Examiner 1: Prof. Dr. Stefan Schaltegger
Examiner 2: Prof. Dr. Andreas Möller
Bachelor Thesis:
How do degrowth-actions affect the environmental impact
of a business?
Handed in by Janick Schnorr
on August 5, 2014
Name:
Janick Schnorr
Field of study:
Environmental Science
Sustainability Management
Matriculation number:
3013458
Address:
Neue Sülze 24
21335 Lüneburg
Telephone:
04131/2199150
Email:
[email protected]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. I LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ I 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2 2.1 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 DEGROWTH ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Definition and distinction of degrowth ..................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2 Prosperity through growth? ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.3 Decoupling through efficiency and innovation? .................................................................................... 7 2.3.4 Reasons for today’s growth orientation ................................................................................................... 8 2.3.5 How dependence on growth can be reduced ........................................................................................ 11 3. CORPORATE DEGROWTH AND DEGROWTH-­‐ACTIONS SHOWN AT THE EXAMPLE OF PREMIUM ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 CORPORATE DEGROWTH ......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Status quo ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.2 Motivation for corporate degrowth .......................................................................................................... 15 3.1.3 Degrowth Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 15 3.2 DEGROWTH-­‐ACTIONS AT THE EXAMPLE OF PREMIUM ...................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 The business model of Premium ................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Degrowth-­‐actions of Premium .................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 INTERIM CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 25 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF DEGROWTH-­‐ACTIONS AT THE EXAMPLE OF PREMIUM . 26 4.1 THE INFLUENCE OF DEGROWTH ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ............................................................... 26 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF IDENTIFIED DEGROWTH-­‐ACTIONS OF PREMIUM ........................................... 28 4.3 IDENTIFIED EFFECTS OF PREMIUM’S DEGROWTH-­‐ACTIONS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ......... 29 4.3.1 Effect 1: Limited business growth .............................................................................................................. 29 4.3.2 Effect 2: Stable structures ............................................................................................................................. 31 4.3.3 Effect 3: Fewer resources ............................................................................................................................... 33 4.3.4 Effect 4: Transfer ............................................................................................................................................... 34 5. DEGROWTH-­‐ACTIONS AS A CORPORATE PERSPECTIVE TO DECREASE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 36 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY: ....................................................................................................................................... 39 List of abbreviations
DIN
Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
EN
European Norm
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IPAT
Impact on the environment, Population, Affluence, Technology
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
SSE
Steady-State Economy
List of Figures
Figure 1:Identified reasons for growth orientation of today's society …………………….p. 11
Figure 2: Degrowth-actions of Premium ……………… …………………………………p. 19
Figure 3: Planetary Boundaries………………………….…………….………………...…p. 27
List of Tables
Table 1: Degrowth actions and their effects……………………………………………….p. 29
i 1. Introduction
It is a well-known fact that human activities have brought planetary boundaries to their limit
or beyond. Both, social and economic structures in developed countries are responsible for
this development, which calls for urgent changes in human behaviour. As economy has an
organizational function that sets a frame for life on our planet it is important to reflect on a
change of macroeconomic circumstances as well as business considerations. Previous efforts
to adjust the environmental impact of economy to the planetary boundaries have failed because it has always been eclipsed by economic growth. In order to find a solution to this predicament degrowth can be seen as possible perspective. As can be seen in Schneider et al.
degrowth aims at downscaling economic activity in order to decrease its environmental impact (see Schneider et al. 2010). Degrowth is discussed mainly from a macroeconomic perspective. However, especially businesses may contribute to change as they can be the key
actor for implementing the idea of degrowth. For this reason it is important for a scientific
discourse to take a corporate perspective. Mechanisms how ideas can be transferred into practice will have to be developed.
However, for implementation it is important to question whether at present the introduction
of individual measures is sensible from an ecological perspective. To answer the question
“How do degrowth-actions affect the environmental impact of a business?” it will be proceeded as follows. At first, an overview of the current scientific degrowth discourse will be
given. This is important because these macroeconomic considerations are needed for transfer
into the corporate context. Furthermore this thesis seeks to provide a perspective on how
companies can transpose into concrete measures. Given that this aspect has not been processed in science sufficiently and therefore not enough information is at disposal, a case study
should be involved in this work. The beverage producer Premium that has been investigated
was identified in relevant literature as a company that has developed first signs of the implementation of degrowth. In order to give other companies an orientation Premium was used to
derive concrete degrowth-actions in this thesis. On the way to consider the usefulness of introducing degrowth-actions in the corporate context their environmental impact will be discussed. For this purpose the procedure will be as follows. Firstly, the different factors which
influence the environmental impact will be illustrated by the IPAT formula. Secondly, these
factors will be used to discuss how degrowth in general affects the environment. From these
considerations the cognition is to be obtained how degrowth differs from other approaches.
1 Thirdly, the IPAT formula will be used to discuss the environmental impact of the identified
degrowth-actions of Premium. Further the measurability of the environmental impact of
degrowth will be discussed in order to indicate perspectives for companies as how they can
manage their environmental impact through the use of individual degrowth measures. In order
to discuss the measurability of degrowth-actions a LCA of Premium will be consulted. Finally
it will be discussed to what extent the observations of the case study Premium are helpful for
other companies to find new ways to deal with their environmental impact.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Sustainability Management
The term sustainability management is composed of the words sustainability and management. In the further course both terms will be analysed to determine their meaning and origin
and afterwards will be considered in connection with each other.
The idea of sustainability has its origin in forestry of the 18th century. At that time and in
that context, sustainability basically meant not to remove more wood from the forests than
could naturally grow back (see Renn et al. 2007, 9). From the sustainability discourse the realization emerged that for satisfaction of human needs the earth is needed for both, a venue as
well as a resource supplier. Connecting this with the view of international justice, the most
common definition of sustainable development from the World Commission on Environment
and Development was born, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.“
(WCED 1987, s.p.). So sustainable behaviour means that you do not make the prospects of
the future generations worse, while improving your own. In addition to this intergenerational
perspective, sustainability is also about intragenerational justice, which wants to balance injustice especially between developing and industrial nations (see Baumast & Pape 2009, 22).
Therefore the term sustainability, depending on context and interpretation, can be understood
and applied in many different ways.
A widely used sustainability model is called the three pillars of sustainability and classifies
the goals of sustainable development in the three dimensions ecological, economical and social (see Renn et al. 2007, 27). However, rather than the three dimensions being considered as
separate from each other the integration of all three is an important aspect (see Henriques &
Richardson 2005, 28 ff.). Critics of this model complain about the equality of the ecological
2 in relation to the social and the economic sphere. They are of the opinion that the ecological
sphere should play a major role since it forms an existential basis for the two latter. (see Paech
2012, 96ff.). This discussion of weighting the three spheres is also reflected in the distinction
between weak and strong sustainability. While representatives of strong sustainability are of
the opinion that natural capital must be obtained, supporters of weak sustainability represent
the opinion that environmental capital can be replaced by different capital, as long as the average benefit that the human being can draw from it does not decrease (see Neumayer 2010,
17 ff.) These two opinions can be seen as framing extremes of the sustainability discussion.
In general strategies deal with how goals can be reached (see Sommer 2011, 50). Therefore
the term sustainability strategies refers to how the above mentioned goals of sustainability
can be achieved. In the intention to apply the theoretical concepts of sustainability three basic
strategies towards sustainability were named: efficiency, consistency and sufficiency (see
Schaltegger et al. 2003, 25 f.).
The aim of the efficiency strategy is to minimize the amount of consumed resources and
energy by innovations, while producing a sustaining or even higher amount of output and
hence reduce the environmental damage. Innovations are possible in the areas of technology,
organization and marketing (see Schaltegger et al. 2003, 25).
Similarly the consistency strategy aims to reach sustainable development through technical
innovations. However, unlike in the efficiency strategy about minimizing the amount of input
in production and service processes, the consistency strategy is about the quality of the materials and energy used. The idea is to modify the used materials in a way that they can be included in the biochemical cycles of nature (see Baumast & Pape 2009: 23).
In contrast to the efficiency and consistency strategy, the sufficiency strategy does not focus on production but on changes in consumer behaviour. While conventional sustainability
discussions are often object-oriented (e.g. passive buildings, hybrid cars) the sufficiency strategy questions the consumer behaviour of individuals. The aim is to limit consumption, especially in areas that are not conductive to the quality of life (Schaltegger et al. 2003, 25).
The three strategies above should not be considered contrary. Rather a combination of all
three may be useful in the pursuit of sustainable development.
The second part of the notion sustainable management can refer to a variety of areas. In
this case it refers to the management of a business. Management always consists of an object
that is managed and a subject that manages (see Schaltegger et al. 2003, 11f). The task of a
manager is to enforce ideas and objectives of the company in many different areas and to
solve problems that arise in the course of the process. It is also possible that the manager is
3 directed not only by the corporate interests but also observes the stakeholders respectively
interest groups.
The terms sustainability and management in connection mean the safeguarding to achieve
corporate targets in compliance with the requirements of sustainability. I order to tackle sustainability problems especially the corporate perspective is important, because companies are
involved in many of these and therefore it is also important to find a solution. (see Beckmann
& Schaltegger 2014, 322).
2.2 Life Cycle Assessment
Life-Cycle-Assessment (LCA) is a tool through which it is possible to detect and evaluate all
relevant environmental impacts of a product system (Baumann & Tillmann 2004, 19ff.) Usually the entire life cycle of a product or service is of interest, meaning every process between
product development and disposal or recycling. There are no rules imposed for the degree of
detail of a LCA. It may be desired independently to what extent a LCA is performed. Upstream processes, such as energy production, are usually included to keep the result most accurate. According to the DIN EN ISO 14040-14043 standards an LCA is structured in the
categories goal- and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and evaluation
(see DIN 1997).
