A.P. Møller - Mærsk A/S (MAERSKB) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon. Welcome to our first ESG Investor Day here at Maersk, and thank you all for your interest in our sustainability journey. As a company dedicated to ESG for many years already, you will know that our programs are deeply embedded in everything we do and that we report a wealth of information, which you can find on the website, but also on our sustainability report. But our goal today is to provide you with a high level overview of our ESG goals, how they are integrated into our purpose, our values and our strategy, and then focus on what is most important to you, our investors. How we plan to reach our decarbonization goals, the opportunity and the customer value we believe they create and ultimately, how much it will all cost? But before we dive in, I will briefly turn to Sarah Spray, our Head of Investor Relations, for the agenda of the day and some housekeeping details. Sarah?

Thank you, Patrick. And a warm welcome to everyone following us here today. Let's go over today's agenda. First up, we'll start with our group CEO, Soren Skou, who will talk about the Maersk approach to ESG and how we live our corporate purpose and values every day. Then Henriette Thygesen, our CEO of Fleet and Strategic Brands, and Morten Bo Christiansen, our Head of Decarbonization, will do a deep dive into our decarb road map and our approach to green fuels as well as the regulatory environment. After a short break, Vincent Clerc, our CEO of Ocean and Logistics, will talk about how our approach to ESG creates value for our customers, before we bring Patrick back on board to talk about the financial aspects. Soren will close out the day returning to our corporate purpose, and then we will have a Q&A session with all presenters. As is clear, our ESG Investor Day is a virtual-only event and it is being recorded. That recording, along with an archived version of the presentation and the videos will be available on the investor website after the event. And as you follow along, if you have any questions, we suggest that you enter them via the chat function on the webcast. [Operator Instructions] Entering your questions in advance allows us to prioritize them when it comes to the Q&A session later. [Operator Instructions] And now that we have those details out of the way, I would like to welcome our CEO, Soren Skou, to talk about the Mærsk approach to ESG.

Good afternoon, and thank you all for joining us today. This is our first ESG Day. However, the concept of being a good corporate citizen, the concept of maintaining and reinforcing our license to operate in more than 130 countries around the world, the concept of sustainability, and the focus on environmental, social and governance issues have long been deeply embedded in Maersk. In fact, one of our long-held core values is our name, everything we stand for. This value guides us to act with integrity in everything we do. It guides us to safeguard and strengthen our brand and to ensure that we have a sustainable business for generations to come. A.P. Møller - Maersk is a purpose-driven company and has always been. We believe in creating value for all of our stakeholders, our customers, our employees, the societies we are part of and, of course, for our shareholders. We see no fundamental trade-off between ESG and long-term value creation. Our vision is to become the integrator of Global Logistics. We want to simplify and connect our customer supply chains, so they can effectively sell their products in any market around the world, or procure from the most competitive suppliers no matter where those suppliers are located. The pandemic has demonstrated once and for all that there is a strong need for integrated logistics out there. And we aim to fill that need to deliver better, simpler, more reliable outcomes for our customers. And ultimately, we will fulfill our purpose of improving life for all by integrating the world. ESG is core to this vision and to our strategy. We view ESG as a differentiator that is essential to our overall value proposition. It is simply part of the package that you get when you deal with Maersk. How ESG is embedded in our operations with concrete targets, a clear road map and strong governance is what we are here to discuss today. So speaking for all of us who are presenting here today and our tens of thousands of colleagues around the world, we are all very pleased to have this opportunity to present our ESG strategy, our targets and our pathway on the road to leadership, particularly in the decarbonization of logistics. We have made ESG intrinsic to our strategy and our operations by defining and implementing a carefully constructed portfolio of ESG programs that is connected to the core of what we do. When we developed our ESG strategy in 2021, we defined 14 priorities for Maersk. Our starting point was the UN Sustainable Development Goals, a number of ESG benchmarks, stakeholder expectations and science-based frameworks. We reviewed each of these for the relevance for Maersk and for what we do. We consider both the risks and the opportunities we face as a company, the impact we have globally, as well as the value that our stakeholders have at stake. We have determined where we want to be good, where we want to be excellent and where we want to lead globally. In some areas, such as decarbonization, we leverage our unique skills, resources and strengths to move sector standards. Every single 1 of our 14 ESG categories is owned by a member of our executive leadership team, who is responsible for driving it forward, responsible towards the full team and our Board for delivering the intended outcomes. And starting in 2023, the compensation of the executive leadership team will be directly tied to the outcomes on certain ESG targets. We will talk more about that later. I will now move on to a review of our portfolio of ESG programs, starting with governance. On governance, we have 6 categories in our ESG portfolio. They are all listed on this slide, and they are essentially about maintaining our license to operate and about managing risks. But delivering on our initiatives here also provide us with business opportunities. As I already said, we operate in more than 130 countries around the world. We provide critical port and logistics infrastructure in many countries. We are a major player in facilitating imports and exports in most, if not all, of the countries where we are active. And we thus play a crucial role in the world economy. It is a must for us to be seen as a good corporate citizen by governance, by regulators, customers to succeed. We rely on our good name and ethical business practices to win business from our customers, but also to win port concessions for our terminals business. We rely on our good name to be granted access to attractive land investment opportunities for warehouses. And we rely on our good names to ensure that authorities issue and maintain a multitude of licenses that enable us to run our everyday operations. So for Maersk, the G in ESG, governance, means operating based on responsible business practices. Our core values of uprightness, our word is our bond, and our name, everything we stand for, they guide us every day. And they are reinforced by purpose-driven leadership, clear policies and consistent training. Now moving to the S, social. We have defined 6 ESG programs in the social category and they are listed on this slide. And they are all centered around our people. Our people, the right environment for our people is not only a core value to Maersk, but it's also core to our strategy. We rely on the Maersk people to succeed. Our business is not based on proprietary knowledge, proprietary technology, assets or patents that we can protect from competition. What makes us different in the eyes of our customers is our people and what they can do and how we deliver every day. As a growth company, we need to have an engaged workforce that delivers for the customers. We need to attract thousands of new colleagues every year, and we need to retain those that already work for us. We are in the global race for talent, and one of the biggest risks to our strategy has to do with our ability to attract, develop and retain the right people. Our ambition is to provide an engaging, safe and inclusive workplace. We know that today, our people and those we will hire in the coming years, they're looking for more than just a paycheck. Our people want to work for a company that has a worthwhile mission, a company that values its societal and environmental responsibilities, a company that strives to make the world a better place. And as individuals, we all want to make a positive impact on customers, on colleagues every day, and we want to contribute to the societies that we are part of. We want to go to work and learn new things, develop and grow as a human being. As a purpose-led company, we believe that we can provide an environment where our people are able to bring their whole selves to work and contribute their fullest to be the best that they can be. And I'm confident that our employees are a competitive advantage for us today. Now moving to the E, environment. We have established 2 programs here: 1 on climate and 1 on environment. Let me take the latter first. When it comes to the environment, our business has an impact on biodiversity and ecosystems on land and in the oceans. We have established programs to manage risk by reducing waste, reducing pollution and emissions and to contribute to ocean's health by supporting scientific research and various partnerships. When it comes to climate, we all see the clear evidence of the climate crisis the world is facing. We recognize that we, in Maersk, are part of the problem. In our global operations, of ships, airplanes, trucks, trains, warehouses and ports, we emit millions of tonnes of CO2 every year. Maersk's 2021 emissions accounted for 1% of all transport and logistics emissions in the world and close to 0.1% of all global CO2 emissions. We are, however, also part of the solution. In Maersk, we are uniquely placed to help drive the solutions for decarbonizing logistics by using our resources including deep technical expertise to develop climate neutral ways forward. We see climate transition both as a risk and as an opportunity. Risk because authorities are likely to drive increased regulation and taxes on fossil fuels in the coming decade. The risk of doing nothing, of being left behind is not one that we are going to run. Also, because our customers increasingly will demand that we reduce CO2 emissions and provide solutions that help them reduce their Scope 3 emissions. On the other hand, this agenda is also an opportunity for us to help solve customers' Scope 3 challenges and to make decarbonization a part of our value proposition. The opportunity for us is to have decarbonized products, and ultimately, end-to-end solutions on the shelves, so that we can sell them. Realizing this will also require access to scarce green fuel in the coming decade. Playing an active role in the transition is clearly part of the journey for us. Let's now turn to addressing how Maersk will make a tangible impact in this decade, supporting our customers and the industry on the path to net zero. To start off, let's just have a brief review of where Maersk stands in terms of our carbon footprint. Total greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be approximately 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. The majority of those come from the use of energy in industry, transportation, and buildings. The transportation sector represents about 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which 7 percentage points come from transporting freight and goods. There are considerable differences in the carbon intensity between different modes of transportation. Maersk is exposed to all modes of transportation, but our larger submissions come from container shipping. This remains, by far, the most CO2-efficient transport mode, although given the scale of our business, we are still classified as a heavy emitter of greenhouse gases. In 2021, the total greenhouse gas emissions by A.P. Møller - Maersk were over 66 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. More than half of these come from our financially controlled operations, known as Scope 1 emissions. Today, 93% of our Scope 1 emissions come from fuel use in our Ocean operations. Addressing these is where we can have the greatest impact. Indirect emissions created from purchased electricity or steam at our locations, Scope 2, are 1% of our total emissions. 61% of these Scope 2 emissions come from terminals and we are also actively addressing Scope 2 emissions in our warehouses. Indirect emissions resulting from our broader operations, or Scope 3, today account for 44% of our total greenhouse gas emissions. This, among other things, includes emissions from cargo moved under vessel-sharing agreements, the sourcing of marine fuels to third parties, and trucks operated by our logistics partners. We continue to refine our Scope 3 methodology and data as documenting Scope 3 emissions is an evolving science, complicated by a lack of industry standards and the challenge of obtaining granular data across many thousands of suppliers. Maersk has set the ambitious goal of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 across all scopes and our full end-to-end value chain, leading the decarbonization of logistics and providing 100% green solutions for our customers. At Maersk, we have been driving a structured energy efficiency agenda for the last 15 years. Since 2008, we have worked consistently to improve energy efficiency. And we have by now reduced our fuel consumption per container that we ship by more than 40%. Energy efficiency will continue to be important, and we expect to become even more energy efficient throughout this decade. But even though energy efficiency is important, and clearly, a part of the answer to how we achieve impact this decade, it will never get us to net zero. In recognition of this, in 2018, we launched our version of a moonshot, our ambition to be net zero by 2050 for our Ocean shipping fleet. It was not an easy decision at the time. We did not know the technical pathway to net zero, what propulsion technology would we use in the future, what kind of fuel? But we did know that it will cost more money, both in terms of investments and in operating costs. We also did not know the commercial pathway. Would our customers be there to support us by helping us pay for the extra cost through a green premium? I'm glad to say that today, 4 years later, we have much more clarity. The technical pathway is clear and we see an emerging commercial pathway as well, as customers increasingly are setting their own net zero targets, and some customers have shown willingness to pay a green premium for the green ECO Delivery products that we have in our Ocean business. We have also worked on the technical pathway for the rest of our products. And we will, for the first time today, share with you some of the details on how we think about decarbonizing our inland business, warehouses, airplanes and so on. The progress that we have made since 2018 has already resulted in very tangible investments in new green fuel ships, in electrification and automation in our terminals, and in greening of warehouses. And it has resulted in offsetting new and more ambitious and accelerated net zero targets this year, advancing net zero from 2050 to 2040, and setting pretty tough targets for 2030. In some ways, the 2030 targets are the most important because they actually drive and inform every single investment decision that we do today. Having an aspirational 2050 goal was ambitious in 2018, but now in 2022, it's really about real actions, investments and having an impact this decade. My colleagues, Henriette Thygesen and Morten Bo Christiansen will take us through the how of our road map.

