Barry Callebaut AG (BARN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Hello, and a very warm welcome from Barry Callebaut headquarters for the launch of our sharpened Forever Chocolate plan. My name is Taryn Ridley.

My name is Christiaan Prins. And we will be your 2 moderators for this broadcast.

Yes. And actually, Christiaan, I remember very well back in 2016, we were both present.

Yes, we were.

Yes, for the launch of Forever Chocolate, our plan to make sustainable chocolate the norm by 2025. And this was based on 4 key ambitions: to lift 500,000 farmers out of poverty; to eradicate child labor from our supply chain; to become carbon and forest positive; and to have 100% sustainable ingredients in all of our products. Now clearly, it's not 2025 yet.

That's true, Taryn. But as you know, sustainability is not static. It's very dynamic. So already when we launched Forever Chocolate in 2016, we knew that our targets would have to be dynamic as well. And thanks to Forever Chocolate, we've had so many learnings, and we've spoken to so many external people that provided feedback that it's just natural that we update and sharpen our Forever Chocolate targets. So that's basically what we're presenting today.

Yes. And key to that, I mean, beyond the expertise of our own people is that engagement and collaboration with external stakeholders because Forever Chocolate has always been about creating that movement. And I think that today is actually a testament to those voices, those external voices. So not only will we deep dive into our new strategy, but we will also hear from external stakeholders as well.

Absolutely. So in the coming 45 minutes, you will see a broad range of external experts providing their insights and comments on material issues for the sustainable cocoa and chocolate supply chain, including child labor, cocoa farmer income and the carbon footprint of chocolate.

Yes. And after those discussions, we will welcome you back here for a live Q&A with some of our external -- sorry, with some of our sustainability experts. Now if you haven't already had an opportunity to scan the QR code, there's also a link at the top of your screen. If you copy and pace that and put that into a new tab, you can use that to submit any questions that you have throughout the duration of the discussions.

I'm truly looking forward to seeing all the questions coming in. And with that, Taryn, I think it's time to kick off. So let's do so by taking a deep dive in exactly how Barry Callebaut has sharpened its existing targets and what new targets we have put forward for 2030 and beyond. And for that, we are going to listen to our pillar leads, Nicolas, Neelke, Oliver and Tilmann.

For prospering farmer for 2025, we stick to our target of seeing 0.5 million farmer being lifted out of poverty. We just want to focus on modeling and less training. We think that farmer know how to grow cocoa. They just need to be supported in how to invest more in their cocoa farm. And for 2030, we think that the journey towards living income requires a large mobilization of stakeholders from NGO to the cocoa sector and government.

Child labor is a systemic problem, and it needs a systemic approach. Therefore, we work with the enablers, which are the social and economic structures in the cocoa communities. We do that through the development of children, families and communities. Our 2025 target is bringing our full supply chain under an impactful Human Rights Due Diligence process remediating all that labor cases identified. Our 2030 target is helping the cocoa communities to protect child rights.

With a new strategy in the thriving nature pillar, we're really focusing on decarbonizing our own business and our own value chain rather than compensating elsewhere. For us, that means we really doubled down our efforts on preventing any further deforestation and to become forest positive by 2025. In addition, we are scaling up agroforestry as fast as possible and invest into renewable energy and with a low-carbon logistics and transport. We are committed to doing so aligned with the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree target, which means by 2050 latest, we will become net zero. And we will also set an interim target for 2030. For us, net zero is a journey, and we're going in for the long run while aiming to improve year-after-year after year along this journey. We hope you will join us on this way.

We're changing the wording from sustainable to certified and verified to reflect how we work with certifications but also our own programs like Cocoa Horizons or VisionDairy. And we're focusing more on traceability to farm by 2030.

That provided an excellent overview. I think it's now time to look into each of the individual pillars. What are the material issues at hand? What solutions are there to solve them? And who should take action? Let's start with cocoa farmer income.

Deborah, thank you for joining me. Do you get the income -- the sort of income that you require from this farm?

I could say I'm not making much, but at least I have the income to also invest in the farm. This is because I think that due to the climate impact I talked about, it's making management costs rise up each and every season. The cost for labor, the cost for imports is rising. And so I'm not getting enough as I expect to get, but at least I have something to reinvest to get the productivity that I want here.

