Deutsche Post AG (DHL) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. I am Emma, your Chorus Call operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Deutsche Post DHL Group conference call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Martin Ziegenbalg, Head of IR. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and a warm welcome to everyone out there to the introduction of our sustainability road map. It's only 2 weeks after we talked about the full year reporting, so I'm glad to see many of you joining in on this important announcement. As you've seen from the invite, we've got with us 3 colleagues. It's Frank Appel, the Group CEO; Melanie Kreis, the Group CFO; and Thomas Ogilvie, Board Member in charge of HR. We're going to take you through the presentation that you have in front of you. And as always, there will be time for Q&A after that. And with that, right on to you, Frank.

Yes. Thank you, Martin. Good morning as well from my side. So let's just go straight away to Page 2. Here, you can see on the right, our new framework, how we want to now communicate going forward our efforts under ESG. We want to create really clean operations for climate protection. We want to be a great company to work for all, and we want to be a highly trusted company supported by our Go programs to really create lasting impact for the community. To achieve that, you can see on the left side that we want to intensify a couple of things and maybe highlighting here our carbon-reduction targets, which we will bring into alignment to the Paris Agreement. So that means science-based target, and we want to really reduce our carbon footprint in absolute terms until 2030. We will invest EUR 7 billion, of course, for this year and up to '23. It's embedded already in our guidance. That, of course, in due course, it will increase over time, and I'll explain later on more. Important to know as well that our short-term variable income will be related to the ESG goals as well if the AGM will decide accordingly to this year. We then go to Page 3. It just summarize why we think ESG is, of course, important for us. You know that we have a significant footprint in carbon where we are 0.4% of the total industry emission, and the transportation sector contributed 16% to the total global footprint. We are also a large employer with 570,000 people. That's the reason why we, of course, have to do something under the social aspect. And governance is, for us, a given because we are acting in every part of the world in compliance and supplier code of conduct, and this kind of things are fundamentally important to do good business for us. We have, on Page 4, a long tradition already, talking about these things. I think we bring it now to a new level. We started already in 2003 with our GoHelp activities. We didn't call it by then. We started to call them accordingly in 2009 when we launched our Strategy 2025. We have, over time, introduced more elements being aligned with the sustainability goals of the UN or 0 emissions by 2050. GoTrade, we introduced last year, and now we really, today, introduce our new sustainability commitments. On Page 5, you see the full picture of the way we want to communicate that. Of course, our purpose, Connecting People, Improving Lives, we have already since 2009. In the center, you see the 3 dimensions we will lead you through in detail. And on the bottom, our supporting initiatives to giving back to communities. So that brings me to the first element, clean operations for climate protection on Page 7. Just where we start from today on is that we have 27 million tonnes -- metric tonnes of Scope 1, 2 and 3. We will now adapt the science-based target that will lead to a significant increase in our footprint because we will go away from Tank-to-Wheel to Well-to-Wheel, and then it will increase our carbon footprint by about EUR 3 million. You can see that on the right, in the last 2 years, we were pretty good, actually, reducing our carbon footprint. It will now go up. And of course, due to the growth we expect in the next year, our footprint will increase. On the bottom right, you see that 2/3 of our footprint are coming from the air transportation of, of course, expense [indiscernible]. On Page 8, the commitment. It's based on the science-based targets and align with Paris Agreement. We assume that we will grow our carbon emission Well-to-Wheel to 46 million tonnes if we wouldn't do anything. So that's a quite sizable reduction need with 17 million to get to 29 million. And that's the reason why we want to invest EUR 7 billion in OpEx and CapEx until 2030. On Page 9, you see some of the targets we have to find. We want to have, by 2030, 30% of fuel. It should be sustainable. 60% of the fleet should be electrified. Our new building should be all carbon neutral. And of course, we will offer, along our different products, carbon-free and sustainable products as well. On Page 10, more detail on the aviation front. Of course, sustainable aviation fuel will play an important role, also the refleeting of the fuel optimization through artificial intelligence and data analytics should drive that. Yes. So there are different elements we want to do on the sustainable aviation front. On Page 11, you see a similar page for the line haul and the last mile delivery. Sorry, we said 60% should be electrified. We will use either sustainable biofuel -- or fuel on the long-haul, and we will do many other things to really optimize our fuel consumption so that we really become also much greener on the ground. Third dimension is warehouses and buildings. So we have already a lot of renewable power. I think we can do faster -- better and faster here as well. With a building design, we have the automation and visibility about the energy consumptions. There are plenty of opportunities how we can make our facilities greener. Finally, on Page 13, the progress we have made since we started our journey in 2008 where we said we want to be 30% more carbon efficient. We achieved that GoGreen in 2016. Now we are at 20 -- 37%, 2 percentage points better than last year. We had -- the old goal was 50% efficiency by 2025. Of course, we will now drop that and we'll replace it with our science-based target. The carbon efficiency index, of course, is not science-based. We think it's more appropriate to move forward. The long-term goal to be carbon-free by 2015 will continue from here. And with that, I hand over to Thomas, who will explain now what we want to do under a great company to work for all.

