Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Royal Unibrew's presentation of our first half result for 2026. My name is Lars Jensen, CEO of Royal Unibrew, and joining me today is CFO Lars Vestergaard and Flemming Nielsen from Investor Relations.

We will take you through the highlights of our first half performance, review developments across our segments, discuss the financial results and outlook, and then open the line for questions. Now please turn to slide number 2.

Before we begin, please note the usual disclaimer regarding forward-looking statements, assumptions, and risk factors that may cause actual results to differ from expectations. With that, please turn to slide number 3.

Before turning to our first half performance, I would like to briefly revisit our strategy and how it continues to evolve. The headline on this slide is simple: our core strategy remains unchanged, but some components are now being prioritized even higher.

The first area is partnerships. As we announced changes to our PepsiCo partnership in Northern Europe earlier this year.

While we do not comment on specific partnership opportunities, discussions, or potential partners, value-creating partnerships remain an important part of our multi-beverage strategy. We continue to keep all options open and will pursue partnerships where they strengthen our portfolio and create value for both parties.

The second priority is our continued focus on growth categories. Consumer preferences continue to evolve, and our growth category framework remains at the center of how we allocate investments and commercial resources.

In the first half of '26, our growth categories accounted for approximately 62% of group net revenue and delivered growth of more than 6%, once again growing ahead of the group average and supporting our overall growth. The third priority is to accelerate the development of our own brands.

In recent years, our strongest growth has increasingly been driven by our own brands. We continue to invest behind brands such as Faxe Kondi, Faxe Kondi Booster, Jaffac, Crodino, Ceres, Faxe, and Original supported by innovation, focused marketing, and strong commercial execution.

As fourth and fifth priorities, we continue to see significant opportunities in International and Italy, which remain two of our most attractive growth platforms. Both markets delivered strong performance in the first half and continue to benefit from favorable category exposure, strong brands, and attractive long-term growth opportunities.

Growth in Italy and International is developing ahead of the assumptions made when we established our long-term financial targets and is expected to contribute more to our long-term EBIT growth ambitions than originally anticipated. Finally, while growth remains important, we maintain a strong focus on operational efficiency.

Across procurement, production, logistics, and administration, we continue to identify opportunities to improve productivity and strengthen profitability. This remained a key contributor to our ability to deliver profitable growth.

Taken together, these priorities do not represent a change in the strategy; rather, they reflect the areas where we see the greatest opportunities to create value and accelerate growth in the coming years. With that, let's turn to our first half performance on slide number 4.

First half was characterized by solid commercial execution and continued progress against our strategic priorities. Organic volume growth was 1.6%, while underlying net revenue growth was approximately 4%.

The planned exit from lower-margin activities reduced reported net revenue growth to 1.2% and organic growth to 0.7%. Growth was primarily driven by our own brands and supported by innovation, focused brand investments, and strong commercial focus across markets.

We delivered organic EBIT growth of 6.7% and expanded the EBIT margin by 80 basis points to 13.3%. Importantly, this was achieved while continuing to invest behind our brands and despite increasing inflation across energy, raw materials, consumables, and transportation costs.

Earnings per share increased by more than 10%, and ROIC for the last 12 months improved by 80 basis points to 12.8%. Our cash flow and balance sheet developed according to plan, and today we launch a new share buyback program of 300 million Danish kroner.

Last but not least on this slide, we reiterate our full-year outlook and EBIT growth in the range of 6% to 10%, and we are on track to deliver earnings per share growth above 10% for the year. Now let's look at the individual segments, starting with the Northern Europe business on slide number 5.

When we turn to Northern Europe, our largest segment, which is accounting for 64% of group net revenue and 60% of group volumes in the first half of '26. Before discussing the individual markets, let me highlight the impact from Easter timing.

Easter fell in Q1 this year compared to Q2 last year, which makes the quarterly comparisons less meaningful. As a result, we believe the first half development provides the most representative view of the underlying business performance.

For the first half, organic revenue growth was 2.3%, while underlying net revenue growth was approximately 5%, adjusted for the planned exit from lower-margin businesses. Reported net revenue growth was on level with first half of '25.

EBIT increased to 646 million from 632 million last year, and the EBIT margin improved from 12.7% to 13.0% and was impacted by the exit from lower-margin business. EBIT for the first half of '26 included an additional amortization charge of 6 million as we accelerated amortization of intangible assets relating to the PepsiCo partnership through to the end of 2028.

Now looking at the individual markets. In Denmark, we gained market shares across most categories during the first half.

Growth was driven by strong performance in carbonated soft drink, beer, enhanced beverages, and the broader RTD category. Within the carbonated soft drink space, growth was led by Faxe Kondi, supported by strong brand investments, focused commercial execution, and innovation.

