The SAF Podcast

The SAF Podcast: Squake - connecting emissions tracking and finance in business

• SAF Investor • Season 2 • Episode 24

Share episode

In this episode of the SAF Podcast, Oscar dives deep into the world of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and broader decarbonization efforts with Dan Kreibich, co-founder of Squake. Dan shares his journey from Lufthansa Innovation Hub, where he pioneered SAF offerings for passengers, to founding Squake, a platform making SAF and other compensation projects accessible in booking flows.

Squake's innovative approach enables airlines, travel companies, and corporations to integrate SAF purchases seamlessly, from ancillaries to bulk orders. Dan discusses partnerships with industry giants like Lufthansa, Airbnb, and CWT, highlighting the growing demand for sustainable travel options.

The conversation explores the broader context of transportation decarbonization, comparing SAF to other sustainable fuels in marine and ground transport. Dan provides insights into the economic drivers behind sustainable fuel adoption and the impact of regulations like CSRD and EU ETS.

We also delve into Squake's diverse portfolio of decarbonization projects, including CO2 removal and reforestation, and the criteria for selecting these initiatives. Dan emphasizes the importance of coupling decarbonization efforts with financial responsibility and discusses the hierarchy of carbon reduction solutions.

The episode concludes with a frank discussion on the challenges facing SAF adoption, including regulatory hurdles and industry uncertainty, while emphasizing SAF's potential as a "silver bullet" for aviation sustainability.

If you enjoyed this discussion, check out our last episode with Roberto Gonzalez, EBRD: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2202964/episodes/15693248

Speaker 1:

Hello and welcome back to another episode of the SAF podcast. This week we're delighted to be joined by Dan Kreebeck from Squake. And Dan, we were just speaking before and you've been sort of following for a while Do you just want to take us through what your background is, sort of pre-Squake, and then, once you've done that, we will dive into what Squake is?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, sure. So, first of all, nice to be here Looking forward to this. As I said, my name is Dan, uh, founder and cpo at squake and, um, well, my entire journey was, you know, conducted, let's say, in in the travel tech space. Um, so, um, I worked in in different companies, ranging from legal tech companies like flight right, um, over lufthansa innovation up, where I founded, founded and collaborated with many ventures and then finally founding Squake, together with my co-founder, philip.

Speaker 2:

So what have I exactly done? Beforehand? I think the most relevant stop was Lufthansa Innovation Hub, founded their multiple companies, and one of them was called Compensate, and Compensate was probably the first platform that brought SAF to end customers, to passengers. For everyone who knows, this little slider thingy where you can choose between trees and SAF and see the impact and the price differences yeah, that was invented by me. That was pretty nice back in 2019, when, I believe, aviation was in the center of attention in the media in terms of the climate crisis, and, yeah, that probably elevated me into these spheres where I'm now, um, and where we are, yeah, continuously looking forward to bring bringing saf to yet to the masses, and um, that's what we are working on right now, but maybe a little bit of that or more of that later sure so, um, I mean lufthansa is there's so much going on at lufthansa.

Speaker 1:

The um, the innovation Innovation Hub, is such a great institution for bringing these new technologies through, so that's such a good system and the sort of entities sort of bring these new technologies in aviation through, so surely that had a really big sort of impact and sort of how you see solutions to aviation's problems as opposed to sort of the problems that aviation has got, yeah for sure, and I mean, um, I think, a lufttanzer, itself one of the biggest airlines in the world right, it's a great network and to start those things.

Speaker 2:

So I'm very thankful for that and having learned during that time, a lot about SAF. I mean, saf has been a thing for a longer time, so first tests were in 2011, where I wasn't involved, but I think I found a good spot and time to start those things. And I think the second big topic is SAF was accessible at this company. So I think many things came together at that time and, yeah, pretty thankful for that, because it's an exciting journey so far.