Let's talk about for Forever Chocolate. The new approach focuses on giving additional farm inputs, soil input, premium payments and subsidized input for farmers. In your opinion, are these the things that we should be focusing on or there are other areas you think that we should focus on?

I think it's one of the major things or the major things a farmer needs. Currently, if you like at the cost a farmer is putting in the farm, it's all on inputs, it's all on management process that they have to do on the farm. And so if there's a program to subsidize the input price for farmer, it means it's waiving of majority of the cost the farmer has to incur. And the good thing is, if the farmer gets a premium at the end of the season for the work done, it also help the farmer to invest more in their farm, invest in other livelihood activities to better their income. So I think it's a very good thing if farmers receive such support.

And how does it go a long way to support their production over maybe a long period? Because you've given me the background of when farmers were not earning a lot, how does it go a long way to support them.

So with farmer inputs, now they need it as one of the mitigation measures to climate because there's a lot of pest infestation, a lot of diseases devastation. And so if farmers are not getting the money to buy inputs to manage their farm, they end up getting a low productivity. And so when this input comes in, then they get high productivity, which translate into the incomes they are receiving. And then also, when they get premium, they can invest in the farm or expand their farms or get additional source of income. And this will help better their lives, yes.

So Deborah, if you had a magic wand, what would you wish for to support you in your farming?

If I had a magic wand today, I will wish for supply and inputs and then also funding to support new patches, climate-resilient plants or seedlings and then also invest in my farms to be more adaptive to climate.

Thank you very much, Deborah.

Thanks for having me.

Interesting insights from the farmer, Christiaan. Clearly, farmers are asking for more investment capacity into their farms, for more premium payments, for example, and investment into labor. So really, you can see the shift from a focus from, I guess, less training into more doing.

Absolutely, Taryn. I think it highlights the constantly evolving landscape of building a sustainable chocolate and cocoa supply chain. So what can we effectively do to support cocoa farmers? And how do we build collective action amongst cocoa and chocolate companies? For this, I spoke to the President of the World Cocoa Foundation, Chris Vincent. Chris, thank you so much for being with us today. You are the President of the World Cocoa Foundation. For people not familiar what is the World Cocoa Foundation?

Thank you. It's great to be here. The World Cocoa Foundation is an international membership organization that represents over 80% of the cocoa sector, and our exclusive focus is sustainability. So we seek to convene our membership to work together collaboratively to address sustainability issues in the sector today.

What do you feel are some of the key systemic issues that should be tackled through collection action?

I think there were 3 key issues. The first one is poverty because it underlies the 2 other issues as well. So we seek to significantly improve the income of the cocoa farmer. Secondly, we seek to stop deforestation in the cocoa supply chain and promote reforestation and conservation. And thirdly, we seek to combat child labor.

Clear. Now let's be honest, industry has not always been successful to achieve impact through its collective action. Harkin-Engel Protocol is one example. Where do you feel it sometimes goes wrong? And how can we amend that?

Absolutely. And overall 20-year history since the Harkin-Engel Protocol, we've learned 2 key lessons. The first lesson is the way that we can work together to get companies to collaborate. That is not as easy as it sounds because companies are naturally competitive. But we believe, through one of the programs that we ran called CocoaAction, we developed ways in which companies collaborate well pretty competitively. Secondly, we've learned that partnerships and collaboration with industry only goes so far. We also need that partnership with government as well.

Chris, final question. Looking forward, what do you think we could do differently or more of through collective action?

I think there were 2 areas. The first thing is to move our focus away from the short-term challenges to the longer term. And by that, I mean we are seeking to align industry's long-term development goals for the sector with each producing country's national economic plans, agricultural plans and cocoa plans. So we aligned cocoa development with economic growth and agricultural progress. And we're also looking to support each country's national initiatives. And at the moment, the key focus is on the national traceability systems and the implementation of the African regional standard. And if we do both of those, I think we'll build much greater partnerships, and we need partnerships between industry and government to deliver transformative impact.

Very clear and strong, long-term partnerships with also a strong focus on supporting government agenda.

Absolutely.

Chris, thank you so much for being with us.

Thank you.

Interesting comments by Chris Vincent, clearly showing the power of collective action.

