 I'm in control of the slides so I can even show my face and time program manager and a lead for the materials and products task force, which I'll introduce in a moment. I will thank you for starting the recording. So actually that's probably a good point to do a little bit of housekeeping. We will be recording this event. The aim is to put this out in public. So I think we put a little thing on the form just noting notifying you of that. But just so you know that we are aiming to record this and putting it out publicly in terms of the way that we are functioning here. So feel free to actually put your camera on. I think one of the nice things about doing this on teams as opposed to some of other platforms is that we can actually see people's faces. So yeah, I think we will do the spotlighting of the speakers. So if you would like to be on camera, please feel free to do so. It makes it feel a lot more interactive when we can actually see people's faces rather than into gray screens. So that is much appreciated in terms of other things. So we have some monitors in terms of people just checking in terms of anything in terms of like people are muting. So we can mute you if you accidentally unmute yourself. The general house rules we really wanted to make space for question and answers. So I think the best way of doing that is when you have something coming up, just put your hand up. They've updated MS teams so you can kind of see the order of hands. So feel free to put that as we go along. We also have our chat function, which is great. And so if you would like to just make a comment there, we can then address it later. So often with these discussions, it's actually really nice to have some sort of side points going along and some interesting discussions in the chat. Another invitation. I made it just as we were waiting. If you would like to just put something in the chat in terms of who you are, where you're coming from both physically and in terms of institution and what interested you about this topic. I think it just is really nice to get a sense of, yeah, who is joining us. And, you know, in fact, I'm going to actually awkwardly pause for 30 seconds to let people type something in the chat just to get that kicked off. So either we get no one typing in the chat and then we just sit in silence or we get a little bit of engagement. So here's your 30 seconds to type who you are into the chat. Right, so he's just got an interesting mix coming in. Yeah, it's just really nice and refreshing just to see the range that we have in terms of some from companies. Think tanks, I see academic institutions. So, yeah, a really nice mix and I think that will really enrich our conversation. So what I'll do is just quickly look at the agenda, which is a fairly straightforward one. What we want to do is gives time to really just set out what we found in the paper, have some specific question answers and then go to some of the companies where we brought some of these case studies to share a bit more from their experience. And so I think as kind of a general aim is to spend, I think, about 10-15 minutes with the policy briefing with some questions and then likewise from companies if we say around five minutes per company and allowing some space for Q&A. I think that just makes it a really interesting discussion. One of the reasons as well we're using this platform, I think it just makes it a little bit more engaging because we can have that dialogue going. So I think what makes this really valuable is bringing your own perspective. So we would really appreciate that engagement. We'll do our best to kind of bring it in, but there will be space for questions. So just having those in the back of your mind would really help when we get to the Q&A phase. So as a quick introduction in terms of where this paper came from, sorry. So I work at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership and we are the Secretary for CRG Europe and this is CRG Europe's Materials and Products Task Force. The full name is the Task Force for Climate Neutral and Circular Materials and Products. So this is a group looking particularly at driving forward policy action on sustainable materials and bringing together progressive businesses across sectors and value chains. So we were founded in COP26 in Glasgow and it is a group of companies that are actively committed to producing and supporting climate neutral and sustainable materials and who want to work together to promote and support EU-wide measures to decarbonise material production and use. So you can see our members here. Indeed our case studies came from a number of our members and really our aim here is to, as I say, just really look at how we can accelerate the transition to a decarbonised industrial Europe. And I think what we found is that circularity is particularly a hot topic that's increasing and is a really great space to have some impact as we see a number of really key files approaching. So what we also look to do by bringing this cross-sectoral perspective is finding some of these different perspectives and things that haven't quite been seen. I think with something like circular economy what we're finding is that it's growing as a topic but perhaps hasn't been linked in the way that it could be. And I think that's what brings this as a really nice paper that was actually outside a little bit of our comfort zone of seeing how we can link to quite separately viewed topics. And I think from my perspective I'm really happy to say that I think there's some really interesting stuff that I wasn't previously aware of. So I think this paper will be of real value. So I'll leave it at that in terms of introductions and I'll pass over to my colleagues. So we have Bianca and Francesco who were the main leads in terms of writing this policy paper. So I will pass over to them. Thank you Tamid and hello everyone. As Tamid said, together with my colleague Francesco, I will provide a very short overview of CSS's latest publication on energy savings through circular measures. Next slide, please. But before we start to deep dive into the policy brief and its main findings, I would like to set the wider