Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Master Thesis
HALMSTAD
UNIVERSITY
Master's Program in Economics (Master of Science)
How do German industrial leaders evolvetheir business model towards sustainability-A case study of Adidas AG and Siemens AG
Economics with a major in BusinessAdministration, 15 credits
2020-06-01
Fabian Zagel, Volodymyr Tarhonskyi
I
Acknowledgments
We want to thank all the people engaged while we were writing our thesis. First and
foremost, our appreciation goes to our supervisor Klaus Solberg Søilen for his guidance and
valuable advice during seminars. Secondly, we would like to thank our interviewees, who took the
time to participate and share insights with us, leading to valuable implications. Finally, a special
thanks to our classmates for making this past year a memorable experience, as well as to our friends
and families for their continuous support and encouragement when writing this thesis.
II
Abstract
In this research, the way multinational corporations develop their business practices
towards sustainability was examined on the example of two German industry-leading companies,
Siemens AG and Adidas AG. Firstly, we conducted a review of the relevant existing literature,
with the purpose to provide definitions of the term business model and sustainable business
model. Furthermore, the existing tools for the further analysis of sustainable business models were
overviewed, and the flourishing business canvas tool carried out in a new setting. The actions
towards sustainable practices of both companies are presented with a future outlook. Based on the
analysis, an overview of the current business models was presented under the contribution of the
economic, social and environmental dimension. In our analysis, we give valuable information on
how these two companies evolve their business model in line with sustainability as a business
opportunity. The result of the study gives insights of the practicability of the flourishing business
canvas and describes best practices for companies, as comprehensive life cycle assessments or
recycling, to investigate possible key levers that companies can evolve their business model
towards sustainability.
III
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments I
Abstract II
Table of Contents III
List of Abbreviations V
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research Challenges 2
1.2 Purpose of the Study 2
2. Literature review 3
2.1 Business models - origin, background and definitions 3
2.1.1 Difference between strategy and business model 5
2.1.2 Business model change & evolution regarding Sustainability 6
2.1.3 Business models for sustainability 7
2.1.4 Emphasizing on the necessity of corporate sustainable business model development
9
2.1.5 Adaption of the Business Model Canvas visualizing the triple bottom line in
Business Models 10
3. Methodology 17
3.1 Research Design 17
3.3 Research Strategy 18
3.4 Case Selection Approach 19
IV
3.5 Case Selection Results 21
3.5.1 Siemens AG 21
3.5.2 Adidas AG 23
3.6 Data collection 25
3.7 Data analysis approach 26
3.7.1 Validity and Reliability 27
4. Case studies Siemens AG and Adidas AG 28
4.1 Siemens AG 28
4.2 Adidas AG 41
5. Discussion and conclusion 51
5.1 Limitations and suggestions for further research 55
References 57
V
List of Abbreviations
B2B – Business to business
B2C – Business to customer
BM – Business Model
BMC – Business Model Canvas
CAPEX- Capital Expenditure
CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility
DJSI – Dow Jones Sustainability Index
ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance
FBC - Flourishing Business Canvas
LCA – Life Cycle Assessment
MNC – Multinational Corporation
NGO – Non-Governmental Organization
R&D – Research and Development
SBM – Sustainable Business Model
SDG – Sustainable Development Goal
STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Skills
TBL - Triple Bottom Line
UN – United Nations
UNGC - United Nations Global Compact
1
1. Introduction
When the discussion for sustainability and the sustainable development began in the early
1980s, the precise definition was provided by the Brundtland Commission in 1987, and
documented as follows: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Brundtland, 1987). It implies that the way we use the planet's resources should be performed
sustainably in order to preserve the earth as a place to live for future generations. Sustainability lies
on three pillars: (1) environmental, (2) economic, (3) social, which affect each other and, therefore,
need to be balanced: Environmental sustainability, economic and social stakeholder (Norman &
MacDonald, 2004). This definition was interpreted for environmental sustainability that stands for
shaping the consumption of the planet's resources sustainably, economic - requires that the efficient
use of resources and sustainable operation should be profitable, and the social - the ability of any
society to achieve a high level of well-being (Circular Ecology, n.d.). This goes back to Elkington
(1994), introducing the triple bottom line approach (TBL) demanding that companies could be
managed not only to focus on financial performance but as well as contributing to social justice
and environmental quality.
Nowadays, with the biggest challenges of our times such as climate change or resource
scarcity, companies have a crucial role in tackling this issue and are responsible for the majority of
CO2 emissions (Griffin, 2017). For this challenge, the development of the current business models
(BM) will be necessary providing solutions to change the way business is done. In a survey by
Bain & Company (2018), 81% of respondent companies mentioned that sustainability is more
important than five years ago and believe that the importance will grow in the future. The majority
of the companies expect that for this reason, an invention of the BM will be necessary which
involves a degree of risk and uncertainty for the existence of the company (Davis-Peccoud,
Seemann, Jongeneel & Martins, 2018). The importance can be emphasised as well by this year's
World Economic Forum where worldwide leaders from politics and economy got together to work
on suggestions how a sweeping change can be managed (World Economic Forum, 2020). One
major initiative by the United Nations (UN) and its 195 country members is the blueprint of the 17
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The blueprint contains several actions such as urgent
activities to combat climate change or ensure quality education for all having the aim to secure
“peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” (United Nations, n.d.).
2
The meaning of the SDGs found its way to the economy showed in a study of two
PricewaterhouseCoopers associates. Here, 72 % of the 782 analysed companies include their
actions towards SDG goals in their annual or sustainability reports committing to state their effort
to meet the set goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Scott & McGill, 2018).
1.1 Research Challenges
That action needs to be taken is not a new finding and has not remained hidden from
research that came to the consensus sustainable development within organisations rather than on
societal level has even more effectiveness and should be elaborated (Schaltegger, Hansen &
Lüdeke-Freund, 2015). Previous academic literature and studies in the field of sustainability allow
us to conclude that there are profound research gaps within implementing sustainability principles
within firms' operations. Most of the studies and theories are based on one particular industry or
on financial key figures instead of approaching the issue in general in a synergy of the TBL and its
effect on the companies' BMs and performance. Hence, there is a necessity for extended managerial
approaches for Sustainable Business Models (SBM) and the implementation of comparatively
young management tools to present solutions on how companies can integrate the TBL to their
business. Further research is required to define the factors and processes that can help MNC to be
more engaged, contributing to societal goals within and beyond their spheres of influence (van
Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). On this basis, there is a keen interest in how MNC develop their
commercial practices towards sustainability and how a companies’ strategy develops accordingly
(Nicolussi, 2017). Due to the novelty of several SBM tools, there is not yet much evidence in case
studies to what extent it is practicable for several industries or company sizes. Hence, our research
aims to test the Flourishing Business Canvas approach that was created in 2014 by Upward and
Jones. Currently, it was implemented for the healthcare sector, biogas industry, museum industry,
and fashion industry, but not executed for an extended case study of two MNCs in two different
industries (Karlsson, Hoveskog, Hallia & Mattson, 2019).
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the research is to contribute to how multinational companies (MNC) evolve
their BM, including the TBL and share best practices as suggestions. Likewise, the FBC tool should
be tested if it can be an appropriate tool for multinational companies executing the most extensive
case study of two large operations.
3
Therefore, an analysis of Adidas AG and Siemens AG will be performed, because the single
impact and responsibility of great companies on these challenges are more critical than for small
and medium-sized enterprises.
2. Literature review
2.1 Business models - origin, background and definitions
“A mediocre technology pursued within a great business model may be more valuable
than a great technology exploited via a mediocre business model”
(Chesbrough, 2010, p. 354).
Investigating BM is a relatively new research endeavour that gained keen interest after the
emergence of the new economy. The internet enabled companies to operate in before inconceivable
ways and fueled discussions on how companies operate and gain revenue streams (Zott, Amit, &
Massa, 2011). The choice of an innovative, new BM, such as Apple introducing iTunes, enabling
customers to download music on their iPod, was perceived as a strong competitive advantage
(Johnson, Clayton & Kagermann, 2008). Nowadays, in the context of political regulations to fight
climate change, BM optimization and evolution towards sustainability are regarded as a success
factor for organizations (Nielsen & Lund, 2015).
BM research has different streams that are connected in their core with information
technology; strategy; or organization. To date, there are multiple scientific definition attempts of
BMs, and a uniform definition for the term is still missing (Teece, 2010). Zott, Amit, and Massa
(2011) showed the disagreements of the different scholars about the term BM because it is mostly
adapted and used by the interest of the respective researcher that create new definitions of BMs.
Although there is no straightforward definition, there are still some crucial similarities among them
like the fact that a BM describes how the company runs (Zott et al., 2011). Another consensus
between the scholars nowadays is that companies do not execute their BM in a competitive vacuum
and subsequently stand in a competition (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010). Thus, each BM and
its execution can be a potential competitive advantage that differs from the company's product-
market position (Wunder, 2016). Companies that address the same customer need can do this by
4
varying BMs, a.e. online and offline shopping for printers. Hence, BM design can be seen as a
complement to the product-market strategy (Zott & Amit, 2008).
Some BM definitions are listed in Table 1.
Author(s) Business model definition
Timmers (1998) „An architecture for the product, service and information flows,
including a description of the various business actors and their
roles; and a description of the potential benefits for the various
business actors; and a description of the sources of revenues” (p. 4).
Amit & Zott (2001) „A business model depicts the content, structure, and governance of
transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation
of business opportunities” (p. 511).
Chesbrough &
Rosenbloom (2002)
„A successful business model creates a heuristic logic that connects
technical potential with the realization of economic value” (p. 529).
Teece (2010) “In short, a business model defines how the enterprise creates and
delivers value to customers, and then converts payments received to
profits” (p. 173).
Osterwalder &
Pigneur (2010)
“A Business Model describes the rationale of how an organization
creates, delivers and captures value” (p. 14).
Casadesus-Masanell
& Ricart (2010)
“A business model is […] a reflection of the firm’s realized
strategy” (p. 195).
Nielsen & Lund
(2015) “A business model describes the coherence in the strategic choices
which facilitates the handling of the processes and relations which
create value on both the operational, tactical and strategic levels in
the organization. The business model is therefore the platform which
connects resources, processes and the supply of a service which
5
results in the fact that the company is profitable in the long term” (p.
4).
Table 1: Business Model Definition.
According to the variety of definitions, for our purpose, the definition of Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010) is most suitable for the research: "A business model describes the rationale of how
an organization creates, delivers, and captures value" (Osterwalder & Pigneur, p. 14). We use for
analysis a tool that evolved from the business model canvas (BMC), and that is why this definition
is the most suitable. Furthermore, understanding the different value processes in a BM will be
supportive for analysing the triple bottom line for our case study. Acknowledging that all presented
definitions focus on how companies create sales and strive to gain a competitive advantage in a
changing environment, the difference from a company's BM to its strategy might not be clear. For
this, the following sections will give insights to this discussion.
2.1.1 Difference between strategy and business model
The complexity of business model research provoked the discussion, if and how the
company's BM differs from the strategy of a firm. Several researchers analysed the context of BM
and strategy, agreeing that they have analogies, but they are not the same (Amit & Zott, 2001;
Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010; Osterwalder, 2004). Nielsen and Lund (2015) claim that a
BM is a platform on which the strategic choices of the company become profitable, but differs
from the corporate strategy or value chain. Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2009) dedicated their
paper to show the difference between BM, strategy, and tactics. The most evident difference
between strategy and BM was that strategies are never fully observable from outside, but how the
company does business is most apparent. Therefore, the two authors stated that "an organization's
business model is the reflection of its realized strategy" (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2009, p.
22).
The transparency of mostly all BM has the consequence that a new innovative one can be
copied or imitated by the competitors or even becoming the new widespread standard in its industry
(Teece, 2010). The second finding is that all organizations have a BM because they are doing
business, but not all organizations follow or have a strategy due to a missing plan for different
6
contingencies (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2009). Equally, it is indispensable for a company to
change its strategy to keep in competition; the same applies to the BM that has to react to changes
such as new market conditions which are explained in the next section.
2.1.2 Business model change & evolution regarding Sustainability
Acknowledging that no perfect BM exists and will be a perfect fit over a more extended period for
a company, incremental adjustments become crucial to gain and sustain competitive advantages
(Nielsen & Lund, 2015). Accordingly, “managers and entrepreneurs who are well-positioned and
can learn and adjust are more likely to succeed” (Teece, 2010, p.187).
Business model change and evolution deals with the incremental long-term change of a
company's BM and therefore differs from business model innovation that includes more
revolutionary implications (Wirtz, Pistoia, Ullrich, & Göttel, 2016). Change and evolution of a BM
are implicit with the modification of it or specific parts that continuously interact with the firm's
key actors for a particular time (Gorevayaa & Khayrullina, 2015). The change of a BM occurs in
response to endogenous or exogenous events such as strong company growth (Zott & Amit, 2008;
Corbo, Pirolo & Rodrigues, 2018), technological changes ( Calia, Guerrini, & Moura 2007; Rayna
& Striukova, 2016), and competitive environmental challenges (Schweizer, 2005; Spieth,
Schneckenberg & Ricard, 2014; Schneider & Klaus, 2017). In summary, it can be said that the
change of a BM occurs to react to internal changes and external pressure (Nailer & Buttriss, 2019).
Climate change and the related 2030 Paris agreement lead to stronger regulation for
companies and to society and customers expecting companies to change their current business
manner (Bolton & Hannon, 2016). Investment funds reward these efforts by weighting
sustainability rankings and Environment Social Governance (ESG) solidly in the portfolio decision
to invest and not looking solely at the financial performance of a firm. Consequently, the so-called
ESG investing has grown for years and is anchored now in the mainstream of investment banking,
while analysis shows that sustainable companies tend to outperform their less sustainable
competitors by growth in market value (Kell, 2018). Porter and Kramer (2011) stated that an
improvement of a BM could be one necessary action towards more exceptional performance and
enabling an environmental and social value-creation, the so-called shared value creation. This
approach creates value for the whole society and is from its idea the basis for the SBM that goes
beyond delivering just financial value for the company. This growing research area of the SBM
will be introduced in the next chapter.
7
2.1.3 Business models for sustainability
“No sustainable development is possible without a sustainable development of corporations”
(Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund & Hansen, 2012, p. 96).
The research on the topic of the SBM gains steadily more attention by researchers, and
similar to the BM, several definitions exist. In contrast to conventional technologically driven BMs,
the sustainable approach adds the environment and society to the value proposition of its need
(Lüdeke-Freund, 2010). These two dimensions are crucial for future business because society has
an ethical duty to innovate and adapt their business practices, so future generations can meet their
own needs without suffering because of our failure (Brundtland, 1987). As stated by Upward
(2013), business models for sustainability have to go beyond the current approach of BM that
focuses on the organization's financial sustainability. This change in business requires product-
markets iterations, testing new prototypes, integrating business partners, and finding a suitable
solution to address economic, societal, and environmental values (Keskin, 2015).
Accordingly, SBM should include the benefits and costs to other stakeholders, primarily
the society, in their value proposition. Other stakeholders in this holistic view are customers,
investors, shareholders, suppliers, partners, and employees (Bocken, Short, Rana & Evans, 2013).
A strategic purpose of SBMs needs a strong commitment by the decision-makers and is linked with
a high investment towards defined sustainable goals to differentiate oneself from companies that
execute their sustainability goals for inconsistent purposes. As it was discussed, the strategic
purpose of SBMs is building operations that capture economic value with voluntary regard to
society and the environment that might lead to an additive competitive advantage (Schaltegger et
al., 2012). Several tools exist to support the eco-design in product development, like life cycle
assessment (LCA). LCA provides information about the impact of a product from creation to waste
stage and evaluates several parameters in terms of carbon emissions or toxic resources. An
extensive overview helps companies to identify beneficial solutions with less impact on the planet
and to see which stage has the most significant impact (Haupt & Zschokke, 2016). Nevertheless,
from a company perspective on their BM, just a few tools exist, and three of them are explained in
the next chapter.
As the SBM is yet not fully explored by the researchers, for once applying them in real life,
the field could cause even more uncertainties. In particular, corporate social responsibility defines
8
how sustainability is lived in most companies operating today. Therefore, a clear line setting apart
SBMs and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be drawn, as SBMs are more than
corporations' obligation to work for social betterment and require more effort than responding to
social pressure (Frederick, 1994). Since the post-war times, business all around the globe had to
re-analyse their relations with the society and governments and adopt a framework of rules on how
to comply and cooperate with them (Cannon, 1992). Over the years, the business connection with
society through CSR has changed with the adoption of new social value responsibilities placed
upon business, including stricter laws compliance, human values, health care, pollution and quality
of life, equal employment opportunities (Samy, Odemilin, & Bampton, 2010). Still, being set up
as a measure to make businesses operations more transparent and socially positive, different areas
of corporate social responsibility, in particular corporate philanthropy, began frequently used by
corporations as a part of developing strategy that improves and increase the brand recognition,
reduce the costs and overcome regulatory obstacles, therefore, becoming company’s influential
competitive advantage (HBR, 2003). As it was discussed, the strategic purpose of SBMs is building
operations with voluntary regard to society and environment, and usually requires a high amount
of expenditures and investments towards clear sustainable goals, which distinct such companies
from the competition using sustainability goals for irreconcilable purposes. This creates a particular
burden for the traditional organizations on their way to becoming sustainable and sustaining
themselves, as the successful cases for sustainability are only created if economic success is
achieved through voluntary social and environmental activities, unlike the actions using
sustainability as a tool for adding extra value (Schaltegger et al., 2012).
The positive effect on embedding sustainability in the traditional BMs is widely discussed.
SBMs could not only imply an adaptation to changes in the environment and customer behaviour
but also create additional customer benefits in addition to their positive impact for the environment
(Bohnsack, Pinkse & Kolk, 2014). Such business models can serve as a vehicle to coordinate
technological and social innovations with system-level sustainability (Bocken, Short, Rana &
Evans, 2014).
9
2.1.4 Emphasizing on the necessity of corporate sustainable business model development
The necessity of organizations to become sustainable is caused not only by obtaining
positive gain for those organizations but being in conformity with the sustainable goals and a strive
to contribute to society and environment in general. The sustainability goals are clear and equal for
everyone. Hence, it should be emphasized that sustainable development is impossible without
corporations taking part in it. Alongside actions taken by the corporate board and management,
corporate strategies for sustainability “are thus of crucial importance to sustainable development
but also for successfully directing a company through sustainability related social, legal, political
and economic requirements under conditions of market competition” (Schaltegger et al., 2012, p.
96).
Generally, linking the environmental performance and positive economic effect has been
discussed for a long time (Edwards, 1998; Griffin and Mahon, 1997; Hamilton, 1995). Over time
research has shifted to defining if there is a link between business success and voluntary
environmental and social engagement (Griffin, 2000; Reinhardt, 2000), which could not be
clarified (Wagner, 2007). A recent study on SBM adoption among S&P 500 firms has shown that
besides having initiated engagement in sustainable value creation, “S&P 500 firms mainly follow
broad and profitable societal and environmental trends, instead of adopting a proactive profile
toward business model innovation”(Ritala, Huotari, Bocken, Albareda & Puumalainen, 2018, p.
18). Another research of Baumgartner and Rauter (2016) reveals the limited progress of the
corporate sector in a field of SBMs due to lack of strategic orientation in corporate sustainability
management, which in turn is subjected to understanding all the related risks, benefits and trade-
offs associated with the implementation of sustainability.
The reluctance to open discussion on sustainability topics from a strategic perspective is
clear, as the goal itself requires a high amount of business model transformation, which eventually
could end up as a total transformation of operations and shift of focus, as the energy provider Orsted
proved (Orsted, 2020). As mentioned above, the sustainability goals first were set up for the whole
society, and creating a long-term value requires a conscious and long-lasting effort from company’s
management (Eccles, Perkins & Serafeim, 2012). The necessary qualities, such as transparency
and willingness to change, are only developed through the operation of robust and effective social
systems encompassing the firm and its key stakeholders (Sonnenfeld, 2002). For now, the legal
restrictions from the governments force corporations to comply with sustainability rules. Over time,
10
with the engagement of all stakeholders, understanding the impact on society and clear voluntary-
based vision on how the company should develop, the corporate management will acknowledge
the necessity to transform its operations towards sustainable practices. “In turn, a culture
supportive of sustainability will increase the effectiveness of leadership commitment, external
engagement, employee engagement and mechanisms for execution” (Eccles et al., 2012, p. 48).
Still, having dismal results of previous research in that field, the goal of the thesis is to provide the
analysis of corporate cases having tangible results in embedding sustainability in their business
model.
2.1.5 Adaption of the Business Model Canvas visualizing the triple bottom line in
Business Models
SBMs that make contributions to the triple bottom line are necessary to meet the most
significant challenges of our time, such as climate change or resource scarcity. Therefore, new,
adapted management tools are urgently needed. One popular tool for business modelling is the
BMC of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) that gives an economic-oriented overview of an
organization's actions and is taught in universities or start-up challenges (Rytkönen & Nenonen,
2013). The following three tools from the SBM literature show a variety of approaches to visualize
business actions targeting besides economical the ecological and societal aspects of doing business.
Value Mapping Tool
The value mapping tool emerged in cooperation with six companies from different
industries that wanted to increase their engagement for SBMs. It assists companies to embed
SBMling into their business models. The tool focuses on four pillars that are: (1) value created, (2)
value destroyed, (3) value missed, and (4) new value opportunities. While analysing these
parameters with current operations, companies should be able to identify their value proposition,
taking into consideration negative and positive impacts towards relevant stakeholders (Short et al.,
2013). The four pillars can be summarized as followed:
● Value created - current value proposition;
● Value destroyed - negative outcomes of business model;
● Value missed - value that is not considered in the current business model;
11
● New value opportunities - value that could be realized by new activities (Bocken et al.,
2014).
In the heart of the tool is the purpose of the company surrounded by four representations of
value that should be analysed separately. Each segment, such as customers or academia, will be
evaluated to identify areas that require improvement or change. Executing a step-by-step
assessment of the company's value creation supports the understanding of which parameters might
be changed towards a more sustainable business manner, like increasing the material efficiency or
creating value from waste. After discovering such possibilities using the value mapping tool, other
methods, such as LCA or eco-design, will be supportive of implementing the findings of the value
mapping (Bocken et al., 2014).
Figure 1. Value Mapping Tool, Bocken et al., 2014 (Source: Screenshot by Author).
12
Sustainable Business Canvas
Fichter and Tiemann (2015) introduced a new approach of the BMC to organize workshops
for start-ups to present sustainability-oriented business modelling. The origin canvas was expanded
by three fields BM vision and mission, competitor and relevant stakeholders. Likewise, customer
relations, customer channels, and customer segments were tied together in the customer dimension
(Fichter & Tiemann, 2015). The vision of a BM describes how it will change in the future and
which long-term goal it is pursuing. Differently, the mission focuses on the central values of the
BM and which purpose the company has in doing business (Tiemann & Fichter, 2016). Competitors
and relevant stakeholders are covering the outside perspective of a firm's BM. For the field of
competition, the influence and impact on sustainability in the targeted market of sustainability
should be challenged (Fichter & Tiemann, 2015). This external view on the BM distinguishes it
from the classical BMC of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) because external influences for a BM
are covered in the early stage of analysis. Adding these new features simplifies the stakeholders'
view on the BM, and it shows which directions and trends might occur in the future towards
sustainability. This process is supported by a questionnaire guideline that answers once the view
from the origin and adds sustainable related questions, e.g. if vital resources are environmentally
harmful and can be replaced. Fichter and Tiemann (2015) state that their approach helps founders
and businesses to have a fully integrated concept where the idea of a BM to a possible execution
can be analysed by adding the entire width of sustainability into it. This extensive view helps to
analyse competitive advantages to operate more sustainably than competitors with less focus on
this topic (Fichter & Tiemann, 2015).