At the beginning of a LCA the goal and scope are set (see DIN 1998). The intention is to
clarify what is to be investigated, what is the background of the LCA, who is the addressee
and in which way it will be published and communicated. With regard to the desired level of
detail of the study it has to be defined clearly, which product is to be investigated and where
the system boundaries are. At this point it is common to construct a flow chart. The advantage
is to get an overview of the different environmentally relevant processes of the product system. Furthermore the functional unit, a specific product size on which the findings are based,
has to be determined. At this point it can be stated that to construct a LCA is an iterative process. Cognitions that appear in the further course of the approach can and should be integrated
in the goal- and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment or evaluation.
In the inventory analyses the system should be quantified according to the requirements of
the goal- and scope definition (see DIN 1998). Every relevant process is summarized in a
flow chart. All input- and output sizes of every process are recorded. Input sizes can be the
used resources and output sizes the process result or waste products. In addition the used
4 amount of energy is recorded. All in all it is a quantitative process that still does not allow an
assessment of the environmental impact.
Firstly this takes place in the impact assessment (see DIN 2000 a). The results of the inventory analyses are, in relation to climate change, assigned in different impact categories. The
range of impact categories, indicators and characterization models usually analysed under the
recourse of standard methods. The meaningfulness of these methods has to be questioned in
terms of the investigated product and the desired result.
The conclusion of a LCA is the basis for the evaluation of the results of the previous inventory analysis and impact assessment (see DIN 2000 b). Under consideration of the goaland scope definition recommendations can now be given. The results of a LCA are published
in accordance with the requirements of the stakeholders in form of a report, in the manner
specified in the goal and scope definition (see DIN 1997).
2.3 Degrowth
2.3.1 Definition and distinction of degrowth
Degrowth can be defined as, “(…) an equitable downscaling of production and consumption
that increases human wellbeing and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global
level, in the short and long term (…)“ (Schneider et al. 2010, 512). Degrowth criticizes today's consumer society and assumes that in a world with limited occurring resources, a steadily growing economy is a requirement for a satisfying life. It has been disputed that prosperity
requires a steady economic growth. Rather, the global economic output exceeds the capacity
of the earth and thereby triggers ecological problems as well as social injustices of an interand intragenerative kind. With the intention to solve these issues degrowth proposes a redemption of economic activity. However, degrowth should not be understood as an elaborated
concept, but rather as a certain multidimensional idea and vision that calls for a change in
society (see Sekulova et al. 2013).
In scientific examinations of degrowth a number of variations of this term like sustainable
degrowth, a-growth and post-growth are used. However, since these track all of the same interests, the term degrowth will be used to represent all of them. At this point, it should be stated that degrowth is not the same as a recession. In order to counteract this, Schneider at al.
uses the term sustainable degrowth (see Schneider et al. 2010).
On the one hand, from a macroeconomic perspective, degrowth means a reduction of GDP,
which can be seen as ratio of economic activity (see Jackson 2013, 3). On the other hand this
5 does not exclude a growth in certain economic or geographical areas. In contrast to recession,
degrowth is carried out deliberately and selectively under constant or even improving social
and environmental conditions (see Sekulova et al. 2013). Therefore growth is possible in the
economic sectors that improve these conditions. In addition it must be distinguished in which
countries degrowth is useful (industrial nations) and which countries need further economic
growth (developing countries). Nevertheless, the adding of the word “sustainable” is omitted
in this thesis for sake of simplicity, but explicit references to differences between degrowth
and recession are made.
2.3.2 Prosperity through growth?
Prosperity as a condition means that a person can live according to his expectancies for a
good life (Jackson 2013, 1). The fact that this situation is desirable needs no further explanation and is not doubted by degrowth representatives. The situation is different when it comes
into popular belief that human wellbeing is linked to the unlimited availability of material
goods.
On the assumption that human needs can be satisfied by material goods and that these two
are correlated, the present-day model of prosperity is founded. The dependence of the well
being of humanity on the material output of the economy, measured in monetary terms, is
presumed as limitless in order to justify the pursuit of a borderless growth.
This paradigm is questioned by the degrowth discourse. Here, degrowth is no criticism of
the pursuit of wealth, but questions the quality of wealth and how to get there. There is no
doubt that a quality way of life requires a certain amount of material goods (see Jackson 2009,
34f.) Even conventional economists hold the view that if the material provision exceeds a
specific size the individual benefit for each additional unit consumed constantly decreases, so
that sooner or later the costs exceed the benefit.
Nevertheless, the GDP is widely regarded as an indicator for the wellbeing of a country
and its population. Degrowth criticizes the widespread use of GDP as a measure because of
the one-sided material perspective (see Schneider et al. 2010). In addition, they reject the frequent use of GDP in politics (see van den Bergh 2010). Growth is often seen as a single agent
against prevention of crisis on a national and global level. In context of finite resources on
earth, economic growth worsens the situation from a long-term perspective (see Sekulova et
al. 2013).
6 Assuming that human progress is possible without a steady economic growth, degrowth
provides a way to create an economy that does not exceed the capacity of the earth if it is well
organized (see Schneider et al. 2010). The economic crisis in 2009 can be seen as an indication that a decline in economic growth can quickly mean a relief for ecological conditions. As
mentioned above, degrowth aims to produce these environmental savings without any social
loss (see Kallis 2011).
Furthermore, the persisting rate of unemployment from an economic stagnation, for example in the southern states of the EU, allows capitalism to reach its internal system limits (see
Klitgaard & Krall 2011), which suggests that limitless economic growth is not feasible.
2.3.3 Decoupling through efficiency and innovation?
Approaches such as “Green New Deal” or “Green Growth” assume, in contrast to degrowth,
that it is possible to decouple economic growth from negative environmental impact (see
UNEP 2011). This will be achieved through the use of new technologies, which make the
economic activity more efficient and therefore reduce its impact on the environment. The
term efficiency in this thesis is always related to the economic value creation per environmental impact added (see Schaltegger et al. 2003, 65)
At this point it is important to distinguish between relative and absolute decoupling (see
Schmelzer & Passadakis 2011, 35; Jackson 2013, 59; Paech 2013, 74). The concept of relative
decoupling considers the ecological environmental damage per unit of GDP and assumes that
this ratio can be reduced. In the case of relative decoupling environmental pressures indeed
decline, but that does not preclude environmental damage caused by a rising economic performance on a global level. Therefore, in absolute terms the environmental impact could rise.
On the other hand absolute decoupling would mean that even with an increase of economical
performance (GDP), the overall size of the resulting negative impact on the environment
would decrease.
Representatives of degrowth confirm that it was possible to observe individual cases of
relative decoupling in the historical development (e.g. reduction of the emission intensity of
greenhouse gases though efficiency measures) (see Jackson 2013, 60ff.). However, they also
admit that even relative decoupling (e.g. in the case of carbon intensity) has started to waver
lately. So it is possible to recognize tendencies of relative decoupling. However, these are not
sufficient to keep an increasing economic performance within the capacity limits of earth.
7 For this purpose, an absolute decoupling would be necessary which, however, is not monitored in global economy and is also perceived as unrealistic in future (see Jackson 2013, 63;
Sekulova et al. 2013).
The supporters of degrowth see the reason for the absence of an absolute decoupling and
the only occasional occurrence of relative decoupling in numerous rebound effects according
to efficiency measures. Rebound effects refer to the fact that gains from efficiency are balanced or even exceeded by a higher consumption rate (see Paech 2013, 84ff.). The result of
efficiency measures is usually associated with cost savings. Depending on how the released
capital is used an efficiency measure could have as result higher environmental pressures. For
example, if the money saved by a more efficient heating system of a house is used for a holiday flight to London, it is possible that the overall balance leads to a higher environmental
impact than without such efficiency measures. Supported by the existence of competition the
rebound-effect also occurs in the economic environment. From a business perspective under
competition it makes sense to invest saved efficiency gains in e.g. price cuts to have an advantage against the competitors and achieve a bigger sales volume. Another effect in this case
is that new technologies make previously used technologies redundant, because their old infrastructures must be discarded. All in all that does not mean that efficiency strategies do not
have a place in the sustainability discourse, but an isolated application of them usually will
not lead to the desired goal (see Schneider 2010).
2.3.4 Reasons for today’s growth orientation
In the preceding section growth orientation of today’s society has been illustrated and described. In this chapter the reasons for this orientation will be identified. For this purpose social and economic reasons for growth orientation are localized separately. At this point it
should be noted that the social and economic level influence each other. This fact will be considered during the further course of this work.
Reasons at the social level
As was presented above, there is a need for a certain amount of material goods to live a good
life. However, the level of consumption, at least in the developed countries (see section 2.2.2.)
has been exceeding this level lately. The enormous demand of this consumer society constitutes a reason for the need of economical growth. Many social processes and structures are
8 consumer oriented, so that material goods make it much easier to be successful in every day
life (see Jackson 2013, 88).
In today’s society material things are used to form a personal identity (see Hamilton 2010).
This type of ownership is utilized to display own traits (regardless whether they correspond to
reality) to the outside. In addition to that, there are established personal ties to these possessions. Another factor is competition for social acceptance, which is much easier to win with
the help of material goods. So-called “status symbols” allow a rise in social hierarchy and
with particular goods certain personal statements can be made (see Jackson 2013, 88f).
Today’s affluent societies are lacking more and more the connection between the work being performed by the modern human being and the product and services he or she is consuming. Paech sees the reason for the lack of connection of its own performance and consumption
in a spatial and temporal alienation of environmental influences in our society with the result
of a lack of awareness concerning the environmental impact caused by individual consumption (see Paech 2013, 10 ff.). In this context, the term spatial alienation means that in the
modern world resources are not taken at the place where the product or service is consumed.
Whatever is now consumed in western counties leaves its marks mostly at the places of production. Therefore the consumer is not directly affected by the negative effects of consumption respectively he or she is not aware of it, because of the usually big geographical distance.
