application

for serious injury-leading indicators is a far bigger software development challenge than configuring best

practice workflow with a drag and drop interface. Customer demand for powerful analytics will put

pressure on smaller or less well funded software development teams.

Ensuring mobile applications get rapid traction with edge users.

Even in 2015, many RFPs for EHS software placed mobile apps in the top five items on the customer wish

list. The importance of having a mobile-capable enterprise app has continued to grow in strategic



importance. Why? Mobile EHS management has a number of benefits, including increased employee

engagement, more accurate incident information, and improved auditing efficiency. Mobile helps drive

engagement with safety initiatives from the office of corporate EHS managers into the realm of lone-

workers, truck drivers, crane operators and construction site supervisors. The prioritizing of mobile by

customers poses significant software engineering challenges for vendors. Firstly, many developers with

enterprise app experience flunk the usability test when they try and create a mobile app for non-PC, non-

office-based users. This results in very low usage stats of the mobile app. Secondly, vendor CTOs face a

big cost increase for mobile. Maintaining a portfolio of native mobile apps (e.g. for audit, incident, and

observations) for three operating systems and synchronizing them with the enterprise app is costly but

facilitates offline performance. Responsive web app design ensures higher levels of consistency with the

enterprise app and far fewer maintenance issues but requires more costly developers, a cloud platform

and more time to ensure the offline functioning of the mobile app.

Combining EHS-related IoT devices with the enterprise hub.

The EHS IoT includes devices such as beacons, sensors, mobile devices, drones, wearables, augmented

reality headsets, and internet-connected equipment from vendors such as Flyability, Heddoko, Lumo,

Optech4d, and RealWear (see Verdantix Smart Innovators: Worker Safety Technology). The key for EHS

software vendors is figuring out the best way to utilize the data acquired by these edge devices, which

implies uploading it into the enterprise app as well as sending information back to the IoT devices. IoT

product developments are vendor-led not customer-led. EHS software vendors face a challenge to

determine what EHS IoT capabilities to develop, when to invest and how much to invest. Given the

potential range of usage scenarios and current lack of information about customer buying propensity,

there is scope to either get involved too early or leave it too late.

Moving towards multi-tenant, public cloud deployment models.

The EHS software market has witnessed a slow and steady departure from majority on-premise

deployments to cloud-based deployments. Only six of the 20 vendors in this study maintain a customer

base that is majority on-premise. That said, 76% of the vendors in the Green Quadrant still have

customers using their software through on-premise deployments, so this deployment model hasn’t

become extinct just yet. At the other end of the innovation spectrum, safety software provider

eCompliance brought an offering to market in 2007 that remains 100% multi-tenant, and its success can

be seen through customer wins such as Alcoa, Goodrich, Potash Corp, and its recent acquisition of Field

ID from Master Lock (see Verdantix eCompliance Cracks The Code For Mid-Market Safety Software). The

challenge for vendors is that with credible cloud-based offerings available in the market, the better

economics (and lower prices) of the multi-tenant model will slowly strangle the on-premise and single-

instance businesses. For the next 10 years, there will still be certain segments of the market such as oil

and gas firms in Russia or Saudi Arabia that require on-premise software but Verdantix analysis indicates

that by 2025 the majority of customers in all industries and at all revenue sizes will be willing to deploy

on a multi-tenant platform. For a vendor with a large base of on-premise or single-instance deployments,

building a new multi-tenant platform and aligning revenue plans with the lower upfront payments is a

painful process only possible with external investment.

Customers Prioritize Integrated EHS Platforms To Eliminate Silos

And Engage Users

In our customer panel, Verdantix asked the 15 participants to explain their motivations for investing in EHS

software and their perspective on their experience with EHS software as a whole. This data, both qualitative and

quantitative, was aggregated with data from our most recent annual survey of 301 EHS decision-makers





F IGU RE 2

Benefits Of The EHS Function

Source: Verdantix EHS Global Leaders Survey 2016

Note: Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5% have been written as numbers. N=301

(see Verdantix Global EH&S Leaders Survey 2016: Budgets And Priorities). Overall, the most recent data shows

that customer preferences have not changed significantly in the past 18 months.

Survey Data Shows That Incident, Risk, Auditing And Sustainability

Management Drive Purchase Intent

EHS professionals have a lot on their plate, but the Verdantix survey reveals that certain core EHS management

issues drive the adoption of EHS software. The research indicates that:

CEOs believe EHS provides regulatory compliance and risk reduction.

Ninety-four percent of EHS professionals told Verdantix that they believe their CEOs have a ‘strong belief’

that the benefit of EHS is regulatory compliance (see Figure 2). Eighty-six percent had the same

sentiment regarding EHS improving risk management. Indicating a stark drop in the perceived benefits of

EHS, only 70% felt their CEO saw EHS as providing a competitive advantage, and 55% saw the

department as contributing to financial performance.

“Purchasing EHS software is an internal struggle. We received approval for a half-million-dollar project all

the way up to the CEO, but they were only comfortable with partial budget initially and now want to

squeeze the budget.” (Manufacturing Firm)

55%

70%

86%

94%

40%

27%

14%

5

4

3

1Enhances financial performance

Strengthens competitive advantage

Improves risk management

Achieves regulatory compliance

"To what extent do you think that your CEO believes the EHS function delivers the following benefits for your firm? (select one response per question)"

Strong belief Moderate belief Does not believe Don't know



EHS Software Penetration By EHSQ Process

F IGU RE 3

Source: Verdantix N=301

12%

15%

13%

17%

17%

17%

25%

23%

26%

26%

34%

29%

33%

39%

38%

9%

10%

14%

13%

15%

16%

19%

20%

20%

21%

21%

22%

22%

20%

26%

11%

9%

11%

10%

15%

15%

14%

15%

17%

21%

14%

18%

16%

13%

24%

Permit to work

Management of change

Industrial hygiene

Product compliance

Water and wastewater management

Hazardous waste management

Occupational health

Quality management

Air emissions (including greenhouse gases)

