Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Solvay's fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings call. I'm Geoffroy d'Oultremont, Head of Investor Relations. With me today are our CEO, Philippe Kehren, and our CFO, Alexandre Blum. This call is being recorded. Will be accessible for replay on the Investor Relations section of Solvay's website later today. I would like to remind you that the presentation includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. The slides shared today are also available on our website. We will first discuss our full year earnings and the outlook for 2026. Then take your questions. Philippe, over to you for the introduction.
Thank you, Geoffroy. Hello, everyone. In 2025, we delivered healthy margins and strong cash flow despite the challenging environment. In this context, we remain disciplined and act to secure our competitiveness, leveraging energy transition and footprint optimization. Our strategy has proven to work, and we continue to focus on being a leading essential chemical company with safety and sustainability at the heart of it. Let me share more details on this, starting with safety. Safety remains our top priority, and we continue working toward our zero-accident objective. In 2025, we launched a major safety culture transformation program designed to improve safety performance across all our sites. While the reportable injuries increased slightly compared to last year, the severity of the incidents decreased overall. This is a sign that our efforts are starting to pay off.
We're not there yet, but we are fully committed to continuing our transformation in 2026. Let me now share with you our progress on sustainability, implementing our Four Generations roadmap across the business. Moving to slide number six. We've progressed well on our greenhouse gas emissions targets. Our CO2 emissions, Scope one and two, have decreased by 29% compared to 2021, and that's already close to our 2030 target of -30%. The reduction was driven equally by decarbonization projects and also by lower activity levels. The largest structural contributors were the coal phase-out projects in our Soda Ash plants in the U.S. and in Germany, which were completed in 2024 and which delivered their full impact in 2025.
The next steps will be the new cogeneration unit in Dombasle, France, which will substitute coal with refuse-derived fuel, and which is expected to be operational later this year. The new cogeneration project in Torrelavega in Spain, announced in 2025, is expected to be operational in 2027. One year ago, we also announced our new biodiversity commitment for the group. In 2025, we launched a pilot at our Dombasle site, testing a science-based framework provided by the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This framework aims to develop a blueprint for effective biodiversity actions that can be replicated across global operations. At the end of 2025, already 16% of our lands are under conservation or restoration.
We'll continue working closely with the IUCN, the next step will be a second pilot at our Rosignano site in Italy, where we'll further apply and refine the methodology. We also moved forward on our better life KPIs. As mentioned earlier, safety improved slightly compared to last year, and we are dedicated and focused on improving this even more. We've been steadily moving on our diversity target, with 28.8% of women in mid and senior management. On living wage, we're very proud to have achieved our target already one year in advance, with 100% of our own workforce throughout the world receiving a decent living wage. Turning to slide number seven. Before Alex takes you through the details of the results, let me leave you with three key messages for the year.
First, in 2025, we continued to deliver healthy margins and strong cash. The transformation of the company is progressing well, and the operational excellence savings associated with it are supporting our performance. In 2025, the overall environment remained very challenging, and we had some transformation expenses generating cash outflows. These are expenses tied to the separation, including phasing out the Transition Service Agreement and building a new simplified ERP, as well as essential initiatives for the new Solvay, including the ongoing fluorine business restructuring. At the same time, we generated EUR 350 million of free cash flow, thanks to our disciplined cash allocation framework and decisive working capital management throughout the year. This is a real achievement in such a difficult year. 2026 will be another challenging year.
On the top line, the demand environment is not yet showing any sign of recovery, and the bottom line will be impacted by the transformation expenses. In this context, and this is my second key message, we continue taking actions to make sure we can emerge stronger. Strengthening our competitiveness is essential. One key lever is accelerating our energy transition, with a particular focus on phasing out coal across our European operations. Our decarbonization roadmap is progressing well, but at the same time, we need to align the European climate policies, ETS and CBAM, with industrial reality. We cannot force decarbonization decades ahead of the 2050 target without the right framework. Extending free quotas until 2050 is a technical necessity to fund the transformation of historical sites instead of shutting them down. We need the support of the authorities for a competitive energy access.