The term temporal alienation refers to availed services that are paid for later on. Examples are
leasing or building loan contracts.
Moreover, other external influences are priming the individual motivation to consume (see
Matthey 2010). In both, politics and in the major part of the education system, it is assumed
that steady growth is necessary to maintain our quality of life and to increase it in future. It is
conveyed to the consumers that growth is important for their own existence and an everincreasing quality of life is suggested (see Spangenberg 2010). Also economical processes
influence the individual to consume more, such as advertising and shorter lifecycles of products (see Schmelzer & Passadakis 2011, 52) which will be reflected upon in the next section.
Reasons at the economic level
In addition to the social conditions also the structural composition of economy can be seen as
a reason for the constant economic growth. The economic and social levels interact closely
and influence each other significantly. So the economy stimulates society to consume through
various mechanisms. However, the reasons for the economy to grow not only lie in the increasing demand of the consumers. Rather the economy level also falls to internal growth 9 enforcements, which are caused by the structural design of economy. In the following these
structural growth drivers will be explained.
The main reason for a growth compulsion in the economy is seen in the dominance of
shareholder-owned companies (see Sekulova et al. 2013). These kinds of companies are setting up their economic activity to the interests of their investors. Because the companies have
to serve their expectations they are exposed to a growth pressure (see Binswanger 2009, 150).
Moreover companies, which are not shareholder-owned, are dependent on external investors,
like banks or other lenders. These only invest, if they can expect a good return. This return or
interest rate has to be generated by the companies in addition to the already recorded liabilities (see Jackson 2013, 80 ff.). As the company has to return more than it has received, a
growth pressure will be the result.
Also in the system of economy existing competition between companies provides a growth
pressure. In order to survive in this system many companies have to invest massively (see
Jackson 2013, 82f.). For these investments borrowing is needed and the described compulsion
for growth of debt capital enters into force as described above. Moreover, capitalism creates a
framework, in which large firms have a clear competitive advantage, hence are profit oriented
(see Chapter 3.1.1.).
The trend towards specialization of companies in individual production steps in the production-chain of a product results in a spatial distribution of the economy, which means a
long, much branched and confusing supply chain. As a result the company has to pre-finance
the required input for the product for a longer period. This in turn means that borrow capital
has to be received (see Paech 2013, 103 f.).
Due to increasing reliance on technology by the economy more and more jobs have fallen
away. The consequence of that is a higher social spending for the state because more unemployed have to rely on state support. The resulting additional state costs may be funded only
through higher tax revenues, financed by higher economic growth (Jackson 2013, 56f.). On
the other hand rising labour productivity and efficiency through technological innovations
forces the economy to produce more output if they want to keep the same level of employment (see Dietz & O’Neill 2013, 129).
10 2.3.5 How dependence on growth can be reduced
The identified growth drivers explained in chapter 2.2.4 are helping to show conditions for a
degrowth society. It is important to clarify that the term degrowth society in this case does not
mean that the considered society is bound to a declining growth at all time. Rather it is about
matching the economic activity of different societies with the capacities of the earth. For this
purpose a decrease of economy activity is only necessary to a certain level (especially industrialized nations in the Northern Hemisphere). On this, a corresponding level with the capacity of the earth is desirable as a steady state, as is described in Herman Daly’s steady-state
economy (SSE) (see Dietz & O’Neill, 45). An SSE aims to achieve a stable economic condition in which stable resource consumption prevails, also by a stable population rate, and therefore a high quality is reached within the ecological limits. The concept of a SSE is therefore
not a counterparty to the degrowth idea, but rather constitutes a desirable final condition that
can be achieved by selective degrowth (see Kerschner 2010).
Figure 1 gives an overview of the reasons for growth orientation of today’s society divided
in social and economic level as identified in chapter 2.2.4. The two arrows represent the mutual interference of these two levels.
Source: own illustration
To overcome the identified reasons for growth dependency, two points have to be distinguished. Firstly, social and economic complexity should be reduced. Secondly, this process
11 requires good management and social acceptance, meaning an overall framework that allows
for this process (see Lorek & Fuchs 2013).
Following this subdivision, the first point is calling for a change of social structure. An important step in order to achieve this goal is to question the above mentioned consumer culture
(see left box of figure 1) and to concentrate on qualitative instead of quantitative criteria. The
design of a strong sustainable consumption structure can make a substantial contribution to
the development towards a degrowth society (see Lorek & Fuchs 2013). For instance a transformation of social life is proposed, which makes it easier to use goods collectively, e.g. use
of gardening equipment and car sharing. Parts of these ideas can already be found in our society, but continuation and extension is required (see Peach 2013, 114 ff.). Not only a structural
transformation of society is needed but individual waiver is most effective because the most
ecological consumption is still the one that does not take place. It is important to question
how much consumption is really necessary for a good life and which consumer habits can be
dropped without influence on the well-being (see Hamilton 2010).
In addition to that the first point “social and economic complexity should be reduced” reflects that also the economical complexity should be reduced (see right box figure 1). As
shown above long and highly branched supply chains are a reason for the need of economic
growth. The logical consequence in a degrowth economy would be to simplify the process
chains in economy, e.g. by keeping it as regional as possible (see Paech 2013, 113). This is
easier in some economic areas (e.g. agriculture) and very difficult or even unimaginable in
others (e.g. electronics) where regional economy does not make sense or is not necessary as it
depends on the deposit of the required resources. Degrowth economy does not mean that no
growth can take place. It needs to be chosen selectively in which areas growth makes sense
(e.g. renewable energy) and in which shrinking is required (e.g. automobile industry) (see
Schmelzer & Passadakis 2011). This would lead to an economy with a high self-supply and a
low external supply rate and the possibility to vary these according to the economic sector.
Figure 1 also points out mutual inferences on the social and economic level. On the one
hand the economy stimulates quantitative consumption through short product life cycles and
promotional activities. On the other hand social consumer-orientated structures influence the
economy to produce more through higher demand.
In the second point “good management and social acceptance” especially government and
economy are demanded and therefore it has an effect on both sides of figure 1. The political
sphere has the task to form a regulatory framework that ensures development and existence of
a degrowth economy. It is unclear how the state should intervene in economic matters. On the
12 one hand regulatory measures of the state (such as banning, restriction, taxation of economical outputs or certain financial activities) could help transformation towards degrowth (see
Dietz & O’Neill 2013, 64). On the other hand, through regulatory interventions by the state
there is also the risk that the existing market structure and monetary units are even gaining
importance and that authoritarian arrangements monitor society (see Schneider et al. 2010).
The state is committed to the dilemma to offer a situation in which the citizen can develop
freely and at the same time to provide stability, so that external circumstances do not prevent
anyone from developing freely (see Jackson 2013, 141 ff.). Additionally, for the implementation of degrowth especially the acceptance of the population is important. State measures constitute an effective and sometimes also meaningful solution and if they are applied correctly
they can change the opinion in society (see Matthey 2010), though it is important not to do
this top down, but rather to create conditions in which both, society and economy, have a
chance to perform a change. Of course the state can motivate and give some impulses.
In this section, especially the top-down perspective has been considered. However, companies can play an important role in the transformation into a degrowth society. Therefore,
requirements of degrowth will be illuminated from the corporate perspective in Chapter 3.1.
3. Corporate degrowth and degrowth-actions shown at the example of Premium
In most scientific considerations degrowth is discussed from a macroeconomic perspective
and only few deal with the operational perspective. Therefore proposals for concrete measures
for companies in order to comply degrowth under present circumstances can hardly be found.
To fill this gap and therefore identify degrowth-actions Premium was used as case study. In
this thesis degrowth-actions have been defined as measures that enable an enterprise to develop independent of growth and measures that take effect on the surrounding in a similar way.
To question if it is meaningful from an ecological point of view for companies to implement
degrowth-actions, these have been considered in terms of their impact on the environment.
3.1 Corporate Degrowth
As shown above, in the discussion of the prospects for a degrowth society a societal or political change is required. Society, in the sense of consumer, has much power and through the
above mentioned societal structures participates in the growth orientation of today’s world.
13 Also politics plays a decisive role. For instance it has the task to build a global regulation
framework, which brings forward the accruement of a degrowth society. However, it must not
be forgotten that companies, as organizational units of the economy, not just contribute to the
degrowth economy but can also participate actively, in a “bottom up” manner. The economic
demands that degrowth lays down are usually only described from a macroeconomic perspective. The corporate context only gradually enters the degrowth-discourse (see Reichel &
Seeberg 2011, 1).
For this reason, only few empirical data exists. This usually considers the application of
sufficiency strategies (were degrowth is also allocated) in the corporate context and analyses
only the product level rather than taking into account overall organizational considerations
(see Liesen et al. 2013, 13 ff.). Only Reichel & Seeberg and Liesen et al. have been found to
consider the corporate context more extensively. Liesen et al. identify 14 growth-neutral
companies and research, based on a survey, their motives being to break away from growth
constrains. In addition some parameters for growth neutrality and strategic approaches are
identified (see Liesen et al 2013, 19 ff.). Reichel & Seeberg deal with the production-size of
companies and create through the development of ecological allowance a business ration at
an enterprise-wide level that enables a company to assess if its productions size is still within
the capacity limits of the earth (see Reichel & Seeberg w.y.).
In this work the corporate debate of degrowth will be continued. A proper identification of
degrowth-actions can help companies to detach from growth constraints. For this purpose it is
appropriate to analyse a company that has already begun to release from growth pressure. A
suitable company has been found in Premium (see Schubring et al. 2013). Due to the lack of
empirical studies on Corporate Degrowth, possible degrowth actions for firms will be identified with the aid of Premium, a beverage manufacturer originating in Hamburg. Furthermore,
the environmental impact of these measures will be discussed on the basis of Premium’s LifeCycle Assessment of the product Premium-Cola in 2009 (see Eikmeier 2009), to verify the
integrity and sense of degrowth-actions in corporate environment (see section 4).