In beer, both Royal and Heineken delivered growth despite of a declining overall beer market. Faxe Kondi Booster continued to gain market share within energy drinks, while both Shaker and our recent launch, Royal Club, delivered double-digit growth in RTD and gained close to 6% market share when we are talking about Royal Club.

In Finland, volume and net revenue both increased during the first half, supported by strong commercial execution. Weather conditions in May and June was broadly in line with season norms compared to a colder than normal period in the same months last year, slightly easy comparison.

Market shares were flat to slightly up across categories, with the strongest development within our water and RTD, supported by innovation and new product launches. Within RTD, growth was driven by hard seltzers and cocktails, while the long drink category, where we hold a leading position, declined.

While we are winning share in the total RTD category in Finland, this shift weighted on price/mix as growth moves to more mainstream, more affordability in the RTD category. In Norway, we continued the positive commercial momentum from '25 and delivered strong growth in both RTD and beer.

We also saw improving momentum in spirits and wine despite a challenging market as higher-alcohol beverages is in decline. While we continue to gain share across several alcoholic beverage categories, the overall market remains in decline.

This reinforces the importance of building a stronger position in non-alcoholic beverages, where we see attractive long-term growth opportunities. During the first half, we continued the rollout of Faxe Kondi in Norway.

It was supported by the Uno-X Mobility cycling team partnership. We also announced a long-term license agreement for Dr Pepper, which from '27 will be locally produced, distributed, and marketed and sold in Norway.

In the Baltics, the market continued to be affected by geopolitical uncertainty, soft consumer sentiment, higher beer tax duties, and the introduction of sugar tax on carbonated soft drink. Despite this backdrop, we achieved growth across most categories and sales channels.

Beer, RTD, and enhanced beverages was the strongest growth drivers, while we maintained our CSD market share despite a competitive pricing environment. Original Long Drink, together with our beer and cider brands, performed particularly well during this period.

Overall, Northern Europe delivered good underlying growth, continued market share gains across key categories, and improved profitability in the first half. Now please turn to slide number 6 and focus on Western Europe.

Western Europe delivered another strong contribution to group earnings in the first half of '26. Organic net revenue increased by 1.1%, while organic EBIT growth reached 19.6%.

EBIT increased to 260 million, and the EBIT margin improved by 200 basis points to 13.6%, reflecting the continued strong performance in Italy and improved profitability in the Netherlands. Overall, our commercial and operational performance was in line with our plans.

Italy remained the segment's main growth driver and continued to gain market share across categories, partly offset by lower volume and net revenue in the Netherlands following the deliberate reduction of selected low- and no-margin promotional activities. In Italy, we continue to deliver high single growth in a relatively flat market.

Our beer brands, Ceres and Faxe, performed strongly, while the Crodino portfolio also continued to gain market share within carbonated soft drinks. The strength of our brands, combined with focused innovation, new pack formats, and strong execution across both off- and on-trade channels, continued to support growth and profitability.

In France, we continue to expand Crazy Tiger and Lorina through focused brand activation, optimization of our price/pack architecture, and expansion into new consumption occasions. In the Netherlands, performance developed in line with our plans.

The revised commercial strategy implemented during the second half of '25 continued to weigh on volume and net revenue development in the first half, but supporting improved profitability, revenue quality, and a more attractive sales mix. In Benelux, we continue to make progress through market share gains, commercial optimization, and improved in-store execution.

Growth was driven by the PepsiCo portfolio and supported by our own brands, and in particular Crodino. While Benelux remained broadly earnings-neutral in the first half, the business continues to develop according to plan.

Overall, Western Europe continues to demonstrate the attractive growth and profitability opportunities within our portfolio and remains an important contributor to the group's earnings growth. Now please turn to slide number 7, where we focus on the International business area.

International remained a key growth engine for the group in the first half. Organic volume growth reached 11%, while net revenue increased by almost 9%.

Growth was driven by the Faxe beer, Crodino within soft drinks, and our malt beverage portfolio, which includes brands such as Vitamalt and Supermalt. We continue to see strong consumer demand across our key markets, particularly in Africa, and estimate that the first half volume growth was broadly in line with the underlying sales out-growth across our markets.

The comparison for the second quarter was impacted by tax-related inventory buildup in the United States during the same period last year, making the growth comparison somewhat challenging. Profitability remains strong, with EBIT growth of more than 13% and margin expansion, despite increasing logistics costs driven by geopolitical development and inflationary pressure.

Overall, we remain very satisfied with the development in International and continue to see significant long-term potential across the segment overall. With that, I will hand over to Lars Vestergaard for the financial review.

Now please turn to slide number 8.

Thank you, Lars. Let me walk you through the financial development for the first half of 2026.

