Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, I should like to open officially the AGM of ThyssenKrupp, and I'm the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of ThyssenKrupp AG. In this capacity, I would like to welcome you to today's annual general meeting and extend a warm welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, based on the authorization in Section 17, Paragraph 6, Clause 1 of the Articles of Association, the Management Board has decided to hold today's annual general meeting as a virtual annual general meeting without the physical presence of shareholders and their representatives, with the exception of the company's proxies. I would like to briefly explain to you why we are meeting again today for a virtual annual general meeting after the physical annual general meeting last year. The Management Board has carefully weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of the two formats.
The experience from the 2023 annual GM has shown that the virtual format allows all shareholders equally to attend the general meeting, exercise their rights, and engage in direct communication with management regardless of the duration and cost of travel. This is very important to us. In contrast, significantly fewer shareholders came to our annual general meeting in Bochum last year than at previous meetings. At the same time, the costs of a physical meeting are already significantly higher. This is also an important aspect in light of our APEX performance program. In order to keep the possibility of holding virtual general meetings open in the coming year, the Management Board and Supervisory Board propose, under Item 8 of today's agenda, to renew the corresponding authorization of the Management Board contained in Section 17, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 of the Articles of Association.
The previous authorization is limited to two years and could therefore be used for the last time for today's general meeting. The new authorization also does not exhaust the maximum five-year period granted by the legislature, which is five years. It should again be limited to only two years. I would like to stress once again that such an authorization, as you saw last year, does not, of course, exclude the holding of a physical general meeting. The different formats of the annual general meetings this year and last year have shown that we make this decision with an open mind and based solely on the objective criteria for the respective meeting.
For today's annual general meeting, I, as Chairman of the meeting, have determined, in accordance with Section 131, Section 1F, AKTG, that the shareholders' right to information, as well as the right to inquire, pursuant to Section 131, Paragraph 1D, AktG, and the right to ask questions, pursuant to Section 131, may only be exercised by means of video communication and thus as part of a speech. This makes it easier for other shareholders to follow all speeches, questions, and their answers in a coherent manner through the video transmission of the meeting. The Board and I will then answer the questions that you have asked. Should the answer to a question give rise to further questions, then these can, in turn, be raised by any shareholder by requesting to speak.
To help prepare, to help you prepare for today's meeting, the Society published the manuscript of today's speech by Mr. López and my own speech on the Society's website last Monday so that you could also prepare specific questions about our remarks. I look forward to welcoming some of you virtually as speakers at the annual general meeting. President André at the Ruhr Tech campus, all members of the Management Board, and all members of the Supervisory Board whom I would like to welcome very warmly. Sitting on the podium are myself, the members of the Board of Directors, and the Notary. The other members of the Supervisory Board are sitting in the assembly hall to the right of the podium. In addition, the company's two voting representatives are still present here in the meeting room. As in previous years, Notary Dr. Paul in
Essen will prepare the minutes of the annual general meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, let us first look at some of the necessary regulations. The convening of the annual general meeting with the agenda and the management's proposals for resolutions, as well as the additional information for shareholders, was published in due form and on time in the Federal Gazette on December 18, 2024, and was also distributed throughout Europe. At the same time, with the convocation, documents have been made available on the company's website where they can also be accessed during the meeting today. Furthermore, the company has sent the notifications pursuant to Section 125 of the Stock Corporation Act to the recipients specified in the Act, i.e., primarily the depository banks and shareholders' associations within the deadline.
The entire annual general meeting will be broadcast live in picture and sound via the ThyssenKrupp AG Investor Portal for duly registered shareholders and their proxies. In addition, as Chairman of the meeting, I have ordered, in accordance with Section 18, Paragraph 3 of our Articles of Association, that today's annual general meeting will be broadcast in full, in picture and sound, on the internet for the interested public. It can therefore be followed by anyone without restrictions. The annual general meeting will also be simultaneously translated into English. The corresponding language setting can be selected on the website. Recordings of the live broadcast of the annual general meeting are not permitted.
The opening of the annual general meeting, the speech of the Chairman of the Management Board, and the report of the Chairman of the Supervisory Board will be recorded and will later be available as a recording on the company's website. I would like to point out that the authorized vote by you, a third party, for the next virtual annual general meeting can be exercised in two ways: either through electronic postal voting and by granting power of attorney and issuing instructions to the proxies appointed by the company. Voting by electronic postal vote and authorizing by proxy or third party were already possible in advance of the meeting via the Investor Portal. Until voting closes, authorization and voting rights can still be granted during today's annual general meeting via the Investor Portal, or voting rights that have already been exercised can be changed.
I will announce the closing of the voting again at the appropriate time. However, I would like to ask you to cast your vote or issue your instructions and make any changes in good time, as despite all efforts, technical delays may occur during transmissions. If the company's proxies have been or will be authorized, I would like to point out that they may and will only exercise voting rights on the basis of the instructions. The proxies will not, however, carry out any further orders or instructions and will therefore not submit any motions at the meeting. If you have received several registration confirmations, you must exercise your voting rights for each registration confirmation separately so that you can vote or be represented with all of your votes.
Shareholders who have exercised their voting rights can also file an objection to one or more resolutions of today's annual general meeting via the Investor Portal. Until the annual general meeting closes and have the objection recorded by the Notary, the objection will then be recorded via an electronic mailbox monitored by the Notary, as is automatically sent directly to the Notary. I will point out this again before the annual general meeting closes. In the interest of an orderly process, I ask you that please do not wait until the last moment to declare an objection, as despite all efforts, technical delays in the transmission may occur. The Notary monitors and checks the voting process and the technical requirements for it, as well as the functionality and reliability of the system for declaring objections.
In the run-up to today's annual general meeting, shareholders had the opportunity to submit statements on the items on the agenda via the Investor Portal until January 25, 2025. A total of four statements were submitted by four shareholders, and it will then be published. And if you want to take the floor as of 9:00 A.M., you could have asked for it. And also, as at 9:00 A.M., the technical check can be done. And if you would like to take the floor today still, if you haven't done it yet, please register for it as quickly as you can. Ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, prior to my formal report in the previous business year, I should like to talk about the environment and what happened in our company last year.
I said that we're looking at challenging 12 months, and that was true back then, and unfortunately, it's also true for the current year. It was true then. It is true now, and especially more so does it apply to external conditions. We, as a company, have taken a number of steps forward in preparing fundamental decisions that we're striving to make, particularly in ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. Thanks to extensive efforts to safeguard the performance of all businesses, we were able to cushion negative economic and structural developments to a significant extent. All that involved hard work and perseverance by the executive board and employees in many different functions and areas of the company. I would like to expressly thank you for all that. Yet, those are the positive developments we can report. The external environment in which we move has not improved.
On the contrary, in many cases, it has become even more difficult. Some of the positive developments that certainly will kick in haven't been noticed as quickly as we wanted. The headwinds are strong, especially when we're talking about decarbonization. The industries right now that buy from us are in difficulties, and apart from steel, this is also true for automobile suppliers. And also, compared to our competitors domestically, we've had difficulty because we haven't really made the adjustments to the current situation. And this is particularly true for steel and is seen in the massive difficulties that we're facing. And it is not possible to simply defer adjustment. It just makes it more difficult. Now, let me make three further comments. First, on the economic policy environment in Germany.
ThyssenKrupp is in very intensive dialogue with lawmakers due to the businesses and its regional imports, particularly along the Rhine and Ruhr. This is nothing new. It's always been like that. However, despite all the constructive discussions with the responsible policymakers, this also meant that last year, our company, like the entire country, suffered from the general economic policy and the so-called traffic light coalition government in Berlin, and in particular, its disunity and contradictions. The fact that practically all parties in the German economy have now recognized the need for fundamental reorientation of economic policy and have expressed a willingness to act to achieve that gives us hope. But a large part of the current year will have slipped by before the various intentions and announcements voiced by the election campaigners become concrete decisions of a new governing coalition. Second remark as to ourselves.
There were several conflict-laden situations that had to be resolved in the course of the year. This was true both as regards the area of responsibility of the Executive Board when it had to ensure that an urgently needed plan for a genuine restructuring was formulated by the steel business so that the business could be put back on a secure footing in the long term. And this was also true for the Supervisory Board, where we were once again only able to make a decision in 2024 using the Chairman of the Supervisory Board's right to cast a second vote within the framework of the statutory governance rules. Of course, when there is obvious dissent when decisions are made, that is not the vision of good corporate governance. All Supervisory Board members aspire to.
I did not want this, and I will continue to do everything in my power to avoid such situations and overcome rifts. However, a lack of consensus, if it cannot be avoided, must not prevent necessary progress. Not moving things forward in the necessary direction and at the required pace is not an alternative. ThyssenKrupp still needs determination, implementation strength, and speed. Today, we can see clearly in our company, and also, by the way, in other large companies in Germany, how imperative and urgent it is to take significant steps towards change in order to become future-proof. I see a growing willingness on the part of everyone involved to find ways to bring about these changes. In this respect, a degree of confidence is permitted.
And in the debates on the future of industry, industry representatives, the IG Metall and the German Trade Union Confederation have very often acted in concert in recent months and opposed the careless neglect of raw materials industries and manufacturing sectors. If we succeed in the coming months in developing this common ground more strongly, also where that specifically involves shaping the future of ThyssenKrupp, that would be a logical step forward. And a third comment, if I may. We can have little confidence about seeing an improvement in external conditions. In Germany, everything depends on the will to act and the implementation strengths of the next government.
On the transatlantic level, expectations of German and European policymakers and the competitive pressure on Germany and Europe as a business location will continue to increase, not just because of President Trump, and there will be still strong headwinds from autocratic states, including for large parts of our business. I now come to personnel matters and the executive board. In the first quarter of the past fiscal year, we organized the executive board team headed by Miguel López with the appointment of Dr. Volkmar Dinstuhl, Ilse Henne, and Dr. Jens Schulte. I had already reported to you on the 24th annual German meeting on this subject, as well as on Dr. Klaus Keysberg's previous wish to leave the company after 28 years in various top management positions in the thyssenKrupp Group.
You may have gathered from the media that Jens Schulte has since asked for his executive board appointment to be terminated by mutual consent in order to join the index-listed Deutsche Börse AG as CFO. We regret Mr. Schulte's rapid departure from his position, even though we respect the professional opportunity he sees for himself. The Supervisory Board will decide on his successor in an orderly process. The situation is completely different in relation to the upcoming change for Oliver Burkhard. The strongly growing business of marine systems and the new ownership structure we are aiming for have made it necessary for Mr. Burkhard to focus all his energies on one of the two previous duties, i.e., either as a labor director and member of the ThyssenKrupp AG executive board or as a CEO of marine systems. He has opted for the latter and has our full backing.
He will remain with the group in a very important role and will, of course, continue to work closely with his former colleagues on the executive board. He will leave the executive board of ThyssenKrupp AG at the end of the day after serving on it for 12 years. Dear Mr. Burkhard, on behalf of the Supervisory Board, I would like to express my gratitude to you most sincerely for your many years of commitment on the executive board of ThyssenKrupp AG and wish you, as they so nicely say on the coast, fair winds and following seas and always six inches of water under your keel. All the best to you, and we wish you the very best. Thank you.
Obviously, the Supervisory Board will also decide on the successor to the Labor Director in the next few weeks in the process envisioned for this purpose.
Ladies and gentlemen, I now come to the report of the Supervisory Board. I will start by providing an overview of the work of the Supervisory Board over the past fiscal year and the issues that were our primary focus. Details can be found in the written report of the Supervisory Board on pages 11 to 18 of the annual report. The Supervisory Board and Executive Board continued their close cooperation and extensive exchange of information in joint meetings and, of course, also between the meetings. The Executive Board reported in detail to the Supervisory Board at all meetings of the Supervisory Board and its committees. This occurred regularly with discussions in which the Supervisory Board scrutinized the Executive Board's comments and advised the Executive Board.
In addition, each meeting of the Supervisory Board and its committees included a discussion between the members without the presence of the Executive Board, what we call an executive session, in which the Supervisory Board members shared their opinions and assessments. To sum this up, the Supervisory Board fulfilled its monitoring, control, and advisory function in every respect thanks to the large number of meetings and the intensity of the discussions. All but a few of the total 37 meetings of the Board and its committees were attended by all members. The detailed statistics showing an attendance rate of 98.5%, which is actually an increase over the previous year, can be found on page 14 of the annual report and on the website.
The Supervisory Board's most important topics were the deliberations on the improving performance portfolio measures, short and medium-term earnings targets for all segments, and all green transformation measures. The corporate and investment planning for fiscal year 2024-2025, which was discussed in detail and adopted, as well as the envisaged standalone solution for Steel Europe and Marine Systems segments, was also a focus. In particular, at Steel Europe, the progress in construction and costs for the direct reduction plant at Duisburg were the subject of detailed discussions. During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Board again dealt with and took fully into account the recommendations of the German corporate governance code. The current unqualified declaration of conformity released on October 1, 2024, can be viewed on the ThyssenKrupp website.
In it, the Executive Board and Supervisory Board declare that ThyssenKrupp was fully compliant with the recommendations of the governance code as of October 1, 2023, and will continue to do so in the future. Further information on corporate governance can be found in the corporate governance statement in the annual report and on our website. The Executive Board met 12 times in the past fiscal year due to the current situation and the preparations for the meetings of the Supervisory Board, and in addition to preparing the Supervisory Board meetings, focused on changes in the group's net assets, financial position, and results of operations, and all topics relating to ThyssenKrupp's transformation. The personnel committee held eight meetings during fiscal year 2023-2024 in order to prepare personnel matters concerning members of the Executive Board of ThyssenKrupp AG.
Where required, the committee passed resolutions or made recommendations for resolutions of the Supervisory Board. Alongside the personnel changes on the Executive Board, deliberations focused on decisions on aspects of compensation, especially setting of the targets and target achievement for the variable compensation components, and reporting in the compensation report pursuant to Article 162 of the German Stock Corporation Act, as well as the review of the Executive Board compensation system in accordance with the provisions. In addition, the committee discussed and decided on general executive board matters, particularly in the context of the benefits of former executive board members. The audit committee chaired by Werner Wolpert met five times in fiscal 2023-24. The focus of the audit committee's work, and I'll also refer you to the detailed list in the report, was on the tasks specified in its rules of procedure.
In addition to the audit of the parent company and consolidated financial statements of 2022-2023 and the quarterly financial reports, these included the effectiveness and further development of the internal control system, the risk management system, and the internal audit system, and the development of strategic compliance. In today's meeting, the Supervisory Board will propose under agenda item 5 of today's annual general meeting that KPMG is elected to audit the financial statements for fiscal year 2024-2025. In each of these three meetings in fiscal year 2023-2024, the Strategy, Finance, and Investment Committee dealt with the operational and economic situation of ThyssenKrupp and the company's strategic further development. As in the previous year, the topics discussed were the advances made in achieving a standalone solution for Steel Europe and marine systems segments, and, as mentioned earlier, the progress of the project for the direct reduction plant in Duisburg.
Other focal points were the risk assessment of cyber attacks and measures to ensure greater IT security, financing, and liquidity planning, the results of an APEX performance program, and the review of the profitability of individual implemented investment projects. Finally, in September 2024, the committee dealt in detail with the group's corporate investment planning for fiscal year 2024-2025 and recommended that the Supervisory Board approve this planning as submitted by the Executive Board. The members of the nomination committee held two meetings in the past fiscal year. The main focus of these discussions was the screening of potential successor candidates for the shareholder representatives on the Supervisory Board in the event that their seats have to be filled in the future.
As part of that, the committee took into account the recommendations of the German corporate governance code, as well as the profile of required skills and expertise drawn up by the Supervisory Board. For more information on the activities of the Supervisory Board and its committees, please refer to the detailed representation in the report of the Board in the annual report. At this point, I would like to explicitly mention one result of the deliberations in several committees and in the meetings of the Supervisory Board. The company succeeded in generating a positive cash flow and a positive result from ordinary activities in the past fiscal year. In the light of that, payment of a dividend in accordance with agenda 2, a dividend of EUR 0.15 per share for fiscal year 2023-2024, is the proposal of today's AGM.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, I would like now to conclude the report of the Supervisory Board, and I deliberately would like to end with a word of thanks. Despite all the challenges still facing the company, I wish to express my gratitude to the Executive Board and all thyssenkrupp employees for their great efforts, commitment, and dedication in the past fiscal year. I would also like to thank you, dear shareholders, for your loyalty. Despite difficult external conditions, thyssenkrupp made good progress last year, and in the economic performance of key parts of the company, and in the preparation of necessary portfolio decisions. Thank you for your attention. I would now like to hand over to Mr. Miguel López as CEO.
Good morning, dear shareholders. On behalf of the Executive Board, I would like to welcome you to the AGM of thyssenkrupp AG.
We can look back over a very intensive year. We find ourselves in very turbulent times, not only at and for thyssenkrupp, but also in Germany, in Europe, and globally. Despite all the adversities, we have set a lot in motion at our company since last year's AGM, and even more importantly, we have achieved a great deal. In the steel business, we gained a strong partner in the shape of the EP Group. This group has initially acquired a 20% stake of the steel business, an intermediate step on the way to the intended 50-50 joint venture. We have also initiated the long-overdue restructuring of steel. We have had to make the segment fit for the future. Following the presentation of the key points by the new steel executive board in November, the preliminary business plan is now being drawn up.
We're talking about reality and the future of steel as the prime motive, and along these guidelines, further details and implementation together with all of those involved. This cannot be delayed any longer. In the case of marine systems, we have also made considerable progress. The business has won lucrative major orders in recent months due to geostrategic developments. We also expect that demand will keep on rising in the future. Marine systems have cutting-edge technologies above and below the waterline. Our marine business is one of, if not the leading supplier of non-nuclear submarines. Customers from many regions of the world are interested in our high-tech products. In order to position the business even better and make it independent, and to take full advantage of our leading position in a technologically speaking demanding segment of military technology, we are pressing ahead with the spinoff.
We hold key reins in our hands when it comes to further developing a strong German and European defense industry. We have worked hard and systematically in all segments to enhance our performance. Our APEX program played a substantial part in enabling us to close the past fiscal year with a respectable result in a very difficult market environment. After having to adjust our forecast, we achieved our targets for sales and adjusted EBIT. As regards to free cash flow before M&A, we were even able to exceed the forecast we revised during the year and close the fiscal year with a positive cash flow. We also continue to work vigorously on ThyssenKrupp's future, for example, at Materials Services. Data-driven supply chain solutions are the future of the business.
With innovative technologies and the use of artificial intelligence, Materials Services is taking supply chain management to the next level with real-time tracking, predictive analytics, and the greatest possible transparency in the supply chain. We are systematically gearing Materials Services towards that, thereby opening up further lucrative growth opportunities. We not only mastered numerous challenges, but also worked forcefully on the future of ThyssenKrupp. We continue to build up our still young Decarbon Technologies segment and, like other segments, have focused rigorously on the huge opportunities of the Green Transformation. Ladies and gentlemen, we are doing all of this in very critical times for Germany, for Europe, and the free world. Wars. Aggressive behavior by autocrats and now massive competitive pressure and pressure to take action from the USA are keeping the world and us on edge.
Companies, business, and policymakers in Germany and Europe must act to avoid being more and more at the mercy of others. The highly regarded Draghi report to the European Commission unequivocally underscores how important it is for the future of Europe and its greater resilience to reconcile competitiveness and the decarbonization of industry. The report also shows how paths have to be created to finally get back on the road to success. A comparison between the report's recommendations and ThyssenKrupp's portfolio is interesting and very revealing. A particular focus of the report is on Europe's leading role in decarbonization technologies such as wind power or electrolyzers, technologies in which ThyssenKrupp plays a leading role and with which we can make a major contribution not only for the environment and the future of Europe, but also for our business. This is precisely why we founded Decarbon Technologies.
We need not hide our light under a bushel, but we must keep moving ahead because we want your company to finally put the crises that have beset it for many years behind it. We want ThyssenKrupp, Thyssen and Krupp names steeped in tradition, to shine resplendent again and prestigious brands like Rothe Erde, Uhde, Polysius, Bilstein and Presta to regain their luster. We want to lead your company into a bright future as a powerful partner for our customers, as a rewarding investment for you, our owners, as a reliable employer for our employees, as an anchor point for the economy and life along the Rhine and Ruhr, as an innovator and ambassador of industrial expertise, and as a driver of industrial strength and economic renewal around the world. This ambition is reflected in our medium-term financial targets.
We want all our businesses to be profitable in their own right and profitable enough that we can finance their investments in the future by their own efforts and with sovereignty, without cross-subsidization by the group, because that means nothing less than lasting dependence on others. However, you may know just as well as I do that what ultimately counts is not good intentions, but actions, and we need to tackle and implement what has been put off for too long. We have set out to deliver what ThyssenKrupp has promised you as shareholders: sustainable dividends. On the executive board, we are firmly convinced that we have a real opportunity to guide the renewal of ThyssenKrupp to success. We have a clear vision of that path, of the goal and the requirements, but we need more than just determination on behalf of the group's executive board to succeed.
We need momentum across the entire company with leaders who will vigorously shape and implement our strategy. That is why we began last year to significantly enhance our management structures and management team, clear operational responsibility starting on the executive board, and more powerful management teams. Our management is younger, is more female, and is now more diverse and international. For example, we have increased the proportion of women in managerial positions from a low starting level and exceeding the targets we set ourselves. Admittedly, we can definitely increase the current ratio of 16.1%, but we are moving in the right direction. Your company is changing and tapping into a new human resource potential. This makes us stronger, more powerful, and more up to date.
However, a look at our share price shows we are still a long way from where we want to be and that we've only just begun. The current share price does not even come close to reflecting the true value of ThyssenKrupp, as you well know, and it certainly does not reflect the very good future prospects that our business has, and we want to leverage for them. Vigorous action and perseverance are required to achieve that and to regain the capital markets' trust. We, like many others, also face the burden of what is currently a very challenging market environment. This affects Germany in particular. Many of our customer industries are themselves in a crisis: the automotive sector, engineering, the chemical industry, and construction.
The uncertain environment and the overly slow pace in expanding and upgrading public infrastructure mean that the markets for decarbonization and green technologies are not ramping up as quickly as expected, and that also goes for Europe. This is impacting our figures and is not making the necessary transformation any easier. In addition, there is a specific reluctance towards ThyssenKrupp. Too often, we have not succeeded in translating announcements into actual tangible changes, and that is why I say specifically that things cannot and must not go on as they have in the past. We cannot stop again now, but must continue on the path we have chosen with all the necessary rigor, because leaving things unchanged, which have obviously been in decline for a long time, cannot and must not be a solution. That would be destructive, which is why we want and need to turn it around.
Unfortunately, this will not be possible without tensions. Some public disputes are unnecessary and even damaging, especially if they cause irritation among customers or uncertainty in the workforce. We must keep moving forward. This realization is now becoming more and more widespread at our company, but also in its environment. Other companies in likewise very difficult situations have found ways in recent weeks. They have shown that solutions that everyone can agree on are possible. And others, especially in the steel industry, have made it bluntly clear in recent days, sometimes even halting production temporarily, how critical the situation is for them and how urgent it is to make robust and rapid changes if there is to be a future for them here in Germany.
As we experience the powerful forward thrust from across the Atlantic in these weeks, the conclusion can only be: we ourselves need to hit the ground running. We have no other choice. Ladies and gentlemen, I can assure you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are to assure you we also take our responsibility as employers very seriously. We are committed to and will continue to strive for a fair balance of interests with the employee representatives. We want good solutions for all people in ThyssenKrupp, even if this unfortunately cannot mean permanent prospects in the thyssenKrupp group for every individual. We have already made this clear at Steel Europe and in other segments. There is a lot at stake. We must finally lead the group out of its dramatic crisis, change tech, and shape a successful, profitable future.