Yes. Thank you, Frank. Good afternoon, everybody. So being a great company to work for all is not only a promise and obligation to our 570,000 employees worldwide and to the more than 2 million applicants who apply for a job every year within our company, but it's also a matter of competitive advantage and strategic priority as engaged and motivated employees are the prerequisite for great service quality and our profitable network, but also more and more when it comes to applying and adhering to high social standards, a matter of selection from our customers on what we see more and more in their RFQ processes. On Page 15, you see the areas we are looking at. And all of the KPIs that you see there, they are steering relevant for us as a company, and by that, also part of our integrated reporting. We look as well as the aspect of attract and retain best talent; strong focus on OHS, Operational Health and Safety standards, and our lost time injury frequency; gender diversity as a steering KPI; and last but not least, the aspect of how to systematically measure, promote and [indiscernible] the application of high social standards and human rights. On Page 16, you see in detail what's our aspiration in relation to employee engagement in our annual Global Employee Opinion survey. We measure on employee engagement and have the aspiration to be consistently well above 80% of acceptance. Last year, we achieved this already with a score of 82. And for the upcoming years, with a grown employee base, we want to keep this level -- at this level at least. On Page 17, because we have also a significant appreciation from external rating agencies like Great Place to Work or Top Employers where we have, and you can see it on the global map, on more than 100 countries where we are certified by external rating agencies as either a Top Employer or Great Place to Work, which shows also our global aspiration and global execution capability. On Page 18, going to health and safety, we see already a positive trend in the reduction of our LTIFR rates. That's something where we want to continue this trend and accelerate it on to be well below 3.1 LTIFR by 2025. On Page 19, covering now the aspect of gender diversity and inclusion. We have not a single course model, just focusing on one indicator like gender, but a truly holistic inclusive approach so that we are an equal opportunity employer that, irrespective of gender, social or cultural background, sexual preference, or religious on beliefs, everybody in our company should perform up to his or her capacity, and that's what we want to foster. As one dimension, we picked on our target of having at least 30% female representation in our management until 2025, which is compared to our current 23% and step-up of 7 percentage points until 2025. On Page 20, you see this once again in detail what I explained before. But what I want to highlight here is that from now on, we also incorporate our commitment and endorsement of the sustainable development goals from the United Nations 5 of gender equality as part of our sustainability road map. Page 21. Briefly, we issued and published last year a comprehensive human rights policy statement, bringing together all aspects of proper business conduct when it comes to human rights-related behavior. That's something where we have now also implemented a holistic management system ranging from training and awareness campaigns to self-assessment, but -- and that's giving a tease to the whole approach, also auditing processes and on the respective grievance mechanisms. Page 22, because we not only want to be a great company to work all when it comes to our employees, but also take action as corporate citizen in the communities where we operate in, that we have also a strong impact with our group-wide programs such as our volunteering programs or also our support programs for employees in need. But -- and you are well familiar with our Go programs where we partnered with renowned institutions like the United Nations or SOS Children's Villages teach for all to actually make a contribution beyond our own footprint of protecting the environment in the area of GoHelp for disaster management with good teach for providing education to underprivileged communities. And last but not least, with GoTrade to facilitate trade globally so that people can participate in our global trade footprint. And this altogether, what you can see on Page 23 goes into a 1% pledge that we also decided to issue as part of our sustainability strategy that we want to spend 1% of our net profit each year to create lasting impact over -- why are these programs that we have established since a while to also show that we are caretaking and responsible for the communities where we operate in. And with that, I would hand over to Melanie to tackle the G for governance.

