Fernando, thank you very much for being here with us. And actually, I wouldn't just say welcome, but also congratulations. I think if I sort of sense investor sentiment, there's clearly a very big change before versus a few years ago. A lot has changed. Margins have started to recover. We've had volume and pricing go. So, and you know, I was also quite a critical or cynic on whether this was going to happen. So well done. Congratulations. Now, thinking about what you've said, and Hein said in previous sessions, as a kind of a change, the biggest thing I sort of keep hearing is this whole product superiority. But product superiority isn't new. Alan Jope was already talking a lot about that. Hein sort of added the word holistic product superiority to it. So clearly, it's implied more the measure than what you did before. Can you explain how it's different, what's different, and how that sort of does things reflect Hein's way of thinking, changing business going forward? Hey, thank you for having us today, and congratulations to you on the movers and thank you for joining us in this sector, European consumer group. It's true, you know, our numbers have been better in the last few quarters, you know, but it's not a sprint. We know, you know, we know the performance will be delivered if we enhance this performance in the long run. So that's where Hein, myself, and the team is focused now. I remember vividly when Hein came into the role, you know, and we were visiting one of our labs in Port Sunlight, I think, in the North of England, you know, and our scientists were showing functional superiority why it's not translating against your volume performance, delivering volume 1% in the last 10 years. The answer was obvious, you know, our marketing has been under par. Our execution has been under par. At the time, our Home Care division was working in a new methodology of really understanding what holistic growth really means. We have had a lot of metrics for many, many years, but we have not used that systematically. So we started to kind of group able to work on that, and with some kind of top-notch statisticians and econometricians, a proprietary methodology that basically looking at 21 drivers around the 6 Ps promotion in place. And we can basically develop a model after we measure the contribution of the different 21 demand drivers to our performance and to the company performance in different geographies. The world, so around 60% of all is now covered by July. We plan to get to almost 70% by the end of the year. We have seen a coefficient of determination of around 90%, so it's a very high explanation of what drives share, and it helps me to really tackle surgically what are the single category, geographical set when it comes to our... Our sales are improving. Of course, we are one year old. But there is a lot of work to be done on there, but we are, you know, just looking at our propositions in a holistic way, not only from a functional perspective. I was running before, you know, sustainability, you know, but it was really hard. We use a lot, you know. I feel many aspects like that have been introduced in the company recently. So we are confident with this methodology we put in place. It's very actionable. It's a continuous metric that we are looking at. But the important thing is what do you do, what do you do with that? And, you know, correcting any competitive disadvantage that we have, but we believe that we are making progress in that. It's absolutely embedded in the company and the way we are working. I monitor that every single month. You know, and I believe it's behind some of the improvements that we have seen. On that last bit, on the improvement, any specific evidence, examples before, after, showing how this new approach works in your mind? Yeah, I think probably, you know, it has gone a bit unnoticed, but, you know, many people talk about our margin improvement and our volume performance in this first half. But probably the most really just appreciable improvement in Europe. You know, Europe has been a real challenge for many, many years. We were not able to really compete in the premium segment, that is really the only pool that you have in Europe, given the size of market. And if you look at our share in the, and it's all linked with an innovation program that has been looking at this kind of methodology, use that as a basis for our innovation plan. And innovation planning is investing heavily. Execution that we are doing, one example, Wonder Wash, liquid in laundry, in France, U.K., Italy, that we were not present, that's confidence we have in this kind of initiative. And I think this is just one example, you can, you can- ... for clear reasons in which, the actions that we are taking are really significant growth. Want to get a little bit about the sort of Unilever culture that's behind. I mean, you have some of the fresh culture in the past. I mean, you've made some statements about it. Clearly sort of bringing in Hein as an outside representative. Could you describe kind of the cultural change? You know, what—'cause you've been there long enough, what are the kind of issues that you wanted to deal with? Where are you going to, and what, what is the role of Hein in this as an outsider in helping making that shift? Yeah. Well, you know, Unilever is a special multinational, you know, so we basically, when the nineteen twenties, you know, we were, like, some of our competitors have in U.S. or in France, et cetera. So basically, when you look at culture, you know, the culture I grew up in Latin America is very different to the one I found in the corporation, you know, very, you know? I'm not sure what is better, you know, very different, you know, and I feel historically we have had to when it comes to culture, because if you go to Argentina, to Brazil, to Turkey, to Indonesia, you know, Vietnam, Philippines, India, you know, and you talk to people there and say, "Your performance culture is low, continuous