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 as those defined under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR)—but also to monitor progress against internal sustainability targets and ambitions set by the corporate leadership.

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

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

• Regulatory compliance with site-specific permits and national laws
  
  
• Real-time monitoring of emissions and discharges
  
  
• Reporting to local environmental authorities
  
  
• Internal operational tracking of environmental performance
  
  

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 inconsistencies or delays in data accuracy and completeness, especially as environmental reporting requirements become more rigorous and time-sensitive.

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

Recommendation

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 on a system called PURE, based on the UL 360 platform, to conduct an annual environmental reporting campaign known as the SERF (Site Environmental Reporting Form).

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 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.

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 usage
  
  
• Waste generation
  
  
• Environmental fines and incidents
  
  

To standardize this process, the corporate team has developed the Site Environmental Reporting Form (SERF), which is 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 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.

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
  
  
• Conducting real-time monitoring of emissions and discharges
  
  
• Submitting data to local authorities on a monthly, quarterly, or yearly basis depending on the jurisdiction and regulatory requirements
  
  

These activities often require the same type of data as requested in the SERF, but are handled through different tools, processes, and timelines. Because there is no standardized or automated linkage between the systems used for local reporting and PURE, the same data often has to be collected, validated, and reported twice—once for local compliance and once for group reporting.

To address this inefficiency and explore a more integrated solution, Syensqo launched a Proof of Concept (PoC) in mid-2024 at its largest site (Tavaux). 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
  
  
• Analytical lab results
  
  
• Waste disposal records (via PDF parsing and AI tools)
  
  

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

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.

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 IT tools
  
  
• Integration between tools/platforms (Msft Fabric ↔ SAP ↔ SFM) is feasible
• 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
• Users should be able to add the comment if there is any change in Value when Data is validated as well as when Emission flow is reviewed

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
  
• Risk of data inconsistency if systems are not well integrated
• Increased IT workload during the transition phase
• Need for training and change management at site and corporate level

Business Rules

• Yearly SERF campaign must collect a fixed set of KPIs from each relevant site
  
• Sites must comply with local regulations and monitor environmental performance daily
  
• KPIs must be traceable to source data and auditable
  
• Any system must support future expansion of KPI scope (e.g. air, water, waste)

Options considered

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

Pros:

• Single system of record
• Consistency across sites
• Better integration with SAP core
   

Cons:

• SAP EHS will not be able to support the final calculation and condition( If and Else) at the group level
• Risk of losing site-level flexibility and innovation

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

Pros:

• Central reporting standardized
  
• Keeps Microsoft Fabric innovation
   

Cons:

• Integration complexity
  
• Two systems to maintain

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

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

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	Option D
System Integration	Pro: Fully embedded in SAP ecosystem (EHS + SFM + SCT) Direct data flows for footprints Con	Pro: SAP EHS aligned with SFM 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
Scalability to Other Sites	Pro Con	Con	Pro Pro	Con Con
Data Quality & Consistency	Pro	Con	Con	Pro

See also

Change log

Workflow history