Thank you, and hello everyone, and welcome to this call about Royal Unibrew's first quarter 2026 trading update and our announcement about changes to one of our partnerships. My name is Lars Jensen.

I'm the CEO of Royal Unibrew, and with me today is our CFO, Lars Vestergaard, and Head of Investor Relations, Flemming Ole Nielsen. We'll take you through the highlights of today's announcement, and after the presentation, we'll open up for questions.

Let's start with the usual disclaimer on slide number 2. Before we begin, please note the disclaimer covering forward-looking statements, assumptions, and risk factors that may cause actual results to differ from expectations.

We will skip the agenda on slide number 3, and let's move to the partnership changes on slide number 4. As announced today, there will be some significant changes to our PepsiCo partnership.

We will walk you through the implications and underlying elements in more details on the next slides. Starting with the facts: in Northern Europe, our partnership with PepsiCo will conclude at the end of 2028.

This includes Denmark, including the border trade in Germany, Finland, and the Baltics. Our PepsiCo partnership in Benelux continues beyond '28 in line with the partnership agreements for those markets.

PepsiCo has been a valued partner for decades in Northern Europe, and the collaboration has been mutually beneficial, and we are proud of what we have achieved. Royal Unibrew would have preferred to continue; however, this has not been proven possible.

Importantly, this outcome does not change our strategic direction. Our multi-beverage strategy remains unchanged, and we continue to focus on growing both our own brands and partnerships.

If we look at our recent performance in these markets, our own brands have been the main driver of growth. This reflects both underlying market trends and our ability to respond effectively to changing consumer preferences.

It is critical for Royal Unibrew's strategy that we have fully control over our own brands, and we can develop them to their full potential. We'll have more flexibility for this going forward.

The affected PepsiCo businesses represents approximately 13% of our current net revenue, and we will continue to operate the PepsiCo business for the remainder of the contractual period in accordance with the agreement. The Pepsi share of net revenue is expected to decline towards the end of 2028, supported by the strong growth we are seeing in our own brands, while the cola category share of the total soft drink market generally is in decline across most markets.

We will implement a range of initiatives to mitigate the negative impact from the ending of the PepsiCo portfolio, and these initiatives span commercial actions, efficiency improvements, and cost measures. At the same time, we will ensure that our multi-beverage portfolio remains strong and attractive for our customers.

We also see this as an opportunity to further develop our own brand portfolio and to pursue new partnerships where this creates strategic and financial value. Based on our current assumptions, we continue to expect to deliver organic EBIT growth of 6% to 8% by the end of 2028, fully in line with our financial targets.

2029 will be impacted by lost revenue and loss of scale, and we expect to offset this accelerating the growth of our own brands, pursuing new partnership, and by cost and efficiency initiatives. Based on current assumptions, we expect transition costs of approximately 300 million to support the acceleration of own brands in '29, as well as to cover potential exit-related costs associated with the ending of the partnership.

From 2030, we expect our growth formula to be back on track, with profitability, measured as absolute EBIT, exceeding 2028 levels. The financial impact from ending of this partnership involves several moving parts, and there is naturally some uncertainty related to both timing and the actual impact.

Lars Vestergaard will go more into details on this. With that, we'll now turn to why our growth core remains intact, please turn to slide number 5.

This slide includes key elements in our strategy and operating model. You have heard us talking about this before.

We operate a highly efficient multi-beverage model across our Northern European markets, with strong embedded capabilities across product innovation, production, distribution, and sales of multi-beverage categories. We have a clear focus on growth categories, where we prioritize innovation and commercial investments in beverage categories with the strongest growth potential.

We have a portfolio of local brands with strong market positions across categories, and we continue to invest and develop these brands. We complement this with close customer relationship across both on- and off-trade channels, and with the combination of our strong beverage portfolio and service mindset, we aim to be the preferred choice of local beverage partner.

