Good morning, everyone. It's great to see all of you here at the New York Stock Exchange. And in addition to all of you here live, we have a large number of investors joining us remotely. I think the number is now 150, but it's climbing. So thank you everyone on the webcast. My name is Melanie Skijus, I'm the Vice President of Investor Relations. Before I kick it off today, for safety, I want you to be aware of 2 stairwells that you can exit if needed, directly behind me down the hallway is a stairwell as well as one by the elevator bay. Before we get started, I just -- I told you about the exits -- the presentation materials you have at your desk. We welcome you to walk through those with us today. On the webcast, you will see it in the webcast view as well as a PDF is available on our Investor Relations website. The presentation this morning are being recorded so they will be available to listen in replay probably later this afternoon. We have a great agenda for you this morning. You'll be hearing presentations from senior leadership. We're going to kick off with 2 and then we'll go into a 10-minute break. when we get back from the break we'll have 3 more and then we'll have a Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] Forward-looking statement. I encourage everyone to read through this. Our presentation today will contain forward-looking statements that will have -- or subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause these statements to not come into reality. So please look through the list of risks, and they're also available in our filings with the SEC. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to our first speaker today, Mike Doss, our President and CEO. I'm sure most of you are familiar and know Mike. He's been with the company since 1990, has been our CEO since 2016. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mike.

Great. Thank you, Melanie, and I also want to thank Alexandria, who's over in the corner here, as all of you know it takes a lot of work to pull together one of these Investor Day. They've been working really hard to pull things -- all the materials together that you see today, and we're going to cover. So thank you guys for all that. I also want to acknowledge Mike Ryan, one of our senior designers who is -- drove all the way down from Philadelphia -- a lot of the samples you see here today out in the lobby. So Mike, I don't know where you are, wave your hand. Thank you very much for doing that. Much appreciated. I'm going to start with a few comments around a few announcements we made last night, and then I'll jump right into the presentation, and then I'm going to introduce our speakers that you'll see today. And then as Melanie said, we'll go through that cadence and ultimately -- we'll have a few breaks in there. And then I'm sure there will be a very robust Q&A session, which we're really looking forward to. Let's start by talking a little bit around the first announcement that went out last night, and that's the sale of the Augusta mill to Clearwater Paper Company. Now what you need to know is that really, over time, Arsen Kitch and I've had a number of conversations around kind of the overall fit of some of the mills that we've got. And for them in the vision of the future, they have for their company, it became pretty clear that the Augusta mill, which is an outstanding mill with excellent people and a very good infrastructure is a better fit for them and what…

Good morning, everyone. I'm very excited to be here today to share with you information about the innovation capability at Graphic Packaging. As Mike just mentioned, innovation is a core component of our Vision 2030. And after my discussion today, I hope you have really 3 key takeaways. The first is the demand from consumers for more sustainable packaging is accelerating. Secondly, our innovation -- our global innovation capability is competitively advantaged and ready to meet that opportunity. And lastly, we see a $15 billion sales opportunity for paperboard packaging, which gives us confidence in our path to a 2% growth in innovation to achieve our vision. As Mike mentioned, our products are in the hands of millions of customers multiple times per day. Over the last several years, we've made many investments to dramatically expand our global product and our customer portfolio. We work with the leading companies and brands around the world. And with them, we meet consumers in many of life's everyday moments. We have a great responsibility because our consumer packages are at the interface between our customers' products and the consumer. We have to deliver on a product that meets those consumer needs while also delivering value to the brand owner. Our packaging meets consumers whenever and wherever they consume while also providing convenience, freshness, safety and a host of other functions. We understand there are many trends driving consumer decisions today, health and wellness, convenience, experience, but most importantly, consumers are increasingly concerned about the impact their decisions have on the environment. Consumers want more sustainable packaging and 68% of them view that paperboard packaging is more sustainable than other alternatives. They're putting a lot of care and thought into the decisions they're making around the products and the brands that they buy and…

Okay. Let's get started. So I'm Mark Connelly. I'm with Jean-Francois Roche, who is our Head of International Sales at Graphic Packaging. Jean-Francois spent most of his career at AR Packaging or Graphic Packaging. He's also, as Mike said, the Chairman of the European Carton Manufacturers Association. So welcome Jean-Francois.

Thank you, Mark. Good morning to everyone. Good morning to everybody on the webcast and [Foreign Language] If there are any French speaking person in the audience or on the webcast.

So what I'd like to do, Jean-Francois is start off, which is, give us an overview of the European business and where Graphic fits in?

Yes. Thank you, Mark. So in Europe, we're roughly a -- So in Europe, we're roughly a $2.2 billion in the paperboard market which is in the range of $15 billion. If we look at the total consumer packaging market. I think the size of the European consumer packaging market is in the range of $100 billion. So this gives us plenty of room to grow. We operate in 18 different countries, which include Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, where some market patterns and customer base are the same. And we operate as well across 6 segments, which are food, health care, beauty, beverage, foodservice and what we call household. And that's quite a benefit for us because you might have some volatility and some seasonality in those segments, and that helped us to balance out a bit those market fluctuations.

So when you think about the difference between the U.S. business and Europe, we have a very well-established health care and beauty business in Europe, relationships with all of the major pharmaceutical companies there and, of course, a much smaller foodservice component than we have here in the U.S. Jean-Francois, you show us the sales progression, and it was looking pretty good up until 2022. But can you give us a sense of what recent performance is going on there?

Yes. So if we step back a bit and look at who was the market before something called COVID happen, it was pretty much straightforward. And I know it's a European view of the things. But for Western European part of Europe, we were looking at GDP growth and somehow the market was performing like a clock on the GDP growth. If we look at developing countries in Europe, which was more the Eastern part, because of the way the market was getting structured, we were looking at twice the GDP growth for the market development. Then 2020 happened, COVID came on stream. Consumer behavior went all over the place. Petro-polymer substitution started as well at that time. So you can see on the graph, the market went up pretty dramatically, specifically in 2022. That was driven as well by further things because we saw finished good stock increasing raw material stock increasing because people were wondering, we have seen our customers as well, increasing the good stock from 6 to 9 months, and then we -- the price went up a bit, and we were just wondering at the end of '22 when the pendulum will bounce back because that's the way it works. So in beginning of '23, we saw clearly -- we saw some resilience in the first quarter, but then we had to unwind all what was in the pipe. So in '23, the performance of the market was in the range of minus 7%, minus 8%, but that was compensated as well by innovation and what I would call petro-polymer substitution, which is the beginning of what I will discuss later on, which is the packaging and packaging waste regulation. And that brought a bit of bonus to the market. So we end up in the range of minus 2%, minus 4% on the total market. For '24, I think we just consider that '23 will be the base, and we go back a bit to the basic. So I looked at the number from the European Central Bank, what is the forecast of GDP for '24. It's roughly 0.91%. So this is how the base market will evolve, but we see a strong -- strong trends still on innovation and what I call the petro-polymer substitution. And we believe because as Mike said, we have a pipeline which is already filled. We believe that this will drive a 3% to 4% growth. So we are fairly confident about '24.

