Good morning, and welcome to the Diageo Society 2030: Spirit of Progress Q&A call. Your call today will be hosted by Diageo CEO, Ivan Menezes. To ask a question today, please press star one to join the queue. Please, can I ask you, limit yourself to two questions. We are now ready to start the call. Mr. Menezes, please go ahead. Thank you, Katie. Hello, everyone. Welcome, and thank you for joining us on our Society 2030: Spirit of Progress Q&A call today. I hope you've had an opportunity to view the webcast this morning, which provides a deeper dive into our 10-year ESG action plan, Society 2030: Spirit of Progress, and lays out how these ambitious goals we've set for ourselves are fundamental to the delivery of our performance ambition. Today, I'm delighted to be joined on the call by Javier Ferrán, our Chairman, Ewan Andrew, who heads our Global Supply Chain and is our Chief Sustainability Officer, Mairéad Nayager, our Chief Human Resources Officer, Kate Gibson, Global Director of Diageo in Society, and Dan Mobley, our Global Head of Corporate Relations. We all look forward to taking your questions. I'm now going to hand over to Dan Mobley, who will moderate our call today. Dan. Thanks very much, Ivan, and let's get straight to the questions. Katie, do we have a question waiting? Thank you. Again, that is star one if you would like to join the queue. Our first question will come from Olivier Nicolai with Goldman Sachs. Thanks, everyone. Thank you very much for the presentation. I got two questions, please. First, Ivan, in your presentation, you mentioned that consumers care about the sustainability of your business and brands. My question is, how do you include your sustainability credentials into your brand-building activities, and does tools like Catalyst, for instance, help you understand, essentially, what resonates with consumers from a sustainability perspective? Then second question, on your LTIP, 20% of the LTIP, for senior executives, is now linked to sustainability goals. Is that also being cascaded through the organization with other senior leaders and middle management also having their incentive linked to these goals? Thank you very much. Thank you for that question. I'm actually going to deal with your second one first and come to Mairéad to discuss the LTIP. I'll then ask Kate Gibson to cover off the brand-building point and then any further reflections that Ivan would like to add at the end. Mairéad, over to you first on the LTIP. Great. Thanks for your question. On the LTIP, the 20% of the performance share part of LTIP is put in place for the top 100. That's how I would describe who is going to be incentivized against these goals. Those top 100 executives include the managing directors around the business, and we see that as very important as we strive to deliver against our 2030 ambition. Beyond that, we use our AIP scheme to incentivize individuals. We set goals at an individual level. On the basis that our top 100 are incentivized in our Long-Term Incentive Plan, we very much expect that individual goals will be set against our broad 2030 ambition. Hope that answers your question. Thank you, Mairéad. Kate, could you say a little bit around brands and how we view them within our sustainability agenda, and then if there's anything Ivan wishes to add, he can do. Absolutely. Thanks very much, and that's a great question. I think it's certainly something that we've seen during the pandemic, a real increase in consumer interest in authentic action in this space. I think the approach that we take with it is really to look overall across our portfolio, and there certainly are many corporate commitments that cut across everywhere we operate. Also really to use our brand building and insight generation capability to develop strategies that are very aligned with what the consumers want to see. We do a lot of cross-functional collaboration across the supply chain organization, the CR and Diageo in Society agenda, and then obviously, the brand process. Now, you may have seen a couple of recent examples. Certainly, one quite recent was the Johnnie Walker Next Steps initiative, which has resonated really well. That's a great example of our commitment in terms of net zero operations translating into that brand lens around net zero across our distilleries, for example. Also many other actions on the ground in terms of restoring landscapes, for example, through tree planting. I guess one other example, certainly that we know really resonated, was the launch last of the paper bottle, which is obviously coming to life later on this year. Certainly, this space we've really seen a thirst and hunger for innovation in certain means. I think the response to the innovations that we're bringing through really generates sort of excitement for our brands and connections. I think confidence to do even more. Thank you very much. I would just add beyond climate and sustainability. On inclusion and diversity, our brands have a big voice. Smirnoff for a long time has really pioneered on Pride and with the gay community. Guinness right now is doing some pretty pioneering stuff on women in rugby. On positive drinking, all our brands. Do take this very seriously and our messaging on positive drinking and messages of moderation. Actually, some of our best creative work around the world happens here, and this is what inspires our marketeers on sustainability, inclusion, and positive drinking to really integrate it into their brands. What I would say all the time, we believe this is going to become