Before reviewing the financial, let me again remind you that the quarterly development is impacted by Easter timing, and the H1 growth rates provide the best indication of the underlying business performance. As already highlighted, organic volume growth was 1.6%, while reported organic revenue growth came to 0.7%.

Adjusted for the planned exit from lower-margin activities, underlying net revenue growth for the group was approximately 4%. Gross profit increased by 3.4% to 3 billion and 400 million, while gross margin improved from 43.8% to 42.8%—from 42.8% last year.

The improvements reflects a continued focus on profitable growth, operational efficiencies, and the exit from lower-margin activities. The first half was characterized by volatility and inflationary pressure across energy, raw materials, consumables, and transportation.

Through hedging, fixed price agreements with suppliers, efficiency initiatives, and price increases, we managed to largely offset this impact. Sales and distribution expenses increased by 3.9% in the first half.

The increase reflects continued investment in sales and marketing to sort our brands and growth ambitions. The first half of 2026 was also impacted by higher costs for transportation and distribution as a result of higher fuel prices.

Admin expenses declined by 5.5% compared to last year. This reflects our continued focus on efficiency and disciplined cost management across the organization.

EBIT increased by 7% to 1 billion and 26 million, and the EBIT margin improved 80 basis points to 13.3%. The financial expenses amount to 119 million in first half compared to 133 million last year, while the effective tax rate was 22.1%, both in line within the expectations.

Net profit increased 7.7% to 707 million, while diluted earnings per share increased by 10.7% to 14.5, benefit from both higher earnings and lower number of outstanding shares. Overall, we are pleased with the first half performance, which demonstrates our ability to deliver profitable growth and margin expansion while continuing to invest in our brands and commercial capabilities and managing the impact of increased cost inflation.

Please turn to slide number 9. Cash flow and balance sheet developments remains fully in line with our plans.

Operating cash flow amounted to 908 million. Working capital developments was less favorable than last year, reflecting normal seasonal developments and business growth, but overall cash generation remains solid.

CapEx amounts to 450 million, corresponding to 5.8% of net revenue. Investment activity is expected to increase during the second half, and we continue to expect full-year CapEx of around 7% of net revenue.

Free cash flow amounted to 458 million, at the same level as last year. Net debt increased compared to the end of 2025, primarily due to higher share buybacks, while leverage remains well within our targeted range at 2.2 times EBITDA.

Rolling 12 months ROIC improved by 80 basis points to 12.8, reflecting our continued focus on value-creating earnings growth and capital efficiency across our business. Please turn to slide number 10.

Based on our performance in the first half and our expectations for the remainder of the year, we reiterate our outlook for 2026. We continue to expect organic EBIT growth in the range of 6% to 10%.

The consumer environment remains challenging across our markets, and geopolitical developments continue to create volatility across energy, commodity, and logistics costs. While cost inflation has increased compared to our assumptions at the beginning of the year, we continue to expect the impact to be mitigated through pricing initiatives, operational efficiencies, and ongoing cost management.

A portion of our raw material and energy requirements remain protected through hedging instruments and price agreements, which further supports visibility for the remainder of the year. Based on our current assumptions, the midpoint of the EBIT guidance range remained the most likely outcome.

However, given the continued uncertainty around consumer demand, commodity markets, and geopolitical developments, the full guidance range remains achievable. All other assumptions behind the outlook remains unchanged.

With that, please turn to slide number 11, and I will hand back the word to Lars.

Thank you, Lars, and let me briefly touch upon our management agenda for the remainder of the year. First, we remain fully focused on executing our growth strategy.

The first half results demonstrates that our focus on strong local brands, innovation, and attractive beverage categories continue to deliver profitable growth, and we will continue to invest behind these priorities. At the same time, we are preparing for the previously announced PepsiCo partnership changes that will take effect from '29, while continuing to support, invest in, and develop our broad multi-beverage portfolio.

Innovation remains a key priority across markets. We continue to expand and strengthen our beverage portfolio through new flavors, formats, and propositions aligned with evolving consumer preferences.

As Lars just outlined, we continue to actively manage inflationary pressure across key cost categories through pricing, mix improvements, disciplined commercial execution, and operational efficiencies. We are working to offset these headwinds while continuing to invest in the business.

Operational excellence and cost discipline remain important priorities across the group. We continue to optimize resource allocation, improve efficiencies, and strengthen the profitability of our business.

Finally, we remain focused on delivering our '26 guidance while continuing to execute against our long-term financial targets. Please turn to slide number 12 for the key takeaways.

Let me conclude with a few key messages. The first half of '26 demonstrated the strength of our strategy and operational model.

We continued to gain market shares, delivered profitable growth, and expanded margins despite increasing cost inflation. Underlying net revenue growth was around 4%, driven primarily by our own brands and supported by innovation and strong commercial execution.

International and Italy were the strongest growth contributors during the period, while Northern Europe demonstrated resilience and broad-based market share gains. We delivered 7% EBIT growth.