So Jean-Francois, you spent 24 years at AR Packaging, you left, then you joined -- later you joined Graphic Packaging, then Graphic Packaging, bought AR packaging -- so there's probably nobody out there who understands the impact of AR Packaging on Graphic better than you do. And I know that when I was sitting out here in the audience, I didn't really appreciate the impact. So can you walk us through what the real impact was?

And this was all planned, by the way, when I moved to Graphic. No. So before we went through the -- we made the acquisition of -- in '21. We were the third operator on the market. We were operating through 14 different converting facilities. We were operating in food, in convenience and in beverage. We were quite successful on the beverage -- on the beverage side of the business. And we were what I said, embracing the European channel between U.K. and the rest of Europe and as well the Iberian Peninsula. And then we made the acquisition of a company called [indiscernible] and that was -- we were adding 30 facilities. It was what I call a game changer for us. We entered into new markets, which were health care, duty and household as well. We entered into new technology. We enter into paper canister, we entered into [indiscernible] technology because they had a flexible division, which was highly knowledgeable about [indiscernible] technology. And just for the history, this is where Tetra Pak was developed in 1968, but they had an immense knowledge in [indiscernible] technology, which is being quite a loss right now. And they -- as well, they had a good knowledge of finishing capability because of the beauty market and as well of security device on the health care market. So clearly, that was a game changer, and then we supply no multinational customer, regional customer, local customers across 50 different countries. The good about that merger is that there was very little overlap on the customer base. And when it comes to the footprint, it was perfect nearly a perfect match. So it was something which was really good, and we became #1 on the market in Europe after that acquisition.

So Maggie talked quite a bit about changing customer relationships, and it's been less than 2 years, but how our relationship starting to change in Europe?

It's a very interesting point you made. So I remember right after the acquisition, so I stepped back to my choice of [AR] I want to meet some of the large health care and beauty care company in Europe. And I had a bit of cold feet the first time I met them because they told me, why do you care and what are you doing here? -- where does that make sense? And I said, guys, so we take time to listen to their expectation, to understand the market trends and to set up the strategy. And we moved radically our position with those customers because for most of them, we are seeing the partner for the future. So it was a very big change in the way they were approaching us...

Over period of time.

In a relatively short period of time as well, one thing which is a bit unique and Mike was involved not lately, we have been chosen by Danone. We are 1 of 5 suppliers worldwide, which will help them to drive their transition and their strategy towards packaging, which is quite of an achievement. It is what we call a joint business -- business development plan. And I just recall one thing which was said by my friend, who is the CEO of Danone and the CEO made echo on that when he said, even though you are a large multinational company, you have kept an entrepreneurial pivot, which is a bit unique, and this is what we are looking for. And that was a bit of a complement as well for us. So we were...

You said 1 of 5 suppliers or 1 of 5 packaging companies...

5 suppliers worldwide.

Not -- so how many packaging companies are on that list of 5.

None. We are the only one. And then one thing which has changed a bit dramatically. And so we have seen the number of applications for people to join the company, increasing dramatically over the last 18 months. And then you just wonder because are we becoming attractive because of we are #1? Are you becoming attractive because of all the amazing innovation we are launching on the market or it's just because you want to be a bit selfish, -- you're getting a lot attractions because of the amazing management that we are in Europe. And I suspect it's a bit all of that. And it's really something which has been -- which is a very big change because it's coming not from one specific company, but the number of applications we had from the industry was -- is clearly interesting. And we have taken on board some people because at the end, it's all about people, and it's all about talent, and this is what makes the company successful.

So as Chairman of the European Carton Makers Association, you're right in the middle of all of the regulatory swirl and there's a lot going on. What is the most important thing for investors to be thinking about in terms of European regulation right now?

Yes. I think that's just -- so let's just talk about the green deal, and I won't go into the detail because it's rather complex, but it's something which is made out of 11 initiative, and you have a lot of [indiscernible] initiatives, law regulation directive, which will be set. But the aim of the green deal is to aim for carbon neutrality by 2050 in Europe. By the way, some of the large food and consumer goods company in Europe are already aiming for carbon neutrality on the Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2035 or in 2040. But let's focus on the 6 which are on the screen, one back Yes. So let's focus on the 6 which are there. This is what will have an impact for our industry. There are 6 out of the 11. And out of the 6, we will just focus on the one, which is what we call the packaging waste regulation, okay? That's the one which is important for you to understand. So where are we right now on the packaging waste regulation? There -- we have had several iterations about the law and what would be the implication. I think what you have to understand, there are 3 governing bodies in Europe. One is a commission. The other one is a parliament and the third one is a Council of Europe. They have all had a sort of different appreciation of what should be the packaging waste regulation, and they have entered right now into a dialogue because they want to issue one common text, which will be voted in the April, May of this year. And as the parliament is due for re-election in June. And as the actual president, [indiscernible] she has applied to be reelected, there is a lot of pressure to get that thing through. And we won't focus on the headwind and on the tailwinds because it's a bit too complex. I will just ask you to focus on the green box because it's a bit more simple. So on the consumer packaging, what would be the impact on the consumer packaging, it might have a bit of headwind impact because of reuse and the recycle, which is involving in the packaging waste regulation. when it comes to the paperboard industry, for the paperboard industry I think it will be modest tailwinds because of the inherent -- I did it well, that was -- benefits of fiber-based packaging compared to plastic. And as us, as a company, I think it's a great tailwind because we are an innovation provider in packaging and in fiber packaging, and this is what the packaging waste regulation will drive. So I am extremely confident about the tailwinds.

So the regulation for us is a tailwind. AR has dramatically expanded our innovation capabilities. But Europe is slow right now. Is that slowing down our ability to get our customers to get products in the market?

No. Not at all. And we as I said before, 2023 was an expected reset because we know that the market end of '22 was a bit over speeding, if I may say it that way. And our sales were up on the innovation by nearly 3% to 4%. This is what I said for '23. So we are still very confident for '24. And as well, if we look a bit long-term objective, 3 to 5 years, we know that 70% to 80% of our growth will come from innovation and that's what give us a bit confidence. And there is one noticeable things to change that we have noticed across several multinational company. Normally, large multinational company are slow in innovation because of who they are, because of their processes, because of what made them. It's a bit something which is -- and I recall a discussion I had one upon the time with a CEO of Kellogg. He put his mobile phone on the top of the white board because he said any breakthrough innovation would never come to my desk because of who we are. And I think the large multinational company have understand that. And there is a clear change in the way people address innovation. Top management is involved because they want to get it done. They don't want it to be a 3, 4, 5 years process, as Maggie said, they want it quick. And that's a major shift in the way people are addressing innovation. Just some highlights about what we have done in terms of innovation lately. So KeelClip started at the right time in mid -- just at the beginning of COVID, we cannot hit a better date in Europe, and it became extremely successful. I think the capacity we…

Myth is good.

