| Status | |
| Owner | Stefanie Schwartz |
| Stakeholders | Marie Flourie, tbc |
Issue
Succinctly describe the issue or problem statement that this Decision addresses. Why is a decision required? What business or technical problem does it address?
Carbon accounting solution required for Sysensqo as part of ERP Rebuild project.
Determine to what extent SAP tools can manage the business and system process to cover scope of AS IS third party applications (TPAs) for Sustainability. May require creation of further KDDs to cover specific TPAs.
Recommendation
Summarise the recommendation being made for the reader, leaving the pro/con evaluation and exact decision-making process to the subsequent sections.
Harmonise current ESG landscape.
Background & Context
Explain the context in which the decision is being made.
Economic accounting and carbon accounting same: buy raw materials, production, transport, man power, waste.
ESG Landscape As Is
- BW Cerise (CO2 Energy Report Improvement Software Efficiency)
- Automatic reporting of GHG (greenhouse gases) and ETS (Emissions Trading System) allocations for all sites.
- Carbon accounting uses Cerise as closely linked to Finance, which was heavily involved with Cerise implementation.
- Cerise is not an SAP module, but custom solution in BW where master data is directly maintained in BW. It uses BW outside of its original purpose of consolidating relevant business information from productive SAP applications.
- Currently solution only covers scope 1 and 2 at site level. Scope 3 requirements with 15 subcategory e.g. GHG protocol 3.1 are not covered.
- Cerise is recent development without a formal RFI.
- New carbon accounting solution such as SAP Green Ledger needed to cover all categories, rather than a patchwork solution.
- Current dashboard access is via Qkliksense, which is expected to be redundant with a new solution for carbon footprint management such as Green Ledger.
- Cerise supports requirements for annual disclosures as backbone for reporting Scope 1 and 2 relating to energy. Some are essential for annual reports.
- Scope 1 data BW Cerise where activity is collected combined with emission factor for each plant. Mapping table for each plant in BW.
- Qty of energies are reported from ERP directly. Cerise is plant level, Syensqo are buying these energies and combining the emission factor. WP1 uses qty of energies in BOM . Emission factor not from BOM, Cerise tool to get emission factor at plant level.
- Qliksense
- Dashboard for BW Cerise, integration not required if dashboard functionality available via SAP Green Ledger, potentially redundant with the new solution.
- Used for SPM, which may remain valid with a new carbon footprint management solution.
- Qliksense used for reporting relating to CSRD for visualisation.
- EcotransIT (World)
- The most widely used software worldwide for the automatic calculation of energy consumption, carbon emissions, air pollutants, and external costs.
- Widely used by peers and 3PL providers.
- Calculates distances based on the most logical routing and most likely mode of transport e.g. diesel-powered trains in US vs electric trains in Europe.
- Contract not signed, yet, under negotiation.
- Database, no software.
- Should be in carbon accounting blue box middle. Should be part of scope 3 transport related emissions.
- May be covered by Green ledger. Comprehensive tool should replace it.
- Colmar (CAPEX tracking) - CAPEX - increased needs, covered by Finance
Non-SAP - out of scope for ERP Rebuild:
LCA
- EcoInvent (2ndary data) - library of emission factors. Linked to SimaPro. Database only, not software. Connected to LCA. Commercial issue as data bought through software lincence in Simapro. No further improvement.
- Sigreen (PCF collect) - SaaS aiming at facilitating the exchange of PCF within the value chain. It was co developed with TfS. Interested to see what SAP propose. Sector federation decision to chemical industry in 2024 from RFP two years. Syensqo cannot chose, collective decision. No change. Tableau - PCF.
- Ecovadis (supplier screening) - no questionnaire, prebuild questionnaire. same as Sigreen, collective choice by federation. No change.
- Wave (Star Factory) - Consumed by sustainability. Tool of McKinsey. PMO tool, project mgmt tool.
- WeGo (Portfolio Management) - project mgmt tool, managed by R&I and IT.
- SPM - SPM (Sustainable Portfolio Mgmt) - SPM is a custom built tool in SAP that standardizes and records sustainability assessments in order to support decision making processes. It combines:
- on the vertical axis: the monetization of all the environmental impacts based on the ecoprofile done in simapro (excel upload)
- on the horizontal side, the market positioning based on a form
The evaluation is done on a data object called PAC (Product in Application) that is linked via correlation tables to products and end uses in order to allow the visualisation of the sales for each SPM category. custom build by Solvay. SAP not right, too bespoke. Will remain out of scope. Just needs improvement. ABAP developed. Form technology. To BE webforms, not SAP.- RFI?