This is critical if we want to maintain competitive supply chains in Europe. The other key lever is industrial footprint optimization to safeguard long-term competitiveness. We regularly assess each site to ensure it can remain competitive in evolving environment. When this is no longer the case, we act decisively. This has led to the restructuring of our fluorine operations in Germany, to the closure of our Salin site in France in 2025, and earlier decisions to close our peroxides plant in Warrington, in the U.K., and in Póvoa, in Portugal. Yesterday, we launched a consultation process to reduce our production capacity at the Torrelavega plant in Spain from 600,000 tons- 420,000 tons, starting in Q3 2026.
This measure allows us to define a very clear industrial roadmap for the site, which will focus on local Soda Ash customers and competitive and low-carbon, high-grade bicarbonate. All these measures strengthen the overall performance and agility of our European manufacturing base. Together, our footprint optimization and energy transition initiatives enable us to maintain an asset base that is highly competitive in its markets. In summary, one, we deliver. Two, we act to protect and reinforce our competitiveness. Third key message is that we remain focused on the deployment of our essential chemistry strategy. We continue the long-term transformation, which is about simplification of our organization and digitalization of our plants. We are preparing the future, and we invest where demand justifies it.
In 2025, we inaugurated our new rare earths workshop in La Rochelle for permanent magnets. We doubled the capacity of our Electronic Grade hydrogen peroxide plant in China. In January 2026, we inaugurated our production line of biosourced silica in Livorno, Italy. It's the first of its kind in Europe. We have more projects, with a clear potential of additional developments in La Rochelle, for instance, where we will start separating heavy rare earths already this year. You see, we're very committed to our strategy. At the same time, we act when necessary to make sure we will emerge stronger. We carefully look at our portfolio. We assess if changes are needed. We also continue to invest in selective areas where it makes sense to prepare for the future.
All of this while being laser-focused on our financial policy, a stable to growing dividend, and an investment-grade rating. Now over to you for the financials, Alex.
Thank you, Philippe. Good morning, good afternoon, everyone. Moving to the financial with two key messages. First, on cash generation. In 2025, we were able to generate strong free cash flow by rapidly adapting to our environment. Second message is that our balance sheet is healthy, and this fully support the execution of our strategy. Moving to slide 11. As usual, I remind you that my comments are based on organic evolution, meaning at constant scope and currency, unless otherwise stated. Underlying net sales in 2025 reached EUR 4.3 billion, down 6% versus 2024. The decline was mostly driven by lower volumes, which were down 4% year-on-year, mainly in Soda Ash and Coatis business units. Forex had a negative impact for the year from the strengthening of the euro against the US dollar and the Brazilian reals.
In Q4, volumes were also down, mainly driven by Coatis and the Soda Ash export markets, with a slightly more pronounced seasonality in the Silica business. However, volumes in bicarbonate, peroxide, and Special Chem remained very resilient throughout the year. Let's now move to the EBITDA bridge on slide 12, where you see that despite all the headwinds, we have retained a healthy EBITDA margin. Underlying EBITDA amounted to EUR 881 million in 2025, down 13% compared to 2024, within our revised guidance range. The EBITDA margin remains strong, close to 21%. Volumes and mix were mostly down due to Soda Ash and the absence of a peroxide license, this was partly compensated by the positive impact of the optimization of our portfolio of European CO2 credit. Net pricing decreased year-on-year, primarily driven by the seaborne Soda Ash market and Coatis.
Margins in the other businesses remained extremely resilient. For fixed cost and ARWO, we can highlight three main moving parts. In fixed cost, minus EUR 23 million of negative impact from the temporary stranded costs related to the split. We have two non-repeat elements from 2024 offsetting each other. Last year, we had plus EUR 20 million linked to a one-off TSA reinvoice in fixed cost, versus minus EUR 29 million from provision in order linked to our Dombasle Énergie project. Moving now to look at our structural cost saving on slide 13. As expected, our structural cost saving program continued to deliver significantly in 2025, when we have achieved EUR 101 million of gross structural savings, bringing the cumulative amount since the start of the program to EUR 211 million, exceeding our 2025 target.