If you understand a myth, it's different. And I just want to tell you, KeelClip was shrink replacement. PaperSeal is CPET tray replacement. Boardio is blow molding technology replacement. And what we have done with Unilever is rigid plastic replacement. So it's just the reality of what's happening right now and which is driving the innovation.

Jean-Francois, switching gears a little bit. Every couple of days, the Wall Street Journal has a story that says that sustainability is over. It's too expensive. It doesn't make any sense. Nobody wanted it in the first place. And lately, they're pointing to the German and French protests and saying, even Europeans have figured it out, this stuff just costs too much. So have we seen our 15 minutes of fame for sustainability? Are we on to the next thing?

Yes. So I -- Just a small adjustment. It's not the French, it's a French, it's the German, the Italian, the Spanish, the Czech and the Polish. And they are not -- because it has been a bit noisy in Europe. And they are not -- they are not against the regulation. They might have some questions around the pace of the regulation but not -- because the understand that certain things have to be done. I think if you look at the demonstration, they are more about the fairness of the regulation because what's happening today is that you can import goods from outside Europe, which are not under the same regulation. So they feel a bit disadvantage. So that's the first point. So I don't see that as something slowing down. Then when you deal with multinational company in Europe, and I can guarantee, I live with that every day. The first thing is you have to be competitive. The second thing they ask you is what is your ASG strategy and capability. The third thing and it's by order of important. The third thing is what are your innovation capability and how can you help us to - to match what the market is demanding. And the fourth one is the market -- your capability to supply the market. Those are the key elements which are in any discussion you are having in Europe. And if you are not able to take all of them, then you -- you are a bit gone. And then if you look at the top 10 food multinational company in the world, 5 of them are European based. And it's in the DNA. I live with that dichotomy every day between what -- how much we are pushed from those companies in Europe, and I might see the difference as well from North America. And I don't see any reason for them to slow down on that process. And I will even say what I feel, especially if the packaging waste regulation is coming into as a law, it's my conviction. The large multinational company will push because they believe that at least the European -- they want to be sure as a virtuous company. They understand that it's part of their brand equity, and they further understand that is what customer wants.

So if I understand what you're saying, the European CPGs are simply giving consumers what they want if they're not backing away. We heard Maggie say that U.S. consumers want more sustainable packaging, and that's what the U.S. CPGs and our customers are doing, and that's what we're working with them to provide. So it sounds like a change in U.S. administration if it were to happen, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with what Graphic Packaging is doing today and where we're going.

Yes. You just wrap it up in a way that I would never have been able to do so -- you are spot-on.

All right. Well, unfortunately, that's all we've got time for. So next up, we're going to hear from Michelle Fitzpatrick, our Chief Sustainability Officer.

Thanks, Mark. Good morning. I can't tell you how excited I am to be here and to be able to talk about one of my favorite subjects and be able to share with you all of the amazing things that we're doing to transform our sustainability program and approach and the goals that we've got in front of us between now and 2030. So as we think about where we want to start with updating our strategy and how we best build that strategy into our business strategy and have it become part -- an integral part of Vision 2030. It starts with first understanding what that global landscape looks like. What are those external sustainability trends that have the potential to create both opportunities and challenges for consumer packaging. And as we look at that, we see 4, actually, I said 3 before, or major goals that are really where we see there's the potential to create impact on consumer packaging. The first is population growth. Talked a lot about people want packaging. Well, we're going to have a lot more people on this planet in the very near future. Most recent study by the United Nations that was released in November of 2023 says that there's going to be 8.6 billion people on our planet in 2030, and that's going to grow to 9.8 billion people by 2050. That's a lot of people. And not only are we going to have more people, but we're also seeing growth in socioeconomic status. So the middle class is getting bigger. And those people are moving from rural communities into cities. And so what does that mean for packaging? Well, that means they're going to want more goods. They're going to need more food. They've got more buying power, they're going…

Thank you. Thanks, Michelle. Great to see everybody, and thanks for taking the time to join us today. We've covered a lot, as you would expect us to, including some new things that I want to touch on here in just a moment. Mike did a phenomenal job of, of course, laying out to the transformation of what we have become as a global consumer packaging company and the path forward for us to continue to execute on that with Vision 2030. I think Maggie, Jean-Francois provided enormous confidence that we have the innovation capabilities to grow consistently, 200-plus basis points a year in real new-to-the-market growth every year, and the pipeline continues to evolve and grow. And Michelle, I think, beautifully laid out for us that our commitment to the planet, our commitment to our customers, our commitment to the consumer is real and it's investable. And I think that's very unique relative to who we are as Graphic Packaging. Let me touch on for a moment some of the things that we did touch on last night, Mike touched on it, Augusta. We're very pleased that we're entering into an agreement with Clearwater Paper for them to acquire our Augusta bleached paperboard facility. It's a facility, as you know, about 600,000 tons of capacity as Clearwater Paper indicated. It's operating today at roughly 70% to 80% of that. The acquired EBITDA, about $100 million. We'll work through all the regulatory environments over the next few months and would expect to close the transaction in the second quarter. Importantly, on a pro forma basis, and this is as important as you're thinking about what we're about to share in our financial model. Post the Augusta sale, that's kind of the company that we are, roughly $8.8 billion, EBITDA in…

Well, thank you, Steve. I really thank you all -- I took this off. I don't like having a mic on when I'm not talking General Counsel advises against it. SP999 There we go. Look, now is the part of the presentation where I'm usually supposed to say, "Boy, I hope you're excited about our future as all of us are here at Graphic Packaging." But what I'm really hoping you took away from our presentation today is just how much stronger we become in the last 7 years. And that you can begin to appreciate what it really means to have the ability to provide real lasting value for our shareholders, our customers and our employees. Look, we aren't just a paperboard packaging company anymore. Steve kind of talked about that, 95% of everything we do is some kind of package. We don't sell paperboard. We are a global consumer packaging company. That's a big shift from where we've been in the past, and a big shift from many of the conversations that we've had with a number of you over time. I hope you've been able to see that today. We believe that paper packaging is really the most sustainable median of packaging out there, and ultimately, would become a partner of choice for many of the biggest brands in the world. They understand that both in the packages that they're making today and the ones that we believe we'll package again in the future for them. Look, we package consumer staples. We do it well, and we get paid for that, which means, as Steve just outlined, you can have confidence when we outline the types of gains in free cash flow and overall profitability, both in terms of sales growth and what you'll see on the…

Melanie, I think you are going to handle Q&A.

Alexander in the blue jacket, they will be carrying on microphones. We'll start here in the room, and then we'll go to the questions coming in from the webcast.

Phil Ng from Jefferies. Thanks for the awesome presentation. You talked about spending a lot of capital the last few years, and it's going to be pretty elevated still -- so it give us a sense of how much of that drops off in 2025 and 2026? Could it be more normalized in that 5% range? And I guess the bigger picture question I have is you guys have invested a lot. I think you guys should have a pretty substantial lead versus the industry and most of your competitors. Give us some perspective what you can do as a Graphic Packaging company with all the investments you've made that your competitors perhaps can't do, would be helpful?

