 Second, I'll let you know. OK, the live stream is live. Take it away, Robin. Hey, everybody, welcome to our hyperlateral climate action and accounting special interest group meeting. Today we have a couple of friends from Siemens over there. It's Andreas, Flovan, and Jonas. And they will talk about their approach to go to net zero with peripheral credentials. Andreas, whenever you're ready. Yeah, so a good day to all of you. Thanks a lot. David, Robin, for giving us here the opportunity to present to the Climate Action Special Interest Group. So my name is Andreas Kind. I'm in charge of and with me are two colleagues. One is Florian and the other one Jonas, who actually is on behalf of Maxia, who got stuck in Tuscany without internet. Lucky guy he is. Florian, Jonas, would you like to briefly introduce yourselves? Sure. I'm Florian Jäger. I'm a life cycle assessment expert background environmental engineering in this kind of business for 10 years now. And I'm here in the role of the CEP expert for basically all the life cycle assessment and carbon footprint methodology part of this initiative. It doesn't let me switch off my camera. So sorry for that. Within the team of Green Forestanium, the solution that we're going to present in this case. And I'm very happy to get in touch and exchange on the ideas and solutions that we brought today. So looking forward to the next hour. OK, good. Let's get started. This picture that you see here has been taken in the Bavarian forest. But it's just a few weeks back that I walked through a similar forest that looked exactly the same thing. We are here really not to talk about forests that are dying or the greater story. But we want to talk about the business impact that sustainability has. And just to kick it off, we have two quotes here. One coming from Larry Fink, heading BlackRock, one of the biggest investment companies, pointing out how important sustainability is for investments. And on the other side, from the political direction, a quote from Ursula von der Leyen about carbon must have its price. So basically announcing the Green Deal that, in the meantime, also has been launched. So with this, we know, and if we could go to the next chart, there are important business drivers. The most important one we see really as the one coming from the regulatory side, particularly on carbon pricing, things like taxation, the emission trading schemes that we have around the world, or border carbon adjustments, or things like supply chain laws that coming up here in Germany, the so-called Liefer-Kettengesetz, the supply chain law, has been heavily discussed. And I think in many corporate organizations, it's really arriving now that the world's going to change, basically, from the regulatory side. And everybody has to be prepared. Investor sentiment is another big driver, too. I just had this quote, but it's not just from the big companies. It's also the smaller funds, the individual investors. They also look for green investments. They look for where they put their money. And customer demand is another big driver. Just a number related to this on the right-hand side. The number of sold sustainability market products is around $113 billion. This was in 2019. So we see the consumer side being really strong and being also very sensitive on the brand. So if something goes wrong, the brand really can suffer quite significantly. And finally, because of things like brand perception, there's corporate risk. And in the corporate politics, corporate strategies, it's, of course, a lot about risk mitigation, about being careful how the business runs and so on. Yeah, so this is the driver. But when we go to the next chart, actually assuming that there is a world where we have sustainability as a critical factor for businesses, the question is, how do we quantify? How do we measure things like the product carbon footprint? And this is, I believe, the topic of this special interest group on accountability and bringing in some form of trustworthiness around data that is being shared between companies. Because when we look and we separate according to the greenhouse gas protocols, the different scopes for industrial control processes that these gray boxes with blinking green lights looks a bit like old fashioned, but inside is really high technology. It's a very vertical business model behind a vertical integrated business model from the software and the services on top down to the parts inside the silicone and so on. And in the past, it was always about improving the efficiency within these kind of production facilities. But now the next challenge is really carbon pricing. It's really understanding what it means, understanding what is in the first place, the product carbon footprint of a product that comes out here. And I think we actually have a picture here on one of these boxes that comes out here. And it's not only about our products. So Florian, if you can move on. It's about the products, of course, that anybody else produces as well. So instead of this Zimatic as it is called, you could think about your sneakers, your mobile phone, or whatever you have in your household, where, again, the question comes up. So what exactly is the carbon footprint? And we have, first of all, looked into the standards that exist in this context, how we can measure it. And it touches very much on the way information is exchanged. It's sort of an exchange in a verifiable way. But there's a