We will continue to focus on what we can control, and we expect cumulative saving to be around EUR 300 million by the end of 2026. I now move to the segment review, mainly focusing on Q4 development and starting with Basic Chemicals on slide 14. Sales in the Soda Ash & Derivatives Business Unit were lower for the quarter by 13%, with Soda Ash volumes and pricing steady in the domestic market, but showing a continued sharp decline in the seaborne markets. Bicarbonate volume and pricing, on the other hand, continued to be extremely resilient and are up year-on-year. In Peroxide, our Electronic Grade for semiconductor industry continued to deliver double-digit growth, supported by AI-related investment, while volumes remained broadly stable in the merchant market.
Overall, the segment EBITDA was down by 20% in Q4, mostly due to the lower volumes, including the non-repeat of a peroxide license and lower pricing in Soda Ash exports. The EBITDA margin reached 25.1%, slightly lower compared to Q4 2024. Moving now to Performance Chemicals on slide 15. This segment has a certain degree of seasonality in Q4. Year-on-year, Silica sales were impacted by slightly lower tire volumes, while the consumer and industrial good markets remained stable. Coatis continued to struggle, with volumes and prices down in all end market due to the difficult environment caused by U.S. tariff. We will see if the recent changes can help the local industry to recover. Special Chem, on the other hand, increased in Q4, with higher volume in electronics and medical application, which offset slightly lower demand in autocatalysis and fluoride.
Overall, the segment EBITDA was down 18%, while the EBITDA margin decreased to 14%. I will now cover the Corporate segment. In 2025, the Corporate segment result was impacted by EUR 23 million of temporary stranded costs due to the TSA exit. They will continue to impact our performance in 2026, while OpEx related to the ERP will impact both 2026 and 2027. As of 2028, our target operating model will be fully in place, generating a new wave of savings, allowing to reach a run rate below EUR 50 million for the Corporate segment. Overall, the full year 2025 EBITDA was minus EUR 40 million, including a positive impact of EUR 40 million from the CO2 emission rights optimization.
Moving to slide 70 to look at our free cash flow, which, as you know, is at the top of our priorities. We delivered a strong free cash flow of EUR 350 million, despite a weaker EBITDA generation. First, we have limited our CapEx to a level below EUR 300 million, as guided. The EUR 292 million includes around EUR 240 million of essential CapEx, of which EUR 26 million for energy transition project. The rest, roughly EUR 50 million, was dedicated to targeted investment in new capacity, including the completion of our new soda ash capacity in Green River, the doubling of our H2O2 capacity in China and the biosourced silica unit in Italy. Even in a difficult year, we continue to invest to make Solvay future-proof.
The other cash driver was working capital, whose positive contribution reflect a strong discipline, the low level act of activity at year-end, and the positive impact from the exit of TSA with Syensqo in our receivable. As expected, provision cash out were high at EUR 260 million for the year. They include approximately EUR 130 million of what you could call normalized cash out for the provision linked to pension, environmental liabilities, and some restructuring. On top, there was EUR 60 million related to Dombasle Énergie project and EUR 70 million of additional restructuring and overhead expenses related to the transformation we have initiated since the spin-off. As indicated, financing costs were higher in 2025, as it was the first year of full interest payment for the bond issued in April 2024.
Let's now move to the slide 18, where I guide you through the temporary cash impact on the free cash flow. Here, we have the main element behind the transformation expenses and how they will temporarily weigh on our cash generation. First, the stranded cost, which mainly impact 2025 and 2026. In 2025, we stopped rendering services to Syensqo, but it will take one to two years to adjust our support functions. Second, the cost related to the new ERP. With the split, it become a necessity to design and deploy IT system that are adapted to our new operating model. Third, the restructuring cash out. They mainly relate to the exit of the TSA, partially compensated by Syensqo, and the restructuring of our fluorine business.
They were the highest in 2025 and gradually decrease starting in 2026. To wrap up the 2025 financial, let me take a word on the debt on slide 19. Underlying net debt was EUR 1.6 billion at the end of 2025, roughly stable compared to 2024. The leverage ratio remained healthy at 1.8x . Regarding provision, in December 2025, we took an important step to de-risk our balance sheet. We did a lift-out. This means that we transfer a portion of our U.S. pension plan to an insurance company, which is now solely responsible for managing the benefits and the underlying investments.
