Shareholder. Good afternoon. My name is Marjolein Bachhuijs, and I'm here on behalf of the Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development, VBDO. We sent you the questions in English, so I'll read them out in English. Thank you for the presentation and your commitment to healthy communities and planet. We go to all AGMs of Dutch AEX companies and ask questions about the same three topics. This year it's pollution, living wage, and the application of the CSRD. On pollution, we were really happy to see that you've stated that pollution is a material topic. Pollution in the value chain of water, land, and microplastics. In the annual report, there are several projects highlighted regarding the mitigation of pollution regarding pesticide use. Great that these projects are there and are developed by Ahold Dehaize's brands, but there's no company-wide policy on pollution around pesticides with targets and KPIs. We're wondering if such a policy will develop now that this is a material topic, and whether that will be publicly available. We couldn't find an overall sustainability strategy either. That's the question about pollution. The second question is about living wage. It's great to see your ratings on Top Employer for a better world of work that you just highlighted in the presentation. Even though you refer to adequate wage, which also is the new CSRD terminology instead of living wage, which we prefer, as defined by the ILO, we're happy on your focus on workers in the value chain and the ambitious to reach 100% of production sites of own-brand products in high-risk countries audited against an acceptable standard with a valid audit of report certificate and no non-compliance on deal breakers. As was publicly available in the media, poor working conditions of migrant laborers don't just exist in high-risk countries, the example of dairy farms in Vermont in your own brand operations in the U.S. We are wondering if there could be a change of policy, not just focusing on high-risk countries, but also high-risk sectors, even in other countries, and high-risk worker groups such as migrant laborers. That's the second question. Is that something that you would include going forward? The third question is about the application of CSRD. You've used that for the second time, including a double materiality assessment and a prioritization of your material themes. In previous years, you had additional thematic reports to supplement your ESG or sustainability report that provided more detail than the annual report may allow for in the CSRD reporting format. Like the human rights report that you published last time in 2024. Such transparency on such important topics like human rights perhaps warrants something outside of your annual report. We haven't been able to find this for 2025, and we're wondering if you'll continue or pick that up again going forward, publishing additional information to supplement your CSRD-based annual report. Thank you. Thank you for those questions. I think there's a theme that we're now going to pass on, Frans, to you to respond to. There are healthy encouragements, challenging questions around FLAG. Some specific questions by, also the Milieudefensie Jong. To you, Frans, and then VBDO on targets and measurements. Frans, can you take them forward? I hope you noted them all. Yep. Thank you very much, and happy to do so. Meneer De Waal, you ask a few questions on soy and on SBTi flag and the likelihood of meeting those targets if they are achievable. The things are, of course, connected. I think the soy question, I think I replied earlier to that, how committed we are to sustainable soy despite the Amazon protocols, which have been weakened, but not for us. We are fully in line with our commitments. Talking about flag and Scope 3, our flag targets are 30.3% reduction 2030. For the non-flagged industries, 42% by 2030. We feel committed to those. We have plans in place to meet those targets, and that's what we do, and we work very hard on that. A part of this is, of course, also the effects in the meat and dairy industry, and I think you're completely right that it's quite high on CO2 emissions. If you then see, and I can connect that to a question coming in later, also on bio organic and on vegan, we have big initiatives in place to reduce animal proteins, to reduce also the consumption of dairy and meat for this same reason. We are committed to our targets as we have been declaring this 2030, the same commitment for the targets Net Zero 2050. We work in the meantime also very hard, not only on Scope 3, but also Scope 1 and 2 with the same type of aggressive, ambitious emission reductions in our total own supply chain. When I then talk about the other topic on organic and the pricing of organic items in our stores. Thank you very much for handing over the petition, 11,000 people. That is indeed quite a number. I think that when I look at the intentions for this direction to make organic products more available and more affordable, I think we have very much in a very, let's say, congruent type of ambition and targets. Just let me give you some examples of this. We have organic sales percentage is growing in our stores. We have in total organic way over fair share, for example, at our Albert Heijn stores, where we also saw your people asking for even higher targets. We have added a lot of items in our assortment, both for organic bio, but also for vegan. We have now a lot of regular products in our assortments which have very good pricing and margin components. Our organic products compared to our regular, if you would like to say so, comparison, have the same margin profiles for us. Organic products have even a lower margin for us than non-organic products, the regular products. That's what is important to us to push more the use of organic products. At the moment, 1,900 items, articles on organic in our stores where we are by far having the biggest share in our total assortment. On top of that, not necessarily organic but vegan. We also introduced the AH Terra products, where we have now a 40% increase last year on AH Terra, that whole assortment there. Also there, we not only trying to get people in a more healthier lifestyle, but also make sure that we are going to also further reduce CO2 emissions as well. On pricing, if you are a premium member of Albert Heijn, you get a 10% discount on Terra, but also 10% discount on organic. We have increased the number of well-priced items on the Prijs Favorieten in the Dutch market also for both organic and for vegan. We also have a higher promotion scheme for organic and Terra products as well. What we try to do is here that we have a higher promotional share, higher premium share, and that we therefore make those products more affordable. What is still true in a total supply chain is that organic products from a sourcing perspective are more expensive than products from a regular sourcing supply chain. It has to do with the type of organic, the conditions for organic, and also that we would like to make sure that farmers can also make a good living by producing those items as well. Yeah. Then on the consumer behavior, what do we see? We see that the assortment is widening, that we have a very high response for organic and vegan products in our assortments. That our consumers like the premium and the bonus and Prijs Favorieten options. Also the inspiration they get to cook more vegan, to work more with organic is also shown in our Alleh ande magazines. This may be a little bit a long answer to the question. Mr. Chairman, I think the question is super important to us. It's very close to our mission as a company. It's very close to the hearts of the people at Albert Heijn, and we would like to also see what else we can do there. Of course, organic is all according to the EU guidelines, what the definition of organic is. There was also a question and/or remark on the remuneration linked to myself and linked to our strategy. I would like to leave that to the Remuneration Committee Chair to discuss on this, because that remuneration is also in line with our strategy, and that's also how it's meant to be. I just carry on, Jolanda, if you don't mind, going back to two questions from VBDO. One is on pollution, if I just highlighted it like that. A lot of our companies and brands are working very hard on elements to fight pollution and to save more water. That is in our total health and sustainability framework, and very important thing. We also, of course, have priority areas talking about climate, nature, sourcing, and product standards. We have numerous initiatives, and not only in the Dutch market or European markets, but also in the U.S., where we talk about regenerative agricultural supports standards, where we reduce chemical, where we improve soil health, where we look at improved water stewardship and these kinds of things, because those kinds of things of nature and biodiversity are important. What we are now working on is to give a better definition and a better target for ourselves on nature. That's what my management team is working on together with the brands. We continue to evaluate where more explicit policies would add clarity, strengthen accountability with our teams, enhance impact building on actions already underway across the business. When I then go to your second question, which was mainly about living wages, ILO, and these kind of topics, we very much believe, but we report on this for a long time already, that human rights is a foundational commitment for our company, for people working in our supply chains. That is not only our own company, for example, ILO, but it is also in our total supply chain. We do a lot of due diligence work on sustainability there to make sure that we identify those social salient impacts across our supply chain. Then we have a number of things there which are, for us, very important. When you talk, for example, and you mentioned the high-risk countries, high-risk country will not be enough, and we fully agree with you because we also look at impact assessments in seafood and tuna. We look at impact assessment in the agricultural environment in general, which is such an important part of our total food supply chain. We also look at the different migrant movements, and not only in the high-risk countries. This is important for us, those impact assessments. Once in a while we do those impact assessments to check for ourselves, also in so-called low-risk countries, if everything is there compliant with our own values and the way we would like to source. In 2025, we initiated four of those assessments. Not all those assessments are final yet, but we get a very good feel for that. I just can affirm you that we have zero tolerance in our talking about human rights, for example, elements like child labor, health and safety for our people, bonded labor, and these kind of things. It's high on our agenda. We report out on this. We have a human rights report, and we try to get also for the so-called lower-risk countries, more grip on the situations which are not okay, and we use therefore also the risk assessment methodology. Jolanda. Yes. The third question was about the additional thematic reports. First of all, we are committed to providing transparent and meaningful reporting also on our health and sustainability performance. We reviewed how to best structure our disclosure for our stakeholders and decided to integrate several of our former standalone thematic reports into our annual report. We recognize the importance of providing not only transparent but also timely information towards our stakeholders, so we will increase the frequency of our updates shared to the Ahold Delhaize newsroom. In this way, we aim to balance robust annual reporting with more dynamic and continuous communication throughout the year. We have the last question for Mr. Freek, or no question, and/or remark, let's say. Suggestions. Encouragement. We take the encouragement on board and when we talk about turbo, then we have a turbo on green energy like Jolanda already mentioned, with a very high level of green energy already in Europe and PPAs, power purchase agreements, which are growing. We also would like to get not only a healthier lifestyle across our brands through food, but also encourage, let's say, different type of lifestyles, more movement with or without a turbo. We also would like to promote these kind of things in our stores across all our 17 brands. You will recognize when you're in the Czech Republic, when you're at Hannaford, when you're in Romania, that this is what we do across the group. Maybe the suggestion around Suriname? Yeah, this may be something for you. No. Suriname. I've never been there myself. Have you been there? No, I haven't been there as well. I just wanted to say that we really appreciate the fact that you are thinking with us, being positive and constructive. I don't think it's possible for us to go to Suriname at this point in time. I'm looking at the head of Europe and Indonesia. Like Frans said, the suggestions to fight against obesity are totally in line with our aim of providing not only affordable but also healthy food. The turbo is on in our actions in the sustainability area, which is quite a challenge, but we do our utmost to reach those. Do you want to comment anything, Claude, on Suriname? Or do you need to think about it? I used to live around Suriname. I was living in West Indies, so I know quite well the region. It's a bit far logistically for us, so not immediately at least. Thank you. Thank you. Before we spend more time on Suriname, I would like to make sure that we also address the question that Winnie of Milieudefensie Jong asked about executive pay increase related to climate targets. Pauline, chair of the Remco, will speak at length later on in these proceedings, but maybe a short answer on that topic. Yeah. Shall I answer in Dutch? Perhaps I can answer in Dutch. I'll speak Dutch and English. I'll do a mishmash. Yes. This question is a question that we also reflect on the 25% of the scorecard indeed is related to sustainability targets. That means that, of course, we think long and hard about the targets that we include. Two comments here. Indeed, the total amount to be achieved, if it is approved in the new policy, will be higher than in the current policy. This amount will still be related to performance. If you don't perform and if you do not achieve your targets, the payout will never be achieved. If it's 25% of your scorecard that is focused on sustainability targets, well, then you really have to roll up your sleeves to make that amount of money. The question to us is, have we been challenging enough in terms of defining the targets? It's up to the shareholders to decide on that because the targets are disclosed at the end of the year in the annual report. Thank you, Pauline. I would just like to highlight that she's here and she is suffering from the flu, so it's quite extraordinary that she's still here. That's what I wanted to add. A next round of questions around the auditorium. Let me start at the right, at the front. Shareholder with the beige sweater. Is that enough of an identification for those people waiting to ask a question? Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the floor. Kees Grootjes, De Nieuwe Beurs. Of course, we're an association of Christian investors, churches, and church institutions. I also have a report here. I'm not going to try to hand it over as my neighbor did, but that's also because you have already received this report from us. I would like to highlight two questions. One question regarding modern slavery. This is what the report is about, and the second is about labor migrants, and particularly labor migrants in the Netherlands. My first question concerns modern slavery. We issued a report, and you'll be familiar with the report undoubtedly. The conclusion of the report is that modern slavery is inextricably connected to our worldwide global economy. Here in the Netherlands, we feel the impact thereof. What we see is that lots of companies in the Netherlands are doing a good job in terms of drafting a policy vis-a-vis modern slavery, but the execution thereof, or actually identifying modern slavery and solving it, well, they're not doing a good job there. Ahold has an excellent policy, one of the best policies I must say, but the follow-up and specifically identifying and solving modern slavery is lagging behind. We would like to ask you, what is it that you're going to do this year and the next few years? This is part and parcel of a long-term dialogue as far as we're concerned, towards a transition to find it, fix it, and prevent it in terms of modern slavery. The second question I'd like to ask on behalf of our members concerns labor migrants in the Netherlands, more than one million. Those are the estimates, more than one million labor migrants in the Netherlands that pop up left, right, and center in our economy. Also in direct activities of Ahold Delhaize, but also in a supply chain, distribution centers, but also companies growing vegetables or fruits. Some of our members, and also our churches, are receiving homeless labor migrants, those people who can't defend themselves, who can't fend for themselves. We provide shelter to these homeless labor migrants. Our question really is. Are you thinking about labor migrants in the Netherlands and the violations that are taking place? Should there be credible complaints regarding labor migrants in the Netherlands, what would you do? How would you look at that? Would you, just as last year, be prepared to deal with these complaints in a very careful manner? Thank you. I'm supposing everybody has the papers [Foreign language] With a piece of paper, right there, two rows back. Thank you. My name is Marita Canedo, and I'm a proxy for Domini Impact Investments and part of the organization Migrant Justice. I am here representing farm workers in Ahold Northeast U.S. dairy supply chain. For years and years, we have brought up to your attention severe and widespread human rights abuses on farms supplying your own brand dairy products. We see that little by little you are acknowledging these issues, that little by little you are seeking ways to assess human rights violations, and little by little you are taking steps to find solutions. However, last year during this meeting, you announced your intention to conduct a human rights impact assessment in your Northeast U.S. dairy supply chain. Dairy workers across the region took the time and effort to entrust their painful stories to your investigations. They did this because they believe Ahold intended to take meaningful action to ensure respect for their human rights. They also suggest solutions that they are involved in. In your recent annual report, you write that the results of the human rights impact assessments have been shared with internal stakeholders and business partners. The farm workers who participated in the assessment, the rights holders themselves, have once again been left out of Ahold's consideration. Do you not see farm workers as business partners? Do you not see workers as worthy stakeholders in an assessment of their own human rights? I am here today to make an explicit request that you act transparently and publish the results of your human rights impact assessment. I believe that workers, consumers, and the shareholders here today deserve to know the truth. Publishing the human rights impact assessment report is a first step towards serious engagement with your supply chain workers. My question is: Will you make public your human rights impact assessment? Thank you. Thank you. Let's see one more in that domain. [Foreign language] On my far right, second row. Seems to be one question from two people. Two hands, one question. Chairman of the board and fellow shareholders. My name is Magdalena Peric, and I represent AMAN, an institutional asset manager with over EUR 150 billion assets under management and fiduciary manager for pension funds PME and PMT. Today, I'm also speaking on behalf of PGGM, Robeco, Christian Brothers Investment Services, Rail Innovate, and AG Insurance. We want to thank you for the comprehensive annual report and for the constructive engagement with investors over the past year, including the recent dialogue under Nature Action 100 and the Net-Zero Engagement Initiative. We appreciate the progress Ahold Delhaize has made on climate target setting, including the validation of Scope 3 and FLAG targets by the Science-Based Targets Initiative. We also welcome Ahold Delhaize's work on nature during 2024 and 2025, including the assessment of nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities conducted under the nature project. At the same time, we would like to reflect on the direction of Ahold Delhaize's biodiversity ambition. A year ago, the company articulated a particularly strong and ambitious position on nature and biodiversity. Since then, momentum seems to have been slowed, and external communication has become more limited. Several biodiversity-related targets concluded in 2025, while greater clarity on the next phase, both in terms of strategy and planning, has yet to emerge. With 2026 already underway, we see this year as a key moment. It is important to understand how the company intends to translate analysis and pilots into clear priorities, accountability, and execution. With this in mind, we have three questions. First, on nature and biodiversity. In recent engagement, the company indicated a shift from a target-first to a plan-first approach with a focus on feasibility and learning. Could you explain how and when the outcomes of the nature project will be translated into concrete strategic priorities? More specifically, how will these outcomes lead to clear governance ownership and measurable milestones? This is particularly relevant for material topics such as water and soil, which are identified as key dependencies but are not yet supported by explicit targets. Second, on deforestation and high-impact commodities. We would like to commend Ahold for publicly disclosing its support for the EUDR in the latest annual report. At a time when the regulation has faced political headwinds and implementation delays, visible corporate support matters. It helps signal the importance of the regulation and supports timely and effective implementation. At last year's AGM, Ahold Delhaize confirmed its ambition to achieve deforestation and conversion-free supply chains for a set of priority commodities by 2025. We note the progress reported since then for several materials. At the same time, coverage remains largely limited to own brand products and does not yet extend to certain high-impact categories, such as beef. Looking beyond 2025, how does Ahold assess the credibility and the scope of its deforestation ambition? Under what conditions would it consider extending commitments to additional commodities or to parts of the known non-own brand assortment? Third and final question on climate and Scope 3 emissions, particularly FLAG. We welcome the validation of Ahold Delhaize's Scope 3 and FLAG targets by the Science-Based Targets Initiative. In recent discussions, Ahold noted that several key levers, such as regenerative agriculture, methane reduction, and other supply interventions, are still in pilot or early development phases. Their impact is therefore expected over longer time horizons. Against this background, what concrete proof points should investors expect over the next two-three years to assess whether Ahold is on track to deliver its FLAG targets? Thank you. Thank you for these questions. I will take a few more, if you don't mind. We have registered them. They will be answered. One here up front again. The person [Foreign language] Mr. Spanjes. [Foreign language] My name is Ennis Davids from Zaandijk. For years, I've been a shareholder of Ahold. My presence here has a common theme. I'm involved with the company in three different ways. As I said, I'm a shareholder, so that's a close tie. But I'm also a customer at Albert Heijn supermarket. Every Tuesday, we have the Albert Heijn delivery truck come to visit our house, and I have three questions to people here at the table. I think we understand, or I speak all sorts of languages, but I'll speak Dutch here because you're all listening to interpretation, so I'm sure that'll be fine. My first question. Actually, I'm referring back to what went on two years ago, the pressure exercised by the suppliers in terms of the sales prices in the stores, the shelf price, I believe two years ago, the predecessor of Mr. Claude. I'm going to speak in my accent from the region here, Zaandam. I'll refer to the first names. Wouter Kolk talked about the pressure from Unilever, JDE Peet's, pressure on the company from these companies to sell products in the shelves for the prices they wanted. Mr. Frans said, "Well, we are doing our utmost to counter that pressure." We very much appreciated that. One year later, I heard that you had entered into a partnership with your German colleagues of Rewe and the Swiss colleagues of Coop in order to counter that pressure. The question is, how about that situation now? What is the state of play? I wanted to know a bit more about that. Second question is for Ms. Jolanda, because it's a financial question. Just as you, Mr. Wiebe, I used to work in the banking industry. There's been a fresh wind in the White House, and the volatility of the dollar vis-a-vis the euro has increased enormously. I think that Ahold is hedging that very nicely because 60% of your sales are realized in the U.S. and you're reporting in euros. Question is this still okay for you, or have you had some mishaps in hedging your dollars, your euros? Then my last question, a question for Mr. Claude. I'll ask this question in Dutch because I don't want to bore you with my French. Okay. Logistically, the blue trucks delivery is quite a key issue. This week, there was a nice example. On the website, there is a possibility to indicate when you want the delivery to take place, so that they can plan the routes of these little trucks. Now, surprise, this truck stopped across the road at the neighbor's house, left, and then two hours later, visited our house. I know from my neighbor that we ordered from the same store. Well, the answer from the company was that apparently the route, the itinerary, was not planned properly. Should it be planned properly, they could save a lot of money. This is a pointer for the Dutch company. Those are my questions. That's all. Thank you for your questions. We're just going to move to the back of the room, where the microphone is right now. One back. Yes. Go ahead. I initially had a question for your Chief Sustainability Officer, Alex Holt, but unfortunately, she's not here. I'll redirect my question to Frans Muller. My name is Amber, and I stand here today believing that you and I share a responsibility to fight against the deadly, unjust climate crisis that is happening because we can and we should. We work for a company, or in this case, you're the CEO, of significant size and means, and you have final responsibility to get it to make a positive change. Ahold Delhaize is a recognized global leader in sustainability transformation, if we are to believe what you have just been saying to us and, for example, your LinkedIn page. Contrary to those sustainability claims, however, Ahold is failing to meet the goals in line with the Paris Agreement, and its total emissions have only increased since its base year. It also states that you're skilled in long-term activation, but Ahold's climate resolutions do not reach further than the year 2030, even though we'll suffer the consequences of climate change for far longer than that. My question was, which we'll elaborate on a bit further, is do you really believe you deserve a higher bonus when you're failing at your job and responsibility to reduce Ahold's dangerous contribution to climate crisis? Because I don't think the answer was accurately or properly answered, to be honest, because I don't think the current plans, you should really focus on results or targets, like you need to do more. Why does a single person deserve such a high bonus when you should allocate those funds somewhere else? Yeah. Thank you. Amber, just to confirm, what is your full name? Amber Jones. Thank you, Amber Jones. [Foreign language]We will answer these questions now, and then I'll see what other urgent questions we have under this agenda item. Frans, can I first turn to you? Absolutely. I'm certain that with all questions received so far, Madame Jolanda Poots, Mr. Claude, and Mr. JJ will have to get to work. JJ, if you could. For Mr. Cenado of Migrant Justice. Claude, if you could come back also to the topic of migrant labor in the Netherlands. I will answer the first question of Mr. Grootjes on modern slavery. Modern slavery is for us a foundational commitment that we can avoid that is in our supply chain. Regarding people working in our supply chain, we are dedicated to respecting the rights of every worker to a workplace free from discrimination, harassment, and violence, and to be treated fairly with respect and dignity, including for women to be treated equally to men, while ensuring that salient impacts are addressed, and I talked about a few salient impacts before. One of them is forced labor, and we are dedicated to respecting the right of every individual to be free from forced labor, slavery, and servitude. Concretely, we have identified forced labor as one of our so-called deal breakers in our social compliance program. This will remain an area of high importance for us in 2026 and beyond. It means also that we also, in our total supply chain, have also social compliance agreements with our suppliers, too. If a social audit identifies a deal breaker, the supplier is obligated to immediately notify Ahold Delhaize, initiate an investigation, implement corrective measures, and provide full collaboration and cooperation throughout the remediation process. Modern slavery we take super serious. We also have discussions with the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, which is chaired by Theresa May, the former prime minister of the U.K. Also there, we try to reach out, see what we can learn, see what we can detect, and I think we have a quite powerful opportunity to create a network of supply chain companies, retailers, and manufacturers to make sure that we can avoid these kind of terrible situations of modern slavery when they pop up. Claude, migrant labor in the Netherlands. Thank you for the question. Indeed, this is really a critical topic also for us, and I really appreciate that you recognize our highest attention in the past, and I can only confirm that we continue to have the same highest attention today. We regularly review our processes and our standard of operating, including with our suppliers and their subcontractors. We