Issue

At the group level,  Syensqo  Syensqo is required to collect and consolidate a broad set of environmental indicators  from from its industrial sites. This is necessary not only to meet meet external reporting requirements —such as those defined under the the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) —but also to to monitor progress against internal sustainability targets  and and ambitions set by corporate, as well as answer institutional questionnaires such as Carbon as Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

This data collection is currently conducted through an an annual campaign  using the using the PURE  platformplatform, in which sites are asked to complete the the Syensqo Environmental Reporting File (SERF - 7 forms in 2024) . The data consolidation is then performed in PURE. Data is audited and can then be subsequently used for the annual report process or for responding to other questionnaires answering.

Since sites the site's data will originate from SAP EHS EM and should eventually be disclosed in SAP SCT (via Datasphere), the goal of this KDD is to evaluate if the process could be conducted fully in SAP, including the corporate consolidation, or if PURE is still needed in the target landscape.

Image Removed

.

Kindly note that decision to use Datasphere for consolidation is not dependent on this KDD.
There are 3 separate instance for SAP EHS for which data needs to be consolidated. SAP Datasphere is part of SAP suite for consolidation and this interface is standard practice suggested by SAP

Please find the decision for Site level reporting here: KDD079 - Pure Application Replacement - Site Level Reporting

Please find link for the CR related to this KDD:

Image Added

Recommendation

The SyWay recommendation is to adopt the single, integrated solution of SAP EHS to becomes the sole platform for site and corporate reporting to manage

Recommendation

Recommendation: Adopt Option B

waste, emissions and water

. This is Option A in this evaluation, and is found to be the most future-proof approach, with a more streamlined design, than the alternatives considered. 

Pros:

• Both site level and corporate level data would be present in single system. Easy traceability and auditability 
• Effort required for integration with other SAP component is limited
• More cost efficient as less licensing and maintenance cost is required
• Opportunity to merge the “water live dashboard” and the SERF report for sites in scope: the quarterly data will be used for the annual reporting

Cons :

• Limitation in equation parameter, lengthy equations need to be broken down to smaller ones

• . This would result in more effort during initial setup.

• More change impact for the PURE Admin

Best For:

• Long-term scalability

• Regulatory compliance

• Harmonized data and performance management across the organization

Background & Context

Syensqo is subject to increasingly stringent environmental reporting requirements, both from external regulations (notably the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive - CSRD and E-PRTR) and from internal sustainability goals set by the corporate group. 

To address this, the company is relying on a system called PURE, based on the UL 360, to conduct an annual environmental reporting campaign known as the SERF (Syensqo Environmental Reporting File).

Syensqo  operates in a regulatory environment where environmental data must be collected, validated, and reported, audited both at the corporate level and at the individual site x GBU combination level. These two dimensions of reporting—Group Reporting and Site Reporting—serve different but interdependent purposes. Both levels may be subject to internal and external audit.

1. Group Reporting

level . 

On an annual basis, each site within the defined reporting scope is required to submit a comprehensive set of environmental indicators to the corporate HSE Industrial team . These indicators include:

• Emissions to air and water
• Water balance (intake, use, discharge, losses, circularity)
• Waste shipment and treatment
• General information (Environmental fines, climate change related information, additional information on water for CDP, summed production volumes....)
  
  

To standardize this process, the corporate team has developed the Syensqo Environmental Reporting File (SERF) , which are implemented through the PURE application (UL 360 platform). The SERF covers more than 1000 KPIs and is structured to support corporate-level reporting requirements under frameworks such as CSRD and E-PRTR , as well as internal environmental performance monitoring.

Site representatives are prompted annually to fill out the SERF questionnaires within PURE, after which the corporate team validates, consolidates, and extracts the data for use in the group’s sustainability disclosures and internal reporting dashboards.

Group reporting is done on operational and financial perimeter depending on the requirementsrequirement. The calculation perimeter may be modified based on the properties of the reporting entities (start- and stop-date during their lifetime) and the exact inquiry (e.g. historical perimeter is with inactive sites included, running perimeter is without the past contribution for the past sites). It therefore allows executing ad hoc analysis of past data, for example in the event of a carve-out or spin-off.