low," what are you talking about? Okay. But it's very clear that we have lost our way in some of the key developed markets, geographies, and in our corporate center. I believe that, you know, in every single failure in a company like ourselves, there is a significant component of denial. You know, you take one route, you believe you are right, and there is evidence that it's not working, but you, you know. That happens, you know, and I feel Hein brought a very clear external perspective, hard conversations at the table, intolerance to denial, and I believe this has been very present in the company. I grew up with something like that, you know, so our chemistry works very well. I believe, you know, we have taken decisions. Unilever has taken decisions for taking, you know, separate 15% of the revenue of the company. We are taking now 17% of, I call it, workforce, you know? This has never happened in Unilever before. Of course, there is tension, of course, there is anxiety, but we are prepared to take these kind of radical decisions to really make a significant step change in our performance, and I believe this is a reflection, that is a cultural change in Unilever. Is everybody's happy with that? Definitely not. So, but, you know, we are absolutely convinced of doing what is hard and right for the long term and know what is easy and wrong. So I believe that this is starting to be felt in the organization, you know, in every single corner of the company. But it's tough. It's not easy. Sometimes it looks like an everyday fight with the windmills, but we believe that we are making significant progress. You know, it's just, we are absolutely committed. We are convinced of what we are doing, and we are absolutely committed to complete the work that we have started, yeah. Changing that to cultural denial, as you put it, but it has to start at the start, top of the business, obviously, but, it can take a long time to flow through a business the size of- Yeah ... of Unilever. Where do you think we are in that process of flowing from you and Hein at the top through the organization? Decision has been very radical, you know, and when you take decisions like that, you know, the impact in the organization is felt in a relatively short period of time, and when you are reducing your workforce by 17%, you know, the average quality of your workforce can improve dramatically, and the average cultural fit should improve dramatically, you know, because we will not let go of the ones that are fundamentally drivers of this cultural change, so hey, we are in early stages, but I believe the performance management intensity in the company today is very different to the one we used to have. You know, the quality of the discussions in the company, the one source of truth in the company, the intolerance with long narratives of why things are not working is very low. You know, we are trying to lead by example from the top. And again, you know, this is not something that it was, is new for some parts of Unilever. It's new for some other parts of Unilever. So I think we are in an early stage, but we are happy with the progress that we are doing. Are we in a steady state? The answer is not, you know, so I would not say that the company is in a steady state and there will be bumps in the road because, you know, it's a very profound change for a company that has an element of complexity that other companies don't have, you know? So for us to get to 85% of the revenue, we have to go to 24 geographies, you know? Some of our competitors make 85% of the revenue, five, six geographies, you know, so it's very different. So we need to reach every single corner of the organization, and I feel that's a significant challenge. But, hey, as I mentioned before, we are really committed, we are really convinced of what we are doing, and we are starting to see green shoots. And, you know, I believe the quality of the discussion in the company has improved, and the performance management intensity change is really felt. Now, I was surprised, well, not surprised, but I noticed all the good culture companies were all emerging market countries. Now, does that link back to the ease at which you hire talents? I mean, I presume in Brazil, Mexico- Yeah Y ou know, you're an employer of choice, the smartest people want to work for you. Do you see a link between that, and it's just harder to get the same caliber and motivated people in London than it is? Yeah, it's just, of course, you know, just, our position in some of our emerging markets is so strong that we are, you know, we are like the likes of Google or, you know, we continue in very fancy places to work in, Brazil or in India or whatever, you know, because our, you know, I grew up in Argentina, and really, you know, it was one of the top three companies to work there. So I feel the attractiveness of talent, the attraction of talent in this kind of market for us is a bit easier. In places like London, you compete with investment banking, you compete with consulting, you know, the market is a bit tougher to attract the type of talent we want. But, hey, we have excellent people everywhere in the company. And I feel culture, you know, I always say that culture is defined by the worst behavior you accept, and I feel some behaviors were accepted that they should not have been accepted. And I feel now we are very clear about what are the red lines that we will put in the business in terms of, how we will approach performance in the company, and everybody's noticing that. You know, we see significant progress even in markets in which we have not been performing in the last decade or so. So yeah, there is some advantage in emerging markets, but I would not put that as an excuse, you know, in the other places. You spoke about the complexity of the organization, right? And I guess my question is: How do you and Hein get the confidence that the culture really is shifting? And for the investors in the room and the investment community