Industrial sustainability involves managing the environmental, social, and economic impacts of production throughout the entire value chain. However, in its current form, this issue must be linked to metrics and verifiability, both for regulatory reasons and in response to the increasingly significant demands from consumers and stakeholders.
To measure this and address this need, it is necessary to link consumption, emissions, materials, and supplier information to the processes that generate them, through ERP systems, manufacturing systems, and data management platforms. The result must be verifiable and usable for making decisions about how to produce, purchase, and invest.
For example, aggregate energy consumption describes how much energy a facility uses, but provides limited insight into the causes. When linked to facilities, orders, compliant products, and scrap, it allows you to identify where to take action and verify the results. The same logic applies to water, raw materials, and emissions in the supply chain.
Measurement therefore requires a defined information architecture and clearly defined responsibilities. The ESG report is one of the ways this asset is utilized: its operational value depends on the ability to link each indicator to the company’s operations.
Measuring Industrial Sustainability Across the Value Chain
The scope of operations begins with procurement and includes processing, maintenance, handling, and distribution. Where relevant, it also includes product use and end-of-life. Limiting the scope to the facility’s consumption excludes impacts that may result from purchased materials, outsourced manufacturing, or product characteristics.
The GHG Protocol¹ identifies 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions, which relate to a company’s upstream and downstream activities. Purchases, transportation, and the use of sold products require information from various sources. Furthermore, the calculation of a company’s carbon footprint must be distinguished from that of a single product’s carbon footprint, which has its own methodological scope.
For a metalworking manufacturer, for example, evaluating a component may require information on the quantity and origin of the material, internal and external processing, production yield, and transportation. This information must be linked to codes, lots, suppliers, and reference periods.
Sustainability should therefore be treated as an aspect of processes. A modified bill of materials, a new supplier, or an increase in rework can simultaneously affect cost, quality, and environmental impact. A shared database is needed to interpret these changes.
Data and Benchmarks: What Do Energy and Circularity Indicate?
According to the IEA’s *Energy Efficiency 2025*², preliminary estimates indicate a 1.8% improvement in global energy intensity in 2025, compared with 1% in 2024. This figure refers to the ratio of energy to the global economy: it provides a scenario benchmark but does not measure the efficiency of a specific production line.
In terms of materials, Eurostat reports³ a circular utilization rate of 12.2% in the European Union and 21.6% in Italy for 2024, confirming that our country is already relatively advanced in this regard. However, this indicator measures the contribution of recycled materials to total material use. It does not correspond to the percentage of recycled content in a product or to the share of waste sent for recovery by a company.
These data help put industrial strategies into context. At the operational level, however, consistent benchmarks are needed for each process, technology, required quality, and production mix. A kWh-per-metric-ton ratio loses its meaning if it compares products with different manufacturing processes and requirements.
The first useful benchmark is often the company’s baseline: a documented period against which to evaluate improvement, while ensuring that changes in volume, product mix, and scope remain clear.
ERP and Manufacturing Systems: Linking Consumption and Production
To transform sustainability data into actionable insights, it is necessary to integrate management systems with those that track what happens in production processes: here are some examples of how this can be done.
The ERP provides the economic and logistical framework
The ERP system manages master data, bills of materials, purchases, production orders, inventory movements, and accounting. This data makes it possible to link environmental impacts to products, plants, suppliers, and cost centers.
The quantity of material purchased, for example, must be linked to how much is actually consumed, remains in inventory, or is discarded. Purchases and usage may occur at different times; confusing the two produces inconsistent metrics. The management system provides the framework to reconcile these flows.
MES, meters, and field systems collect real-time data
Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) track production progress, conforming quantities, scrap, rework, and operating times. Meters, SCADA systems, and industrial sensors monitor energy consumption and operating conditions. By integrating this information, energy consumption can be attributed to a specific phase or order.
Allocation requires clear and well-defined rules. A meter shared among multiple circuits requires documented allocation criteria; consumption during startup, shutdown, and auxiliary services must be included consistently. The data collection frequency must allow for alignment with the actual production activities carried out.