Speaker 1:

So how did Squake come about and what is Squake?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so how did it come up? It was originally started with Compensate right, so all the learnings that we made in that field were then later on transferred into what is nowadays Squake. But I think let's start maybe with a broader problem, and there are more and more companies, and customers of those companies, asking for sustainable offerings, and in the airline space, that is sustainable aviation fuel. That is, you know, this shooting star that everyone wants to, you know, push and bring to their customers, and so, very easy speaking, what we do is we make SAF and other compensation projects easily available in booking flows for end customers, but also for companies. So you can imagine things like ancillaries, where you can book SAF on top, or something like SAF fairs, where SAF is included by default, or simply, when we speak in the broader context, let's say in a more B2B manner, we enable companies to do bulk purchases.

Speaker 2:

So there are huge companies out there what we see mainly from tech, pharmaceuticals, automotive, luxury fashion that want to decarbonize their supply chains, and here sustainable fuels not just aviation fuels but also other fuels play a tremendous role and we enable those companies. I think that's the easy way of explaining it. What we've done in the background is. We invested millions into building up an infrastructure, ranging really from inventory managements to bringing those projects live, as I said, and booking flow, so a real end-to-end platform that makes companies happy. And we work with great companies. So, of course, you know Lufthansa, but there are also other companies like Schenker, airbnb, cwt, all of those great names and, yeah, we are happy to be partners of theirs.

Speaker 1:

Interesting. You bring up the other partners you got, because you've talked a lot about the aviation, which I thank you for, because that's sort of on brand for this podcast, but that's not the only solution that's available. There's, you can, aviation just one of them. You've got marine and the ground transport as well. What's the balance between sort of you know, activity relating to aviation or marine or ground transport? Because one of the big discussions around sustainability in general is you know, where should the efforts be put into? Should it be in the low hanging fruit, in the ground transportation, or in the harder to abate sectors like aviation?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think very interesting topic and, as you said, we are active in all of those fields. And maybe again a little bit of background to that. So aviation is responsible nowadays for around 2% to 3% of worldwide emissions, but if you expand that towards the wider travel and logistics industry, we probably speak about more like 20% or so. And I think what's also interesting, this part is probably growing over time because there's more travel, but also because the other sectors, like steel production or electricity production and so on, they will decarbonize faster than travel. So proportionally, travel will grow its share and therefore we see it's very important.

Speaker 2:

As you mentioned, there are multiple verticals or road, sea, air and so on, and we are active in all of those fields. Meaning, if we speak about sustainable fuels for road, there is things called called hvo, which is basically biodiesel, or there is battery, electric vehicles, biogases and all of those solutions. We are active in this as well as we are with sustainable marine fuels and we see some tendencies. So I think where travel is is mainly from an end customer perspective, an emotional topic. Sustainable fuels work. I think they could even work better, but they work, whereas in logistics, for example, it's very rational choices, price focused and so on.

Speaker 2:

And sustainable aviation fuels have a harder time and maybe we can also speak about that because there is interesting movements in the market happening and what we see in this regard for example, that it's easier to sell hvo, so sustainable fuels for road transportation because of a lower price markup, let's say, and therefore, yeah, better adoption, interesting fields, so very active in all of them and, yeah, trying to push further for sustainable fuels. But in the end I think that's also very important to say it's an economic movement in the market. So we see that it's very price driven and some companies that are incentivized to, you know, decarbonize. They will further go into that direction with CSRD, with EU ETS and all of those things.

Speaker 1:

So we're going to come on to later your because I know you're a big believer in coupling decarbonisation efforts with financial responsibility as opposed to purely decarbonisation and emissions responsibility. So we're going to I'll leave that for now and we'll we'll come back to that. But I just want to go into your decarbonisation projects, because you've got SAF that you use and there's other ones like CO2 removal, forest restructuring. How do you select those and what's the criteria? Is it just purely the ones that can bring the most carbon benefit, or have got the most long-term futures, or the most needed? Now, what's the criteria? How do you go into deciding those most long-time?

Speaker 2:

futures or the most needed now. What's the criteria? How do you go into deciding, rose? Yeah, so, first of all, we curate, um the projects that we offer very diligently. So, um, I think, rather than jumping into all the details, um, there are the core carbon principles that we follow. Our projects are certified, their permanence and so on is guaranteed, and so on and so on. We have an entire team to select those projects.