context of this publication. Specifically, we have already seen and experienced the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which have massively disrupted our daily lives as well as supply chains. And if this wasn't enough, the after effects of this pandemic have also been further exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine a bit over a year ago. So all of these have created a cost of living crisis for many people as prices for basic goods and services have skyrocketed. But have also revealed Europe's high dependency on fossil fuels, including crude oil and natural gas and use of virgin materials that are often non domestically produced. Next slide, please. So within this context, through this publication, we want to highlight how a circular economy can lead to energy savings, showcase leading businesses that have already unlocked energy savings, reduced waste, emissions and created new value streams through the circular economy. Third, emphasize the remaining challenges that businesses face when integrating circular measures for greater energy savings. And last but not least, propose key recommendations for policymakers to better align energy efficiency and circular economy. And I will now pass it to my colleague, Francesco, to start with a brief overview of US policy context that we present in this publication. Thank you. Thank you, Bianca. So we, this is a brief policy context in the EU. So as we all know, the EU is undergoing a deep transformation towards a greener cleaner economy while facing at the same time a poly crisis. My colleague just mentioned, you know, the COVID inflation energy crisis working Ukraine that enhanced all of these already crisis that were already there. And in this context, the circular economy can play a role, can further tackle the remaining 45% of emissions derived from material production. From a policy point of view, the European Commission introduced the circular economy action plan in March 2020 as part of the European Green Deal, and has been since then releasing the circular economy packages. The last one was released last March, March 2023 with the green claims and the right to repair. The European, the circular economy action plan aims to promote sustainable product design, reduce waste and power consumers to the capital economic growth from resource use. So in this context, the circular economy offers a significant potential to reduce energy consumption and green greenhouse gas emissions while promoting at the same time sustainable economic growth. However, as we try to highlight in this briefing, the EU needs to further accelerate its actions and address specific shortcomings to achieve its climate goals. Now back to you, Bianca. So in the policy brief, we can I just ask to move to the next slide? Sorry. Thank you. So in the policy brief, we illustrate how the circular economy can act as a key measure for tackling the energy and climate crisis. So in the context of the geopolitical tensions, we know that the EU has adopted energy measures that encourage short and long term savings through the repower EU plan. An energy strategy that is also playing a key role in the fit for 55 package. However, despite the criticality and relevance of these measures for energy security and decarbonization, policy instruments with an impact on energy consumption such as the energy efficiency directive are not yet well aligned to the circular economy action plan to specifically leverage the energy savings from keeping materials and products in the economy for longer. The international energy agency already highlighted that the EU is unlikely to meet its repower EU goals without strong policy actions that accelerate both energy conservation and increase energy and material efficiency and particularly looking at the industry and building sectors. We know that these two sectors account for over a quarter each of the EU's final energy consumption. But even if the EU successfully meets these goals, the energy transition will likely pose a spike in the consumption of raw materials and and heighten Europe's import risks and dependencies on non-domestic resources. Also, failing to reduce the use of raw materials means that the production of clean energy systems will continue to rely on fossil fuels, especially in the extraction and production stages. Hence, in this context, the circular economy can contribute immensely to EU's energy efficiency ambition. There is enormous potential in preserving the energy already embedded in products and materials through measures such as reducing the extraction of verging materials, designing long lasting materials and products, encouraging their reuse and repair, and imposing mandatory recycling content targets. And we already have examples that are proving this point. For instance, recycling automotive lithium-ion batteries after their second life could reduce cumulative energy demand by up to 6% and carbon footprint by up to 17%. Also, by designing high-performing materials that have lower density and greater durability and increase the design freedom of products, the chemical industry could enable a reduction of up to 37% of energy consumption in downstream sectors by 2030. And another example is building insulation, which can reduce energy demand by 45% and cut dependency on carbon-intensive fuels, but material production energy can also be reduced by recycling insulation materials. And our Francesco will present a few examples of leading businesses that are already unlocking energy savings through circular measures. Yeah, thank you Bianca. So as Sami said in the beginning, Samoa War of the Task Force members provided us with case studies. Let me thank them again and we will hear from some of them later. Rockwool, there is a manufacturer of insulation materials and products introduced this closed loop recycling system called Rockcycle. The recycles stonewall insulation waste as raw material for new products. This reduces the company's reliance on verging materials and contributes to improve energy efficiency in their manufacturing processes. Recycling stonewall leads to a reduction in carbon emission also close to 10%. For