The design of integrations must also take into account the reliability and availability of industrial systems. ESG data must be incorporated into authorized data acquisition flows, with controls in place for access and interfaces.
Data Management and SAP Solutions: From Raw Data to ESG KPIs
A data management platform integrates SAP and non-SAP sources, standardizes information, and maintains shared definitions. Plant codes, units of measure, calendars, and organizational hierarchies must be consistent. To give a simple example, consumption data in kWh and MWh require conversion before aggregation.
It is also necessary to track the origin of the data: source system, document, time period, transformations, and approvals. This traceability—or data lineage—makes it possible to explain how a published value was obtained and to correct it without losing the history of changes.
Within the SAP ecosystem, Sustainability Footprint Management⁴ uses data from enterprise systems, information on energy flows, and impact factors to calculate footprints at the enterprise and product levels. The results can feed into processes such as planning, procurement, and finance.
SAP Sustainability Control Tower⁵ supports the integration and management of ESG data, with documented connections to SAP S/4HANA Finance, SAP Datasphere, SAP EHS Management, and Sustainability Footprint Management, as well as interfaces to other sources.
Distinguishing between data collection, calculation, and reporting prevents placing the entire responsibility for the outcome on a single application. The availability of software must be accompanied by the definition of the scope, the quality of master data, and the validation of methods.
Environmental KPIs That Support Industrial Decision-Making
A reliable KPI must include a formula, unit of measurement, scope, source, frequency, and person responsible. This is particularly true in a field such as industrial sustainability, where reported figures may be perceived as inconsistent due to the lack of transparency in the past practices of certain stakeholders. Absolute values describe the overall impact; intensity values relate it to a specific activity. Both readings are needed for industrial control.
| Scope | KPIs and Measurement Methods | Required Business Data | Decisions Supported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emissions | tCO₂e by Scope; kgCO₂e per unit of product, with declared scope | Fuels, energy, materials, emission factors, supplier data | Decarbonization priorities, technological and procurement choices |
| Energy | Total MWh; kWh per compliant unit | Meters, orders, compliant quantities, operational times | Maintenance, planning, plant investments |
| Water | m³ withdrawn and consumed; m³ per unit produced | Withdrawal and discharge measurements, water balances, production volumes | Recirculation, leak reduction, water risk management |
| Materials and Waste | Yield: mass of conforming product / mass used × 100; kg of scrap per conforming unit; percentage of recycled material used | Bills of materials, material movements, weights, scrap, material characteristics | Process modifications, design, raw material selection |
| Suppliers | Percentage of purchases covered by validated primary environmental data, with a stated denominator | Supplier profiles, volumes or spending, documents, and environmental data | Priorities for supplier selection, qualification, and development |
Emissions: Clarifying the Method and Scope
Scope 1 emissions come from sources owned or controlled by the company; Scope 2 emissions come from purchased energy; and Scope 3 emissions come from other activities in the value chain. The calculation requires activity data and factors that are consistent across technology, geography, and time period.
For Scope 2, the GHG Protocol⁶ distinguishes between location-based methods—which rely on average network factors—and market-based methods—which are linked to contractual instruments and their associated quality criteria. The method used must be clearly identifiable: an accounting reduction in emissions associated with the purchase of energy does not automatically equate to a reduction in kWh consumed. The Scope 2 Guidance governs this reporting.
Energy and Resources: Distinguishing Between Efficiency and Volume
Let’s clarify the difference with an example. A production line consumes 500 MWh and produces 1,000 metric tons of compliant product: the intensity is 500 kWh/t. In the following period, it consumes 540 MWh to produce 1,200 metric tons: the intensity drops to 450 kWh/t.
Specific efficiency improves by 10%, while absolute consumption increases by 8%. A proper evaluation reports both results and verifies their comparability. A reduction in consumption due to lower production, on the other hand, does not by itself demonstrate an improvement in the process.
Similar definitions are needed for water as well: withdrawal and consumption are different measures. For materials, the amount of recycled material purchased must be distinguished from waste yield and recovery. Different indicators address different issues.