2. Site Reporting

Independently of the corporate SERF campaign, each site is also responsible for managing its own local environmental compliance. This includes:

• Meeting local legal requirements
  
• Respecting site-specific permits by monitoring of emissions and discharges
• Submitting data to local authorities on a monthly, quarterly, or yearly basis depending on the jurisdiction and regulatory requirements
  

The system also included embedded algorithms for indicator computation, plausibility checks, and validation workflows, offering daily insights and a significantly more efficient reporting mechanism. The initial scope of the PoC focused on a small set of emissions to water indicators from the PVDF production unit but is expected to expand in 2025 to cover additional indicators such as air emissions and waste indicators.

Image Removed

The first POC demonstrated technical feasibility based on 21 SERF input indicators related to water emissions from the PVDF production unit and the scope was extended to other indicators according to a 2025 project timeline.

Image Removed

Assumptions

Image Removed

Constraints

• System and data should be auditable. Users should be able to add the comment if there is any change in value when data is validated
• The system should keep all historical values for the same indicator / reporting entity and period combination; together with the reasons for the corrections, the name of the person who asked for the correction, the date, etc
• Auditors may impose to make some changes in the reporting process at site or group level to better cater for CSRD requirements
• Need to maintain complex formulas (If and Else) and the full flexibility for the SERF Manager to modify calculation equations and consolidation settings
• Need to be able to update data collection forms every year to cater for reporting frameworks updates
• Need to have flexible reporting to cater for ad-hoc requests and cover both operational and financial reporting parameters
• Need to be able to use time-variable calculation constants and time-variable consolidation rates, the latter is needed for the computation of the financial perimeter
• IoT equipment requires investment. Coverage depends on the site, so we need the flexibility to automate or manually input data at site level
• Some needed functionalities only in SAP roadmap: ex plausibility check requirement is present in cloud public version and not in SAP Private cloud version

Impacts

• Potential for improved data quality, reduced manual work, and better regulatory alignment at site level
  
• Risk of data inconsistency if systems are not well integrated
• Increased IT and business (site and corporate) workload during the transition phase
• Need for training and change management at site and corporate level
• Potential impacts on portfolio as some sites may already have digital solution not identified by IT 

Business Rules

• Yearly SERF campaign must collect a fixed set of indicators from each relevant site
  
• Sites must comply with local regulations and monitor environmental performance and permits allowance wherever its applicable
  
• Indicators must be traceable to source data and auditable
  
• Any system must support future expansion of KPI scope or manual update of definition or calculation rule with traceability.

• Site Input data is made available in SAP EHS EM, either through manual input or leveraging models
• SAP version will be S/4 HANA 2025 Private Cloud. Supported by KDD026. 

Options considered

Option A: Move end to end process to SAP EHS Environment

• Single, Integrated Solution: SAP EHS Environment becomes the sole platform to manage group waste, emissions and water reporting end to end. 

• After setting up some prerequisites and that sites have submitted their data, calculations are launched at corporate level and results reviewed before being pushed to other SAP modules for reporting.

Image Added

Option B: Keep PURE + create integration with SAP

Options considered

To facilitate the understanding of the options, the end to end process is divided as follows, where 1 and 2 are executed at site level and 3 and 4 at corporate level.

Image Removed

Option A: To continue AS-IS + create some integration with SAP

In this scenario, the company maintains its current environmental reporting setup, apart from the waste area:

• The annual Syensqo Environmental Reporting Form (SERF) campaign is conducted using the PURE platform (step 3), except for waste

• Sites operate independently using a variety of local tools, spreadsheets, or semi-automated systems to collect and manage environmental data (steps 1 and 2) Some sites may have developed custom integrations or partial automation (e.g., via Microsoft Fabric or IoT), but this is not standardized across the group and unlikely to be implemented on every single site outside of a program like Syway due to high effort.

• Results from PURE campaign and calculations are manually incorporated into other reporting processes and tools (ex for CDP or CSRD) - or could be integrated into SAP SCT to achieve marginal improvement (automate from step 4 to 5)
• For waste, reporting attached to the SAP EHS Environment Waste management should replace the PURE form dedicated to waste

This approach continues to fulfill basic reporting obligations but offers limited scalability, efficiency, and readiness for growing regulatory and internal sustainability demands.