example, for instance, the insulation products that Rockwool sold last year in 2022 over their lifetime of their use will reduce the need of eating energy by 931 TWh. Signify, formerly known as Philips Lightning as a multinational lightning producer, introduced these launches in initiative called A-Lite with air liquid that aims at reducing by 33% the building carbon emissions of air liquid by 2035. This is a product as a service model replacing traditional lightning with highly efficient LED lightning. These LED fixtures have already been installed across 31 sites in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and have led to an estimated reduction of almost 3000 MWh in energy consumption and around 800 tons of CO2 emissions per year. Sangoban is a multinational glass and construction materials manufacturer as this glass forever roadmap that aims to increase the collet use in the glass production to 50% by 2025. The use of collet reduces carbon and sulfur oxide emissions during the production process and the use of collet in the melting process uses 30% less energy than melting primary raw materials, so this leads to important energy savings. Bol corporation that is a multinational provider of aluminum packaging for beverages. So we have to think aluminum is potentially infinitely recyclable as a material and it has a high residual value. So increasing the recycled content in Bol is Bol corporations biggest decarbonization lever. On the other hand, we have to think that the Virgin aluminum production is very energy intensive and it's footprint varies of course from the electric city sources used in the country where it is produced, but using recycled aluminum means that they use just 5% of the energy required for primary production. So again here we're talking about important important energy savings. Now back to you Bianca will talk about the obstacles that the businesses face. Next slide please. So based on a short survey supplied to the materials and products task force members but also often referenced in recent studies we identified three key challenges. So the first one is incoherent and misaligned policy environments specifically in the use revision of the energy efficiency directive. The text mentions the complementary to the to the circle economy action plan but doesn't elaborate on that. The circle economy could in this case lead to overall reduction in the use of energy by producing less from virgin materials. Another sub challenge is presented in this is the transposition of the legislation at national level, which imposes barriers for businesses operating across borders. And here, for instance, in the case of the extended producer responsibility schemes, the complex landscape makes EPR obligations confusing and highly resource intensive to implement often leading to restricted longer term planning and limited investment from the companies participating in the scheme. Not least, there is also predominant focus on end of life solutions such as general waste targets integrated in policy tools like the EPR schemes that often unfortunately prioritise quantity over the quality of recycled material and focus less on resource productivity and supply of raw materials. The second overarching challenge is a lack of adequate end of life provisions specifically the lack of adequate collection and sorting infrastructure in the U has led to high efficiencies such as in the case of plastics contamination with other polymers or waste streams even when the waste was separately collected. This means that despite recycling materials, their value is not well retained. Next slide please. And the last overarching challenge we identified is a lack of adequate technologies. So we are already witnessing the rapid emergence of many information technologies such as blockchain platforms for product visibility, digital product passports and so on. Yet the lack of data insufficient standardisation of information limited interoperability between platforms and data sources but also legal and intellectual property barriers impose significant challenges for businesses to adopt technical solutions at scale. And additionally, we need to develop more efficient technologies for shredding, identifying and sorting post-consumer waste to retain the high quality of materials. But often recycling and production technologies require high capital investment and provide no guarantee that secondary materials will become the good market choice. Hence, this incentivising the development and innovation of such technologies. Next slide please. Based on the main challenges identified, we formulated six recommendations for policymakers. One of them is to develop a clear vision for a new European green industrial strategy, which would allow a more holistic integration of circular practices and industrial decarbonisation into a single strategy. The second recommendation is to create supporting links between energy efficiency and circular economy policies. Currently, the EU circular measures are based predominantly upon recycling. Additional metrics, however, could be added such as the reduction of energy consumption and absolute resource reduction targets. And for instance, the Netherlands is among the few countries in the EU that have already established an absolute resource reduction target aiming for a 50% reduction in the use of primary materials by 2030. The third recommendation is to support the development and widespread adoption of recycling a technological solution. The adoption of more efficient recycling technologies that retain the high quality of materials will be critical for the growth of secondary market materials and will play a key role in reducing the energy consumption associated with the production of virgin materials. The fourth recommendation is to enable the recirculation of materials through fiscal policies applied across all stages of the products lifecycle in alignment with existing EPR fees. For instance, the EU could retain the building blocks of the existing taxation system by introducing and increasing the taxes on raw materials, shifting taxation from labour to resources and materials or applying tougher landfill