As Perseus co-chair, members, stakeholders, and the broader community tell me that it is seen as a pioneering initiative, with a significant scale of opportunity (at least £5B+ in embedded sustainable finance), but there are still challenges in communicating what it is, and isn’t, and ‘why now?’.

“Collaborate on the rules, compete in the game.”

The course is set, now it’s time to shape how value is realised

Perseus is now recognised as a flagship exemplar under the UK Data (Use and Access) Act, supported by both the Smart Data Council (in its Smart Data Strategy for 2035) and the Net Zero Council. The regulatory current is moving in this direction, and the Perseus team is both in constructive conversations with regulators and code bodies, and at the table in creating the UK Smart Data guidebook. 

Perseus Members are defining where the rules of embedded sustainable finance are being written. The question isn’t whether this infrastructure gets built, it’s who helps shape it, and who arrives late.

To help better position what Perseus is, here are some of my reflections, based on 300+ conversations.

Getting the data to do the work: SME impact at market scale

SMEs are where the impact is needed (they are half of UK business emissions). For the vast majority, carbon reporting is a burden: manual, confusing, inconsistent, and disconnected from anything that actually helps them run their business better. 

Perseus flips this: with the SME’s permission, their energy data flows automatically into their accounting platform and to their lender. No spreadsheets, no data entry, no consultants: they get a verified emissions baseline, access to sustainable finance products they can’t easily reach, and a credible sustainability story they can use with their own customers and suppliers. 

Perseus meets them where they are, through the tools and relationships they already have, and costs them almost nothing to participate. Reducing friction and cost is the point of good data infrastructure, getting smart data to do the work so the SME gets the benefits, and the market gets the scale. 

Perseus is infrastructure, not a product

Most responses to addressing SME carbon emissions follow a familiar playbook: build an app, sign up users, grow a dataset, and sell reporting services. Some go further and package insights as a commercial proposition. Both hit the same ceiling: they create value for their own customers, but they don’t change the market.

“Carbon reporting can often be seen as a random number generator linked to compliance, not value.”

Data silos are no longer business moats

When data stays siloed and calculations stay inconsistent, every bank, accountant, lender, software provider keeps solving the same problem independently, at their own cost. Multiply that across the whole economy and you have a colossal, systemic waste of time and money: with no true comparability, little trust, and no efficiency of scale. As one senior expert put it, “it’s a random number generator linked to compliance, not value“.

“Perseus meets SMEs where they are, through the tools and relationships they already have, and costs them almost nothing to participate.”

Perseus takes a structurally different route (the same route Open Banking took). The design of Open Banking wasn’t to ‘make a better banking app’, it was that if you agree the rules by which data flows between any bank and any third party, every player in the market benefits simultaneously, and the infrastructure becomes self-reinforcing as more join.

Perseus applies exactly that logic to SME emissions data: not a pipe, not a platform, a Scheme. A Scheme is a shared rulebook that defines how the data flows, it is legally permissioned, technically assured, and provenance-stamped between energy data sources, carbon accountants, and lenders, regardless of which specific providers are involved.

Schemes are designed to ‘do as little as possible’ so that the heavy lifting that they do deliver, can deliver at scale. Perseus is not a database, or a calculator, or a portal. Instead it’s the trust layer that makes everyone else’s products work together, enables solutions to go to where the customer already is, and makes them credible due to the governance wrapped around its design.

“Perseus is not a database, or a calculator, or a portal. It’s the trust layer that makes everyone else’s products work together.”

No single organisation can build what Perseus builds collectively

Any carbon accounting platform can reach its existing customers, any energy data business can find organisations already looking for a data feed, any bank can bring these things together, but none of them can, on their own, shift the behaviour of 5.5 million SMEs and the financial system that serves them.

Perseus can because its Steering Group and commercial membership collectively represent the whole system: the banks, accountants, energy companies, trade associations, and SME platforms that already have the customer relationships. The joint communications that can flow from this coalition don’t just amplify awareness, or make ‘business today’ more efficient, it creates an addressable market that didn’t previously exist. By going far together, they can all reach SMEs who have never considered net zero was for them, through channels they already trust: their bank, their accountant, their software tools, and their trade association. Perseus is creating a route to market no individual organisation can replicate through its own sales effort, and this is estimated to be £5B-£10B by 2030 (see 2025 annual report).

Its benefits can compound in both directions: automating data flows that currently require manual effort, reducing the cost of compliance, reducing friction at every point in the chain and building customer trust not for one product, but at market scale.

“Perseus Members are defining where the rules of embedded sustainable finance are being written. The question isn’t whether this infrastructure gets built, it’s who helps shape it, and who arrives late.”

The value case for a Financial Services Provider (e.g. bank, lender)

There are reasonable objections a bank or lender might raise. Right now, Perseus is a UK SME Scheme, not where the biggest financed emissions numbers sit for most large institutions; they may have existing bilateral data arrangements they’re reluctant to revisit; and in a climate where public sustainability commitments are under scrutiny anything that looks ‘new’ can face internal resistance. 

These are valid questions, but they don’t change the underlying logic.

In impact, most initiatives measure engagement, they rarely measure or report on verifiable impact. Perseus enables continuous, assurable measurement, reporting and verification of impact. By harmonising the approach, the reporting is comparable across organisations.

On scale: the UK SME market is not a rounding error but half of all UK business emissions. Any lender with a material SME book has a financed emissions reporting problem that carries sufficient risk to increase their cost of capital. Perseus addresses this across the whole market at once. Perseus Members have indicated that ‘just’ energy (electricity and gas) addresses over 70% of their use cases, and the programme is designed to expand beyond energy based on Member needs (e.g. water). If we go far together, our collective impact is material and meaningful.

On existing bilateral arrangements: Perseus doesn’t replace them, it improves them through harmonisation of approach, liability and technical provenance. Joining doesn’t unwind existing relationships, rather it gives them an additional trust layer, aligned with the Data Act and endorsed by the Net Zero Council.

On the commitment: Perseus is not a ‘climate pledge’, but an action to deliver the data infrastructure for embedded sustainable finance. Operationally, it’s equivalent to joining any financial data scheme – a technical and commercial decision, not a public statement about net zero ambition. It supports diverse go-to-market impact messaging across cost savings, energy efficiency, energy security, net zero and transition planning. It’s not a campaigning approach, but rather a way to deliver measurable value to the market.

“Any lender with a material SME book has a financed emissions reporting problem that carries sufficient risk to increase their cost of capital.”

On governance and legal overhead: Perseus’ architecture is deliberately modelled on Open Banking. Its legal agreements, certificate infrastructure and KYC processes are designed to align with what regulated financial institutions already do (the path through legal and compliance is not trivial, but it is well-trodden).

Ultimately, the financial providers already in Perseus are sitting in the room where the rules of sustainable finance data infrastructure are being written. It is a choice to be a late adopter of a model that Perseus members helped design, for a membership fee and some internal process. The cost of joining later is accepting the rules written by others.

The value case for a Carbon Accounting Providers (whether financial or carbon management)

A CAP might ask: why do we need Perseus? (we already have integrations with energy data providers, have bank and lender customers, and are building the product that does this).

These are fair points, but miss what Perseus is.

“Perseus is not a database, or a calculator, or a portal. It’s the trust layer that makes everyone else’s products work together.”

Every CAP currently solving this problem is solving it alone: each has negotiated its own data access arrangements, built its own ingestion pipelines, made its own judgements about data quality, and written its own terms. The result is a market where every emissions calculation is done differently, every audit trail looks different, and no two outputs are directly comparable. That’s not a CAP problem to fix, it is a market structure problem, and no single CAP can fix market structure.

This has been the case for decades. Now the baseline calculation needs to become pre-competitive infrastructure (co-designed and delivered by the market) so that CAPs can compete on the value they build on top of it.