Yes. Thank you very much, Thomas, and hello, everybody. We actually chose highly trusted company as our aspiration. So we want to have the trust of our people, of our customers, of our suppliers, our business partners, the communities we work in and the wider public. And of course, trust is nothing you just get overnight. It is something, which you earn over time by doing the right thing in the right way consistently every day, everywhere. And that's our aspiration. And how do we want to do that? When we turn to Page 25. If you want to be a highly trusted company, it takes good governance. It takes clear priorities and processes and measures to ensure trusted, transparent and compliant business practices in all 220 countries and territories where we operate. And you can see in the circle, on the right on Page 25, a couple of measures we are focusing on. I'll go into a bit more detail on the next pages, but just high level. It is a cultural thing. It is about making sure that all our people in the relevant positions in all managerial positions know what we understand under compliance and compliant behavior. It is linked to data protection as a core ingredient of our training curriculum. Of course, in today's world, it's also about information security. It goes beyond us as a company. It involves our suppliers with our supplier code of conduct. And of course, we also have to measure it. So if you go to Page 26, just a couple of additional points. In terms of making sure that everybody understands what we mean this right behavior. We have a core compliance curriculum, which is a mandatory training course for all our managers and also in certain areas beyond the managerial population. And that also includes a clear understanding of what data protection is about. And obviously, in today's world, one of the key questions around trust is linked to information security, where we have the aspiration to be positioned in the top quartile of our industry. As we all know, that's a clear area where if things don't go according to plan, you quickly lose trust. So that's a very important element for us in the G pillar. Yes, turning to Page 27. We acknowledge that, obviously, we are working with partners. Our supplier base is a very important network for us. We have had our supplier code of conduct ever since 2008. We have refreshed it. We have updated it. And of course, now putting even more emphasis on also getting the right type of behavior from our suppliers and subcontractors, be it on our environmental aspirations, but of course, also with regard to their social behavior and their governance. We are working on this in a very structured way. For example, we do a systematic data-driven risk assessment to identify what are the high-risk categories where we have a significant spend, what are the high-risk suppliers. And of course, our situation is to reduce the exposure of our company, but to make also sure that in those areas as well, we work with the right type of partners. And of course, that also includes due diligence and monitoring to ensure that is not [indiscernible] to pay that is also actually coming in reality. So making sure that things really happen takes me to Page 28. It's probably not so surprising to hear from the CFO. If we want to make progress on the ESG KPIs, we obviously have to measure them. We need targets. We need controlling. And one thing, which is very important for us, and we have worked on that for quite a while, is we don't want to have a parallel reporting. We saw that all relevant ESG KPIs, particularly those KPIs, which we define as steering relevant are reported ultimately through our core financial systems so that we really have a single source of truth. One nice example is our CO2 footprint, our CO2 efficiency, which we have reported through our core financial system for over a decade now. But of course, that is also something, which is evolving over time. When you look at the list of our ESG KPIs, we have different levels of quality. So that will now take some time to get better here and broaden the portfolio of ESG KPIs. The second element on Page 28 is the inclusion of ESG in risk reporting and investment evaluations. So obviously, ESG risks and opportunities are becoming more and more important, which also means that we have to improve systematically in our internal risk reporting. And not surprisingly, we also have to take ESG criteria into consideration, particularly when taking our investment decisions in the business case evaluation. And that doesn't have to live somewhere in the finance systems. It really has to be filled with life, which means that, when we do business reviews, be it on corporate, be it on divisional, be it on local level in the same way in which we discuss financial information, we have to talk even more about nonfinancial KPIs. So clearly, the discussion of the relevant ESG KPIs is going to be integrated even more closely into all our business review activities and, of course, also into the activities of internal audit to make sure that the controls we defined for the ESG KPIs are lift with the same quality like we know it from our financial KPIs. That takes me to Page 29, something which, I guess, many of you will have noticed already that, yes, we have also taken the decision to integrate nonfinancial and financial KPIs more closely in our annual report where we have -- instead of having an annual report and a separate CSR report, we have merged the 2 for all steering relevant KPIs. And we also provide increased transparency in what I hope is easy-to-read format for you in the form of ESG Presentation and ESG Statbook. We've had an IR Statbook for the financials for many, many years now, and we hope that you will find the ESG Statbook with all relevant ESG KPIs as useful as the Statbook for the regular financials. Of course, that is a moving target because, as you all know, there's not the one ESG reporting standard. I still hope that, one day, we may get there. For the time being, we try to give information in different formats. And we will, of course, enhance our ESG disclosure going forward also to implement new regulations like the EU Taxonomy. Which takes me to Page 30. That is a decision, which will be proposed to the AGM on the 6th of May. If we are serious about our ESG agenda, and we obviously are. I think it only makes sense to also link a part of the Corporate Board incentivization to ESG. The proposal to the AGM is that the annual variable pay, which is paid out partly in the following year, partially with a 2-year delay, that 30% of this annual variable pay for the Corporate Board will be linked to ESG targets, 10% for E, 10% for S and 10% for G. I think that shows that we are really very committed as a Corporate Board to making our sustainability aspiration come through over the next years. So much for the G pillar. Before I hand back to Frank, maybe a quick CFO comment on the EUR 7 billion, which Frank already talked about. On Page 31, you can see a rough indication of the phasing those EUR 7 billion over time. I mean, at EUR 7 billion over a decade, we all know that there is a natural element of forward-looking uncertainty. Of course, we have used many assumptions to calculate the EUR 7 billion, but there is some solid modeling behind it. And you can see that it is a bit back-end-loaded and that, over time, the gray bars get larger than the yellow bars. The gray bars are aviation, and that is Sustainable Aviation Fuel. There, at the moment, there is very little supply. Our assumption is that, over time, the supply side will go up. And that by 2030, we will be able, as Frank already said, to have a 30% rough plan. And that, of course, then also explains why in year 10, in 2030, we have the highest gray bar. In the earlier years, particularly now in our current guidance time horizon, '21 to '23, it is predominantly on the fleet side and on the building side, and so we will continue this decarbonizing of our last mile. We will work on the buildings where technology and supply is available today. And that is, of course, included in our guidance for the year '21 to '23. And with that, I hand back to Frank for the wrap-up.