There's a great deal of potential in thyssenkrupp today, tomorrow, and in the long term. Let me describe these dimensions as follows. Today means above all performance. We're working hard day after day to increase our operating performance. Our aim is to raise our businesses to the level of our competitors. We have launched our APEX performance program in order to systematically tackle this goal in all segments. In the current fiscal year, we are following up with APEX 2.0 in order to further cushion the persistent macroeconomic challenges and to move closer to our medium-term financial targets. Tomorrow means above all portfolio. We want all of our businesses to develop further as best as possible. That is why we are analyzing which ownership structures will allow us to get the best of our businesses.
Where it makes sense, we're taking portfolio measures, for example, with the intended 50/50 joint venture in the steel segment. This current fiscal year will be a year of decisions with regard to our portfolio. In addition to the implementation of portfolio measures, long term primarily means the green transformation in its entirety for the company. We're positioning our businesses to get the most out of our technologies, particularly with the view of the enormous opportunities the decarbonization of industry harbors. I would like to explain the three dimensions of our transformation in more detail. Let us start with a look at the performance. It is a very challenging environment. In a very challenging environment, ThyssenKrupp's businesses performed well overall in the past fiscal year.
After having to adjust our forecast as a result of much weaker demand in July 2024 and consequently in the nine-month period report, we then achieved our targets for sales and adjusted EBIT. If we ignore negative one-time effects for legacy projects in the cement engineering business, we succeeded in maintaining adjusted EBIT at around the prior year level, despite the massive decline in sales. That is a big success. The measures under our APEX performance program have had a visible impact. We even exceeded the target for the free cash flow before M&A in an environment where numerous companies elsewhere issued warnings about lower earnings. Sales declined by 7% to EUR 35 billion. This puts us in the middle of the communicated range of 6%-8%. At EUR 567 million, our adjusted EBIT was within the forecast range of more than EUR 500 million.
At EUR 110 million, the free cash flow before M&A was positive and above the last forecast of around EUR 100 million. The equity ratio is at a very comfortable 35% for the third year in succession. We improved our net financial assets from EUR 3.6 billion on September 30, 2021, to EUR 4.4 billion on September 30, 2024. Our success in the past fiscal year is mainly due to our 98,000 employees worldwide. On behalf of the entire executive board, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of them. With their strong commitment and outstanding efforts, they have ensured that thyssenkrupp has come through this extremely challenging phase very respectably to date, despite the difficult conditions. We're also receiving increasingly positive feedback on the capital market, and I do not only mean the recent significant recovery in our share price.
Despite the high level of uncertainty in the environment, the rating agency Moody's has confirmed its credit rating for ThyssenKrupp and continues to assess our outlook as positive. Standard & Poor's has also maintained its rating and sees us having a stable outlook. This is a decent start, even though we are naturally not satisfied with it. But as you know, stabilization is the basis for recovery. We're moving in the right direction. We want you, our shareholders, to participate in this positive development too. We're therefore proposing a dividend of EUR 0.15 per share for the fiscal year of 2023/24. This means that following the payouts in the previous two years, ThyssenKrupp also aims to ensure dividend continuity for the last fiscal year.
Our primary goal is to restore the group's free cash flow before M&A to a sustainably positive level and to achieve positive value added in the long term. In essence, this requires profitability at least at the lower end of our target range of 4% or 6% for adjusted EBIT, and we're still quite a way from that at present. However, that does not change our goal. That is why we're staying on the ball uncompromisingly when it comes to our performance. We have further developed our APEX program. The focus of APEX 2.0 is increasingly on structural issues and systematic implementation. We have already identified and partially implemented a total of more than 2,500 measures with an earnings contribution of more than EUR 2 billion for fiscal years 2023/24 and then 2024/25. APEX 2.0 will continue to be managed centrally but implemented on a decentralized basis.
This means that target achievement, implementation, and reporting are now the responsibility of the segments. Improving our performance is all the more important as the persistently difficult macroeconomic environment shapes our outlook. Now, the second pillar of our strategy is our portfolio. The prime issue is a standalone solution for Steel Europe. We have made significant progress on the way to becoming a powerful, profitable, and future-oriented steel company. The EP Group's 20% stake means we're now uniting ThyssenKrupp's leading materials expertise with the energy expertise of a leading European energy company. We're still aiming to create an equal 50/50 joint venture with the EP Group. At the same time, we're able to strengthen Steel Europe's autonomy on the path towards commercial independence, and the economic restructuring of Steel Europe also made it necessary to appoint a new executive board at Steel.
With Dennis Grimm, Philipp Conze, Marie Jaroni, and Dirk Schulte, the transformation of Steel Europe is in excellent hands. The declared goal is to create a competitive steel company. We want to make this journey as transparent and secure as possible for the steel business and the group as a whole. Last November, the Steel Executive Board presented its plans for a concept for the future in a key issue paper. The concept envisages reducing production capacity from the 11.5 million to 8.7 to 9 million tons. This roughly means that it corresponds to the volume shipped in the past fiscal year. In doing so, we're adapting to future market expectations. We currently have plant and personnel for making around 2.5 million tons of steel. That is pure overcapacity, which generates zero earnings.
It is capacity we will not be able to utilize fully in the future and due to the structural changes in the European steel market and which we have to shed. But even after this step, the advantages of the integrated production network will be retained. We are planning to divest Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann in order to adjust capacities. Our primary goal is to sell the shares in HKM. If a sale is not possible, ThyssenKrupp Steel will hold talks with the other shareholders to mutually agree on closure scenarios. In addition, the further processing site in Kreuztal-Eichen is to be closed, and it goes without saying that the green transformation plays a key role in the concept of the future. Steel Europe remains committed to its goal of climate-neutral steel production.
Despite all existing and new challenges, we are sticking to our plan to complete the first direct reduction plant. At the same time, we're holding constructive talks with the relevant bodies to ensure the economic viability of this large and innovative investment project. As you probably know, the direct reduction plant is designed to run on hydrogen, but in principle, it can also be operated with natural gas. As a result, it also reduces CO2 emissions by around 50% compared to current blast furnace technology. The time at which the plant is commissioned is therefore not explicitly constrained by the need for sufficient quantities of cost-effective green hydrogen to already be physically available. By 2030, the two blast furnaces, 8 and 9 in Duisburg, are to be replaced by the direct reduction plant and the two planned innovative smelters. We continue to receive political support for our decarbonization projects.
A current example, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research recently informed us that our Carbon2Chem initiative will receive EUR 25 million in funding in the next project phase up to 2028. In this research project, we are converting blast furnace gases from steel production into base chemicals. The concept for the future for Steel Europe also envisages around 5,000 job cuts and outsourcing of a further 6,000 jobs. However, you can rest assured that we still intend to find socially acceptable solutions and avoid compulsory redundancies. We have already taken the first steps towards the necessary transformation. Yesterday, we successfully completed the sale of electrical steel in Nashik. In addition to jobs, we're also looking at labor costs, which we aim to reduce by an average of 10% in the coming years so as to achieve a competitive cost level.
We are aware that this path will demand a high degree of flexibility from our emplyees. That is why it is now all the more important for all those involved to live up to their responsibility together in order to get the steel businesses back on track. After all, reducing capacities, restructuring the energy base, and expanding the necessary infrastructure for that is unavoidable if we want to safeguard the steel-producing location. We must all face up to this fact. So much has to steel. As you know, we're also pursuing another similarly important portfolio issue, the spinoff of marine systems. I have already mentioned the growth opportunities for TKMS at the outset. Our order books are bulging, and there is still keen interest worldwide. Others also see this growth potential. We recently received very positive feedback from investors at a roadshow in New York.
We want to make the best possible use of the opportunities that arise in establishing a standalone solution. As you know, the investment company named Carlyle withdrew from the bidding process for marine systems last fall. It's not up to us to speculate on the reasons for this decision. However, we can rule out that this decision was due to commercial considerations or the financial performance and attractiveness of our marine business. The fact is, the business is performing excellently, and its prospects are more than good. Just at the end of last year, the German Parliament and the government voted by a majority in favor of procuring four option boats for the German Norwegian submarine program, and an important civilian contract in the field of research is being added in the shape of Polarstern II.
With this comprehensive expansion, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems is being awarded one of the largest orders in the company's recent history. Norway too has already signaled its intention to increase the number of submarines ordered. Marine Systems holds a strong position vis-à-vis its European and global competitors and has outstanding growth perspectives. It would be better able to realize this in other potential and new ownership structure. Please allow me to note in this regard that this growing business and its spinoff under the very specific framework, conditions, and regulatory requirements demands leadership of the utmost vigor. That is why we on the ThyssenKrupp Executive Board are very grateful to our colleagues Oliver Burkhard for his willingness to devote all his energies to this business moving forward. Alongside that, we're now channeling all of our energy into spinning off Marine Systems.
In Automotive Technology, we are pursuing a differentiated approach, comprising portfolio adjustments and restructuring. We are at an advanced stage of the negotiations on the sale of springs and stabilizers business unit at Automation Engineering. We have halted the divestment process for the time being and will gradually shut down the powertrain activities in Bremen by 2026. We are reorganizing the structures of our Body Solutions activities in order to increase our competitiveness and profitability. At our Italian subsidiary Berco, targeted measures have also been introduced following a careful review in order to return the company to profitability. We see a lot of potential in the Materials Services segment due to our leading position in the global market. We have improved the efficiency of our organization and intend to continue investing in the future.
In the past fiscal year, we realigned our materials trading business in Germany in response to the difficult market situation and structural changes in the European industry. We're now focusing more strongly on the growing demand for materials-related services. We have also made further progress with our materials and services strategy. We are increasingly evolving from a traditional material supplier into a fully digitized supply chain manager. For example, we have extended our long-standing partnership with one of the world's leading aircraft manufacturers in the area of comprehensive supply chain services. We have also opened new services centers in the U.S. and Mexico and are thus continuing our growth trajectory in North America. The acquisition of a provider of precision metal processing in the USA also strengthens the company's market presence in the important field of electrification of industry.
The center in Mexico also contributes to the green transformation because it specializes in providing exclusive services for the production of lightweight and electric vehicles. We are also continually strengthening our digital business models and expanded the product range of our startup Pacemaker by acquiring a leading provider in sustainability management platforms in 2025. With the AI platform, Smart Processing, we are digitizing the ideal arrangement of blanks on sheets and the pricing process. Ladies and gentlemen, as we press ahead on tackling our portfolio issues, we are keeping an eye on the major growth topic of the coming decades, the green transformation. Decarbonization has strong market potential, potential that we as a group aim to benefit from with our technologies and experts. We at thyssenkrupp will continue to pursue our path forcefully. We will be well prepared and systematically leverage the opportunities the green transformation offers us.
Even if the climate policy strategy is not pursued consistently all around the world, we need to tackle de facto risks. We'll inevitably push decarbonization more and more into the focus of companies, investors, and governments. Our decarbon technology segment is one of the world's largest providers of innovative cutting-edge technologies in this field. In this segment's first year, we took the initiative and introduced a large number of steps to strengthen the business focus on the future-oriented products and services. It is now a question of accelerating the transformation of the decarbon technologies business model moving away from individually produced large-scale plants to greater modularization centers for the expansion of the profitable service business. This is especially true in the case of Polysius and Uhde. In the current fiscal year, we are building on this to further improve profitability in all businesses. We have already achieved initial successes.
Polysius is supplying the key technology for the world's first carbon-neutral cement factories. Just last month, Heidelberg Materials and thyssenKrupp Polysius signed a contract for the plant design of the clinker production line in Geseke. The planning includes a potential capture capacity of around 2,000 tons per day, including the pure oxy-fuel process from Polysius. Polysius will soon construct two carbon capture plants for the Greek Titan Cement Group. Our company was awarded the contract last October. From 2029, the plants are expected to cut carbon dioxide emissions by around 1.9 million tons per year, or around 12% of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Greece. In addition, our electrolysis specialist, thyssenKrupp Nucera, signed a memorandum of understanding last year with Hydrom to support the growing green hydrogen sector in Oman and also to promote cooperation.
This step by thyssenkrupp Nucera underlines once more that our technologies make us an internationally sought-after partner, especially in growth regions. Decarbonization technologies businesses are the best proof of how great our business and growth opportunities are when we focus on the potential beyond our home region in the industrial heart of Europe and take concrete action. By that, I mean the countries of Southern Europe and the Middle East, but also, of course, North America and Asia. Focusing more strongly on these huge and unsaturated target markets is necessary, yet also a lucrative opportunity for us. That is why we remain very confident with regard to decarbonization technologies. We are preparing the businesses so that they can unleash their full potential as soon as the green transformation picks up speed. Ladies and gentlemen, we are shaping the renewal of thyssenkrupp and pressing ahead with that rigorously.
We have no time to lose. Here and now, we are revving up our performance and systematically and consistently bringing the performance of our businesses up to the level of the competition. With APEX 2.0, we are heralding the next stage in the current fiscal year. We have our financial targets firmly in our sights. We are continuing to develop our portfolio for tomorrow and are striving for the best possible ownership structures for each of our businesses. With EP Group as a strong partner and the restructuring that has been initiated, steel is making major steps towards a standalone solution. The spinoff of the marine business is also taking more concrete shape. 2025 is a year of decisions for ThyssenKrupp. To ensure long-term success, we are gearing all our businesses towards decarbonization.
Green markets will pick up speed, not quite as quickly as we had hoped, but with a clear trend and increasing momentum. We are ready for that. In short, we are focused and we continue to move forward on our chosen path. As an efficient partner for our customers, as a reliable employer for our employees, as a rewarding investment for you, our owners, as part of the economy and life along the Rhine and Ruhr, as an innovator and ambassador of industrial expertise, and as a driver of industrial strength and economic renewal around the world. Thank you for your trust and support in our efforts as we continue on the path of rigorously renewing your company. Mr. López, thank you for your comments. Ladies and gentlemen, we're now moving on to our agenda for today, and overall, the agenda today is the eighth Annual General Meeting.
We will be presenting the annual conclusions of thyssenkrupp AG and the approved corporate results of the 30th of September 2024, together with the report of thyssenkrupp AG and the group's fiscal year 2023-2024. Agenda point three is the resolution on the discharge of the members of the board of directors. Agenda point item four is the resolution on the discharge of the members of the supervisory board. Point five is the decision on the election of the auditor, the consolidated auditor, and the auditor for the review of interim financial reports, as well as the auditor for sustainability reporting. Point six is the resolution on the approval of the remuneration report. Number seven is the resolution on the approval of the remuneration system for the members of the management board.
And item eight is the resolution on the renewal of the statutory authorization to enable virtual general meetings in the future. For the full details of the agenda and the information of the shareholders, please look at the invitation. The annual and the group report, and the report of the supervisory board, and details of the executive board in accordance with the provisions, and the further details and documents have been available since the invitation on the 18th of December on the website of the company, and also available for perusal there during the course of the meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, in the meantime, I have the listing of all of the shareholders and representatives who have registered for today, as well as the corporate proxies and the persons represented in the electronic.
The representatives of the shareholders and the company representatives currently represent shares, which represent 44% of the share capital. In addition, postal votes have also been cast. In total, that means that 298,584,534 shares are represented overall. This represents a share of the share capital of 47.96%. At the present time, 294 shareholders and representatives are electronically connected to the AGM. The details of that can be referred to on the website. Ladies and gentlemen, we're now moving on to the details of the discussion of the points on the agenda. Insofar, if you wish to request to speak, you can do this via the investor portal. You can also ask questions and follow-up questions and make proposals and requests.
In the interest of all shareholders and to speed up today's proceedings, let me point out that only those persons who wish to speak will be authorized to relate to today's agenda. Please bear that in mind. As to asking to speak on the investor portal, this can be done up until the closure of the speaker's listing. After that, it is only possible to make applications and proposals. We already have many persons who wish to speak. An experience based on the past is that fewer and fewer shareholders and representatives are present during the course of the meeting. Therefore, it is in the interest of all shareholders that the speeches do not take too long, and that is why then that will help the AGM speed on today. Only in that way is it possible for all persons to make their comments and to discuss all aspects.
Therefore, I would like all those who wish to speak to reduce their question and speech time to a maximum of 10 minutes. This does not represent a formal restriction on your right to speak or ask questions, but I would like you to do that in the interest of all persons who are connected today. The company has provided detailed information during the run-up to the meeting, and therefore, I assume that your questions will be restricted to a number of clear fields. Please make sure that you provide information on this when you request to speak. In order to help you check your speaking time and question time, a clock will be running in full view. And let me ask you again, in the interest of all persons listening and connected, to reduce your total time to 10 minutes.
Bearing in mind the request to speak already listed, I will make use of my right to a formal reduction in the time spent speaking. After the conclusion of the questions and answering thereof, I will request votes to be made, taken on the points on the agenda, and for resolutions to be made. I would like to point out that if you wish to make right use of your rights, this is possible until I close that section. I will provide you. Let me please ask you not to wait until the last minute before doing so because technical difficulties could occur, whatever. Ladies and gentlemen, we will make all efforts we can to come up with rapid answers to any questions made. Therefore, the Executive Board and I will then provide answers in the meantime to questions made.
If any of your questions cannot be answered to your satisfaction, you can also ask a follow-up question. For this, please do that as soon as possible in order to ensure that the AGM takes place in a speedy fashion. As I said, we have many requests to speak already, reports requested, and these, namely, Mr. Tümler from my German shareholders' organization, Mr. Voss, and Mr. Henrik Schmidt from DWS Investment GmbH. During the course of the AGM, I will also provide a prior notice on which speakers will have the right to speak and in which order they can speak. Each speaker will be asked to speak individually. Mr. Tümler, please carry on now. This is your chance to speak with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me this chance to speak. Mr.
Russwurm, I would like to my name is Tümler, and I'm from the DSW, which is a German organization for persons holding shareholders in. And Mr. Professor Russwurm, I will definitely keep to your 10-minute rule so that a little bit of discipline is not a problem. Ladies and gentlemen, the course of the year obviously provided some pain to shareholders. If we look at what's happened in the world, the list of things which weren't very nice is actually quite long. It was a year of unrest and scandals, and that applies in all directions. Sometimes I ask myself, how is it possible to actually work as a supervisory as an executive board or a supervisory board, bearing in mind all of the issues which are taking place, especially when things appear in newspapers? That kind of reporting and informing has to be stopped.
Therefore, we want things to calm down. Please ensure that things calm down during the course of the year and that the irritations of last year do not repeat themselves. That is very important for us shareholders. You, Mr. López, you s poke of a year of decisions.
Let me go one step ahead on that. 2025, this fiscal year will be a year of destiny for the ThyssenKrupp AG because many decisions which you make are necessary, large, major decisions, which decisions made which were left untouched by your predecessors over the last 10, 20, 30 years. And we would request that you take these decisions because I think it is we have to make decisions in order that our company has a future and a good future. We want it is a good future and that the company has a future.
Then we ask that you use all of your energy and rigor to make the decisions, make the right decisions because another delay of two or three years is something we cannot afford. And we know that, you know that, shareholders know that. Please make sure that clear decisions are made and can be made. The basis obviously has to be created for such decisions. I've brought a couple of questions along. First of all, let me refer to the format of this AGM, this virtual. Which aspects made you decide to do this? Last year was a meeting where we were all able to be present, which is what were the basis for your decision for this virtual for your decision? Obviously, you said that it should be based on material, on a good basis, on a good foundation.
And so please let us know what are the criteria on which you do this and which formats will be expected in the future. Let's move on to politics. What is your opinion of Friedrich Merz that which we intend to do as a CO2-free Germany, net-free Germany that has no future? You have supported that decision by the politics, but please give us your opinions on that, how you see that situation and that CO2 and Mr. López may possibly play a major role from February of this year in Germany. And we look across the Atlantic. Mr. López, this sustainability debate in the USA has been completely turned around in the last few days and weeks. And so the transformation speed in the USA is going to be slowed right down. In Europe, that's happening too.
Is that good for us at ThyssenKrupp if that transformation rate is slowed down or for the processes we are in the process of implementing? And something happened, it will affect us, it will impact us. So what is the how will it affect by us? What about the current status of ThyssenKrupp Steel? Discussions taking place. When do you think a decision can be made? Some has already been sold off. We'd like information on what will happen in the future. Will that be decisions made this year? Or, as I said, we don't have that much time. What is the role of the state, of the federal state here? You said that EUR 25 million subsidies is to be granted. That sounds great, but ultimately, what is it? Is it apples and pears? Do we need subsidies from the state, from the federal regional state here?
And what is planned? I don't know. I don't know if it helps us all if the state starts taking shares, taking up a stake. I don't know if that's right. And how do you see the role of the federal government and the regional government and politics as a whole and how the impact on the company? And so that we know exactly what are your opinions of such developments? In the case of ThyssenKrupp Steel, are there other addresses who are interested in taking part apart from Mr. Křetínský or that company which already has a 20% stake? Is that a good situation? Can we or are talks taking place with others? And so the question is, what is the situation there overall? And are talks taking place in a good atmosphere?
Or you now have a new management in place there and they say that the current process is the right one. Does that also apply if sales take place and how you see that overall? Another matter which is sometimes ignored is that things take so long for the customers. I don't want this green steel. And so maybe the customers don't share your opinions on the transformation. How long do you think that the customers will take before they start providing orders to make this part of our business profitable? So basically, my question is, how long is it going to take adapting our capacities until that actually reaches the client? I know that we have this pressure for transformation, but please be a little bit more specific. Okay, with marine systems, maybe a bit more. You said spin-off, IPO, and all that, the sale.
Just tell me what are the options and what do you actually prefer? You said a bit, but perhaps just a bit more information. Do we see a solution for this year or is it going to take even longer? And how much are we going to keep or are we going to give everything away? And then finally, as to the dividend. Why? Why do you actually propose a dividend? Maybe you're surprised to hear that question, but I still wonder, why do we have it? So does that mean that we're supposed to expect a dividend for the future too? Because the one more thing we're not interested in, we're interested in continuity. So maybe another word on that. And then finally, I'd like to ask you, Dr. Schulte, you came just to leave again, which is not nice to us and the shareholders, of course.
It's not fair what you did. It's indecent just because maybe you take on a job where there is less stress and possibly more money, but that's not the style that we expected. We have to give you money for you to join us, and then in no time you're leaving us again. That was not very nice. No good style. What happens to the monies that have already been paid to you? We're talking EUR 1.8 million. I understand that we had to pay off your former liabilities with other companies where you were working, but coming here and then leaving us on the spot, that is not very nice. Are you going to simply say, no, you don't want that money anymore? You can do without it.
And perhaps final question, I think you too have a reputation and you want to take good care of it. So how about if you pay back the EUR 600,000 that you have been paid? Or better yet, the Deutsche Börse AG, how about if they pay it to us, your new boss? Therefore, thank you very much for your attention. And 2025 is the year of destiny of ThyssenKrupp AG. All the very best. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Tümler, for your content and also that you were right on the dot with your 10 minutes. Mr. Henrik Schmidt and then Ingo Speich and Mr. Hofner can already prepare to get ready. First of all, is Mr. Schmidt DWS Investment GmbH? There you go. Wrong, sor ry. I pressed the wrong button. Mr. Tümler had already been gone. So the next speaker is Mr. Voss and then Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Voss, sorry about that. That was my bad. New technology. It may happen one more time, but after 10 minutes, I should be okay. So, Mr. Voss.
Thank you very much for that. No problem. That can happen. I'll start right away. I have three areas. A couple of questions. You know the questions. I sent them to you in advance. And the second part, I have a couple of strategic comments I'd like to share with you. And then as to the dividends, we agree not because we're so excited about it, but I think that, of course, in the hands of the shareholders, the money is better spent than anywhere else. But if you can't really earn money, you shouldn't really distribute money either. And you can only spend EUR 1 once at a time.
