I help companies get their emissions numbers right.
Every carbon figure traces back to something physical: a material, a fuel, a process. My engineering background helps me understand what sits behind the numbers. I combine that with EU and global reporting frameworks, and use AI tools where they genuinely speed things up.
MSc Materials Engineering
Biorefinery & Biobased MaterialsBSc Materials Engineering
Nanotechnology · Dean's Honours ListAbout
I help companies measure their emissions accurately and turn those numbers into a credible plan to reduce them.
My background is in research and development across clean energy devices and biobased materials, along with work on low carbon strategies for industry. My research on energy storage materials is published in a Royal Society of Chemistry journal. That work taught me where emissions actually come from: the materials, processes and energy choices behind every Scope 1, 2 and 3 figure. That’s the knowledge I’m now applying to carbon accounting and decarbonization strategy.
That engineering background is what gives my sustainability work its credibility. I can trace a reported number back to the process behind it, judge whether a reduction target is technically realistic, and connect technical detail to strategic decisions. I use AI tools to make that work faster and more rigorous, from data analysis to reporting.
I’m looking for a role in carbon accounting and decarbonization, where accurate measurement leads to real reductions. I’m based in Amsterdam with a full Dutch work permit.
Career Map
- Cambridge O & A Levels, Pakistan
- Bachelors, GIKI, PakistanMaterials Engineering (Nanotechnology)
- Masters, INP Pagora, FranceMaterials Engineering (Biorefinery & Biomaterials)
- Intern, Cellulose Valley, France
- Decarbonization Ventures Analyst, Planetive, Pakistan
- Sustainability Analyst (freelance), Europe & Pakistan
EducationWorkNow
Projects
Four pieces of work built on the standards and sources as they stand in November 2026. Each shows the method, the sources and where AI helped.
Regulation Reader
Turns EU legal texts into an obligations register with article references, each cross-checked against a second source. Demo on Omnibus I.
Shows I can build AI agents with guardrails and read EU law at article level. Open the agent CSRD case studyDouble materiality: Nordvorm Packaging
A full assessment under the revised ESRS for a fictional Dutch packaging company, linked to PPWR, CBAM and EUDR.
Shows I can run the core CSRD process and connect it to product regulation. Read the case Framework analysisESRS E1 and IFRS S2 crosswalk
An interactive map of 15 climate disclosure themes: where the two frameworks overlap, where they diverge, and what data serves both.
Shows I can work across EU and global reporting regimes. Explore the crosswalk Case study review40 sustainability strategies, compared
Companies, start-ups and governments, from BP to the IOC: their targets, how they measure progress and where the plans fall short.
Shows I can read sustainability strategies critically and spot patterns across sectors. Explore the casesFrameworks I work with
Areas of Expertise
A practical mix of engineering knowledge, analytical tools and sustainability context.
Materials & research
Materials characterization, nanomaterials, biobased materials, hydrogel formulation and 3D printing.
Data & feasibility
Techno-economic feasibility, market research, impact comparison, Power BI and process mapping.
Climate & sustainability
Circular economy, waste valorization, carbon markets, ESG and EU sustainability regulation awareness.
Energy technologies
Energy storage, supercapacitors, battery energy storage, solar and biogas feasibility, carbon capture context.
Certifications
- UPennESG Risks and Opportunities
- UNITARScaling Climate Finance
- MicrosoftPower BI Data Analyst
- MicrosoftGenerative AI and Copilot
- GoogleAI Essentials
Contact Me
Regulation Reader: an AI agent that turns EU legal texts into a checked obligations register
Sustainability rules arrive as long amending directives that change other directives. This agent reads the official text, extracts every threshold, date and obligation with its article reference, cross-checks each one against a second source, and marks what a human still has to verify.
How the agent works
Official text only
Starts from the Official Journal text, never a blog summary. Records the version date.
One row per rule
Every threshold, date, exemption and obligation, each tied to the article and the provision it amends.
Tag and group
Scope, deadline, exemption, obligation, review. Grouped by the directive being amended.
Second source
Looks for an independent source (Parliament, law firm, regulator) that states the same figure.
I decide
Single-source rows are flagged. I verify them in EUR-Lex before anything is published or advised.
Guardrails built into the instructions
What the agent must do
- Cite the article and paragraph for every row, or drop the row.
- Copy figures exactly as written (EUR 450 000 000 stays EUR 450 000 000).
- Name the provision being amended, since amending acts rarely make sense alone.
- State its source text and that text's date at the top of the output.
What the agent must not do
- Fill gaps from memory or from older versions of the law.
- Interpret who is in scope for a specific company. That is my judgement call.
- Mark a row as confirmed without a second, independent source.
- Give legal advice. The register is a working tool, not an opinion.