taxes. The fifth recommendation is to use demand side policies to increase demand for circular products and services. For instance, by incentivising consumers through tax deductions for repairing and purchasing products made from recycled materials. And there are already such examples applied in specific member states such as Denmark and Sweden. And last but not least, to improve policy coherence across member states to facilitate a transition towards a sustainable circular economy by avoiding unnecessary policy from implementation. So for example, this could be achieved through a more centralized coordination of the extended producer responsibility schemes. And that's it from our side for the moment. Thank you for your time. Yeah, great. Thank you so much Bianca and Francesco and I really appreciate the hard work that went into this paper. I think it's very clear in terms of the way that it's set out. But maybe I am biased because I also had a hand in it. We are conscious a little bit of time, but I did want to pause for a second in case anyone had any immediate questions or comments on the paper itself. We saw some case studies. We're very blessed that we have speakers from the companies. So we'll have some time to hear from them in a moment. But in case there's any questions on the paper itself, just wanted to give some space for that. So I'll just hold the floor for a second. Okay, in which case we can move on to the second section, which is hearing from our businesses. And if something does come up, it's good to hear. Or just seeing the question. Okay, maybe we'll entertain this question briefly. And then we can move on to the businesses. So here see this. Do you see good potential for the CE uptake in the GDIP, NDIA, RCRM discussions at the moment? I don't know if Bianca or Francesco would like to respond to that. I could actually also, if it's more on the policy side, so I'm happy to, but maybe go over to you, but first Bianca. Well, I suppose I could specifically just discuss about the CRM legislation. I think there is potential and discussions on circular economy strategies, but I think this mainly focus on adopting measures such as recycling and reusing, and less on higher value measures from the circular economy, which I think is a missed opportunity. So for instance, ensuring that the critical raw materials used are designed in a way that their durability and longevity in the product that they end up is a key priority for that. I'll pass to you Francesco now. Yes, very briefly where the time it is the policy expert here. What we said in, I think in some point in the briefing, this is more a general intervention, is that we need a more holistic approach in the EU about circular economy. So breaking the famous breaking down the silos now. For instance, and it is in the CRM circular economy recycling, it is mentioned very vaguely, I would say. We're completely aware that we're just in the beginning of the negotiations and I think we'll push on the on this aspect. With the policymakers, but yeah, what we need in general in Europe is more an holistic approach to circular economy in all the different policies where we can actually use circular economy practices. Now back to you, Tami. Yeah, and also just, sorry, I'll go back to Bianca then I'll give a quick thought. And I suppose just to compliment that just last week there was a very interesting study released by the European Commission's joint research center where they do an analysis of all EU publication on circular economy. And I think it's very interesting. So one specific point and I think this aligns very well with what we discussed here in this policy brief is that the EU in its approach has so far mainly focused on recycling and less on higher values and exactly what I said earlier. I think there is a high potential to reduce energy consumption through materials if we adopt a higher circular value loops rather than exclusively focusing on end of life solutions. Back to you, Tami. Yeah, just very briefly. Do I see good potential for CE uptake in the GDIP NZIA NZIA? Maybe the short answer is not really, at least those first two. I think it's not really that focused on it. I think GDIP was a reaction to the US IRA. And I think it probably like a lot of industrial strategies. My personal view on it is that it lacks some real teeth and that it's regurgitating a lot of what's already happening, which is kind of the history of European industrial strategies. The NZIA Industry Act is very, I think it's focused on these new industry act, the clean technologies and things like that. And it's very focused on that and doesn't really mention circularity as far as I remember. Critical raw materials as mentioned on circularity is really a recycling target. The one thing I'll mention, so one thing that we're working on on behalf of the Task Force is a larger report on critical raw materials and circularity. And I think that's shaping up to be a really fantastic report that will release in July. So we, yeah, I think we're really keen to explore that further and actually give demonstrable ways in which circularity can be better used in this wider critical raw materials question. But I'll go to Martin, who I'm sure has also views. Thanks, David. Just, I mean, to build on what you said, I think there's lots of potential, but not much action. And it's a missed opportunity, certainly on energy efficiency in the NZIA in particular, that that hasn't been emphasised sufficiently and therefore the link to circular economy likewise. And I think if you look at the GDIP and the Critical Raw Materials Act, which does have more links to the circular economy agenda, there's lots more potential that could be exploited in those than is currently being done. But that's a bigger discussion, I guess. But in short, we could do a lot more. And these are great opportunities to do more and to engage around those things, I think would make great sense with this agenda. Yeah, thanks, Martin, for that. Yes, you're right. There's plenty of potential as to whether they are doing it, but that's more I was referring to. So yes, there is certainly potential for it. Okay, well, great. Let's move on