Supply Chain: Material Traceability and Supplier Data Quality
Traceability links the material to its identity, origin, and processing. To support an environmental assessment , it is also necessary to include documented information on composition, recycled content, environmental footprint, and calculation method, when available and relevant.
Primary data from the supplier must be verified against the purchased product, the time period, and the declared scope. In the absence of such data, estimates and secondary data may be used, provided that their limitations and criteria are clearly stated. A value derived from expenditure and one calculated based on physical quantities provide different levels of information.
Data collection can begin with the categories most relevant in terms of quantity, impact, and risk. Procurement must agree on proportionate and reusable requests, avoiding questionnaires that are disconnected from purchasing decisions.
The GHG Protocol also specifies that Scope 3 inventories are not designed to directly compare different companies: differences in methodology, size, and structure can skew the comparison. Supplier selection therefore requires assessments of comparability, in addition to the reported numerical value.
Data Quality and Governance: Ensuring Indicators Are Verifiable
Data quality—which is essential for ensuring that results can be verified— depends on completeness, accuracy, consistency, and timeliness. A missing data point must be distinguished from a zero reading; estimated consumption must be distinguished from measured consumption. Duplicates, incorrect conversions, or outdated factors can alter the result even if the process itself has not changed.
The audit must include reconciliations between meters and energy records, between production and material movements, and between environmental data and the company’s scope of operations. Any discrepancies must be assigned to a responsible party and resolved before approval. Production, Purchasing, HSE, Finance, and IT have complementary responsibilities in this regard.
The same principles apply to social and governance aspects: accidents, training, supplier evaluations, and the handling of reports all require clear definitions and verifiable sources. A positive environmental indicator should be evaluated alongside safety, quality, and operating conditions.
Reporting and Compliance: CSRD and ESRS Following European Revisions
Reporting requires distinguishing between applicable obligations and voluntary practices. EU Directive 2026/470⁷, adopted on February 24, 2026, narrowed the scope of the CSRD: for affected EU companies, the general thresholds are more than 1,000 employees and more than 450 million euros in net revenue, with consolidated criteria also applying to groups. Actual applicability, transition periods, and national implementation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each company.
On July 3, 2026, the Commission adopted the revised ESRS. EFRAG specifies that they are effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2027, with early adoption for 2026 permitted after the act enters into force. Adoption, review by EU institutions, and entry into force are distinct steps: reporting must be based on the text applicable to the financial year.
Dual materiality links a company’s impacts on people and the environment to the financial effects of sustainability issues. It guides the selection of relevant information, while the operational data collection may include additional indicators useful for management.
Even a company that is exempt from this requirement may have information needs related to customers and lenders. A governed database allows for consistent responses, distinguishing between mandatory, voluntary, and contractual information.
From Measurement to Decision-Making: Our Approach
In our work on ESG sustainability, we integrate digitalization, data, and processes to support the monitoring of environmental performance and the supply chain. The starting point is to identify which decisions require better information and where that information is generated.
A project can begin with a facility or a product family, defining baselines, sources, calculation rules, and responsibilities. Before extending the model, it is necessary to verify reconciliations, coverage, and the reproducibility of the results.
Periodic monitoring must then link each deviation to a cause and a corresponding action: fixing a leak, reducing rework, changing a material, or evaluating an investment. Priorities depend on expected impact, cost, feasibility, and data reliability.
An industrial sustainability strategy is measurable when the company can explain where an indicator comes from, how it is calculated, and what decision it has influenced. Improvement must be demonstrated by comparing results to baselines—using the same criteria—and by documenting changes in the process.
Do you want to measure and manage sustainability in your production processes?
Schedule a call with our experts to integrate ERP, MES, and SAP solutions and turn ESG data into concrete business decisions.
¹ Source: ghgprotocol.org
² Source: iea.org
³ Source: ec.europa.eu
⁴ Source: sap.com
⁵ Source: learning.sap.com
⁶ Source: ghgprotocol.org
⁷ Source: eur-lex.europa.eu