that have much less visibility than you and Hein do, how can we get the confidence that it's really shifting? Yeah, I feel the first point is just Unilever has had a problem of consistency, consistency of delivery and consistency of key metrics that the company were searching. If you listen to Hein and myself, we will talk about three things. We will talk about volume growth, we will talk about consistent positive mix, and we will talk about consistent growth margin expansion, and we talk the same to you, to any investor, and to any person in the company now, and I feel that is starting to permeate the whole organization, you know? If you want to judge us, you should judge us on that kind of metrics, you know. I didn't look at 2014, 2023, but when I get into a role, I look at 2013, 2022, you know. We made in that period 1.2% volume growth. Best company in the sector made 2.6%. Global real GDP was 2.5%, okay? Despite our superior geographical exposure, we were under-delivering volume, you know, and that's something now that everyone in the company knows, and we are investing in line with an ambition of 2+% volume growth. Because if you deliver 80% of the global real GDP growth, you surely are top third, you know, when it comes to volume delivery. Best company in the sector delivered 3.8% pricing. Global CPI, it was 3.5%. Unilever delivered 3%. We need to deliver 80% of global real GDP at least, 80% of global CPI, at least. This is very clear in the company now. We have a negative currency effect that is a bit superior to some of our companies... of our competitors, you know? So in the last 10 years, you know, we delivered 1.2% volume, and the 4% price only translate into 1%, you know, turnover growth in hard currency. So we know we have a negative currency effect that we have to compensate for. Our profit growth between 2017 and 2024 was negligible. You know, we were between EUR 9.5 billion and EUR 9.9 billion in profit there, you know? We are very clear that we need to move that number. So there are five metrics: volume growth, positive mix, consistent gross margin expansion, turnover growth in hard currency, profit growth in hard currency, that we are hammered in the company with, and we want to make progress in every single one of them. And if we start to deliver that consistently, I believe you will start to trust us. You know, we know there is a gap in trust between Unilever and the market, you know? We are starting to close it, but as I mentioned before, it's a marathon, it's not a sprint. We are not carried away by two or three quarters of good performance, you know, and we're really committed to move this kind of five key metrics in the company, consistency across time, as the great companies in the sector do, you know? So if you ask me today, "Fernando, where are you in terms of the quality of execution or how do you appreciate?" In a one-to-ten scale, I would probably say six. Okay? My mom used to say that ten doesn't exist, so, you know, we need to get into the eight, nine in consistent execution, our market innovation, our marketing quality, our proposition sharpness, our execution of pricing, our execution of distribution. And we know we are not there yet. So I feel it's very, very clear, but we know what needs to be done. We are very clear about the metrics that we will push for, and we will try to be absolutely consistent. I will not change the fact that we will look for 2+% volume growth because there is an economic crisis, or because there is a new COVID, or because there is whatever, you know. So great companies deliver in line with that. We have very clear proxies of what is good performance in the market, and we will really stay tuned with that. Shift gears a little bit. In the U.S., I obviously have a lot of history of talking about Nelson Peltz and his involvement with- Yeah ... P&G, P&G, and a lot has been made of Peltz joining the Unilever board, right? I guess my question is: How does he interact with the business at Unilever today, and, and what difference does it make to you having somebody like that on the board? First of all, I feel the changes in the board of Unilever has been significant. You know, in the last year, five out of 12 non-executive directors have left the board, so it's a very significant change. We have a new chairman, Ian Meakins. Some of you know he has. He's intense. You know, he is intense, you know, and we really appreciate the kind of performance management intensity he brings into the business and the kind of strategic clarity he brings into the business. We have new people coming, you know, the person responsible for the Walmart International business until very recently, Judith McKenna, is part of our board, and Nelson came in February 2022, and I have to say, it has been a very constructive relationship with him. He has a huge amount of experience in the consumer sector. I have to say that 95%, 99%, 97% of the time, he's right. You know, we have some discussions, and that's normal, but we really appreciate the kind of support that he's given us, you know, in key decisions, like the separation of Ice Cream. You know, it was. He was huge support for us in really taking that decision. And, you know, we really appreciate the kind of contribution he's making to our business, you know? This being said, you know, I believe the progress that we are seeing in Unilever also, you know, there are some elements that I feel we have to attribute to our predecessors also, you know? And I believe that the change from a geographically led organization into a category led organization that Alan put in place with a lot of personal risk and very limited personal benefit, it has been very significant, you know. It has resulted in a much more coherent category strategy, a better portfolio of innovation, a much cleaner and less complex portfolio of brands. And I believe, you know, that we, both Hein and myself, are really benefiting for some of the changes that were put in place in 