to the next session. And so we are, as mentioned, now moving on to the business panel. And so we have three speakers from, and you would have seen the case study. So Anthony Abbott from Rockwall, so the Director of Group of Public Affairs and Sustainability, Selina Cahey, Head of European Affairs, Public Affairs in Saint-Gobain, and Thomas Maranelli, Head of Sustainable Products and Signify. So I think we'll just go in order. I know, Thomas, you have some slides that we've got here. So maybe we'll come to you. Well, we'll just follow the order. So I'll start with Anthony. Yeah, it'll be great to hear your perspective from Rockwall. Thanks, Samid. Thanks, Bianca. Thanks, Francisco. And thanks for the opportunity for Rockwall to be able to talk a little bit about how we work with circularity and how we see the close link between circularity and energy efficiency and decarbonisation. You can say that it's something we've been working on for decades, and that's both in terms of utilising waste streams from other industries, but also being able to take back stonewall from the market, whether it's from the construction site, renovation or demolition site. And what it's all about is how we can maximise that potential. So what I would like to talk a little bit about at the start is just what is our current as is state, and then what are we trying to do as a company to drive that agenda and what challenges are we facing? Circularity is one of the three key levers in terms of decarbonising our business. We have set science-based targets. We're very committed to achieving a net zero carbon in state, and circularity is one of those three levers that we need to work with to achieve that. As I mentioned, three key elements around circularity that influences our energy consumption and carbon emissions. So it's the upcycling of waste materials from other industries. Typically, our recycled content is around 25% across the group. Of course, it varies depending on the geography, and there we're bringing in secondary raw materials from other industries, and we're replacing virgin stone. And typically it's going to be easier to melt those secondary raw materials than it is the stone, and therefore we're able to improve the energy efficiency and thereby also reduce CO2 emissions. One of the aspects of circularity I think that is often forgotten is the durability of a product, because clearly if you can ensure that the product stays in use without having to go through a number of cycles, through maintenance, etc. Then of course you're also reducing energy consumption. Our products, they have a lifetime of typically around 65 years, and clearly that's something that policy needs to focus on as well. It's all good being able to reuse, recycle, etc, etc. But if those cycles are very short, then of course the energy consumption is higher. And then the third element, which is also the element of circularity that was illustrated in the report, is about recycling, recycling as stone wall. And here it's all about making sure that the material is not ending up in landfill, or it's ending up in incineration, and if we're able to bring the material back, then it's contributing to reducing the carbon intensity of our factories by up to 10%. Now, one of the ways that we're able to reduce CO2 emissions from recycling stone wall material is that we're able to divert the wall from the melting part of the process. Melting is the most energy-intensive part of the production process. And of course if we can divert the wall so we're not having to remelt, then we can reduce the carbon intensity of that wall. There are current thresholds associated with that that we work within, and of course we're constantly looking at increasing those thresholds. So when you look at the key challenges in terms of maximising this potential for improving energy efficiency and decarbonising through circularity, then I would say there's two dimensions or two parts to it. There's the technological challenges, and then there's the policy challenges. And I think both of those challenges are reflected very well when looking at what we're trying to do within recycling. So we have a goal of offering comprehensive take-back systems in 30 countries by 2030. We're up to 19 countries at the moment, and the challenges we're facing relate to the policy and to the technological. So we're experts, as many manufacturers of products are, we're experts of getting the products out to market. We have far less experience in getting the material back from the market. So here we're talking about reverse logistics. We're talking about having to collaborate across the value chain with other key stakeholders, customers, distributors, waste companies, and it's not easy. And that's something that we're working a lot with, trying to refine this process, trying to streamline this process, trying to make it as user-friendly as possible, and trying to make it as cost-effective as possible, because if it's not user-friendly and it's not cost-effective, then the service won't be used. We can see a general maturing within society in general around circular business methods. Of course, it varies considerably from geography to geography. In some countries there is a long experience of being able to recycle in other countries far less so. I was talking to a member of parliament in Romania here last week, and the situation there is quite immature in that waste streams are simply not segregated well on the construction side. And as a result, it's very difficult to utilize different waste streams and bring it back to the factory. So that's one of the challenges there. A second challenge on top of the technological challenge is the policy challenge. And just to give you an example, and this relates to costing. So if you have a landfill price that is relatively low, then it's very difficult to incentivize customers, contractors, other stakeholders within the building industry to use our service, because our service also costs money. So we would always say that a prerequisite for promoting circular business practices is that it needs to be costed accordingly. We have good examples of legislation, progressive legislation