Absolutely, Taryn. And under our sharpened Forever Chocolate plan, Barry Callebaut has also committed to bring together a group of stakeholders behind a transformative cocoa farming model generating a living income. But what does this mean? What are the building blocks of such a model? For this, we invited Antonie Fountain from the VOICE Network to discuss with Nicolas Mounard. Nicolas, Antonie, thank you very much for joining me. Nicolas, I'm going to start with you. Barry Callebaut has committed to bringing together a group of stakeholders around a transformative cocoa farming model generating a living income. Could you elaborate what are the main building blocks of this model?

Well, there's 2 things that need to happen. One is on the sustainability program side, and one is on the policy side. We need the right policy framework, and we need the right set of activity. When it comes to the right set of activity on the sustainability side, I think our key assumption is that the problem is not knowledge. The problem is investment. So we tend to summarize it by less training and more doing. We don't necessarily believe that the problem is knowledge, farmer know-how to grow cocoa. We believe that the problem is how you help them to invest more in their farm. So a lot of our activity are geared towards this. And then on the policy framework, our data says that basically what can generate poverty reduction is the combination of higher price, higher yield and also bigger farm. So we also really want to move beyond that ideological fight of like yield versus price. We think it's the combination of both that can make it happen, but we need the right policy framework to make it happen.

Understood. So beyond the ideological divide, Antonie, you are the Managing Director of the VOICE Network, a network of NGOs and trade unions focusing on sustainability in cocoa. You quite recently published the Living Income Compendium. You published, of course, your Cocoa Barometer. What would be your main building blocks for generating a living income for cocoa farmers?

So part of that is in alignment with what Nico just said. We think there's 3 key elements that need to happen. And one of those is around the agronomics, so kind of the productivity, the crop diversification, all those things. But that's kind of the top of the pyramid, and that rests on 2 very key pillars that need to be there as well. And that's the good governance, so access to market, education, other infrastructural things that need to be there, transparency in the supply chain. And the other second pillar is around purchasing practices. And part of that is a higher price. Part of that is as well how do you derisk the world for the farmers because, at the moment, the farmer takes all the risks of investing in his farm. Now that's asking the weakest shoulders to carry the heaviest burdens, and that needs to change as well. And so it's not a divide between price and productivity, but price actually makes the productivity a business case for the farmer.

Okay. So farmer is taking most of the risk at the moment in the current setup. Nicolas, how would you respond to that?

I would agree with that. I think we would agree with the strategy of derisking. What we observed through the data is, at the moment, there is very little investment in the farm, depending on the year, roughly between $80 and $120 invested in the farm. In order to increase the productivity, you need to invest more, probably depending on the cost of production but somewhere between $500 and $700. So obviously, you need to accompany farmer. You cannot expect farmer to make that massive increase of risk and massive increase of cost of production. That's also why we want to do less training and more doing is because we think we need to help them bridging that gap. And we've done that a lot by subsidizing labor, for example, there's not enough labor invested in the farm; also by keeping the price of fertilizer at a reasonable level. But for that, we think we can save money on the training. Again, we don't think that farmers do not know how to farm. They know how to farm cocoa. So helping them to derisk by accompanying them on that increase of cost of production is something we would completely agree with.

Okay. So focus on providing inputs, it's not so much that the farmer doesn't know how to use them, but he needs to have access to that investment.

Yes.

Antonie, productivity is often, of course, something which is mentioned when you support farmers in becoming more productive.

Yes.

What's your viewpoint on this?

Productivity is not the magic bullet that solves all the problems. Now quite a few farmers are at a subpar productivity level, right? Our analysis shows that kind of though the average farmer does about 500, 600 kilos a hectare, half of the farmers are actually doing at about 350 or less. Now getting them up to 500 or 600 kilos a hectare makes sense. It actually brings in net revenue. Going further above that, with the current variables in play actually doesn't increase the net income of farmers, which is a bit of a tricky thing. And so kind of there's a threshold until which it's actually quite interesting to help farmers become more professional. Above that, you're going to have to change other dials.

Can you elaborate a little bit on that? Why should -- no longer working?