Yes. Thank you, Melanie and Thomas. So may I go straight away to Page 33. Here, you see the whole picture again of the purpose we have, which will be supported by the 3 pillars, as we just explained. The summary of all the targets, starting with the SBTi target for carbon reduction. The -- of course, the usage of sustainable fuel, our Zero Emission 2050 remains in place. We have pretty clear goals as well with regard to employee engagement, health and safety and women in leadership positions. The ESG is not only that we will consist to report about that, but also we will link it, of course, to external standard, even if Melanie was right saying there is still work to be done for everybody to get to a common standard somewhere in the next years. But for the time being, we will link it, of course, to the main well-known ones. The ESG targets will be a part of our remuneration so that it's also here clearly visible, and all of that should be supported by our 1% of net profit investment into our carbon programs. So then final page, it only shows that our new circle is well linked to our overall strategy. It's a great reflection of what we intend to do anyway in the strategy, and that makes us confident that we also can execute this swiftly because our colleagues inside of the organization will very much understand easily what kind of priorities we have, how they are linked to our overall strategy. And we have learned that now in the last 3 strategy circles that you have to bring it in something, which is understandable also for the inside because then you get duly traction. And with that, thank you very much for listening, and I hand over back to Martin.

Okay. Operator, if you then please start the Q&A round.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from the line of Neil Glynn with Crédit Suisse.