have done this very recently in 2025, and not only we ask our suppliers and their subcontractors to commit on all legal aspect of protection of migrant workers or any workers in the Netherlands, but also it's not enough. We provide also additional protection because these kind of people are a bit more vulnerable than others. We ensure that they have special line, that they can contact us or contact other people working for us to be able to claim their rights in any kind of circumstances which would be damage from any parties. We continue to have the highest attention, and we will be very willing to get any feedback if you will have any information which will go in a different direction, and that's what we'll continue and commit over the next months and years. Thank you. JJ, the question of Mrs. Cenado from Migrant Justice. Yes. Marita, good to see you. Thanks for being here. On your specific question about sharing the outcome of the results, the human rights impact assessment is not an investigation into specific allegations. It is a process that we use to identify risk along with their root causes. It also incorporates insights from stakeholders and rights holders, and we want to protect the safety and privacy of our farm workers and the farmers and the cooperatives, and believe the confidentiality ensures that the process is open, collaborative, and to make sure that we can maintain that. With that being said, we are currently working with the suppliers on a time-bound work plan that implements the report's recommendations. I will make a start with answering the questions on biodiversity target first and plan first. I take the first question, the two following ones will be answered by Jolanda. Then, Claude, we swing to suppliers, prices, and logistics, and Jolanda will say a few things more about the currency, the dollar versus the euro. On biodiversity, this is an important topic for us, and many of those initiatives around nature and biodiversity are led by our brands. That is brand by brand, quite different in the geographies where we work. We are pretty proud about the progress being made. At the same time, we are actively working in parallel to capture and scale these learnings and better practices from across the group. We would like to develop our strategic nature framework to identify priority areas. I just mentioned before that we would like to get our strategy together on this topic, and we also would like to understand the interdependencies with the existing focus areas, available financing models, and value creation opportunities. The progress is ongoing, but it's rather complex, and our focus is first on ensuring that actions are practical, effective, and scalable across our diverse businesses. Where formal policies can strengthen clarity, consistency, and accountability, we will develop them accordingly and can also roll them out. Several targets sun-setted already in 2025. We remain very much committed to our targets on deforestation free, and we are working towards closing remaining gaps on our critical commodities in a time-bound manner. Jolanda. Yes, thank you for the question. The question was on our ambition to achieve deforestation and conversion-free supply chains for a set of priority commodities and why we stick to own-branded products only and not have a broader scope. We focus on our own-branded products as this is where we have the greatest oversight and direct control. In 2025, we had a positive performance across each of our critical commodities, and we assessed our current deforestation-free sourcing efforts by our local brand teams, and we've identified best practices and areas where our approach could be further strengthened. We've also identified priorities to guide our local brand teams in pursuing deforestation-free sourcing in their respective regions. We are looking into expanding our deforestation-free ambitions for critical commodities. We, for example, will look into incorporating beef in our primary deforestation-linked commodity list, and we will do so, it's under assessment, based on countries with high risk. This is where we are at this point in time, and we will keep you informed of our next steps going forward. The next question was also for me on are we on track to deliver our FLAG targets first, and how can we provide proof points? Well, first, and that's not maybe the most exciting answer, but it's also about improved accounting methodologies. Because currently, as you are aware, we rely on high-level industry averages to account for our Scope 3 purchased goods. With this, we do not give ourselves and our suppliers the opportunity to account for all the work that we are doing. We are in a transition phase towards product-based carbon foot-printing, which should also build in the opportunity to incorporate primary data, our own data from the supply chain. It's about accounting methodology first, and second, we're also learning from our pilot program, and it's important to learn about the interventions we do and the impacts they have to further strengthen ecosystems, reduce our climate impacts, and improve the yields all our actions have. Third, and lastly, you can expect that over the near term, we will continue to be transparent about our progress, but also about new focus areas, supplier requirements, and successes, and the challenges we faced in our annual report, but also in our newsroom and social media posts during the year. Thank you, Jolanda. Claude, how do we get better prices for our consumers? Start, of course, with the negotiation with our suppliers. What is the status there with our Eurelec, Coopernic, AMS, and these kind of things? Good question. Super important to us, and I know very close to your priority and to your heart to make improvements there. Yes. Thank you, Mr. De Betts, and thanks for your very nice accent. Hopefully you can forgive my slightly French one. Concerning indeed, how can we get the best terms and the best prices for our consumers? We have long-term partnership with our suppliers, point number one, and we really try to develop together the better terms we can have. We're also having our own models in order to ensure what we call should-cost model, meaning we take all the ingredients of products, and we realize what should be the price. When there would be a significant difference, then we enter in harder negotiation. To support this, we've been joining buying association. We are part of the biggest buying association in Europe, which is with Leclerc, the market leader in France, and with Rewe, which is one of the top market leader in Germany. Which allow us within Eurelec to get the best possible terms. We are also part of Coopernic, which is another association, and AMS, which is the same thing for own brand. With all these three things, we are able to get now quite good terms, not only in the Netherlands, but in the overall European territory. That's one element. You had also a very nice question around trucks around Amsterdam and other cities in the Netherlands, and how we ensure that we are efficient in our delivery. One fact, all our deliveries for e-commerce are prepared in a very automated warehouses, which on one hand make it very efficient, but also ensure the reliability of the preparation and that you get exactly the product you ask for. Now, after it needs to get delivered, and this is where we are using smart algorithm. Of course, your algorithm can always be smarter, and we work on this one. There is more and more request within the population in the Netherlands to get delivered. That's why we also develop sustainable solutions. We deliver more and more with electric truck. It's better for the sustainability and the environment. It's also more quiet, less noisy. This is something we develop more and more over the years, and we open more and more hours where we can deliver you all over the week, including the weekend. We also introduced the Buurt Bezorgbundel with Albert Heijn, which gives an opportunity to cluster deliveries in the neighborhood. That might not go always well, but we have the intention to get that algorithm also working well for lower CO2 emissions and higher efficiency. Jolanda, the dollar/euro. I'll try to answer in Dutch. Well, we have a natural hedge for the U.S. dollar volatility because we largely procure locally in given currencies, in U.S. dollars, and we'll also sell in the same region. This is a natural hedge that's built into our system. For larger transactions that may have a direct impact on the P&L, we have hedges. What we don't hedge is the translation of, for instance, U.S. activities or other activities on the balance sheet. That will be too expensive. Here, our consideration was not to hedge, and the guidance we give, for instance, for EPS, uses constant currencies. For our focus, as I said in my speech, is on what is under our control. Well, that is our operational performance. That is our primary point of attention. A question to Alex Holt that was forwarded to me. What would happen if the SBTI targets would not be met? What effect would this have on remuneration? Madame van der Meer already answered this question, so I think we have explicitly answered this question already. By the way, Alex Holt has the same variable remuneration and targets I have, so we are completely aligned, Alex and myself. Thank you. There also was a question from Amber Jones. In English, but let me do it in English. We think it's the same question along the lines that was asked earlier and answered earlier, as also was said by Frans just now. We strongly believe that the incentives that are created, that the KPIs that we use in our variable pay system really focus the attention. By the way, even without them, I'm convinced that the management team is fully focused on delivering on these targets as well. I would like to move on. I want to move to two further questions. I just disappointed two persons, and I want to move on to the next agenda item after two, maybe three, and then I'll stop. Mr. Spanjes, the first. "Chairman, good thing to hear you know my name. My name is Spanjes for the minutes. I have a question for the auditor, and then I have a question for Ms. Poots. The question for the auditor, which percentage of your work did you leave to AI? Because in your presentation, this lengthy presentation of yours, I didn't find anything about it. So my next question is page 283, first column. It says that 2025, you submitted an invoice of EUR 107,000 more than the previous year. Could you specify that? What happened to the EUR 107,000 because you're using AI, among other things? Your own organization has also said, but we have to reduce our price. You're using AI. Why then should we foot the bill and pay EUR 107,000 more? Also the member firms, column two of page 283, that is EUR 32,000 more. Could you explain to me why it is that they're charging EUR 32,000 more? Is that a mistake in your contract? What about using AI? I couldn't find that. I mean, all the pages that you wrote, I couldn't find anything about it. For which countries, these member companies of KPMG, what was the target? Or was it a different name for a KPMG auditor in.. Could I perhaps encourage you to focus on key issues, urgent questions, please? Yes, I also wanted to know, what about your management letter for 2026? What did it say? Did you ask more focus on the prices of the manufacturers in Europe that are in a squeeze? Because in the Netherlands, the prices are different than in Belgium and Germany. Did you pay any attention to that? There's another question. I mean, an auditor of such a big firm, such as Ahold Delhaize, someone has to look over your shoulder. Who was the auditor that looked over your shoulder? What is the name of this auditor? Question two has to be one-tenth of the length of your first question. Oh, well, that's fine. Ms. Poots, did you know beforehand when you started to work with KPMG that they would be charging more? And why is it that you approved that? Because I, by the way, didn't know about that. I mean, your question is clear. See, because we don't see that. My third question is, how is it that you still have not succeeded at the table, behind the table, to lower the price barriers between Belgium, Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany? Coca-Cola is being manufactured in the south of the Netherlands, and if there's a different label on the product, all of a sudden, it is cheaper. And if it's sold in Belgium, it is cheaper. So you never succeeded in that. Could you please answer that question? I mean, how often must I ask this question? I think, I hope this is the last time I have to ask this question, that you succeed in 2026. Thank you very much. Let's go to the back of the room. I disappointed someone earlier on, a shareholder with a tie, wearing a tie, if I may say so, with a paper. The gentleman with two hands. BDS Netherlands. The European Court of Justice established already in 2019 that products originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories may not be labeled as Made in Israel. In 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful and affirmed that all states have a duty not to assist in maintaining this illegal situation. Consequently, in the Netherlands, the government is preparing legislation banning trade with illegal settlements based on the parliamentary motion adopted in September 2025. At the same time, multiple independent investigations have found that Israeli agricultural suppliers do not distinguish between products originating from within Israel's internationally recognized borders and those from illegal settlements. This makes traceability effectively impossible when getting produce from Israeli producers and distributors. However, Ahold Delhaize, specifically its subsidiary, Albert Heijn, is still not auditing its suppliers from Israel because it considers Israel a low-risk country despite obvious high-risk indicators. Not only can't Albert Heijn guarantee that it's not selling produce from illegal settlements, it's extremely likely that produce from illegal settlements does end up in its supermarkets. Given this legal and factual context, and in light of Ahold Delhaize's own stated commitments to human rights and responsible sourcing, what concrete steps has the company already taken, and what steps will it take going forward to ensure full compliance with international, European, and forthcoming Dutch law in the supply chain by auditing its Israel suppliers? How will Ahold Delhaize make sure that in the future, no food from stolen Palestinian land will be sold in Albert Heijn? Furthermore, which member or members of the management board are explicitly accountable for ensuring this compliance? And will Ahold Delhaize, until then, suspend sourcing from all Israeli suppliers to make sure it commits to these legal frameworks and its own compliance? Thank you. Thank you. If you allow me one more question and then we move to the next agenda item because time is pressing. You had a white T-shirt and were waving two hands. I encourage you hereby. Is it working? Yes. Is it working? Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the people around me who helped me raise the attention. My name is Jay Sadhu. I'm here as a shareholder but also as a customer of Albert Heijn, among others. As a young dad, I'm worried about the world in which my son is growing. As a consumer, I see at the same time that sustainable choices in the supermarket tend to be even more expensive. Well, these choices make our future possible. Ahold Delhaize has a huge role in what people eat on a daily basis and therefore also affects the impact on climate and the affordability of food. I noticed the following. Sustainable and plant-based products are not always the most logical and affordable option for consumers, although Ahold Delhaize has the scale, the influence, and the means to make the difference in this respect. Moreover, the report of Planet or Profits, written by Profundo in 2025, shows that with only 26% of the profit payout, the Paris climate targets could be achieved. Therefore, I would like to ask Ahold Delhaize to make sure that sustainable and plant-based products will be the most logical and affordable choices for consumers. Therefore, my question, will Ahold Delhaize make sure that 38% of CO2 emissions will be reduced throughout the chain by 2030? I repeat the question because I hear no hard figures from Mr. Muller. Therefore, my question. Thank you. I will first address the first question to our auditor from KPMG, and I'm really curious to hear his answer because this is a very specific question. I wonder how he can talk himself out of this one. Thank you, Wiebe. Very concrete questions, but I can give concrete answers. I took down five questions. First, about the use of AI. In our detailed audit statement, we have indicated how we control or assess important risk. On page five, we give a description of two possible risks, the risk that management would violate the internal control environment and that revenues would be overstated. In our comments on this risk, we point out that in our audit work, we have looked at the journal entries and we assess them on the criteria for high-risk. The application of the high-risk criteria uses AI. We use intelligent tools to make our work as efficient as possible, but also to have the highest possible certainty that if mistakes were made, we actually spot them. In our work, we use a lot of data analytics and AI, and this is a field that is continuously developing. We use it, but we keep thinking with our own brains as well. A second question. Why have the auditor's costs increased with EUR 107,000? Well, they're never the same because the audit work is never the same one year to the other. They've increased particularly because there was a remaining acquisition by Ahold Delhaize, a major acquisition, Profi. We had additional work related to the acquisition and the way it was represented in the annual accounts of Ahold. We do this by the purchase allocation that needs to be audited. That takes time and money. Another reason for the increase is the fact that Bol has implemented or will implement SAP S/4HANA, a new IT system. You may know about it. This also led to additional work. We have several reasons why it's not the same amount one year after the other. There was the question of why the audit costs of the foreign auditors have increased by EUR 32,000. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that in Romania, Ahold Delhaize's activities have increased and that KPMG in Romania had to be put on board for the purchase price allocation and the books of Profi. The management letter. Here, the auditor reports on the findings concerning the internal audit and internal control mechanisms within the company. We report on a quarterly basis to the board and to the supervisory board about our findings based on the audits. In today's presentation, I highlighted that we emphatically look at the internal control environment and the internal controls, and that for the annual accounts, and that's the task you gave us as shareholders, I found nothing special to report, and that I have no reasons to think that the internal controls have been overruled. The last question, whether we have a role given by law. No. Another partner of KPMG that looks over our shoulder. If that is the case, sorry. That's a question you raised in the past, and it's the same individual actually that looks over our shoulder than last year. I would like to compliment our auditor for the clarity and the specificity of his answers. Anything you'd like to add about the cost? Maybe one line. We have arrangements about the way we cover inflation only in part, and together with KPMG w e have defined targets and agreed on targets to make sure that efficiency grows year on year, and this is why I approve their invoice. Now w hich seem to be identical. Where do we see some price synchronization, harmonization? What are the initiatives there? Thank you for the question. It's also a bit linked to what we have seen before. Indeed, it can happen that suppliers are using what we call territorial supply constraint. Basically, you take one product or two products coming from the same factory, and you will have one price for one country, another price for another one. It's the same product, and they just change the label and the language on it. This is something, of course, which is not beneficial for our customer, then we have tried for years. It's true, it take us years. In order to support the direction of having a real free European market. I was, at the end of last year, at the European Commission to sustain also this need to take out territorial supply constraint and get product coming from branded suppliers at the same price, at least when it comes from the same factory, for example. Now, what we do in order to support this is exactly what I mentioned before, to work with other retailers at European level, but we also develop own brand. Own brand is a very strong way for us to work above borders and get prices which will be more relevant for the different consumers in the different countries. These are two directions we do. One more legislative way, meaning with European Commission, and another one, we're developing our own brand. Claude, could you also take the next question from Mr. Brenkman on Israel and the product traceability, Palestinian areas, and these kind of things? Yes, of course. Which are also for us, by the way, important. Yeah, of course. It's important for all our brands. I know it's also very sensitive for all of us, and including in the Netherlands. First and foremost, it's very important for us within sourcing that our brands comply with applicable laws of the different countries where we operate, including, of course, in the Netherlands. We have very strong guidelines concerning Israeli settlements and occupied territories. It's very important for us to work out of these occupied territories with suppliers who are not operating over there. Furthermore, our brands have established due diligence procedure to identify suppliers that might be subject to sanctions and ensure we don't work with them. Regarding products which are coming from Israel, we simply apply regulation on signaling as well. All the product which would come from Israel, it's not that we have many, but we have some, and they are definitely labeled in the stores as product coming from Israel, and we have the due diligence in order to ensure that it's not coming from occupied territory within Palestine. The question from Mr. Jay Sadu. We share completely the same concern you mentioned about next generation, how do we make sure that this planet is protected? We came back earlier already in the conversation here about our targets set SBTI approved, Scope 1, 2, and 3, with the various targets, and we are heavily committed to make those targets come through. That is the Paris Agreement, the 1.5 degrees, and we get ourselves measured also by SBTI. We have that commitment there, and we do a lot of things to make that commitment. If it's refrigeration in stores, if it's transportation, if it's getting away out of dairy, and animal proteins, if it's vegan products, and so on. I think we are first mover, I think goes too far for me, but we are very strong in leading a number of those transitions. We are committed to those targets. That's why also those targets, a number of those sustainability targets are also in the variable remuneration of the total team here, and it goes much deeper than only the executive committee of Ahold Delhaize. You can count on that commitment there, and we will fight for it, as you expect from us and as we expect from ourselves. There's also the Scope 3 emissions, and we talked about earlier the pricing of those products, the pricing of vegan products, the pricing of lower protein products and plant-based, and these kind of things. We have all those products with a higher share in the market now in our promotions, in our Prijs Favorieten, in your premium 10% discount, just to support customers moving more in this direction. I don't know if you tried already our hybrid products, milk with 30% plant-based protein and 70% animal protein. That's another way where we have to get learned customers how to appreciate those kind of products, at the same time, lowering that dairy supply chain CO2 emission. We have a lot of things going on there. We take experiments, we are innovative, and we have to get this down to get that global warming and greenhouse gases down, and that's why we feel very committed. Those were, I think, the outstanding questions, Wiebe. Yeah. Thank you, Frans. I want to make a bold move forward to agenda item three. I understand not all questions have been answered, but we have so many questions to ask for 2025, otherwise we would be here until late tonight. If you don't mind, we move to agenda item three. That doesn't exclude anyone, but it gives us hope to come to a close on time. I would like now to move on, inviting you to keep urgent questions short. Then we have the remuneration report. We have a recommendatory vote here. If there's a positive recommendation to this item, we thank you for your support, and the same applies to the other point. If the advisory vote is negative, we will take this advice seriously and reflect on the proposal. I would like to invite Pauline van der Meer Mohr, Chair of the Remuneration Committee, to present the Remuneration Report. Please go ahead, Pauline. Thank you, Wiebe. I will do this in English. As chair of the Remuneration Committee, I am very pleased to speak to you today about two key remuneration-related items on the agenda. Firstly, agenda item three, the 2025 Remuneration Report, and then later, agenda item seven, the proposed updates to the remuneration policies for the Management Board and the Supervisory Board. Together, these items demonstrate our ongoing commitment to transparency, to strong governance, and a remuneration framework that supports pay for performance and long-term value creation for all of our stakeholders. Under agenda item three, the remuneration report for the financial year 2025 is presented, detailing how the company's remuneration policies were applied during the year. This report is available as part of the Ahold Delhaize Annual Report 2025 and as a standalone document on our investor website. It sets out how the Management Board and Supervisory Board remuneration policies were implemented throughout 2025, the link between remuneration outcomes and company performance, including progress on financial and sustainability objectives, clear disclosure of targets, achievements, and pay outcomes for each board member. Since our remuneration report already provides extensive context for the remuneration determinations for the Management Board in 2025, rather than repeating here our entire report, I would like to focus today on two key topics. These are, firstly, the increases of individual base salaries of the Management Board members in 2025, and secondly, the outcome and ex-post disclosure of the 2025 incentive awards. First, our view on the increases of individual base salaries. The Remuneration Committee recognizes the sensitivity of executive pay in society in general. We believe that adjusting compensation from time to time is, however, necessary for the company to remain competitive for top executives. We therefore always consider internal and external compensation developments, individual and company performance, and the remuneration of similar positions at companies in our labor market peer group before recommending salary adjustments for members of the Management Board. The labor market peer group benchmark for Management Board members indicated that, in particular, the base fee levels for the Group CFO and for the CEO of Ahold Delhaize USA were positioned below the median of the labor market peer group. Following this review and based on, as I said, company performance, service period at the company, and individual performance assessments, the base fees of Management Board members were increased as of the 1st of January 2025. I'll give you the numbers here. 4% for Frans Muller, 8% for Jolanda Pots, 10% for JJ Fleeman, and 2% for Claude Sarrailh. All these increases are in line with our company's remuneration policy and projections in our major markets. Second, our determinations with respect to the 2025 incentives. Overall, Ahold Delhaize and its brands delivered strong results in 2025. Overall sales and operating margin were above target, supported by a robust operating cash flow. The company also met its objectives across ESG and other strategic priorities. This concludes my explanatory remarks, and I hand back to Wiebe with thanks for your continued interest and support for Ahold Delhaize. Thank you, Pauline. [Foreign language]We will now address questions regarding the remuneration report, and I invite you to ask questions in the manner I just explained. Please state your name before asking a question, avoid making lengthy statements, and do not repeat questions that have already been asked and/or answered. I sound somewhat strict, I know, but this is the only way we can make progress on this agenda. Are there questions that urgently need to be answered? Left-hand side of the room. Shareholder with cap. Three short questions. Yes. My name is Sam Juncker. Your name. question is directed towards JJ Fleeman, but afterwards I would like to give the microphone to my colleague here on the left. I'll keep it short. [Foreign language]I will decide on that. Mr. Fleeman. My name is Sam, and I'm 24 years old, and I am a student of political economy. During my studies, I'm continuously reminded of the fact that my future on this planet is being threatened by big corporations that refuse to invest in the long term, and instead choose for short-term profits and bonuses. As CEO of Ahold Delhaize USA, you're responsible for the strategy and performance of a large part of the company, including chains such as Food Lion and Stop & Shop. In this role, you have direct influence over emissions, procurement policies, and food choices made daily by millions of customers. Major players like Ahold are in a position to make a real difference, and the data shows that Ahold Delhaize is still making insufficient progress in reducing its emissions while the climate crisis is becoming a threat to our existence on this planet. Nevertheless, you received a substantial bonus last year, partly based on your sustainability targets. My question to you is, Mr. Fleeman, do you believe it to be justified that you received this bonus while you are failing in your responsibility to meaningfully reduce Ahold Delhaize harmful contribution to the climate crisis? I sense a level of repetition in the question, but maybe I'm seeing the pattern a little bit too late. Let's see what happens if you give the microphone to your neighbor. I have a question