Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Greif's Fiscal Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Today, our CEO, Ole Rosgaard, will provide a strategy and market update, followed by our CFO, Larry Hilsheimer, with a review of our financial results and 2026 guidance. Please turn to Slide 2. In accordance with Regulation Fair Disclosure, please ask questions regarding topics you consider important because we are prohibited from discussing material nonpublic information with you on an individual basis. During today's call, we will make forward-looking statements involving plans, expectations and beliefs related to future events. Actual results could differ materially from those discussed. Additionally, we will be referencing certain non-GAAP financial measures and the reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP metrics that can be found in the appendix of today's presentation. Two important reporting clarifications for this quarter. First, our containerboard business was sold on August 31. As such, that business is presented as discontinued operations for its 1-month contribution to the quarter. Unless otherwise noted, all financial results and commentary discussed today will relate to continuing operations only. Second, due to our fiscal year-end change, Q4 reflects a 2-month reporting period, August and September. For consistency, all prior year comparatives in today's presentation are also shown on a 2-month basis for August and September. I'll now hand the call over to Ole on Slide 3.

Thank you, Bill, and thank you all for joining us today and for your interest in Greif. With the short 2025 fiscal year due to our fiscal year change, the two-month fourth quarter, the sale of our containerboard business this quarter, and the ongoing cost optimization program, we know there's a considerable amount of change this quarter. This is evident in our tax results, which Larry will discuss shortly. We appreciate your patience. We are enthusiastic about the long-term earnings growth and value creation our strategy is unlocking. We concluded fiscal '25 as a more focused, agile, and strategically aligned company than ever before. Our transformation is accelerating, and the results are starting to show. On October 1, we completed the sale of our land management business, generating $462 million in proceeds. These funds were used immediately to reduce debt, and our pro forma leverage ratio is now under 1x. We have entered fiscal 2026 with a significantly stronger balance sheet and improved capital efficiency, ensuring resilience. Along with the divestiture of our containerboard business in the fourth quarter, we have restructured Greif's portfolio to concentrate our efforts where we have the greatest opportunity to grow EBITDA, expand margins, generate cash, reduce volatility, and deliver sustainable returns for our shareholders. We are pleased to report our latest Net Promoter Score survey result of 72, an improvement of 3 points from last year, further extending our world-class customer service performance. This improvement reflects the trust our customers place in us and our capability to deliver for them. The best companies build stronger relationships during challenging times, and our NPS shows our confidence in capturing significant value when demand returns. As Larry will highlight shortly, our full-year '26 guidance, while at the low end, reflects continued earnings growth and a free cash flow conversion rate of 50%, demonstrating our progress toward the long-term objectives we laid out at Investor Day in December. We are proud of how we concluded fiscal 2025 but even more excited about what lies ahead. Our Build to Last Strategy is firmly embedded in our organization. We are refining our portfolio, strengthening our balance sheet, and investing for sustainable growth. Our commitment to value creation is evident in our cost management. In fiscal '25, we achieved $50 million in run rate savings from our cost optimization program, more than doubling our stated commitments for the year. So far, we have secured about $15 million in savings related to network design and operational efficiency. These savings are not limited to strategic footprint actions; they also include deploying AI solutions to reduce scrap and enhance operational equipment effectiveness, strategic planning to minimize freight costs and