2022. That, by the way, Nelson has been a great support also because, you know, he really believes in category focus, you know, and now we are going even deeper on that, you know, and, you know, we are completely divisionalizing sales force. You know, I feel the progress is very significant, and Nelson has been a great support in that direction. When you were talking about the five key measures, the one that I didn't hear was market share gains. Yeah. And it obviously reminds me of the debates about competitiveness that you had for a while, became very important, came into the incentive scheme. For a lot of investors not liking it in the incentive scheme, and you're removing it, see all of that. But so just coming back to two parts of the competitiveness of market share gaining, how come it's not one of the top five? And then, but then second of all, the shift you're making from competitiveness to, I think it's sales weighted market share change, what kind of dynamics does it capture better versus worse? You know, why making this change then? Yeah. Market share gains is a fundamental enabler of a 2+% volume growth company. You cannot get that just by natural market growth. So I feel that's that's an important point. I feel in January, I communicated that to a market. We were basically measuring competitiveness with a percentage of turnover winning metric, you know. I believe it's a metric that puts around incentives in place in the company because people is tempted to get a marginal increase in share. That doesn't change your competitive position in the long run, in multitude of categories. So it doesn't provide you focus, it doesn't provide. If you succeed, doesn't provide you focus, and it doesn't provide you a structural, competitive, better positions in significant parts of the business. You know, we say one basis point of share doesn't have economic value, really. But you know, we were measuring, we were measuring that way. The market didn't like it. I personally hate it, and we took the decision very quickly of changing it. We're moving to the turnover weighted share because we believe that it's the best, the best way of showing true competitiveness, you know? And what we said is that we were losing market share when it comes to turnover weighted share, and that the loss of share that we were having was basically making us leaving the table around 1.5% of underlying sales growth. So our share loss was equivalent to a 1.5% of underlying sales growth. It was clear also that we only measure competitiveness in two-thirds of the business. One third of the business we don't measure. We measure, but the reality is that there are not reliable audit to make that information public, but we don't measure shares, or we don't communicate shares in Health & Wellbeing, and in Food Service. All these business has been growing 1.5 x-2x our average sales growth, and in all these business, we have been really, and you can see it in the market of our competition, we have been absolutely market-beating performance for a long period of time, so but now, we, the methodology change is behind us. You know, we are communicating information about shares twice a year. We are making progress, you know, by... We look at shares on an MAT basis, you know, twelve months on twelve months, and thus it takes some time to change, but we are seeing improvement. And when we look at our latest twelve weeks versus the previous, the same period last year, we see even further improvement. So the actions we are taking in terms of improving our brand superiority scores, you know, is starting to reflect in our shares, and particularly in some geographies like Europe. I want to remind you that Europe, in the last five years, has been responsible for 61% of the share loss of Unilever globally. 61% in Europe, 29% in Indonesia. So if you fix Europe, you fix one of the issues we have. So I feel a good progress, but more to do, and we are not comfortable yet. So there is more that has to be done there. So, going to continue on that topic, because competitiveness in both ways, the old and the new way, you're not yet where you want to be, right? Yeah. I think it's still below 50% in the old way. You're still having, average market share losses in your new measure. It's been a discussion point, not just for you and I, but for Alan before, that's sort of been going for two. It's remarkably long, coming out. What's explaining the time? What do you need to fix? Yeah, I feel like, as I mentioned before, you know, I'm very clear about this. I believe our marketing was subpar, our execution was subpar. And when you have issues like that, you know, you don't sort it out in one day, you know, particularly in a company like Unilever that has such a geographical diversity, you know? But, hey, I believe the progress is clear. You know, it will take a bit more time. We were very clear, you know, in January this year, that we were not expecting significant progress in the H1, but that we were expecting to deliver progress in the second half of the year. It's true, we are delivering in line with what we said. You know, but more has to come, and we will not be happy until the day that we have most of our business in green. You know, this is a metric we look every single month. You know, every single leader in Unilever knows that a significant part of their remuneration is linked to this also, so there is an important incentive to make it happen. So you said your marketing wasn't up to par, but we have seen A&P levels- Yeah ... start to increase. And you made it clear that there's a priority to reinvest for growth. We also, however, see A&P increasing materially across a lot of your competitive companies as well. P&G up nearly four hundred basis points in the first half, for example. Does it sort of dilute the impact of increased A&P spending when everybody's increasing the spending at the same time? And is it just an increased cost of doing business now? Yeah. Not everybody is increasing