| Status | |
| Owner | |
| Stakeholders | FLOURIE, Marie |
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) —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 data consolidation is then performed in PURE. Data is audited and can then be subsequently used for the annual report process or other questionnaires answering.
Since sites data will originate from SAP EHS EM and should eventually be disclosed in SAP SCT, the goal of this KDD is to evaluate if the process could be conducted fully in SAP, including the corporate consolidation, or if PURE is still needed in the target landscape.
Recommendation
Recommendation: Adopt Option B
Single, Integrated Solution: SAP EHS Environment becomes the sole platform to manage group waste, emissions and water reporting.
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.
Pros:
A single, integrated solution
- Easier integration
Through automation, opportunity for more frequent reporting
- Application portfolio rationalization
Cons :
Limitation in equation parameter, lengthy equations need to be broken down to smaller ones.
- SAP calculation engine does not consider NULL value for calculation
Our recommendation: Option B is the most future-proof approach and more streamlined design.
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, 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, climate change related information, additional information on water for CDP, summed production volumes....)
To standardize this process, the corporate team has developed the Syensqo Environmental Reporting File (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 (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 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 daily 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 from the PVDF production unit 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 on 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 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)
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
- IoT equipment requires investment. Coverage depends on the site, so we need the flexibility to automate or manually input data at site level
- 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 at site level
- Risk of data inconsistency if systems are not well integrated
- Increased IT and business (site and corporate) 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
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.
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., via Microsoft Fabric or IoT), but this is not standardized across the group and unlikely to be implemented on every single site outside of a program like Syway due to high effort.
- Results from PURE campaign and calculations are manually incorporated into other reporting processes and tools (ex for CDP or CSRD) - or could be integrated into SAP SCT to achieve marginal improvement (automate from step 4 to 5)
- For waste, reporting attached to the SAP EHS Environment Waste management should replace the PURE form dedicated to waste
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 of sites to SAP EHS Environment
Under this option, the company consolidates all environmental data management into SAP EHS. SERF forms are 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 calculation engine.
Emissions can be monitored with SAP reporting and alerting, though real-time visualizations are not as advanced or intuitive as Power BI dashboards. SAP Analytics Cloud has prebuilt content for SAP EHS which enables better visualization and analysis.
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 ( Microsoft Fabric PoC) to SAP EHS Environment | Option C : SAP EHS at Site + PURE at Corporate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Integration |
|
|
Custom API needed for SAP EHS - PURE and PURE - SAP Datasphere
|
| Compliance and Performance management |
|
|
|
| Scalability to Other Sites |
|
|
|
| IoT Data Integration |
|
NB: IoT coverage not assessed for all sites |
NB: IoT coverage not assessed for all sites |
Computation Flexibility |
|
|
|
| Regulatory Content (e.g., IPCC Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5)) |
|
Yes – regulatory lists can be embedded in SAP EHS content (provided by external regulatory provider) |
Yes – regulatory lists can be embedded in SAP EHS content (provided by external regulatory provider) |
Standard Auditability & Traceability of Data |
|  Pro: improved traceability at site level: audit logs, regulation kept up to date by content provider |
|
Change Management Impact |
|
|
|
Con :Fragmented local tools, no standardized integrationSee 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.