13
Figure 2. Translation of Sustainable Business Model Canvas by Fichter & Tiemann, 2015 (Own source).
Flourishing Business Canvas
The flourishing business canvas (FBC) is likewise an extension of the widely used BMC,
adding the TBL of the economic, environmental, and social system (Elkington & Upward, 2016).
The FBC was created by an international team of researchers and the “Strongly SBM Group”. The
foundation of the canvas was initiated by the work of Upward and Jones (2014; 2015) that created
the common language for this tool. This relatively new approach helps to visualize the
collaboration of stakeholders to design the organization's BM with the goal “of sustaining the
possibility for human and other life to flourish on this planet for seven generations” (Flourishing
Business Organization, n.d.). The FBC is an anticipatory system that allows the current observation
of a BM to attribute predictions for future elaboration (Rosen, 1991). Upward and Jones (2016)
created the term “tri-profit” that combines the three dimensions in a holistic, single view
considering all aspects of it instead of measuring each one on its own.
This extended view is shown in the 16 components of an FBC that contains:
1. Three contextual systems
14
2. Four perspectives
3. Sixteen building blocks (Upward & Jones, 2016).
The contextual systems are the three pillars of the triple bottom line environment (the
planet, all life, and all associated processes), society (people as individuals and groups), and
economy (revenues, costs, and profit) with the economy in the centre and environment on edge
(Karlsson, Hoveskog, Hallia & Mattson, 2019).
The four perspectives were inspired by adapting Kaplan’s (1994) Balanced Scorecard and
cover process, value, people, and outcomes showing the logic of a business.
1. Process: How, where and with what do I business?
2. Value: What does the business do right now and in the future?
3. People: Who does the organization do business to, for and with?
4. Outcome: How does the organization define and measure success? (Jones &
Upward, 2014).
The sixteen building blocks were defined in the “Original business model ontology” by
Upward (2013) and were reduced from 20 to 16 parts:
1. “Goals: What are the goals of this company? What is the organisation’s definition of
success; environmentally, socially and economically?
2. Benefits: How does the company choose to measure the benefits of the business model;
each in relevant units? (Environmentally, socially and economically)
3. Costs: How does the company choose to measure the costs of the business model; each in
relevant units? (Environmentally, socially and economically)
4. Ecosystem Actors: Who and what may have an interest in the fact that the company exists?
Which ecosystem actors represent the needs of individuals, groups, organisations, or
nonhumans? From the moment the ecosystem actor engages with the company it becomes
a stakeholder.
5. Needs: Which fundamental needs of the ecosystem actor does the company intend to satisfy
via its value co-creations, or that it may prevent an ecosystem actor from satisfying via its
value co-destructions?
15
6. Stakeholders: Who are the recognised stakeholders of the company? When an ecosystem
actor becomes a stakeholder this has a great influence on all the business model elements.
7. Relationships: What relationships with the stakeholders must be established, cultivated and
maintained by the company through its channels? What is the function of each relationship
in each value co-creation or value co-destruction relevant for each stakeholder?
8. Channels: What channels will be used to communicate and develop relationships with
stakeholders, enabling the co-creation or co-destruction of each of its value propositions.
9. Value co-creations: What Value is co-created with each stakeholder, satisfying the needs
of the associated ecosystem actor, from their perspective, present and future? Value co-
creation is the positive value proposition of a company.
10. Value co-destruction: What value is co-destructed for each stakeholder, hindering the
satisfaction of the needs of the associated ecosystem actor, from their perspective, present
and future? Value co-destruction is the negative value proposition of a company.
11. Governance: Which stakeholders get to make decisions about; who is a recognised
stakeholder, the goals of the company, its value propositions and all other elements of its
business model?
12. Partnerships: Which stakeholders are formal partners to the company? To which resources
do these partners enable the company to gain preferred access? Which activities do these
partners undertake for the company?
13. Resources: What tangible and intangible resources are required by the company activities
to achieve the goals?
14. Biophysical Stocks: From what ultimate stocks are the tangible resources moved and/or
transformed by the company’s activities to achieve its goals?
15. Activities: What value adding work, organised into business processes, is required to
design, deliver and maintain the organisation’s value co-creations and value co-destructions
in order to achieve the goals of the company.
16. Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem services are processes powered by the sun that use
biophysical stocks to create flows of benefits humans need: clean water, fresh air, vibrant
soil, plan, and animal growth, etc. Which flows of these benefits are required, harmed or
improved by the activities of the company?” (Jones & Upward, 2014, p. 5-6).
The FBC has some advantages over the BMC. First, it enables the integration of the TBL
so that organizations can identify and analyse opportunities in a sustainability context for
16
improvement of the current BM. Secondly, it shows the current BM and gives an idea of how a
future model should look like if a more definite position towards sustainable practices is planned.
Thirdly, it helps to identify the uniqueness of an organization's BM and shows similarities to
competitors (Upward, 2016). The FBC is compared to the BMC, a rarely used and discussed
management tool. This statement is proven by an article, abstract, and keyword research in Scopus
on 19th of May 2020 that shows 578 documents for the BMC and only five for the FBC.
Figure 3. The Flourishing Business Canvas, v2 Jones & Upward, 2014 (Source: Screenshot Author).
Sustainable business model tool for the case studies
The purpose of this thesis is to show a holistic view of how companies evolve their BM
towards sustainability in consideration of the TBL. The tool is not yet tested for many case studies,
and our research wants to show the first analysis for large international corporations from different
industries and verify the applicability in a new setup. Additionally, the FBC is the only currently
known tool that is fully aligned with the principles and is compatible with the earlier BMC (Upward
& Davies, 2019). Thus, the FBC is chosen because the approach facilitates a detailed and in-depth
analysis of the cases.
17
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
In the following chapter, the aim is to shed light on what will be studied and how it will be
observed (Jackson, Easterby-Smith & Thorpe, 2015). Therefore, the how of our research aims to
extend the current research on how companies tackle the sustainability challenge and embed the
sustainability in their BMs through innovation and provide insight on systematic business model
change (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). Having evaluated which research approach would be the
most appropriate for our purpose and research question, we decided to conduct an exploratory case
study by using interviews as a qualitative research technique. The purpose of the exploratory case
study is to get an understanding of the given problem, its current state and gain insights from it
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornbill, 2009). Therefore, this kind of research is used for more general
questions, leaving space for further research. As the problem we explore is not clearly defined yet,
Shields and Rangarjan (2013) suggest an exploratory method to be a perfect fit for such research.
Our main areas of interest were the existing SBM innovation cases and their prospect
development as well as figuring out the initial intentions of the company’s management and their
vision on the future sustainable development of the company. Therefore, a non-numeric qualitative
research approach was applied as there is no need to assist the research purpose and question and
support the existing theory with practical learnings. We believe the qualitative research approach
is better in identifying insights to investigate the company’s work on reaching the sustainability
goals.
18
3.2 Research Approach
According to Bryman and Bell (2007), deductive and inductive are the two approaches
which are used while conducting business-related research. Inductive research logic is the exact
opposite of deductive one, where the inductive approach is used to form a new theory from the
collected data, and deductive - testing the preliminary collected theory by using the data
(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Saunders, Lewis, and Thornbill (2003) state that inductive research
facilitates combining emergent theory with the social reality of research subjects. The deductive,
on the contrary, represents the coherence between theory and research. Researchers using a
deductive approach take out the hypothesis from a provided theory, which will be tested with the
empirical findings (Bryman & Bell, 2007). In order to provide a clear connection between theory
and research, the deductive approach works as a funnel, isolating a surplus data from a core data,
having that connection.
In contrast, an inductive approach implies the researcher is developing a new theory based
on gathered data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornbill, 2009) and afterwards testing it against apparent
theory (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Unlike the deductive approach, inductive implies starting from a
specific question and then extending it to a general one.
This research is based on the existing theory in the field of SBM innovation and tested on
the empirical findings, therefore implying the means of a deductive approach. The critical
weakness of this approach is the limited amount of companies that can be adequately studied (Chia
Cua & Theivananthampillai, 2009). Therefore, the researchers focused on reaching large
multinational enterprises, showing significant results in terms of actions taken for sustainability
and with sustainability-oriented strategic agenda, which in turn provides meaningful insights,
proper material for analysis and gives credibility and quality for the study.
3.3 Research Strategy
The research strategy provides a clear direction and plan of action for the researcher in order to
answer the research question. According to Yin (2003), there are five strategies available for the
researchers: experiments, archival analysis, survey, history, and case study. As our research
investigates the “how” kind of question, a survey and archival analysis should be excluded (Yin,
2003). The experimentation method implies an observation study, and since we are not carrying
out such a study, this one should also be excluded. The history strategy works for studies exploring
19
events in the past. However, research on SBM focuses on future agendas for sustainable
transformation, therefore using history strategy is irrelevant. Having a case study approach, we
could explore all factors influencing the decision-making process of a company’s management.
Yin (2003, p. 23) defines the case study strategy as “an empirical enquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and in which multiple sources of evidence are
used”. It is the right strategy to understand how a company made decisions and to analyse the
incentives behind the corresponding choices (Saunders et al., 2009).
Case studies provide an open field for investigations and encourage using different sources
for it. Hence, the individual interviews could be combined with collecting and reviewing the
company reports and other related documentation. A case study includes any source that could be
relevant for the research as long they provide insights and shed light on the research question.
Yin (1994) differentiates two types of case study strategies, which are single and multiple.
We discard the single case strategy as, according to Yin (1994), as it is only relevant if the case is
a critical one and tests a well-formulated theory; the case is extreme or unique; the case is
revelatory, so researchers had no access to the phenomena and reveal it in their research. Our
research does not fit any of the above-mentioned research types. Thus, we are performing the
multiple case study, as this type of study gives more confidence to the research and generally is
more robust and compelling (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Herriott & Firestone, 1983). We believe
that multiple case studies will give more credibility to our research, as while conducting a case
study with organizations, it is unclear whether all the data obtained would be relevant to answer
the research questions.
3.4 Case Selection Approach
After deciding to conduct a case study, as the best approach towards answering the given
research question based on the previously mentioned advantages, an upcoming issue is how to
choose the case study organizations. According to Hartley (1994), there is a set of questions that
necessarily have to be answered before selecting the case organizations:
1. What kind of organization is the researcher looking for? Is it typical for the studied
phenomenon or the extreme one?
20
2. Has the researcher enough resources and interest in investigating more than one case? If
yes, how the cases might contrast each other?
3. Could the researcher reach the right people within the chosen organization?
It should be emphasized that the choice of the case companies might be subjected to the
concerns of time and available resources (Eisenhardt, 1989). Based on the above mentioned
questions regarding the company choice, we provide a list of criteria for selecting the companies
below:
a. The type of the company - Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
The necessity to emphasize on the sustainability issue in the corporate sector has been
discussed in the theoretical part previously. Therefore, we suggest investigating MNCs as their
actions towards sustainable development are of crucial importance and have the major influence
(Schaltegger et al., 2012). In order to select the suitable companies in terms of their type, we are
using the definition provided by Dunning and Lundan (2008, p. 3), which defines MNC as “an
enterprise that engages in foreign direct investment (FDI) and owns or, in some way, controls
value-added activities in more than one country”.
b. Sustainability performance
Sustainable performance could be a controversial issue, in case of the data being provided
by the studied company. Hence, we are relying on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) as
the tool providing transparent and independent information on how MNCs perform compared to
others in the matter of sustainability. The DJSI suggests several indicators representing the
activities of a company, such as organizational issues, strategic agenda, corporate governance, and
investor relations. A study performed by SustainAbility (2004) shows that compared to other
sustainability indexes, DJSI has more complex and further reaching requirements for a company’s
evaluation. We reviewed the data for the year 2019 as it provides and outlines the relevant high-
performers that might be interesting for the analysis.
c. Different industries
We believe that investigating cases from different industries could provide more insights
on how the sustainability challenge is tackled and how it influences the corporate sector. Different
21
companies from different sectors could respond differently to that challenge and take actions
towards a distinctive set of stakeholders. The results of such research could be relevant and
interesting for a broader audience, as it provides investigation from a multifaceted perspective.
As the amount of industries striving for sustainable performance is more considerable than
this research could fit, in order to still have an insightful investigation, we choose companies from
the perspective of its business relation, therefore outlining two types:
- Business-to-consumer (B2C) focused companies;
- Business-to-business (B2B) focused companies.
Taking into account that these types might coincide for MNCs, as they could use multiple
channels as a core of their business systems, we emphasize that the company's business should
focus on either B2C or B2B. The reason for looking into those separately is that the sustainability
issue is of great concern for regular consumers. Accordingly, the sustainable development goals
could be treated differently by these two types of businesses.
3.5 Case Selection Results
Based on the discussion concerning the case study design and the criteria for selection,
internally, a list of the selected companies was identified. As a result, we were able to reach out to
two companies, Siemens AG and Adidas AG, who were willing to arrange interviews and introduce
us to the sustainability-related activities at their companies.
3.5.1 Siemens AG
Siemens AG is a multinational conglomerate, and Europe's biggest industrial manufacturer,
based in Munich (Sachgau, 2019). In the business year, 2019, Siemens generated sales of 87 billion
€ and a profit of 5,6 billion €. 385,000 Siemens' employees earned this business result (Siemens,
2020 a). The company is divided into four divisions: Industrial automation, Healthineers, Energy
and Infrastructure. For the Industrial automation, this division's operations are directed towards
solutions for increased productivity, efficiency, and quality of existing manufacturing facilities.
For Siemens Healthineers, its purpose is to deliver the full spectrum of the medical technology to
clinics and medical establishments, including solutions for diagnostic imaging, testing systems and
advanced therapies. The Energy division ranges from manufacturing of generators and turbines to
22
the development of virtual power plants and innovative power storage solutions. Besides that,
Siemens is Europe's leading infrastructure provider, maintaining not only the high-end engineered
trains and coaches but also the advanced digitized managerial and maintenance solutions (Siemens,
2019).
From the sustainability perspective, Siemens represents itself as a sustainability-oriented company
and determines sustainable development as “the means to achieve profitable and long-term
growth” (Siemens, 2019, p.10). The company provides an extensive informational report, stating
its response to all 17 SDGs and plans on contributing to them. The company defines three directions
of sustainable development for practising sustainability (Siemens, 2019):
- Environment - the contribution to the environment is delivered through various
environmental programmes, which are the decarbonization programme -
committing towards carbon neutrality of the organizational locations by 2030
programs for conservation of resources and product stewardship.
- People & Societies - is implemented through the sustainable approach towards
employee treatment - beginning from health and safety management, ending up with
education and diversity. The company also provides programs for the sustainable
development of regions it operates in - for instance, the Project Asha in India is a
Siemens' transformation of Indian village in a rural area improving their living
conditions.
- Responsible business practises - through embedding sustainable practises into the
whole company’s supply chain and guidance through improved sustainable
compliance.
Being mentioned in the Case selection approach part, firstly the company was identified
and overviewed at the DJSI. Therefore, it is worth concluding the summary of its sustainability
performance during the year 2019 from an independent side.
As stated by the DJSI, conglomerates like Siemens are highly dependent on strong
management and governance structures to achieve company synergies and economies of scale
(DJSI, 2019 a). This in sync with lean production and the research and development (R&D) in
technologies is of vital essence for gaining significant market share and boosting growth. Besides
that, it is critical to ensure that operations are performed ethically. Further development of an
23
extensive compliance system and corporate policy comes on hand while ensuring from
unsustainable business practises.
For 20 years in a row, DJSI has listed Siemens in the DJSI World Index, which puts it in
the 10% bracket of the world's most sustainable companies and confirms their high commitment
to SDGs. The company has scored 90 out of 100 points, based on the evaluation of the
environmental and social factors as well as economic criteria (Siemens, 2015). In nine out of 20
categories, from environmental management to corporate citizenship, Siemens received the highest
rank.
3.5.2 Adidas AG
Located in Bavaria, Herzogenaurach, Adidas AG is the world's-leading designer and
manufacturer of sports apparel and accessories. Adidas generated 2019 sales 23,64 billion € by a
profit of 1,918 billion €. For this record result worldwide 59,500 employees were responsible
(Adidas, 2020 a). Adidas AG is a holding company managing the brands of Adidas and Reebok.
For more than 80 years the company provided its customers with innovative sport apparel.
Sustainability has been a matter of concern for the company for a long time. Adidas has a long
track of sustainable actions taken revealing the explicit targets every year and reporting back on its
execution (Adidas, 2020 a).
In particular, the company’s sustainability strategy is divided into six strategic priorities,
which are the following (Adidas, 2020 a):
- “We value water” - the necessity to treat the vital resource in a more sustainable
way, making its use more efficient and responsible;
- “We innovate materials and processes” - through combining the product innovation
and sustainable innovation in the production and delivery of high-end products. This
what company has already made significant progress to, initiated the production of
fully-recyclable sneakers (Adidas, 2019);
- “We conserve energy” - for the reduction of general power consumption, together
with transformation towards a clean energy;
- “We empower people” - as a part of social sustainability measures, Adidas’
management has its own sustainability compliance system of levels, educating the
24
staff and suppliers to become sustainability leaders. Besides that, company
encourages cross-functional and cross-cultural mobility, therefore empowering
growth of their employees;
- “We improve health” - reaching out to their customers, Adidas emphasized on the
necessity of the development of physical and mental health, providing education
and enabling them to participate in sports;
- “We inspire action” - Adidas goal is to become the number one sporting goods
manufacturer overtaking Nike, the firm requires actions from all the people
engaged. Therefore, Adidas rewards their employees for commitment, encourages
and supports employee volunteering, collaborates with external stakeholders, such
as influencers, athletes, etc., for reaching the strategic goals and improving people’s
health.
Following the same procedure as with Siemens AG, we review Adidas' sustainability
performance at the DJSI and give a summary of its performance during year 2019.
As stated by the DJSI, in order to run the operations in a sustainable way the textile and
apparel industry’s leaders should integrate it into the whole life cycle of a product, starting from
the design and extraction of raw materials, all the way to its recyclability (DJSI, 2019 b). This
implies not only engagement with the suppliers, but the overall monitoring, analysis and execution
of best sustainable practises and disclosure of the results to the stakeholders for protection of
reputation and brand value.
For the year 2019, the DJSI rated Adidas as one of the most sustainable companies in its
industry, being among the best 10% of their perspective branch and showing leading positions in
the following criteria: Brand Management, Information Security/Cyber Security & System
Availability, Environmental Policy & Management Systems, Operational Eco-Efficiency, Social
Reporting and Talent Attraction & Retention (Adidas, 2020 a). Overall, the company was listed in
the DJSI for 20 years in a row, proving that the direction of their further development is
sustainability-oriented, therefore the actions taken in the last 20 years and the ones being pursued
right now are in conformity with the SDGs.
25
3.6 Data collection
As mentioned above, in order to provide an adequate answer to the research questions and gain
useful insight, we pursue an exploratory qualitative research strategy. This strategy is adequate
since the research in this area is still very sparse and any vital piece of information is of high
relevance. Above we emphasize using both primary and secondary data for this research, therefore
applying in-depth interviews as a primary source of information and overview of the company's
sustainability reports as the secondary one. With interviews, we can gather insights on how the
processes are performed internally, what the managerial positions are, and a more reflective point
of view of the company's further sustainable development. The secondary data we use as a source
to gain an overall understanding of the company's sustainability performance, ongoing projects,
and further strategic goals in order to make structured and valuable interviews and for comparing
and confirming the information gained through interviews.
Primary data
Four semi-structured interviews were carried out between 08.04.2020 and 13.05.2020 in
German and translated accordingly. The interviews were conducted through different video
communication software:
- For Siemens AG: Person 1, Top-Management with main focus on CSR and
Sustainability, Interview Duration: 30 minutes; Person 2, Top-Management with
main focus on Environmental Protection, Interview Duration: 60 minutes.
- For Adidas AG: Person 1, Top-Management with main focus on CSR and
Sustainability, Interview Duration 30 minutes; Person 2, Middle-Management with
main focus on Radical Technology Innovation, Interview Duration 45 minutes.
Secondary data
The secondary data was mostly represented through the reports collected on the companies’
websites. For our analysis we used following reports and secondary data:
1. Annual Reports of the Company,
2. Sustainability Reports of the Company,
3. Project and Activity Reports,
4. Various Economic Journals.
26
3.7 Data analysis approach
After collecting primary and secondary data, the analysis part is executed to gain necessary
information for this research. As described in the literature review part, we define FBC as the tool
that has a perfect fit for describing and investigating one’s business model considering the three
perspectives of the triple bottom line. For the analysis approach, we are providing extensive
answers for all the 16 questions of the FBC to analyse them. These measures are necessary to
adequately define by our used definition of BM the “rationale of how an organization creates,
delivers, and captures value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 14). After completing the
visualized image of the companies, the discussion aims to present relevant insights and
conclusions.
Since our research approach is a deductive one, the precise structure of how the gathered
information would be reviewed is necessary. Consequently, we process our interview recordings
for further analysis through transcription at first, reading in and labelling the valuable data. After,
we conceptualise all the gathered data in order to put it in a paper in a structured way. Having the
data processed, we aim to apply the pattern-matching technique, which Yin (2003) describes as the
most reliable technique in case study research. Pattern-matching is performed by comparing the
predicted theoretical data with the gained empirical findings (Sinkovics, 2018). This approach fits
our research since, according to Campbell (1966) and Yin (2003), when analysing more than one
case, pattern-matching is not applied to compare them, but to analyse separately instead. With
patterns outlined, we are able to answer all the FBC questions and fill in the canvas itself.
The patterns received through the pattern-matching technique are also used to open the
discussion on the company's performance for UN SDGs and their attitudes towards them.
Therefore, having the FBC of the company constructed, analysed, and gathered patterns from the
interviews, we come up with a discussion on their contribution, the opportunities on further
development, and the obstacles we found. This could be of high value for the management of
different companies, striving to transform their operations to a more sustainable one, as all the
effort needed, and possible consequences would be apparent.
27
3.7.1 Validity and Reliability
For qualitative research, Yin (2014) defines validity and reliability as the key criteria that
have to be met for this type of studies. Bryman and Bell (2015) defines validity of the study as the
generated integrity of the researchers’ conclusions. The validity itself could be divided into two
subtypes - the internal validity, or credibility, which discusses the causality of two or more
variables, and external validity, or transferability, which discusses the possibility to generalize the
results of the research (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Bryman & Bell (2007, p.76) defines reliability as
“the degree to which a measure of a concept is stable”. Bryman & Bell (2015) divides external
and internal reliability, where external is the measurement of researchers’ possible replication, and
internal is the firmness of the research structure and the research team.
To oblique to the before mentioned reliability and validity criteria, we use the respondent
validation technique, which is applied by sharing the results of the research with the interviewees,
in order to ensure that the interview data was interpreted correctly. Besides that, we record and
transcribe the interviews. Therefore, there is no risk of a wrong understanding of the results. As for
the external validity, the information and analysis we provide are delivered in a detailed way, with
clear linkages to the theory, therefore the study could satisfy its aim to contribute to this field of
research and be used by other researchers.
To ensure reliability in qualitative research, an examination of trustworthiness is crucial
(Golafshani, 2003). Therefore, the external reliability of the study has high risks to be overlooked.
Still, as the research is a qualitative one, Yin (2014) emphasizes that this type of research, unlike
the quantitative one, could not be generalized on a statistical level. Through our cases, we outline
patterns and critical points from the analysis, but do not aim to generalize the results for the
industries where case companies operate. As for the internal reliability, the research is structured
in conformity with the best practises, including all the aspects necessary to cover the topic and
minimizing the risk of open questions. The availability of more than one member in the research
team gives us the possibility to argue different aspects of the research and open discussion striving
for better objectivity and, therefore, higher quality. Overall, regarding the connection between
validity and reliability, Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 316) state the following: "Since there can be
no validity without reliability, a demonstration of the former is sufficient to establish the latter".
