Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Brenntag SE Q2 2026 results call and live webcast. Please note that the call will be recorded. During today's call, webcast participants will be in a listen-only mode while we conduct the question- and- answer session. If you wish to ask a question, we ask that you please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. Instructions will also follow at the time of the Q&A. I would now like to turn the call over to André Simon, Senior Vice President, Corporate Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you, Jenny. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and a warm welcome to our second quarter 2026 call from my end as well. On the call with me today is our CEO, Jens Birgersson, and our CFO, Thomas Reisten. As you have noticed, we have changed the procedure. We made available a prerecorded video of the management presentation this morning, together with all accompanying materials in the investor relations section of our webpage. With this, we want to give you more time for preparation and the possibility to handle potential overlaps with other earning calls. Consequently, today's call will focus exclusively on answering your questions. A replay of today's Q&A session will be made available on our website shortly after the call. Before we begin, please note our safe harbor statement, which can be found at the end of our analyst presentation. With that, I would now like to start the Q&A session. Jenny, please open the line for questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we now begin our Q&A session. If you have a question, we ask that you please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. Once your name has been announced, please accept the prompt, unmute, and ask your question. If you want to withdraw your question, please lower your hand using the raise hand function. Thank you, and a moment for the first question, please. Our first question comes from Suhasini Varanasi from Goldman Sachs. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Hi. Good afternoon. Hope you can hear me. Yep. Yeah, we can. Great. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. Two from me, please. Can you perhaps discuss the volume trends in Essentials and Specialties in 2Q and in July? It looks like maybe volume trends got a little bit better in Specialties. Maybe could you provide some color on customer behavior and contrast that with what you're seeing in Essentials? The second question is, on your working capital. Looks like it was a heavy investment in working capital in the second quarter, but you also talked about some unwind in 3Q. Have you seen any product shortages that are causing you to maybe build up a little bit on inventory? Just some color there would be great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I take the first part, and then Thomas Reisten takes the net working capital section. Volume trend, without going too much into detail, we basically see it holding steady. We don't see an uptick, and don't at the moment expect any big changes. That's part of the reason for the upt guidance, because we also conclude that this Hormuz, the Middle East crisis had, in one way, it has become normalized, but so has the oil price and so has the cost situation among our customers. We haven't seen anything change so far. Can't conclude that it's a more positive environment either. It seems to continue, and then we take it month by month. As you know, we have no backlog. If we compare specialty and essential from a volume perspective, specialty have kind of the top performer on the material science that we mentioned in our release. I think that is market-driven. On the life science side, we are doing quite good progress in the different BOs with maybe one exception on nutrition, where we haven't seen so much cost increase on the sourcing side, so not much price pressure yet on that side. We generally don't see volumes up on the same. We are not progressing. We're sort of sitting flat on that one. Haven't seen a big change. We are still repairing a little bit in the U.S. where we have some acquisitions that have been problematic a couple of years back, so we are repairing that. The volume increases on the specialty, I would also say when I look at it, material sciences is clearly helped by the market and they're doing a good job. The sales efforts in specialty, there are a couple of things. First of all, we are less strict with. We don't look so much at competition. We look at ourself, and we play to our strength, which means that we are a little bit less focused on gross profit per ton, focused on gross profit. We focus on customers, and then we start to see the first results of also making use of the essential platform, the essential salespeople on smaller customers that we are working with. Those play together to the volumes we see, and nothing much of that is market-driven outside material science. It's more self-help. Over to you, Thomas. Thank you, Jens. So I now answer the question actually on working capital cashflow a little bit. I think what's worth noting, first of all, is that this increase in working capital is what I would call actually a temporary technical effect, and I'll explain a little bit more why I actually see it that way. The outflow from working capital in the second quarter was EUR 353 million. However, in such a strong growth situation, this increase is quite normal. We've seen that in the past happening actually as well in the history of Brenntag. We have seen total sales increasing by about 11%, a bit stronger in BES, but evenly actually quite strong in BSP. I think that's worth noting as well, with a 6% increase in that space. Inventory increased very much in line with that, so at about 11.8%, even slightly below, by the way, what we would see on ASP at this point in time. Overall then, accounts receivable, accounts payable really increased, overall as well, but in line with