in some countries, Germany, for example, where they are banning the landfilling of recyclable products, where the price of landfilling has gone up, and then suddenly it's far more attractive to use take back systems. We need to get that in other countries as well, because of as soon as it becomes financially viable to drive more circular business models, then it will happen. But we need a price tag on it. So when we look at, and just to conclude, when we look at our different policy asks, then we're looking at getting more focus on circularity, particularly within the construction industry. We know that a third of the waste generated is coming from the construction industry. We need to focus on circularity, but we also need to combine it with focus on sustainability and focus on biodiversity. We've got to be careful. We don't narrowly just look at circularity, because there can be some sub-optimizations there that can have negative impacts on other aspects of sustainability. A second ask is relating to the to harmonized definitions around circularity. We're clearly moving in the right direction through taxonomy, through the CSRD, et cetera, but there's still a way to go. There's still different opinions about what recycle content actually is. There's different definitions around what recyclability is, and the same applies to durability. And then we just need to make sure that we're removing these barriers for transporting material across boundaries and across geographies. We need to stop calling it waste. We need to look at it as a valuable material, because as soon as you do that, then suddenly it's easy to move around. Transportation costs become less, and it's easier for companies like ourselves to both utilize pre-consumer material, but also post-consumer material. I think I'll stop there. Thank you so much, Anthony. I think it's so rich just to get the real on-the-ground experience. So I'm really grateful that you shared that with us all. I'll move swiftly on to Celine. So over to you. Yeah, thanks a lot, Tammy. Thanks for having me and the opportunity to share some insights. Wow, what can I add to Anthony, because we share so many of these challenges and opportunities. But maybe to put it into the context, I'd like just to underline that this topic, I mean this joint benefits and twin of the twin transition decarbonization and circularity is very much in our DNA in Sangoba. Because we have many products like glass insulation, gypsum boards, the deep board that you know, for example here in Belgium that help consumer save energy, but their manufacturing does require a lot of energy and raw materials. So that's really at the heart. It's also part of our decarbonization engagement, net zero by 2050 with some targets for 2030. But so I'd like to share maybe three dimensions, what it looks like for us in terms of the challenge. I'll illustrate a little bit what we're doing in the glass sector. You've seen a few elements on that in the report. Thanks, Tammy, for flagging this and I'll recoup on policy as well. So yes, we use a lot of raw materials. Globally, we can say that at present for Sangoba 15% is secondary material. So we use gypsum, sand, limestone, we use paper and many others. On two of those, for example, on gypsum and sand, the challenge is big because globally we know that we're going to need more gypsum, so multiplied by four by 2050 compared to what we use today. And the access to synthetic gypsum, which is coming from coal plants, is going to be reduced by five. So this is calling for more circularity in gypsum, for example. In terms of sand, the global consumption today is 50 billion globally. This is twice the amount of what rivers can produce. So this is just giving you an idea. This is why we've embraced circularity also in our targets. So we want to increase by 30% the virgin raw materials avoided by 2030, together with reducing by 80% the non recovered production waste. So the good news, as you can sense from what has been said is that our efforts to become more circular go hand in hand with those to decarbonize. And so on the glass part, which came here as an example, it's endlessly recyclable. So you can take it from windows, from facades, glass, from automotive, and we put effort to make this a reality because it's not that simple. So you've seen how the twin benefit materialize. So the Colette, which is the word for end of life glass from renovation and demolition and from production of cuts. It melts at a lower temperature. So that's that's what enables to do the savings in terms of energy consumption. So 30% was mentioned, versus the melting of virgin raw material, as well as reducing CO2 emission. So you keep in mind that one ton of Colette into our glass production reduces CO2 emission by 30 kilogram. And there are also benefits in terms of virgin reduction of virgin raw material. We were able to materialize this in 2022 by production the first zero carbon flat glass with 100% Colette and 100% decarbonized energies that was done in a plant in the north of France for four days. This is still of a challenge to mainstream. A few months after we launched ORAE, which is a product that has 40% less CO2, embedded CO2 than our regular clear glass production. So it shows, and this was done with integrating 70% of Colette. So it shows that it is possible, but it requires two things. It requires heavy investment in the industrial processes. So it's been mentioned already, but the sorting is a big challenge here. So we need to have Colette sorting line on the glass plant to ensure that what is added as secondary material into the mix is as clean as possible and is not jeopardizing the performance of the product. So that's investment is very important. And the collection network will be also key in that it requires partnerships. So we've done it in France, which has enabled these developments and we're doing it elsewhere. So how policy can support, I'd say that investment is key. And I do immediately the link with what was said on NZIA and FIT455, because in fact we see that energy efficiency and energy saving and the circularity go well together. But there is no common place to think about