maximize on-time deliveries, and structural improvements to our global procurement strategy. The remaining savings are related to SG&A. Our updated business model has enabled much more efficient decision-making, leading to tough yet necessary decisions to eliminate areas of redundant costs in the new model. By the end of the quarter, we had eliminated about 8% of professional roles in the company, equating to 190 positions. These decisions were made thoughtfully over the past year and communicated to the affected colleagues with appreciation for their contributions to Greif. These actions significantly accelerated beyond our previous commitments for fiscal '25. Due to our progress, we are raising our anticipated fiscal '26 cumulative cost-saving run rate commitment from $50 million to between $60 million and $90 million. We will also expand our anticipated full-year '27 cumulative run rate commitment from $100 million to $120 million. Our cost optimization program has continued to evolve since the beginning of the year. What started as a top-down initiative is now being driven from the ground up. Our colleagues across the organization are embracing the challenge, identifying new opportunities, taking local actions, and creating meaningful change. This work is making Greif a more focused and agile organization, better positioned to seize value as demand returns. Importantly, this effort is not just about cutting costs; it is about building a next-generation Greif. The Greif Business System enables consistent excellence across more than 250 sites in 40 countries, allowing us to do more with fewer resources. We are removing unnecessary layers to empower local leaders, accelerate decision-making, and instill a mindset of efficiency, responsiveness, and value creation throughout every function and location. This is not a one-time effort; it is a structural shift in how we operate, compete, and grow. Significant findings from our cost optimization program, now realizable due to the divestment of containerboard, have revealed clear and meaningful synergies in operating adhesives and recycled fiber within our Sustainable Fiber solutions. As a result, starting in fiscal '26, those products will be reported within our Fiber segment results. These changes will enhance our go-to-market approach while also benefiting our cost optimization program. This leaves the Integrated Solutions segment primarily focused on closures. Effective October 1, we are renaming that segment Innovative Closure Solutions, which remains a highly profitable and critical growth focus for us. Our Q4 results underscore our strategic focus on four target end markets. In Customized Polymer Solutions, volumes remained flat year-over-year; however, small containers continued to show positive volume momentum driven by the agrochemicals end markets. We have invested in this area to grow both organically and through M&A. Mid-single-digit declines in IBC and large polymer drums were driven by softness in industrial markets in EMEA during the quarter, offsetting the positive growth in small containers. In Durable Metals, we saw a volume decline of 6.6%, reflecting softness across industrial end markets. Our team is concentrating on managing the business for cash flow and optimizing costs while maintaining a strong position to capitalize on growth as demand returns. Sustainable Fiber volumes decreased by 7.7%, reflecting approximately 1.7 million tons of URB economic downtime in September. Converting was also negatively affected by continued soft fiber drum demand. Integrated Solutions continues to experience volume improvement driven by closures. These high-margin products are generating over 30% gross margin and are winning new business through innovation and cross-selling on our Greif+ digital platform. In conclusion, I would like to highlight a few items that clearly illustrate, despite the challenges of fiscal '25, the value creation taking place under our strategy. Our polymers and closure business are growing, our cost optimization is ahead of schedule, and our total anticipated commitments have expanded to $120 million. Our free cash conversion was nearly 50% in 2025, and we expect it to be at 50% in 2026. Our pro forma leverage is below 1x. Greif is a strong, resilient company, and we are accelerating our value creation. I will now hand it over to Larry for the financials.