We have always worked with trusted partners, and have a strong track record of delivering growth and value for our partners. Not least, our culture and organization supports innovation and agility, and we aim to offer products that fit consumer trends and preferences.

Taken together, this growth core remains fully intact. Please turn to slide number 6.

Our growth category framework remains unchanged, and these categories cover approximately 60% of our net revenue, with our own brands accounting for a large share of this. The partnership that we are exiting after 2028 is primarily within the cola category, and as such, it is included in the no/low-sugar CSD category.

We have always aimed to build portfolios with partners where the outcome is positive for both parties. This applies to all of our partnership, and reflect our commitment to create win-win solutions for our partners and for Royal Unibrew.

As a result, there has been situations where we have deliberately chosen to limit opportunities for our own brands in order to deliver value for our partners' brands. In 2029, we'll be able to develop own brands freely, and furthermore, there'll be opportunities to enter new partnerships.

Looking ahead, we expect new opportunities to develop our growth category framework. Now please turn to slide number 7.

On this slide, we show selected examples of performance of our own brands. Historically, both own brands and partner brands have contributed to our growth, but in recent year, our own brands have demonstrated superior growth rates, while also carrying significantly higher profitability.

In Denmark, the Faxe Kondi brand has delivered 14% net revenue growth per year since 2019, with strong market positions across the carbonated soft drink space, energy, and enhanced categories. Similarly, Jaffa in Finland has delivered growth ahead of the market, and our Italian lemon soda brand range is outperforming strongly both in Italy and across markets in Europe.

These brands are well aligned with consumer trends, including demand for local relevance, innovation, and new flavors. As we move forward, we expect growth in our own brands to further accelerate, supported by increased focus and greater commercial flexibility after 2028.

Now please turn to slide number 8, and I will hand over to Lars Vestergaard.

Thank you, Lars. This slide illustrates the current management thinking around financial implications of the changes that we've announced today.

Please note that these graphs are for illustrative purposes only, and as Lars already mentioned, the financial impact from ending of the partnership involves several fairly large moving parts, and there is naturally uncertainty related to both timing and the actual impact. There is some years until they materialize.

What we're illustrating here is management current thinking and ambition. Until 2028, we continue to expect organic EBIT growth of 6% to 8%, in line with our financial targets.

As already mentioned, the affected PepsiCo business represents approximately 13% of our current net revenue, and we expect that this share will decline towards the end of 2028, as our own brands, and in particular growth in growth markets in international and Western Europe, will be growing at a faster pace than in the Nordic segment. 2029 will be a transition year, with some substantial moving parts.

The ending of the partnership leads to a loss of revenue, with an EBIT margin close to group average, as well as reduced scale effects. To mitigate these impacts, we will accelerate investments and increase focus on own brands, we will pursue potential new partnerships, and we will execute efficiency and cost initiatives.

A significant part of our business is not affected by this change, as we continue to deliver growth also in 2029. Based on the current assumptions, we expect transition cost of around 300 million to support the acceleration of own brands in 2029, as well as to cover potential exit costs related to the ending of the partnership.

It is important to note that the margins on own brands are higher than that of partner brands. Furthermore, CapEx is expected to be lower than under the continuation of the partnership.

From 2030, we expect organic EBIT growth to resume, with absolute EBIT level above 2028. Overall, this underlines the resilience of our model and our confidence in returning to our long-term growth trajectory.

Now please turn to slide number 10 with Q1 highlights, and I will hand the word back to you, Lars.

Thank you, Lars. Now we will go through the Q1 update quickly to save time for questions.

Q1 represents a good start to the year, and the quarter developed in line with our expectations. We delivered solid organic volume growth of 5%, with good commercial performance across markets.

Growth in the quarter was supported by Easter timing, which is important in Northern Europe. Reported organic revenue growth was 2%, while underlying organic revenue growth was close to 6%, adjusted for the planned exit from snacks and other low-margin businesses in Northern Europe.