Speaker 2:

Personally speaking, I feel there is a hierarchy between those projects, where I would say those you know, direct air capture, long-term storage, removals are very interesting, as well as sustainable fuels are, though there is one topic the price is relatively high, right, and we cannot ignore this fact. So I think if it would be possible to fly at the same costs with sustainable fuels as we do with fossil, everyone would naturally jump there, right. But the question is always okay, who pays the money for that? So there is some evaluation between, for, let's say, for every customer, that we work with our partner and they will have some preferences on those projects and we ensure the minimum quality of those. So that can be very good reforestation projects, etc.

Speaker 2:

Or sustainable fuels, as you mentioned, and there, really, the preferences of those companies play a role. So there are some companies that are obliged by regulation to support something, so a certain set of projects comes into consideration. There are other companies that have more of a local affiliation, that they want to support local reforestation projects etc. And then we will enable that as well, always with a preference for those technology-based projects typically. And the market is moving. I mean we see how GHG, spti and so on influence everything around that, so we are, of course, always up to date with the newest regulations that we provide our partners with.

Speaker 1:

And what's the benefit of having these different verticals of decarbonization projects, as opposed to just saying we're going to, you know, put all our efforts into this sort of CO2 removal, this carbon capture sort of thing, or, you know, reforestation or SAF. What's the why have those options?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so I would. I would personally see it from a perspective of okay, what stores CO2 the longest or avoids in the end new emissions from happening Something? Well, I'm confusing your words, but you know, with SAF you reduce really the impact of your activities that you do anyway. So I think that's great. So I always again would go for that, though from a customer perspective, I think different characteristics play a role, as I mentioned earlier price, geographies, type of project and so on, and that's what they consider typically.

Speaker 1:

I know exactly what you're doing. You just said SAF was your favorite because you're on the SAF podcast. If you went on the CO2 removals podcast, you'd say that one was the favorite, wouldn't?

Speaker 2:

you Potentially, but no, I think my history really shows that I'm a huge SAF supporter. I mean, everything comes from that vertical and, yeah, I'm a huge fan of that as well as I am for direct air capture, also not going to lie. But SAF has this, I mean, so often quoted advantage of not having to adjust the infrastructure. It is available as a drop in fuel, opposed to, you know, electric aircraft that are still not going to take off, I mean, on the longer distance, for the upcoming years. So it is the silver bullet, though problems are also very prominent in this industry regulations, industry bodies not enabling it, generating uncertainty and therefore, yeah, lowering reduction volumes and so on. I see that very problematic, though I'm not on the political side of things and I'm trying to, you know, push with things that are in our hands and there are companies adopting to that, and this is what we, as a company, focus on do you think there's an issue with sort of if we're talking go back to aviation, just purely sort of aviation decarbonization that the solutions are siloed?

Speaker 1:

do you think there's a sort of a SAF conversation, a conversation around contrails, a conversation around, you know, carbon credits or offsets individually? Do you think there's a need for there to be a more full suite of carbon solutions rather than it just being an individually? You know you look at SAF as a solution or offsets, etc yeah, good topic and I believe overall it needs one solution.

Speaker 2:

Um, the, the topic. What is happening at the, or what's happening at the moment I see, is it's a very new market, still very dynamic, very, very complex, and it's hard to be on top of things. So anything that helps you with getting on top of things again is, I think, what it needs, and there are multiple great companies being built up at the moment that help airlines and other companies with that. We are one of them and I think we are following exactly this end-to-end approach which many of those big names that I mentioned earlier see with us and they use us for. And I would like to focus a little bit on the perspective of, let's say, a sustainability manager at an airline right of, let's say, a sustainability manager at an airline right.