Let me start and then [indiscernible] I mean I think cadence-wise, as we just talked, here in 2024, high watermark probably into the [9s]. We spent about $300 million last year, by the way, on Waco. So well along, which is great. And so it's our expectation. If you kind of cut it in the middle, I don't have the exact numbers, but in the 9s, probably moves into the 7 range and then back to 5%. And that will be 5%. So we think about that. If we continue to grow the company, obviously, the math there is pretty obvious. $400 million, $500 million a year. So it's a good cadence down. We'll generate good cash flow, obviously, still generating cash flow here in 2024. And then in 2025, we'll start to really see that accelerate, and then 2016 and beyond, it really drives. So that's a little bit of just the cadence piece of it. I think capabilities-wise -- You want to touch on that?

Yes. Look, our package manufacturing facilities are incredibly well capitalized. And if you think about our paperboard manufacturing facility, they are as well, particularly with what we've done with Kalamazoo and with Waco, we've got a significant cost advantage, as I mentioned, in the most attractive parts of the market. And really where our growth will come from Phil, in terms of the gains we make is all about innovation and driving this whole sustainability message that we have and what we talked about. You heard Maggie go through a lot of the different examples in the markets where we compete. And that's why we broke that chart out because we want to talk more about the markets and how we're actually going to win in those different verticals because where the consumer goes, we go and we built that business purposely to allow us to be able to do that.

Okay. I'll go ahead and take one from the remote audience. The first question is from Ghansham Panjabi of Baird. Would you establish Vision 2025 targets back in 2019, you gave a specific threshold for EPS. Vision 2030 is more of an algorithm on EPS. Why is that? Is it basically now an acknowledgment that margins have reset higher. And going forward, earnings will be more correlated towards end market growth than perhaps internal improvement initiatives.

Steve, why don't you go ahead and take it.

Yes. Yes. I mean, thanks, Ghansham, for that. I think part of it is a little bit of what Ghansham was raising is with Vision 2025, we were setting margin goals and targets and EPS came along with that. I think one of the things we're very excited about is now that we've gotten to that level of margin capabilities. So I think plus or minus 20%, that we can actually -- because of the value-based pricing, because of the organic growth, we can actually consistently operate the company in a pretty narrow band of margins. And as such, we're pivoting more towards an ability to maintain good, strong margin capability and allowing the top line growth to provide steady and consistent EBITDA growth as well as EPS growth. And so I think it's an important pivot to the model. around earning the right, if you will, earning -- having the margin profile that we can build upon and having the top line generate EBITDA growth consistently.

It's really true. We got a lot of levers to pull there, too, with the cash flow that you outlined. And I was joking with George at the break. I said, I'll know that we've really established ourselves as a consumer packaging company when we move off the paper packaging list and we move into the packagers portion of it. And so that's also part of how we're thinking about the goals that we laid out there today because you think about it, our goals and targets, our aspirations, the algorithm really lines up well with the customers that we're servicing.

Mike Roxland, Truist Securities. I want to go with what Phil said. Thank you for the great details in the presentation. Can you help us frame some of the bigger moving pieces around your EBITDA guidance of $1.75 billion to $1.95 billion. Does it reflect organic sales growth, does it reflect the $40 per ton decline in SBS comp stock. Does it also reflect the $50 per ton increase that you guys announced last month in CUK and CRB. Just trying to get a sense of what you're embedding within that guidance, that's for my first question. And then the second question is on free cash flow for 2024. Can you help us frame some of the larger pieces there in terms of free for cash flow conversion, working capital, just give us a sense of what type of -- level of free cash flow you think you could generate this year, realizing that it is a peak CapEx year.

Sure. Yes. No, let me take that. I think obviously, in terms of the cash flow generation, I think the modeling that we provided pretty good clarity that there's still positive cash flow generation, $300 million to $500 million if you kind of just stack through the EBITDA and the like. One of the things you're going to see us do a lot more of is kind of change the dialogue, too, on how we respond to your first question. And we're not going to talk about whether RISI's $40 up or down is in the numbers because at the end of the day, we're operating a value-based pricing mechanism, and we have an enormous number of initiatives underway always with our customers in terms of the value we're getting paid for our products. Obviously, when you manage through like the $40 you're referencing, obviously, that works through our economics, we're executing on other price initiatives that we've announced. We are executing on those. And so overall, the algorithm for the business next year is really what you said. We're going to grow organically and earn on it. We expect to have a good strong productivity year with our manufacturing facilities in a growing environment, the innovation we're bringing, we will earn on. And as such, the overall top line growth from the packaging that we have will be good. We are because of some of the things that we're managing through on matching, doing the right thing on supply and demand for the paperboard sales that we still have. That's a little bit of the early headwind that we conveyed to you. But really, the model for the business, as we talk about it, we're going to talk more about sales, and we're going to talk about it in a way that provides you and us the confidence that we're growing that top line through the totality of how we're investing in the business, value-based pricing, the volume that we're growing and the like. But in essence, the guidance has in it the full portfolio of what we're working on today on the pricing front, on the volume front and our ability to earn on it. And as such, the business this year, in many ways, as currently configured, which includes Augusta has margins and top line that are quite similar to the year we just completed.

George Staphos, BofA. Echoing everybody else, thanks for all the detail and thought you put into your Analyst Days, they're not just a bunch of slides or a bunch of goals that we forget about in 3 years, and we come back and have new goals. I had a bunch of questions on vertical integration, but I'll leave this to the side.

Thank you for that.

Yes. So growing low single digits is hard. Right? I mean, we can do the math on your addressable market, if I take 1% on that, I drop that into your revenue growth, you get your 2% [indiscernible] end of Analyst Day. But the reality is there's churn, right? You're not going to win every jump all as you said. And so where in your markets, do you feel the other substrates have the best opportunity to compete against paperboard? Where do you feel really through innovation, sustainability you've got more tailwind incrementally and you can separate and talk to us about Rainier, which said isn't really in the goals, but could be important in terms of -- at next Analyst Day in terms of what the growth is. So if you can talk to those points, that would be great. Second question is near term. So obviously, foodservice is a wonderful business for Graphic Packaging. What we've seen in recent months is the CPO on foodservice products generally has far outstripped what you've seen for center of store. What are your thoughts about how that might -- I'm pretty sure what -- I know what you're going to say, but what do you think that's going to mean in terms of your business this year in terms of mix, in terms of volumes, in terms of the shifts across your 5 categories.

Thank you for the question, George. Maggie, would you like to give us a little insight into some of the attractive markets that you're seeing and some of the growth we see along those verticals?

Yes. I think to your question around our papers relative to other materials. Clearly, a lot of the key markets that we've highlighted here as part of these innovation platforms and some of those examples. Obviously, many of those are in plastic substances today, but obviously, the consumer demand for more sustainable and consumers looking as paper as the primary driver of that. They're really leaning in, our customers are leaning in as paperboard is that solution. And when we look at the total cost of ownership, it's not always on the unit price, but on that total cost of ownership for some of those innovations, it becomes clear in terms of those being a solution that they're moving forward with. So we feel good about our overall portfolio relative to other material alternatives.