more and more important, and we believe it will be a competitive edge for Diageo. Thanks, Ivan. I would simply add as well that all our marketing around positive drinking, we apply the same metrics to measure its impact and effectiveness as any other marketing campaign. What we're beginning to see more and more is the work we do on positive drinking or sustainability, the scores are as high or higher than any conventional marketing that we do. If you take an example like the Guinness Clear campaign, the responsible drinking campaign that ran around specifications in recent years, has phenomenal impacts on all the metrics that we would assess any marketing campaign against. Katie, could we take another question, please? Thank you. Our next question comes from Mitch Collett with Deutsche Bank. Thank you. I also have two questions, please. I guess the first one is, given that you make products often with higher alcohol content than some of the products you compete against. Can you talk about responsible drinking, particularly in markets where your recruitment of consumers relies heavily on affordability and perhaps the benefits of your brands against some other forms of alcohol, such as beer and illicit alcohol? I'm conscious, obviously, that in some markets, beer is a big part of your portfolio. Then secondly, can I ask about, given your breadth of products, can you talk about how the carbon footprint of your products varies? In particular, I'd be really interested to hear how it varies when thinking about both the Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions of your range of products. Thanks very much for both those questions. I'm going to turn to Ewan first on the carbon footprint question to give you some examples there, and Kate may also want to chip in, and then I'll come back to you on the point around strength of different product range. Ewan? Yeah. No brainer, I mean, 80% of our carbon footprint comes from heat rather than from renewable energy for electricity. Largely that comes from our brewing and distilling operations. If you look across Scope 1 and Scope 2, we published that figure last year, less than 500,000 tons of carbon. When you get into Scope 3, that figure goes up quite significantly to about 10 x. Ultimately, that all comes through in glass and in agriculture. I think across our portfolio, as you look at it, the bias of carbon definitely sits within beer and within spirits. Thanks, Ewan. On the alcoholic strengths of different products question, you have to remember that alcohol is alcohol, and what matters is how much ethanol you're consuming and how quickly. You really need to look at what the product is and how it's being consumed. There's a lot of myths around this ingrained in popular culture. For instance, a gin and tonic at ABV 3.5% is not necessarily a stronger product than a beer that can be at 7% or 8%. What you need to look at is the behaviors when you're considering consumption of alcohol and health rather than the arbitrary product category. We actually see a lot of opportunity, and we do a lot of work around getting that point across to both consumers and regulators, that alcohol is alcohol and trying to educate people on what's in their drink, the strength of their drink, and what safe behaviors when it comes to drinking will look like. What we've actually seen a strong trend over the last couple of decades is regulators beginning to understand that. You're seeing that the regulation of alcohol should be alcohol rather than having different sets of regulations or different taxes on the different product categories. I think we're seeing more and more of it. If you're taking the example of the introduction of seltzer. Seltzers can have a spirit base, a wine base, or a beer base. It becomes very peculiar to tax them differently when they're at the same alcoholic strength based on what the ethanol in the drink is manufactured from. Regulators are waking up to this point around, is alcohol is alcohol. We're seeing much more proportionate and sensible taxation and regulation of alcohol across a number of different geographies. We can see that trend continuing, and it's something that we obviously want to encourage. I'm going to come over to Kate specifically on your point around illicit. Kate, you might want to talk, for instance, around Senator Keg and the work that we're doing in Africa to make sure our products can compete with illicit. Yeah. No, absolutely. I think that's a great question. I think building on what Dan was saying, one of the things that we've been very focused on for a long time in line with alcohol is really helping to educate consumers on the practice of moderation. There is no drink of moderation. DRINKiQ, for example, which is our consumer information platform, is designed to do just that. It's really taking people on a journey from peaking their interest, perhaps through a brand moderation campaign, and then really building that knowledge base. We know that consumers are keen to a little balanced lifestyle. As a result, we've upgraded that platform. It's now live in 21 countries, and it's really designed to help consumers and really empower them with the information they need on that practice of moderation. It's a great question just with regards to illicit and certainly something that we have seen, and particularly in emerging markets, is around the need for affordably priced, high quality regulated alcohol as a way of addressing the challenge around illicit. You may have heard of the Senator Keg brand, launched by Diageo, which was designed deliberately to be delivered at a price point that would enable consumers that might otherwise be consuming illicit alcohol in order to be able to consume a regulated product. That's certainly the dynamic that we've observed. There definitely is a challenge, particularly as we think about regulation and just making sure that regulations and restrictions don't have an unintended consequence of pushing people into the illicit consumption, which obviously doesn't have the quality or the certainty in terms of the formulation and can be very dangerous for health. Thanks, Kate. I hope that answers your question. Go on then. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify, just a new question. Did I hear you correctly, Ewan, that for your beer portfolio, more of the emissions or a greater proportion of the emissions lie in Scope 3 than Scope 1 versus spirits at the right rating process? I didn't call out. Obviously we've made a lot of progress reducing our carbon footprint across our network by 50% up to 2020. We've got ambitious targets that are going to close the rest of that gap by 2030. We haven't split out by beer versus spirits. As you look at it's the heat energy is a major part of that kind of Scope 1 and 2 that sits within it. When you get out into the broader footprint, we've also gone through a transition where we get a lot of our beer goes through kegs. We've got a lot going through cans, and that can format and glass is relatively small in beer. What you said wouldn't be the right conclusion to draw from that. Thank you. Can we move to the next question, please, Katie? Thank you. Our next question comes from Edward Mundy with Jefferies. Afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the presentation. I've got two questions. The first is I appreciate the comment that there's no drink in moderation, only practice. I think zero alcohol in the responsibility agenda does change the goalposts slightly. It seems quite a success with the likes of Gordon's 0.0% and Seedlip, and one of your competitors has launched a light variant of whiskey in Spain. How much more innovation in the low and no space do you expect over the coming years, and to what extent does it work across different categories as opposed to just the white spirits side of things? That's the first question. The second question is around taxes, specifically in the U.S. I think, Ivan, you mentioned that it's encouraging that governments and societies understand the critical importance of a thriving hospitality sector. I was interested in that comment, relative to a potential federal excise tax increase, but we haven't seen one for quite a long time. The second part of the question on taxes is just the timeframe on when you think taxes on seltzers might equalize between malts, wine, and also spirits in the U.S. Great. I'll come first to Ivan on the opportunity you see in low and no, which is obviously a very exciting space. I should clarify around the volume point I was trying to make, which is actually, if you're talking about the distinction between beer, spirits, wine, you obviously have to look at the volumes. Beer in most markets overwhelmingly accounts for the volume, not the value. Some of the arbitrariness that we've seen in the tax and regulation system is shifting because regulators are moving more of the taxation onto where the largest volume is, and therefore not focusing on spirits more than they focus on beer or wine. Ivan, do you want to just explain around the opportunity for low and no? Sure. Yeah. Ed, we see no and low as an exciting consumer opportunity. There's a clear trend: What do you drink when you don't want to drink or when you want to drink less? As we mind the consumer and look at where the trends are going, we certainly see this as an additional stream of revenue and business for the company. That's very exciting. We've seen some of our plays, including the acquisition of Seedlip and what we've done on Tanqueray 0.0% and Gordon's 0.0%. We are looking at this across our major markets, certainly in the developed world, and see good growth there. We come at this from an additional incremental revenue stream standpoint. It's not a defensive stream because at the same time, within alcohol, what we see is premiumization and people drinking better as a very positive trend. We see a lot of room since they're only 5% of the TBA dollars for the premiumization to play well into our spirits and premium beer portfolio as well. Stay tuned to the space on low and no alc, and we are looking at it beyond white spirits. Thank you, Ivan. Just specifically to tax, I mean, we obviously are very familiar with and campaign on tax issues in many countries around the world. You can never predict exactly where finance ministries will go. What we've seen huge progress on over a number of years in many markets, including the U.S., has been a trend towards equalization or at least reducing the punitive tax burden on spirits versus the other categories. We see no reason why that would not continue. The U.S. has maintained a very proportionate approach to alcohol taxation at both the federal and state level for a long period of time. Actually, in the U.S., we see big opportunity around regulation. There's still plenty of places where spirits can't be purchased where the other categories can. The consumer doesn't understand that, and a lot of legislators at the state level are looking at whether to remove those restrictions, and we think we'll make more progress there over time. In Europe, the