Thank you, Soren, for setting the scene for the next session, indeed, the what and the how we will do to achieve our goals on the pathway to net zero. In Maersk, we are responsible for approximately 0.1% of global emissions. Hence, decarbonizing across all scopes and business in just 18 years is a staggering task, but it is a strategic imperative for us. The climate crisis is real and action is needed here and now. As the global integrator of container logistics, we feel an obligation to ensure that our customers can continue to operate global supply chains in a sustainable manner. We have already started, and by 2040, our ambition is that our customers can move all their cargo with Maersk in an end-to-end net zero manner by sea, by land and by air. Nobody can predict the future, and there's still much uncertainty. And in the next 18 years, new technologies and new opportunities will emerge. So no, we do not have a detailed game chart between now and 2040 that outlines every step. But we understand enough to know the next steps ahead of us. And what we do have is very concretely ambitious 2030 targets and a road map to get there. This plan drives our ambitions and investments today. As Soren said, we have already come some way in Ocean. We have identified a net zero technology pathway, which we will elaborate further on data. And by 2020, we had already improved relative emissions by more than 45% compared to 2008. As we look towards 2030, we aim to have an additional emission intensity reduction of around 50% relatively to that 2020 baseline. A critical element of this improvement would be to have 25% of our ocean cargo transported with green fuels. And for our other products, we have set ambitious targets, and we have plans in place. In air, our aim is to transport a minimum of 30% of our cargo using sustainable aviation fuel. We expect to have 90% of our logistics facilities on green operations. And we will have 20% of our land site cargo moving with green fuels or renewable electricity. And for our own terminals, we target an approximate 70% reduction in emissions. I will go further into the detail of the how in a moment. But what I would like you to take away is the following: our ambition is expected to align Maersk with the Science-Based Targets initiative pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. And it covers all scope and all business. So let's have a look at the plans and the actions in more detail. To achieve our Ocean ambition, we will apply 2 main levers: one, further fuel efficiency improvements, and secondly, transition to green fuels. Fuel efficiency improvements are effective and cost-efficient levers as efficiency of both reduced emissions and costs. Furthermore, this toolbox is very well known to us. That is how we have reduced emissions intensity by 45% from 2008 to 2020. Since 2020, then due to the heavy strain on the global supply chains, we have unfortunately experienced a setback. We expect to be back on track next year with additional tools such as optimization of our network design, for example, by increasing vessel terms, deploying larger vessels as we renew our fleet, by improvement of our network execution through increased port productivity, reduced waiting time and optimized voyage planning, and by energy-efficient retrofits and development and scaling of new technology. So we will apply well-known industry levers in new and innovative ways, building on digital technology and human creativity. And this will not only have significant impact on emissions and costs, but it will also help us deliver a more stable and reliable ocean network, closely supporting our delivery promise to our customers. We are continuously optimizing our road map. And with current plans, it seems that efficiency improvements can get us far towards the target in 2030. But whereas fuel efficiency improvement is very important, it can never get us to zero. Therefore, we must transition from fossil to green fuels, where we are already taking the first steps by ordering 19 green methanol enabled container vessels. The good news is that due to our limited order in the last years and the fact that our current order book has only green-enabled vessels, we can do the fleet transition through natural fleet renewal. The road map to reach our 2030 and 2040 targets have 4 elements. All fleet renewal in our own fleet, and it will be green fuel enabled new builds, so no accelerated new building programs. So again, only natural renewal. Furthermore, we have the option to conduct engine retrofits from fossil to green. And we can, in partnership with leading time charter partners, get the green fuel enabled charter vessels. And finally, we can expand the usage of biodiesel and other drop-in fuels where relevant. We believe that from a fleet perspective, it is a fully doable vessel wise to deliver on our decarbonization commitments, and the associated CapEx implications are manageable. The biggest challenge will be to secure the supply of the green fuels in time, in sufficient quantities and at a competitive price. And my colleague Morten will speak further to that in a moment. If we are looking ahead at some of our other segments, then clearly, the Ocean segment is where we are most mature in our plans and where we are in execution mode. With regards to our other logistics and terminal activities, we have spent the past year understanding customer needs and technology pathways. It is a rather immature market and we are currently going into piloting mode to identify where we can scale solutions with customers. Decarbonizing logistics and terminals will be a very different challenge compared to Ocean. It is, in a way, easier as there are more options available, such as direct electrification and the use of green hydrogen. On the other hand, it is also more complex as there are major regional and local differences with regards to availability, cost, scalability of solutions, but also the regulatory environment. Furthermore, we are often not owning the assets. So even more so than in Ocean, we have to work through partners. The good news is that green solutions are emerging in the market, some very immature from a technology perspective, but the market is emerging. And together with our customers and suppliers, we can evolve it further. Let's take a look at some of the targets we have, the levers to achieve them and some examples of progress. For logistics facilities, our warehouses', cold stores' and depots' direct electrification with renewable electricity can be done to a large extent. And that is why we have set a very high ambition. We aim to have 90% of our own business operated on renewable electricity or on green fuels by 2030. Additional renewable electricity is key to this transition. And we will, where possible, seek to have renewable energy installations directly at our facilities or secure PPAs of new renewable electricity capacity. All of our new sites and our long-term leases will be built for green operation, and we aspire ambitious accreditation levels. So far, we only have 2 warehouses with this high level of accreditation, but additional 12 in our investment pipeline will also be compliant. Based on the progress so far and our plans, we expect to introduce a green warehousing product to our customers next year. For our Terminal business, APM Terminals, our ambition is to reduce around 70% of emissions from our control terminal entities by 2030. And the levers are similar to those of our logistics facilities. So again, predominantly direct electrification, battery electric mobile equipment and green and renewable electricity. Furthermore, we will accelerate our ongoing energy optimization program, which will provide some additional emissions reductions. The challenge for terminals is the fragmentation of the footprint, which can make implementation quite complex. Today, 3 of our terminals are near fully electric for the main terminal operation. That is Maasvlakte II in Rotterdam, Moin in Costa Rica, and our terminal in the Ivory Coast. More are underway as we are replacing or retrofitting the electrical equipment. We already have more than 500 pieces of electric equipment in the portfolio. And in 2022 alone, we have ordered 183 pieces of electric or hybrid container handling equipment with another 169 in pipeline. This in total corresponds to close to 20% of our equipment base in APM Terminals. Once a terminal is fully electrified, it only needs renewable electricity supply to be zero emission. That electricity can come from power purchase agreements or on-site installations. A good example of that is our Pipavav terminal in India, where we have commissioned 1 megawatt of on-site solar plant, which will supply 13% of the terminal's electricity need. Pipavav has also signed a renewable electricity PPA agreement for 40% of its demand. So the transition into electric equipment powered by renewable electricity has indeed been initiated, and we have a plan to reach the 2030 targets primarily through natural renewal of the equipment. For land site transportation, we aim to have 20% of our customer cargo moved on green fuels of renewable electricity by 2030. Land site transportation covers trucking, rail and barging and available technologies, and the maturity and cost competitiveness varies by region. Therefore, we have decided to take a regional approach, taking these different accounts into consideration. An immediately available and no-regret solution for customer is the opportunity to do modal shifts. So moving, for example, from road to rail, and general network optimization to reduce usage of high emission transport solutions. For rail, green solutions are available at scale in several markets. For example, in Germany, 70% of our rail moves are electric and powered by renewable energy. In Spain, another example, this number is 60%. But other than modal shifts, land site transportation is very much about battery electric propulsion for trucking. With the current maturity of battery electric trucks, this is currently only relevant for short-haul, so-called day rates. So for long-haul trucking, green hydrogen powered trucks are expected to play a role in the future. Again, there we have a very immature market as the first models will only hit the market next year. We are, therefore, piloting our ECO Delivery product for land site transportation using biofuels for the trucks, and we are looking for pilots for hydrogen-based trucking. We are doing what we can to build momentum on electric trucking. And this year, we have so far received 16 electric Volvo trucks. By end of the year, we expect to have at least -- sorry, by end of next year, we expect to have at least 150 electric trucks in our inland network with more to come, so far, from Volvo and from Swedish Einride, which is one of the companies we have in our venture portfolio. Finally, for airfreight, we have an ambition to have 30% of Maersk airfreight cargo on SAF-based transport solution by 2030. Airfreight is by far the transport mode with the highest emission intensity. This is, on one side, the reason for the very ambitious target, but it also means that it will be a very challenging target to reach. And as for the next many years, the only solution to airfreight is sustainable aviation fuel, and both current and future projected supply looks very tight. So absent a technology breakthrough, we assess that SAF will be in very high demand. And whereas in Ocean, we believe we have the size and the position to be a market leader, then in airfreight, that is simply not the case. And we will need to rely on the leadership of major airlines to accelerate the market for SAF. We are currently running pilots and have dialogue with customers to determine demand, including how much blending our customers have appetite for. We expect to bring an ECO Delivery air product to market in 2023. With this overview of our green solutions across transport modes, we want to zoom in further on the available fuels and that we will deploy in our ocean fleet. And I would like to hand over to my colleague Morten, our Head of Decarbonization, to give you more details. As you may know, we have chosen green methanol as our first green fuel. And let's start with a short video that looks at the production of same. [Presentation]