Speaker 2:

What we see, and I would say across 95% of all the airlines and major logistics companies, sustainability teams are typically understuffed and overloaded with tasks, so buying sustainable fuels is not their only task, right? So they have to do reports, answer questions, make some evaluations, plan some other projects and, at the same time, the sales teams typically so whatever that is, let's say, the website team, the cargo team, the B2B team. They are all receiving SAF targets, targets. And still, with a little comment, it's the champions league of selling sustainable things. Right, it's super expensive, and those teams will ask the sustainability manager hey, how can we sell that? Do we get certificates? How much do we have available? Do we need a contract, and so on.

Speaker 2:

Things are flying around with Excel tables and so on and the situations get very, very messy.

Speaker 2:

So we see huge organizations that have actually the potential to sell a lot of SAF, but they are limited by operational barriers, meaning the sustainability managers are again overloaded, they cannot help the organization Ending up and I'm not pointing now to any airline, no, please, maybe I will sneak in some insights and some of my further posts in the future but we've seen big airlines selling amounts of SAF which are really not impressive and thinking more of a scenario where people really try to actively engage with travelers, let's say, on an airport and so on, I believe would be more promising than what they do with all of their efforts combined.

Speaker 2:

So this is no finger pointing, but analyzing the situation, and we are coming from a similar scenario where we've seen those problems and we've built exactly a solution to ease that and enable organizations to easily sell SAF and make this complex thing easy, and I think that is the ultimate sophistication, what we are striving forward to, and the ultimate sophistication, what we are striving forward to, and to answer your question again I think it needs for many things an end-to-end solution, so your SAF is sorted through a partnership with Neste, isn't it?

Speaker 2:

We work with multiple partners. Neste is one of them, very dominant one, because we work for a long time. It's a very trusted and good partnership. But there are also other providers, let's say, omv or even more, so we are not limited to one SAF partner, though there are also not that many in the market, right, so that do commercial amounts. So, yeah, working with multiple ones.

Speaker 1:

Are you primarily just working with people that are producing today, or are you working a building relationship with those with projects currently under development, looking to get through FID or just past FID, or under construction? Or is it solely just those already producing?

Speaker 2:

So we are more on the producer side that are already active, because those companies that we work with need their SAF amounts to apply them for EU ETS or similar things, and futures don't really help them. So still, we are in contact with many of the uprising companies and I think one big challenge they have is they need securities in terms of production volumes and I think especially the big airlines or airline groups can help with those. So there are projects from Lufthansa or United Airlines and so on which are very public, where they help small companies growing, and I think that's a good thing would if there was a situation where saf came up with the how to solve this sort of idea of getting futures, is that?

Speaker 1:

does that sort of slightly change things? If that becomes, when there's more production and saf futures potentially become a thing and it sort of becomes more of a commoditized market, does that potentially shift how you start looking at?

Speaker 2:

So, to be very honest, haven't thought too much around that topic or not much at all, I would say. But the thing is we need those volumes right now and they need to be built, and that typically involves some future commitments of many companies. So rather than selling SAF futures, so selling fuel that doesn't exist, I'm not sure. Maybe I have to think a little bit more around that if that's really the way. I'm not sure. Maybe I have to think a little bit more around that if that's really the way. But for the fuel producers that receive those volumes and commitments from airlines and so on, that is, of course, key. So we need to find ways on how producers have enough security to build those refineries and let's say it also make money with that refineries and let's say it also make money with that.

Speaker 2:

So I see a huge gap between the European and US market, where I believe the US overtook Europe overnight in terms of molecules of SAF produced simply because fundamentally different incentive schemes, right, so in the US you get subsidized and it's fun to build up a refinery, whereas in Europe it's more a penalty scheme which absurdly brings the industry into problems.

Speaker 2:

So I've rarely seen, or I think I've never seen personally such a butterfly effect in the industry as it's caused in Europe. So just to draw a little bit a picture of that With regulations where producers need to bring SAF quotas to the airport, let's say, like in France, those things don't have effect, so those fuel producers don't bring enough SAF to those airports. The penalties, let's say I don't know if we can say penalties, but the money they have to pay in order to compensate for that is forwarded to the airline. The airline again forwards it to the end consumer and in the end the end consumer has to pay the fines for not produced SAF production plants. And I think that's definitely not the way how SAF producers get incentivized to build more. It should be the other way around, like, um, they do in the us, um, yeah, big topic.