Because it costs a lot of time to grow cocoa. It's a labor-intensive thing. And labor is not free. Labor is not unlimited. And if you do approach labor as a free and an unlimited supply, you're going to look for free and unlimited labor supplies, which is one of the reasons I think that cocoa has a child labor problem, is that we've actually very often not factored labor into the calculations that we have. And so you need to find ways that there's a business model, if you're going to hire labor, that that's remunerative. And part of that is through making sure that you're paying them enough. I think part of it is not just about making the inputs accessible, it's also creating a stable working environment for the farmers. And so actually, we're arguing for long-term contracts. A company like Callebaut knows how much cocoa you're going to need in 5 or 6 years. You could probably forward contract with farms -- I mean, with cooperatives for 5, 6 years, giving them a bankable security saying we've got a contract to supply X amount of kilos to Callebaut for the next 5 years. Investors like that, those kind of contracts. So that's also where you can derisk it, not just by helping with inputs but actually providing them security. So there's a whole variety of interventions that are necessary, higher prices, long-term contracts. And we need to get a lot better grip on how much time it takes to grow cocoa because I think that's probably a big point of contention is around the size of the farms, right? A lot of times, we hear this conversation around, oh, but that's -- we need a minimum viable farm size. Farms are actually households. And households have a limited amount of labor. So I actually think it's more that we're going to be talking about, a maximum viable farm size per household rather than a minimum viable farm size for poverty.

Right. I mean that's a fair point that Antonie is bringing up. I mean cocoa is predominantly happening on smallholder farms. Now I also hear there is probably, as Antonie says, a maximum of yield, above which it starts to get more difficult. Does that fit also in the model that Barry Callebaut have?

Partly. I think there are 3 points on which I would like to answer. First of all, I think on the yield question, quite often we forget the kind of macroeconomic environment. And I think Ivory Coast is a good example. At the moment, Ivory Coast produce probably 2 million to 2.2 million tonnes across 4.5 million hectares. And you have 70% of Ivory Coast that is farmed, so you really have a problem of land. Ivory Coast is a net importer of food, so they need to import rice, for example, to feed their people. And they also have a commitment to reforest the country. So at the moment, you only you only have 9% of Ivory Coast that is under forest. They have a commitment to move that to 20%, which is 3.5 million hectares to reforest. So if you take that into account, there's no doubt that the same amount of cocoa needs to be produced on less land in order for more land to be dedicated to reforestation and more land being dedicated to feeding people and growing staple food.

It would be larger for us, I guess.

Yes. Then on the 2 other points of Antonie, I think on the contract, we obviously agree with that. Just keep in mind that we're B2B players, so we try to mirror the commitment of our customer. We've implemented in Ivory Coast a new contract that mirror the commitment of our customers. So we are all up for a multiyear contract. I think that's a completely fair point. He also helped the derisking. On the bigger farm question, I think there is 2 elements that contradict each other. You're right in the sense that the bigger the TAM is today, the lower the yield is. That's something we verify in our data. But if you turn things around and you look at the amount of the farmers that are making it to living income, bigger farm is part of their characteristics. So you're right in the sense that going for bigger farm, if you cannot sustain the right level of investment doesn't make any sense. But the bigger farm with the right level of investment makes sense in terms of business model even if we factor labor.

Yes. And I think that's where you get to the point where the agricultural practices are part of it, but they need this enabling environment of the right governance and the right purchasing practices to create the interest there because there's models that show that farms can get up to 1,500 kilos a hectare, right, but only after a long period of investment and a long period of very little income because you're renovating the farms. Now if you want that to happen, you're going to have to create the security for the farmer for him to be willing or her to be willing to make that risk. And I think that, that environment is not in any way, shape or form in the cocoa sector at the moment. And so we're talking about what we'd like to see, and we're talking about what we're seeing, but there's a very big gap between the 2. And so for us, the challenge is how do we take the conversation from kind of a great theory on paper and look at the current reality in the field, and that requires steps now as well, which is higher prices, longer-term contracts for farmers. I think those 2 elements together are the things that a company can do already in the short term without all the macroeconomic stuff having to be in play, which I agree on. But I think that sometimes that's an excuse or that's seen as a reason why we can't move faster than we're doing at the moment, but we can move faster.

And we're not talking about the excuse here. And I agree with your point that it's all about time management. You have a time period during which the farmer needs to transform the way cocoa is farmed, and that period carries a lot of risk. So you need to derisk that period. That can be 3 years, 4 years or 5 years. And we need to have that kind of long-term logic that allow us to really have a vision of progressive steps that a farm needs to take to reach that level, and you're right, it's 3 or 5 years. And then you need to help that transition. You cannot ask a clear armor in Ivory Coast at the moment to make that investment without any sense of security.