Collaborate on the rules, compete in the game

Perseus addresses this by establishing a common trust layer (common legal agreements, provenance standards, assurance levels, harmonised calculations) so that data flowing into any Perseus-connected CAP is verified, traceable, and comparable to data flowing into every other. This doesn’t commoditise the CAP’s product, but rather makes the CAP’s product something an SME or bank can actually rely on, report against, and put in front of an auditor with confidence.

On distribution: joining Perseus is not just a technical integration but access to a network of lenders, trade associations and SME platforms that collectively reach the entire UK SME market. This is a route to market no CAP can replicate through its own commercial efforts. Perseus-connected CAPs are not just selling software but access to a trusted, standards-aligned data flow that their competitors outside the scheme cannot match.

On the competitive question: the CAPs already building Perseus integrations reach hundreds of thousands of UK SMEs today. They are not waiting before positioning themselves within it. Waiting until Perseus is ‘already proven’ before engaging will find the integrations, the relationships, and the market positioning is already occupied.

On effort: Perseus adds a compliance overhead, but this is inversely proportional to scale. The cost of integrating once (which can be done in under a month) with a common framework is substantially lower than maintaining multiple bespoke bilateral arrangements as the market grows. Perseus reduces long-run complexity, it doesn’t add to it.

Spend-based estimates or manually uploaded spreadsheets are no longer fit-for-purpose. Perseus provides the foundations that CAPs can build on top of, creates trust, defensibility, reduces long-term costs, increases market engagement and innovation.

To go far, we go together.

Join Perseus today

Ref: https://drcf.org.uk/publications/papers/insightssmartdataframeworks 

Published on 26 March 2026, this report from the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) provides an international comparative analysis of Smart Data implementation models to inform the UK’s strategic approach under the Data (Use and Access) Act (DUAA) 2025.

Core focus

The report reviews how jurisdictions worldwide have approached consumer data portability and Smart Data ecosystems, drawing lessons to help the UK implement its cross-sectoral Smart Data ambitions. The DUAA 2025 empowers the Secretary of State to create sector-specific Smart Data schemes via secondary legislation, building on the Open Banking precedent. As of May 2025, one in five UK consumers and small businesses were actively using Open Banking services, up from one in seventeen in March 2021.

Three implementation models

The report categorises global Smart Data approaches into three main models:

1. Regulator-mandated 

Government-led, prescriptive legislation (e.g. Australia’s Consumer Data Right, Brazil’s Open Finance). Provides legal certainty and mandated participation, but risks high compliance costs, regulatory rigidity, and potential for stifling innovation. Australia’s experience is cited as a cautionary tale of disproportionate costs relative to uptake.

2. Market-facilitated  

Industry-driven, with regulators in a facilitative role (e.g. US, Japan, Hong Kong). Fosters innovation and commercial flexibility but suffers from inconsistent standards, fragmentation, slower incumbent adoption, and uncertain liability frameworks. The US is experiencing particular instability following legal challenges to its framework, which has been seen as lacking unambiguous positioning.

3. Public infrastructure-led 

Built on foundational national Digital Public Infrastructure such as digital identity and data exchange layers (e.g. Estonia’s X-Road, Singapore’s SGFinDex via Singpass). These solve interoperability and trust-by-design but require major upfront investment and sustained political commitment. Estonia saves an estimated 820+ years of working time annually through X-Road.

A fourth category, Hybrid and Transitioning, covers jurisdictions like India (Account Aggregator / DEPA framework, with over 100 million consents by 2024) and the UAE (transitioning from market-led to a centrally mandated Open Finance framework).

Key themes from the analysis

Governance

A central coordinating body is consistently identified as critical. Without it, sector-by-sector schemes under the DUAA risk creating new data silos rather than eliminating them.

Standards and interoperability

Cross-sector fragmentation is a recurring failure mode. The risk that different UK government departments managing different Smart Data schemes could produce divergent technical standards is highlighted as a significant concern.

Consumer consent journey

Legal compliance alone is insufficient. The quality of the consent user experience is as important as the legal principle. Brazil’s experience shows how broadly drafted consent forms led to data misuse and loss of public trust. India’s AA framework shows high consent numbers but low conversion due to friction. Singapore’s integration with Singpass is held up as a model of frictionless, trustworthy consent.

International alignment

The report recommends aligning with Gaia-X (the EU’s federated data infrastructure framework) to protect the UK’s data adequacy status (renewed until 2031), maintain access to EU digital markets, and reduce compliance burdens for internationally active businesses.

Anti-competitive risks

The report flags the possibility that Smart Data schemes could inadvertently facilitate tacit collusion if they enable easy monitoring of competitor pricing — a novel risk that warrants safeguards by design.

Considerations for the UK

The report proposes five strategic pillars:

1. A central Smart Data governance body to coordinate all schemes, set baseline standards, and prevent fragmentation.
2. Phased, use-case-driven rollout prioritising energy (for Net Zero), finance, and telecoms, learning iteratively before expanding.
3. Sector-tailored implementation models — acknowledging that some sectors suit market-led approaches while others need regulatory mandates, within a unified strategic framework.
4. Interoperability by design, integrating with the UK’s Digital Verification Services (DVS) trust framework (as envisioned in the DUAA) to create a trusted, unified consent architecture.
5. Clear secondary legislation covering liability frameworks, security standards, transparent cost-benefit processes, and safeguards against anti-competitive conduct.

Relevance to IB1

The DRCF report findings and recommendations are closely aligned with IB1’s existing work and strategic positioning.  

Central governance and Trust Frameworks

The report’s core recommendation, a ‘central’ body setting common baseline standards and ensuring cross-sectoral interoperability, closely mirrors the architecture IB1 has developed through its Trust Framework and Scheme architecture. The DRCF’s concern about fragmented sectoral schemes producing new data silos is precisely the problem IB1’s governance approach is designed to solve, specifically the interoperability between them.

Energy Smart Data and Perseus 

The report explicitly names energy as a priority sector for Smart Data designation, citing its alignment with Net Zero policy objectives. IB1’s Perseus programme, enabling permissioned energy data access for SME carbon reporting and green finance, is an existing example of the kind of sector-specific, use-case-driven scheme the report advocates.

Consent and liability frameworks

IB1 has developed detailed consent and liability standards across energy, water, finance, supply chains, and other sectors. The DRCF’s finding that the quality of the consent journey is as critical as the legal principle, and that clear liability apportionment is essential for industry confidence, directly reinforces the value of this work.

Interoperability across sectors

The report warns that without strong central coordination, different government departments could develop incompatible standards across schemes. IB1’s cross-sector interoperability work, including its engagement between Open Energy, Perseus and Open Banking, addresses this risk directly.

International standards alignment

The report recommends aligning with international frameworks such as Gaia-X. IB1’s engagement with cross-border data governance and its work across multiple jurisdictions is consistent with this direction.

The DRCF report diagnosis and recommendations map closely with the approach IB1 has built, and provides independent external validation of the strategic importance of IB1’s work.

• twenty interoperable Smart Data schemes by 2035
• £36m of Industrial Strategy investment
• cross-sector Trust Frameworks and data sharing interoperability across the economy

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smart-data-strategy

For IB1, this is core to our work – and features the Perseus programme. It underpins how we will help deliver our sustainable economy into a data-enabled digital-first era, building the load-bearing foundations for trust, protecting our data rights, and delivering impact.

Open Banking took a decade to get right: we can now move much, much faster. The opportunity isn’t just ‘switching’, it’s opening up new markets and connecting financial flows to real-world outcomes at scale. The time to engage is now: the schemes being shaped today will define the data infrastructure of the next decade.

The UK has a great team helping to lead this, with Samantha as co-chair, the Department for Business and Trade (Siobhan, Agnieszka, Priya, and a growing support team), and non-govt Smart Data Council members including Henk, Adam, Liz, Charlie, Marie, Chris, Ezechi, Ghela, Helen, Joe, Josh , Louise, Maria, Nicola, Stephen, Jane, Lucy, Sue and many others across industry and government now engaged.