Today, methanol is primarily used in commodity chemical production, but it is also a promising fuel because it is easily stored and transported biodegradable liquid. In fact, it is already in use as a marine fuel. The vast majority of methanol produced today is derived from fossil fuel feedstock. Therefore, it does not contribute to solving our overall climate challenge, but methanol can also be made as a carbon-neutral fuel, either as biomethanol, made from sustainable biomass, or as e-methanol, made from renewable energy and biogenic CO2. What makes these green fuels green. E-methanol begins by using sustainable renewable energy to power an electrolysis process that separates water, or H2O, into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be synthesized together with CO2 to create a synthetic hydrocarbon, the liquid marine fuel e-methanol. The CO2 for this process can come from sustainable biogenic sources or from direct air capture, thereby creating a cycle that does not produce additional CO2 emissions. Hydrogen can also be synthesized with nitrogen into e-ammonia, a gas, which also has promised is a sustainable marine fuel. Biomethanol and e-methanol or e-ammonia, are considered green because they can be produced and used in a CO2 neutral way from stock to stack. This is consistent with Maersk's total life cycle assessment approach to evaluating sustainable fuels.

Thank you, Henriette. So for the next 15 minutes or so, I'm going to talk about green fuels. So literally, how we are going to power the transition of our company to become net zero. I will spend most of the time talking about fuels for our fleet for the shipping segment. But I will wrap it up by trying to put our overall decarbonization road map into sort of the bigger context of the global energy transition. As we saw in the video, green fuels for shipping is not some futuristic vision. They can be made today by known and proven technologies. Here at Maersk, we explored several candidates for the future green fuels. And we look at a set of criteria that they must be safe, they must be long-term economically effective, and obviously, they need to provide a reliable and scalable pathway towards net zero. And since we have to act with urgency, importantly, we are looking for solutions that can work now. So not something that can work 10 years from now, something that can work now, so we can start solving the problem. We look at 2 fuels that we see as very promising. They are here on the page. And as Henriette already mentioned, we have already decided to go for methanol, and I'll just outline the pros and the cons of these fuels, each of them. If we start with methanol. So from an operational, from a safety, from an environmental perspective, this is actually the preferred fuel. Engine technology is available. It's proven out there at sea. Because it is a liquid, as explained in the video, it is relatively easy to handle. It means that the infrastructure for transporting it will be simple. And even if it does have a lower flash point compared to other marine fuels, then there are some safety challenges, but they are actually manageable. From an environmental perspective, methanol is biodegradable, which means that even if we spill it, it will actually do limited harm to the marine environment, which is important. And it also means that the bunkering process can be relatively simple. And when it can be simple, it can also be cheap. So there are many advantages of this fuel. There is one big drawback about it. The main constraint for methanol is that it actually involves carbon in the combustion process, so methanol contains carbon. It means that you actually emit CO2 when you burn it, and it means that you will have to have captured that CO2 from the air and put it into the fuel, as explained in the video, and the biogenic CO2 is a scarce resource. There's quite a lot of it around, but it is a constraint, and any constraint will add to the cost of the fuel. So that means that all other things being equal, it will be more expensive to produce, we expect, than e-ammonia, which is the other candidate. E-ammonia is in many ways, from a production perspective, the perfect e-fuel. As we saw in the video, it uses nitrogen to carry the hydrogen molecules, and nitrogen is 78% of the air that we breathe. So it is abundant. And it also means that until we have solved the direct air capture of CO2, then also ammonia will be more scalable than methanol. Furthermore, ammonia has the advantage that there is no carbon involved in the process. There is a little caveat, which is that when you produce and burn ammonia, there would be some slip along the way and some of the ammonia will turn into what is known as laughing gas, N2O, which is actually an extremely potent greenhouse gas. It's actually 300 times worse than CO2, and it's actually topic that is not well understood. So more work is needed there, but that is also in the making. The main drawback of ammonia is that it is highly toxic. It problematic from a safety perspective, but certainly also from an environmental perspective, because any spills of ammonia would be detrimental to the marine environment. And what that means is that the bunkering process will be very complex. And when it is complex, it will also be more expensive. And then finally, to our best assessment, ammonia, even if when we solve the safety and environmental challenges, from a practical perspective, it will only be able to scale towards the end of this decade. Here on the page we show an expected time line of engine development, and we base this on the engine developers. We expect to see the first engine in 2024, and there will probably be 2 or 3 ammonia tankers sailing with this engine. And when you're doing it on a tanker, you don't have the bunkering problem because these ships simply consume their own cargo. And then the engine developers will need some operational experience. This is a properly new engine. So we only see the first wave of smaller container vessels coming in perhaps '27, '28. And then a bigger engine needs to be engineered and tested, meaning that from what it looks right now, we will be towards the end of this decade before we can see some real scale on ammonia, and we don't have time to wait for that. But when that moment comes, and if we solve the different problems that there are, then surely ammonia will be a great fuel for shipping as well. I should mention that we also look into liquefied hydrogen, but currently from a maturity perspective, it is less mature than ammonia. So that we have not included in this overview. So based on that, we conclude that in order to scale this decade, green methanol is the only realistic pathway for us. And we're actually quite happy to see that several of our peers have decided also to go down this fuel pathway and have ordered methanol-powered vessels. We're happy to see that because time is of the essence. The 1.5-degree scenario is balancing on a knife edge and we need action now and investments now. So that leaves us to the fuel challenge because this really is the crux of this transition, not just towards 2040, but perhaps even more so towards 2030. I think, as Henriette very well described, building the vessels, that's an execution challenge. We will get that done. It can be done through fleet renewal, it can be done through charter vessels, it can be done through potential retrofits. The challenge is really around the fuels. And as we show on this picture, by 2030, we expect that we will need something to the tune of 5 million tonnes of green fuels, most of which will be methanol, maybe all, but at least most of it. And this is in a market which 1.5 year ago didn't actually exist. So you can, of course, wonder why did we go ahead and order so many ships when there's no fuel. But it was really an attempt to try and break this chicken and egg situation that we have served that no one would build or even further develop the green vessels because there were no fuels, no one would make the green fuels because there were no green vessels. So we wanted to try and break that chicken and egg situation. And even if -- I think as the slide also shows, we still have some way to go to get to the 25% and the 5 million tonnes, but we are actually quite happy to see the momentum that is building up. So far, we have firm supply agreement for our first green container vessel, which will come next year. We have a supply agreement with European Energy, a Danish developer. As we speak, the plant is being built near the city of Aalborg here in Denmark. So we have that first vessel covered. For the next 18 large vessels. So far, we have signed memorandums of understanding, so MOUs with 8 partners, and I'll get back to who they are. And that actually, when we add that all up, and if they deliver as per our expectations, that actually amounts to 1.5 million tonnes of fuel, most of which will be delivered through 2025 and 2026. So at least on paper, we are well covered for the order book that we have. But more will follow as we renew our fleet and as we get charter vessels in. So we believe we need to do more. And that's why we have also engaged with nation states such as Egypt, we announced that in March, and Spain, a few weeks ago, to actually initiate new projects, put more supply in the market from such engagements. And this is where we will play a more active role in actually identifying and bringing new projects on stream. But we will obviously do it with cable partners and with investors because we're doing this to accelerate the market. We are not doing it to become a fuel company. We don't have any long-term strategic interest in that. But the supply of these green fuels and the unlock of this green fuels market is of such strategic importance to us that we are willing to lean in and do the most that we can. As you can also see on this page, biodiesel does today and will continue to play a role. We are basically building up our ECO Delivery product in Ocean based on this for now and Vincent will talk more about that later. But we do expect that when the methanol becomes available in the ships, then actually, we will, in all likelihood, limit the use of biodiesel, simply because with what we know today, the methanol pathway will be cheaper than to base it on biodiesel and also more scalable. So I just want to take a look at the 8 partners that we have made these MOUs with. These are the 8 great companies that have decided to lean in, that have decided to offer us MOUs. And MOUs are, technically speaking, legally nonbinding. But these agreements have strong commitment on both sides. And each of these have a time line, have a target price and have a volume with them. And there's strong commitment on both sides of these to actually make them happen. So we look forward to that, and we will, of course, mature them into actual fuel supply agreements. But we will not stop here. We will continue to engage with the market, including with these companies. We see typically 2 to 3 new inquiries every week on people who have fuel projects they would like to discuss with us. So the market is really coming to life. And we actually have right now more than 30 projects under valuation, early stage, but projects that we will try to mature into first MOUs and then actual supply agreements. And these are actually from quite a wide selection of players. Everything from renewable energy company, power companies, chemical and industrial gas companies, and also oil majors. So we are really seeing large capable companies, large balance sheets, who are leaning into this and trying to build up this market together with us. So if we can go to the last page, I think that was a deep dive on the fuels for shipping. With this page here, I would like to build on Henriette's outlay of our plans and try to put them into, if you will, the overall context of the energy transition. So I think we all know that the world will need to complete the transition of its energy system from fossil fuels to renewable energy, meaning that we will need to put up massive amounts of solar panels, wind turbines, and they will be the main sources of this. So therefore, it's, of course, important that when we try to decarbonize a business and a sector as significant as logistics, we, of course, need to go for solutions that actually use the most effective way of turning the rays of the sun and the molecules of the wind into real work, mechanical energy that moves stuff around. And this is an illustration of the different pathways that we have to do so. The logic of the page is that as you move from left to right, then the energy will have to go through more and more hoops and loops to actually become real work that moves stuff around in logistics systems. That means it will be less energy efficient and therefore also more costly. But if we start at the left, then by far the most effective way you can turn renewable energy into actual work is by direct electrification, so simply plug into the grid and then use electric motors or whatever to get the work done. And this is what we do in our warehouses. We can do it in our terminals, as Henriette has outlined. And you can actually also do it on railways if they have these overhead as we have in many places. That's by far the best way. Here you get typically 90% of the energy of the sun and the wind into real work. Now if you have an asset that moves around, then it typically cannot be done like that. Then the second best way to do it is actually to store the renewable energy in a battery and then use that battery to power a vehicle, can be a truck, can also be a train car. Here you lose some energy in the actual charging and operation of the battery and the infrastructure and so on, but you typically get something like 75% of the rays of the sun or the molecules of the wind into moving your assets around. So also a quite effective way of doing. The problem with batteries, though, is that they have very low energy density, so you need both a lot of space, you also need a lot of weight to actually have batteries to move your assets. And for most of transportation, that is just not feasible. That goes for shipping or long-haul trucking for now. And then you will have to rely on what we typically call Power-to-X, which are the 2 flows on the right here. And the most effective Power-to-X is to use the green hydrogen directly. So we saw in the video how water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable energy. That hydrogen can be put through a fuel cell, and that fuel cell can then power an electric truck via an electric drive train, for example. And there, you lose even more energy because you now have to do the electrolysis and you also have to put it through a fuel cell, and with today's technologies, you are typically down to having something like 40% to 45% of your source energy, if you will, into doing real work. So you lose more than half on the way. How fuel cell technology will develop in the future? We expect that number to go north of 50%. But the way it is today, it's actually down to 40%. And that's actually why, if you can use an electric truck, it is actually more effective than using hydrogen truck. You simply need more solar panels or wind turbines if you're using the hydrogen pathway. But it will be necessary, as Henriette outlined, for a while in long-haul heavy truck. And if still you cannot use the hydrogen, and that would typically be because, actually, the weight energy density of hydrogen is excellent, but it just takes up a lot of space, and on a container ship that is an issue. So where we are today, also with the current state of fuel cells, we cannot use that as the main propulsion on the ship. Then your last resort is to take that hydrogen and then put it on either a nitrogen or a CO2 molecule, as we saw in the video. Then you make a fuel with higher energy density that you can then put into a combustion engine that can then propel your ship or your plane. But when you need to do these further things, you lose even more energy. And actually the way the system works is that you are typically down to 20% to 25% of the source energy that you have in the propeller or in the turbine of the plane. So this is really the logic of this, and that is why we are trying to push as much as we can from our asset base towards the left here, because it is the most effective way to do it in the global energy system, and it is, of course, also the most cost effective. And this page here then also describes why aviation and shipping are seen as hard to abate sectors because they have to rely on the outer right solution here. And speaking of hard to abate, it's now time to move to our next topic. It's the perfect segue, which is regulation. And I'll hand it over to Henriette, again. But before we do that, we'll just watch a short video that highlights the some of the main regulatory aspects that are relevant to us. [Presentation]