28
4. Case studies Siemens AG and Adidas AG
For our case study, the FBC will be applied to visualize how both companies' business
models face sustainability challenges. For the analysis, each company will be reviewed separately
for the 16 segments of the FBC, and each cluster will be successively filled to have connected parts
linked.
4.1 Siemens AG
“A company has to have a purpose and that purpose has to be creating value for society.
A company which does not serve society should not exist”.
(Joe Kaeser, CEO Siemens, 2016).
Goals, Benefits and Costs
The goals, benefits, and costs sections aim to show how sustainability is expressed within
the company - what is desired to be achieved through it, what are the company’s targets, and how
much the company is ready to invest in it. All of the parts are interrelated between each other and
serve to display the outcomes the company expects to achieve through the SBM evolution. This
part is divided into three domains, where the impact is achieved in different ways -
environmentally, socially, and economically.
- Environmental
The ambitious and clearest environmental goal for Siemens is becoming CO2-neutral by
2030 on an organizational level (Siemens, 2015). "Cutting our carbon footprint is not only good
corporate citizenship, it's also good business", once more confirms Joe Kaeser, Siemens' CEO.
The approximate amount of investments the company devotes to this goal is measured around €100
million. In terms of economic gain, after the goal is implemented, annual savings of €20 million
are expected. Since one of the strategic targets was cutting half of the emissions until the end of
2020, we can witness one of the proofs that the company works on the goal - one of Siemens'
divisions, Siemens Gamesa, since late 2019 became carbon-neutral (Siemens Gamesa, 2020).
Siemens has an environmental portfolio that includes a range of technologies in the area of energy
efficiency and CO2 reduction. As stated by the company, the environmental portfolio generates
almost half of Siemens' revenue that shows the strong link between Siemens' technology and
29
environment. This is evidence showing that successful sustainable business cases are doable and
real, which satisfies the aims of sustainable business development through innovation (Schaltegger
et al., 2012).
The environmental portfolio not only serves the needs of the CO2-neutrality strategy but
was established before with continuous work on R&D and sustainable solutions implementations.
Company position regarding the improvement of the environment lies in the following: product
range for the energy sector focuses on reduction and efficiency of the use of energy; from the side
of the kinds of solutions offered, the company’s switching to renewables and low-carbon fuels.
Therefore, through its products and solutions, Siemens shifts the energy market to a more
sustainability-oriented one, accelerating technology development and investments into more
efficient systems.
The environmental costs are measured with different tools such as LCAs which present an
overview of different parameters for the lifetime of the products. Siemens takes strong efforts to
build a holistic view of its products by measuring the impact of used materials, required energy
while at the use stage or in the product's end such as the scrapping of the product. Mostly for
Siemens products, due to the long life cycle of products, the using stages with the required energy
is the primary key lever. This does not implicitly mean eco-design in the product development is
not essential and executed, but in total efficiency savings while the machine is used might generate
a more significant beneficial impact for the environment (Interview 2, Appendix).
- Social
The contribution to the social aspect of sustainability is expressed through the “Business to
Society” (B2S) approach (Siemens, 2019). The approach aims to measure the impacts of Siemens
projects on social sustainability, which are targeted on the countries the company operates in. The
first time the approach was applied in 2015 and afterwards became global, with the following four
steps describing it:
- Adopting an “outside-in” perspective on the most relevant development priorities
in a given context (e.g. global, national, project);
- Identifying and measuring the contribution;
- Defining strategic actions to enhance the contributions and foster further
development;
30
- Communicating contributions to external and internal stakeholders (Siemens,
2019).
The analysis provides precise results of all activities Siemens conducts in particular areas,
which finds a positive response from the governments, clients, and company’s employees. By the
end of 2019, Siemens has analysed its social work in over 35 countries and continues to update the
analysis further. Generally, while overviewing major social projects Siemens has performed, the
majority is addressed to the improvement of living conditions through electrification and
digitalization. Therefore, as a part of the corporate citizenship approach, Siemens is sustaining
distant communities through investments directed to the development of electrical infrastructure in
these areas (Siemens, 2020 a).
- Economical
The economical domain is represented through the product stewardship, which, as a term,
makes up all the product and service development with an emphasis on the responsible use of
resources. Product stewardship aims to achieve product’s profitability through sustainability-
driven growth. Sustainability and sustainable development in particular are defined as a key mean
to achieve long-term stable growth (Siemens, 2020 a). Accordingly, the accent is on cost-efficiency
and eco-friendliness - energy storage systems for energy transition solutions increase the efficiency
of use; decentralized energy systems coordinate with local energy production for better power
distribution and usage of intermediate storage. Consequently, Siemens innovative product portfolio
for efficiency assists not only in serving sustainable purposes, but also delivering profit and
increased market share.
Governance, Partnerships, Resources and Activities
After providing the information to the outcomes, we are focusing on the next part to the
segment of processes. To address the sustainability challenges, one’s company has to activate all
the sources available internally and externally. Through the common understanding of the vector
of the development alongside the board and the employees, and with collaborating activities with
organizations, not directly related to the business, one’s ability to activate the sustainable shift and
adjust the activities and processes around it.
31
Governance
Siemens, with its structure as an industrial conglomerate, makes it non-transparent to
understand sustainable governance by considering only annual reports or ESG Reports. Hence, the
insights with the top management were helpful to get a deeper understanding of how the structure
and processes work. “The organization is managed on a long-term perspective by the CEO and the
sustainability board. We have a board where each business is represented, the country
representatives, and the corporate functions. (...) 2009 the sustainability office was created with a
governance structure” (Interview 1, Appendix). The mentioned sustainability board is responsible
for creating the long-term goals of the company: “The specialist functions of Siemens have the
responsibility to provide for their area principles, guidelines, management systems, key
performance indicators, long time goals and tools” (Interview 1, Appendix). Finally, these goals
will be traced into guidelines for the divisions where the respective CEO is responsible for its
implementation.
Regarding regulations from the legislation, Siemens has a department for the topic of
environmental management that tracks upcoming changes and forwards them into their business.
That department does not only track topics regarding climate change but also critical materials or
circular economy (Interview 1, Appendix).
Partnerships
In order to address the sustainability challenge, Siemens had set up partnerships and
collaborations with various actors. It gives an opportunity to create new values, exchange
knowledge and experience, and improve the way business is conducted. Therefore, we highlight
key stakeholders Siemens has partnered with and the purpose of such partnerships:
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - guidance on the use of
resources and improvement of supply chain; cooperation on combating bribery.
- United Nations - adoption and guidance on UN Guiding Principles for Business and
Human Rights; contribution to the United Nations Agenda 2030; commitment to
the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC); supporting United Nations Water
Mandate; committed to the UNGC Women’s Empowerment Principles, signed the
Diversity Charter;
32
- European Union, national and local governments - internal (ex. “Business to
Society”) and external project and initiatives;
- International Chamber of Commerce;
- World Economic Forum - participating in Systems Initiative for higher standards of
governance; participating in Partnering Against Corruption Initiative;
- One Young World - supported the non-profit organization for young leaders around
the globe to create a better world;
- Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism - supported a non-profit organization for
dynamic, sustainable, and inclusive capitalism;
- Global Reporting Initiative - member (Siemens, 2019).
Resources
The most significant percentage of used resources over Siemens' diversified product
portfolio in the production are metals, especially steel, iron, and copper. Acknowledging that the
most significant environmental impact of Siemens products is in the using stage, often large
investments, such as energy stations, run longer than a decade. Accordingly, the power generation
has the most definite impact in the life cycle assessment and is the key lever where improvement
will have the most impact (Interview 2, Appendix). Through its life cycle assessments, Siemens is
continuously working to find more efficient solutions that are positively recognized by customers
who reduce their energy costs and reduce the resource spend, to mention one field where Siemens
is well established. Over the last fiscal year, Siemens spent almost 45 billion dollars on goods and
services, which corresponds to roughly half of the firm's revenue to provide the conditions for its
success (Siemens, 2020 b). Given the intangible resources, Siemens biggest treasure on which its
business is based is 68.000 granted patents to achieve its purpose (Siemens, 2020 a).
Activities
Siemens' achievement of its mission is since the early days of the company connected with
innovations that are anchored in the company's DNA. Siemens employs solely 45.000 people in
R&D where innovations for future industries are built (Siemens, 2020 c). Siemens had the most
patent application at the European Patent office that demonstrates the strong focus on innovation
(Höpner, 2019). Two innovations from the business unit Digital Industry can be mentioned to shape
the future of product development more sustainably. One innovation that will have a durable impact
33
is the “Digital Twin”, which enables product and process development in a virtual world. The
“Digital Twin” can display the product's application before a tangible prototype is built. The
possibility of simulating several outcomes by changing resources, structure size enables them to
reach faster market maturity and can be a reliable tool for customers developing more sustainable
solutions (Siemens, 2020 d). Nowadays, Siemens offers its customers the option for performance
contracting for factories, which differs from a current capital expenditure (CAPEX) model.
Performance contracting is a new business model that enables constant implementation of
innovations in energy systems that increase the efficiency while delivering the customer full
service. “So basically, it is no longer a pure CAPEX model by selling the product and the customer
is then responsible for it. In principle, I am selling the promise that he will save energy and reduce
Operational Expenditure, and I will also share in the risk of a certain profitability” (Interview 1,
Appendix). This contracting leads to different options of ownership but finally the decision is made
by the customer. Continuous innovation in this example illustrates a new solution how Siemens
wants to reduce the impact of its products by satisfying the needs of its customer base in line with
the environment.
Stakeholders, Channels and Relationships
In this section, we are focussing on the people segment that includes stakeholder,
relationships, and channels. These parts are aimed to shed light on the way a company interrelates
with all the actors it engages in their operations, and, as a part of a flourishing canvas, introduces
the company’s influence and work on the sustainable alignment of its stakeholders.
Stakeholders
Siemens devotes significant investments into its research and product development. Thus,
we cannot outline specific stakeholders that were purposely engaged in satisfying the company's
sustainability purposes. Regarding the existing ones, we divide them into three major groups and
review:
- Suppliers
With around 90,000 different suppliers, Siemens still aims to ensure that all of them are
cooperating in a sustainable manner. For this purpose, all suppliers sign a Siemens “Code
of Conduct”, undertaking the adherence to appropriate sustainability standards. Afterwards,
they are audited to a risk-based model, where either a self-audit is conducted, Siemens
34
conducts an audit, or an external commission assigned by Siemens does an audit with a
company. In case there are any shortcomings in relation to the “Code of Conduct”, Siemens
works together with the supplier to eliminate the issue so as to make the supply chain and
the supplier more sustainable (Interview 1, Appendix).
- Employees
As a part of Vision 2020+ strategy, Siemens aims to foster an ownership culture among its
employees around the globe. The ownership culture approach empowers employees to take
more responsibility for the job they are performing, which afterwards could participate in
Siemens' equity sharing programmes. The motto of the approach speaks for itself: "Always
act as if it were your own company" (Siemens, 2019). Siemens share programs have
remained to be the key aspect of Siemens' ownership culture before and based on the
conviction that employees could perform more devotedly if they feel that they own a part
of the company.
- End-users
“If I now take CO2 as an example, the whole topic of greenhouse gas emissions is an
important topic in the context of climate change. Of course, there will also be components,
how can I reduce the carbon footprint of the products as much as possible and will thus
have an influence on which products I can still sell in the future and which I cannot. Of
course, that depends on the business models behind it. Will I still be able to sell coal-fired
power plants in five or ten years?” (Interview 1, Appendix). Improving end user’s
efficiency is the backbone of Siemens innovations and will be one key for high polluting
industries that are struggling to reduce their harm that might lead to an extinction or
transition of the industry. Acknowledging that Siemens has strong business connections
and order values there is an interest to support that transformation towards more
environmental solutions. The responsibility for the well-being of the end users is
represented through corporate citizenship. Therefore, Siemens is accountable for the quality
and value their products create for the end consumers. Corporate citizenship has several
focus areas, which include: Access to Technology − increasing technological development
and digitalization through empowering scientific research in order to prepare the next
generation for a digital aspect of skills science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
skills (STEM); Access to Education – extending educational opportunities to improve
research in STEM; Sustaining Communities – through the efforts for protecting the
35
environment, conservation of natural resources and supporting local cultural and social
activities.
The abovementioned activities deployed for the groups of stakeholders are of the direct
effect. Hence, we can state that Siemens indirectly contributes to the sustainable development of a
wider range of stakeholders through the products and solutions they deliver.
Channels
Siemens has a strong connection with society through their "Business to Society" approach,
which lies in working with the stakeholder communities and fully contributing to their
development. The approach is continuously adjusted and improved through the stakeholder
dialogue and following the sustainable communities' trends. As a member of the UN Global
Compact initiative, Siemens contributes and communicates its progress to the vast amount of the
stakeholders. The ownership culture acts as an engaging function for the employees, improving not
only the motivation but the dialogue among different business units. Corporate initiatives like Zero
Harm Culture strive to build a healthy environment inside the company and educate how the work
should be done in the right way. As mentioned in the stakeholders and other parts, suppliers have
a primary role in a company's operations, therefore possess great attention and strict procedures
from Siemens. (Siemens, 2020 e).
Relationships
To be able to follow the company’s goals regarding global CO2 reduction through product
innovation, Siemens has to conduct relations with its key stakeholders - suppliers thoroughly. With
around 90,000 of them, the work should be done not only on the selection and dismissing the
existing ones, but on the effective communication and cooperation on settling the disputes and
transforming the business, as Siemens itself creates an extensive and highly interdependent
ecosystem around their needs and the suppliers who serve them. The co-creation of the sustainable
product as a value is done through, as mentioned above, sourcing suppliers who meet the Code of
Conduct, and consulting on the transformation and shaping of the operations to conform Siemens
sustainability standards. As a more engaging and flourishing measure, Siemens since 2014
conducts “Supplier Innovation Days”, the purpose of which is to foster product and process
innovation from the suppliers’ side first. (Siemens, n.d.).
36
As for the non-business values, Siemens encourages employees for larger initiatives
through the Corporate Citizenship and Siemens Share programs. The core value created lies in the
improved working environment, financial encouragement for regular employees and constant
cross-country knowledge and experience exchange. For the society, which is dependent on the
Siemens business practices and other activities, Siemens is committed to the initiatives for the
promotion of human rights and sustainable development, including the UN Global Compact and
the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The aim is to discuss and form the
guidelines for human rights respect and contribution, and to promote sustainable development.
Ecosystem Actors and Needs
The Ecosystem Actors and their Needs parts act as an extension to the abovementioned
ones, including the societal and environmental perspectives. Unlike the regular business canvas,
the flourishing one aims to include and foster companies to track the influence they have besides
those actors, who impact the company economically. Responsible treatment of the society and
environment is vital for a sustainable company; therefore, such actors stand in the same line with
the company's regular stakeholders.
Ecosystem Actors
While filling up the ecosystem actors' section for such conglomerates as Siemens, it should
be evident that due to the variety of business directions, the company affects a vast number of
actors. It is difficult to divide stakeholders from ecosystem actors due to the number of different
actors. Having regard to Siemens' statement "Business to society" designed a method to make its
contribution to society measurable. This method covers several topics such as strengthening the
economy, environment and sustainability or increasing quality of life. The so-called "Business to
Society" - method covers a wide range from stakeholders to the government and wilder public. The
present state shows reports from 13 countries such as Argentina or Morocco, where Siemens
presents a report about its impact for each respective country (Siemens, 2020 e). For example,
Argentina, Siemens' set up the Siemens Argentina Foundation in 2015, that supports Argentina's
education system. Siemens delivers interactive teaching methods in classrooms providing training
and equipment to 583 schools with an impact of more than 50,000 students. Enabling a high level
of education from the beginning serves the society of Argentina and is just one example of
ecosystem actors that benefit from Siemens commitment to serve society (Siemens, 2016).
37
Needs
Siemens purpose “Business to society” is strongly connected with the SDGs that are all
mentioned and explained in their sustainability report. The highest impact Siemens has on the
following five:
● Goal 3 – Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, at every age - Siemens
Healthineers is a division of Siemens that is specialised in the medical sector and further
Siemens provides technology for pharmaceutical companies. Besides their impact towards
the medical sector, Siemens participates in health-related community engagement
supporting cancer awareness campaigns and mobile clinics.
● Goal 7 – Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all -
Siemens is an industrial leader in providing technology along the energy value chain. This
innovation has its core improving permanently energy efficiency with a positive business
case. Internally, Siemens strives for energy efficiency with its program 2030 to run their
operations, Scope 1 emissions, 2030 CO2-neutral.
● Goal 9 – Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization
and foster innovation - Providing energy efficiency or automatization for sustainable
industrialization from operations to maintenance Siemens business is highly connected in
that field.
● Goal 11 – Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable -
The division Smart infrastructure has its focus on connecting buildings and industries by
building more efficient solutions in cooperation with city authorities.
● Goal 13 – Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact - Siemens position
itself as leader in the decarbonisation with the goal to make the historic Paris agreement
achievable. Solely innovations from the environmental portfolio saved for its customers
2019 in total more than 80% of Germany's yearly CO2 emissions (Siemens, 2019).
Biophysical Stocks and Ecosystem services
The following parts focus on the company’s interaction with the natural resources,
overview of the biophysical resources used and the way they are treated, services the company
introduces for the collection, processing, and preservation of these resources.
Biophysical Stocks
38
The most substantial amount of used biophysical stocks is the group of metal, especially
iron, copper, and lead, with approximately more than 50 percent. These materials are obtained with
great effort from energy and heat. In comparison, the percentage of plastics might be 10 percent.
The sourced materials are purified and processed into a wide variety of products due to the complex
construct as an industrial conglomerate. Siemens product stewardship takes strong effort with its
LCA that is performed under different ISO standards. The current environmental action plan is
structured into two modules. The first module is called “Serve the environment” and focuses on
energy efficiency in the factories, reducing the water spend, waste and air pollution. The second
module is called “Eco excellence” that copes with different areas like the reduction of critical raw
materials or increasing the cover ratio of the environmental impact assessments. (Interview 2,
Appendix). In the upcoming year 2021, Siemens will announce a new environmental, health, and
safety program with the two modules “Health and Safe at Siemens” and “Eco-Efficiency at
Siemens”. The module “Eco-efficiency at Siemens” will be strongly connected with the use of
biophysical stocks “with the aim of developing better, more eco-efficient solutions to decouple our
growth of resources or primarily from the environmental impact” (Interview 2, Appendix). One
effort here will be to get a more detailed picture of the whole value chain researching different
parameters, which is not complex due to the variety of used materials and will support the
environmental impact of the organization.
Ecosystem services
Siemens requires several human needs from clean water to fresh air for its services. With
its aim to become CO2-neutral at its locations in the year 2030, purchasing only renewable energy
is one step to conserve fresh air. The impacts on biodiversity or vibrant soil can be neglected
because it is not covered in the sectors of Siemens. “Biodiversity is less relevant for us because we
do not cultivate any crops, develop pesticides, or use chemicals. From my point of view, I have
greater relevance in this direction than for our electrical engineering and overall products”
(Interview 2, Appendix).
Values Co-Creation and Co-Destruction
Being an instrument built more for the improvement and sustainable shaping of the existing
business models, FBC requires overviewing both values, which are created through the sustainable
39
innovation and related activities, and negative values emerged as a consequence of transformation,
which hinders the satisfaction of the needs.
Value Co-Creation
The core value Siemens creates and delivers through sustainable innovation lies in the
products they design. As was already mentioned, through the environmental portfolio, offering
more efficient and ecological solutions, the company strives to switch to better ways to extract,
keep and deliver energy. In detail, impacting the SDG 7 on affordable and clean energy, one of the
Siemens' division Siemens Gamesa offers a product line, focused on providing the full renewables
value chain, which includes both onshore and offshore turbines, with all the infrastructure, storage
and services. This offering has already proved its benefits and enabled the Gamesa division to gain
significant share on the renewables market. The market itself is developed by the customers in the
end, “as energy efficiency is driven forward and being as efficient as possible is rewarded by a
customer, as in the end, he has lower costs” (Interview 1, Appendix).
The switch and use of more efficient and eco-friendly means of energy are beneficial for
the possible ecosystem actors since it aims to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, since the product
value for the customer is created by higher efficiency and eco-friendliness, society benefits from
the less resource-intensive production of the energy. This value is of a direct influence that Siemens
has on the most significant number of actors through its operations, others described in the
stakeholders’ part are of non-business purpose.
Value Co-Destruction
Siemens' significant investments for customers or governments request extensive use of materials
in the form of raw materials, especially metals. Creating its goods, Siemens focusses on its internal
processes and suppliers to increase efficiency in this aspect. Due to long time investments for
productions, Siemens runs older contracts, where the end of life cycle management will be less
optimal than possible nowadays. With its performance contracting, Siemens might have a new key
lever with steady innovation and exchange of products to increase the harm for the environment
after the end of use. One established example, therefore, is Siemens Healthineers with its
refurbishment for valuable medical scanning advice. Siemens refurbishes these products, a.e.
magnetic resonance imaging scans, after the average running-time and re-sells it. Primarily, it is
cost-effective for Siemens; on the other hand, the life-cycle for this product develops using fewer
40
resources. For decades, Siemens is a trusted partner in overall industries, which leads to the
discussion of specific orders. Recently, Siemens got in the crossfire of environmental activists
because it provides a rail signal system for the greatest coal mine project in the world in Australia.
The Adani coal mine will have a substantial impact on the CO2 emissions for the world besides
the massive water consumption. Siemens' delivered system had a marginal share with a volume of
18 million Euro compared to a total volume of four billion dollars (Pfahler, 2020). Here, industry
conglomerates' dilemma becomes visible, struggling to get new deals to fill the order books by
competing with several providers. For this specific order, Siemens could have rejected the deal to
make a statement that society's harmful climate impact is valued higher than short-time revenues.
It cannot be denied that Siemens' technologies will be a strategic agent for the energy transition of
critical industries but could reject delivering products for new constructions of coal-fired power
stations.
As a summary of the FBC on Siemens AG the filled Canvas with the major findings is
shown below.
Figure 4. Flourishing Business Canvas for Siemens AG. (Own source).
41
4.2 Adidas AG
“We make money with sustainability. It does a lot more than just donate money”.
(Kasper Rorsted, CEO Adidas, 2019).
Goals, Benefits and Costs
Overall, Adidas states that their main goal is “to become the world's best sports company”,
meaning that they strive to design, produce and sell high performance apparel in a sustainable way
(Adidas, 2020 a). To serve this purpose, Adidas has rolled out its sustainability strategy, describing
further actions towards each goal, and provides them as measures for treating the SDGs.
- Environmental
From the perspective of improving the environment, the company has three directions their
strategy has a specific emphasis. First, companies tackle the water scarcity issue by improving the
efficiency of usage, quality, and accessibility. By applying this approach, the company aims to
reach the results of 20% and 35% of water savings for strategic and apparel material suppliers by
the end of 2020. Further, the company plans to expand waterless technologies in the supply chain.
Secondly, Adidas commits to shift its production towards more sustainable materials. This implies
plenty of measures targeted at the suppliers and their supply chain. More specifically, significant
waste reduction among the suppliers and at own sites are aimed to be achieved, originating the
"Better Cotton Initiative" for more sustainable cotton production, elimination of plastic bags at
store and usage of recycled polyester in the year 2024, global product return program roll-out, and
measures related with product research and innovation. The last ones are measures for the efficient
use of energy and its conservation, which include the CO2 emissions reduction on site by 3%,
suppliers energy usage reduction, reduction of the footprint on the event, and general commitment
to transitioning to clean means of energy. Therefore, the goals are directly related to Adidas'
production and supply chain and are intended to make them sustainable and efficient (Adidas, 2020
a).