At Icebreaker One it’s what we’ve been building with IB1 Open Energy Perseus, STREAM and our Data Infrastructure work and we will continue to lead on Open Sustainable Finance.

Event: https://smefinanceforum.org

The SME Finance Forum (SMEFF) is a network of 300+ members and affiliates with a coverage spanning across 190+ countries. The members are primarily financial services providers such as banks, fintechs, non-bank financial institutions, development finance institutions, credit guarantee companies, and microfinance institutions. The affiliates consist of policy advocacy groups, academia, SME and banking associations, training providers, and non-profit organizations.

Today we presented Perseus to the Forum, and encourage people to join the IB1 Constellation to learn more about our work (it’s free to join).

The Sustainable SME Finance hub focuses on the challenges and opportunities of extending green finance to the SME sector. Sessions cover all aspects of environmentally sustainable SME finance, including green finance, blue finance, and finance for climate change resilience. The community discusses innovative technologies for monitoring and verification, maps sources of DFI and government support for green finance, and showcases members’ work in terms of sustainable SME finance in practice.

There was a huge amount of optimism in the room — that we are ‘at a transition moment’ where we could get this right, or miss opportunities, or create new risks.

As we are likely to do all of the above, we must to act now and work together to maximise the value for our society, our environment and our economy while addressing material risks. As I phrased it,

We can build on a critical mass, or end up in a critical mess.

We heard from digital identity providers about the huge growth and opportunities in the sector, from private sector companies that have seen ‘misuse’ of legal precedents to try and stop them adding value to consumers and workers, the scale of benefit to getting data interoperability right, and the risks that if we do not seize this moment to get data governance right then we are exposing ourselves, our economy and our country to systemic risks.

I wanted to summarise some of the key points from across the day, with a particular focus on the policy landscape, and what this means for us. The Government panel included a great cross-section of the ecosystem.

My main take-aways from the day are:

1. We need to take a bold and broad view of data’s role in our economy, as part of our industrial strategy
2. There are material opportunities to drive economic growth and improve market outcomes
3. There is a critical need for a coherent policy approach to data
4. Collaboration and coordination is essential, across government departments and with industry
5. There are many government initiatives: Digital Information and Smart Data Bill, National Data Library and AI Action Plan (and more) that need to be connected
6. Smart data policy is focusing on both customer and business data and we must align them, while letting each address their own needs
7. The upcoming smart data bill will give government powers to introduce smart data schemes in any sector
8. There is need to support strategy development with new ministers, and input is being actively sought now
9. Initiatives should be impact and value-led with a focus on user needs, not ‘tech-led’
10. Without robust, scalable and flexible data governance we will create new risks (especially with AI)
11. Smart data schemes are important for both consumer empowerment and market competition
12. Open Banking continues to be an exemplar
13. We must address the regulatory foundations, costs and incentives in the development of any Schemes
14. We must balance data protection with data access and innovation
15. Trust is central to development and investment is needed in capacity and capabilities
16. We must coordinate and collaborate with international initiatives, some of which are very well funded (e.g. the EU has invested €1B in Data Spaces)

Everyone in the room sees the potential of smart data initiatives to drive innovation and economic growth. There was also good acknowledgement of the complexities and challenges in implementing such schemes effectively. For example, there are material economic and societal risks of ‘corporate capture’ (e.g. castle-moat behaviours) and that it’s not a ‘technology problem’ (we have the tech today).

The design principles that we put in place now must:
1. Act to provide clarity (e.g. roadmaps) so everyone can plan
2. Act now: the time for theory is over
3. Address the (timely, material) risks of known unknowns

My policy view is that the UK has:

1. A comprehensive approach. It is cross-departmental and recognises the value of policy and regulation as catalysts to economic growth, service improvements, and legal protections.
2. A foundational legislative framework. Primary and secondary legislation will provide powers to introduce smart data schemes across sectors and create a foundation for data schemes across the economy.
3. An emergent approach to balancing priorities of data protection and security with the innovation and economic growth. The development of Trust Frameworks and Schemes, done well, should increase data access and portability while addressing risks of many forms.
4. A sector-based approach. It recognises that different sectors must own and shape their own destinies, while enforcing cohesion and interoperability across the legislative spectrum.
5. An understanding of the need for public-private action. Smart Data Schemes are powerful tools that can enforce these and must include:
   • Mandated participation
   • Mandatory interoperability between schemes
   • Regulatory oversight
   • Clarification on costs
   • Clarification on incentives (positive and negative)
   • Flexibility to adapt to market changes

There was general acknowledgement of the scale of the task ahead: multi-stakeholder engagement, alignment on language, building skills and capabilities, the articulation of material benefits, and the demonstration of impact to build trust, systemically and carefully, over time.

There is a growing public expectation of data portability, and we must align policy and their implementation with this culture change.

The foundation of open markets is transparency. The foundation of a digitally-enabled economy is interoperability. As such we must base our approach on open systems, and design for open.

The UK has led the world with initiatives such as Open Banking. It has, in some opinions, fallen behind over subsequent years. My opinion is the UK is ‘connected’ enough that it can rapidly redress this and, once again, accelerate to a leadership position. It has exceptional skills that can navigate the complex landscape of data rights and technological change to deliver economic, environmental and social benefits.

We must address the market architecture for an open (digitally-enabled) economy.

From a business perspective, I believe business leaders must now address data sharing at board level. Data isn’t ‘a technology’ — it makes markets.

I’ve long advocated that data increases in value the more it is connected. The imperative is, therefore, to reduce the friction to such connections. Smart Data Schemes can enable this at market-wide scale.

Businesses should understand that:

• Smart Data schemes will open up new opportunities for innovation and market entry
• preparation is needed for upcoming regulations and potential costs of scheme participation
• there is huge potential for cross-sector data applications and new product/service development
• that customer data portability and security will increase in importance
• there is a value in engaging with policymakers and investing in technologies to leverage smart data initiatives

The room was under no illusion that there are many material challenges. There will be a process of ‘creative destruction’, new threat vectors and many incumbent interests that will not want to address this systems change.

However, the ship is now leaving the port, the time for theory is over: time to act is now.

If you’d like to get in touch or follow progress, please connect on LinkedIn: Icebreaker One or directly with me, or join our mailing list.

Trusted data, urgently needed

Data has a huge role to play in delivering net zero by 2050.

Good data is vital for: verifying that organisations are meeting their commitments; enabling investors to shift their investments towards sustainable finance; and driving green energy innovation and production. But despite generating huge quantities of data every day, we’re not making the most of it.

Take data about companies’ emissions. Even when it’s shared, it’s seen as an exercise in after-the-fact reporting in PDFs, rather than continuous flows of well-structured, reliable data. Poor data is making it more difficult to quantify, invest and take action – for example, companies with low emissions struggle to prove their credentials and access green finance.

At Icebreaker One, we make data work harder to deliver net zero.

Building data infrastructure for net zero

Rather than build centralised databases or portals—which are expensive, fragile and struggle to scale—we drive the development of the minimal infrastructure needed to unlock data across organisations and create open markets.

Viewing data as infrastructure means applying the same principles we’ve long valued in physical infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Like an effective road, effective data infrastructure:

• Facilitates the production of value (a road doesn’t directly transport people itself).
• Supports multiple and diverse use cases (a road supports various types of carriage, including cars, bicycles, freight, etc).
• Is persistent and reliable (we can be confident a road will be there in a similar state tomorrow).
• Has interrelated, standardised components (including widths, markings, signage, etc).
• Is itself interrelated with other infrastructure (bridges, airports, parking lots, etc).
• Is governed by clear rules, which can be enforced (and can be varied to meet different the needs of different environments).
• Supports different business models (open, restricted, toll-based).

