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?

The essential building blocks for CSRD reporting is based on tools from many vendors and Syensqos existing technology.  It requires combining into a solution for ESG reporting.  A decision is required on the long term solution post the implementation of RFI ESG Disclosure and Performance in 2024.  

Recommendation

Summarise the recommendation being made for the reader, leaving the pro/con evaluation and exact decision-making process to the subsequent sections.

Background & Context

Explain the context in which the decision is being made.

RFI on ESG Disclosure and Performance was launched in 2024 to consolidate all Sustainability data in one place, create reporting layer and insights layer on top.  The RFI is aiming at a one to two year contract, which is to be revisited with ERP Rebuild.  Demos have been presented by SAP in 2024 to the business together with PWC.   RFI supported by KPMG experience with other clients and finalised in July 2024 based on 2.5 weeks response time for providers to answer by mid June 2024.  June/July 2023 Go-No Go decision.  

The required capabilities are:

• Centrally managed calculations. Avoid large proportions of pre-calculation in various source systems across the landscape. 
• Centralisation of ESG data and reporting.
• Long term solution committment.
• Annual or quarterly reporting metrics.
• Leverage of AI where beneficial.

Process

1. Assess metrics and data: Priortise ESG topics based on risks and issues
2. Automated data collection and preparation: data capture for emissions and ESG reporting
3. Centralised ESG data: granularity
4. Metric calculation:  aggregation and calculation of scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and other ESG metrics
5. Sustainability tracking via analytic insights (including visualisation) and reports and disclosures (multiple frameworks)
6. Sustainability initiatives based on actions and ESG compliance

The process is driven by a variety of internal and external data sources, which need control, tracing and verification.

Functional architecture

The following tools are data sources for storage and consolidation (automated or manual).  Enrichment with external data may also be required.  Metric calculations should make use of AI generated insights.

Design/R&I:

1. Project portfolio
2. LCA

• WeGo (accolade)
• Simapro/Gabi
• Fast LCA, checklist

Sustainable procurement (STP -Supply Tracking and Prioritisation):

1. Bio and recycled based raw material tracking (SAP - Green Token material origins?)
2. Human rights due to diligence (Ethixbase)
3. Carbon footprint sharing (Sigreen)

Manufacturing:

1. Carbon scope 1 and 2 (SAP Green Ledger, other?)
2. Emissions reporting (SAP EHS Emissions Management)
3. Waste reporting (SAP EHS Waste Management)
4. Water reporting (tbc - not readable on slide 4)
5. Star Factory project portfolio (Wave, Gensuite)
6. Accident reporting (Gensuite)
7. CAPEX tracking (SAP Finance, Colmar)

• Cerise (redundant)

Supply Chain:

1. Carbon scope 3 (SAP)

• EcotransIT
• Concur
• BW Tiers

HR:

1. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) (SAP SuccessFactor)
2. Training and performance (xls offline)
3. Gender pay gap (Payroll)
4. Living wages (Payroll)

Business:

1. Marketing (Sustainability Portfolio Management - SPM)
2. Inventory (SAP Product Compliance: Substances of Very High Concern - SVHC)
3. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA - tbc)

• PCF - redundant?

Greenomy

smaller scope plus AI as an option to combine with other tools for supplier interaction and environmental accounting. Risk of remaining a spot solution for compliance. Greenomy as short term solution, plug and play, so not overspend.  Quickest time for return, off the shelves.  For various reasons not signed in August yet. Committee will sign off in September 2024.

SAP Sustainability Control Towers (SCT)

Launch of 2024 RFI on ESG Disclosure and Performance was extended to SAP.  2024 RFI response by SAP not satisfactory with off the shelf slide pack containing access issues to links.  SAP Sustainability Control Towers (SCT) currently not mature enough, but could be revisited in three years. Scope, AI and insights not good enough. 

ESG data, elements on basic reporting using tools creating KPI library.  This should be covered by SAP.  SAP lacks enhancement of this data SAP i.e. reporting layer including e.g. KPIs, emission factors as per toole Ecoinvent and 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. 

 Disclosure SCT was not to be solution.  

very limited AI, no disclosure tool, would require interface, requires custom integrations until S/4 is implemented. S/4 will bring SCT features.

Roadmap?

SAP overestimated level of integration which may be issue for disclosure.  Marginal only if Green Token or Green Ledger were implemented.  Emissions is game changer where solution is. 

Emissions mgmt in S4 would swing decision closer to SCT.

 SAP datasphere has no prepackaged off the shelf data for sustainability.

Possible to use Fabric as datalake, then SCT on top.

Microsoft Sustainability and Fabric. 

Queried during RFI.  Performance was promising.  Proof of concept in Taveau site launched last week for 2 months.   Goal to automate the calculation and gathering, traceability of 20 environmental KPI from SERF.  Technical feasibility to create some insights.  Does it need to integrate with S4.  no emissions in SAP at the moment. Integrates with MES system now based on data lake project where data collected by sensor.  Data lake Startek.  Idea is to collect water flow taking flow combined with Labware for analytical with pollutant, results in KPI as Microsoft had pre-packaged solution.  

Fabric has many more functionalities.  KPI library in Sustainability. Its just performance.  In relation to disclosure look to Microsoft Purview compliance Manager.  SCT is last mile disclosure.  Possible to use Fabric as datalake, then SCT on top.  Maybe separate Disclosure and Data e.g. KPI library.  Could also put Greenomy on top of Fabric.  SAP Datasphere is an option instead of Microsoft datalake.  Microsoft cloud may be good move with regards to Microsoft workstations. 

Embedded AI capabilities superior.

Pilot in autumn to test automation of environmental metrics and modelisation for data cleaning and then consume clean data on corporate level.

Automation can obtain consistent data and metrics to pinpoint sustainability issues in real-time.  Tech-enabled governance of the reporting process can manage complexity and risk.

Pure/Gensuite vs S4.  scop 1-3 about 20 metrics, 15 in scope 3.  Validation workflow most important.

not advanced enough for reporting (no CPD, taxonomy etc), lack of integration. Syensqo leaning more towards Microsoft. 

PAPM (SAP) currently used for tax purposes by Finance in scope of ERP Rebuild to deal with complex reporting requirements.  Might be an option to cover circularity for Sustainability.  SPM may not be the way forward as missing master data.  Additional option?

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. 

Implementation of related SAP Sustainability functions to support SCT.

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 Sustainability Control Towers (SCT)

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

“The Control Tower gives the impact overview, the Footprint gives the detail, but it is still using business averages to gauge how much carbon is being produced.  The aim is to help to move away from averages and start using actuals, to start getting sight of actual data from suppliers, and their suppliers’ suppliers.

It’s here that SAP really ‘begins to differentiate on a global level’. The Data Exchange will become a standard-setting engine that allows businesses to exchange data, securely, across value chains, thus unlocking ‘the carbon calculation of impact’.

Option B:  Microsoft Fabric

Describe the option in sufficient detail for a reader familiar with the subject matter to understand it properly

Option C:  Greenomy - Do nothing

Describe 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 - SCT	Option B - Microsoft	Option C - Greenomy
Criterion 1	Pro Con	Pro Pro	Pro Con
Criterion 2	Pro Con	Con	Pro Pro
Criterion 3	Pro	Con	Con

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.

Change log

Workflow history