Welcome to the annual general meeting of Unilever PLC for 2024. I'm Ian Meakins, Chairman of the Board, and we welcome those who are watching the meeting via the webcast. Thank you for joining us online. And thank you to everyone here in the room at the Hilton London Bankside for making the time to be with us today. Before we begin, I would ask that those in the room make yourself familiar with today's security and safety information, which is to be found at the back of your lanyard. Please ensure that your mobile phones are turned off or are on silent. I would also note that to protect the privacy of everyone participating and attending today, private photography or recording of the AGM is not permitted.
Thank you. Let me briefly go through today's agenda. The formal elements of today's proceedings are set out on pages 5 and 6 of the notice of the meeting. We will open the poll for those resolutions after you've heard from myself and Hein. Now let me make some introductions. On my right, we have Hein Schumacher, our Chief Executive Officer, and Fernando Fernandez, our Chief Financial Officer. On my left, we have Maria Varsellona, our Chief Legal Officer and Group Secretary, and Andrea Young, Vice President, Senior Independent Director, and also Chair of the Compensation Committee. Adrian Hennah, Susan Kilsby, Ruby Liu, and Judith McKenna, all Non-Executive Directors, are also in the audience. I'm delighted to welcome Judith McKenna, who some of you will have met over refreshments before the AGM started, and who's standing for election for the first time.
For my part, I'm delighted to be speaking to you for the first time as your Chair, but also to be here as part of a new team. I took over as Chair on the 1st of December, 2023. Hein, who I will hand over to in a moment, was appointed CEO from the 1st of July last year, and Fernando took over as CFO on the 1st of January. There have also been a number of other changes to the board and the executive team, which we will touch on later. A largely new team at the top of the business. But we all start with the same understanding, namely that Unilever's performance over a number of years has not lived up to its potential. We see this reflected in the market's view of the company and also the disappointing share performance over the past 5 years.
We are determined to improve our poor performance, and over the next 25 minutes or so, Hein and I will outline for you the measures that we have already set in train and why we are confident we will turn around our performance. But first, let me provide a few reflections on last year's results. Overall performance was variable. Underlying sales growth was up 7%, and although this was driven largely by price increases in response to inflation, the year did see a small but welcome uptick in volume growth. Turnover for the year was just short of $60 billion. Operating profit margin was up 60 basis points to 16.7%. Cash generation was strong at $7.1 billion, enabling us to return $5.9 billion to shareholders in a combination of dividends and share buybacks.
Unfortunately, our results were not as good as our peer group, and during 2023, we lost competitiveness. We lost market share in some key brands and geographies. This is not acceptable, and we are taking urgent steps to address it. However, our results have started to improve with improved volume growth in quarter 1, 2024. We introduced the 10-point growth action plan, or GAP, last October, focused on improving the quality of our execution. Heine will take you through the key elements of the plan in a moment. To accelerate the GAP, we have also announced plans now to simplify our portfolio through the separation of the ice cream business. This is a significant move and one we are convinced is in the best long-term interests for shareholders of both ice cream and Unilever.
Ice cream is a strong business with a turnover last year of nearly €8 billion. It operates in attractive category and with 5 of the top 10 global brands. However, its business model in terms of supply chain, capital intensity, seasonality, and route to market is very different to other parts of Unilever. Separation will give it the freedom to act in support of its own distinct needs and interests. For Unilever, separation will leave us with a simpler business. In the future, we will operate across 4 business groups, all having similar business models: beauty and well-being, personal care, home care, and nutrition. We expect the separation of ice cream to be complete by the end of 2025. While a demerger is the most likely route in the interests of meeting stakeholders' expectations and maximizing shareholder returns, we will, of course, consider other options.
At the same time, we have identified a need and seen an opportunity to accelerate the GAP program through a major efficiency drive. As well as simplifying the organization further, this will yield savings of around €800 million, more than enough to offset the operational costs of separating ice cream. Taken together, we are confident our plans will be well executed and will deliver faster growth, market share improvement, and higher margins. They will build on Unilever's existing strengths and create value for all stakeholders. It is important to note that in the midst of all the changes, we remain steadfast in our commitment to becoming a more sustainable business. An important part of the GAP program is to accelerate our sustainability agenda by sharpening the focus and improving the execution of our plans in 4 critical areas that are nature, plastics, livelihoods, and, of course, climate.
We believe our commitments are right for our business. On climate, we are committed to significant improvements across scope 1, 2, and 3 over the coming years. To that end, we are asking for your support today for our latest climate transaction action plan, or CTAP, published at the beginning of March. You will recall that Unilever was one of the first companies to put a plan for cutting emissions to a shareholder vote. That was in 2021. We said then that we would update the CTAP every 3 years. The plan we are putting forward today sets out clearer goals for cutting emissions, as well as providing further detail on how we plan to get there. The reaction to the plan so far from our shareholders has been positive.
We believe we have made good progress on sustainability issues over the recent years relative to our peer group, and we are fully committed to making further progress in the years ahead. Heine will say more about our plans in a moment. Finally, let me say a word about the board. We are all very committed to providing the right level of support and challenge to Heine and his executive team to help ensure a significant step up in Unilever's long-term performance starting in 2024. We are also committed to maintaining a very high level of corporate governance in everything we do. Of where this is working in practice. For example, Vaseline Glutathione, and this is a skincare product that uses patented technology, Glutathione, clinically proven to be 10 times more powerful than vitamin C in boosting skin brightness.
Persil 15-minute Wonder Wash just launched last week here in the U.K., our first detergent to excel in very short washing cycles thanks to fast-acting technology-enabled formulas. Obviously, also good for lower energy use and lower water use by the consumer. Hellmann's Vegan Mayo, a 100% plant-based product which allows the growing number of vegan consumers to enjoy the great taste of mayonnaise, of Hellmann's mayonnaise. Liquid IV, a hydration enhancer that uses a breakthrough technology to restore electrolytes that are lost to the body through heat or exercise. And this has been a very big success in the United States, and it has just been launched here in the U.K.. You've probably seen the statistics that, you know, 80% of the people in the U.K. do not drink enough water.
Well, with Liquid IV, you do get that hydration, so there are some samples here today, and I recommend you take them home and use them. These are just some of the technology-driven innovation successes that we want to replicate across our brands and across the portfolio. Now, take a look at some of the strong advertising that's being used to support these and some of our other brands.
I am assembled and I like to do things fast and now fast just got better. Fast just got better. Fast just got better. New Persil Wonder Wash. Blast away invisible dirt and sweat, even in 15 minutes. Our first-ever detergent designed for shorter cycles. Better on order, better on tracking. New Persil Wonder Wash. Fast just got better. Leftover chicken, scallions, cheese. What am I going to make with this?
Mail.
Mail. Hellmann's.
Holy, you can talk. And then she says.
Mayo
And boom, Hellmann's saves the leftovers. Oh my gosh, this cat is talking. She can't spell.
It's blurry.
And now our keynote speaker.
Mail.
All right, now look at the jar. Look at the jar, now look at it.
Can you hear me a little?
Now, Mommy, look up and look away.
I should tell me, should tell me.
There's not yet everywhere.
They say they can against your Mayo cat.
Mayo cat, you're right. Add a glow to some of it.
Jesus Christ! Is this serious?
Ugh. You lasted longer than most.
Mail.
Want to go pound some milk and rip up my couch?
Mail.
Good talk.
Final call for the Magnum Pleasure Express.
I am the passenger. All right, and all right. Down to the car. We'll be the passengers.
Wherever pleasure takes you. Magnum, euphoria, and chill. Magnum, true to pleasure.
Focus. Determination. Drive. Some say you're born with it. Some say it lies within Jennifer's purse at Carousel 3. Liquid IV powder hydrates two times faster than water alone to give you a boost for your marathon and to power through set after set. Because real life is extreme enough. Liquid IV. Real hydrating.
Good. Hey, I also want to show you a short film from our Dove team. That's the latest in a very long-running Dove self-esteem project, which for 20 years now has been supporting changes in social attitudes towards beauty. I think it's also a great example, by the way, where purpose, which for the right brands is actually super important and something that we are fully committed to. So therefore, take a look at the film.
Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination. Take a look and you'll see into your imagination. We'll begin with a spin, traveling in the world of my creation. What we'll see will defy explanation. If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it. Anything you want to, do it. Want to change the world? There's nothing to it. There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination. Living there, you'll be free if you truly wish to be.
A very impactful film, I think. Again, continuing that so important campaign that made the brand what it is today, the most important and actually the biggest brand in our portfolio. To deliver faster growth, we also need to continue to sharpen that portfolio of brands. That means divesting businesses that no longer fit our portfolio. We did that last year with the Elida Beauty brands and with the Suave brand in North America. It also means strengthening our portfolio through bolt-on acquisitions. A great example of this was our decision last year to acquire K18, which we completed in February of this year. K18 is a premium hair care brand that harnesses advances in biotechnology to repair or restore damaged hair. As such, it's strategically aligned to our business and a very good addition to our beauty and well-being portfolio.
The second part of the GAP, or the Growth Action Plan, supports our growth agenda by making Unilever a simpler and more productive organization, better able to focus on the things that really matter. Hence, and you heard Ian say this, when it comes to our sustainability agenda, we are focusing our efforts globally on four critical areas: climate, nature, plastics, and improvement of livelihoods. And to be clear, we are not diluting our plans. In fact, we're doubling down in those areas that we deem of most critical and most material importance. On climate, for example, the goals that we are putting forward today as part of the Climate Transition Action Plan represent a strengthening of our Scope 3 emissions value chain target. We've made huge progress over the last year to understand and measure our Scope 3 footprint.
That is a complex and thorough exercise that we've gone through across the breadth of our portfolio. We now have detailed plans in place for an absolute reduction in energy and industrial emissions of 42% by 2030. We also aim for a 30% reduction in forest, land, and agriculture-related emissions. Those are different than the CO2 ones. If you combine all of that, a 39% reduction overall in our Scope 3 emissions with 2021 as a base year. For Scope 1 and 2 emissions, we are continuing to set an ambitious goal of 100% reduction by 2030, and that is versus a baseline of 2015. We have already, to date, achieved a 70% improvement.
I'm very happy to say that the rigor that we have applied to this has led to our targets being externally validated by the independent SBTI, the Science-Based Targets Initiative. The targets have therefore been welcomed by many of our stakeholders. Now, under the Growth Action Plan, we have set out clear and long-term ambitions across all four of our priority areas: climate, but also nature, plastics, and livelihoods. Importantly, we have underpinned these ambitions with stretching, measurable, but intentionally realistic goals. I say this because on plastics, for example, I concluded that after taking a fresh look with the whole team at Unilever, that our previous 2025 virgin plastic reduction target was simply not possible in the time available.
There are too many factors that are beyond our direct control, that includes working with governments or extended producer responsibility schemes, or with retailers on refill and reuse programs, regulations around food safety, and so forth. For me, an important part of leadership is that you also acknowledge when targets are not going to be met. But then making sure that we apply the learnings and come back with realistic but still highly ambitious plans. That is exactly what we're doing. On plastics, for example, we are aiming for a 30% reduction in virgin plastic in 2026 and 40% in 2028. We are aiming for 100% of our plastic to be reU.S.A.ble, recyclable, or compostable by 2030 for rigid plastics and by 2035 for flexible plastic packaging.
For 25% of our packaging, it will be made of recycled plastic—we're currently at 2022, 2023—in 2025. Finally, we are aiming to collect more plastic than we use or sell. This is something—it's a practice that we have started a while ago, but we have reached that target already in one of our more important geographies, in India, for example. By any standards, these are ambitious and aggressive targets, and achieving them will require very hard work and ongoing investments. But it will also take others, as I said. It takes a whole village: governments, retailers, suppliers, NGOs, and all other business partners. Of course, from our side, it requires breakthrough innovations to solve some complex issues. All this has to come together. Advocacy to drive systemic change is important.
That is why I was in Ottawa last week as part of the United Nations Intergovernmental Process on Plastic Pollution. Our company, and I'm proud of that, is one of the co-chairs of the business coalition of 200 companies globally pushing for a legally binding treaty to tackle this issue, including through expansion of the extended producer responsibility scheme. We will go on arguing for the conditions in which progress can be accelerated. In fact, this is becoming an increasingly important part of our entire sustainability strategy. We will also go on continuously improving on our own performance, as I said, recognizing that in many areas we do lead the industry. For example, on virgin plastic reduction, which is down by 18% since 2019. I'm determined that we stay a leader in this area.