3.1.1 Status quo
As already mentioned above, the current capitalistic system favours especially large companies through competitive advantages. These have better possibilities to externalize costs (see
Johanisova et al. 2013) and, related to a product unit, lower fixed costs. Here the notion econ-
14 omies of scale is often used (see Liesen et al. 2013, 16 f.). In addition, large companies have
lower costs per unit in purchasing and are able to invest a higher volume into equipment and
research. These clear competitive advantages provide an indication of the reason for the dominance of capital companies. Although shareholder-owned companies are strong in investment, they simultaneously are bound to the interest of stakeholders and even legally obliged
to realize profits, whereby growth pressure is created (see Dietz & O’Neill 2013, 141 f.). The
above advantages of large companies in today’s markets force small businesses to grow while
big companies are trying to claim their benefits.
3.1.2 Motivation for corporate degrowth
The question remains what the motivation for companies could be to limit their growth. The
motifs are both of structural-organizational and ethical-normative nature (see Liesen et al.
2013, 21 ff.). In the structural-organizational category personal goals, such as the desire for
independence and a certain work-life balance, might be the reasons for business owners to
decide to limit their growth. Another factor is organizational resilience, which means a lower
vulnerability to external disturbances through detachment from growth compulsion (see
Reichel 2013). For enterprises the saturation of markets means increasing problems to advance sale figures further. This fact motivates companies to think about alternatives, like service oriented business models (see Schneidewind & Palzkill-Vorbeck 2011, 10f.). In addition
corporate growth above a certain size also holds potential disadvantages, such as an increasing alienation of the workers from the company, bureaucratic insularity, here the management
runs the risk to act away from the reality of business, and falsification of information caused
by complex structures (see Liesen et al. 2013, 17). Ethical-normative motives usually go hand
in hand with the decision no to carry out a value creation process at the expense of environmental or social drawbacks (see Liesen et al. 2013, 21). The value added by a company is
therefore understood beyond its borders (see Dietz & O’Neill 2013, 146).
3.1.3 Degrowth Strategies
As already described in chapter 2.1 strategies in general focus on how a goal can be achieved.
This chapter will investigate which strategies can be used by companies in order to achieve
the goal of independence from growth. For this purpose four different strategies (clearing 15 out-, slowing down-, decommercialization- and unbundling strategy) will be introduced and
used in the further course of this thesis to identify degrowth-actions.
Considering the sustainable development strategies shown in capital 2.1 degrowth is most
likely attributable to the sufficiency strategy. However, this focuses more on individual
changes in consumption than on an enterprise-wide perspective (see Liesen et al. 2013, 13f.).
Nonetheless sufficiency strategies offer starting points to derive possible degrowth-actions.
Thus Uwe Schneidewind identifies the four strategies, developed by Wolfgang Sachs, for the
transfer of sufficiency strategies in the corporate context (see Schneidewind & PalzkillVorbeck 2011, 11 f.). These will be explained in the following.
The clearing out strategy considers the corporate structure. The aim is to obtain significant
simplifications of the product spectrum questioning meaningfulness and necessity of each
product. Thereby a stable corporate structure should be provided, which creates safety for the
company as well as reducing the environmental impact because resources have been saved.
The slowing down strategy includes an interest shift from quantitative measures towards
more quality. Qualitative improvements in this case relate to higher product durability. On the
other hand the slowdown strategy is also about focusing more on services. For instance, the
company can offer repair services to extend the lifespan of their product. In addition also other services are possible, which enable a common use of goods (e.g. car-sharing).
The decommercialization strategy is aimed at the detachment of market mechanisms.
Thereby growth constraints should be escaped. This strategy is known mainly in agriculture,
where farms among other things operate self-sufficiency in order to operate independent of
external market conditions.
The unbundling strategy represents a regionalization of the infrastructure of the company,
as well in purchasing as in production and distribution. This provides the possibility to reduce
the environmental impact and makes it easier for the company to overview the supply chain.
3.2 Degrowth-actions at the example of Premium
The company Premium has reached a certain popularity in the degrowth discussion as they go
unusual ways (Schubring et al. 2013). To investigate how Premium applies degrowth ideas in
practise it has been chosen as case study for this thesis. In order to collect and evaluate information meetings have been held, the internet site was visited and an interview with Uwe Lübbermann, the central organizer of Premium, was carried out.
16 3.2.1 The business model of Premium
In this bachelor thesis the German company Premium was chosen as case study. Premium
operates in the beverage industry (Premium 2014). The strongest product is Premium-Cola
followed by Premium-Bier, the elderflower drink Frohlunder, the maté drink Muntermate and
coffee.
In this case Premium is not the manufacturer, but organizer respectively manager and tasks
extern partners for a large part of the process. Premium has no central headquarters, and no
office space, but many different people from different regions are integrated in the company.
However, the inner circle of the company only consists of three people. The main communication is carried out by email and semi-annual meetings, in which decisions are only taken
consensually. Premium calls this form of corporate network collective. Every collectivist has
the opportunity to veto a decision. A decision needs to be discussed until everybody agrees
with it. Everybody who is linked with the company in some way may participate in the collective – this also includes customers.
The guiding principle of the company Premium is to integrate morality into economy.
From this intension a business concept with different modules has arisen, which is called Betriebssystem (in English: operating system) by the collectivists. It is based on the three pillars
of sustainability economics, ecology and social dimension and complements them through the
plains transfer and protection. This supplement is needed because of Premium’s special form
of organisation. The field protection secures the company from blocking itself. Thus, for example, in case of emergency decisions can be taken by the central organizer. The field transfer should enable that ideas and knowledge to people beyond the direct operating environment
and also help interested people to follow a similar path. This includes that the Betriebssystem
of Premium is available to everyone and can be adopted. For instance, Premium also accompanies enterprise creation and restructuring. In addition, the company Premium aims through
numerous lectures to encourage a discourse about today’s economy and to demonstrate alternatives to today’s economic system.
In order to assess the business model of premium in a better way, it makes sense to deal
with its function and structure. A business model is concerned with the translation of business
strategies into the value creation process of a company and thus supports to develop operational measures (see Osterwalder 2004, 15). Here it is important that business model and strategic decisions are well coordinated and the operational level (corporate structure and processes) is designed in line with them (see Sommer 2011, 49 ff.).
17 The exceptional concept of Premium is ideal to help identifying degrowth-actions. In addition the above mentioned degrowth strategies can be used in difficult cases to explain why
these actions are helping the company to be independent from growth issues.
The structure of a business model can be broken down into the elements: key resources,
key processes, financial logic, target groups and value propositions (see Sommer 2011, 67
ff.). A first look at the business model of Premium reveals that a large part of the key resources and key processes is outsourced. The company has virtually no fixed assets. Premium
works with many external partners, especially for production and distribution, thus these partners are representing one of the view important key resources. But also the target groups are
integrated in the daily business in various ways, especially in making decisions. As well the
financial logic of Premium is different to conventional companies. Especially striking is that
they are able to operate without any borrowed funds. Furthermore Premium’s value proposition to the costumer is not only supplied by products but also consists of the chance for the
consumer to engage himself in the company. In addition to that Premium is not limited to the
production of goods but also provides services. As mentioned above these services are on the
one hand meant to present their special way of operating to the public and on the other hand
to help and motivate other people to pursue a similar way. For this reason Uwe Lübbermann
is supporting several start-ups free of charge in order to pass on his experience. This fact also
refers to the key resources. The difference to conventional companies is that premium does
not perceive its own brand as key resource, which has to be protected. Rather Premium has
the desire to share its knowledge.
This special way of operating, which was illustrated above in short, justifies the selection
of the company Premium as case study in this thesis. Premium has shown intensively how a
company can integrate moral ideas into the current economy. The corporate goal is primarily
not an increase in sale, but both the welfare of every involved and external person, which includes a social as well as an ecological orientation. To prevent possible external interference
factors it has always been important for Premium to stay independent. For this reason the
company also deals with the issue under what growth rates solid economic activity is possible
without dependencies on third parties. This has resulted in business structures which display a
high degree of overlapping with the degrowth idea.
In the course of that numerous growth limiting measures were decided by the company,
which will be displayed in the further course of this thesis. In the following chapter these taken degrowth actions will be identified. In doing so it is not only about actions that prevent a
18 company from growth pressures, but also about measures that can contribute the change into a
degrowth economy.
3.2.2 Degrowth-actions of Premium
On the grounds of the already depicted reasons for growth orientation in today’s society
degrowth-actions of Premium have been identified, as can be seen in figure 1. In uncertain
cases the degrowth strategies described in chapter 3.1.3 have been taken into account.
In the following section the identified degrowth-actions are presented. In order to ensure a
sensible structure, they are dedicated to the sections of the business model identified above
and can be found in the overview presented in figure 2.
Source: own illustration Financial logic of Premium
No borrowed funds
As already identified in figure 1 an obvious reason for growth orientation within companies is
the raising of borrowed capital in terms of loans or commitments to investors. One of the first
essential steps during a corporate establishment is usually to convince financiers like banks or
19 investors. Thus the company submits to the return-claims of the investor and therefore feels
the pressure to grow.
Premium decided not to borrow capital. Only an interest-free seed capital of 2000 DM was
supplied by a friend of the founder Uwe Lübbermann (see Lübbermann 2014, 00:20:17). This
step enabled the company to slowly build a company without any pressure from third parties
and all further processes could be financed by equity from the company. This approach took
the growth pressure from the company in two ways: On the one hand, no interest had to be
serviced and on the other hand, no rates had to be repaid on fixed dates. Therefore, the company could also operate without external pressure in the further course.
Financial brake on growth (30% p.a.)