it upfront at the moment. So a lot of effort needs to be placed into desalowing our policies and definitely this NZIA and FIT455 need to build on where Europe has leadership and strengths. So I name here energy efficiency and circularity, where we have already a good stable premises of policies. A lot needs to be done and we need to inject much more investment capacity to realize those policy premises. So that should become a big priority for the next commission. And for example, having things like common efficiency and circularity index could be quite telling. So yes, investment to be facilitated by policy and then obviously this access to secondary material. So the more collect in the last example, the more saving. But we need to transform protocols which are voluntary or initiatives which are voluntary into something that is a daily habit. So the deconstruction, the sorting, the collection of construction demolition waste from the customer and increasingly from the renovation site needs to become here the priority. So it requires new supply chains, new business models, new partnership. We can do a lot there to explore and within Saint-Gobain we can also maximize some of those services together with distribution across gypsum, mineral and glass. But there needs to be an incentive at the end of the chain on the market to use those circular solutions. And a little flag to the recent consultation on the taxonomy with tortures upon this. So we talked about circular buildings and some criteria are being elaborated. So there we would expect that there is an incentive not only for the heavy materials but also for the lightweight ones. So that will become important. And why not having in parallel incentive at building level but also at manufacturing stage for the reward to be placed also in terms of investment. So I stop here for the moment. Thank you very much. Yeah, thanks so much, Celine. Really interesting points. I think, yeah, really building on our strengths as well as when that came through for me in terms of, yeah, the advance that actually Europe is actually relatively advanced and secure and energy efficiency. But plenty more work to do. Okay, I'll go straight to Thomas. Yeah, hello everybody. I'm Thomas Marinelli working for Signify, former Philips, Philips Leiding. First of all, thanks to the organization to inviting me and also for the great story from Anthony Celine. I'm very fortunate because with both companies I had contacts and I've seen your history in all the efforts you do in sustainability. Maybe good short introduction and also I sent in the two slides because I want to build visualized bid on, I think, what did we achieve already? But there are big challenges and because this is electronics, so that's good of this mix of speakers, very different materials we are working on, different fields and show you a little bit share what in the lighting industry. I think it's very important and what the opportunities are in circularity and energy efficiency. So having said that, what I think is good to know that in the electronics industry also for long periods, well, there's a lot of regulation going on and the opportunities for energy saving. In Philips, we started the mid 90s with sustainable design. I started somewhere in the beginning of 2000. So in those years, it went from sustainable innovation, sustainable design. So I do both in my title as the products design, but also in innovation. Having said this, it's good to mention one thing I think is very important when we bring this together. It's when we talk about this energy part, it's I think energy efficiency and renewable energy. So both because with energy efficiency, we can really avoid that we have to generate too much. And when we have really good saving in energy, then it's also possible to not use fossil fuel. And then we already have a fantastic lowering in the CO2 emission and the carbon footprint. I think that's important to mention. When you look at specifically depends really on electronic products. In our case, the energy efficiency is something lighting can mean a lot in. But I also recognize in studies we did. And maybe when you can share the slide, we started already something like 15 years ago, looking at different models where we can look at circularity. And as you can see, probably the right side is really my talking picture. It's the four loops of recycling and the four nablers on the left corner down there. But I think, and you will recognize this at the Element Garther Foundation model. We adopted this one. And I can already let's start with the green stuff in the middle, because there we come with the inflow of materials that was already heavily discussed, I think, with the two previous speakers. When you look at the raw materials, lighting is not such an intensive material product, but still very important for us. This, like the critical raw materials is like the rare earth elements and the floor of phosphorus. You can understand phosphorus is very important for the color of lighting. On the other side, it's the aluminum iron and then plastics. And I think there are enough challenges. So one of the challenges I want to highlight is that the policies really need to support circularity and energy. What I thank you for one of your recommendations, but what I would include there is also how we're going to bring that all together also with substances. And with substance, I mean, chemical substances, because chemical substances are, I see the regulation getting really stricter stricter stricter. How is it not going to undermine our intents to reuse materials? That's something I want to bring forward. And also what I also see with all the regulation coming, there's a lot of regulation coming on design materials and all that things. We need a certain simplification in my view. It's getting really, really complex. I understand it's needed to make it say that we are not harming our environment and human being and the animals. But we need to find a way to handle this and make it also understandable, not only for the industry, but also for our customers and consumers. When you then look, so I said, this is very important when we look