There is no question that sustainability remains at the very heart of Unilever. Another key part of being a more focused and productive organization is that we manage our cost base more tightly and that we ensure we generate the funds that are needed to support our brands and thereby drive our growth. That is why, under the Growth Action Plan, we are putting such emphasis on rebuilding our important gross margin. We have been a bit slower than others to recover from the effects of the pandemic and the post-pandemic inflation era. That has constrained our top line as well as our bottom line performance. We have now put a lot of actions in place to address this, including shifting our focus from the gross savings methodology to actually driving net productivity so you can see it in the profit and loss account.
This will ensure that we have a much better understanding of the true impact of our costs and where these costs fall. Now, there is some way to go, but as I indicated earlier, we are accelerating that gross margin progress in 2024. Certainly, the whole company is fully focused on what really needs to be done. The final set of actions under the Growth Action Plan are to sharpen our performance edge. Sharpen our performance edge in a unique Unilever culture and something that we don't want to let go of. But we did have--we made some changes. The first change was by putting a refreshed team in place. Nine members of the executive leadership, for example, are either new to the company or new to their roles. Secondly, we set more stretching targets for 2024. We clarified accountabilities in the organization where that was needed.
We implemented a new rewards framework across the organization, including metrics that are more closely aligned to value creation for shareholders. Together, these changes represent an important shift, I think, in the way that we think about driving performance. They have also been widely welcomed within the business. Indeed, since arriving, I have found a huge appetite among our own people to see Unilever deliver on our potential. Look, these are just some of the measures we are taking part of the Growth Action Plan. We expect, of course, progress to build as we go through the year. That brings me finally to the very short-term performance that we announced last week, quarter one.
You know, although some of the benefits are already coming through, and that's a good thing, our underlying sales growth was 4.4%, and that represented an encouraging start of the year and was somewhat ahead of market expectations. Like I said before, the power brands, the top 30 power brands, were driving our growth. The growth of that set was 6.1%. Volume growth was up for the second consecutive quarter after quarter four, now 2.2%. That is important as we see a return towards more normalized levels of inflation. It's, of course, early days, and it's just one quarter. But the performance in the first quarter does give us some confidence in our ability to deliver sustained volume growth as well as meet our guidance for the full year 2024, including rebuilding that gross margin.
Under the Growth Action Plan, as you heard me say earlier, we have committed to doing fewer things better and with greater impact. We now see an opportunity to accelerate progress by applying the same principles to our portfolio and to the overall efficiency of the company. That was very much what was behind the announcement in March and that Ian already talked about, which was to separate our ice cream business and to launch simultaneously a major productivity program. Let me be clear: neither of these were easy decisions, and we have not gone lightly. But let me talk first about the portfolio. There is some repetition in what you just heard earlier this morning.
We have, in fact, a great ice cream business, and it has been part of our company for a long time, rising to become the world leader in its category. However, it's a distinct business model relative to other parts of Unilever. It's a model that relies on a supply chain and a channel structure that is geared to frozen products. It's obviously much more seasonal, and it is more capital-intense in the way of operating. Therefore, we believe that as a standalone company, ice cream will have more operational and financial flexibility to do what is really right for them and to grow their own business. For Unilever, it means that we can scale and grow our brands faster by applying innovation, technology, go-to-market expertise across businesses that have more complementary operating models.
This is a significant simplification of our portfolio and one that we are convinced is in the best interests of ice cream as well as Unilever. In parallel to the separation of ice cream, we also announced the launch of a wide-ranging productivity program. Part of this is about embracing rapid advances in technology that are really reshaping whole industries and, in fact, that we believe will help us as a company to become faster and to become more efficient. By doing that, we also have to acknowledge that we don't benchmark well when it comes to simplicity and to the speed of our decision-making. There's still quite a bit of complexity in our company and in the way that we operate, which slows us down and, frankly, sometimes frustrates people. That is what we as management get back.
We need to get on this and implement changes. But we also need to make sure they are done in the right and in the most respectful way. Therefore, we're obviously very conscious that these proposals are likely to impact around 7,500 colleagues around the world, mostly in office-based roles. Clearly, treating these colleagues with the utmost respect and dignity, as I am sure that you would expect from Unilever, is a top priority for us. Taken together, the separation of ice cream and the company-wide productivity program represent a major change for us. Equally, they are vital, though, if we are to accelerate progress under the Growth Action Plan and deliver that higher level of performance that you expect from us. We believe—and I believe—that we can.
You know, it was a mark of confidence that in announcing these proposals, we guided the market to a faster level of growth and to structurally higher margin once all the changes are complete. So let me come to a conclusion. Our results last year put us in the middle of the pack. This is something that we're not satisfied with, and we need to improve. We know that we can do better. To that end, we have a big agenda in front of us. No one at Unilever is in any doubt about what needs to be done. We have a clear plan of action. We are taking difficult but also necessary decisions now to ensure that we improve the quality of our performance on a long-term and a more consistent basis. Of course, it's early days with much to do.
We believe that there are some signs of progress, including recent quarter results. We intend now to build on that progress and to do everything that we can to unlock Unilever's potential. Again, the word, I believe, is on the chart here behind you. That should benefit all stakeholders. In all this, we are determined--I am determined--that sustainability will remain at the heart of Unilever. Finally, I want to thank Ian and the other members of the board, obviously, for your support. I want to thank you, shareholders of the company, for your continuing faith in Unilever.
Above all, I want to thank everyone at Unilever and the many people that we work with in our entire value chain for their incredibly hard work and their commitment and for embracing the ambitious plan that we have, embracing it with such a level of energy and conviction that I'm seeing every day. Thank you very much for listening, and back to you, Ian.
Thank you, Hein. We now move to the formal business of the meeting. The notice of meeting was sent out to shareholders and made available on our website on the 18th of March, 2024. I propose that the notice convening the meeting be taken as read. The resolutions today are shown on pages five and six of the notice of meeting. The notice also contains further explanations of each resolution.
Resolutions one to 17, inclusive, are proposed as ordinary resolutions, and resolutions 18 to 22, inclusive, are proposed as special resolutions. The resolutions cover the usual business carried out at annual general meetings. There are additional resolutions this year dealing with the proposed director's remuneration policy, the updated Unilever Climate Transition Action Plan, and the adoption of new articles of association. All of the directors before you have offered themselves for re-election or election this year, as have Adrian Hannah, SU.S.A.n Kilsby, Ruby Lu, Judith McKenna, and Nelson Peltz. I will ask you to vote on the resolutions by way of a poll. Accordingly, let me now ask our company secretary, Maria Varsellona, to explain how the voting will work.
Thank you, Ian. In line with best practice, a poll will be taken on each of the resolutions set out in the notice of meeting.
The poll will be administered by our registered Computershare . On a poll, each ordinary shareholder present at the meeting is entitled to one vote for every ordinary share registered in his or her name. Each proxy holder or individual representing a corporate shareholder is entitled to one vote for each ordinary share which he or she represents. If you have previously lodged a completed proxy form nominating Ian Meakins as the chair to vote on your behalf and you do not wish to change your vote, then you do not need to complete a poll card. For those of you who either wish to change your proxy vote or who have not previously cast a proxy vote and wish to take part in the vote, please complete the poll card taking these steps.
On the front of the poll card you were given when registering earlier today, please print in block capitals your full name or the name of the shareholder you are representing. Please record your vote by entering a cross in either the for or against box next to each resolution on the poll card. If you want to split your vote, enter the relevant number of votes you wish to cast in the respective boxes. You can also withhold your vote by entering a cross in the withheld box. Please note that the vote withheld is not a vote in law and will not be counted in the calculation of the proportion of the votes either for or against the resolution. Please ensure that you sign the poll card at the bottom. If you are a proxy, please write the word "proxy" next to your signature.
Any cards that are not signed will be treated as invalid. If you're voting on behalf of more than one shareholder, please complete separate poll cards for each shareholder. Should you require any assistance in completing the poll card, please let one of the stewards know, and they can direct you to a representative from Computershare, our registrars, who will be pleased to help you. The poll count for the resolutions put to the meeting today will be conducted by Computershare and will be combined with the proxy votes already submitted. Now I hand back to Ian.
Thank you, Maria. I should take this opportunity to remind you that the Board is unanimously recommending that you vote in favor of the resolutions.
With that, in accordance with Article 69 of the company's Articles of Association, I demand that a poll be taken in respect of each of the resolutions contained in the notice of meeting. I now propose that each of the resolutions set out in the notice of meeting and listed on the poll cards is put to the meeting. You may complete your poll cards at any time, and once completed, they may be placed in either of the ballot boxes by the exit. The ballot boxes are open now and will remain in place for 15 minutes only after the close of the meeting. After those 15 minutes, the ballot box and the poll will be closed, and the poll count will commence. The Computer Share team will not be authorized to accept any poll card after the poll is closed.
Any poll card that is not placed in the ballot box will not be valid and will not be counted. Please do not leave them on your seat unless your intention is to abstain from voting on all resolutions. We now come to the question and answer session. We would like to thank those who submitted questions in advance, and answers to those questions have been posted on our company website. I would now like to give shareholders here in the room the opportunity to ask questions. Let me explain the procedure we will follow for this part of the Q&A session. You will be aware that only shareholders, persons who have been appointed as proxies, and individuals appointed to represent corporate shareholders are permitted to speak at this meeting.
Your questions can be on the annual report and accounts or any matters relating to the business being dealt with at this meeting. A microphone will be brought to you for you to ask your question. Please speak clearly and slowly. State your name and indicate if you are a shareholder or if you are representing a shareholder before you ask your question. As a matter of courtesy to other shareholders, please be concise and limit your questions to no more than two to give all shareholders who wish to speak the opportunity to do so. When you've asked your question, please return the microphone. We will try to answer as many questions as possible, but if we receive a number of questions on a single or related topic, then we may choose to group the questions and provide a single answer.
If anyone with a disability wishes to ask a question and would like assistance, please make yourself known to the stewards, and appropriate arrangements will be made. Firstly, I would like to address three matters, three questions that we know are important to our shareholders and have been raised in the questions submitted ahead of the AGM. The first of these is the decision to separate our ice cream division. Let me share with you what I can at this time, building on what Hein talked about earlier. As I said earlier, we are determined to unlock Unilever's full potential and transform it into a higher growth, higher margin business that will consistently deliver for all of our stakeholders through effective and accelerated implementation of the GAAP.
As part of this, we announced the separation of ice cream business with the aim of creating a simpler, more focused, higher performing Unilever. As I mentioned earlier, our ice cream business is world-leading with five of the top 10 global brands and a turnover of €8 billion. But it's also a very distinct part of our portfolio, characterized by, amongst other things, a frozen supply chain, a very different channel landscape, an inherently more seasonal pattern of sales, and a far more capital-intensive business. We have over 3 million refrigerators in operation, and this is unique to ice cream. Given these distinct operating characteristics, we believe that ice cream is more likely to thrive as a focused, standalone business which will be better placed to respond to the specific dynamics of its market.
While a demerger of ice cream is the most likely separation route, all options will be considered to meet the needs of our stakeholders, including maximizing returns for our shareholders. To be clear, we have not made a decision yet as to the means through which we will separate ice cream. Each option comes with its own implications, including impacts on the business structure, operations, and the financials. The costs and operational disagreements relating to the separation of ice cream will be determined by the precise transaction structure chosen. The means of separation and capital structure for ice cream will be determined and announced in due course. Given we have not made a decision about the means of separation, we will not speculate at this stage about where the business will be listed and headquartered.
With regards to timings, as you will recognize, the work has started, but it's early days. Again, we will share further details in due course. However, I can confirm the separation is expected to be complete by the end of 2025. On shareholder returns, as I just mentioned, we will review all options to ensure we maximize returns for shareholders. In summary, we are determined to unlock Unilever's full potential, and the decision to separate the ice cream business is one that we believe will help Unilever and ice cream to realize their full potential. The second question is about the decisions we've taken in updating our climate transition action plan and ensuring that sustainability remains at the heart of the Unilever business strategy. Hein, could you have an attempt at this? Thanks, Ian.
Of course, I talked about it already in my speech a few minutes ago. I mentioned that our revised sustainability strategy and the goals that we have set ourselves are building on the achievements of the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan that was commenced in 2012 or '13, I believe, and the Compass Strategy. Let me just give you some examples on that. Today, 1.3 billion people are reached through health and hygiene programs around the world. We also reported 97.5% deforestation-free sourcing this year, and that is across our important commodities such as palm oil, paper, tea, soy, and cocoa. This doesn't come overnight. It's been something, as you know, that Unilever has been working on for over many years. As I acknowledged, there are also areas that we're behind on, such as, for example, on virgin plastic reduction.