Furthermore Premium imposed a brake on growth. It decided to grow no more than 30% in
the relation to last year’s revenue. In course of time Premium had noted that if the growth rate
exceeded 30% they would no longer be able to finance the operations from its own funds und
thus would be forced to take debt. Hence, to have a financial brake it is necessary not to borrow funds in order to comply with the previous degrowth-actions.
No profit
Profit orientation has been identified as reason for growth orientation in figure 1.
Conventional Companies calculate profit with the formula: Profit = Income – Expenses.
Premium has decided not to generate any profits. That means to calculate the income in a way
to cover the expenses (Income = Expenses). In order to simplify this Premium has established
a so-called “bottle calculation”. The idea is to calculate the price per bottle on the basis of all
incurred expenses. This type of calculation allows pricing to be adjusted in a way that there is
no profit, allowing revenues to correspond quantitatively with the expenses.
In addition to the financial independence the degrowth-action no profit also requires the
measure outsourcing, presented in the further course of this action. At this point it should only
be noted that the waiver to profit is easier to achieve with a lower amount of own resources.
Fixed prices:
Why fixed prices are useful for corporate degrowth can mostly be recognized through the
clearing-out strategy. Fixed prices simplify corporate processes. The company saves the costs
of recurring price negotiations as well as much simpler booking processes in accounting. This
20 simplification process allows the company to save resources, which is within the meaning of
the degrowth idea.
According to this degrowth-action, Premium has set fixed prices for all processes along the
value chain (see Lübbermann 2014, 00:19:11). This degrowth-action cannot clearly be assigned to the reasons for growth orientation identified in figure 1.
No optimization management of bills:
In conventional companies it is a normal state to pay bills just right in time before any other
costs arise, in order to dispose of the money for a longer amount of time. Premium decided to
arrange the payment right after they have received the bill (see Lübbermann 2014, 00:19:11)
Although it seems to be meaningful from a business perspective to optimize bill payments,
Premium is not exposed to the financial pressure to do so. Certainly, this measure is mostly
possible if the company is non profit oriented, because otherwise any opportunity to save
costs would be realized. As above, this measure can be assigned to the clearing-out strategy
for the same reasons.
Key resources and processes
Outsourcing & Internalization
Premium has virtually outsourced all key resources and processes. Actually it can rather be
seen as the organizer of all economic activities. Premium transfers the execution of processes,
e.g. bottling and logistics, to external partners. This step releases the company from numerous
growth constrains. As already mentioned considering financial logic Premium has much less
pressure to invest and thereby does not have to rely on profit (see figure 1).
For Premium the low level of physical assets does not only mean lower costs but also fewer
risks. This reduces the amount of reserves premium has to build. However, because it would
be unfair to leave the external partners to these risks and costs Premium tries to internalize
them. This manifests itself mainly by taking care of their needs, e.g. Premium cares for social
standards, sets no delivery deadlines, requires no interest rate (see details in section “no contracts”). Summing up it can be stated that Premium cares more about its partners and tries to
help, if they are in trouble. Hereby Premium decides against conventional market mechanism
which leads to the decommercialization strategy.
21 Limited scope of action
Premium has limited its scope of action in distribution to 600 km. The company decided that
a transport longer than 600 km would result in an excessively high environmental impact.
This measure can be assigned to the identified reason for growth orientation long and
branched supply chains (see figure 1). It does not apply to all parts of the supply chain but at
least in distribution a limit is set and therefore the supply chains of Premium are shortened.
No contracts
In conventional economy contracts have the function to regulate business relations for both
sides. Premium is of the opinion that contracts result in many disadvantages concerning the
relations to external partners. They argue that contracts are forcing trade relations to exist in a
specified manner even if external circumstances change. As a result it can easily happen that a
contractor is dissatisfied during a trading relationship but is forced to maintain it because of
contractual agreements. For this reason Premium decided to operate without any contracts.
Thereby premium was able and also forced to build good relationships to its external partners.
Voluntary agreements only survive if both sides are satisfied. For this reason Premium has
always exerted itself to have a good contact to the external partners in order to be able to respond to their needs. If there were any problems an attempt was made to find a solution.
Hence, the result is a stable trade structure with long-term partners.
This action can be assigned to degrowth, because stable economy structures are created.
Changing partnerships would mean to devalue existing structures. The simultaneous building
of new structures and old ones becoming worthless would result in a higher consumption of
recourses. To build stable structures can be seen in the same sense as the decommercialization
strategy.
Renouncement
Premium has the claim to renounce all the superfluous. Examples are the minimalistic labelling of the bottles, using only one small label per bottle, or the waiver of advertising (see
degrowth-action “no advertising”).
At this point the allocation to degrowth is quite clear, because renunciation of the superfluous can be seen as the basic idea of sufficiency strategies and in association with this also of
degrowth. The unbundling strategy goes along with these ideas.
22 Services
In addition to sell beverages premium offers different services. For instance the company is
presenting their way of operating a business during lectures in public and additionally offers
workshops to share their knowledge and experience with society.
As mentioned above a turning away from product orientation is in line with the degrowth
ideas. Premium limit the value they are adding to society not only to the product. Moreover
the company is creating value through services. However, these services of Premium not only
demand fewer resources through their immateriality, they also transfer knowledge into society
and therefore support the above mentioned necessary change. As the slowing down strategy
explicitly demands services this measure can be implemented in this field.
Target Groups & Value Propositions
No advertising
Instead of active advertising Premium provides the costumer with detailed information about
the company on their website that the consumer can access whenever he or she is interested.
As mentioned above and summarized in Figure 1, advertising supports social consumption
structures. Additionally, by not engaging in sales oriented advertising, premium acts in the
sense of the decommercialisation strategy.
No major customer
High shares in the company’s turnover provide a major costumer with the possibility to influence corporate activity. Especially for degrowth orientated companies dependencies on large
costumers having special requirements which could endanger their growth independence are
dangerous. In order to avoid such a situation premium prefers a decentralized customer base.
The support of small customers can be seen as part of the decommercialization strategy. (see
Lübbermann 2014, 00:46:17)
Anti-volume discount
Through the anti-volume discount Premium supports smaller traders. Otherwise these would
have a disadvantage because of the economies of scale (mentioned in section 3.1.1) resulting
in higher transportation costs. To compensate for this effect Premium is granting a discount of
four cents per bottle to small traders (Premium 2014). This measure points into the same strategic direction as the one above.
23 Transparency
It is Premium policy to disclose all relevant information of the company for all interested persons. This is mainly done through the collective, which any interested person can join. In addition detailed information is provided on the website. Premium recognizes transparency for
itself as an advantage because potential errors can be noticed faster. As Lübbermann points
out himself Transparency can be regarded as a clearing out strategy (see Lübbermann 2014,
00:05:29)
Integration
As all decisions are made in the collective, all participants have the opportunity to take part in
decisions. Premium goes even one step further in using consensus democracy to take decisions. If any participant, no matter what function he or she has, is against a decision he or she
has a right to veto. In this case premium has to find a solution, which is satisfactory for each
individual. This sometimes results in a long decision process and seems to be very inefficient
from a short-term perspective, but in the long run it means that decisions are very stable.
Through this measure existing structures are remaining and therefore need not be replaced.
This conservation of resources is within the meaning of degrowth (see also section “no contracts”).
Transfer and support
Besides providing information passively, as already mentioned in section 3.1.2 and in the services section above, Premium transfers its experience and knowledge actively into society. In
addition to the lectures and workshops, Premium is supporting other people and companies by
helping them to develop into a similar direction. Consequently Premium has accompanied
several start-ups. A special feature is that Premium does not shut the above mentioned operating system against others but gives them the opportunity to adopt parts or the whole concept.
This measure influences social as well as economical structures. Thus, it influences the
whole construct of the identified reasons for growth orientation (see Figure 1) and therefore
makes an important contribution to implement Degrowth.
24 3.3 Interim conclusion
All in all it can be stated that Premium is reducing external pressures especially by the
degrowth-actions no borrowed funds, financial break on growth and no profit of the financial
logic segment. Thereby the degrowth-action financial break on growth forms a requirement to
allow the measure no borrowed funds permanently. In the case of Premium this means an
increase in sales over 30% could not be accomplished without borrowing whereas the
degrowth-action no profit is just feasible because Premium is outsourcing the majority of processes. If Premium had bigger amounts of physical assets it would be much more difficult to
operate without any profit. Especially in areas where a lot of technical equipment is required
it would be more risky and difficult to process without any profit, or borrowed capital, which
again would result in a profit orientation in order to pay back interest rates. Consequently, this
means that Premium passes growth pressure to their partner companies. Premium tries to respond to this circumstance with internalization of numerous risks and responsibilities. In this
point the question arises whether this internalization is sufficient as compensation. In addition
it occurs that especially industrial companies would have difficulties to do business without
any profit or borrowed funds, because of a high investment in innovation. For this it would be
necessary to change the current conditions. For instance, interest free loans or limited economic competition could be a solution, but they are not to be discussed further in this thesis.
Furthermore it is striking that Premium simplifies economic processes by the measures
fixed prices and no optimization management of bills. Following the intension of the clearingout strategy these actions enable Premium to reduce resources and therefore have an environmental impact. However, Premium is not only limiting growth through financial measures,
but also restricting the scope of action and simplifies the supply chains.
In addition Premium saves resources in three ways. Firstly Premium provides a stable economic system because of the actions no contracts, no major customer, transparency and integration. Through this kind of measures Premium is building trustful trading relationships with
little fluctuation. Therefore new structures must be built only very rarely, which in turn would
take resources in demanding. Secondly, Premium waives on all unnecessary through the actions renouncement and no advertising. Thirdly it also provides services, which lies in the
meaning of the slowing down strategy.
Besides this Premium contributes actively to social change through the measures services,
transparency, integration and transfer and support by sharing their knowledge and through
the motivation of others.