And where do you feel less [indiscernible].

Well, look, why don't I take a piece of that. I think, George, you sum that question up perfectly. It's a competitive landscape out there. We compete every day for the right to win. And really, when you look over the last 7 years, the fact we've been able to post that 2% stack average over that period of time, I think, should give investors confidence that we've got some really good momentum in being able to do it. Our confidence level that we can deliver the $200 million of innovation growth that you heard Maggie and Jean-Francois talk about for 2024, is high. Because as Steve said, we kind of know that locked in going into the year. The conversions have happened, so it kind of flows through -- Ricardo is smiling because he always has to give that to us in advance so that we can kind of go on it. And we've done that in some very different economic environments. '22, arguably a lot easier than '23, but we got it done in both years. So I think that's there. To your question around foodservice and it's a good one, and that's really why I opened up with my comments about the price declarations for RISI. We expect our Foodservice business to be very busy this year. Again, there's less than 4% unemployment here in the U.S. market. The American consumer loves mobility. They love being on the go. They got a lot of things they're doing, and they appreciate the drive-through window a lot and the convenience that provides. We've given you some good insights into some of the trials we've got going on with Chick-fil-A and others. And that we expect to be a flywheel for us for years to come. And that's why our Texarkana paperboard manufacturing facility is so important to us because we'll have the raw material that we're able to use all the way through that whole supply chain. And it's another great example around the differentiation we make around where we choose to be backward integrated and where we don't because we can provide good growth to our customers and ultimately higher ROICs in cash flow.

Okay, I've got the next question here from the audience. And Steve, you've talked a little bit about price, but Mark Weintraub at Seaport wants to ask about different component items as we bridge EBITDA from 2023 to 2024 volume. Again, we've talked about price, labor productivity.

Yes. And this is not going to be easy, but we're just not going to go there. And what I mean by that is, we're going to grow organically, we're going to earn on it. Yes, of course, the fundamentals of what we've shared with you in the past, they are the fundamentals. And so as we look out to 2024, of course, we're going to earn on organic sales. We're going to continue to be highly productive. We'll have labor and benefits inflation. We'll be running more than we ran this year. So we'll be -- we'll have the opportunity to earn and take less of the natural downtime that we take across our manufacturing facilities. Right now, that pricing environment relative to the commodities, it isn't very different from the last time we talked. We've got a lot of activity underway on as we value-base price and work with our customers and move through some of the pricing. Not much has happened on the commodity cost front. So the fundamentals of how you came in the room are still the fundamentals, and it's why our midpoint is -- looks like it is in terms of the expectations we've set. But we're going to go down a path where that language is going to change, and I know that, that will be challenging, but we're going to. And so it's just important. And the algorithm for the company, important. It's on us to earn the value for our products in environments where costs move so that our margins are able to maintain themselves at the kind of levels that we're at today. So the fundamentals of the midpoint of our guide are very similar to the last time we've talked about the company, not much has changed, but we are going to change the dialogue along the way, and I look forward to those conversations.

Matt Roberts with Raymond James. I'll echo everybody else, all the hard work that went into the presentation as well as over the past 6 to 7 years that have really changed the business. That being said, another question on price, but really the value-added price actions that you've pinpointed. You've done a very good job holding on to margin over the past couple of years via price mechanisms. And then the February price increase seemed like it was due to certain raw material cost changes in certain substrates. So how exactly is the value-add price implementation different? I mean, are there ways we can quantify things like innovation or supply chain dependability or consumer insights that Maggie brought up or is it something that your customers are now more inelastic because of more innovative products.

No, I wouldn't say they're inelastic. I mean, again, it's a competitive market. It's packaging. But what I would say is that there's a general appreciation, particularly by our largest customers around the need for security of supply. The need for innovation and the need to help them accomplish their sustainability goals. I hope when you see that waterfall up there, I mean, you know Graphic's DNA, we measure everything. And so being able to put that in, and the context around no, this is real, we're actually going to reduce this down, and you saw the Scope 3. Michelle had that on there. We need our suppliers to do the same thing. Guess who we are for most of our customers where that bar. And so the fact we bring those things is really valuable to them. And they understand that. Like I said, we expect them to buy well, but they're willing to compensate us for those types of things that we do. And if we do start to see input cost inflation in the market. And I know that was a question we had over here from Mark earlier, we'll take price. And that's -- our track record is really good at doing that. Look at what we did in '22, look at what we did in '23. So I think we've demonstrated an ability to do that, but it also comes back to making sure we're getting paid for the value we provide our customers and have an equal sharing on that. So it's a number of things.

Certainly. I appreciate that. My second question, Maggie, I want to ask you, in your remarks, you said that innovative products, the goal is to not have any switchover cost, correct? Have them work on the exact same machinery. Is there a certain percentage where it does not work. And in those cases, I mean how do those conversations go? I imagine there's a lot of incremental investment, the machines have a certain lifespan themselves. So what percent is that? And how are customers receptive to it?

Yes. No, it's a really good question. It's very -- I think the percentage is evolving because I'm thinking about a lot of projects that are in queue right now. But if I were to do a range, maybe 30% to 50% could go higher in certain of those innovation platforms. But I think it's obviously something we continue to try to hit the mark on our ability to do that. The Nissin Cup was a great example. Our ability to commercialize that quickly, we could get on to their filling lines and do that pretty seamlessly. And so we're going to continue to focus on doing that. There's obviously different machine capabilities that we're trying to develop to help make that as efficient as possible when it is required. We also partner with co-packers who can help leverage that. So they may make an investment and they might be supplying to multiple different customers. So we're really trying to utilize that as a leverage point. So we're getting creative around that. And honest -- and at the end of the day, if the value proposition is there and if it's regulation and there's other things that they have to drive where it's bringing better performance on shelf for their -- at retail to help drive top line performance, those could overcome a lot of those investment costs.

If I may just ask one comment on the -- that's one of the reasons why we are getting a lot of traction on PaperSeal shape because somehow we are matching what [indiscernible] is and the volume on [indiscernible] are, it's extremely large. And the sealing technology at the end is the same. And that's why we are getting traction because in terms of CapEx for those people, they use technology that they are having. And we are just replacing base [indiscernible] by a PaperSeal shape, which has nearly the same capabilities in terms of sealing. And that's why on that specific, we are getting a high level of traction in Europe.

Gabe Hajde, Wells Fargo. As per usual, you guys provide good detail. A question about becoming a packaging solutions provider. And I know it's been a journey that you guys kind of initiated, let's call it, 5 to 6, 7 years ago, almost like packaging as a service, if you will. But the question is, the last 3 years were pretty conducive to maybe transition to a value-based pricing methodology or strategy versus historically how business have been conducted. So the question is, how would you instruct us to think about some -- again, I know you're not -- it's tough in a format like this to give us specifics, but to think about, how frequently there are openers for contracts or how long those may have run to maybe think about go forward as opposed to just sort of the simple algorithm of 2% translates to 5% to 10%.