Option B: Move full scope of sites to SAP EHS Environment

Under this option, the company consolidates all environmental data management into SAP EHS. SERF forms are rebuilt natively in SAP, and site-level tools (like Tavaux POC running on Microsoft ) are replaced or phased out over time. This establishes a unified platform, fully integrated with the SAP landscape and aligned with long-term goals for SFM and SCT, covering all steps from 1 to 4.

Daily Emissions Management at Site Level

SAP EHS offers structured modules for emissions management, including:

• Integration with direct measurement sources like IoT or MES is feasible but will require middleware.

• Emission calculations can be handled through SAP’s calculation engine.

• Emissions can be monitored with SAP reporting and alerting, though real-time visualizations are not as advanced or intuitive as Power BI dashboards. SAP Analytics Cloud has prebuilt content for SAP EHS which enables better visualization and analysis.

GHG Scope 1 Consolidation

SAP EHS and SFM together provide a strong basis for consolidated Scope 1 reporting:

• Emission points can be defined, limits set, and both carbon and non-carbon GHG emissions recorded.

• The data flows cleanly into SFM for Scope 1 calculation, ensuring alignment with upcoming CSRD requirements

In this architecture, all industrial sites use SAP

Environment, Health & Safety (SAP EHS Environment)

EHS EM as the standardized platform for site-level environmental data capture and compliance reporting

(steps 1 and 2). This includes modules for:

• Emissions management

• Waste tracking

• Water usage reporting

The

. The corporate environmental reporting platform PURE (based on UL 360) remains in place for annual group-level consolidation and reporting, including CSRD

and E-PRTR

compliance

(step 3)

. Data from SAP EHS is exported and integrated into PURE for the Syensqo Environmental Reporting Form (SERF) campaign.

• Sites operate in SAP EHS,

  entering 

  entering data on:

  • Emissions to air and water

  • GHG emissions (non CO2)
  Emissions 

  • Waste

    categories

    transportation and

    volumes

    disposal

  • Water

    usage

    intakes, uses, releases, losses, and reuse

  • General information

• Data is validated locally using SAP EHS validation rules and audit trails.

• On a yearly (Frequency could be varied based on requirement) basis, the data required for SERF is extracted from SAP EHS, transformed as needed, and uploaded or integrated into PURE, where corporate teams run:

  • Campaign monitoring

  • Plausibility checks

  • Final calculations and KPI aggregations

  • External reporting formats

• Optional enrichment

  PURE can still be

  done in PURE (e.g., for KPIs not captured in SAP or for comments/annotations).

  used for questions not covered in SAP EHS EM

• Results are extracted from PURE and sent SAP Sustainability Control Tower via Datasphere. 

Pros:

• Ability to handle complex computation better in 1 formula
• Null value input can be used in logical equations
• Perimeters can be managed more directly in PURE

Cons :

• Fragmented data as site level and corporate level data would reside in 2 different systems
• Integration needs to established between SAP EHS EM to PURE and from PURE to SAP Datasphere. 
• Additional licensing cost for PURE and maintenance needed for integration with SAP
• Very limited user basis and functional scope for PURE

Evaluation

Evaluation

Option A : Continue As-Is

Option B : Move full scope ( Microsoft Fabric PoC)

to SAP EHS Environment	Option

C

B : SAP EHS at Site + PURE at Corporate
System Integration

 Con :Fragmented local tools, no standardized integration

Con : higher long term cost due to multiple solutions at site level

Pro:

Fully embedded in SAP ecosystem (EHS + SFM + SCT)

native integration to seamlessly compute GHG Emissions

Possibility to import organizational structure from plant maintenance

Leverage existing Production and Plant Maintenance data from SAP ERP ecosystem for deriving emission output

.

HR data from SAP ERP can be leveraged for assigning activities and approvals tasks to relevant stakeholders 

Pro:

Native API integration (minimal customization) for SAP EHS - SAP Datasphere - SAP Sustainability Control

Tower 

Tower

Pro:

SAP EHS used at all sites, integration with source data (sensors, analytical results) is the same for all

Possibility to

import

leverage organizational structure from plant maintenance

to avoid redundant updates

Leverage existing Production and Plant Maintenance data from SAP ERP ecosystem for deriving emission output.

HR data from SAP ERP can be leveraged for assigning activities and approvals tasks to relevant

stakeholders 

stakeholders

Con : Integration

Integration flows needed

: SAP EHS - PURE - SAP Datasphere - SAP Sustainability Control Tower.