And APEX or what you now call it, APEX 2, you said that you were very grateful to all of the staff, but you didn't say so much about the management team. What is the reaction there? Are they actually in favor of that program? Do they see that as something positive? You are the fourth board now with the fourth idea. So when you're talking to the representatives of the workers, for example, I have to understand it such that they don't really want any of the changes and they don't really support APEX. Well, in management, they say that any kind of statistic may be wrong, especially if people fill in the forms. The metrics may not be correct here as to measure how well we have achieved our goals. So how can you actually make sure that the metrics you're using are the correct ones? Okay.
And then, going through the individual divisions, EUR 2.5 million or EUR 2.0 million. You said that's what you're aiming for. And how much of that have we already achieved? And then, in very concrete terms, you're talking about successes, but I'm sure there are those points where people may not be so excited about it as to so much as to APEX. And the second one is remuneration. Well, that's a bit of a dry point in the agenda. And I have a bit of a headache with that because why was it that it was always 65% that was the level of achievement of goals, 65% for each and every one of the members of the advisory board, for each member of the board? So if everybody gets 65%, that means that apparently there is no proper metrics or the principle of incentives is not being used.
Could be that somebody gets 69%, the other one 61%. No, but you decided everybody gets exactly the same. So please explain your criteria. And then what is it that is missing to achieve 100%? Why is that so impossible? That leads us to the point, the background of this method. As to the process of determining that, who are the people, what are the means of measuring? And now the planning of the company. How can you possibly install a metrics for that to see as to what point the actions of the board are congruent with what has been pronounced as the objective? So what are the data that you actually use? I cannot imagine that if you actually do it on a one-by-one basis, on an individual basis, that then all of a sudden you achieve 65% for each and every one. Mr.
Schulte, your case has already been mentioned by Mr. Tümler. I can only agree. Why is that not something that you thought about earlier? So if somebody leaves the company after only half a year, isn't there a way of getting the money back? I mean, that cannot be because that is something that is definitely not acceptable. And it's a lack of respect towards us, towards the company. You promise sustainability, we sit down, and then after a few months' time, you leave. That's not a way to lead a company. And it cannot be that you sign contracts and after half a year you say, "No, sorry, I'm not interested anymore. I found something better." No, sorry. I think we should not let you go simply like that.
So I expect the members of the board not to allow for that to happen this time and hopefully not for the future. But Mr. Tümler already pointed that out. Finally, the strategic ideas. I went through the exercise and I actually did the metrics on each and every member of the board. And most of them, the executive members, and most of the bosses have actually failed. Mr. López, I think that you will also not be able to be successful. Not because I doubt that you have the means and the personality to do that, but the company is dysfunctional as such. I mean, the company is set up in such a way that you're bound to fail. So that doesn't mean that you only have to think about the ideas of individual parts of the company, for example, for the employees.
But apparently, there is no core determination at the moment at the company. Therefore, I think the board here is dysfunctional. So now we still have one, we have the foundation, but that endowment apparently is not helping at all. We don't have a clear definition of interests. So again, I have to say that the supervisory board is completely dysfunctional. And therefore, in the past 15 years, no board was able to work properly. And that will also be the same for the years to come. Last fall, I saw it for the first time. Like we had, this is the year of destiny. So where we're going to be at in January 26, hopefully a little bit further on that we have divested part here and there. So elevators quite well, still difficult times.
But at the end of the day, there's going to be just a number of remnants. So isn't it that TK is completely dysfunctional as such and maybe the entire group should be dissolved? Who knows? But the power structures have to be different in the future. And some of the issues will be resolved, but the way we are set up now, this is not working. It would be in the interest of the shareholders. And I'm looking forward to your comments on this. So I wonder what we should actually have to decide on in January 26 when all the easy things have been sold and the remainder is still there.
Thank you, Mr. Voss. And now it's Mr. Schmidt, and then Mr. Speich, and then Mr. Markus Büchner. Mr. Schmidt, sorry about the hiccup a minute ago, but now it is your turn for sure. All right.
Thank you very much, Professor Russwurm. Mr. López, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Henrik Schmidt. I represent DWS Investment GmbH, one of the largest bond companies in Europe. All right. Please let me make one general remark upfront. Since 2018, the focus has always been on the economic situation. It was always just five minutes to 12, and now it's like one minute to 12. But at the beginning here, I'd like to point out that we must extend our gratitude to all the people who work at ThyssenKrupp, and that also extends to the members of the board. I know that's not been easy. Now, the board around Mr. López, they have already gone through a full year. The geopolitical macroeconomic situation has gotten worse, but the capital market has improved a bit. But what can I say? It's all negative.
The development of the stock price from 723 to 8 is, I mean, it's alarming. We are losing. So operational measures apparently have not shown any effect. That is at the center of our criticism. And we expect from you, Mr. López, that you have a clear concept how you want to regain the trust of the capital market. What are the reasons for this negative rating of the company at the stock exchange? And what do you want to do to get the shares up again? On the basis of the EBIT, you propose EUR 0.15 as a dividend. And then apparently you are financing that from other parts of the company. On page 87 of the annual report, we were EUR 156 million down from the last year. So for the past year, the difference is EUR 146 million.
That should be EUR 0.25 and EUR 1.4 billion or a negative result of EUR 2.42. It's even more drastic. From the point of view of the shareholder, it sounds nice that you're still paying a dividend out of free cash flow. I think, just like I said last year, it is more important that the company has a long-term payment of dividends out of operations. You said on page 47 that in the fourth quarter, there is still a reduction of the value of EUR 700 million. Please explain that, why we are talking about this kind of depreciation. Then on page 53, you say that there were material increases for Materials Services and the restructuring efforts in Automotive and Materials Services have been. Decarbon Technologies have been rising.
So please explain what does that mean and what are the special effects here and what are your expectations for the current year and how can we have the dividends payout out of operations? From what I see, ThyssenKrupp is aware of the problems, but it doesn't really implement solutions. Mr. López and his colleagues have never shown any doubt to act. I mean, they even implemented painful decisions, but still we had drawbacks. Sales went down by 7% and EBIT, it's just that EBIT 19% down, EUR 1.4 billion down, free cash flow, EUR 110 million was still positive, but much below the values of the previous years. That shows that we're not going fast enough. And also with these high expectations, with the restructuring of the portfolio, we see that there is something off. Decarbonization is not helping us to have the new direct reduction plant in Duisburg.
That's a milestone, Mr. López, you said that. But please, how can you plan to make sure that this investment will be implemented within the budget plan? And how much are we, how far advanced are we in our order books for that plan? And these price increases and these problems, what kind of effects will they have? So we are lacking a clear plan for a sustainable profitability. I know that the restructuring measures are necessary, but that cannot be the only answer. Our question is, how do you plan on getting it more competitive without endangering the overall capacity of the company? And what are the advances in the talks? So because it's clear, even if the numbers have slightly been reduced, we are still at a very high level at very high energy costs. And starting the elevator division was good at the beginning of the pandemic.
But like you said yourself, a positive free cash flow was only possible because of some of the pre-payments made.
I would like to, I'm repeating myself. I know that ThyssenKrupp cannot afford to live off its savings and sell things off. With the sales increase of 60% and an increase in the EBIT, we can see that the deliberate investment in the highest margin areas is worthwhile for the company. It is also obvious that despite the action last year, the situation has improved. The plans for the independence of the segment after the Carlyle Group failure, and so things are clear in terms of other investors. Which concrete milestones have you set for the coming months in order to allow the independence of that segment? And how far advanced are the individual plans with those interested parties?
How confident is the board that decisions and conclusions will be arrived at? A couple of governance issues from last year, which I think are very unsettling. In the course of the year that it started, there were three additional members who were appointed for M&A sustainability, finance, and capital markets, cybersecurity. That was a logical readjustment of the executive board. Also the communications on this, and Mr. Schulte, who arrived, and his decision to leave, as has been reported, that was very unsettling, especially in the background that Mr. Schulte from the 1st of February, from tomorrow, is a member of the personal board of the thyssenkrupp. So the question is, how long will Mr. Schulte be a member of the board? How do you plan to replan the next member for the financial aspect?
And do you plan to continue to pay the outstanding payment to Mr. Schulte, despite the fact that he is leaving early, and especially bearing in mind the financing aspects that have been referred? And how can this kind of bonus be agreed, even though the company has no capacity for such payments? And how can this kind of clause be accepted by the board members? It is obvious that the agreement of such a bonus means that the remuneration system is obviously absurd, and we don't think that payment should be made to Mr. Schulte. Who is going to make that payment? ThyssenKrupp, AG, or who? We do need to have a good succession ruling for the new members, but we demand that the decisions are made by the appropriate boards and committees.
We are also very worried about the outlook for Europe, bearing in mind that the independence of that segment, that with the actions of Mr. Gabriel as a member of the supervisory board, we think it is therefore necessary that transparency is maximized with respect to personal decisions in order to avoid conflicts of interest and to increase the level of trust of shareholders. Therefore, which Mr. Kr etinsky, which board meetings did he take place, and when was he present at those board meetings? I'm arriving at the end of my comments. We will be looking at the reappraisal of the remuneration system, and we will be looking closely at any changes that are made to dear members of the ThyssenKrupp community. We know that the situation at ThyssenKrupp is very difficult, and we could say that we're on fire.
You all bear responsibility for the company moving forward in the next few months. It moves towards a future with good prospects. Otherwise, ThyssenKrupp will simply not be able to satisfy its own claim to be a driver of innovation in Germany. Thank you for preparing answers to my questions, and good luck otherwise. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for your contribution. The next person speaking will be Ingo Speich, and then Mr. Markus Dufner and Tilman Massa. Mr. Speich, please carry on.
Thank you, Professor Russwurm. My name is Ingo Speich. I represent Deka Investment, one of the largest fund investors in Germany. Ladies and gentlemen, last year has been basically one that's lost as far as shareholders are concerned. Hopes for recovery haven't taken place. The share price has collapsed by 50% and even more compared with others in the sector.
The trust of the market has disappeared. Mr. López, your first full fiscal year was not very satisfactory. The rebuilding of thyssenkrupp has slowed down and stagnated. You promised a great deal but haven't delivered, but you've promised a lot, as I said. The only thing produced has been hot air. Mr. López, the APEX program and the savings announced is very non-transparent and is not understandable to shareholders, and the other results that you promised us, and there's no good plan available for how the steel section will be rebuilt, and all other aspects have many plans to spend money without any apparent results, so the board members of the supervisory board and the use of the double voting rights need to be transparent, and the supervisory board is a very closed group, but so you apparently are able to make decisions, but the results have not followed on.
There is a major crisis, but the main shareholder must have an opinion on this situation. In the current stagnating situation, the members of the thyssenkrupp family should have had an opinion and supported and made decisions. What is their opinion on the strategy and the management and how it's moving ahead? Do you support the executive board? The cash in hand is not that impressive, but it is not sufficient for moving ahead in the future. There is a negative EUR 400 million impact expected during the course of the current year. We don't need to be fortunately to know that the next crisis is coming our way. There's lots of pressure to act. You still have time to act. Do not lose any of this valuable time. Please give us details of the steel sector.
thyssenkrupp is now one of the largest industrial companies in Germany. That's nothing new, but the capital market thinks something needs to happen. Three milestones need to be satisfied. Firstly, a clear positive cash flow. Thirdly, a long-term solution for steel. And third, the sale of marine systems. A positive cash flow can only be achieved by improving operating business and only by readjusting the steel section. And the competitiveness looks different. Your costs are too high, investments are too low, and the CO2 aspect is also very difficult for the steel department. And you have given us no strong structure for moving ahead. Therefore, is it possible to achieve progress in the steel department? And does the German state still stand on your side? And any participation of the state will obviously be at a certain cost and have certain consequences.
And if you wish, what is happening on the climate plan? The simplification of thyssenkrupp and the reduction of costs need to take place. We need to sell the Marine Systems. It is not understandable for us why this hasn't taken place in the past, bearing in mind the geopolitical situation. The Marine Systems is just a curse. What's stopping you taking action now? The market situation would be possible. What about the spin-off? What is stopping you doing this? Is it the capital structure or is it something else? What is the role of the German government for the sale or a spin-off? Ladies and gentlemen, let's move on to the agenda. We are against the use of your resolution 4.2. thyssenkrupp has been living off its substance for many years. We need to stop doing that.
As long as the free cash flow is so weak, no dividends can be paid. In the past year, the portfolio needs to be cleared up, but that hasn't taken place, and the APEX is non-transparent and therefore is not easy to understand. As to point three, the ratification of the members of the board members, we are against that. We are also against the proposal of agenda point eight, and many strategic issues need to be discussed at thyssenKrupp. I don't think that the virtual format helps that much, but it does mean that fewer shareholders come and take part in the AGM. Maybe you couldn't fill up the previous venue. Maybe you should arrange the next AGM as a press meeting, but maybe in a smaller venue. We would agree with that. At Deka Investment, we demand that the two boards produce positive results.
There's not only a sense of thyssenKrupp Group on the shareholders, but also in particular for the many thousands of employees in the company who give their best every day. Thank you and good luck in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Spies, for your contribution. The next is Mr. Markus Dufner, and then Mr. Tilman Massa, and then we will provide the first answers. Thank you so for Mr. Markus Dufner. Please, this is your chance.
Dear members of the Supervisory Board and Executive Board, dear shareholders. My name is Markus Dufner. I am CEO of the Dachverband Kritischer Aktionäre. We represent shareholders, many, lots of shareholders. It is a pleasure for me to be here representing also other cooperative partners. For example, Shareholders for Change, a European network for sustainable shareholders. My first point is this Virtual AGM. Mr. Löb has been formed a year ago.
You invited us to go to Bochum. The protest of your employees and the IG Metall must have given you such a shock that you decided to have this year again in a virtual format, and that means that you won't be in close enough contact with your shareholders or employees, and everyone is kept at a distance and at arm's length. That is one of the great advantages of this kind of meeting, but for us and for many shareholders and organizations, we think that there are lots of disadvantages. The Krupp- Stiftung and the fall of ThyssenKrupp. The ThyssenKrupp AG has again provided negative headlines, and so there are various articles about how they are working together to destroy the company. As chairman of the Krupp- Stiftung, which still owns 20% of the shares of the company, you could have helped develop a sustainable strategy for the company.
Instead of that, you allow the CEO and the chairman of the supervisory board and executive board to take steps to destroy the company or also insult the employees. There won't be much left of thyssenkrupp Steel AG if we carry on this way. How do you intend to stop the fall of thyssenkrupp? We also oppose agenda point three and four. We don't intend to ratify the members of the board. In the case of thyssenkrupp, agenda point four, only members will be ratified. Others will not. In a company which has previously been proud of its close cooperation with the employees and its representatives, the supervisory board has shown that it is not able to enter compromises. Mr. Russwurm, as chairman of the board, you use your double voting rights twice in order to make major decisions about thyssenkrupp Steel.
Was there no other option than to ignore the intentions of the employees and your philosophy of communications between the employees and the employers? I don't think that's worked very well. And Mr. Křetínský, I would warn parts of ThyssenKrupp to be sold to shareholders who are not known for their environmental actions. The company has now bought 20% of the company shares with an option of moving to a 50-50 joint. Křetínský is already the owner of the Lignite Coal Burning Organization in another part of Germany. In 2024, the employees' representatives said they were not satisfied with the sale of the shares to that organization. And it has been referred to as a destruction of the ThyssenKrupp organization. Mr. López, please answer the following question. Which intentions does Mr. Křetínský have with respect to the company? What are his intentions? Which promises have you made?
How about with the co-determination? What is his position on the co-determination between the employees and the employers? Other shareholders are not satisfied with the way that you have taken actions in the past. I presume you don't expect any strong criticism from new members of the board. In terms of climate protection, the actions taken have been insufficient. I cannot ratify and exonerate the board members in this respect. The climate gas emissions have gone very high, and it is one of the worst emitters in Germany. And thyssenKrupp has always been over a value of 20 million tons and has remained reasonably static. And the internal discussions and arguments have not helped the company achieve its aims. And therefore, I expect the executive board to give us details of their intentions in terms of the climate. We're not happy with the results today.
The Action 100+ and the Transition Pathway Initiative have set out no sustainable targets for your actions, and the reduction plans are also not clearly detailed, and especially not with respect to keeping climate temperature changes below 1.5 degrees centigrade. Mr. López, ThyssenKrupp sees the EP Corporate Group as a strategic partner who can bring in its competence and experience in order to provide sufficient energy as well as hydrogen and green steel. My question is, where are the special competence of the EP Group with respect to hydrogen and green power? There is still the hope that ThyssenKrupp will gain state subsidies and no longer be one of the major emitters, but a member of the green community. Therefore, there is a demand for such steel, and the car industry also wishes to use green steel to meet its CO2 balance.
Within the framework of the national hydrogen strategy of the government, of course, ThyssenKrupp plays an important role. Up until 2030, we want to have an electrolysis capacity of 33 GW . Up until 2030, for that, we need 130 billion terawatt hours, more than twice as much as today. Where is the hydrogen supposed to come from? You probably ask yourself the same question. How much would ThyssenKrupp contribute after all you included with Nucera at 50.2%? Now, in which other countries do you have hydrogen plants? You have Oman on your website, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Namibia, South Africa, and also Norway. Because of their good conditions, they have good values in renewable energy, photovoltaic, and so on. With what partners are you planning on having cooperations? Why do you want to have that with Oman?
What is your guideline for cooperations with autocratic states and the use of hydrogen in Germany then? Apart from ThyssenKrupp, Salzgitter AG is also SALCOS , is trying to build renewable steel. Do you cooperate with Salzgitter, or is it just a competitor for you? And then finally, there's a legal battle between ThyssenKrupp, Mülheim, and Mr. Michael Wurst, who was a member of the Works Council. So we had the Stahltext GmbH, and that was turned into Mülheim GmbH, and that was supposedly illegal. And there was a legal claim that the chapter 5.3 of that section has been violated, meaning that the merger was illegal. And apparently, there was a finding at the court in Mülheim an der Ruhr, but the member of the Works Council then decided to question that finding of the law. Can you give us your take on that?
Thank you very much, Mr.
Dufner, for your contribution. We will now have Mr. Tilman Massa, and then we'll have one round of answers. Mr. Massa, it's your turn.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Russwurm, ladies and gentlemen, people from the supervisory board, and I also speak on behalf of the critical shareholders. We want more commitment for the climate protection, as Mr. Dufner just said, but also the transformation to be socially just. Mr. López, like you said at the beginning, we are in very difficult times, not only at ThyssenKrupp, but in general. In times where apparently in the German parliament, things are changing and parties are starting into voting coalitions with the far right, we do need solidarity against hatred and division. Therefore, we need long-term perspectives and not only the focus on short-term actions.
Therefore, the way you deal with your staff, very political, not only because the chancellor is going to meet with you in Duisburg next week. So right now, we see many deficits that are so avoidable in your contact with the trade unions. Mr. López, I can only support you in what you said when you saw that self-criticism. You said that many of the disputes that you see in public are so unnecessary, well, the same applies to you, and I should like to add to this criticism. It is not only on the basis of using state subsidies, but also in times when you are, in fact, reducing jobs, and in steel, you want to pay a dividend even though the salaries go down by 10%.
But you seem to be in a fantasy world here because people who work at ThyssenKrupp don't understand why you have to pay out a dividend. And we asked for a counter motion, which I officially table now, because I think that monies should be invested in green transformation. And for that, I have the following question. Are there any concrete plans for current investments? I mean, have you at least taken them into account that you have to curtail some of these investments because of the dividend payment? And why don't you contact the workers in a constructive fashion? People are waiting for information. We are waiting for news. And what are the concrete measures that you would like to adopt to carry this out?
You said you want to be socially acceptable, and you don't want to cut jobs, but that doesn't sound very binding when you only pronounce that you have the intention to do so. We are not only talking about your plans of cutting jobs, but also to provide job guarantees in general. And Mr. Burkhard, Mr. López, Mr. Russwurm and all of you, the members of the board spoke. And again, job security was something that everybody talked about. Last Saturday, we again had a terrible industrial accident with somebody dying and the consequences of it. So again, it was a fatal accident, but we looked a little bit closer. When it comes to the incidence of accidents, it has not improved. On the contrary, you have not managed to reduce accidents. We see your goodwill. We do see it.
But please tell me, what are the concrete measures that you want to adopt to assure safety on the job? How many accidents did we have in the past year in Duisburg and in the overall group? And first of all, how many of those were temps who were affected in these accidents? The labor situation is also seen in the supply chain. I looked at your report on the Supply Chain Act, and just in your report on 2023, you noticed that there were violations of labor law, many, many industrial accidents, 16 cases of payments not carried out properly. And then you said that you noted that, but you were very hesitant in taking care of these situations. And now the current situation is not as transparent.
Numbers have gone down, but also in your direct business field, you say that certain gender themes have not been respected properly. Yes, yes, the reports are slightly more transparent, and they are published ahead of time of our AGM. But Mr. Russwurm, there are so many reports that you are publishing at moments in time. It would be good if we always had to have it in proper due time prior to the meetings. So when it comes to taking care of proper care of your employees, what is your consequence for difficulties in companies in the supply chain? When are you going to publish the next report? Not only one day before the next AGM. Please don't do that. And you or one of the other companies in the past years, have you received direct raw materials from some of the companies that have been blacklisted?
And please give us the names and ask you, is it Grupo México, Glencore, Maria Barzau, Eurasian Resources Group, Vale PHP, Samarco, and Rio Tinto? Please tell us in detail how you or your subsidiaries have been taking care of your due diligence in the past, which leads me to reporting in general. Are you planning on increasing the taxonomy fields? And if so, please tell us how much exactly will this amount to. And tell us about the cost of the financial reporting and also the sustainability reporting. What were your audit costs in the past year? And what are the ones for the current year for the financial reporting according to HGB and IFRS? And what were your audit costs in the past year? And if currently available for your ESG reporting according to HGB and IFRS?
Now, the reporting for your measures, especially in the green transformation, is of utmost importance. It's not supposed to be a bureaucratic burden, but we need more transparency in order to be able to see where we stand. Thank you very much for your attention.
Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Massa. And now, as I said, we will go into a first round of answers. And after that, we will have the next speakers. Mauro Meggiolaro and Frank Hamachek are going to be the next people to ask questions. Now, Mr. Tünger question, how do you see the comments of Friedrich Merz on TKS and the CO2-free production of steel by ThyssenKrupp? ThyssenKrupp Steel wants the green transformation. We want climate-neutral steel production. We are sticking to the plan to have the completion of the direct reduction plant.
We're talking to the authorities to make that possible, especially within the framework of the current framework conditions. Of course, we notice that there are delays in building up infrastructure and production capacity for a reliable supply of hydrogen. And for that, politics in Europe have to make sure that this kind of production is secure in Europe. The direct reduction plant in Duisburg is not affected by that because we can also run it with natural gas. Now, Mr. Timlis' question, what are the reasons for meeting in a virtual format? You mentioned factual criteria. What were these criteria? Well, the decision on the format of the AGM, once we have the authorization, we make that decision separately for each individual meeting. And ThyssenKrupp, by having had the last meeting in the in-person meeting in Bochum. And for this year, we had the following questions come into play.
Compared to other meetings last year, we had fewer participants. We had positive experience with our meeting in 2023 and the possibility of all shareholders to participate no matter what the costs are of traveling, and of course, the fact that we have the agenda today, which speaks of recurrent items that we have on the agenda. Now, let me move on to the next question by Mr. Tünger. To what extent, when we're talking about sustainability, will that affect the transformation process at thyssenkrupp? Slower speed is positive for us, and what are the consequences for us? Well, our aim is clear. We want a climate-neutral steel production. And we are still working on the first step by operating a direct reduction plant with this smelter at Duisburg. But of course, the framework conditions have to be right. So we have to have a fair green steel market.