in the same magnitude, you know? I feel. You mentioned, you mentioned P&G. I feel P&G, Unilever probably have been the ones that have been showing more remarkable increases. In our case, we were investing 13% of our revenue in 2022. We went to 14.3% in 2023, 15.1% in first half this year. There is an implicit recognition that our level of investment was not in line with our ambition of volume growth, you know? And I feel that's something that probably after 2017, and, you know, what happened in 2017 with Unilever, there was a reduction in level of investment that, you know, it was not sustainable in the long run. We are much more comfortable now with the kind of level of investment that we are putting, but we don't put the stuff behind crappy things, okay, so we are ensuring that the increasing amount of investment is aligned with increase in the quality behind what we are investing, and today, I'm much more concerned about the quality of the stuff that we put in the market than the amount that we will put. We will see more increases or less increases. I will not guide in BMI investment. The only thing I will tell you, we will invest in line with the 2+% volume growth ambition. I have been very clear since January this year about it, and we will invest in line with that ambition, so we don't see increases in every single company. You know, local players are not showing such, such a level of increase. Some of the international players, you mentioned one, it has been remarkable in the first half this year. We have not seen that in everyone. We see other people putting much more focus on pricing now, you know, promotional pricing. But we like to invest in brand equity building initiatives, you know, so between promotional expenditure and media expenditure, et cetera, we always will prefer, you know, to really invest in long-term equity building activities. If I look at the first two quarters, you have pricing growth, you have volume growth. You're about in line with actually the medium-term targets you're giving. On top of that, your competitiveness is not where you want, but you're clearly quite confident it's getting better. You'd almost argue, as you get it improving, you'll soon be well ahead of those medium-term guidance now. At the same time, you're not increasing it, you're not saying mission accomplished. So is there an element of market growth which is somewhere stronger than you? Is there certain kind of normalization you're expecting, so as competitiveness boosts you, some headwinds we should be expecting in geographies? Yeah, as I mentioned, as I mentioned before, you know, just, if I, if I look at the ten-year period, you know, just, best company in the sector, 2.5% volume growth, best company in the sector, 3.8% pricing, so you made a math of what is good performance, you know? So I, I feel we are in, you know, in a moment of subdued pricing, you know, that is very clear. You know, it's, it's, after a very strong commodity inflation period, it follows the commodity inflation period. I believe in the long run, economies usually normalize to this kind of 2%-2.5% GDP growth and 3% inflation. It will take, I believe, two to four quarters now to see more pricing in the market, you know. Pricing is very subdued, particularly in the food side of the industry, you know. HPC is a bit better. And, you know, we will remain competitive, and we will do what is necessary to remain competitive. We always said that we were not going to see negative pricing in our whole group level. We saw negative pricing in some geographies and in some categories that are more commodity link. You know, classic cases are laundry or soap bars, you know, in places like India or Brazil, where we put a lot of pricing up in the last few years. But at the group level, you know, we continue positive pricing, but it's subdued pricing versus what is a normal pricing. So if you ask me today what is my main concern, it's how to go back to a level of 2%-3% pricing in the long run. I believe it will happen because, you know, wage inflation, even if we have seen some reduction in the short term, wage inflation has been very, very sticky. Remember, you know, a company like Unilever, if I simplify, you know, we are a EUR 60 billion company. We made EUR 10 billion profit, so we have EUR 50 billion of costs. You know, EUR 27 billion in material, EUR 23 billion in non-material. The EUR 23 billion in non-material is fundamentally labor cost related, and part of the EUR 27 billion, probably you can say 20%-30% of the EUR 27 billion in material is also labor related. So if you have, in the long run, wage inflation of 3%, you know, in EUR 30 billion, you know, you have to price for that. So and this is an issue for Unilever, and it's an issue for everyone in the industry, and nobody commits suicide in the long run. So I feel the pricing will come back into the market, but probably it will take two to four quarters for the consumer staples sector to really see pricing more in line with what I believe is a more normal pricing level in the long run. For the investors, as you're starting to build up your own questions, please scan the QR code, and then it will come through on the iPad for us, because at the end, we'll be doing Q&A, based on your questions as well. Now, coming on to India, one of your sort of crown jewels. Yeah. A few years ago, when people started talking about e-commerce penetrating India, there was like a concern it would potentially harm your competitive advantage because you have way better access to the Kirana stores and people would be able to bypass this. I haven't heard too much about that fear anymore. Can you explain to us what's happening there and- Yeah whether that threat is real or not? The e-commerce continues growing in India at around three times the kind of growth you see in the modern trade, brick-and-mortar, channels. So the growth of e-commerce is significant from a very small base. We have an incredible business in India, you know, it's just EUR 6.5 billion revenue, you know. We grew since COVID until now, around 200 basis points of corporate market share in India. We lost a bit during the deflationary period, but we are back now, and we are in kind of a stable state when it comes to market share, and we have incredible position. You know, we have 55% in Hair Care. Every time we grow 7%, we grow the size of our main European competitor in hair care in India, and we are growing 11%. So basically, I'm putting 1.5x the size of one of our major competitors in India in one year. We have close to 50% in laundry. You know, every time people move from hand wash to a washing machine use, they increase three times the spending in the laundry category. 