Thank you, everyone. Hello, everyone. As a reminder, our results are presented excluding the containerboard divestment, except for free cash flow, which compares total operations to the prior year. Additionally, due to our fiscal year change, Q4 reflects a 2-month reporting period, August and September. For consistency, all prior year comparatives in today's presentation are also shown on a 2-month basis. Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $99 million, which was 7.4% above the prior year. EBITDA margins also expanded year-over-year by 140 basis points due to better price cost across all segments and the building momentum of our cost optimization. Adjusted free cash flow also improved year-over-year by over 24.3% due to the increase in EBITDA and our team's strong working capital management to close the year. SG&A includes $28 million of operating costs specifically related to the containerboard divestment, which are excluded from EBITDA. Excluding these costs, SG&A was slightly above the prior year quarter primarily due to the 2-month quarter, which included certain annual or quarterly costs incurred over a shorter year. Adjusted EPS for the quarter was $0.01 compared to $0.59 in the prior year quarter. Our Q4 tax expense was impacted by nonrecurring items affecting pretax income and the residual nature of continuing operations after removing discontinued operations. Tax expense also includes various taxes either not based on income or not directly correlated to current period income, the impact of which is magnified due to the lower income reported in this 2-month period. Finally, the tax expense was also influenced by the mix of earnings across the jurisdictions in which we do business. In Polymers, growth was led by small containers, consistent with our long-term strategic focus on less cyclical, margin-accretive end markets. Sales and gross profit were both up year-over-year with margin tailwinds from mix, pricing and operational discipline. In metals, results reflected volume softness in industrial end markets. Sales and volume declined but we continue to generate healthy cash flow and remain focused on cost reduction and enhancing agility to react as demand recovers. In fiber, the decline in sales was tied to volume with URB mill downtime late in the quarter. Despite that, gross profit dollars and margin improved year-over-year due to continued benefits from price cost and tight cost management. Integrated Solutions sales and gross profit dollars declined year-over-year primarily due to lower published OCC prices in our recycled fiber group. Volumes in recycled fiber and closures were both solid and the product mix impact of closures led to higher gross margins year-over-year. Given the continued demand environment we are operating in, we believe it is prudent to present low-end guidance to begin fiscal '26. Our low-end scenario assumes flat to low single-digit volume declines in metals and fiber. It also assumes low single-digit volume improvement in polymers and closures from growth in our target end markets. The net impact of these volume assumptions is flat volume-related EBITDA performance compared to the prior year. Transportation and manufacturing costs were also assumed flat, representing cost savings on our cost optimization, offsetting normal inflationary cost increases. The two major positive drivers in our bridge are SG&A and price cost, both reflecting the accelerated progress on our cost optimization program. SG&A of $45 million reflects $39 million of incremental cost optimization, of which $17 million is within the fiscal year '25 run rate and $19 million is within the fiscal '26 run rate, both of which are expected to benefit fiscal '26. The additional $9 million represents lower variable costs, including incentives. Price/cost reflects $12 million of incremental cost optimization, primarily in the form of sourcing benefits in polymers and closures, while metals cost base is assumed flat. Price/cost also reflects an $18 million incremental benefit of URB pricing recognized in fiscal '25 and lower expected OCC costs. Lastly, to round out our bridge, a $10 million EBITDA headwind from the lack of land management and a benefit of a $7 million positive FX driven by the weakening of the U.S. dollar. Our free cash flow low-end guidance is $315 million, reflecting a 50% conversion ratio, demonstrating our progress towards our long-term objectives. We expect to spend approximately $155 million on CapEx this year. Our lower cash interest cost reflects our strong balance sheet and our other cash use includes approximately $40 million of cash restructuring related to the cost optimization as well as pension costs. Working capital assumes a source of $50 million, driven by both low-end volume assumptions and optimization gains. With our pro forma leverage below 1.0x and strong cash flow guidance of $315 million, we anticipate minimal cash needs for debt service costs in the year ahead. Similarly, after divesting our most capital-intensive business earlier this year, our maintenance CapEx needs are approximately $25 million lower. Given the strength of our balance sheet and strong and durable free cash flow generation, our capital allocation outlook demonstrates the value creation driven by our business model. As a result of our fiscal year-end change, our scheduled Board of Directors meeting is now one month following each quarterly earnings release, still aligned to the previous fiscal calendar. As such, our dividend payments will be considered as usual by the Board on that same cadence with the next meeting occurring on December 9. Further, based on our strong conviction in our own ability to meet our long-term commitments and our belief that our stock currently presents compelling value, we plan to execute as quickly as possible on an approximately $150 million open market repurchase plan, utilizing our available authorization of approximately 2.5 million shares. Additionally, we intend to seek Board approval of a new stock repurchase authorization that will enable continued repurchases as part of our go-forward capital allocation strategy, which we expect to include regular stock repurchases of up to 2% per year of our outstanding equity value. While that leaves ample capacity for growth capital, we're going to be prudent in allocating it while maintaining our strong balance sheet. Please turn to Slide 11 for closing remarks from Ole.