And of course, the availability of hydrogen. So we need reliable framework conditions to carry out main investments like such direct reduction plant. And our investment shows that we're ready for a fast change towards a climate-friendly steel production. But we insist on the fair framework conditions. Let me move on to Mr. Tümler's next question. What is the current situation when it comes to the negotiations for ThyssenKrupp Steel? When do you think there is going to be a condition? Have we already given away 20%? Well, the answer is currently the industrial concept is such. As I pointed out in my speech, this is being transferred now into a business plan, which will be used as a basis for the IDW S6, which is going to be the external expertise for the business plan. And that will be the basis for further discussions with EPCG for 50-50 joint venture.
And then, of course, we are including the works councils, and we will include their decisions, of course, and their opinions. And both parties have agreed to remain silent on that and signed a confidentiality agreement. Mr. Timler, what is the role of the state of the land of North Rhine-Westphalia? And are you planning on a further role of the state? What is your take on politics? Well, steel business of ThyssenKrupp should be competitive. I mean, that is the role of any entrepreneur. But we have to have the right framework conditions done by the political field. We need a feasible business plan. And this business plan is the basis also for decarbonization for the long term. To provide subsidies by the state to compensate the ramp-up phase. And we're grateful for that, even though the economic situation has to be adapted.
We need to have a right steel production in Germany, and that is something that is a must in Germany. Mr. Timler, apart from the actual transition, we have to produce steel until green steel will be the number one product. How long is it going to take until we can focus 100% on green steel? How much time does it take after the capacities that we have, clients, and we can manufacture in a profitable fashion? Well, within the framework of our industrial concept that I mentioned in my speech, we will, of course, adapt our capacities to the realities of the market. We are developing the timetable, and the direct reduction plant will be an elementary aspect of our so-called liquid phase. The next question from Mr. Timler. What about the sales process for marine systems? What do you have planned there? Will it be on the market?
Will it be sold as spinoff? What are your planning? And will we keep parts of it, or do you intend to lose everything? After Carlyle left, we think ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems should be made independent. That is, that there is growth planned there, and it has a good position. It's planned to have a good position in international competition, and that can be achieved in the best possible way with a new ownership structure. That's why we tend to spin off the systems exactly how we're going to do that. That is still under consideration. Having a public offering is also a possible ability on that. But other negotiations are still taking place. And the question of Mr. Daniel Voss, at the end of 2026, January 26, I think the current structure of ThyssenKrupp is dysfunctional.
And I think that our objective is to make ThyssenKrupp a strong and sustainable company with lean management structures and convert it to have an appropriate portfolio. We think every single business develops in the best possible way and that a sustainable competitive position is achieved. Our expectation of various business sectors and our targets for the overall group is to achieve a sustainable and positive cash flow contribution and sustainable dividends to our shareholders. And that is something the company is working on. And furthermore, our portfolio strategy has remained the same to make steel and marine systems independent. That is, those are still our plans. Otherwise, all components of the company will remain, and we also intend to improve our performance and profitability. And the question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt, which reasons were given for the negative assessment of the company in the exchange?
We think it's good that the share price has recovered quite well in the recent months, although it is not satisfactory as yet. We continue together with the portfolio performance and transformation. All those strategies continue to be exercised. We try and be as transparent as possible in our communications, and we are available to answer questions at all times. We are not absolutely satisfied with that which we have achieved, but the green transformation and portfolio, our successes there will gradually be reflected in our share price. I think other successes prove that we are moving in the right direction. The next question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt, which impulses do you intend to set so that the share price can move upwards finally? We are currently working on our three strategic focuses: portfolio performance and green transformation. The current year will be a decisive year for ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe.
And in addition, we are also in negotiations for the 50-50 joint venture of Steel Europe. In the case of marine systems, we are currently working intensively on its independence, and a spinoff is being prepared, and discussions with the German government are also taking place concerning a stake in it by the government. Our APEX program has now been adjusted, and it is now more active in the segments. And ultimately, we are also facing the challenges of green transformation, but also see that ThyssenKrupp has overall good opportunities. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt. What does the current fiscal year promise in today's situation? The markets in which we are active are all challenging, in particular our during the first six months of 2024 and 2025. But despite that, together with the support of our APEX program, we will be able to take appropriate countersteps and improve our performance.
Now a question of Mr. Marc Tümler. Are there also other addresses who are interested in stepping in? And how can we be blackmailed? And what is the situation? Are the negotiations taking place? What is the atmosphere? You said you would take new steps in terms of management. Is that the right way for such sales? Based on current talks with EPG, we think a 50-50 joint venture is the right way for steel together with a new business plan. We still have our ears open for alternative strategies. The transformation of Steel Europe, together with new management, is in good hands, and the goal is to create a competitive steel organization, steel business. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt. How do you plan to ensure that the investments, direct reduction plant in Duisburg, will take place and be executed in the time scheduled, in the time planned?
A project of this size takes an enormous amount of individual orders and contracts, and therefore the implementation and coordination has to be adapted during the course of progress. Therefore, together with our partners, we also have whole discussions on costs and actions, and SMS Group, who is to build the plant, is also in discussions with ThyssenKrupp and the various organizations that are in place in order to take appropriate actions as seen necessary. We are moving ahead at a good rate, and there we have regular budget controlling and risk management. It's also an action at all times in order to identify risks as they occur and also to undertake appropriate contracting as the course of work requires, and we have identified such actions and intend to do so in the future. Another question of Mr.
Henrik Schmidt [asked], how do delays or cost increases, how do they impact your overall strategy? The current estimate of our cost planning for the direct reduction plant is part of the current business plan and therefore part of our overall strategy. Irrespective of that, we still intend to implement the direct reduction plant. Therefore, the green transformation plays an important role for the future of the company Steel Europe, which also intends to achieve a climate-neutral steel production. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt was, what is the supply of the reduction plant with green hydrogen? How is that planning? What are the actual intentions? How is that to be implemented? Which decisions have been made? We are currently setting up a direct reduction plant to be fired with hydrogen, and all tenders are taking place, but these are still under consideration.
When that process has been finalized, we will have an overview of hydrogen sources and prices. We expect that the prices will reflect the current market situation. If that is the case, we will take appropriate actions in discussion with politics and with others on providing subsidies. An actual time point for moving to green hydrogen is not yet possible. The production of steel in our direct reduction plant is, however, taking place satisfactorily. Progress has been made, and we have MOUs with customers, and we have contracts that have been made. For example, an agreement with Volkswagen was made in October last year. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt was with respect to how do you intend to ensure the steel sector will be competitive without affecting the entire financial stability of the company?
The goal is for the steel sector, as all other business sectors at thyssenkrupp, to be profitable based on their own actions. This means the steel sector of thyssenkrupp, in accordance with market and customer requirements, we intend to make it competitive. Last November, we prepared a paper for a future concept, and the details of that were presented in my speech. Based on that, a temporary business plan is being provided, and this provisional plan will provide the basis for discussions with EPCG for establishing a 50-50 joint venture, and the further question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt was, what are the consequences of the planning for the portfolio changes you are expecting? Irrespective of the timing of our main portfolio changes, steel and marine, obviously the objective is to make thyssenkrupp a lean management organization with profitable growth and a suitable portfolio. Those plans are in place.
Our goal is that the individual business sector improves and moves ahead in the best possible way and has a competitive situation. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt was, how do you intend to ensure dividends from business operations to be ensured? As you know, we have decided we have an adjusted EBIT margin of 6%, and we want to have a sustainable free cash flow before EBIT. Therefore, we have to ensure that reliable dividends can be paid from the company's operations. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt was relating to marine systems. How much progress has been made with the individual negotiations with the appropriate interested parties, and how confident is the Executive Board that actions can take place during 2024-2025? Our objective for marine systems is to arrive at a sustainable growth and to achieve a good competitive condition situation internationally.
And we obviously consider any negotiations and suggestions made in this respect, but we are driving forward with our spinoff plans. Thanks, Mr. López. As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, we are making all efforts to provide detailed answers to any questions made. And that is why we will now move on to questions and answers. And those questions which you have made, we will continue working on them. So we will make sure that all questions are answered or responded to. So, Mr. Dinstuhl, I'd like to start with a question from Schulte. What about the situation? How can you suggest a dividend at all? But what do you think about the future of dividend payments by the company? Well, the dividend proposal reflects the free cash flow, and therefore thyssenkrupp ensures that dividend continuity is actually given.
And we want to ensure that the transfer of the company still ensures dividend. The planned investments are irrespective of the payment of EUR 0.15 per share. Irrespective of that, we have also about 2.0 billion EUR also for R&D that have been invested in the company, and in that sense, they will set the points for the future. A question of Mr. Voss. APEX, what is the reaction? Has it come from the employees? Are they supporting it or just swallowing it? The need for APEX for the company shows that the employees support the central aspects of the APEX program. Regular communications and employee feedback ensure that we are aware of the current opinion among our employees. Another question of Mr. Voss was that he said that it looks like the company employees don't back APEX.
The resonance of the response of the employees shows that they appreciate the need for APEX and that they support the central aspects of that program. We are aware of the motivation of the staff, and together with our regular feedback means we are aware of the current opinion of our staff. We expect APEX to improve our performance, to make us more agile, more lean, and that gives current and future staff excellent targets and gives them the opportunity to face challenges and gives them more energy and motivation. Another question of Mr. Voss in terms of APEX: Where are the difficulties and which opposition have you encountered? The rapid mobilization of the entire company was a challenge. This challenge was achieved with a structured approach, with centralization, close responsibility, and monitoring of results. Communication channels considered, various channels have been used.
For example, APEX channels and pages on the internet, all such media have been used in order to provide all stakeholders information with information about progress made. Another question of Mr. Voss relating to APEX targets and measurement of achieving targets. Which metrics are being used in order to measure achievements made? And do these metrics actually reflect changes and progress made? And which targets have been achieved? The answer is the APEX program is intended to identify concrete options and to implement them. The program includes personnel, organization, material costs, plants, investments, CapEx on investments, sales, and distribution, and our transformation. With respect to this, we use the logic as applied by the company. Each aspect is checked for progress on a monthly basis. In 2024-2025, we have introduced over 200 measures in order to improve our performance.
As opposed to achieving those targets in the segments on the 13th of February, we will provide our quarterly results. So please bear with us. We are not going to provide details of that now, but let me say in advance that we are happy with the way APEX has been implemented to date, and we will provide details of that in February, as I said. A question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt referred to the annual report of last year on page 47, that in the fourth quarter there was a loss in investment value of several millions. And can you give us details of how that occurred? This write-down was based on the poor economic overall situation in Germany's core markets and also the major markets such as the automotive industry in Germany and also the problems associated with the Ukraine war and also the general global economic weakness.
Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt was to provide details on the special effects and value reductions for Materials Services and your automotive materials and components technologies, and as referred to on page 53 of the report, the restructuring measures in the automotive technology sector were based on reduced sales expectations and hence adjustments in capacities in automotive solutions and automotive engineering. Materials Services segment during 2023-2024, there were problems due to the fall in demand and the lower expectations on sales and revenue, and also this reflected with the service center business. Restructuring also took place in materials as part of the consolidation of our sites. For Decarbon Technologies, the restructuring expenses were mainly for Polysius and for the cement plant for decarbonization and engineering.
Thank you very much, Mr. Schulte, for those comments. As the member for M&A, you can confirm what Mr.
López said, but we want to ensure that all questions have been answered. Therefore, let me ask you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Russwurm. Mr. Schmidt, let me refer to two questions of Mr. Schmidt. Firstly, you asked about which progress had been made in negotiations for the 50-50 joint venture with the EP Group. As already mentioned, at the current time, the steel executive and the business plan have provided the basis for current negotiations with the EPG to form a 50-50 joint venture. The formation of a 50-50 joint venture continues to be a plan and is under discussion. You also asked about which concrete milestones have been achieved, have been specified for the independence of marine systems. Taking into account partners at a state level in terms of subsidies, like Mr.
López said, "We want to continue our course using that spinoff, and we're still going at full speed. We need, of course, all of the required documents, and we need to wait until the regulatory procedures are completed, and then we may have participation of the state in this joint venture." On behalf of the Supervisory Board, I'd like to take these questions. This was the question about the bonus for Mr. Schulte. How are you going to deal with the premiums paid out to him? Is he going to continue getting his payment? And we will say, well, Mr. Schulte and the board are clear that for the years 2025 and 2026, he will not receive any bonus payments. What was the decision for the Supervisory Board? Well, in our meetings on the 12th of December and the 23rd of January of this year, we dealt with Mr.
Schulte's leaving, and we pronounced our recommendation, and yesterday's meeting followed this recommendation. Prior to that, we had very intense talks with Mr. Schulte, and we have then signed the right agreement so that for the years 2025 and 2026, no partial payments will be made to him. So it will be a pro rata temporary payment for the year that he's been with us. So he's got this payment for this one year that he's been in here, not for the remainder of the time. As to the remuneration report, Mr. Voss said, why is it that we have not received 100% instead of 65%? And why is it not that some people get 70%, others only get 50%, and so on? Well, at the 65%, it is not a mathematical term for an overall evaluation of the rate of completion.
And we did not want to have the means of rating in terms of percentage. We did not want to individualize the payments to have some people receive more than others. Everybody has contributed in his own way or her own way. Why 65%? What were the criteria? Well, that was the question. And I can say, well, it was not a mathematical conclusion, but rather an evaluation of various factors. You can read up on that on page 306. The 65% is below 100, of course. So that means part of the objectives have been fulfilled, others not. Mr. Voss asks, what is the metrics in measuring the performance? How exactly is that carried out? What are the people that are involved? And what is done to make sure that the criteria are realistic?
Well, the objectives, we take that from the business plan, and then the HR committee prepares a suggestion, will then show these findings to the board, and it is clearly defined who has to do what. So in the HR committee, the board members and the supervisory board members are present, and we discuss these things very seriously, and we always ask, it has to be realistic but ambitious at the same time, and that is the way we want to be measured. Couldn't that have been prepared better when somebody leaves the company only after six months? Well, yesterday we signed the agreement, his exit agreement, and we think it was a good solution. And Mr.
Voss, he asked about the remuneration report as to the metrics of measuring the individual performances and to what extent is it in keeping with the strategic aim of the company, and how are these criteria integrated? Well, the answer to that, again, the target values are taken from the business program, and they are not used then for the planning process, so it's the other way around. It's a strategy, and that is transformed into planning, and that is then broken down to targets. And these targets and objectives are then used for the remuneration plan. We do not think that it's good to have it on an individual basis because also many people have more than one responsibility. So Ms. Henne, not only is it for MX, but she's also responsible for IT or cybersecurity, and she's also a member of the Board of Steel Europe AG.
You see that we work as a team, and as a team, we're working on the restructuring of the company. Therefore, the decision was clear not to differentiate among the individuals. A good part of the objectives are financial aims with the company has to be on safe grounds. There, of course, reaching the aim is the same for everybody. Therefore, we have one way of measuring for all of the members as a group. Mr. Voss again said that what are the data do we determine the objectives? The target values are taken from the current company planning, and the threshold values are then used there. The company planning is done every year. The developments to benchmarks, what do other companies achieve? This company planning, of course, is something that the board then prepares.
It is given to the Supervisory Board, and once approved, you have the aims. Mr. Schmidt asked, how long Mr. Schulte is going to be part of the board team? Well, it is all part of the agreement that was signed yesterday. On the 31st of May 2025, Mr. Schulte is going to leave ThyssenKrupp. If we have a successor at an earlier date, we could be able to make an earlier leaving of Mr. Schulte possible. And then Mr. Quint asked, how are you planning on the succession of the financial officer? And at what point of time can we ask to get a new person here? Well, immediately, as soon as we knew, we started the process, and we are in discussions with potential successors.
This is happening, and we're quite confident that soon a decision will be found for who is going to be the new CFO, and that will be communicated promptly.
This is right within that process. Okay, that leads us to the end of the first round of questions and answers. I go back to the people wanting to take the floor. The sequence that I have here is Mr. Ulrich Geibel, then Mauro Meggiolaro, and then Mr. Frank Hamachek. So first of all, it's going to be Mr. Geibel. Mr. Geibel, the floor is yours.
Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Russwurm. Yeah, we say hello from the south of the Republic all the way up to Bochum. But what I would like to repeat is that, of course, the development of the share price is not very nice.
Seven years ago, that seems like back in the Stone Age, it was worth four times that. And my question is, why do you actually pay out a dividend in a situation of this nature? Because this has nothing to do with current operations. Better to keep those EUR 0.15, or is it the foundation that put pressure on you that a couple of forlorn cents will be paid out? And I'm actually quite shocked. I mean, what is the share of the basic capital? What do you do against those sharks that are just waiting for ThyssenKrupp to go bankrupt so that they can eat us up? And now to get ThyssenKrupp back into the fast track, well, first of all, we have to get out of that coal desert because you want to have less CO2. I don't know anything about that, but how is that possible?
Where is the positive environmental effect if we stop steel production? Everybody is being laid off, and then we buy the whole stuff from China where nobody can do anything about the environment. Well, I can imagine that it's tough for you being a supervisory board member. I mean, but my question is, I mean, how do you think our politicians are faring, and what do you expect from the government and the state in the years to come? I mean, there's nothing nice in the rural area with lots of fields and beautiful flowers if nobody has a job anymore. And therefore I ask, up to when something needs to happen so that ThyssenKrupp can actually remain being a steel manufacturer in Germany? And what is the part of costs?
One ton of steel, I mean, how much does it cost, and how much is the energy part of it? How much is the HR part of it and the raw materials? Mr. López, give me three reasons why I should keep my ThyssenKrupp shares. Tell me, just give me a good argument why I should buy a share for ThyssenKrupp. You being the boss, I guess you can give me a good recommendation there. So for AT, what are the biggest risks right now? What are the biggest risks that we could possibly face now? Talking about laying off staff, well, I would like to know what is the fluctuation only in Germany, for example? And what kind of fluctuation is it that is because of age?
I mean, people are getting too old to work, or that people want to leave us, or people that are fired, or when you have social contract and social compensation measures in place. What I don't understand in any of the questions that were asked, the three board members in the subsidiary that were fired, I mean, what was your role in that? How long were their contracts supposed to be? I mean, these guys were not idiots. They knew what they were doing, and that is something that nobody really understood why they are not with us anymore. So how did you find the new people for steel? How did you find them, and what is the process of choosing the right candidate for that job? So now we have to find another guy in charge of finances after Mr. Schulte decided to leave us.
I know that 10 minutes is very little time. I'm sorry. I hope I will not take away time for anybody else. But the supposition that the, I mean, we're talking about a business report of 388 pages. If I only have one question per page, I would already have 380 questions. So you said, please don't take up too much time. So I mean, how much time do we actually have in total? Now, the remuneration report is half of all of the agenda items. That doesn't seem to be right. I mean, we're wasting time on things that are not so important. With all the commitments that you have, Mr. López, you're getting paid 9 million EUR and 3 million EUR for other board members. I think it's just too much. I'm sorry. That is too much. I think you people should earn considerably less.
I mean, how much does a regular worker at ThyssenKrupp make? A guy who's been working in steel production at the furnace for 10 years, how much is he making compared to you? And if you look at these remuneration reports, the question is, why is it that creating jobs is not a criterion? Mr. López, keep your EUR 9 million. If you only were able to create 5,000 new jobs instead of keeping telling us that you want to lay off 5,000 people, to kick people out, anybody can do that. To create jobs, that is something special. How about that, Mr. López? And then tell me, how many people have more than EUR 180,000 per year of the people who are employed? And what are the costs for that? And then Mr. Dr. Keysberg, he's leaving. There is something that I can't understand.
He had a flat compensation of EUR 50,000+ for consultation fees for his lawyers and others. What's that all about? Why does he need a lawyer? Why does he need EUR 50,000 for that? And then you say in the report, because of terminating his contracts early, it will complete the contract up until the very—how is that supposed to be possible? What is it now? He's leaving early or not? He didn't leave early then. He completed his contract. And then when the term is over, well, that's it. I think you need to explain about that. And when we're talking about Mr. Schulte, who just comes in as a temp, EUR 1.8 million he was supposed to get for his short stint here. So now he only gets 2 times EUR 600,000 for less than one year's work, like as a bonus payment. We're talking about a bonus.
I think that's pretty steep. Mr. Schulte, please, I'm happy when you get money. It's good for you, and it's good if you have all your experience working for us. But yeah, but that's a factor of 50 over what was originally planned. But I think it's right. I think you should simply agree not to take the payment you receive when you arrive. I think that would only be fair. And I think that is a moral obligation on your part because I don't think that would have you starving in the streets, something tells me. And apart from how I would like to know how the dividend was decided. What are the reasons for the. Do you do this in terms of writing, or do you discuss this during your meetings? Mr. Gabriel, he also threw in the towel.
And I would be interested to hear what the actual background was for a number of those decisions which were made. And I think it would be good to have more time now. I have other questions which will probably take another five minutes. But what was the biggest success during this year? Was there a big success this year? And Mr. López, a question for you. Do you promise that to stay in office until the share price of ThyssenKrupp at least hits double digits again? And don't say, yeah, depend on what happens on the supervisory board or whatever. I don't want any excuses on that. I would like to know your personal opinion and whether you, and I do have lots of questions, but I'm happy to do them later. So thanks for having this opportunity. I'd like to thank everyone who's been listening to.
Thank you very much. Mr. Geibel, thank you very much for your engagement and also your fairness to allow other shareholders to ask their questions. I'm looking forward to hearing your next comments. The next person to speak is Mr. Mauro Meggiolaro, and after that, it will be Mr. Hamachek and Mr. Ebel. So Mr. Meggiolaro, your turn now. Hello, Mr. Russwurm and ladies and gentlemen. My name, Mr. Russwurm. I represent an organization holding shares and the European Network for Sustainable Investors, Shareholders for Change, and with an overall investment level of several billion euros, and also working together with the Organization for Critical Shareholders. Let me come to my questions. The first question is that the submarine of a Type 212CD-class for German-Norwegian cooperation purchase order production started in 2023, and the U212, which is also fitted with an innovative AIP system, which provides better networking with other units.
In future, artificial intelligence and unmanned units and identification of foes. Can you tell me how AIs will be used in submarines in the future? What will it make possible? Will it be involved in activating explosive arms or what exactly? Can you also exclude that artificial intelligence will be introduced into your weapon systems in order to select targets and attack targets without human control being in place? And the third question refers to, can a Type 212CD submarine also carry atomic warheads? Fourth question, if no, would the submarine have to be revised in order to carry nuclear arms? And the fifth question is, will that adaptation of the submarine, where would it take place such a conversion? And my sixth question, can you answer these questions and also answer them with respect to other submarine systems manufactured by the company?
The seventh question, what was the level of arms production as part of the overall sales of last year, overall revenues? And question eight, can you give us more details about the military exports to countries as part of your overall percentage? And ninth and last question, ThyssenKrupp has refused to subject its arms exports to an internal review in order to minimize the risk of sending arms to countries where human rights are not properly observed. Do you think that is not necessary? Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Meggiolaro. The next speaker is Mr. Hamachek, and then Mr. Geibel. Mr. Hamachek.
Thank you very much for that. Frank Hamachek, I am a small shareholder from Hamburg. I've been with ThyssenKrupp for more than 20 years now. And over the years, I have visited many different AGMs.
I know other shareholders and what their feelings are, what their opinions are, and so first of all, I'd like to send my greetings to all other small shareholders everywhere currently looking. I'm speaking from the point of view of a small shareholder. Since Corona, we have this very unsatisfactory virtual AGM. I think I normally just chuck those invitations away, but this is an exception because it's ThyssenKrupp, but it is. I like being at AGMs in person, but I'm not used to this virtual speech because I'm sitting in my home office here with my computer. Lots of shareholders, lots of people I know only have shares because they like to go to AGMs so they can have information and exchange opinions.