- Social
The social goals of Adidas are described and treated in the same manner as environmental
ones, therefore, divided into three directions the company works on. First, the social sustainability
42
inside the company, which implies expanding the grievance systems and skill training programs,
increase of social compliance among suppliers, sustainability leadership programmes, cross-
functional and cross-functional careers, and improvement of diversity. Second, the contribution to
the improvement of health globally. This implies educational and upskilling programmes both for
employees and people engaged in sports globally, BOKS Reebok programme empowering
education and activities for the young generation, and health management strategy for employees.
Lastly, the measures for engagement and encouragement of stakeholders for product and process
innovation. Being less target-oriented, the goal itself suggests reward and support for innovative
initiatives and volunteering for employees, collaborations with influencers, athletes, and regular
customers for innovations and experience sharing. More related to marketing and promotion, these
measures are still intended to serve the good intentions of increasing commitment to sports- and
sustainability-oriented product innovation (Adidas, 2020 b).
- Economic
Affiliate Adidas success and growth in the last year with specific innovations or product groups is
not feasible because of the diverse product range. Hence, we can report that the ambitions to
combine product innovation and sustainability has a positive impact on the current position and
future trend. “Internally, the biggest requirements are that we always have to keep the balance
between innovation, what our ambitions are, and technical feasibility and scalability” (Interview
3, Appendix). This circular loop gives Adidas a new opportunity creating a new sales model
because the invention relies on the reintegration of the raw materials in the production. For this,
Adidas is working to scale up this process for other product groups like it was tested for a fully
recyclable parka. “That you have a kind of return process, in that you may also offer a rental model
where a product is used, then either be returned for technical recycling or just for further use or
reuse. These are all concept solutions that we are currently thinking about” (Interview 3,
Appendix).
From an investment perspective, empowering sustainability assisted the company in getting
positive effect, this time in terms of shares value: “A feature of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index
is that it includes all the sustainability issues, as well as economic development, innovation,
employee culture, and sustainability performance and has therefore, a very holistic assessment. It
simply shows that we have done our homework quite well from all of these areas in recent years.”
(Interview 3, Appendix). Being represented in the DJSI for 20 years in a row and different
43
investment funds as valued share certificate has a positive impact on Adidas development of its
market value and is a position Adidas endeavour to keep.
Governance, Partnerships, Resources and Activities
After providing the information to the outcomes we are focussing in the next part to the
segment of processes with Governance, Partnerships and Resources.
Governance
Adidas has a sustainability department with several special functions that are responsible for
different mentioned activities and the strategic position of Adidas. The head of the sustainability
department reports the activities to the CEO. The department is responsible for the whole Adidas
Group and is structured with different experts, such as environmental managers. The sustainability
force covers “the topic of monitoring according to the environment and working conditions, but
also the topic of advice on the topic of stakeholder engagement in the respective countries”
(Interview 3, Appendix). Governance is based on a strong partnership with its suppliers under the
term capacity building. “We have our environmental engineers, textile engineers, and
environmental scientists in our teams, in the procurement countries, who continuously advise our
suppliers on these issues” (Interview 3, Appendix). Regulatory in the industry for specific
resources are tracked by management systems and the special functions in the team, but Adidas is
currently not facing any possible impacts, and the sustainability reporting goes beyond the legal
requirements. “Of course, we have higher expectations that are much stronger connected with the
expectation of customers or different stakeholders, a.e. investment analysts” (Interview 3,
Appendix). Showing greater transparency on their activities and goal achievement than required
encourages the organization to stay the benchmark in the industry.
Partnerships
Strong partnerships, together with its suppliers, are building the backbone of Adidas
success. Here, Adidas is a leader in its industry, ensuring fair pay and working hours, and overall
included industries in the Human Rights Benchmark. Adidas actively participates and is a founding
member of a broad range of organizations, divided into the following types (Adidas, 2020 a):
44
- Industry associations - Adidas acts as a founding member of plenty industry
associations, such as Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management,
European Outdoor Group, Leather Working Group, and Sustainable Apparel
Coalition. The main direction of the cooperation is industry alignment and
discussion on sustainability matters for the use of less harmful materials in the
supply chain. Using these partnerships as a channel, Adidas works on alignment and
improvement of the common supply chain with suppliers and, therefore, achieving
company’s sustainability goals regarding the production and other aspects;
- Multi-stakeholder organizations - Adidas is a participant and founding member of
the “Better Cotton Initiative”, an organization for cotton usage and production
sustainability. The company’s main task there is to advance improvements on cotton
cultivation and processing. Besides that, Adidas is a participant of German
government’s initiative called “German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles”,
which aims to promote the same improvements as above for the whole textile
industry;
- Non-profit organizations - Adidas' participation in NGOs consists of socially
responsible activities, such as transparency and audit sharing activities at Fair
Factories Clearinghouse, internal employee programs accreditation and supervision
at Fair Labour Organization, or productivity and social conditions improvement for
supplier facilities at International Labour Organisation “Better Work”. For the
environmental impact, the company is a participant of International Chemical
Secretariat Business Group, which strives for minimisation of hazardous chemicals
in production;
- Collaboration networks - “Parley for the Oceans” is a platform, creating awareness
and collaborating for ocean conservation, where Adidas is the steering leader and
founder.
Resources
The most requested resource in Adidas products are plastics with the biggest share of
polyester. Another resource that is frequently used is cotton, a natural fibre with a high demand for
water until harvest. For both materials, Adidas works to reduce the harm and increase the conditions
of the labour force and quality of the material. Intangible resources are Adidas patents for disruptive
45
innovations in sportswear with the newest "Future Craft Loop" or the "Boost" sole for its running
shoes. Another great intangible resource is the strong roots in professional sports leading in the
football industry. Working together with the biggest teams and sports icons is one intangible asset
that is a foundation stone of Adidas' fame and success (2020 a).
Activities
Adidas takes a pioneer status in the fashion industry providing new solutions and activities
to shape the industry for more sustainable practices. For their product line, Adidas implements
three different innovation loops from the recycled loop, circular loop, and regenerative loop to
increase the efficient use of resources. One outstanding example is the first performance shoe that
follows the mentioned circular loop. “We are trying gradually to scale up this loop. In our opinion,
that was an important pulse that we set in the industry” (Interview 3, Appendix). Focussing on
increasing the recycling share the biggest issue for Adidas is the practicability. “The challenge
here is in material development and product development with the appropriate materials, rather
than in return. The return can always be managed relatively well” (Interview 3, Appendix). Having
close cooperation with its production suppliers helps Adidas to get an extensive overview of the
LCA of its apparel that is used to find key levers for sustainable innovation in product development.
Stakeholder, Relationships and Channels
Now we are focussing on Adidas’ approach to the people’s segment, that includes
Stakeholder, Relationships and Channels.
Stakeholders
On the contrary, to Siemens, stakeholders Adidas influences are predetermined and
segregated by the company. The company was able to layout the relationship guidelines for each
of the group, so in cooperation with them achieve its social, environmental and economic goals.
The fundamental principles of the relationship guidelines lie in the transparency of information
shared, the stakeholder support, encouragement and responsiveness from Adidas, and overall
ability and desire to cooperate for the company's development. Nevertheless, below we provide a
list of Adidas' stakeholders with a brief comment if necessary:
46
- Employees - the way Adidas treats and encourages employees was discussed in the social
goals part, with all the key activities Adidas carries out;
- Authorizers - government, trade associations, shareholders, executive board;
- Business partners - unions, suppliers, service providers - among Adidas' sustainability
strategy the increased and improved compliance on sustainability with suppliers and related
actors might be found. While transforming the operations, not only the existing suppliers
are revised and worked on. “We have defined certain KPIs that we use to continuously
measure and report on the sustainability performance of our suppliers. This means that if
we have a supplier who may repeatedly violate important regulations, we have a multi-
stage warning process that will also trigger business relationships at the end of the day”
(Interview 3, Appendix). New suppliers have a “very strict initial assignment or
onboarding process for new suppliers or the processes of new suppliers. This means that a
supplier can only be authorized if it has been checked by our experts in advance against
the environmental requirements defined by us and against the socially relevant
requirements” (Interview 3, Appendix);
- Shareholders and investors;
- Opinion-formers - journalists, community members;
- Customers - professional athletes, distributors, retailers, consumers
- Third-party organizations - local and international NGOs, labor rights advocacy groups,
human rights advocacy groups, trade unions, national and international government
agencies. Adidas also participates in long term multi-stakeholder initiatives, including the
Fair Labor Association and others (Adidas, 2020 c).
Channels
Adidas has several principles on stakeholder cooperation and informing. These principles
are described in the company's guidelines and clearly state the company's duty to the stakeholders.
Stakeholders are provided with all necessary information about Adidas' conduct, taking into
account all their concerns and needs. Overall, the company encourages stakeholders to cooperate
and leave feedback or input online. Only through such communication, the potential risks and
discrepancies could be identified and addressed. The guidelines are equal for all the company's
stakeholders; therefore, no one is left behind or given priority (Adidas, 2020 c).
Relationships
47
Adidas engages with their stakeholders in various ways, from basic communication to
different activities and forums. Therefore, the company uses a variety of techniques and forms of
stakeholder engagement to ensure the company responds to their needs and concerns. More precise,
Adidas uses the following practices the most:
- Formal stakeholder consultation meetings - to set and support a dialogue with employees,
union representatives, NGOs and suppliers;
- Meetings with investors and Socially Responsible Investment analysts;
- Employee engagement - to measure the satisfaction and general wellness on a workplace,
for the process improvements and relevant employee programmes preparation;
- Consumer and media enquiries;
- Joint initiatives with other brands;
- Multi-stakeholder initiatives;
- Graduates and the academic community outreach (Adidas, 2020 d).
For the business stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, shareholders, and employees,
relationships are held with a purpose to empower trust and quick response. Accordingly, the
company’s management is aware of all the disputes or initiatives that might occur with each of
them. Partnerships with NGOs and multi-stakeholder initiatives aim to address the concern not
only of the way Adidas conducts business, but those of the industry also.
Ecosystem Actors and Needs
Further, we overview the part covering a broader number of actors than the one above,
which are Adidas' Ecosystem Actors, the Needs they obtain and the way Adidas satisfy them.
Ecosystem Actors
Outstanding regarding the ecosystem actors is the commitment with the societies where its
goods are produced. Especially in South East works with its suppliers, Adidas aims to increase the
working and living conditions that impact the society here with its volunteering program. Adidas
employees volunteer in the communities to create positive change here and a possible impact on
this specific area (Adidas, 2020 a). Also, the most affected communities of the most polluted coasts
benefit that Adidas raises the awareness of cleaning the oceans and producing goods from their
plastics. From an organization's perspective, the variety of NGOs fighting ocean pollution are
48
ecosystem actors that profit from Adidas' existence fighting for saving the biodiversity in the
oceans.
Needs
The needs Adidas satisfies through its 2020 sustainability strategy are also expressed in the
UN SDGs. Corresponding to Siemens, the influence of the company on UN SDGs will be
presented:
- Goal 3 - Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at every age - Adidas considers
enabling sports as their contribution to the development of a better society. Besides the fact
that the products have a straight connection to sport, Adidas aims to educate people on
physical and mental health empowering society to improve their lifestyle and happiness;
- Goal 6 - Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all -
Through the water stewardship company aims to achieve significant reduction of water
consumption both for their own and suppliers’ facilities. Further it’s planned to implement
waterless technologies in production;
- Goal 12 - Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns - “In the case of
consumer goods, including sporting goods, the decision to buy is relatively quick and has
a relatively short product lifespan. It's something that doesn't make it that easy for
sustainability” (Interview 4, Appendix). The biggest challenge remains the prolongation of
usage for the goods Adidas produces. In order to achieve sustainability in the consumption
part, Adidas distinguishes their brand from a fast-fashion one and has a comparably longer
product life cycle. As for the sustainable production, Adidas strives to increase its share of
recycled materials;
- Goal 13 - Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts - the challenge for
the decrease of CO2 footprint is what Adidas aims to achieve through energy conservation
plan, which in turn implies an increase of energy use at own and suppliers’ facilities and,
therefore, lower there amount of CO2 emissions. The company investigates more efficient
and clean sources of energy to replace current ones (2020 a).
49
Biophysical Stocks and Ecosystem services
The following parts focus on the company’s interaction with the natural resources -
overview of the biophysical resources used and the way they are treated, services the company
introduces for the collection, processing and preservation of these resources.
Biophysical Stocks
Adidas' suppliers need several biophysical stocks to produce the sportswear. Adidas'
primary resources are plastics, mostly polyester, that consists of oil and cotton with high water
consumption. Reducing the use of chemicals on a minimum while ensuring high standards for the
main products with the "Better Cotton Initiative" and achieving 100 percent recycled Polyester in
its products 2024, are the significant actions to reduce its harm (Interview 3, Appendix).
Ecosystem Services
From the "Parley for the Ocean" initiative, the biodiversity of sea animals profits the most.
Acknowledging that this is just a mere drop in the ocean, raising awareness of this urgent topic is
one of Adidas' primary concerns and empowers its customers to cooperate by multiplying this topic
with its brand ambassadors. "The topic "Run for the Ocean" and Parley, of course, many athletes
who work with Adidas want to participate actively because they see a responsibility to make a
statement to the fans here" (Interview 4, Appendix). Striving to become CO2-neutral 2050 as an
organization and supporting its suppliers with knowledge of environmental managers counteracts
the progress of climate change and will reduce air pollution in South Asia, where most of the
manufacturing sides are located.
Value Co-Creation and Value Co-Destruction
The FBC requires overviewing both values, which are created through sustainable
innovation and related activities, and negative values emerged as a consequence of transformation,
which hinder the satisfaction of the needs.
Value Co-Creation
Adidas has a track record of ground-breaking innovation, starting from the first football
boot with screw-in studs due to new damping soles as the Boost series. With its sports apparel in
50
running shoes patents and innovation, cooperating with influential sports icons of the field, the core
value Adidas creates is activating and supporting people in doing sports, supporting an active
lifestyle. Taking a sustainable vector of product innovation and cooperating with the suppliers and
other critical stakeholders on recyclable materials and reductions of CO2 footprint, Adidas
contributes both to the society, which is sport-engaged and ecology-concerned. With the goal of a
fully recyclable product range, the company sets a benchmark on the product development for the
apparel producers. Activation of its customer by recalling the importance of sustainability is one
key pillar in Adidas’ strategy. “That means which forms of engagement can we enter into with
consumers, for example, with fans, in order to advance the topic of sustainability further”
(Interview 3, Appendix).
Value Co-Destruction
Being a global player in the sports equipment and fashion industry comes with different
challenges for sustainability. One critical point with a value co-destruction is the production where
water pollution and water wastage affect the society and the environment the strongest. Adidas
works closely with its manufacturing partners, providing knowledge delegating environmental
managers to implement beneficial processes for producing goods under the highest ecological
standards. The biggest co-destruction of the fashion industry and not alone Adidas are the long
transports producing a global good in one specific area in South Asia. 2019, Adidas produced 98%
percent of its products in Asia, mostly in Vietnam that demonstrates the importance of this region
(Adidas, 2020 a). “You have geographically centralized production facilities, but a global sales
location. That always results in longer transport routes, which is a challenge for sustainability”
(Interview 4, Appendix). More regional production in selling countries would be a possibility for
the industry, but the low-cost structure and expertise weigh much stronger and will not change
soon. Accordingly, the new practices with the circular loop or increasing the recycling share in
products are feasible solutions.
As before for Siemens AG, the FBC with the main findings of our analysis can be seen
below as summary.
51
Figure 5. Flourishing Business Canvas of Adidas AG. (Own source).
5. Discussion and conclusion
The goal of the extensive analysis was to consolidate the FBC as an appropriate tool to
visualize the BM of multinational concerns. Afterwards, the results of the analysis will be matched
with our literature on SBM. Further on, differences in the implementation of their SBM will be
represented and summarized with practical implications for companies to identify key levers to
adapt their current business models with a more reliable alignment on sustainability. Finally,
limitations and suggestions for further research will be mentioned.
Carrying out the first profound FBC analysis of two MNCs from an outside company
perspective enables a visualization compared to the BMC. While executing the analysis, some
complications could be determined due to the size of both companies. The differentiation between
stakeholders, partnerships and relationships involved difficulties because each segment is
interlinked. Hence, it was tried to show the differences regarding the connected questions as strictly
as possible, requesting significant efforts. Also, presenting the processed materials and how they
are sourced were more difficult as expected due to the lack of strong knowledge about the
52
processes. These obstacles can be neglected if the FBC is applied from an insight perspective, but
complicated drawing substantial implications in that part. For the rest of the analysis, the questions
were helpful, providing implications on how sustainability can create positive business
opportunities that are financially beneficial and be a competitive advantage.
Secondly, the connection of the theoretical ground of SBMs, their purpose and conditions
of implementation in particular, with the existing business models of the companies should be
found and confirmed. Looking back at the theoretical framework we provided, the main emphasis
in the definition of SBMs was made on the voluntary regard to societal and environmental
improvement through sustainable innovations, with the additive competitive advantage as the
outcome (Schaltegger et al., 2012). Overviewing the companies’ activities and responding with
answers to 16 FBC questions, we could sum up that activities directed towards the improvement
of societies and environment companies have a strong focus, like Siemens’ corporate citizenship
approach or Adidas’ “Better Cotton Initiative”, are thoroughly drawn up, with the implementation
already initiated.
Still, regarding sustainable innovations, they do not fall behind and perceive sustainability
as a business opportunity. Through Siemens' product stewardship and Adidas' fully recyclable
product line, we consider companies to have a broader impact than with the regular CSR measures.
Such impact not only contributes to the environment and societies but lets companies sustain
themself and create additional customer benefits in addition to their positive impact for the
environment, delivering innovative approaches to the industry in general (Bohnsack et al., 2014).
SBM development requires a broader amount of measures, including product-market iterations,
testing new prototypes and integrating business partners (Keskin, 2015). With profitable,
sustainable innovations companies prove such business direction was not developed to satisfy
governmental regulations or solely improve the image of the company.
The sustainability challenge is considered to be a continuous process, therefore, requiring
long-lasting efforts from the company's management (Eccles et al., 2012). In both cases, we were
able to observe the company's advancement in sustainable product innovation and development, so
we conclude that SBM development is lived in both companies. Besides that, the directions of
sustainable development, the UN SDGs companies overlap within particular, are clearly defined
and covered, with detailed agenda on them provided.
53
Since the case companies we study are different in the way of business they conduct and in
which industry they operate, providing a comparison between them will not have enough relevance
for the study. On the contrary, we suggest the similarities would be valuable, as finding those
practices that are successfully implemented by both companies. These matches could show those
transitioning to a SBM can be implemented.
As in both cases conducting the business in a sustainable manner first was not the primary
goal since the company was established, we can state that both companies had to transform to, but
not establish, environmentally friendly product lines. Hence, overviewing the shift in terms of
product, starting from the design and ending with customer support and upscale, has paramount
importance for the SBM. Here, we outline vital criteria for companies to satisfy the needs of the
SBM in terms of product: the product development should focus on reduction of CO2 footprint and
harmful materials or the traceability of product and increased value for the customer or end user.
That actions have not only a positive impact for the environment but increase efficiency,
functionality or any other indicator of progress.
Siemens and Adidas contribute highly to the LCAs of their products. In both cases,
companies provided extensive approaches towards it, for instance, Siemens' Product Stewardship
approach or Adidas' strict suppliers' guidelines and activities related. Being able to trace all phases,
from the materials supplier manufactures of extracts until the way end users utilize the final
product, gives the ability to identify and ensure that sustainability principles are followed on all the
stages of the product's life cycle. This close collaboration helps ensure that no engaged party suffers
from the company's shifted approach but instead the processes and operations are beneficial
adjusted.
Moving forward to the other segments of SBM, great attention is drawn to the way actors
of the company's ecosystem are treated. This includes a broader amount of business and non-
business stakeholders, than in the regular business models. Here, we were able to observe
companies' active contribution to society and the environment. In detail, both Siemens and Adidas'
management acknowledged and accepted the necessity of sustainable innovation and improvement
for a better environment and societies in multiple directions. A clear line with the UN SDGs was
drawn by both of the companies, identifying the purpose and the exact steps of companies'
contribution to them. Alignment with these goals allows multiple organizations to have a clear
image on the issues existing and put effort into eliminating them in the directions they overlap.
54
For these purposes, an immense amount of cooperative programs are rolled out by Siemens
and Adidas, primarily created to set a dialogue with all their business stakeholders on the
improvement of supply chain and ways of contributing to society. Themselves, both companies set
up activities, directed improved conditions for their ecosystem actors, starting from pupils over to
improving the health system. As shown in the analysis, Siemens Corporate Citizenship approach
includes a variety of programmes directed for societal and environmental influence. Adidas
activates consumers around the globe to engage in sports and improve physical and mental health
through numerous educational programmes.
A major role is devoted to the evaluation of the effect of a company's contribution to the
environment and society, which is regularly performed by both companies. To ensure that all the
activities had a real and positive effect, as an example, Siemens Business to Society approach aims
to track, identify, and measure a company's contribution on a scale of a country. Through such
analysis, companies are able to improve their activities around the globe, communicate the results
of the work performed to the governments and non-profit organizations, therefore, cooperate with
them on these issues, and be transparent on the activities they are performing for the society. Even
though such activities are considered to be part of the CSR, our paper overviews the business
models through the SBM tool, which also includes the perspectives of Ecosystem Actors, their
needs and others, therefore, such information could not be dismissed.
As sustainability has been proven to be lived in by both Siemens and Adidas, it is worth
overlooking who is responsible for the sustainability direction inside a company. It is vital to set
up a board developing and incorporating sustainability goals and the management to execute them.
Thus, both companies recognize such necessities and assign people for these purposes. Siemens’
sustainability direction is led by the CEO, with the sustainability board developing strategic goals.
Adidas, besides the department’s crew and board, has sustainability managers across all the
company’s departments, acting as experts to provide the necessary expertise and look at the issues
from a particular department’s perspective.
Summing up the similarities found in the companies approaches towards sustainability, we
have defined the best practices both companies have and come up with managerial implications
based on the. Even though the case companies we have studied are MNCs by their size, the
measures and approach overall are scalable, and the effectiveness could be reached without large
investments, so they are worth applying for companies of any size, shifting towards sustainability.
55
We consider the following practices to be of the highest relevance for such companies. First, in
order to carry out the transformation, thorough revision and analysis of the existing supply chain
should be performed. When seeing the full product’s life cycle, from the phase where raw materials
were extracted until the phase when the product was turned into waste, existing issues, which turn
into opportunities for further sustainable innovation, could be easily identified. Second, we
consider traceability to be the primary trait while carrying out the transformation. Sustainable
product innovation might be unfamiliar to the company before. Hence, traceability of the product
life cycle could be of the highest importance and aid the purpose of the sustainable innovations,
mentioned above. Third, the case companies we have analysed are considered to be innovators in
the field they operate, therefore delivering high contribution to the industry and encouraging new
practices. The purpose of sustainable development is to bring new solutions to existing common
problems. Therefore, companies should consider such kind of contribution of high value not only
from an economic perspective but the societal and environmental ones. Lastly, the non-business
practices, as mentioned above, is an inherent part of SBM; thus, the approach towards them should
not differ from the ones of the product side. The company’s contribution to society should be
continuously evaluated and revised and communicated to the stakeholders for higher engagement.
With a positive public commitment, the goals company sets and ways it reaches them could have
significant support from all the ecosystem actors this company has.
5.1 Limitations and suggestions for further research
The findings from the analysis we consider to be of the significant value of this research;
therefore, we provide a thorough explanation of the analysis approach and results, including related
limitations and suggestions for further research. Rather than studying a wide range of companies,
this qualitative study was aimed at gaining deep insights into two MNCs from differing contexts -
namely B2B and B2C. It is essential to outline the assumptions that are embedded in this research:
● First, the research was conducted on two companies and for each with two interview
partners that were willing and able to be interviewed. For the analysis, majorly company
data was used that impacts the critical discussion of actions by the company.