To achieve full decarbonization of the shipping industry, global regulation is required in order to create a level playing field. Where do we stand today? The carbon intensity indicator or CII implementation is part of the IMO 2023 regulation and one of the first substantial measures intended to provide actual greenhouse gas reduction. From January 2023, ship owners or operators will be required to report to the IMO, the operational energy efficiency of every vessel in their fleet, ranked A through E. A vessel CII is calculated as its annual CO2 emissions divided by its deadweight and travel distance. As of yet, there is only soft enforcement, but shipowners will be required to submit corrective action plans to bring all vessels to a C rating at the latest by 2026. The CII is not prescriptive and is based on individual vessel compliance. So shipowners can choose a variety of methods to comply, including alternative fuels, slow steaming, network optimization, or even just lower capacity utilization given the deadweight aspect. The EU's Fit for 55 is the road map for how the European Union intends to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The EU Emissions Trading System, or ETS, works on the principle of cap and trade. Regulated entities must buy emission allowances or EAs to cover their annual emissions. One EA is equivalent to 1 tonne of CO2 emitted. Fit for 55 strengthens the current provisions and extends the scope of the scheme to include shipping. It also reduces target emission levels, which will raise the prices for required EAs for all regulated entities. Currently, the 3 co-legislators are in discussion to agree on a final text. We expect a decision by the end of this year and the final adoption by the first quarter of 2023.

As you have just seen in the video, several regulatory measures are being introduced. Some focus on reducing emissions directly and some enable the green transition through subsidies or other levers. For now, we see 5 overall areas that can enable us to drive decarbonization, some regional and some global. For the regional measures, we are happy to see the EU and the U.S. stepping up to provide tangible measures or support to reduce emissions. Maersk is a supporter of EU Fit for 55 as a catalyst for change. However, we continue to strongly call for global solutions through the IMO. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and the Clean Shipping Act could enable a step change. And we are confident that such programs would make a meaningful difference for decarbonization, also beyond shipping and logistics. For global measures, Maersk continues to support IMO regulation and carbon taxation. The right regulation will be a game changer to accelerate decarbonization in shipping, but a level playing field is required. Short-term regulation from the IMO will affect us to the EEXI and the CII and whereas both initiatives are not ideal, it is a step in the right direction. For EEXI, only limited impact is expected from Maersk and will come with a smaller one-off CapEx requirement and a few engine adjustment on our vessels. This is an area where the past ongoing investments in fleet efficiency pays off for us as the upgrade cost for us to meet the EEXI is relatively small. For CII, the tools we need are, in principle, the same needed to deliver on our decarbonization road map. However, for CII, we must ensure that the regulation is going to be enforced hard, not soft, and on a global level. And we strongly believe that regulation should be at the fleet portfolio level, not on a vessel level. Focusing on individual assets could slow decarbonization for the industry. We support greater transparency to enable the best enforcement of CII, and we anticipate that our first data publication will be after the first year of reporting. Regulation in its current form will unfortunately not fully support the right behavior. We need strong long-term regulation and we need it at global level. In Maersk, we call for a market-based greenhouse gas price of at least $150 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. And we need a well-to-wake approach. We must ensure a life cycle perspective to decarbonization, otherwise, we simply push emissions elsewhere in the value chain. And we also firmly believe that we need to look beyond CO2 and look at all greenhouse gases. U.S. and EU regulation is a good start. However, it would only address part of the problem. Hence, again, we must have a global set of rules through the IMO to create a level playing field. And we must increase both the IMO 2030 and 2050 ambition to have a meaningful impact. Therefore, we also call for the IMO member states to fully commit themselves to the transition. Tomorrow's world is going to be different from the world of today, the world of yesterday, and the future requires action. We are committed to solve our part even if we know it will not be easy. However, we are confident in our plan and our commitment is truly whole hearted. We will do this for our customers, for society, and for our employees. I know we have shared a lot of details with you, but I want to leave you with 3 key messages. One, we have tangible solutions in place to address a large share of our emissions. Yes, there is still uncertainty. That uncertainty will remain, but we are learning as we go by, and we will improve and accelerate as we can. There's only 1 perfect time to act. That time is indeed now. Solving the climate emergency and decarbonizing our customer supply chains is a strategic imperative for us. And then we need the global regulatory framework to support and reward a green transition. We look very much forward to leading the way together with our customers and partners and making green transition of global supply chains come to life. This concludes the first section of our ESG Day, so Sarah, over to you.

Thank you for bringing it home, Henriette. Let's all take a break now and meet back here in 10 minutes for the second part of the session. [Break]

Welcome back to the second part of the Maersk ESG Investor Day. We hope you had a chance to grab some refreshment and are ready to go. Before I hand over to Vincent, I'd just like to remind you to use the chat function on the webcast to register your questions. The more questions we get in advance, the better prepared we can be for the Q&A session later. And with that, I would like to hand over to Vincent Clerc, our CEO of Ocean and Logistics, who is going to tell us about how the Maersk approach to ESG creates value for our customers.