big gap, basically, that has to be addressed. And with this, I hand over to Florian to talk about the first part that we addressed. Thank you, Andreas. I am going to give you a little insight in what, let's say, state-of-the-art carbon footprinting and lifecycle assessment is like. Oh, here we go. Just to give you an idea why we chose the approach now that we did and why we believe that this is making sense and this is going to be a game changer compared to how this has been done in the past. So product carbon footprinting assessment process, state-of-the-art, how is it done currently? In order to understand that, we have to look at system boundaries, basically. And I'm going to have a little look into what the foreground system is that we have very good information on, which is basically within the walls of our factory. And the background system, which is really a challenge in this aspect, you have basically any thing that we are provided for by our suppliers. And that's happening upstream. And then, of course, how that links to lifecycle inventory databases or lifecycle assessment databases. If we look at lifecycle assessment or product carbon footprinting, we have basically the ecosphere, which is what is the environment, our world, that in order to produce a component in the technosphere to use it and to recycle it again, is extracting basically materials and emitting emissions into the ecosphere. And in order to determine these flows, we have to get a clear understanding what's really happening within the technosphere. So we are creating a lifecycle inventory, which models all the processes that happened within our foreground system. Basically, anything that is happening within the walls of our own manufacturing and anything that we are provided for by our suppliers, that are things which are not directly taking from the ecosphere, of course. This also includes the downstream, so the use phase, but I'm going to basically not go into that now, since it increases complexity and reduces the understanding of the concept. So for the foreground system, as I mentioned, we have very good information, we have very good data. And if you look in detail into one of these processes, you might see, for example, for this S7 box that we just saw, a soldering process. So we have all the flows of material coming in here, the solder, the energy, heat, demand, for example, or cooling, and of course, direct emissions. I'm going to the ecosphere in blue here, which is in elementary flow then. But most of it is actually coming from suppliers, so it's being modeled in our background system. In order to make this a bit easier to understand, I just introduced a couple of pictures here with the supply chain, materials either coming directly from the technosphere from restricting or from material from the ecosphere. And then going through our entire supply chain, sometimes five, six, seven, eight stages until it finally ends up in our own gates. So how is this assessed for then? As I mentioned, for our own processes, we have a very good understanding of all the mass flows that we have all the energy flows. And we can basically say, all right, we bought this amount of diesel. Let's say it has this number of carbon atoms. And if you oxidize all of it, it's going to be this amount of CO2 equivalents. So to make it short, it's a fairly scientific approach. Similar for energy, since we are in most cases relatively well-informed of how the power is generated. Different, though, for most of the other materials, for example, that we are provided for the 7 in this case or other manufacturers with higher value product, they have a fairly large supply chain. And how they model that is that they take their bill of material, and they basically match each entry of this bill of material with a database process from, let's say, Gabi or EcoInvent. And use these models, which are representing industry averages in the best case, or if they can't really find a representative process of the manufacturing of the product that they have in their bomb, they make assumptions and kind of model them based on their assumptions with default database processes, scale them in order to come up with somewhat of an estimation of what the product carbon footprint of the suppliers product will be. This, of course, has, let's say, the inconvenience of, first of all, you have to basically assess almost all the products of your suppliers that you're buying. Secondly, really the transparency of the processes that you're assessing is relatively low, meaning most of the product carbon footprint emissions in your manufacturing is just estimated. How can we change this now? Since I mean, this is quite an interesting way of calculating something that you put a price tag on already or in the future. Well, there are basically three ways that I try to sketch here. The first one is what the car manufacturers, for example, have done with their suppliers since they have a pretty strict management of their supply chain. They are asking their suppliers for lifecycle inventory data. Basically, they ask the supplier of an individual part to provide them all the information of, let's say, the manufacturing process of a battery that they are putting into their car. And then they model their suppliers' processes based on the suppliers' primary data. So they are basically expanding the foreground system, which is a tremendous effort and it's only done for relatively few