We believe that data infrastructure must address public and private sector needs, and should be governed openly and independently. Our approach is inspired by the UK’s Open Banking Standard, which has enabled data to flow in new ways across financial systems. It now has 10M UK users, applications in 80+ countries and is projected to sustain a $12B market of products and services.

And we’re making progress in delivering high-quality data infrastructure for net zero. Perseus, for example, will enable businesses to access over $100B of green finance, by automating high-quality sustainability reporting for every SME in the UK. More than 60 organisations have come together to build Perseus, including Visa, Sage and HSBC.

The case for philanthropy

While we’re making progress through projects funded by industry and the public sector, this type of funding isn’t conducive to building infrastructure for the long-term.

Developing effective infrastructure involves building teams with predictable and flexible investment rather than lumpy, unpredictable funding that’s tied to particular projects. Philanthropy is able to provide the former, which is especially important in the short run when firms may not yet be willing to pay to access infrastructure that has yet to reach a critical mass of users or utility.

Philanthropic capital is also vital to ensure that our net-zero data infrastructure prioritises the public interest. While industry must participate in its design, there’s a risk that, if left to the market alone, the direction of data use might be dictated by commercial actors. Our approach at IB1 ensures that no individual or entity can take disproportionate control of net zero data, and that end user needs rather than organisational agendas drive progress.

Like Open Supply Hub, which exists to make supply chain data open, accessible and trusted, our non-profit status “conveys our neutrality to stakeholders and our belief that everyone along the supply chain deserves to have a seat at the table as we try to address deep, systemic issues”. As the neutral, non-profit orchestrator for net-zero data, we engender the trust required among groups of organisations to open up access to data that they would otherwise keep locked away.

Organisations like IB1 have been described as Gazelles—a new breed of organisation for the 21st Century. We are not trying to be a Unicorn pumped with venture capital and optimised only for shareholder return, nor a Show Pony sustained only with grant funding and with limited real-world value. We agree that “it’s time to blaze a middle path in which philanthropic capital funds a variety of data service providers that are accountable to paying customers”.

Download: IB1 Concept Note for philanthropic funders

We’re working to make it easier for philanthropic audiences to engage with our work and are exploring new partnerships. You can read more about our plans in our concept note, or get in contact with us. The time for theory is over.

IB1 provided a keynote presentation for the event.

Workshop Overview:
The UK-India Data Stewardship for Climate through AI workshop is a collaborative initiative of the
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) with the Aapti Institute, Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT) Bombay and the Open Data Institute (ODI), aimed at addressing the pressing
challenges of climate change through responsible data stewardship and the application of artificial
intelligence (AI) technologies. With climate change posing significant threats to ecosystems,
communities, and economies globally, there is an urgent need for innovative approaches to mitigate
its impacts and adapt to changing environmental conditions. This project seeks to harness the power of data and AI to enhance our understanding of climate dynamics, facilitate evidence-based decision-
making, and drive actionable solutions towards a more sustainable future.

REACT & NIMBUS: Our first advisory group meeting of the year comes from the REACT project, tomorrow January 16th closely followed by NIMBUS on the 24th. Both projects are set to support SSEN-Transmission’s net-zero transition. 

Perseus: Following the delivery of a 100-page report at COP28 and with over 130 partners behind us, project Perseus picks up where we left off, looking forward to our in-person event at the end of January. Get in touch with our team if you want to get involved or find out more.

Stream: As the Stream project progresses, we look forward to seeing a growing list of datasets become available. This should act as a driving force for innovation, helping the industry to decarbonise while also providing benefits for customers and wider society. The next advisory group meeting takes place on January 29th. 

If you have any questions about any of our projects, feel free to reach out via: community@ib1.org

Highlights from our constellation:

• David Carlin highlights the new standards coming into effect this year, recognising a trend toward greater collaboration between standard setters.
• Chris Stark has been appointed as CEO at climate change consultancy, Carbon Trust, after leading the Climate Committee for 6 years. Carbon Trust has also recently announced that it is a founding member of the Carbon Accounting Alliance. 
• Andrew Griffiths looks ahead at this year’s sustainability trends in PlanetMark’s upcoming webinar. 

In the news:

• Fossil fuel use lowest since 1957: Electricity generated by fossil fuels fell by 20% in 2023, while renewable energy provided the single largest source of power to the grid at a record 42%.
• Government misses EV charge point target: The Department for Transport was unable to meet its 2023 target to install six rapid or ultra-rapid EV charge points in every motorway service station. 
• COP29: Azerbaijan appoints former oil executive as climate conference president: Azerbaijan has appointed Ecology Minister Mukhtar Babayev as the President-Designate to oversee the COP29 climate conference later this year in Baku.

Almost all of the data we need already exists. But it’s not getting to the right places. 

Lack of trusted data flow leads to poor decisions that make it more risky and difficult to quantify and invest in the transition to net zero.

Better data infrastructure – like licensing, assurance, and security – will make it easier to make net-zero decisions at speed, with confidence and at a global scale. 

The world must be able to find, share and trust the data we need to get to net zero. That requires data-sharing infrastructure – and Icebreaker One is developing it.

A FOSDA/Icebreaker One analysis of net zero data brought this opportunity to life. It identified a series of data gaps and holes – problems with data availability, reliability and comparability. It found ‘hotspots’ of problems where data is too difficult to find or too difficult to trust – like energy consumption and production by source, greenhouse gas emissions, and supply chain reporting. 

This is why trust in data is one of the main areas for improvement highlighted in the EU’s July 2021 revised sustainable finance strategy, which aims to improve ESG ratings. 

This isn’t a challenge that needs new technology. Many attempts to consolidate data—new databases and portals—struggle to scale. We need to develop the rules of the road, not a new database. Unless we act now, we’ll let the opportunity to modernise slip through our fingers.

Who needs data-sharing infrastructure?

All Icebreaker One projects involve identifying use cases – specific examples of user needs around data access and use in order to achieve a particular net-zero outcome. They allow us to understand who needs to access data, what data they need, and the impact it could have. 

Three use cases from our projects illustrate the wide range of stakeholders who need better access to data to get to net zero.

Use case 1: getting more electric cars on the road

Just one electric car on the roads can save an average 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per year, according to EDF. But more than 30% of households in the UK cannot install at-home electric vehicle charge points, highlighting the importance of affordable and nearby on-street charging. 

Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) are an essential player in getting more charge points on the UK’s streets. Their connection departments are responsible for processing and managing requests to the grid for electricity in the here and now, as well as forecasting future capacity requirements so that they can prioritise where to invest in greater capacity.

They need to know when and where charge points will be installed (domestic, public, commercial and industrial), the nature of these charge points (slow, rapid, ultrarapid, for example), and how they are utilised. But there is currently no mandatory registration of installations, with data having to be pulled from multiple sources. Data on utilisation of different types of charge point and plans for future installations is even more patchy and problematic to access. 

They need data infrastructure that implements a Trust Framework , which automates data licensing, security checks, and technical integration. Using a Trust Framework, a DNO will be able to access this information more quickly and cost-effectively, accessing hundreds of datasets with just one round of authentication and technical integration.  This in turn helps them make sure that grid capacity can meet the demand from newly installed EV charge points. 

The trust framework also allows DNOs to collaborate more effectively with other industry stakeholders. As well as accessing others’ data, DNOs can publish their own data securely, safe in the knowledge that only authenticated users can access it. That will help ensure that the UK is able to meet its ambitious targets for EV ownership by 2030 and beyond. 

Read more

Use case 2: making our homes more energy efficient

The energy consumption of existing buildings accounts for around 34% of the UK’s annual carbon emissions. What’s more, 80% of buildings in use today will still be in use by 2050, the same year we have pledged to reach our net zero emissions target. It is therefore evident that the decarbonisation of our buildings and homes through retrofitting is a fundamental requirement if we are to stay within the boundaries of the Paris Agreement. 