Thank you, Sarah. And I am mindful that for some of you right now, I'm competing for your attention with Denmark having its opening game in Qatar. But let me try to make it worth your while and talk a little bit about the importance of the shift that we have seen, because if anything, it illustrates the increased importance that sustainability has taken globally and especially amongst our customers. It is the shift that we have seen over the past couple of years in the conversations that we are having with our customers. In 2018, we came out with our first goal of cutting our emissions to a net zero by 2050. At that time, we had a lot of different worries or concerns about how we were going to make it in terms of technical solutions. I was CCO for A.P. Møller - Maersk at the time and my main concern was how I was going to bring customer along for the journey and make sure that we could also share or pass on some of the costs that would accompany the transition. Two years later, in 2020, the pandemic hits with multiple disruptions of supply chains across the globe. And at that time, I was very concerned that this problem of the transition to a more sustainable future was only going to be amplified with the focus that customers would have in the problems that they have here and now. Yet here we are in 2022, and nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, sustainability has increased in importance amongst many of our customers. We're seeing a significant shift. And today, despite the shortened time horizon that we have to 2040, I am confident that we have a pathway that will get us there and that is commercially viable and financially responsible to execute given the willingness to pay of our customers. If we think about the shift, it is broad, but it is not completely unique, of course. The more customers are close to the end consumer, the more they are consumer brands, the more they are reacting to the shift in consumer preferences that we're seeing across multiple verticals. This shift is triggering more and more conversations, and we're seeing today the customers being tiered across globally 4 different buckets of how they are dealing with the solution today. You can see that not all customers are into the leaning categories that we see on the right of the slide. Actually, a majority are still fairly infant in the way that they are thinking about it. But 2/3 out of our top 200 customers have already issued targets that either aim or commit to significant reduction in CO2 or to a net zero path for their business. On a global basis, it is 2,250 of our customers that have issued such statements already. These customers give us the platform that we need to try stuff out, to roll product out, to accumulate learning about how they're thinking about it and how we can solve problem, how we can marry ideas together. They also give us the license to operate and scale some of our solutions, so that we can make them more attractive to the many customers that are still on the left side of the graph, and that will stay there probably for a long time. This shift is not only a shift in conversation and a shift in commitment. Actually, customers are taking action, and they expect Maersk to come up with leading solutions that meet the expectations that they have on the pathways that they have committed to. ECO Delivery was the first step that Maersk took to tackle those demand from our customers. It was rolled in 2019. And today, the commercial success that we have had with ECO Delivery far exceeds the expectations that we had at the onset of it. Today, 200 customers are testing the product. More than 20 customers have committed most or all of their shipments with Maersk to ECO Delivery. And we ship already more than 3% of the total amount of volumes that we have on a green basis. This is going to continue to grow with significant growth also expected into next year. More interesting and a key learning for us was the fact that, as you can see also on the map, the constituency of customers that are buying ECO Delivery is not limited to the traditional North European and Coastal U.S.A. markets. Actually, today, 35% of the volumes that we move on ECO Delivery are from customers from emerging markets. This is really illustrating well the broad shift that we're seeing in attitude, not only in the traditional mature markets, but across the globe. It gives us a lot of confidence in the potential that this is having commercially, because today, the constraint that we have on scaling ECO Delivery is not the willingness from customers to engage, it is actually the ability that we have to source the fuel that meets the criteria that we have set out in sufficient quantity. This is actually important step for us because the success of ECO Delivery is actually the result of the convergence of big increase in customer sensitivities and need for action and the diligent work of the team here at Maersk in creating a product that meets those expectations and the requirements that our customers have. If we look at ECO Delivery, it is basically fuel agnostic. Maersk is sourcing the fuel according to strident criteria that can be the lowest possible fuel that we can source in order to provide a net zero shipment. We ensure, within the company, the blending of the fuel. We use also methodologies that our customers are used to look at and are familiar with, from the Clean Cargo Group, to quantify the abated tonnes and the certificates that will be issued. And finally, we are able to issue a certificate that is approvable, auditable and audited that allows them to claim the decarbonization of the transportation that they have had with Maersk. The comprehensiveness of the product means that it has been scalable. We have been able to cope with the excessive demand that we had on top of the business plan that we had where we started. It means also that it offers us a platform to learn, engage with customers as we move towards the next steps of the journey. Because the next step of the decarbonization is actually to move away from biodiesel, which have inherent limitation with respect to quantity and are also still indexed on some of the carbon-based costs and move towards the green methanol that Morten and Henriette talked about earlier today. The move to green methanol offers not only increased benefits from a green and a sourcing and scalability perspective, it allows us also to meet customer demands and requirements that the biodiesel is unable to meet. On top of being also carbon neutral, customers have a strong need for predictability in their cost. Today, fuel and transportation is the most volatile element that they have in their cost base. The quarterly adjustment of our BAF factor in the traditional fuel market means that whenever they are signing up a contract, they do not really know in advance the landed cost of the goods that they're going to move. With the sourcing of methanol, we can basically decouple from the old carbon economy and offer them a green solution decoupled from energy prices, and that offers them the predictability that they need on landed cost, helping them to preserve their margins, which in these times of inflation is really important, and having complete predictability on the cost base and their budgets. We will be able, with this, also to scale more the solutions that we have beyond what we could with biodiesel. And we will be able, by addressing this predictability need, to engage with customers, who with the value proposition of ECO Delivery today would not necessarily feel that all their needs are met to the extent that they want to, but they will feel that they have this by the time the predictability is also covered in those. Being able to scale the decarbonization of our shipping business is very important to Maersk, because shipping still represents the bulk of our carbon emission today. However, at a time where most of our growth is coming from land-based operation, it is insufficient. Furthermore, our customers' emission in logistics are mostly land-based. For many of them, shipping is actually a relatively small part of their emission. Therefore, customers are looking at Maersk not only to decarbonize 1 product or 1 node of their supply chain, they are looking for end-to-end solution that can allow them to claim a green product from production to shelf. This is the journey that we are engaging to. And by 2040, we will be able to move cargoes across all the nodes of the global supply chain on green energy. The next step on this journey will be the rolling out of a first ECO Delivery on land-based, building on our rail and decarbonized trucking solutions that will be able to be combined with the Ocean transportation that we have to create green corridors for our customers. The network in land, where we can offer ECO Delivery, will rapidly increase to meet the demands of our customers. This expansion to all the different nodes of the supply chain means that we need to find different solutions to different products. Henriette and Morten talked about some of the tools that we have at our disposal to do. But obviously, we need also to meet the willingness to pay that our customers have in order to have an effective and responsible plan going forward. If we look at the different aspects of the supply chain where we are involved, we see 4 different ways of grouping the services that we provide. The first one is where direct electrification provides a positive business economic case here and now. It is the case in some of our Terminal business and some of our warehousing business. There we have a plan to gradually and rapidly convert some of the sites that we have and the new sites that we will open to being fully electrified and green. In many of the other products, the rapid scale and the meeting of the targets that we have will depend also on the introduction of the carbon tax that Henriette talked about. If we estimate this carbon tax at being about $150 per tonne, we will see that a large part of where the logistics supply chain is emitting will actually have an abatement cost that becomes inferior to the carbon cost once the tax has been implemented. This is true for most of the landside distribution, where we expect, after scaling of solutions and after a lot of trials and errors and moving down the learning curve, that the abatement cost will be about $50 per tonne of CO2. There making a business case at that time that meets those criteria will be fairly easy. Another group, and here is where shipping is actually belonging, is that we expect that once we have seen the scaling and the learning curve, we will be able to come in the neighborhood of $200 per tonnes of CO2 abatement cost. This will be marginally superior to what we're seeing today to the cost of carbon that will be implemented in the carbon tax, but would still be well within the willingness to pay that we see from most of our customers. And therefore, we think that we can do this with a lot of conviction into a very economical way. Henriette talked about the fact that at the other end of the spectrum, there is airfreight, where we expect that the abatement cost there would be significantly higher. And there, our commercial approach, given the relatively limited footprint that we have in airfreight, our approach will be to really follow instantly the leaders in that industry and make sure that we gradually come up with solutions that there too can meet our customer needs. There is no silver bullet to decarbonizing all of the supply chain. But Maersk has a solid plan to do this in a commercially viable way and a financially responsible way. Our plan has a lot of advantage if you look at it from the lens of our customers. For our customers, logistics is a significant part of their Scope 3 emission. But the core of the problems that they have, to meet the targets that they have put forward, actually lies mostly in the raw materials and development of the products that they are selling. Companies like FMCG see about 70% of their emission coming from farming, for instance, for nutrition. It's the same in automotive. It is also significantly more complex to orchestrate. Last week, I was visiting a plant for Scania truck. More than 100,000 vendors are involved into making all the raw materials and pieces that will come together in that plant into building a finished truck. Decarbonizing this operation and being able to scale it and do it in a cost-effective way is a massive undertaking. And therefore, customers are very, very happy to engage with Maersk on finding solutions, which for the logistics are actually relatively more simple than what they are faced with in their core business, and that allow them to make headways on the commitments that they have made for their road map. I am really proud today of the plans that we have made and the difference that we can make for these customers on their journey to net zero. And I am convinced that the partnerships that we are forging today will put us on the right pathway to deliver on the commitments that we have put forward. But I'm not the only one saying it. Actually, our customers are saying it as well. And I invite you to listen to some of them right now. [Presentation]