Thank you again for your interest in Greif. We acknowledge that the last 11 months have been bumpy given all the change occurring, and that showed up in this quarter in our tax results. As always, my commitment to you is transparency and candor. We are proud of how we finished fiscal 2025, more focused, more efficient and more aligned with our long-term strategy. We're also excited for a cleaner outlook in full year '26 and we'll continue to communicate progress on our strategy with as much clarity as possible. The divestments of containerboard and land management have meaningfully reshaped our business. We're now positioned with a sharper portfolio, lower capital intensity and stronger financial flexibility than ever before. Our cost optimization program is ahead of plan and with an expanded $120 million commitment by the end of 2027. We are building a stronger business, one that creates value in any environment and delivers accelerating performance as volumes return. Thank you for your continued support. Operator, please open the lines for questions.

One moment for our first question, which will be coming from Ghansham Panjabi of Baird.

So I guess, first off, on polymers and your comments about growth in some of the target markets that you've realigned towards. Can you just give us some more color on that, Ole? I mean many of these end markets you referenced ag and flavors, et cetera, are still quite challenged just based on what's happening at the CPG level, et cetera. So what is driving that improvement? Is it share gains? Is it just commercial success? What's going on there?

Yes. Let me start with some general observations. Our macro environment is currently experiencing a prolonged downturn, exacerbated by uncertainties related to trade and tariffs. Soft demand continues to be a significant factor impacting our customers. For instance, weak end markets in construction and manufacturing are negatively affecting volumes. Regarding the agricultural sector, as part of our Build to Last Strategy, we chose to invest in segments that are growing faster than GDP. One of those segments is the agrochemicals market, which we have streamlined through small containers and jerry cans, allowing us to become a global leader. This strategy has proven successful, particularly in that market, where we have witnessed substantial growth. Considering these factors alongside our operational excellence, cost discipline, and cost-reduction initiatives, our portfolio has become increasingly valuable in the short term.

Got it. And then in terms of fiscal year '26 guidance specific to EBITDA, how should we think about the sequencing of that on a year-over-year basis? Is it sort of flat to down in the first half and then an improvement in the back half? What's your baseline assumption at this point?

Ghansham, it's as usual, the first quarter will be the weakest, and let's talk about it roughly 20% of the year. And then the rest of the quarters will be 25% to 30% each, sort of modeled the same way after the prior year.

Got it. And then just one final one, Larry, as it relates to the low end, if you will, guidance characterization, is it just purely volumes that would be determined as it relates to maybe the upper end bandwidth? Is that how we should think about that?

I think volumes would be the big driver for certain. But also, we have found acceleration in our cost optimization program. As Ole mentioned in his prepared remarks, this is really catching fire among our colleagues and we have a program of identifying ideas from the ground up. So we also think there's upside in our cost optimization numbers for the year as well.

And our next question will be coming from Mike Roxland of Truist Securities.

Congrats on all the progress. Just wanted to follow up on Ghansham's question in terms of the '26 guide. So Larry, if volumes come in weaker because certainly we've heard about weaker volumes from a majority of our companies this earnings season thus far, is cost the leverage that you have available to pull to offset incremental volume weakness to meet your guide for '26?

Yes. I would say two things. The bottom line answer to your question is yes. We can always pull back further on shifts and temporary furloughs and those kind of things. However, this is what we said, this low-end guidance. This is pretty pessimistic on the volume assumptions already. So we don't anticipate that being an item, Michael. But yes, we still could pull incremental levels on a variable cost basis if we needed to.

Michael, just remind you that throughout the year, pricing has been under pressure and that's due to oversupply and weak demand. And despite that, we have increased our margins and performed solidly. And I don't think that will change going into 2026.

Got it. Very helpful. Regarding the cost optimization programs, you increased the projection for 2027 by $20 million. As you've reviewed the portfolio, can you share whether there are additional opportunities for cost savings that you haven't mentioned yet but have been thoroughly evaluated, and if you believe there could be more available beyond the additional $20 million?

Obviously, our sites are much further and much higher, but we use the word commitment here. And at the moment, we are very, very comfortable committing to the $120 million we talked about. But obviously, as Larry just alluded to, that number could go up as we go through the year but we want to get a little bit closer before we would be able to increase our commitments. But we are very bullish about that.

Mike, we have a stage-gate process where there's a lot of discipline before we get to something we classify in stage-gate 3 and 4, which is where we're more certain. But yes, we believe there's potential upside.

Got it. And then final question before turning it over. Last quarter, you mentioned that some of your larger chemical customers were not performing well, as reflected in their earnings. Your IBC volumes declined in the mid-single digits this quarter, similar to the previous quarter, and have been weak for a while. Understanding that chemicals is a cyclical industry, have any of these customers indicated that they may intend to close capacity permanently or rightsize their operations? If so, what might that mean for your IBC business in the long run?