each other. The main impact that we are seeing is here really coming from the pricing side of our inventory, and we have not seen a significant volume impact at all in our inventory. We, and this is actually partially answering your other part of the question as well, we haven't seen significant product shortages and have been able to continue to safely deliver to our customers, really fulfilling actually our purpose as a distributor. If you look at some other KPIs, we have seen the working capital turns improving to 7.5x, which is confirming that we are managing our working capital very efficiently and effectively. Also worth to note that this temporary technical effect I was talking about actually has reached at the end of the second quarter already its peak so far, and that evenly with the continuous, positive start to the third quarter that we actually see on other KPIs, as we have actually indicated already in our release, we see that this peak actually is coming down into the third quarter as well. In summary, as I said, very much a temporary technical effect of this increase in working capital driven by mainly the price effect and absolute BAU in line with our sales increase and improvement. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Martin Roediger with Kepler Cheuvreux. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Yes. Thanks for taking my three questions, actually. The first is for Jens Birgersson, just a clarification question to your previous answer. I understand that the volumes have been flattish year-over-year in Q2. Yeah. However, I understood from your first ad hoc release on June 22nd that you might have benefited, like several other players, from some pre-buying by customers in April. Did that high demand in April soften in June so that the individual months have leveled off each other? Let me take that question. The way we see it is always hard to assess this, and we try to be quite disciplined with our own inventory, as Thomas explained, and we generally see that across the industry. So in April, and also to some extent, the last half of March, you saw our customers, they have been used to ever-falling prices, and therefore they were on just in time, always wait with ordering. Then we saw an uptick. Say we had four to six weeks of build up of inventory. But our take on it is that they have gone up not to a very high to a normalized level where, I think based on the assumption is that pricing could go up. Many of them expect the pricing to go down a bit. But the uncertainty in the market is there, and they are not going to sit on the permanently low level. So my take on it, and it is hard to know whether you are exactly right on this, but I discussed with a lot of customers the topic. I would say it is a normalized level, and no sign at the moment that they are offloading it, and I do not think we sit on an inventory bubble. That would be my summary. Thanks. My second question, the war in Middle East has been positive for you in Q2 thanks to your defensive business model, your leading positioning, your price discipline, etc. But it seems we have wars which last longer than initially expected, starting with Ukraine, now the Middle East. If these wars last a couple of years from now, would you see that as net positive or net negative for Brenntag? Yeah. Good question. First of all, the general assumption we have, it seems to be easier to start a war than to finish a war. Our base assumption is that they continue. I think the volatility element of them, the market gets used to it. Somehow the oil is getting there. Our assumption is oil will stay on 80, 90. Yes, shipping rates will be up, and it is kind of staying there. I would say for us, we have less impact of the volatility, but we are playing on a higher price level on the sourcing side, and we see that to keep on. Then in terms of if a war stops, then we get into macroeconomics. For me, for example, I would think it is a good thing for the European economy if the Ukraine war stops, right? That one, I think is a positive if they would end. The Hormuz one, we would probably assume that that would lower the cost a little bit, and then our margin or the gross profit we make will contract because higher overall price levels are better for us and a little bit of the volatility is better for us. It is no clear-cut answer, but Ukraine, I clearly see as a positive if it would end for the European economy, and we would benefit from that. Thank you. My final question is for Thomas Reisten. The personnel costs have rocketed in Q2 year-over-year and quarter-on-quarter, and this is despite the fact that you have reduced your workforce as part of your cost savings program. Can you explain what is the ordinary inflation effect on the personal expenses and what was due to higher provisions for the bonus payment for beginning of next year? As a follow-up to that, is the Q2 number for the personal costs a good proxy for Q3 and Q4? We have actually been into the second quarter, still clocking actually to some extent, some inflationary trends that actually had been coming from salary cost increases actually over a year ago. That is one point. Nevertheless, the bulk of the increases is actually driven by higher bonus provisions. Remember towards the end of the second quarter last year, it became relatively clear that overall we would be missing actually the guidance at that point in time. As a consequence, bonus provisions at that point in time even went down. What we are now facing is that we are taking bonus provisions, not only up to the expected value. You remember at the beginning of the year, we issued actually the initial guidance, and we have now increased this. Overall, we've been quite transparent that there's bonus provisions and other effects in the second quarter of about EUR 40 million in net. The vast majority of that is actually coming down to bonus provisions, sales incentives, and other topics. That's quite a significant