Chemicals management

Auditing

Safety management

Operations/EHS risk management

Sustainability reporting

Incident management

For the following EHS processes, at which level has your organization deployed commercial software? (select all that apply)

Facility Level Business Unit Corporate



Corporate Investment Plans For EHS Software In 2017

F IGU RE 4

Source: Verdantix

Note: Data labels are rounded to zero decimal places. Percentages less than 5% have been written as numbers N=301

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

3

2

3

1

3

2

4

1

4

3

3

3

4

3

4

4

6%

6%

5

6%

7%

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

2

5

3

4

3

6%

4

4

4

4

7%

8%

9%

9%

20%

24%

17%

20%

16%

25%

15%

20%

29%

33%

27%

27%

28%

27%

31%

66%

56%

70%

67%

69%

59%

69%

64%

53%

49%

55%

53%

45%

50%

46%

9%

12%

4

3

6%

6%

5

5

6%

6%

3

5

8%

3

4

Product compliance

Quality management

Permit to work

Water and wastewater management

Industrial hygiene

Air emissions (including greenhousegases)

Management of change

Hazardous waste management

Chemicals management

Sustainability reporting

Safety management

Occupational health

Auditing

Operations/EH&S risk management

Incident management

"For each of the following EH&S processes, what are your investment plans for commercial EH&S software in 2017?" (select one response per question)

Replace existing commercial software with software from a new vendor

Plan to upgrade existing commercial software

Replace existing in-house software with commercial software

Don't have software, plan to invest in commercial software

Have software, no plans to invest more

Don't have software, no plans to invest

Don't know



Importance Of EHS Software Purchasing Criteria

F IGU RE 5

Source: Verdantix


Incident management is the most widely used EHS software module.

When asked about software deployment at the corporate, business unit, and site levels, we found that

incident management is the EHS process for which software is most commonly used: 38% have deployed

at the corporate level, 26% at the business unit level, and 24% at the facility level (see Figure 3).

“My predecessor selected our EHS software, but we did very little to actually use it. When I joined, I was

given the program and instructed to increase usage. The first place I looked was incident

management).” (Aerospace Firm)

15%

19%

20%

20%

29%

31%

31%

34%

46%

52%

42%

51%

56%

43%

49%

47%

50%

52%

40%

40%

26%

24%

15%

25%

16%

15%

11%

12%

11%

6%

15%

5%

7%

11%

3

7%

6%

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

Potential to customize the software with consultants

Customer references from my industry

Industry specific workflow and content

Mobile application that works offline

Software hosting costs

Ability to configure the application without using consultants

Platform covers all EHS workflows

Software license/subscription costs

Software implementation costs

Quality of the user interface

When you evaluate EHS software, how important are the following criteria in terms of influencing your decision to invest in one application over another?

Very important Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimportant Don't know

4

4

Incident, risk, and auditing software shows the highest percentage of intended investment.

Whilst incident management is by far and away the most used EHS software solution, it also tops the list

for intended investment in 2017, with 19% of respondents indicating they plan to invest in incident

management software. Risk management also garners a 19% purchase intent for 2017 and is the third

most used software module (see Figure 4).

“We have been looking at software packages with five or six different modules, but we’d first go with an

incident reporting and action tracking module. These are certainly the top priority, and we are comfortable

implementing the rest over time. We don’t want to front a huge amount of money for a system we are not

familiar with.” (High-Tech Engineering Firm)

Quality Of User Interface Is The Key Differentiator For Prospective Buyers

Workflows such as incident management, auditing, and risk management, which apply to a wide range of EHS

responsibilities, drive software purchases. Aside from which granular capabilities are important, Verdantix also

asked EHS decision-makers what the most influential high-level criteria are when comparing, and ultimately

deciding upon an EHS software solution. We heard that:

Ninety-two per cent view quality of the user interface as an important purchasing criterion.

Of 301 EHS decision-makers, 92% said that quality of the user interface was ‘very important’ (52%) or

‘important’ (40%) in influencing the purchase of EHS software (see Figure 5). It is no surprise that

software vendors such as Airsweb, DNV GL and ProcessMAP have all invested heavily in enhancing their

user interfaces during 2016 and 2017.

“It has always been a struggle for us to drive user adoption. One reason is high user frustration from things

such as taking too many mouse clicks to navigate the system – both to put information in and take it out.

Our vendor needs to double-down on improving the usability.” (Manufacturing Firm)

Costs are the next most important factor considered.

Implementation costs and subscription costs are, expectedly, the number two and three most influential

purchasing criteria. Just over 46% of respondents identify implementation costs as ‘very important’ and

34% selected ‘very important’ for licensing and subscription costs. This classic concern is a key reason

that the mid-market is just now buying into EHS software propositions and why multi-tenant platform

architectures are a driver of this customer momentum.

“Software packages are much more [costly] than I expected and it makes it hard to sell the business case.

We are considering buying all the modules, but we know we could also just purchase a couple for far less

and probably be fine. It is a tough decision to make.” (High-tech engineering firm)

Configurability and solution breadth are also priorities for buyers.

Ranked just behind UI and costs is the ability of a platform to cover all EHS workflows and the ability to

configure the application without using consultants (31% rated both as ‘very important’). The high

ranking of configurability reflects the fact that most firms with revenues below $5 billion can achieve their

business goals with the software without needing to change any code.

“We needed a package that we can configure ourselves so that we are not dependent on always going back

to the software provider. This can be quite expensive, and we factor this into our cost analysis. We need

flexibility.” (Manufacturing Firm)





EHS Software Deployment Preferences Of EHS Professionals

F IGU RE 6

On-Premise And Private Cloud Deployments Are Favoured Over Public Cloud –

For Now

User interface, costs, and the ability of software to accommodate the entirety of an EHS department’s needs, are

all critical elements of a purchasing decision. Deployment models are another item weighing heavily on the

minds of EHS and IT alike. Verdantix survey data shows that:

More buyers prefer on-premise deployment when cost is not a factor.