Data has a central part to play in realising these retrofitting goals. In fact, the looming task of making our buildings more energy efficient cannot be realised without data. Our Standard for Environment, Risk, and Insurance (SERI) programme recognised this when we designed a climate-ready building passport (C-RBP). The C-RBP is a tool for insurers to pool together data on the physical, environmental, financial, risk and regulatory elements of a building, and in doing so, provide a more well-rounded, accurate and timely view of risk. 

By improving the discovery, access and use of data with the C-RBP, insurers can more accurately price risk while incorporating climate change mitigation measures into their policies. This incentivises net-zero behaviours from their customers such as retrofitting. The impact of data goes further still, helping asset owners and investors align their assets with ESG regulations. 

Read more

Use case 3: unlocking green finance to help small businesses cut emissions

There are more than 5.9 million Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the UK, accounting for around half of the country’s business greenhouse gas emissions.

But there is no common process to follow when reporting emissions, and many reports are based on inaccurate estimates. SMEs’ stakeholders like banks and corporate customers are therefore receiving low-quality data that is not comparable or actionable. 

To address this, Icebreaker One is working with Bankers for Net Zero to convene a cross-sector coalition – called Project Perseus – to build the data infrastructure we need to improve emissions reporting. 

Perseus will enable automated sustainability reporting for every small business in the UK, so that we can reduce emissions faster. It will make it easy to share accurate, assurable data that sits behind emissions calculations. It will inform investment decisions, enable targeted decarbonisation interventions, reduce reporting burdens and unlock green finance. 

Read more

The open survey is now live via https://ib1.org/2023/10/06/uk-survey-carbon-reporting-solutions

The British Business Bank (BBB) have commissioned Icebreaker One to help understand the landscape of carbon calculators and ESG ‘software tools’ available to UK SMEs.

The key research questions we are aiming to address are: 

“What is currently out there, and what is needed to help accelerate impact to Net Zero?”

Before sending out our first survey, aligned with Icebreaker One’s open approach, we are starting this process by asking for your inputs into what the questions should be. 

We are acutely aware that this is a broad category and there are many, often blurred, distinctions of what solutions provide, and refining this to help bring clarity to the market is part of the work.

If you are either a solutions provider or a user of solutions, we would like your input today.

If you would like to give feedback on the questions, you can comment in this Google Doc, or download this Word Doc version and comment.

We’ll send out the actual survey next Friday 6th October and your input today will help us make it better. 

We will also be reaching out to specific organisations to interview them and gather more detail. If you are interested in participating in an interview please contact research@ib1.org. If you can’t access the Google Document, email that address and we’ll send the questions as an attachment. 

Please be a ‘critical friend’ with your input, and don’t miss this opportunity to shape important national research. 

Notes

We will publish aggregate results of this work openly for the benefit of everyone. The better the inputs we get, the more everyone can orient around what works.

We are not looking for sales or marketing presentations from companies. We are focussed on quantitative and qualitative comparisons that BBB can use in addressing and/or supporting market needs.

We are not looking to assess or review any standards, frameworks, methodologies.

Click here to review and comment on the open discussion document
You also contact us at research@ib1.org with comments or if you can’t access Google Docs

How can we build trust in data: in the organisations supplying it, and those using it? 

How can we create a race to the top, building on existing lessons learned and a wealth of prior art? 

Today we are initiating a new chapter in Icebreaker One’s development: Assurance. We are seeking feedback and active engagement in its live development. Our work on this includes both organisational assurance and assurance for datasets. Assurance is being designed for both data publishers and data users. 

Our chosen approach is not to publish research papers but rather to launch a live service. This also supports our broader Trust Framework development. 

Our aim is to help two types of users. For data publishers, we want to give teams inside organisations a clear and confident path to support high-quality and standards-aligned publishing. This work will support the development of internal processes for data publishing.  For data users, we want to enable teams to have confidence that they have permission to find, access and use data from other organisations. To do so, we have heard people want to know they can trust the organisation’s processes as well as how they are applied to individual datasets. 

Preamble: Why are we doing this?

1. Because people have asked for help. Throughout our consultations on data sharing within and across sectors, practitioners in every organisation we’ve spoken to have expressed a need to build trust and confidence in data. This includes building confidence within data publishers about whether and how they should share data externally, and building confidence for data consumers that the data and its source can be relied upon. In response to this, earlier this year we announced that assurance would be the focus of the next phase of development on the Icebreaker One Trust Framework. 
2. Because data from the real economy is becoming subject to the same scrutiny and processes as exist in the financial economy. It has taken centuries to build processes around financial systems that are the basis of trust in our economy. Creating the basis for trust systems in the real economy is hard for many reasons: there are many more input dimensions (e.g. energy, resources, processes) and many more transformations (e.g. methodologies for carbon assessment). There are also many, many more sources, ranging from earth observation to soil sensors, and smart meters to self-driving vehicles. We are on a path of exponential change where the number of digital systems that need to speak to each other in a trusted manner will dwarf the current web. 
3. Because industry, governments and society need a way of joining up policy, finance and impact to address systemic challenges. We need systems that both humans and machines can use: we cannot (and should not) budget for a ‘technotopian’ future. While AI may take a lead role in many decisions, humans need to be able to trust the machines to trust other machines. Solutions must meet diverse user needs whether those users are policymakers, investors, data scientists, asset managers or startups; whether they are skilled professionals or interns. We need to design for people, not just things. 

Trust in data, and the policies and processes that surround data, need common points of value. To make them usable they need to be simple enough to be effective, and effective enough to be simple: we’ve seen many solutions that either over-complicate or over-simplify and are trying to strike a balance. We don’t yet know what ‘good’ looks like and we need your help to navigate towards that.

Our primary use case is to develop a market architecture that addresses climate change. To achieve our collective goals we must align data strategies with our sustainable development goals. We need better language, and deeper insights, to move these topics forward. We must address both private sector and public sector objectives. As data becomes weaponised, trust will become a foundational element of our data infrastructure.

Click here to review and comment on the open discussion document
You also contact us at partners@ib1.org with comments or if you can’t access Google Docs

Open Collaboration — we need your input

Over the summer we have consulted with members, reviewing substantial prior work from many sources, researching existing systems, and developing solutions to address the need for confidence in a manner that is both sector-agnostic and can scale. Today we are pleased to release the first version of the Assurance approach for open discussion and development.

The assurance approach will help organisations to demonstrate the level of maturity that they have reached in data publication. They set out separate requirements for organisations and individual datasets. These can be used by data consumers to assess the extent to which they can rely on the data being published. 

Membership of Icebreaker One will provide the contractual basis for assurance, including mechanisms to create redress and dispute resolution when levels are not met. By joining Icebreaker One, organisations can demonstrate their commitment to high-quality data sharing by aligning to an independent service. Membership also enables organisations to inform and shape the future direction of Trust Framework development through participation in our collaborative Icebreaking process.

“We’d like to develop a standard for our data”

As always, the thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. And, in the context of the work we do at Icebreaker One, these span domains and sectors. 

So, instead of developing standards, we help people come together (through our Icebreaking process) to choose what works for their use cases, then help align and implement rules that mandate their utilisation, as part of a Trust Framework. Based on patterns in those implementations we look for what is repeatable and can scale.

Below is a primer on some of the (many) ways to think about the words ‘data’ and ‘standards’.