● Second, both companies have their headquarters in Germany, which is known for strong
efforts towards sustainability such as the energy transition that aims using exclusively
green energy by 2050. It would be interesting to see in further studies, if the commitment
56
and efforts differ to MNCs with their headquarters in various countries, such as China or
the United States.
● Third, the analysis gives an overview of the current and future activities of the companies.
The analysis does not come up with proposals if possible, actions would be encouraging
or improve their current business model. Hence, it would be of high interest to get an
insightful perspective of a company that creates an action plan for improvement after
executing the FBC.
To sum up, it can be said that the research field of SBM and created tools is a practice with
many options for future researchers. It will be exciting to understand how companies take effort to
tackle the megatrends of climate change and resource scarcity by creating a unique competitive
advantage and market position. We consider the analysis of the existing business models,
transforming to sustainable ones, could provide a real and impartial outlook on the issue, therefore
leading to the identification of the obstacles and searching for ways to solve them. In the end, it
should result in the perfected practices, applicable by the businesses of any size and type, and
collective contribution to the UN SDGs as a merit for all the sustainable businesses.
Finally, we want to finish with a citation that should be considered when doing any
business:
“Not all profit is equal. Profits involving a social purpose represent a higher form of capitalism,
one that creates a positive cycle of company and community prosperity”
(Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 14).
57
References
Adidas AG. (2019). FUTURECRAFT.LOOP Phase 2: how we're finding away. Adidas.
https://news.adidas.com/running/futurecraft.loop-phase-2--how-we-re-finding-away/s/43c42bf2-
73ca-4ccb-930b-5ac5b6637a76
Adidas AG. (2020 a). Adidas Annual Report. Adidas. https://report.adidas-
group.com/2019/en/servicepages/downloads/files/adidas_annual_report_2019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1
BWJRIobnRdx7Nxb8_U-aqekHkF-_yOo4z91havBy8e6CKkqylPr05KcU
Adidas AG. (2020 b). Adidas Profile. Adidas. https://www.adidas-group.com/en/group/profile/
Adidas AG. (2020 c). Partnership Approach. Adidas. https://www.adidas-
group.com/en/sustainability/managing-sustainability/partnership-approach/#/2013/collaborations-
and-memberships/
Adidas AG. (2020 d). General Approach. Adidas. https://www.adidas-
group.com/en/sustainability/managing-sustainability/general-approach/
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7),
493–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187
Baumgartner, R., & Rauter, R. (2016). Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management
to develop a sustainable organization. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable
business modelling. Corporate Governance,13 (5), 482 – 497.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
58
Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring
business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy. 43. 284-300.
Bolton, R., & Hannon, M. (2016). Governing sustainability transitions through business model
innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Research Policy, 45(9), 1731–1742.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.003
Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F.. (2013). Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State of the Art
and Steps Towards a Research Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007.
Brundtland, G. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future. United Nations General Assembly document A/42/427.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Calia, R. C., Guerrini, F. M., & Moura, G. L. (2007). Innovation networks: From technological
development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation, 27(8), 426–432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.08.003
Campbell, C. (1966). The discipline of the cave. Philosophical Books, 7, 10-12. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0149.1966.tb02632.x
Cannon, T. (1992). Corporate Responsibility. 1st ed., Pitman Publishing, London.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2009). Company Strategy: Business Model Reconfiguration
for Innovation and Internationalization. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics.
Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.004
59
Chesbrough, H. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence
from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change,
11(3), 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010
Chia Cua, F., & Theivananthampillai, P. (2006). Mapping processes toward strategic leverage.
Accountancy Working Paper Series presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on
Information Systems EMCIS.
Circular Ecology. (n.d.). Sustainability and Sustainable Development - What is Sustainability and
What is Sustainable Development? Circular Ecology. https://circularecology.com/sustainability-
and-sustainable-development.html.
Corbo, L., Pirolo, L., & Rodrigues, V. (2018). Business model adaptation in response to an exogenous
shock: An empirical analysis of the Portuguese footwear industry.
Davis-Peccoud, J., Seemann, A., Jongeneel, M., & Martins, F. (2018). Transforming Business for a
Sustainable Economy. 12.
DJSI (2019 a). DJSI INDUSTRY LEADER REPORT 2019. Portal CSA.
https://portal.csa.spglobal.com/survey/documents/DJSI_IndustryLeader_IDD.pdf
DJSI (2019 b). DJSI INDUSTRY LEADER REPORT 2019. Portal CSA.
https://portal.csa.spglobal.com/survey/documents/DJSI_IndustryLeader_TEX.pdf
Dunning, J. & Lundan, S. (2008). Institutions and the OLI Paradigm of the Multinational Enterprise.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 25. 573-593. 10.1007/s10490-007-9074-z.
Eccles, R. & Perkins, K. & Serafeim, G. (2012). How to Become a Sustainable Company. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53.
60
Edwards, D. (1998). The Link between Company Environmental and Financial Performance.
Earthscan Publications.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.
The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32. 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888.
Elkington, J. (1994) Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for
Sustainable Development. California Management Review, 36, 90-100.
Elkington, R., & Upward, A. (2016). Leadership as enabling function for flourishing by design.
Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(1), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2016-0002
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow, C. Y.
(2017). Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for
Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 597–
608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939
Fichter, K. & Tiemann, I. (2015). Das Konzept „Sustainable Business Canvas“ zur Unterstützung
nachhaltigkeitsorientierter Geschäftsmodellentwicklung.
Flourishing Business Organization. (n.d.) Welcome to Flourishing Enterprise Innovation. Flourishing
Business Organization. http://www.flourishingbusiness.org/
Frederick, W.C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR. Business and Society, 33, 150‐66.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606.
Gorevaya, E., & Khayrullina, M. (2015). Evolution of Business Models: Past and Present Trends.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 27, 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01005-9
61
Griffin, J. (2000). Corporate social performance: research directions for the 21st century, Business &
Society, 39 (4),479–491.
Griffin, J. & Mahon, J. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance
debate: twenty five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36 (1), 5–31.
Griffin, P. (2017). The Carbon Majors Database CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017. CDP Organization.
https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15febc70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/re
ports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240
Hamilton, J.T. (1995). Pollution as news media and stock market reactions to the toxic release
inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28 (1),98–113.
Hartley, J (1994) Case Studies in Organisational Research in Casell and Symon, Qualitative Methods
in Organisational Research, Sage Publication, London quoted in Mohd Noor, K. (2008) Case
Study:A Strategic Research Methodology, American Journal Of Applied Science, 5 (11), 1602-
1603.
Haupt, M., & Zschokke, M. (2017). How can LCA support the circular economy?—63rd discussion
forum on life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess, 22, 832–837.
HBR (2003). Business Review on Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business School,
McGraw‐Hill, London.
Herriott, R.E. & Firestone, W.A. (1983) Multisite Qualitative Research: Optimizing Description and
Generalizability. Education Researcher, 12, 14-19.
Höpner, A. (2019). Siemens überholt Huawei und wird Patent-Europameister. Handelsblatt.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/hannovermesse/innovationen-siemens-ueberholt-huawei-
und-wird-patent-europameister/24089190.html?ticket=ST-5295464-3I6lxqarohQhe4mjO6Q3-
ap4
62
Jackson, P. R., Easterby-Smith, M., & Thorpe, R. (2015). Management and Business Research. 5.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Johnson, M., Christensen, C.C. & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard
Business Review. 87, 52-60.
Jones, P. H., & Upward, A. (2014). Caring for the future: The systemic design of flourishing
enterprises. Proceedings of the Third Symposium of Relating Systems Thinking and Design
(RSD3), Oslo, Norway, October 15-17, 1-8.
Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more
sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474–1486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067
Kaplan, R. S. (1994). Management accounting (1984-1994): development of new practice and theory.
Management Accounting Research, 247-260.
Karlsson, N. P. E., Hoveskog, M., Halila, F., & Mattsson, M. (2019). Business modelling in farm-
based biogas production: Towards network-level business models and stakeholder business cases
for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14(4), 1071–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-
0584-z
Kell, G.(2018). The Remarkable Rise Of ESG. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgkell/2018/07/11/the-remarkable-rise-of-esg/#4aaa90a91695.
Keskin, D. (2015). Product innovation in sustainability-oriented new ventures.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework of business models for sustainability.
ERSCP-EMU Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, 1-28.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd
Edition, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
63
Nailer, C., & Buttriss, G. (2019). Processes of business model evolution through the mechanism of
anticipation and realisation of value. Industrial Marketing Management.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.04.009
Nicolussi, R. (2017). Bigger Thinking for Smaller Enterprises: Co-Creating a Shared Vision of the
Future for SMEs. 10.13140/RG.2.2.20223.41129.
Nielsen, C. & Lund, M. (2014). An Introduction to Business Models. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2579454
Nielsen, C., & Lund, M. (2015). The Concept of Business Model Scalability. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2575962
Norman, W. & McDonald C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of "Triple Bottom Line". Business Ethics
Quarterly 14(2), 243-26.
Orsted. (2020). Green energy in a sustainable way. Orsted. https://orsted.com/en/sustainability/our-
strategy
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010) Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries,
Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley, New Jersey.
Pfahler, L. (2020). Das umstrittenste Kohlebergwerk der Welt. Welt.
https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article204974032/Siemens-in-Australien-Das-umstrittenste-
Kohlebergwerk-der-Welt.html.
Porter, M. & Kramer, R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62-77.
Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2016). 360° Business Model Innovation: Toward an Integrated View of
Business Model Innovation: An integrated, value-based view of a business model can provide
insight into potential areas for business model innovation. Research-Technology Management,
59(3), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2016.1161401
64
Reinhardt, F.L. (2000). Down to Earth: Applying Business Principles to Environmental Management,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., & Puumalainen, K. (2018). Sustainable business
model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A longitudinal content analysis study. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 170, 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159
Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of
Life. Columbia University Press.
Rytkönen, E., & Nenonen, S. (2014). The Business Model Canvas in university campus management.
Intelligent Buildings International, 6(3), 138–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.807768
Sachgau, O. (2019). Siemens Quarterly Profit Surge Comes With Cautious Outlook. Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-07/siemens-expects-2020-decline-in-some-
businesses-amid-car-slump
Samy, M., Odemilin, G. & Bampton, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: a strategy for
sustainable business success. An analysis of 20 selected British companies. Corporate
Governance, 10 (2), 203-217.
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. & Thornbill, A. (2000). Research Methods for Business Studies.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Saunder, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for Business Students. New York:
Pearson.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. & Hansen, E.G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability: the role
of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable
Development, 6 (2), 95–119.
65
Schneider, S. & Clauß, T. (2017). Sustainable business models: Opportunities and challenges for
development and innovation.
Schweizer, L. (2005). Concept and Evolution of Business Models. Journal of General Management.
31, 37-56. 10.1177/030630700503100203.
Scott, L. & McGill, A. (2018). From promise to reality: Does business really care about the SDGs?
And what needs to happen to turn words into action. PWC.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/SDG/sdg-reporting-2018.pdf.
Shields, P. & Rangarajan, N. (2013). A Playbook for Research Methods: Integrating Conceptual
Frameworks and Project Management.
Sicoli, G., Bronzetti, G., & Baldini, M. (2019). The Importance of Sustainability in the Fashion
Sector: ADIDAS Case Study. International Business Research, 12(6), 41.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n6p41
Siemens AG. (2015). Siemens among the leaders in sustainability. Siemens.
https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-among-leaders-sustainability
Siemens AG. (2015). Siemens to be climate neutral by 2030. Siemens.
https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-be-climate-neutral-2030
Siemens AG. (2016). In Argentina for Argentina. Siemens.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:4f4461213e23bf8ea7f9c33c0010b0eaa66
24fde/version:1543063769/b2s-argentina.pdf
Siemens AG. (2019). Sustainability Information 2019. Siemens.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:16c327d3-3e02-427e-952f-
e7f610d954fe/version:1575456937/siemens-sustainability-information-2019.pdf
66
Siemens AG. (2020 a). Das Unternehmen. Siemens.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:4417dc50-fb51-4aa4-a008-
811ccbf1eec1/version:1589447134/siemens-unternehmenspraesentation.pdf
Siemens AG. (2020 b). Siemens Annual Report 2019. Siemens.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:59a922d1-eca0-4e23-adef-
64a05f0a8a61/siemens-ar2019.pdf
Siemens AG. (2020 c). Innovation – for a better future. Siemens.
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/innovation.html
Siemens AG. (2020 d). Digital Twins. Siemens.
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/stories/research-technologies/digitaltwin/digital-
twin.html
Siemens AG. (2020 e). Business to Society. Siemens.
https://new.siemens.com/tr/en/company/sustainability/business-to-society.html
Siemens AG. (2020). Corporate citizenship. Siemens.
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/sustainability/corporatecitizenship.html
Siemens AG. (n.d.). Nachhaltigkeit in der Lieferkette. Siemens.
https://new.siemens.com/global/de/unternehmen/nachhaltigkeit/nachhaltigelieferkette.html.
Siemens Gamesa. (2020). One step closer to our net-zero emissions goal. Siemens Gamesa.
https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/explore/journal/2020/04/siemens-gamesa-carbon-
neutrality
Sinkovics, N. (2018). Pattern matching in qualitative analysis. In Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L., &
Grandy, G. The sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods, 468-
484. 55 City Road, London: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781526430236
67
Slaper, T. F. & Hall, T. J. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work?.
Indiana Business Review, 86 (1), 4-8.
Sonnenfeld, J. (2002). What Makes Great Boards Great. Harvard business review, 80, 106-113.
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation - state of the art and
future challenges for the field: State of art and future challenges. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–
247. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12071
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation - state of the art and
future challenges for the field: State of art and future challenges. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–
247. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12071
SustainAbility (2004). Values for Money: Reviewing the Quality of SRI Research. SustainAbility.
www.sustainability.com/downloads_public/insight_reports/values_money.pdf
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–
3), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Tiemann, I. & Fichter, K. (2016). Developing business models with the Sustainable Business Canvas:
Manual for conducting workshops.
Timmers, P. (1998). Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electronic Markets, 8, 3-8.
United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.
Upward, A. (2013). Towards an ontology and canvas for strongly sustainable business models: A
systemic design science exploration. Masters of Environmental Studies/Graduate Diploma in
Business + Environment, York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies and Schulich School
of Business, 1–1116 (i–xxii).
Upward, A. (2016). Flourishing Business Canvas- Basic walk-through. Why, How and What’s next.
Linkedin. https://de.slideshare.net/antonyupward.
68
Upward, A., & Davies, S. N. (2019). Strategy Design for Flourishing: A Robust Method. In T.
Wunder (Ed.), Rethinking Strategic Management (pp. 149–175). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06014-5_8
Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2015). An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an
Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organization &
Environment, 29. 10.1177/1086026615592933.
Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2016). An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an
Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organization &
Environment, 29(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592933
Van Zanten, J. A. & Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development
Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. 10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x
Wagner, M. (2007). Integration of environmental management with other managerial functions of
the firm: empirical effects on drivers of economic performance. Long Range Planning, 40 (6),
611–628.
Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business Models: Origin, Development and
Future Research Perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.04.001
World Economic Forum. (2020). 2020 theme: Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.
World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-
meeting-2020/about.
Wunder, T. (2016). Essentials of Strategic Management: Effective Formulation and Execution of
Strategy. (1st ed.). Schäffer Poeschel.
Yin, R. K., (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods
Series. Second edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
69
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage. Thousand Oaks, California.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications
for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.642
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future
Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311406265
Appendix
Interview 1: Interview Siemens AG 1, Top-Management with main focus on CSR and
Sustainability, Siemens AG and Fabian Zagel, 16.04.2020 11:00-11:30.
F. Zagel: In meiner Masterarbeit geht es um das Thema in wie fern das Thema Nachhaltigkeit
aktuelle und künftige Businessmodelle beeinflusst. Wir haben vorab mit Adidas gesprochen, da
war es ein bisschen einfacher herauszufinden. Beispielsweise, dass der komplette Lebenszyklus
in der Produktion und Wiederverwertung geschlossen wird und Laufschuhe eins zu eins wieder in
die Verwertungskette zurückgeführt werden können. Aus meiner Sicht, bietet sich bei Siemens
das Thema Erneuerbare Energien unter Einbeziehung von Gamesa an. Das wollen wir dann nicht
aus einer CSR analysieren, sondern mehr aus der Richtung wie sich Businessmodelle dort
entwickeln und wie Unternehmen diese Themen als Competitive Advantage für sich nutzen
können.
Siemens Manager 1: Würde ich jetzt andere Themen eher sehen. Aber gut.
F. Zagel: Welche Themen würden Sie hier eher sehen?
Siemens Manager 1: Zum Beispiel bei den Siemes Healthineers haben wir seit circa zehn Jahren
eine Einheit, die für das ganze Thema Refurbish Systems zuständig ist. Diese Einheit kümmert
sich um die Rücknahme von Kernspintomographen, Computertomographen oder MRTs. Diese
Geräte werden refurbished und dann wieder in andere Märkte verkauft. Oder wenn ich das ganze
Thema Circular Economy anschaue, wie sich Themen verändern werden im Rahmen der
70
Produkte. Beispielsweise, wie definiere ich einen Digital Twin und habe so etwas auf einer
Softwareebene in dem Thema wie kann ich dorthin Modelle verändern, dass ich viele Sachen erst
rein digital mache, bevor ich überhaupt in Prototypen-Themen reingehe. Dadurch verändert sich
auch das Geschäftsmodell in vielen Bereichen substanziell. Solche Sachen oder durch virtuelles
Testing.
F. Zagel: Das wäre dann im letzten Feld vor allem dann verbunden mit der Digitalisierung, dass
neue Geschäftsmodelle dann in dem Sinne auftauchen.
Siemens Manager 1: Aber gehen wir durch den Fragebogen. Ich gehe davon aus, dass diese zu
dem ganzen Thema leiten.
F. Zagel Aufgrund Corona haben wir das Okay bekommen, dass wir zum Großteil auf Secondary
Data zugreifen dürfen, was für eine Masterarbeit unüblich ist. Aber die Problematik haben zurzeit
viele Sozialwissenschaftler. Dann beginnen wir mit dem Fragenkatalog. Die erste Frage ist relativ
generisch. Wie wird Sustainability im Siemens-Konzern definiert und in wie fern ist es extern
und intern verankert?
Siemens Manager 1: In einer grundsätzlichen Definition ist es die Balance zwischen People
Planet und Profit. Auf lange Sicht auch in Hinblick auf die Berücksichtigung von Future
Generations. Es gibt hierzu zwei Bereiche, einerseits was brauche ich für das Unternehmen
selbst, um eine nachhaltige Entwicklung des Unternehmens sicherzustellen. Aber wir gehen auch
weiter und schauen das Thema an, was brauche ich für die nachhaltige Entwicklung von
Gesellschaften, um dort einen Beitrag zu leisten. In diesem dem Bereich sehen wir sehr viel
stärker, dass Nachhaltigkeit in unserem Sinne eine Geschäftsmöglichkeit ist und nicht unbedingt
nur Risiko.
F. Zagel: In einem Zitat von Herr Kaeser hatte er erwähnt: „Ein Unternehmen, das keinen Wert
für die Allgemeinheit erbringe, sollte nicht existieren“.
Siemens Manager 1: Wenn man sich den Purpose des Unternehmens ansieht "Business to
society" und einen Beitrag zu leisten für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung, dann ist das ein
Kernelement der Unternehmensstrategie.
F. Zagel: Siemens ist aufgeteilt in unterschiedliche Geschäftsbereiche. Gibt es da Bereiche, in
denen Sie sehen, dass die Umsetzung der Nachhaltigkeitsziele schon weiter fortgeschritten ist
beispielsweise aufgrund der Struktur oder schon länger verankert ist? Würden Sie sagen, dass
hier Unterschiede festzustellen sind?
71
Siemens Manager 1: Es gibt die die komplette Breite der Nachhaltigkeit. Wir sehen hier
Nachhaltigkeit in der gesamten Breite sowohl in wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und ökologischen
Themen. Nehme ich jetzt rein die Gesamtbetrachtung, da gibt es Einheiten, die sind natürlich
weiter wie beispielsweise E-Mobility oder die Energy, in denen es ein Kernelement ist. Wenn ich
jetzt diverse Umweltthemen anschaue, wie CO2, dann ist ist es in der Smart Infrastrcture mit den
Gebäudetechnologien verankert. Dort ist es deutlich fortgeschrittener in vielen Bereichen, aber
auch in anderen Bereichen wie in der DI (Digital Industries) ist es genauso schon etabliert. Ich
glaube, dass wir festgelegt haben, dass für die Umsetzung der Nachhaltigkeit Themen, die
jeweiligen CEOs verantwortlich sind. Wir hatten auch diverse Themen In den Geschäften
weitergetrieben. Bei dem einen sind es vielleicht mehr das Thema Umweltmanagement, bei den
anderen ist vielleicht das Thema Product Stewardship mehr fokussiert und beim nächsten
vielleicht das Thema Diversität. Aber das ist immer eine Balance all dieser Themen über einen
langen Zeitraum hinweg.
F. Zagel: Zusammengefasst sind die Einzelnen CEOs dafür zuständig? Wäre dann beispielsweise
für die Sparte der Healthineers deren CEO zuständig?
Siemens Manager 1: Genau, der ist verantwortlich für die Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeit in
deren Einheit. Und genauso ist es für die DI (Digital Industries) oder für die SI (Smart
Infrastructure) mit deren CEOs. Aber auch für die Landesorganisationen sind die Einheiten
verantwortlich. Der Konzern ist ja so aufgeteilt, dass wir bei bestimmten Themen Fachfunktionen
haben. Also wenn ich mir das Thema Umweltmanagement, betrieblicher Umweltschutz, Produkt
bezogener Umweltschutz, Lieferketten, Management, Compliance, Diversity, Human Capital
Development und so weiter ansehe gibt es verschiedenste Themenfelder, die
Nachhaltigkeitsrelevanz haben. Diese werden über die Fachfunktionen in die Geschäfte
übergeben, und haben eine Governance-Verantwortung und stellen sicher, dass es im Konzern in
der Breite vorangetrieben wird.
F. Zagel: Dann fließt das Reporting als ein komplettes Bild auf Unternehmensebene zusammen?
Aktuell ist Barbara Kux als CSO (Chief Sustainability Officer) im Vorstand von Siemens
aufgeführt.
Siemens Manager 1: Das stimmt so nicht. Seit 2013 ist Dr. Busch verantwortlich für
Nachhaltigkeit im Konzern.
F. Zagel: Unter Herr Busch sind dann die einzelnen Funktionen auf Landesebene und
Gruppenebene zuständig, dann das Thema nach eigenen Ausprägungen durchzuführen?
72
Siemens Manager 1: Gemanagt wird das Ganze von einer langfristigen Perspektive über den
Chief Sustainability Officer und dem Sustainability Board. Wir haben ein Board, in dem jedes
Geschäft vertreten ist, in dem Länderrepräsentanten sind, und die Corporate Functions vertreten
sind. Die Fachfunktionen sind verantwortlich, dass sie für ihren Verantwortungsbereich die
Prinzipien, Guidelines, Management Systeme, KPIs, langfristige Zielsetzungen, Tools
bereitstellen, dies ist deren Verantwortung. Wie manage ich ein gewisses Themenfeld, zum
Beispiel wie manage ich Compliance oder wie manage ich betrieblichen Umweltschutz. Das
obliegt den Verantwortlichkeiten in den verschiedenen Einheiten. Die sollen es dann auch
entsprechend machen. In einem nächsten Schritt habe ich dann Linien in die Geschäfte hinein
und haben Linien in Länder hinein. Wenn langfristige Zielsetzungen definiert werden, dann
werden diese ins Sustainability Board aufgenommen. Das Board entscheidet dann, dass ist
ambitioniert genug oder sollten wir hier ambitionierter vorgehen und werden dort entsprechende
Guidance vorgegeben für die Einheiten. Dann ist aber am Ende des Tages der jeweilige CEO in
diesem Rahmenkonstrukt verantwortlich für die entsprechende Implementierung.