Now that we have heard from Henriette, Morten, Vincent and our customers on our road map to decarbonization and the value we can contribute to our customers, let's get down to the financial aspects and see how much and where we intend to invest to support the transition to green fuels. We will also take a look at the targets we have set ourselves, our commitment to transparency, and how our targets will be reflected in management compensation. Let's start with our anticipated capital expenditures. Starting from a low base this year, the incremental green premium CapEx remains actually very manageable over the next years with a premium remaining below 10% until 2025. This is primarily because it is contained within what we see as our ongoing CapEx as part of our necessary vessel replacement in Ocean, our growth investment in Logistics and our equipment requirements for Terminals. So when we look at the incremental $1.5 billion through 2025, approximately 50% is going towards our green vessels, 1/3 is going towards our investment in Logistics, and the remainder towards terminals. This depreciation remains roughly the same until 2030, and the distribution is the same when we expect to reach our first intermediate targets with a green premium CapEx of around $5 billion. On the OpEx side, the green premium will be the spread between the price of fossil fuels and the price of renewable fuels, which means that for our Ocean business, the green OpEx premium is the spread between the price of bunker and the price of biodiesel and later on green methanol. This difference is determined on the one hand by the fluctuations of the highly volatile bunker, but also by several factors improving the intrinsic cost position of green fuels over time. The first factor is scalability. Green methanol can be produced at industrial scale, which compares favorably to the scarcity and lack of scalability of biodiesel. Therefore, over time, we believe that there should be significant savings from scale production of green fuels, although this will probably come towards the back end of this decade. Another factor of bridging the gap is the feedback and price signal we receive from our customers. We know from our experience with ECO Delivery that customers are willing to pay a certain premium today for green delivery, even in the absence of global regulation that imposes a price on carbon. Lastly, as you know, we believe that a full global carbon pricing regime will be required to fully close the spread. As you heard from Henriette, we are a few quarters away from the first pricing regime in the form of the EU ETS. And that is part of the final element, which would contribute to closing the gap. In other operations, we will find similar incremental OpEx. When it comes to green fuels for our air operations, for instance, this will be the most critical as the scarcity and therefore, the cost of SAF is a high threshold to cross to becoming carbon neutral. Here, we will work together with our customers depending on their demand for green services and price sensitivity. In other aspects such as our warehousing operations as well as our terminals, once we have made up the upfront investment of electrifying the equipment, we expect offsetting OpEx savings until 2030, in particular if we are switching to on-site renewable power. The full picture for green OpEx is, therefore, quite diverse with higher expenditures, regulations, and savings ultimately offsetting the additional cost. In the first step, however, we expect yearly incremental OpEx in the range of $300 million to $400 million by 2025. As you heard earlier from Morten Bo, securing an adequate green methanol supply is critical for us to meet our targets. As such, we are willing to commit resources and deploy capital to enable and accelerate the supply of green fuels. From a procurement perspective, our demand forms a secured planning basis for those who are working towards the production of green fuels. Our ability to sign offtake agreements derisks the investment for those parties. To date, we have signed MOUs with 8 partners spread across the world in all major geographies. This adding scope to provide adequate green methanol to cover our needs for our first vessels and currently represent a potential of 1.5 million tonnes by 2030. We are negotiating with further potential partners and have a very strong pipeline of interest. Beyond these agreements which are, for the most part, small-to-medium scale, there is both clear demand and interest in large-scale production of green fuels, starting with the installation of renewable energies. To date, Maersk has signed 2 MOUs with the governments of Egypt and Spain, and we are today in feasibility studies with several partners to explore first options. Once feasibility has been determined, we will proceed into an investment phase, which will be undertaken as part of a much larger consortium. Ultimately, the opportunity to enable and accelerate hydrogen-based fuels is fully aligned with our strategy and allows us to bring additional scale for our fuel supply. That said, we want to assure that we are not going back to becoming an energy conglomerate, but rather just participate in establishing a new supply. From a specific much smaller investment scope, we also have our incubator entity, Maersk Growth, where we invest in renewable fuel technology, electrification, and other decarbonization alternatives. Since 2021, we have invested $60 million and some of the companies we have invested in are, for instance, waste fuel, which will be one of our future green methanol providers, but also Einride, which will be supplying us with EV trucks for the U.S. market. As an organization, we are committed to transparency and reporting best practice. And this naturally extends to our ESG reporting, which covers a wide breadth of topics and initiatives. In our sustainability report and our ESG data overview, which you will find on our website, we have a wealth of detail on which we report with consistency. As presented earlier, we have now completed the decarbonization target setting for all our businesses, complementing the existing Ocean and Terminal targets with specific and measurable targets in our Logistics business. Consequently, we will be expanding our reporting and are committed to quantitative reporting for all metrics over time. To go deeper into our reporting practices, today, we are aligned with 3 key frameworks: the nonfinancial reporting directive; the material criteria for the marine transportation standard, as outlined by the SASB; and the task force for climate-related financial disclosure, well-known TCFD. Our reporting currently receives a limited assurance from our external audit partner. Going forward, we remain committed to transparency and will naturally align with whatever upcoming standards are finalized under the EU sustainability reporting standards and the ISSB, where our early work with the SASB will actually be of advantage. We also aspire to receive reasonable assurance on this reporting from our external auditors, which is the same level of assurance that we receive from our financial reporting. Ultimately, we see the conversions of sustainability and financial reporting as helpful for all who seek a transparent and fair way to value the efforts of companies across industries and business scope. Finally, we do keep an eye on external rating agencies as well and engage with the most prominent. We are pleased with our progress in the rankings and aspire leadership ratings. Today, we are aligned with most of our peers with a 17 rating from Sustainalytics, a AA from MSCI, and B from CDP. Goals anchored in management remuneration are extremely important to us. Finishing our last section, we want to ensure that sustainability goals will play a long-term role into management incentives. Subject to Board and AGM approval, our ESG goals will be anchored in the incentive plan and illustrated through our progress in 3 dimensions: decarbonization, safety, and diversity. The choice of those elements is intended to keep a focus on high priority actions, which are clearly measurable and which can directly be controlled. The performance of the 3 categories will be measured by a scorecard, and the total amount will represent 20% of the long-term incentive plan for our executive leaders. It will have a 3-year vesting period and, as previously announced, will be effective starting with the 2023 program. We believe this is the best way to align motivation, incentive and performance. Now I would like to hand back to Soren, who will link our efforts back to our purpose and our values.

And I would like to end where I started on purpose and values. The ESG agenda will evolve. It will change, new themes will emerge, and we will have to, as a company, to react, to respond, to pivot. We have a clear sense of direction, but it's also clear that we do not yet have all the answers. How do we scale green fuels? And how do we manage the cost and the customer conversations? These questions are true among many uncertainties. Factors outside our control is also likely to impact us. The war in Ukraine has created an energy crisis in Europe and changed the climate discussion because it's clear now that we need not only green energy, but also actually energy that is available and affordable in the first place. As we move forward on the ESG agenda, in this decade, we will at Maersk remain attentive to the expectations and the needs of our customers, shareholders, employees and the wider societies. And we will report transparently, as Patrick just said, on our progress. We will continue to be guided by our values as they are listed on this slide and of our purpose of improving life for all by integrating the world. Before we move on to the Q&A, I would like to leave you with a brief video on our core purpose. [Presentation]

And that concludes our presentation sessions today. Joining me now on stage are all of today's presenters, and we're all ready to get going, I hope, on the most exciting part, the Q&A session. So let's see what we have.

We have a lot of questions actually. And some of them are going to be very interesting and challenging. But I think one of the things you touched on earlier, Soren, -- the fact is that we actually touched on it many times throughout the day, is we are facing an urgent climate crisis. So the question is, how will physical climate change impact your business?

Well, first of all, of course, the ships float on water and, therefore, the rising sea levels is not the biggest problem to begin with at least. So we think more of it in terms of wind and water damage onshore in the ports, in the warehouses. Cyclones, clearly an issue. We had a cyclone in India that hit our Pipavav terminal last year pretty hard, took the terminal out of commission for quite a while. And therefore, we have conducted an inventory of all of our terminals, warehouses, understand where they are and identify those that are at risk for cyclone, hurricane damage and of course, taking steps to reinforce what can be reinforced. So biggest issue for us to deal with is wind and water damage onshore.

Very good, very good. I'd like to actually now go to a question that we actually saw this come up a couple of times, and we obviously have many green methanol and decarbon questions. So I'm going to start with you, Morten. And the question is the global shipping industry is competing with several other energy-hungry sectors for 0 carbon fuels. So what is the risk that your new vessels will be delivered and you won't have enough green methanol to run them.

Yes, that's a great question. Clearly, a lot of sectors are demanding the green methanol. It can also go into the automotive sector. It can go into the petrochemical sector and also the aviation industry surely will start demanding it over time. And that's actually one of the reasons why we are trying to be long in our approach. We are trying to secure access to the fuel via long-term offtake agreements among others with these partners that we showed. Because I think what is happening is, right now, there is a very small market for green methanol. It's based on some biogas mass balance product that you can buy. It's very small volumes, but prices are extremely high because they typically go into an automotive sector where you also have some regulatory incentives. So if anyone are looking for a price point in the market, they'll probably find something like EUR or $ 1,500 per tonne, which is equivalent to 3,000 fuel oil equivalents, which is obviously far above what anyone -- certainly in the shipping industry can afford to pay for fuel. So that's actually a good example of why we're trying to shield ourselves in these market developments because what -- this demand is building up now. Supply will follow, our supply and demand will go over the next 10 years, who knows. In the long run, I'm sure as any other, by then, it will be a commodity, so the markets will balance probably. But how it will happen in the meanwhile is no one knows. So when we take these positions with long-term [Indiscernible] agreements, then we at least know our exposure, right, so we can manage the risk. If you expose yourself to the market, you don't know where it will go. So there is, of course, a risk and certainly a timing element of it that when the first ships come, when they all be sailing on fuel from these MOUs, no, but we also have a plan B on how we can solve some green methanol for them, for example, via these biogas, mass balance products. So we have a plan, but long term, we want to secure our position by these long-term positions in the market.