25 4. Environmental impact of degrowth-actions at the example of
Premium
4.1 The influence of degrowth on the environmental impact
The environmental impact can be considered as all human activity, which influences the environment. Already in the 1970’s Erich and Holden found a way to describe the different factors
of environmental impact through the IPAT-formula: I = P x A x T (see Sorman and Giampiertro 2011; Ehrlich et al. 1975, 175). The letter I on the left side of the formula stands for
impact on the environment while on the right side P represents Population, A Affluence and T
Technology.
According to the IPAT-formula it is possible to influence the environmental impact of the
human being in three different ways: First to decrease population (P), second to cut affluence
(A) and third to improve technology (T) and thereby to increase the factor. While P is clearly
quantifiable, it is much harder to set measured values for A (see Ehrlich et al 1975, 174 ff.).
Ehrlich et al. come to the conclusion that GDP has to be used as key figure for A because of
the lack of alternatives. However, factor T is quantified again easier through the key figure
environmental impact per used unit. But at this point the question how the environmental impact is to be determined remains open.
Most approaches which deal with a reduction of environmental impact try to achieve this
goal by lowering factor T and thus, to achieve a lower environmental damage per unit (see
von Weizsäcker et al. 2009, 356 f.) In order to illustrate in which way degrowth differs from
such approaches it is meaningful to apply previous findings of it on the IPAT-formula. Doing
this it can easily be seen that degrowth is not only about the reduction of factor T, but includes
the lowering of factor A as well (see Sorman & Giampietro 2011). Among other facts, this
manifests itself through the intensive debate about the composition of affluence and wide
spread criticism to use the GDP as an indicator (see section 2.3.2). But degrowth also detects
interactions between A and T. For instance, to apply the rebound effects identified in section
2.3.3 in the context of the IPAT-formula means that a decrease of factor T could result in an
increase of factor A and thus in total can imply an even lager environmental impact. Further
on in section 2.3.3 it was displayed that the desire to reduce T stands on the one hand for a
higher corporate investment pressure and on the other hand can result in higher social spending, with an overall result of a higher GDP rate needed for compensation, which in turn increases A.
26 By comparing pure efficiency with degrowth approaches it became obvious that, in addition to T, the latter also includes factor A. Ehrlich et al. point out that all three factors are coequal and interact and multiply (see Ehrlich et al. 1975, 175 f.). Therefore, it is purposeful to
keep all three factors in mind rather than focusing only on one. For now, it can be assumed
that the degrowth approach commits itself to the environmental impact more effectively than
the one-sided consideration of factor T. There are also approaches such as Herman Daly's
SSE, which include, besides factor A and T, also factor P (see section 2.3.5). At this point it
should be pointed out that a reduction of population numbers would truly release pressure
from the environment but from en ethical view it is a delicate approach (see von Weizsäcker
et al. 2009, 157).
In summary it can be said that degrowth aims for a reduction of environmental impact especially through the decrease of environmental activity and points out negative consequences
of permanent technical improvement.
As displayed in Figure 3 Wijkman & Rockström clarify by their investigations that anthropogenic environmental pollution is taking the earth to and partly even beyond its stress limits
(see Wijkman & Rockström 2012, 36 ff.).
Figure 3: Planetary Boundaries
Source: Wijkman & Rockström 2012, 47.
27 As seen in figure 3, Wijkman & Rockström are dividing the planetary boundaries into ten different categories and define an individual limit for each, which represents the environmental
pressure the earth is able to compensate. The alarming fact of their study results is that the
planetary boundaries have already been exceeded in the three categories climate change, biodiversity and nitrogen flow (see Wijkman & Rockström 2012, 46).
These findings clarify that a sole fixation on improvements per consumed good however at
least is questionable. In fact, in the view of the urgent environmental categories climate
change, biodiversity and nitrogen flow, it is advisable to strive for absolute consumption rates
of resources, as can be seen through the theory of degrowth.
4.2 Environmental impact of identified degrowth-actions of Premium
It has already been shown that Degrowth is a complex issue and applicable in different fields.
In recent scientific studies degrowth is discussed primarily from a macroeconomic perspective and not considered in the business context. However, it is sensible to know how
degrowth-actions affect the environment in order to assess whether and if so under what circumstances their application makes sense for businesses.
A scientific assessment that already confirms that individual degrowth-actions have positive ecological effects would encourage a consideration in business management. To encourage single businesses, like Premium, it could be useful to discuss solely the environmental
impact of individual growth measures rather than taking the macroeconomic view. For this
reason the potential environmental impact of the identified degrowth-actions of Premium will
be discussed in this section. In order to explain the effects degrowth actions can have on companies the following table has been developed and will serve as a basis for the subsequent
section. On this basis the environmental impact will be discussed in the section hereafter.
Since degrowth-actions act in many ways and because it would be an impossible undertaking to present and analyse the entire range in this thesis a selection of four effects of these
actions has been made. In the following these effects (Limited business growth, stable structures, fewer resources and transfer) are considered gradually towards their environmental impact. One way to assess environmental impact is the use of LCA as a tool (see section 2.2)
which has already been done by Premium in 2009 with their product Premium-Cola.
28 Table 1: Degrowth-actions and their effects
Source: Own illustration
On the basis of the LCA it will be discussed in this thesis if LCA as a tool is adequate to capture and evaluate environmental impacts of degrowth-actions. To investigate this the procedure is as follows. Firstly, it is shown why the effect arises during the performance of Premium degrowth actions. Secondly the environmental impact of each effect is discussed.
4.3 Identified effects of Premium’s degrowth-actions and their environmental
impact
In the following the environmental impact of the identified effects will be introduced and discussed. It needs to be kept in mind that all effects influence each other to a certain extent. All
together effect 3 can be seen as a result of 1 and 2.
4.3.1 Effect 1: Limited business growth
One effect of the identified degrowth-actions of Premium is limited business growth. This is
mainly caused by the degrowth-actions (see table 1). At first it has to be stated that two different kinds of business growth limitation have to be distinguished. On the one hand the growth
rate of Premium is limited and on the other hand the absolute size of the company is restricted.
29 The former is caused above all by the special configuration of the company’s financial sector. Premium’s decision to not include debt means that it has less capital for disposal to invest
in the expansion of the company. Especially in the initial phase the growth of the company
was limited, because only the earnings could be reinvested to advance economic activity. The
result was that Premium developed much slower than companies that take a lot of borrowed
capital and thereby can invest heavily in progress. Although this means that Premium has not
made any great leaps it has developed very continuously. The second measure in this field
financial brake on growth builds a prerequisite for continuance of the degrowth-action no
borrowed funds. In addition the measure no profit builds an important prerequisite to develop
independently from growth because profit-oriented company is with a high generally also
growth orientated in order to maximize profit. Furthermore the degrowth-action no advertising prevents strong sales increases through advertising and thus also limits the growth rate of
the company.
The second effect of degrowth-actions is that the absolute size of the company is restricted.
Mainly this effect is caused by the measure limited scope of action. This action limits the distribution radius to a maximum of 600 km. Thus Premium limits its operating radius only spatially. However, this measure does not directly affect the economic growth within these spatial limits.
In addition to this the degrowth-action anti-volume discount and no mayor customer contributes to the limitation of business sizes. Although they do not directly influence the enterprise size of Premium, they do have an effect on the size of external partners. Through these
measures Premium supports smaller companies.
A consequence of the effect limited business growth can be an absolute or relative restriction of the company size. Concerning the IPAT-formula it can be assumed that a restriction of companies would lead to a decrease of factor A therefore reducing the environmental impact. At the same time the question arises whether a company with a limited growth
rate or an absolute limited size is less efficient than conventional businesses with no limits to
growth. In order to discuss these unclear environmental impacts of effect 1 it is considered
how Premium deals with this situation.
A first step Premium is taking to edge their economic activity in absolute manner is the
spatial limitation of the scope of action. The assessment of the environmental impact of this
measure could be blurred because of two problems: Firstly, although this ensures a spatial
limit of distribution routes this measure does not guarantee efficiency within these limits.
30 Secondly, however, this measure does not care for an absolute limitation of the economic activity, because Premium could further increase economic activity within the limited space of
actions. So it cannot be said with certainty how this measure influences factors A and T.
However, Premium avoids the efficiency problems of small enterprises through outsourcing to the greatest possible extend. Thus this measure can be regarded as an adequate solution
for small businesses in general depending on the efficiency of the external partners.
In order to consider the environmental impact of Premium and its external partners the
LCA of Premium-Cola (see Eikmeier 2009) is an adequate tool. Through an LCA it is possible to get a good overview of all processes but therefore it is essential to get to the relevant
information of all partners. The fact of outsourcing could imply the risk of a drawback as it
takes a lot of effort to get the required information needed for the LCA (see Eikmeier 2009,
54). However, if it is possible to circumvent these difficulties a LCA can well be used to analyse the efficiency of the various processes. Thus it has been possible to identify potential for
improvements through the LCA of Premium-Cola. For instance, Premium decided in response
to the LCA to replace the bottle caps made of chrome steel by tin plate bottle caps (see Premium 2009). As a result of these considerations it can be deduced that outsourcing could be a
solution for degrowth companies to bypass inefficiency. At the same time it can also be noted
that the hand over of processes to external partners means a reduction of influence on procedures, however.
In order to avoid the already mentioned ineffectiveness of small businesses their production could be supported through outsourcing. Consequently it can be argued that outsourcing
can be a first step for introducing degrowth into an otherwise growth oriented world.
4.3.2 Effect 2: Stable structures
Another effect of the identified degrowth-actions are stable structures (see table 1).
They represent one of the main reasons why Premium was able to slowly but surely establish
economic structures. The degrowth-actions no contracts and no optimization management of
bills also decelerate and stabilize processes. As already mentioned through these measures
Premium builds good relationships with its partners, resulting in modest changes within this
network.