Yes. So I think, look, Gabe, we've got a certain percentage of our portfolio that's up for contract renewal every year. It's almost like clockwork. Some years are a little heavier than others. But for the most part, I'd say it's 20%, 25% that is constantly rolling through. So it's not like that ever stopped during that process. But what I was trying to do in my prepared remarks is really kind of paint a picture for where we were kind of bid ask, which is really the market we were in versus where we are now, which is a much more holistic supply position we have with our customers, deeper relationships with customers because it's needed for them to accomplish their goals as the world has gotten more enthralled with regulation, and it's been harder to reach customers. We have solutions that will help them do that. So it's really not so much that we're just trying to, hey, look, we're changing all the vernacular because we want to and that's why Vision 2025 doesn't really even apply right now in many ways because it's -- some of those targets aren't ambitious enough and it's not aligned with how we run the company. That algorithm, well simple in nature, is really hard to do. But if you can do it year in and year out, and that's why we put the stake in the ground today, it's incredible value creating. And that's what we want you to take away from. That's the commitment we're making today. And that means we have to manage a whole bunch of those little industry things that you're talking about, price cost, what the volumes do, how did this happen over here. All of that gets encompassed in there. And we think it's a better way to talk about what we're doing. And that's why we want to make that shift to talk more about the markets because that's really what will drive the overall performance of the company over the long term.

I'll go again. This is another one from Mark Weintraub for Steve again.

He didn't like the first answer.

Is the anticipated impact of reinvesting excess free cash flow captured in the Vision 2020 -- Vision 2030 base financial model growth expectations? Or is the impact potentially accretive?

Can you read that question again please.

Yes. Say that again.

Is the anticipated impact of reinvesting excess free cash flow captured in the Vision 2030 base financial model growth expectations? Is it in the growth expectations? Or is the impact potentially accretive to what we laid out earlier?

I think the way I would talk about that, if you kind of look at how we shared it with you today, is the base model of low, mid and high single digits results in and ability of the business to generate very substantial cash flow. And what we shared is that, that actually allows us to allocate capital in such a way that potentially says put cash in to drive innovation even faster, more capabilities and have the flywheel spin even faster if we see those opportunities or increase the dividend because we have every opportunity to do so through the cash flow or repurchase the shares where it makes sense to do because it's the best way to provide return to shareholders. So I think the way we'd articulate that is the base model does a great job of indicating that we believe -- as Mike said, it's not an easy thing to do, but we believe that we can actually generate low, mid and high. And if there's opportunity to invest faster back in the business, capabilities, grow faster organically, we'll absolutely do that. But we'll hold it up against the other capabilities to return value to shareholders, dividend, shares, low debt. So I think it's really -- that's how you think about the model. And I guess -- I know Mark is not here, ask me if that addressed his question or anything you'd add.

No, maybe I just might add the really good response there. Steve made a couple of points in his prepared remarks that I just want to put a little emphasis on. He talked about 5% of sales is CapEx and 2% being a robust amount for kind of maintaining those assets. These are well-invested assets. We look at what we've done over the last 7 years. We're proud of our package converting facilities and our paperboard manufacturing facilities. And if you think about it, Kalamazoo and Waco will be brand new. So that's a pretty long tail as you kind of wind that forward. So that difference between the 2 and the 5 is substantial in terms of the things that we can invest back in the business. So as we grow on the foodservice side, Maggie needs cup plants to kind of fill out that geographic piece, that's all in that 5% that we've rolled out there. What Michelle talked about, the decarbonization, those 3 big projects that you put out there, that's in the 5%. So the cash flow that Steve kind of outlined on the ARC, I guess it was, which is pretty darn impressive. I mean it anticipates those investments and the things that we need to do to continue to deliver on those things for our customers. And so you asked about how we're positioned against other competitors. It's not just our paperboard packaging peers. It's really all consumer packaging companies, and we love the relative competitive positioning that we're in right now.

John Dunigan at Jefferies here. If I understood Mark's question, maybe I can just ask it a little bit differently. The CAGRs that you're expecting with the Vision 2030, maybe is it more back-end weighted given all the projects you have now where you see more of the growth coming in that '26, '27, '28 time frame after Waco is already up? Or do you think that you can achieve some of these EBITDA growth with the project still in the investment stage now? Is this growth potential mid-single digits and high single digits here in the next couple of years with everything you have going on.

Sure. Yes. So again, the way to think about it, excellent question is, look, we've got Waco that's going to come to life here, ended '25 into '26 and on. So there's $160 million of EBITDA we committed to that will be there, that will drive some additional sales growth. The Rainier piece of that's accretive on top of that. But look, we're committed to growing our volumes each and every year, and that starts in '24, and we gave you some insight into how we're thinking about it and why our confidence is there that we'll be able to do that. and we see that as accelerating and continuing to be accretive over that entire 7-year planning horizon. And our track record, as I talked you through, is solid for being able to do that.

Yes, it's definitely not a back-end loaded scenario at all.

And I think the only thing that's back-end loaded is a little bit of the cash flow because we're still in the investment phase. But if you adjust for '25 and '26, you kind of saw that ramp up to $1 billion of free cash flow a year in those outlying years, and that's why.

Okay. I have another question from the remote audience. So from your remarks -- this is from an investor. So from your remarks today, what is your approach with RISI moving forward?

Look, I think I characterized that in the beginning pretty sharply. I mean it's not new for Graphic Packaging to not like third-party indexes. We've been talking about that for years. And as you can see by our value-based pricing model, we've been moving away from third-party indexes for years. So what I'm saying is that we don't agree with the assessment on foodservice for all the reasons that I've outlined here, foodservice cup stock, in particular, and it just strengthens our resolve to continue to move away from third-party indexes that are, in our opinion, historically inaccurate and very nontransparent in terms of how those things are generated and how they're scored. So I'd just say that's how I would answer that question.

This is Gregory Andreopoulos from Citi. Thanks for the detail in the presentation. I just had a few points of clarification around the Augusta sale and then a bigger picture question about your substrate mix going forward. So just on Augusta, briefly, do you expect any dissynergies from the sale? I know you mentioned the $1.8 billion pro forma EBITDA number. So any dissynergies there and then any retained liabilities we should be aware of post-sale. And then just kind of bigger picture, the sale would reduce your SBS footprint by about half with my math. And you've made investments seemingly focused on CRB over the last 2 years with K2 and now Waco. So the question for me is, do you see an opportunity to move customers from SBS, maybe even CUK to CRB. And what role do you see SBS playing in the long-term 2030 Vision, acknowledging that there is some import competition from FBB now and the market may see some capacity coming online in '25 plus.