The demand softness is evident, which is significantly impacting our customers, leading them to adjust their operations. Many are relying on construction and manufacturing as their end markets for chemicals. I do not anticipate the situation worsening based on my discussions with customers and the data I observe. The key question remains when we will see improvement. However, we are not passively waiting for that improvement. As you have noticed, we are actively pursuing organic growth and investing in specific segments we have mentioned. We are reducing costs and generating substantial cash, and we are also executing our $150 million share buyback. We are taking charge of what we can influence, not adopting a passive stance. Naturally, if volumes come back, that will be a welcome addition to our progress.

Yes, Michael, I would supplement Ole's comments, if this makes sense, we're hearing less bad comments, less bad than they were. And the other thing that's somewhat encouraging is the trending down of mortgage rates. As most housing industry analysts and investors believe that if you get with a 5-something interest rate, pent-up demand in existing home sales will take off. That's a big driver for the chemical companies and therefore, for us.

We're encouraged by the 2 rate cuts we've seen, but it's not going to change anything overnight. But if we see more rate cuts, it will have a positive effect on demand, we believe.

And our next question will be coming from Matt Roberts of Raymond James.

I appreciate all the color. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, yes.

Okay. Great. Good to see the cost coming through and all your color on capital allocation. And on capital allocation, so balance sheet is in a great spot. You initiated the open market repurchase for $150 million. So given that low leverage and the now newly discussed long-term repurchasing intentions of, I believe, it was 2% per year. Does that change how much capacity remains for M&A? Or has the hurdle rate for M&A changed versus your view of, I think, what you said stock offering compelling value. And all those things considered, where do you expect leverage to shake out by year-end '26?

Let me just answer the first one and let Larry deal with the leverage one. So on M&A, I mean, first of all, our focus is on growing much faster organically and we are deploying CapEx for that. We have a number of areas we have invested in for organic growth. In terms of M&A, we've said many times, we have a very solid pipeline. We keep working on the pipeline. We don't expect any transformational M&A to happen. We have our focus on what we would call tuck-in M&A to complement what we're doing organically. And our criteria remain the same. We are looking at M&A with EBITDA margins in the 20s, 50% free cash flow conversion and primarily within Polymers and primarily within the closures segments.

Yes. Ole, could you discuss the concepts of hunters and farmers and also provide some insights about IonKraft?

We have reorganized our entire global commercial organization. Previously, we focused on nurturing our existing customers, but we are now shifting our approach to actively seek new opportunities. We have updated our incentive program and changed our commercial operations. Our goal is to achieve about 8% organic growth, which involves increasing our volume and share of wallet, as well as investing in new capacity. We have invested in a promising start-up from a German university, establishing a partnership and deploying a unique proprietary barrier technology that is exclusive to us. We currently have three production lines on order and are in negotiations for additional lines. This initiative is expected to begin contributing significantly by the end of 2026, with a substantial ramp-up in 2027.

Yes. And Matt, to supplement that, obviously, the focus that we are really driving a different growth pattern than we have in the past. But relative to our leverage ratio, we're obviously in a really good place. And with the free cash flow generation that we're talking about, I think it's very highly likely, even with our stock repurchase and things we do, very highly likely, we'll remain under 1.5x by the end of next year. It's possible if some things came up that were attractive, we'd be higher than that, but I don't see any scenario where we'd be over 2x at any chance. So really, we'll remain in that range for the foreseeable future.

Very helpful. Secondly, regarding closures, Ole, I understand you mentioned this in your prepared remarks, so I apologize if I overlooked any details. Are there operational changes occurring or is this more of a symbolic shift since closures have been a focus for growth? With the lower recycled fiber impacting the margins in Integrated Solutions, how should we consider the margin profile and growth of that segment moving forward?