I hope all well. If I can ask 3 questions, please. The first one, just with respect to how you steer the business over the course of the next, I guess, 9 years to 2030 on the subject of rising costs and whether that's Sustainable Aviation Fuel or others. Just interested in your take, does this put more pressure or provide more opportunities to take the next steps to digitize the cost base and achieve more labor efficiency gains in that period? Second question on procurement by DGF. Obviously, you're in control to whatever extent with the assets that you actually have responsibility for. But I'm interested in terms of how you will actually govern and make decisions on third-party carriers that you will work with going forward? And over time, might that even suggest more concentration among the top carriers on the air, on the ocean side for DGF? And then the third question on developing economies. How much visibility do you feel you have in emerging markets on things like infrastructure developments relative to Europe? And how big an uncertainty and a risk factor is that as we progress through the decade?

Yes. May I take the first and the third, and then Melanie answers the second. So for us, it's important to get retraction because the organization understands that we are serious about that. So the signal with the EUR 7 billion is not only to U.S. investors or the public, it's also internally. We are serious about that. So that people are now really starting to alternatives, which we might find. And of course, also explain that then to customers what we are doing and how serious we are, and we have a lot of customers who have their own ambitious road map. And together -- these things together, I think it will give us significantly more momentum. Of course, combining that with digitalization, it should give us more efficiencies. And of course, we should have a better route planning. We should have a better usage of fuel on the airplanes. So these things are coming together. The lesson learned I have from the digitalization agenda is that we really get tremendous momentum after we said it's not -- you have to do that, but there is no money left. In digitalization, we see already that people are spending the money, and we also see that the benefits are increasing over time. So yes, it will, in combination with digitalization, give us another boost and to become more effective, more efficient, have better offers to our customers. On the other one, of course, that is maximum complexity. The good news is the majority of our carbon footprint, of course, is linked to the major markets, U.S., Europe and China. All 3 parts have a clear carbon-reduction target. If we miss the goal in one or the other country because they just have not the infrastructure to be, but the majority of our carbon footprint is by connecting these parts of the world, which have clear -- very clear agendas to become more carbon neutral.

Yes. And Neil, so on your second question, I mean that's, of course, the big topic. I mean when you look at our CO2 footprint in 2020, 2/3 is aviation. And in another way to slice it, 75% is Scope 3. So the biggest footprint is from the flying in Express and in Global Forwarding. And it's very clear that we won't be able to solve the problem and get to our new targets on our own. We will have to work with carriers. We have to work much more in alliances going forward. But I think the good thing is given our size, given also the close collaboration between Express and Global Forwarding, we are, I think, in a good position here. A lot needs to be done still also on the basics. So for example, things like the book-and-claim concept. Yes, if we say we buy sustainable aviation fuel, and it is kind of like filled into the broader tanks and then ends up in one of our partner flights, we have to be able to book those CO2 credits. I think that's common logic, but it's not fully accepted yet on the accounting side. And so one of our key priorities now will be to work with carriers, with partners on establishing those principles so that we can then jointly, for the aviation industry, make progress.

Yes. And it will remain, of course. That will change over time. Certain things, of course, I really -- we reduce that. And of course, it's easier in Scope 1 and 2. And Scope 3, of course, there will be a continuation of offsetting, but increasing the amount of in-setting as well. So this is not one step. It's a journey. And of course, it becomes better and better over time. And the more sophisticated our suppliers, we're under equally pressured as any company. Unfortunately, another more, it will become better because then we don't have to source from them, and they will start sourcing themselves, and of course, and then we can offer alternatives to our customers knowing that certain airlines are using more sustainable fuel.

The next question comes from the line of Alexia Dogani with Barclays.

I just had 2 questions, please. Just firstly on your targets for the level of electrification for the last mile delivery. Can you just discuss how kind of StreetScooter falls in this or not and what your plans are with regards to that? And then just secondly, in terms of sort of overall sustainable logistics, I mean have you seen that your customers are willing to pay more for sustainable solutions? And kind of how can you enable them to reach their own kind of decarbonization targets?