30% penetration of washing machine in India. So when we look at the potential, at the combined potential of market growth due to habit change, due to penetration increases, due to up-trading, and the kind of competitive positions we have in India, you know, we believe that India, for Unilever in the last 10 years, will be what China has been for some of our competitors in the last 15. Of course, there will be premiumization. Of course, everybody is discovering India, particularly in the context of the soft China. So, but we have discovered India many years ago. We have established positions that we believe are very, very strong, and we have an unblinking commitment to defend India, whatever it takes. So I will not blink to put hundreds of million to defend a position in India, if it has to be defended, and we know that investors will reward us because we defend the positions, whatever it takes. So, and we will invest in our resources, if necessary, to complete what is already a very comprehensive and a very powerful position. But if non-organic initiatives are necessary in India, we will do it in order to ensure that we cope with the potential premiumization of categories and the potential premiumization and diversification of channels. So we continue seeing India as a jewel of the crown, and we are absolutely committed to defend that position in the long run, and the business is doing well. We are delivering what we said we were delivering after the commodity deflation. In the commodity deflation period, you know, we said that we were going to put the focus in increasing our volume growth. We were at 1%, we moved to 2% in the second half of last year. We moved to, in the first quarter this year, we moved to 4% in quarter two this year, and our intention, you know, in an economy that will grow around 5%-6% global real GDP, we need to get into a 4% or 5% consistently when it comes to volume growth. So we are really absolutely focused on that. The performance is improving. We are happy with the work that our team is doing there. Some of our brands are booming, but at the same time, you know, we need to continue modernizing our portfolio in India in a significant way. In e-commerce, we are growing share, and I feel an important point about our Indian business is our share is very strong in every channel, but our share in modern trade is higher than our share in general trade, so when people is moving from a mom-and-pop store into a big supermarket in India, our probability of capturing that consumer is even higher, so we are very confident about the prospects of our business in India, and it's super important for us, of course. It's a good segment. Just let me, let me give you one number. I went to run the Philippines in 2008. So March 2008, it was a EUR 450 million business. Now, it's EUR 1.3 billion. So we added EUR 8 per capita in fifteen years to our business in Philippines. If we add EUR 8, the GDP per capita purchasing power parity in Philippines in 2008 is exactly that of India today. Imagine the impact of adding EUR 1 per capita in India. You know the population of India, so make your math, okay? Imagine the impact of adding EUR 5 per capita in India. It's EUR 6 billion. It's doubling our business. So just eight. We are very, very confident about the potential of our business there. You know, just the market is in a very early stage of development, and our competitive position is amazing. I believe we have 95% of our business in leading positions there. So, and we have a very, very comprehensive portfolio. So touching every single price point, touching every single channels. Our digitization of the operation in India is just massive. We reach on a digital way 1.3 million stores in India, you know, so we are increasing through digitization the frequency of visits. And you know, when you increase frequency into traditional trade, you increase sales, period. So I feel that's a significant activity system advantage we have in India. You spoke about the higher market shares in modern trade. One thing that's been a little bit lacking from emerging markets in general, and certainly in India, is private label as a pressure. Yeah. But you talk about the modern trade. You do now have these sort of larger retailers that certainly have the scale and know-how to develop solid private label offerings. So have you seen any change in the threat from private label in India and the dynamics there? No. Remember, private label global share is 9%. Private label share in Europe is 23%. So you basically can make the math, you know, so close to half of the market in private label globally is in Europe. You know, I have worked all my life in emerging markets, you know, and I feel the key driver of emerging markets with wealth expansion is premiumization and structural up trading of consumption, you know? Usually, private label start to develop when categories get to a level of maturity that is very, very significant, and when consumer aspiration for premium brands start to diminish. That's the reason why private labels are higher in foods or in Home Care, than they are in personal care or beauty also. So we don't see at this stage private label as a big threat. There are a few cases in emerging markets in which private label has