Simplifying climate target validation for global enterprises
I redesigned a 14-step compliance validation workflow into a 6-step guided flow for an enterprise platform used by sustainability teams at thousands of companies worldwide.
Work under NDA
Per my employer's policy, I am unable to show the complete product. The screenshots below are partial views shared with permission. Contact me for a full walkthrough.
A submission tool that punished the people who used it
Sustainability managers, analysts, and regulatory leads at large enterprises came to this platform to submit climate commitments, but the platform treated a multi-session, expert task as a single rigid form. Fourteen sequential steps, no progress saving, and requirements that only surfaced as errors meant most people gave up partway and rebuilt their progress in spreadsheets on the side.
My read going in: the data was not the problem, the workflow was. The job was to consolidate the steps that legacy process had accumulated, make progress legible, and let people leave and return without losing work, without weakening anything compliance actually required.
Actual product screens shown with permission. Full product under NDA.
30+ sessions with enterprise users
I ran moderated sessions with sustainability managers, analysts, and regulatory leads across energy, finance, manufacturing, and tech. There was no prior design work to build on, but the product was instrumented: the 67% abandon rate and the 4.5-hour median completion time came from product analytics and the recurring complaints in the support queue, which is what made the case for the rebuild concrete.
User interviews (n=16)
Users were not confused by the data itself, but by the system's inability to show where they were and what came next. Progress visibility was the #1 request.
Task analysis (n=8)
Observed real submissions. Most common workaround: spreadsheets maintained alongside the platform to track progress manually.
Stakeholder workshops
Facilitated assumption-testing workshops with product, engineering, and policy. Changes validated through these sessions drove the 30% engagement lift.
Regulatory mapping
Worked with policy experts: 8 of 14 steps could be consolidated without compliance risk. Legal requirements vs. legacy artifacts.
Three roles, one workflow
The 30 sessions clustered into three working roles, each with a different relationship to the submission. I designed for all three rather than a single primary user.
The Submission Owner
"I spend more time fighting the tool than doing actual analysis."
- Owns
- Getting the submission complete and on time
- Blocked by
- No progress saving, requirements that surface late
The Data Provider
"I know what data is needed but the system makes it hard to provide."
- Owns
- Document accuracy and scope coverage
- Blocked by
- Rigid input formats, no inline guidance
The Reviewer
"I review dozens of submissions a quarter. I need status at a glance."
- Owns
- Batch review, audit trail, sign-off
- Blocked by
- No dashboard, manual status tracking
From 14 steps to 6
Step progress indicator
Persistent 6-step bar showing completion, current position, and estimated time. Users can jump between completed steps without losing data.
Auto-save + resume
Submissions auto-save every 30 seconds and resume exactly where the user left off. Eliminated the #1 complaint.
AI-powered scope analysis
Recommendation features surfacing guidance from unstructured documents. Users can trust, audit, and override AI outputs.
Inline validation
Replaced post-submission errors with inline guidance. Users see what is needed as they work, not after they submit.
Measurable impact
Before vs. After
Validated findings
Compliance UX is trust UX
When submissions affect billion-euro climate commitments, every interaction is a trust decision. Progress, auto-save, and confirmations are not nice-to-haves. They are the product.
AI needs humility in expert workflows
The AI recommendation worked best as a suggestion, not a directive. Expert users want control. The pattern: recommend, explain why, let the user decide.