We increased the earnings per share by 10.7%. We generated a solid cash flow.

We maintained a robust balance sheet, and we improved our return on invested capital by 80 basis points. Finally, based on our performance so far, we reiterate our full-year outlook and remain confident in our ability to deliver our '26 targets.

Thank you for your attention. Now we are ready to take your questions, and I will hand back to the operator.

Morning, all. Thanks for the questions.

Just three quick ones from me, please. The first one's just on the guidance.

You touched on it at the end there. You've reiterated the 6% to 10% range at this stage.

Clearly, we're already kind of well into Q3 at this point, and you have reasonably good visibility on how the kind of the summer has gone so far. Just, yeah, be good to get your sense of what is really driving that range at this point?

Clearly costs are an element of that. It would be just good to get your sense of what's embedded within the top and bottom of that kind of full-year expectation.

Then linked to that is just on COGS, I suppose. You're kind of flagging potentially incremental COGS impact in the second half.

It would be good to get your sense, potentially your early thoughts on '27 at this point, based on your current hedges and I suppose your expectations into next year at this point at least. Then the final question's just on volumes in Northern Europe, actually.

Q2 was clearly in decline. Granted that perhaps H1 is a better indication of the go-forward level of growth.

As we move into the second half and potentially in '27, as we cycle slightly tougher comps, how do you think about volume growth in Northern Europe? It doesn't feel like many of the issues around consumer affordability are going to materially improve, but clearly weather was a bit of a benefit in Q2.

It would be just good to get your sense of what is your kind of run rate of volume growth in Northern Europe into the second half and potentially into next year? Thank you.

If I take the last one first, if you take Easter out of the equation, as we're trying to do by focusing on the first half, if you're taking the summer swings that naturally is there, we had a slight growth on volume underlying in the total Northern European business. That is when you're talking about the consumer sentiment, it's more skewed towards off-trade than on-trade, and it's more skewed towards the non-alcoholic portfolio than the alcoholic portfolio when you're looking at it overall.

Of course, Denmark, Finland, and the three Baltic countries, they are from a volume standpoint, they are so big that whatever happens in Norway and Sweden you're never going to see in those numbers in reality. As we have said, we are gaining share in the Northern European territory in an otherwise flat volume situation.

Consumers are not drinking more; they're drinking differently. On your guidance question, I would say that this is the three Cs that we are always looking at.

It's competition. You never know what competition will do, and of course that has an impact.

Consumer, depending on the sentiment, the willingness to spend, and so on, is always a factor. If the interest rate suddenly goes up for whatever reason, then that can cause a negative suddenly.

You can find other positives: if there's an end to a war, one of the wars, then I think the consumer sentiment will turn more to the positives, and so on. That still gives a swing.

Then you mentioned cost. Although that we have a fairly high level of hedging for the remainder of the year, there's always a part of the cost that you cannot hedge.

Cost is eventually something that needs to be taken into the equation. That can be both positive and negative, depending on what plays out.

Then to the results, we see ourselves in the middle of the guided interval. You need to adjust, I think that's fair to say, for the 6 million in amortization, which has come in unexpectedly on the back of the Pepsi announcement.

This is cost that was unforeseen. We're not changing our guidance interval because of that.

If you change those 6 million to the earnings that we are delivering, we are somewhere, I don't know, 7.6%, 7.7%, very, very close to the midpoint of the guidance that we have given. Then for the further details on the cost, I'll hand over to Lars.

In 2026, we are, of course, benefiting from the hedges we have in place, in particular on aluminum and on energy. When you look into '27, there we do not have hedges from the past.

Here you will see a step-up in cost, in particular on packaging material. There is an unhedged element for next year, and we need to go out and make certain that we mitigate that with price/mix initiatives for next year.

There's nothing that's unique to Royal Unibrew, I think our cost will move very much in line with the whole industry. That needs to be managed through pricing and mix initiatives for next year.

Great. Thank you very much.

Hi. Good morning, Lars, Flemming.

Thanks for taking my questions. One question regarding your sales and distribution expenses and I guess marketing costs also here.

Just wondering if you can help us quantify the fuel surcharges. I think at least we were hoping for some lower distribution costs owing to the new warehouse in Faxe.

Now it seems like fuel surcharges are offsetting this. Can you help us, please, quantify the amount of fuel surcharges and how we should think about this going forward?

Then also in terms of sales and marketing costs, the new cycling sponsorship or the Faxe Kondi rollout, anything here you can help us quantify, and are these costs temporary or are these more structural? That would be the first question.

Then the second question is regarding, Lars, what you said regarding Italy and International, which has evolved ahead of your plans from the long-term growth of 6% to 8% CAGR. I was just wondering what that means for the long-term EBIT growth CAGR here.