parts, plus not everyone within the supply chain can do that. And it wouldn't really make a lot of sense since most of the processes would be assessed once, twice, three times, X times, depending on how many customers you provide your part to with. So this didn't really scale. The second option is to kind of not go with lifecycle inventory data or aggregated, disaggregated database processes provided by suppliers, but to go with aggregated databases, database processes, not database processes, but processes from suppliers. The supplier basically calculates his own carbon footprint that he has foreground data for, plus everything that he received from his suppliers. And then he creates a black box. So he makes all this a black box and only communicates the elementary flows. The blue arrow is basically to his customer. This has a couple of challenges, of course. First of all, there's still a lot of transparency in this sense with all the elementary flows. Me as a manufacturer, I can still somewhat backwards engineer certain processes that I'm provided for by my supplier and estimate what their processes and efficiencies are, which my suppliers might not want to provide me with. Secondly, there is still a high degree of uncertainty. And there's not really a system provided yet in order to kind of make sure that the data is trustworthy that I'm receiving. And the last option, and this is the one that we are going with, is not to ask for all these elementary flows, but to just aggregate them into a midpoint indicator and ask the supplier to provide us the product carbon footprint in CO2 equivalents for his product, plus a variety of additional parameters in order to make sure that it's used, that I can use it in a representative way and in exactly the way that my supplier intended it to use. So the assessment process of this formerly estimated process in the future, hopefully, looks the way that each of my suppliers calculates his product carbon footprint of his product exactly the way that I did it with my primary data and passes on CO2 equivalents plus the information that's necessary in order for me to make representative use of it and avoid double accounting, things like that. The advantage is, of course, that there's little information in it that the supplier could avoid giving me due to the fact that he doesn't want me to get the transparency of what he produces his parts with. The disadvantage of it is, though, that we need some sort of trust mechanism for it. So this is really our biggest construction site. We have a couple other construction sites that we're working on. Two of them are, let's say, just methodological parts, mainly to create a set of rules that enables to have this linear calculation of product carbon footprints throughout the supply chain. Secondly, to define the communication parameters that are passed on. And the last part and most important part for you, since it has this technical aspect, is how can we create trust into the data that we are being provided for by our suppliers. And with this, I'm passing on to Jonas. Oops, sorry. I think I probably talk first about the role of verifiable credentials before we. Sorry. I would be grateful if Andreas would take this topic. So taking this problem statement that Florian just sketched, we need on one side, we need transparency. On the other side, we have confidentiality. And nobody was in the supply chain willing to reveal details about production processes. So how can we balance this? And in a way, it goes in the direction of saying, OK, we need some form of aggregate at the end about a product. But it has to be trusted. So we cannot possibly have the full transparency. So it has to be aggregate, but it has to be trusted in a way that people can verify it. And just taking these terms, verification, trust, and so on, sort of brings typically different roles up. So roles like there is somebody who can issue something about a holder or a subject. And the holder can present a verifier, something based on the credentials being issued by an issuer. And exactly these kind of roles are in the middle of verifiable credentials, very close to a hyperledger, of course, so in the form of the implementations in the areas and indeed. And we simply use this kind of approach in order to solve this trustworthy aggregation challenge. And we do this in a way of chaining these three roles along the supply chain. And the key element is that the question is always, where does the trust come from? If we talk about trustworthiness, trust has to come from somewhere. You could think of secure memory somewhere in the production facilities that the manufacturer cannot temper with. But in our approach, we actually think about another organization, typically a certifier, that can bring in the trust that has already, very often, visibility into the production facilities. Just think about an ISO 9000 certification. No company would just say, oh, I'm compliant. No, it's typically a certifier saying, yeah, this company is compliant. And for many other areas, the same thing. So there is already, very often, another organization that is trusted in an ecosystem and has visibility, can make an aggregate statement about a production situation and is trusted in later stages of the supply chain. So with this kind of model and the technology approach using verifiable credentials, we have now this kind of scheme. So let's assume a consumer wants to know the product and