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 regulation)—but also to monitor progress against internal sustainability targets and ambitions set by corporate, 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 Syensqo Environmental Reporting File (SERF - 7 forms in 2024). The process involves submitting data on emissions, waste, water balance, and other KPIs relevant to corporate reporting.

However, this corporate reporting process is perceived as disconnected from daily site operations, "on top of", since each site already manages a range of local environmental responsibilities, including:

• Regulatory compliance with site-specific permits and national laws
  
• Monitoring of emissions and discharges and permit thresholds where applicable
• Reporting to local environmental authorities where 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. 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

Recommendation: Adopt Option B

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

• Corporate Reporting Fully in SAP: Leverage SAP EHS Environment together with Footprint Management and Sustainability Control Tower for end-to-end data capture, consolidation and reporting.

• What You Win:

  • A single, integrated solution

  • Standardized site-level processes

  • Opportunity for more frequent, relevant reporting

• What You Lose:

  • Some local flexibility and autonomy

• 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 is relying on a system called PURE, based on the UL 360 platform, 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 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

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:

• Emissions to air and water
  
• Water balance (intake, use, discharge, losses, circularity)
  
• Waste shipment and treatment
  
• General information (Environmental fines...)
  
  

To standardize this process, the corporate team has developed the Syensqo Environmental Reporting Forms (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 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 (eg 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 in the past, 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
  

To explore a more automated solution, Syensqo has 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 data collected in the site MES
  
• Analytical lab results (digital or PDF)
  
• Waste disposal records (PDF)
  
  

The system also included embedded algorithms for indicator 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 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.

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

Assumptions

• Input data is available from multiple sources, structured (MES) or not (PDF)
• Not all sites have the same digital maturity or IT tools. Amount of SERF input indicators reported also varies 
• Although SAP EHS focuses on Emissions Management at the moment, it can already be used 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)) 
• Integration between tools/platforms (Microsoft Fabric ↔ SAP EHS Environement ↔ SFM ↔ SCT) is feasible. SAP proposes a suite of solution to cater for different needs and audience.
  • SAP EHS Environment focusing on site environmental footprint, in particular emissions
  • SAP SFM computing and / or aggregating the GHG Emissions to provide Group GHG Emissions or Product level Carbon footprint
  • SAP Sustainability Control Tower gather all the ESG indicators and narrative to be used for Group reporting and sustainability performance management

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 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
• Sites vary in size, reporting obligations, and data availability readiness. IoT equipment requires investment
• 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
  
• 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
• 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 update of definition or calculation rule

Options considered

Option A: To continue AS-IS

In this scenario, the company maintains its current environmental reporting setup:

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

• 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 harmonized across the group.

• Results from PURE campaign and calculations are manually incorporated into other reporting processes and tools (ex for CDP or CSRD)

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 (PURE + Microsoft Fabric PoC) to SAP EHS Environment

Under this option, the company consolidates all environmental data management into SAP EHS. PURE is 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 formula management but are generally less flexible than Fabric for rapidly evolving or site-specific logic.

• Emissions can be monitored with SAP reporting and alerting, though real-time visualizations are not as advanced or intuitive as Power BI dashboards.

While compliance and auditability are strong with real-time flexibility in SAP EHS

SERF Campaign Management at Corporate Level

This use case would be supported by a combination of SAP solutions (Sustainability Control Tower and associated reporting in SAP Analytics Cloud, Sustainability Footprint Management) and SAP EHS for Site level data collection and calculation 

• Sites and legal entities can be easily added or modified within SAP’s organizational structure.

• KPI updates and form modifications can be managed via configuration (though they may require technical support).

• Campaign monitoring, user assignment, data validation workflows, approvals, and historical data restatement are all standard are core feature of SAP EHS EM

• Complex KPI logic and simulations can be supported through SCT or by layering custom functionality into SAP EHS. Also EHS has native integration with SAC as well which can be leveraged for complex reporting and visualization

• Plausibility check requirement is present in cloud public version and not in SAP Private cloud version

Annual Site Submission

SAP EHS already supports waste and emissions management. With appropriate configuration:

• Sites can submit waste data through the Waste Management module.

• Emissions to air and water are managed through the Emissions module.

• 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 is not supported in SAP EHS which is critical for Business Users

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

Option C : SAP EHS at Site + PURE at Corporate

In this architecture, all industrial sites use SAP Environment, Health & Safety (SAP EHS Environment) 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 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  data on:

  • Emissions 

  • Waste categories and volumes

  • Water usage

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

• On a yearly 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 can be done in PURE (e.g., for KPIs not captured in SAP or for comments/annotations).

Evaluation

	Option A : Continue As-Is	Option B : Move full scope (PURE + Microsoft Fabric PoC) to SAP EHS Environment	Option C : 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) Direct data flows for footprints native integration to seamlessly compute GHG Emissions Possibility to import organizational structure from plant maintenance	Pro: SAP EHS used at all sites, integration with source data (sensors, analytical results) is the same for all Possibility to import organizational structure from plant maintenance Con : 2 integration flows needed: from SAP to PURE and then from PURE to back to SAP 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 bi directional integration, while in option B we only have the cost of SAP EHS Environment license and no integration cost.
Compliance and Performance management	Con : separate business process and tools for local requirements on the one hand and corporate on the other	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 Risk that we cannot fully integrate SAP EHS ENV with PURE and that some annual survey remains (ex General information form collecting environmental fines, Wet versus Dry waste
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	Con : not the same flexibility and autonomy for the administrator as some steps have to be pre configured in the background	Pro: PURE has possibility to handle Complex KPI computation, controlled by the admin user
Regulatory Content (e.g., e-PRTR linkage)	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 like e-PRTR and substance classifications can be embedded in SAP EHS content (provided by external regulatory provider)	Con: Each site as well as Corporate (PURE) will have to update their own process and tools to cater for updated regulations Con: Integration between SAP EHS and PURE has to be updated to cater for regulatory changes
Standard Auditability & Traceability of Data	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	Pro: improved traceability at site level:  audit logs, regulation kept up to date by content provider 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	Pro:  PURE processes stay unchanged at corporate level 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#

Change log

Workflow history