discrimination against the spirits category tends to be more on the form of tax. Again, numerous jurisdictions are starting to look at that because it doesn't make sense for either the public finances or public health. For example, the U.K. government is committed to, and will soon review alcohol taxation post-Brexit with an aim of injecting what they term fairness into the system, including for spirits. We expect to see some progress there over time. That's something we stay very close to in every country where we operate, and we see plenty of opportunity in the medium term to address that. You raised a point finally on hospitality, and I thought Ivan, you might just want to mention the importance of hospitality to our mission. Sure Some of the work we're doing. Yeah. One of the positives, as I mentioned on the webcast, of coming through this crisis is the appreciation that governments and society at large has of the hospitality industry. I mean, it's a GBP 9 trillion sector. It's one in 10 jobs, and most of the jobs are young jobs. Young people getting their first rung on the ladder of employment. We've been working very closely right across the industry and with government to really support the recovery of the hospitality industry. To your point, in that context, I would say, penalizing the hospitality industry with higher taxes, this is not a good time to do it. That is part of the arguments we are collectively taking to governments right now. What you really want is the economic recovery and the job recovery coming through. Understood. Thank you. Thanks. Katie, could we move to our next question, please? Thank you. Again, as just a reminder, please press star one to join the queue. Our next question comes from Celine Pannuti with JPMorgan. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Celine. Thank you. My first question is on Scope 1, 2, and also Scope 3. If I understood correctly, Scope 3 is about 90% of your total. Some of the companies in the similar categories are looking at net zero across the full supply chain. You kept your ambition short of that. I just wanted to understand, I'm sure you've considered it, what you think is maybe a stumbling block for you to look at that? That's my first question. Secondly, is it possible to have an idea in terms of incremental cost, all of those initiatives made there on the P&L? I'm thinking about whether it's a higher cost of packaging or in terms of more A&P for your positive drinking goals. If you could give us a bit of an idea of the magnitude of that and how you are going to pay for it. Thank you. Thanks very much, Celine. Those are both very good questions. I'm going to hand to Ewan because we have set a commitment around our Scope 3, our supply chain emissions, so Ewan can cover that, and then he can also talk about some of the costs associated with our sustainability work. I'll turn to Kate to talk about some of the wider investments we're making in different programs. Thanks. Hi, Celine. You were right in your interpretation of Scope 1 and 2 versus Scope 3. Look, as we said today, I just want to check the question, Dan. My own little marker, I got the first part on the 90%. The second part was around what we're doing on the targets, right? Yeah. Okay. We set out a lot of progress actually on one, two, and three. As I said, there's a 50% reduction already delivered. There was about a 34% reduction in our Scope 3 during that same period, 2020. We've outlined a commitment and an ambition to sit with a 50% reduction and close that gap in Scope 1 and 2 to carbon neutrality by 2030. We also set that goal for Scope 3 to be at net zero by 2050 or earlier. We'll deliver a 50% reduction in Scope 3 in the next 10 years as well through to 2030. We're looking to continue to accelerate those goals. Clearly, we've been focused on what we directly can control within our own operations and driving innovation in that space. We're extending out into Scope 3 already over recent years, and we'll continue to accelerate in that. We've made a big commitment. Our Scope 1 and 2 would be up there as a leading commitment amongst others, and our Scope 3 would be in line with the science-based targets initiatives. Ewan, do you want to touch on some of the costs associated with the investments we're making on sustainability? Sure. I'd look, if I take capital costs first, we see that it's manageable over the long term, over the 10 years. We expect to invest up to GBP 1 billion of capital costs. We've purposefully built in an innovation gap. I think of it as a decade of two halves. We've got much more certainty on what we'll do over the next five years with known technology to continue to make year-on-year improvements. We expect to drive innovation in technology across industries and sectors to make sure that that's investing at the right time for the right technologies for the long-term future, because these will be big investments. We want to get the pace of that right to allow innovation to come through. We'll manage that in the context of existing capital frameworks. When it comes to that OpEx cost, I think there's actually a real mix of some additional cost, but some opportunity as well. I take examples today where we already know that sustainable solutions that can go in with the investment we've made in sub-Saharan Africa and will continue to make, we know that it's actually cheaper than fossil fuels in some of those locations. There's a business case to do that much more quickly, and we're continuing to roll that out now. In the longer