As we have seen during the previous 12 to 18 months, our growth is driven by our own brands, supported by focused innovation and strong commercial execution across markets. We continue to deliver margin expansion, with EBIT up more than 20% organically and an EBIT margin of 8.3%, up 150 basis points year on year.

Free cash flow is also following our plans, and improved versus last year. Recent months have been quite eventful on the geopolitical scene, impacting energy and commodity prices.

Despite increased macro and geopolitical uncertainty, we reiterate our full-year outlook for 2026, and obviously this is a situation we monitor closely across our markets. Let's now look at performance by segments, starting with Northern Europe on slide number 11.

In Northern Europe, volumes grew organically by 8.4% in the quarter. Development was supported by the timing of Easter, while the comparison to last year was further impacted by a strike in Finland in the first quarter of '25.

Adjusted for the exit from lower-margin activities, organic net revenue increased by around 8%, broadly in line with the volume growth. Growth was broad-based across markets, with Finland and Norway delivering the highest growth rates in the quarter.

In Finland, non-alcoholic beverages continue to show solid development, and the [Turva?] operation is performing in line with expectations from the business case.

In Denmark, Faxe Kondi and Faxe Kondi Booster continued to perform very strongly, and we continued the rollout of Faxe Kondi in Norway, supported by our new cross-border sponsorship with the Uno-X Mobility cycling team. In the Baltics, we achieved a slight market share growth during the quarter.

Overall, performance in Northern Europe is in line with our plans, and now let's move to Western Europe on slide number 12. In Western Europe, volumes declined organically by 6.5%, while net revenue declined by 2.6%.

Importantly, the development is in line with our plans, and reflect our continued focus on quality of revenue and EBIT margin improvement. The decline was mainly driven by the Netherlands, and reflect the ongoing commercial approach we implemented in the second half of 2025.

As part of this approach, we have focused on price pack optimization and intentionally reduced exposure to lower-profit promotional activity. At the same time, own brands in Italy continue to gain market share in a broadly flat market, confirming the strength of our portfolio and execution.

Overall, Western Europe continues to progress as planned, and now let's move to International on slide number 13. International delivered another strong quarter, where organic volume growth was 24%, and our organic net revenue increased by close to 13%.

Price and mix was impacted by country mix, reflecting continued strong growth from our Faxe beer in the African markets. These are attractive markets with structurally higher growth rates, but the average gross margin are lower due to the distributor-based model.

Sell-out growth across markets remained solid at low-teens level, and our growth in the quarter was supported by a structural inventory buildup across distributor supply chains, reflecting the need for higher inventory levels to support a growing underlying business. Overall, the International segment continues to be a strong growth engine for the group, and with that, please turn to slide number 14, and I'll hand over to Lars to walk you through the financials.

Thank you. Let me start by reminding you that Q1 is a seasonally small quarter, and earlier Easter this year impacts comparability.

As already mentioned, a strike in Finland last year also moved some revenue from Q1 to Q2. That said, we delivered a good start to the year, fully in line with expectations.

Gross margin and EBIT margin improved year on year, supported by operational efficiency and realized benefits from our ongoing CapEx program. Furthermore, the exit from lower-margin business also helps drive up margin.

EBIT increased by almost 25%, and the EBIT margin expanded to 8.3%. Financial items and tax were on expected level, and earnings per share growth for the quarter came to 40%.

Cash flow was also aligned with expectations. As usual, Q1 was cash flow negative, reflecting inventory buildup ahead of the high season, but free cash flow improved compared to last year, driven by higher earnings.

Our balance sheet remains robust, with the gearing ratio of 2.1 times, and we continue to execute the 400 million share buyback program, which runs until mid-August. On April 29, we have our AGM, and the expected dividend of around 800 million DKK will be paid out in Q2.

Let's move to the outlook on page 15. We reiterate our full-year 2026 outlook as communicated in the annual report.