You get a snack, you can evolve ideas, ideas not only for good for shareholders, but also ideas which end up being presented in the speeches to the executive and might even help the company. So it's a level of solidarity with the company. And this cannot take place at a virtual AGM. So the benefits of this company for offshore small shareholders, the idea was to produce diversity in the company and also to provide evidence of how money has been spent by the company on behalf of shareholders, and also to make their share more interesting and then improve the share price. As far as the small shareholders are concerned, thyssenkrupp is simply obviously not interested in small shareholders. That seems to be your overall position, in my opinion. Small shareholders. By organizing virtual AGMs, you're basically telling small shareholders we can do without them. You're basically superfluous.
But they're also employees with shares, and I think they would like to visit the AGM. And the interest in the quality of work is to be also increases if one has a higher stake in the company. And so how are employees with shares? Do you know how many shares such shares exist and what their participation is at AGMs? I think AGMs are good for other shareholders. And obviously, it used to be other shares which were often bought by rich uncles abroad. And small shareholders are not always happy with the results of such engagements. Obviously, not all international activities have been satisfactory. TK is a traditional German company and had investors based in, for example, Austria. And basically, we were all completely disowned there.
And that happened. We also had one of these wonderful investors that was a building that was supposed to be built in Hamburg, a very high building. And that one investor disappeared without leaving a trace of himself. So whether that building is going to be continued with, who knows? So one of the investors I always have my doubts about there. In the case of ThyssenKrupp, good companies have been sold, elevators, for example, and investors are being sought out. I think selling off and selling these selloffs to abroad don't make sense. And the current move to have a foreign company having a 50% of ThyssenKrupp is not the way forward. ThyssenKrupp has to move ahead, obviously has to move forward. CO2 neutrality is something we wish to achieve. I think it's something we shouldn't oppose because I think it's important to have this climate transformation.
But one has invested in reduction plants to make CO2-free steel. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this question. Will it actually make any financial sense to do this, to continue with this move, this transition? The German government can't be trusted with this kind of thing. Look at German electricity. The idea was to have the cheapest electricity in the world. That has not happened, as we know. All problems have been simply ignored or not seen, or that this all applies to making steel with electricity. The current electricity in Germany, the power in Germany, doesn't come from nuclear power anymore. It comes from coal, firing coal, and nuclear power coming from France. That is the situation. We have to make sure that the steel doesn't come from China too or from the U.S.
Trump has just been made president, and he is jumping out of the climate agreements. Steel production is obviously very much related to CO2 using traditional methods. What can we do? I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think we should sell off our assets, the family jewels. We need to have a high-performing industry. The armaments industry is a very profitable industry. I think we need to keep in that business. Apparently, there's going to be some spinoff of marine systems. That spinoff, as far as I know, usually means that new shareholders join old shareholders. I don't know how one sees that happening in detail. The speech of the Supervisory Board chairman was published on the internet before the AGM, and I had a look at it, and I noticed that he was using the new German writing methods.
But ThyssenKrupp was always written in small letters, in minor letters, minuscules. And so apparently, ThyssenKrupp started with a small T at the front, not a capital T. And I don't see that as the future. How come we're writing our name, ThyssenKrupp? I think we should be writing it in Germany as well, with large capital letters at the front, with capital letters, not with small letters. I thank you for listening, and I wish the company all the best in the future. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Hamachek. The next speaker is Mr. Ulrich Geibel, and then we've got lots of answers and responses for you, which we will then start with after the next speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I represent a number of shareholders.
In accordance with a number of provisions and laws, I was expected, because of the decision to have a virtual meeting, to delay. I responded that I wanted to have a chance to speak, and I was expected to wait for hours and hours and hours. It felt like hours. I then said that I will oppose all resolutions of the AGM if I don't get the chance to speak. Only after making that threat was I given the opportunity to speak with you. This prevention of people speaking their minds at the AGMs, surely that is something you do deliberately? Please say the overall payments made to Dr. Schulte during his activities with ThyssenKrupp is overall and all payments in the future.
Please give us details of those payments and individual amounts and the reasons why the Supervisory Board went in to do without the clawback provision in the contract. That is surely something which any lawyer writing such contracts should not forget. So how did that happen? This is almost embezzlement. This is surely fraud. I mean, this kind of contract is surely not possible. And I wish to know how that actually happened. This nomination committee, how qualified are they to make these kinds of decisions? If they made the proposal for Dr. Schulte to the finance executive, how did that happen? Maybe they're not qualified to make such decisions. And the role of the employees' representatives in the Supervisory Board and the ThyssenKrupp-Stiftung, they are one of the major shareholders, 20% in the company. And that gives them three members of the Supervisory Board.
That has been reduced, thank God, and another person has already referred to the dysfunctional role of the Stiftung in the Supervisory Board and its decisions. This has been criticized at a number of AGMs in the past, and that having this honorary member of the Supervisory Board, that is actually not compliant with the provisions of the law on corporations. So the influence of Mr. Beitz in relation to the steel works and those decisions, which also resulted in the decline of the ThyssenKrupp. The Stiftung and its then chairman, they are one of the factors which are having a negative impact on the company, ThyssenKrupp, and apparently, only represent their own personal interests and not those of ThyssenKrupp. Something that's also dysfunctional is the role of the employees' representative in the Supervisory Board.
And there was a review put in place because of a confidentiality issue. I think it is time to remove the toxic influence of the employees' representative and the ThyssenKrupp-Stiftung from the board. And there's the only way of getting a positive making the boards positive. So it's not insufficient, as has been suggested. For the liquidation, I think I would like to make the proposal that that organization is liquidated. As far as the format of the AGM, I make the proposal that in the future, virtual AGMs, all persons should be given a portion of currywurst, should be sent to their home, and so that they can eat their snack at home.
While they're waiting for their chance to speak for hours and hours on end, providing them with sustenance will give them an opportunity to discuss this amongst themselves while they're waiting for their chance to speak. The role of the shop stewards varies according to companies. For example, in Germany, the Volkswagen representative of the shop stewards is different than it is done here because in Volkswagen, in the past, excessive payments were made to shop steward representatives, and that resulted in legal proceedings. There are options available. What is the attitude towards employees and shop steward representatives in thyssenkrupp, in the Supervisory Board, and in German companies? A decision was made on this by a court in Germany. The replacement in Volkswagen saw the shop steward representative being changed.
Volkswagen had to reduce the payments made to, I think it was up to 80 of the shop stewards because they were being overpaid, and we're talking about EUR 4,000 a month in some cases, and so they were reduced from, I think, one case from EUR 6,000 to EUR 2,000, so shouldn't this decision by the German Supreme Court also be applied to Germany, to ThyssenKrupp, in order to determine the payments made to the employee representatives by specifying a maximum and a minimum emolument, both in terms of figures and as percentage terms? Please give us details of the payments made to employee representatives working on the boards, and please give us the maximum and the minimum and the average payments made to those shop stewards who are freed of their employment obligations in order to represent employees.
And also in terms of how the time of the employment has affected their payments and other issues and aspects of that. I'm just having a quick look at the time. So let me come to my next question. And we're talking about the notary public, which on what basis was the selection of the notary public? What basis was used for selecting the notary public? And when maybe a similar approach should be taken to that of the auditors in order to ensure that the notary public who is documenting the AGMs so that they are independent and not only they satisfy the legal requirements, but that the notary public is the same notary public was there in 2023, 2024. And what experience do they have? And what were those actions? What were they paid for those activities?
What share of the total income of the notary public is made up by the payments made by the company? This is surely possible based on the data, despite data protection requirements. And therefore, it should be possible to provide this kind of information. It is not sufficient to simply refer. And it's necessary that they are neutral and independent and that documentary evidence is provided of that independence. And as to the meetings, which members took part in which meetings of the Supervisory Board? And also on a temporary basis, were they always present at all of the whole time of the meetings, or did they have representatives? At which meetings did they not take part in votes?
Please provide us with details of the votes and the topics under discussion at those boards, and also the names of members who were there at those meetings, and also at the committees. Did they take place? Were they only present virtually, or were they actually present at the meetings?
Thank you very much for that. We will now like to move on to the next round of answers. I'll continue with a question by Henrik Schmidt. At which Supervisory Board meetings of the various companies was Mr. Kaczynski present during the last year? Mr. Kaczynski, as a member of the Supervisory Board of ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe, took part in the following meetings: extraordinary meeting on the 24th of August of the SEAG, extraordinary meeting SEAG on the 7th of November 2024, on the 10th of December 2024, and on the meeting of the ThyssenKrupp AG.
He did not take part in any meetings of the ThyssenKrupp AG. Another question of Mr. Henrik Schmidt. What was the function of Mr. at the Supervisory Board meeting during last year in which he took part? What were his activities at that meeting? As a member of the Supervisory Board of ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe, he did take part in those meetings, as I said. I gave some dates, but he wasn't present at any meetings of the ThyssenKrupp AG Supervisory Board. The question of Mr. Ingo Speich. In the last decade, the Supervisory Board members have had a very close community. I think that is good. But what is the result of that?
Our purpose is to make ThyssenKrupp a lean management company with profitability and efficient in order to adjust our activities to the segments to make the company sustainable and to have a sustainable, a competitive situation. Our expectation is on our businesses and our targets for the overall group is the achievement of a sustainable cash flow and a reliable payment of dividends to our shareholders. We are working on that as a company, and that is our main focus of our work. Another question from Mr. Ingo Speich. Steel, where are you going with your steel sector? Our objective is that the steel sector, as well as all other sectors at TK, can finance themselves from their own operating activities. That means that the steel business at ThyssenKrupp must be made competitive in accordance with the economic situation. Last year, a plan was presented for achieving that.
Details have been provided during my speech. Based on that plan, the Steel Board will prepare a business plan, and that plan will also provide the basis for the ongoing negotiations with EPG to form a 50/50 joint venture. Taking into account the current rise in energy costs, we expect great impulses from our joint venture with EPG. Ingo Speich also asked, "Steel, how do you see the risk of high structural energy prices?" Our steel segment, as well as the remainder of the group, of course, needs globally competitive energy prices. The prices in Germany are too high on a European level, as well as on an international level, and will probably increase substantially. We would need a price for EUR 0.04-EUR 0.05 kWh , but all other costs should be already included and not paid on top of that.
For that, the steel industry in total, we are now discussing this with the political actors. Mr. Speich asked, "How secure are you that the government will continue supporting you?" We expect a political commitment of all political groups in favor of green steel. Everything has been done on our behalf. Reducing energy prices, of course, is important. Of course, on top of that, the first measures in having us with adjustment in steel safeguards. For that, we are in direct touch with the political actors. The European steel industry right now is in an existentially difficult moment because Berlin, after the elections, has to make decisions quickly. Another question from Mr. Ingo Speich. Steel, is there any way of actually implementing green steel? We want climate-neutral steel production, and we want the direct reduction plant and the smelters.
We explained that in our four-point plan, but we see that the clients want that, but of course, the operation of the plant, of course, needs hydrogen at a competitive level, and for that, we're talking to the authorities. Another question from Mr. Ingo Speich. Marine systems, what stops you from separation? Well, not separation, excuse me, for separation. But we don't want a spin-off of marine systems at the moment. We want for the marine system to have great framework conditions and a good position in the international framework. We're convinced that marines alone could, in fact, make use of the opportunities. Mr. Speich asked, "Marine systems, why are you carrying out this spin-off? What is stopping you actually? Is it the capital requirements?" Well, at the beginning of our different activities, spin-off was one of the options and was prepared in parallel in our discussions.
We are now continuing this path. The two aspects that you mentioned, capital structure or guarantees, of course, have been included in the current preparations. A further question from Mr. Ingo Speich. Marine systems, what is the role of the federal government in the sell-off or spin-off? We will continue our cooperation with the federal government. Markus Dufner asked. My question to the board is, how can you make sure that the group is not shattered if you want to keep ThyssenKrupp alive? We want ThyssenKrupp to be a strong company with lean structures based on profitable growth. For that, we want that each individual part of ThyssenKrupp can continue and has a position that is competitive. We want to have a reliable dividend payment to our shareholders. Our portfolio strategy has not changed to have steel and marine ready for the spin-off.
We want them to be independent. That's part of the strategy. The strategy is based on an increase of growth and performance. Organic growth may also be part of it with portfolio activities included if strategically or technologically that makes sense. A further question from Mr. Markus Dufner. I warn you to sell off further parts of ThyssenKrupp that are not known to companies that are not known for their stance vis-à-vis climate protection. How does Mr. Křetínský feel about co-determination? Since 2024, 25, he is part of the steel part. Mr. Křetínský is very interested in an exchange with all people involved. He has already talked to members of the unions.
Markus Dufner asked, "What are the special competencies of the EP Corporate Group in hydrogen and plastic?" Well, the company will, of course, bring to the table comprehensive knowledge as EPG has a capacity of 22 gigawatts of installed performance. In Germany too, they want to increase their capacities in the field of wind, solar, and biomass. EPG can also purchase further quantities and make them available to the plant at Duisburg. A further question from Mr. Markus Dufner. Does ThyssenKrupp cooperate with Salzgitter, or do you see them as a sheer competitor? When we're talking about green steel, we do not have a cooperation with Salzgitter Steel. A further question by Mr. Markus Dufner. What are the guidelines for ThyssenKrupp with partners in autocratic states? ThyssenKrupp has a clear guideline for sanctions and export controls.
This guideline has minimum standards for specific laws, export controls, and sanctions. We have a sanctions screening and auditing requirements with sanctioned countries, embargo countries, and critical years. A further question from Mr. Markus Dufner. How can green hydrogen get to Germany? Green hydrogen gets to Germany through the H2 core net. The idea is that within the decade, this will be connected to our plant. A further question by Mr. Matthias Geibel. Taking into consideration the current situation, why is there a dividend? Did the endowment put pressure on you? Like I explained it before, our free cash flow before M&A is the key instrument to see if we pay out a dividend or not. Our shareholders are supposed to participate in the development of the company. The endowment or foundation did not have any share in this.
A further question by Mr.
When is it that ThyssenKrupp's share goes back to the fast lane, well, Mr. Schmidt asked that too.
Again, specifically to answer that, our three strategic points, performance, green energy, is key, and in the current year, we will have marine systems and steel Europe independence, and we are still working on a business plan and want to have a 50/50 business plan, joint venture, and with marine systems, we are thinking of a spin-off, and we are in discussions with the state, and on top of that, of course, we have the performance of our company. APEX, of course, is in focus. Last year, it was tweaked, and we are now working in a decentralized fashion and include that, and of course, we face the challenges in green transformation, but we see opportunities for ThyssenKrupp.
All of this should be reflected in the development of the share price.
A further question by Matthias Geibel. The three steel officers that were discontinued. Regular contracts would have run until 2027, 2028, and in the case of Dr. Arnold, until mid-2025. To discontinue working with these board members was made on the basis of merit. Mr. Geibel asked, "Give me three reasons why I should stay in the share or possibly even buy new shares." I want to hear arguments, not recommendations for purch ase.
We have three strategic points: portfolio, performance, and strategic transformation. We have the great people to make that possible.
All right. Thank you very much, Mr. López. Let's go through the row of our board members. Mr. Schulte first. Yeah, I have a question from Mr. Tilman Massa.
Do you have any concrete plans for current CapEx that needs to be reduced because of the dividend payment? No, that's not the case. It has nothing to do with our dividend payment. Apart from that, we have EUR 2.0 billion that was invested in the growth of our companies. I explained that earlier. A question by Mr. Tilman Massa. To the costs of the normal reporting and also the sustainability reporting. What were the costs in the past year? And if required for the financial reporting to HGB and AGF? Well, the answer is the overall costs in 2024 was EUR 23 million. For the current year, we don't have the cost yet. This includes the auditing process. And a further question. What were your limit costs in the past year and also for your ESG reporting? ThyssenKrupp always reports integratedly in their overall report.
That's why we cannot really tell you what the price is individually. So we go along the criteria of the non-reporting directives. And if there is a new law for the corporate directive, we will have to modify that for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Schulte.
Pleasure, pl easure.
Yeah, I also still have some questions from the first round from Mr. Massa. You asked me what were the measures that we want to have any job reductions done in a social and sustainable fashion. I think you can believe us, Mr. Massa, that we want HR measures to be done in a socially acceptable manner. And we have all the tools available to carry that out in our long experience. That's why together with the representatives of the workers, we have been able to find solutions. And of course, we always avoided official layoffs.
The responsibility is within the individual companies where the restructuring is necessary. And because of the changes of the external framework conditions, the markets are very, very different, demographic requirements, and so on. And also sometimes we have to find completely new solutions for many years now. We have the principle of work within work, which is something that happens in the company itself, or that we try to find for our folks new jobs elsewhere. And Mr. Massa, you asked what other concrete measures to improve the safety on the job. And you noticed it yourself. This is something that has utmost importance at thyssenkrupp. The basis of our activities is, of course, that we believe in the health and the safety of our workers. And in this case, we want to bring all of that about in our policy for health and safety.
To underline that, health and safety is always part of the objectives of the company to eliminate fatal accidents and the frequency of accidents. In many cases for 2024, 2025, we have an accident rate of 2.1, which is again less. We want to, of course, continuously improve that ratio. The minimum standard for all of our companies can be read up in our manual, which is updated on a regular basis, and all of the requirements for modern health and safety measures are included, which of course is also monitored in audits. I think we can say that our measures have been successful. We are at a frequency rate of 2.4. In another number, it was not so good, but great success was that in the year 2012, 2013, for example, when we started that, we had an accident rate of 5.9.
Like I said, now we're at 2.4. So the frequency of accidents has been halved. And talking about health and safety, how many reportable incidents did we have at Duisburg and overall? How many of them were temps? Are there significant accident rates that refer specifically to temps? Well, back then we had 89,000 people with 32,000 accidents with more than three days out of work. Steel Europe had 132 accidents. It was not a single temp involved in this. And health and safety is important to us. And the frequency of accidents is more than by the factor five below average, what the Workman's Compensation Board is projecting. So we are much lower than average.
Thank you very much. Mr. Dinstuhl, there's a question you wanted to answer.
Yes, Mr. Russwurm, a question from Mr. Dufner.
You referred to the Presta, the entity Presta Mülheim GmbH, a fusion. That was a commitment against the German law because the board wasn't provided with details of that fusion. That was a somebody filed a suit against that decision. You asked what ThyssenKrupp intended to do about the situation. The fusion, the merger you represented of Presta, Stahlwerk Mülheim GmbH to ThyssenKrupp Presta Mülheim GmbH was on the 23rd of April 2014, entered into the books and therefore was legal. All court decisions have confirmed that legality, also the decision you referred to from 2024. The disclosure took place on the 31st of December 2012 and was done in agreement with the Works Council of that company. The Works Council of that company, ThyssenKrupp ThyssenKrupp Presta Steer Tec GmbH, was involved as required under law.
Thank you, Mr. Dinstuhl. The question here you.
Frau Herrer, and about to ask small shareholders about their climate strategy. This is already a focus of our work. As far as ThyssenKrupp's focus is in this, but any decisions made based on decisions on proposals of the small shareholders would not actually affect or change the decisions made under the overall strategy of TK. Therefore, we also prepared during the next annual report, we will provide details in accordance with the appropriate provisions.
I'll carry on with questions about the supervisory board. Let me now ensure we want to ensure that all questions are answered. Let me now answer explicitly on the question of Mr. Schmidt. Do you plan to continue with the bonus for Mr. Dr. Schulte of EUR 1.4 million in two installments despite the situation? Let me emphasize we have agreed with Mr.
Schulte and that the payments of 25 and 26 will not be made. Those payments will not be made. That is now signed and sealed. The sign-on bonus, you asked how that was even made. The sign-on bonus. The sign-on bonus is not unusual when executive members are changed, transferred when new executives join, or when they do without payments that might have been made from a different board. Upon that, when he joined us last year, we were provided with evidence of such actions by Dr. Schulte. We need the best people for our company. It is very unlikely that anyone will come to us who does not do without payments and bonuses suggested by his previous boards. That is standard practice in this for board members when they change or join new companies. And Mr.
Schmidt also asked why the supervisory board accepted such a clause being in place in a contract and didn't have a clawback clause. The supervisory board looked at the situation of the preferred candidate. And this was the personnel committee did that first. And we thought it was a reasonable regulation to adopt. And we say we have complied with those regulations. Mr. Schmidt also asked whether the new employer, Dr. Schulte or Dr. Böser, will enter obligations at Dr. Schulte. You should have asked Dr. Böser that. That's in their area of responsibility. Dr. Speich asked about the questions referring to the role of chairman of the Stiftung. And do you support the executive board in its activities?
Although your question was aimed, targeted at the ThyssenKrupp member, as far as we are concerned, as the supervisory board, she has been very engaged in her role in the board. Ms. Gartner was also asked about and provided details to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the FAZ. For any details with respect, please let me refer to that article in the FAZ. A question of Mr. Dufner about the decision concerning the ThyssenKrupp Steel sale. He asked me whether there was any other option to go over and ignore the opinion of the employees' representatives. Couldn't that be avoided? You said that twice. Surely it doesn't help communications and relations between the employer and the employee. Let me provide details here. We refer to the shareholders and the employees, that sale of ThyssenKrupp Steel.
We once, in a very controversial discussion, we didn't arrive at a consensus. These conflict situations, we try to avoid them. Both sides, both parties try to, all members of the supervisory try to find solutions and avoid this kind of dispute situation, and we were in intensive discussions. All efforts were made to come to a consensus on this, but unhappily, we couldn't arrive at such a point. Therefore, within the legal framework of governance, the only option is to use the second vote provided for the chairman of the board, and that has been, that was done, that was necessary, but sometimes it has to be, this kind of difficulty has to be the absolute exception. I didn't want to do this. I try to avoid it. I try and avoid this kind of situation. I don't like to arrive at entrenched opinions.
But if it cannot be avoided, and if we have to make an essentially important decision for the company, and if that is necessary, then there is this legal option provided. And that is why sometimes one has to take it. The representatives on the supervisory board, they all take part in all meetings of the board, either in the committees or within the committee, within the board meetings. Between those two cases, there are all kinds of discussions and talks and telephone calls and messages taking place. And I and the representatives of the various bodies, we are constantly in contact. We have also, especially after that controversial decision because of that double vote, we took time at the supervisory board meeting itself to discuss this. Do we have a common understanding of how we can work together for the future of the company?
Both parties said that we intend to arrive at solutions wherever it is absolutely possible. Any exceptions to that are the absolute exception. It is important to say here, in the case of all conflicts, even then we had to survive the situation by making this second vote on my behalf. All discussions took place with full and necessary respect by both parties.
Now we can move on to the request to speak. Now I have Mr. Siewert and then Mr. Geibel once more. Mr. Siewert, the floor is yours.
Yes, thank you very much for that. Hello, everybody. And Mr. López as well. My name is Stefan Siewert, and I represent for many years now. I have a number of several thousand of my own shares. And I am following the company's decisions.
It's high points and low points, and its share price. I have been involved, as I say, for many, many years from high figures of 40s and now in single digits. Let me use this opportunity now to talk to you, to Mr. López, to express my thanks. My thanks for your objective approach to the company, your willingness to make decisions, and for your ability to suffer in the current, today's difficult situation. That is not always the case. And I think those are abilities which are gradually moving us in the right direction. Luckily, you, Mr. López, have the full support of the supervisory board and members of the board. That wasn't necessarily the case for your predecessor, Ms. Merz, looking for long-term solutions for the steel sector and for TK Marine Systems.
I have the impression that despite sometimes activities which are noisily reported in the media, all parties are aware of the situation. That tradition and being nice will not always help us forward. So my questions, Mr. Křetínský has involved 20% in ThyssenKrupp Steel and now has the option of buying another 30%. In this case, he was given clauses which allowed him to withdraw. For example, there was a report in the Rheinische Post newspaper. My question, does he still have rights to withdraw or purchase options? Are they unlimited or are there time limits? And if they are, what are they? In August of 2024, several members of ThyssenKrupp Steel had to leave their posts, which payments were made during those separation contracts. Those amounts, that is money which now is missing from the company's coffers. What kind of payouts were made?