term, there'll also be the opportunity as we think about brands and we think about where the consumers go and what their expectations are, that we'll actually see some opportunity to reduce our packaging in line with that, and that'll drive savings. There's no doubt too that with resiliency in supply chains, we'll also see some incremental cost coming through. I think on balance, my job is to deliver sustainable, profitable growth. I need to make sure that we've got the productivity coming through in line with the investments, and I'm encouraged by the outlook for our pipeline to do that over the next few years. Great. I guess just building on that, if we think about the investments that we're making across our efforts to promote positive drinking and also in the hospitality skills arena, I think as we mentioned before, we do see certainly the long-term focus in terms of moderation messaging coming through our brands, as that's something that we cover within A&P. That's covered within existing budgets. We don't have a separate provision for that. We certainly do see that as a very effective and very engaging dialogue that we have for consumers. That also holds true, as Ivan mentioned before, in terms of the work we've done in inclusion and diversity and also in sustainability through our brands. Certainly, one thing that we have done this year for two reasons, one is moving with pace and agility to be able to reach individuals in the way we want to reach them during COVID, and also as a means of driving greater scale with our programs, for example, on addressing the harmful use of alcohol and also in the hospitality skills arena. We've pivoted, and we've launched online versions of those. For example, we've launched an online version of SMASHED, our award-winning underage drinking program. The benefit of that we see is having greater impact and also being able to scale within existing budgets. It's the same approach that we're taking also with Learning for Life, which is our signature hospitality skills programs. We've also launched an online version of that. That really has enabled us, along with the Diageo Bar Academy, to reach and have a dialogue with hospitality professionals during the pandemic and will help us also to scale our impact as we come out and move into recovery. Thank you. Thanks very much. Can we move to the next question, please, Katie? Thank you. Our next question comes from Trevor Stirling with Bernstein. Hello, and thank you very much to Ivan, Javier, Dan, team. Fantastic presentation as well, and great to see so much progress on so many different dimensions. Two questions from my side. One was related to diversity and inclusion. I think Mairéad mentioned supply chain and STEM as a particular focus. Another area of the business that traditionally has been very male-dominated has been sales. I wonder what's going on in sales in terms of promoting diversity. Secondly, a little bit of a random question, so forgive me, and this is probably down your alley, Dan. When I think about the debate around alcohol and health, and a lot of it is focused on is alcohol harmful, is it not harmful? Do you think there's any chance of shifting towards risk? I'm just thinking about the intelligent debate that went on around AstraZeneca, starting to compare the risk of blood clots to other things that you do medically for blood clots rather than say, "Is it dangerous or is it not?" I'd be intrigued, Dan, to think about is there any chance of, do you see any movement in debate towards risk rather than absolute black and white around alcohol? Thanks, Trevor. Both excellent questions. I'll hand initially to Mairéad on the inclusion and diversity piece around supply chains and sales, and she may also want to get input from you on the supply side. Then I'll try and cover your question about risk and health. Sure. I'll hand over to you on the supply side. Yes, in sales, interestingly, we probably think there's a lot of myths around why there are barriers to women succeeding in sales. If you look at some of our most senior roles in the organization, for example, in the U.S., our head of spirits, which is a phenomenal sized business, is female. In GB, which is probably a very critical market for us, one of the two most senior roles in sales is held by a woman. They are succeeding, and they're very strong talent for the business. As we look at setting targets, we're not doing that differently by function. We're certainly expecting progress across every market and in every functional area. We've seen actually in emerging markets, probably slower progress when it comes to women succeeding in both commercial and supply roles. Again, we're testing that by demonstrating a commitment to placing people in those roles. Even in India, where historically the percentage of women in senior roles held by women was very low. We've seen, for example, a role that looks after reserves and key accounts is now held by a woman. I think it's some myths, some barriers that we can overcome by having flexibility of policy, and I don't think there's really any reason for us not to continue to see current progress accelerate over the next number of years. I'll hand over to you, Ewan, to talk about supply specifically. Yeah. Thanks, Mairéad. Look, I mean, leadership and this continues to start from the top. My own leadership team across supply is more than 50% female. There's been some big investment, and we'll be continuing in that space. Other areas that are really important to bring through, if you look at Johnnie Walker, one