Very thing. I think that there are -- there's a lot of similarities. It's about governance. It's about productivity. It's about pricing. I think the focus needs to be on -- we're talking about a transition here, a timely transition, how do you make sure you create already now. I think that's what I heard you say, Antonie, the right conditions that also in the current state farmers are enabled to make this transition. But what I'm sensing from Barry Callebaut is that actually that willingness is there.

Yes.

Then I thank you very much, Antonie, I thank you very much, Nicolas, for those things you covered.

Thank you, guys.

I really enjoyed that discussion. And to be very honest, I did not even find them that far apart. They were both underlying the importance of cocoa farmer inputs, of good governance and, of course, also of price. And with that, we are closing our deep dive into our first pillar on prospering farmers. Let's look at our second pillar, human rights. We heard previously from Neelke of the shift that we have made to a pillar focusing on Human Rights Due Diligence, adding also an additional approach, community centers to fight child labor.

Christiaan, it's quite a complex terminology. What does it mean? Let's listen to an interview between Lorrencia and Joyce Poku-Marboah from Rainforest Alliance.

Joyce, thank you for joining us. Why hasn't child labor been eradicated?

Yes. The child of labor is complex, and it has to be tackled holistically and then in a collaborative way. It requires the joint effort of government, civil society organizations, companies in supply chain and even the farmers themselves. Oftentimes, interventions that support child labor eradication targets one aspect, let's say, poverty. And beyond poverty, we have other issues, other root causes like the gender inequality. We have weak enforcement of law. We have issues of inadequate child protection systems in the country. And using the supply chain approach towards tackling child labor, you realize that interventions target a few of the root causes, let's say, poverty and not the others. So if you don't tackle it holistic by taking care of all the other root causes, they'll be spending a lot of money, but you will not be making progress in a commensurate way. So it's important that resources are put together so that interventions can benefit a wider group of people. But in areas where there are interventions, progress has been made. Child labor is going down. Areas where there are no interventions, child labor is on the increase. So I'll say that we need a joint effort to do that.

Right. And over the past years, more of the industry initiatives have embraced the supply chain approach to tackle the issue of child labor. And that's more dedicated a lot of effort to case-by-case identification, remediation, among others. Do you think that it is important that the industry starts to shift towards a more community-based approach?

Yes, I think so. Industry has done a lot, and much more has to be done. The supply chain approach focuses on the cocoa -- children of cocoa farmers in the supply chain. But when you think about the community approach, you are thinking about the lives of all the children in the community or in the landscape. So you find a number of, let's say, supply chain access in a community targeting their farm's traceability. So they work in silos, not working together. And when it happens that way, it's like a lot of resources go into interventions, but not so much is felt. You can vouch for the loyalty of a cocoa farmer. He may belong to 2 or 3 different cocoa companies, so you would be sure that the involved child of such a person may benefit from different companies, while there are others in the community who do not benefit. And once you support this child and the others are there, you can be sure that your child will certainly be at risk of child labor. He has been supported, but the others have not. And the other way I think things are changing, you do the immediate remediation of getting the child back to school, but you have to support the parents. That is a more sustainable way. So if the parent is supported with an entrepreneurial skills to bring in additional income, then beyond the support you gave to the child, going forward, their parents will be able to take care of that child and then even other children as well.

A new approach to child labor and human rights presented by Joyce.

Indeed, Christiaan. This now closes our second pillar on human rights. Let's move now to our third pillar, thriving nature.

Absolutely, Taryn. And let's start with Barry Callebaut's commitment to become forest positive, which, of course, means to get rid of deforestation from your supply chain but also to add trees through agroforestry. Now on deforestation, we've seen a lot of private initiatives. But how effective have they been? Or do we require public policy to create a level playing field? The EU has recently concluded its EU deforestation regulation. How effective will this be? For this, Elena Gozun spoke to Julia Christian from the NGO Fern.

Hi, Julia. Thank you very much for joining us today. So one of the core activities of your work at Fern is also to support and to advocate for your policies that aim to protect forest and also the environment. A landmark initiative in this respect is the recently agreed EU deforestation regulation. What are your views on the final outcome of the negotiations? Do you think that the element of prohibition is the right way to go ahead?

The regulation is an absolutely vital step forward in the fight against global deforestation. And I think the prohibition element is central. It's critical. The strict traceability requirement that comes along with that prohibition is also what gives it a potentially game-changing effect. And I think it sends a very clear message to all actors in that supply chain and especially the cocoa sector that the mode of production needs to change.

