To assess the suitability of Fortum Oyj for the issuance of hybrid bonds, we must evaluate its business profile, financial metrics, strategic rationale, and market context against the provided guidelines.

**1. Business Profile and Cash Flow Visibility**
Fortum operates in the energy sector, specifically within the Nordic and Baltic regions. The provided text outlines methodologies for "Regulated Utilities" and "Unregulated Power and Gas." Fortum has a mixed profile: it has regulated network operations (distribution) which provide stable, predictable cash flows, but it also has significant exposure to unregulated generation and trading activities. The 2022 financials show high volatility in earnings due to market conditions (e.g., energy crisis impacts, impairment losses, and discontinued operations related to Uniper). While the regulated portion supports a "utility" classification, the significant volatility and exposure to merchant power markets introduce risk. However, as a major incumbent utility with essential infrastructure assets, it generally fits the "Strongly Suitable" or "Marginally Suitable" business profile categories (regulated/quasi-regulated/utility).

**2. Financial Metrics and Leverage**
*   **S&P Net Debt / EBITDA (2022):** 1.84x. This is a very healthy leverage ratio, typically associated with strong Investment Grade ratings (likely A or high BBB).
*   **S&P FFO / Net Debt (2022):** 0.4556 (45.6%). This indicates strong cash flow generation relative to debt.
*   **Moody's Adjusted Leverage Trend:** "Improving."

The guidelines for "Not Suitable" include entities with "Strong Investment Grade like profile, A or better" where hybrid issuance offers limited benefit. Conversely, "Strongly Suitable" entities often have deteriorating metrics or are in the BBB area where hybrids can materially improve leverage/ratings. Fortum's leverage is low and improving. Issuing hybrids (which are expensive compared to senior debt) would not be driven by a need to rescue a rating or fix a deteriorating balance sheet. Instead, it would be an opportunistic move to optimize capital structure or fund specific initiatives.

**3. Hybrid Issuance History and Rationale**
*   **Issuance History:** The data states Fortum has **never** issued hybrid bonds. The prompt notes: "an entity not having issued hybrid bonds recently is a *strong* signal that it is Not Suitable, or at most Marginally Suitable."
*   **Rationale:** There is no mention of a massive M&A program, urgent refinancing wall for subordinated debt, or a strategic shift requiring equity-like capital to preserve a specific rating threshold. The company has strong liquidity (Cash and Cash Equivalents of ~3.9bn EUR) and positive operating cash flows from continuing operations (~2.1bn EUR).

**4. Market Context**
The swap curves and bond spreads in 2022 show a significant increase in yields and spreads compared to 2020-2021. Issuing hybrids in such an environment is costly. For a company with strong investment grade metrics and no pressing need for equity credit, the cost of hybrids (high coupon) would likely outweigh the benefits, making them "expensive subordinated debt" rather than a strategic necessity.

**Conclusion**
Fortum is a high-quality utility with strong, improving financial metrics and low leverage. It does not fit the "distressed" or "rating pressure" profile that typically drives "Strongly Suitable" hybrid issuance. Its lack of prior hybrid issuance and strong standalone credit profile suggest that hybrids are not a core funding instrument. While it *could* issue them (it is not "Not Suitable" in the sense of being distressed or ineligible), it lacks the compelling strategic drivers (deteriorating metrics, BBB rating cliff, large M&A) that characterize "Strongly Suitable" candidates. Therefore, it falls into the "Marginally Suitable" category, where issuance would be opportunistic rather than structural, and pricing would be sensitive. However, given the explicit guidance that non-issuers are "Not Suitable" or "Marginally Suitable," and the fact that its metrics are *too strong* (improving, low leverage) to *need* hybrids for rating support, it leans towards Marginally Suitable as a potential opportunistic issuer, but certainly not Strongly Suitable. Between Marginally and Not, the "Utility" status and size keep it in the realm of possibility (Marginally), whereas "Not Suitable" is often reserved for those who *cannot* or *should not* due to cost/structure. But looking closely at the "Not Suitable" criteria: "Strong Investment Grade like profile... Stable or improving financial metrics... Hybrid would likely be perceived as expensive subordinated debt." This description fits Fortum very well.

Let's re-evaluate "Marginally" vs "Not".
*   **Marginally Suitable:** "Industrial... moderate cash flow visibility... opportunistic... stable financial metrics."
*   **Not Suitable:** "Strong IG... A or better... Stable/improving metrics... Limited benefit."

Fortum is a utility (not purely industrial). It has highly visible cash flows from its regulated base. However, the *need* is absent. The prompt says "Not having issued... is a strong signal that it is Not Suitable, or at most Marginally Suitable."
Usually, large European utilities (like Orsted, Engie, Enel) do issue hybrids. Fortum is an outlier in this peer group for *not* having them. If it were to issue, it would likely be to align with peers or optimize WACC. This is an "opportunistic" rationale.
However, the "Not Suitable" criteria explicitly list "Strong Investment Grade like profile... Stable or improving financial metrics." Fortum's Net Debt/EBITDA of 1.8x is very strong. Hybrids are typically used by BBB-rated companies to boost equity content. An A-rated company (implied by 1.8x leverage and utility status) gains little rating benefit. Thus, the hybrid would be expensive debt.

Despite this, "Marginally Suitable" is the standard classification for high-quality issuers who *can* access the market but don't *need* to, whereas "Not Suitable" often implies structural barriers or prohibitive costs relative to benefit that make the transaction inadvisable. Given Fortum's size and sector, it is *capable* and investors would buy it, but the strategic fit is weak. The "strong signal" of no prior issuance combined with strong metrics points away from "Strongly." Between "Marginally" and "Not," the utility sector's general acceptance of hybrids makes "Marginally" the more precise fit for a company that *could* do it opportunistically, even if not strategically imperative. However, many rigorous credit assessments would label a strong A-rated utility with no history as "Not Suitable" for *new* issuance unless there is a specific use of proceeds.

Let's look at the "Strongly Suitable" criteria again: "Deteriorating financial metrics... hybrid needed to preserve current rating." Fortum is improving.
"Marginally Suitable": "Stable financial metrics... hybrid could increase current rating headroom."
"Not Suitable": "Strong IG... Stable or improving... Limited benefit."

Fortum fits "Not Suitable" criteria very closely regarding the financials and benefit. But does it fit the business profile? "Utility" is listed under Strongly/Marginally. "Not Suitable" lists "Highly cyclical, distressed...". Fortum is not distressed. It is a Utility. Therefore, it is structurally an issuer that *can* use hybrids. The lack of history and strong metrics makes it *less* suitable, but not "Not Suitable" in the sense of being a bad candidate *if* they chose to. It is "Marginally Suitable" because it is an opportunistic candidate in a sector that typically uses them, despite the current strong balance sheet.

<answer>Marginally Suitable</answer>