The transaction resulted in a reduction of our liabilities of EUR 159 million, and of our assets by EUR 155 million, hence generating a profit of approximately EUR 3 million in Q4. Based on the free cash flow generation and in line with the dividend policy of the company, the board of directors has decided to propose to the shareholders a total gross dividend of EUR 2.43 per share, which includes the interim dividend paid in January. Let me leave you with a final key message: Whatever the environment, our capital allocation framework drives all our decisions. Our essential CapEx are the priority. We have an equally important and clear dividend policy, and then we have options to prepare for the future growth of the company.
The last bucket is more variable as it will be always sized based on merit and affordability. It will be mostly for organic investment and might be supported, but with inorganic opportunities if they become available, make sense, and meet our rigorous criteria. With that, Philippe, back to you for the outlook.
Thank you. Thank you, Alexandre. Let's move indeed to the outlook now. As I said at the beginning of this call, we know that 2026 will be another challenging year. We are acting decisively to protect our competitiveness and to focus on our long-term transformation. We don't expect the situation in our Soda Ash or Coatis businesses to change rapidly. For Soda Ash, the overcapacity in China is a challenge for the Chinese and the Southeast Asian markets. It also creates some pressure outside of the region, for example, on the exports from the U.S. As for Coatis, it continues to suffer from the situation generated by the introduction of the tariffs. Our other businesses are much more resilient. We remain cautious as we currently have little visibility.
For 2026, we expect an underlying EBITDA between 770 and EUR 850 million. This already includes negative impacts year-on-year of EUR 20 million from currencies, another EUR 40 million from the transformation expenses, and a positive contribution, similar to last year, from the sale of EUA that we've done in January 2026. Free cash flow to Solvay shareholders from continuing operations will exceed EUR 200 million. That is after covering EUR 90 million of transformation expenses. We ask the teams to remain very disciplined with investments. We will limit again our CapEx to under EUR 300 million for the foreseeable future, until the environment improves. Our strategy is solid, and we're executing it in a disciplined way.
We accelerate its deployment where it makes sense. We take actions to mitigate the environment in which we've been for the last two years. You can count on us to relentlessly keep our focus on costs and on cash. This concludes our prepared remarks. Thank you for listening, and we're happy to take your questions now. Back to you, Geoffroy.
Thank you, Philippe, and Alex. Gaia, you may now open the line for questions, please.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key six on your telephone keypad. The first question is coming from Martin Rödiger from Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Yes, thanks for taking my question. First is on your EBITDA guidance. With a high comparison base in Q1 and also adverse FX effects in Q1 and partly in Q2, should we expect a different earnings trajectory in 2026 being more back-end loaded? Linked to the EBITDA guidance, to stay with that, just to clarify, you did not factor in your guidance any sales from licenses, i.e., in hydrogen peroxide, but you factor in another sale of CO2 emission rights. Is that correct? Finally, sorry to come back to the Coatis business. Philippe, you said that the Coatis business will continue to suffer in 2026. Can you provide some background information? I heard that there are some hopes that the Brazilian government could interfere here and may support Brazilian players. Is that true? Thanks.
Thank you, Martin, for your questions, I will let Alex complement. I mean, difficult to say at this point. You know that the business is relatively non-seasonal, I would say the base load performance of the business, you should not expect too much of a phasing. However, as we said, we sold because the market conditions were good, we sold the CO2 quotas already, you might expect a little bit of this impact in Q1. It will be a little bit front-loaded, but we also have other elements in the course of the year.
For Coatis, maybe, and then I will let Alex complement on the other elements of the EBITDA. A lot of parts are moving, to be clear. We just heard, you heard the decision from the Supreme Court on the tariffs. Typically, Coatis and Brazil have been the area which have been the most impacted by the tariff, because it has impacted very much our customers. You remember that we have a 50% tariff on Brazilian export to the U.S. This could, of course, be a game changer if this value would change. On top of this, you're right, there are the currently discussions with the Brazilian authorities to implement, first, a mechanism that would support the Brazilian chemical industry.
Second, also some measures potentially being implemented to protect the Brazilian market from imports from China. We're watching this very closely. We didn't put anything in our outlook regarding this, so it could be potentially an upside. For, frankly speaking, for the time being, I think it's too early to say anything. Now, Alex, if you want to say a few words on.
Yeah, maybe-
On the EBITDA elements.
Yeah. As you, as Philippe explained, our EBITDA, take it roughly, equally spread, during the year. You may have small variation, but it's roughly equally spread.