of our most important premium brands, 50% of the blenders, when you think about those STEM roles, 50% of our blenders are female, and driving some brilliant innovation for that brand and more broadly across our spirits portfolio as well. We've long been recruiting at around 50%, 50/50 in our graduate intakes, in our apprenticeship programs. Really a lot of investment behind increasing the number of women in STEM is a big part of actually our employee engagement and our employee resource groups really focused to deliver in that space. There's no doubt that we do have a slightly slower turnover or flow rate within manufacturing operations. People stay in those jobs for a longer time. We're a good employer with highly skilled jobs. We're also introducing things with traditional shift systems that makes those more attractive to both men and women. For example, evening shift, early evening work, finish either starts around 4:45 through till 10:00, so that people can take care of family duties and more broadly. We get a real mix of people that want to come in, and then that's a pipeline for the future, that people are looking to as they come through their family life and their childhood. They can then graduate through into from part-time working into full-time roles, and we've got really good skilled workers that are there to drive our business forward. A lot of activity and supply chain in that space. Thank you, Ewan. Trevor, on your question on risk, this will be a very long conversation, but I'll try and answer it simply. It's a very well-established body of scientific evidence that alcohol consumption is a J-shaped curve when it comes to mortality. What I mean by that is heavier drinkers bear the highest risk of premature death from all causes. Because it's J-shaped, moderate drinkers have the lowest likelihood of death from all causes of mortality, and that is lower actually than people who choose not to drink at all. That is very well established and understood from the epidemiology. The exact shape of that curve is hotly debated, and new studies all the time shift it in different directions. The logic holds very clear. Looking at individual factors or individual causes of mortality often drives to have quite lurid headlines, but it doesn't explain very much. You have to look at all causes and that J-shaped curve relationship continues to hold. Within that, I completely agree. The more that we and regulators and those who care about public health can communicate risk effectively, the more likely we are to protect people. However, as you will know, communication around risk is extremely difficult and complex to break down, and it leads to a lot of misunderstanding across a very broad range of public health debates, including around vaccination, as we're seeing at the moment. What we are trying to do is through our new website, drinkiq.com, that Kate mentioned, is rolling out in every country where we operate. If you go on there's a wealth of independently sourced information about alcohol and health, including around risks. One thing I'd encourage you to look at there is a new screening tool that we put on. It's a very simple audit tool that the World Health Organization had created in the past, which you answer a series of simple questions on your own behalf or on behalf of a loved one, and it will tell you what level of risk you're drinking at, and whether you should be concerned about the level of risk that you're taking on and where you can seek help if you are drinking at higher risk levels. We're putting a lot of time and effort behind getting people, consumers, but also journalists, regulators, and others, to use that tool to understand this very complex debate so they can understand their own risks and the risks for society around them. It's a challenge to communicate risk effectively, but we think DRINKiQ is absolutely industry leading in trying to do that communication to our consumers. Brilliant. Thank you very much to Ewan and Mairéad. Kate, I think we might have one more question. Yes. Our final question today comes from James Edwardes Jones with RBC. Good afternoon. Two from me as well, please. How much of this have you actually got nailed down? How far towards your 2030 goals can you get to on the basis of what you know and have planned and I suppose have budgeted today? Secondly, following Ed's question on taxes, I suppose, but thinking more about corporate taxes. You've had a low corporation tax for a long time, in part due to some clever tax planning and use of royalties. Are you conscious of a perception that Diageo doesn't pay enough corporation tax as opposed to excise tax? Right. I'm going to take the first question around how confident we are in our plans and getting from A to B. I'm going to start with you, I think because you can talk already a little bit about the innovation gap, then maybe bring in also Mairéad and Kate just around their specific areas. I think, Ivan Menezes, if you'd like to cover the point off around the very large amount of tax that we pay around the world. I'll start with you, Ewan. Yeah. There's a number of different targets as you know, that we've set. If I take some of the big ones, I think when you look at water and that 30% reduction that we've committed to across operations, 40% in water stress, I'd say there's a more linear pathway towards that with a more solid roadmap of existing technologies and ability to take decisions and reduce over the period in a rigorous and robust way. On carbon, I'd say that as I said, it's a game