increase that we are digesting as a consequence. This is very much in line, as you can imagine, with what we actually have set as guidance, in terms of actually the midpoint of that guidance as well. This is then what you could actually take as well for your model to take that as a value, in order to obviously normalize for this going forward. We will continue to build bonus provisions at a higher level if the performance obviously continues to be at the positive, as we are expecting this. But we'll be doing that until the end of the year, and then obviously a new budget, a new target actually will come. This is really what you have to take into account. Overall, salary cost inflation is very moderate from here onwards because we've been quite, let's say, conservative with those increases, and really managing inflationary costs on salary costs and people-related costs as well. Then the other aspect, keep in mind, we've reduced over 800 people year on year already, and we continue to accelerate our savings program, which comes quite a lot from actually almost entirely from structural savings initiatives, reaching a run rate of EUR 41 million, and a lot of that is actually people-related costs at this stage. So we continue to accelerate that into this year, and you can expect that to flow through as well. I just want to emphasize one, just to add one thing to sum it up, that there are a couple of things happening to the personal expense, the base salary. The one is that we are reducing quite a lot of management layers, so that means that helps the average. Then due to looking at the previous years, we had been I would say a couple of years above market. This year on the salary increase of what, 2025 and up until spring, we have been extremely tight to kind of set it more in line so that it's right over a few years. So the salary increase for the last 12 months or nine months has been very conservative. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Annelies Vermeulen with Morgan Stanley. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Annelies, your line is unmuted. Thank you. Hi. Sorry. Hi, good afternoon. I have two questions, please. Firstly, just to follow up, come back on the working capital point. Could you confirm, did you book any inventory gains in the quarter, i.e., where you sold inventory at higher pricing than where you purchased it? If so, could we see a reverse of that in Q3 if prices come down and you're left with higher cost inventory? Then my second question was on the special cost items in the quarter, which you were up quite a bit year-on-year. I think, as you said, that's mainly headcount restructuring, but how do you expect those to trend in Q3 and Q4? Thank you. Okay. I think that's for me, if I'm not mistaken, those questions. On the inventory build up, I think you are targeting or your question here, and let me briefly confirm that, is actually asking whether we have been selling lower cost inventory at the beginning of the quarter, and then obviously replenishment of this inventory came in at higher prices actually towards the end of the quarter. As a consequence, having actually a higher gross profit margin initially, and then that actually to moderate down, I would say, later in the quarter. That is true, obviously, because we've had actually these lower cost inventory. Nevertheless, even now with the replenishment costs coming through, we are seeing actually positive trends still emerging into the new quarter and towards the end of the second quarter actually as well. Overall, you will see, and this is even one other aspect actually with regards to the working capital, that on the accounts receivable side, you actually have initially a higher effect than you actually have on the accounts payable side. Then over time, that actually catches up after a few weeks where you actually then have a bit of a balance actually that is coming out of that. But, which is one of the reasons why we see an improvement into the beginning of the third quarter actually as well, giving you another layer of detail on working capital movements. Gross profit, we still continue to see into the third quarter, despite the replenishment costs going up, a positive impact, and we've seen that as well towards the end of the second quarter. In terms of Q3 and Q4, if we look at the guidance, you will have recognized that maybe the second half is not actually assuming as much over performance versus the previous year. That's very true. The underlying assumptions that we have put in there for the midpoint are that over the third quarter, we actually expect gross profit to somewhat actually moderate step by step actually down, and then the fourth quarter, maybe conservatively, is actually at a relatively similar level to the previous year. There's opportunities and risks that are attached to that Jens did talk about already, which is related to, on the one hand, if actually this conflict lasts longer and inventories or respective availability of product actually will continue to be scarce and oil prices will actually remain higher, that might actually pose an opportunity for us next to the underlying initiatives continuing to actually gain traction. Then on the risk side, and in our previous increased guidance, we were emphasizing on that a bit more than we do today. If we actually see demand destruction happening, which I really underpin, we haven't seen a sign of at this point in time. Instead, actually, volumes are flattish, even with a sequential improvement in both areas and BSP and BES. And year-on-year, you see actually BSP faring positive and only really slight decreases on the BES side, as Jens actually has said. Only if we actually see demand destruction happening, we might actually move down on that towards the low end. Hope that gives you a little bit of guidance on that. Yes. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Tristan Lamotte with Deutsche Bank. Please unmute your line and ask a question. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one's just a bit of a follow-up from what you just said. I just wanted to check that there's, to me, it seems like a kind of conservatism in the guidance, given that EUR 1.45 billion implies EUR 680 million in H2, having done EUR 770 million in H1. And you just done EUR 463 million in Q2, so you could get to the top end with a big drop-down in Q3 to EUR 380 million, and then EUR 300 million in Q4. So I just want to understand, is that kind of conservatism, or are you really seeing that level of quite extreme drop quarter-on-quarter? Maybe leave it there for the first question and come back on the next. Thanks. Well, the level of clarity in terms of the market environment is obviously not really improving at this point in time. What we can say is that we haven't seen signs of demand destruction happening at this stage. What we can say as well is that we have benefited from the higher pricing environment. That benefit, as I've discussed in one of the previous questions, is obviously higher initially in the second quarter than it will be in the future. Definitely. So that is actually coming down in the third quarter. The question is it actually going to continue to be there given the oil price development, given opening or closing of the Strait of Hormuz? In fact, as well, is product availability, feedstock availability, going to actually improve that rapidly, and the production going to improve that rapidly when some of the manufacturing sites are still affected by this? So, it's hard to predict. What we are actually expecting at this point in time is really what I've said, is a decrease of the benefits sequentially month by month into the third quarter, and then this to level out at similar levels compared to the previous year in the fourth quarter. If that happens, it's obviously a question of what I've just been saying in terms of the market environment. Thanks. Maybe, second question, kind of linked. I'm wondering a little bit about mid-cycle EBITDA, which gets more difficult to think about when we have these kind of quarters of over-earning. I just wanted to understand, in terms of thinking about mid-cycle EBITDA, is the kind of Q1 2026 EUR +20 million of retained cost savings after this year, I think, if you do your 150 and retain half. Is that kind of a fair way of thinking about a mid-cycle EBITDA, or how would you think about that from here? Is the 2025 level of about EUR 1.3 billion, is that like a fair starting point? Thank you. Obviously, we do have quite a few initiatives that are starting to actually have results that are affecting our overall earnings as well. So we do have improvement in commercial execution, we have improved customer penetration, pricing discipline. The cost reduction program is actually giving us results as well. I think what we've shown there is that the reason why you don't see this coming in as net savings at this point in time is, to some extent, the previous question on the overall bonus provisions that we are taking, which is an effect of this over-performance that we do have. On the other hand then as well, the temporary effect of higher energy and transport costs, given the Middle East effect is there. So what I'm saying is there's underlying effects that are helping us already from our strategic initiatives. And then on the other hand, there are over-earnings, but the cost reduction program actually will be showing net savings into the future, for sure. Because when you have actually the GP decreasing, you should assume as well that the over costs are actually disappearing then as well on the energy and transport costs, fuel costs actually as well. As a reminder on those costs, we are having the ability, and we use it to pass this through gross profit as well. So the technical effect is you see that higher in OpEx, but we actually get these benefits in the gross profit. So in summary, initiatives starting to produce positive effects. And then on top of that, it is not all market volatility. Makes sense. Thanks a lot. And then maybe just last one. Are you concerned about the water level for the Rhine? And is that something that presents opportunities, or is it more of a kind of risk? Thanks. Yeah. We do not see it as a main factor. A few years back, there was a situation where it was really tight. I think the industry has learned to deal with it. You have more contingency plan, and we do not see it impact. We took an extra round, with the businesses to check on that, and at the moment, no one worries a lot about that. Very helpful. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please use the raise hand feature. When your name is announced, please unmute and ask your question. Our next question comes from Nicole Manion with UBS. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Hi. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? Yep. Yep. Yep, thank you. I think you have just touched on this in the previous question actually, but I just wanted to come back to it. If I look at your outlook commentary today compared to the ad hoc release in June, at least in the qualitative sense, it does seem like there is a bit more constructiveness there, as you said, not just about the environment but also on the commercial side. Can you talk a bit more about the specifics of what you mean there and what gives you sort of confidence that you can split that out from the environment? Related to that, obviously the cost out program is one element of this. Q2 looks like it was sort of fairly strong. I think you have talked about this as a program out to 2027. But I just wondered if there's any more details at this point on kind of the phasing of it through the rest of this year in terms of how you think about splitting that total amount, 2026 and 2027. Thank you. Yeah. So let me answer that and then Thomas can add. So on the commercial side, I think we need to get used to that, to get growth in