We continue to expect organic EBIT growth of 6% to 10%, supported by continued strong commercial performance, disciplined execution, operational efficiencies, and margin management across the group. Net revenue for 2026 is expected to be broadly in line with 2025, reflecting continued growth in our beverage business, offset by the exit from lower-margin activities, which will reduce the reported revenue by around 3.5%, mainly in Northern Europe, with no impact on volumes or EBIT.

The geopolitical and macroeconomic environment remains uncertain, and commodity inflation risks have increased in recent months. A portion of our expected raw material and energy consumption for 2026 is hedged, and we continue to actively manage the remaining exposure through pricing, mix, and efficiency initiatives.

With that, I'll hand the word back to you, Lars, on slide 16.

Thank you, Lars. To sum it up, as we have announced today, our partnership with PepsiCo in Northern Europe will not continue when the current license agreement expires by the end of 2028.

This was not the desired and expected outcome, but as we have explained, our multi-beverage strategy remains intact, and we have a good commercial plan and mitigation actions in place. Q1 '26 represents a good start to the year, with strong commercial execution across markets, operational efficiencies continue to drive margin expansion, and cash flow and balance sheet remain strong.

Despite increased macro uncertainty, we reiterate our full-year guidance for 2026, and remain confident in our ability to deliver. Thank you for your attention.

We are now ready to take your questions.

Hello. Good afternoon, Lars and Lars.

Thanks for taking my questions. Please two two from my side, both regarding the Pepsi partnership.

The first one is sort of if you could explain a bit why you weren't able to reach an agreement with PepsiCo. I assume you've had negotiations and perhaps that they gave a reason for this.

Was it related to performance, or was it related to payments, or anything here? Then the second one is where does this leave your partnership with Pepsi, and of course I'm thinking about Benelux here.

You've made significant investments into commercial and CapEx and so on. What do you sort of expect in the Benelux going forward, given that Pepsi sort of has decided not to extend this partnership?

Thank you.

No, thank you, Thomas. We will, of course, not be able to give you any details on why a negotiation has not ended in a certain way.

I think as we have also put in the statement, our performance during the last 20 years in Denmark, since we acquired the business in Finland, and since we took over the Pepsi portfolio in the Baltics, we have delivered an outstanding performance. These markets, when you compare them across European markets, they stand out from a position point of view and from a growth point of view in all aspects.

If you want to have, I'll say, further details, then you need to ask questions to PepsiCo. It's our clear impression that we have done an outstanding job.

Does it change anything to the partnership in Benelux and for partnerships in general? I think the prepared notes that we have just giving you, I think it cements that partnership will remain a vital part of putting the most awesome portfolio together that can deliver value creation for our customers.

Then for the future, that's going to be a different mix of partners than having PepsiCo on board in the Nordic countries, but we will remain focused on delivering on the strategy that we have been very successful with. When it comes to Benelux, it is not changing our strategy around those assets.

We will pursue the opportunities that we have there, and remember that we also have, like we have in the Nordics, we have local brands. Pepsi is a part of the makeup, but it's not the full makeup of the business.

We will continue working together with PepsiCo in those markets.

Thank you.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions from me, one on the quarter and then one on Pepsi.

I suppose with the Pepsi one first, your chart that you lay out on slide 8 is very interesting, and obviously, we know the moving parts in terms of the loss. You've given the detail on the Pepsi contribution.

Would you be able to give a little bit more detail on, I suppose, some of the scale impacts that you're expecting from the loss of the Pepsi partnership, potentially how much of this kind of gap you're looking to fill from new partnerships, and potentially, where you see those partnerships being, category, brand, etc., to get to that? Then just on the transition cost, are you expecting all of that 300 million in 2029, or will that be spread over a couple of years?

Then just one last one quickly on Q1. Obviously Easter was quite a big benefit in Q1 versus Q2.

Would you be able to give some quantification for how much of the Q1 performance was from Easter and what we should expect therefore in Q2? Thank you.

If we start with the question on the bridge, I think the reason why we have not given you sizes on the different elements is that they interlink. I think we've given you one building block, which is the size of revenue that comes from the Pepsi partnership.

