2024 Corporate Sustainability Unwrapped

Prefer to watch? 

‍

‍

Transcript

Saif Hameed  [00:00:00]:

I would sort of just encourage all of the sort of sustainability practitioners out there to just start actually like thinking incrementally in terms of pockets of accuracy. Like let me look at the whole of my data spectrum and let me just kind of say how do I consistently move, push the envelope to get that little bit further. It may well be the case that actually you don't need primary data for years to come because you can take what was 20% accuracy today to 30% next year, 40%, 50, 60, 70, 80. And actually the primary data point might be about getting from 95 to 100% if you have good secondary data availability.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:00:50]:

2024 corporate sustainability unwrapped. Today we're going to discuss the biggest trends, announcements, successes and failures of 20. These trends are trend one, PCF generation is booming. Trend two, on the flip side, PCF exchange is lagging. Trend three, return of secondary data. Trend four, packaging is the zone of collaboration. And trend five, procurement teams need more support. So Saif, straight onto trend one, the PCF generation boom. I think in 2024 we witnessed exponential growth of product carbon footprint, PCF generation. But what, what sparked this boom?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:01:35]:

Yeah, so actually, I mean we can, we can debate origins of the PCF till the cows come home, but I think that the big piece that has provided acceleration is a broader transition away from spend based emissions data towards weights, activities, location specific emissions data specifically for scope three. And so what you used to have is that you would use a spend based analysis for your scope 3, which means that the data that you gather from suppliers, you can ask them for their corporate footprint, you can ask them for their revenue. And as long as you know how much the share of revenue that you have, how much you're spending with them is as a percentage of their overall revenue, you can put those numbers together and basically get there. Part of your scope three. What's changed is that as more and more companies start using activity and weight based data for their scope three, whether they're doing that for reasons of, let's say, flag performance or otherwise for their own target attainment, they are now actually losing one side of that equation. And so if you know, let's say the weights of potatoes that you bought, it is not sufficient just to know what the revenue share is that you have with the supplier, you actually kind of need to know what the, not just the weight shares, but the activity share effectively as well. Because the supplier may be making many different things which might have varying levels of emissions intensity. And so for that reason you now need to have Actually something that is product specific related to what you're buying.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:03:02]:

There were two ways in which companies were solving for this over the last several years. One was asking their suppliers for the raw activity data so that they could effectively compute an LCA on their own side as the requestor and use that in their analysis. The second was they were asking for an LCA of some sort as the finished piece and saying if you have this, please share it. What most requesters realised was that the LCA availability was few and far between. When you start looking not just across number of suppliers, but also number of things you might be buying from those suppliers, all of which is just more ballast or more momentum or more gas behind the movement to have some form of standardised product carbon footprint at the level of an individual product or stock keeping unit that can be generated, whether for internal analysis or for sharing, so that this problem gets solved.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:03:58]:

So how is this in practise actually changing the ways companies are engaging with their suppliers?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:04:04]:

So right now what we're seeing is that there are companies that are just asking for corporate footprints from their suppliers still, and that's probably the majority. There are companies that are asking for both a corporate footprint and a product footprint related to the materials that they're buying. And I suspect there are also some companies that are primarily asking for the product footprint as well. But most companies land in Camp 1. A lot of the larger CPGs and others are moving into Camp 2, and I think that just gives them the availability of two types of data. Sometimes they use the corporate footprint data because they have, let's say, a target related to what share of suppliers are using renewable energy, for example, or some such. But they are increasingly using the product footprint data to measure change at the level of the product that they're making or the product that they're buying, and also to track change in their scope.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:05:00]:

3 and this is like these data requirements are a bit of a tool or ask from suppliers. Have you seen any great engagement tactics that have been at play?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:05:10]:

We talk a lot about the PACT Framework on this podcast, which is a framework backed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which has, at this kind of consortium or alliance, many WBCSD members, but also companies now that aren't part of the wbcsd, Unilever, PNG and many others are part of the PACT coalition. And this sort of coalition or effort or alliance, whatever you want to call it, basically defines a framework for how PCFs should be generated and how PCFs should be shared across organisational boundaries in Such a way that they can be incorporated into a pcf. On the other side, if I sell you potatoes, there should be a nice way for me to share a product carbon footprint for those potatoes in such a way that you can incorporate it into the product carbon footprint for potato crisps that you might be making. They also govern the PACT API which is then what's used for sharing this data across boundaries. We're seeing that as really helpful in this space and I think what that also catalyses is the ability for R and D teams in particular to start building interesting, complex and value adding use cases for analysing their own PCFs and the PCFs that they're gathering from suppliers.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:06:25]:

Well, before we reveal too much of trend two, let's get straight to it. So trend two is that PCF exchange is lagging behind PCF generation. But, but why is that the case? What's causing that?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:06:40]:

This is an interesting one. I think that there's like two inputs to this. One is that PCF generation has really kicked off in a big way. Just thinking of our platform alone, Altristic now has generated almost 400,000 product carbon footprints this year alone, I believe. And that's across our customer base. That 400,000 we think is probably quite high. Like I would be surprised if there were too many platforms generating that had generated more. But it just gives you a sense of the rate of explosion.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:07:16]:

Right. Like a year and a half ago, that number for us was zero, let's say. And I'm sure other parts of the market are just seeing similar explosions. PCF exchange by contrast is much, much smaller. And so I think for us we are looking at having had a couple of thousand PCFs, let's say, exchanged across our platform environment. And a lot of the reason for that is that companies aren't sharing all the PCFs they have available. And that is normal. Part of that is just almost technical where you maybe want to run multiple PCF runs over the course of a year.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:07:55]:

You want to know what the product looked like in January and what it looked like in June. You want comparisons, you want comparisons across facilities and there's no necessarily need for you to share all that data with anyone else. So part of it's just kind of technical. It's a good thing, it's a good evolution of the market that people are using this for internal use cases and there might not be an external use case for it. And part of it is for reasons of privacy and confidentiality, a lot of companies don't want to share this data. Externally, there are still pockets of the market, particularly in the vendor space and NGO space, that believe that there should in theory be a single source of truth globally and a database that is universally accessible, that has everyone's bcfs in it. That's never going to happen. There is no chance that companies with sensitive IP recipe mixes, ingredient mixes, product compositions that they have spent millions of dollars building and acquiring, are going to want that data to be something that can be derived, engineered, scrutinised by their competitors and even by their customers.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:09:02]:

So I think that there's necessarily always going to be this lag. However, I don't think we're necessarily seeing the same rate of explosion yet across BCF exchange, like the same kind of whatever it is, 100xing or 1000xing or whatever the the exing is. But I do think that will come. And what we're noticing is that, you know, anecdotally we're seeing a lot more RFPs or requests for proposals from key suppliers to our customers for their own product carbon footprint generation capabilities, such that they can have this data available to meet the needs of requests as they arise. So I do think that 18 months from now, we'll probably be looking at a fairly different landscape for people who are receiving those requests.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:09:48]:

What advice would you give to get ahead of those requests?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:09:53]:

I would say data security is probably my number one and number two and number three piece of advice for suppliers in that I would be very, very careful about the security of the data that you're sharing. And I think that there are a couple of clear pitfalls. One is that if you are being asked to share activity data, so like, what did you buy, where did you buy it from, how did you use it, how much energy did you use? All this sort of data, if at all possible, I would actually have a conversation with the requestor and say we want to understand what it is that you need this data for. And if what you need is a product carbon footprint or an lca, I as a supplier would much rather share that than the activity data because it is just less of a security risk. It is less sensitive, less clear. Less clear. As a means of re engineering what I'm doing, I would much rather just share the output, the environmental output. So that's like the first thing.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:10:54]:

I think that similarly, if even if you are sharing the product carbon footprint or an lca, you want to be sure that the way in which you're sharing it is secure because this is sensitive data. And you know, very like we've had customers that have been asked for, for literally the ingredient mix of valuable product IP that they've put together. And so you want to make sure that if that has to be shared, whether it's in its raw form or as a pcf, it is being shared in a way that is secure, that's not going to be emailed, maybe that is going to be some sort of file share at worst, or through a platform. If it's through a platform, you want to make sure that there's a data, an agreement of some sort that can actually protect the sharing of that data. So if you're doing it through a platform, do you have some sort of a data protection agreement or some sort of terms and conditions with the platform, not just with your customer? Because you need to have something with the platform for you to feel secure and comfortable sharing that data. So I would really lean on just making sure that the security is there. What most suppliers are finding is that the request might be coming via procurement, and that could either be via a sustainable supply chain team embedded in procurement or via a procurement professional. I would probably ask to speak with the sustainability professional on the customer side because they might have a clearer idea of what is possible. And usually the procurement side is more implementing.

Isobel Wild  [00:12:27]:

Trend 3 Return of the secondary Data so many companies are still pretty fixated on collecting primary data as the gold standard, but the truth is that secondary data is often just as powerful when it comes to identifying mission hotspots as well as areas for improvement. Saif, I want to get your take on what is the best approach. Is there a rule of thumb for balancing primary and secondary data and when should maybe companies focus on primary data and when can secondary data be enough to identify emission hotspots?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:13:00]:

Yeah, so what I find is that the definition of primary data is usually wrong. And so for me, primary data is soil testing. Potentially satellite imagery can be primary data, but primary data is the original, scientific, original data source on top of which analysis is done. Whereas I find that when most people talk about primary data in a sustainability context, they mean some form of supplier data that has been shared, which is still not primary data. If a supplier is sharing a corporate footprint with you, or even a product footprint, that supplier has used secondary data in the creation of what they're sharing with you. For sure, and they've used quite a lot of it. That is not primary data. That is just supply data that you've sourced from a supplier.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:13:47]:

It is maybe closer. In some ways it might be closer. In some ways it might be further away than what you're using otherwise, but it's not primary data. So there's a terminology challenge here that I think our industry still struggles with. The second is that usually when I'm hearing a focus on primary data, it is coming from someone who doesn't really understand fully how data works. And that sounds a bit patronising, but I don't mean it that way in that if you think about the progression in accuracy of emissions data, let's say, let's start with maybe what is the worst end of the spectrum? The worst end of the spectrum is you have a high level category of your data multiplied by a high level category level emissions factor, and that's a secondary factor. But you have, let's say, making this up, you have like a thousand purchases or a million purchases happening and you've bunched it all into one category and you're saying, this is food. I'm going to multiply this food by a food emissions factor and actually there could be a million different things sitting underneath that.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:14:55]:

The best way for you to now increase the accuracy is not to go and try and find a primary data point for what food emissions looks like, but actually to say, well, let me now disaggregate that one line item into the thousand or the million line items and find a more specific piece of secondary data or a more specific secondary emissions factor that I can use against this. That continuum you can basically keep extending onwards and onwards. Like if you look at, let's say, beef, this is one I've been talking about recently with some companies, I believe there is basically one beef emissions factor that most US companies are using for beef. There is a lot of room to innovate on secondary data there. You can turn that one factor into 40 plus factors for all the major meat packers in the US. You can take that 40 factors and turn it to 4000 and represent many different catchment areas where those meatbackers might be sourcing their beef from. So there's a lot of room for you to just innovate on accuracy there without starting to actually go and measure the flatulence of the cow individually. Like, that would be the primary data equivalent.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:16:04]:

So I would sort of just encourage all of the sort of sustainability practitioners out there to just start actually like thinking incrementally in terms of pockets of accuracy. Like, let me look at the whole of my data spectrum and let me just kind of say, how do I consistently move, push the envelope to get that little bit further? It may well be the case that actually you don't need primary data for years to come because you can take what was 20% accuracy today to 30% next year, 40 next year, 40%, 50, 60, 70, 80. And actually the primary data point might be about getting from 95 to 100%. If you have good secondary data availability.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:16:42]:

Can you give some examples about how you improve secondary data?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:16:45]:

Yeah, for sure. Let's take beef again, right? So if you look at what that single beef emissions factor is, if you're reliant on that and you want to actually improve accuracy and you're a McDonald's or a burger King or an Aldi or you know, anyone, anyone frankly, who's let's say selling a lot of beef related products to consumers, you can actually start working with your suppliers to understand where they're sourcing the beef from. Is there an LCA that actually represents maybe the unique characteristics either of that location or of that type of beef? Like I would basically say, almost imagine that you're taking the supplier, the ecosystem of the thing that you're buying, and cutting it up into cells on a grid. And you're saying that I have different variables here. I have maybe location, there are some geographic factors, I have variety that affects this as well. I have maybe the size of the supplier that I'm buying from, maybe that affects this also. There might be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 different characteristics. And across those characteristics you might say I have different cells that reflect different combinations of these characteristics.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:17:54]:

I have a, a. What is a small Pennsylvania based organic beef supplier look like in general versus a large Texas based. You know, I don't know what the opposite of organic beef looks like, but whatever that is, you know, supplier look like, you can kind of basically just divide up into these combinations of characteristics and maybe that means you end up with 40, 50, 60, 100 different unique combinations. And you can say, great, what is the emissions factor representing that combination? That cell on my grid. And that already moves you significantly towards having the availability of secondary data that can support accuracy. The next thing is, can you slice your activity data or your purchases data to match those cells? Can I take the same combination approach to my purchases data? And probably you do that first so that I can actually match the two together once I have the secondary data available.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:18:50]:

Let's go on to trend four packaging as the zone of collaboration. Why? Why is this, why is packaging the optimal zone in your opinion?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:19:00]:

Yeah, what I find is that most companies have gone through this kind of progression almost where they start off basically treating everything the same and saying, I have an emissions problem, I have a scope 3 problem. I need to work with my suppliers to figure out not just what my scope 3 actually looks like, but also how I can bring Miscope 3 down. Then at some point you realise, hey, actually a lot of this is coming from agriculture or basic materials. That's like a large share of my Scope 3 emissions, probably the largest share in many cases. And so I need to actually figure out how I move the needle on that. And that will draw you into things like regenerative agriculture, maybe organic, you know, different farmer practises, et cetera. So we're seeing a lot of activity around that space last year, even early this year. I think what a lot of sustainability practitioners then realised is that moving the needle on that space is not just uniquely complicated, but also, frankly, uniquely expensive, because it's quite distant.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:20:01]:

And as initiatives get more distant from you, more and more intermediaries, they get more expensive. And the third is uniquely long term. You can't make this change in a year or two years or three years. It's often a four, five, six, seven year plus journey. And then they started saying, well, actually, then what is the next significant category that I could work on, where actually it might not suffer from any of these problems? It might be easier conceptually and technically to implement, it might be cheaper to implement, and also because it's more proximate and it might be shorter term to implement, and I can get a turn on my emissions faster through this initiative category. And that brings them usually to two places, one is packaging and the other is logistics. Packaging tends to be significantly larger as a share versus logistics for most companies in the consumer, packaged goods and food and beverage space. So it is unsurprising that they choose to focus on packaging.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:20:54]:

If you look at the top 100 suppliers for most food and beverage companies, I would estimate that packaging is likely to be 30, 40, 50, in some cases more as a share of that top pool of suppliers, often because much of the food and ag stuff is actually coming from a set of six, seven, eight intermediaries primarily. And then you have a host of packaging suppliers for different packaging substrates. So you naturally kind of land on packaging then as the space where you're going to actually try and drive collaboration because you have an immediate stakeholder who is also an industrial business and is is kind of able to implement initiatives at on time, on budget, at quality, basically in a short cycle time.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:21:41]:

I guess the other thing for packaging as well is that it's very like immediate to the consumer as well, because it's got that front value pieces.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:21:50]:

Actually I would almost say that that goes, that can be a problem because often the stuff that you want to do on packaging is not stuff that the consumer thinks is more sustainable, sustainable. And so depending on who's listening, they might, might hate what I'm going to say. But if you look at, let's say, look at your pet can often be much, much lower emissions versus other substrates versus let's say glass, metal, you know, a lot of other packaging types, a lot of consumers hate the idea of their, their brand switching to Peter because they think hey, glass must be more sustainable, metal must be more sustainable. All this pet winds up in the ocean. Whereas factually it depends a little on how much recycling and reuse is actually happening. But very often the numbers don't support that. There might be different sorts of trade offs that you're making at a substrate level based on the data that you have available as a brand and the consumer may or may not recognise that. So you actually have to also think about just consumer education so that you can convert the consumer to a data driven perspective which might not be there with the consumer originally, but is packaging.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:23:00]:

Material as a section of your GHG baseline or inventory for all companies. I've had, we've had a couple of people on the podcast for instance Hu, where she said, yeah, the consumer cares so much about the packaging, but actually in terms of materiality it makes up a very small amount of our impact. So is, is it a meaningful place to make inroads in terms of decarbonization?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:23:22]:

It's the economist's favourite answer, which is it depends. And so there is certainly variation business by business. In general, if you're a food business or let's say a consumer packaged goods business, you might find that 10 to 30% or 10 to 25% of your emissions footprint overall is packaging related. There are exceptions on either side of that. And so let's say that you are in beverages and you have a lot of glass and a lot of metal in your packaging ecosystem. If you're in beverages, much of the product that you're selling is water, which tends to be low emissions. And actually just think of from a weight perspective, if you have a lot of glass in there, you might find yourself at the higher end of that percentage stack in terms of the emissions contribution. Packaging might be at the higher end of that.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:24:10]:

On the other hand, if you look at like a Huel as a good example, if you think of what it takes to create Huel, you have all this sort of pea protein that you're using and all these different things that are grown in volume agriculturally and then sort of condensed into a very small thing. Think of, like, fragrances and flavours as another good example, where it takes something like 70 roses to make a few drops really of rose oil that you might find in a perfume. Just think, like, from a scale perspective, you could cover this whole table that I'm sitting at with 70 roses, but actually, like, I'm getting less than a thimbleful of, of rose rose oil out of it. And so the emissions of that rose oil is super, super high because of all this mass that I'm condensing. So there will be variations which mean that then the packaging of the perfume actually could be a much smaller component because I've got so much agricultural mass. We'll be into this.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:25:07]:

Saif, I love your use of a thimble. It seems like such an antiquated metric for measurement. I get the gist. That's something my granny would refer to.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:25:20]:

But I was actually thinking of your granny. I was actually thinking of your granny when you started that sentence somehow.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:25:26]:

But yes, the last trend, trend five, which is procurement teams need more support. So, Seph, I would love you to explain the situation because I think all of our hearts should go out for procurement teams at this time of the year and actually all year round, because they've got so many requests, so many requirements, so many changes that have come into their workflow because of sustainability ambitions and goals. So can you sum up the challenge?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:25:57]:

Yeah. So I'm seeing a really nice trend, actually, in how a lot of the procurement teams at the world's largest food companies are owning the challenge. And they are, you know, this is obviously not speaking for the whole market, but just there are multiple teams that I know well and that we work with also, who are basically setting up dedicated resourcing, sustainable supply chain teams really deep in the strategy, building their plans and roadmaps, really getting on top of the data and so on. And so I think there's a lot of, like, nice emerging best practise that we can point to. One thing that we are universally seeing is a need for more training, more skill building, more capability building in those teams because they are at the front lines of a new context, a new type of data that they are asking for and building analysis on a new format of interactions that they need to have with their counterparts at the suppliers, where they need to say, look like we appreciate you're going to be having this conversation with us on cost and cash and quality. We also need to start thinking about sustainability in that context as well. We ran a packaging roundtable just last week and there were some fantastic insights shared there by multiple people at the front lines of this in procurement teams where they said what we need to do from a sustainable sustainability perspective is understand what is the existing nature of the relationship with the supplier. Is this a great relationship? Do we want to double down? Is cost already okay? Is quality already okay? We want to do more business here.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:27:33]:

Great. Let's now go and see how we can actually make sustainability a lever in a long term partnership that can be really beneficial for both sides versus actually is this a supplier where it's already a difficult relationship? We're already not happy when it comes to like quality costs, you know, et cetera. And bringing sustainability into this discussion is not really worthwhile because we're going to be looking at other options. And the fact that you're having this sort of nuanced dialogue where on the business side, on the requester side, the brand side, let's say you need to understand both sides of the equation, the sustainability context and the business context, and bring them together. Like it's complex. Like this is just a very complex, very potentially tense environment for procurement professionals to be operating in. And I'm using procurement professionals, but really they're almost now blended professionals across procurement and sustainability. And I just think that as a community, as an industry, I'm including organisations like us, the partner ecosystem and also the brands, we need to do more to make sure that procurement teams are empowered, capable, skilled, proficient in being able to navigate this new terrain we all find ourselves in.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:28:50]:

We hear a lot from sustainability professionals about the time requirement and the resource requirements that need to go into upskilling and building out that capacity for procurement teams. What are the expectations on sustainability teams to kind of burden the weight of all of this internal upskilling and training? And maybe where are there workarounds where there could be good courses or whether it's actually hiring in like specific sustainability procurement professionals.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:29:19]:

So we usually, we usually talk about a sustainability professional Izzy, on this podcast in the context of a, let's say a manager or a head of sustainability. I think that's like a lot of our listenership is at that level. Here we are talking about something that really needs to be owned by the chief sustainability officer or someone who is C suite, if that role doesn't really exist. And the reason I say that is because someone senior needs to own the responsibility for defining what the learning journey looks like across different key roles in this space. And so someone needs to say, hey, our procurement teams, individuals in procurement are going to need to do this. They're going to need to deliver this in terms of goals and outcomes. Therefore, these are the skills and capabilities that they need to have. There is something, let's say on carbon accounting 101, there is something on data 101 for this space, data security, data privacy.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:30:16]:

There is something around running collaborative conversations in a way that is not, let's say, linear or just focused on cost and quality and so on. There's maybe going to be different modules in that learning journey and there will also be different learning journeys for different roles. There'll be a learning journey for people who are more on the analytical side in your business. There'll be a learning journey for people in R and D. And because these individuals will often sit in other functions and the things that they will need to learn will be skills that exist in different functions of the business. Someone senior needs to be able to kind of navigate that terrain because if you need to have training that would normally sit in IT and training that would normally sit in sustainability and training that would normally sit in procurement, and you need to have individuals in those functions get the training from either sides or from the other functions as well. Someone cross functional needs to navigate that.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:31:13]:

Awesome, right? That is our 2024 state of sustainability unwrapped. We're going to be back next season with our big bets for 2024, so get ready for that. We're also going to be deep diving on specific functions and how sustainability professionals can best upskill as well as collaborate with those functions. So procurement's going to be one finance, marketing, operations. So yeah, tune in to the new season next year. And Saif, before we go, any concluding thoughts?

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:31:49]:

I think that it's actually been a really good year for sustainability, although it won't feel like that. I think it probably feels like a difficult year on the regulatory landscape, policy landscape. A lot of sustainability professionals I speak with were for one reason or another, dismayed by political outcomes around the world. So I think there's been a lot of just feeling of anxiety almost. I think that's probably the best way to put it. At the same time, I think if you take a step back, actual progress within businesses has never been higher, as far as I can tell. And I really mean that. Like the stuff that at Altruistiq we are privileged to work with many, many large businesses.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:32:39]:

By the end of January, our customers will own 1700 food and beverage brands, which is like just a staggering, staggering stat. And so, like, what we're seeing is really, I think, representative of certainly one industry. Like, if that's not representative of the food and beverage industry, I don't know what is. And within these companies, the stuff that is happening at the level of like, engagement with suppliers, internal initiatives, data strategy, incentives, alignment, all this stuff just has never been at this scale. I've been in this space for over 20 years now. I've been saying 20 years for the last few years. So it's over 20 years, but I've just never seen anything like this. And I actually think next year will be much more.So I'm not saying this as like a, you know, Kumbaya reason to be positive moment. I'm just saying this factually. It is worth us all just recognising that much more has actually been done this year in sustainability than most people would be aware of.

‍

Isobel Wild  [00:33:42]:

Saif, thank you so much and we'll see you again next year.

‍

Saif Hameed  [00:33:49]:

Thanks, everyone.

‍