F. Zagel: Das beantwortet dann meine Frage wie Sustainability in der Führungsebene verankert
ist mit dem Sustainability Board. Seit wann ist der Triple-Bottom Line Ansatz in der Strategie
integriert und verankert bei Siemens?
Siemens Manager 1: 2009 wurde das Sustainability Office mit der Governance Struktur
gegründet. Damit war es als Corporate Function mit augeführt und organisatorisch in der
Strategie ist es seit 2014 oder 2015 in der Strategie mit enthalten.
F. Zagel: Eine Frage bezüglich des Produktportfolios von Siemens. Welches Thema hat
Sustainability auf das künftige Produktportfolio? Gibt es in speziellen Bereichen größere
Neuausrichtung, vor allem bezüglich des ökologischen Öko-Footprint, was Siemens
beispielsweise auch mit seinen Lifecycle-Analysen in der Supply-Chain integriert hat?
Siemens Manager 1: Wir haben seit über die letzten zehn, zwölf Jahre unser sogenanntes
Umwelt-Portfolio. Dieses fokussiert sich auf das Thema CO2-Abatement als Schwerpunktthema.
Hier ist ein Thema die Energieeffizienz der Projekte zu verbessern und immer stärker in
erneuerbare Energien zu gehen. Natürlich wird es in den nächsten Jahren größere Themen geben,
was schon abgeleitet ist in den UN Sustainable Development Goals. Diese bieten eine gewisse
Leitschnur, in welche Richtung sich die Gesellschaften entwickeln müssen und natürlich auch
ableiten welche Themen sind wie relevant. Wenn ich jetzt CO2 als Beispiel nehme, das ganze
Thema Greenhouse Gas Emissions ist ein wichtiges Thema im Rahmen von Climate Change.
73
Damit wird es natürlich auch Komponenten geben, wie kann ich möglichst den CO2-Fußabdruck
der Produkte reduzieren und wird damit Einfluss haben, welche Produkte ich zukünftig noch
verkaufen kann und welche nicht. Das hängt natürlich von den Modellen dahinter ab. Werde ich
in fünf oder zehn Jahren noch Kohlekraftwerke verkaufen können oder nicht. Werde ich noch
Minen-Lösungen verkaufen können für entsprechende Minen. All dies wird man sich in den
nächsten Jahren neu anschauen. Da gibt es auch die TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related
Financial Disclosures). Im Rahmen der TCFD gibt es das Thema welche Transition-Risks
bestehen für Konzerne in dem Konstrukt.
F. Zagel: Eine weitere Frage bezüglich des Umwelt-Portfolios, das 2019 ungefähr die Hälfte des
Umsatzes ausgemacht hat. Wird dieses von Kundenseite speziell honoriert? Und gibt es spezielle
Projekte, wie benötige Zertifizierungen von Kunden, die aufgrund von Siemens Software oder
Produkten dadurch erst gewährleistet werden?
Siemens Manager 1: Diese Diskussion muss man noch einmal zweiteilen. Auf der einen Seite ist
das Umwelt-Portfolio bei uns ein sehr starkes Thema. Wie positionier ich mich als Konzern auf
der obersten Ebene als einer, der Lösungen zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels vorantreibt.
Natürlich wird Energieeffizienz mit vorangetrieben und möglichst viel Richtung Energieeffizienz
gemacht. Dieses wird es vom Kunden honoriert, weil er damit geringere Kosten am Ende des
Tages hat. Hier werden die Themen natürlich von einem Kunden in derart honoriert, weil es mehr
Richtung Energieeffizienz geht. Aber ob das jetzt bei uns klassifiziert ist im Umweltportfolio
oder nicht, ist dem Kunden schlussendlich eher egal. Schlussendlich ist der direkte Kunde
interessiert daran, dass er einen möglichst niedrigen Energieverbrauch hat.
F. Zagel: Die nächste Frage geht um den bevorstehenden Börsengang oder geplanten Börsengang
der Energiesparte. Durch den Börsengang trennt sich Siemens teilweise auch von
emissionsintensiven Bereichen, wie der Kohle- oder Gasgewinnung. Ist dies auch mit dem Ziel
verbunden 2030 CO2 neutral zu werden?
Siemens Manager 1: Das hat mit dem überhaupt nichts zu tun. Das CO2-neutral Programm ist in
der Logik des Greenhouse Gas Protokolls und bezieht sich nur auf Scope 1 und Scope 2 CO2-
Emissionen der eigenen Operations und hat nichts mit dem Portfolio zu tun. Im Prinzip bedeutet
es, das wir in unseren Fabriken, in unseren eigenen Betriebsstätten und unseren eigenen Büros
CO2 Neutralität bis 2030 herstellen wollen. Das CO2 neutral Programm wird auch nach der
Abspaltung für eine Siemens Energie gelten. Aber das hat nichts damit zu tun, dass
emissionsintensive Bereiche abgegeben werden. Emissionsintensiv, würde nur für das Thema
74
Scope 3 Downstream Emissionen gelten, das wäre ein anderes Thema. Aber das hat nichts mit
unserem CO2-Emissionsprogramm zu tun.
F. Zagel: In einem Youtube-Video von Siemens zur Nachhaltigkeit in der Firmenstrategie hat
Vorstandsmitglied Dr. Busch erwähnt hier, dass aufgrund der Emissionsreduzierung Ihrer
Produkte nicht nur der CO2-Footprint beim Kunden gemindert wird, sondern sich auch generell
für Siemens neue Geschäftsmodelle ergeben. Hier hat er dann in Einklang vor allem
Energieeffizienz in Neubauten sowie dezentralisierte Energiesysteme genannt. Unterscheiden
sich diese von den bisherigen Geschäftsmodellen?
Siemens Manager 1: In gewissen Bereichen ist das mit dem Thema Energieeffizienz verbunden,
hier gibt es neue Geschäftsmodelle. Teilweise, wenn wir energieeffiziente Lösungen in gewissen
Gebäuden mit einbauen, dann machen wir teilweise auch Finanzierungskonzepte über unsere
Siemens Financial Services. Hier zahlt der Kunde quasi nicht mehr das ursprüngliche des
CAPEX den er zu Beginn hat, sondern er bezahlt im Prinzip die Betriebskosten dahinter und
zahlt auch ein Delta für die Einsparungen, die wir als Geschäft dann kriegen oder als
Profitabilität mit involviert haben. Aber dieses Risiko ist ein stärkeres auf unserer Seite, dass wir
haben, der CO2-Fußabdruck ist nur eine Komponente. Im Prinzip geht es um die Energie
Effizienz dahinter. Durch die Energie Effizienzeinsparungen gibt es unter anderem Modelle, die
man heute realisieren kann. Also im Prinzip kein reines CAPEX-Modell mehr, indem ich im
Produkt verkaufe und der Kunde ist dann dafür verantwortlich. Sondern ich verkaufe im Prinzip
das Versprechen, dass er eine entsprechende Energieeinsparung und geringere OPEX hat, und
beteilige mich dann auch an dem Risiko über eine gewisse Profitabilität.
F. Zagel Wäre das wie ein geteiltes Rental Modell über die Laufzeit mit einer Anzahlung?
Siemens Manager 1: Nicht unbedingt mit einer Anzahlung. Sondern es kommt ganz darauf an in
welchen Themenbereichen wir drin sind. Manche Kunden sagen“ Ich mache alles selber, das
kaufe Ich“ und der Nächste sagt „Ich kauf gar nichts“. Damit muss man flexibel umgehen und
welche Art von Vertragsgestaltung habe ich dahinter. Und das Geschäftsmodell ist ein anderes,
weil ich eine andere Risiko-Klassifizierung habe und eben auch eine andere Ownership habe.
F. Zagel: Genau. Die liegt teils beim Kunden oder teils auch bei Siemens, dass ist je nachdem
offen.
Siemens Manager 1: Ja. Wir bieten dem Kunden einen Performance-Contract über die nächsten
zehn Jahre an. Und wenn wir in fünf Jahren feststellen, wir hätten hier ein Produkt, wenn wir das
wieder austauschen und das wäre dann nochmal so viel effizienter, dann ist es dem Kunden egal,
75
solange es funktioniert und er hat die Performanz. Da können wir das Produkt austauschen und
können ein neues Produkt mit reinbringen, weil es auch eines unserer Themen ist. Ich brauch
nicht noch mit dem Kunden groß diskutieren über zusätzliche Investitionen, sondern das würde
dann über den Performance-Contract gemacht werden. In diesem Zusammenhang hatte Herr
Busch mit Sicherheit das Thema Performance-Contracting angesprochen.
F. Zagel: Auf Ihrer Website habe ich gefunden, dass Siemens knapp 90.000 Zulieferer hat und
diese versucht bestmöglich zu tracken. Inwiefern führt Siemens diese Überprüfung durch, und
unterstützt Siemens einzelne Lieferanten direkt mit Know-how, beispielsweise durch die
Verfügungsstellung von eigenen Umweltmanagern?
Siemens Manager 1: Zum Ersten, alle unsere Zulieferer unterschreiben einen sogenannten
Siemens Code of Conduct for Suppliers. Indem verpflichten sie sich an entsprechende
Nachhaltigkeitsstandards zu halten. Diese werden dann an ein Risk Based Modell auditiert,
indem auf der einen Seite die Lieferanten ein Selbstaudit machen oder Siemens ein Audit macht,
oder Siemens eine externe Firma beauftragt bei dem Unternehmen ein Audit durchzuführen.
Wenn dort entsprechende Mängel festgestellt werden in Bezug auf den Code of Conduct, dann
wird auch gemeinsam mit dem Kunden daran gearbeitet, solche Sachen zu beseitigen, um die
Lieferkette und den Lieferanten nachhaltiger zu machen.
F. Zagel: Wird das teils auch im direkten Austausch von Personalkraft durchgeführt?
Siemens Manager 1: Wir würden nicht länger einen Manager dort hinschicken, aber wir würden
mit dem Lieferanten einen Workshop machen und über bestimmte Themen sprechen. Folgendes
würden wir erwarten, dass dieses derart umgesetzt wird. Dann müsste beispielsweise dieses oder
jenes Management-System eingeführt werden oder jene Tools und so weiter. Da würden wir
Tipps geben oder es werden vielleicht auch Schulungsthemen gemacht, aber wir würden kein
Personal dorthin abstellen das jahrelang bei den Lieferanten die Lieferkette optimiert.
F. Zagel: Wie ist Siemens in den einzelnen Divisionen auf künftige Regulationen vorbereitet und
wie wir diese im Unternehmen überwacht oder monitoriert?
Siemens Manager 1: Auf der einen Seite haben wir eine Abteilung zum Thema
Umweltmanagement. In der laufen im Prinzip alle zukünftigen Regulationen mit ein. Die wissen,
welche Themen sich dort tun und dass nicht nur in Bezug auf Klimawandel, sondern auch auf
Critical Materials oder auch Circular Economy oder sonstige Themen. Die bringen dann
entsprechende Standards zu den Divisionen, die dann Einfluss haben. Auf der einen Seite den
eigenen betrieblichen Umweltschutz, auf der anderen Seite auch den produktbezogenen
76
Umweltschutz, welche Themen dort mit zu berücksichtigen sind. Das ist der eine Strang wo ich
sage, ich mache die kompletten gesetzlichen Anforderungen dahinter. Der zweite Schritt ist,
wenn ich mehr in Richtung Positionierung im Markt gehe, und ich will als ein Leader in der
Dekarbonisierung wahrgenommen werden. Dann werden zusätzliche Lösungen gemacht, und da
gibt es unterschiedliche Aspekte, die dort in den Einheiten gemacht werden. Wenn man die
grundsätzliche Überwachung der Regulationsthemen, die gesetzlichen Vorschriften sieht, das
läuft über die entsprechenden Management-Systeme, die implementiert sind. Die Diskussion über
eine Positionierung bezüglich zusätzlicher Markt-Opportunities, das läuft in den Geschäften dann
aber selbst.
Interview 2: Interview Siemens AG 2, Top-Management with main focus on Product
Governance and Environmental Protection, Siemens AG and Fabian Zagel, 07.05.2020, 11:00-
12:00.
F. Zagel: Wie werden bei Siemens die Product Lifecycle Analysen durchgeführt und welches
sind die größten Schwierigkeiten hierbei? Gibt es eine externe Überprüfung durch Auditoren?
Siemens Manager 2: Life Cycle Assesements nach ISO 40,41,44 im Regelfall. Die 40 und 44 das
ist in der Methodik relativ frei. Im Wesentlichen definiert man ein Ziel und einen
Untersuchungsrahmen zu Beginn einer Studie. Wenn du beispielsweise einen Indikator nimmst,
zum Beispiel CO2 oder Versauerung, und schaust nur eine Phase an. Dann ist das auch
Compliant mit dem Standard, heißt aber nicht unbedingt, dass ich in voller Gänze alles angeguckt
habe. Das ist der Rahmen, in dem wir uns bewegen. Aber man muss schon immer eigentlich
diese ISO 40, 41, 44 im Auge haben, bei dem, was man tut. Entscheiden wird es dann, wenn wir
zu diesen externen Auditoren kommen. Das nennt sich im Prozess eines Review Panels, ein
Criticial Review der RCI zum Zeitpunkt X und das ist erforderlich nach Norm, wenn ich
vergleichende Studien mache, die für eine Publikation nach außen angedacht ist. Also wenn ich
mich jetzt hier mit meinen Produkten mit dem Wettbewerber vergleichen würde, und würde das
dann extern kommunizieren. Dann muss ich ein Critical Review einschalten. Das ist auch
formalisiert in der ganzen Norm, es gibt sogar einen spezifischen Anhang dafür, weil du brauchst
daneben Wissenschaft, andere Industrievertreter etc. . Und es ist nicht ganz einfach, und kostet
viel Geld. Critical Reviews machen wir im Regelfall zu 99 Prozent nicht, weil wir die LCA
Daten nicht vergleichend mit der Konkurrenz publizieren. Auf der anderen Seite ist es so, dass
diese Daten primär zur internen Informationsgewinnung nutzen. Oder mal Aussagen an den
77
Kunden zu geben, was ist beispielsweise der Carbon Footprint in der Manufacturing Stage. Aus
diesen LCAs kann man schlussfolgern, dass die Usestage die relevanteste Phase ist. Logisch, in
Industrie B2B-Produktem mit zehn bis 40 Jahren Lebensdauer, im Regelfall mit Antrieben
verbunden Bewegungen von großen Anlagen. Das kostet dann richtig viel Energie. Damit kommt
man dann schlussendlich auf eine Relevanz von einer 99 prozentigen Relevanz in der Use Stage.
Das ist so das, was man eigentlich für so ein Teil abzieht. Qualitativ erfasst über verschiedene
Produkte weiß ich final die Use Stage ist die Relevante. Um dann insgesamt die Performance des
Systems zu verbessern ist also Energieeffizienz der wichtigste Hebel für ein Eco Design in
unserem Produktfeld und du kannst das quantitativ belegen. Wobei man aufpassen muss, weil
verschiedene Indikatoren in verschiedene Richtungen gehen. Also höherer Energie oder
Materialaufwand für eine höheren effizienten Motor in der Manufacturing Stage Impact Resource
Depletion. Andere Faktoren, wie z.B. CO2 hole ich durch die höhere Effizienz wieder rein in der
Use Stage. Das heißt, es amortisiert sich nach X Motorentagen bis zu Wochen. Auf der anderen
Seite hole ich natürlich den Mehraufwand, also sogenannte Antibiotic Resource Depletion
Protection, so einen Mehraufwand hole ich durch die Enegieeinsprung in der Gebrauchsphase
nicht mit rein. Aber darum geht es eigentlich für uns bei dem Thema LCA, das wir das Ganze
quantitativ erfassen, bewerten können, einordnen können, um dann Schlüsse daraus zu ziehen
und auch zu sagen wo packen wir wirklich an. Und es ist eben nicht so, dass Eco-Design für uns
der relevanteste Hebel wäre, beispielsweise die Kupfermenge im Motor um 10 Prozent zu
reduzieren. Damit würden wir etwas falsch machen. Aber wenn ich nur eine Phase angucke,
könnte das rauskommen, da Kupfer eine hohe Umweltauswirkung hat. Das wäre dann aber der
falsche Hebel. Sowas betrachtet man im günstigsten Fall über LCAs und zieht dann daraus die
Schlüsse und kann das dann auch vernünftig argumentieren.
F. Zagel: Gibt es für die Siemens AG deren einheitlichen Plan Environmental Action Plan?
Siemens Manager 2: Ja, es gibt ein sogenanntes Programm, ein EHS Programm, Environmental
Protection Programm, da drunter. Das aktuelle EHS Programm endet dieses Geschäftsjahr und es
kommt ein neues. Dieses aktuelle EHS Programm, mit den 2 Environmental Modullen "Serve the
Environment“ und „Eco Excellence“, wo verschiedene Themenfelder beackert werden, wie zum
Beispiel der Umgang oder die Reduzierung von critical Raw Materials von Hazardous
Substances, die Qualität zu erhöhen, als auch den Deckungsgrad unseres Environmental Impact
Assesements zu erhöhen. „Serve the Environement“ beinhaltet Energieeffizienz für die
Fertigung, Verbesserung beim Abfall Management, Wasserreduzierung, weniger, ODS, das steht
78
in dem Report und wird dieses Jahr berichtet. Künftig haben wir in dem EHS dafür breiter und
ganzheitlicher gedacht zwei Module. Das eines ist Health and Safe at Siemens, das andere Eco
effiency at Siemens ab 2021 mit der Zielrichtung, bessere, mehr öko effiziente Lösungen zu
entwickeln, um unser Wachstum von Ressourcen oder primär von den Umweltauswirkungen zu
dekoppeln. Als Zielrichtung haben wir sechs Pfade im produktbezogenen Umweltschutz des
Upstreams. Mehr recycelte Materialien, weniger toxische Materialien, Energy Efficient Use of
Clean Energy, und Weiterverbesserung beim Abfall Management, mehr in Richtung Materielles
oder Werkstoffliches Recycling, weniger thermisches, keine Deposits oder Landfilling bis zu der
Entwicklung und Einführung eines robusten Eco Designs. Das heißt in dem Fall kontextualisiert
zum Geschäftsumfeld der jeweiligen Operations, zu einer hundertprozentigen Zufriedenheit der
Kunden mit der Environmental Performance über die nächsten zehn Jahre.
F. Zagel: Welche Ressourcen, Rohstoffgruppen machen den größten Anteil in der Produktion
aus? Wie werden Substitute getestet oder nachhaltige Ansätze?
Siemens Manager 2: Hier wurde es spannend als ich die Frage durchgelesen habe. Da sind wir
gerade dran. Man muss sich natürlich so ein Lieferkette ansehen mit einem Lieferpool von 200
000 Lieferanten, relevant davon sind dann wiederum ungefähr 80.000. Darunter hängt es an
vielen Parametern und es ist gar nicht so trivial umfassende Daten zu erhalten. Hier sind wir in
den letzten Jahren ein bisschen tiefer eingestiegen. Warum? Weil wir auch im Rahmen des neuen
Umweltschutzes Programmes darauf hinauswollen, tatsächlich einen Indikator für die
Ressourcenproduktivität darzustellen und damit eine Verbesserung durch das Umweltprogramm
zu messen. Und dafür haben wir eine ganze Wertschöpfungskette aufgerissen mit dem
verschiedenen Output. Also es kommt von Seiten der Organisation mit einer SCI weil wir uns
wiederum am Umweltimpact messen wollen. Es sind natürlich zum Großteil Metalle. Da drinnen
sind es dann eigentlich drei Metalle, die von der Trenage her den großen Umfang haben. Heißt
nicht unbedingt der Umwelt Impact, dass muss man wieder gegen zielen. Stahl, Eisen natürlich
dann Kupfer und dann tatsächlich etwas abstruseres wie Blei. Kunststoffe sind im Vergleich
überschaubar mengenmäßig, Trenagen sowieso, aber prozentual auch vom Volumen ungefähr 10
Prozent.
F. Zagel: Wie werden Substitute oder nachhaltigere Ansätze getestet?
Siemens Manager 2: Das ist wiederum vom Verfahren relativ simpel und hatten wir kurz in der
SCR umrissen. In der Vergangenheit war es natürlich ein bisschen Bauchgefühl und Wissen und
dann alles mal reduzieren. Das LCA hat uns Möglichkeiten gegeben, bestimmte Sachen ein
79
bisschen besser bezüglich Umweltauswirkungen einzuordnen. Wofür du eine RCI nutzen kannst:
Beispielsweise ich habe jetzt eine Produktfamilie, die Umrichter, da nehme ich mir ein Key
Produkt raus. Dort nehme ich ein Produkt heraus, das eine relativ gute Repräsentativität für die
gesamte Produktgruppe hat und schaue mir das mit einem RCI Mal an. Dann sehe ich zum
Beispiel der Kühlkörper aus Alu zum Großteil, Flachbaugruppen ein Drittel, Kühlkörper ein
Drittel was Umweltimpacts angeht. Macht es Sinn beim Alu was zu machen, kann ich was bei
der Flachbaugruppe machen, oder kann ich bei den Sonstigen was machen? Was bringt es dann
für den Umweltnutzen? Das wäre das gängige Vorgehen, wie ich RCI oder die
Umwelteinordnungen nutze, um dann qualitativ festzuschreiben. In meinem Umfeld hat Material
X diesen Einfluss, und dieses Material müssen wir, so gut es geht, ersetzen. Anderes Beispiel
Kunststoffe. Da haben wir in den letzten Jahren nach RCI eigentlich kaum bis keinen
Umweltimpact entdeckt. Es taucht nie auf. Kunststoffe kann man in dem Zusammenhang
vergessen. Jetzt wissen wir aber natürlich beide, dass diese Kunststoffe kosten. Die ganze Plastik
Diskussion ist ja trotzdem da. Warum? Weil das ganze End of life Management nicht
funktioniert. Das heißt so etwas wie sterbende Fische oder Seelöwen mit Plastik im Magen. Das
taucht natürlich in keinem RCI auf. Das heißt, da muss man sich auch an anderen Dingen
orientieren, heißt aber für uns okay, was ist das Problem mit Kunststoffen? Es ist nicht CO2. Es
ist nicht dies, es ist nicht jenes, sondern ein nicht funktionierendes End of life Management. Was
kann man jetzt tun, um End of life Management bei Plastik zu verbessern? Du müsstest eigentlich
einen Pool generieren. Darüber, dass es sich lohnt. Warum funktioniert das Recycling nicht? Das
Erdöl ist viel zu billig als Inputkanal. Der Kunststoff ist gegenüber anderen Materialien viel zu
günstig, weil sich sowas wie die Auswirkungen auf die Weltmeere nicht auf den Preis abbilden.
Und dann kämpfst du ein bisschen gegen Windmühlen in einem Wirtschaftsunternehmen. Wenn
du sagst: „Gut, ich will die Meere retten deswegen kaufe ich ein 20 Prozent teureres Material
ein“, das ist schwierig. Aber die Idee ist jetzt, was wir hier mit refilling Plastic aufgesetzt haben.
Ja, hier gibt es ein Problem, es wäre unser Wunsch dahin, dass wir sukzessive den Anteil an
Recycled Content Secondary Input bei Kunststoffen erhöhen. Biokunststoff macht keinen Sinn.
Bio Materialien kann man genug für andere Sachen verwenden, brauchen wir jetzt nicht. Das
Erdöl ist da, es ist billig. Es ist besser daraus ein Material zu machen als Erdöl zu verbrennen für
CO2. Es ist gar nicht so doof aus Erdöl ein Material zu machen. Man darf es nur halt nicht ins
Meer zu schmeißen. Was mach ich jetzt um einen Pull generieren in dem Markt? Ich muss mehr
recycelte Materialien kaufen, da lohnt sich das Recycling, Sammlung und Sortierung.