- Timeline RFI vs ERP if future not SAP
- Qliksense integration
- Gensuite should stay, sustainability just consumes. unlikely to be consumed by SAP.
Ongoing Projects
RFI ESG Disclosure and Performance
ESG Disclosure and Performance - SAP not mature enough with SCT (Sust Control Tower). Could be revisited in 3 years. Roadmap? SAP did not answer RFI, just off the shelf ppt. Access issues to links.
Gensuite one option. Synergies with reporting. Target state data capture and clean up close to source. May mean movin away from Gensuite to where data ownership, modelling is more frequent. Gensuite not right fit, maybe more towards Microsoft. Pilot in autumn to test automation of env metric, modelisation for data cleaning and then consume clean data on corporate level.
Shortlist of two, favourite Greenomy as short term solution so not overspend. Plug and play. Recommendation given, waiting for decision
Launch of Sustainbility Control Tower RFI, extended to SAP, SAP invited to answer. Unlikely they will be shortlisted. RFI to consolidate all sustainability data in one place, create reporting layer and insights layer on top. 1-2 year contract to revisit once ERP Rebuild is in place. Hence AS IS is a moving target. Different scope to Green Token. Demos have been presented by SAP this year to Marie with PWC. Scope, AI and insights not good enough. RFI supported by KPMG experience with other client and finalised in next days. 2.5 weeks for providers to answer by mid June. Other potential providers SAP, Gensuite, Salesforce, Microsoft (new partner AI), Simapro provider Sphera. Pure players: https://watershed.com/en-GB, https://www.cority.com/, https://figbytes.com/company/about/, Watershed.com. June/July 2023 Go-No Go decision. Syensqo IT contacts are Guillaume Muller (PM sustainability) and Mathilde Lascombes (for the AI capabilities) for now. Syensqo will involve purchasing and architecture once we have shortlisted
*Sustainability Control Tower: SAP scope, AI and insights not good enough. ESG data, elements on basic reporting using tools creating KPI library. This should be covered by SAP. Enhancement of this data SAP lacks, reporting layer e.g. KPIs, emission factors e.g. ecoinvent, ecotransit. For example carbon accounting. Pureplayers look into public data where plant data is missing, to make assumptions where there is gaps. Other functionality, AI native pureplayer is integrated benchmark. Competitors in tool for KPIs in market based on public information. SAP solution does not cover this. No company in manufacturing uses the Sustainability Control Towers.
Dedicated project on carbon footprint
managed by Philippe Chevaux (Sustainability DT)
eg. estimation on product footprint. Project finish by end of 2024.
Digital sustainability
Emissions impact when buying and selling to understand kg of CO2 to get product to customer. Importance to customers, the lower CO2 the greener. Other companies CSRD aim to reduce emissions.
Aim to take control what is happening in supply chain. Syensqo needs activity data and emission factor e.g. how many kg CO2 for certain activity. Data build by experts or external databases. Economic accounting and carbon accounting same: buy raw materials, production, transport, man power, waste. It is the first time ever that Syensqo have product level accounting for Sustainability. Few other companies are at same stage. Historically accounting at plant or group level only. CO2 = direct emission on product level (scope 3). Beforehand at plant level. Scope 1 directly e.g. burning into air, Scope 2 e.g. buying electricity. Scope 1 data BW Cerise where activity is collected combined with emission factor for each plant. Mapping table for each plant in BW. Qty of energies are reported from ERP directly. Cerise is plant level, Syensqo are buying these energies and combining the emission factor. WP1 uses qty of energies in BOM . Emission factor not from BOM, Cerise tool to get emission factor at plant level.
Changes to carbon print, that could reduce emission factor: optimise process leading to less consumption, measured at plant, change of BOM based on lower conception. Otherwise it is possible to change provider for energy supplies to reduce emissions factor. Selecting suppliers with lower footprint.
Accuracy key TO BE to govern and implement solution going forward. Data flow as one version of truth. For raw materials v good accuracy according to Matthieux. Better waste allocation would be beneficial.
