Issue

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

This data collection is currently conducted through an annual campaign using the PURE platform, in which sites are asked to complete the Site Syensqo Environmental Reporting Form File (SERF - 7 forms in 2024). The process involves submitting data on emissions, waste, water consumptionbalance, environmental incidents, and other KPIs relevant to corporate reporting.

HoweverCurrently, this corporate this corporate reporting process is perceived as disconnected from daily site operations. Each site already manages a range of local environmental responsibilities, including, that include:

• Regulatory compliance with site-specific permits and national laws
• Real-time monitoringMonitoring of emissions and discharges and permit thresholds where applicable
• Reporting to local environmental authorities
  Internal operational tracking of environmental performancewhere applicable

These tasks often require the collection and validation of the same or similar data as that required by the SERF campaign, but through different workflows, tools, or systems. Because the corporate process is not integrated with site-level systems, it creates a sense of duplication, manual rework, and administrative burden for site teams.As a result, the annual data collection exercise is seen by many sites as redundant, resource-intensive, and misaligned with operational realities. It also risks introducing introducing inconsistencies or delays in data accuracy and completeness, especially as environmental reporting requirements become more rigorous and time-sensitive. A certain level of duplication is unavoidable due to the different nature of the reporting and also because local authorities may impose reporting in specific platforms, languages etc., but in some instances there is opportunity to mutualize and leverage on the same input data.

Ultimately, this lack of integration between corporate and site-level environmental data processes undermines the efficiency and credibility of environmental reporting across the group automation undermines the possibility to increase the frequency of reporting and poses a growing risk as regulations and stakeholder expectations continue to evolve.

Site-Level Scope (Local Responsibilities)

• Ensure compliance with site-specific permits and national environmental laws.

• Monitor emissions, discharges, waste, water, and other environmental KPIs.

• Report to local environmental authorities using local tools and workflows.

• Deal with duplication due to disconnected corporate reporting processes.

 This KDD will address the site-level scope, aiming to streamline data collection for each site  and reduce manual effort and the Change request -CR0014 is created for the effort estimated for this KDD. 

Issue for Corporate Reporting will be handle in another KDD : KDD090 - Corporate Environmental Data Reporting

Recommendation

Recommendation: Adopt Option B

• Single, Integrated Solution: SAP EHS Environment becomes the sole platform for all sites to manage waste, emissions and water.

• Pros:

  • A single, integrated solution

  • More standardized site-level processes thanks to single IT solution (same data objects etc)

  • By enabling automation, offers a solution for sites to build more frequent reporting

• Cons :

  • Loss of flexibility and autonomy for each site 

• Best For:

  • Long-term scalability

  • Regulatory compliance

  • Harmonized data and performance management across the organization

Our recommendation: Option B is the most future-proof approach

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 has historically relied is relying on a system called PURE, based on the UL 360 platform, to conduct an annual environmental reporting campaign known as the SERF (Site Syensqo Environmental Reporting FormFile).

Syensqo  operates in a regulatory environment where environmental data must be collected, validated, and reported both at the corporate level and at the individual site level. These x GBU combination level( Site Level) These two dimensions of reporting—Group Reporting and Site Reporting—serve different but interdependent purposes. However, until now, they have evolved largely in isolation from one another, creating operational inefficiencies and data fragmentation.Both levels may be subject to internal and external audit. As site level data is the basis of input to corporate group reporting, its important its accurate, automated and streamlined

1. Group Reporting

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 team. These indicators include, but are not limited to:

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

To standardize this process, the corporate team has developed the Site Syensqo Environmental Reporting Form File (SERF), which is 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 questionnaire 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 requirements. 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 Acknowledging  site-specific permits
  Conducting real-time 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
  

To address this inefficiency and explore a more integrated automated solution, Syensqo has launched a Proof of Concept (PoC) in mid-2024 at its largest site (TavauxTravaux). The objective of this initiative was to automate the capture, processing, and validation of environmental data at the source. Using technologies like Microsoft Fabric and Power Apps, the PoC integrated data streams from:

• IoT sensors data collected in the site MES
• Analytical lab results (digital or PDF)
• Waste disposal records (via PDF parsing and AI tools)
  
  

The system also included embedded algorithms for KPI indicator computation, plausibility checks, and validation workflows, offering real-time daily insights and a significantly more efficient reporting mechanism. The initial scope of the PoC focused on 24 water-related emission indicators a small set of emissions to water indicators from the PVDF production unit but is expected to expand in 2025 to cover additional domains indicators such as air emissions and waste indicators.