That said, we are still leading the industry with an 18% reduction since 2019. However, as well as making great progress, I think that we have learned a lot about this topic over the years. For example, to make progress on the most material areas to our business, we also need to prioritize for transformational change. We have identified the four key areas - nature, climate, plastics, and livelihoods - with 15 important, time-bound, and costed goals. On climate, the new CTAP that you vote on gives greater granularity on where our emissions exist and, I think that's important, also plans to mitigate them, for example, through reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our chemicals. That means finding non-fossil fuel-based feedstocks for our laundry business is important, leading to an exciting prospect of biotech alternative innovations.
As I said, in sustainability work, systemic change is essential. Therefore, we will continue to work on advocacy in those areas that matter most to us. I gave us, I think as a good example, the work that we did last weekend with a team. I was there, but with a team on the Global Plastics Treaty that was being negotiated in Canada. Importantly, our revised sustainability strategy is also fully integrated in our strategic planning cycles, and that guarantees that resources are allocated with time-bound roadmaps to track the progress. So summing up, I can assure you that, as I said before, sustainability will always be at the heart of this company.
Thank you, Hein. The third of these questions is the measurement of market share and the move away from percentage business winning as the primary measure of competitiveness. Fernando, could you answer that?
Yes, good morning.
Evolution of market share is a key performance indicator for Unilever. We measure this for around two-thirds of our portfolio globally. This business has been growing at around 6.5% for us. We don't measure or we don't communicate publicly our evolution of market share in one-third of the portfolio that comprises some of our fastest-growing businesses like prestige beauty, health and well-being, or food service because there are no reliable measures to really make public this kind of information. This third of the business has been growing 8%. It has been growing above the average of the company. We measure competitiveness in these two-thirds of the business at a granular level, on a brand category basis, at a geographical unit. For several years, we have used the percentage of our revenue growing share as a single data to communicate publicly.
It's a number in which we aggregate the performance of all our units. In consultation with shareholders, we concluded that this metric has several flaws. It didn't provide the clarity that the shareholders were expecting from us. The main shortcomings were related to the fact that it's a metric that was binary. It didn't take into account the size of the share gains and the share losses, and it didn't provide any color of performance versus market growth. We decided to change this metric from January onwards. We will measure our competitiveness evolution now through what we call turnover-weighted market share change with a coverage, again, of around 70% of our revenue. Turnover-weighted market share is the true measure of our competitiveness within the category and geographical footprint in which we operate.
By the end of last year, when you look at moving annual total data, so the last 12 months versus the previous 12 months, our turnover-weighted share was declining around 75 basis points. 60% of this shortfall is attributable to Europe and 20% to the shift in the market in the personal care super premium market. Fixing competitiveness will take time. Our level of competitiveness is really unacceptable, and we are really improving execution to turn this around. We expect to see progress from the second half of this year onwards. Of course, the growth action plan and the different metrics of the growth action plan, the different measures that we are taking inside the growth action plan, we believe it will be a key driver for this kind of turnaround. Thank you, Ian.
Thank you, Fernando.
As I mentioned, we're going to take questions on a topic-by-topic basis, starting with matters covered by our 2023 annual report and accounts, including questions about our performance and our strategy, followed then by remuneration matters. Thirdly, climate and sustainability matters, including our climate transition action plan, reelection of directors and our auditors, then share capital, and any other matters. I would therefore first like to invite those with a question relating to matters covering our 2023 annual report and accounts, our performance, and strategy. Are there any questions? Go down to one here. That's it.
Thank you very much. I represent corporate shareholders. My name is Claire Alborn.
I work for Robeco, and today I speak on behalf of a couple of Dutch institutional investors, including Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management, MN, Aegon Investment Management, Achmea Investment Management, and APG, who are representing their clients, ABP, BPF, BOUW, SPW, and PPF. First of all, I wanted to thank you, Unilever, for the open dialogue with minority shareholders over the last year, having provided us with an opportunity to share concerns and suggestions in a very constructive discussion, especially through the company's leadership changes and strategy changes. We welcome the added focus the new leadership has brought to the company and believe that this enhanced attention to execution will help Unilever to deliver on its strategic priorities. However, while thus far the narrative has been that performance will go hand in hand with sustainability, we are concerned that instead it might come at the cost of it.
For instance, we noted across the four areas of sustainability that you just mentioned, where you promised an enhanced approach: climate, nature, plastics, livelihoods, ambition levels have decreased rather than increased. The target on virgin plastics reduction has nearly halved from reducing 50% to 30%, while the long-term target on living wages, covering 100% of suppliers, has simply been removed. Meanwhile, the overall weighting of sustainability across the executive remuneration also has decreased significantly. If the company decides to apply an enhanced focus, we expect that ambition in these focus areas is enhanced rather than lowered. Therefore, I wanted to ask you how we should interpret the, on the one hand, enhanced focus on sustainability performance and, on the other hand, the lowered executive pay and ambition around sustainability. Thank you very much. Look, thank you for your question. We appreciate your support as well.
I think we don't see that there is a trade-off between performance and doing the right things in terms of sustainability. But Hein, let me pass over to you to give a bit more color.
No, thank you for the question and also for your introductory words. As I said before, we are absolutely steadfast in our commitment to sustainability. Indeed, you are rightly so addressing a few of our commitments that we are no longer including in our set, the set of 15 targets in the four main platforms. For example, not including some of those is also very much a result of us not being able to track or to calculate such measures. I'll give you an example on climate.
We had as a target included that we would also, for scope three, include consumer use of our chemicals or of our products. That is very hard for us to track. I believe that in an era whereby transparency is so important, whereby new non-financial disclosure guidelines are coming into effect, whereby rightly so we are, by the way, one of the parties who are driving that type of work to provide that disclosure and transparency, it is absolutely critical that therefore we are able to be held to account on things that we can track, validate, and report with integrity on. That has been a very important driver for excluding some of the metrics. That includes, for example, the metric that you called out on living income and living wages.
Living wages is a concept that we have driving, that we're leading on, and we're very proud of that. Therefore, we included it still in livelihoods as an important factor. But at the same time, having living income or living wages across the whole value chain, including living income from smallholder farmers, is a very hard definition to form. It's even more hard to track. Therefore, we have brought it back to something that we believe we can actually follow through on with our major suppliers and can still make a difference on. Your second question relates to why has it changed in our long-term incentive framework. We are proposing at this AGM to reduce the weighting of SPI to 15%. Look, we are focusing on fewer goals.
At the same time, we believe that weighting, which we did in the preparation of the total rewards policy, is the right weighting if you compare with peers. It's still very much there. I also would like to let you know that the board's discretion on rewards for Fernando, for myself, is very much based on the goals that we have set around in-year performance on sustainability. Therefore, there will always be a check back and say, "Yes, you may have made your financial goals, but you're very short on sustainability goals. Therefore, we will adjust pay and performance-based pay." Something, by the way, that discretion which was applied last year as well.
I think just building on Hein's point, I think also a lot of the sustainability goals are now embedded in the performance of the five business groups.
Therefore, for Hein and the team to achieve their maximum rewards, they're going to have to deliver on those sustainability targets within the business groups. Again, that's a reason why we think a move from 25% to 15% on the LTIP is the right thing to do. Thanks for the question. More questions? There's one at the back over there with yes?
Wait one second.
Thank you. Okay. Right. Good afternoon, all. It is, yeah, it is 25 to 1. Good afternoon, all. My name's Peter Kulve. I'm hoping I'm asking these two questions in the right section. The first one is from a magazine called Global Data. In there, it says Just Food Brief, and it was dated the 22nd of April. It says I'll read it out. Unilever's ESG rollback causes dismay. The change to some of Unilever's ESG targets have attracted NGO criticism but are another sign of the new era under CEO Hein Schumacher. I have to admit, I'm hoping I'm asking this in the right area. I haven't got a clue what it's about. Can you, as a layman, give me as a layman an open tell me what it's all about, please.
Peter, yeah. We were going to do your question under ESG, but I'm suggesting why don't we answer that one now? Is that okay, Hein?
I'm very fine with that.
Yeah.
Yeah. Thank you for your... oh, go ahead.
Hang on.
The other one is I don't know where to.
Go on, Peter. Let's have your second question, and then we can.
Right. Okay. Thank you. Last year at last year's AGM, my daughter and I attended, we were very disappointed that we weren't able to go to what you would call the shop, i.e., it was closed off for shareholders but only staff members only. I'm hoping that with the new setup that there is in place now, where there's a wilderness away, I'm hoping that, i.e., the shop will be able to be open to shareholders at the AGM if it's going to be held there at Leatherhead next year and to be paid for by the use of their own debit card. That's what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman. Don't have to answer that. I'll just leave it with you. Okay.
Peter, thank you. Thank you for that one. Do you want to give us a quick answer on that one, Hein?
Yes.
Then we'll come back to those later. Yeah.
I mean, on your first question, and thank you for your question, I've read the article as well. It had to do with the fact that we have announced two weeks ago our new ESG targets for the company. And as I said before, we have focused these ESG targets in four critical areas: climate, nature, plastics, and livelihoods. And we have focused our targets more to be able to make a bigger impact on those areas that really matter. Some of the media have picked that up as a rollback. Fortunately, though, I'm seeing also the right level of nuance coming through whereby people would say, "Yes, that level of impact and realism is actually indeed a next era of leadership in this field." So you have read that article.
Again, it had to do with a reset of our ESG framework that we have announced a couple of weeks ago. Thanks.
I talked about the targets before, and they're in the CTAP or the Climate Transition Action Plan today for voting. On the shop, actually, we're in a hotel right now. The shop is, of course, at our head office, not too far from here. But we will take your clear recommendation that was supported by some applause, and we'll take that for next time. Thank you.
Thank you.
Other question? One down here. Yeah.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name's Nick Rao. I'm from Friends of the Earth, and I'm a proxy shareholder, thanks to the Fair Share Educational Foundation. Mr. Chairman, you noted in your opening address that Unilever performance has not lived up to its potential. I would say that's certainly the case for improving the lives of affected peoples in your supply chains. I've got next to me Mrs. Nangah and Mr. Ketut, who've traveled from Indonesia to speak to you today. I'd like to hand the microphone over to them for them to address you directly.
Ya, perkenalkan. Nama saya Inengah Wandri, berasal dari Desa RiomU.K.ti, Selatan, Sulawesi Tengah. Kedatangan saya ke London ingin menanyakan, apakah Unilever mau berhenti membeli minyak atau CPO dari perU.S.A.haan sebelum tanah kami dikembalikan? Thank you.
Her name is Nengah Wandri from Central Sulawesi. So her question is whether Unilever would like to stop buying CPO from Wilmar until their land is returned by Astra Agro Lestari, which provides or sells CPO to Wilmar, in which you buy CPO from Wilmar.
Terima kasih atas kesempatan. Nama saya Ketut Nyopi, asal Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia. Dengan ini, kedatangan saya ke mari meminta kepada Unilever untU.K. bisa menekan PT Astra Agrolestari untU.K. segera mengembalikan lahan kami yang telah dirampas. Yang kedua, memastikan Unilever bisa berhenti membeli minyak sawit dari PT Astra. Terima kasih banyak.
He's also from Central Sulawesi, from the same village. His name is Mr. Ketut. He would like their community land to be returned as well by Astra Agrolestari. This land is about 72 hectares. So please stop buying from Wilmar because Wilmar buys from Astra Agrolestari, and the company grabbed this community's land, 72 hectares of land. Mrs. Nengah would like to tell some personal stories about how the company impacts her life.
Ya, terima kasih kesempatan yang diberikan sama saya. Di sini, saya akan menceritakan apa yang saya alami di desa kami, yaitu Sulawesi Tengah. Pada saat itu, kami berada di kebun kami sendiri beserta suami saya. Saat itu, kami membersihkan kebun-kebun kami yang berisi jerU.K. dan cokelat. Nah, pihak perU.S.A.haan PT Astra membayar tokoh masyarakat yang berU.S.A.ha untU.K. menekan kami agar kami mau menyerahkan tanah kami seluas 72 hektare, yaitu kepada perU.S.A.haan sendiri.