Speaker 1:

That is a. That is a big topic and I I get the feeling you're not the biggest fan of the mandate model and the are much more in supportive of the um, the carrot version, as opposed to the stick if we just would have put it in those terms. But my suggestion would be that US currently is probably ahead of Europe in terms of production, but equally there's an argument forming about the short-term nature of SAF, tax credits or grants and loans. Particularly with the looming US election, there's a lot of discussion about whether you know how they're going to be post-election. They all run out in 2027 as well, so that's three years in the future, whereas mandates go through all the way to 2050, so have a potentially more longer term impact. Might not necessarily have an impact next year because it's only two percent, but by the time you get through to 2040 there's a lot more higher levels of production and then you will see the impact further down the line.

Speaker 2:

So and, and I would say overall, mandates are a way to get there, as long as they can be fulfilled and not be be surpassed. Right and um, that that is a big topic. Um, I see, um, so I love seeing those mandates. I think the political environment has the potential to to keep the industry and actually also has, I believe, the obligation to do that, because otherwise it's not going to happen. And there are so many complex fields, right? So then european carriers have advantages in terms of pricing compared to let's east carriers that don't have those obligations, and so on and so on. So I don't even want to dive in there, but I think there are a few institutions, governments and institutions looking here at SBTI that have the obligation to do some crisp, easy to understand rules on how things can be applied, and SBTI, for example how things can be applied, and SBTI, for example, is one of the major bodies that can help SAF adoption.

Speaker 1:

So I think we'll leave this sort of the mandate subsidy discussion for another time. I think we'll be here all day if we keep going down that rabbit warren. So I wanted to come back to Squake and talk about uptake in terms of your customers and your users, are you seeing most activity from sort of people, business, travel, travel management companies, airlines, logistics? Is it fairly evenly spread, or which ones do you see the most activity or think that could?

Speaker 2:

engage a bit more. Yeah, um, the three areas that you mentioned, we are active, right. So, uh, management or business travel, um is focus. Um can add a few sentences to that in a second logistics. We also see, um, good demands because of, because of tenders and all of that, and airlines, well, to be very honest, slowed down over the last year, I would say. So, overall, the SAF market is growing, but due to the insecurities in the market, it slowed actually down for airlines.

Speaker 2:

So let's focus on travel management companies, or business travel itself, and I think the cool thing is that there are so many big, big companies tech companies, pharmaceutical companies, automotive and all of them with big climate targets. All of them have net zero goals and so on and they try to achieve them also through travel management. So, in the end, we are not talking just about travel management companies, but about the underlying corporates that we help, and there are great things happening. Can dive a little bit deeper into that if you want. The same goes for logistics, where, again, sustainable fuels play a big role in the tender procedures when deciding for a new company.

Speaker 1:

I am going to sort of go into the business travel and travel management company aspects of it Because I think it's a really important aspect of it. And the airlines come into sort of a load of. They get a load of stick for sort of not necessarily doing what people think they should. I mean, they say their sort of profit margins are so thin that they're doing what they can. But one area that I think everyone agrees that can really accelerate it is demand from business travel, because you know they've got their own scope, scope, three emissions they need to solve and they are a proportion of customers that can pay and would pay. So do you want them them? Is there enough engagement from them for you with your sort of platform?

Speaker 2:

yeah. So, um, there is and I think when we speak about co2, um, it's a big term actually and behind that there are what we see at Swake five steps hidden for any business travel related company. First of all, as a first step, they need to understand their CO2 baseline. And this can be pretty difficult for those companies because they have trips booked in, let's say, one of the big OBT's SAP, Concur, citric. Then they have the TMC data where they also book their trips, and, of course, the travelers also book things offline, right, so they have a taxi ride or book something with Deutsche Bahn, I don't know and what we do is we aggregate this data for them and remove the data leakage part of it, so we really know and have a full picture of how much CO2 they produce. Then, as a second step, those companies need to plan their targets, right, and it's a very dynamic field, right? So when a company is growing, also the business travel would typically grow and you want to bring down the CO2 emissions, right, it's tricky, and what we do is we visualize it indicatively where they are moving. And then I think one last part I really want to mention out of those three steps is they want to nudge or steer their employees, so a little bit biased.