for Mrs. Wallenberg, but in her absence, I was wondering if Mr. Frans Muller would answer the question for me. My name is Derek. I'm standing here today because, frankly, I'm a bit worried about the way this company is run. The profits of this company are rising, which is great, of course. However, that's not the only thing rising. Are the sea levels. Millions are already suffering as a consequence of unchecked climate change, and many millions more will suffer if we do not act now. Mrs. Wallenberg is Chief Human Resources. She's responsible for the well-being of all of those who work for this company. Yet it are those farmers in poor countries who fill such a large portion of your shelves, who will face the brunt of this disaster. You have an obligation to them. Take it. Your company has the power to make a meaningful difference in this battle against climate change, a power very few possess. By spending just a quarter of your annual profits, you can already achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. You choose, however, to give the vast majorities of those considerable profits to your shareholders. My sister, she's one of your many employees. She can barely make ends meet, but she gives everything for a better climate and a better world. Now, considering all of that, my question to you is, do you think Mrs. Wallenberg deserves an even higher bonus while you fail to take responsibility to reduce the contribution of Ahold to the climate crisis? Please answer my question clearly, concise, and look me in the eye when you do so. Thank you. Thank you for feedback on the conciseness of the answer. [Foreign language] Next question. I see someone waving with his hand, but also with his head and a thumb up. Let's see whether we can give him the mobile microphone. Thank you. My name is Dr. Isha Mant. I actually have a question to Jan Brecht, the CTO, but in his absence, I shall ask the question to Mr. Muller. Yes, I had written a whole story, but I think that other people have already said much of it in better words than I said, so I'll just focus on the gist of the matter. Science is, as we all know, pretty clear about the targets that need to be achieved, the Paris goals and targets. As many here, I believe, not only myself, but the scientific consensus is that Ahold's targets are not in line with the Paris Agreement. I think Mr. Brecht is responsible for that. One would expect of the CTO that he would invoke facts and scientific consensus. I actually have the same question as was raised earlier on, but I do have an additional question. I hope that question will be answered. Do you believe in the board that Mr. Brecht has earned his increased bonus while he hasn't sufficiently supported the climate goals? Particularly, Ms. van der Meer Mohr earlier on, referred to the incentives that are related to achieving the climate goals of Ahold Delhaize, but these goals have been fixed by the management itself, and they're inadequate and they're not good enough. Is it at all fair that an incentive is linked to it? You're reviewing yourselves, really. I establish, as chairman of the meeting, this is a pattern of similar questions. I suggest that should we hear the same question again, we will ignore it. With this one, we will try to answer. Let me see whether there are any other questions. At the top right-hand side, there are about nine there. Perhaps someone can stand or raise, who really, really has an urgent question. Good afternoon. My name is Nienke Stel. I'm 53 years old. I have a professional background as business economist and chartered accountant. During my university studies in the 1990s and throughout my career as a financial expert, I have focused on shareholders' value and profit maximization. Actually, the economy has become our new religion in our society, and the adverse impacts which have been highlighted today for people and nature are becoming increasingly visible. Despite the fact that companies such as Ahold Delhaize pretend to have green goals and sustainability focus, despite that, CO2 emissions after the Paris Agreement has not decreased. I am worried, as many others here are, that we simply cannot carry on this way. Nonetheless, I know that the largest companies and their shareholders, as are present here today, can make a start by making an actual difference. As a concerned citizen and co-shareholder of Ahold Delhaize, I would call upon your moral ambition, and also the moral ambition of the fellow shareholders. My question is, will Ahold Delhaize in 2030 as compared to 2019, at least emit less CO2 emissions for the entire chain? Let me see, at the front of the room, at the right-hand side. Well, you have a privileged position. You are allowed to ask a second question. This is a unique privilege. Well, it's always good to benchmark because the World Wildlife Fund has looked into the greenest supermarket in Europe. Right on top of the list, we find Lidl, and number two, the runner-up is Albert Heijn. Of course, they have to take further steps, but they are at the top of the list. That those justify a certain degree of a bonus. Leclerc, Kaufland, all the others are right at the bottom of the list. That's a compliment. We are not progressing fast enough, but we are the fastest of all turtles, let's put it that way. It seems to me to be a challenge. It would be a challenge if Albert Heijn would end up on top of the list, and would overtake Lidl. What annoys me is that Lidl has been the best in fruit and vegetables for 10 years. It would be wonderful if Albert Heijn or Ahold could be in that position next year. I think that would be a wonderful challenge. Also, the World Wildlife Fund works with ambassadors, André Kuipers, so you can accelerate things with that. Humberto Tan, Harm Edens, these are Dutch celebrities that are working on the climate. That way, you give visibility to it. Because this is a technocratic narrative, and it would really help if people who are well-respected by the Dutch people, you also have WWF ambassadors in the U.S., if they help out to make sure that we become less dependent on oil and gas, because we have just seen what's going on. Thank you for your question. I must say that this question is a far cry from the remuneration report, but anyway, I'll give the floor to Frans. I myself, but as a management team, we take these questions really seriously, these questions about the climate. I heard two things. I heard one thing, how do you see your own targets, such as SBTi? Are you going to achieve the targets? I will comment on it later on. I've already said it, but I will comment on it again. How are these targets linked to remuneration, and who fixes those targets? The assumption of the person asking the question was that management would define its own targets and would be able to get an incentive for it. The situation for us is slightly different, and I'd like to ask Pauline to say a few words about that and to explain how the targets are established for management and about the controls for that so that we're sure that these targets are ambitious, as we said. Pauline. The first part, SBTi. SBTI is, for us, the standard for which we have an approved consensus, Paris, 1.5 degrees, which is the most common standard in our industry, and it's established by a UN body as such. Scope 1, 2, we hear different percentages here in the auditorium. Our Scope 1, 2 percentages are 50% 2030, net zero 2040, and with a baseline of 2018. Scope 3 is 30.3% by 2030, 42% industry 2030. With a baseline 2020 and net zero 2050 with a 10% offset. Those are the targets we are working with. We feel committed to those targets, and we also realize full well that the clock is ticking, so we have to work very hard to achieve all those targets, but this is our commitment. There's no reason at this point in time to assume that we will not be able to achieve the targets, and we're really fighting for it. Before I give the floor, Wiebe, to Pauline, I would like to come back to what Mr. Freek said about standards and how we are measured by external benchmarks. If we take a look at a number of other benchmarks in the industry, MSCI, we have a double A grade, which is a very high category grading for our Stainalytics, familiar to financial markets, 17.8 gray, which is of low risk. ISS C-plus rating, which means prime, and Carbon Disclosure Project, which is very close to the subject matter that we're discussing here, an A grade there, and that is qualified with the word leadership. On the one hand, we are doing a good job. We are being appreciated. At the same time, we realize that we have to work even harder to reduce the CO2 targets. These are not easy targets, and the world around us is changing as well. We are, in fact, working very hard to achieve this, and we have the same ambition that we share with many people here in the auditorium, and we also share the same concerns for this planet that is warming up. As Jolanda said, we have the ambition to become less dependent on fossil energy. JJ's team is also working very hard to become less dependent and also to reduce CO2. Pauline, can I give you the floor to tell us a bit more about who establishes the targets for management? Thank you, Frans, for the shareholders in the auditorium. Frans has pinpointed the emotion that we have among management and also supervisory board when it comes to the topic of sustainability. We're no different from what you feel and what you've put forward in all your questions. We're all pulling the same side of the rope. We all have this wish to grasp the opportunities that Ahold Delhaize has to accelerate the process. We really see this as a very much an ingrained obligation for all of us, a commitment for all of us. Of course, it's very difficult to say we're very successful if the world around us is struggling. We don't do that. We do reflect on this and spend a lot of time on this as a supervisory board, but also in the sustainability committee that we have especially for that. Management also spends a lot of time there. Please take it from me that we take this extremely seriously. The question remains whether these targets are adequate or whether they're good enough, because it's great that you link 25% of your scorecard to these targets. If these targets are easily achieved, then of course, you would be paying for the wrong targets. This is a question that is a question also for the shareholders in their advisory vote. Let me be clear about that. Perhaps I can explain briefly how we go about this. As a point of departure for us, as Supervisory Board, is the strategy and ambitions of the company. This is a lengthy process, and of course, you start by establishing the strategy, approving the strategy. The strategy is submitted by the Management Board. Of course, this is finely attuned with the Supervisory Board. You make sure that the strategy is extremely ambitious and that the targets and the strategy also are ambitious. There are targets regarding sustainability in this strategy. These are very broad, but also very fine meshed targets. There are a couple of targets that show more ambition, and there are others that are very fine meshed and that are easier to measure. Apart from that, you look at your long-term planning, your financial planning, you look at your budgets and how that is reflected in your targets. What you want is that the targets that you choose, that they be robust, that they can be measured. They can't be soft targets, because what you don't want, you don't want people to reproach you of the fact that you have received a large part of your incentive because the targets are much too soft. No, you don't want that. You're looking for targets of which you are certain that you can measure them properly and that you can actually honestly say that you've achieved these targets. Now, it's very difficult to present this. If you look at what for this year would be the most measurable targets that ultimately lead to this course that we want to embark on, the course towards the long-term targets. Now, this is a very fine meshed, fine-tuned process, and we're trying to explain this properly in our remuneration report. In your report, we're transparent and clear about that, and there's really very little more I can add about that, Wiebe. Thank you, Pauline. There are two more brief things. There was one question that was asked to myself. Natalia Wallenberg, the question was for her, our CHO for the group. The bonus targets, how do they work for the rest of the organization? That's how I interpreted the question. For management, the targets are established on several key issues. With the help of Natalia Wallenberg and her team, those targets will cascade down deeper into the organization so that we can act as a team. Of course, we can have all these wonderful ideas as management here, but things have to be done in the stores, in the countries, in the DCs, in terms of sustainability or CO2 emissions. We need everybody to roll up their sleeves. We all need to have the noses pointed in the same direction, and that way you can cascade down your targets. There's one more thing that I'd like to share with you, and if you look at our Scope 1 and 2 for a food retailer, as we are, the main ones are reducing the cooling substances, having less toxic cooling substances, the energy efficiencies of our equipment, and third is transport. Scope 1 and 2, it is our own transport, not third-party transport. Overall supply chain CO2 emissions in our industry, Scope 1 and 2 in the industry is 5%. 