Di situ, kami sangat menentang. Karena itu, hak kami, tanah kami, kami akan perjuangkan. Pada saat itu, perU.S.A.haan tiba-tiba membawa segelombong pekerja untU.K. menebang cokelat dan jerU.K. kami, sehingga kami berU.S.A.ha untU.K. menahan, namun itu tidak bisa. Malah, suami saya didorong, dipU.K.ul, beserta pondok kami dibakar. Sejak saat itu, kehidupan kami sangat sU.S.A.h. Anak kami putus sekolah, sehingga sampai berpuluh-puluh tahun kami sangat hidup kesU.S.A.han. Di sini, terpaksa kami harus bekerja sama perU.S.A.haan, yaitu gajinya tidak sesuai dengan yang saya harapkan. Sehingga kami memutuskan untU.K. inisiatif mencari memungut brondolan di TPH-nya perU.S.A.haan untU.K. menyambung hidup dengan keluarga saya sendiri. Saat itu, apabila perU.S.A.haan melihat saya memungut brondolan, perU.S.A.haan akan menangkap saya dan memenjarakan saya sebanyak dua kali serta anak-anak saya. Kehidupan kami sangat sU.S.A.h, sangat tidak mencU.K.upi sehari-hari karena kami sudah tidak mempunyai apa-apa lagi selain tanah yang sudah dirampas sama PT Astra Agrolestari.
Dan kehidupan kami sangat memprihatinkan. Di sini, kami berU.S.A.ha untU.K. mencari makan, namun itu tidak bisa karena kebun-kebun kami sudah diambil sama pihak Astra. Dan sebelumnya, kehidupan kami sangat mapan karena penghasilan kami cU.K.up untU.K. menghidupi kami sehari-hari, karena penghasilan kami Rp10 juta maupun Rp11 juta.
What happened at that time was that Astra Agrolestari came to the community land in Central Sulawesi. She was there with her husband at that time, on that day. At that time, they had orange and cocoa trees on that land. But then on that day, Astra Company came with a figure of the community and also with several staff. They asked the people to give their land to Astra Agrolestari. Her husband tried to prevent that from happening. But instead, her husband was bitten.
Even in two days, Astra Agrolestari cut down the whole orange and cocoa trees on that 72 hectares of land. They also burned their filth hut as well. Now, they do not have livelihood anymore. In the past, Mrs. Nengah had to work for the company, for Astra Agrolestari, who took away her land. But the salary was not that good. Before that, from the producers from her garden plot, she could get around 500 pounds or 550 pounds per month. But the salary from the company is much, much lesser than that. Now, she has to scavenge fruits, which are fallen fruits from the trees from the land of the company. She has been imprisoned twice because of scavenging fruits from the company. So her life is so difficult, and there's no more sufficient livelihood anymore.
They would like to ask Unilever to stop buying from Wilmar and to also return their 72 hectares of land. Thank you.
Thank you.
Terribly sorry to hear that the difficulties that the couple have been through must be very terrible. I think it's very tough to expect us to be able to answer on a specific issue, but we're happy to take it up with the couple after the meeting. But Hein, maybe you could just comment on the overall approach that we take. Yeah?
Yeah, absolutely. Terima kasih. So thank you for your questions, but also for telling us your story. Indeed, we take these grievances more than serious. But let me first talk about the specific cases that you mentioned. Astra Agro, so AAL in short, is not a direct supplier of Unilever. So I want to be very clear about that. It is not a direct supplier. However, at the same time, our approach is not to stop with the supplier and say, "This is it," because then that supplier may very well start to supply to other companies. Therefore, our approach has always been to enter into dialogue, not between Unilever and AAL only, but with the help of, actually, Friends of the Earth or with other independent organizations. We have also conducted, including other parties, we have conducted several investigations in the past.
Of course, we have taken on board the conclusions, or we will take on board these conclusions. Given the engagement that has been going on, at this point, we don't see a reason for them to become a direct supplier with us again. But once again, we continue to remain in dialogue because we seek to improve the industry as a whole. We do that not on our own, but with the help of many others. When it comes to Wilmar, so the company that you are investigating or that you're calling out, that is a company that is indeed supplying to Unilever. If there are grievances and if there are issues at stake, then we will investigate those because that is part of what we do. When it comes to deforestation, we don't only lean on an externally provided certificate.
But in fact, we do conduct our own investigations. We work with independent companies to validate those. It's a topic that we take extremely seriously. Once again, we will, in this case, we will have to dive deeper in this. So we are not aware of your specific case. But I did want to highlight our approach. Once again, that approach is to lift the total sector up and have dialogues with multiple parties involved to seek improvement.
Rick, can we make sure somebody picks up with the couple here after the meeting and finds out the specifics of what's been going on? Is that okay? All right. Thank you. Other questions? Could I keep the questions at the moment to do with the annual report and the business strategy? We will come back to talk more about ESG as well. But if any more questions on, one there. And then we'll come to those ones. One over there.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I've come to these meetings, and I've had all this spiel, not about the oil, but about what Unilever are going to do. Browns. Oh, Mr. Fernandez, don't worry about the dumb share price because it's only the stock exchange gambling. They affect it anytime. Anyway, that's another one of my lunatic things. I'm Alan Rolfstein. I'm a small shareholder. Unilever has, for some 50-odd years of giving I've put some money in. It's gone up, and I've had a reasonable income from Unilever. The gentleman, Mr. Schumacher, talked about Browns and the Fool. If you looked at that chart, it's when we start to sell off things like stock, the tea - they're two of the ones, a couple that I can think of - going to supermarket, look around, stock's still on the shelf. The other people can make it. We couldn't.
He's now talking about the ice cream. We bought Ben and Jerry's. We were going to make great fun out of that stuff. Now, we can't do it. I'm sitting at home listening to Radio 4, and the word Unilever comes out, and I pick it up. We're now chucking out another set of Browns. Don't forget, Unilever is an international company. The gentleman spoke about New York to La Paz. That's America. What we're doing down there. I'm interested in what Unilever's doing in the U.K.. We're getting out. I am particularly bothered and worried about Unilever in the U.K.. Don't forget, some of the overseas stuff is Unilever NV. We're looking upstairs. We're bringing out something to dip in water to make it into whatever it is. There's three samples upstairs, trial.
I tried it, and I still think Lime Juice Cordial in the water does exactly the same. Again, costs, we're gradually cutting out. Unilever in the U.K., I appreciate we've got long supply chains and all that. You know what? I'm seriously thinking that the board are gradually hollowing out Unilever in Britain. So the only thing we'll have in Britain is the head office. When we borrow the money on the stock exchange to extend our plantations and do all this thing with sustainable oil, it will be loaded onto Unilever U.K.. We'll end up like a Mafia plot. We'll end up with a head office and nothing in the U.K.. Gentlemen, I don't trust you. What are you doing?
Okay. Thank you for the question. Look, let's be very, very clear. We are not withdrawing from the U.K.. Absolutely not. Point one. Point two, look, as you would expect, the board has the right and the duty to constantly look at which of the brands we think are the right ones for us in the future in terms of growth and opportunity. That does mean that there will be some changes in the portfolio. We've already talked this morning about the ice cream announcement. But Hein also talked about two acquisitions we've done, Yasoo and K18. There should be a turn in the portfolio over time. By definition, some brands, some categories become less relevant. Other brands and other categories become more relevant.
I think, sorry, if I can just complete, where I think we have a lot of sympathy with, and we've made this point very clear this morning, the overall business performance of Unilever across the whole of the globe has not been good enough. That's absolutely what Hein, Fernando, and the team are very committed to do. It's very early days, and therefore, I don't want to claim any sense of victory yet. But the last two quarters, the business has got back into volume growth. Certainly, Q1 of this year, it is significantly better. But Hein, Fernando, and the board, we all know we've got a hell of a long way to go. Thanks for your question. Can I take any more questions? Yes, there's one here. Gentleman holding up a white paper.
Hi. Can you hear me?
Yeah.
Okay. Cool. Hi, Unilever board. My name is Dominic Watters. I speak at a time when manufacturers of food continue to play a critical role in shaping the food environment and where food prices have risen at their fastest rate in 45 years, a rise that is not reflected in the amount of welfare/benefits awarded to vulnerable families hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. I'm a single dad. I come from the most deprived blocks of my council estate. Me and my daughter survive off universal credit, free school meal vouchers, and we've always had pay-as-you-go gas and electric meters. I have used my lived or living experience of the daily realities of poverty as a single dad to speak up on both media and policy platforms for those that are often unheard.
The insights I've provided have gone on to shape discussions around fuel and food insecurity in the U.K.. On our estate, the shop only stocks the lowest quality of unhealthy processed produce, making it a food desert in the Garden of England. Share Action, through a recent challenge to Nestlé, has highlighted how deeply the food industry is reliant on sales of unhealthy food to the poor. I would only add to this that it is vital that the voices of lived experience of poverty are included in these discussions to inform the next steps manufacturing giants like yourselves take. If we are not included, these health inequalities connected with poverty are only going to multiply.
With this in mind and noting your company's focus, sorry, your company's focus on serving society, my question to you today is, as one of the largest global food and drink companies, what steps is Unilever taking to include voices of lived experience of poverty in achieving your sustainability agenda in line with the systemic change that Hein just noted? Thank you.
Thank you. Hein, do you want to?
Yeah, sure. I mean, first of all, I think it's a very important topic that you raise. And particularly after the pandemic and the very intense inflation period, we have decided as a company that we did not want to pass on the full cost and full inflation in our prices. Obviously, and then we talked about that, that did lead to a drop in our margins and so forth. But it was a very conscious decision hearing and understanding what the affordability issues of consumers are. We are also, of course, we're constantly in touch with different consumer organizations, with consumer research. We do that on a continuous basis to understand what are the affordability and what are the critical price points that consumers are prepared to pay.
Can we adapt our offering in terms of packaging, in terms of what we can offer exactly on that price point for the consumer? When it comes to the ESG framework or sustainability platforms, and we've talked about that already, part of what we call superiority on our brands means that we also seek input from consumers constantly when we innovate. What would you require from a product like this in terms of sustainability credentials, in terms of packaging, in terms of pricing? That dialogue between the company and the consumer is very intense and very much ongoing. I mean, I can't comment on your particular situation, which is well heard, by the way. Be assured that for us, that connection with the consumer is vital.
Thank you. Quickly, yeah. Yeah.
Thank you. You're talking about the affordability, which is vital, but it's also the access. In deprived and poverty-ridden environments like my council estate, we don't have access to a supermarket. It's just like a council estate shop. I would kindly or politely suggest that it'd be great, and in terms of what that gentleman said about England or the U.K., that you look at food deserts in this country and look at how they could be incorporated in advancing your sustainability goals.
Yeah. I think that's a look, we will take that. Obviously, we look a lot at where our distribution is taking place. We're obviously also working across Europe, by the way, with food banks to which we donate and which we help food banks to donate to people. But your point on particular points in the U.K. is well taken, and it's noted.
Thank you. This one, behind holding up a white piece of paper. Keep going back. That's it? Yes. The lady there. Sorry.
Hello. My name's Grace Smith, and I'm an ordinary shareholder. I just wonder if I could preface my question by saying that I was here at this meeting last year, and I'm not a member of any organization. I do remember the issue of land grab being mentioned and the same company. We were assured that that would be looked into as a matter of urgency. It's been mentioned again this year. I wonder if next year we could have a proper report on the activities of subcontractors and what Unilever is doing to bring things into some proper way of dealing with things, particularly with local communities.
I think it's fair. Yep.
My question is a rather more selfish one. Touching on the separation of the ice cream division, you did list the factors that you would be taking into account when making up your mind. Could I just add that some consideration be given to any possible tax effects on private shareholders? I say this because some of us that have portfolios in other companies have experienced having a generous return of money to us on which we've paid tax, only then to be asked for more investment and buying more shares because they want the money back again.
Thank you for the question. Look, I can't guarantee that we'll answer it or give you exactly what you want. But those sorts of issues are exactly the problems that we're going to look through and work out the detail as we get into the ice cream separation. Any more questions? Yep, there's some down here. Gentleman down here.
Thank you, Chairman. Very pleased to see that you've got a very young group of people who are going to be taking over. My whole question is on sustainability. I think with the present atmosphere and climate change, I mean, there is suffering all over the world. But you are going in the right direction. I think that is what we should commend you and not criticize you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Well said. Any more questions on if I can again try and keep them on strategy and the annual report, that would be great. One down here, and then we'll come to the lady over there. Is that okay?
Roger Vance, Private Shareholder. On page 67, I noticed that you're now using 716,000 kilowatt-hours of fuel oil. You haven't done that in the past. It seems a strange thing to happen. Why are you suddenly using fuel oil so much?
I have to say, I haven't got the detail of that. Can we come back to you on that question, Maria? Can we pick up with the gentleman after the meeting? And page 67, we'll look into that and get back to you. Thank you. The lady over there, yes.