... your question is whether we have included license on the one side of CO2. If I take a step back, what justify the range of EBITDA? Primarily, the range of EBITDA is driven by volumes. That's one of the main uncertainty of the year. We are quite clear on the short term, but, I mean, we know the situation, it can change. The second uncertainty factor is, are the few business opportunities we are considering, and one of them, obviously, is the licenses. We want to continue to do so, but we do it only if it's quality customers, and if it generate some value. It's part of the uncertainty factor.
Third factor of uncertainty are more the margin, price of energy, the tariff impact, which is also an uncertainty factor. CO2, yes, we have included only one cell. We always monitor our exposure to CO2 in Europe to make sure we are well covered until 2030. In early 2026, we saw that volumes in Soda Ash, at least in the short term, should not see a very different change. We saw a favorable regulatory environment. We see things tends to improve, not deteriorate. At the same time, the CO2 of EUA prices at the beginning of the year in Europe were quite favorable, so we've decided to de-risk this element.
Thank you.
The next question is coming from Tom Wrigglesworth from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Thanks very much. Two questions, if I may. The first question is just trying to understand the dynamics around these CO2 emissions rights sales. Hypothetically, if volumes were to recover to, like, peak levels very quickly, high up again, let's call it in, you know, by the end of the year, and you need to increase your utilization rate heavily in your European business, do you then have to go and buy these credits back from the market in order to produce those tons? And is your assumption that you'd be able to pass on that cost if required, 'cause the European market suddenly became tight? I'm just trying to think about, you know, what the sacrifice is on recovery here, that you're making as you know, shut down assets in Europe and then sell the associated CO2 rights. That's my first question.
My second question, if I may, is just on the Soda Ash contract price that's embedded in your guide. I think CMA reported Europe down 3% year-over-year. Can you confirm that's your price, broadly speaking? And associated with that, what were the, kind of, what was the thought process behind that, if you tried to support price but cut volumes, and therefore, you'd expect to take a disproportionate volume hit this year in Soda Ash because you've tried to protect price? Just trying to understand the dynamics that took place in that contract. Thank you.
Thank you, Tom. First, on EUAs, clearly, I mean, if ever the, the volumes would recover at some point, later this year, we have enough quotas, right? I mean, until 2030, we are covered. There is no need to go back to the market at this point to hedge our CO2. More broadly, you mentioned the capacity reduction and the fact that we would lose this capacity if ever the market would recover. It's very simple. The capacity that we cut typically in Spain here, it's a capacity that was used to export out of Europe to the seaborne market. We consider that this capacity is not sustainable, right?
First, because we would have to invest massively to do the energy transition on this capacity, and we would not be able to get a return on this investment on the seaborne market. Second, we have enough capacity in the U.S. to supply the seaborne market, so this is the right move to do for the long term, okay? No regret, this is strategic and done on purpose. On Soda Ash, obviously, we'll not comment on the detailed price movements linked to the negotiations. What we can say is that basically, Europe has been resilient and there's a little bit of pressure on price, but which is very limited, and we kept the volumes, so good resilience in Europe.
The opposite on the seaborne, and in particular, in Southeast Asia, margins are at the trough with the overcapacity in China and the pressure put by Chinese, this Chinese overcapacity. Here we sign very short-term contracts because we don't want to commit at this level of price and we even produce a bit less. This is, by the way, why we also have some EUAs to valorize in Europe, because we're not producing at full speed in order to sell in this very depressed market. In the U.S., it's a little bit of a mix. Sorry. In the U.S., it's strong pressure on export, and so this puts pressure on the U.S. production. The situation is a little bit mixed in the U.S., but overall, I would say the domestic prices are relatively resilient.
Okay, thank you very much, Philippe.
The next question is coming from Anna Harms from BNP Paribas. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon. I just wanted to clarify on your free cash flow guidance. My understanding is obviously that includes this carbon credit sale. What other levers do you have left if you're looking to cover the dividend for the year, and would you have an appetite to raise leverage? Thank you.
Thank you, Anna, for your question. I will let, probably, Alex complement my answer. Indeed, the free cash flow guidance includes the CO2 sales that we've done in Q1, and this with this into taken into account, our guidance is to generate at least EUR 200 million of free cash flow, despite, as we said, the EUR 90 million of temporary transformation costs. What are the levers that we have? Maybe, Alex, you want to explain a little bit what we plan to do.