Are we trending towards the high end of that formula, or should we more see it that you're just more comfortable with this range? Thank you.

Yeah. On on the on the second question, if I take that first, on the sales and marketing costs, we do believe in in building brands.

This is the core of of how we we think about our business, and we do put more more money behind them. There is '26 is going to be skewed more towards spending more on our own brands and slightly less on on on partner brands.

There will be a slight mix between the segments. From a marketing standpoint, we are spending a bit less on International, and then we are spending more in Northern Europe.

Yes, the the essence of that is is the extra money that we are spending on building Faxe Kondi further in Denmark, but also outside of the of the Danish borders. That that is a a weight on on the on the costs in in the first half, and it will also continue into second half given that these are multi-year year contracts.

That's, I would say, is the dynamics around the sales and marketing costs. On the on the side of the International business, we we took a a three-year initiative years back on trying to build a a unique position in a country, and we concluded that the likelihood of success was not very high, we ended that.

Then we have we have moved that money into into Northern Europe, to speak. That is what what what you're seeing.

On the growth on International and Italy, I think, our growth formula, that's that that's intact. What we're trying to guide here is that, also given the changes that we are going to see on on the partnership front, that a part of the makeup of continuously delivering a growth organically of between 6% and 8%, when we looked at that two years ago, built the spreadsheets, we thought that Italy and International would be a smaller part than what we believe today because of the the growth rates are higher.

On the other hand, we also reckon that the massaging of the Northern European business then will will take the expectation for for that region down until that we have a a a full strategy in place from the first that will be, active from the 1st of 1st of January '29. It's not when when we look at the numbering now, the compensation for the loss of of the PepsiCo business is not going to be only in the Nordics.

We are looking at it as as Royal Unibrew as a whole, and that means that we are going to put a higher emphasis on continuing the growth in in the in the areas where we where we do see growth. We are mentioning Italy and and International obviously, but we're also finding a brand like Faxe Kondi.

How do we move more resources to to a brand like that so that that becomes an a bigger part of of the growth engine? That's that's the reason why that we are mentioning it.

Yeah. On the savings coming from the investments in warehousing, the warehousing was taken into use during the first quarter.

We are seeing all the benefits coming through, less outside storage, less shuttling to and from outside storage, etc. That is coming in according to plan.

Of course, we have higher depreciation from that. The intention was never to reduce the amount of distribution fuel we use, we do see some extra costs related to higher diesel prices in our network.

There is some inflation of that, but we are seeing all the benefits from the warehouse investments.

Thank you.

Good morning, Lars and Flemming. Three questions from me, please.

On the Northern Europe EBIT and the margin were a bit below consensus despite around 5% underlying revenue growth. What specifically explains the weaker-than-expected operating leverage that we see in the region in the first half of the year?

Second and third questions is perhaps on the Pepsi contract following the announcement of the loss of that contract in the Nordics by the end of 2028. You decided to double down on your own brands' growth.

How has execution or resource allocation changed since April, since you announced that Pepsi contract loss, how has that changed to accelerate growth of your own brands? Finally, have you changed how you look at the geographic profile of the company after the announcement of the Pepsi contract loss?

Again following up on the same as Thomas asked on International and Italy, yes, we do see because we have been able to create a growth rate in those territories which is higher than what we originally anticipated. We do believe that those two geographies will be a larger part of the total makeup of Royal Unibrew when we are in '29 and 2030, the way that we look at it right now.

That's the answer to that question. On execution, I think we got the message mid of April on our way into the high season, and it is generally not very good to make massive changes when you're in the season or in your way into the season.

You will see and have seen over the last two, three months relatively few changes in terms of the executional part. Of course, when it comes to priorities, we have been over-prioritizing the PepsiCo portfolio in the Nordic countries because what we have done has been very successful.

We are over time going to bring that down to a normal prioritization, and that then indirectly, of course, gives our own brands more space and more focus. Then I think what is changing is that whenever we have looked at something on doing something together with PepsiCo, we could do the math with an unlimited time, to speak.

Now we have 2.5 years to earn the money, and there will be an exit cost. Building business cases on developing new things on the PepsiCo portfolio in the Northern Europe is going to be very difficult.

We're not going to deliver less innovation, less engagement, less marketing to the market. Over time, that will, of course, put our own brands, I would say, higher on winning the resources because of the simple math on the payback on the initiatives that we do.

To say that you have seen a significant change now, no, that's, I would say, the clear answer. Then on Northern Europe, we actually do not see a weakness in Northern Europe.

We see a strength. When you look at it mathematically, it's a small money that makes the difference between, I would say, what is in the consensus numbers and what we are delivering.

I think the two things that I would mention is the amortization. You need to take that in as a call it a non-expected cost because we need to do the amortization a few years faster.