Yes. Alexia, so maybe I'll take the second and Melanie have the first. So this is, of course, here, in our assessment, it's assumed that customers will not pay. And I think we should have to think about that in the following way. My hope is after we made a bold statement today that others in our industry will follow. We can't solve that problem. We are 0.4% of the total carbon footprint. So we need to meet more people who are adaptive to that. If that happens, then we all face significantly higher costs, which, of course, if everybody does the same, will lead to higher pricing in the market and then customers have to pay for that service. On the other side, they want to be carbon-free as well. If it doesn't happen, which is also a scenario, I will say, okay, I don't mind, let's see, we will have a competitive advantage. So in the case that we have to buy the bullet for EUR 7 billion, we will gain market share because there will be customers who might not be willing to pay, but they can find then alternatives to us. Scenarios A, as the whole industry, following our leading example is going on that, then I will see when we will definitely see price increases because the customers have to pay for it. But if you think about what it means for lending costs, the carbon footprint of our industry will only increase low single digit, the cost of the landed cost. So if others are saying, "I want to have carbon-free product, then they have to pay for it, and it will not inflate their cost either. If that doesn't happen, then the second is we probably can't push it through because our prices would be not competitive, but then we, at least, will get more market share because the -- our customers will benefit from our carbon reduction. So one or the other will happen. And in both cases, I think, as a leader, you are in bad position. My expectation is that we will see a shortage on sustainable fuel, and the companies who commit first will probably have long-term competitive advantage to the competitors.

And then on the StreetScooter question. So we started building StreetScooters ourselves many years ago because we saw the need for an electric last mile delivery vehicle. That fundamental need is obviously still there and even more so today than a couple of years ago. What has changed is that we obviously don't have to build the StreetScooters ourselves. So I think it was clearly the right idea, but it's not the most economical way for us to do it with an in-house production. At the moment, we have 15,000 electric last mile delivery vehicles out there. We plan to ramp that up to 80,000 by the year 2030. We are now phasing out StreetScooter in a gradual way. We will still build several thousand StreetScooters as long as there's a limited supply of commercially available alternatives. But over the next years, there will be fully available alternatives at a more attractive price point, and that is why we are switching from StreetScooter to more standard electric last mile vehicles.

The next question comes the line of Adrian Pehl with Commerzbank.

Two questions from my side. A question asked on your suppliers actually brings me to the topic. Would you rate your suppliers on ESG following the same framework that you have just presented to us? Or would you continue to rely on whatever external rating they claim to have? And the second question is, since your strategy is, to a large degree, depending on aircraft fuel and [indiscernible] lower fuel might not be available at any quantity in the future. So is there a Plan B that you have? Would you do more on CO2 efficiency in other areas? Or how should we think of it?

Yes. So we have not taken a final decision how we will rate the suppliers. Of course, we will look into these things. And as Melanie said they are too many standards, and we probably will follow first more the external standards if they are qualifying for that as well. But it is a journey, and we will see so many changes. There are so many activity going on, and that's great to see. So let's see what the future will bring. Of course, we will ask our suppliers as well about how they measure that, what is their GRI or whatever, so that we get more consistency. And maybe we end up as well to say, okay, we measure our supplies as well long our framework.

Yes. I mean, just to add, so I mean, as I said, we have our supplier code of conduct, and we expect our suppliers to sign the supplier code of conduct, accepting, hence, our standard. So that's kind of like the first thing. And as I mentioned, we are also doing our internal analysis on what are high-risk categories and what are high-risk suppliers in those high-risk categories. And that is something where we will probably not just rely on information being given to us, but we'll also do more audits ourselves going forward.

Yes. On the SAF, at the moment, it's true. We don't know yet if we get to that level and how we get to that level. But I think the commitment we are now giving will enable others as well to start building facilities, and I believe we will see significant momentum gaining in the next 5 years. Of course, the next 5 years will be a challenge, and it will be mainly sustainable biofuel, but the technology is now imminent. And if you talk -- and we talk to the energy companies for quite some time already, they all understand that they have to go along this way, and they have enough capacity to invest as well for the longer. Of course, we have to join them somehow. But I believe we will see significant progress in the course of a decade. If that doesn't happen, which I doubt, if it doesn't happen, then we, of course, have to accelerate other stuff and look into all other alternatives. The problem is our carbon footprint is 2/3 related to the flying. So we can't overcome it. We would be zero carbon emission on the rest. We would not probably reach our goal with 29 million tonnes, so even if everything else would be carbon neutral because the carbon footprint of the area is quite sizable in our case.