many segments. If you don't have industrial, the link between GDP growth and market growth in chemicals is not a hardwired link. I think it's quite disconnected. So level of industrial production drives a lot of the demand. And I think we as a distributor, we have to get used to getting growth with market share increase, growing with customers that see the value maybe of shifting some of their non-core sales over to us in the mid and low-end segment, get better on that. A lot of volume growth will have to come with, on the specialist side, innovation, customer proximity, and in our case also the fact that we are full-line and that we can leverage all the salespeople we have. And what I see is that is starting to happening to kind of build a commercial machine and get the people out in the street. What we see now on volumes in the market environment is in my mind, a lot of that improvement is because people are out selling more. We are working better together. We worry less about the split. We are starting to correct and motivate people better. It's still a big job to work our sales incentive. If you look, for example, at the pharma business, we have had quite a lot of success in having the domain experts focus on their big accounts and then leverage the essential salespeople to help opening doors to accounts maybe where we were not so active. I think there is a big self-help element, and that has to continue. And I think the underlying approach to growth in, for example, Europe, will be that we need to really, really be good at selling, at cross-selling, upselling, data about the sales, seeing the trends and also the pricing. We have started in the quarter, and I don't want to AI wash anything, but for example, we have started now to use some, it's actually been quite some good work on AI and pricing, and we start to apply these things. We also start to apply now customer information, analyzing our customer interactions with AI, and there's so much left to do on that front. With our scale, if we can find this balance, I think that's the main growth element in our business. What was your other aspect of that question? It was around cost actually, and expectation, actually, what is in the second half. Oh, okay. Over to you then, Thomas. Yeah, just the phasing. Yep. Let me add a few things, actually, there are really, and I'll get to the cost topic as well. One of the things that I found in our results quite striking is actually as well the quality of earnings in the BSP space. What we have actually seen there is a positive development of the gross profit pattern. In general, we would not really talk about that figure too much, but in absolute terms and overall actually in qualitative points, we've actually grown that quite healthily. What does that mean? This is above the level of the ASP increases even. The price increases have been outperformed by the gross profit increases, and that's not because of actually significant price movements on actually the inventory in the BSP space. Overall, this is actually leading to an improvement in the gross profit margin of 0.6 percentage points. Quite a healthy increase on that, and EBITDA conversion even increased by 3.3 percentage points to 38.6. Quite good progression, which is coming from these initiatives Jens was talking about and the success actually in that space. Just to give you a few more numbers actually around that as well. If I then turn over to cost, the run rate in the second quarter of 41, Jens spoke actually about what we actually are planning for this fiscal year. Our initiatives would actually come to something around EUR 150 million actually in this calendar year already from the initiatives that we are running in our cost efficiency program. We've achieved this run rate of 41 we've had in the second quarter. We've had 27 in the first quarter. To get to 150, that was our target and continues to be our target, you actually only need to continue that run rate. We can be quite confident that we have the right initiatives in place. As I said earlier, they are structural in nature, so they will continue to give us benefits into the future. Then we will get to the target level of 200- 250 next year. I guess that gives you a quite good split of what we're expecting to pull forward in terms of savings in an accelerated fashion in this year, versus then continuing that program actually next year and delivering more. Just to add to that, Brenntag announced a number many years back. The 250 that we are talking about now is just proving to ourselves and proving to you that we can execute, and it's progressing. Obviously, to be competitive long term, the goal is to get a big company with more scale effects that is more competitive, that is more efficient on the supply chain. It's not a hard stop to the 250. We will discuss that more later in the year at the Capital Markets Day. But obviously, this is just the beginning of a productivity race, a competitiveness race, but we should radically shift our whole platform for how we approach business, and that will keep going. This is just a proof point that we are doing, and a much needed proof point, because a lot of these costs that we are taking out now is about unleashing the organization, removing bureaucracy, putting the business in the forefront, and find this balance between localization and global management and coordination. This is just a start of a long journey. We still need to dig into operations much deeper than we do, and we need to do the same in sales. But on the sales. Our primary focus now is really to get people out on the ground and work together and go after success and a little bit of success for ourselves and in volumes while we are careful with our pricing and hold onto it. More to come. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from David Symonds with BNP Paribas. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Hi. Thank you. Two from me, please, and then I'll take them one at a time. The first one, I think it might have been asked, but I didn't catch the answer. Was there any EBITDA benefit from revaluing inventory upwards these market prices in the second quarter? If so, how big was it, please? Yeah. Didn't quite catch your question. EBITDA improvements from revaluing the inventory. Did I catch that correct? Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. At the beginning of the second quarter, what we have actually seen is that we have been able to sell inventory that we had already in our warehouses at the respective market price. The EBITDA is not from revaluing, actually, that inventory. It is from the gradual, obviously, move towards higher price points. At the same time, using actually cheaper inventory in that context. GP as a consequence, and GP margin, was actually higher. Now, over the course of the second quarter, the replenishment costs adjusted to what we actually would see in terms of market prices for the replenishment, and then our gross profit margin continued to be higher, albeit not as high as obviously at the beginning in terms of the delta. That you see as well flowing through then on the cash flow in terms of actually building up in line with sales, as I was saying actually earlier. Obviously, the overall inventory levels with the replenishment costs, because that's all completely driven by price. On the other hand, actually, accounts receivable, accounts payable stepping up in line with each other in that period as well. The bulk of the working capital increases is coming from the higher prices of the replenishment and not from a change in the volume of inventory. In terms of gross profit, I just explained that the curve that you actually have observed in the second quarter, initially higher impact towards the end, a lower one, nevertheless, really good performance. As we have been saying, in terms of volumes, we see this broadly stable overall, slight decrease in BES in the essential side, and actually improvements of volumes on the specialty side. Okay. That is very clear. I guess your inventory term was so high that you did not have any inventory to revalue upwards at the end of the quarter, basically. Exactly. Yeah. Turn actually is indeed improving continuously. The efficiency that we manage, actually working capital is continuing to increase. Then if you look at the overall situation towards the end of the quarter, that was probably the peak, at least so far it was the peak of actually our working capital. We are even seeing towards the beginning of the third quarter, an improvement already in releasing some smaller amounts of working capital. Great. Thanks very much. My second question is on nutrition in life sciences. You mentioned higher demand for value-added products, but overall mix volume trends. Could you talk about what was the drag on nutrition? Was that higher Chinese competition or was that something else? No, we are sourcing quite a lot actually from China in nutrition. It is quite a developed flow, and we do not see that impact. There are one temporary aspect, and that is the U.S., where we suffered a bit from the poor integration of some previous acquisitions, and we are fixing that. There, we see a volume down, but it is improving. It was worse. We are getting our arms around the situation step by step. The other aspect on the volume is that we have not seen the price impact. One would expect with fertilizers and a lot of the raw materials that come from Middle East on fertilizers, that that would create upward price pressure on them. People maybe get a bit more inventory, the producers, our customers. But we have not seen any of that in that business. The whole March, April effect, we did not really see it in nutrition. We would expect that the pricing in nutrition at some stage will increase as you see the Middle Eastern effect coming in in a delayed manner through mainly fertilizers and materials for fertilizers, where a lot of it comes from the Middle East. That is the next harvest, so to say. On nutrition, if you look in Europe, where we are pretty much flat, there the question is, does eating habits impact the business or not? I am still too new to the game to say if that is the case, and if we need to work harder to refocus the business or Because we have not seen an uptick, but it is not bad either. It is just that the market we see is very flat in Europe, and we are quite big in Europe. That is yet to see. But all the effort you see on cost reduction, focus on sales, working together between BES and nutrition, that is happening. We are also sharpening sales incentives. We are getting into that. We are still at the early stage of that, experimenting with it. Let us see over the coming quarters how that develops. Also, let us see if the. My gut tells me that we will see a price impact start to come into nutrition, coming towards the end of this year. But let us see. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our last question comes from Eric Wilmer with Kempen. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah. Perfect. Thanks for taking my question. I think versus your peers, it seems that both the sequential and year-on-year jump of your growth and operating margins for the specialty business was somewhat behind your peer plays, peers. I know what you said about the flattish food and nutrition business, but does the difference also say something about the overall pricing strategy on the specialty side, so on the life sciences sides, perhaps being less aggressive? Or is it perhaps mainly explained by a difference in product portfolio? Second question, can you also talk us through what you are currently seeing in terms of Asian competition? Obviously discussed a lot previously, now a bit more to the background. But are you seeing any signs that things are perhaps normalizing in Asia itself, and hence that the Chinese suppliers are starting to refocus on the now higher European price levels? Thank