Yeah. I think if you really try to compare 2025 to 2026, EUAs, it's quite comparable. Okay, we had it last year, we had it this year, broadly same. CapEx, same financing, tax, assume that more or less is stable. The big difference is the fact that last year, in 2025, we could activate working capital. We've optimized it, we ended with quite a low level of activity. That has generated EUR 170 million of working capital reduction, while in 2026, we have assumed this to be broadly stable. That's the main source of variation. We have all these transformation expenses, which are broadly flat, slightly higher.
On the other side, we have provision cash out, and especially Dombasle Énergie project, were quite high in 2025, will be lower in 2026, but it's not the same magnitude as our working capital, working capital variation.
Okay, thank you.
The next question is coming from Geoff Haire from UBS. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for the presentation. A lot of my questions have been answered. I just have one last. Obviously, there's been speculation recently about changes to the European ETS scheme. If those changes that have been put in the press come to fruition, what does that mean for Solvay? Is that a positive or a negative?
Yeah, thank you, Geoff, for the question. No, it's positive. Obviously, it's very positive, and I think it makes sense, right? Because it won't change anything until 2030. I mean, until 2030, except the fact that we know that now that the CBAM will not take place. We are comforted in the strategy that we've presented, which is to be covered until 2030. There were, and there are still, to some extent, a little bit of uncertainties, as to what will happen after 2030. You know, we already cut our CO2 emissions by half since 2005, when the ETS was implemented, and our commitment is to reach -30% in 2023 versus 2021. We will do it, no doubt about that. The other commitment is to do carbon neutral in 2050.
In 2050, not in 2030, not in 2039. That's, by the way, in line with the target of the EU, which is to be carbon neutral by 2050. What we're saying is that we need to align the ETS to the 2050 target. Instead of having, you know, cliffs or disruptions in 2030, in 2033, in 2039, whenever, we want to align the trajectory to 2050. This is good news because it will allow us to do in a good condition, to finalize the energy transition and move to carbon neutrality.
Thank you.
The next question is coming from Katie Richards from Barclays. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Hi, thank you for taking my question. Yes, I just had one follow-up on the ETS, too. Can you just clarify what you meant about with reference to CBAM there, the rules changing? Also just try to understand what exactly, if you could have your dream scenario here, would be the best case for Solvay. Would it be for pushing back the free allowances date later? Would you rather the ETS cost move to EUR 30-40, like Macron is pushing for? What would be your dream scenario? My second question would be on the energy costs. Could you please clarify the degree of the energy cost pass-through in the Soda Ash contracts, and whether the current energy tailwinds would be retained in the unit margins or could decline further due to competitive pressure, please?
My reference with Simon was to say, there is an option to include Soda Ash, and only Soda Ash in our portfolio, into the CBAM. We know that this will not take place at least before 2030, and we are currently discussing and realizing that integrating Solvay to the CBAM would raise a lot of questions and concern. That's why, by the way, also the European Commission is starting to say, we could envisage to continue to give free allowances, in particular for the volumes that are exported. Because obviously, if you don't give free allowances to exports, you would put those volumes under tremendous uncompetitive pressure. We don't have dreams. We're talking about reasonable and efficient trajectories with the European Commission.
I would say that what would be the most efficient would be to have an extension of the ETS with a trajectory that would bring us to neutrality in 2050, right. Something that is much more realistic than what is envisaged today, and something that would also be in line with the fact that today there is no competitive low-carbon energy available in Europe. You cannot ask the consumers like us to be carbon neutral if there is no carbon neutral energy available on the market. It's just to have a reasonable trajectory for the ETS going forward after 2030, and I think this is something that really is resonating more and more with the European policymakers.
Now, on your question, I guess it was on the energy clause that we have in the Soda Ash contract. Those energy clauses still exist, right? Because we've been through a period where energy prices went up, I mean, peaked in extremely strong movements, and so we still have those protections, but they operate when really prices are extremely high. In the current market situation, we don't expect those energy clauses to be operational and to have an impact, to be activated.
Thank you.
