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

Under this option, the company consolidates all environmental data management into SAP EHS. PURE is rebuilt natively in SAP, and site-level tools (like Microsoft Fabric) 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.

Use Case 1 – 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 

Use Case 2 – SERF Campaign Management at Corporate Level

This use case is well-supported in for Corporate level reporting in SCT or SAC 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

Use Case 3 – 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

Use Case 4 – 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.

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

Fabric

This hybrid model keeps PURE (now re-implemented in SAP EHS) for corporate data collection, while allowing sites to use Microsoft Fabric to capture and pre-process environmental data. Integration pipelines would connect site systems with SAP.

Use Case 1 – Daily Emissions Management

Site-level environmental managers benefit from:

• Real-time data collection via IoT/MES connected to Microsoft Fabric.

• Complex, customizable formula logic managed locally.

• Dashboards and notifications for immediate action.

This flexibility gives sites control over day-to-day operations, while allowing them to push clean, validated data upstream to SAP. However, ensuring traceability, audit readiness, and alignment with SAP data models requires rigorous integration.

Use Case 2 – SERF Campaign Management

The corporate team benefits from:

• A centralized SERF campaign in SAP EHS, with full control over forms, sites, and KPI definitions.

• Built-in approvals, and version tracking.

• Potential for data simulation or restatement using SFM or SCT.

Fabric adds value at the site level, but corporate teams rely on SAP for formal reporting and compliance—balancing local agility with centralized control.

Use Case 3 – Annual Site Submission

Sites can:

• Submit waste and emissions data via SAP EHS (native modules).

• Pre-fill forms or integrate water and GHG data using Fabric, pushing it into SAP for final validation.

Use Case 4 – Scope 1 Consolidation

Data from both SAP EHS and Microsoft Fabric can be consolidated into SFM, with:

• Carbon and non-carbon emissions integrated at the corporate level.

The challenge lies in ensuring consistent GHG mapping between Microsoft and SAP systems.

Pros:

• Keeps Microsoft Fabric innovation 

Cons:

• Integration complexity
  
• Two systems to maintain

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

This pragmatic model allows sites to choose between SAP and Microsoft Fabric, while ensuring that all environmental data rolls up into SAP EHS for corporate reporting. Governance is critical to maintain consistency.

Use Case 1 – Daily Emissions Management

• Sites using Fabric can build rich, real-time systems with IoT and advanced analytics.

• Sites using SAP EHS manage emissions natively with compliance-grade structure.

• Each site chooses the tool that suits its digital maturity and operational model.

This flexibility promotes adoption but introduces variability in capability and output.

Use Case 2 – SERF Campaign Management

The corporate team uses SAP EHS to manage the entire SERF process:

• Standard KPIs, campaign timelines, and approvals remain centralized.

• Sites must map their data (regardless of local tools) into the required SAP EHS format.

While corporate teams gain control, they may face increased overhead validating and reconciling inputs from different systems.

Use Case 3 – Annual Site Submission

Sites submit via:

• SAP EHS if they use native SAP  (waste, emissions, water).

• An integration layer if using Fabric or other tools.

Both methods are supported, but maintaining traceability and audit trails across diverse input channels requires strong governance.

Use Case 4 – Scope 1 Consolidation

Corporate teams consolidate data into SAP EHS and SFM:

• Emissions from SAP EHS can be linked to SFM automatically.

• Fabric data must be transformed to align with SAP structures and validated centrally.

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 : Hybrid – PURE in SAP EHS; Sites choose SAP or Msft Fabric	Option D : Move PURE to Microsoft  Fabric and integrate with SFM
System Integration	Pro: Fully embedded in SAP ecosystem (EHS + SFM + SCT) Direct data flows for footprints	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  Risk of siloed systems
Scalability to Other Sites	Pro Is scalable Con	Con	Pro	Con Con
IoT Data Integration	Pro :Possible via middleware  or external connectors, but not natively real-time; requires integration middleware	Pro : Native and  scalable in Fabric via Power Automate or Azure IoT	Pro : Site decides: Fabric for IoT-rich sites	Pro
KPI Computation Flexibility	Con :Low to Medium – Mostly,pre-configured; limited flexibility; logic sits at site × substance level in Emissions Mgt	Pro:High – KPIs can be computed dynamically per site, substance, or time period	Pro :Varies by tool; more flexible where Fabric is used
Regulatory Content (e.g., e-PRTR linkage)	Pro : Yes – regulatory lists like e-PRTR and substance classifications can be embedded in SAP EHS content	Con : Supported via mapped content and external lists; needs to be imported	Pro :SAP manages regulatory lists; Fabric supports enhancements	Con Manual management or APIs to regulatory sources
Standard Auditability & Traceability of Regulatory Data	Pro Strong – full traceability, audit logs, regulatory reporting packages	Pro :Strong (if SAP is used as backend) – Fabric supports	Pro : SAP ensures regulatory trace; Fabric traceability needs rules
Change Management Impact	Con : High – new process for sites, training on SAP UI and logic, complex configuration model	Con  Medium – sites adapt to Fabric; integration learning curve	Con: Site have to adapt to SAP or Mfst Fabric	Con

See also

Change log

Workflow history