you. Yeah. Okay, so on the specialty, we are a different company than some of the 100%, the so-called pure plays into specialty. It is a little bit hard to compare. I think when I look at the numbers, you could say the margin uplift and the commercial uplift was probably better than some of those. Then it varies with how we compare with them, and I don't spend so much time on it. But I think that when I look at the businesses, nutrition is a part of it. That's our biggest specialty business that we are reporting on. There we had flat volume. Then we had one of the businesses where we grew well into double digit, where we know we did better than many competitors. I think maybe our portfolio with a relatively strong position in nutrition could have weighed down on that. That doesn't mean we don't really, really like the nutrition business as one of our absolute core business and probably our most mature specialty business. So I wouldn't put too much into it. I would also say that we have removed the quite high focus on gross profit per ton. We allow ourselves to be more aggressive, but we haven't gone extreme on it. We have unleashed it, and I see volume improvements in a lot of markets, and we want to protect volumes of that business. Beauty and care, for example, has developed really, really nicely in the quarter. A lot of that is because we went into some segments where we before held back growth, and now we are going after the growth. Yes, we have some work to do to be a bit more aggressive. I would also like to say that being not the absolute leader in many of those compared to the so-called pure plays, we also have some opportunities that we see in the market that we are not quite as tied up. So when it comes to sourcing, for example, from Asia, in some segments, we are more free than other people, and that might turn into a benefit going forward there. So that's that. If we then look at the Chinese, we would expect. The market in China is relatively flat-ish, and there is overcapacity on chemicals. So we expect the Chinese to come back in Latin America. We see in APAC that they're back, and they're pushing for volumes aggressively. It's happening, and we have considered some of that in our guidance also that it will be a bit tougher environment here in the second half year. Yeah. If I. Thomas, anything from. Yeah, sure, Jens. Just a few things to add. In particular on this topic you have been raising on the quality of earnings, I guess, and the improvements that we have seen in the BSP space. I would like to actually just make a few comments on that. What we have seen quarter-on-quarter is really healthy sequential improvements on volumes in both BSP and BES, but as well, and in particular on BSP. We have seen also just really underpinning again the volume improvement year-on-year in the specialty space. Material science, as Jens was talking about, actually has really significantly improved. Nutrition, obviously in line with expectations, but not yet that outperforming compared actually to material science. The other part that is important to note in that is that whilst we do not focus on gross profit per ton, we have seen quite positive development in that year-on-year as well. Overall, let me reemphasize, and I think that is quite important to compare here and look at our organic improvement. Gross profit margin, actually, we have overall increased 0.6 percentage points, and the EBITDA conversion actually increased in BSP by 3.3 percentage points year-on-year. Quite a significant improvement versus the last year. You can take those numbers and actually compare them with whatever you want to compare it to. That is very helpful, Thomas and Jens. Maybe as a very brief follow-up on what you said, Jens, on the Chinese competition coming back, the expectation that they will come back in Latin America and that they are back in Asia. Is this fully about Essentials, or are you also seeing that this is starting to happen on the specialty side of things? I think no one can ignore the Chinese on the specialty side, and distribution is much needed for a lot of that. It is much easier to bring in essential product. On the specialty side, it is quite cumbersome to get them into the market. I think it is a different dynamic on the specialty side. I see it as a benefit, and the more untied your hands are, the bigger the benefit for you. I see us as a benefactor of the Chinese on the specialty. Then on the essential, we need to work more on it and embrace it instead of seeing it only as a threat. At the same time, where there are other ways into the market, we need to be more aggressive, for example, in Latin America and fight back in a different way. You have a couple of dimensions of it, but I do not see it as something that is a different dynamic on the specialty as I see it. Very helpful. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Our final question comes from Chetan Udeshi with JPMorgan. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Yeah. Hi. Thanks for sneaking me in. I had a few questions, maybe hopefully quick. Based on your comments on Q4, my calculation was you are implying that your Q3 assumption on EBITDA is somewhere between EUR 400 million- EUR 420 million. I was just curious if you can confirm that. Second, in terms of bonus provisions, it seems you have increased the provisions by about EUR 40 million in H1. If you have similar in H2, I do not know. But I am just curious, when you look at your bonus provisions for this year, how does that compare to your normal year? Would it be in line with normal year? Because I assume last year you had probably cut to zero, so you are just getting back to normal year now. In other words, this is not something that we will necessarily reverse. You probably will not have the same level of provision next year, but you probably should not reverse in the bridge. The third one is to Jens. You were talking about success with commercial sales force, but