And the money is made up, the costs which are saved by having a virtual meeting as opposed to a public meeting. Does that save money equalize the other expenses? But the decisions which are necessary, I think bearing in mind the importance of the decision, I think it would be better to have a personal meeting, a meeting where the shareholders are actually present. I think that would be better. Mr. Liebler, you say you are prepared to, you have set financial targets, the conversion of the portfolio, and the independent steel and marine segment, and the success of the green transformation. What is the situation with the financial targets? What kind of revenues, possible medium term? Are we at EUR 30-40 billion? What is the prospect? Are we going to see EUR 60 billion, 70 billion, 100 billion soon?
I'd be interested to see how, what about the cash flow figures medium term? We have been patient, shareholders. We have been patient. I hope that you can give me an honest and open message and let us know what your targets are in this year of destiny, of important decisions. That's the end of what I wanted to say. Thank you very much for your attention and look forward to having the answers to my questions. And good luck with the transformation of ThyssenKrupp and a sustainable and profitable future. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Siewert, for your comments. Mr. Geibel, thank you for your willingness to step back and let others speak. Now you have joined us again. Welcome back.
Thank you, Mr. Russwurm.
It's a pleasure to be cooperative, but if I do take the trouble to read the reports, it'd be nice to have, it's nice to have the opportunity to ask questions. In accordance with the provisions of the law, of the stock company law, and I'm sure you'd like to, in accordance with other articles of the law, of the corporate stock law, and with respect to the answer you gave to my previous question, what I want to know is to do with the technical aspect. And I would like to know, not all of my questions have been answered yet. So I want to talk about the arrival payment to Mr. Schulte. His questions have been answered, but you come from southern Germany, as I do. And one of these reasons is, one of the things is that the German language is used at such meetings.
It says CFO. CFO might sound good internationally, but Chief Financial Officer, is that the equivalent of the German term? So it would be nice if you were able to use the full German term and not this international term, CFO. Let me move on now to, we were told that the agreements have been made with Dr. Schulte. Let me ask you, Dr. Schulte, you're here. Let me ask you, are you prepared to completely waive that bonus arrival payment? Just say yes. I am prepared to waive that payment. It'd be interesting to me as a shareholder, you're sitting there, you can answer me directly. That would be very nice and much appreciated. It would be nice if you did actually give me a straight answer to this simple question.
And in a couple of questions, maybe you can give me exemplary answers concerning the use of AI at thyssenkrupp and how will that change the company over the next three or five years? Very rough answers will be ample. And during, what about a little bit of context would be in the current year? And I suppose the payment report, which payment, which board members received payments and expenses apart from the travel expenses? Which other expenses were remunerated? And I want to make, I've read your annual report, and I am surprised sometimes when I read the report. What is in the case with respect to the values of certain assets? A figure is referred to, a certain aspect of those assets is referred to in, can you give us details of what those figures are referred to, what it actually means in reality?
And apparently, it is the inclusion of these kind of abstruse terms in the annual report help no one, I think. And I'm confused and I read them quite often. So that's why I have also something. How many of these numbers generated by these strange metrics? How many points after the, how many figures after the decimal point are calculated to? So it would be great if you left these kind of nonsense figures out of the annual report. They don't help anyone. The accountant for, the auditor for the asset values, I had a question about that. Mr. Buchner, you said former member of the supervisory board of the Daimler Truck AG. That a person, Mr. Buchner said he worked there in 2020, that he retired there in 2020.
And I also shareholder Mercedes Group and the Daimler Truck AG, as you described for you, it was only formed in 2021, September 2021. So 12 months after Mr. Buchner actually retired from the company. So how can that work out? Obviously, there's a mistake there. And these companies could be made leaner. You provide details of the results for the, you talked about payments made after balancing of losses. And so the figures you made mean that ultimately the figure that you should print is zero. And surely that you haven't done. So these are silly, you've made silly statements and you've given silly answers. And so what were the actual results which were appropriated and the losses which are attached?
So this should be not necessarily across all of the individual companies, but I would like to just get a broad picture. Please, just tell us with this particular company, we have a special contract. But please let me know how many shareholders do we have registered at the moment? How many are here now? How many were there last time? And compared to this year? And now talking about the virtual format of today. Yes, I myself benefit from it, but at the same time, I'm basically against it because I think there's nothing better than actually meeting in person. I mean, it starts with the fact that they're only monologues. There is no real dialogue because only one person can talk at a time. And I also like it to heckle a little bit, as you know me from the past, but that's something that, of course, is not possible in this sterile affair like here.
So how many people do you actually have working in the back office and how many people are involved in this meeting here?
And one question I think you have already answered, Mr. Russwurm. I think it was at 11:00 A.M. this morning. You had 294 participants. So in other words, the shareholders have actually already made their vote simply by walking away and that they don't like this meeting. And last year, there weren't so many people, yes. Many people probably assumed that it would not be a meeting where you can travel to. I looked at the people who actually came, but there were only people from Germany and there was only one from abroad, Luxembourg, right next door. So I mean, they still speak German. So what's the point of an international meeting? So I don't see any international shareholders here.
So let me know, what are the costs for this meeting today? And how much do you actually spend on catering? And why don't you make it possible that we have chat rooms that we can discuss this with other shareholders or thumbs up, thumbs down, or that you have the possibility of giving an applause? Mr. López, I mean, he has no feeling of how people react to what he says. He just talked as if he was talking into a mirror. So nothing is happening there. I want emotions. I want feelings. I want peace. I'm sure you don't even like it yourself. And you want to have an exchange with other shareholders. So what is your experience compared to the other AGMs? And your reason for the authorization of this virtual AGM?
That's supposed to be, it's not really true because you said there's a cost aspect. Of course, I see that Mr. López, he can, he didn't. He could get EUR 9 million per year. Tell me, please. Please tell me. The last one prior to COVID, let's add 50% on top of that. I think that a meeting where you actually have champagne is still a lot less in terms of cost than what Mr. López per year gets from ThyssenKrupp. Look, I'm going to meet you halfway now. Why don't we have everybody be happy by making the decision that you say, "All right, we accept the criticism." My suggestion would be one year virtual, the next year we meet again in person, or maybe two years virtual, one year presence, whatever you want. Give me an idea. You always get the same excuse.
I can't hear it anymore. I want to hear a clear statement and then something like, "Yeah, we'll think about it and we'll let you know in time." I'm sick and bored of that. That's too little, and then finally, final question. Mr. Russwurm, I mean, that gets on my nerves when I see my clock underneath my face here all the time. Maybe I'm just going to put some tape on it so that I don't see it because that makes me nervous. But what are the three biggest problems that you want to have taken care of? Okay. I think that's it for the time being. I might take the floor again a little bit later on.
It's obvious that you are really, really answering the questions and you're doing a good job at that. Thank you for that, and then how about raffles?
Why don't we have a lottery so that 100 people can show up so that this is not so sterile and anonymous the way you're having it now? How's that? Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Russwurm. Back to you.
Thank you, Mr. Geibel. And Mr. Schmidt, you are also taking the floor again.
Yeah, thank you, Professor Russwurm, and to you and all the colleagues from the board. Thank you very much for all the answers that you have supplied already. But one follow-up, I'm sorry, I have to give you. And that is the question, why do you have that clause about an exit rate in the case of somebody like Dr. Schulte, who leaves us overnight and goes away, and what kind of per route of payment he is supposed to get? So was that a clause that was there, or was that the result of negotiations?
It sounded like you had to negotiate it first and that you did not actually have a clear advisement for that. So perhaps you could e xpla in that again.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt. And now I'm going to do something that my back office probably doesn't like, but I'm going to take this directly. The wording in the contract can be interpreted differently. And what I was very happy. I was, of course, very sad that we needed to find a new CFO, but that Mr. Schulte, he's a man of honor, and we were able to have a real talk among men. So pro rata was not only meant, but pro rata took place. Well, then I have to ask you, is that the case for all of the contracts?
Can you always hope that the people you're dealing with are men of honor? Isn't it something that should be part of the contract automatically? You can be rest assured that with all future contracts, if we need to pay further employers, that we will look at these clauses in detail to make sure we don't run into any difficulties. It doesn't happen all that often. Most of the time, we don't have to pay anything to another company. But with Mr. Schulte, it was the case because he was in another company. It was a learning process. But I must say, Mr. Schulte is a man of honor, and therefore it was pleasant. But in the future, we take care of that. Thank you.
Thank you. All right, fair enough. I have to pass the fl oor to Mr. López.
Thank you very much, Mr. Russwurm.
There's a question by Tilman Massa. The report for our duty of care when it comes to human rights. And what are the concepts with your suppliers? And when will you have the next report on duty of care? Is it again going to be one day just before the AGM? Well, what we did include in our report was two sites in Hungary. In both cases, we had a task force within HR, and we checked the situation, and we were able to take care of the problem there, making sure that this is something that would not be repeated. And supply chain violations within our supply chain is something that we take care of immediately once we get to hear of it. And if we cannot terminate the violations immediately, we will then write a very determined contract as to when these difficulties will be mitigated.
What are the consequences? Well, based on that, we have initiated initial measures to terminate these difficulties and limit and minimize their repercussions. We have an action plan with exact dates, and up until that has been taken care of, it will be monitored and with trainings and in direct talks. This is being addressed. In the reported term, the ultima ratio was only used once by means of terminating the business relation as to the next report. Also for the next report, we will stick to the legal stipulations telling us that it has to be four months after finalizing the fiscal year. But of course, we will keep on monitoring if there are any new regulations. For example, if the new European supply chain regulation will come into force. Mr. Tilman Massa asked, the report on the duty of care in terms of human rights observations.
Have you had any incidences in the past two years? Have you received any raw materials from these companies that you listed? Please tell us the names. And we're talking about the following companies: Grupo México, Glencore, Vale, BHP Billiton, Samarco, Anglo American, Rio Tinto. And please tell us how you or your subsidiaries have been carrying out your duty of care. ThyssenKrupp receives materials from some of these companies. And because of our duty of confidentiality, we cannot give you any details. Our duty of care is something that we have in mind all the time. Another question by Matthias Geibel. What is the proportion of thyssenKrupp's stock capital that was within the sales published in the Gazette? And how do you act against the so-called sharks? Well, it's always referring to one particular day. So it's only 1% of share capital.
So it's not something that is really very relevant. So the hydrogen strategy for. So how can we have at least 10 gigawatts? We need more than 100 terawatts in Germany, double what we have now. Where is the hydrogen supposed to come from, and what is going to be the part of ThyssenKrupp? After all, you're involved. In the beginning of 2024, there was a procedure for the tender of hydrogen. It started with a request for information, and in the fall, we then started the second phase, the request for proposal, and received 150 offers from German or international suppliers. TK and Nucera, we are not suppliers, but we only provide the technology. And in Europe, we don't have enough renewable energy sources.
That's why we will have major projects in countries where photovoltaics and solar wind energy can be carried out in such a way that the use of hydrogen makes sense and is low.
Another question from Mr. Markus Dufner. From other countries, does ThyssenKrupp receive hydrogen? You mentioned Oman and also New Zealand, Chile, Namibia, South Africa, Norway, that would have the right preconditions for these alternative energy supplies to be able to manufacture hydrogen. So what is your cooperation with Oman? Steel Europe right now is in the tender process for the purchase of this direct reduction plant. We cannot tell you now because it's confidential. But in our development and relationship with Oman, we can say that the ministry in Oman and Nucera have signed a declaration of intent to look at the possibility of exploring hydrogen in Oman. Matthias Geibel had a question.
How many pages are the documents that the shareholders receive? Well, 452 pages, annual report, thyssebkrupp AG 2023–2024, including the annual accounts and the situation report, 338 pages. The annual accounts, thyssebkrupp AG 2023–2024, are 48 pages. The report of the supervisory board is 28 pages and another 58 pages from the financial aspect. A further question by Matthias Geibel. What are the gratification payments for the three chief officers at Steel Europe? Well, in total, we're talking about a one-digit million EUR amount. It was a right decision at the time, as I already pointed out earlier. Another question from Matthias Geibel. You want to manufacture steel in a green fashion. What is the positive effect if today in Germany we lay off all the people and then we use the steel made in China that, of course, does not stick to environmental regulations?
So what can we do to be safe for the future?
That's why we want to make steel with fewer CO2 emissions by using green hydrogen directly in the furnace. And with the direct reduction plant, we can save up to 3.5 million tons per annum in steel making. With natural gas, a direct reduction plant can also result in massive CO2 emissions. Politicians agree that steel needs to remain in Europe, and that means providing protection from imports into the EU in order to maintain fair conditions in the EU. Discussions are taking place with the steel industry and the political decision-makers to this end. Another question from Mr. Geibel. Please give us background for the withdrawal of Sigmar Gabriel. He left in August 2024 during a press conference, and that's all we can say. Another question from Mr. Matthias Geibel.
The reasons for the withdrawal of the supervisory board, did it take place in writing or orally during meetings? Mr. Gabriel and Wetzel, on the 29th of August 2024, during the press conference, they provided their personal reasons, and we have no further comments to make. Their withdrawals and three other members of the Steel Europe AG were submitted in writing and notified at the time. Another question from Mr. Matthias Geibel. Mr. López, what was the main success during the year? Or was there one? As I said in my speech, we achieved a great deal, and that's why I would like to give you several good successes. The EPG is a strong partner for our necessary restructuring. We have several good new orders in place, and during the last year, thanks to our performance program, APEX, we came with a reasonable result.
Ultimately, in addition to those points, we have worked strongly on thyssenKrupp's future. For example, Decarbon Technologies is a new segment, and the other segments have been rigorously adjusted to benefit from the green transformation. Another question from Mr. Matthias Geibel. Mr. López, can you promise to stay in position until thyssenKrupp's share price has reached double digits? As far as I'm concerned, thyssenKrupp has a huge potential, and the main portfolio and performance items have been addressed. I am absolutely convinced that we can convince the markets that they should invest in our company. The development of our share price in the last couple of months also reflects that situation. Question from Mr. Mauro Meggiolaro. What was the share of arms production in total revenues last year? The percentage of turnover for military products was in 2023-24 at 6% of overall revenue of thyssenKrupp.
Another question from Mr. Matthias Geibel. The current three main risks which might impact the share price. At the moment, we see the following risks: general market situation, in particular the automotive industry and its development, geopolitical disruptions, and general capital market movements. Another question from Mr. Matthias Geibel. How did one appoint the new steel executives? How did one arrive at these people, and what did that cost? Mr. Grimm, at the time of, he was already a member of the board. And because of his experience, he seemed to be offering an ideal successor. Ms. Jaroni has much experience in steel as head of the green transformation for steel and was deemed a suitable candidate. Dirk Schulte had many years of experience in the personnel sector as was presented by the IG Metall. And how many people were looked at? How many were selected?
In the case of all processes at ThyssenKrupp, several internal external people were shortlisted. As personal advisors, we did not have any sort of persons involved in those decisions. Another question of Mr. Matthias Geibel was the remuneration report for the organs is half of the entire agenda, whereas the dividends only take a very small percentage of the time. That is a gross distortion. We are complying with our legal requirements. We could not make many changes to that situation. Another question from Mr. Geibel. What does a 10-year employee in the steel production at the furnace earn as annual wages depending upon? At the moment, it depends in a range from EUR 65,000-EUR 73,000 per year for working in the blast furnace. Another question from Mr. Geibel. What is the cost share in Germany for one ton of ready steel for power, material, and personnel?
The current cost mix for warm band steel is slightly less than two-thirds for materials, slightly less than one-third for personnel and other costs, and less than 10% for power and energy. Another question from Mr. Geibel. What needs to change politically for thyssenkrupp to continue making steel in Germany? And what do you expect from the next German government and from politicians in general? A new German government must quickly arrive at concrete decisions, including affordable energy, in particular in Germany, but energy costs are very high in Europe as a whole because of the expansion of the grid. We need to have an effective tool in place so that the steel industry is protected by the global overcapacities and, as a result, needs protection from unfair practices, and the EU model for effective CO2 compensation system must be dealt with and appropriate decisions are made.
Ultimately, the green target markets, there need to be incentives for green products. For example, in hydrogen infrastructure, the demand for CO2-reduced products should be incentivized by appropriate rates and quotas in the public sector. Mr. Hamachek asked the question. The employee shareholders at ThyssenKrupp, are there many? How many are there? Do any of them take place at the AGM? Are they present at the AGM? There were shares of this type issued in 2012. At the moment, there are none. We do have no register of who owns which shares, but except for those voting rights. Another question from Mr. Frank Hamachek. Will the CO2-free steel production be profitable at any time in the future?
We are convinced that over the long term, producing steel without CO2 emissions will be profitable over the long term because the EU European emissions trading will raise the cost of producing steel using high-emission methods, and that will gradually increase the demand for CO2-free steel, and we are convinced that that will ultimately result in an attractive market for CO2-reduced products. In order to secure those markets, we need to have appropriate protection from steel overcapacity imports into the EU in order to ensure a fair competitive environment in the EU. Another question from Mr. Frank Hamachek. Will there be a spin-off, and how do you see that happening? As we've explained, our focus is currently on the spin-off of the TKMS, and the opportunities on the capital market are good, and we will attempt to execute such a spin-off as soon as possible. Another question from Mr. Hamachek.
Why does ThyssenKrupp still write its name using minor letters as opposed to capital letters? As part of our brand launch in 2015, the logo was revised. Up until that time, the two companies, Thyssen and Krupp, had large capital letters, and it was apparent in the company's public picture. In order to make ThyssenKrupp appear as a single company, the words Thyssen and Krupp were added together, and small letters were used. And since we remain to be, we are still a combined company. That's why we still use that picture.
Thank you for those many answers. And we now have Mr. Burkhard. He will be answering a stack of questions. Mr. Geibel asked many questions. Talking about maximum repayment of nine million EUR for Mr. López as CEO. You asked how much more is that of the average wages of an employee, and what is the average wage?
The average wage of an employee was about EUR 72,000 on pages 27, 28 of the annual report. The factors for potential maximum of EUR 4.5 million-EUR 9 million for the CEO is 1 to 63 or 1 to 125 in relation to an average wage. Other questions from Mr. Meggiolaro for submarine Type 212CD and new armament systems. Is AI used in submarines? To what extent? And can they be used independently by AI?
First of all, our products and AI, at the moment, we do use AI in our design and production processes in order to optimize production. On top of that, we intend to use AI above water and below water. However, AI refers to or includes domain operations and autonomous systems. AI is in unmanned systems, and the portfolio of extension of underwater warfare is an important factor for us.
We cannot respond to your question concerning the use of AI and its ability to independently target and attack units. And you asked for percentages per country. Mr. López has already given us a figure. ThyssenKrupp in 2023-24 had revenue with military products in 35 countries, mainly in the following countries: Germany, 1.4% of overall turnover, Brazil, 1.1% of overall sales, Brazil, China, Israel, 0.4%, Great Britain, 0.3%, Italy, 0.2%, Egypt, 0.2%, Greece, 0.9%, India, 0.9%, South Korea, 0.9%, USA, 0.1% of overall revenue. And the remaining 0.6% are distributed over 24 countries, which are under 0.1%. You asked about that ThyssenKrupp refused to have an internal review of its activities, international sales to sell arms to countries which abuse human rights. In the case of ThyssenKrupp, in each sale, it complies absolutely with the German government's regulations and its provisions.
And in terms of exports for marine systems, we comply absolutely with the German government's requirements and provisions and the various applicable laws which affect such sales and EU and international treaties. These projects are considered prior to any sales at a committee level, for example. And at this point, decisions are made concerning continuation with inquiries. And obviously, any such decisions are made fully compliant with decisions made by authorities and the law. And we can also say that AI is not used as part of the decision-making by any arms themselves. They are always subject to human control. And AI is used for optimization of production and also the use of unmanned systems. AI is only used for our products for the evaluation of raw data and production data. It is not used for decisions on targets for such equipment.
Another question referred to submarine Type 212CD.
When it leaves our wharf, can it be re-equipped for carrying nuclear arms? And if yes, is this done by ThyssenKrupp upon request? And the answer, and please, what is the case with other submarine systems provided by ThyssenKrupp?
We cannot make any statements on this because of confidentiality agreements and legal requirements. How many people have turnover sales of more than EUR 180,000? We obviously comply with market rules and market situations. That is also done in compliance and in agreement between the various employers within the thyssenKrupp Group. Less than 1% earn more than EUR 180,000 per annum. Another question from Jörg Geibel. Based on the decision of the German Supreme Court, should TK reduce? Did have to reduce payments made to shop stewards working at a board level. Can you give us details of the amount and percentages?
The answer, none of these measures was necessary because there was no adjustment necessary due to that court decision. thyssenkrupp pays its works council members in accordance with the law and provisions and is compliant with court decisions, and as of 11 years ago, a group guideline was issued which specified that the payment of shop steward members of the works council should be paid in accordance with normal and regular payments made within the company. In the implementation of the guidelines, they should also be the companies will receive advice from thyssenkrupp Central. As opposed to the payments to shop stewards working in the works council, please give us the number of shop stewards freed from their employment obligations to work in works councils.
These payments, as I've just mentioned, the shop stewards are paid in accordance with comparable workers, and that is then done according to the HR department. And reports are made between the group's members and the group. And this ensures that works council repayments are neither favored nor disadvantaged compared with comparable workers. A question from Mr. Matthias Geibel. What was the fluctuation in Germany? And how was the fluctuation based on age? Or did they withdraw? Did they hand in a notice? Or were they canceled by the company? Were they laid off? And the fluctuation in Germany is age-related. 600 staff retired. Another 300 went into partial retirement. 1,100 left the company on their own accord. And about 600 people left the company based on separation agreements. And in 2023-2024, payments in the double-digit million EUR figures. Over to you, Mr. Russwurm.
Thank you. Mrs. Henne. Mr.
Massa, you asked about the ability to comply with taxonomy. Yes, of course, we continually monitor this possibility and evaluate our compliance with EU regulations. We have increased our capability by 87% when it comes to investments. CapEx, 40%. The OpEx, it was a 15% increase. The exact specification for the ambition level, CapEx and OpEx within the EU at the moment is being worked on and will be ready for the next report. All right. A number of questions that were directed at us. Mr. Geibel, you asked, why is it that creating jobs is not a variable part of remuneration? That is the consequence of good work and successful work of a board. That is exactly what we are aspiring to. Then you asked, what experts do you have? Have you used any experts?
Within the Willis Watson GmbH was an independent company helping us at a cost of about EUR 30,000. Then you asked, what are the bonuses for ESG? What are the ESG objectives that have been achieved? The ESG objectives are only part of the long-term remuneration. That's 30%. That's 11% in total of the remuneration. The ESG objectives is the accident rate, the number of women in leading positions, emission quality, and the CO2-reduced steel net employee net promoter score is the satisfaction of our employees. In other words, who would recommend a job to their friends? The higher risk to supplier reduction. This is also for procurement. There, the idea is that you reduce the number of suppliers who are considered to be high risk. All of that on the pages 310 and follows. It's all explained in there.
That's why it is such a long report. And the next question for Mr. Geibel. How many people have you been interviewing for the job of the CFO? Can you finally do it yourself, or do you need, again, a consultant for that? Mr. Geibel, like I said, it's an ongoing process. Therefore, we can't tell you how many at the end we may have interviewed. At the moment, yes, there is a consultant involved. And the cost for that will be around EUR 200,000. And then you asked Mr. Geibel. Dr. Keysberg received EUR 50,000 for any costs for lawyers and other consultancy fees. Why do we pay for something there? In fact, Dr. Keysberg himself decided not to be available for an extension. And he said that he would be flexible in helping the new person to get into the job. And Dr.