When EHS leaders were asked in non-technical terms what deployment method they prefer, 32% said

‘EHS software hosted in my organization’s data centre on servers only used by my organization’. Another

52% said this was acceptable. When asked how they felt about ‘EHS software hosted in the cloud by

Microsoft or Amazon on servers shared with other organizations’, only 20% said it was acceptable and a

staggering 63% said it was not acceptable (see Figure 6).

Source: Verdantix


63% 61%

17% 16%

6%

20% 22%

62%59%

52%

1 3 9% 13%

32%

15% 14% 12% 12% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EHS software hostedin the cloud by

Microsoft, SAP orAmazon on serversshared with other

organizations

EHS software hostedin the software

vendor's data centreon servers shared with

other organizations

EHS software hostedin the software

vendor's data centreon servers only usedby my organization

EHS software hostedin the cloud by

Microsoft, SAP orAmazon on servers

only used by myorganization

EHS software hostedin my organization's

data centre on serversonly used by my

organization

When you evaluate EHS software, what is the view of the EH&S team in terms of how the software should be deployed?

Not acceptable Acceptable Preferred Don't know

Private clouds are acceptable, but not necessarily preferred.

EHS software hosted in the software vendor’s data centre on servers only used by one organization was

deemed acceptable by 62% of EHS professionals, and was the preferred option for 9%. Data from the

vendors in the Green Quadrant tells us that 76% maintain at least one hosted single-instance

deployment, and that the average customer deployment mix has an average of 26% in a private cloud.

Only five vendors in the assessment currently have a majority of their customer base on this type of

deployment.

IT sophistication of customers shapes deployment preferences.

Without linking deployment options with the associated cost, the Verdantix survey found that EHS

decision-makers prefer traditional software deployment methods over multi-tenant cloud models. This is

despite the fact that multi-tenant architecture has been used successfully since 2000 in core business

application markets like CRM. A deeper drill-down into the multi-industry, multi-country data finds that

EHS buyers clinging to on-premise models tend to be in developing economies in firms with less than $1

billion in revenue. Managers from firms with more than $1 billion in revenue who coast through airport

lounges in North America and Europe emblazoned with cloud computing adverts are more likely to

prefer or accept cloud-based EHS software.

Mobile Capability Is Quickly Becoming An Essential Selling Point

Cloud deployments represent a technological shift in EHS software, as does the expanding use of EHS mobile

applications. In RFPs, customers make it clear that the mobile capability of software is essential for their plans to

increase participation in EHS programmes by non-EHS employees and contractors. As a result, customers focus

on:

Mobile-centric EHS software vendors.

Although every vendor featured in this assessment offers a mobile app or interface, the value of the

software is still maximized on a desktop. Software providers such as eCompliance, NordSafety and

SafetyCulture have taken a mobile-centric approach to EHS management and decided to provide a

solution meant to be used primarily, or exclusively, on mobile devices. If customers simply need software

to assist with inspection conducted in the field, incident reporting, or auditing, it is becoming increasingly

common for buyers to take a hard look at these cheap, easy-to-deploy, and easy-to-use platforms.

SafetyCulture’s $23 million investment round in October 2016, and its impressive client list which includes

AECOM, General Electric and Unilever, demonstrate that mobile-centric EHS software is no gimmick.

Offline capabilities of mobile applications for audits, inspections, and incident reporting.

For industries with large geographic footprints such as utilities, construction or mining, it is unrealistic to

expect every location to have an internet connection or mobile signal available. The same can be true of

huge enclosed, facilities owned by firms like Home Depot and Walmart. It is critical for mobile EHS

applications to be able to gather data whilst offline and automatically sync back with the main database

when a connection is established. Offline audits are typically accomplished by downloading the auditing

documentation whilst online, but offline incident reporting relies on the ability of the software to store

data locally on the device until it can be transferred. According to the Verdantix survey, 20% of EHS

leaders believe it is ‘very important’ to have a mobile application that can function offline.

Usability of mobile apps for non-EHS edge users in the field or at the plant.

The lack of employee engagement in EHS has been the bane of existence for EHS professionals since EHS

existed, but the ease of an activity such as logging a safety observation via a mobile device makes the job

far easier. It must be kept in mind that many of these edge users have no interest in using complex EHS

management software. In fact, they’re unlikely to have access to a PC. Creating a mobile application that





EHS Software Brand Awareness And Preference In 2016

F IGU RE 7

Source: Verdantix


1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

13%

2

1

2

3

3

2

3

4

4

4

3

4

3

8%

8%

5%

6%

7%

29%

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

2

3

3

4

4

6%

10%

8%

3%

8%

5%

18%

5%

2

12%

12%

7%

10%

9%

9%

7%

13%

6%

12%

10%

18%

28%

11%

11%

9%

27%

92%

96%

84%

84%

86%

86%

86%

84%

85%

79%

85%

78%

80%

62%

54%

78%

73%

74%

13%

EtQ

Airsweb

IsoMetrix

VelocityEHS

CMO Compliane (now Mitratech)

Rivo Software

EMEX

Enviance

Medgate (now Cority)

ProcessMAP

Gensuite

UL EHS Sustainability

Dakota Software

IHS (now Sphera)

DNV GL

Intelex

SAI Global

Enablon

SAP

What is your perspective on the following suppliers in terms of their capabilities to provide your firm with EHS software?

Market leading capabilities Good capabilities

Average capabilities Recognise the name, but not aware of their capabilities

Unaware of firm / Don't Know

4

4

is intuitive and effortless for non-EHS savvy employees is what sets some mobile applications apart from

others.

Global Brand Awareness For EHS Software Vendors Remains A Major Hurdle

Customer demands, technological advancements, and a growing market are all contributing to a high level of

innovation in the EHS software space. Despite this, brand awareness for virtually all EHS software vendors

continues to be low. Verdantix research indicates:

Global awareness of dedicated EHS software varies from 46% to 4%.