Demo output: Directive (EU) 2026/470
Published in the Official Journal on 26 February 2026, in force since 18 March 2026. It amends the Audit Directive, the Accounting Directive, the CSRD and the CSDDD in one act. Below is the register the agent produced, filtered by directive.
| Area | Type | Rule | Value | Reference | Cross-check |
|---|
The core instruction (excerpt)
What this run showed
Where the agent saved time
- Mapped one amending act across four directives in a single pass.
- Separated CSRD dates (transpose by 19 March 2027) from CSDDD dates (transpose by 26 July 2028), a common source of confusion.
- Surfaced small but practical rules, such as the 1,000-employee value-chain cap, that summaries often skip.
Where human judgement stays
- 10 of the 21 rows had no independent second source and are flagged for checking in EUR-Lex.
- National transposition can add stricter rules; the Netherlands still has to transpose these changes.
- Deciding what a rule means for one company (scope, timing, data requests) is analysis, not extraction.
Double materiality assessment: Nordvorm Packaging
A worked assessment under the revised ESRS (adopted 3 July 2026) for a fictional Dutch food-packaging manufacturer, connected to the PPWR, CBAM and EUDR obligations the company faces.
The company and every score are invented to show the method. The standards, thresholds and regulatory dates are real as of 9 November 2026.
1. Company and scope
Nordvorm (fictional: Zwolle, 1,450 employees, €540m net turnover, plants in the Netherlands, Poland and Germany) makes moulded-fibre trays, coated paperboard cartons, PET trays and aluminium-foil lids for EU food brands.
- CSRD: in scope from FY2027. It exceeds both Omnibus I thresholds (more than €450m turnover and more than 1,000 employees).
- CSDDD: out of scope (below 5,000 employees and €1.5bn turnover), but large customers will send due-diligence questionnaires.
- Value-chain cap: with more than 1,000 employees, Nordvorm is not a protected undertaking and must answer customers' data requests. Its own suppliers with 1,000 or fewer employees are protected.
- PPWR: applies since 12 August 2026, including PFAS limits for food-contact packaging.
- CBAM: about 2,000 t a year of imported aluminium foil exceeds the 50-tonne threshold; first declaration due 30 September 2027.
2. Method
Each impact, risk and opportunity (IRO) is scored 0 to 5 on both axes. Anything at 3.0 or above on either axis is material. ESRS sets no numeric threshold, so 3.0 is a disclosed company judgement.
Financial = magnitude × likelihood / 5
- Top-down first: topics clearly not material were screened out at topic level, as the revised ESRS allow.
- Whole value chain: upstream (pulp, aluminium, PET), own operations, downstream (brands, consumers, end of life).
- Non-material means not reported: the revised ESRS require non-material information to be left out.
3. Long list and scores
8 of 15 IROs pass the threshold, across E1, E2, E5, S1 and S4. Material rows are marked with a green edge.
| # | Topic | Impact, risk or opportunity | Type | Value chain | Impact | Financial | Material? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E1 | Scope 1 emissions from gas-fired drying of moulded fibre | Negative impact (actual) + risk | Own operations | 3.7 | 3.2 | Both |
| 2 | E1 | Scope 3 emissions embedded in aluminium foil and virgin PET; CBAM cost on foil | Negative impact (actual) + risk | Upstream | 4.0 | 3.0 | Both |
| 3 | E1 | Rising demand for low-carbon fibre packaging | Opportunity + positive impact | Downstream | 2.4 | 3.2 | Financial |
| 4 | E1 | Drought and heat stress on pulp supply and plants | Physical risk | Upstream / own operations | 1.6 | 1.8 | No |
| 5 | E2 | PFAS in barrier coatings for food-contact packs (PPWR limits since 12 Aug 2026) | Negative impact (potential) + risk | Own operations / downstream | 2.4 | 4.0 | Financial |
| 6 | E2 | Pellet loss (primary microplastics) at the PET tray line | Negative impact (potential) | Own operations | 1.8 | 0.6 | No |
| 7 | E3 | Water withdrawal for pulp moulding | Negative impact (actual) | Own operations | 2.3 | 1.6 | No |
| 8 | E4 | Forest biodiversity in virgin pulp supply; EUDR due diligence | Negative impact (potential) + risk | Upstream | 2.9 | 2.4 | No (monitor) |
| 9 | E5 | Virgin material inflows: PET, aluminium, pulp; PPWR recycled-content targets | Negative impact (actual) + risk | Upstream / own operations | 3.7 | 3.2 | Both |
| 10 | E5 | Low recyclability of coated multi-material cartons; PPWR grades and EPR fees | Negative impact (actual) + risk | Downstream | 4.0 | 4.0 | Both |
| 11 | E5 | Mono-material and reusable redesign | Opportunity + positive impact | Downstream | 2.4 | 2.4 | No |
| 12 | S1 | Machine and dust-related injuries at the three plants | Negative impact (actual) | Own operations | 3.3 | 1.2 | Impact |
| 13 | S1 | Working conditions of agency shift workers | Negative impact (potential) | Own operations | 2.4 | 1.6 | No |
| 14 | S4 | Substance migration into food: consumer safety and recalls | Negative impact (potential) + risk | Downstream | 1.6 | 3.0 | Financial |
| 15 | G1 | Bribery and corruption in sourcing | Negative impact (potential) | Upstream | 0.9 | 1.2 | No |
4. Materiality matrix
Green: material. Grey: below threshold, numbered as in the table. Illustrative scores.