Then the other part, as I mentioned, is the marketing costs. We have moved marketing costs into Northern Europe, which is hopefully going to help us in accelerating the growth of our own brands.

When you correct for that, I think we're delivering a very strong result in Northern Europe. I think very few companies can demonstrate an underlying growth of 5% top line-wise.

That's super strong, and it also converts to bottom line and cash flow.

Thanks, Lars.

Thank you. Good morning, Lars and Flemming.

Thanks for the presentation. I have three questions.

First, on Finland, could you please quantify your second quarter performance there, including the contribution from carbonates and beer? How is your market share evolving in these categories in Finland?

I guess looking ahead, given a relatively tougher third quarter comparison, how should we think about volume trends and the broader outlook for Finland through the remainder of 2026? Then my second question is on International.

Can you please share with us where do you see the largest opportunities to accelerate growth there over the next few years? In particular, which markets appear the most attractive to you, and are there any new geographies where you would expect to establish or meaningfully expand your presence?

Then lastly, a bit of a housekeeping question. The amortization impact you've seen in H1, is there going to be a repeat of it in the second half, or is this a one-off that we've seen in H1?

Thank you.

If we start with the housekeeping question, then we took some amortization in the first half, and that's going to repeat in the second half. That is a shortening of the amortization period for some of the intangibles that relates to the PepsiCo distribution agreement.

That will repeat itself. Of course, it's a non-cash charge, it's not impacting the cash flow.

If you look at the Finnish market and on the shares, we do not give detailed information on all categories. I think as Lars mentioned in the intro, we are gaining shares in RTD, which is the biggest segment for us.

However, within the RTD segment, you see some migration from the more high-priced segments, long drinks, down to more affordable options. That has a slight negative margin impact, but we are taking shares in this segment and so there we're doing well.

Pricing in CSD is extremely competitive. We are keeping our shares in that, and then there is a good development in our water business in Finland.

In terms of beer, it's important to note that in Finland, there are segments that are very unprofitable, you can get some positions where you make absolutely zero margin. In the segments that we play, we have a decent development.

For us, beer in Finland is not about market share; it's about making certain that the things we have in the market is profitable so that we don't just use our capacity for empty calories. I think that's the status on Finland.

Then on International, it's a repeat of what you have seen over a fairly long period of time. Our Faxe beer is growing mostly in Africa, West Africa.

The Crodino portfolio is growing very nicely. It's mostly in Europe.

Then we have the malt business, which is also growing nicely, centered around Africa and a few selected markets in the Greater Caribbean area. When you look at the growth rates, that is the sequence that I mentioned is the sequence in terms of the opportunity and our current growth.

The biggest growth opportunity we have is still doing it better in the markets where we're already present. It's not so much about opening new markets, although that we are scouting for what could be new markets that can drive the growth in 3 to 5 to 10 years.

If you look at it over the next 2 to 3 to 4 years, I would say that it's the current markets that we have opened. Some even 20 years ago, that's where the most of the growth is expected.

Great. Thank you very much.

Yes, good morning, everybody. Two questions for me, please, both related to your guidance.

Earlier in the call, you said that you still believe you will be most likely in the middle of your guidance range for organic EBIT growth, so that would be around 8%. Could you just confirm, does that comment on the midpoint being likely include the incremental amortization in H1 that you said would continue into H2, or exclude it?

Then my second question, you're reiterating your guidance point again on the midpoint. Organic EBIT growth came in at 6.7%, on the lower end for H1.

That would imply an acceleration in H2. What would be driving that, if so?

Thank you.

The guidance includes the amortization, so that's baked into the full-year guidance. Of course, that is, effectively, what can you say, an underlying pressure on our earnings, but that is included in the guidance, the midpoint is still the guidance.

We make more money in the second half than we do in the first half. There are many moving parts.

I would say we have seen some initiatives that we couldn't offset in the first half, we've been doing some pricing initiatives in the middle of the year to offset the commodity price inflation. There are a number of moving parts: what will the mix be in the second half, what will competition do?

When we look at our plans for the rest of the year, an acceleration in the second half is absolutely part of that equation. It could also be that some of the geopolitical headwinds will lead to more headwinds.

We think that with the world as it is today, we can see both headwind and tailwind in the second half of the year.

Then I repeat the first question that we got, and you have the three Cs: you have competition, you have the consumer sentiment, and you have costs. Those are the three.

That's the answer.

Perfect. Thank you.

Morning, Lars and Lars. Thanks for taking the question.

I'd love to dig into Italy a little bit more, where you're seeing very strong growth relative to the market, on-trade, off-trade, and I think you've highlighted some of the things that are driving that in the release. Could you talk about the sustainability of this momentum and whether you're seeing any competitor response on either the beer or soft drinks side of things?