Hello. Hello. My name is Lauren O'Leary, and I'm here on behalf of Share Action and the Healthy Markets Initiative. As you are aware, the Healthy Markets Initiative is a group of over 40 investors with more than $5 trillion of assets who are committed to encouraging the food industry to help shape a healthier society. I'm here to ask a question on your nutrition target, which was set as a result of a shareholder proposal filed by your coalition in 2022. At present, diet-related ill health is the main cause of death worldwide. Forecasts show that the situation is worsening. This, paired with increasing inequalities, food insecurity, and the cost of living crisis, represents an urgent public health challenge. All stakeholders need to play their part in helping people stay well and live healthier lives. Food manufacturers play a critical role in shaping food environments.
They have strong influence on the availability, accessibility, and affordability of healthier food options. Yet, research from the U.K.-based NGO Bite Back has found that 7 out of 10 of the largest food and drink manufacturers are reliant on selling less healthier products in the U.K.. During a meeting with your shareholders in March 2024, we were encouraged to hear that Unilever is on track to meet its 2022 target to ensure that 85% of its nutrition and ice cream servings meet its science-based nutrition criteria by 2028. We also welcome the company's commitment to report on its sales against 6 government-approved nutrition profiling models in 2021, 2022, and 2023, and continue to do so year on year. We'd like to thank the company for its continued engagement with the Healthy Markets Initiative.
We recognize Unilever's ambition to be a leader in this space and appreciate your recent progress to improve transparency and grow the proportion of your sales from healthier products. However, following our meeting with shareholders in March, we heard that Unilever has separated from its ice cream business, which, as they understand, accounted for 13% of group revenue in 2023. My question for you today is, how will this recent split impact the company's nutrition disclosures and targets? We look forward to a follow-up meeting with you in due course to discuss the implications of this further. Thank you.
Sure. Thank you. Look, I mean, in the short term, there won't be any change in terms of the commitments that we've already made historically. We would absolutely want and hope that the ice cream team will continue with those commitments. Knowing them, I'm sure they will do. That will change a little bit, I'm sure, over time. I think, again, if we can pick up with you after the meeting, that'd be great. Okay. If I could ask anyone asking a question, if you could try and keep the introductions maybe a bit shorter and get to the question, that would be helpful so that we can get through the questions. Yep. Is somebody behind you? I read Hannah. I can't see if it's a lady or a gentleman. Sorry. Apologies. There. Sorry. Yes. There.
I am Tessa Hellman. I am a small shareholder of Unilever. Dear board of Unilever, recognize me? I stood here last year, and I asked you whether you will reduce your CO2 emissions to be in line with the Paris Agreement. A very simple yes or no question. Yet, you refused to answer properly. Never a yes, never a no, just a woolly greenwashing story that wasn't even always factually correct. This experience got me thinking because Unilever is responsible for so much climate destruction and yet also made an enormous profit of $45 billion since that same Paris Agreement. Instead of deciding to spend it on things that matter, like your sustainability plans, you decided to spend it all on your biggest shareholders. This is not only unfair, it is also incredibly dangerous. I took action. I signed petitions. I went to demonstrations.
I went to other big shareholding meetings where I experienced the exact same ignorance. I helped organize this action here today, our journey from the Netherlands to London, because I am not alone. Last year, the board invited us to come back and come look at your big new climate plan. So we did, and here we are. I must say, we are disappointed. Time to stop dangerous climate change is running out. Since you apparently missed the memo last year, I will now, instead of asking you, demand that Unilever will reduce its CO2 emissions with at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain, so scope one, two, and your favorite, scope three, in 2030 compared to 2019.
Hi. You want to?
Yeah. I mean, thank you for your demand. It wasn't necessarily a question. This is not the part of the strategy or the annual account part. So I just want to make sure, Chairman, that we are answering the question right now as it is part of the ESG part. Look, I mean, first and foremost, as I said, we are continuing to take action on climate change. And for our own emissions, which I've stated, scope one and two are 2030 targets significantly exceed the 45% versus the 2015 baseline. For the emissions in the wider value chain, our scope three, we have set new since last year and more ambitious targets for absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. And we did use SBTI as a standard for these targets.
We also, therefore, with that validation, want to make sure that we stay within the framework of the Paris Agreement. As you know and as I explained, our target on CO2 reductions from energy use and industrial emissions is to reduce by 42% in 2030 but from the 2021 baseline. On greenhouse gas emissions that you may not have included in your ask or demand, namely those from agriculture and forestry, we also included a reduction target, in our case, of 30%. Both targets have been confirmed by the independent validation of the science-based institute that I mentioned before. The togetherness of these targets, we want to make sure that we stay within the framework of the Paris Agreement. We have substantiated them versus last year. We have made sure that they are validated. That's where I would like to leave the answer for now.
Sure. Thank you. All right. Again, sorry if I could keep up. Any more questions on strategy and the annual report? If I could hold it there, I want to get this first one. Yes, gentleman down here.
Thank you. Sorry. I'm Sam from Indonesia. I'm Aulia. I especially want to confirm that case like Nengah and Ketut from the conflict by Wilmar and Astra Agrolestari. But some like one case. In Indonesia, we have many cases like five subsidiaries from Astra Agrolestari, from plantation palm oil to Astra Agrolestari to sell to Wilmar and sell to you. Not only the conflict but have many people, like 200 people, get intimidation, get criminalization. 2,000 hectares, the land people, land grabbed from Astra Agrolestari. I want to ask you what your commitment because it's long. That's have two decades in Indonesia have a conflict. I advocacy the people start from 2015 until now but not conclusion, not solution from Wilmar, from Unilever.
I want to ask you, when you stop buying and when you have a commitment to finish the conflict or to make a solution with Wilmar because Wilmar, you buy palm oil from Wilmar. Wilmar buy palm oil from the Astra. That's the supply chain. My question is, when you can tell Wilmar or when you send a letter to Wilmar and when you stop buying palm oil from Wilmar? Thank you.
Thank you for the question. As we said before, but also I think the question that was asked previously by the lady in the back on AAL, as was asked last year, let me confirm to you, they are not a direct supplier to us. In fact, what we have done, we are taking any of these grievances, obviously, very seriously. That was the reason why we have convened several meetings with AAL, not just between Unilever and AAL but also with independent parties such as Eco, Nusa Santara, to make sure that we have that independent view. These allegations were then investigated. With the result of the investigations that I have today, we decided not to source directly from AAL. The point that you are bringing up on Wilmar and that was brought up earlier, we take very, very seriously.
It's new to me here today. That's something that we need to investigate going forward. Your point is, therefore, well heard. Okay. Gentleman over there, the back. Yep.
Ian Williams, ordinary shareholder. Could I ask a question rather than giving a speech, Mr. Chairman?
Sure.
Could you explain the thinking of the board behind the allocation of resources between buybacks and dividends? Buybacks tend to be very wasteful if they don't signal the board's belief that shares are undervalued.
Thank you for the question. Fernando, do you want to just summarize?
We are really committed to continue returning capital to shareholders in a productive way. We have a clear policy of dividends, with the kind of dividend payout above 60%. We supplement this return of capital to shareholders with capital returns in the form of share buybacks when there is surplus of cash that we will decide that we will not sit upon. So dividends is our primary way of returning capital to shareholders. It's part of a very disciplined capital allocation strategy with very clear restrictions in terms of the debt level that we want to retain as multiple of EBITDA. Dividends is our primary way of returning capital to shareholders. But we will supplement with share buybacks when we believe it's a logical thing to do.
Thank you. Yes, lady down here.
Thank you. I'm a shareholder, and my name is Nikki. I'm a child psychologist, so I work a lot with children. I try to help them navigate in this world as best as I can. I give them knowledge about the world in which they are growing up. In this world, Unilever is everywhere, with products such as Knorr for dinner for the whole family, Ola for ice cream on hot summer days, and, of course, Robijn for when they have rolled in the mud. A report from Milieu Defensie showed that you made a profit of €65.4 billion from 2015 to 2022, of which 101% went to the shareholders. I feel like I'm lying to the kids I take care of by saying, "Eat less meat. Shower a little shorter."
"And then everything will be fine." Well, I know that large companies like Unilever continue to admit as if there is no climate crisis. I'm here today not for myself but for them. I ask the children what they would like to ask you, the big companies with a lot of money and so a lot of responsibility. They are 7, 9, and 11 years old. They want to ask you, "If you have so much money, why don't you use it to be good instead of using it to damage our world even more?" Hereby, they also want to ask you, "Will Unilever reduce its CO2 emission by at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain, so in scope one, two, and three in 2030 comparing to 2019?" I would like to hear a yes or a no. Thank you.
Fine. Yeah. Thank you for the story and for the question. First of all, I have three children myself. They're in roughly the same age groups. I share your concern on climate. That is the primary reason why we are actually taking drastic action. As I said before, we have sharpened, improved, and clearly articulated our goals on greenhouse gas emissions towards 2030. We have been able to externally validate them. We have included greenhouse gas emissions from land, agriculture, and forestry. We want to make sure that we are within the framework of the Paris Agreement. At the same time, any company like ours will continue to invest substantially behind climate ambitions. That includes, for us, more than $1 billion that we're putting behind a fund to resolve some of the more problematic spaces.
We have invested hundreds of millions over the last couple of years in the things that we believe we need to invest in. There is no doubt about that. But at the end of the day, we believe that it needs to be an end also. You have to, as a company, we do need to make a profit to secure the continuity of the company in the long term. At the same time, we need to drive the sustainability targets that we have talked about home with robustness, with urgency, and with utmost speed. That is very much the philosophy in which we have now redesigned our sustainability program. That is what is in front of you today and what we're asking your support for. Thank you. Can I move the questioning on to any questions to do with remuneration?
Then we will go on to take some more, I'm sure, on ESG in a minute. But any to do with specifically with remuneration? Are there any questions? Yes.
Hello.
Hi.
My name is Gijde Janssen. I came here today from Amsterdam because I have a question. To do so, I'll have to briefly introduce myself first. I mainly work as an actor. My job revolves around the profound understanding of the experience of being human. With that, I strive to enhance empathy. In my profession, it is of utmost importance to see the good in every character, the good in every person. From this position, I'm imagining you. I am imagining you might not know that there are people as young as children who are incredibly worried, depressed, or anxious about the way big companies like yours treat our planet and with that have a say in what our future looks like.
I imagine you don't know that there are people around my age who would love to have children but don't because the way the planet is treated right now is not sustainable. I imagine you are not aware of the people who are seeing the fertile land they lived on being taken away by your company to turn it into deadland. My list could continue. A list of what I cannot imagine being true. Because if you are aware of this, it would mean that you are consciously not taking your responsibility as the CEO of a company that is causing so much climate damage. It would mean that you simply don't care, not really about others, not really about the fact that you are in the powerful position capable of making an actual change.
It would mean that you are fully aware and willingly damaging our planet, creating less of a future for us and the ones who follow. I cannot imagine that being true. But let me ask, will Unilever reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain so in scope one, two, and three in 2030 compared to 2019?
Can I just in terms of responding here, I mean, first off, we do take our responsibility incredibly seriously. Hein in particular as the CEO is absolutely committed. He's made that very, very clear to improving our sustainability performance over time. We have made good progress in the last five years. I think we've laid out a pretty ambitious plan for the future. When we compare ourselves versus other competitors or comparator companies, we know we're performing very well. So rather than getting back into the details again because I think Hein's been through that, absolutely, we take our responsibility seriously. We will continue to do so. We will be an important part of improving sustainability in the world. Any more questions on remuneration? Okay. ESG is our third topic. Any more questions on ESG? Yes, gentlemen here?
Thank you. I am Mick. I'm an ordinary shareholder here from the Netherlands. I would like to recount a little story. When I was young, I saw a video that left a very strong impression on me. This video was of a polar bear. It was not majestic. It's a video that's very famous now. It's a single polar bear on a thin sheet of ice with a vast blue ocean around it, starving all alone. You see, what some people here may not realize is that for someone my age, climate change is not something that was introduced later in life when I was growing up or an adult. No. For people my age, climate change and its consequences have always been a part of life. I was born into a world that was screaming for help.
Ever since I was that small boy, I've heard the same plea be repeated by scientists over and over, "If we act now, we can still save the planet." So I acted. I sold apples. I went to the streets, played the harmonica, went door to door to get donations. I donated everything to the environment. People thought this was very cute, a little kid doing what they can to save polar bears. But no matter how many apples I threw at the problem, the message only kept getting more pessimistic. "We have to act now or disaster unfolds. Year in, year out," it kept repeating. I can't imagine what it must be like now, 25 years later, for kids like me to grow up in a world in an even worse state.
I wonder if people still find it cute that these children are doing what they can with what little influence they have, all while those with real power are sitting on their hands refusing to act. So here I am feeling once more like the kid selling apples with the little influence that I have. I ask you, will Unilever reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain so in scope one, two, and three in 2030 compared to 2019? A yes or no will suffice. Thank you.