Climate (E1) and circularity (E5) sit top right: large impacts and direct cost exposure through CBAM, carbon pricing and PPWR. PFAS and food-contact safety are material on the financial axis alone, because regulation can take products off the market.
5. What Nordvorm reports, and what feeds it
| Material topic | ESRS disclosures to prepare | Linked regulation | First data step |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 Climate change | E1-1 transition plan with 1.5°C statement; E1-2 risk identification; E1-3 resilience; E1-4 to E1-6 policies, actions, gross absolute targets; E1-7 energy; E1-8 Scopes 1, 2, 3; E1-11 financial effects | CBAM (aluminium foil); EU ETS / ETS2 from 2028; SBTi V2.0 | Gas use per dryer; supplier-specific emissions for foil |
| E2 Substances of concern | Policies, actions, targets and metrics on substances of concern | PPWR PFAS limits since 12 Aug 2026 | Coating bill of materials; supplier PFAS tests per product |
| E5 Circular economy | Policies, actions, targets; resource inflows and outflows | PPWR labelling 2028; recyclability and recycled content mostly 2030; EPR fees | Material balance per plant; recyclability per SKU |
| S1 Own workforce | Health and safety metrics incl. agency workers | National occupational safety law | Harmonised incident logs |
| S4 Consumers | Consumer safety policies, actions, metrics (first-two-years phase-in available) | EU food-contact rules; PPWR | Migration test records |
Not material, and why that matters
- E3 Water and G1 Business conduct are not reported.
- E4 Biodiversity (2.9 / 2.4) is just below threshold: reassess next year.
- EUDR due diligence on pulp still applies from 30 December 2026, whatever the materiality result.
One data set, three uses
Supplier-specific emissions for aluminium foil serve the CBAM declaration, Scope 3 category 1 in E1-8, and customers' own CSRD and IFRS S2 data requests. Collecting it once is the cheapest compliance step here.
6. What the agent did and what I decided
- Agent: drafted the long list per ESRS topic, proposed sub-scores with a rationale each, and mapped material topics to disclosures and laws.
- Me: set the 3.0 threshold, decided the top-down screening, reviewed every score and checked every reference.
- Judgement call: microplastics scoped to primary microplastics (pellet loss) only, as the revised ESRS require.
- Judgement call: PFAS rated financially material (4.0) despite an impact score of 2.4, because the PPWR ban removes products regardless of likelihood of harm.
ESRS E1 and IFRS S2: one climate data set, two reports
A disclosure-by-disclosure map of the revised ESRS E1 (adopted 3 July 2026) against IFRS S2 (as amended December 2025) and the GHG Protocol. For each theme: where the two align, where they diverge, and which data a company should collect once to serve both.
Start with the one difference that drives the rest
Double materiality
Report a topic if it is material for its impact on people and the environment, for its financial effect on the company, or both. Revised ESRS keep this principle but allow a top-down assessment at topic level, and non-material information must now be left out.
Financial materiality
Report what could reasonably be expected to affect the company's cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital. Built for investors. Adopted by 35 jurisdictions as of July 2026, including the UK through UK SRS.
So a climate impact that is material to society but not to cash flows belongs in an ESRS report and may be absent from an IFRS S2 report. On emissions data itself, the two are close, because both rest on the GHG Protocol.
The crosswalk
Open a row to see the key difference and the data to collect once.
40 sustainability strategies: from pledges to practice
Oil majors, fashion houses, start-ups, cities and national governments, each asked the same questions: how they define sustainability, how they measure it, how they work with suppliers and what comes next.
Seven patterns across the cases
Select a theme to filter the case studies below.
When do they say they'll get there?
Headline net-zero, carbon-neutral or climate-positive target year for each organization that has one. Hover over or select a dot.
Target years are the headline commitments reported in each case study. Scope varies: some cover only the organization's own operations, and TotalEnergies' net-zero goal covers Europe only.