95% of the overall chain is Scope 3 for us, and those are the CO2 emissions that we need to sort with partners upstream, downstream, or with you in the kitchen if you throw away food, because food waste will also cost CO2. Now, it is quite a bit of juggling to make sure that all these players sort out their Scope 1 and 2, Scope 3. We have a big team of Alex Holt. It's not a very big team, but it's a very professional team, very expert team, and they talk to all the suppliers to make sure that they live up to their commitments, their Scope 1 and 2 commitments, so that we have the Scope 3. Now we have 70% of our footprint that we've talked to, we've negotiated with suppliers so that they do their job as well so that we can comply with our Scope 3. It's a very tricky process, hundreds and hundreds of suppliers. That way you're trying to get the whole chain to support you, and that way you can make a giant leap for the industry to set the example of how to deal with CO2, not only for ourselves, but throughout the chain, which is incredibly important to us. Thank you. Frans, maybe these two last additions from your side and by Pauline were nice connections to agenda items four and five. If both when I move to item four, which is the proposal to grant discharge to the members of the Management Board and Supervisory Board who were in a position in 2025 for all liabilities relating to the performance of their duties during the financial year 2025. That's an introduction. Now, I give you the opportunity to raise questions about this agenda item, but I would like to ask you to constrain, only raise questions about this particular agenda item if you have them. Otherwise, we will move on swiftly. Looking at the room. Thank you for your cooperation. I now move to agenda item five, the composition of the Supervisory Board. Under this agenda item, we propose to reappoint one member of the Supervisory Board and to appoint one new member to the Supervisory Board. For background information on these proposals, please refer to the agenda and the explanatory notes for this meeting. Part of this agenda item is the proposal to reappoint Pauline van der Meer Mohr, that's the link, as a member of the Supervisory Board for a term commencing immediately after the current AGM and ending at the close of the AGM to be held in 2030. The Supervisory Board recommends reappointing Pauline van der Meer Mohr for a term of four years, given her valuable knowledge and contributions in chairing the Remuneration Committee, but also for all her skills in other fields of the Supervisory Board. The Board greatly values her contribution, independence, and dedication to Ahold Delhaize's long-term vision. She is on stage together with me. I want to ask her to raise her hand, but that's not necessary after all her contributions. We also would like to nominate Neela Montgomery as a new member of the Supervisory Board. She's in the front row for a term commencing immediately after the current AGM and ending at the close of the AGM to be held in 2030. The Supervisory Board recommends appointing Neela Montgomery for a term of four years, given her broad international experience and expertise in leading digital transformations and digital innovations, which will be a valuable addition to the Supervisory Board in its current composition. Neela is present today. May I ask you to briefly introduce yourself? Hello, good afternoon. I'm Neela Montgomery. I'm very delighted to be here. I've spent my entire career, or most of my career, in retail, both in the U.S. and Europe, and have long admired Ahold Delhaize. Now I am honored to be part of the Supervisory Board and help drive innovation and our values forward. Thank you so much for the opportunity. We are delighted that you'll, hopefully after the votes, become a member of our Supervisory Board, Neela. Thank you for that introduction. [Foreign language]I would like to give you the opportunity to ask questions about the composition of the supervisory board. Before opening the floor for questions, I would like to remind you that voting is possible throughout the meeting and that all results will be displayed at the closing of the meeting once the voting will have been closed. Please raise your hand if you encounter any difficulties in voting, then a member of the support staff will be happy to assist you. Now, the floor is open for questions about the composition of the supervisory board and the other points on the agenda. If you have no urgent reasons, I would encourage you not to do so, but Mr. Spanjes would like to, okay, raise a question, so you have the floor. Do we understand correctly that there is an enlargement of the supervisory board because no one is leaving, and Madame van der Meer Mohr is staying? Thank you for that question. It's a good question. I will answer it in a moment. Any other questions? So the answer to the question. Well, yes, just in time, a question on the fourth row towards the exit. I hope it can be factual and short. My proxy for United Church Funds and part of the organization Migrant Justice. I have a question regarding the issue of human rights and the lack of due diligence in Ahold's U.S. dairy supply chain and- Can I interrupt you right there? This is where I'm going to exercise my right to be strict. Does this question relate to this agenda item? Yes, sir. I think given the seriousness of the topic, it relates directly to the composition and performance of the supervisory board. Okay. Can you please try to get to that point quickly? I will. Thank you. Mr. Fleeman, when you responded to the previous question from Ms. Canedo, you declined to publish the results of the human rights impact assessment on the grounds of privacy and confidentiality. You can, of course, anonymize the responsive participants and present the recommendations without divulging names, and we strongly recommend that you do so. To this point, farmworkers who work in your supply chain and participated in the human rights impact assessment have asked me to bring their words with me here today. In the interest of time, I want to be very brief about this and share just one before proceeding to the question. Cristian, who spoke with investigators about a lack of sick leave on his farm, says, "Being made to work while sick is forced labor. Ahold, where is my testimony? Why are you hiding my experience and my voice? I talked to your investigators. Now I want to see you take action." Mr. Fleeman, you spoke last year, committing to a meeting with Migrant Justice and said that you, quote, "Look forward to continued dialogue and partnership with us." Unfortunately, after just one introductory meeting with ADUSA's Chief Sustainability Officer, we have not received a single response from the company. All of our emails and calls have gone unanswered. Just yesterday, a delegation visited ADUSA's office to request a follow-up meeting and was rebuffed. This treatment does not signal dialogue and partnership. I ask you, will you make good on your commitment of dialogue and partnership by renewing your offer to meet with Migrant Justice? Can we expect sincere collaboration from Ahold with Cristian and the rest of the dairy workers in your supply chain? Thank you. Thank you for that question. I do realize that it's an important topic, but does not directly relate to this agenda item. I will, however, transfer to Frans to see how and when we can answer. I would like to come back to the question about expanding the supervisory board. You may have read in the communication messages from Ahold Delhaize that Madame van der Ploeg has left the supervisory board this spring. Well, last fall, and that therefore Neela Montgomery's introduction brings us back to the old capacity. There's no expansion, but a reshuffle or rebalancing of the supervisory board. Now, Frans, the question was not directly related to this agenda item. Maybe you can still address the point on the United States. Yes. I find the question important when we talk about human rights, when we talk about migrant justice, when we talk about migrant workers and how they are protected in both high-risk and apparently lower-risk countries like the U.S. I just would like to ask JJ, could you give a few comments on this? Because this is also a topic which is important to us to make sure that we have the right supply chain. Yeah. First, thanks, Frans, and Will, thanks for the question. Maybe to address your first question, yes, we're open to dialogue and continue to be open to dialogue. I think that I would like to take just a second, Frans, just to go into a little bit of detail. Ahold Delhaize and Hannaford that you're speaking of recognize absolutely the unique risk faced by agricultural workers and take all reports of abuse seriously. We apply, I think we've talked about this, but we apply a standard of engagement code and for suppliers that prohibits discrimination and forced labor and mandates fair compensation and safe working conditions and proper housing. Hannaford and its supplier, HP Hood, investigated Migrant Justice allegations but found no credible evidence of legal violations. To date, we've done 730 farm work development assessments and have completed, which covers more than 20 times our volume of Hannaford's private brand milk supply. In addition to that, we've had 6 external audits involving worker engagement that have been completed with more work scheduled in 2026. As I talked to Marita earlier, of the assessments, we've got work plans in place that are time bound. Then following an independent human rights impact assessment, which included from Migrant Justice, Hannaford is working to implement all those recommendations. In March 2026 of this year, we joined the Responsible Labor Initiative, which is a multi-stakeholder group focused on addressing and remediating human rights issues through a variety of different tools. We do remain open. We're very open to continuing the dialogue, take this very seriously, and we'll look forward to next steps. Thank you very much, JJ, for your comprehensive answer. Thank you very much to Migrant Justice team to make your way to come to our shareholders meeting. It's also those topics are super important to us, and we don't want to have the wrong elements of migrant workers and their working conditions in our supply chains. Thank you, Frans, and thank you, JJ. Thank you for asking the question despite the disconnect, but there is an importance to it. Thank you for bringing that to our attention at this meeting. I would like to move on to the next agenda item, which is the composition of the management board, item six. Under this agenda item, we propose to reappoint Jolanda Poots-Bijl as a member of the management board. For background information on this proposal, please refer to the agenda and the explanatory notes for this meeting. I would like to give you the opportunity to ask questions about this agenda item. Let me see. One hand in the left, in the back of the room. Then the time has come to ask your question. Apologies, that's not allowed with COVID. It's become painfully clear what your real concern is. Grabbing, grabbing bonuses. It's out of control. I have a EUR 0.20 bonus on my zucchinis. You have a few million EUR bonus. You were asked whether you deserve this, and you talked about remuneration. Then Pauline, you moved to Jeroen, who has a flu, because you didn't want to answer it yourself. Let me remind you that your annual bonus also depends on the target for health and climate. Your answers show that even after the sixth time that we have raised the alarm as shareholders with you fail to do sufficient things to reduce your contribution to the climate crisis. We hear a lot about your SBTI targets, but we don't hear about progress. At university, I didn't get any points for making plans. In order to obtain a degree, I needed to have exams, do research, and write papers. You make impressive plans. You define targets without implementing them, and still you have a multimillion bonus. Even with these targets, according to independent research from New Climate, you fail to meet your own targets because it's only a 26% reduction. We have been coming here for five years now. Nearly there. These five years were insufficient for you to reduce your emissions. This is why, together with shareholders in this room, like at university, I would like to give you a final assessment. You failed in implementing proper climate policies, failed in stimulating healthy and green choices, failed in presenting climate issues to shareholders, and failed to reduce your emissions. You failed in taking responsibilities, and this is why we'll give you a bad mark. See you back next year. Thank you for your intervention. I conclude we have no further questions about this agenda item. I also see some commotion in the room. We may have to wait until that commotion has calmed down. We have seen your posters. You can take them now. It's clear to us at least. Less to the other people in the room. That brings me to Mr. Freek. One second. I propose we move on. Mr. Freek, you have the floor. Something that's really wonderful and something I appreciate is the fact that if you have more hospitality, you need more security. In Albert Heijn stores, it's really easy to increase hospitality very cheaply, making sure that security can be reduced. It's also a more friendly way of treating customers. If you have a trolley full of shopping and you pay with a card, then you have to take your shopping at the self-scan, which is really time-consuming. While you pay EUR 200, I think it's important to give attention to the target group that has lots of money. Because in doing so, both people with a small purse as a large purse can be served. We see lots of trolleys disappearing. In Amsterdam, the margin is 2%. A trolley is EUR 400, so you need to generate EUR 400,000 of euros of revenues to cover the cost. Although there are simple measures to solve this. More hospitality, more focus on customers, better security, all this makes very cheap opportunities for consumers having a better experience, which leads to more revenues and more profit. This is wonderfully quantifiable. Now, as for the targets for Madam Poots, I'm certain she will make the targets because she's had a wonderful term of office, and I think that Ahold Delhaize has met its sustainability targets, performing much better than the rest of society. It's much worse out there. You are the best among the turtles. Keep up the good work and move faster. Thank you, Mr. Freek, for that contribution. Certainly, compared to the previous contributions, I propose that with this remark, which was no question, but a remark, we move on to agenda item seven. Agenda item seven is a proposal to amend- For Management Board and to adopt the amended remuneration policy for Supervisory Board. [Foreign language]I would like to invite Pauline van der Meer Mohr, the Chair of the Remuneration Committee, to explain the proposal to adopt the amended remuneration policy for the Management Board and Supervisory Board. Pauline. Thank you, Wiebe. Our remuneration policy was last updated in 2022, building on the original policy that was introduced in 2016 at the time of the merger between Ahold and Delhaize. Since then, Ahold Delhaize has continued to evolve significantly. The company has grown in size and complexity. It has expanded its geographical footprint. It now operates in an environment where uncertainty has increasingly become the global norm. These developments and the need to attract talent from the industry and beyond in a fiercely competitive talent market, global talent market, I should say, make it necessary to further update the remuneration policy for the management board. We do this every four years, as you know. The proposed amendments are intended to strengthen the execution of the company's Growing Together strategy to ensure that we remain able to attract, reward, and retain top leadership from within the industry and beyond, and to provide greater flexibility to respond to an increasingly uncertain external environment. Overall, the proposed remuneration policy for the Management Board is designed to reinforce a long-term strategic focus, maintain a strong pay-for-performance culture, and further align the interests of Management Board members with those of the company and its stakeholders. The proposed updates were developed after careful benchmarking and with stakeholder input, and we are fully aligned with the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. The second proposal under this agenda item concerns the Supervisory Board remuneration policy. Increasingly, we are facing challenges in attracting Supervisory Board members with niche skills and experience, especially when recruiting internationally. An external market assessment confirms we are competitive locally in the Netherlands, but not internationally within the updated management board peer group and wider. Although fee levels have been adjusted for inflation last year, approved by last year's AGM, the fee levels are not deemed reflective of the time commitment and responsibilities of our members. The proposed updated fee levels will align fee levels better to the market and will compensate more fairly for time commitment, especially for SB members having to travel intercontinentally for meetings or for meetings outside the regular cadence. The proposed changes remain grounded in good governance practice. This amended