The 2016 EHS Leaders Survey echoed the findings from the prior year’s survey: awareness of EHS

software vendors within the EHS community is low. SAP has the highest brand awareness overall (87%)

and Enablon has the highest brand awareness for an independent EHS software vendor (26%) (see Figure

7). Forty-six per cent of worldwide respondents were aware of DNV GL — the highest score for a vendor

other than SAP — but only 18% claimed to have knowledge of their capabilities. Most vendors have

worldwide brand awareness below 20%.

Local awareness is far stronger.

EHS software firm IsoMetrix, based in South Africa, has just 16% awareness globally, but 41% awareness

at home. SAI Global jumps from 27% awareness to 89% in its home country of Australia. This indicates

that EHS software vendors are effectively communicating their message close to home, but that buyers

more than one border away are far more likely to recognize a brand based in their same country or

region. A marketing strategy that makes sense globally is on the to-do list of virtually every firm in this

study.

Green Quadrant For EHS Software

Buyers of EHS software from multiple industries and varied geographies seek integrated, configurable, and

easy-to-use solutions that can drive EHS performance improvement in their organizations, whether this be in

the context of compliance, cost-savings, risk reduction, or efficiency gains. Verdantix defines EHS software as:

Enterprise-scale software that enables firms to capture, analyse and report data, manage risks and improve

business performance across the full range of environmental, health and safety business processes and

impact areas.

This definition does not include software designed to be deployed on a site-by-site basis, desktop software,

applications used for regulatory content management, product compliance software or applications with a

focus on a single impact area such as carbon management, injury reporting or water quality assessment. The

assessment includes applications deployed on-premise or in the cloud. It does not include mobile-centric EHS

software, which lacks a broad and deep enterprise application.

Green Quadrant Methodology

The Verdantix Green Quadrant methodology provides buyers of specific products or services with a structured

assessment of comparable offerings at a certain point in time. The methodology supports purchase decisions by

identifying potential suppliers, structuring relevant purchase criteria through discussions with buyers and

providing an evidence-based assessment of the products or services in the market. To ensure the objectivity of

the results of the study, the research process is based on the following principles and activities:



Transparent inclusion.

We aim to analyse all providers that qualify for inclusion in the research. For those providers that decline

our invitation or fail to respond, we aim to include them in the report based on public information where

this would provide an accurate analysis of their market positioning.

Analysis from the buyer’s perspective.

We recruit a panel of individuals who have bought or plan to buy the services analysed in the Green

Quadrant. Their role is to define relevant buying criteria and to weight the evaluation criteria in the

model that drives the Green Quadrant graphic.

Reliance on professional integrity.

Since it is not feasible to check all the data and claims made by providers, we emphasize the need for

professional integrity. Assertions made by providers are put in the public domain in the Verdantix report

and can be checked by competitors and existing customers.

Scores based on evidence.

To assess the expertise, resources, business results and strategy of providers, we gather evidence from

public sources and conduct interviews with multiple spokespeople and with industry experts. When

providers claim to be ‘best-in-class’ we challenge them to present the evidence.

Comparison based on relative capabilities.

We construct measurement scales based on ‘worst-in-class’ and ‘best-in-class’ performance at a certain

point in time. A provider’s position in the market can change over time depending on how its offering

and success evolves compared to competitors. This means that, in some cases, even if a provider adds

new modules, makes a strategic acquisition, or receives investment, its quadrant positioning may not

move positively because the assessment is relative to what has been going on with the other software

providers in the assessment. Green Quadrants are typically repeated every one or two years.

Evaluated Firms: Selection Criteria

There are hundreds of EHS software vendors operating globally. To ensure the Green Quadrant analysis only

compares firms providing similar services at a comparable level, we define inclusion criteria. The 20 software

suppliers here are included in this study because their applications have:

Enterprise-scale product architecture.

This study only considers applications designed to scale up to multi-country, multi-site deployments for

an enterprise with more than $1 billion in annual revenues. All vendors included have at least 15

customers with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, and at least five customers with annual revenues

over $10 billion.

Broad EHS management functionality.

Reflecting the customer buying trends of integrated EHS solutions, we included only suppliers with

applications that can manage a broad spectrum of EHS processes. This eliminated applications providing

only environmental management, or only health and safety management functionality.

In addition to the product-related inclusion criteria, Verdantix also applied supplier-related assessment criteria.

For inclusion in the study, suppliers must have:



At least 15 named customers for EHS software.

With new entrants consistently coming into the EHS software market, we purposefully set the customer

bar low, but excluded any suppliers who were unable to publicly name at least 15 customers.

Resources to deliver a broad EHS suite.

We focused the study on suppliers with the human, financial, and technological resources to meet the

needs of enterprise customers over the next two years. This criterion reflects the desire of most

customers, in eventuality, to use a single EHS software platform to manage all EHS processes globally.

Based on the inclusion criteria above, this report looks in-depth at 20 EHS software suppliers: Airsweb, Cority,

Dakota Software, DNV GL EcoIntense, EMEX, Enablon, Enviance, ERA Environmental, EtQ, Gensuite, Intelex,

IsoMetrix, Mitratech, ProcessMAP, SAI Global, SAP, Sphera Solutions, UL EHS Sustainability, and VelocityEHS. All

software firms in this study actively participated in the research through interviews, product demonstrations and

responses to a 251-point questionnaire. Locus Technologies, MetricStream, Perillon and thinkstep did not

participate in this year’s benchmark as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Rivo Software does not feature

this year as it was acquired by Sphera Solutions during the research.

Evaluation Criteria For EHS Software

Verdantix defined the evaluation criteria for the Green Quadrant using a combination of interviews with practice

leaders, EHS software executives, desk research, discussions with multiple EHS software customers, and staff

expertise. This analysis is also informed by previous Green Quadrant EHS Software assessments and the

Verdantix Global EH&S Leaders Survey 2016: Budgets And Priorities report. In full, this year’s Green Quadrant

analysis compares offerings from 20 software suppliers on 173 functionality/feature metrics and 78 supplier

properties grouped as follows:

Capabilities.

