This is a reaction to costs that have risen permanently in some areas, including for energy and personnel, as well as to the weak prices of our sugar and ethanol products. Over the next three financial years, we will gradually move towards saving 200 million euros, which will then take full effect in the following years.

Two projects will play a central role: firstly, „Next Level“ at our Austrian subsidiary Agrana. Two of its plants have been shut down permanently and one temporarily. We anticipate potential savings of 80 to 100 million euros here, which will be fully realised from 2027/28 (as at the end of February; editor's note). In addition, „Optimum“ has been initiated in the Group. By improving production performance, we aim to realise annual cost savings potentially totalling more than 100 million euros over the next three years.

I need to expand a little on that. When we published the profit warning in September last year, it really was a bitter moment for us. But we were surprised by the extent and speed of the fall in sugar prices. We then immediately worked with the senior management team to develop a package of measures across all divisions and all group functions. The first thing we did was to think about measures that could be implemented in the short term. The question was: what else can we stop and influence? Be it travel, conferences, or consulting costs. We cut back on everything that was feasible in the short term.

We are scrutinising our entire value chain, including the administrative area. There was and is potential to increase efficiency here. For example, we had 24 corporate functions, which we have now reduced to twelve. This is also because we carried out benchmarking and realised that other groups of our size manage with eight to twelve group functions. Each of the remaining twelve group functions is currently examining how the organisation can become even more efficient. As part of the planned cost-cutting measures, job cuts are also planned in the administrative area of the entire group.

Up to 15% of administrative positions are to be cut over the next few years; however, this will not only affect our headquarters in Mannheim. These considerations affect all divisions and locations. We attach great importance to making this process as socially responsible as possible. The specific measures and framework conditions are currently being agreed in close consultation with the employee representatives.

Yes, the jobs eliminated by streamlining the administrative area are included in the total amount.

In the Sugar Division alone, we have planned savings in the mid double-digit million euro range for 2025/26.

The positive aspect of the, so to speak, „challenging“ financial year 2024/25 was that it brought all divisions and Group functions even closer together. That was a really positive momentum. Everyone said: we have to make a contribution, we're pulling together.

Südzucker is divided into five strong segments that have different cycles. All in all, they balance each other out. That is one of the strengths of this robust portfolio. We always have two or three segments that are doing well to very well, and two or three in which we face challenges. This changes over time. We are constantly receiving praise from investors for our good business model.

That's right. Our original goal was to reduce it to around 1.4 billion euros. However, this must be seen against the backdrop of the initial forecast for the operating result of 500 to 600 million euros. What we were missing in order to be able to reduce debt more significantly is the difference between this initial projection and the actual operating result of 350 million euros. We are missing this component in the reduction of net financial debt.

That is true. In principle, we have a conservative financing and accounting policy. As far as the ratio of net financial debt to cash flow is concerned, we feel comfortable with a value of between 2.5 and 3.0. This is also important with regard to our rating. But our business is volatile. The rating agencies and investors are also aware of this. If the volatility is in our favour, we have very good results in the short term. But it can also go down from time to time. If you look at the long-term average, we are within the corridor that we are aiming for. We are currently above this corridor. We have therefore introduced measures to reduce debt and these will also bear fruit.

We have very strict guidelines on this in the Executive Board. The investment grade is extremely important to us. In the past, when our figures were very good, our rating was not immediately upgraded – because the agencies are aware of our volatile business. We had therefore hoped that we would not be downgraded again for the same reason now that our figures are under pressure. S&P downgraded us to „BBB-“ in May, while Moody's confirmed our „Baa2“ rating. This keeps us above the speculative grade at both agencies, in the case of Moody's even by two notches.

Hybrid bonds are an integral part of Südzucker's financing strategy; they support our conservative financing policy. In addition, they are structured in such a way that the rating agencies Standard & Poor's and Moody's recognise 50% of them as equity. The aim of the buy-back offer and the issue of the hybrid bond is to replace the outdated hybrid bond from 2005 with a modern bond that meets today's market standards.

The issue met with good demand from investors. The combined order book with a peak volume of around 1.6 billion euros and an issue volume of 700 million euros shows the market's great confidence in Südzucker's financial strength. The new hybrid bond was mainly targeted at institutional investors.

No. Firstly, it should be noted that we are very satisfied with the result. The enormous demand in the context of the senior bond issue in January of this year clearly demonstrated the continued confidence. A number of other factors played a role in the hybrid bond. For example, the old hybrid bond of 2005 has now been on the market for 20 years, which is very unusual and is not viewed favourably by investors. Furthermore, the market window that we used to place the hybrid bond was extremely tight in the wake of Trump's so-called „Liberation Day“ and heavily frequented by issues from companies with a comparable rating profile. Against this backdrop, the somewhat lower demand was not surprising for us.

It has no final maturity date, includes a first regular cancellation option on the part of the issuer after 5.25 years and a fixed coupon of 5.95% until the first reset date. The bond is subordinated and listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.

The proceeds will be used for general corporate purposes, including the refinancing of the outstanding 700 million euro subordinated fixed rate floating rate bond. A tender offer was launched in connection with the new issue on 19 May; it expired on 27 May. Südzucker subsequently called the outstanding bonds as intended, to be redeemed at par on 30 June 2025, including accrued interest.

The new bond is one of the euro-denominated hybrid instruments that benefit from Moody's updated rating methodology. Moody's – as well as Standard & Poors – has given it a rating that is only two notches below Südzucker's respective issuer rating.

BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and HSBC acted as Joint Global Coordinators and Active Bookrunners for the new issue and as Dealer Managers for the buyback offer. Bank of America, ING and Rabobank acted as additional Active Bookrunners for the new issue.