footprint coming out of a production of a manufacturer. So there's a request coming in. And maybe I use the error so you can see that. There's a request coming in. The manufacturer says, well, I cannot really say anything about the product, carbon footprint of my product without asking my supplier. Because I have some components. Yes, I know my own kind of scope 1, 2. But I don't know the product, carbon footprint of the components. So the supplier, tier one supplier, has exactly the same situation. He's also a manufacturer, of course. And he would ask, or she would ask, likewise the next tier two supplier. And you could actually go on and on, but let's stop at that point. So here we have a certifier that has visibility knowledge about the production context, what goes into this tier two component. And the certifier can issue a credential, so a digital verifiable credential to the supplier. So the certifier is in the role of the issuer of a verifiable credential. The supplier, the tier two supplier would be in the role of the holder of this credential. And then we, in the position to present certain aspects of the verifiable credential to its customer, who is the tier one supplier. So here you see we have exactly these three roles. So the tier one supplier is, in this first step, the verifier. And it's possible to verify. Yeah, it's actually, I trust the certifier too. So I trust whatever is presented here without knowing any particular details about the production process. And then we can go the next step. Again, there is certifier one that has insight into the production environment of the tier one supplier. Again, a verifiable credential can be issued. It's taken into account also what has been presented from the tier two supplier. And it can be presented to the manufacturer. And the manufacturer again has a certifier with insight into the production context, energy consumption, whatever it is. And the way the production is put together in terms of components can put all this information with respect to the carbon emissions into a credential that can be presented in the form of a verifiable presentation to the end customer. So assuming that in this ecosystem, all the certifiers are trusted, you end up with a presentation at the very end where the customer in the role of a verifier should actually be able to trust the end value because it was chained up. It was aggregated step by step in a trustworthy manner. Now we have even more power with the approach of verifiable credentials in the form of selected presentations. You might know that in the implementation of Indie, you have in areas you have ways of using zero knowledge, you have ways of hiding the identity. So you could have actually certain suppliers that proactively would present something to the end customer to give additional information, to actually make the picture even more complete. And doing this in a privacy preserving way because you would not reveal the identity as a supplier and you would not reveal any information about the exact components, just about certain aspects that would be important for the end customer. So this kind of approach using zero knowledge would allow to actually prove certain attributes without revealing the full detail of a profile of a product or whatever it is. Yeah, so that's the technology side that we believe could help a lot in this problem statement that we have here. Underlying these three roles, it's a peer-to-peer exchange. So don't mix it up with a shared distributed ledger that where all the PCFs are stored. So we don't have this kind of approach here. We have a peer-to-peer exchange of verifiable credentials and verifiable presentations. Underlying is of course an infrastructure based on a decentralized implementation typically that helps to share the public keys of the certifiers, helps to share the layout of the credentials, so the schemas of the credentials, not the values, only the schema. And the possibility to revoke credentials as well. So as a verifier, I would always go when I receive a verifiable presentation, I would go to this verifiable data registry and try to get the public key, get the schema in order to pass the credential presentation and use the public key in order to verify the signatures that are used in the presentation and in the credential. And also check if some of the credentials have been revoked before. So it's a level of abstraction using verifiable credential that brings us a long way in implementing a trustworthy exchange of information among the supply chain here. Yeah, with that, we have of course the need for an ecosystem. So the way the credential is laid out, the kind of information that is inside the credential has to be agreed on beforehand. So we need a part in the system that is clearly the role of an association, the role of an ecosystem. We also need an infrastructure, the underlying verifiable data registry. And with this, I actually pass on to Jonas to talk more about these more ecosystem related things and also the way companies can actually money in docking in this ecosystem. Exactly, thanks Andreas. So how will this all be facilitated? We learned from Florence's explanation that industrial decarbonization is actually a cross-company challenge. So we need a lot of players working together, talking the same language with regard to product carbon footprints. So we are a strong believer in this challenge being solved also in a cross-company approach. And