Microsoft Sustainability Manager vs SAP Sustainability Control Tower: 2 ways of ESG Data Management
Read full story below
Two ways of ESG Data Management
This article explores two distinct approaches to this challenge — Microsoft Sustainability Manager and SAP Sustainability Control Tower — highlighting their differences in flexibility, structure, integration, and organizational impact.
ESG in Times of Uncertainty
Companies today operate in an ESG environment that is not only highly regulated but also continuously evolving. Regulations such as CSRD, the SEC Climate Rule, and ISSB guidelines are significantly raising the bar for disclosure, while expectations from investors, consumers, and regulators are advancing faster than many organizations can adapt.
What adds to the complexity is that shifting regulations go hand in hand with the growing demand for a coherent business narrative: ESG can no longer be “just a table in a report.” It must become embedded in the operational fabric of the company — a fully integrated part of its strategy, risk management, and long-term goals.
In this context, digital sustainability tools are becoming increasingly crucial. Organizations are facing a strategic choice: selecting an ESG platform that not only ensures regulatory compliance but also enables decarbonization and business transformation.
Among the market leaders, two distinct approaches emerge: Microsoft Sustainability Manager (MSM) and SAP Sustainability Control Tower (SCT). While both systems are designed to manage ESG data and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, they differ significantly in terms of technological design, implementation model, and organizational impact.
MSM: Flexibility and Independence with Higher Internal Involvement
Microsoft Sustainability Manager is a low-code platform built on Power Platform and Azure, giving organizations the autonomy to design, configure, and expand their ESG processes. A key advantage of MSM is organizational independence: companies can tailor the tool to their unique data landscape and create custom emissions models aligned with internal requirements.
It’s worth noting that MSM comes with predefined calculation models, emissions indicators, and emissions factors libraries — including templates for Scope 1–3 and default methodologies aligned with the GHG Protocol. However, these are more like reference structures than rigid standards; users are encouraged to adapt and enrich them according to their industry context and reporting strategy. This makes MSM a blend of standardization and flexibility — allowing organizations to start with a baseline and evolve the system over time.
However, this flexibility comes at the cost of greater internal commitment. MSM assumes the organization will build or assign an internal team of product owners or citizen developers to oversee and evolve the platform. This requires cross-functional expertise in ESG, IT, Power Platform, and data analytics. As a result, implementation timelines and outcomes heavily depend on the organization’s internal capabilities.
SCT: Readiness and Structure with Greater Vendor Dependence
In contrast, SAP Sustainability Control Tower offers a more “out-of-the-box” solution. Embedded within the SAP ecosystem, SCT provides pre-configured emissions models, deep integration with ERP and S/4HANA systems, and native access to financial, material, and energy data. This allows operational data to be rapidly translated into carbon insights and compliance-ready reports.
This structured approach reduces the burden on internal ESG or IT teams — deployments are typically handled by SAP implementation partners, and the system’s prebuilt components enable organizations to go live quickly. Even without strong internal technical skills, companies can achieve reporting outcomes relatively fast.
However, what makes SCT efficient — standardization and tight integration — may also become a constraint. Adding custom logic, integrating with non-SAP systems, or modifying the emissions models often requires external partners. This creates a risk of vendor lock-in, where an organization becomes dependent on SAP’s ecosystem and delivery cycles.
Two Approaches for Two Types of Organizations
In essence, MSM and SCT represent two different philosophies in ESG data management
MSM is an open, flexible platform — a blank canvas with a robust toolkit that can be shaped around an organization’s vision, risks, and climate goals. SCT, on the other hand, is a well-structured framework offering speed, stability, and regulatory coverage, albeit with less flexibility for customization without third-party involvement.
- Key takeaways
In practice, choosing between MSM and SCT depends on several factors:
- The maturity of the ESG and IT teams
- The organization’s readiness to build and own internal tools
- The role SAP already plays in the company’s IT architecture
- Expectations around implementation speed and customization depth
Ultimately, Microsoft Sustainability Manager and SAP Sustainability Control Tower represent two viable but distinct paths for sustainability-driven organizations. MSM offers flexibility and adaptability to unique business needs but requires a stronger internal capability. SAP SCT delivers faster, more structured deployment within the SAP landscape, which may be ideal when internal resources are limited.
The best decision will not come from comparing features alone, but from aligning the solution with the organization’s ESG strategy, governance maturity, and long-term digital ambitions.
Wojciech Pastyrczyk
Senior Sustainability Analyst
Sources:
Inspired? Let’s Connect
If something sparked your interest, let’s keep the momentum going. Whether you’re facing a specific data challenge, looking to unlock the full potential of your analytics, or just curious how our expertise could support your business — we’re here to talk.
Leave your contact details below and one of our experts will get in touch to explore what’s possible together.