80
Schlussendlich ist schwer zu sagen was Siemens damit beeinflussen kann. Aber das ist unsere
Strategie dahinter. Das heißt, wir schauen sukzessive wer hat vernünftige Angebote, wer hat
Materialien, die von den technischen Eigenschaften passen, wo die Kunststoffe dann auch einen
recycelten Anteil haben? Da guckt man jetzt genauer hin. Wir fragen immer wieder nach und
haben hierzu einen Supplier Day gemacht. Jetzt muss man sehen, wie sich das auswirkt.
Natürlich kannst du in vielen Fällen nicht eins zu eins in vielen irgendwas austauschen. Hier
kannst nicht argumentieren, dass du wegen dem Recycling Content ein spezielles PLM neu
designst. Das heißt, du kannst es dann immer nur in Neuentwicklungen mit einbringen. Es wäre
sonst alles viel zu teuer. Aber im Falle von anstehenden Redesign in dem neuen Produkt gibt es
die Aufforderung, schaut speziell hin bei den Kunststoffen, die ihr einsetzt, habt ihr etwas mit
denselben technischen Eigenschaften den Prozentanteil von recyceltem Content zu erhöhen. So in
etwa ist das Vorgehen.
F. Zagel: in einer idealen Welt wäre dann sozusagen die nachhaltigste Lösung für den Planeten
auch die kostengünstigste. Und da sind wir öfters im Bereich des Widersachlichen, da wir
Material neu aufbereiten und mehr Energie verbrauchen auf Kosten des Planeten. Siemens
demonstriert, dass es technologisch und wirtschaftlich lohnenswert ist, in klimafreundliche
Technologien zu investieren. Wie werden im Konzern neue Innovationen in diesen Feldern
vorangetrieben? Und für einen möglichen Vertrieb vorbereitet?
Siemens Manager 2: Naja, auf der einen Seite ist es langweilig, auf der anderen Seite wird es
dann schon schwierig. Intrinsisch befasst sich Siemens in einer DI oder SI im ganzen Umfeld mit
den Megatrends mit den Themen Produktivität und Energieeffizienz. Bedeutet, dass es ein
Kernthema ist in den Entwicklungsprodukten. Energieeffizienz, Produktivitätserhöhung, Weg
von Hardware auf Software oder sowas. Das bringt in vielen Fällen immer eine Reduktion des
Umweltimpacts im Kontext mit sich. Der Markt Anreiz durch eine OPEX Reduktion beim
Kunden geht Hand in Hand mit der Reduktion der Umweltimpacts. Das Marketing verwendet
Parameter, einmal gibt es Kilowattstunden, da gibt's Euros an Einsparungen, die primär genutzt
werden. Was Ich in den letzten Jahren ein bisschen angefangen habe, ist dann eben über
sogenannte Eco Efficiency Analysen, den Vergleich meines Produkts zur Vorgeneration den
Kundennutzen und Umweltnutzen in einer Matrix aufzuzeigen. Eco-Design super, das kann man
im Marketing auch entsprechend unterbringen. Das ist aber jetzt nicht Gang und Gäbe.
Kundenseitig sind meist ausschlagend die Einsparung der Euros die man durch die Reduktion
Kilowattstunden übersetzen kann. Und das ist sage ich mal die meist verbreitete
81
Vertriebsauffassung von dieser Thematik. Ab und an kommt mal das Thema CO2, aber
überschaubar. Und wie gesagt, in vielen Fällen reicht die Kilowattstunde Einsparung mit einem
Faktor für den GridMix zu übersetzen, dann hat man die CO2-Einsparungen. Aber wie gesagt,
auch ein Teil ist es, da besser zu werden. Sowohl in der Analyse, was der Markt, was der Kunde
möchte, und dann die Entwicklung zu betrachten im Rahmen von dem Neuen Umweltprogramm.
F. Zagel: In einem Bericht der Digital Industrie wurde einerseits der Digital Twin sowie Additive
Manufacturing vorgestellt. Für beide wird explizit erwähnt wird, dass diese eine zukünftige
umwelteffizientere Produktion ermöglichen. Wie unterscheiden sich diese Methoden zu den
früheren? Und was ist Ihr Alleinstellungsmerkmal bezüglich Nachhaltigkeit?
Siemens Manager 2: Ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal glaube ich gibt es erst einmal so nicht. Für
Additive Manufacturing ist es relativ klar. Ich habe irgendwo einen Break- even für irgendwelche
Reparatur Prozesse. Das ist viel günstiger als Wertstoffverfahren vorzuhalten. Die ganze Tiefe,
die Lagerhaltung für Ersatzteile kann ich damit signifikant reduzieren. Da haben wir
verschiedene Beispiele. Das eine ist die DI das andere ist eine GP, heute Energy im Umfeld der
Turbinenschaufeln. Da haben wir auch mal einen Business Case gerechnet. Hier werden die alten
Turbinenschaufeln genommen. Über ein Additive Manufacturing Verfahren werden diese
repariert, entschichtet und die Schutzschicht wieder neu aufgebaut und Werkstoffe erneuert. Also
quasi wie, wenn man eine Wand neu verputzt. Und das ist natürlich viel Energie und Umwelt
monetär effizienter, als wenn ich diese gesamte aus super Stahl, super Legierung wieder so eine
neue Schaufel und neu Härten und erstellen muss abhängig von Stückzahlen. Aber hier erreicht
man über einen additive Manufacturing natürlich eine Verbesserung des Umweltfußabdrucks.
Auf der anderen Seite der Digital Twin ist ein sehr schönes Beispiel. Ich bin ein großer Fan
hiervon. Aber jetzt nicht nur wie es dargestellt ist bezüglich Einsparungen. Ich brauche kein
physikalisches Werkstück dafür, dass wäre eine Einsparung, weil ich Material und Energie spare.
Sondern das Spannende daran ist aus meiner Sicht, das ich zu einem Eco Design an dem Digital
Twin viel besser darstellen lässt, als wenn ich nur auf dem Papier über das Pflichtenheft gehe.
Das heißt zum Beispiel, die Anzeige von Toxic substances belastetet Bauteilen mache ich rot.
Hier könnte ich Aufschluss erhalten, was sind die Komponenten in meinem Produkt mit den
größten CO2 Komponenten? Also damit kriege ich direkt ein Eco-Design auf den Tisch von dem
Designer. Die wissen, welche Komponenten mit was belastet sind. Man kann dahingehend eben
anders arbeiten. Das denke ich bringt einen großen Hub für das Thema Eco-Design. Wo ich ein
Fan von einem Digital Twin bin ist, wenn ich das kombiniere mit einer Standard Datenhaltung im
82
plm-System, dann steckt dahinter das Material und daraus erhalte ich gleichzeitig die Ökobilanz.
Ich kann darüber die Umweltimpacts ableiten und kann dann Hands-on dann damit arbeiten. Ich
würde den recycelt Content sehen von Materialien, was bringt das bezogen auf das Design von
Produkten, das ist das Schöne an dem Digital Twin. Aber wichtig, ich spare mir halt fünf bis zehn
Muster. Auf der anderen Seite kann ich auch bestimmte Tests spare in der Form durchführen,
weil ich das eben digital simulieren kann. Das spart natürlich entsprechende Ressourcen.
F. Zagel: Wo sehen Sie die größten Risiken für Industrien oder Konkurrenten die Sustainability,
vor allem im Hinblick auf die Planetseite bisher weniger oder gar nicht berücksichtigt haben?
Siemens Manager 2: Ja, man muss das immer ein bisschen einordnen. Wir betrachten relativ viel
an Risiken, die damit eingehen, wie Biodiversität bis zu Wasser, bis zu diesem CO2
Klimawandel. Für uns weniger relevant ist die Biodiversität da wir keinen Ackerbau machen,
keine Pestizidentwicklung oder keine Chemie. Da habe ich eine höhere Relevanz in der Richtung
aus meiner Sicht als für unsere Elektrotechnik und Produkte Risiken in Summe. Ich glaube, dass
das schon für uns als Weltbevölkerung die Biodiversität anhänglich daran schon relativ große
Herausforderung wird nach dem Klimawandel. Die Dinge hängen alle, alle zusammen. Das ist
auch, dass die singuläre Betrachtung in vielen Fällen wenig Sinn macht. Du hast immer eine
Verkettung dieser ganzen Impacts, Klima auf Biodiversität und andersherum. Und ich glaube,
diese Komplexität ist noch schwierig einzuschätzen. In Hinsicht auf die Komplexität da
schlummert das Risiko. Bzw. auch das ich glaube, dass es schwierig wird, wenn ich eine
Diskussion um das Thema Klimawandel anschaue. Wie Gesellschaften eigentlich auseinander
driften in der Wahrnehmung, gesteuert von Lobby oder nicht, sei dahingestellt. Aber da einen
gemeinsamen Nenner zu finden ist, glaube ich auch ein riesen Risiko, das hier jetzt kurzfristig,
mittelfristig irgendwo vernünftig zu managen.
Interview 3: Interview Manager Adidas 1, Top-Management with main focus on CSR and Sustainability and F. Zagel, 08.04.2020 9:30-10:00.
F. Zagel: Wie ist im Unternehmen Adidas „Sustainability“ definiert und gelebt?
Manager Adidas 1: Adidas ist ein „Belive“-getriebenes Unternehmen, mit dem Purpose und
Response "We have the Power to Chance lifes". Und das ist die Grundbasis, ob wir intrinsisch
unsere Programme mit einer sehr hohen Leidenschaft, auch was die Erwartungshaltung der
Mitarbeiter betrifft, vorantreiben. Das gibt dem Unternehmen und den Beschäftigten sehr starke
emotionale Triebkraft. Das ist auch entsprechend umfassend in unserem Geschäftsbericht im
83
Nachhaltigkeitskapitel beschrieben. Wir folgen momentan einer Strategie bis Ende 2020, mit
ganz klar definierten strategischen Prioritäten sowohl für die Umwelt-Seite beziehungsweise
Planet-Seite als auch für die People-Seite. Für die Umwelt-Seite haben wir die drei großen
strategischen Prioritäten für die Themen Wasser, innovative Materialien und Energie definiert.
Für den Bereich Soziales ist ein ganz starkes Thema Empowerment. Empowerment im Sinne
vom Schutz der Menschenrechte, Empowerement, aber auch an die Beschäftigten, ihre
Fertigkeiten weiter zu stärken. Dann gibt es natürlich auch das Thema Communities. Das heißt in
den Communities wo wir tätig sind, sei es Beschaffungs- oder Absatzbedingt hier seinen Beitrag
zu leisten und dann natürlich das ganze Thema Activitation. Das heißt, welche Formen des
Engagements können wir mit Konsumenten, beispielsweise mit Fans eingehen, um das Thema
Sustainability weiter voran zu treiben Diese sind die sechs strategischen Prioritären. Drei für
Umwelt, drei für Soziales, die momentan den Rahmen für unsere Initiativen darstellen. Für alle
diese haben wir mehr oder weniger messbare Zielsetzungen bis 2020 definiert und die tracken
wir relativ genau und berichten regelmäßig über den Fortschritt und wie weit wir diese
Zielsetzung erreicht haben. Das ist jetzt mal so ganz grob beschrieben, aber da finden Sie deutlich
detailliertere Informationen auf der Webseite. Auch wir werden sicherlich jetzt, zum Ende des
Jahres, dann mit unserer Strategie 2025 kommen und mit den entsprechenden
Nachhaltigkeitsziele. Das ist aber alles noch in der Entwicklung.
F. Zagel: Von der Öffentlichkeitswirkung oder Außendarstellung ist mir vor allem die Parley
Ocean Aktivität sowie wie die Vision 2024, dass der Polyester in Adidas Produkten komplett
recycelbar sein soll hängen geblieben.
Manager Adidas 1: Das ist eher umgekehrt, dass wir im Grunde vollkommen umgestellt haben.
Die Nutzung von so sogenanntem konventionellem Polyester auf recyceltem Polyester. Polyester
ist eins der Haupteinsatzmaterialien, die größte Gruppe. Hier haben wir ein sehr ehrgeiziges Ziel,
die Umstellung des konventionelles, normale Polyester durch 100 Prozent recycelte Polyester zu
ersetzen. Das ist unsere Zielsetzung 2024. Da haben wir auch ganz klare Meilensteine.
F. Zagel: Welches sind die größten internen und externen Anforderungen, die Ihnen bei der
Durchführung von Maßnahmen auffallen?
Manager Adidas 1: Intern sind die größten Anforderungen, dass wir natürlich immer die Waage
zwischen Innovation, was unsere Ambitionen sind und technischer Machbarkeit sowie auch
Skalierbarkeit halten müssen. Wir gehören nicht zu den Unternehmen, die einen Elfenbeinturm
bauen und dann nicht in der Lage sind dieses Thema zu skalieren. Sondern unsere Zielsetzung ist
84
es immer, wann immer wir eine Nachhaltigkeitsinnovation entwickeln, gleich zu versuchen, diese
auch in unseren Gesamtprozess vollwertig umzusetzen. Ein tolles Beispiel ist das Thema
recycelte Polyester, bei dem wir eine ganz klare Skalierungspolitik gefahren haben. Gleiches gilt
beispielsweise für den Einsatz nachhaltiger Baumwolle. Wir sind Gründungsmitglied in der
„Better-Cotton“-Initiative und haben aber auch von Anfang an gesagt, wir wollen im Grunde
konventionelle Baumwolle hundertprozentig durch nachhaltige Baumwolle ersetzen. Das haben
wir dann über die Jahre durch ehrgeizige Ziele hochskaliert und 2017 diese 100 Prozent erreicht.
Das waren also nur zwei Beispiele. Sie hatten auch nochmal das Thema Future Craft Loop
angesprochen. Hier ist natürlich erst einmal das Ziel gewesen, ein Material zu entwickeln, das
mehrfach recycelbar ist und das in einem Performance Produkt, wie einem Laufschuh. Dann als
zweiten Schritt einen geschlossenen Kreislauf schrittweise aufzubauen, bei denen wir
sicherstellen können, dass dieses Material auch seinen Weg zurückfindet und wieder in die
Produktion und in die Herstellung eines Laufschuhs zurückfindet. Die Herausforderung liegt hier
eher in der Materialentwicklung und in der Produktentwicklung mit den entsprechenden
Materialien, als vielmehr in der Rückführung. Die Rückführung kann man immer relativ gut
hinbekommen. Aber viel wichtiger ist wirklich die Materialinnovation, die es erlaubt, ein
recyceltes Material mehrmals einzusetzen, ohne sogenannte Funktions- und Qualitätsverluste zu
erleiden. Das versuchen wir jetzt natürlich aus diesem kleinen Piloten schrittweise zu skalieren.
Und das war unserer Ansicht nach, ein wichtiger Impuls, den wir auch in der Branche gesetzt
haben.
F. Zagel: Könnte man sich dort auch vorstellen, dass für weitere Produktgruppen durchzuführen?
Manager Adidas 1: Ja, das kann man. Wir haben beispielsweise auf der ISPO jetzt eine Outdoor
Jacke nach dem gleichen Designkonzept vorgestellt, den Futurecraft Outdoor Anorak. Der
besteht auch aus nur einem Material und verzichtet auf nahezu alle Komponenten, die
normalerweise andere Materialien beinhalten, wie bei Zippern, Reißverschlüssen und solchen
Sachen. Das heißt, wir haben hier ein Designkonzept, sortenrein durch das es grundsätzlich
technisch möglich ist es wieder gesamtheitlich zu recyceln und wieder ein neues Teil daraus zu
machen. Das sind genau diese Innovationstreiber, die für uns wichtig sind.
F. Zagel: Ein ähnliches Prinzip ist mir aus der Jeansproduktion bekannt, die gebrauchte
Baumwollfasern für eine Jeans neu verwenden.
Manager Adidas 1: Genau, recycelte Denim. Hier muss man sagen, dass die recycelte Baumwolle
von der Funktionalität und Qualität eingeschränkt ist und dass sie in der Regel dann auch wieder
85
gemischt werden muss mit konventionellen, neuen Fasern. Aber das ist schon ein toller Ansatz,
das zeigt aber auch das Thema der technischen Umsetzbarkeit. Unterm Strich ist es wichtig, dass
wir das wirklich ganz stark an dem Thema technische Umsetzbarkeit weiterarbeiten.
F. Zagel: Sollte es möglich sein, in der Zukunft mehrere Produktpaletten mit diesem Ansatz im
größeren Rahmen zu führen? Könnte man sich auch vorstellen, dann mit Monatsmodellen,
beispielsweise Laufschuhen für Marathonläufer, immer wieder neue Schuhe auszugeben, die
dann in den Verwertungskreislauf zurückgeführt werden, wenn man diese zurückschickt?
Manager Adidas 1: Genau, das, was Sie sagen so ein bisschen zu Ende gedacht. Dass Sie eben
eine Art Rückführungsprozess haben, indem man möglicherweise auch ein Rental-Modell
anbietet, wo ein Produkt genutzt wird, dann entweder zum technischen Recycling zurückgegeben
wird oder eben auch zu einer Weiterverwertung oder Weiterverwendung. Das sind alles
Konzeptlösungen, über die wir uns momentan Gedanken machen. Ein ganz konkretes Beispiel,
ist da unsere Zusammenarbeit mit dem Unternehmen Staffstar in England, wo wir das Thema des
sogenannten re-commerce weiter pilotieren. Das heißt, hier haben die Verbraucher die
Möglichkeit, ihre Produkte zu verkaufen, weil sie noch eine gewisse Wertigkeit haben. Staffstar
übernimmt dann die Weitervermarktung eines gebrauchten Produkts. Auch das ist ein Beitrag zur
Verlängerung des Lebenszyklus eines Produktes. Das wird in bestimmten Ländern auch
zunehmend nachgefragt und ist damit auch attraktiv.
F. Zagel: Dann habe ich auch über die Webseite und Ihr Team mitbekommen, dass Sie bei
Adidas eine eigene Abteilung rein bezüglich Sustainability haben. Wie sind Sie im Organigramm
aufgeführt?
Manager Adidas 1: Ich, wie gesagt, in meiner Funktion berichte an den COO, das
Vorstandsmitglied für Global Operations und habe ein Team von Experten, dass mit den
entsprechenden Hauptfunktionen zusammenarbeitet, beispielsweise dem
Produktentwicklungsteam oder Beschaffungsteam. Innerhalb des Beschaffungsteams haben wir
noch einmal ein großes Team, welches sich mit der Beratung und Überwachung unser
Beschaffungskette beschäftigt. Das Thema Monitoring nach Umwelt und Arbeitsbedingungen,
aber auch das Thema Beratung des Themas Stakeholder Engagement in den entsprechenden
Ländern. Und diese Experten arbeiten unter meinem Schirm, den ich im Unternehmen bilde, sehr
eng zusammen.
F. Zagel: Sind Sie auch für die Tochterunternehmen wie Reebok und Taylor Made zuständig?
86
Manager Adidas 1: Ja, Taylor Made gehört nicht mehr zu Adidas. Aber Reebok, genau diese
Themen, die sogenannten Querschnittsthemen, zeichnen ich genauso verantwortlich für die
Marke Adidas.
F. Zagel: Dann habe ich noch eine Frage bezüglich der Konkurrenz oder Adidas im Vergleich zu
anderen Sportartikelhersteller. Sehen Sie sich da vorbereitet auf höhere Regulation der Politik?
Manager Adidas 1: Wir verfolgen natürlich gesetzliche Entwicklungen sehr genau und unser Ziel
ist es immer einen Schritt ahead of the curve zu sein. Das heißt, dass wir Dinge tun, die derzeit
noch nicht gesetzlich reguliert sind. Ich denke beispielsweise hier an unsere gesamte
Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung, die viel weiter geht als die gesetzlichen Vorgaben. Ich denke
hier auch an unsere Pragmatik, wie wir das Thema Nachhaltigkeit und Management in unserer
globalen Beschaffungskette managen und was wir offenlegen. Wir sind hier sehr weit, wesentlich
weiter als Gesetzgeber gefordert. Das heißt, hier macht uns die gesetzlichen Entwicklungen keine
Herausforderung. Aber wir haben natürlich auch eine höhere Erwartungshaltung, die sich viel
stärker an den Erwartungen der Konsumenten und anderen Stakeholder, wie beispielsweise
Analysten orientiert. Wir sind Gegenstand laufender Untersuchungen von Analysten-
Assesements. Beispiel ist hierzu der Dow Jones Sustainability Assessment oder Coorporate
Human Rights Benchmark. Das sind ganz wichtige Assessments für uns, die den Analysten dann
auch einen Eindruck geben, wie unsere Leistung und in der Performance im Unternehmen
gesehen wird im Vergleich zu unseren Wettbewerbern. Die Tatsache, dass wir im Dow Jones seit
seinem Bestehen mehr als 20 Jahre gelistet sind, und jetzt davon zwölf Mal als die Nummer eins
in unserer Industrie, gibt uns natürlich auch eine Orientierung, dass wir die Dinge in Bezug auf
externe Benchmarks recht gut machen. Gleiches gilt auch für das Thema der
menschenrechtlichen Sorgfaltspflichten, die durch den koorporativen Human Rights Benchmark
abgegriffen werden. Da sind wir das zweite Mal hintereinander auch die Nummer eins in unserer
Industrie geworden, sondern über alle Industrien hinweg, die abgegriffen worden. Das sind gute
Orientierungsgeber für uns, wo wir derzeit gesehen werden. Aber für uns ist das natürlich weitere
Motivation, Programme weiterzuentwickeln. Wir verfolgen die Tätigkeiten unserer
Wettbewerber sehr genau und gucken wo haben wir Schwächen und wo können wir besser
werden. Das ist Teil unserer regelmäßigen Wettbewerberanalyse.
F. Zagel: Wie Sie schon erwähnt haben in Bezug auf Investoren ist Adidas seit mehr als 20
Jahren damit am sehr stark aktiv in dem Thema Sustainability. Sehen Sie diese starke
Positionierung auch verknüpft mit der positiven Aktienentwicklung?
87
Manager Adidas 1: Also ganz unabhängig davon haben wir das Thema der Nachhaltigkeit sehr
kontinuierlich betrieben und das schlägt sich auch sehr stark mit diesen positiven Bewertungen
wieder. Ein Merkmal des Dow Jones Sustainability Index ist, dass dieser wirklich alle
Nachhaltigkeitsthemen sowie die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung, die Innovationsfähigkeit, die
Mitarbeiterkultur und die Nachhaltigkeitsperformance in seinen Sektionen mit einbezieht, und
daher ein sehr holistisches Assesement ist. Das zeigt ganz einfach, dass wir aus all diesen
Bereichen in den vergangenen Jahren unsere Hausaufgaben recht gut gemacht haben.
F. Zagel: Abschließende hätte ich noch eine Frage bezüglich der Lieferkette oder
Kundenbeziehungen. Untersagt Adidas Lieferanten mit klimaschädlichen Geschäftspraktiken die
Zusammenarbeit oder ist diese erst unter Bedingungen erlaubt?
Manager Adidas 1: Ja, es besteht ein sehr, sehr strenges Initial Assement oder auch Onboarding
Prozess für neue Lieferanten oder auch die Prozesse neuer Lieferanten. Das heißt, ein Lieferant
kann erst autorisiert werden, wenn er von unseren Experten im Vorfeld geprüft wurde, auf die
von uns definierten Umweltvorgaben und auf die sozialrelevanten Vorgaben. Erst wenn er diese
erfüllt, kann er autorisierter Lieferant werden. Dann wird der Lieferant Gegenstand einer
regelmäßigen Untersuchung. Wir haben bestimmte KPI's definiert, anhand derer wir die
Leistung, Nachhaltigkeitsleistung unseren Lieferanten fortlaufend messen und auch darüber
berichten. Das heißt, wenn wir einen Lieferanten haben, der möglicherweise gegen wichtige
Vorschriften wiederholt verstößt, dann haben wir hier einen mehrstufigen Verwarn-Prozess, der
am Ende des Tages auch die Auslösung Geschäftsverbindungen zur Folge haben wird.