developed. You know, Poland was one case, Colombia recently is one case, in some particular categories, but we don't see private label at this stage developing in India at all. We don't see that as a risk, at least for the next five years, in a significant way, you know. And again, if it would happen, it would happen in some categories more in than in others. You know, our business in India has a significant bias into HPC, where we are a bit more protected. And before we go on to the investor question, I wanted to finish on sustainability, an area Unilever has always been leading and still is leading. You made some recent changes to the targets, and I think the post-mortem reflection that some of the solutions weren't ready yet, for example, in plastic, some of the costs are going up. Now, at the same time, have a look at European Union legislation. It's getting ever tougher, and due diligence directive will have an even broader impact than the deforestation impact. How do you think about the impact on your cost of goods in the next five years? Is this an inflation pressure, and how would you scale it and size it? First, first of all, we are very proud of our journey in sustainability. You know, it's a fifteen years journey, you know, and we are leading in many, many aspects of sustainability in the industry, you know, and but I feel what we have done with sustainability is exactly what we are doing with any other aspects on the business, you know. If you look at the Growth Action Plan that Hein put in place in October last year, the fundamental concept is the concept of focus for impact, and we are really focusing our sustainability priorities in order to really have a higher impact in a shorter timeframe. So, and I feel that's the essence of what we are doing. We used to have 35 metrics. Now we have five metrics in four very clear priorities: climate, nature, plastics, livelihoods. You know, it's more focused. It has more urgency. Ambitious targets, but realistic targets, you know. We don't want to continue promising long-term improvements. We want to be very clear that we have time-bound targets against which we will deliver. We are increasing our partnerships, you know, with NGOs, governments, in order to ensure that there is a systemic change. So these are the changes that we are introducing in sustainability. When it comes to the cost of goods, we welcome any initiative that brings a level playing field. In the same way that we like formality of the economy, you know, we want everybody to pay taxes. Not everywhere that happens, you know. In the same way, we want a level playing field when it comes to sustainability policy and regulation. We have 97.5% of our, of deforestation-free materials, for the materials in which deforestation is relevant, and we have 80% of sustainable sourcing for agricultural crops already. So we have embedded cost in the system already, that some of our competition has not done. You know, If I come back to India, for example, we are the number one player in skin cleansing there, you know, in soaps. We are the only- You know, we compete fundamentally with local players. We are the only player that is compliant with NDPE in India. So, you know, we see that. We are, you know, we don't regret the decision that we take of put that cost in the system. We believe it's a hygiene factor that we have to have. And overall, you know, when it comes to cost of goods, what you look always is at what is a relative cost, you know, and what is the impact in your relative pricing. And we have already put cost in the system that some other people have not costed yet. So I feel in the long run, this is a potential advantage for us in terms of the flows, in terms of the dynamic of our sustainability approach when regulation comes in place. When we look at potential areas of impact, where we see, in the future, probably the biggest issue for us is in single-use sachets, single-use plastic sachets. It's a very concentrated issue when it comes to geographies. It's fundamentally India, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, but it's sizable.... The technical solution is not easy. We are working on it, but moving from a kind of multilayer sachet that is not recyclable, because there are clear barriers against humidity and to protect the stability of our products into a mono- material sachet, is not easy. We are working, we are investing heavily in R&D. We are investing with partners of the plastic area on that, but it will take some time. So of course, the impact is not only when it comes to the cost of goods, but it's also the impact in your supply chain, because, you know, not necessarily your machinery work with that kind of material. So it has an impact in cost of goods, but it can have an impact in CapEx. But we have decided to really work on that area. You know, single plastic sachet, single-use plastic sachet is very important. There's a way of democratizing access to consumers in places where people live in a daily income. You know, we, we sell in India sachets at INR 1, you know, so we are talking about $0.02. You know, we sell sachets in Philippines at $0.08-$0.12. If you don't have that kind of offering, consumers don't have access to categories that are very important for personal hygiene or personal nutrition. So but, hey, we welcome any government regulation in that space. We will welcome that. We are working with governments and with NGOs and with partners in that area, because we believe it's a problem that has to be sorted out, and we are investing very, very heavily, and we are absolutely open to open our technology at the moment of time. It does have a significant positive impact in environment. Okay, I think we should move on to questions from the audience, and I've got four here on the Pigeonhole. Please feel free to keep on submitting them. I think the best place to start is Ice Cream. What makes that business undesirable? Is the question from the audience. And maybe I could