Keysberg received advice by his lawyer how that would affect his own pension payments. We thought it was okay that we paid for this lawyer. Then you asked, is there a compensation payment because he left early? Well, he, in fact, stayed until the end of the term. What is that supposed to say? There was no early termination of the contracts. Yeah, like I said, Mr. Keysberg himself decided not to be available for an extension. In the spirit of the company, he wanted to remain available to help the new person get used to his job. That's exactly what happened when Dr. Schulte then came. Mr. Keysberg terminated his contract. The contract then continued until the end, which was the 31st of July 2024. There has been no alternative to that.
Only if we had terminated a year early, and then we would have had to pay an extensive payment for the early termination, which, of course, we didn't want. Mr. Geibel, you asked Mr. Schulte was offered EUR 1.8 million. He then got EUR 600,000. Is that? That goes on top of the 50,000 that he gets per month. So please, as we said, Mr. Schulte has worked for us for one year and not only a couple of months. And then, of course, we heard it, Dr. Geibel, Mr. Geibel, that you think that Mr. Schneider asked you to stay in the virtual waiting room because if not, you couldn't have continued with your request for the floor. Is it that thyssenKrupp wants to stifle our input? Of course, we'd never want to do that.
On the contrary, we want all of our shareholders to ask questions and be able to answer the questions, but technically, once you're in the waiting room, you can follow everything that is being said in the AGM, and our technical experts said that you didn't have any technical problems, and on top of that, the virtual waiting room was opened at 9:00 A.M., one hour early, so that you wouldn't get stuck in any technical issues, but could follow it from the first moment onward, and Mr. Geibel is asking, is there any chance that, there was undue business, in the case of Dr. Schulte? I can tell you, of course, of course, we have our lawyers always, who check all of the contracts, but there was no indication of infidelity in any case, here, and there is no legal basis for asking for any of the money back.
And then, Mr. Geibel, you asked or you tabled the motion to liquidate the company. Let me tell you this. I have to reject this motion. To liquidate a company like thyssenkrupp is not an individual shareholder, but the AGM as such. And a motion or resolution of the AGM can only be positive if it's been on the agenda in a timely fashion. And that term was finished on the thirty-first of December. Therefore, we are unable to resolve on this. And this is in keeping with section 125, Article 2 and others. And then, Mr. Geibel, you asked what are the overall payments that Dr. Schulte received for his measly five months that he'd been working for thyssenkrupp. Can you tell us in detail how much he received? Okay. Again, it was not five months, but we're talking twelve months, possibly a little bit less.
But the overall remuneration up until the thirty-first of September, you find on page 321 in the report. It's 1.026 million EUR. And for the current year, it is in accordance with the current remuneration system, and it depends on how long Mr. Schulte's going to remain in office, possibly until the thirty-first of May. And according to our system of remuneration, 58,000 EUR per month + 23,000 EUR. Please make sure that thyssenkrupp does not give you any pension rights. Therefore, we pay that. And any other, like, a car, and an apartment and so on. But since Dr. Schulte himself decided to terminate his contract himself, he will not have any variable remuneration, so no short-term incentive and no long-term incentive payment. And then Mr. Geibel asked, what are the reasons why you decided not to do a global regulation?
Why did you do without that? I can only tell you, in our contracts, we have the regular clawback regulations that you have in the regular contracts, and we did not have any reason to include this in any of our contracts. And then Mr. Geibel asks, how qualified are the members of the nominating committee that nominates people? When you look at how they failed in nominating Mr. Schulte, you probably didn't mean the nominating, but you're talking about the HR committee because they are the ones that do that. Well, they of course rely on the expertise of their members. Mr. Kerner and Nasikkol from the works council, and myself and Dr. Günther are there. And you can read up on our qualifications in the annual report. And then Mr.
Geibel asks as to the members of the Works Council and if they have checked into the possibility of a legal suit, well, if there had been any breaches of confidentiality, it was not obvious who may have breached confidentiality. And there is no reason to speculate who at any point ever publicized any internal documents, and we did not want to investigate the aspect any closer, but of course, structurally, we do everything for our confidentiality. Everything that is being discussed in the meetings, we have an electronic system, and they're only available to the members of the supervisory board, and only those people have access who work for the individual subjects. The corporate office is very small. There are very few people here that actually see the entirety of the documents.
And all members of the supervisory board have to remain silent and also sign, of course, an NDA. And I think there was no reason to further investigate this issue. It was very inconvenient, but there was nothing we could have done. What are the qualifications that are used when you want to choose the right notary? I can tell you, the selection of the notary is based on the fact that he has many years of experience in notarizing companies of this size, of the stock corporations. And you heard when I said at the beginning, what is it that the notary has to make sure? It's not only to be somebody who keeps the minutes, but also to check out the ability of our systems to take in further motions, requests for the floor, and so on. And that requires a great deal of qualification.
How do we choose that person? Well, it's based on the qualifications that are required. Mr. Policke has been doing that for the past ten years now, also for thyssenKrupp. And therefore, there was no reason for us to change this at all, which also answers my next question. Are you planning on having a change of auditors and then also a change of notary public? And have you checked his credentials? And again, the job of the notary is very different from that of the auditor. We're not talking about any evaluations, but the notary simply looks at facts. And by law, he's independent, and there are no doubts whatsoever as to his qualifications. Therefore, further questions? In 2023, 2024, and 2025, has he also done further work for the group?
If so, what did he do, and how much did he get paid for that?
The notary public during 2022, 2023, and 2024 provided notarial services, and the payments are specified under law. You wanted to know what the percentage is on the income of the notary public. We have no, and we wish no, knowledge as to the income and the financial situation of the notary public. That is, in accordance, confidentiality is specified by law. Which members of the supervisory boards took part only partially at such meetings? At which point did they name deputies? At which and where did they not take part in any votes? The participation of the supervisory board meetings at the board meetings and its committees is specified in the annual report.
I have also spoke about this in my speech. I talked about 98% participation in the board meetings. This means that there are only a few individual cases where one member of the board might not have been able to take part in the meeting. That is possible, for example, due to an extraordinary board meeting. That is, that can happen. The participants, as a rule, they took part at all times in all meetings, possibly might have been late in arrival due to traffic, and they are completely irrelevant. Only the specified members of the board took part, and no other persons took part and made vote at the meeting. Otherwise, they did so by postal methods when it was deemed necessary and important.
Which members of the Supervisory Board took part in which meetings or committee meetings or only took part virtually, or, let me say, the annual report specifies that it is specified in the annual report. In addition to that, we also point out that the participation, either physically or virtually, has no difference in terms of content. We have procedures such that even those who only take part virtually can always know where we are in our proceedings. And if I have 19 colleagues who will point out to me if I were not to notice someone who wished to make a comment, but I overlooked him because he was only a screen. So it makes absolutely irrelevant in terms of content as to where a member is.
You also asked what the company saved by having the virtual AGM compared with a presence event. Today's meeting compared with last year's meeting, the figures are that we estimate we probably saved 1.1 million EUR by this move. Mr. Geibel also asked, and just to make sure we don't forget this, the notification in accordance with the law and the other provisions of the law. You can, they can be sent by mail, and we would then be happy to look forward to receiving your notifications, and we'll be happy to send you email responses. You also asked in accordance with the provisions of the law that I, when somebody makes such a question, I'm an engineer. I am happy to say that I have legal advisors.
We are compliant with all provisions of the law, and we have planned. We weren't intended to announce these details in accordance with the law as you request. Let me now say that. I will, Mr. Schulte. You were asked by Mr. Geibel whether you are prepared to waive the payment. Let me. I will now going to stand in front of Dr. Schulte. I am going to. We have agreed that the payments for 2025, 2026 will not be made, and there is no reason for waiving payments already made. There is no moral obligation for him to do so. After all, he has been working. Mr. Geibel, you also asked or you complained that Dr.
Schulte, that it says CFO on the screen and that we should be embarrassed to have to use the international term for his employment here. The Chief Financial Officer CFO is perfectly regular now in Germany, especially for companies who are active internationally, whether that be DAX or MDAX companies. That is used across the board pretty much so that it is understood also by our international colleagues. It is also useful for investigations, and it is used by media. Therefore, there is no reason for not using CEO and CFO. They are now considered to be a standard part of the German language and its usage. You also asked about those topics and subjects about where members did not take part in meetings.
I have already given you details, comments about who took part in which meeting and what was discussed at the various meetings with which participants. If you look on page 14 of the annual report, there are also details there of who took part in which meeting. You also asked about the remuneration which Executive Board members have, which expenses, rent, rental costs were recompensed for, Mr. Schulte, because and travel expenses total for EUR 94,000. Travel costs were remunerated. You also asked and you pointed out, you referred to the Daimler Truck / Mercedes-Benz Trucks and the organizational employment there of Mr. Buchner. Mr. Buchner, until he left, he was a member of the segmental Executive Board of Daimler Trucks. That organizational unit now operates under the name of Daimler Truck AG. The details will be made more precise.
Thank you for pointing that out. I think in terms of content, that does not make any difference. He was within the Daimler- Benz group, but he was in a different division. He was in the truck division. So we will change that. Thank you very much for pointing that out. You asked whether one could have virtual applause or virtual thumbs-up signs could not be added to our internet presence during the AGM. I did ask my tech technicians to see whether that was possible. We'll keep you informed, depending on what we are told, which feedback we get concerning that issue. We will definitely check that situation. Mr. Hellbaum, you asked for the number. Why don't you change alternately between presence and virtual to two years virtual and one year presence, for example?
The question is made virtually or presence is made based on the material aspects, which we decide every year new, depending upon, say, on the situation, also in terms of costs and also the points covered in the agenda and the question whether a presence event would be more useful or not, which last year, remember, we had a new CEO, and we wanted to present that CEO, and that's why last year we had the presence event. That was mainly the reason based on the agenda planned for today. We did think that the value gained from having a presence event would be very minor, and that is why we decided that a digital event would be sufficient for this year.
And during the course of the year, we will come to the conclusion as to whether the next one will be present or digital. And if it is a private under law that one may decide, then we shall make such a decision as to what will happen in the year twenty-twenty-six. You also asked and suggested to decide which public could be present here, which selection of people would be here. It's a very interesting idea, but we, because of our share structure, it would be difficult to organize the selection of such persons. So we will not get into that kind of procedure. And you also asked how many people operate in the back office, how many external, how many lawyers from which law offices. The back office, there are twenty-four employees or persons in the back office.
Thank you to all of you, also providing us with legal support. There are also 30 other staff who help ensure that we have stenographers, we have security, external staff are provided; the services are provided. There are 4 people present, and there are 3 lawyers of the Luther law offices. They are here and provide us with legal advice as required. Mr. Geibel, regarding what you said that the virtual AGM provides an opportunity for shareholders to meet and greet and talk with each other. Is there not a possibility in a virtual AGM? There are various; the law has left it to us as we don't see how that could be sensibly organized online. I think that whether it was a question about the pro rata agreements made with Dr. Schulte, I think I've already answered that.
I hope that was sufficient detail for you. And how we do that with the new contracts for members of the board. We will for the avoidance of doubt. For the avoidance of doubt, we will do that and have a look at those contracts and so we have learned that we need to be clearer as to withdrawal of people prior to the end of their term. So we will take action on that. Let me now, I'm just going to check my system here. And I think I'm correct in saying that there's one request to speak from Mr. Dubl and Mr. Geibel. If that's the case, Mr. Geibel, can I ask you to speak now? I have noticed that the questions by shareholders have been asked sufficiently answered. And when I imagine that you, Mr.
Russwurm, if you do that also in the course of your supervisory board meetings, then I'm sure that it is why you come to receive the results you do. Mr. Geibel asked how many staff earn more than 100,000 EUR per annum and how many that there is a figure would be expected there. Your math is a very complicated issue, arithmetic, and so when you say under 1%, that is so that is a typical answer that shareholders are given. That means that reflects the fact that we are not taken seriously. So I have also adopted that question and so how many employees during the course of last year have annual gross 1 million EUR gross and including bonuses in that figure.
And I look to ask those shop stewards who are released from their work obligations in order to take part in work council meetings. So what is that figure? They expect a number, but I don't expect you to give me some wishy-washy answer to that. I would just like a clear answer. It's a clear question. And I have asked. I've also advised the notary public of my complaint in this case. And how many committees there are in the company? How many staff actually work in these committees and how much time did they lose from their normal jobs by sitting in these committees and from educational purposes in order to undertake such activities? And an answer to a question was answered by Mr. Geibel. A question Mr. Geibel asked a question, but I was the one who answered the question.
So you answered the wrong person. The answer given was that there was a technical problem. The technical problem is that there is a time delay between the actual saying anything and it being broadcast on the internet. So there is a technical delay. That means as a result that prevents one having a complete overview of what is taking place in the AGM itself. Why I asked about the clawback clause for payments agreed with Dr. Schulte and I'm not sure now if it was agreed or not agreed and that is not a normal situation. So my question is then why did you agree with such a payment without setting a time specifying a time for the work. So apparently there was no clawback clause and no specific time period was set.
That is something which would be unusual for contracts with, let's say employees in a company. So why say why did you not do this? Your whole discussion here, that there was a man of honor and you looked in the eyes and it's, you know, you can trust me. If that's the case, I mean, you know, why do we have contracts? The contract is there to specify who does what when. You know, in order to specify to make sure there are no legal misunderstandings. If there were misunderstandings, then those contracts are obviously deficient. That means that lawyers haven't done their job properly. Otherwise there would be no basis upon which one could have these differences of opinion. So you quoted me, but you quoted me incorrectly.
You said that people like Mr. Schulte, but what I actually said was that it was people like Mr. Schulte who are out to get the best out of a situation. I am not an engineer. An engineer was a doctor, a double doctor title, who is not able to give me a clear answer. Instead of giving me a specific figure, I get something; some ten years were mentioned. I think an engineer who should be thinking very specifically is incapable of responding to a clear answer to a clear question.
For how many years this notary public has been notarizing these meetings? You never answered it clearly. What are the fees that this gentleman is charging? I can read it up in the law book.
I want to know how much you actually paid. So how much money did he get from thyssenkrupp? And I'm expecting a figure, okay? Not down to the cent, but down to Euro. And if you have a proper accounting department, then they should be able to tell me exactly how much money he has been paid. And if you don't do that, it's either because you are unable to provide that figure and your people are incapable, or that you simply don't want to. The same comes when it comes to the participation in the meetings. I want to know who was there when. And I can only do that if I can actually see who missed which meeting. But you didn't give me that answer. On the pages that you indicated, I cannot read it.
What I also noticed is that in the report, you don't show very clearly which are the members of the board that are sent by the endowment and how many people are actually the representatives of the employees. So please tell me which members of the supervisory board have been nominated by the endowment, how many are shareholders or who are employees. And depending on that, I can either discharge the members of the board or not. Final point. I want to be constructive now. You say you cannot follow the suggestion of Mr. Geibel and invite individual shareholders. So is there any reason under the Stock Corporation Act to have a lottery, for example, and in that lottery, the winner gets a trip to Essen, to a small room, and they get something to eat there too. Is that legally possible or not?
And again, as to the contracts, when you say in the future you will word the contracts in such a fashion that they are clear cut. If I read that, it sounds like up to now they were not clear cut and they were very open to interpretation. So not only in steel or in marine technology, you have to be precise, but please also be precise in your legal business. And I think that is something that the board is responsible for. Thank you very much.
Well, thank you. At one point, I may jump in now. It was my fault. I apologize. I'm sorry. I said it was Mr. Geibel's problem. It was not somebody from the back office. Actually, I read two names that are very similar and I just m ixed up the names.
I'm so sorry about that, sir. You told me that I didn't quote you properly. I just said that this is not part of my own vocabulary. You repeated that word, but that is a word that I personally would not want to use. It's not part of my own vocabulary. Okay, thank you very much, and now I would like to ask Mr. Geibel.
Mr. Russwurm, thank you very much. You don't need to apologize. Because I thought it was funny that you answered a question that I never asked, but you know, everybody makes mistakes and I'm glad that that happens to you guys too, just like to everybody else, so but that's exactly what my point is. You know, when we're in the meeting in presence, then you know, that is something that we can rule out on the spot, right?
But at any rate, it was nothing that caused too much problem. Okay. But clearly, it's obvious here. CFO, I mean, give me a break. If it's only German people here, why do we need to use these English terms? And the participation here in presence is something that should be possible for any kind of shareholder. Think about it. Think about it, but of course, you have to do that in time. And once I register in the portal, there should be a button. Okay, you call it button. And you say that 20 or 50 shareholders may be interested. Would you be interested? Yes or no? I mean, that shouldn't be so difficult to organize that. And it's also not costing you too much money. Because I was in a couple of those meetings. And in some of them, I was there. And there I did the same.
So I was able to demonstrate against these purely virtual meetings. Well, Mr. Again, the bonuses from Dr. Schulte, I think we've already discussed that in detail. But you want to learn from this, you said. But you were not really precise. What kind of consequences you will now implement because of that? So you said you will consider it in such a way that in the future you hire people according to the Corporate Governance Code for three years. And if, you know, and if they do not fulfill that contract, I mean, if they're sick or something that's different, then of course they will not get any payment at all and have to return their taken money immediately. I think you could agree with me on that one.
And then I'm quite happy with you people because there were two or three points where I thought that your answer wasn't really precise. The people who left at the steel subsidiary, you said it was a medium one-digit million EUR. So are we talking EUR 4.8 million? Are we talking EUR 5.3 million? I mean, please give me the exact figure here. And when we're talking about gratifications, you're talking about a double-digit amount in millions of EUR. So I think it couldn't be too hard to give us the exact figure here. In the course of the discussion, I just came up with one new question. I know it's a difficult one to answer, but I'll try it anyhow. I'd like to know how much do you actually pay per ton of steel just for the electricity?
I know that that is a question that may be confidential because it is some competitive edge you have there. But could you answer it in such a way that it satisfies us? If you say, let's say you say pay 15 cents per kilowatt hour. So if you need 12 or 18, then I think you would have answered my question. So if you can just give me like a range in which your kilowatt hour price would be for the production of steel. And then I like asking questions that the back office cannot answer. Mr. López, I ask you now, will you stay in office until we are double-digit with our share price? You didn't ask me answer that question. I asked that before. So you're not ready for retirement yet. So how do you feel about that?
Or am I too greedy to ask that kind of question? That I want to make sure that you stay there until we actually have gone beyond the EUR 10. Okay. I have a couple of open questions still, but I don't want to keep you too long. Okay, don't tell me, talk to me about the hush value. Nobody understands that anyhow. You know, if we only get a number of figures at the end, I'm not very happy about that. So please, just show the figures, don't have to read them out and publish them afterwards, because that is something that could definitely shorten our meeting time here. So I would be very happy if you could possibly answer the questions I now ask. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
And especially for the fact that you know that I made the first mistake already and I had to correct myself, maybe today simply is not my day when we're talking about reading long columns of numbers. Mr. López.
Public notary. In the last meeting, it was EUR 27,000, right, in accordance with the law. Mr. Siewert asked. Mr. Křetínský was involved at 20% and had the option to purchase another 30%. And he had the right to refrain. Does he still have any purchasing option and what are the exact terms here? And the answer to this is, as is usual, there are regulations for all these cases and also for the case that one of the two partners would like to draw back in case there is no joint measure for EPG. We have the right, both parties have the right to withdraw.
A further question by Mr. Siewert in August 2024. A number of thyssenKrupp people had to leave of the board members. How much was paid, like we already said? The members of the board received their, it was a medium range, one-digit million EUR for the, in terms of gratifications, none was paid. Another question, Stefan Siewert asked. Mr. López, you said that you wanted to combine your personal success with achieving the objectives of ThyssenKrupp, 30-50 billion EUR. How do you see revenue and cash flow in the medium term? Well, the medium term objectives look like this. At the group level, we want to have an average of between 4%-6%. It's a clear free cash flow before M&A and reliable dividend payment on segment level.
We have the following objectives: automotive technology, 27% without further ado, Decarbon Technologies, more than 5% EBITDA, and Material Services, between 3% to 5%, Marine Systems, 6% and 7% for the segment Steel Europe. The objective to reach 6% and 7% would be monitored within the business plan. Mr. Geibel asked, how many shareholders were registered at the last AGM? The question is. Well, you just heard it. We don't know how many shareholders we have, and we don't have a share register, so we don't know how many there are, no service provider, and no costs. Mr. Matthias Geibel asked, what are the yearly costs for the register who has the share register? Well, since we don't have one, we have no share register and also no service provider, and therefore also no costs. Mr. Matthias Geibel asked, what is the amount of the costs of today's meeting?
What are the costs for catering? Well, for the virtual meeting here, 2023, it was EUR 517,000. And 2025 will be more or less the same. But also for virtual meetings, there are cost increases. The main one is the technology and the service providers. Catering costs about EUR 9,000. What are the three biggest problems for the board? That's a question by Mr. Matthias Geibel. Like I said, thyssenKrupp this year is facing major challenges. We want to have a better performance and be more competitive. And with this restructuring and steel, we're taking big steps towards independentization. Also, the spin-off of Marine is something that we want to force forward. And of course, it's all towards decarbonization. We want to be prepared once the green markets are open to all of us. Mr.
Geibel asked, in future virtual meetings, that they send one portion of curry sausage so that you can actually warm it up in your microwave and have the same kind of feeling as in a meeting here. Mr. Geibel, we will look into these ideas that you proposed.
Another question from Mr. Geibel, which has already been answered in fact. You quoted, but I was incorrectly quoted, etc. That has actually been answered already. Another question from Mr. Geibel. Your answers aren't precise enough. Please give me the answer up to 250,000 EUR. It was 4.5 million EUR for the board who left the TKS AG. It's now Mr. Schulte. He's got some answers now. Yeah, looking forward to that. A question from Mr. Geibel.
The level of payment for the five-digit, a number of five digits and thousands, five-figure thousands, and the ESEF documents were mentioned in the report. You think that it is a, you mentioned that you think that it is a fairly irrelevant number. This is a requirement of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and it is specified this hash value is a digital signature in order to ensure the integrity of the financial reports submitted to the company. Another question from Mr. Geibel concerning who own shares. One could not simplify that the 342 companies is compliant with the German company law. Another question from Mr. Geibel about who owns which shares. Is there. And that you now write losses and positives, but by providing two lines of data, you actually cancel each other out. So the result would be zero.
And therefore, you should provide a list of the results before losses. And the answer is all details are provided in accordance with the legal requirements, and this includes the companies with transfer of profits and losses. And we are not aware of, we don't think that the government, that the changes have already made to the law subject to HGB rules in Germany, and therefore the rules are complied with and no total amounts are needed or required. But all of those details are included in the annual reports of the thyssenkrupp AG. What are the three main investments in the current business year? The three main investments will be in Steel Europe, including the direct reduction plant and investments made in terms of the strategy 2030. That's my questions all answered. Mr. Schulte, thank you. Mr. Schulte, Mr. Burkhard. First question from Mr. Geibel, please.
Maximum average and minimum payment of shop stewards freed from their work obligations and the height of payments to shop stewards at works councils is compliant with comparable employees and the appropriate company. Any additional payments for works council at any level is not provided, and so there is no central registering or reporting or evaluation of such payments because they are not made. Mr. Geibel, you were asked, you complained that the number of shop stewards was not named. Shop stewards are working on the works council. The number is there about 130 members of the works councils based on compliance with the appropriate law, and those are units having more than 200 employees. There are 40 organizations within thyssenKrupp who have more than 200 employees. Therefore, there are 100 shop stewards relieved of their normal working obligations. In response to a question, Mr.