Speaker 2:

But even travel management companies nowadays understand, okay, removing a little bit of the travel belongs to the equation for many companies. So we provide the tooling, let's say in SAP, concur and other TMCs where we help to well steer those employees. Is that trip needed? Do you want to take the train? Hey, here your company invests into SAF, so you know your company is responsible for that and so on, which leads over and I guess ending it here to the last step.

Speaker 2:

Ok, we provide those companies with CO2 projects, right, so that they can natively integrate into their bookings, which is then cost center specific allocated, which is a big topic for those business companies, right, so when someone travels, also the compensation should be booked on that cost center. So, as you see, there are many steps, or those five steps. I skipped one, the monitoring and analytics, but there are those five steps and we help companies with yeah, well, either all of those steps or just one or three out of them. Sometimes we partner even with partner companies of ours, other climate tech companies, to really bring in the best solution they can potentially receive, and all of that together. There is a big demand for that, especially from the enterprises of the world.

Speaker 1:

So look at I don't know btn, top 100 um traveling companies and and they are very active because and I think the ultimate reason is they have their net zero targets or other um climate initiatives presumably one of the big benefits of using a platform like yours for a business travel people is they, I'm guessing, have the same issue that airlines do not enough people able or dedicated to working on their sort of decarbonization and their scope. Looking at their scope emissions and their esg stuff particularly the e aspect of esg and using a platform like yours streamlines it all means you don't need to sort of monitor five different things separately. It can all be done in one platform, making it easier and more accessible to travel in a sustainable way, rather than and reduce those emissions, as opposed to doing it all sort of one section at a time, having to monitor it all separately and then probably just get really confused, because I'd get really confused if I had to do all of those things separately so?

Speaker 2:

so this will sound a little bit like an ad, but I think quick answer is yes. So we accept exactly. Help those companies with simplifying this very complex world where you have to deal with all of those things, and the sustainability managers are typically very happy with that, and that extends typically also to it teams and so on. So imagine your tmc travel management company and you have to provide different co2 frameworks to different companies. It's not core of those companies to maintain those methodologies that change like every three months, every six months or so, and I think, in the end, where we come is in. It's really a cost reduction for those companies, right? So instead of employing an entire team, which they typically cannot staff on those positions again, it's typically understaffed teams we really help them to to work very efficiently in this regard. Um, so yeah, I, I guess, um, that's helpful. Otherwise we probably also wouldn't be here and and continue developing the entire platform if there weren't wasn't a need.

Speaker 1:

So yeah, excellent, addery, that went, that went splendidly, um um. This is where it comes into your argument about linking decarbonization and the financials of a company together, doesn't it? Because, by simplifying the system and limiting the, the overheads in terms of, you know, big teams or anything like that, grouping these sort of emissions with the financial health of the company is something that we said we'd come back to and now we're seamlessly looping back to it, but it's something that you think is really important and is a way of making this process, particularly for business travel, much more seamless.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. So I think sustainability overall is not just altruistic, and it's OK and actually good that it isn't, because ultimately, if there is one rational aspect with many companies out there, it is to earn money right or not lose money. And there it is to earn money right or not lose money, and I think sustainability and let's speak about SAF can come in very handy towards this. So I posted recently on LinkedIn what I would do as an airline CEO, and one thing was to make the sustainability team a direct report to the CFO. Why is that to make the sustainability team a direct report to the CFO? Why is that? Because not fueling SAF has an immediate financial impact on those companies at least that operate in the EU right. So having to pay for EU ETS allowances is a cost bucket or big factor getting bigger over time, and when you fuel SAF you basically reduce the number of allowances you need to buy. So let's say it that way every euro spent on SAF will reduce the cost later the year, and so there is a huge incentive in the end to engage with your customers, make them also go for sustainable aviation fuels, because in the end it will be less cost for the airline. Again, the CFO topic. So I think it's very, very connected and what we see working very well is when you make it a win-win situation also for those customers. So again, for them, low prices play a role. So if they have to invest for a higher price or into a higher price because there is SAF included in there, they need to get something in return.