The next question is coming from Tristan Lamotte, from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Hi. Firstly, I'm just wondering on Q1, I'm trying to think about the underlying earnings power of the company this year, given you have some temporary impacts on the EBITDA in the guidance. If you, if you strip out the exceptional impacts from the sale of CO2 credits, is the consensus for Q1 of around EUR 205 million a reasonable base level of earnings for this year's kind of run rate? Is it fair to say it would likely be lower than that, given that the Q4 was EUR 170 million, and given that you've talked about not seeing too much seasonality in the business in the past? Thanks.
Yeah. Thank you, Tristan. Well, clearly, I mean, it's difficult to give any guidance, of course, for Q1. From a business perspective, I would say that what we see in Q1 so far is very in line with what we observed in the second semester of last year. Q4 was softer, that's known, right? We know that the end of the year is always softer in some of the businesses. We also had some accruals to take and so on. Q4 was not representative, I think, of the business performance over the year.
That being said, what you can take into account is that we have a guidance of EUR 770 million, between EUR 770 million and EUR 850 million, and that we suppose, business-wise, that there is no significant phasing over the year.
Okay. Got it. Thanks. Secondly, sorry to come back on ETS, but I'm just wondering what the size of the risk is here in a kind of downside scenario. I'm wondering, in the absence of free allowances, is it fair to take your Scope 1 emissions, which I think were around about 6.8 million tons, and multiply that out by the carbon price of EUR 70 to come to a theoretical cost that you would bear in the absence of free allowances? Just to understand the size of that risk without free allowances as it stands.
No, no, I mean, it's not at all this number. I mean, the number that you mentioned is the total emissions globally, a big part of those emissions are not part of the ETS, right? You have emissions in the US, emissions in Brazil, in a lot of areas, it's not, it's not at all this number. Again, as we said, there is no scenario today, I think, where we would stop, you know, getting free allowances. I mean, there's no one in Europe today saying that we should stop giving free allowances.
On the contrary, the momentum today, and I'm much more positive today than I would have been probably a few months ago, is to say we need to continue and even to protect even more European industry. What will happen is that we'll shut down our industry, and we'll import the carbon content from outside. It wouldn't make any sense.
Great. Thanks very much.
The next question is coming from James Hooper from Bernstein. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, both. Thank you very much for taking my questions. First question is around working capital. You did a great job on that in the fourth quarter. To what extent can you just take us through how you managed to make such a big improvement, and then whether you'd expect how you'd expect to maintain working capital at that level? I mean, you mentioned in the SCF question that you're looking for working capital to be flat. Then the second question is about the footprint, 'cause obviously, you know, you're working, and you have yesterday's announcement. If we stay in the current macro picture, is there further restructuring to come here, kind of after the, you know, the plans that we've got in 2026? Is the footprint...
If, you know, if you were starting Solvay again tomorrow, would the footprint look like it is? Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, James. I will let Alex answer the question on the working capital, but I will take the one on footprint. First, I mean, there is no further announcement planned clearly for this year. We, of course, continuously optimize our industrial footprint. This is what we've done, you know, for 160+ years, we are operating on markets where all the players are doing that and are making sure that they always have, on a given market, the best possible assets. We, of course, continue to do that, but we don't expect any big movement in terms of footprint. Now, would we build the same footprint? Probably not.
I mean, every year we would build it in a different way, but we have, of course, a footprint that is, that is good and that is sustainable, and we're making sure that it's the best one in the long run as well. No, that's why we have this very important discussion with the European Commission on the future of the ETS, is to make sure that we have a footprint that will be able to operate in a fair, competitive landscape, right? Alex, if you want to comment on the working capital.
Sure. Hello, James. On working capital, as we said, it's the combination of an internal program and the demand, the demand trend. Now, you may remember, end of Q4 last year, it was before the, before the tariff, there was the demand was quite good until the end of the, of the year. While this year it was quite slow. We can see that in Solvay, we could also see that in our customers and, you know, yes. You have one driver, which is this one, a large part of the improvement is a program we have on inventory, receivable, payable. As our products are quite bulky, it would be more on receivable and payable. We've looked at all the businesses, all the item, we've pushed it.