F. Zagel: Wird mit diesen Lieferanten teils zusammengearbeitet, das Know-how zur Verfügung
gestellt wird seitens Adidas?
Manager Adidas 1: Das ist natürlich ein ganz wesentliches Element unseres Capacity Buildings,
das wir tun. Wir haben unser Umweltingenieure, Textilingenieure und Umweltwissenschaftler in
unseren Teams, in den Beschaffungsländern, die unsere Lieferanten fortlaufend zu diesen
Themen beraten.
Interview 4: Interview Manager 2, Middle-Management with main focus on Radical Technology Innovation and Fabian Zagel, 13 May 10:00-11:00.
F. Zagel: Wie sieht ihr Aufgabenfeld in der Future Technology Innovationabteilung bei Adidas
aus?
88
Manager Adidas 2: Das Adidas Future Team ist das zentrale Forschungs- und Entwicklungsteam
von Adidas, also Central Research and Development Team. Dieses spezialisiert sich auf
Innovationen, die global von Adidas in ihren Produkten verwendet werden. Das ultimative Ziel
ist natürlich auf den Konsumenten gerichtet. Das im Endeffekt eine Innovation beim
Konsumenten ankommt, ist es meistens nicht nur eine Produktinnovationen, sondern das betrifft
dann eher eine Prozessinnovation, eine Materialinnovation oder auch eine Business-Modell
Innovation. Das wird praktisch ganzheitlich von unserem Team betreut, und meine konkrete
Aufgabe ist hauptsächlich auf Prozessentwicklungen gerichtet in meiner Funktion.
F. Zagel: Das Thema Prozessoptimierung hat dann vor allem mit dem Herstellungsprozess zu tun
oder allgemein Prozesse von Onlinehandel bis zur Abwicklung beim Kunden?
Manager Adidas 2: Hauptsächlich Produktherstellungsprozesse. Das Innovationsteam ist
kundenfokussiert. Der Kunde steht im Mittelpunkt, und wir versuchen Innovationen für gesamt
Adidas zu generieren, die im Endeffekt eins zu eins beim Konsumenten ankommen. Im Endeffekt
ist der Fokus auf radical Innovation gerichtet und nur geringfügig auf inkrementale
Prozessinnovation. Und was du gemeint hast, sind dann interne Prozessteams die sich die
internen Prozesse ansehen, wie kann man Prozesse noch effizienter machen? Aber das Future
Team ist auf den Kunden ausgerichtet und versorgt die Brands, Business Units mit holistischen
Konzepten und Innovationen. Das heißt, die Innovation die von uns kommt kann meistens nicht
nur für einen eingeschränkten Bereich verwendet werden, sondern dann von ganz vielen
Bereichen.
F. Zagel: Adidas ist der zweitgrößte Sportartikelhersteller der Welt. Welche Herausforderungen
sind die größten bezüglich Nachhaltigkeit in der Industrie aus deiner Sicht?
Manager Adidas 2: Also grundsätzlich kann man da eigentlich unterscheiden. Einerseits die
Herstellung allgemein und vor allem der Herstellungsstandort, da der Großteil der Produkte in
Asien hergestellt wird, also in einem relativ bestimmten Teil der Erde. Und der Verkauf findet
weltweit statt. Man hat eine geografisch zentrale Produktionsstätte aber einen globalen
Verkaufsstandort sozusagen. Dadurch fallen dann grundsätzlich immer hohe Transportwege an,
dass ist eine Challenge für die Nachhaltigkeit. Da gibt es auch Ansätze, wie man damit besser
umgehen kann. Das zweite, es sind Konsumgüter und nicht nur rein auf Adidas bezogen, sondern
generell, das heißt bei Konsumgütern fehlt oft noch das Verständnis von dieser extremen
Langlebigkeit. Wenn man sich jetzt ein Auto kauft, das eigentlich auch ein Konsumgut ist, aber
sehr teuer, dann trifft man die Entscheidung nicht leicht. Jedoch bei Konsumgütern, auch
89
Sportartikeln ist das so, dass man dann die Kaufentscheidung relativ schnell trifft und hat
verhältnismäßig eine relativ kurze Produkt-Lebenszeit hat. Das ist etwas, dass es nicht so ganz
einfach macht für die Nachhaltigkeit. Das ist jetzt aber grundsätzlich auf die Industrie bezogen,
auf die Textil- und Sportartikelindustrie. Einmal der zentrale Produktionsstandort, das heißt, man
hat Transportwege. Das zweite ist, dass Kunden bei Textilien und Sportartikeln nicht diese ganz
großen Kaufentscheidungen haben. Dadurch ist der Produktlebenszyklus nicht zu lang und der
Kunde verlangt immer wieder Neues. Dieses wird dann durch neuen Bedarf dann bedient.
F. Zagel: Das haben wir ähnlich schon in der Arbeit ausgearbeitet. Die Transportwege hatte ich
gar nicht in Betracht gezogen. Das ist auf jeden Fall ein guter Punkt. Im vorherigen Interview
hatten wir das Thema Benchmarks von Adidas. Adidas ist ausgezeichnet mit dem Human Rights
Benchmark, wo es um die Produktionsfaktoren bezüglich fairer Löhne und faire Stundenzahlen in
Asien geht.
Manager Adidas 2: Das sind jetzt Probleme, die die ganze Industrie betreffen und nicht rein
Adidas. Klamotten, die du kaufst, kommen schon zum größten Teil aus Asien. Der Markt hat sehr
viele Sorten sowie bei Klamotten mit unterschiedlichen Größen. Da braucht man auch andere
Zuschnitte, fertigt die sozusagen an. Wenn dann ein Produkt nicht so lange lebt, dann beeinflusst
es natürlich auch die Nachhaltigkeit in der Produktion an sich.
F. Zagel: Im Jahresreport werden Öko-Innovation und Öko-Aktivierung eine Schlüsselrolle
zugeordnet. Wie werden neue Innovationen für Produkte bei Adidas getestet?
Manager Adidas 2: Adidas ist sehr bekannt für seine hohe Qualität, die von den Kunden
geschätzt wird. Dadurch haben wir ein strenges Qualitätsmanagement. Das sind standardisierte
Tests, die Schuhe in einer bestimmten Kategorie bestehen müssen. Die Tests sind dann auch
teilweise angepasst für die einzelnen Sportarten. Die Tests finden statt entlang der kompletten
Supply Chain und nicht nur am finalen Produkt, sondern vorher schon einzelne Komponenten
getestet. Nur weil es eine Innovation ist und was Neues ist, heißt es nicht, dass die Qualität
darunter leiden darf. Und dadurch haben Produkte, die eine neue Innovation enthalten, die
gleichen Standards. Also die müssen dieselben Qualitätsstandards bestehen wie alle anderen
Produkte innerhalb der Kategorie. Es könnte durchaus sein, dass durch eine Innovation das etwas
was Neues kreiert wird das es bisher noch nicht gab, oder sage ich mal angepasst werden musste.
Zum Beispiel, als wir angefangen haben, 3D gedruckte Sohlen zu machen. Da mussten natürlich
in der Produktion andere Qualitätsstandards definiert werden. Aber das ist immer auf den
Konsumenten, auf das Endprodukt gerichtet. Jedes Produkt muss im Endeffekt ein
90
Anwendungstest bestehen. Der Anwendungstest ist dann das Ultimative wenn das Bestehen nach
den Kriterien, die definiert sind, ist alles okay. Und durch diese Labor- oder Standortqualitätstest
wird dann eine gute Vergleichbarkeit in der Produktion gegeben, was die Qualität garantiert.
F. Zagel: Werden zu den Produkten von Adidas Umweltbilanzen aufgestellt? Auf den Produkten
werden die Hauptgruppen in der Regel ausgewiesen, beispielsweise x Prozent aus Polyester, und
so weiter. Werden in der Produktion oder schlussendlich beim Produkt auch eine Umweltbilanz
erstellt, wo beispielsweise dann der komplette Lieferweg mit eingespeist wurde?
Manager Adidas 2: Dazu kann ich schon was sagen. Für Umweltbilanzen gibt es standardisierte
Vorgehensweisen wie kann man eine Umweltbilanz kalkulieren. Das wird praktisch nach diesen
erstellt, intern gibt es noch höhere Ansprüche, was das angeht. Es gibt diese standardisierten
Vorgehensweisen, Umweltbilanzen zu berechnen, intern gibt es teilweise einige separate
Berechnungen, was den Carbon Footprint angeht. Hier wird dann schon versucht, sicher nicht
immer möglich, die gesamte Lieferkette einzubeziehen. Es geht zum Raw Material zurück, bei
dem es sehr schwer nachvollziehbar ist, dass wir alle alle Daten haben. Zu Komponenten
Lieferanten hat man meist eine sehr gute Beziehung. Da wird dann schon teils sehr weit
heruntergebrochen.
F. Zagel: Bei Siemens ist es ähnlich komplex gewesen in den Ökobilanzen oder Life Cycle
Analysen, die durchgeführt werden. Einfacher ist es nachzuvollziehen was mache ich in meiner
Produktion und passiert auf dem Lieferweg zu verfolgen. Aber wenn ich in alle Zulieferer ansehe
und aufgeschlüsselt habe wird es sehr kompliziert oder fast unmöglich.
Manager Adidas 2: Als Adidas beziehen wir die Produkte hauptsächlich von Zulieferern. Entlang
der Lieferkette haben wir gute Beziehungen, zu den Partnern mit denen wir arbeiten, in den
Schuhfabrik sozusagen und den Fabriken. Die unterstützen uns hier sehr die Umweltbilanzen zu
erstellen. Und da gibt es auch diese Initiative mit den Fabriken in Asien, das ist schon eine sehr
kontrollierte Fertigung. Entlang der Lieferkette kontrolliert Adidas schon sehr stark was passiert
bei den Zulieferungen.
F. Zagel: Im vorherigen Interview war einer der Punkte, dass wenn ökologische Schwachpunkte
auffallen Adidas Wissen zur Verfügung stellt. Ein anderer Punkt war die sozialverträgliche
Bezahlung, die in der Regel über dem Standard Einkommen liegt und eine Grundsicherung
generiert.
Manager Adidas 2: Das kann ich bestätigen. Ich war schon öfters wegen Entwicklungsthemen
bei Produzenten, dass macht einen sehr guten Eindruck.
91
F. Zagel: Im vorigen Interview hatte ihr Kollege erwähnt, dass die Initiative 2024 bezüglich
recyceltes Polyester einen großen Fokus hat. Oder für Baumwolle, die „Better- Cotton“ Initiative,
die schon vor einigen Jahren gegründet wurde. Welche Rohstoffe bilden den größten
Prozentanteil in der Produktion? Und gibt es ähnliche Vorhaben, diese durch Substitute
beispielsweise mit einem niedrigen Umwelt Impact zu ersetzen?
Manager Adidas 2: Grundsätzlich liegt das größte Potenzial in Kunststoffen, Polymeren, dass das
Thema angeht. Hier gibt es die Möglichkeit, schon auf bestehendes Recycling Know-how
zurückzugreifen, aber auch neues Wissen generieren. Hier ist der Markt bezüglich Recycling
noch sehr ungeordnet. Hier gibt es noch sehr viel Potenzial das Thema für Kunststoffe
voranzutreiben. Mit unseren Partnern sind wir hier gut aufgestellt was einerseits bestehende
Verfahren angeht, aber auch neue Ideen mit einzubringen. Rohstoffe ist sehr breit als Thema.
Aber ich würde schon sagen, dass praktisch Kunststoffe den Hauptanteil ausmachen. Zum
Beispiel, was Polyester angeht, das ist ein Kunststoff. Recycletes Polyester wird dann eben auch
neu in Schuhen verwendet, also Kunststoffe.
F. Zagel: Habt ihr bei euren Prozessen teils eine Problematik, dass der recycelte Kunststoff nicht
dieselbe Funktion erfüllt wie der Ursprungsrohstoff?
Manager Adidas 2: Grundsätzlich findet schon eine Degradierung des Materials statt. Das ist eine
Aufgabe, die sich dann stellt, das Material entweder dann so zu verarbeiten, dass es auf die
Komponente angewendet wird, das gut zu dem Material passt. Und es gibt aber die Möglichkeit,
das Material so aufzubereiten, dass die Degradierung nur noch geringfügig enthalten ist. Zum
Beispiel mit Produktionsabfall, der nicht den höchsten Standard erfüllt, oder das Material durch
das verarbeiten schon degradiert. Dann kann man daraus einen Plastikbecher machen zum
Beispiel. Das andere ist das Material wieder aufzuwerten oder herauszufinden, wie viel
Recycling Material kann ich verwenden und es mit frischem Material mischen damit ich wieder
eine Material Performance erhalte, die alle Qualitätsstandards erfüllt.
F. Zagel: Welches sind außerhalb der Kunststoffe zwei weitere Produktgruppen, die den
Hauptanteil ausmachen?
Manager Adidas 2: Hier kann ich keine verbindliche Aussage machen.Ich denke, dass auf jeden
Fall Polyester einen großen Anteil hat und ein Kunststoff ist.
F. Zagel: Die Textilindustrie folgt generell einem Linear Economy Ansatz indem die Produkte je
nach Qualität kürzere oder längere Lebenszyklen besitzen. Dort habt ihr mit dem Future Craft
Loop den ersten wiederverwertbaren Performanceschuh von Adidas entworfen, und die Idee
92
wurde auch für weitere Produktgruppen pilotiert. Was sind die größten Herausforderungen, mit
einem sortenrein Produkt und hiermit die gewünschte Performance zu ermöglichen? Und
ermöglicht möglicherweise ein geschlossener Produktionsablauf, neue Vertriebskanäle, die
schlussendlich danach eine effizientere Ressourcennutzung ermöglichen?
Manager Adidas 2: Die größten Herausforderungen von einem sortenreinen Produkt ist
grundsätzlich die Produktentwicklung, in die auch für dieses Produkt relativ viele Innovationen
aus dem Team geflossen sind. Das sind auf der einen Seite Materialinnovationen als
Herausforderung, dass man ein Material so verarbeitet, das eben ganz unterschiedliche
Eigenschaften hat. Das ist die eine Herausforderung, Materialinnovation, Materialentwicklung.
Die Herausforderung ist, das Material so hinzukriegen, dass es ganz viele unterschiedliche
Eigenschaften hat, die dann eben als gesamt Produkt funktionieren. Und dadurch ist es
notwendig, dass man Material Innovation hat. Das zweite ist sich die grundsätzlichen
Produktionsprozesse anzuschauen. Das heißt, wie verbindet man Materialien miteinander etc.?
Hier war es eben auch nur möglich über eine Prozessinnovation das Produkts so herzustellen,
dass es eben aus einem Material ohne Kleben hergestellt werden konnte. Einerseits
Materialinnovation und die Herausforderungen an das Material, dass in die bestehenden Prozesse,
die neu überdacht werden mussten, angepasst und entwickelt werden mussten
F. Zagel: Könnte durch den geschlossenen Produktionskreislauf mögliche Vertriebsmodelle
angepasst werden, beispielsweise Rental Modelle für Performance Schuhe für Marathonläufer?
Manager Adidas 2: Der Future Craft Loop ist ein Performance Produkt, dass alle
Qualitätsstandards besteht. Und zwar nicht nur die erste Runde, sondern auch alle anderen
Runden, die wir gemacht haben. Wir haben hier schon die zweite Generation herausgebracht, in
der die erste Generation enthalten ist. Wir haben das so hinbekommen, dass es da keine
Degradierung der Qualität gibt, dass das Produkt auf dem gleichen Niveau ist wie das erste. Die
Frage geht in das Thema Business Modell Innovation. Das Konzept ist schon stark Kunden
fokussiert, das heißt eine sehr starke Kundenorientierung. Wenn wir durch dieses Produkt, dass
natürlich durch Prozess- und Materialinnovation überhaupt erst zustande gekommen ist. Wir
haben jetzt dieses Produkt, und hier geht es dann auch darum, nochmal zu überdenken wie bringe
ich dieses Produkt, dass bisher im Vergleich zu den anderen schon speziell ist, an den Kunden.
Und was ist dann die beste Herangehensweise an den Kunden? Da gibt es natürlich den Erstkauf
und wir möchten auch, dass der Kunde uns die Schuhe zurückgibt aufgrund der Circularity. Hier
gibt es schon sehr viele Möglichkeiten, dieses Business Modell anzupassen oder ein neues
93
Modell extra dafür aufzustellen. Ein neues Business Modell zu kreieren, ohne ein Produkt ist
schwierig. Dazu muss man eben ein paar Enanbler haben, sei es jetzt das Produkt wie Future
Craft Loop oder auch einen bestimmten Grad an Digitalisierung innerhalb einer Firma. Das sind
solche Bausteine, die notwendig sind, damit man überhaupt ein neues Business Modell aufstellen
kann. Um es vielleicht einmal anders zu formulieren. Im Endeffekt, wenn wir den Schuh nicht
hätten, und wir wären eine ganz manuelle Firma, wo alles noch alte Prozesse sind. Dann ist es
halt schwierig, ein neues Business Modell zu erstellen. Das jetzige funktioniert warum sollte man
daran was ändern? Wenn ich jetzt ein Abo erstelle für ein bestehendes Produkt und kann ein
Schuh-Abo haben, davon hat der Kunde schlussendlich nichts. Man braucht Bausteine, Prozesse
und Kundenanalyse. Was möchte der Kunde und da ist eben ein Verlangen bezüglich
Sustainability. Das sind Bausteine, die dazu führen, dass man das Business Modell für einen
bestimmten Bereich zu einem abgetrennten Bereich anpasst an die Kundenwünsche.
Speaker1: Schlussendlich ist erfolgsentscheidend für den Future Craft Loop oder den kompletten
Ansatz, dass ein gewisses gewisser Pool an Materialien nötig ist der in den Produktionskreislauf
zurückführt, dass es skalierbar und wirtschaftlich wird.
Manager Adidas 2: Ja, genau. Also es geht schon darum, dass es eine bestimmte Anpassung des
Business Models ist. Wir würden dem Kunden die Möglichkeit geben, ein Produkt
zurückzuschicken, dass ist im kleineren Bereich auf jeden Fall möglich. Aber im großen Stil ist
das aktuelle Business Modell so etabliert, dass es jetzt nicht von heute auf morgen dann eine
Änderung gibt
F. Zagel: Bezüglich der Zusammenarbeit mit Staffstr, einem Re-commerce Start-up aus
Großbritanien. Welche Aktivitäten betreibt Adidas den Nutzen und Lebenszyklus seiner Produkte
zu verlängern?
Manager Adidas 2: Zum Thema Großbritanien kann ich nichts direkt sagen. Grundsätzlich ist es
wichtig, dass man ein Produkt mit hohen Qualitätsstandards, um eine grundsätzliche
Langlebigkeit überhaupt zu ermöglichen. Man arbeitet auch mit bestimmten Organisationen
zusammen, mit denen man zusammenarbeitet und in bestimmten Bereichen unterstützt.
F. Zagel: Das ist eine Initiative kombiniert mit dem neuen Adidas Club, Gutscheine oder
ähnliches ausgegeben für Produkte die jünger als fünf Jahre sind und zurückgegeben werden.
Diese Produkte, die teils noch einen Wert haben, werden dann weiterverkauft. Ein klassischer
Re-Commerce mit einem direkten Partner.
94
Manager Adidas 2: Ja, genau. Grundsätzlich gibt es sehr viele solche Aktionen, die aber lokal in
den Märkten stattfinden. Die die Märkte haben auch Möglichkeiten, Produkte direkt
zurückzunehmen. Aber da weiß ich jetzt direkt nichts darüber, weil es dann schon teilweise sehr
lokal stattfindet. Nichtsdestotrotz denke ich schon, dass es vom Anspruch Globals mehr
Aktivitäten gibt in diesem Bereich.
F. Zagel: Activation von Kunden und Gesellschaften ist ein Hauptthema von Adidas und dann
beispielsweise das Thema "Run for the ocean" welches auf das Plastik Problem in den
Weltmeeren aufmerksam macht und positiv von Kundenseite honoriert wird. Wie wichtig ist es
für Adidas, hier eine Vorreiterrolle einzunehmen sowie Anstöße für die komplette Fashion
Industry zu liefern?
Manager Adidas 2: Absolut wichtig, dass Adidas hier eine Vorreiterrolle einnimmt und viel
Pionierarbeit zu leisten was das Thema Sustainability angeht. Im Bewusstsein von Nachhaltigkeit
von den Produkten, die häufig nach dem End of Use in den Mülleimer gehen. Wir wissen, dass
da praktisch viel Bewusstsein beim Kunden dadurch entsteht, dass man es aktiv bewirbt jetzt rein
produktmäßig, aber auch ein Event daraus macht. Absolut wichtig, weil ich nicht nur rein für den
Konsumenten eine Rolle spielt, sondern auch für Gesellschaften ein sehr bewegendes Thema ist.
Es gibt natürlich immer eine Verantwortung als Firma in dem Bereich in dem man agiert für ein
Bewusstsein der Nachhaltigkeit zu sorgen. Einerseits ist es was wollen die Kunden haben, die
Kunden direkt als auch Gesellschaft bewegt das Thema eben sehr. Da hat die Firma die
Verantwortung, als Firmen darauf zu reagieren, aber auch hier die Vorreiterrolle einzunehmen,
was das Thema Nachhaltigkeit angeht.
F. Zagel: Gibt es direkte Brand Ambassador die sich mit dem Thema direkt auseinandersetzen,
wie beispielsweise ein James Harden als Aushängeschild der NBA?
Manager Adidas 2: Dieser "Run for the Ocean" ist ein Event-Beispiel, in denen ja auch viele
bekannte Sportler mitwirken sozusagen. Diese haben eine Vorbildfunktion und müssen mit den
Werten, die die Adidas vertritt und wie Adidas den Kunden gegenüber auftritt, müssen sie teilen
diese Werte. Das Thema "Run for the Ocean" und Parley, dass natürlich viele Sportler, die mit
Adidas zusammenarbeiten, die hier aktiv mitwirken wollen. Eben auch weil sie eine
Verantwortung sehen hier ein Statement gegenüber den Fans abzugeben.
F. Zagel: In der Produktübersicht hatte ich gelesen, dass der Circluar Loop Ansatz auch für die
Stella McCartney Linie oder Kollektion genutzt wird. Gibt es hier einen bestimmten größeren
Fokus dann speziell in einem höherpreisigen Sektor zu agieren?
95
Manager Adidas 2: Nicht direkt. Das Ziel ist schon, dass wir Ziele setzen, die recycelten
Produkte keinen höheren Preis haben direkt. Das Ziel ist auf jeden Fall zu vermeiden, dass jeder
Anspruch hat und je mehr das Produkt oder Programm unterstützt wird, desto besser funktioniert
es auch für eine Firma oder für uns Adidas. Diese Iconic Kollektionen und speziellen
Kollaborationen, die wir auch mit Designern haben, so wie diese zum Beispiel mit Stella
McCartney, sind eine gute Möglichkeit den Circular Loop zu bewerben, dass mehr Kunden
darüber Bescheid wissen. Dadurch besteht dann die Möglichkeit so ein Programm publik zu
machen.
PO Box 823, SE-301 18 HalmstadPhone: +35 46 16 71 00E-mail: [email protected]
Volodymyr TarhonskyiKyiv, [email protected]
Volodymyr received a Bachelor'sdegree in International EconomicRelations in 2019 and is graduating inthe Masters in Business andEconomics.
Fabian ZagelOttensoos, [email protected]
Fabian received a Bachelor's degree inBusiness Administration in 2017.
