WHO ARE WE?
Loudspring is a group of companies we own, that are active in five global industries - food, fashion, energy, manufacturing and real estate. Their potential to achieve a significant impact in these industries is what drew us to them in the first place.
Last year, we started to estimate the real impact that our portfolio had achieved in terms of carbon emissions and water savings. We have continued that work in 2017 while also improving upon our methodologies along the way. We calculated this for six of our main holdings. We base our calculations on the real effect of the past year, meaning that we look at the impact of actually sold goods and services. No projections, only actual savings. We also take into account the negative impact of the operations of each firm, to calculate the net effect.
The following companies are included, their line of business and environmental impact in short below:
Eagle Filters – Filters that clean intake air in, so that gas power plants produce more energy put per input of natural gas, as blades get less fouled and run more efficiently;
Swap.com – Second hand online shop that brings industrial scale to second hand clothing and reduces the need to produce new clothes;
ResQ Club – An app that lets restaurants upload and customers buy meals that would otherwise go to waste;
Sofi Filtration – Recirculating waste water reducing the need for fresh water;
Enersize – Optiumisation software that reduces energy in the use of compressed air in industry; and
Nuuka – Software to optimise and reduce energy use in buildings
HOW HAVE WE DONE THIS?
The carbon emissions avoided from products or services in use during the year is calculated. This is the ‘emission effect’ of purchasing a certain company’s particular product or service. This ‘emission effect’ is compared to a baseline in that particular industry, which is typically the current status quo. We are in other words calculating last year’s emissions based on the emissions generated with our company’s solution in use vs. the emissions that would have been generated if they had not been in use.
Finally, the carbon emitted due to operations of our portfolio companies is added (this includes items such as office heating, electricity, travel, energy use in production of hardware or in factory processes).
Warm thanks this year goes to Matt de la Houssaye of Global Green, who has supported and helped guide us in the assumptions, data sources and information underlying this analysis. Measuring and accounting for impact is not straightforward. This year, we looked at data from around the world regarding the impact of textile, food waste, and similarly large industries. It is not an easy task, and you have been of great help. Also, a huge thanks to David Helsing, at the International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics who has compiled this data.
In this report, we present the positive impact that six of our portfolio companies had in 2017. These numbers should be taken as an indication, as many assumptions are used in calculating them, however impacts are reported based on a review of life cycle analysis studies, university research and where possible accepted standards. Emissions factors come largely from respected institutions such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the European Energy Agency and peer reviewed papers.
This year, we further refined the impact according to appropriate allocation of each action. For example, for each resource efficiency action we determined whether each unit reduced or saved would cause 100% of one unit of resource production to be saved, or a lower factor depending on its impact on production and consumption. This decision was part of a concerted approach to hold our impact estimations to a higher standard, and while it did lead to reported reductions in impact relative to portfolio revenue growth, we are very pleased to have made progress on our methods and therefore accuracy.