our cross-company approach can be seen on this slide. If you look at the left-hand side, the circle, you see the staining network. The staining network is the forum in which industrial companies on the one-hand side meet both in the roles as customers of other industrial companies as well as in the roles as suppliers to other companies. So exactly in those roles between which the product carbon footprints would be exchanged peer-to-peer. We also learned about the certifiers and their role as how we call it trust anchors in this network. We're verifying individual product carbon footprints or certifying at least the process by which product carbon footprints are calculated. So these are the base elements, the main pillars of that network. Furthermore, looking into the future, we also envisioned to have carbon sinks, for example, also in that network using the same trust mechanism, using the same certifiers as trust anchors to verify and certify the ability to compensate for residual emissions in trusted carbon sinks. So this is the staining network. The staining network, and that's very important to mention, is something that must be independent of Siemens. So what we are currently doing is initiating that network, specifically initiating the foundation of the so-called staining association that will serve as the governing body for that network. That, for example, will also lay out how do we use currently existing standards of product carbon footprint calculation? How do we define the system boundaries that were considered, for example, and how do we facilitate the rules by which we play in that network? So this is the network. This is the Siemens independent of Siemens cross-company and also cross-industrial network that we initiated. And this network, of course, offers business opportunities, especially in the ecosystem that we wanna grow around that network. One of the examples how companies participating in that network could monetize on the network is given on the right-hand side of the slide. What you see here is the example of what Siemens will offer based on that network. And this is just one example of solutions that build on the standards and on the trust mechanism of the staining network. What we see here are two products that we are currently developing. One, the GreenWeb, a web-based application that allows to very conveniently raise requests to your suppliers for product carbon footprints and also answer those requests to your customers. So that's web-based, very scalable and this can be, well, extended in terms of its features switching to GreenConnect. GreenConnect would then be a non-premise solution when it comes to the data storage. But GreenConnect would also integrate with the IT and OT at the customer made the ERP systems, for example, to directly exchange and pull procurement, for example, procurement-related information from the ERP systems, but it will also be integrated with, and this is what Andreas already mentioned, two hardware that is installed on the shop floor already, for example, sensors, think about energy meters and stuff alike. So the products you see here on the right hand side are an example of how to offer convenient gateways to the staining network and thereby improve the efficiency of product carbon footprint calculation and exchange in the networks as such. What we brought to you today as well is a little sneak peek in form of a video that gives you a little bit of a flavor how working with those systems could look like. And again, the Siemens solution shown here is just one of the examples that we can imagine working and integrating with this product procurement exchange network staining. So what we see here is, we log in to the Siemens interface. Siemens Justice Run Random User of this system. It gives you an overview of your facilities regarding your total emissions in tons of CO2 equivalents. And you also get notifications as soon as one of your customers asks you for data. If you check, for example, along your bill of material for the data that is missing, you'll see that Rees, your supplier, didn't provide any data yet. So you send that request to Rees. Rees logging in on their sites receives a notification that Siemens requested data. So in that supplier view, now the supplier is guided through a structured process which will ask all the questions necessary to gather that information, system boundaries, data sources, and thereby ensures the comparability of the information provided. So you see here, a lot of information requested that is given in a structured processes. Also the supplier is able to see the development of its product come footprints over time. And also it gives the recipient as well as the sender the information about, okay, the data quality. So quality of the data sources, level of detail for the system boundaries considered and so on and so on. Switching back to the requesters interface, now the request to Siege that there was information provided. It's also shown in an admission history here in graphs. So that it really allows companies to then act based on data. And acting on this data, for example, can be basing sourcing decisions based on that information. In this case, this is simulation, what a switch of suppliers may make or result to in terms of beneficial impacts on your products come footprint. And then last but not least, after you did everything to reduce your product come footprints, there will be residual