The closure has always been very attractive for us. It's a unique part of our business that comes with very high and attractive margins. There's a lot of growth opportunities out in the market for closures. And for example, with the 3 acquisitions we made in Polymers, most of them were using closures from other companies than our own. So there was a big synergy there we'll be executing on. Closures, we separated that out now in a separate segment really to put extreme focus on this segment. We have a new leader in that business as well. And his focus will be growth, M&A growth but importantly, also organic growth. And we'll deploy CapEx accordingly to that. So hopefully, you will see us in the many quarters to come growing that segment significantly.

And our next question will be coming from George Staphos of Bank of America Securities, Inc.

I want to acknowledge the company's efforts over the last 10 years in transforming itself and moving to a more standardized fiscal quarter end, which has been beneficial for everyone involved. Thank you for that, as we understand it wasn't an easy task. My first question is for Larry and Ole: can you discuss the growth rates you experienced relative to your guidance as you entered fiscal '26? I assume your assumptions align with the exit rates, but were there any exit rates that might be trending below what's included in your guidance, keeping in mind you have various levers to utilize, as mentioned earlier in the call?

Yes. I mean when you look across our portfolio within the fiber segment, probably one of the weakest lines that we had is our fiber drums. So fiber drums were down double digits, which was more than we expected them to be down. We expected them to be down less than that, high single digits. So that was a trend that was worse. On the other hand, small polymers did better than we expected. So those were the 2 primary ones that were different than our expectations going into the quarter, George. Our guidance going forward is essentially aligned to what we started to see. So in our low-end guidance, as we said, we've got low single-digit up on polymers and on closures with more in the small polymers than in the large polymers. And then within metals and fiber, we've got low single-digit declines just as a low-end guidance assumption.

Understood. Okay. And you're saying drums at this juncture, fiber drums, those have gotten back to kind of your guidance range or even though they started pretty weak. Would that be fair?

No, they're just really off right now. And it's all tied to the whole chemical industry sector. So yes, we're not bullish on any kind of significant growth in that one right now.

Okay. I was hoping you could go a little bit further into the SG&A pickup that you're expecting this year. Thank you for the bridge and the discussion on the $45 million. Can you talk about what's in sort of the activity that you took in from fiscal '25 into fiscal '26, What, if anything, is different about what's in for this year on the fiscal '26 actions? And just any other color on the $45 million would be great.

Yes. The predominance of our SG&A takeouts are related to the headcount numbers that Ole gave on the 8% of our overall professional headcount. And the majority of those actions were taken in the fourth quarter. So they play out into the entire year going forward. We also have a lot of things where we've moved more things to low-cost countries. We've also taken in where we had contractors in our IT organization that you think are temporary and then all of a sudden, they're around 8 years. Well, you're better off to hire them as employees and then you're better off to offshore things. Our IT group has also done a fabulous job of rationalizing our IT licenses, which is a significant cost. We've restructured how we're doing our AI activities and going to a model that's basically pay for what you eat instead of a basic core per person license. So there's a whole bunch of elements that go into those cost saves. But those are the predominant ones that are driving the major numbers.

Okay. On that note, Larry and Ole, you mentioned changing the incentives and the approach to organic growth in the organization, which sounds exciting. At the same time, for understandable reasons and to take advantage of savings, you're reducing headcount. Are there areas where you might need to push a little harder to manage everything on the front end of the business while you're reengineering the back end? Any challenges there?

Not really, George. We chose not to approach SG&A as if it were a minor issue. That's why we took actions in Q4 to address most of it. Regarding the commercial organization, we have largely protected it because we are really focusing on organic growth, although we have been rearranging it, as you mentioned, with the incentive program. We are also implementing many other strategies for managing sales performance. Tim Bergwall, our Chief Commercial Officer, is doing an excellent job leading his team in this effort. It is a gradual process, and we still have a long way to go in that area.

Okay. My last question, a couple of parts, and I'll turn it over out of courtesy. Sorry, I've gone long here. One, I assume the pricing change in integrated/closures is just the effect of OCC, but can you talk about what the pricing change was actually within closures? Given you've done a lot of other things to simplify the organization, any thought perhaps at some point to simplifying the share structure between the Class A and Class B? And then lastly, with great resources and everything you've done to have the balance sheet where it is, comes great responsibility. Where are your customers telling you they'd like you to most sort of grow inorganically from an end market standpoint so that you get the highest return going forward?