Speaker 2:

And I think there are some companies that do it very nicely. One would be Lufthansa, where there are the SAF fares and customers receive additional miles for those specific SAF-related trips, which I think if you look deeper into that is a nice topic. Look deeper into that is a nice topic. So you say, okay, hey, you fly with SAF. That brings you a status earlier than you know if you wouldn't fly with SAF. You get more perks and all of that. I think those dynamics are very interesting and picked up very well from those customers and in the end, helping the company to achieve, you know, lower costs with their uets penalties so how far do you think aviation can go with the voluntary market, because currently it's very much sort of there's no sort of obligation to do it.

Speaker 1:

obviously there are mandates coming in soon, but they are quite low, so it's probably still going to be a voluntary market for a while, predominantly, as opposed to a mandated one, and particularly other places where you don't have mandates, it's very much still voluntary. The way, with this sort of relating it to the financial aspects in terms of, you know, the emissions trading standards and all that stuff, is it. Can it just be a purely voluntary solution or is there going to be a? Do you think there needs to be a stick element?

Speaker 2:

so again, um, from company to company very different, right. So again, businesses, travel management. They have their CSRD goals and so on. It's pretty clear where they have to go. Logistics companies are also obliged by regulation to do a few things. And now let's look into airlines. The logistical sector of airlines, you know, now put to the side, we focus on the travelers. It's an emotional topic, right, but anyways, when SAF is purchased, the airline saves costs later in the year. So I think that's very positive and an incentive for airlines to go to, you know, push this voluntary market and engage with the customers. And in the end, I believe the political landscape and bigger regulations play the bigger role ultimately. But the voluntary market is a way to prepare the market that we are going into, you know, maybe a more price intensive future and so on. There is a possibility to engage with those customers, educate customers and so on. So I wouldn't say the voluntary part in this industry is too small and will help ultimately.

Speaker 1:

So I've got one final question for you, and in a world where third party sort of carbon solutions like yourselves end up in almost a race to the bottom in terms of value for the solution they're providing and with that impacting on the carbon accuracy of the solutions themselves, you'd see that as being a problem as we sort of get further down the line?

Speaker 2:

Or is there enough integrity going forward to make sure that these solutions are robust enough? I think there's a crazy need for robust solutions and in order to avoid greenwashing and ensure a high quality of the entire solution from the CO2 calculation over the means, how you present that in booking flows, then to the actual buying of solutions, managing them, removing possibilities of double selling and so on there is, in the end, a need for audited. There is, in the end, a need for audited, scalable solutions. Right, and I think we are just at the beginning still. So most companies haven't adopted that and the requirements are crazy. So just a little bit of insights you know you need to be ISO 27001 certified. Your systems need to be audited against, or being proof against, double selling.

Speaker 2:

All of these things are important to those companies. They don't have the capabilities to build that up, or even don't want to build that up. So we help them with the things they simply need to comply with, and we see a huge demand. We are still developing new features left and right because many things are still unsolved. So I think the end game is that you have highly scalable solutions I mean for huge companies, at the best quality.

Speaker 2:

So the CO2 market is not about price dumping in the end, but about showing real solutions that are defensible and therefore it's rather this premium segment for a company. So you don't want to go for an edgy solution, but you want something that backs that company and I think there's no race towards a zero margin game, but probably rather the lookout for highest quality solutions. Not to confuse, and I think that I want to add, is the price of carbon projects that help you to, you know, tackle your CO2 footprint. That, of course, would be very desirable if those prices go down. So SAF, going down in the price would be a huge boost for the industry.

Speaker 1:

On that robust note, Dan, thanks so much. That was really interesting. It was great to have you on.

Speaker 2:

Thank you Likewise.