This dimension, plotted on the vertical axis of the Green Quadrant graphic, is a measure of the breadth

and depth of each software provider’s functionality. To assess breadth and depth, Verdantix collected

data on 173 criteria grouped into 29 high-level categories. They are: automated data input, database

design, master data management, mobile applications, business intelligence, configurability, core

capabilities, implementation options, user interface, application security, data centre security, chemicals

management, hazardous waste, audit management, document management, quality management,

training, air emissions, GHG emissions, sustainability management, water and wastewater management,

ergonomics, industrial hygiene, occupational health, contractor safety management, incident

management, management of change, risk management, and safety management.

Momentum.

This dimension, plotted on the horizontal axis of the Green Quadrant graphic, measures each software

supplier on a range of strategic success factors. The 78 criteria that make up the momentum score are

grouped into ten high-level categories: brand preference, vision and strategy, market focus, partnerships,

new customers, installed customer base, deal volume and size, deployment mix, organizational resources,

financial resources, industry penetration and customer locations.

The evidence provided by all EHS software vendors is captured in a quantitative model that starts with the sub-

criteria scores. Each sub-criterion has a percentage weighting that dictates how much of a contribution it makes

to the high-level capability score. For example, incident management is one of the high-level criterion

considered for in the capabilities section, but is itself composed of eight weighted sub-criteria that determine

the overall incident management score. All sub-criteria are scored between zero and three. Subsequently, each



high-level criterion is allocated a percentage weighting which then determines how much that score contributes

to the overall score. The combination of high-level criteria scores in the capabilities and momentum sections

generates the Green Quadrant graphic. Details on the criteria are provided in Figure 8 and Figure 9. These

figures also provide (in parentheses) the weighting allocated to the high-level criteria in the model. Weightings

are based on customer survey data regarding what EHS software functionality is most widely used and analyst

views on the broader EHS software landscape.

Scope And Methodology Updates For The 2017 EHS Software Green Quadrant

Verdantix studies reflect the current state of customer requirements and product capabilities. As such, Verdantix

updates the assessment criteria to ensure that they are in line with the current state of the market. Updates to

the 2017 Green Quadrant include:

An expansion of the high-level capabilities criteria from 26 to 29.

Whilst the 2016 EHS software Green Quadrant added nine new capabilities to move the total from 17 to

26, this year’s Green Quadrant includes a modest three additional high-level capability criteria. This total

is a result of both entirely new criteria, as well as the reorganization of existing criteria. The overall

growth in the questionnaire reflects the expanding breadth and depth of EHS software applications, as

well as the expanding pallet of customer demands.

Reorganization of the mobile functionality assessment criterion.

In the 2016 Green Quadrant, the strength of a vendor’s mobile functionality was split across native

mobile applications and mobile browser functionality – two separate high-level criteria. In 2017, mobile

applications represent a single high-level criterion which covers both native application and web

applications. It also considers the number of mobile downloads and active users, metrics which last year’s

assessment did not inspect. Overall, the assessment of mobile product strategy and functionality is much

more detailed than in 2016.

Four new EHSQ impact areas.

The 2017 EHS software Green Quadrant builds on the 2016 assessment with the addition of four new

capability criteria: contractor safety management, document management, training management, and

quality management. The inclusion of these new EHS impact areas is a result of Verdantix research, buyer

feedback, and development trends of EHS software providers in the period since the 2016 assessment.

Splitting data security into application security and data centre security.

In 2016, the single capability criterion of data security covered encryption technology, vulnerability

assessments, hosting environment security, and back-up and data recovery. Reflecting the growing

importance of data security and the rising public profile of data breaches and hacks, Verdantix

reorganized this into two groups. First, application security covers vulnerability assessments, enterprise

application security measures, and mobile security measures. Second, data centre security covers back-up

and recovery timetables, the physical and digital security of servers, and certifications obtained by the

hosting entity.

Adjusted weightings to reflect current market trends and customer priorities.

Two decades ago, functionality to enable compliance with environmental regulations would have been

one of the top, if not the top, purchase criterion for EHS software. But times change, and customers have

evolved to place much heavier weightings on risk management, incident management, user interface,

and implementation options. The Verdantix Green Quadrant considers the evolution of the market pre-

study to ensure the weighting of all high-level criteria mirrors the current importance of all EHS software

components to users globally.





Capabilities Criteria For EHS Software Applications

F IGU RE 8-1

Source: Verdantix

User Interface (7%) Does the software have an intuitive and consistent user interface on both the

enterprise and mobile platforms? How many languages are provided out of the

box and can the application process currency conversions?

Figures in brackets represent the weighting given to each criterion in the flexible multi-criteria model that generates the Green Quadrant graphical analysis.

Database Design

(1%)

Which database(s) does the application run on? What scalability/clustering can

you demonstrate with customer deployments? What functionality is available to

enhance data quality, data change controls and support data audits?

Automated Data Input

(1%)

What functionality is available to capture data from sensors, meters or edge

devices such as wearables? What connectors have been built to facilitate data

capture? Are users able to upload flat files and spreadsheets?

Master Data

Management (1%)

What functionality is available to define, manipulate and change organizational,

asset-level and site-level data? What functionality exists for managing regulatory

data retention?

Mobile Applications

(6%)

What types of mobile apps are offered? What is the extend of offline

functionality? How many downloads and active users do the applications have?

Which operating systems can the apps run on?

Business Intelligence

(5%)

What is the quality of the business intelligence application? Is it embedded or

provided via a third party? What is the quality of the dashboard? What data

discovery, benchmarking, reporting, analysis, charting and forecasting tools are

available?

Core Capabilities

(5%)

What customization and development tools are offered to the customer? How

consistent is the code base across the platform? What is the development

environment of the platform, and how does it integrate with external IT systems?

Implementation

Options (3%)

What are the multi-tenant and single-tenant hosted deployment options? What

are the on-premise deployment options?

CAPABILITIES

Configurability (5%) How can forms, measurement metrics, business rules and role-based user rights

be (re)configured? How can terminology be re-defined? How can the user

interface and workflow be (re)configured? How can the dashboard be

customized?