• Classification Standards define a systematic way of categorizing data or objects based on predefined criteria, facilitating consistency and organization.
• Data File Format Standards specify the structure and encoding of files to ensure compatibility and interoperability between different software applications and platforms.
• Data Format Standards encompass guidelines for structuring data, including the arrangement of data elements and their representation, ensuring uniformity in data representation.
• Data Inflow Standards establish protocols for the reception and integration of data from external sources into an organization’s systems or databases.
• Data Management Standards provide best practices and guidelines for the effective handling, storage, and maintenance of data throughout its lifecycle.
• Data Organization Standards outline principles for arranging data elements, records, or datasets in a structured and logical manner for easy access and retrieval.
• Data Provider Standards set expectations and requirements for entities or systems that supply data to ensure data quality, consistency, and reliability.
• Data Sharing Standards define protocols and rules for securely exchanging data between organizations or systems, often emphasizing privacy, security, and consent.
• Geospatial Data Standards govern the format, content, and interoperability of geographic or spatial data, enabling consistent representation and analysis of location-based information.
• Governance Standards encompass a framework of policies, processes, and controls that guide and oversee data-related activities to ensure compliance, quality, and accountability.
• Linking and Matching Standards provide guidelines for identifying and connecting related data records or entities, often used in data integration and deduplication processes.
• Metadata Standards specify how descriptive information about data, such as data definitions, source details, and usage instructions, should be structured and formatted.
• Standardized Variable Standards define conventions for naming, measuring, and representing data variables to enhance consistency and comparability in data analysis and reporting.

As you can see, these embody many questions. It is easy to get lost in trying to define these in a generic manner (although there are often holistic models that can be utilised) and it can turn into quite an academic exercise. Instead, focusing on use cases helps drive towards what can be made consistent out of the chaos.

Here’s another useful view on creating consistency before standards: https://blog.ldodds.com/2023/09/18/consistency-before-standards/

And this ODI guide: https://standards.theodi.org/introduction/types-of-open-standards-for-data/

Full archive of videos: https://www.nasonline.org/programs/scientific-forum/researcher-access.html

Icebreaker One’s presentation begins at 46m 44s.

Session 4:  Privately Held Data: Opportunities, Challenges, and Lessons for Researchers from The National Academies on Vimeo.

Session 4:  Privately Held Data: Opportunities, Challenges, and Lessons for Researchers

This session will explore data collected by private companies, which often contain useful insights that can help alleviate major societal challenges including climate change, healthcare, food security, and disinformation. Accessing this data, however, can be costly, controversial, and unreliable. Solving these challenges could help unlock vast amounts of data for researchers, providing novel insights and better guidance for policymakers. With lessons from social media platforms, mobile health applications, and retailers, this session will highlight best practices for accessing data held by private companies and consider solutions to the challenges of commercial sensitivity, data protection, and emergency preparedness. Attendees can expect to leave with an understanding of the value to be gained from privately held data, topical data security challenges, and an overview of partnership-enhancing technologies.

• Gina Neff, Professor and Executive Director, Minderoo Centre for Technology & Democracy, University of Cambridge
• Henry T. (Hank) Greely, Professor, Stanford School of Medicine, Director, Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford University
• Cyndi Grossman, Senior Director, Biogen Digital Health
• Uyi Stewart, Chief Data and Technology Officer, Data.org
• Gavin Starks, Founder and CEO, Icebreaker One

Icebreaker One, as governance advisory partner, launched an interim Steering Group in 2023. The goal was to shape the governance structure of Stream, working to establish a lasting set of robust governance measures and engagement opportunities.

Customers: Using open data insights into water usage, utilities can optimise water management, minimise losses and ultimately pass these savings on to customers.

Society: The open data framework encourages more data-driven decision making. This results in improved services and the prevention of environmental incidents, benefitting society as a whole.

The Environment: By drawing on collective experience, sharing our research and best practices, we can reach our net-zero goals quicker. This kind of collaboration is crucial for carbon reduction in the water sector.

Key figures

• 16 water and professional services companies
• 9 workstreams
• 10 month delivery roadmap
• £3.9 million awarded by Water Breakthrough Challenge Phase 2

A particularly interesting update for those of us aiming to improve interoperability and accelerate data sharing was the specification of Dublin Core as the minimum metadata standard, with a requirement for it to be implemented within 12 months i.e. August 6, 2024.

Decision on updates to Data Best Practice Guidance and Digitalisation Strategy and Action Plan Guidance

3.35. 71% of respondents approved of the proposal to mandate Dublin Core as a common Metadata standard, with an additional 21% approving but with queries or caveats. When asked for alternative suggestions for a common standard, the only option considered was DCAT, a variant of Dublin Core.
3.36. We have considered this, weighing its merits against the established and tested nature of Dublin Core, and the international and multi-sector uptake of Dublin Core as a standard, and have decided to mandate Dublin Core as the Metadata standard.

In our response to the consultation that led to Ofgem’s update we advocated for the standard to be DCAT, a refined and extended version of Dublin Core that is widely supported by data catalogue software, and in the form of DCAT-AP is the primary format in the EU for government data catalogues and the organisations that report into them.

DCAT and CKAN are mostly 1:1 compatible with the 15 Common Fields in the Dublin Core but there are some gaps. DCAT doesn’t include the coverage, date and subject fields, and the standard CKAN DCAT plugin doesn’t import or export the creator, contributor and relation fields.

Icebreaker One has searched for definitive guidance for mapping these gaps between DC and DCAT (these mappings are called “crosswalks”). We didn’t find anything that answered the question once-and-for-all, but there are some clues.

• The Research Data Alliance built a crosswalk into schema.org from various standards, including DC and DCAT. The data behind this is in a CSV on the RDA GitHub. By seeing how they think DC and DCAT should map to schema.org, we can infer what a mapping between the two would mean.

• The EU is putting a lot of effort into this at the moment under the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) initiative. Specifically a report on interoperability that proposes a lingua-franca for metadata in Appendix I, and the work to establish a crosswalk registry between standards, which is still in the requirements-gathering stage. We’re looking forward to this work reaching determinations that will help drive universal crosswalk standards.

In the absence of clear external standards, we have developed a proposed mapping – see below.

We would welcome feedback on this. You can leave comments directly in the document.

The future of our digital economy is based on data interoperability   

Regarding data, today is the ‘simplest’ the landscape will be. We have, and will continue to, see huge economic and social value generated from the utilisation of data. 

Data are being generated from web-based, industrial and financial systems, from our built world and our environment. To fully exploit its value, we need to connect data to those who need it. We need to reduce the friction of finding, accessing, and using both commercial and non-commercial data to enable better decision-making, analysis and insights that can help citizens, businesses and government unlock value.

A key attribute of smart data is that it is everywhere. In designing systems fit for a web-enabled era, it is essential to address data governance as a distinct area of work from its  ‘utilisation’.

This isn’t a problem that needs new technology. Many attempts to consolidate data—new databases and portals—struggle to scale. Our economic and infrastructure systems are being digitalized in a decentralised and distributed way.

There is no ‘centre’ in a system like this: we need to connect data, not collect it. 

Trust Frameworks enable this by setting the rules of the road and addressing risks and concerns that prevent the sharing and use of data. To unlock the market architecture for trusted and secure data sharing requires an open, standards-based approach. 

A Trust Framework is a very thin layer to enable market actors to agree on the rules of the game. An implementation entity for a Trust Framework can (a) assure organisations are who they say they are; (b) ensure alignment around pre-agreed rules (e.g. licensing, consent, liability, technical and non-technical areas); and (c) enable and facilitate monitoring, enforcement and modes of redress aligned with those rules.

To enable pre-authorised access to data, Trust Frameworks include verification and assurance services for organisations who wish to share, access and use data. For the avoidance of doubt, Trust Frameworks do not replace other forms of data aggregation and management and, indeed, they can act to enable them. 

The UK has led the world in the creation of such frameworks, through Open Banking (which is regulated in the UK and has been copied in over 80 countries) and Open Energy (which is in development, part-funded by industry and government).  

