How Metrikflow Simplifies ESG Data Management for Sustainable Business Growth

The idea for Metrikflow started while I was working at Stayi, where I was closely involved with fashion brands and manufacturers trying to improve their sustainability performance. I kept seeing the same frustration, more and more companies wanted to embark on sustainability journeys, but they were held back by barriers that were simply too high, from costs and complexity to limited access to reliable information. Sustainability managers were receiving a growing number of requests from customers, regulators, and internal teams, but the work behind each response was still highly manual. Data was scattered across spreadsheets, emails, supplier documents, and disconnected tools. Teams often had to collect, verify, and reformat the same information several times, with little visibility over data quality or progress. Sustainability was becoming an administrative cost instead of a useful decision-making tool. We built Metrikflow to remove those barriers by centralising ESG data and automating calculations, compliance processes, and reporting, making sustainability more accessible, structured, and actionable.

One growth tactic that worked particularly well was partnering with sustainability consultants to reach SMEs. Smaller companies often rely heavily on trusted advisors when choosing tools and defining their sustainability priorities, especially when they do not have a large internal ESG team. Instead of trying to replace that relationship, we built a model that supports it. By giving consultants a platform that helps them collect data, automate calculations, structure reporting, and manage multiple clients more efficiently, we created value for everyone involved. Consultants can scale their services without increasing manual work at the same pace, SMEs receive more structured and continuous support, and Metrikflow can reach companies that would have been much harder to acquire through direct sales alone. What flopped was our first push into the textile sector. We invested significant time and resources in building a highly specific positioning before fully validating the size and urgency of the opportunity. We later realized that the message was too narrow and that manufacturers across many different industries were facing similar, and often more pressing, ESG and compliance challenges.

The most common complaint we hear is that the platform does not always match every customer’s internal process from day one. Companies have very different requirements depending on their industry, size, organizational structure, and operational model, so customization requests are frequent. This creates an important product challenge. We want Metrikflow to be flexible enough to reflect how each company actually works, while still remaining scalable and easy to maintain. Building tailored features in a way that can also support future customers takes time, and the first version often needs adjustments once it is tested in real operating conditions. We handle this through close and transparent communication. From the beginning, we clarify what is already available, what requires further development, and which elements are being designed specifically around the customer’s needs. We then involve users in testing and refining the feature through regular feedback. This approach helps manage expectations and turns customization into a collaborative process. It also allows us to create solutions that are useful beyond one customer while remaining adaptable to real workflows, which delivers much greater long-term value.

One thing most people get wrong about the sustainability market is how relationship-driven it really is. From the outside, it may appear to be a market shaped mainly by regulation, technical expertise, and software capabilities. In practice, it is also a relatively small ecosystem where professionals know one another, exchange recommendations, and place significant value on reputation. For this reason, building a strong position requires more than having a good product. It means meeting people in real life, understanding their challenges, contributing to industry conversations, and earning trust over time. Sustainability projects often involve sensitive data, internal change, and long-term commitments, so companies want to work with partners they believe will remain reliable throughout the process. This is especially true in Italy, where we currently have our strongest presence. In some international markets, customers can discover and adopt our product with limited direct interaction. In Italy, events, introductions, and face-to-face conversations are often just as important as the technology itself.

Over the next 6–12 months, we'll focus on connecting directly with industrial systems, machinery, IoT devices, as well as enhancing our compliance coverage. We already extract data from systems such as ERPs, CRMs, and PLMs. We'll enable companies to monitor sustainability and operational data in real time through connections with devices, offering more reliable, up-to-date information and allowing them to focus on analysis and decisions rather than data entry. Moreover, we're enhancing compliance workflows, from ISO certifications to PPWR, EUDR, and DPP.

78% of ESG activities automated; 71% less reporting time. 50% cost savings. Live in 200+ industrial plants in 10+ countries.

Before building Metrikflow, I studied business at ESCP Business School and, at the age of 20, co-founded Staiy, a marketplace for sustainable fashion and lifestyle products. Working directly with brands and manufacturers exposed me to the difficulties of collecting, verifying, and managing sustainability data across companies and supply chains. Staiy was my first entrepreneurial experience and was acquired in 2023. It taught me how to build a product, work with an international team, and adapt when assumptions do not match market reality. I was therefore new to the SaaS world, but not to ESG entrepreneurship or to the practical sustainability challenges companies were facing.

The biggest mistake we made was building too much based on assumptions rather than on a clear customer request supported by a willingness to pay. In the early days, we relied heavily on letters of intent and positive feedback. These signals gave us confidence that companies were interested in what we were building, but interest is not the same as commitment. A company may agree that a problem exists, appreciate a proposed solution, and even sign an LoI, without being ready to allocate budget or change its current processes. As a result, we sometimes invested time and development resources in features that looked promising but did not yet have enough commercial validation behind them. What we learned is that real conviction comes from revenue. A paying customer provides a much stronger signal than general enthusiasm because payment reflects urgency, budget, and a concrete need. Today, we validate product decisions more carefully through direct customer requests, paid pilots, and clearer evidence of demand before committing significant resources to development.