Thank you for the question. Of course, I can give the same answer that I've given a few times. But I think we need to bring some creativity here in the room. Since you're asking the same question, let me just give you a slightly different answer this time. Look, I really appreciate that you're coming from the Netherlands, all of you, to this meeting and to have this robust dialogue with us. I really do. That is very much what this company stands for. You know it. You all know it. Unilever is a company. One of the reasons for me to start working with this company is exactly for that reason, that we have entered into dialogue with so many stakeholders over the years and that we have achieved something that many other companies envy.
Let me just give you a quick summary. We have been AAA rated according to the Carbon Disclosure Project for the last five years. We are AAA rated in the MSCI ESG rating tables. We are the top-listed company in the Globe Scan Sustainability Leadership Survey for more than a decade. On climate, we were the first company to put a climate transition action plan to the shareholders for voting. The United Nations Climate Champions continue to recognize Unilever as a member of its Race to Zero because of the ambitious targets that we once again have set and the action that we are taking. Our climate policy engagement has been recognized as leading by the Influence Map with a 100 out of 100 score. Since 2019, we've used more than 90% of renewable energy in our own operations.
I was surprised about the fuel one, which we're going to investigate that. And that compares to 50% renewable electricity across many of the other companies around the globe. If you work with plastics NGOs, which I've done in the last months and particularly last weekend, the leading one in the world is the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, we have reduced our virgin plastic by 18%. Please look at the leak tables. Please look at the I don't want to talk about other companies. But let me put it this way. We are absolutely leading in this fact when it comes to the use of recycled plastic. We've increased that to 22% of our total plastics intake. Please compare that. We're absolutely in the top one or two in the industry. On nature, we are progressing with deforestation-free and achieve 97.5%. And you know why not 100%?
Because we are continuing to work with new companies entering in the value chain to make sure that they can comply with the strict asks that we have as a company to work with in that same value chain. Therefore, we are honest, transparent, and open about that it's hard to achieve 100% if you want to really improve the whole value chain like I just described. We're recognized by the Global Canopy Forest 500 reports as being in their global leadership group, global leaders group, scoring a 64%, whereby the average is less than 22%. Finally, on regenerative agriculture and on helping to protect and restore nature. In our previous ESG commitment frame, we talked about 1.5 million hectares of regenerate, restore, and protect.
In our new ESG commitments that we published two weeks ago, we talk about 1 million hectares of regenerate and 1 million hectares of restore and protect. We are doing, we are in the top of the league. I welcome your presence at the meeting. I really do. But in a way, you're at the wrong meeting. There are many other companies that you need to talk to. I agree with that. I agree with that. It is the reason why I'm here, why Fernando is in this company, and why many other people here at Unilever are in this company. That is what Unilever stands for. Thank you, Hein. Yep.
Thank you today. Thank you, Hein, for answering that question. My name is Rosa, and I'm a small shareholder. I want to ask you a question in the name of a person who has worked for you for a long, long time. My grandfather has worked for Unilever for all of his life. He traveled around Europe to speak to suppliers, producers, and tradesmen. He enjoyed working for your company so much, and I enjoyed growing up with him because I received the Unilever Christmas boxes every year. I enjoyed them very much, so thank you for that. My grandfather has left a legacy full of adventures, Christmas boxes, and a heritage that I used to fund my studies. I went to university and learned how to do research.
I learned about the current state of our planet and about how oceans are filling up with plastic. Unfortunately, they have Unilever's logo on it. Therefore, I want to let my grandfather help me to envision a safe future and now let me help you to envision yours. I would like to ask you, will Unilever reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms? That means in the entire value chain, in scope one, two, and three in 2030 compared to 2019. Thank you.
Can I do it one last time? All right. Thank you for your question. On the question that is asked, I will not give you a definitive yes or no. The reason is we have differences in starting dates. We have differences in the definition of the value chain and of measurement methodologies. Therefore, giving you a yes or a no on your question and the broadness of your question without the specifics would be irresponsible for me to do so. But at the same time, we have an enormous opportunity ahead of us.
The opportunity ahead of us is the ambition that we have talked about, which is 100% reduction in scope one and two versus 2021, a 40% reduction in energy and CO2-related emissions in scope three versus baseline 2021, and a 30% reduction in other greenhouse gases that may or may not be part of your question in scope three as well. By doing all of that, making sure that we stay within the framework of the Paris Agreement. Ladies down here.
Hi. You mentioned earlier that AAL was brought up last year. I was one of those shareholders that brought it up. But last year, you also gave a very similar response. It was pretty awful. We'll investigate and have a meeting with you guys after. But obviously, we're here again in the same position. As you mentioned, you're not a direct supplier. But you are an indirect supplier. Therefore, it is still in your supply chain, which is in direct violation of your people in nature and responsible sourcing policies. It breaches Unilever's mandatory policy online grabs. How will you ensure that this year, it will be different? How do you plan on supporting the communities that we've heard from today that have been affected by Unilever's decision to fund those that are exploiting them?
I think, look, I think Hein's already answered this question pretty fully twice. I don't think we're going to add anything more. But we're very happy to engage more with you on the specific issues that have been raised in the meeting today. I think that's the right way to do it. But we're very committed to trying to get this issue resolved. So if we can engage with you after the meeting, I think that would be helpful. Other questions? Lady over here.
Hello. I'm Catherine Green. I'm a shareholder despite my yellow lanyard. I'm also from Bolton, where Unilever came from. So I grew up with Unilever being a big part of my life. Thank you for answering my pre-submitted question, partly about Unilever's use of hydrogen. You haven't answered about whether you'll take the Unilever logo off the branding of HyNet, which I'm very concerned about. HyNet is a new industry in the northwest of England, which is being built on the extraction of fossil fuels to make hydrogen gas. Unilever's influential logo is on their website and the branding. I don't like to see it there because, like you, I don't like to see Unilever stamping their approval onto HyNet, which some people might not be using for the responsible uses of hydrogen, which you acknowledge as part of your reply to me. Thank you.
Okay. Maria, can we make a note of looking into this one specifically? I don't have a specific response on this. I don't think we know the details here. Can we pick that up with you after the meeting? That would be very helpful. Thanks. Any more on that? Is there a gentleman here? We will come back.
Hi. Am I audible? Hi. My name is Soumitra Bose. I'm a shareholder. I have been working with Unilever a long time back. But I just joined to see how my company is doing. Mine is not a specific question. But looking at the plethora of other questions on USG, I was just beginning to think that where do we draw the balance? I think what you explained today and what Hein said about was to just go back to the drawing board and do that balance. Because as shareholders, as we saw in that graph, it had been coming down year after year. So we have to look after climate change and USG. But finally, it is the sustainability of the organization. I think this is an attempt to do that. I commend the board for that.
That was the point I wanted to say here as well.
Thank you. I think it's a very good point. Well-made. Thank you. More questions? Lady down here. Yes.
Thank you very much. I had two more ESG-related questions from the Dutch Investor Group. One is on climate and one on plastics. I'll bundle them and then you can answer them afterwards.
Great. Thank you.
That's fine. On climate first, well, hearing, of course, still the concerns in the room. I also wanted to take a moment to thank management and the board for giving the shareholders a right to even vote on the climate transition action plan, which has, I believe, seen significant enhancements also aligning with the SBTI FLAG guidance, among others. We realize that asking shareholders to vote on your climate strategy is voluntary. We see this as a best practice. So we wanted to mention that. However, the indirect changes around climate-related targets, which were announced just a few days before the AGM, which we talked about already, especially around the plastics target, have reintroduced a lack of clarity around Unilever's climate actions.
Could you explain if the recent reductions in targets have any effect on the implementation of the proposed transition plan and by when we could expect more granular insights into Unilever's group-wide scope three footprint, which would confirm this? The second question on plastics. Thank you. While we've spoken about the reduced ambition of Unilever's plastic targets, we also wanted to continue to stress that we really appreciate Unilever's long-term engagement around the Global Plastics Treaty, where we believe that you've really played a key role in driving progress. However, on the plastics targets themselves, we noted that both the ambition and progress measures around plastics remain largely country-agnostic, not distinguishing between impacts in reduction measures in lower versus higher-risk contexts, such as where waste management systems are weaker and environmental leakages are higher.
To address these high-risk areas, we believe or we can imagine that significant efforts are likely needed on the flexible packaging in emerging markets where leakages into nature and oceans are happening. We would like to have more comfort around that sufficient progress is made in especially those markets. Does Unilever currently have region-specific targets on plastics or on plastic pollution? Are you looking at enhancing regional disclosures on your plastics footprint and efforts, both of which we would highly encourage, together with a clearer and more holistic communication on Unilever's nature impacts, risks, and dependencies as possible under the TNFD? Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your questions. They're very good questions. First of all, the CTAP, so the climate transition action plan that is up for the vote today, does remain valid, including the new plastics targets framework. So that is not of impact to that. In fact, we have, of course, considered the holistic side of it. Important, though, is that if you... I mean, the plastics piece, it accounts because you are correct that different targets are interdependent. So the nature target, in fact, is also having an impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. And so does the plastic target. The plastic target is roughly 3% on the total greenhouse gas emission part. So it's not that sizable. But of course, we need to take it into account and make sure that it remains valid. And the answer to that is, yes, it remains valid.
By the way, it is not always the case if you change from plastic to a different material that is, by nature, better greenhouse gas-wise. It could actually be worse, which makes, of course, the whole topic quite complex. That's the answer to your first question. Your second question around also here, I think what you are alluding to is, indeed, the high level of fragmentation when it comes to recycling abilities and capabilities of countries and systems to do this. You are absolutely right. This is one of the reasons why we have argued in the Global Plastics Treaty, for example, for common design standards. So can you work more with the same type of plastic to enable countries to actually work together? You're rightly referring to emerging markets. Let me tell you, even in Europe, between countries, it's not very unified.
We have a big job to do. Our targets, as we have set them, are for our global targets. But we acknowledge two things. One, we are talking about recyclable, compostable, biodegradable for rigids by 2030. We have a similar target for flexibles by 2035. That is with a reason, which is exactly the one that you called out, namely that flexibles are more difficult to recycle at this point. But we do see opportunities for us to get there. For the first time, we are putting a very important end date to this. Last answer to it, we have embedded roadmaps in all our businesses to get to those targets. There is certainly a regional specificity in the different businesses. In emerging markets where flexibles are a more difficult topic, we have committed to collect more plastic than we use or sell.
That means in India, in fact, we have as I said in the beginning, we have already reached that, which is our largest unit. We do that through very significant-scale waste-picking organized ways of getting there. This is something that we will continue to progress on.
Thank you, Hein. Gentleman here.
Michael Nowak, small shareholder and former employee. I would like to talk a little bit about our Russian and Ukrainian businesses and how they're doing. I noticed from the FT that we have managed to remain very, very quiet about what is happening in our Russian business. Congratulations on minimal publicity. But I know we're still there. And I wonder how we are going to face 2024 and 2025 with more EU sanctions. Thank you very much.
Look, I think Hein gave an update in October of last year of where we were with Russia. It's under 1% of our total turnover. Clearly, we're continuing to do everything we can to minimize the economic performance of the business in terms of paying taxes to the Russian state. We're also taking actions to make sure we protect our intellectual property, particularly our global brands. But as you can well imagine, the situation is extraordinarily complex. We continue to evaluate all options that are open to us going forward. As soon as we get clarity, we will communicate that to all of our stakeholders. Thank you for the question.
And Ukraine?
Ukraine.
Yes. In Ukraine, actually, in Ukraine, we're very determined to invest in our business, grow in our business. We have commenced the building of a new production site together with a partner, and actually, we've signed and that factory is currently being built. So we're investing in Ukraine and in our capabilities to deliver to the U.K.rainian consumer.
That's a €20 million investment that we're making in Ukraine. Okay. Any more questions? One at the back. Yes, holding up the blue. Yes, go.
Thank you so much. Dear CEO of Unilever, dear Hein Schumacher. I'm an ordinary shareholder. My name is Marise Koster . Two weeks ago, I received my master's degree from the University of Amsterdam, the same institution where you completed your education. Now, you've returned to Unilever, where your career also started. In an interview with KPMG, I learned about your approach to leadership. You never took steps in order to get into top positions. Instead, you always took the step that you liked a lot. I wish I could say the same at this starting point of my career. Yet here I am. With joining this shareholders' meeting, I'm not working on my dream career as a researcher or clinician in the field of psychology. I'm definitely not taking a step I like.