supervisory board remuneration policy is designed to ensure the company remains attractive to top leaders from the industry and beyond to continue to have a strong and diverse supervisory board. If adopted, the amended remuneration policy for the Management Board and Supervisory Board shall take effect as of the 1st of January 2026. This concludes my explanatory remarks. I hand back to Wiebe. Thank you, Pauline. We will now move on to discussing questions regarding the proposal to adopt the revised remuneration policy for the executive board and for the supervisory board. I invite you to ask questions in the manner I just explained. Please state your name before you ask a question, avoid making long statements, and don't repeat any questions that have already been asked or answered. I'm offering you the floor at the front, the left. Thank you for your question. Thank you. I'm standing now as well. I prefer to stand and speak to you like this. First of all, we'd like to thank the Remuneration Committee for considering our feedback regarding the proposed amendments to the remuneration policies for the Management and Supervisory Board. I realize I forgot to state my name and organization, so Lucas van Beek, on behalf of Robeco, Aegon Investment Management B.V., Aegon Asset Management U.K. PLC, and MN on behalf of BME and BMT. Back to my question. We understand and acknowledge the difficulty of remaining competitive in an international environment, the change in business model on the one hand, and the inclination for moderation from a cultural and local perspective on the other hand. We therefore welcomed the commitment to keep variable pay increases moderate around target levels and instead requiring performance improvements for significantly higher compensation. That being said, I will pose two questions under this agenda item. First of all, given the materially increased maximum incentive opportunities under the proposed policy, could the Chair of the Remuneration Committee explain how the Supervisory Board and the Remuneration Committee will ensure that maximum payouts are only achievable under clearly exceptional performance? To follow up, this is my second question, but to provide a bit more color, could the Chair of the Remuneration Committee specifically explain how the committee intends future maximum performance targets to compare to, one, historical performance, two, market conditions, and three, peer outcomes? Thank you for the question. [Foreign language] Let me first move to row five. In a straight line towards the back. Pim Postma, VEB. With a voting statement because the VEB will vote against this proposal. In our view, this marks a clear shift towards a more aggressive, let's call it a more U.S.-style remuneration policy without a convincing company Ahold specific justification. To make it clearer, Ahold Delhaize business mix in terms of revenues or operating profit has not shifted further towards the U.S. at all in recent years, and the company has performed perfectly well for shareholders under the existing remuneration policy. Nevertheless, under the new proposal, the CEO target pay will increase with more than 30% to EUR 8 million, with a maximum pay could increase to even more, EUR 12.5 million euros per year, up 50% compared to the previous policy. At the same time, the supervisory board will be given almost full discretion in selection of performance targets and weighting. In our view, this degree of flexibility is unprecedented in the Dutch market. Considering all this, we will not support this proposal. Thank you for that comment. Thank you. I'll come back to Mr. Spanjes later on. Let me move to the shareholder with the red jacket. My name is Emma Galvin. I'm also a part of the group Migrant Justice, here from Vermont. I believe this is relevant to remuneration, because of the pressing reputational risk around human rights violations in the Hannaford's dairy supply chains. As I said, Ahold has suffered significant reputational damage from the documented human rights violations on farms supplying Hannaford supermarket. Negative headlines in U.S. media about violence and mistreatment of farm workers are commonplace. This past year, for the first time, Dutch journalists began linking the mistreatment to Ahold itself. As a result, thousands of Hannaford customers have pledged to never cross a farm worker picket line and will support a store boycott if workers were to call for one. Shareholders should be concerned about the goodwill impairment to Hannaford and other Ahold brands as they become increasingly associated with labor abuses. Without action from Ahold, the reputational damage will only deepen. As you know, dairy workers have submitted a complaint through the Netherlands National Contact Point regarding violations of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct. The NCP has accepted jurisdiction and will soon issue its initial submission. In the event that the NCP finds dairy workers' complaint admissible, will Ahold accept their offer of good offices and engage in moderated discussion and mediation with Migrant Justice? Thank you for your question. I hope you appreciate my lenience, but we can make those contributions as short as possible, if you will, even if they don't relate to the specific proposal at the table. Thank you for the question. It is registered. [Foreign language] I'm looking around the room here. Mr. Jaspers. Spanjes. I said Jaspers, but I mean Spanjes. I apologize. Hi, my name is Spanjes for the minutes. I love crunching numbers, and the European financials of Ahold Delhaize are not very good. There's a big number here, but the theft in Europe is somewhere between EUR 250 million-EUR 350 million. You can infer that from the financials, from the numbers. I think that's a gigantic amount. Frits Ahlqvist, one of your predecessors, always said to me, "Peter, KKK is AGF KIK. Remember KIK, because as a board, we are subservient to the shop floor, because that's where the money is generated." You probably ask me what KKK means. Well, I can tell you that. But I have more to tell you. KKK and AJFIDK stands for a long sentence in Dutch. It's always a party at the cash register. That's what it stands for. It's not a party at the cash register because EUR 250million-EUR 350 million is stolen, especially at the self-scan cash registers. Please be concise in your question. The speaker. The franchisees, they're doing a better job. At the self-scan, they say all products need to be scanned, even if it's one plus one for free. The customer says, "Well, one is for free, so why should I scan it?" The franchisees say, "You've got to do that." They have a sticker on the floor that says that every shoplifter will be fined. Mr. Spanjes, thank you so much for your contribution. What is your question? Why is it that you don't do that? Why do you allow people to self-scan and then leave the store? They can just walk off with bags full of produce. I have examples of losses in Maryland. There are more shelves than products there. Your question is clear. I have another question. No, no. Why not save that question for another item on the agenda? We will see whether we can address it there. Thank you. Okay. Let's see whether we can address the questions that are not directly related to the subject and point. Frans, could you say something about the comments that were made? Not so much about the remuneration and the policy. I'll turn to Pauline later on for that, but the other questions, perhaps we can tick off those boxes. What were the other questions? There was one question about the Hannaford appeal and retail theft, shoplifting, et cetera. Retail shoplifting. I'd like to ask Claude, because that is a question also for Albert Heijn and the self-check. I will do that in a moment. First, let's move to JJ to respond to the shareholder of Migrant Justice. Yeah. Thanks for the question. Maybe just to start where you ended. In fact, the matter has been brought to the NCP, and we will therefore respect that process and not comment on it publicly. As a general matter, we're open to constructive dialogue and engagement. In the meantime, Hannaford will continue to hold suppliers accountable by rolling out the assessments and validating findings, through the third-party audits that we continue to do. ADUSA and Hannaford will work with industry partners and suppliers to continue to strengthen those assessment programs. Claude? Yes. Thanks for your question. I will not answer, and I will not comment on the amount you are mentioning, because that's not something which is, I think, close to what is a reality. On the other hand, it's true that within Europe, and especially also in the Netherlands, there is an issue on shrinkage, an issue also on theft. We are having active measures around there. For example, using RFID. Labels which are able, allowing us to track products. Also placing cameras around our self-checkout in order to ensure that everything is scanned and everything is paid. That's a key element on how we will move forward in order to reduce shrinkage. We have also other measures which are coming, and it's definitely something we are addressing. In general, the overview for the self-checkouts, if we talk about the U.S. or Europe, it's still a positive business case. Where we see on the one hand, the customer journey, and a lot of people appreciate those self-checkouts. On the other hand, we save, of course, some labor cost, as you can imagine. On the downside is the potential increased theft or shrink. It's still a good business case, but every euro which is not going through the checkout, we don't like. At Albert Heijn we have different algorithms and you know a few things with your own store experience. In the U.S., we use camera analytics and different ways how to do this. The bonus and the multiple items, is known to the Albert Heijn team that we might have a difference there. I think it's another good alert, also with your own observations, that we should once more look at this to see how we can bring this down. Thank you, Frans. Now I'd like to move to Pauline. The two specific questions about remuneration proposals, exceptional performance and payout, and the disclosure of performance targets. were also raised in English. The first question, Mr. van Beek, thank you for the question around the maximum incentive opportunities and your desire to have explained how the Supervisory Board will ensure that these payouts are only reserved for clearly exceptional circumstances, right? If I understand you correctly. First of all, as I said before, we choose as our point of departure, the Ahold Delhaize Growing Together strategy and the subsequent budgets, and we determine that those are ambitious. It starts with ambitious plans and an ambitious strategy, and then following those ambitions, plans, and strategies, we determine the appropriate targets for our incentive. What we do, and I think you mentioned that rightly, with regard to the incentive design, we craft the intervals to drive high performance. There's more uplift for performance on the upside above target achievement, and there's less protection below the target achievement. I think that should alleviate your concerns considerably. At the target, the target setting should be in such a way that 150% payout needs to be achievable in case of a really good year. The 200% is only for truly exceptional performance. Obviously we will evaluate that. As will you, I have no doubt. Your second question was, will we commit as the Supervisory Board to disclosing the performance targets and ranges? Yes, we already do that since 2022. We have committed to a full ex post disclosure of all the targets and performance intervals for all of our metrics, both for the short-term and for the long-term incentive plans. We will continue to do so. As of this year, 2026, we also ex ante disclose the performance measures and weightings of the STI and the LTI in the remuneration report. I hope that that is an improvement that meets with your endorsement. I think that is the answer to that question. The other question from the VEB, I'm not quite sure that I heard a question there. I heard a voting statement. I can only say that I am, of course, sorry to hear that you will vote against our proposal. I think your point is the target pay increase is too rich compared to the Dutch market. What I can say to that is that we do not compare ourselves to the Dutch market only. Obviously, being a global multinational company with two-thirds of our revenue stemming from the U.S., it would not be appropriate to only look at the Dutch market. We do look at a global market peer group, and we have 60% of our revenues in the U.S., that we look at 40% U.S. companies for our new labor market peer group. Therefore, we believe that our peer group and the comparison is appropriate. Even if you don't accept that argument, if you just look at our immediate peers in Europe, like Tesco, Carrefour, et cetera, you will find that the new proposals are in line with what is generally remunerated among our direct peers. Thank you very much, Pauline. I see there's a follow-up question, and I would like to give the floor. Hi, Juan. Yeah, thank you. Thank you as well to the chair of the Remuneration Committee for her insights. I would like to repeat my second question just one more time. This is just to get a slightly better understanding of how the Remuneration Committee thinks about their intentions for future maximum performance targets, compared to historical performance, market conditions, and peer outcomes. Also, looking at how you've been doing that thus far, acknowledging that increase in opportunity. The question, Pauline, is I think, how will we deal with the exceptional range with exceptional performance? I think it's a very valid question, and again, you have to make sure that we are kept honest there, because at the end of the day, this is a matter of judgment, as much as it is obviously underpinned by numbers. Hopefully, we should have the numbers, and you should be satisfied that the numbers that we disclose meet the target setting. There's also an element of discretion and judgment involved in this, and this is typically what makes shareholders nervous. Because I can see that if you have historical payouts of maximum over the last five years, and there's really no numbers to underpin it, I would also become nervous. Let's continue that conversation and keep us honest. Thank you. Do you mind if we move on, or is it pertinent to a tiny little question. Okay. A very short answer then. Okay. It's not a question. I just want to say thank you indeed for that continued dialogue. We ultimately believe higher pay should be associated with better performance, including sustainability performance, and we're looking forward to continue the dialogue indeed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The VEB in brief. Well, I was skipped a couple of times in the general round of questions, so I'm glad I can ask a question. We still think it's strange. I do understand the point. Ahold operates in the U.S. and here in Europe, but that's been the case for years. If I analyze Ahold 10 or 15 years ago, the ratio between sales and EBIT is more or less the same in those two regions. Why then, all of a sudden, must the remuneration policy be revised, and why should there be additional turbos and bonuses for the payouts? We absolutely fail to understand that at this point in time. Well, the timing. I'm sure Pauline