The previous syndicated loan totalled 600 million euros. We have not only extended this by five years, but also increased it by 200 million euros to 800 million euros in order to be prepared for future growth.

I am a supporter of the cooling-off process. That's why I follow this principle. But I admit that – when it comes to Cropenergies – I have to bite my lower lip from time to time so as not to interfere unduly, because the company is still very close to my heart. On the other hand, the strategy at Südzucker, including for the subsidiaries, is jointly developed and refined by the management, so it's not as if I no longer have anything to do with Cropenergies.

I still find the idea of producing green carbons fascinating. We need technological openness if we are to achieve our climate protection targets – especially in the transport sector. Electromobility alone will not achieve this. This is another reason why I am a great advocate of E20, which unfortunately does not yet exist in Germany. Another option would be to combine E20 with hybrid drives. In any case, I am very pleased that we have tied Cropenergies even more closely to the group through the public takeover bid to the outstanding shareholders and the delisting at the end of February 2024.

From what we know so far, the recently negotiated agreement provides for duty-free access to the UK market for US ethanol. This would make Ensus' business in the UK very difficult. There are currently two large ethanol plants in the UK; both produce up to 400,000 cubic metres per year. They supply the British market; on top of that they also import. However, it remains to be seen what the framework conditions set by the government in London will ultimately look like.

A common reference for the pricing of ethanol is the quotation in Houston, Texas. In comparison, the price level in Europe is significantly higher. This difference is mainly due to the additional costs for sea transport and adaptation to European quality requirements. Import duties are also incurred, which further increase the overall price. If these tariffs were completely eliminated, ethanol from the USA could arrive in the UK at much more favourable conditions.

At the current price level of US ethanol, I assume that British production, whether by us or our competitors, is no longer competitive. Our competitor has stated that they are currently making a loss even with tariff protection. If production is already making a loss with customs protection in place and then customs protection is removed, I would expect local production to be at risk. Then the sale or closure of an ethanol plant can no longer be ruled out.

I suspect that the British government has not properly assessed the consequences of the trade agreement with the USA in some areas and will correct this in one way or another. After all, it's not just about the two ethanol plants, but also about the suppliers.

If both ethanol plants in the UK operate at full capacity, they will need around 2 million tonnes of grain for production. If ethanol production is discontinued, where will the 2 million tonnes go? In addition, the by-products of ethanol production, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), would be missing. The lack of CO2, which is among other things needed for beer production, was already an issue in the UK during phases when little ethanol was produced in the country.

It's like this: Sugar is often criticised and denigrated as a fattening agent. I see it very differently. I've been with Südzucker for almost 20 years now and am an avid sugar consumer… and triathlete! Sugar is wrongly focussed on in a negative way. That doesn't mean I'm uncritical of sugar. Obesity in young people is a serious problem. But what I think we need to realise is that obesity always has something to do with calorie intake and consumption. Politicians are making it too easy for themselves by taking one aspect out of a multifactorial problem and claiming that sugar is to blame. That's simply not true.

It starts with the fact that there is less and less socialisation in families. In other words, families are cooking and eating together less and less. Children are getting less and less exercise and are constantly on their mobile phones. Nevertheless, the introduction of a sugar tax is being debated. Why not a social media tax too? Obesity in large parts of the population and a lack of exercise - these are problems for society as a whole.

Yes, you can see the absurd effects of focussing on sugar as a cause of illness and obesity. For example, a packet of muesli is advertised with the slogan „30% less sugar“. But the packet still weighs 750 grams, which means it contains perhaps 30% less sugar, but other fillers, such as starchy carbohydrates. Some of these have just as many calories, some even more. However, such a reduction in sugar suggests a supposedly healthier food. I don't see that. I think it's completely wrong to demonise sugar.

Agriculture and the food industry are not sufficiently in the focus of the German government and the EU. We see this repeatedly, for example when free trade agreements are negotiated and concluded, such as recently with Mercosur (a South American customs union and free trade zone; editor's note). The trend is always the same: The EU tries to gain free market access to other regions for automotive, pharmaceuticals, machinery, equipment, and so on, and in return the EU is always prepared to make concessions on agriculture.

As a business economist, I fully realise that. But free trade must take place at a fair level of comparison. But what the EU is doing, which I consider to be unfair, is on the one hand confronting European agriculture and producing companies with ever higher sustainability requirements – which I consider to be right per se, because Südzucker is also clearly in favour of sustainable agriculture – but on the other hand ignoring the associated costs and declining yields. Less fertiliser use, fewer pesticides, more flower strips and even land set-aside? We're doing everything. But then politicians cannot allow agricultural goods into Europe that are produced under completely different conditions.

Take Brazil. There are still 40 pesticides authorised there - in particular herbicides - which have been banned here for 40 years. I don't see any point in importing such sugar into the EU, which doesn't have to fulfil the same sustainability criteria as we do. Another example is Australia, where sugar cane – and not sugar beet like here – is used as the basis for sugar production. On the fifth continent, some of the sugar cane fields are still simply torched before the machines go into the fields. This has to do with the many poisonous snakes in Australia, among other things. Ultimately, however, nobody there is interested in biodiversity and all the plants and animals in the affected fields.

I think the associations do a good job of raising awareness. I can say that from my own experience. What makes their work fundamentally difficult is the restricted access to politics, because it is always automatically assumed that industry associations represent their interests one-sidedly. In fact, this usually happens in a very balanced way, which is why I reject this accusation. Instead, politicians should be allowed to have a little trust. On the other hand, my experience is that when an NGO (non-governmental organisation; editor's note) appears, they are seen per se as „the good guys“ and their arguments as „correct and credible“. But the fact is that if anyone understands our industry and its problems, it is probably the farmers and processing companies.

We in Europe must recognise how important it is to have a high level of self-sufficiency in all agricultural goods.