Regarding the scale loss, of course that can be mitigated with different means. One is, of course, that you rebuild the scale with own brands or other partnerships.

We expect that to be a significant contribution to reducing the scale loss we have. Then of course, we continue to have underlying growth also from 2026 up until the end of 2029.

Of course, we will make certain that we manage our cost base so that it's more fitted for life after this partnership. The work already starts now to make certain that the scale of our business is linked to the size of business we expect at the end of 2029.

Then depending on how much mitigation we can do on the revenue part, then we will make certain that we right-size our cost base to make certain that we exit 2029 with strong earnings run rate going into 2030. When we talk about the transition cost, then of course 2029 will be a year with a lot of transition in our business, we will have to rebrand a big part of our business, and have to exit some things that has the partnership name on it.

That will cost some money, but we will also invest significantly in building our own brands so that they get the attention that they need early on in 2029. For us, the 300 million is to make certain that we have sufficient money to make certain that we continue to serve all our customers with the right portfolio, with well-supported brands, and therefore we will spend money to make certain that we compensate as much of the revenue loss as possible with own brands or new partnerships.

Then

on your Q1 Easter question, it's always difficult to separate the hot and the cold water here, because there's sell-in, there's sell-out. The way that we look at it is always to do that math at the end of April.

Giving you a specific percentage and number is difficult. When we look at the performance that we have versus the market, we are performing well, and that's the most important thing when we judge that.

Brilliant. Thank you.

Yes, good afternoon, guys. Thank you for my questions.

Two from me, one on Pepsi, one on the core business. On Pepsi, you stated, and you have that illustrative chart of expecting 2030 EBIT will be equal to or exceeding 2028.

That implies quite aggressive growth in 2029, given the Pepsi business you've lost. Could you just explain in more detail how you expect strong growth to materialize?

That just wasn't clear to me from that illustrative scenario slide, given that the organic and partnership growth is calculated off the 2029 EBIT adjusted for those transition costs. That's the first question on Pepsi.

The second, just on Western Europe, appreciate your comments that the weakness we saw in the quarter was in line with your expectations, and that reflects the optimization plan in the Netherlands. Could you give us a sense of how we should expect this business to perform over the remainder of the year?

Will these optimization plans continue to be such a meaningful drag? Thank you.

If I just take the quick one, the Q question first, you should expect that to continue for the second quarter as well. Then we're cycling 12 months of doing that exercise.

It doesn't really matter how much we sell of certain parts of the assortment unless that we increase the profitability. It's a bit the same as we have explained early on with the Belgium business.

We cannot sell ourselves out of it. We need to make sure that there is a proper margin both for us, for the trade, and obviously also for Pepsi on that part of the assortment.

We are improving our EBIT, which is the focus, and then when we are at an appropriate level of profitability, we can talk more about how to accelerate growth from a top-line perspective. That's the thinking that we have.

On 2030, the numbers in terms of how much growth, I think Lars just tried to explain on how we think about the build-up. There's a lot of things that we are doing already, as we also mentioned on the call, in terms of our own portfolio performing in accordance with what the consumers are really asking for: local, relevant, and everything that stays within the four growth categories, where the three of those categories is not supported by Pepsi, but only the no/low-sugar and within cola is really supported by Pepsi.

Scaling that up, and that's not just about scaling it up in 2029 or 2030, it's about scaling it up from now on. Then on top of that, we have some markets that are flying at fairly high growth rates, and one of the things that we are discussing is, of course, on how we can even accelerate those growth rates.

It's a Royal Unibrew exercise. It's not just a Nordic exercise.

It's a Royal Unibrew exercise. That's the thinking that we have.

Good afternoon, Lars, Lars, and Flemming. Thanks for the question.

I have two, please. Can you talk a bit about what the implications are for the effectiveness of the multi-beverage business in the markets that are affected?