And just to add on that, so as Frank said, we obviously have to tackle the aviation topic. I think the logistics industry overall have to tackle the aviation topic. And whilst there's work ongoing on electric flames and so on, I think for the next decade, we need better solutions, which are working with the existing aircraft, which will fly for quite a long time, and that is why we are pushing the whole SAF element so strongly. And I think given that this is at an early stage, by having large players like us making such clear statements, I think that is then also going to help develop the market over time. And as I said before, I think this is really an area where we will have to work very strongly with industrial alliances to get to the right level.

Right. And just very quickly following up, I guess you're probably not providing any new guidance on CapEx, having just reported. But is the program that you've outlined for us today rather, let's say, pushing CapEx for this year time period you have just provided a bit up? Or is that perfectly baked into what you've been saying so far?

Yes. So thank you for the question, Adrian. So just to be totally clear, this is, of course, included in our guidance for the year '21 and also in our medium-term guidance for '23. So then we came up with the guidance just 2 weeks ago. We already had our sustainability calculations lying next to us in parallel to make sure that we don't have to change our guidance after just 2 weeks. As I tried to show on the one slide with the gray and yellow bars, big chunk is actually coming in the later years due to SAF. The main part now in the beginning is further electrification of the last mile, which we have been working on for quite some time. See the StreetScooter question from Alexia earlier. So there's nothing totally surprising or shocking in the current guidance.

Yes. And on SAF, it's -- under currently, it's assumed that we pay a certain money for the SAF, and we have to work out in due course and, of course, not in the next 2 years because that will not happen. If it will be smarter to be -- to join a consortia with building a fuel farm, for instance, and that is more CapEx than operation costs, that's the decision we have to take later some more, what is smarter and what's a better way to get to sustainable view. Because if you invest CapEx, of course, then the price you pay for the fuel is lower. If you don't go into the risk of the CapEx, then, of course, the fuel price would be higher. So -- and that needs to be worked out with the partners we might find.

Right. Okay. Just very last question from my side. Would you -- I mean, it's probably very much out of the future, but on the other hand, given that you're obviously currently generating excess free cash flow, partially you're giving back to investors in the form of share buybacks and dividends. Would you, at some point in time, also considering to make ESG some sort of, let's say, remuneration in the sense of giving back something to the society and not paying out dividends, but do more on the ESG targets in the future? Would that be an option or not?

Yes. So this is actually, at the end of the day as well, how the market will rate that. At the moment, we have not such a plans, what we -- I believe we can bring the 3 dimensions, employer, customers and shareholders together, as we have done in the last decade. So we don't have to penalize one for the other. But of course, if we could accelerate our journey through what more investment and would be appreciated by the investor base by saying, we are happy that you are doing that, then, of course, you might take a different decision. So I think we have to -- it's a starting point, some of the broad communication we give today. And of course, you will learn on the next years what also investors -- if I look into the index development or the development of index funds for sustainability, it's quite impressive. So there's a lot of money. If we get rewards for our story and higher and we see an appreciation of the share price because we are valued more, because of the higher multiplier, because our company is more sustainable, then we might take a different decision than when we don't seek that. And that is a decision we don't have in our hands. At the moment, I don't -- we are not assuming a fundamental change. But if that happens in the companies, which are greener get a higher multiplier, then, of course, we might consider to accelerate certain journeys even.

The next question comes from the line of Sumit Mehrotra with Societe Generale.

Okay. So again, I'm just picking up on the EUR 7 billion investments and mainly coming from SAF here. So I'm just trying to find a little bit more about what are you actually hinting at in terms of infrastructure that you're targeting for SAF here? I mean, is this, as Frank just mentioned, fuel farms investments or production, infrastructure, transport infrastructure that we have in mind? And also, are you basically hinting that you will -- were into procure as sustainable fuels on your own and then you're going to provide it for airlines or for your own fleet? So how is this plan going to work out? Secondly, if you could highlight some specific metrics that would feed into your S and G buckets for management remuneration. You highlight a 10% split each across 3 metrics. So that would be great to know.