I'll start. Yes. I'll start and then Mike can add on. I think to your first part of your question, we don't see any dissynergies with the sale of the asset. What we'll have is a little bit of a transition because our internal needs, our packaging needs we were running between 2 facilities, and we'll migrate those to Texarkana. So there's a little bit of transition, but not anything on the dissynergies front. And there are no retained liabilities. I think that was probably just a normal boilerplate statement. There's nothing that we're retaining that is of any substance at all. So it's actually quite clean in terms of the transaction, the mill -- paperboard facility stands on its own quite nicely. It's got an outstanding team. and that team is in place and very committed to the success of that facility. So there's nothing there dissynergy wise or retained liabilities that would be impactful for us. We'll just be managing through a little bit of transition here in 2024 relative to really servicing our capabilities and our needs that we have at the Texarkana facility to create packaging.

And really the way I'd answer the second part of your question, which is a really good probing question in terms of how we think about that from a strategy standpoint is ultimately, this is consistent with our view. Our view is that recycled products in particular, are going to be at the heart of the most attractive part of the paperboard packaging market. And so the result was we made the investment in Kalamazoo and then we couldn't even see some of the things that we've got in Waco before we made the K2 investment. So as we take that as a follow-on, our ability to continue to ramp up like our Rainier grade, you heard Maggie talk about, which competes with the very best premium SBS grades that are out there. It puts us in a situation where we're not doing those kind of trade-offs. That's where we're going to spend our time. We'll always convert some SBS. It's important. It's a good grade. We'll make some of it ourselves in Texarkana. And where we need more, we can always go to the open market and buy it because people are continuing to invest in that market. You've got a North American producer that's building some, there's a European producer that's discussed about bringing another mill online. So we like how that positions us. And what you don't want to do with a new grade of paperboard like Rainier start to cannibalize what you're already doing. So this really fits us well, and it's consistent with our overall strategy around driving long-term customer investments that help them drive the innovation as well as higher ROICs and more consistent cash flow.

And I think, Mike, to the point you're making, too, the Texarkana facility is a phenomenal manufacturing facility for making the cup -- raw materials that we need to really support what is going to be a long growth trajectory for our foodservice business, so cups, bowls, trays, and that's the right raw material for that. Texarkana does that exceptionally well and has a long growth trajectory of the ability to make that raw material, that paperboard to support our growth trajectory for foodservice.

Okay. I've got one more. This is from an international investor. As you increase your focus on end markets as a driver of your top line performance, will you be able also to get a better measurement of customer inventories for each of the end markets and as your growth should be much more aligned with your customers? Is that a correct statement?

Yes. So I'm going to hit that first and then you can add on, on that. When you're -- look, we work with our customers all the time to try to get the best insights that they've got around what their overall demand profiles going to be. But there are times that, quite frankly, they don't necessarily know. I mean, things shift kind of quickly here, and they want to be able to be responsive to their end-use consumer. And so that was that flex capacity that I talked about that we've got to make sure that we have something we learned as we kind of came through COVID. Our customers need us to be able to do that. I love the question, though, because ultimately, the closer we get to the customer here, the deeper we have, the more integrated we are into their business, and there are some cases where our overall demand planning models are actually connected now, and you'll see us do more of that in the future where we're closer to they sell one, we make one. It is ultimately something that we strive to achieve. And you probably want to add on that one.

Yes. I think you said it really well there. I think coming out of COVID, a lot of companies, just like Mike was talking about ours are looking at how robust their supply chains are. So one of the good outcomes that we have is in working even closer with our customers is that we are getting better visibility in terms of some of the aspects of their supply chain. And we would expect that to continue to evolve. I mean that's really a goal that we have with our top customers so that we can have a much tighter, there's efficiency, obviously, for both companies and being able to do that. So we feel good about that over time.

There's a question in the back.

It's Will Miller, Greenlight. Going back to what Steve just mentioned on cup versus carton. I think you could put a finer point on where your mix sits post Augusta, maybe spend a minute on how those 2 markets are different. I think the intuition is that the cup side is a little more attractive, but...

Well, yes, I think, look, if you look at Augusta, I mean, both mills are roughly the same size. [indiscernible] $20 because -- I've said it twice. You noticed that I have to change too. I'm not using that word. And we have paperboard manufacturing facilities. But -- they're both about the same size, roughly 600,000 tons. If you look at the Texarkana facility, it actually is indexed about 400,000 tons of cup stock and then the balance, of course, coated. So it fits us perfectly with what we're doing. And as Steve said, and we've talked about publicly is our pivot is we would prefer to run more comp out of that facility, and we'll either make Rainier for the grades that need that kind of premium paperboard and Maggie showed you the kind of end-use markets that we're really targeting for that. Or if we need to buy some of paperboard on the market, we can do that. And as we've demonstrated in Europe, we can get really good ROICs by doing that. We're one of the largest purchasers of paperboard in the world. We buy it well. We know who to source it from. And ultimately, we benefit and being able to do that. So we've got a lot of great options, I guess, is the punch line.

Does that answer your question, Will?

I guess I'm sort of more wondering about the actual market structures of the customers for cup stock versus carton, sort of supply demand. If there's -- if it's a more attractive market to be selling into less competitive, so on and so forth? Or if it's not, if that's the wrong thought.

There's less people that make it for sure. It's a complicated grade because one of the things you got to be able to do is make the brim around the top, and that requires some real knowledge of material science and the type of furnish you use in that whole process. And in the case of our business, it's a highly integrated model. Almost 95% of all that material goes through our own cup plants, which again gives me the ire that I talked about earlier around the third-party scoring a market like that when we know exactly where all that material is going. So most of it is coming to ourselves. So it's a very attractive market and one that's growing, as I talked about in my answer to George in terms of overall demand. Every quarter, over the last 3 years, we've shown growth in our foodservice business, including the one we're in now.

I've got one more, and then I think we're going to end with George. The last question coming in remotely is from Mark Weintraub of Seaport. He -- referring to Slide 65, which is the arrow slide, and this is good just for us to confirm this. He's talking about the sales performance by market is very helpful, thank you. But it seems to be dollar sales driven rather than net organic sales. First of all, is that right? And going forward, does it make sense to drive the analysis using dollar sales or net organic sales.

Yes. Thanks for that, Mark. And it will be dollar sales, but what we'll do is, of course, describe what's happening inside of those. So we'll raise it up to dollar sales. But where it's material and appropriate, we're actually looking forward to kind of talking about what are we seeing a layer now? Or what are we seeing volumetrically? What are we seeing on value pricing. So we'll talk about those things when we describe what's happening with those arrows, but it's a really important pivot. I appreciate him asking that question. It will be dollar sales, but we won't lose the ability to speak about what's happening with the company organically and we will. I mean you can count on us. We'll know exactly where we're at. We'll talk about it appropriately, particularly when it has an impact on the business. And so we'll definitely be prepared to do so. We'll definitely share our innovation sales on a quarterly basis. So we'll talk very specifically about how we're doing against that 2%, and we track that very methodically, literally month-to-month. And so it will be dollar sales, but we won't lose the ability to articulate what's happening underneath that, where it's appropriate and balanced in terms of sharing it.