An open market design for data must ensure that such markets are: 

1. Cohesive — common rules across markets 
2. Interoperable — common processes, frameworks, connections
3. Legal — common frameworks for data rights, liability, redress
4. Controlled — common, rights-based consent management for access to data
5. Universal — open to the whole market

Five core principles for the underpinning data infrastructure include; that:

1. Trusted data is essential to our digital future.
   Accurate, trustworthy data that informs action is essential to decision-makers across society, industry and government. It helps derisk decisions, accelerates new solutions to market and enables transparent monitoring against targets. 
2. Access to data must be open
   Data must be made discoverable and accessible to those who need it.  To unlock public and private sector benefits, the ability to effectively share data (using Open or Shared licenses) across sectors is essential. It includes both the real economy and the financial economy. Data must be machine-readable, and have open metadata to enable its discovery.
3. Rules for data sharing should address public and private sector needs
   To enable access to data, the definition of the rules used to share it requires participation from diverse actors. Robust policies and standards can also support assurance and audit. Data owners need to be able to control who can access it in a manner that addresses commercial, legal and regulatory requirements.
4. Data infrastructure must be governed openly and independently
   To maintain an open market, data infrastructure must include public and private sector actors in its design, implementation and enforcement. A market-neutral body is a preferred approach to developing such data infrastructure and will include remits of data governance, policy, licensing, technical and operational principles. This infrastructure needs to be developed, and iterated upon, at a pace that is relevant to the urgency of the issues being tackled. Both its processes, and outputs related to its implementation, should be openly licenced.
5. Data infrastructure requires mandates for engagement
   To close data gaps as rapidly as possible and address the public interest, Governments and regulators should define rules for access to specific data, mandate participation and drive adoption. Similarly, industry initiatives can define rules for specific industry benefit, and act as catalysts to adoption. Common policies and open standards must create mandates for machine-readable data, data access processes, access control and mechanisms for enforcement that unlock data flow. 

If you would like to learn more, please get in touch partners@ib1.org

To endorse these principles for net zero data, please sign the https://ib1.org/icebreaker-principles.

Scope

The starting point for the programme is electricity. 

1. Users

Users are defined as:

A. Primary Users:

1. Banks
2. SMEs
3. Asset managers
4. Third parties (e.g. accountants, accountancy software firms, carbon accountants, auditors, consultants and advisors)

B. Data Providers:

5. Primary data providers (e.g. energy companies, utilities, smart meter providers, national grid, asset managers)

C. Stakeholders

6. Government and regulators (DESNeZ, Ofgem)
7. Standards bodies (e.g. PCAF, ISSB) 
8. Reporting bodies and users of outputs (e.g. CDP, LSEG, Bloomberg) 
9. Universities 

The ‘decision makers’ will vary across organisations, however, in this programme, it could be a regulator or code body or a voluntary code adopted by industry through the Advisory and Steering Groups. Summaries of the business case for each user are included in the FAQ https://ib1.org/perseus-faq/

2. Data needs 

The task is to identify which primary data links to material impact for each user. We also wish to gather a list of ‘all the data needs’ so they can be added to the long-term roadmap.

For electricity we want to know, for each user, what specific data is needed, and at what level of resolution. For example, 

1. Spend
2. kWh (total consumption and total generation)
3. kgCO2e (including methodology, supplier, time resolution) 
4. Time resolution (e.g. annual, quarterly, monthly, 30-minute, bill-based, smart meter) and aligned with reporting needs vs impact incentives and recommendations
5. Source
   1. Data (e.g. retailer, landlord, smart meter, aggregator, third party)
   2. Supply (reserve capacity, power factor, national grid, tariffs, renewable energy)
      1. Generation/contract information on the supply (PPAs, REGOs, generation mix)
6. Asset resolution (e.g. company, primary asset, sublet)

3. Reporting needs 

The task is to identify what the reporting needs are for each user, related to electricity. For example,

1. Which reporting framework is being used? (e.g. PCAF, TCFD, ESOS)
2. Which emission reporting models/methodologies are being used? (e.g. GHG protocol)
3. What emissions factors/algorithms are being used (e.g. national grid, supplier-source, Defra, DESNeZ, Ofgem)
4. What time resolution and formats are required for reporting? 

4. Impact and decision-making needs

The task is to identify ‘so what’. Specifically:

1. What impact or influence does assurable electricity data make to the risk profile of reporting on lending (Scope3 cat 15)?
2. What impact or influence does continuous access to this data have on the risk profile of lending and other financial products and incentives (e.g. tax incentives)? 
3. What impact or influence does access to assurable data have on reporting and standards? (e.g. PCAF, TCFD, ISSB)  
4. What impact or influence does access to assurable data have on regulation and policy? (e.g. DESNeZ)  
5. What impact or influence does access to assurable data have on users of reporting data? (e.g. CDP, LSEG)  
6. And, combined, what is the impact of these and/or influences on SMEs? 

Collective agreement on our assessment and direction

The core questions for this group are around impact and influence: 

1. Does it help unlock access to net zero finance for SMEs? (to help SMEs decarbonise; change behaviour; increase resilience)
2. Does it reduce risks for users?
3. Does it bring efficiency to users?
4. Does it help users to identify opportunities for energy efficiency?

For each of these questions, we wish to address

1. If not, why not? 
2. If so, why and at what scale?
3. What are blockers, incentives, and opportunities (e.g. benchmarking)?

Outputs

Outputs from this AG1 are to:

1. Summarise the needs of users.
2. Highlight the value cases.
3. Recommend and agree a cohesive (whole-of-market) approach for electricity.

These outputs will be used as direction for, and inputs into the other AGs, to enable the other AGs (technical, legal, communications, policy) to unpack what they need to do and prioritise the questions they need to address. The outputs of the combined AGs will be used as the basis for implementation in the demonstrator. 

Process

The process for each of these questions will be:

1. User categorisation and ecosystem map
2. User questionnaire on data needs 
3. User questionnaire on reporting needs
4. User questionnaire on impact
5. Interim synthesis report circulated
6. Discussion at AG meeting
7. Iteration on synthesis report 
8. Discussion at AG meeting
9. Snagging/iteration on synthesis report 
10. Formal sign off  

Changes and comments from v2023-05 AG1 meeting

• Regarding kgCO2e – it is important to discuss where and how the calculation takes place, i.e. pre, in, or post-platform, and ensure the methodology is open-source and robust. Need to differentiate between standard location-based, market-based and time-of-use carbon information.
• It is essential for banks to lean in and say what their compliance needs are to ensure reporting frameworks are the way in which bodies and regulators are collecting information on emissions are collecting the right information
• Formatting changes (clearer headings, adding specifics) 
• Adding in universities as a stakeholder to engage with 
• Note the importance of separating total energy consumption and total energy generation as it cannot always be used as a proxy.
• having the correct metrics in there and for the right time periods (e.g. annual kWh, year-on-year change) allows for the removal of manual reporting
• net zero finance is used to deliver value to SMEs through the mechanisms of decarbonisation, behaviour change, increase resilience

Background  

Assurable supply chain data is fundamental to fighting greenwashing

As $trillions flow to combat Net Zero, the future of green investment faces some tough challenges. These include alignment around common reporting standards, definitions of ‘green taxonomies’ and mandatory reporting frameworks. All of these processes include the assessment of ‘footprints’ of real economy businesses (e.g. Scopes 1, 2 and 3 – and soon Scope 4 in ‘avoided emissions’). 

The EU is also regulating against greenwashing. The Green Claims Directive would oblige Member States to enact legislation that ensures that traders can and should substantiate their “explicit environmental claims”.  This means the financial economy needs to be able to trust the environmental data from the real economy. 

The primary data feeding into these footprints are consumption data such as energy, materials, transport and goods. The level of rigour that we expect from our financial reporting systems is, however, not yet in place for non-financial data. 

We need to put in place the ‘rails’ to enable assurable data flow to connect from the real economy to the financial sector in a highly scalable, repeatable, and extensible manner.  To help design and implement these rails, we are picking a single starting point, electricity, as this is foundational to all GHG reporting, applies to every business and, arguably, is ‘the most digital’. 