Data Centre Security

(1%)

Which database(s) does the application run on? What scalability/clustering can

you demonstrate with customer deployments? What functionality is available to

enhance data quality, data change controls and support data audits?

Application Security

(2%)

What is the frequency of vulnerability testing on the software, and how are the

tests performed? What is being done to protect information on both the

enterprise and mobile applications?




F IGU RE 8-2

Source: Verdantix

Ergonomics (2%) What functionality is provided to support ergonomics audits and inspections?

How does the software identify and report on ergonomics hazards? Which

customers are using the software for ergonomics management?


Air Emissions (4%) Which air emissions regulations is the application designed to support? What

pre-configured workflow is available out of the box? What pre-defined forms are

included in the app? What are the properties od the calculation engine including

speed configurability, and included formulas?

Audit Management

(5%)

What functionality is provided to support the scheduling of EHS audits? What

functionality is provided to import, create and change checklists for EHS audits?

How are customers able to schedule and close out follow-up actions. Which

customers are using the software for audit management?

Chemicals

Management (4%)

Which specific regulated chemical inventories is the application designed to

support? How does the software support hazardous materials data

management, hazard communications, SDSs, and hazmat labelling? What

functionality is provided to support chemical inventory management and general

compliance?

Document

Management (2%)

What functionality does the software have regarding document alteration? How

does it manage document version control? What methods of document import

and export are available? Can documents be audited to track changes over

time? Are e-signatures enabled?

Training (2%)

Does the software include training modules on various EHS topics? Does it use

third party to provide this content? What functionality is available to schedule

training and track individual and team progress?

CAPABILITIES

Contractor Safety

Management (1%)

How can firms manage contractor safety performance as individual contractors

and larger contracting organizations? How can contractors interact with the

software?

Hazardous Waste

(4%)

Which hazardous waste regulations is the application designed to support? What

is the quality and range of pre-built regulatory reports for hazardous waste

management? What functionality is provided to support hazardous waste

inventory and waste disposal management?

GHG Emissions (2%) Which GHG regulations does the application support out of the box? What is the

SLA for country and/or state-level grid factors? What is the proven capability of

the calculation engine? Which customers are using the software for GHG

management?

Industrial Hygiene

(4%)

What functionality is provided to inventory and track equipment calibration/

inspection activity? How does the software store, manage and report air, bulk

and wipe sampling data? How does the software manage similar exposure

groups and associated statistical analysis?




F IGU RE 8-3

Source: Verdantix

Safety Management

(7%)

What functionality is provided to support behaviour-based safety and job hazard/

safety analysis? How does the software support process hazard/safety analysis?

What functionality is provided for fall protection, confined space, fire safety,

machine safety, permit to work, and safety objective management?


Incident Management

(5%)

What functionality is provided to track, manage and analyse incidents? How

does the software support corrective and preventative actions? What

functionality is provided to auto populate regulatory reports for incidents? How

does the software facilitate workers compensation management?

Management of

Change (2%)

What functionality is available to handle MOC workflow and approvals? How do

MOC processes integrate with other software elements? Which customers are

using the software for MOC?

Quality Management

(1%)

What functionality is offered for corrective and preventative actions (CAPA)?

Can the software assist with quality management in terms of suppliers, product

design, equipment maintenance, and customer feedback? Do customers

frequently leverage EHS and quality elements of the software together?

Risk Management

(5%)

What functionality is provided for risk identification and risk assessments? How

does the software maintain an operational risk register? What functionality is

provided for emergency response management?

CAPABILITIES

Occupational Health

(5%)

What functionality is provided for fit-for-duty work assessments and tracking of

restrictions? How does the software maintain and manage employee medical

data and records? Can the software maintain wellness programs? What

functionality is provided for occupational illness/injury reporting?

Water and

Wastewater (5%)

Which water and wastewater regulations is the application designed to support?

Which water emissions does the application cover out of the box? What

functionality is provided for discharge rate reporting and wastewater

compliance?

Sustainability

Management (3%)

What functionality is in place to measure sustainability performance? How does

the application forecast future sustainability performance? What functionality is

there for sustainability reporting?



Momentum Criteria For EHS Software Applications

F IGU RE 9

Source: Verdantix


Vision and Strategy

(8%)

What market vision does the supplier have? Is the supplier's business and

product strategy aligned to the evolving requirements of customers?

Brand Preference

(15%)

What are the awareness and perception levels of 301 EHS leaders from the

Verdantix EHS Leaders Global Survey for the supplier?

Partnerships (7%) How many consulting partners does the supplier work with? Does the firm have

hardware and software partners such as regulatory content partners?

MOMENTUM

Financial Resources

(15%)

What are the supplier's annual revenues in the last financial year? By how much

did the vendor's revenues change compared to the last year? Has the software

supplier received outside funding? What is the supplier's customer retention

rate?

Organizational

Resources (10%)

In how many countries does the vendor have offices, provide technical support

and host the software? How many employees does the supplier have? Has the

supplier grown through acquisition in 2016?

Deployment Mix (5%) What percentage of customers in 2016 had on premise deployments, hosted

single instance deployments, and multi-tenant deployments?

Deal Volume and

Size (5%)

How many deals did the supplier make in 2016? What were the total values of

these deals?

Installed Customer

Base (15%)

At the close of 2016, how many customer contracts did the supplier have? What

were the revenues of the firms with these contracts?

New Customers

(15%)

How many new customers did the supplier win in 2016? What were the

revenues of new customers?

Market Focus (5%) Does the supplier have other revenue streams outside of EHS software? How

involved is the supplier with industry events and standards bodies?

A more comprehensive assessment of strategy and momentum.

The 2017 Green Quadrant has six more momentum sub-criteria than the 2016 version; new sub-criteria

cover acquisitions, funding, different types of partnerships (consulting, software, and hardware), and

industry engagement. The weightings of high-level criteria closely resemble the 2016 model. Brand

preference, new customers, installed customer base, and financial resources are the most important

momentum criteria in terms of contribution to the final quadrant positioning and are weighted at 15%

each. For financial resources, this weighting is three percentage points higher than it was in 2016 due to

the continually increasing role of financial investment in the market.