On the contrary, by joining this meeting, I'm taking a step that I perceive as of utmost importance. However, my influence as a freshly graduated individual is only limited, whereas yours and Unilever's is significant. Therefore, I hope you will embrace the opportunity not to choose the path that is easy and fun, but the path that is ambitious, inspiring, and above all, the path that truly matters. As independent research, in fact, shows that your climate plans are, according to IPCC, not in line with the reduction of CO2 that's needed to stick to the Paris Agreement. Let me therefore ask you once more. You've already answered very elaborately. But I'm only asking for a yes or a no.
Will Unilever reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain, so in scope one, two, and three, in 2030 compared to 2019?
Thank you for the question. Look, congratulations on your degree. Look, we are in line with the Paris Agreement. I just want to set that absolutely straight. We have a commitment to be net zero by 2039, which is ahead of 2050. We are consistent with that. Secondly, Hein's already explained why we're not going to give a yes/no answer, because the data is different. The dates of comparison are different. The definitions are different. We're not trying to be evasive. We just want to be absolutely truthful and factual about where we are on this journey. Lastly, I think we've clearly made very clear to today's meeting, we have made a lot of progress in the last five years. We're absolutely going to continue to make progress over the next five years. Thank you for the question. Any more questions?
Gentleman here.
Regarding your emergency material, always told of CO2 emissions. If you burn anything in a furnace what's the main gas in the furnace? It's air. And what is air? It's 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen. And that oxygen goes out the exhaust and up the chimney. That's where your warming comes from.
Okay. Any more questions? Yes, the lady down here.
Dear Board of Directors, my name is Truus Verenhout, and I'm a positive-minded shareholder. Why? One, net zero emissions across the complete value chain. Two, resilient and regenerative natural and agricultural ecosystems. Three, an end to plastic pollution. Four, a decent livelihood for people. Are these my words? No. In fact, they're yours, and I saw your words. Do they sound familiar to you? I am positive about Unilever taking her green ambitions seriously by defining goals and targets to realize them. Although the targets, I think, are not far-reaching enough to meet the Paris Climate Agreement, I'm hopeful that Unilever soon will make them compliant to that agreement. I was quite surprised to hear you, Mr. Hein Schumacher, recently that you announced that instead of speeding up, you are slowing down and weakening the targets because you find them unrealistic.
Earlier, you said that's due to external factors that are beyond your control. But aren't there many factors that are within your control? You also stated that your climate transition action plan is SBTI-validated. I'm wondering because a couple of days ago, the independent research institute Profundo published a survey revealing a bunch of omissions in that plan. This list of omissions shows there are huge challenges for Unilever to achieve its own targets. But I still want to believe that you will keep yourself far away from greenwashing. But apparently, there's reasonable doubt about that. I will finish and then do my question. It's beyond question that the role of Unilever is to create shareholder value. The best way to do this is by making sure that Unilever remains a future-fit business that is working to tackle climate and human rights issues.
Companies that ignore these issues or, worse, still greenwash and claim they're taking action when they really are not will become less relevant for their customers, for their employees, and also for their shareholders. I'm asking you, are these my words? No. I was quoting Mr. Alan Jope in an interview we gave last summer upon his departure as CEO from this company. I am still a positive-minded person. Therefore, I keep hoping on an absolutely yes on the following question. Will Unilever reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain, so in scope one, two, and three, in 2030 compared to 2019? I know you will not answer yes or no. But we ask you, why not yes? Because you are on the good way. You said it yourself.
Look, I think we've given a pretty false answer to that about four or five times now. So I don't think there's much point going into it anymore. Are there?
I know you have said the right thing because we've repeated that question several times.
Absolutely.
A lot of times, I want to walk away.
No, I appreciate that. But please, if there are any other questions not to do with the SG, happy to take those if there are any of those. If not, we will continue because I do want to hear from shareholders what their questions are.
Thank you very much. I'm taking leave.
Thank you. Thank you. Lady down here, yeah.
Hello. My name is Eliel. You say Unilever wants to stay a leader when it comes to sustainability, which is, I think, really important to me and other young people. You've mentioned how the climate transition action plan has been revised. But I was disappointed to read last week that you're scaling back on your social and environmental policies. We're in a climate and ecological emergency. Now is the time for companies to step up and show more ambition, not weaken your action, or make it more realistic, as you stated today. We've just heard today from people who live in Indonesia who have literally had their land stolen. This is just one example of human rights violations that are occurring due to Unilever and our subcontractors. Palm oil-driven deforestation is rising.
The expansion of palm oil plantations for use in your consumer products, like detergents and processed foods, has devastated tropical forests in Southeast Asia. My question is, what does your new approach mean for your position on sourcing palm oil and the associated deforestation and human rights abuses linked to its production? Thank you.
Hi. Thank you for the question. As we said before, it is absolutely our goal to be deforestation-free. We have been working on that for our major commodities over the last couple of years. I mean, on palm, you are absolutely right. This is something that's really important to us. That is the reason why we only want to work with suppliers, with suppliers directly, whereby we can absolutely verify, not due to certification only, but also by additional checks and balances, that it is indeed deforestation-free. At the same time, our approach is not to close down conversations with those suppliers or parties where we feel that things can be improved. Because there's one thing for us to say, "Hey, we won't work with you." But I think it's another thing to try to improve the sector and get to a much better livelihood for many.
This is something that we're very committed to. Just to repeat, we are at 97.5% on that. We always strive for 100%. But we also engage actively in dialogues when there are issues, like that was clearly mentioned today. When there are violations, that was well picked up earlier. We are going to investigate that. We clearly do not want to be part of that. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, gentleman there with the black.
Thank you. My name is Florence, ordinary shareholder. Frankly, I'm probably not the only person here in the room getting tired of all the climate questions. As a recent global sustainability science graduate, these questions are all too familiar to me. I had hoped that my studies would enable me to single-handedly improve the world. However, this didn't turn out to be the case. During my studies, I learned about the extent of climate change, our flawed system, and the greenwashing practices of large corporations. I lost hope that we could halt catastrophic climate change in time. Despite my personal efforts to reduce my impact, buying secondhand, recycling, consuming vegan Ben & Jerry's, it won't make a difference if major polluters like Unilever don't change their ways. That's why I am here today as a shareholder. I'm tired of hearing and discussing climate issues.
But it's the only thing left I can do to affect change. Today, you're talking about realizing your full potential. But when will you address your underperformance in sustainability? I want to repeat, independent research by Profundo has shown that Unilever's climate plans are in no way in line with a 48% reduction of CO2, according to IPCC, to stay within one and a half degrees of global warming. That is why I demand that Unilever reduces its CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms in the entire value chain, so in scope one, two, and three in 2030 compared to 2019. So what's your answer?
Thank you for the question. Again, I think we've answered that question pretty fully. I'm not sure we're going to get much more out of that. But thank you for the question. Anyway, gentleman at the front here.
I'll be pretty brief. I think everyone is fed up with the climate change just repetitive question. It doesn't seem very educated. It doesn't seem to put anything forward. Is there any chance, perhaps, when this repeatedly happens because it's not the first time, where people can be required to actually produce their question at the beginning before they start going off on teaching everyone what they already know? Just a suggestion.
No, it's a very good suggestion. We can certainly try that. I would appreciate it. I must admit, we are getting pretty repetitive now. I just ask the people asking questions, do think about other people in the room who have made a long journey as well and be thoughtful about them. If we could to the gentleman's suggestion, and it's a very good one, if we could go straight to the question, very happy to take it. But if it is the same question we've already had about 10 times now, I don't think you're going to get a different answer. But anyway, let's continue. Behind you, yeah.
I'd like to give a reaction to your previous answers to our questions. You recently said you wanted to stay factual. So let's get factual. First off, you spoke about taking drastic climate measures. But we asked an independent scientific organization to calculate your actual CO2 reduction according to your own drastic climate plan. They found out that your reduction came down to only 29% for scope three and not the 39% you report. This is the case because you forget to include almost a third of your scope three emissions in your plans. Weird, right? Secondly, you said this is not the right meeting to be at. Well, looking at what I just said, I think this is quite surely the right meeting to be at. But don't worry. We will also visit AGMs of many other polluting companies as well. Lastly, Mr.
Schumacher, you said that you cannot answer our question with a yes or a no because we have different definitions, methods, starting dates when looking at reduction goals. But this does not mean that it's your word against ours. It is your word against IPCC scientists. Not saying yes to our question means answering no, which makes you legally vulnerable. As Milieud efense, we'll use this information to decide whether or not the next court case we will start will be against Unilever.
Okay.
Thank you for the question. I want to say something about the independent research that was brought up a few times. Look, I'm repeating myself. But we have worked with SBTI, which is globally the most renowned institute in this space. We want to make sure that we are within the framework of the Paris Agreement. When it comes to the definitions on what is included and what is excluded, clearly, look, there are a number of activities such as how people consume our products. For example, I don't know if you shower 20 minutes or if you shower 10 minutes. That is your call. We cannot be held responsible for those types of things. What we are doing, however, is innovating as much as we can products that actually stimulate a more sustainable behavior where we can. But ultimately, that is, of course, the choice of the consumer.
We were not afraid to ask for an independent view. At the same time, we stick with the definitions and with the scope that can be reasonably required from a company like ours. I want to say one last thing because I know it's repetitive. I said it in my speech. Just for the clarification, I absolutely contest the view that we have watered down on our commitments. We've doubled down on our commitments. We've clearly stated where we want to make the difference. I absolutely disagree with the idea that we have relaxed many things. In fact, we're focusing on those things where we can make the biggest impact. We're not making our lives easy.
Any further questions? There's one at the back, right at the back.
Chris Pollock, a private shareholder, on a different note. The brand Magnum has been respected by a lot of consumers and kids. It's a great advert for your company. You probably produce it in probably a pretty good, ethical way. It'd be really sad if you give up on producing this product and just perhaps give it to another company who are less good at producing it. Are you perhaps able to spin off your ice cream business and still keep a part of your influence on it? Because it would be sad to lose a good product like that.
Look, I think it's a fair question. We said earlier on that our plan is to proceed with the split with ice cream. The actual details of where we end up on that are not clear yet. We will let you know as we get closer to it. We will explore all sorts of options to try and make sure we meet the needs of all the stakeholders involved. Any more questions? Yeah, gentlemen.
Thank you. Good afternoon, all. I'm hearing about these brands that you were saying, the Super Premiums at 30. If we could, in order to raise the profit margin or the sales volume, is there any possibility of then divesting of all but the top 30 brands? What is the thought about that?
What we are doing is we are prioritizing our actions to create superior brands to make sure that we innovate strongly behind multi-year frameworks, for example. We prioritize that behind our top 30 brands. In total, we have somewhere between 350 and 400 brands in the company. But it does not mean it's very important that we actually neglect the others. Because for many other brands, there is a very important role to play behind the top 30 brands. And in order to ensure strong execution in the company and really making sure that our plans land well, we don't want to dilute our efforts across everything in one go, but rather focus them behind the top 30 brands. That is really what the choice is about. But thank you for your question. Because I see that sometimes it's important clarification. Good. Any more questions?
Yes, there's one with somebody holding a white piece of paper. Oh. Okay. Sorry. Yes.
That's great. Thank you. Good afternoon. I have two questions regarding your ESG policy. Hanging from your fiery answer just now, I conclude that Unilever is a proud company. One thing you flaunt a lot today as well is your commitment to the Science-Based Target Initiative. This initiative has validated Unilever's scope one and two emission reduction targets as aligned with the 1.5-degree global warming pathway. Do note a validation for scope three is still underway. That accounts for 99.3% of Unilever's emissions. The International Panel on Climate Change writes that limiting the average global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius has clear benefits. These benefits include a lower risk of an increased frequency and intensity of extreme events such as floods, drought, heat waves, and storms, including tropical cyclones.
The benefits also include lowering the risk of reaching critical tipping points for large-scale singular events that can result in major shifts in our global climate system, causing even further climate damage. An example of this is the melting of ice sheets exposing darker Earth surfaces instead of reflective Arctic ice and taking in more heat from the sun. A press release by the Copernicus Program, the Earth Observation Program from the European Union, stated that the global average temperature increase compared to pre-industrial levels was 1.58 degrees Celsius from April 2023 to March 2024. For the past year, it seems our efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius have not been successful. The clock is ticking at an ever-increasing pace.
How does Unilever view the legitimacy of their 1.5-degree aligned targets for scope one and two if that limit may already have been exceeded for the past year? Do note pointing the finger at other emitters is not valid if you do not adhere to global reduction targets for your own full value chain. Does this 1.58-degree global warming increase prompt Unilever to reduce their CO2 emissions by at least 48% in absolute terms for their entire value chain, so scope one, two, and three by 2030 compared to 2019? Thank you.