Once the Pepsi brands are out, how will that impact the remaining part of the portfolio, and in that, is there a big difference between the on-trade and the off-trade customers? Then the second question I have is, obviously, there's going to be some gaps in the portfolio once the Pepsi products are out.

I think especially cola, and you mentioned that also in the release this morning. Can you already introduce a cola or fill any other gaps in the portfolio before the contract expires?

On on your last question, there there is a number of things that we can do, and then there will there's a few few things that we cannot do, which is very natural with with with these type of agreements. It's not we we also have our own license agreements in in the International, and and those are also, I would say, naturally tied up in in some commitments from partners.

Yes, certain things we can do, certain things we cannot do. When it comes for the in terms of the implications of of not having, I would say, Pepsi Max in in the assortment, then for off-trade, the discussion is multiple have multiple elements: how does the cooler look like, how much space do you retain, how many promotions do you get, which type of promotions do you get, etc., etc.

The strength that that we have had so far and have been building over a period of 20 years, where we have taken the soft drink market shares from, let's say, roughly 20% to plus 40%, it's because of the symbiosis between between brands. Now it's Denmark as an example.

It's a symbiosis between the brands in terms of how they they play their strength, and and we need to find another way on how to play that strength. It is, in our mind, likely going to be a combination of own brands and partner brands so that we make sure that we get the scale, get the relevance, and thereby stay as as we are today the most valued partner for the trade.

When when it comes to on-trade, it really depends on the type of outlet, because many outlets do not have cola as their priority number one in the assortment. There's a few type of outlets that have cola today as the number one choice.

That would be, some of the quick-service restaurants, burger joints, and and the like. In order for us to to give our customers within those subchannels the best offering, we we will have to think about how to how to close the gap.

We are absolutely sure that we will be able to do that. We want to remain the one with the best portfolio, most relevant portfolio, with the best service concepts so that the the value overall remains intact or is increased for for our customers.

It's very rare that it's one brand that is the only reason why a customer would choose to work with us. It's it's the totality.

Then you're leaning back on the multi-beverage strategy. It is it is the way that we live and breathe the multi-strategy multi-beverage strategy that creates the value for our customers, and also for us.

Thanks, Lars.

Thank you. Hi, Lars, Lars, and Flemming.

I've got two questions, please. Just coming back to the point on operating leverage.

Appreciate you say in the release that it has EBIT margins close to the group average, but then you flagged the scale effects. I guess thinking about 13% of group sales is about 2.5 billion.

If we were to assume a gross margin in line with the rest of the group, that would imply about a billion of lost gross profit. I guess how do you stop all of that flowing through to lost EBIT is my first question.

Then my second question is, how should we think about the growth algorithm without these contracts? I know you say that the sort of 6% to 8% is still in place, but was this part of the business growing faster or slower than the rest of the group historically?

Therefore, would you expect that volume and/or revenue growth is higher or lower without these distribution contracts? Thank you.

If we start with the operating leverage question, first of all, I would say that the gross margin number you are mentioning is significantly off, and we're not going to give you exact details on that for contractual reasons, but it is significantly off, too high what you're mentioning in your numbers. In terms of the operating leverage, I think it's important to understand how Royal Unibrew operates.

The biggest share of the partnership business is in Denmark, where you can say a lot of the costs sits in supply chain. Supply chain is also servicing the international markets, and with the growth rates we have in the international market, you can say some of the scale will be covered with the growth we have in international over the next couple of years.

Then I think it's quite obvious that when you look at the limitations we have on own brands related to these partnerships, then if we launch own brands that we cannot do at this point in time, they will come with substantially higher margin than the partnership brands. We don't need to compensate the revenue 100%.

We need to cover it with somewhat less to get the same gross margin out of it. Then I think it's also important to remember that Royal Unibrew is not about individual brands.

It is a sales machine where we have outstanding customer relationships, and we prioritize the entire portfolio we have there. The sales people we have in all the stores in Denmark on an ongoing basis can now start to focus on own brands.