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

Image Removed

Assumptions

• Input data is available from multiple sources, structured (from MES) or not ( in the form of PDF)

Assumptions

• SAP EHS Environment has modules that can be extended to match PURE and Msft Fabric functionality
  Msft Fabric solution is scalable to other sites but currently only proven at Tavaux
• Not all sites have the same digital maturity or on IT tools
  
• Integration between tools/platforms (Msft Fabric ↔ SAP ↔ SFM) is feasible
• . Amount of emission, water and waste input indicators reported also varies 
• Although SAP EHSfocuses on Emissions Management at the moment, it can already be used SAP EHS Management.  provides tools for tracking, configuring, and reporting water-related data to meet compliance and operational needs supporting water balance and usage reporting (cf link in "See also) 
• Some needed functionalities only in SAP roadmap: ex plausibility check requirement is present in 2023 service pack 2. SAP cloud version
• Integration between tools/platforms (Microsoft Fabric ↔ SAP EHS Environment ↔ SFM ↔ SCT) is feasible. SAP proposes a suite of solutions to cater for different needs and audiences.
  • SAP EHS Environment (SAP EHS EM) focusing on site environmental footprint, in particular emissions
  • SAP Sustainability Footprint Management (SFM) computing and / or aggregating the GHG Emissions to provide Group GHG Emissions or Product level Carbon footprint
  • SAP Sustainability Control Tower (SCT) gather all the ESG indicators and narrative to be used for Group reporting and sustainability performance management 
  • additional reporting may be done in reporting platform that will be implemented during the project (such as SAP Datasphere)

Image Added

Constraints

• System and data should be auditable. Users should be able to add the comment if there is any change in Value value when Data is validated as well as when Emission flow is revieweddata 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 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

Image Removed 

Constraints

• Regulatory pressure to start using new CSRD reporting from 2025
  
• Sites vary in size, reporting obligations, and data readiness
• Some environmental KPIs are only meaningful at group level, others only locally
• 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 GBUs workload during the transition phase
• Need for training and change management at site and corporate levelsite  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 KPIs indicators from each relevant site
• Sites must comply with local regulations and monitor environmental performance daily
  
• KPIs must Indicators must be traceable to source data and auditable
  
• Any system must support future expansion of KPI scope or update of definition or calculation rule

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 Added

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.

Evaluation

Risk of losing site-level flexibility and innovation

	Option B : Move

PURE

Evaluation

Option A : Move full scope (PURE + Msft Fabric PoC) to SAP EHS Environment

Option B : Move PURE to SAP EHS; integrate with Microsoft Fabric

Option C : Hybrid – PURE in SAP EHS; Sites choose SAP or Msft Fabric

Option D : Move PURE to Microsoft  Fabric and integrate with SFM

System Integration

Pro:

• Fully embedded in SAP ecosystem (EHS + SFM + SCT)
• Direct data flows for footprints

Con

• Extra effort to sync Fabric with SAP

Pro :

• Site flexibility

Con

• Governance challenges
• Complexity in integrating non-SAP site tools

Pro :

• Site innovation

Con:

• Extra effort to setup integration to SAP 
• Risk of siloed systems

Scalability to Other Sites

Pro Is scalable

Con

Con

Pro

Con

Con

IoT Data Integration

Pro :Possible via middleware  or external connectors, but not natively real-time; requires integration middleware

Pro : Native and  scalable in Fabric via Power Automate or Azure IoT

Pro : Site decides: Fabric for IoT-rich sites

Pro

KPI Computation Flexibility

Con :Low to Medium – Mostly,pre-configured; limited flexibility; logic sits at site × substance level in Emissions Mgt

 Pro:High – KPIs can be computed dynamically per site, substance, or time period

Pro :Varies by tool; more flexible where Fabric is used

site scope  to SAP EHS

; integrate with Microsoft Fabric

Fabric

This hybrid model keeps PURE (now re-implemented in SAP EHS) for corporate data collection, while allowing sites to use Microsoft Fabric to capture and pre-process environmental data. Integration pipelines would connect site systems with SAP.

Use Case 1 – Daily Emissions Management

Site-level environmental managers benefit from:

• Real-time data collection via IoT/MES connected to Microsoft Fabric.

• Complex, customizable formula logic managed locally.

• Dashboards and notifications for immediate action.

This flexibility gives sites control over day-to-day operations, while allowing them to push clean, validated data upstream to SAP. However, ensuring traceability, audit readiness, and alignment with SAP data models requires rigorous integration.

Use Case 2 – SERF Campaign Management

The corporate team benefits from:

• A centralized SERF campaign in SAP EHS, with full control over forms, sites, and KPI definitions.

• Built-in approvals, and version tracking.

• Potential for data simulation or restatement using SFM or SCT.

Fabric adds value at the site level, but corporate teams rely on SAP for formal reporting and compliance—balancing local agility with centralized control.

Use Case 3 – Annual Site Submission

Sites can:

• Submit waste and emissions data via SAP EHS (native modules).

