 Hello everybody, my name is Lasse, one of the co-founders at Ivy, a Danish climate impact software startup based in Copenhagen, sitting around 60 people today. Most of us in Copenhagen, a few abroad as well. Let's jump into it. I think most people are probably aware that in order to live up to the net zero ambitious target set out in the Paris agreement, massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are needed. And I think the interesting fact here in our perspective is that companies actually account for more than 80% of those greenhouse gas emissions. So it needs to start with the companies. That's the real driver of change here. And I think thankfully for many and for this you can say overall agenda regulation or specifically the regulation called CSRD by EU sites is now forcing both big corporates and banks to measure the full scope of the greenhouse gas emissions and also to set out a very clear plan for reducing those emissions over time. And I think it doesn't stop with the big corporates and the banks because the big corporates are pushing this pressure downwards to their suppliers and the banks are pushing this pressure or responsibility towards their business customers. So luckily it doesn't end with the big corporates and banks that are being impacted directly by legislation. A lot of other companies are also being impacted indirectly by this. But in our perspective, the real driver of change here will not be legislation. That will be consumer behavior because we are seeing in most statistics by now that consumers are increasingly wanting to purchase, you can say, more responsible products. And we would even state that sustainability is becoming the third competitive criteria beyond price and quality. So it's really something here that you can say that's here to stay. And I think the very interesting part here is that it doesn't only impact the consumer facing brands. It actually puts that pressure downwards throughout the entire value chain of that company. So in this example, it doesn't only impact the retail of the soda that a consumer is purchasing in a grocery market or at a retailer. That responsibility is actually pushed from the retailer of sodas towards the manufacturer of sodas, towards the manufacturer of the labels that is put on the soda can or soda bottle, and then again towards the manufacturer of those labeling machines. So this is just one example, but I think it's a really good example of how that pressure is actually pushed throughout the value chain and hence impacting most companies even though they are not directly impacted by legislation yet. So what is the problem then? I think the problem that we see today is that most companies struggle in measuring their full scope of their GSD emissions. And as a result, they naturally also struggle in sharing those emissions with their customers, which is something that is now being required or even demanded by customers. And naturally, they also struggle in reducing those emissions when they don't have the baseline in place. So I think that's the fundamental problem that we are seeing in the market. And another thing you can ask yourself, why is it that's difficult for companies to measure emissions? Well, let's start with having a very brief look at what they have to measure. So I think many of you are perhaps aware of the greenhouse gas Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions in very brief. Scope 1, the emissions coming from the assets you control or own. Scope 2 being related to emissions from your purchased energy. Most companies are able to measure that today or at least should be able to measure that today because the data maturity is quite high. The challenge here is that Scope 1 and 2 emissions combined only represent around 20% or even less of total emissions. So the remaining portion is actually coming from Scope 3. And again, Scope 3 is the emissions coming from your value chains, both from your supplier base or your upstream activities and also from your customer activities or your downstream activities. So representing more than 80%, and this is really where companies are struggling today. And why are they then struggling with Scope 3? I think what we typically see within Scope 3 is that the IT landscape or the data landscape is very fragmented and complex. So it could be many thousand different suppliers that you are purchasing from, many hundreds of thousand different unique products that you are selling to your customers. You might have a bunch of different ERP systems or the relevant data sources and you might even also be present in a multitude of different countries. So in other words, your data is not compiled, it's not normalized, typically it's not cleansed or categorized either. So it's not meaningful and it's not useful. And I think the result of this is that you don't really have the data foundation in place to even start measuring emissions. So I think that's the fundamental problem that they are struggling with. So what does it take to get there and how do we go about it at ID? Well, if you start in the middle in the white section here, Fundamentally to calculate emissions, that's relatively simple. You need a relevant data point for, for example, a specific product. Could be the quantities of products that you purchase or sell. And then you need a relevant emission factor that you can couple it with. That's not the hard part. I think the hard part and what most companies are struggling with is the left-hand side of this equation. So going from back to my point before, going from a very fragmented and complex data landscape to one source of truth centrally, which is cleansed, normalized and also categorized to a very granular level. Because if you don't categorize it to a very specific and granular level, you don't have the foundation for coupling that with a relevant emission factor. And then your results end up being skewed. And I think the implications of that worst case can be very severe. It can lead to greenwashing issues. It can lead to reputational risks. And it might even also lead to you, let's say, defining your carbon reduction strategy, your plan, your initiatives based on the wrong foundation. So what we do at Ivy is that we actually carry our customers throughout this process from initial data sources to calculated emissions in our software platform in order to ensure that quality level and that granularity level which is needed in this agenda. I think what it enables us to do is that instead of making this a compliance game, then for us, this is way more. This is actually a method for companies to drive business value through climate change. And maybe just to specify, so it doesn't sound as fluffy as business value, what we mean here is that, yes, we do offer them a carbon accounting product which enables that they are fully compliant, they are audit ready, and so on. So that's in place. But perhaps even more importantly, we also offer them what we call a product carbon footprint product which enables them to get insights on the greenhouse gas emissions of their individual products and all the way into their underlying parts and components. This enables them to identify hotspots and drive carbon reduction opportunities within their materials and even also reduce their cost to those learnings. And then thirdly and lastly, we also enable them to share these product level numbers with their companies to drive more revenue and gain competitiveness because this is something customers are requesting now. To all in all, compliance, yes, but more so reduction and commercial benefits driven through climate change. So that's what I have for today. And thank you for your time. And of course, if you want to learn more, feel free to reach out through our website. We are also here today, a couple of people. And thank you for your time.