That was a lot of questions.

The price impacts on the Integrated segment between RFG and Closures.

So first of all, the reason we incorporated the recycled fiber group and adhesives into the fiber solutions group was that they serve the same customers, with adhesives also being used in fiber by these clients. It made sense to have everything managed by the same leader. This adjustment allowed us to reduce a leadership level, resulting in Integrated remaining as a stand-alone closure business.

Ole, what was the price change in closures, really what I'm asking?

Yes. The price change in Closures benefited from $12 million due to procurement activities, specifically in the polymers and closures segment, not related to the OCC side. Regarding the share structure, we are still in discussions about it, but there is nothing expected in the near term. What was the third question?

Where are your customers telling you to...

Yes, on nonorganic, basically, I mean, our customers like us to serve them in any of their needs that they have. So us getting broader enclosures where we might be able to serve more of their needs. Clearly, they've enjoyed us getting more into the small plastics that we didn't use to serve on a global basis. That's been a positive. But there's nothing else that they're out there asking us to get into right now other than the one Ole went over on IonKraft which is just a brand-new technology that is more highly recyclable, very favorable environmentally. And we just had UN approval on the first container with this step in. It's a very unique opportunity for us.

Just to remind you that our NPS of 72 is quite exceptional in our industry, which highlights how close we are to our customers. I want to mention a multinational customer that has been establishing new plants in various countries. Each time they expand, they approach us to see if we can provide capacity at that specific location. We engage in long-term agreements and then add production lines or even build a plant to meet their needs. This illustrates the type of requests we receive from customers and how we maintain close relationships with them.

Our next question will be coming from Gabe Hajde of Wells Fargo.

I have a question about the Durable Metals business, which is now your largest segment. If I remember correctly, about 40% to 45% of that is based in Europe. Given the recent list of chemical plant closures throughout Continental and Eastern Europe, I know you've mentioned volumes are expected to be flat or down slightly. Can you provide some insight into what your expectations are by region, particularly since you indicated in your remarks that Europe has experienced a slowdown?

It's fascinating and a bit surprising to us. For instance, while the North American steel business has been declining similarly to the EMEA on a quarter-by-quarter basis, EMEA steel has actually increased every quarter this year when looking at a two-year stack.

They have consistently outperformed North America. Additionally, when customers reduce capacity, we respond similarly. For instance, in facilities where we were operating two shifts, we have now reduced to one shift. This approach is part of our strategy to manage the business for cash. Therefore, the closures that have occurred are already taken into account in our production capacity.

Okay. I guess the second question is kind of revisiting a little bit on the M&A front. Is there a scenario where maybe there are just kind of some tuck-ins along the way? And I think, Larry, you said you don't really envision a situation where you're above 2x levered. And so between now and 2027, I didn't see the $1 billion reiterated. And again, I know it's tough when you're moving assets around. But is that still explicitly sort of the target given sort of what you know about the M&A environment right now?

Yes. I mean, for us, on that, Gabe, I mean, it's still our objective to get there but we're not going to slowly deploy capital to get there. But if you just walk through, we gave low-end guidance. So obviously, our hope is that we do better than our low-end guidance. So if you take the $630 million and you then look at our $120 million commitment, that's a net another $45 million. So you're already up to $675 million. We're hoping you see industrial volume recovery. Obviously, that's a big component. It's been a component of our original stack which was $140 million. I mean those things get you up to $815 million. We do some tuck-in acquisitions. We invest in organic CapEx and IonKraft and other opportunities. We still think there's a path to get there. But it's not like, okay, we're going to go chase M&A to get there and risk doing bad deals. We're just not going to do that.

But the $140 million are largely intact in terms of going back to the 2022 volumes.

And this concludes our Q&A session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Ole Rosgaard for closing remarks.

Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. Our disciplined focus on margin expansion, cash generation and reducing cyclability is delivering meaningful high-quality returns for our shareholders, further validating your investment and confidence in Greif. We really appreciate your time and your partnership. Thank you.

And this concludes today's program. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.