George Staphos, BofA. I wanted to -- one of my last questions just piggybacking off of Mark's question. So along with the arrows and probably percentages or at least ranges in terms of the growth by end market, Will you be giving us revenue every quarter by end market or maybe every year, in other words, or percentages so that if we want to build -- you want us to build a [indiscernible] based on revenue by end market, will you give us more tools to be able to do that on a going forward basis? So that's question number one. Question number two, again, with Rainier, what could that be in terms of an opportunity for you 3 years from now if you want, again, to think about revenue and opportunity. And lastly, our perception, perhaps incorrectly, is the plastic guys who we all love as well are talking a lot about carbon footprint. And that seems to be the narrative that comes from the plastics industry, not so much recycling rates. The carbon footprint in terms of defending their position and why they're sustainable. To Maggie and Michelle. Where does paperboard stand in terms of aggregate carbon footprint versus plastics, recognizing it's dangerous to talk about in aggregate. And where does paperboard particularly stand up well versus plastics in that regard to either of you. Thank you guys and great presentation.

Thank you, George, why don't you take the first one.

I'll do the first one, George. And we're definitely -- we're working through what you just asked around. And what we've provided today is kind of the big buckets, so what percentage of the company falls into each of those categories. We'll be providing the arrows, what's happening inside of there. I don't know that we'll necessarily get to a spot where every quarter we're articulating the exact dollar thing because I don't know that that's probably not necessary, if you will. But what we will do is articulate to you and to all kind of what's happening inside of those categories so that you have a sense for, okay, where are we for the quarter? Where are we year-to-date? And you know the baseline. And then, of course, as we work through, I'm sure we'll reconcile that in a way that provides visibility into, hey, what's going on inside of food holistically. So it's -- I appreciate you raising it because this is a new disclosure, and it's one that we're looking forward to, we'll obviously open to feedback on that as well. But we're looking forward actually to talking about it in a way that allows you to constructively build the model for the company.

Yes. And look, we've got the customer base in there, you'll look to true that up. So I get the point, it's a good one, and we'll give some thought to that and how best to do that. In terms of the other 2 questions, I mean, in terms of Rainier, I'm really excited about that one. As you know, I'm a printer. And when we look at kind of the surface of that particular sheet, and Maggie did a really nice job going through the different markets where we think we can penetrate that. I'm hesitant to give you a tonnage figure because I want to move away from that, but it's definitely all [indiscernible] to our benefit in terms of package sales. And that is actually one of those substrates that we would seek to sell on the external market because it's not available from anybody else. We make it. Others don't have it. And so it makes sense for us to actually make that available, and we'll do that kind of going forward here. So I think it's got a lot of promise. And we've already got our first commercial application. You got a dozen or so trials underway. So we're quite encouraged with what we see. I'll hit the first part, and then Michelle, I'd like you to kind of respond to this. George, it's a good point. Everybody is sustainable. Every presentation you go to, they've got it out there. I want to know, do they have the detail that we laid out here. We just laid out a very good waterfall with discrete bespoke projects that show you how we're going to get there, and we told you how we're going to pay for it within the CapEx that we laid out there. It's one thing to say it. It's another thing to do it. And so from our standpoint, that's what you can count on us doing. Michelle laid it out really well. And we know exactly what we need to do in order to do it, and it comes with cost of capital type returns. It's not knock your socks off stuff, but the mere effect, we can decarbonize the way we did, and we can earn cost of capital that's a pretty great position to be in. And so I think the best way I can answer your question, I don't know everybody else's stuff, but I know ours. And I think the more transparent other companies are in terms of the claims that they're making, actually, I think, shines light on it and I'll let you as analysts and ultimately, the investors and our customers, the end-use customers actually be able to make those decisions.

And consumers.

And consumers. Thank you. Yes. That's really a good point, Maggie. Michelle, anything you would add over and above that?

Yes. So I think what I would say about carbon footprint and when they're really trying to get at, like the product carbon footprint calculations is -- these are our models and the models are only as good as the -- how you define the boundaries of the models and the quality of the input data that you put into the models. And with life cycle assessment models, in particular, you have a lot of flexibility in terms of how you define the boundary and the input conditions that you use. And like any model, even statistical models, if you want a desired outcome of your answer, there's a great way to configure the model to give you the answer that you want. And what's interesting with the plastic packaging manufacturers is not only are the virgin plastic manufacturers trying to say that their products are better than paper. They're also trying to say that their products are better than the bioplastic models. And the bioplastic people are saying that their models are better and their footprint is better than the virgin plastic people. So there's a lot of misinformation out there. Most of the data that gets published isn't third-party validated and they don't provide the details behind their assessment where you can reproduce their analysis and show that they've had a really good and thoughtful approach to it. So I think you need to take life cycle assessment models with a grain of salt because there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on right now. And that's an area that we plan to invest in and build our capability and be able to help bring some more clarity and transparency to a lot of the misinformation that's out there.

I just wanted to add one comment because that's part of the 11th initiative we are having in Europe. And one of that initiative is on [indiscernible] who you provide information and who you disclose information because we have seen a bit everything. What I can just say from a customer experience, at least for the large European multinational company, they are on it. I mean you cannot claim something they are into the detail of all the calculation and they are very advanced underway the assessing. So -- because they don't want to be stuck in something that they are claiming which is not the truth.

The other thing I'd add, George, to piggyback on those comments, too, is if you think about what we're doing at our Waco paperboard manufacturing facility, we've had a vertical drum pulping system we're going to install there. We're going to be able to take up to 15 million paper cups a day. You heard Michelle talk about that. That's going to be the top wire fiber, which right now today for most people who manufacture that paperboard is sorted office paper, which is going the way like this, right, from an availability standpoint, which means the price is going up like this. So if you're a consumer and you heard Michelle talk about one of our customers that manufactures that, you want to know that your stuff is actually going back and being reused again. We're going to be able to show that within about a 200-mile radius of that mill and the mill we have in Kalamazoo, we'll have the capability to bring that stuff back, clean it up and put it back into first line packaging again. It's not downgraded somewhere into a park bench, planking. And I'm not disparaging that. I mean look, that's important, too. But the consumer, as you talked about, really cares about, hey, can I use this? Do I have a license to feel good about this paper cup I've got in my hand. And if they know that, that's actually happening and you talked about a very learned person who didn't have that perspective. That actually makes a big difference. That's incumbent upon people like Graphic Packaging, leaders in consumer packaging to make those kind of investments back in our business so that we can actually say that kind of stuff. Not that we're saying someone else needs to do it or the taxpayer needs to do it. We're going to do that, and we compete in those markets every day for that fiber and our customers are really excited about that. So I think ask for the details because they matter. And you can't ignore the whole upstream operation because when we lay ours out, we're looking at it from beginning to end. That's pretty exciting. Well, listen, it's been fantastic to be here today at the NYSE. It never gets old for me to be here. It's our third time, Steve, I think, doing this. We had some new speakers today. I thought they did a great job. Really appreciate everybody's input. Thank you for coming and for all of you on the web. Thank you for your interest in Graphic Packaging. It's exciting time to be a part of the company, and I'm actually more than thrilled to have the opportunity to lead such a fine group of people each and every day. So have a great rest of the day.