It's not just about the strength of the individual brands, it's also the sales machine, the customer relationships. We are confident that we'll pick up quite a bit of the lost revenue.

Multiple ways to mitigate this. We have 3 years where we can make certain that the cost base we have when we enter into '29 is set for a different size of business than if we had continued with the partnership.

We will substitute some of the revenue with higher-margin own brands, and then of course, some of the costs will be paid by the International division, where growth is quite strong at this point in time. I would say there's a number of things that we can do, and then of course, we need to right-size the business during '29 to make certain that we have the right cost base when we exit '29.

I hope that helps a little bit. Then

on the growth algorithm, if you look at the last 12 to 18 months, the majority of the growth that we have created sits on own brands. If you look at historically, partnerships have been a part of that journey, but what we have seen in particularly during that period of time is a changed consumer environment, where consumers are asking more for local, they're moving more towards flavors when it comes to soft drinks.

If you look at it in the beer category as an example, partnership is a strong driver for us. We do quite well with Heineken in the portfolio.

It is supporting what consumers are looking for, whereas when it comes to the soft drink, it has not been the same. This is where local has grown faster.

This is where enhanced energy and so on is growing much faster than any other category. That's a part of the growth algorithm for now, and we also expect that those dynamics will support that the growth rate of our own brands will go up over time.

Okay. Thank you both.

Yes, good afternoon. Also from me, a question on Pepsi, then a couple of quick other ones.

Given the amount of profit you're losing and there's a lot to do in terms of scaling up your own brands, which you've talked about, new partnerships, and the third bucket, which you're referring to as cost savings or efficiencies. Now it sounds like you will be starting immediately, pushing even harder with efficiencies than you have been doing until now, but you also said that you will sort of see where the business is in 2029.

The question here is how therefore should we sort of think about the timeline of these efficiencies? Does it start now effectively, and I guess where is the focus?

Is it distribution, G&A, or a bit of everything? Then please, the couple of questions on sort of on the current trading or this year.

You've adopted a more cautious tone on commodities, unsurprisingly given the environment. Could you give a bit more color possibly on your hedges?

You say you're partly hedged, and on how this environment, given where you are with your hedges, given where spot rates are, how it's affecting COGS this year, and I appreciate your confirming your guidance. Then a quick one, please, going back to the impact in Q1 about the rationalization that you're doing, the commercial rationalization that you're doing in the Netherlands.

Are you able to quantify to what degree this held back what of the -6.5% volume in Western Europe was attributable to this? Thank you.

I'll take the first one. Efficiency has always and will be an important part of it, and all the parameters that Lars went through on the slide number 8 is obviously something that we are looking at, will be looking at, will be implementing from now on.

There's nothing that we are not going to do short term, apart from the pieces that is connected to the restrictions that we have, which we of course will not be able to deal with before 2029. That is how you should consider it.

Do you want to take the hedging and...

If we take current trading, I would say that the effect from increased commodity prices up until now has been fairly limited, but we will of course start to see an impact in the remainder of the year. We have a fairly high share of hedging on aluminum, gas, etc.

Of course there is some residual cost that we are not able to hedge, and we are actually working with pricing, mix, and costs initiatives to mitigate the additional cost we will have from all the increased energy costs, which hits both logistics and a number of categories. There is a cost increase expected that we are mitigating as we speak, and as we write in the quarterly announcement.

The hedge level we have are fairly high, but as you cannot hedge all the elements of your business, there is a residual element that we are mitigating by cost and pricing.

When it comes to the question around the Netherlands in Q1, remember that Q1 is a fairly small quarter, the underlying base sales is not as high as it is in Q2 and Q3. That means that when you're opting out on some promotions, you percentage-wise lose more relatively seen.

The impact on top line in the Netherlands and volume for that matter is negative in the quarter, but if you look at the bottom line and the quality of what we do, it's going up. We earn more money in the Netherlands in Q1 than we did last year on a lower revenue base.