values. And here the software may also offer you opportunities to compensate for that emissions. Also all connected to the system that we saw. So you can compensate for that information and based on that info, compensated values combined with the info you got from your suppliers, you're finally able to answer your customers request proper account footprints. So you're closing the loop from source to sync, ultimately, and also make transparent what were the values that were emitted and for which of the values. So this is a picture of how we envision the look and feel of these solutions to be like. We are currently in the process of developing that solution based on the Estanium standards. And now step back from the example of a product back to the Estanium, the network, the ecosystem and exchanging the non-seamance part of that thing. So Florian, if you could switch to the next slide. Exactly. So after you now got an intro on how this looked like, we invite other thought leaders in the industry from IT also certifiers to join us in shaping, basically shaping these standards that are capable of and the solution that is capable of really making product carbon footprints more trustworthy in the industry. And thereby starting with product carbon emissions, shaping the transparency, efficiency and trustworthiness of a sustainable industry. We start with product carbon footprints as probably the most prominent, if not most pressing issue in this regard, but we have in mind that once that ecosystem developed and once that exchange understood the test of time, you're able to scale that solution also to further environmental, social, governmental topics, which you see on the right hand side. For example, that you deal with the topic of conflict minerals in this regard, you gain transparency on circular material flows and thereby end up with a holistic ESG monitoring and management system. So far to how we see technology leveraging or technology being leveraged to improve the trustworthiness, transparency and efficiency of product carbon footprints. And with that, I would open it up for the Q&A session. Thanks Jonas, Andreas and Florian for this great presentation. As you've already done Jonas, it's up to us. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. And if not, we could start with a question I posted to the chat. I asked if there are already parties involved in the estate network besides Siemens and what are the partners you're currently looking for? Yeah, maybe I take the question and Andreas and Florian, please, please add up to this. So we are currently in the process of setting this up. So we are very specifically talking to other industrial companies. And this goes way beyond the industries that Siemens is active in. So we, for example, also include food and beverage and others to found that the sustainium association with us, which as I said, will be the governing body. But this association is also open to academia. So we are talking to universities. And we also of course, given the important role that they will play in that the trust mechanism and the overall exchange of trustworthy data, we also talked to a whole bunch of certifiers. And of course, certifiers see also their business potential there because the information, the transparency and the efficiency of these processes also allow them to improve their processes of certifying and verifying a product conference. So this is a really open invitation to industry, manufacturing industry as well as as a wholesalers, retailers and others. It goes out to certifiers and other service providers in this sphere and also to other software companies or companies in general that are interested in developing gateways such as the one that we presented in the video for the ecosystem. So it's really an open and broad invitation. Yeah, and if it comes to methodology and development in terms of what should be part of product carbon footprint which should be eligible for sharing. We of course, not defining this all ourselves. We are in several working groups of different organizations, have it be the World Economic Forum or alliances in the automotive industry. So we are not fighting for this all by ourselves. Okay, so Maria, do you wanna ask a question? Otherwise I can just read it out loud. Okay, the question from Maria is, are the certificates or credentials using any particular industry protocol or data format? Yeah, let me try to answer this one. Yes, we use the open source implementation of verifiable credentials in the form of hyperledger Indy. Hyperledger areas is also part of it. It gives even more functionality around verifiable credentials. So it's nothing that we implemented ourselves. We merely reused the open stack that the hyperledger projects providers. Hello, Andres, this is Maria. Thank you for that reply. No, but I was not the credentials per se, not the credential infrastructure, but the tributes that you define in the credentials. Is that following any industry guideline of format or does each certifier just create their own, define which attributes they wanna share or is the standard being used of which attributes should be shared? I pass it on to Florian, he's the expert on this. Yeah, so there are several ways of certifying product carbon footprint, that we are currently working on with several certifiers. Of course, the first and most simple one is to just use, for example, data from an environmental product declaration. There's