Thank you, Morten. In fact, actually, that whole aspect of the offtake agreements and those long-term pricing is something that answers a whole bunch of other questions that I could have asked but you already answered it. So in fact, actually, I think just anticipating the questions. And so actually, Vincent, there's a whole bunch of questions on pricing, on customer demand as I'd like to go into here maybe. And maybe to start off, from everything we see in the world today. We're clearly heading into a period of economic downturn and austerity. And what is your feeling about the customers' willingness to pay even in an economic downturn?

Well, I mean, time will tell. What I can say is what we have seen so far. And so far, none of the customers that are on ECO Delivery are talking about dropping it. None of the customers that are testing it are not talking about expanding the scope of ECO Delivery. And the list of customers with whom we're talking about ECO Delivery, continues to increase. So I think the way customers, I think, think about this is more -- there is a going price for a shipping container. And then there is an ESG commitment that we have made. And the 2 are not mutually exclusive. And you cannot use one to create cost savings. You're going to have to find them in the other one, if you will. At least with the companies that are interested today or mature enough in their dialogue or their approach to sustainability to have already this approach through ECO Delivery. So I think the way to think about this is the risk that we're seeing is more a general risk on price based on demand that we need to manage. We have tools -- so we have different tools for that. On ECO Delivery, maybe but at least so far, no sign of this. To the contrary, we expect to continue to increase the penetration of ECO Delivery amongst our customers for next year.

That's great. So actually, I'd like to follow on from that with another question, which is then following on from the aspect of willingness to pay the pricing. But then, do you expect material financial benefits to come out of the ECO Delivery product above the standard container shipping prices?

So our approach to this is that we want to cover the cost of the transition. So we don't want to -- we don't want this to be a drag. That's why I called it financially responsible also in my presentation. So far, we've been able to do that. You were a bit in a dilemma here because you could actually try to make significant premium on the few customers that are really willing to pay a lot for this. I think for us, the approach that we have had is expansion and the broadening of the appeal of this as long as this is not becoming a drag on our financials, that's the road that we want to take. We need to move, I mentioned, we have 3% of our shipments today on ECO Delivery. We need to be at 25% by 2030. It's not like, I mean, every percentage is a little bit more difficult than the previous one. So we need to really continue to focus on this and work on acceptance, I think, more than we need to look on that. So I don't foresee in the future or in the near future, at least, a big premium for that. I think if you think about longer term, if there was a big premium to be had, it would mean that there is a significant disconnect between what the suppliers are doing and what the customers are willing to pay, which may be a good thing for us, but would not be a really good thing for the planet.

Yes. Thank you for that. Thank you. You did allude there to some of the other issues that the industry is facing, some of the other tools that we do use. Maybe I think you're alluding perhaps the sort of dynamic management of capacity. And of course, looming over capacity in the market has been a concern for many investors and many of investors have also looked to the CII and wondered potentially what could be the impact from that in terms of supply on the market. And so therefore, I'd actually like to turn to you, Henriette to ask you what you think that the impact of the CII will be on Maersk, maybe in the short term and then medium and then what we might hope for in the long term.

Thank you for that. And clearly, also in that area, we need to see exactly how it's going to play out. Let me start by saying and repeating that we actually think it is good that we are seeing the CII coming into effect. And yes, we know as it's also been criticized by others. The measurements are not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. And we hope it can lead the way to having a strong enforcement, but also eventually higher IMO ambitions and hopefully, also a global carbon tax coming through the IMO. So in that sense, supportive, and we can only hope also that various member sales go in and support the IMO in driving this through. In terms of the actual effect, then I would say short term, we actually do not expect a lot of impact. When we look at the full container fleet, probably 35% of the vessels globally will be in the categories DME. But as there is no immediate effect, then you would only see you have 1 year for the E-vessels, you have 3 years for your D-vessels. So we actually do not expect to have a big impact. on the short term. Longer term, hopefully, it will indeed start increasing the quality of the vessels and lower the emissions. For Maersk, specifically, when we look at our fleet, we are probably a little better than the industry in terms of how many vessels we have in the D and the E category. And it is something we are already starting to discuss how we're going to work on and implementing and having these improvement plans.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I think that was very comprehensive. I think I'm going to turn back to you, Morten, for some of that getting so many questions here also on e-methanol. I mean, I think this is the first time we've really talked about this, right? And there are a bunch of them. And let's just start with, for example, how do you ensure you have the right fuel at the right locations, given that this is a scarce resource.

Yes. So one of the advantages of container shipping is that we move our vessels in very predictable patterns, and they actually are equipped with huge fuel tanks. So typically, a container versus only bunkers went on a full round trip, which practical term means that if you have 1 green fuel hub on your East West network, for example, you can actually supply a full network. So that's a big advantage of container shipping. But -- so obviously, the ideal thing would be that we would have the production in places close to the shipping routes, which is actually also where you're seeing a lot of [Indiscernible] in Egypt and Spain, which both are very well located. United States is another one. But that being said, moving a liquid around in large quantities is actually a relatively cost effective way. That's what's happened to crude oil today is being moved all across the planet. So really, we see that this will be driven by where you can get cheap renewable energy and where you can get access to biogenic. Those are the determining factors. And then -- and then we can solve the practicalities of it. But that is actually a nice correlation between where we actually sell and where you can produce this effectively.

Yes. That's encouraging. And I think that the -- there's -- I can see a lot of questions here, for example, around -- and I think we're going to get to Patrick pretty soon because we're going to start talking about the CapEx needed and the investment needed. And this one is actually a question and I have a feeling it sort of landing somewhere between the 2 of you, which would be -- and then I'll let you guys choose. But the question is the main challenge is scale and infrastructure. And we've seen more traction on scale following your order. And I think this is also an allusion to some of our peers who are also now starting to order methanol-enabled ships but it says, can you share any color on the investment needed from the industry to develop the infrastructure for green methanol. So this is kind of like a much broader picture, and then maybe we will zoom in a little bit. So perhaps starting with you, Morten.

So for the industry, I think, there's obviously the additional CapEx for the vessels, and I think we have touched upon that already. Many ports actually already have potential infrastructure for methanol specifically because it is already a very common traded commodity in the world. And you can use existing bunker barges to fuel the vessels. So we -- I mean we will need to obviously get access, and we are seeing the first port now actually investing in it. And those investments will typically come from the port side. The big, big chunk of investments will obviously come for the facilities that are producing these green fuels, which I guess the industry will carry by buying the fuels. But if you just look at our fleet of ships and just do a back of the envelope on that, -- we need 20 million tonnes, let's see how much we grow or not grow, but sort of if -- that's our current assumption. That corresponds to around 10 million tons of fuel oil in order to build those facilities, so all the wind turbines, solar panels and electrolysis and methanol plants or ammonia plants, that's in very, very round numbers, $100 billion of investments that needs to get done. And then if you try to sort of scale that up for the entire industry. We are less than 20% of container shipping, which is around 1/5 of shipping, then you basically get to maybe $2,000 billion of facilities to produce all the green fuels, if that's how the industry decides to go between now and in 2050.

Yes, that's clearly very...

It's proves a point that, I mean, if you look at how much is invested into oil and gas every year, you're typically somewhere between $500 billion and $1,000 billion. I mean energy infrastructure is just very, very large numbers, and this is no different.

Yes, that is true. And of course, those are very large, very general, very round numbers, but it does give a bit of an idea of the scale of what we're looking at as a planet, right? I guess this is what the cost is going to be for everyone. But I'm going to go from the very large to somewhat now actually quite very small these days. And over to you, Patrick. And the question is, will the CapEx of the 8 partnerships for greenfield be shared between Maersk and the partner? Or will it be the partner that is bearing the burden of the CapEx?

Yes. I think on a very concrete manner, the 8 MOUs we signed are basically projects which are funded by the partners, right? And not buyers, but we obviously bring an amazing capability to them. We bring our offtake, right? So really de-risking the investment and that allows them to actually put the money on the ground and build those factories, right? So we are an enabler for this investment, more than investing ourselves.

That actually brings me to the next follow-on. I mean, speaking essentially from the content on your slide, which was how much are you -- or how much is Maersk intending to contribute financially to these large-scale partnerships with sovereign governments. And what kind of time frame would that be? How do we -- how are we thinking about attracting partners?

Yes, I think those projects are on a different scale, right? Just to link to what Morten was saying before, it is just a different scale because we are talking energy investment here and not transportation. So it is not our mission in life to become an energy producer. We clearly do not see ourselves becoming this. We just want to enable a new source of supply at scale, which allows us to have green fuels at a reasonable cost, right, and decarbonized logistics. So that is the intent. And therefore, we only see those investments in terms of partnerships, right, in terms of very large consortium with the local partners, international partners and obviously, a whole of -- scale of financing, which is available across the world for hydrogen-based investments. So we'll be tapping all those funds with our partners to actually get those project across the line once the feasibility studies are being confirmed. Right now, we are in a very early stage of having those projects, which look very enticing, which also respond to a need we have in terms of actual methanol. But it's still a long way until we actually scope the investment, have a visibility, a real view on the cost, then get the partners to align on the common interest, find the financing and then start to invest. So it's a long road ahead.

Okay. Well, we're making our first steps, right? And that's, I guess, the most important aspect of it. Speaking about other first steps, I have an interesting question, which I think I'm going to give to you, Søren, which is about M&A, actually because there we are doing quite a bit of M&A. And the question is, how will you ensure that you can deliver your commitment to ESG and responsible business practices while growing your new businesses also on the land side.

So every company we acquire will get integrated in Maersk and part of the integration is actually that you apply the same policies, the same principles for how we run a business to the acquired company. We have quite a structured approach. We have what something we call [ commit ], which are basically a system for all of the rules and principles and policies that we have across the whole range of ESG, but all kinds of other things. And that we rolled out in acquired companies as we integrate them. So clearly, all of the companies that we have acquired and we will acquire in the future, they will get the Maersk name, and therefore, they will also have to act in business life as Maersk and as a Maersk company.