has an appropriate answer to the question. Well, it's not really at this point in time, specifically. It's time to revise our remuneration policy. We do so every four years. We looked at this for a year to see how we could revise this, the best possible way to revise it. You must realize that we do not make a remuneration policy for the past but for the future, so you try to make a remuneration policy that is future proof. That entails that you look at how to secure a performance culture in your remuneration policy. After an extensive review and after engaging with our shareholders, we reached the conclusion that this is the best way to do this for us. Well, that's that in terms of an answer. I suggest that we proceed to agenda item eight, which is a proposal to reappoint KPMG Accountants N.V. as external auditor for the financial year 2027. We're going to proceed with item eight, to reappoint KPMG Accountants for the financial year 2027, and to appoint KPMG Accountants to carry out the assurance engagement on sustainability reporting in accordance with CSRD for the financial year 2027, if required by law. I'd like to give you the opportunity to ask questions regarding this agenda item, and I would kindly request you to state your name and, where applicable, the company or shareholder that you're representing. Thank you. I think that Mr. Eric Van Leeuwen has overwhelmed us all earlier In such a way that you don't have any questions. Well, as long as this is a question about this subject matter, Mr. Freek. Yes, absolutely. It is about this topic, because what we have not discussed so far is AI does a good job, and is certainly going to do a good job with cybercrime. That means that we'll end up with automatic cybercrime. I don't know how well this company is prepared for that. I think it's a substantial risk. For the rest, in general terms, for Ahold, just as well for other companies, energy independence is incredibly important, and this needs to be sorted for the entire industry. If we look at biodiversity, we had the veg gardens at Albert Heijn. It's important to reintroduce that year after year at Albert Heijn because we don't have enough insects and bees, and there's something we can do about that. In terms of biodiversity and sustainability, we need to increase our pace, and KPMG can really contribute to that because they have an international network. The more momentum there is, the better. I'd like to hear what the views are of KPMG in terms of these three topics and how KPMG deals with that, particularly cybercrime and AI. I'm tempted, Eric, to see whether you can perform as you just performed by being so specific and concise in your answer so we can wrap up this agenda item. I get some non-verbal communication on the part of Jolanda. Let me see. Cyber risks. This afternoon, I have highlighted that in the work that we do when we carry out the assignment that you've given us, being the auditing of the financial statements to see what the risks are of misstatements in the financial statements because of cybercrime. In which measure does Ahold Delhaize protect itself against cyber risk, how it mitigates those risks, and what they do to identify those risks, and how they limit the risk? Now, for that, we involve IT specialists, and we also benefit from experience that we have with other companies. You can take it from us that in terms of auditing the financial statements, we do indeed pay attention to these risks, and we take a look at those risks with our specialized colleagues. ESG. Now, reporting on ESG is developing, as you may well know. Rules and regulations are developing as we speak. Ahold Delhaize is, in my view, one of the frontrunners in terms of the quality of reporting on ESG indicators and performance, and we have an excellent dialogue about it, and we provide Ahold Delhaize with knowledge and experience that we gain with other companies. Thank you for that answer. Since there are no further questions, we would like to proceed to item nine of the agenda, which is cancellation, issuance, and acquisition of shares. Before I give you the opportunity to ask questions about this matter, I'd like to remind you that the voting is still open. The voting will close at the end of this agenda item. I'd like to give you the opportunity to ask questions regarding cancellation, issuance, and acquisition of shares at this point in time, insofar as it still is an issue for you. I suspect that with that, we have reached the end of. Oh, I apologize. I hadn't seen you. I'd overlooked you. I'm giving you the floor. This lady was first because she wanted to take the floor at the previous agenda point. Chair, thank you very much. We're going to do that. I'll give you the floor first. A point of order. Once again, there's no any other business on the agenda. Nonetheless, I do have a couple of comments. Yesterday, I tried to pick up the meeting documents at the head office. I was waiting there for an hour. You left at 5:05 PM. because you went for dinner. You returned after 6:00 PM. I saw that myself, but I never received the documents for the meeting because I just waited and waited. I must say that the security people and reception people took a lot of trouble to sort this, so that's a good thing. They're not to blame. Second comment. Now again, we have to pay for the parking here, and I said something about this last year. Shareholders invest their time and their energy in the meeting, so they shouldn't have to pay for parking. Also, in view of all this remuneration amounts that we've seen flying by, last year, I was prohibited to enter the store. Someone kicked my car, dented my car. I tried to stop that person to call the police, and the staff of the store in the Elandstraat lodged a complaint. I talked to the police, and they can't sort the matter, so they said, "Talk to management." After the meeting, I'd like you to help me sort the issue. This was a store in the Elandstraat. People are shouting, the interpreter can't hear. Gentlemen, order. Someone earlier on who wanted to take the floor. The shareholder is raising his or her hand. With Migrant Justice and Domini proxies. I've been trying to answer and ask a question from item seven. I'm still here, and you ignore me. Also to both Mr. Muller and Mr. Fleeman. Mr. Fleeman, I think all your answers to our questions are a copy-paste for all these years, and I think you might think we don't understand, or we don't hear what you're saying, but it's a copy-paste of everything while we are on the floor, and you, Mr. Muller, saying that human rights violations are really important to you, like modern slavery. That is what people are living when we see families and kids really living above a parlor or stranded in a room where they don't have a place to be, getting infected with bacteria and toxins for the housing conditions. I really want to address this question because you need to make public the recommendations. You need to talk to farm workers about the solutions, not just create a hollow answer and a hollow assessment and hollow investigations. That is what you are doing. Also, as I come here- Can I remind you of my guidelines? Sorry. Yeah. It's item seven. Coming here and saying no and voting no is because we are gaining power. I think you don't see it. Every year, we have more and more people coming, and you don't see the risk that you're asking for more money. You're asking for bonuses. You're asking for remuneration for things that you think you're doing right when we are on the field showing you you're not doing right. You're not working with workers directly. You are just saying things that are not true or bringing people to just check boxes. I really have to say that when you talk, Mr. Muller, about violation of human rights being important for the people in your supply chain, you really have to take into account the stories that we're bringing. More and more proxies and more and more shareholders are going to start- I think you. voting no. Coming quite close to the point you are trying to make, and that's, I think, to draw attention to this very important issue that has been raised before in this meeting, but I do want to maybe turn, Frans, to you for a final time on this topic to underscore the earlier comments and then move on to the closure of the votes. Thank you. I think that it's another call for attention to work on this at our side and to see what is there possible, not only in the dialogue but also in the assessment what's going on. I think JJ Fleeman already mentioned this as well, and also know that the Hannaford team themselves are very much in the dialogue. At this moment, I have not a lot of things to add here. It's on our radar screen. We find it also important that we have proper working conditions for folks in the agricultural supply chain. I think we're going to leave that point, and I think we're going to move on. I hope you don't mind. I understand the issue, and I understand the importance, but it has been addressed, and it has been dealt with, and there is an ongoing commitment to resolve any issue. I hope you can allow the meeting at large to move on to the next subject. Is that okay? Yeah. There is no dialogue. I'm leaving that hanging so that it's registered, but we will not debate it beyond this point, if that's okay with you. Thank you for drawing our attention to the important issue, however. Thank you. Thank you all for the. Thank you for the questions. I would like to encourage you to vote now because the vote is about to close, and I will have a moment of silence now. Esteemed shareholders, the vote is now closed. Please bear with me for a moment as we process the votes. If there is the wish to raise any specific questions that have not been covered at all during this moment of silence while the votes are being processed, we can give you attention as a kind of any other business. If you don't mind, I'll turn to the left side of the room to see whether you have any additional points up to the moment when the auditor behind me says that it's done. My name is Van Raamsdonk. Two years ago, I was here as well. I attended the AGM then as well, and then I raised a question about the paper version of the annual report. There was no such version then, and then Mr. Muller gave me his personal version after the meeting. Now, this time, I prepared better, and I downloaded the report onto my iPad, and also the agenda. Lo and behold, I was not allowed to bring it inside. Now, I wonder what's happening here. How can we have a proper meeting, a normal meeting where the documents can be consulted? Thank you for that question. I will take this on board as feedback for this year's meeting. I've heard you, and we will act on this in the appropriate way. I perfectly understand if you make the effort to bring documents in digital format, you want to use them in the meeting room. I would like to come back to the question of the shareholder in the back of the room about the documents. Coming to the main offices and not receiving the documents, then the parking ticket that you need with the iPad that cannot be brought into the room, depriving you of the possibility to consult the documents during the meeting. I think these are items that we have to include in an evaluation on how we can make things better for the shareholders. You have my promise here that I will do so. about the event in Elandstraat, which is in The Hague or not. I will be happy to speak to you to see what happened when you were stopped by the police. I would like to be aware of this and be in communication with you about this event. Thank you, Frans. Two more hands. Before I turn to the gentleman of the VEB Association, we have a shareholder with, what is it? Turquoise. Yes, please. Thank you. My name is Mark. I have a question on animal welfare. We've seen some progress in animal welfare issues. Mm-hmm in Albert Heijn and other jurisdictions and some brands. There are definitely jurisdictions and brands that are lagging behind. I was wondering if you have a roadmap to make sure that high standards of animal welfare are mainstreamed across the whole holding. Thank you. I turn to the gentleman from the VEB. Please, a brief question, and then Frans will answer the question. Yes. Super short question indeed. Thank you for giving me the floor. I was overwhelmed by other issues. I have this question. The IPO of bol.com was intended to be a priority. We hear nothing about it now. What is the state of play? Is that still an option? Frans, can I give you both very diverse questions, please? Absolutely. As concerns bol.com, indeed, some years ago, we discussed some strategic options a couple of years ago, and we kept telling investors and shareholders over the past years that we are studying a potential window where such an IPO might make sense. If such a window may occur, we will look into this once again. It's certainly not off the table and not something that's off the shelf, as we say. Some conditions would need to be met to make this possible. Animal welfare, it's a very high priority for us. This is also one of the responsibilities that we have throughout the supply chain. Now, if I look into this, I see the following. We have something we used to call the five freedoms. We call it differently now, but it's important for us to have your input as well, to know your views as well. We've taken several steps in the U.S. concerning group housed pork, for instance, and like on other issues, it's important to look at this, and we report on these matters. This is particularly about the partners in the supply chain. We ourselves don't produce or manufacture any animal-based products. We buy them from third parties, and we have very clear agreements on animal welfare standards. We check them, we report on them, and when suppliers are not compliant, we also terminate cooperation. They have one strike and then you're out. It is rea lly important to us. If things are wrong in this respect, it's a no-go. Thank you, Frans. We will now look at the results of the vote. You're done, right? Done. Absolutely. I will take you through the outcome of the vote. You have them on the screen. Well, you see a large number of agenda items. Let us look at the four schemes, 2.2 with two voting items adopted, 3, one voting item adopted with 90.27%. Next slide, agenda items 4.1, adopted 97.79%. Agenda item 4.2, adopted 97.79%. Agenda item 5.1, adopted. Agenda item 5.2, adopted. 6.1, adopted with a quorum score. Agenda item 7, adopted 90.60%. 7.1 that was, and 7.2, 98.34% adopted. That takes us through the list. Thank you for your vote. Thank you also for coming to this AGM, for participating in this AGM. As I said before, we are convinced that shareholder democracy is of key importance. I enjoyed the dialogue with all of you here at the Zaantheater. It's absolutely the case, although it's on paper, and we look forward to continuing the dialogue throughout the year. I would like to use this opportunity for thanking all those who are part of the preparation too, and the implementation of this AGM. It was a first opportunity for me. In closing this AGM, please join us for a drink in the foyer. Please, in leaving the room, leave behind your receiver headset and voting card or voting box. Now, there could be this joke about our self-service tills, but I won't. Don't forget to take a fresh package home for a free meal offered by Albert Heijn. I hereby close the meeting officially, wishing you a good afternoon and a good evening. Thank you.