Just a matter of point of accuracy. I mean, our scope three emissions have been validated by the SBTI, okay? So I know it was only sort of a week ago or something like that recently. But they have been validated. I think, bluntly, we've answered all the other questions associated with your points. So I take it. Any other questions? Okay. Holding a piece of paper. That's it.
Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to get a question in on general policy since you were discussing general policy. Could I suggest that next year you hold this meeting in a theater with a rake so that you can occasionally look to people who are forced to sit at the back? So my question is to do with general policy. It does have some ESG ramifications. I'd like to say that I in no way dissociate my remarks from the people who've traveled from the Netherlands today, because I think what they have to say is valid and must be listened to. So my question is regarding the 30 power brands. The 30 power brands, in fact, is not 30 power brands because you're going to sell four of them. Four of them are ice cream. So it's only 26 power brands.
Are there four more waiting in the wings? Point one. Point two, you're going to sell ice cream for a variety of reasons. But you're saying how brilliant you are in actually acquiring yourself, the yogurt manufactory, which is listed in the ice cream part of the annual report. So you seem to be saying, "Aren't we brilliant? We've acquired it just in time to sell it." Regarding what you're going to do with ice cream, it's important regarding the whole future of Unilever. You say that you will report in the future on how you will dispose of it. I have seen various reports in the press, which means they may not necessarily be accurate. But I don't see them being denied, that you may, for instance, float on the Dutch stock market. I have nothing against the Dutch lovely people. I have nothing against Europe.
But it does actually raise the question. You are a British company, for better or worse. Are you now thinking that if you're going to try and sell the ice cream part of it as a going concern at a good price, you have to now look at locating in Europe? Because it is easier for companies to sell within a market of 500 million rather than Britain's benighted population of 60 million. I also make a reference, again, regarding ice cream in the future of Unilever. You had, as a company, a particular problem with Ben & Jerry's. It was a difficult political problem. If you sell the ice cream part of it, you get rid of Ben & Jerry's. I make no comment on what Ben & Jerry's has done. I asked you whether that was part of your thinking.
My last question on general policy brings me back to ESG. The new chief executive and I welcome him back to Unilever. It would be very interesting to see what you've learned in, I might say, the real world in coming back to Unilever. You were reported again. I saw it reported. I didn't see it denied that you felt that ESG issues were cyclical, implying that people care about them at one point. They don't care about them at the next point, implying again that if you wait, we can get through it. But interestingly, you linked it with another matter, which is, according to this report, you thought cyclical, people's current interest in what is happening in Russia. Now, I've listened to what you've said about the Russian investment.
Unilever has defended its stance by saying, "In Russia, we are only providing essential food and essential care products." But you're not. You're also selling that part of the portfolio that you're now keen to get rid of. And that's the ice cream. So if ice cream is considered a part of an essential portfolio to sell to the Russians, why are you getting rid of it?
I think there are about four questions in there.
I'll go fast.
You're okay. Yeah, okay.
Thank you for your four questions. First of all, you rightly refer to the top 30 or the 30 power brands that are four ice cream brands in there. You're suggesting that are there other brands sort of in the pipeline who would replace those four brands if and when the demerger of ice cream would happen? My answer would be yes. Of course, as I said, we have 350 to 400 brands. There is some movement. We're very pleased with the progress of the number 31, 32, and 33. Clearly, we want to continue to have a strong focus on our top brands. The second question was around the acquisition of Yasso in the United States last year in July. You are right. We actually made a decision to acquire a frozen yogurt brand, which is a very positive growth story.
It actually is in line with the expectations that we had when we acquired the brand. Therefore, and that's important, our most probable route is not a sale. It's actually a demerger. That means that the shareholders currently holding one share of Unilever will continue to benefit as well from the progress and the growth in the ice cream company. So the acquisition that was made is something that the Unilever shareholders, again, according to the route that we are currently taking, will definitely benefit from. Your third question is Ben & Jerry's. Was that part of the considerations? We love Ben & Jerry's. We think it's a great brand. We also endorse the social mission as well as the agreements that were made at the time of acquisition. It's fully part of the ice cream separation. It's a beloved brand.
On Russia, ice cream Russia will not be part of the scope of this demerger because technically, it would be impossible at this point to separate that and make it part of a new entity. Your final question, which I'm actually happy to answer, is the idea or the misleading impression that was made in an article, indeed, where I said that sustainability is cyclical. It's absolutely not true. I think it was a misleading statement and out of context. The question that I got was, how would you see that the fact that sustainability isn't so much at this point at the forefront of many people around the world? It was sort of a hypothesis. My answer was, I think sustainability is actually not short-term or whatever. It's long-term. It's there to stay. It's forever.
It's a true structural thing that we need to resolve. However, with the big things going on, wars and, of course, stiff inflation and after a pandemic, there might have been other things that have been on people's minds. Therefore, in people's minds, there can be different priorities at the time. That is what I said. I'm happy that you asked the question so that I was able to give a true representation of what I mentioned to the journalist.
Very good. Thanks, Hayne. Just before we move on, just wanted to find, are there any questions on any other non-ESG topics? We will take some more. Don't worry. In terms of election, re-election of directors and our auditors, share capital, any other matters? Any other questions to do with that? Yes, there's one here. No, no.
I'll try to ask something now.
No. There's a lady over there, if I can see she had her hand up first. Sorry. Then I'll come back to you. Is that okay?
Private shareholder.
Okay. That's better. Private shareholder. I'd like to second the previous speaker. There was a fifth question there. Could you please arrange the meeting next year, however many people who arrive, somewhere where we can see what's going on?
Sure.
Because I can't see you. I couldn't see until so many people left the screens at the side.
We'll see what we can do. Understood. Yes, the lady here.
I'm Isabel from Miljodefensie Jong and from Miljodefensie. We have come here from the Netherlands. You've heard from us so many times today because we have all seen the problems that Unilever creates. We have put aside work and school and all our personal obligations to come back here a second time. We have asked politely. It has gotten us pretty words and empty promises and no real action. That is why we are here to demand that Unilever will reduce their CO2 emissions with 48% in absolute terms in their entire value chain. So scope one, two, and three compared to 2019. You have made your choice clear today in all of your answers. Your climate plan is not in line with climate accords of Paris. This means that you are taking serious, serious legal risks.
All that is left to say, power to the people.
Power to the people.
Because the people got the power.
Because the people got the power.
Tell me, can you feel it?
Tell me, can you feel it?
Getting stronger by the hour.
Getting stronger by the hour.
Power.
Power.
Thank you, everyone, for allowing this to go ahead. I'd love to ask, are there any more questions? Gentlemen here.
Yeah. Where's the mic? Oh. Thank you, Chairman. My name's Derek Jenkinson. I'm a shareholder here. First of all, I'd like to thank you for handling this demonstration so well. But secondly, I'd like to make the point, please, that if you are going to separate ice cream, you do not sell it off. You put it into a separate division, which reports separately to the board and is virtually autonomous. Thank you.
I think it's a very good point. I think Hayne and I made the point earlier on that all options will be considered as we go down this path. Any more questions? I think there was a gentleman there who had a question. Sorry. Lady here. Let's do that one first.
In view of the nuisance these people have been making of themselves, perhaps in another year, maybe, would it be possible for people to pre-book a seat at the AGM so a week before in the hope that they can attend? That would enable you to weed out most of the people who are wasting your time.
Look, I'm sure, as you're well aware, I mean, our duty at the AGM is to try and listen to all questions from all shareholders. Therefore, we are duty-bound to allow this sort of process to go on. To be fair, I think a lot of people I know they've left now. They obviously felt very, very strongly about things. Overall, I think they've behaved fine. I do take your point. Question behind you.
Got a loud voice. I think you can hear me. Oh, we've got a microphone. Yes, a couple of points before I come on to my question. I know the Dutch people, well, fair enough, we're living in a democracy. Therefore, fair enough, they're entitled to ask their questions, even though, quite honestly, it was repetitive all the way down the line. I'm really sorry for the board because they had to answer it. What's the chances having a Dutch AGM and an English AGM one way or another or an information meeting? I know when I was in Eurotunnel, we had an AGM one year in France. The following year, we had the AGM in England. So we rotated it. Why not give that some consideration, bearing in mind Unilever is basically a Dutch-English company one way or another? Give me some thought for you.
Thank you.
Right. Now, the other thing is a question that is another comment. It was very interesting to hear from the young lady over the other side. I think she must have been Dutch. She gets Christmas boxes from Unilever each year. I'm 87. So I'm not going to be around for a few years. What's the chance of me having one? I'll give you my name and address to one of your members so you can send one.
If you'll come to the Dutch AGM next year, you can definitely get a box.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not have a passport.
Thank you. Thank you.
Right. Now, before you go, I am finished. I want to come on to my question. As I mentioned earlier on, I was at the AGM down at Leatherhead. What I noticed and I'm much involved locally in looking after the bee population. I plant all sorts of flowers in my garden. I did notice and I took this up with the previous Chairman that when you come up the roadway from the main road, there are lovely banks of grass area coming up towards your headquarters. I thought, wouldn't that be nice down there if there's some flower beds planted there which are along there? So shall we say, enhance the bee population one way or another? I was hoping the AGM was going to be there. So I would be able to say, "Well done, Mr."
Chairman," or, "Why didn't you do it?" Are you able to answer that question? If you're not, if you hold the AGM next year at Leatherhead, therefore, I'll get my answer. That's all I'm going to say.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further questions? Sorry. Gentlemen down here.
Like that. Okay. I was just seeing from an administrative point of view of the meeting, I wondered if you could give us access to the Lumi form. We could also send questions online in writing as the meeting goes on. That would probably not create too much repetition as well.
It's worth consideration. It's worth consideration.
I think that would be appreciated. Thanks.
Yes. Any more? I think we're running out of steam now pretty much. But there's probably one more over here.
Can I just say, Mr. Chairman, in reference to that last suggestion? In my experience, attending AGMs online, it is very easy for short-sighted chairmen or for overactive censors to ignore questions or to change them. If you are in the room, as I am today, it is much easier to engage with the board if the board wishes to engage. By all means, provide the facility. But I personally wouldn't use it. Regarding the board, I'm afraid when you listed who is here today, could I ask, number one, why we can't see the board? Normally, and I go to a lot of AGMs of big companies like Unilever, we see the board. Also, I didn't get a chance to note who was here. But I think that there are some members who have chosen not to come here today.
It would be nice to know who they were because it might influence whether we want to re-elect them to the board. If they can't be bothered to show the interest or the time, then maybe that tells us something about what they want to do about Unilever. If I could just go back to the questions that I asked before, there was one point that you didn't take up. It's to do with what you might do with the ice cream division. Again, there have been quite a few newspaper reports that you have been considering a float on the Dutch market. It's not a question about whether it's the Dutch, the French, or whatever.
But was part of your consideration that speaking in commercial terms, practically, now that Britain is not in the European Union, it might be better if you want to get a good return from that division that you float in the European Union, which makes trading and buying and selling within the European Union less problematic than it would be as a British company?
It's a very fair question. It's absolutely one of the considerations we will put into as we make our decision around where we want to base the business in terms of headquarters and also the listing. We have not yet concluded. But those sorts of considerations will absolutely be part of it. Are there any more questions?
Excuse me. You didn't tell me who hasn't come today.
I think the only board member who's missing is Nelson Peltz today.
Too busy?
No, I think he's got other commitments at the moment. But you're right. It's disappointing. I would expect all board members to be here in person.
Could I just make the point that according to the annual report, through his company, he is the biggest shareholder who sits on the board? I think maybe it would be just for the board or for the chairman to say, "Look, if you are going to have an association with this company, it must be more than just the odd phone call to say, 'I like, I don't like.'" I actually welcome his presence because he has vast business experience. But it is rather dismissive of these proceedings that he can't be bothered to attend.
Fair point. Well, let me stress, though, that Nelson is very actively engaged in all of the board, all of the discussions, and things like that. He is absolutely not. He is not an absentee board member. I see my board colleagues nodding there as well. Good point. Any more questions? All right. Look, thank you all today for all the questions. Thank you for bearing with quite a lengthy process. I hope we've answered them to your satisfaction. However, if anyone has any further questions after the meeting, please feel free to submit them in writing to me. We will endeavor to answer them. I think we're now at the point where we should bring the meeting to a close. If we've not been able to answer your question during this meeting, again, please do send us your question.
We will endeavor to respond within 40 days. If you'd like to see the results of the proxy votes received in advance of the meeting, these are available from the information point by the exit. Finally, please remember that when you have completed your poll card, it should be placed in a ballot box. The ballot boxes are by the exit and will remain in place for 15 minutes only after the close of the meeting. The final results will be announced at the end.