In addition the measures anti-volume discount and no major costumer are providing a better stability. The fact that Premium has many small customers and therefore is not dependent
31 on major customers avoids external dependencies. As a result Premium is not subject to unpredictable demands of large customers.
Furthermore the measure integration has a large share on stable structures. Thus Premium
integrates all people somehow involved in company processes and interested to participate in
the decision-making process, including consumers and all decisions are consensus based. Because all parties are satisfied with the decision or at least not dissatisfied the results of the
decision-making process are very stable.
Additionally the degrowth-action services make their contribution to the effect 2 by reducing the dependencies on product sales und therefore differentiate the supply side of the company.
In an indirect manner also the degrowth-action transparency has an effect on stable structures. The fact that Premium provides a lot of information at disposal and announces decisions to all participants minimizes errors and therefore contributes to the satisfaction of all
participants.
To consider the environmental impact of stable decisions on the one hand it is important to
recognize a longer period of time instead of performing an analysis at a certain point of time.
From a short-term perspective the building of stable structures appear to be very time consuming. However, if these are created the outcome can be assumed as durable. On the other
hand, looking again at the IPAT formula it cannot generally be stated if and how effect 2 influences factors T and A.
In order to have stable structures Premium goes through long decision processes, which include a careful selection of its external partners. This not only applies to production processes
but also to the customers. For this reason it can be expected that these partners meet the requirements of Premium, which also includes ecological behaviour. This circumstance can be
seen as meaningful for reducing the environmental impact of a company. Whatsoever, the
question arises for how long it can be seen as justifiable to hold on to certain partners, if unwanted developments come in. In this case stable structures can prove sluggish and therefore
not ecological. These problems are challenging an environmental assessment like LCA, especially because LCAs only consider a point in time analysis. To be ready for all eventualities
Premium has developed and emergency plan that enables them to take sudden decisions (see
Lübbermann, 2014, 00:07:00).
32 4.3.3 Effect 3: Fewer resources
In the long run the effect stable structures discussed above can provide a lower use of resources. The idea behind this is that a change in structures would have the effect of higher
resource consumption, because while new structures are built old structures mostly become
worthless. Also limited business growth can mean fewer resources will be needed.
In addition the degrowth measures seen in table 1 can be seen as enabling Premium to operate with fewer resources. This effect can be viewed from two perspectives, namely Premium using fewer and owning less resources at the same time.
Through the renouncement of all superfluous features, e.g. no advertising or bottleetiquettes, Premium lowers the resource consumption of the company in an absolute manner.
But also the measures fixed prices and no optimization management of bills can be seen as
resource conserving, because they simplify processes. Through these two measures Premium
is able to save work and therefore resources. Also the provision of services decreases resource
consumption. Services can be less resource intensive than a material based production of
goods. Premium also saves resources through their limited scope of action. For instance longer distribution distances could result in higher fuel consumption. Additionally Premium saves
resources through the degrowth-action outsourcing. This means that Premium owns few resources, which is also reflected in their consumption, because less inventory has to be maintained.
The use of fewer resources can be linked directly with a reduction of environmental impacts.
Considering the IPAT-formula a company using fewer resources influences factor T. However, if a company decides to limit the resource use in absolute manner it could also make a significant contribution to reducing factor A.
Regarding factor T Premium saves directly on the product through the renouncement of
superfluous recourses, reducing the environmental damage per produced unit. An example
here is the conscious omission of additional labels. The environmental impact of such efficiency measures can be determined by an LCA quite reliably and therefore were also considered in the LCA of Premium-Cola (see Eikmeier 2009, 32f. and 46).
Furthermore, resource savings that are caused by the simplifications of business routines
(e.g. fixed prices or no optimization management of bills) cannot be recognized quite as clear.
If it is assumed that, as perceived by Premium, these measures mean a saving of labour costs
(see interview), a lower consumption of resources could be manifested. The LCA of Premi-
33 um-Cola does not explicitly consider these types of measures, but deals only with the immediate production system (see Eikmeier 2009, 25). Methodically it would be conceivable to
capture these actions through a LCA. For instance, such business routines could be
downscaled to the product. In this case it can therefore only be assumed that these measures
reduce the environmental impact of the business by decreasing factor T.
Another problem is that services can decrease the environmental impact of the company, if
they don’t support material flows (see Paech 2012, 192 f.). In this regard Premium’s services
have to be considered as ambivalent. On the one hand they provide an economic activity,
which is not as strongly linked to resource consumption as production of goods. Focused correctly services could lead to a reduction of factor A. Thus Premium could affect societal and
economic change though their services and therefore affect A positively. On the other hand
the services of Premium can also be seen as promotional activities that make the company
well known and therefore could create a stronger demand of their products. Because the LCA
is related to the product Premium-Cola it does not consider these types of services. However,
if an LCA is not only used in the context of products it could be a tool to assess the overall
environmental impact of the company.
4.3.4 Effect 4: Transfer
This effect (see Table 1) is mainly caused by the degrowth-action transfer and support and
means that Premium actively influences the environment. On the one hand they report on
their economy in lectures in educational, scientific and business contexts and moreover practically help other businesses to pursue a similar direction.
Therefore Premium multiplies its own environmental impact through transfer of knowledge
and experience. Such rebound effects can hardly be measured through environmental assessment tools like LCA.
34 5. Degrowth-actions as a corporate perspective to decrease environmental impact
In order to decrease the absolute environmental impact and thus to pay tribute to the capacities of the earth a reduction of economic activity is important from a macroeconomic perspective. However, in chapter 4.1 it was found that not only focusing on downscaling the economical activity is important but also efficiency has to be considered. Transferring this to the corporate context means that companies have to deal with their extent of economic activity as
well as to engage for efficiency.
The degrowth actions considered at the example of Premium indicate problems which can
arise through the implementation of degrowth in corporate contexts. They can be summarized
from the aspect that a decrease of economic activity potentially is accompanied by less efficiency, which should be prevented.
On the one hand Premium could suggest possible solutions for these problems. Thus, for
example outsourcing could be an opportunity for businesses to operate efficiently regardless
of the company size. For instance, if a company is limiting its growth rate or absolute size the
question always arises whether it thereby operates less efficiently. Furthermore Premium has
shown that stable structures can possibly be considered as efficient, if a long term perspective
is applied. Moreover Premium has shown alternative ways that the resource consumption of a
company could also be reduced by renouncement, simplification of business routines and the
offer of services. However, the potential problems mentioned in section 4.2.1 will have to be
applied here as well. Therefore outsourcing is not an absolute solution and it could be argued
that problems are only shifted to the external partners.
The result of these considerations is that environmental impacts of degrowth actions are
very complex. By considering the case study Premium and its LCA of Premium-Cola it appears that current environmental impact assessment tools like LCA have difficulties to detect
these sufficiently. Firstly, this is because LCAs are mostly used to evaluate product life cycles
rather than regarding an enterprise as a whole. Secondly, LCAs are not meant to consider
longer periods of time.
Finally, the question arises what prospects under these considerations are given for companies. Despite all ambiguities that were found in the course of this investigation it makes sense
to deal with the ideas of degrowth, especially because of the lack of decoupling environmental impact from the economic activity in absolute manner. To develop a perspective for enterprises in that context key figures can be used (see Dietz & O’neill 2013, 150). A possible ex 35 ample is the key figure ecological allowance developed by Reichel and Seeberg (see Reichel
& Seeberg 2013). Here Reichel and Seeberg project the planetary boundaries on the company
considered. As a result the company receives an orientation, whether it exceeds, proportionally seen, the planetary boundaries. Additionally the company receives an orientation, whether
further growth is ecologically acceptable. In order to determine the environmental impact of
the company an LCA is used. But in this case not only a single product is considered but an
assessment of all environmental impacts of the whole enterprise is carried out.
One more way to assess the environmental impact of a company with degrowth constrains
is to use simulation models through a certain period of time.
Even it is difficult for companies to implement ideas of degrowth under the present conditions
it is worthwhile in order to support a change in this direction. Because of the urgency of environmental problems, companies should not wait for external changes, but actively use their
enormous potential to contribute to a change towards degrowth.
6. Conclusion
In the course of this study it has become clear that degrowth offers a variety of different aspects to improve the environmental impact. At the same time these factors influence each
other and produce a certain complexity. For this reason degrowth approaches are portrayed in
a major part of the thesis.
Firstly, degrowth is defined as a selective downscaling of economic activity, which is in
this case tantamount to a reduction of GDP, in order to solve ecological and social problems.
However, the procedure described above to tackle ecological and social problems is only imaginable if prosperity is possible without economical growth. From section 2.3.2 it can be
seen that, if comfortable circumstances are not only equated with material wealth from a certain point of basic care, economical growth is not able to improve prosperity.
Nevertheless the question is remaining if the decoupling of economic growth from environmental impacts can possibly be a solution. Section 2.3.3 conveys that such a process of
decoupling can only be imagined and partly observed in relative manners, but in order to enable a steady economic growth without any negative impact on the environment decoupling in
an absolute manner would be necessary. This finding illustrates that solely applied constraints
of efficiency are not adequate in order to tackle environmental problems.
36 Despite the knowledge of these circumstances for a large majority of today’s society a
waiver of economic growth is unthinkable. Therefore for an implementation of degrowth it is
necessary to identify the reasons for this state of mind. In order to do so these reasons for
growth orientation are identified and analysed in section 2.3.4. This analysis shows that the
main reasons for this growth orientation have their origin on the on hand in a consumptionoriented society and on the other hand in the capitalistic structures of economy, both origins
reinforcing each other. In section 2.3.5 it is considered what necessary conditions a society
with no growth orientation would need. On the one hand the complexity of social and economic structures have to be reduced, on the other hand an overall framework including a good
management and societal acceptance will be needed.