• Pre-fill forms or integrate water and GHG data using Fabric, pushing it into SAP for final validation.

Use Case 4 – Scope 1 Consolidation

Data from both SAP EHS and Microsoft Fabric can be consolidated into SFM, with:

• Carbon and non-carbon emissions integrated at the corporate level.

The challenge lies in ensuring consistent GHG mapping between Microsoft and SAP systems.

Pros:

• Keeps Microsoft Fabric innovation 

Cons:

• Integration complexity
  
• Two systems to maintain

Option C: Hybrid – PURE in SAP EHS; Sites choose SAP or Microsoft Fabric

This pragmatic model allows sites to choose between SAP and Microsoft Fabric, while ensuring that all environmental data rolls up into SAP EHS for corporate reporting. Governance is critical to maintain consistency.

Use Case 1 – Daily Emissions Management

• Sites using Fabric can build rich, real-time systems with IoT and advanced analytics.

• Sites using SAP EHS manage emissions natively with compliance-grade structure.

• Each site chooses the tool that suits its digital maturity and operational model.

This flexibility promotes adoption but introduces variability in capability and output.

Use Case 2 – SERF Campaign Management

The corporate team uses SAP EHS to manage the entire SERF process:

• Standard KPIs, campaign timelines, and approvals remain centralized.

• Sites must map their data (regardless of local tools) into the required SAP EHS format.

While corporate teams gain control, they may face increased overhead validating and reconciling inputs from different systems.

Use Case 3 – Annual Site Submission

Sites submit via:

• SAP EHS if they use native SAP  (waste, emissions, water).

• An integration layer if using Fabric or other tools.

Both methods are supported, but maintaining traceability and audit trails across diverse input channels requires strong governance.

Use Case 4 – Scope 1 Consolidation

Corporate teams consolidate data into SAP EHS and SFM:

• Emissions from SAP EHS can be linked to SFM automatically.

• Fabric data must be transformed to align with SAP structures and validated centrally.

Pros:

• Balances standardization and flexibility
  
• Allows sites to mature at own pace

Cons:

• Risk of fragmented landscape
  
• Requires strong governance

Option D: Move PURE to Microsoft  Fabric and integrate with SFM

Pros:

• Leverages proven site-level automation
  
• More real-time capabilities

Cons:

• Microsoft Fabric not yet validated for full group-level reporting

Environment
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 EM + SFM + SCT + SAP reporting) Direct data flows for footprints native integration to seamlessly compute GHG Emissions Possibility to import organizational structure from plant maintenance
Compliance and Performance management	Con : local authority mandated reporting cannot be leveraged for corporate reporting	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
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.
IoT Data Integration	Con Not standardized – Sites may have custom solutions, but no group-level integration	Pro : opportunity to standardize by using the same technology to capture data. However still relying on IOT investment at site level
Computation Flexibility	Pro: PURE has possibility to handle Complex KPI computation, controlled by the admin user	Con : not the same flexibility and autonomy for the administrator as some steps have to be pre configured in the background

Regulatory Content (e.g., e-PRTR linkage)	Con: In case of regulation change (eg E PRTR) each site has to update their own process and tools to adapt	Pro : Yes – regulatory lists like e-PRTR and substance classifications can be embedded in SAP EHS content

Con :

Supported via mapped content and external lists; needs to be imported

Pro :SAP manages regulatory lists; Fabric supports enhancements

Con

Manual management or APIs to regulatory sources

(provided by external regulatory provider)

Standard Auditability & Traceability of

Regulatory

Data

Pro Strong – full traceability, audit logs, regulatory reporting packages

Pro :Strong (if SAP is used as backend) – Fabric supports

Pro : SAP ensures regulatory trace; Fabric traceability needs rules

Con: Although PURE is centralized and auditable, the site level inputs depends on local setup and lack centralized traceability	Pro: improved traceability at site level:  audit logs, regulation kept up to date by content provider
Change Management Impact	Pro: No major system change required Con: Survey fatigue on site. Without automation, not possible to increase the frequency of reporting for selected indicators	Con :

Change Management Impact

Con : High –

new process for sites, training on SAP UI and logic, complex configuration model

Con  Medium – sites adapt to Fabric; integration learning curve 

Con: Site have to adapt to SAP or Mfst Fabric

Con

(but one time set up) Pro:  Sites are trained to use both Waste management and Emissions Management

See also

https://community.sap.com/t5/product-lifecycle-management-blogs-by-sap/water-balance-and-usage-report-step-by-step-configuration-guide/ba-p/14058864#

See also

Attachmentspreviewfalsepatterns^(?!.*\.(png|jpg|jpeg|svg)$).*sortOrderdescending

Change log

Workflow history