Okay. In any case, by what you're saying, in percentage terms, the impact should be less in Q2, right?

It should be less in Q2, and then we are circling that change in Q3. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for taking my questions. Just a few.

Just to be sure on the question around the potential cola launch, was it correctly understood that you cannot launch a cola before 2029? That's the first question.

The second is, is M&A part of closing this gap in 2029? Is it something you also consider to an even higher extent now after this?

Then maybe thirdly, just around the first quarter, have you seen any significant effects in Norway from shutting down the Sarpsborg site? I cannot read much about it, but is there any significant rationalizations that contribute to EBIT from Norway as well?

On the whole discussion around restrictions, I cannot come deeper than what I did in my previous answer. There's certain restrictions, and we have to live up to those.

The details of those are for contractual reasons I cannot talk about those. M&A, that remains a part of the agenda for us, and it's not something that we want to do more of because of this, because there's a number of criteria that needs to be fulfilled when we're looking at M&A.

Needs to fit the strategy, we need to be ready from an organizational standpoint, and then of course it needs to give a strong return. If anything fits those criteria, irrespective of what has happened here, we will look at that.

When it comes to Sarpsborg, no vital I would say differences to performance compared to last year. As we have been shutting down towards the end of the year, and we have been spending resources on ramping up in Bergen during Q1, the effects of that project will primarily be from Q2 and onwards.

Thank you.

Yes, thanks for that. Just a couple of questions.

Sort of this loss of this contract, what does this tell us about the risk you have on your other partnership contracts, and also the whole model of having partnerships? Has anything changed in your view there?

Also, after the loss of the contract with Pepsi Northern Europe, how much of your revenues and EBIT now comes from partnerships, a rough estimate on that? Then finally, regarding this situation, if this also maybe creates some opportunities with other products where Pepsi was not so strong, for example, energy drinks, can you scale up your efforts there now on the back of this?

Thank you.

If I take the first and the third one, we haven't changed our view on partnership, and we have been a valuable partner, they have been a valuable partner to us and vice versa, for 50 years in Denmark, and since '99 in Finland, and so on. Of course, there might be reasons why that you cannot or will not work together, but this is something that is rarely happened, and I think cements that long-term relationship can be very valuable for partners and for us.

No, partnership will remain a key element to Royal Unibrew. As we have said a number of times, it's about portfolio, and it's about having a win-win mindset.

That will continue. Yes, I do think as Lars also mentioned on the bridge on slide number 8, this will eventually give us some opportunities to pursue that we haven't been able to pursue within categories that have strong growth, strong brands that do not necessarily sit with the right partner to implement and maximize the full potential.

Across countries, we will be open-minded and look at it the same way that we have looked at it for many years. Can we create a win-win, then we should spend time on it; if we cannot, we shouldn't.

Then to your question on how big a share of our revenue and EBIT comes from partnership, we are not giving that number, but if you look at the other partnerships we have, we have a very strong beer partnership in the Nordics with Heineken, but it does not have the same magnitude or restrictions as the PepsiCo relationship. That is a mutually very beneficial relationship.

Apart from that, we have wine and spirits partnerships, where the churn rate is a little bit higher than it is on these other brands, but there we get new and we lose some every year. It's a sizable part of the business, but you can say there's no other partnership that has the same size as Pepsi, not even close.

I would say we are very happy with the partnerships we have, but you can say the event risk on the other ones is a lot less than it is on the Pepsi partnership.

Yes, thank you. Just one follow-up from me.

Just to be sure, is it completely unlikely that you could do a partnership with Coca-Cola in Denmark and Finland, or potentially do some kind of collab with CCEP if they take over the contract? Thank you.

We keep all options open for now, and we're not going to comment on specific brands or companies in terms of how we can partner up. We keep all options open.

Thank you.

Thank you all for participating. As usual, you know where we are, and it came for everybody as a surprise that we came out with these two, thanks for spending time on it today.

We are ready if you need us, and enjoy the evening.