add, is there any structural reason why Unilever would or wouldn't consider a similar move for the nutrition business? Yeah. First of all, the ice cream business is a great business, you know, so it's... Nobody has a Magnum, nobody has a Cornetto in their portfolio, et cetera, et cetera. So we have built an incredible, powerful ice cream business. But it's a business that it has always been a very clear outlier in our portfolio, and both Hein and I, and I believe this was agreed with the board, we are absolutely committed to have a coherent portfolio strategy, you know. Ice cream have a different channel profile. It's an out-of-home channel business, where you make money. It's an out-of-home channel business. It's a cold chain versus an ambient chain. It has higher capital intensity, it has lower margin structure, it has lower cash conversion. So basically, we saw always ice cream as a clear outlier in our business. It's a business also that doesn't get a lot of benefit from our global presence and our presence in rural areas of the APAC, because it's a city business, it's not a national business, you know? So it doesn't have the complementarity with the rest of the portfolio that we like. And we believe that it's a business that, you know, to thrive, requires a different ownership structure. You know, we pull the trigger on that because we believe that this, it creates shareholder value in the long run to do it, and that's our fundamental driver of action. When it comes to nutrition, it's a very different situation. I call nutrition internally edible personal care, because when you look at our margin structure, our capital intensity, it's very similar to our personal care business. Our nutrition business is very special. It's not the nutrition business that you see in some other companies, you know. Two brands make 60% of the revenue. Two categories make 70% of the revenue. They are in attractive areas of nutrition, you know, with potential market growth. That is not the one of beauty, but it's a very solid growth, and it's a very profitable business, and it provides us very strong critical mass in significant amount of markets, where we need that critical mass in our leverage to leverage that with retailers. So if I look at Mexico, for example, our nutrition business is fundamental for our Mexican company, you know, and I can, I can give you 15 or 20 examples of that. So, we are very happy with the nutrition business that we have. It's an integral part of our strategy going forward. You know, no, no more big moves in our, in our sights at this stage. Maybe got time for one last question, and I'm gonna choose one on Indonesia. So, so you mentioned Europe and Indonesia as being the two sort of big problem markets from a market share perspective, driving the vast majority of your market share loss, and you touched on how Europe is improving. Question is, how is Indonesia looking at the moment, and is there a plan in place to drive an improvement there? Indonesia is looking horrible, so. And it will look horrible for six months. I was there two weeks ago. We have many issues in Indonesia. First of all, what happened to Unilever Indonesia is a complete outlier. It didn't happen in any other emerging market, you know, under very similar economic channels, category development circumstances, you know. It didn't happen in Philippines, it didn't happen in Vietnam, it didn't happen in Argentina, it didn't happen in Turkey, it didn't happen in South Africa at the point of time. So, but it's a combination of probably, as I mentioned before, denial of the situation. It's a combination of not putting the right leadership in place, and it's a combination probably of not clear intervention from the centers at the right point of time. In the short term and, you know, probably since quarter four last year, there has been an additional issue that is linked to a geopolitical situation in Middle East. You know, there were some consumer boycotts to multinational companies, and for us, this has had a significant impact in Indonesia. In the short term also, you know, in response to that, there was promotional activities, et cetera, et cetera, that has generated a lot of channel price conflict. And I went there because I have worked on this many, many times, and we have seen that many, many times. I spent close to one week in Indonesia, and I'm now managing myself that is fundamentally put a stop to the channel price conflict we have, because you cannot run a market in which you combine general trade and modern trade with channel price conflict. You know, so you basically put your whole distributor system at risk, and that's something that we cannot afford. So but when you sort out that, there is a friction time, there is a period of friction between the changes in your price setup and the margin setup in the value chain, and this will take some time. So I don't expect Indonesia to get better until quarter one next year, so it will look bad, but it is what it is. We are taking the decision for the long-term health of the business. Our position in market terms continue being very, very strong. We have a great portfolio of brands, but there were issues there. You know, we are sorting out the issues, and it will take some time. And you know, we will take decisions that have to be taken. There is also some channel price conflict in China we are taking care at this stage. It's not happening only to us, you know, it's happening. You know, when you have this kind of significant change in channels, you know, and particularly where there are channels that operate in High-Low, you can have some kind of disturbance in the market. So we are also taking care of some China issues in when it comes to channel price conflict. But when you have a problem, you have to sort it out, you know, and we are absolutely committed to sort it out. Fernando, thank you very much for joining us on behalf of Bruno and myself, and thank you everybody in the room. Hey, thank you.