Right. That's very clear. That's very clear. And the cultural or that I was going to say the way the company lives its purpose and its values is clearly also part of that integration, right? So switching topics completely, I think, actually. And I think this question maybe -- might be going to you, Henriette [indiscernible] one that we hear about increasingly. And we've talked a lot about decarb and other aspects. But in fact, actually, biodiversity is becoming a much, much bigger topic. And I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about our stance on -- and the approach to dealing with biodiversity.

So see biodiversity is clearly also an emerging area for us. Our current focus has been very much true our we say, big involvement with the Ocean. So we have engaged in a number of projects there. We are involved in Ocean cleanups. We are part of some research programs and so on. So that has been our anchor into the biodiversity. But it is an area that is increasingly getting focus and attention, and it is an area where we need to evolve further and form a more specific opinion also when it comes outside of the Ocean space.

Yes, yes, yes. And that will be exciting to see how that unfolds also in the coming years. Would I have -- I'm looking at the questions that I have now, and I see again so much on green methanol, Morten, I think you're the star of the day. One of these things, and this is going back a little bit also to the partnerships in a way, is also given that you need the biogenic CO2 as a feedstock for green methanol, how easy is that to source. And also, for example, in some areas where we have partnerships like Egypt.

Yes. No, it is -- I think as I also mentioned, that's the main constraint of this fuel pathway. And then we have done quite some work to understand the global availability of biogenic CO2. And there's quite a lot of it. And so just looking at the number, there's plenty now. Of course, it's a constraint because you need it at the same place where you also have great renewables and so on. If you take a country like Spain or the Iberian Peninsula in general, there you have a good mix of all these things. In Egypt, it's not quite the same. I mean most of the country is obviously a dessert. But there is actually quite a lot of biomass and agricultural waste in Egypt. And necessity is the mother of innovation. And we have a couple of interesting solutions in Egypt, both from point sources, which is obviously the most effective. So point source of biogenic CO2 but also another solution could actually be to use some of the agricultural waste that is today just torched on the fields and therefore, emits to the atmosphere immediately. And by the way, it creates a lot of air pollution and other health-related problems for people living in those societies. But we haven't concluded anything yet. It's clear that Egypt is not ideal for biogenic CO2, but we have solutions ready for that as well.

Very good. Very good. Excellent. So I've got a question here, which is coming in as a compound, and I think I'm going to give the part to Patrick and the second part of Søren. And as the Investor Relations, of course, I figured this question would come in. But can you give us the forecasted CapEx numbers you've communicated today. $1.5 billion incremental CapEx by 2025 is about a $500 million increase per annum in '23, '24 and '25 possibly. I think -- so how would you like to -- can we maybe talk a little bit about the CapEx numbers that we...

Yes. So what we indicate today is really what proportion of the existing CapEx view that we have today comes from the actual green premium, which is really the additional cost, right? As we have said earlier on, our CapEx guidance is -- has been done for 2 years, right? So we have a CapEx sign for '22 and '23, which is unchanged, and that includes this green CapEx premium on the part which we have signified as well earlier on the slide. So it is not to be understood as an additional requirement. It is just to be -- to give some granularity on how do we actually spend this money, right, and how the CapEx overall is changing over time. I mean, structurally, we are investing more and more on logistics for the growth of logistics, we're replacing our vessels, which explains the increase of CapEx looking back to '22 to the '23 level, which we have guided for. And that is then where more or less we are including the green OpEx guidance.

Yes. Perfect.

Actually, if I can add to that. I think a key message actually for me from today's presentation is that this climate transition for Maersk is actually not a CapEx story. Actually, the point is really that this is not a huge CapEx story. First of all, on the ships, we talk about spending 10%, 15% more on the ships, but that's actually only as long as we need a dual fuel engine. I mean we are buying dual fuel engines today that can do methanol, but also existing [indiscernible] because we are not unsure about the supply chain for the methanol. Once we are certain, and hopefully, we will be there by 2025 of the supply chain for methanol, there's no point in paying extra for the ability to run on traditional fuel. I think on the warehouses, in many cases, the business case for a green warehouse is better than for a traditional warehouse, the airplanes, they don't cost more if they run on sustainable aviation fuel there, we have an OpEx issue, but it's not a CapEx issue. And then, of course, we have some trucking-related issues, but we don't own many trucks in the big scheme of things. So I think the key message here, this is not really a CapEx story. We will have a little bit of extra CapEx in the coming years, but not something that really disturbs our traditional guidance of being pretty closely having CapEx that is pretty close to our depreciation.

Yes, yes. Okay. Thank you, Søren. Thank you for the additional color on that. I'm going to get to the part which I think really belongs to you also within the sort of the realm of thinking about responsible tax because it's a question about windfall tax, tonnage tax, how do you see that within our whole framework of responsible tax?

Look, first of all, let me be clear, we are paying the tax that we are supposed to pay. It's clear that we have 2 kinds of taxation schemes in Maersk. We have one taxation scheme for the Ocean business, which is tonnage tax. And then we have a taxation scheme for the rest, so for logistics, for ports and so on, which is basically a corporate tax. Where we are paying taxes where the value is generated. In [ OCT ], we have decided that a tonnage tax system for shipping makes sense. And it has made a lot of sense for governments for many years because we have actually paid more tax than we would have if we have been on corporate tax. Now we have had a couple of extraordinary years and people in question whether tonnage tax is the right thing forward or not. Look, I'll leave that to the politicians. For us, it's really about having a level playing field and making sure that whichever way we are taxed, it's being decided at the international level in [ OCT ] or elsewhere so that we have that level playing field. We cannot afford as a company to be in tax competition, so to speak. And we are not today. So we'd like to keep that.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Vincent. I'd like to ask you a question going back to the customers and sort of when you think about that end-to-end journey that you described. What are the biggest hurdles that the customer faces in trying to create that -- or create that product for their customer. You were talking about the ones who are the most [Indiscernible] events, the ones that are closest to the end consumer, what's the toughest thing for them?

Yes. And here, we're talking mainly about consumer brands for fast-moving consumer products or footwear or fashion or stuff like that. Because if you're in the parts, if you're in chemicals or in automotive, it's mostly about the ease and the cost of abating tons of CO2. When you move into the consumer brands, actually, you increase the intrinsic value of the product towards the consumer if it is fully decarbonized. And so for them, this is not just a game of abating tons and making certain percentages. They can actually also claim premium from their consumer, if they can guarantee that a shoe or certain item have been produced without any CO2 emitted either in the production or in the transport and so on and so forth. So they are looking for these end-to-end solutions. The biggest hurdle that they have today is twofold: a, you have visibility of actually everything that is happening all the way through the chain; and two is -- after the visibility is the availability actually of a solution from providers that can execute this at a level of quality that they can live with across the different products, which is where I think, if you think about it in the long run, the transition to green will have to mean a certain level of consolidation of service provision to these big customers across the different segments of the supply chain, both integration across products, but also consolidation of the ability to offer products in network. And what they are seeing today is that there's actually very few who can do this. I mean, Søren mentioned before, we don't have many trucks, but we're slowly increasing what we're having because for a lot of trucker, the change from diesel to electric is a daunting question. For us, we have the network, we have the saving. We have the density to be able to have the charging stations, buy the warehouses and buy the terminal and so on. And then we know exactly where the trucks -- the trucks have the same predictable patterns that Morten was talking about for the ships, so that allows us also to do things that others cannot do. And companies like the one we saw in the video, that's actually something that they appreciate. And it's one of the big levers that we have actually in the long run. It's not so much the money that you can make on green, it's the share of wallet that you can build by being able to produce differentiated solutions there that actually create -- that actually meet these customer needs.

I think that's a perfect way to describe the intersection of the opportunity between the integrated strategy and our ESG strategy. That's really great. Thank you for that. I think I would like to finish with one final question from Søren. And it's about the execution of the strategy, and it requires everybody, the employees, the management, everybody has to be on board. And how will you manage that?

Look, I spoke about it in my introductory remarks. I mean, despite the fact that we are a company that owns lots of assets, ships and ports and warehouses and whatnot, we are a people company, because none of these things that we own are proprietary to Maersk, everybody can buy a container ship or a port or whatever. What really makes the difference is how we put this network, all of these assets together in solutions for our customers. And that's actually the people that does that. And that's why we are -- it's so important for us to have an engaged -- an organization full of engaged people, full of capable people, people that are customer-centric, that are brave, that we trust and our customers trust to really go out and make things happen every day in a very reliable way. To have such a global team, which I fully believe we have today. And I certainly -- and I said that also early on here today that we believe our people is a competitive advantage for us. We certainly want to keep it that way. One of the things that we talk a lot about is purpose. Why are we here? What gets us up in the morning? And I think we have today now almost 100,000 colleagues that share this vision of getting up in the morning every day to help integrate the world.

That's a great way to end. Thank you very much, Søren. And that concludes the presentation and the Q&A session. And on behalf of the investors and everybody here, thank you to our presenters. And I just wanted to say there have been so many fantastic questions. And obviously, we haven't been able to get to all of them. But together with the sustainability team, we will be working over the coming days to answer your questions individually. And of course, feel free to reach out to us at any time. And with that, I would like to hand over to Patrick for a few concluding words.

Thank you very much again for coming and listening to our ESG day today. I think you have seen that we really live ESG all across the board in everything that we do. We have also shown you that we have a clear road map to decarbonize logistics, both on a technical path but also on the way that we add value to the customers. And we'll be looking forward to reporting our progress to you regularly, and with consistency in the coming years. And with that, let me just conclude the day by thanking you again for your interest, and have a good afternoon. Goodbye.