an established process for that certification process, but the first and most simple one is to just use, for example, certification process, but we are afraid that this kind of certification is not going to scale if we adapt it for an entire industry. So there are, let's say, standards to benchmark against, there is routines from certifiers to do that kind of assessment on basis of individual verification of product carbon footprints, but what we are, of course, driving for is to, in the end, not only do verification of individual product carbon footprints, but rather enable companies to certify programs in which they calculate their product carbon footprints, so they can be updated on a higher frequency, and then they're basically audited in a similar way as you'd have for a conventional environmental management system or in financial accounting. But to be honest, there is no thing that we can do to fix standard available for this yet, and this is due to be developed. Does that answer your question? Yes, it's work in progress. That part's work in progress, yes. There is something available, but we're not 100% happy with it yet. Okay, cool. Yeah, and I think furthermore, just to add one sentence to this, I think this is one of the areas where we need to be very flexible. The network needs to be very flexible, especially when it comes to upcoming regulations and the requirements regarding the standards used there. We need to be flexible enough to adapt to these standards as they come. Thank you. All right, the next question comes from Junji. The question is, will your solution provide capabilities to offset the carbon emissions, or is it primarily focused on carbon accounting? I think I can answer that question faster. We have enough time to answer this as well. Yes, but that's a future state. We are currently already talking to providers of these compensation opportunities, but this is further down the road because we are convinced that firstly, there's transparency in the trust and information. And as soon as you have that, this is the time where you then connect also carbon sinks and carbon dioxide. Thank you. If I may just add, for instance, when you measure the programs, as you mentioned, the footprint, are you also measuring also the offsetting the carbon emission or initially just the footprint? We will have both numbers. So you get the total product footprint and you will always know what was the compensated volume. So you see how much was reduced before compensation took in. Okay, great. It's always separated though. It's always separated. So there's... And there's the... It's not aggregated though. Okay, thank you. Okay, there's another question from Johannes. He's asking, what is your tokenization strategy? Andreas, I guess that's one for you. Just to be tokenization like token. Johannes, do you want to ask a question? Maybe I'm specifically more, what do you mean with tokenization? Yeah, I mean, for example, if you tokenize or use blockchain, of course the tokenization application is very important. And if you tokenize, start tokenizing carbon credits, for example, you could incentivize certain behaviors in your purchasing. And yeah, that's why I was asking whether you also thought about how you could use tokenization, not only for accounting purposes or the blockchain in the background, but also what kind of models you could come up with and start tokenizing and provoking the desired behavior that you would like to see from participating companies. Yeah, so really interesting area that we don't address to that point. I find it really, as I said, really interesting because you bring in then the economic elements, the incentive elements and so on. With our approach, it's we're trying to solve already a big problem, but I feel it's smaller than if you would also bring in models for incentivization and the entire token economics area. I know for certain applications, when you look at energy, for instance, it might fit much better to think of tokens where you have something like utility token and you assume basically a closed system and you know the total number of tokens also in the ETS schemes, it might well make a lot of sense to go into this direction. But I think in our, so just looking at the problem statement of sharing product carbon footprint in a trust worthy manner, I think we're happy with what the verifiable potential technology provides us in order to solve this problem. But I know there is another layer on top that could go into the direction of tokens. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, and the next question, I guess it's from Alfonso. And he's asking, in the context of verifiable credentials, DLDs are bits of trustworthy data that have a clear source of trust that allows peer to peer exchange. Are you presenting product carbon footprint as DLDs for each participant in a supply chain? It's not the value that is represented as a DLD because DLDs, you, in many cases, you would store them in a repository to have like a handle, like a reference to point to an organization, for instance, and the product carbon footprints in our approach, we believe, should not be stored somewhere in a distributed ledger, purely for confidentiality reasons. But DLDs are used to represent the certifiers, the organizations that stand for the trust that you would need to know in order to verify something that is based on a credential that is issued from one of the certifiers. So