of essentially a few halves. In the first half, there's lots of technology I can put in that will bring us through. If I continue that, it will get more and more expensive and have more and more impact. With the work that we've done in some really exciting areas of our launch of Diageo Sustainable Solutions that we launched last November. We're into the first six pilots now, some of the technology that's coming through there is fantastic and really exciting. We also hope that hydrogen plays a big role and again, investment, a project from the Coventry Trust in Scotland. Some of those areas that we set the goals and we already felt like the innovation gap was intimidating. We're already seeing that that bold ambition and that excitement is gravitating people towards us to help us with some of those solutions, and that's got real kind of cross-sector support as well. I think one of the biggest challenges, as I would put it, where I say that there's more to figure out, is definitely around that recycled content. Particularly when you put market context into it as well, it's much easier in some markets where the maturity of that recycled material is much better and already moving with an accelerated pace. There are other markets like the U.S., for example, where recycling rates are not as high. Clearly, you're balancing that recycling need with not wanting to move waste around too much, to create a different type of carbon footprint with the transport. That's how I think, like Dan, three good examples. Some of it much more certain than others. Dan, we can't hear you, unfortunately. Sorry, I cannot hear you. I apologize if that is my fault. I am just saying we are confident because of the commitment of the board, the executive committee, and the fact that we have a culture as a company that is very inclusive. For that reason, we are confident. I would say we are daunted because they are stretching ambitions, but that is not new to Diageo. For that reason, I would say overall confidence would be my answer. Yeah, I think building on that, as we think about, and you heard it from Ivan in the webcast earlier, is in crafting the strategy, which was a year in the making, we looked at where we were today, we looked at what we knew we could achieve, and then we looked at what was necessary in this decade of action to deliver the UN Sustainable Development Goals and deliberately built in that innovation gap. I think as I think about the positive drinking space, for example, I think that there is an innovation gap, but we have a lot of learning. So on the moderation space, we know that the ambition and creativity and boldness of our marketeers is second to none and the ability to craft really compelling campaigns is there. It's around really stretching that. Then as we think about the programs that target the harmful use of alcohol, so our 10 million target around underage drinking and the target also around changing the attitudes of five million people to drink driving. There, it was the innovation gap really is around pivoting and program design around attitude change, and then really scaling that up through all of our markets and also through partnerships. I think that this year has been around getting those programs launched. Our new drink driving programme just launched last Friday, The Wrong Side of the Road. It's on diageo.com if you want to have a look at that. DRINKiQ, which Dan mentioned before. I think it's really around scaling them up and then also using those data-driven insights to identify the best practice to amplify, and then also areas of challenge to address. Likewise, in the hospitality skill space, it's this online pivot and then creating a career journey between those coming into the industry and then also those wanting to continue to build their skills, which we'll do through the Diageo Bar Academy. It's a similar philosophy, and I think Mairéad framed it well in terms of they're very bold, but we're confident in our ability to deliver. Ivan, would you like to answer the tax question? Yes. Sorry, I was on mute. Yeah. James, I would say Diageo stands for a free and fair and globally competitive tax system. We support what the OECD and governments are doing right now, to get to a fair and transparent place. We pay 21%, 22% corporate tax. We pay a huge bill of indirect tax, billions of GBP. I would say, I feel very confident about our approach, the way our business is set up. We don't have any brass plate operations, and we're extremely transparent and work very closely with tax authorities around the world. We see the direction this is heading, and we support it because a well-aligned global system of taxation, corporate taxation, is something we're for. Thank you, Ivan. Katie, do we have any final questions? At this time, I am showing no questions in the queue. Fantastic. I'm just going to hand back to you, Ivan, if there's any closing remarks you'd like to make before we finish today. No. Thank you, everyone. I really appreciate the questions. I hope you got value out of it. I just leave you with this summarizing thought. For us at Diageo, ESG, as it's labeled, is fully integrated into our business strategy and our performance ambition and is led by our senior leadership right across the business. I hope you got a flavor of that, listening to the senior leaders on this call. Thank you for your interest in the company and appreciate you spending this time with us. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This will close today's teleconference. You may now disconnect.