Custom API needed for SAP EHS - PURE and PURE - SAP Datasphere

Con : Higher long term cost due to multiple solutions. In option A and C we have to purchase SAP EHS Environment license (needed for Waste management) + PURE license + cost of building and maintaining the  integration, while in option B we only have the cost of SAP EHS Environment license and no additional integration cost. Native APIs can be used to import data from SAP EHS to SCT via Datasphere

Compliance and Performance management

Con : separate business process and tools for local requirements on the one hand and corporate on the other

between SAP EHS EM and PURE and then from PURE to SAP SCT and SAP SFM. can be done manually (extra workload) or automated but for a fee (first estimate 15k€ for yearly API charges from UL)
Compliance and Performance management	versatility of SAP EHS EM

Pro: versatility of SAP EHS ENV

can be used to address local regulatory monitoring and reporting activities (eg environmental permit management) as well as the corporate reporting ("killing 2 birds with 1 stone")

Pro: opportunity to increase the frequency of KPI generation to better monitor and anticipate the group performance, take early actions to correct course, as well as reducing the effort at year end to review the data

Pro: versatility of SAP EHS ENV can be used to address local regulatory monitoring and reporting activities (eg environmental permit management) as well as the corporate reporting

2 different source of truth for site level and corporate level compliance and performance management.

Scalability to Other Sites

Con; not applicable, site based solutions remain

Pro: Is scalable. Possibility to automate or manually input the indicator allows to cater for different site size and digitization levels.

Pro: Is scalable. Possibility to automate or manually input the indicator allows to cater for different site size and digitization levels.

IoT Data Integration

Con Not standardized – Sites may have custom solutions, but no group-level integration

Pro : Not natively real-time; requires integration middleware

NB: IoT coverage not assessed for all sites

Pro: Not natively real-time; requires integration middleware

NB: IoT coverage not assessed for all sites

Computation Flexibility

Pro: PURE has possibility to handle Complex KPI computation, controlled by the admin user

Pro: SAP EHS has possibility to handle Complex KPI computation, controlled by the admin user

Con : Complex

2 systems to be audited Process controls to be implemented (possibly duplicated) in 2 systems
Computation Flexibility	Complex computation is possible but one formula is limited to 5 parameters. This means complex and lengthy formulas need to be broken down to smaller

formulae  

formulae.

Con : SAP

SAP EHS calculation engine does not include NULL values in calculation. It is possible to calculate with input as 0, while keeping the traceability

Pro: PURE

PURE has possibility to handle the most Complex KPI computation, controlled by the admin user

Pro:

. No restrictions in using lengthy equations

Pro:

. No restrictions in using NULL value as input

Regulatory Content (e.g., IPCC Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5))

Con: Each site as well as Corporate (PURE) will have to update their own process and tools to cater for updated regulations

Pro :

Yes – regulatory lists can be embedded in SAP EHS content (provided by external regulatory provider) 

Pro :

Yes – regulatory lists can be embedded in SAP EHS content (provided by external regulatory provider) 

Standard Auditability & Traceability of Data

Con: Although PURE is centralized and auditable, the site level inputs depends on local setup and lack centralized traceabilityPro: improved traceability at site level: audit logs, regulation kept up to date by content provider

Pro: improved traceability at site level:  audit logs, regulation kept up to date by content provider

improved traceability since everything is 1 system. No risk of data corruption during integration or mapping

Do

Con: Do

not provide end to end traceability due to fragmented landscape, and it will require governance between two systems

Change Management Impact

Pro: No major system change required as all users are already familiar with PURE, but also no process improvement

Con: Survey fatigue on site. Without automation, not possible to increase the frequency of reporting for selected indicators

Con : new process for sites, training on SAP UI and logic, complex configuration model (but one time set up)

Pro:  Sites are trained to use both Waste management and Emissions Management

more change for the PURE Admin user Move to SAP would not bring any improvement to the corporate reporting process as SAP is not a best in class player in that area Sites will use SAP EHS EM as well: allowing mutual training and understanding

PURE

Pro:  PURE

processes stay unchanged at corporate level

Pro:  Sites are trained to use both Waste management and Emissions Management

See also

Change log