Then my second question is around your opening comments around the importance of partnerships in value-creating partnerships. Without going to too much detail, given it's commercially sensitive, could you perhaps give a bit of a steer as to sort of which categories you're looking at?

Is it beers? Is it softies?

Is it wine? Is it spirits?

Where are the biggest opportunities for you to make the most of your strong distribution network?

Yeah. I think the clear answer is that, of course, after '28, the biggest opportunity that sits in the cola segment.

There's other areas where we can see that we can enhance our portfolios, but cola is obviously the big one. In the meantime, for us, it's about making sure that we enhance everything else but cola, and that is literally what the consumers want in most of the geographies where we do business on the non-alcoholic side.

There is a transition in all of that, but it's not only cola. It's in multiple areas where we do see that we can enhance our portfolio, and we also look at it from a geographical point of view.

The partnership is not just about what we are losing. We could potentially in new geographies, where we do not have partnerships, that we could add partnerships.

All options are open, and we are running it through the funnel as we normally would do. On Italy, yes, we're quite convinced that this is a sustainable growth.

We have seen the growth for many years now. I would say, in particular for beer, it has accelerated.

We see growth in both on- and off-trade, but on-trade is under pressure from a consumer point of view, which you have seen in most other markets as well. The majority of our growth is deriving from off-trade.

It's a combination of better distribution, better price/pack architecture, more consumers into the brand, and a higher frequency when you buy Ceres. We have been able to create a multiplicator effect by not just expanding by one parameter, but at multiple parameters at the same time.

When it comes to competition, yes, we do see competition trying to get a piece of the pie because strong lagers is where the growth sits in Italy. Heineken has launched a new brand in the category, and Carlsberg has done the same.

Too early days to conclude anything, as they're 3, 4, 5 months into their launches. Their launches have not yet made any significance.

I would then say on that one, we believe that it is important that you have strong competitors in the categories because that drives the growth even further. That means that the more consumers that will move into strong lagers, the more it's going to help us.

We consider this as being very sustainable. It's about the same story when it comes to the soft drink portfolio.

We are very focused on the single-serve consumption occasion to a lesser extent on the large pack sizes, and that is enhancing our value. It's enhancing our volumes.

Then we are adding new flavors to the game, and they are working really, really well. When we bought the business, it was a lemon soda business.

Orange soda is growing quite nicely, and we have a very strong growth on some of the side products as well, like the Mojitos and the Spritz. We are driving, I would say, the non-cola segment in Italy, which is very strong.

Yes, we believe that this is sustainable.

Lars, just a follow-up on the first question around the desire to fill in the gap on cola. I should know this, but is Dr Pepper, is that a cola, or is that something a bit different?

Then just while we're on that, could you talk about sort of the benefits that you bring Dr Pepper in-house? I know that you already have it as a trading product, but as you bring it in-house, clearly there's probably benefits on margins and ROIC, and probably a bit more attention.

Love to get your views on both of those two parts of that question.

We bring it in-house in Norway. We do not consider it as a cola.

It has a different flavor characteristics. What we are looking more at is occasions.

If you look at Norway, we do believe that Dr Pepper will be able to compete with both orange and cola in terms of some of the occasions where you consume those. I think if you look at the journey that Dr Pepper has had in the US and in other countries also outside of the US, I think it's very promising what that brand can deliver.

Great. Thank you.

Yes, thanks for taking my questions. Just a few from me as well.

To be sure, do you have any comments around how the third quarter have started for you guys? Second, in terms of EBIT in Norway, just to be sure, did it grow in the second quarter?

Then third, is it correctly to assume that the cost pressure will, all else equal, be higher in the second half for you guys? Thanks.

If we if we start with with Norway, then we have a number of strong building blocks in place for for improving the profitability in Norway. We have closed one site.

We have launched new categories. We are very happy with the development in Norway.

We're not giving EBIT data on specific markets, but I would say Norway is a place where there's a lot of good building blocks for for '26 and beyond. We are we're on track in in Norway.

I would say the the the weather in Q2, early early days was good in some markets. Sorry, Q3 was was pretty good in in Denmark, dreadful in in Finland, okayish in parts of Norway.

Probably across across countries, the weather was neutral, so so not a lot to read into to the beginning of of Q3.

Then you asked about the cost pressure. I think Lars tried a couple of times to mention it.

Yes, cost is going up in the second half compared to the first half. On the other hand, improvement in price and mix should compensate for that.

That's how we see it.

Can you compensate that fully already in the second half? Doesn't it usually take longer to offset?

We are looking at it as a whole, and I think you have also heard us talk about efficiencies and so on, you can improve your value creation by many factors. Pricing is one, price/mix is one.

You can move your focus on categories in a certain direction where you earn more money, and then you can try to be more efficient throughout the whole chain. You would say that we are better positioned in the second half to cater for that compared to the second quarter, because the inflation came in immediately, and there's a number of things that cannot be hedged.