Geibel, you said how many staff are occupied in the committees and how much time did they lose by taking part in these committees and because of the training involved, etc. Of those 130 committees in the company, including offices and personnel, there are about 1,000 staff involved in these committees. They are not released from their duties. They are under 200 people in their company. The loss of working hours is not recorded, and this kind of control is not something which is striven for on a central basis. But even we wouldn't want to do that because that is not allowed under the provisions of the law. We were asked about the use of artificial intelligence. TK uses AI in various sectors.
For example, learning from production data and also historical processes and consumption are analyzed using AI, and also supply chains are in order to improve supply chains. AI is also used. We also use AI in order to generate more value, better value, and value added for our customers. We also use AI for digital twins. AI models also help improve productivity of staff and also to make more data better available. The use of AI is in accordance with co-determination rules established by way of co-determination. In the next three, five years, AI will be changed in the company. TK says that AI will change many different aspects of current work, including improvement of decision-making processes and solving complex problems. AI will have a broad-based implementation in the next three or four, five years and will create new job profiles.
Let me answer a few questions. We do not keep records on notarizing fees, and the annual fee rate is around about six digits, but other is not necessary to go into further detail with respect to this AGM. Mr. Geibel also asked which members of the supervisory board are specified by the foundation and which ones are represented. All those details are available on the website. Foundation remains two persons. The employee representatives are also named. In the report, the other owner representatives are also stated in the report for the record. If the supervisory board meetings and the subjects covered. If there are minor delays in arrival, then we are usually still involved in the formal aspects.
If a train is 10 or 15 minutes late and 10 minutes late arriving at the meeting, then he will not be missing any parts of the discussion because we will still be involved in the formalities involved in such a meeting. At no point did such delays have any impact on resolutions made at supervisory board meetings where members were not present. A very precise answer to your question. Dr. Lübber did not, on the 29th of November 2023, he could not attend an extraordinary meeting, and the only point on the agenda was the appointment of three further members, and he provided his vote by mail.
In Bochum, a member could not take part in a constitutional meeting at the AGM in Bochum a year ago due to a delay on the train, and he was represented by a deputy and other members of the committee. The previous discussions had taken place, and therefore the vote was covered. Mr. Geibel, you referred to that you suggested that shareholders could take part in a lottery and then take part as present so they could take part on a preselected basis. This is not possible at our AGMs. Whether we have a personal or a virtual AGM, it is subject to these kind of side issues do not play a part in our organization of these events. The question as to notarial fees, I think that has now been sufficiently answered.
But you said, "I'm an engineer," and you said that I was not precise enough. Let me tell you, I always tell my students that it's sometimes much more sensible to use orders of scale rather than look at the points, at the figures behind the points. So I think scales of size are much more useful when assessing some aspects of, for example, the management of a company. Mr. López, it's your turn.
Thank you, Mr. Russwurm. A question from Mr. Geibel: Would you stay in the office until the share price was double digit? What about your attitude to obligations to the company?
I am completely in line with the executive board members to achieve the goals that we have set ourselves, and I will be doing all my very best and give all my efforts in order to make sure our company is improved in terms of performance and sustainability and in terms of the performance portfolio and green transformation. And we've talked about various aspects of this and contributions made, and I am prepared to stand up and accept responsibility for these activities. There was a comment and a question from Mr. Geibel who said that Mr. Geibel had asked the question. Mr. Geibel had asked how many members earned more than 100,000 EUR, and he wanted the answer is 1% is not sufficient. Who had more than 180,000 EUR? And 750 employees have a target gross income of more than 180,000 EUR.
You also asked how many have an overall income of more than one million, and 14 people had an effective overall remuneration of more than one million. A question from Mr. Geibel for the detail of answers given fluctuation and separation fees paid. Please. The separations paid based on fluctuations are approximately EUR 70 million. And so no more answers from me.
Thank you for that. And Mr. Geibel also was working very creatively. And we think shareholders should be treated equally, and for example, have additional people here in the room during our virtual AGM, and that will not affect our decision as to make a presence or a virtual AGM. But all shareholders should be treated equally and not based on some kind of lottery, and therefore that will be our position on that. Mr.
Geibel, the technical effect you saw with respect to the time delay between what is said and when it is broadcast, we will try and it takes about a second, about one second, but we will simply wait. Therefore, you will not have any cut-off words, but please be assured that that first second will not have any major effect on the content that is being discussed. In that case, there is one answer to come from Mr. López, which is still being processed, that with the electricity costs, we currently have our guys in the back office working on the furnace. The Blast Furnaces have been working for 200 years, and that is a consequence that in steelworks, we were power generators using the gases from the Blast Furnaces.
Actually, because of blast furnace gases, we are actually almost self-sufficient. We generate enough power ourselves, but we actually produce power at our plants and then buy power in other plants. The other major challenge for green steel, we've discussed the first with the direct reduction plant and the availability of green hydrogen. The second one, which we have to solve, is that we then, if we don't have the blast furnace, we have to buy power for the amounts which is currently generated by our own power station based on the gases from the blast furnace. So in the future, the costs for buying large amounts of green power are very relevant, and we will try and work out what our current power costs are in order to give you a sensible answer.
The current power costs for purchase power are based on the exchange cost of about EUR 0.07-EUR 0.09 per kilowatt hour. Because of our association in Duisburg, we actually generate most of our power ourselves.
This is maybe the last time that I take the floor now. If you say that is something that the auditors tell us, then I can live with that. As I said, I don't have any understanding of the values that were given here. I mean, what is the hash value of the solution? Probably the same as me. So my question is, it was a strange amount. I look at the offers from auditors, and normally they tell you how much they want to charge. So just tell me how much it was, and that's it.
And then there's one final point as to the question of the individual ownership of the shares. You say it is according to what the law stipulates. I never doubt that, and of course, that's correct. But the question is a different one. It doesn't make any sense if you have more than 300 companies to say the revenue in total is zero because all has to go to the parent company. So therefore, we don't need to argue about that. But there's another point because the shareholder has the right to know, and I could ask you, please tell me for every single one of those companies how much money they would have to make prior to passing it on to the parent company. But I'm not a malicious person, so I don't ask that question because it would take you at least 15 minutes to answer that.
But we can avoid that. If you just tell us upfront in the annual report, that's not so difficult. So why don't you just say next year you'll do it, and then we're through with this? And it's not a secret for all of the domestic companies. We could go through the work of going through the Gazette and see what they do there, but it's a couple of days' work. So why don't you just tell us it's a lot easier? And that would be shareholder-friendly. Everybody would appreciate it. And then you say, is he still? We're still learning something new every year. And it's also the nice thing about advice from shareholders. Well, it comes for free. Don't have to pay for it. So I'm not asking you to send me triple-digit euro amounts as a consultant.
I'm sure you want to do all the very best, but you still didn't answer my question. So the only answer that you gave that was not scripted by your staff was, I mean, you did not look very happy when you provided your answers here. So how about if you tell me, Mr. Russwurm, there isn't so much left anymore. Just continue. It doesn't matter now. So maybe for next one. Thank you so much for giving me the floor again.
Thank you. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for the offer. But to tell you the truth, I'm not going to take your offer. There are so many lawyers around me, and there is a very clear cut here.
It says we have to finish the general debate before we actually start with the voting because some of the details need to be coming up. Unless, Miguel, you want to answer immediately.
I can only repeat, of course, I feel committed to the success of thyssenKrupp. There's nothing I can add to that.
Okay, then we still have to wait for a few minutes, and then we have the detailed answer. I hope we can do that without any formal interruption now and can then move on. But I also don't want to tell you any stories from my earlier life. That would not be right. So we're all sitting here waiting for the back office to provide us with the answers to the questions that were just asked. Okay, at this point of time, I would like to express my gratitude.
There are still four questions at this point of time. We had 180 questions. Three are still being processed, and we're waiting for the answer. Herr Schulte, mein System sagt, da gibt es eine Antwort, die. Mr. Schulte, there is one answer. Yeah, that was one of the three questions by Mr. Geibel. The question was as to the list of shareholders, and you wanted to have the list of the companies that have to report to the parent company. And you said that you didn't want to ask for all individual revenues for all of these companies. So I understand this is not really a question, so I don't need to answer it. And at any rate, it had been questioned at an earlier stage. Ich habe vorhi n schon gehört, 24 Kolleginnen und Kollegen im Back Office. So there's 24 colleagues in the back office.
And I'm sure they all have a lot of telephone numbers and are dialing and trying to get the answer to some of these questions. So they're looking for the right set of data. But there is another question that just popped up. Mr. Schmidt, please go ahead.
Thank you very much. On the one hand, I'd like to point out you're not alone even after six hours. I'm still watching every single minute, and I'd like to praise you and the people who have been organizing this. Fantastic job. Thank you very much. And also the way you answered the question, I have no criticism whatsoever. And perhaps one or two questions, if I may, and that will help us to bridge the time until we have the answers to the other questions. How many shareholders are currently connected here? At one point earlier, it was 290, I think.
Can you tell me how many people are still connected to our system right now? You said there was another meeting happening in the second room, but I didn't see the camera actually showing any of that. It would be nice to see. Thank you.
The last one is easy to do. The colleagues who are sitting there in the other room, they're all sitting here in the big room, and now, apparently, a camera is going towards them, so put away all your sandwiches. You all look sharp and good-looking. Yes, there they are, so that's the entire board. So everybody's still there. No effects of attrition. Okay, back here, please. So everybody's still here, and now we can go to the answers. Mr. Schulte, you have another one?
Right. I have two answers. One for Mr. Geibel. The cost of the ESEF audit was EUR 25,000.
That was one question. And the second one was the hash value. And we said it is something that the Chamber of Commerce actually tells us, but there's no reason for it, actually. It's 64 different points in that hash value. And if you look at it in a decimal way, it's 400. We don't do very much with that hash value, but it's something that the Chamber asked us to do.
Thank you. And the statistic, Mr. Schmidt, as to how many people are connected right now, just mean how many channels are open, could be two people looking at the same time. There are 235 people. Earlier, we had 340. That was the peak value that we once reached. So this is the proof now. And now my system tells me there are no further questions. There are no further answers.
So I just wait for the confirmation from the back office before I proceed. Aha. I see that everything is fine. Good. It means apparently there are no further people asking for the floor. As Chairman of the meeting, I now assume that every question that wanted to be asked had been asked and all the questions have been answered properly. I'd like to thank all the speakers, and I'd like to thank the board for answering the questions. And this concludes the discussion. And now we move on to the resolution on today's agenda items. As Chairman of the meeting, it is my responsibility to determine the type and order of votes in accordance with Section 18, Paragraph 2 of our Articles of Association.
With regard to the vote on the discharge of the members of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board under Agenda Item 3 and Agenda Item 4, I'm ordering, and as announced, individual votes. According to the legal concept, counter-motions and nominations could be made or submitted both before and during this virtual annual general meeting. The counter-motions and nominations that were sent in due time before the AGM and are subject to publication have been published on earlier dates. The date is the moment that it was made available using the investor portal in advance of today's annual general meeting. The Executive Board recommends rejecting all published counter-motions and following the management's proposed solutions. Thank you. The Executive Board has also commented on individual counter-motions. The Executive Board statement is also published on the company's website.
In this meeting yesterday, the Supervisory Board also dealt with the counter-motions to be dealt with by the annual general meeting and agreed with the statement prepared by the Executive Board and its recommendation to reject the counter-motions and vote for the management's proposed resolutions instead. With regard to the order of voting in today's annual general meeting, I, as Chairman of the meeting, order that the proposals of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board be voted on first. If these are accepted with the required majority, counter-motions will be dealt with. The resolution proposal of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board are contained in the invitation published in the Federal Gazette on December 18, 2024. A further reading will therefore be dispensed with at this point.
Ladies and gentlemen, after I've explained how the voting results are determined and announced, the current attendance, we will come to the closing of the vote. The exercise of voting rights via the investor portal will therefore be closed shortly and will no longer be possible after the vote has closed. I ask those shareholders and shareholder representatives who still wish to exercise their voting rights or change their already exercised voting rights to do so promptly via the investor portal. The same applies to the issuing of instructions to the company's voting representatives. The voting results are determined using the addition method. The yes and no votes are counted. Any abstentions are recorded, but they don't have any influence on the result.
The votes cast by the company's voting representatives bound by instructions will be released after voting that has closed and will be declared to be electronically evaluated together with the electronic postal votes under notarial supervision. There will be no vote on Agenda Item 1 for resolutions on Agenda Items 2 to 7. A simple majority of the votes cast is sufficient. For the resolution on Agenda Item 8, a qualified majority of at least three quarters of the share capital represented at the time of the resolution is required. Before voting closes, I would like to inform you of the current attendance. It represents 274 million in total, 44.1% represented by the voting representatives. For the no-par shares, we have 29 million, which is 4.72% of the share capital represented by postal voting. 3.3 million votes were cast. This corresponds to 48.3% of the registered share capital.
Thank you very much to all of those who have attended live. 3,550 attendance at the peak. Somebody's asking, are you sure? Because it seems like a huge number, but this is not a number that has any legal impact. But I'd like to thank all of you for your participation and the interest you have shown in our company. Ladies and gentlemen, I will now interrupt the AGM for five minutes and then close the voting via the investor portal. This interruption is your last opportunity to exercise your voting rights or give instructions to the proxies via the investor portal. After the interruption has ended, it will no longer be possible to exercise your voting rights or give instructions. According to my watch, it's 4:30 P.M., and I will interrupt until 4:35 P.M. Okay. It is now 4:35 P.M., plus a couple of seconds.
The Notary Public said I can start later, but not earlier. So now we continue with the AGM. As I said, the main issue for the manager of the meeting here is that there were 342 shareholders involved in the investor portal on the web page for the transmission of the AGM. 3,500 participants were registered. We're watching. That wasn't necessarily all shareholders. Anyway, we've cleared that up. As I said before, it's no longer possible to vote or issue powers of attorney or instructions to proxies, so I have instructed technical staff to take that into account. However, you still have the opportunity to declare objections to the notary's minutes. The proxies will now release the votes stored in the system in accordance with the instructions for the various points on the agenda. Just have a look around the hall. So then now we've done that.
I'm now going to close the voting, and they now will be added together, and the results will now be determined under the notary's watchful eye and then prepared. This will take a few minutes, so that takes a short time. And as soon as I have the results, I will inform you accordingly. The votes, I'm now going to adjourn for about 15 minutes. My Ladies and gentlemen, I am now ending this short break of the AGM, and we are now coming to the announcement of the results of our ballots for agenda items two to eight. I've also, the one shareholder did insist that we read out the long version, which I shall, of course, do. Let me start with the use of agenda point two, use of the 303,963,373,000. That's 80, 48.83% of the share capital.
The use of the appropriation of the result for 2023 and 2024 was around 291,979,321 yes votes versus 11,984,044 no votes, and so 96.06%, i.e., the majority, so it has been approved. Let me also now—and the value is the dividend will be payable on the 5th of February. Now, I'd like to move on to point three: discharge of the members of the Board of Management. This contains six separate resolution points for discharge of the individual members of the Board of Management in office for the 2023-2024 financial year. This is 299,212,671% of the votes cast were in favor of discharge for 2023-2024. For the discharge of Mr. Oliver Burkhard, 299,067,004 valid votes were cast as 48.04% of the share capital, and so Mr. Burkhard received 299,272,242 yes votes versus 9,796,762 no votes, and therefore discharged with 96.72% of the votes cast. For the discharging of Dr.
Volkmar Dinstuhl, 90,406 votes cast, that's 48.04% of the share capital. Dr. Dinstuhl was discharged based on 299,315,503 votes versus 9,774,903 no votes, which represents a vote in favor of discharge of 96.73% for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Ms. Ilse Henne, 299,200 valid votes were cast, that's 48.04% of the share capital. Ms. Henne was therefore discharged based on yes votes of 289,315,469 versus 9,775,731 no votes, so 96.73% of votes cast are in favor of discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Dr. Jens Schulte, 299,100,716 valid votes were cast. This represents 48.05% of the share capital. Registered share capital. Dr. Schulte is therefore discharged based on 288,934,593 yes votes and 10,166,123 no votes, therefore discharged based on 96.6% of the vote for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharging of Dr. Klaus Keysberg, 299,092,056 valid votes were cast.
That is 48.04% of the registered share capital. Dr. Keysberg was therefore discharged based on 289,289,745 yes votes versus 9,802,311 no votes. Therefore, 96.72% of votes cast voted for discharging Mr. Keysberg for fiscal year 2023-2024. I'm now moving on to point four. This is discharge. These were 20 separate discharge points for discharge of the individual member of the S upervisory Board in office for 2023-2024. In the vote, I was actually discharged based on 299,114,091 valid votes cast. That is 48.05% of the registered share capital. Yes votes were 289,031,304 versus 10,082,787 no votes, which is 96.63% of the votes cast in favor of my discharge. For the discharging of Jürgen Kerner, 299,073,176 valid votes were cast. That is 48.04% of the registered share capital.
Of those, yes votes were 289,361,893 votes versus 9,711,283 no votes, which represents 96.75% of the votes cast were in favor of discharge for 2023-2024. For the discharge of Ms. Birgit Behrendt, 299,073,302 valued votes were cast. That is 48.04% of the registered share capital. She received 289,381,719 yes votes versus 9,691,583 no votes, which represents 96.7% of the votes cast, and so she was discharged for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the voting for the discharge of Dr. Berard, 299,074,712 valued votes were cast. That's 48.04% of the registered share capital. He received 289,381,691 yes votes versus 9,693,021 no votes, and so was discharged by 96.76% votes cast for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Mr. Stefan Buchner, 299,070,162 valued votes were cast. That is 48.04% of the votes cast. Mr.
Buchner was therefore discharged based on 289,377,408 yes votes versus 9,692,075 no votes, so 96.76% of the votes were cast to discharge him for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the voting for discharge of Dr. Wolfgang Colberg, 299,073,088 valued shares were cast. That represents 48.04% of the registered share capital. So Dr. Kohlberg was discharged based on 289,264,910 yes votes versus 9,808,978 no votes, and therefore 96.72% of the votes cast were for discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. And the votes for discharge of Professor Dr. Ursula Gather , votes were cast for 299,091,361 shares. That is 48.04% of the registered share capital. Ms. Garte was therefore discharged based on 289,355,952 yes votes versus 9,935,409 no votes, which is 96.75% of the votes cast for discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Ms.
Gifford, 299,074,050 valid votes were cast, so she was discharged based on 289,262,639 yes votes versus 9,815,506 no votes, so 96.72% of the votes cast voted for discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the votes cast for Dr. Bernhard Günther, 299,078,145 votes were cast. That is 48% of the registered share capital. So Mr. Günther was discharged based on 289,262,639 yes votes versus 9,815,506 no votes, representing 96.72% of the votes cast were for discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the votes for Mr. Achim Haas, votes were cast for 299,067,551 shares. That is 48.04% of the registered share capital. Mr. Haas is therefore discharged based on 289,366,946 yes votes versus 9,700,605 no votes, representing 96.76% for discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. The votes for Tanja Jacomin, votes were cast for 299,074,201 shares. That represents 48.04% of registered share capital.
Frau Jacomin was discharged based on 289,257,579 yes votes versus 9,816,622 no votes, so 96.72% represent a discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Ms. Janssen, votes were cast for 299,071,439 votes, which represents 48.04% of the registered share capital. She received 289,381,560 yes votes versus 9,689,879 no votes, so discharged based on 96.76% of the votes for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the vote for the discharge of Hans- Christian Lulius, votes were cast for 299,065,251 votes, and that represents 48.04% of registered share capital. Yes votes were cast to the tune of 289,379,717 yes votes versus 9,685,534 no votes, representing 96.76% of votes cast, so there was a discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024, and for the vote for discharge of Hans Thorsten Koch, valid votes were cast for 299,062,815 shares, which is 48.04% of the registered share capital.
289 yes votes, 289,375,993 yes votes were cast versus 9,686,822 no votes. Therefore, 96.76% of the votes represents a discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Ms. Krawinkel, votes were cast for 299,070,669 shares, which is 48.04% of the registered share capital. So Ms. Krawinkel has been discharged based on 289,380,402 yes votes versus 9,690,267 no votes, which is 96.76% of the votes cast, which is a discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. The votes for discharge of Mr. Luger, votes were cast for 299,063,907 shares, which is 48.04% of registered share capital. So Dr. Luger is discharged based on 289,392,382 yes votes versus 9,671,525 no votes, so 96.77% voting in favor of discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Tekin Nasikkol, votes were cast for 299,076,074 shares, which is 48.04% of the registered share capital. Mr.
Borrego is therefore discharged based on 289,266,152 yes votes versus 9,809,922 no votes, which is 96.72%, which is a discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the votes for the discharge for Ms. Henne, 299,070,483 votes were cast for so many shares, which represents 48.04% of the registered share capital. So she is discharged based on 299,274,000 plus 390 yes votes versus 9,796,093 no votes, which is 96.72% of votes cast in favor of a discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the discharge of Dr. Jens Schulte, valid votes were cast for 299,067,407 shares, which is 48.04% of the registered share capital. Dr. Jens Schulte is therefore discharged based on 289,259,061 yes votes versus 9,808,000 plus 346 no votes, which is 96.72% votes cast, giving discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. For the vote to discharge Ms.
Kristin Seidler, valid votes were cast for 299,072,887 shares, which represents 48.04% of the registered share capital. For Ms. Seidler, she is therefore discharged based on 289,379,000+ 47 votes versus 9,693,130 no votes, so 96.76% of votes cast, ready for discharge for fiscal year 2023-2024. I will now move on to item five on the agenda, the selection vote on the auditor, and this includes two separate points. When we are talking about 5.1, there were 303,902,660 shares votes have been cast. That's 48.82% of the share capital. The vote for the auditor and also for the auditor for the interim financial report was approved with 3,300,966,400, meaning at 99.3% of all votes cast, meaning it has been accepted. When we're talking at 5.2, 303,903,782,938 votes were cast. That is corresponding to 48.8% of the share capital.
The vote in favor and proposed by the Board was responded to at 99.3% of the votes cast. In other words, it has received the majority. Let me move on to the item on the agenda number six, the approval of their remuneration report. Again, here we had votes cast for 303,782,938, which is 48.8% of the share capital. The proposed remuneration report was accepted by 292,546,000 with 11,236,318 nays, meaning it was 96.3% approval. And now it's item of the agenda seven. This is the remuneration system for the Board. This was votes cast for 301,645,998 shares, which is 48.45% of the share capital. The proposal made by the Supervisory Board was accepted by 96.26% at 290,376,573. In other words, it was approved at a rate of 96.26%. And finally, point eight, item eight, which is the renewal of the authorization for virtual AGM for.
Votes were cast for 300,636,600 shares, corresponding to 48.29% of the share capital. The proposal by the Board and the Supervisory Board for the renewal of the authorization of virtual meetings was approved with 285,367,710 and 15,268,890 nays, meaning approval of 94.92%, and it has therefore been formally approved. In total, for all of the items on the agenda, the proposals and resolutions by the management have been approved, and the counter motions are therefore null and void. Since it has been possible since the 10th of January to cast the vote, I should like to tell you in the interest of greatest interest that these counter motions to item number two, with the exception of approval of number two, have become null because the counter motions did not receive any majority, and the counter motion of Mr. Wessel was rejected by a majority of votes cast.
The counter motion by Shareholder Noem was rejected by 99.3% of votes cast, and the counter motion by Shareholder Schötz was rejected by a majority of votes of 99.3% of votes cast. Ladies and gentlemen, we have now reached the end of the agenda. Before I close the annual general meeting, I would like to thank all participants for coming and for the interest in our company shown in the discussion. I would also like to thank the Executive Board and all employees who helped prepare and hold this annual general meeting. The next AGM of thyssenKrupp AG will take place on January 30, 2026. I hereby declare the 26th annual general meeting of thyssenKrupp AG closed.