Yes. Maybe moving on organizational approach, and then Melanie can share a little bit more to you. So we will have now a dedicated team, which will look into all these alternatives. We don't know the answer yet. In the numbers, it's more assumed that we pay a higher price for sustainable fuel than becoming an energy company ourselves. But if the only way is to get to a sustainable fuel by committing also CapEx into fuel farms, then we might go there. And that is a job that need to be done probably in the next 24 months to get a better understanding how the industry, our suppliers. If you talk to the energy companies, they all are very active in that field and understand that they have to create alternatives to fossil fuel. You can talk to anybody around the world, and they are all understanding fully that there is a new way how you generate, and they see that as a business opportunity, which is good news. So in principle, I don't want to run fuel farms myself because we are not an energy company. We are consuming that. But if that's necessary, we'll figure. Otherwise, we don't make any progress. We might consider that somehow. And we have to set up a team, which is only fully dedicated. So not the divisions in our company will -- independent look, we will centrally coordinate that so that we have a consistent approach, how we secure fuel for internal purposes and also to external, to the partners. But with that, I hand over to Melanie for more detail on other aspects of that.

Yes. I think Frank already mentioned the important point. So what we have assumed for making our calculation of the EUR 7 billion is, we looked at how much SAF need will we have over time, getting to the 30% blend rate we will achieve in 2032 to achieve our science-based targets. What are the projections on availability of loss over the time, and what's the assumed price delta between sustainable aviation fuels and standard jet fuel. And the basic assumption here was that we would be buying, and that we would not start producing that to ourselves. I think that is still the fundamental hypothesis. We have done first pilots at the airport in Amsterdam, at the airport in San Francisco. But as Frank said, it is something where everybody is still learning. And we may come to a point where we have to make a longer-term commitment to really get the wider scale production going. I think that is a little bit learning by doing. With regard to the S and G KPIs. So on the S pillar, we had the KPI employee engagement in our annual employee opinion survey for many years now. That is also audited by PwC, this reasonable assurance. Thomas mentioned LTIFR as a potential second important KPI here. On the G pillar, we have ideas on a couple of KPIs, for example, around the core compliance training and so on. What we will now go to the AGM is, first of all, changing the remuneration scheme for an ESG component, and we will first implement that for the year '22 when we will then also come up with a specific KPIs to be used for E, S and G.

Yes. And maybe a final thing on that. We have, of course, the team I just talked about, they also look into funding from governments. The EU has earmarked a lot of money. The U.S. has earmarked a lot of money. China has committed to become carbon neutral in 2060 -- carbon-free, actually. So we have to look into that as well. And of course, that is a significant lever as well. The governments are understanding and transformation of that scale is not an easy business case, but needs funding as well from the government. Not in a way for subsidies of certain products, but more for enabling companies to get a reasonable business case by subsidizing sustainable footprint instead of technology. Then, of course, we have to look into that, what is a better alternative. So it's -- we will probably come back to you on an annual basis anyway to explain more what we are doing there because it's a complex in a way, and it's not easy to get from here where we want to be. And that needs several iterations where I can't even tell you by heart now how much will be OpEx and how much will be CapEx.

At this time, there are no further questions. So I hand back to Martin Ziegenbalg for closing comments.

Great. Thanks, Emma. And before handing over to Frank for his closing remark, I want to thank Melanie, Thomas and Frank for taking the time to introduce you to our ESG road map, which I'm sure we will continue to have a dialogue with you over the next weeks and months and years as this is part of the whole scope of themes we are keen to discuss with our investors also going forward. So without further ado, Frank, for your closing remarks.

Yes. Thank you for joining us this morning. We actually, as a senior management team, are pretty excited about what we have to put together. We believe that this will make a lot of sense to our customers, our people and hopefully, to you as well. We have clear road maps defined along the ESG dimensions, and I have no doubt that we will get very good traction. It's a -- after we started the whole journey in 2008, I think it's now the next S-curve of performance. And we want to be seen in our industry as a leader in the industry, and I believe that we will achieve that goal again with that approach. And with that, thank you very much for listening to us today. And hopefully, we can see each other sooner or later again in person in roadshows or whatever. Thank you very much, and bye for today.

Ladies and gentlemen, the conference has now concluded, and you may disconnect your telephone. Thank you for joining, and have a pleasant day. Goodbye.