Resource and time constraints hindering to go beyond PCF (Product Carbon Footprint) e.g LCA Life Cycle Assessment. Regulation more on reporting ESG than on PCF. PFC not forced by regs to be provided, other than customer impact deciding to buy more PCF friendly products. PCF for customer benefit only. GBUs have no one priority. Some customers may stop selling otherwise. Business continuity impact. PCF also needed for corporate ESG disclosures, especially 3.1.
What are the requirements for annual disclosures? Cerise tool is backbone for reporting Scope 1 and 2 relating to energy. Some are essential for annual reports. Strategy Gabriela, SAP first, if not fully cover requirements, then certified product. In some instances, SAP development instead of 3rd party product.
Procurement initiative for pressuring vendors as part of 3.1. A way to understand where emissions come from at operational, procurement, market level. Enables to start taking action on group targets.
Assumptions
Clearly describe the underlying assumptions which informed or limited the choices available, or impacted the decision: cost, schedule, regulatory requirements, business drivers, country footprint, technology, etc. Include links as necessary. This section is important because a future change in circumstances might invalidate some key assumptions, which then prompts a decision to be revisited.
Constraints
Capture any constraints or limitations inherent to the recommended option. This could be aspects which, if changed or removed in future, could cause the decision to be revisited or invalidated. For example, a constraint might be that a new product has significant gaps in important functionality, which caused an older alternative to be recommended. If those gaps are closed in future, this might cause the decision to be invalidated.
Impacts
Describe the impact of the decision on other aspects such as other processes, infrastructure, other SAP modules or systems, data cleansing and migration, developments, automations, interfaces, in-flight projects, etc.
Business Rules
The decision may translate into business rules which enforce the decision and will require configuration. List these business rules here. For example, "An Outline Agreement cannot be created via the RFQ process. An awarded RFQ can only result in a Purchase Order".
Options considered
List the options (viable options or alternatives) you considered. These often require a longer explanation with diagrams, or references to other documents (links are best, but attachments are also possible). Use enough detail to adequately explain what you considered so that a project or business stakeholder reviewing this decision will not come back and ask "did you think about...?"; this leads to loss of credibility and questioning of other decisions. This section also helps ensure that you considered enough suitable alternatives rather than just copy/pasting SAP's recommendations.
Option A: SAP Green Token
Combines financial and environmental data to enable deep insights and effective decision making at different points across the business process.
Business decisions need to consider environmental costs. The Green Ledger allows for thses costs to become visible up front.
Makes it easier for businesses to accurately account for the carbon they produce across their value chain. Given the fact that SAP handles 70% of the world’s business transactions, it will also – when it launches next year – be the largest solution of its kind available.
“To truly make progress and create a more sustainable world, it’s important that enterprises take action on the carbon they’re producing,” explains Jesper Schleimann, SAP’s Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer. “But the only way to do that is to have actual data so they can make business decisions.”
Couple the need for action with an increased need for transparency from investors, employees, regulatory bodies, and customers, enterprises are being pushed to make sustainability an integral part of their business blueprint.available within the RISE and GROW with SAP programmes.
By adding in the fourth element, the Green Ledger, businesses will be able to act on the insight they have in front of them.
“Of course, you can take action at any stage but the Green Ledger will help to make bigger, bolder, decisions that become integral to what a business does; embedded across the enterprise.”
Just as financial ledgers detail the value that moves across an enterprise – how much money has been made, where it should be invested – with the Green Ledger, businesses will know which activities are driving their carbon footprint so they can look at where and how they can reduce it and make better decisions.
Option B: SAP Profitability and Performance Management (PAPM)
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Option C: Continue As Is
Decribe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly
Evaluation
Outline why you selected a position. The best format could be a pro/con table (sample below), but is up to you as the author. You must consider complexity, feasibility, cost/effort to implement, but also ongoing operational impact and cost. You must consider the program principles and explain any deviations in detail. This is probably as important as the decision itself.
Option A SAP Green Token | Option B AS IS Applications | Option C | Option D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion 1 |
|
|
|
|
| Criterion 2 |
|  Con |
|
|
| Criterion 3 |  Pro | Con | Con | Pro |
See also
Insert links and references to other documents which are relevant when trying to understand this decision and its implications. Other decisions are often impacted, so it's good to list them here with links. Attachments are also possible but dangerous as they are static documents and not updated by their authors.