I am sorry, I do not see that in your numbers to some extent on volumes, because you said volumes are basically flat. So, how do we see that in your numbers? Because it feels like the big increase that you are seeing in your GP is all GP per unit, because as you yourself referred to, the volumes are actually flat. So how do we see that traction in terms of commercial success, going forward? The last question, maybe can you remind us what is your cash out that is left on restructuring program? In other words, how much cash do you have to pay out? And also the litigation on TALC. I remember from memory you had low double-digit million of provision. How much of that has been cashed out? Is this still going to come in the future? Thank you very much. That's many questions there. Thomas, I suggest you start with the first two or three. Yep. Your first question was around actually the fourth quarter. In terms of sequencing of the guidance, what I had said is that if you look at obviously the year-to-date over performance, that is, I think, relatively clear if you compare that actually to the previous year. What we were saying, what I was saying, is that on the third quarter, we are expecting actually this over performance month-by-month, to gradually decrease. The midpoint of the guidance assumes that for the fourth quarter, this actually normalizes back, if you like. You are closer to the previous year figures than far away from it. It's probably as much as I would like to give you the details on that. I think it should be helpful for you to really understand that. In terms of bonus provisions, what should you assume? Why are we showing this in the bridge? Because the previous year, we were constantly reducing the bonus provisions from the normal level down into the negative territory. Because ultimately there were some regions in which we still had smaller payouts. If you look at the total company perspective, this was relatively small and minimal compared to this year. Obviously this year then, with the really good performance compared to our initial guidance, the bonus provisions are moving into positive territory from the normal level. As a consequence, if this then normalizes out in a year where you are performing according to your expectations and what you actually have set as guidance and incentive systems, you actually land somewhere in the middle of such provisions. The year-on-year comparison obviously has to take into account that in the previous year we have been underperforming. That is why we show you this, I think, quite transparent in this context. Then the next question was on the cash out of provisions with regards to which topic? Remind me, because that I missed actually. Can you repeat that, please? Which provision you were referring to? Restructuring and the TALC litigation that you have been having for the past many years in the U.S. On the TALC side, there's not much payout at this point in time, and we are well provided to deal with this risk, in accordance to actually the risk profile that we are seeing there. There's no increase in this risk profile as we actually see this at this stage. But, no real resolution of it as well. We continue to be in the same spot that we actually have been couple of quarters ago. No payout actually happening. In terms of then the restructuring provisions that we are building every quarter, or in fact actually every month, whenever we are touching a topic that is actually subject to restructuring provisions. It depends a little bit how fast this gets actually resolved. Obviously, when you are restructuring a team and you are setting free headcount, and you are concluding that you don't need actually that headcount anymore, then over time this will be paid out. Expect this to be a revolving topic across using these provisions so that we actually will be continuously paying this out, and we have already paid out against some of those provisions. This is more whilst you're doing transformation, a normal process that is revolving every month. Does that make sense? Okay. Hope that's clear. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. There was one left on the volumes. We do not disclose volumes per business. You can not see it in the numbers with the volumes. Obviously, we have a sum of all the businesses. I give very broad brush comments on volume development. I think the volume development has been encouraging. When we look at share of wallet and winning customers back, I give you an example where I see it as an improvement in the market. We just take in the U.S. where we have done a drive. We see the number of days, number of customer visit, number of opportunities. Just this year we have 1,000 customers that did not buy from us, that have been dormant, that we have gotten back on. They start to buy from us after a lot of activity with them. I am encouraged how we are progressing on the commercial side and how much more time we spend, and how our hit rates and volumes improve and share of wallets improve. Again, it is early days. Early days in this. A lot more work remains. I am not going to sit and by business say, Volume up this, market volume up that, and we did this. We do not disclose numbers on that level. Okay. I think, André, we need to finish because we have another activity starting now soon, André. Thank you. This concludes the Q&A session. I will now hand back to André Simon for closing remarks. Yeah, thank you, Jenny. This brings us to the end of the conference call. In case of further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us in the IR team. Our results for the third quarter this year will be published in November the 11th. Let me please also remind you on our Capital Markets Day 2026, which will take place on November the 12th. Ladies and gentlemen, with that, thank you very much for joining us today. Have a good day and goodbye. This concludes today's call. Thank you everyone for joining. You may now disconnect.