What about remediation? As you know, the action of remediation is not embedded within the regulation, which means that on long term, it will not necessarily stimulate actions such as reforestation, landscape approach to deforestation. How do you think this plays out in the broader purpose of the regulation of that of fighting global deforestation?

Yes. So I mean, I think it's actually key that the regulation doesn't allow for remediation of that type because the intention of the regulation is to stop deforestation. And primary forests are not interchangeable with agroforestry or reforested landscape. When it comes to biodiversity, if you cut down a primary tropical forest, especially tropical forest, it takes centuries for it to get back to its previous state.

What about the farmer? Once the farmer cut down a forest -- a piece of forest, right, to plant cocoa trees there and a company identifies his actions, that would mean automatically that he will have to be dropped out of the supply chain. How do you see these 2 elements going hand-in-hand, the fact that remediation is not part of the regulation, but that also means that basically a company cannot really support the farmer in preserving his livelihood?

I think we should look at programs to support farmers to transition towards more ecologically sustainable products on lands that have already been deforested. I think it would be great to look at some innovative payment for ecosystem services, arrangements which could be funded through a combination of taxes or contributions from public banks or even from the EU.

I can clearly hear that you're very supportive of the EU deforestation regulation and the direction that is taken. What do you think of private initiatives that aim to curb deforestation such as RSPO?

Private commitments and certification have made some progress in terms of developing practices and trying out what works and doesn't work. But I think the limitations of these approaches always remain that they're not -- they're limited to a fairly small part of the sector. So that's one limitation. And then you secondly have the problem that there is a real accountability and monitoring problem in certification systems. The certification standards in the cocoa sector themselves, Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade, have said very clearly that we cannot achieve the resolution of this problem on our own. We need regulation.

Do you think that the approach that you have taken that of implementing the prohibition-based regulation is also an approach that should be expanded to other cocoa-consuming countries or regions such as the U.S., the U.K.?

Certainly. I mean, I think it would be a problem if it wasn't because, of course, then you end up having the risk of leakage, where the unsustainable production continues, and it's just sold to an unregulated consumer market.

Besides a regulatory approach, do you think there is a good place for enhanced cooperation and partnerships between consuming and producing countries to support compliance with the regulation also to achieve the broader goal of fighting deforestation?

From Fern's perspective, this is absolutely critical that you need to have both the strong signal sent by the demand-side regulation, but this needs to be coupled with a smart approach on the supply side as well to kind of transform that signal into change on the ground. And I think that's important for 2 purposes, both of which you alluded to. The first is just in the short term, just to prepare farmers and producer countries for compliance. And then once they have the understanding, providing the funding that's necessary to do that. And I think working via the national traceability systems which the EU is currently doing is a really good approach.

So basically, to really fight global deforestation, it has to be an effort amongst all the key stakeholders in the cocoa supply chain.

Yes.

Thank you so much, Julia. This has been a very insightful dialogue on a very important topic.

Clearly, legislation has an important role to play to build a level playing field and to create a market pool for sustainably sourced raw materials.

So staying, Christiaan, on our thriving nature pillar, we have a commitment to become carbon net zero by 2050. But how do we achieve that? What approaches should companies take? And critically, what should companies consider to make them credible? So for that, I had an interview with Marion Verles, CEO of SustainCERT. Marion, welcome. Thank you for your time to have this conversation with us today. We know that there's really 2 approaches in terms of carbon emissions. So there's the offsetting and the insetting. Could you maybe give me an overview on what it actually means?

Sure. The way we define insetting at SustainCERT is to say really simply that an insetting strategy is about reducing a company's indirect emissions through interventions that take place within the value chain of the company, whereas offsetting is not about reducing your own emissions, it's about financing emission reductions outside your own footprint.

We have actually transitioned from offsetting to insetting with a significant agroforestry approach. How important is it that companies have a conservation approach to reducing their carbon emissions?

We do see that Barry Callebaut's approach, which is to work on reductions within its value chain as well as protecting carbon sinks and generating carbon removals, is really critical because beyond the climate benefits that this generates, there are also benefits in terms of livelihoods for cocoa producers, soil health benefits as well as also other sort of non-climate-related benefits. So those are really important actions that go beyond climate change.

Going forward for us, what advice would you give to us in terms of achieving our insetting ambition?