then on the line, we go down extraction raw materials, parts supply, all very important. There we can really gain with energy efficiency, manufacturing, distribution, the user. And now for the user, how can we create and I'm thankful for what you said the use demand side policies. But there I also see that it's very difficult for customer consumers to make the right choices, right? How can we help them create awareness, engage them much more in this whole flow? We have workshops here in our company to see, okay, how can you bring this message across, right? And what we need really to avoid is the incineration and landfill that was also mentioned by the previous speakers, and we are looking into this as well. And then you see, and then I can point out a little bit what we in lighting achieved, you could say, but we can still improve and other things. You could say after all this year, we are still in the starting phases, you see service and upgrade. That's really about what Anthony already mentioned, durability. In our cases, can we service and can we upgrade and can we repair our products? That's also in the design, which you see is one of the enablers. For example, reuse and refurbish. I think really depends on the products. What we see often that it needs to be also economically feasible. And we see now also here you see what happened in the 20 years I'm in this job as a sustainability professional is that you see also much more commitment and interest from customers. So this whole refurbishment, you have to see if this feasible economically and then also see how you can make it work. Can you design your products much better? And I see we are already a time. So maybe it's good to move to the next slide so that you can see a little bit about this part of design. And when I talked about serviceability, repairability, this is a model we worked out. In the top you see five criteria and that's something you also mentioned. I think Anthony did and it was also emphasized by Celine is we need clear definitions. So we know that we are talking the same language, but I would like to add here also criteria. Do we have clear criteria agreed that we are talking about the same thing? And because these were not in the market five years ago as a company who is already in this in this topic for I said already 10 plus years. We created criteria you could say these are the criteria on the right side with behind it a little bit also more the definition behind it coming back to the definition. Because we think that for a lighting product where material is important, the design is important, but also that you see the second point here energy efficiency lifetime so durability. We cannot say something is fantastic sustainable because the circular when it is very lousy in his performance in energy. So that's why we added that and you see also reusable recyclable. And maybe to end it. I had more challenges. Let's see awareness policies, the technology and there it comes technology challenge there with design is now an electronics. How do you enable that we can really reuse materials and that's I think I mentioned that in early discussions is can we try really to use as less as possible mixes because mixing up products is making it more difficult. And also can we. Yeah, what can you do and electronics is always complicated. How can we ensure that we get those materials back and for ourselves. And I must say that it's pretty new. We are also looking into okay we use aluminum aluminum steel but also renewable materials like bio based plastics and things like that next to the normal fuel fossil fuel based plastics. I have many, many more things to our last point I would like to say it was also mentioned and then I really stop is. I'm a bit concerned about indeed end of life it was mentioned I think also Anthony and of life and waste on the one side. It should be possible transported over the different borders. It should not add too much cost otherwise this not feasible on the other side. I'm really concerned about that we as Europe and that was also pointed the brief is how can we get less how do you say it in dependent dependent on other regions. We as a lighting industry had this experience with geopolitical conflicts and we couldn't get to the really critical raw materials. So how can we keep that much more and better under control so you need on the one side more flexibility over borders and less cost. On the other side we should also avoid that things are too easily transported to other parts of the world and we lose total control at least we see it happening. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Yeah thank you so much to all our speakers and well quick word for you for you Thomas I think really clear and yeah I think it is really interesting in terms of the models that you created and it shows the leadership that that is developing in this space. I will keep it very brief because I'm conscious of being over time. Apologies. I think we were ambitious with our timings on court or Q&A but if you do have questions feel free to pass it on to us myself. And we can pass it on and very quickly this this was put together on behalf of the materials and products taskforce. So we're a group of leading businesses. So us as a secretary and CSL and if you're interested in knowing more about us either because you're a business and you're just curious from what we do feel free to get in touch. And likewise I saw that there was a few policymakers. This is kind of what we do and helping you do your jobs and and seeing some of these perspectives from a business perspective that is actually also on the progressive side so more than happy to make that connection. And then just to reflag the point that we have a report coming out in July that will really go more in-depth around the circularity aspect on critical materials which is a really hot topic. So yeah I think we're really looking forward to that one too. I will leave it there and thank you for staying for the extra five minutes and thank you again to all our speakers and for the hard work from Francesca and Bianca. Thank you everyone. Thanks everyone. Bye everyone thanks. Bye bye bye.