The case study Premium is used to transfer this macroeconomic perspective into the corporate context. The consideration of the corporate perspective in section 3.1 shows that today’s
businesses are also subjected to growth pressures. An essential point is that larger enterprises
have competitive advantage over small businesses. Nevertheless, already under present conditions reasons for companies to avoid growth dependencies occur.
In section 3.1 it is analysed what the determined conditions for a degrowth society mean
for the corporate perspective. A major motivation for companies to do so is to have the possibility to develop according to their own ideas and thus to be independent of external factors.
Moreover it is often ignored that large companies also bring economic disadvantages such as
anonymous and obscure structures. Besides these structural-organizational motives also ethical-normative motives like the desire to make a positive contribution to the environment play
a big role. In section 3.1.3. the four strategies (clearing out, slowing down, decommercialization and unbundling) are presented in order to assist companies in the development towards
degrowth.
Through the case study of Premium first perspectives for a concrete implementation of
corporate degrowth of enterprises can be created. In order to do so in section 3.2. it is considered which concrete degrowth-actions Premium takes to develop independently from growth.
After identifying the degrowth-actions of Premium their environmental impact is discussed in
section 4.
It has proved difficult to get to grips with the environmental impact in relation to Premium’s degrowth actions. In order to find a clear structure four effects have been derived from
them. They have been named limited business growth, stable structures, fewer resources and
transfer for this study and have been placed into a chart. On the basis of this chart it is possible to name these difficulties.
37 Through limited business growth the business might be in danger to become inefficient.
This problem is met by Premium with the solution of outsourcing, which, however, might
shift problems in the direction of their partners. LCA can here be seen as an adequate tool to
evaluate the efficiency of the entire supply chain. Stable structures may prove to be sluggish
and therefore decisions might not take current ecological improvements into account but as
Premium goes through long decision processes in order to find adequate partners they can
assume that they think along the same lines in most important issues including ecology. Here
LCA cannot be of help as it only considers a point in time analysis. Fewer resources are the
least problematic of the four in the ecological context as they can be located more easily.
Therefore they are also measurable for LCA but might have to be modified.
The additional contemplation use of the LCA of Premium has shown that the environmental impact of degrowth-actions is captured only partly. Transfer of knowledge and experience
to other players produces a rebound effect that can hardly be measured by LCA. Despite the
uncertainties of the impact of degrowth-actions companies should consider to do a first step in
this direction.
The results of this study are nor sufficient to answer the leading question of this thesis as
they are far too complex. However, science will have to be required to intensify the work on
the field of degrowth. Baring in mind that industry has a big share in responsibility for environmental problems they need to make their contribution by finding creative ways to combine
all three sustainability strategies, namely efficiency, consistency and sufficiency. Degrowth
could be a first step in this direction.
38 7. Bibliography:
Baumann, H. & Tillmann A. (2004): The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. An orientation in
life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Baumast, A. & Pape, J. (Hrsg.) (2009): Betriebliches Umweltmanagement. Nachhaltiges
Wirtschaften im Unternehmen. Stuttgart: Ulmer, 4. Auflage.
Beckmann, M. & Schaltegger, S. (2014): „Unternehmerische Nachhaltigkeit“, in: Heinrichs,
H. (Hrsg.) & Michelsen, G: Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Heidelberg: Springer, 344-367.
Binswanger, H. C. (2009): Vorwärts zur Mässigung. Perspektiven einer nachhaltigen
Wirtschaft. Hamburg: Murmann.
Dietz, R. & O’Neill, D. W. (2013): Enough is Enough. Building a sustainable economy in a
world of finite resources. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.) (1997): DIN EN ISO 14040. Umweltmanagement Ökobilanz - Prinzipien und allgemeine Anforderungen. Berlin: Beuth.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.) (1998): DIN EN ISO 14041. Umweltmanagement Ökobilanz - Festlegung des Ziels und des Untersuchungsrahmens sowie Sachbilanz.
Berlin: Beuth.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.) (2000 a): DIN EN ISO 14042. Umweltmanagement Ökobilanz - Wirkungsabschätzung. Berlin: Beuth.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.) (2000 b): DIN EN ISO 14043. Umweltmanagement Ökobilanz - Auswertung. Berlin: Beuth.
Eikmeier, S. (2009): Life Cycle Assessment als Informationsgrundlage des Environmental
Supply Chain Managements am Fallbeispiel des Unternehmens Premium Cola
https://www.premiumcola.de/downloads/wissenschaft/BA_Oekobilanz_PremiumVersion.pdf
(Access:15.07.2014)
Ehrlich, P. R.; Ehrlich, A. H. & Holdren J. P. (1975): Humanökologie. Berlin/Heidelberg:
Springer.
Hamilton, C. (2010): Consumerism, self-creation and prospects for a new ecological consciousness, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, 571-575.
Henriques , A. & Richardson, J. (eds.)(2005): The Tripple Bottom Line. does it all add up?
Sterling/London: Earthscan.
Jackson, T. (2013): Wohlstand ohne Wachstum. Leben und Wirtschaften in einer endlichen
Welt. München/Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Johanisova, N.; Crabtree, T.& Franková, E. (2013): Social entrerprises and non-market
capitals: a path to degrowth?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 38, 7-16.
39 Kallis, G. (2011): In defence of degrowth, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, 873-880.
Kerschner, C. (2010): Economic de-growth vs. steady state economy, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18, 544-551.
Klitgaard, K. A. & Krall, L. (2011): Ecological Economics, degrowth, and institutional
change, Ecological Economics, Vol. 84, 247-253.
Liesen A. & Dietsche C.; Gebauer, J. (2013): Wachstumsneutrale Unternehmen. Pilotstudie
zur Unternehmensperspektive im Postwachstumsdiskurs.
http://www.ioew.de/uploads/tx_ukioewdb/IOEW_SR_205_Wachstumsneutrale_Unternehmen
_01.pdf (Access 15.07. 2014).
Lorek, S. & Fuchs, D. (2013): Strong sustainable consumption governance – precondition
for a degrowth path?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 38, 36-43.
Matthey, A. (2010): Less is more: the influence of aspirations and priming on well-being,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, 567-570.
Neumayer, E. (2010): Weak versus Strong Sustainability. Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 3rd edition.
Osterwalder, A (2004): The business model ontology. A position in a design science approach. http://www.hec.unil.ch/aosterwa/phd/osterwalder_phd_bm_ontology.pdf. (Access
15.07.2014)
Paech, N. (2012): Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften jenseits von Innovationsorientierung und
Wachstum. Eine unternehmensbezogene Transformationstheorie. Marburg: Metropolis, 2.
Auflage.
Paech, N. (2013): Befreiung vom Überfluss. Auf dem Weg in die Postwachstumsökonomie.
München: Oekom, 5. Auflage.
Premium (2014): Premium, https://www.premium-cola.de/betriebssystem (Access
15.07.2014)
Reichel, A. & Seeberg, A. (w.y.): Rightsizing production: The calculus of „Ecological Allowance“ and the need of industrial growth. http://andrereichel.de/resources/Rightsizingproduction_AR-BS.pdf. (Access 15.07.2014)
Reichel, A. & Seeberg, A. (2011): The Ecological Allowance of Enterprise : An absolute
measure of Corporate Environmental Performance, its Implications for Strategy, and a Small
Case. Journal of Environmental Sustainability. Vol 1, s.p..
Reichel, A. (2013): Betriebliche Perspektiven. Das Ende des Wirtschaftswachstums, wie wir
es kennen, Ökologisches Wirtschaften, 1.2013, 15-18.
Renn, O.; Deuschle, J.; Jäger, A. & Weimer-Jehle, W. (2007): Leitbild Nachhaltigkeit.
Eine Normative Konzeption und ihre Umsetzung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
40 Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R. & Petersen, H. (2003): An Introduction to Corporate Environmental Management. Striving for Sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf
Schmelzer, M. & Passadakis, A. (2011): Postwachstum. Krise, ökologische Grenzen und
soziale Rechte. Hamburg: VSA.
Schneider, F.; Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010): Crisis or opportunity? Economic
degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, 511-518.
Schneidewind, U. & Palzkill-Vorbeck, A. (2011): Suffizienz als Business Case. Nachhaltiges Ressourcenmanagement als Gegenstand einer transdisziplinären Betriebswirtschaftslehre. https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/59296/1/716107074.pdf. (Access
15.07.2014).
Schubring, V.; Posse, D.; Bozsoki, I. & Buschmann, C. (2013): Neue Strategien nachhaltigen Wirtschaftens. Unternehmen und Postwachstum: Das Beispiel Premium-Cola,
Ökologisches Wirtschaften, Ausgabe 1/2013, 19 -20.
Sekulova, F.; Kallis, G.; Rodríguez-Labajos, B. & Schneider, F. (2013): Degrowth: From
theory to practice, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 38, 1-6.
Sommer, A. (2012): Managing Green Business Model Transformations. Berlin/Heidelberg:
Springer.
Sorman, A. H. & Giampietro, M. (2013): The energetic metabolism of societies and the
degrowth paradigm: analysing biophysical constraints and realities, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 38, 80-93.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2010): The growth discourse, growth policy and sustainable development: two thought experiments, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, 561-566.
UNEP (2011): Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic
growth. A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.
http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling/files/pdf/Decoupling_Report_English.pdf).
(Access: 15.07.2014)
van den Bergh, J. C.J.M. (2010): Relax about GDP growth: implications for climate and
crisis policies, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, 540-543.
von Weizsäcker, E. U.; Hargroves, K.; Smith, M. (2010): Faktor Fünf. Die Formel für nachhaltiges Wachstum. München: Drömer.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987): Our Common
Future, http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf (Access:
15.07.2014)
Wijkman, A. & Rockström, J. (2012): Bankrupting Nature. Denying our planetary boundaries. Oxon: Routledge, 2nd edition.
41