in this case, you really need as a verifier the DLD. In the peer to peer communication, since we talk about presentations, credentials, and so on, we also use DLDs, but it's these pairwise pseudonyms where DLDs are also used. But the form of public DLD, we only use in the context of this, the organization that played the certification roles, the issue of role. Does it help? Alfonso, does this clarify the question? Yes, yes, it does. Thank you very much, Indra, for your answer. Okay, we have two minutes left in the meeting. Andreas, Jonas, and Florian, are you available a little bit longer? Otherwise, we could maybe take one additional question. I will go down. Cool. Okay. So Alex says his hand raised all the time. Alex, do you want to ask the question directly to the crew? Sorry, I raised the hand and then I decided to type it in the chat and just forgot to lower my hand, but since I'm speaking now, I may as well just ask it. I was just wondering, in the demo that you showed us of the actual software or the platform, like Green Web or Green Connect, whatever, at one point in time, you said you can, like a supplier can also get an idea of what the carbon footprint would look like if they were to switch to another supplier, like downstream, like, say company X gets their components from suppliers A, B, and C, and then they can also, that platform of yours will allow them to see what their carbon footprint will look like if they say, for example, switch from supplier B to supplier F. But would that not incentivize suppliers to enter inaccurate information into the system because you showed that there's a manual upload or manual data input function. And if I know I can get more upstream customers by making my carbon footprint appear lower than what it is, are you going to mitigate that, prevent that? Very valid point, very important point indeed, especially given the huge leverage that the supply chain has on your over-product carbon footprints. And given my background in procurement, I can totally relate to you raising that risk because it's indeed important. And the way we mitigate that is that we do not only ask for the pure values, but also for additional information, when we commit the data, which is about, okay, what was considered, what wasn't considered. So it would be a bigger effort to fake numbers. Then you need to be very good, but that doesn't solve the problem on its own. So therefore we also have, and this is where the certifiers come in, different levels of authenticity. So if you have a component that is particularly critical, you may request your suppliers to not give any random number, but to provide, for example, a number that comes out of a certified process or to even increase the trustworthiness of the figure, demand your suppliers to get that figure verified. So by doing that, you bring in the certifiers and the certifier would go to the supplier and check for the accuracy of that figures. So they're different levels depending on the criticality of the components. And you will always have the product carbon footprint in CO2 equivalents. You will see how much of it was compensated. So you have that comparison and you see on the metadata how this was calculated. And on top of that, you have what we call the so-called Q-values or Q-standing for quality. You have the quality values which tell you, for example, was there a certifier checking that figure or was there a certifier certifying the process by which this figure was calculated. So you have that as a trust mechanism in this context. Okay, thank you. Okay, so the last question we always wanna ask the people presenting to our crew is, how might we work together? It's a question she would ask. What kind of project should the SIG consider and that would work to solving critical chat engines you will foresee? So the first is how can we work together and where do you see the world of the climate SIG in the area of your solution? Yeah, on the first part of the question, of course, we're very open to discuss this approach. We need actually technical experts, people that understand the area, the actual challenge in defining standards. So de facto standards, industry standards, not necessarily for official standards, but have an agreement basically how to calculate, how to compare values. And what is the mechanism to exchange information about product-related information of products? And for this, it's really also this presentation is like a call to everybody to please come in contact with us, maybe we come into a community like this and discuss more on this. We need people to look at these approaches, the technical ideas that we have, give us feedback, join in, be part of the association or whatever, do it in a community way or peer-to-peer, whatever it is. So we're very open and we know we cannot solve it alone. It has to be in an ecosystem, a community-driven approach to solve this issue. Thanks, Andreas. We're looking forward to collaborating with you and we would be honored if you would join one of our future meetings. And thanks again for your time and your great presentation. You're most of the Q&A. You're all based in Germany, I guess, so I enjoy the evening. And also to everyone, let's talk soon and stay healthy. Yeah, thanks again from our side as well. It was great to have the opportunity to present here. Thanks a lot. Thanks for having us. Thanks, everyone. Thank you very much. Take care. Thank you. Goodbye, everyone.