The rails that we need to put in place don’t require the invention of new standards. To address the market needs we can build on existing standards and processes. These include:

• Impact: Reporting, and the data requirements related to impact;
• Technical: the technical and operational mechanisms and processes for sharing Smart Data;
• Legal: the legal basis, liability frameworks and consent processes for sharing Smart Data;
• Communication: the process for aligning on language that enables clear engagement; 
• Governance: the policy and regulatory frameworks that can support and steer controls for the market of Smart Data;

Together, these form the basis of developing trust in the market, laying the foundations to both automate GHG reporting and ensure that it can be assured. 

Endorsements

Gavin Starks (Icebreaker One – AG1 co-chair)
Duncan Oswald (Sage – AG1 co-chair)
Nick Carmont Zaragoza (Connect Earth)
Dr Yildiz Tugba KARA (Society 5.0 Institute)
Leon Jayasinghe (Tide)
Andrew Griffiths (Planet Mark)
Lee Freeman (Auditel)
Andrew Smithson (Paragon Banking Group)
Paul Clark (Smart DCC)  
Jaya Chakrabarti (tiscreport.org, projectvana.org)
Josh Couchman (Connect Earth)
Yentl Staelens (Connect Earth)
James Armstrong (Ciendos)
David Beer (Cogo)
Nika Safonova (Cogo)
Rebecca Harding (Rebeccanomics)
Hannah Gilbert (British Business Bank)
Ian Sutherland (Tide)
Peter Allen (Surple)
Jonathan Ward (Cogo)
Conrad Ford (Allica Bank)
Jarmo Eskelinen (University of Edinburgh)
Callum Campbell (Connect Earth)
Matt Bullivant (OakNorth Bank)
Ben Cotton (Dais Partnership LLP)

Pending endorsement

(from other AG1 members, subject to internal approvals):
Cerys Leff (Natwest)Tracie Callaghan (Natwest)
Dr. Kesavan Gopalan (St. James’s Place)
Sean Hanafin (Climate Bonds Initiative)
Julia Langley (Independent)

The aim is to create a demonstrator that automates carbon footprinting using electricity data in an assurable way. This will reduce the risk for lending book, increase green lending, and unlock access to capital for SMEs on the race to zero.

The initiative has gained both commercial buy-in and government support through the Net Zero Council chaired by Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Graham Stuart MP. The coalition hopes this level of support will encourage others in different parts of the ecosystem to join.

The group discussed:

• that data quality is key and highlighted the potential benefits that accurate information can bring SMEs
• that carbon accounting today mostly relies on ineffective spend-based estimates, so it’s necessary to access primary data, at high-resolution, which is actionable and assurable. This will help small businesses win more customers by verifying their sustainability efforts and gaining trust from customers.
• that banks plan to support green loans but need data demonstrating its impact, making it important that SMEs engage with this issue through automation while also being educated about what’s happening in the background uniformly agreed upon by the government.
• the importance of supporting and harmonising the usage of existing standards for carbon reporting
• the need to focus on energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
• the challenges of measuring emissions across different sectors, such as agriculture, and stressed the importance of collaborating with international organizations to ensure interoperability.
• the goal is to create a blueprint for scaling this initiative internationally while avoiding the proliferation of other methodologies or standards.
• that government may need to intervene and establish one set of rails for everyone to minimize effort and confusion.
• the engagement process with SMEs regarding carbon accounting and data sharing. The government is working to provide trusted sources of advice and guidance, while also incentivizing participation in the program. There is a focus on building trust through consent-based data sharing between energy data providers, accounting platforms, banks, and regulators. However, there are concerns about anti-competitive practices in the market and this initiative needs to be framed as a tool for competitiveness rather than just fulfilling regulatory requirements.
• the need for clear communication to bridge the understanding gap among businesses and consumers alike.
• the importance of large enterprises and mid-market companies caring about their SMEs in a different way for sustainability. The need to understand what SMEs need, such as clear and accurate data, was emphasized. Smart meters were discussed, and there is a call for clarity on how to handle energy data appropriately. The group discussed creating a narrative around competitiveness and market opportunity for SMEs with respect to climate change. There is an ask for more clarity on the use case for financial institutions, including delivering universal data.
• overall, the focus is on making sure all stakeholders are engaged in this project and working together cohesively towards achieving net zero emissions goals.

Next steps

• Create demonstrator
• Address reporting standards for small businesses
• Create a concise statement or page explaining what’s happening with the project and why SMEs don’t have to do anything
• Joint presentation at COP involving stakeholders from bankers, energy sector, and targeted SME sector showcasing success of project

To get involved, please contact perseus@ib1.org

“Your participation and support is essential
to ensure the success of the project”

Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP, Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Dear colleagues,

Further to the ‘Dear CEO’ letter from the Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, we are writing to finalise the next steps for Project Perseus. 

The Minister’s letter clearly spells out how firms that support this initiative will showcase UK leadership on delivering net zero. The UK Government is supporting the programme through its inclusion in the Green Finance Strategy, and as a key component of the newly established Net Zero Council. It is also connected with the Smart Data Council and the Transition Plan Taskforce. British Business Bank are co-chairing. 

With COP28 just around the corner, where Perseus will be showcased, there are three key next steps for launch, which will include significant brand representation opportunities:

1. Confirm the institutions involved.  It is important that all firms that are going to be involved as founders and supporters confirm their intention to do so as a matter of priority. 
2. Strategy Roundtable with Lord Callanan, Minister for Green Finance on 21 June 10.30am, for CEOs/Heads of Sustainability (or suitable alternate) for confirmed participating institutions.   
3. London Climate Action Week event with Lord Callanan and the British Business Bank on the evening of 27 June in Parliament.  This will include a full press release and media coverage. 

The coming six months are critical and represent the initial heavy lift of Perseus.  

For this reason, it is important that we have support and firm commitments at the beginning of the project, rather than later in the year.  

A financial contribution is required to join this ambitious programme. Funds will support the two non-profit companies (B4NZ and Icebreaker One) that are running it. An open budget will be published in the near future with details on the use of funds.

We are aware that time is very stretched for everyone. The programme is designed to minimise the time contribution required from partners and why funding is necessary.

As of today:  

• Steering Group and Advisory Groups are in place 
• Project scope has been defined and endorsed by an industry Advisory Group 
• We have confirmed commercial actors including banks, accounting solutions
  and energy companies. To maximise impact we must go far together.

To recap, Perseus is a major national initiative to create assurable, automated Scope 1 and 2 data flows at SME level, to unlock consistent and comparable reporting, and deliver more accurate Scope 3 data across the economy.  We are all aware that there will be much more to do—this is the beginning of a journey that will integrate and build on the groundbreaking work from previous years with Open Banking and Open Energy. 

Target outcomes for 2023 are: 

1. Do one thing well: build a demonstrator for COP28

Enable assurable data to flow automatically from the real economy (energy companies) to the financial economy (banks) with the permission of the customer (SME) while improving the quality and impact of outcomes for stakeholders

2. Go far together: build the process with Advisory Groups (AGs)

• AG1 Enable prioritisation of actions that link disclosure to measurable impact
• AG2, AG3 Address the technical and legal implementation challenges
• AG4 Agree on cohesive communications and engagement
• AG5 Identify policy interventions

We will hold a final information session that is available to all to answer any queries and to set out steps for involvement on Friday 16^th June at 9am and again at 4pm.

We will need to move quickly in order to hit our COP28 target. 

As you have had the proposal for some time, we would be grateful if you can confirm your commitment to joining the programme before COB Tuesday 20^th June. This will ensure all participating organisations are represented at the Ministerial roundtable which is on the 21^st June, and so we have ample time to organise our press and comms strategy for the London Climate Action Week event on the 27^th June. 

Full details are online (including FAQ and PDF downloads) at https://ib1.org/perseus. You can join online at https://ib1.org/join-perseus. 

To discuss any of the above, please contact perseus@ib1.org. 

For and on behalf of the Steering Group