Airsweb

Cority

Dakota SAP

EcoIntense

EMEX

Enablon

Enviance

ERA

EtQ Gensuite

Intelex

IsoMetrix

Mitratech

ProcessMAP

SAI Global

DNV GL

Sphera

UL EHSS

VelocityEHS


C O P Y R I G H T © V E R D A N T I X L T D 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 7 . L I C E N S E D C O N T E N T , R E P R O D U C T I O N P R O H I B I T E D

26

F IGU RE 10

Source: Verdantix

Momentum This dimension assesses strategic success metrics including: brand

preference, vision and strategy, market focus, partnerships, new customers,

installed customer base, deal volume and size, deployment mix, organizational

resources, and financial resources.

Capabilities This dimension assesses capabilities for: automated input, database design,

master data management, mobile applications, business intelligence,

configurability, core platform capabilities, implementation, user interface,

application security, data centre security, chemicals management, hazardous

waste, audit management, document management, quality management,

training, air emissions, GHG emissions, sustainability management, water and

wastewater management, ergonomics, industrial hygiene, occupational health,

contractor safety management, incident management, management of

change, risk management, and safety management.


INNOVATORS LEADERS

SPECIALISTS CHALLENGERS

MOMENTUM

CA

PA

BIL

ITIE

S



27

Criteria Scores

F IGU RE 11-1

Airs

we

b

Co

rity

Da

ko

ta

DN

V G

L

Eco

Inte

nse

EM

EX

En

ab

lon

En

via

nce

ER

A

EtQ

Automated Data Input 1.0 2.0 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.2

Database Design 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.8

Master Data

Management 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 2.3 1.7 1.3 2.0

Mobile Applications 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.1

Business Intelligence 1.8 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.9 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.6

Configurability 1.9 2.3 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.1 2.8

Core Capabilities 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.3

Implementation

Options 2.0 2.3 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.8

User Interface 2.2 2.7 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.9 3.0 2.0 1.8 1.6

Application Security 2.0 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0

Data Centre Security 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3

Chemicals

Management 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.0 1.8 2.3 2.0 0.8

Hazardous Waste

Management 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.6 1.6 1.6 2.4 1.9 2.1 0.4

Audit Management 2.0 2.3 2.7 1.5 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.3

Document

Management 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.0 1.0 2.3

Quality Management 0.3 2.1 0.9 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.2 2.9

Training 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.7 2.0 1.0 2.3 0.7 2.0 2.0

Air Emissions 0.5 2.1 2.4 1.0 0.9 1.8 2.5 2.5 2.6 0.8

GHG Emissions 0.8 1.8 2.5 1.5 0.8 1.8 2.8 2.8 1.0 1.3

Sustainability

Management 0.0 1.6 1.0 2.0 1.8 1.2 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.6

Water and Wastewater

Management 0.8 1.3 2.3 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.3 1.3

Source: Verdantix



28

Criteria Scores

F IGU RE 11-2

Ge

nsu

ite

Inte

lex

Iso

Me

trix

Mitra

tech

Pro

cessM

AP

SA

I Glo

ba

l

SA

P

Sp

he

ra

UL

EH

SS

Ve

locity

EH

S

Automated Data Input 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.0 1.7 0.7 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.3

Database Design 1.8 2.4 1.4 1.2 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.8

Master Data

Management 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.0

Mobile Applications 2.1 2.3 1.4 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.4

Business Intelligence 1.8 2.3 1.6 0.9 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.7

Configurability 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.3 2.6 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.1

Core Capabilities 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.0 2.4 1.9 1.1 1.6 1.7

Implementation

Options 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.0

User Interface 1.4 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.1 2.0 2.4

Application Security 2.3 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.7 1.7 2.0 2.7

Data Centre Security 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.3

Chemicals

Management 1.9 1.3 0.6 0.0 1.4 1.1 1.9 2.6 0.9 2.6

Hazardous Waste

Management 1.9 2.0 0.7 0.4 1.6 1.0 1.3 2.6 1.6 1.7

Audit Management 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.2

Document

Management 1.0 2.3 1.3 0.9 2.1 0.7 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.7

Quality Management 0.8 2.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.8 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.6

Training 1.3 2.0 1.7 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.3 1.0 1.7 2.3

Air Emissions 1.0 2.3 1.0 0.4 1.3 0.5 1.1 2.5 0.9 1.8

GHG Emissions 1.0 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 1.5 2.8 2.8 2.0

Sustainability

Management 1.8 1.8 2.2 0.0 1.6 0.4 2.2 1.6 3.0 1.6

Water and Wastewater

Management 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.8 1.3 0..8 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.3

Source: Verdantix



29

Criteria Scores

F IGU RE 11-3

Airs

we

b

Co

rity

Da

ko

ta

DN

V G

L

Eco

Inte

nse

EM

EX

En

ab

lon

En

via

nce

ER

A

EtQ

Ergonomics 1.0 2.3 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.7 1.3 2.3 0.7 0.7

Industrial Hygiene 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.6 1.0

Occupational Health 0.0 2.7 0.5 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.2

Contractor Safety

Management 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5

Incident Management 2.0 2.5 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.0 2.4 1.5 1.1 1.8

Management of Change 1.0 2.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 2.7

Risk Management 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.8 1.3 0.8 2.2

Safety Management 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.9 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Brand Preference 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vision and Strategy 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.7 3.0 1.7 1.7 2.0

Market Focus 2.4 2.6 2.0 1.7 2.8 2.2 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.8

Partnerships 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.8 2.6 1.4 1.4 1.2

New Customers 0.8 1.9 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.4

Installed Customer Base 1.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.7

Deal Volume and Size 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.0

Deployment Mix 1.1 1.4 2.4 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5

Organizational

Resources 0.9 2.5 0.9 2.2 1.2 1.8 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.9

Financial Resources 1.2 2.4 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.8