You're always vulnerable when something negative happens, and that means that we see ourselves better positioned, far better positioned to cope with that for the second half of the year than we were capable of in the second quarter.

All right. Thank you.

Thanks. Good morning, guys.

First question is on Northern Europe, where you have a negative price/mix. I would maybe have expected that the exit from the low-margin businesses would have a positive impact.

Is this Finland that gives this negative development in price/mix, and is it more price or is it more mix?

I think overall, it's very difficult just to judge it on the basis of the net revenue per volume because it doesn't necessarily translate into profitability per volume, and some categories, they're just low on price, but they're also cheaper to produce, and so on and so forth. When you look at it overall, the alcohol portfolio is not growing, and that comes with a higher net revenue per volume, whereas the non-alcoholic portfolio is growing, so that is watering it out, but it's not necessarily watering the profitability out.

When you look at it from a category standpoint, yes, in Finland, Original Long Drink and the long drink category as such is one of the highest when it comes to net revenue per volume. With that category in decline and other categories compensated for that, that will be a dilution on net revenue per volume.

Yeah. Then if Finland more specifically, is there anything sort of more you're planning to improve, or is it more a matter of the consumer improving in Finland?

In Finland, we bring a lot of innovation to the market, and we have recently launched a new lineup of Original Long Drink, which is catering more for the same consumers as on hard seltzers and similar products, slightly lower on calories, slightly lower on alcohol, a slightly lower price on shelf, which is predominantly led by the lower alcohol, lower excise, and then in a different way of selling, where most of what we sell on Original Long Drink is either big containers, single-serve, or it's six-packs with 33, whereas the hard seltzers and similar products is more on single-serve. We are adjusting as we speak to that.

Fairly high rate of innovation to fill the gap, to speak.

Okay. Then finally, on Italy, you already talked a bit about it, but do you believe that Italy could be as big as Denmark or Finland in value?

From a revenue standpoint? No, I don't think so, unless there's something structurally really happens, and that's not the strategy that we're pursuing.

We're pursuing a multi-niche strategy where we are very targeted on what we do. It's a business that is building up, both from top line and bottom line very nicely.

Yeah. I don't want to put up that competition between markets.

That's fair. Thank you very much.

Yes, good morning, and thank you. Two from me, please.

Firstly, you've started to implement pricing to offset the cost pressures, and you're saying you're planning to take more as we approach next year. Can you give us a bit more color, please, on where and in what channels you're implementing this pricing, what you've done so far, what comes next, as much as you can share?

The second question is a bit similar to this. It's on International, where historically you find it difficult to pass on higher transportation costs because in some of the markets you're competing with local players who are not sort of subject to the transportation costs.

I appreciate you've localized your business to a certain degree, but is the situation different on the ability to pass on or not the transportation costs? Thank you.

No, it's the same, Andrea. International will always be subject to a slightly different measurement because competition is different than it is in the local market, to speak.

If we would not have had the increase in transportation costs, you would have seen the profitability in International would have been bigger in the quarter. That's our assessment.

We are trying to be very very smart and massaging this without losing competitiveness, and that this is market by market, category by category. When it comes to the broader discussion around pricing and improving mix and so on, it is very, very broad-based.

We are working with price/pack architecture. We're working with different analysis tools in terms of finding out what does different price point mean.

For some categories in some channels, we don't have an ability to push through pricing, but then in other categories we have bigger opportunities. Of course, we are talking this through and giving the best advice to our customers so that we create a situation where we get the cost covered, where our customers get their cost covered because they also see cost increases, and where the consumer still see that they get a good price for the buy that they do.

We work very professionally with this and getting better at that, yeah, every single day.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you for taking my follow-ups.

I wanted to quickly follow up on pricing, actually. How are retailers responding to the increases you've announced, and are you seeing your competitors follow through with similar announcements, or are you relatively quicker to announce price increases than your peers are?

Second, to quickly follow up again on amortization, I wanted to clarify whether the impact in the second half could be bigger than the 6 million we've seen in the first half given that the Pepsi license loss was announced sometime midway through the first half. Thank you.

Take the last one first. It'll be the same charge in the second half as we had in the first half.

On pricing, we are, as Lars said earlier on, we're all in the same boat. Everybody is going to see the same amount of price increases on COGS.

There might be different timing, and you could have different underlying needs depending on how your business is performing. Yes, we do see competition is also putting pricing.

We don't know, of course, what is going on between the customer and our competitors, but we can see it on the shelf, we can see it on the promotion prices, and we have a clear impression that the pricing is coming through as we speak.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thanks for good questions. As I would always say, you know where we are if you need us.

Give us a call if there's anything you need to know. Thank you, and enjoy the day.