What it means is that if you look our working capital on sales, at the end of the year, we are in the 10%+ which is among the best in class in the chemical space. It's possible to maintain this level with the current level of activity. If the activity picks up, we will have to. It will be a good problem to have. We will have to rebuild a little bit of working capital, just proportionally, and maybe give a little bit more safety on different elements. For the moment, as our guidance for 2026 assumes, it remains broadly flat.
Again, can you, can I ask a quick follow-up, actually?
Sure
... just on the market? Thanks. Just China, have you seen any rationalization or any evidence of capacity changes or demand improvements there in Soda Ash?
Not yet. Not yet. We know this will happen, right? Because I don't see why, in the long term, plants would run and burn cash, you know, every month. It doesn't make any sense, but at this, at this point, we have not seen that happening yet. What we've seen linked to the MTA evolution, but another, other, in particular, on other businesses, is that China is now really looking very, very carefully at the new permits. Before getting a new permit for a new capacity, you need really to demonstrate that it makes sense and that it's not an overcapacity that we are going to generate.
Not specifically on Soda Ash.
Not specifically on Soda Ash, on other, yeah, on other types of businesses.
Thank you very much.
The next question is coming from Chetan Udeshi from JP Morgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi, thanks for taking my questions. My first question is on rare earths. You know, it seems, you know, things have gone quiet since some excitement at some point last year, nothing seems to have happened. Maybe it's a wrong impression, but I was just curious if you can update us on what's happening. Are you seeing more activity? Are you seeing more requests from European Union in terms of building the capacity? Because they have been talking about, you know, building the rare earths and other critical minerals value chain in Europe. The second question was just around this EU ETS thing. Can you remind us how much of your allowances or how much of your emissions, rather, are covered by free allowances today in Europe?
Is it 100% because you're clearly not producing at full run rate? Or in other words, how much are you buying from the market every year? What I'm trying to get to is if we have, let's say, 2% lower reduction of free allowances every year, is that meaningful for Solvay in terms of benefit? Is that virtually no impact because you don't buy any of the free allowance, sorry, any of the emissions from the market anyway?
Thank you, thank you, Chetan. On rare earths, well, you know, Chetan, when things are quiet, it's not necessarily a bad news. What I can say is that right now we continue to have discussions with all the stakeholders, so with the buyers, because they are more and more interested, of course, to diversify their portfolio, their purchasing of those critical material, and also with the policymakers, both in Europe and in the U.S. There are currently discussions on what would be the best mechanism in order to, you know, secure the volumes and the prices in the long term. There are, in particular, discussions about floor prices, both in the U.S. and in Europe.
I hope things will move very, very quickly now. I can tell you that it's a bit more silent, but it's quite active. On the ETS, no, we have a deficit very clearly. I mean, we are emitting more than the free allowances. That has been the case from the beginning, you know, from 2005 onwards. What we do is we manage our emissions, and we protect them with a portfolio of different instruments. We have, of course, the level of production, which is a key parameter. We have our energy transition project roadmap. The more we secure and de-risk those projects, the more clarity we have on our future emissions. We have the free allowances.
We have some quotas that we have in inventory and that we purchased a long time ago. We started a long time ago. That's why the price today has nothing to do with the market price. We also have forward positions. We have a portfolio of things, and we reassess this position continuously, and this is why sometimes we say we can sell some quotas that we have in inventory, or we can unwind some of our forward positions, and so on and so forth. We manage this very, very actively. 2% is at the same time seems not too much, but it is quite significant, and it's an element that we take into account, you know, to make sure that we're covered.
What is really important is what happens when we have disruptions. This is why the post-2030 discussions are important, because we know exactly what will happen until 2030. The only uncertainty is, I would say, the level of production or our project in Dombasle. If it starts a few weeks later or a few weeks earlier, that can have a little bit of impact, okay? Everything is known until 2030. What is not known is what will happen afterwards. CBAM, with or without free allowances, what will be the new benchmark? This is why the discussions with the EU policymakers is important.
That's clear. Thank you.
Thank you, Chetan.
There are no more questions at this time, so I hand the conference back to Geoffroy for any closing remarks.
Thank you, Gaia, and thank you all for your participation today. If you have any further question, please feel free to reach out to the investor relation team. We have a few events planned in March, road shows and conferences. They are available on the financial calendar page on our website. We will publish our first quarter earning on the seventh of May. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thanks for participating to today's call. You may now disconnect.