Source: Verdantix



30

Criteria Scores

F IGU RE 11-4

Ge

nsu

ite

Inte

lex

Iso

Me

trix

Mitra

tech

Pro

cessM

AP

SA

I Glo

ba

l

SA

P

Sp

he

ra

UL

EH

SS

Ve

locity

EH

S

Ergonomics 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.3 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.7

Industrial Hygiene 1.1 1.9 1.0 0.0 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.4

Occupational Health 0.8 2.2 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.5 1.0

Contractor Safety

Management 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0

Incident Management 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8

Management of Change 1.3 2.0 1.3 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.7

Risk Management 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.2 2.3

Safety Management 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.0

Brand Preference 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

Vision and Strategy 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 2.3

Market Focus 2.5 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.4 1.9 1.2 2.6 2.2 2.6

Partnerships 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.4

New Customers 1.5 1.9 1.0 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0 2.0 1.4

Installed Customer Base 1.8 3.0 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.8 2.7 1.9

Deal Volume and Size 0.8 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.3

Deployment Mix 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.0 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.4 2.0 1.8

Organizational

Resources 1.9 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.6 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.6

Financial Resources 1.7 2.7 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.7

Source: Verdantix

Enablon’s Momentum Holds Steady As It Continues To Offer One Of The Most

Robust And Well-Rounded EHS Software Solutions On The Market

Enablon, founded in 2000 and headquartered in Paris and Chicago, employs a staff of more than 360 across

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the US. On July 1 2016, the firm was purchased by

information solutions provider Wolters Kluwer (€4.3 billion revenue) to the tune of €250 million ($278 million

USD). This buy-out – at 5.6 times Enablon’s 2015 revenues – is indicative of its consistently strong market

momentum and promising continued trajectory. This has all been made possible by Enablon’s focus on building

a robust backend, optimizing UI/UX, providing superior health, safety and environmental capabilities, and

helping firms manage risk and sustainability.

Strengths And Differentiators

Based on the Green Quadrant analysis, Verdantix finds that Enablon has strengths in:

Providing an extremely well-designed solution to customers with any EHS process needs.

Whereas most EHS software vendors have at least one or two glaring functionality gaps in their solutions,

Enablon has no such deficiencies. Enablon’s high scores across a variety of functionality groups such as

air emissions (2.5/3.0), hazardous waste (2.4/3.0), incident management (2.4/3.0), industrial hygiene

(2.0/3.0), and sustainability management (2.8/3.0), best demonstrate the breadth of its offering.

Platform architecture and data management.

Enablon achieved the highest score for platform design (a summation of all the platform categories) in

the entire study as a result of particularly strong showings in platform core capabilities (2.9/3.0), platform

configurability (2.8/3.0) and database design (2.4/3.0). Its robust platform design is reflective of its

commercial focus on core and large enterprise market segments. Drawing from a long list, some example

large enterprise customers are AMGEN, AngloAmerican, Bombardier, ExxonMobil and Pepsico.

Risk, safety, and UI, for which it is above or equal to the highest score.

Enablon’s scores in risk, safety, and UI design were 2.8/3.0, 2.2/3.0, and a rare 3.0/3.0, respectively.

Considering that 52% of 301 EHS decision-makers interviewed in our most recent Verdantix global survey

told us that the quality of the UI was ‘very important’ in terms of influencing EHS software purchasing

decisions, and 36% said that they intended to spend more on risk management in 2017, it comes as no

surprise that Enablon has been able to find traction and success in the market.

Improvement Opportunities

Based on the Green Quadrant analysis, Verdantix finds that Enablon could improve on:

Ergonomics.

Enablon scored a 1.3/3.0 in ergonomics, which matches the average, indicating this is one of the weaker

areas for EHS software vendors overall. Although some vendors are comfortable putting focus into

broader, more general safety and environmental capabilities, it will be hard to unseat best-of-breed

solutions for this niche aspect of health and safety without further investment into software functionality

and specially trained ergonomics experts.

Quality management.

Enablon’s lowest score came in quality management, where it scored 0.9/3.0, just below the average

score of 1.0/3.0. Although the Verdantix survey indicated only 5% of EHS professionals intended to boost

quality investment in 2017, there is undeniable interest in the possible intersection of quality and EHS



amongst buyers and software providers from both buyers and software providers. To hedge its bets,

Enablon should consider investing in its quality management functionalities to raise them at least above

the market average.

Selection Advice For Buyers

Considering all supplier offerings assessed on the Green Quadrant analysis, we believe Enablon should be

shortlisted by:

Multinational enterprises that want a ‘one-stop-shop’ EHS software solution with a long list of

customer references across all industries.

Based on the Green Quadrant methodology, Enablon comes out as the strongest firm in the entire study

in terms of capabilities. This is a result of its intelligent design, strategic execution, its ability to cover

virtually all EHS workflows, and its years of experience handling some of the industry’s biggest customers.

Although a solution with this level of breadth and depth comes at a price, any VP of EHS at a large firm

should consider Enablon for their shortlist. If the intention is to get the software into the hands of edge

users, the ability of Enablon’s Smart View software to switch its UI between something optimized for

managers and something optimized for edge users makes it even more of a must-consider platform.

EHS leaders who understand the potential of technology innovation for their firm.

Enablon has found most success with customers who have a vision for how to deploy innovative

technologies to tackle EHS business problems. An example of this is predictive analytics and artificial

intelligence. Enablon’s Juno represents one of the most mature applications of this to-date. Juno

understands when an action is being taken within the system that has been taken before, calculates what

resulting actions were the most beneficial, and suggests in real-time the probability of success of various

courses of action. Enablon is also pursuing partnerships with an exoskeleton firm for ergonomics

management, smart-glasses integration for task supervision, and using drones from to survey facilities

and pipelines. If you are a VP of EHS who is keen to explore a broader EHS technology ecosystem and

need an enterprise-class hub to orchestrate workflows and data integration then Enablon is an ideal

choice.



green quadrant ehs software 2017 - enablon · green quadrant ehs software 2017 this report provides...

Documents