Sustainability Day – University of Graz

oikos Graz is co-organising the sustainability day at the University of Graz.

More information can be found here.

Author image

oikos International

posted May 24, 2016

This might be for you.

SUSI Partners @ oikos&Pizza

oikos St. Gallen will host SUSI Partners for oikos&Pizza. SUSI Partners is a Swiss investment advisor specialized in financing the development of sustainable infrastructure, including renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, and the optimization of energy storage and grid infrastructure. Further information is available here.

Author image

oikos International

posted April 22, 2016

This might be for you.

oikos FutureLab 2016

The oikos FutureLab is the biggest event in the annual oikos calendar which gathers representatives from the entire oikos community. It provides a 2-day platform for 140 participants to inspire, discover and develop joint perspectives on the future of sustainability in management and economics. More information is available here.

Author image

oikos International

posted April 22, 2016

This might be for you.

oikos ANU Organises Climate Change Event #BeTheDrivingForce

On November 20th, 2015, 80 participants gathered at the Africa Nazarene University in Nairobi, Kenya. The morning started off with a warm welcome on behalf of the Vice Chancellor of the Africa Nazarene University read his speech here, followed by Mr. John Kioli, Chair of the KCCWG and Dr. Richard Lesiyampe, from the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

12270481_910908482290698_1499065425_n

The audience could then listen to Kenya’s Progress in addressing Climate Change and its position for the upcoming COP21 in Paris. This was presented by Mr. Stephen Kinguyu from the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Rural Development Authorities. This enthusiastic session was followed by and address by the UNEP’s Mr Waiganjo Njoroge. Mr. Njoroge spoke about the link between youth and climate change and what we should do about it. See Kenya’s position presentation here. Moreover, find the presentation on policy here.

After a short break, the audience was excited to hear from Mr. Paul Mbole, Chair of the Sustainable Energy Network. The audience enjoyed a Q&A session with Mr. Mbole, likewise. A panel discussion followed the brief interaction composed of Ms. Cecilia Kibe from the KCJWC, Anita Negri who is currently President of oikos, Mr. Kevin Kinusu from TechforTrade, East Africa and Mr. John Kioli from KCCWG. The panel addressed several topics amongst which were gender roles in climate change, opportunities within the agricultural sector, plans for COP21, how to fund climate projects and responsible leadership amongst youth. See the presentation on agriculture here.

After a short lunch break, it was time for break out session in which groups discussed and exchange opinions on three topics: climate finance, energy and agriculture. After the presentation of what each had exchanged in their groups, moderated by students, participants had the opportunity to plan trees, guided by John Henry. The programme closed with a lot of inspiration on thinking to be done on behalf of participants after the various inputs heard throughout the day.

12248831_910907475624132_436583949_nSpecials thanks go out to John Henry who made a lot of efforts in organizing this event. May this serve as an example for many more such events to come.

See how the hashtag on Twitter got people talking here. And on Facebook here.

Kenyan Universities represented: Africa Nazarene University,Technical University of Kenya, University of Kabianga, Multimedia University of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and technology, Mount Kenya University, Kenya Climate Change Working Group, African Youth Initiative Against Climate Change, Daystar University Kenya, Miss Tourism Kenya , Ministry of Environment.

Author image

oikos International

posted November 20, 2015

This might be for you.

Interested in Renewable Energy Finance 2.0? We’d love to hear from you

photovoltaic cells and high voltage post.

For investments in renewable energy consumers, electric utilities as well as private and institutional investors use a wide range of financial instruments. In the past few years, innovative models like leasing, power purchase agreements, green bonds, yieldcos and crowdfunding – “renewable energy finance 2.0” – have moved up the agenda in this context. Earlier this week, we invited 22 participants from academia, business, policymaking, NGOs and the media to discuss these instruments during a roundtable in Zurich, Switzerland. The goal of the event was to strengthen the links between theory and practice, to develop an overview on innovative financing models for renewable energy and the existing research thereon as well as to identify knowledge gaps and possible research questions. It was the first “oikos Roundtable” that we organized – and in view of the encouraging participant feedbacks most probably not the last one.

Martin Stadelmann from South Pole Group introduced the topic by outlining the traditional financing model for renewable energy: around 30% equity and 70% debt are raised; project returns come from energy market prices or feed-in tariffs. He gave two examples for innovative instruments: an Indian concentrated solar power (CSP) plant using a power purchase agreement to market its energy and a Turkish geothermal plant using leasing; both plants were partly financed with loans from public sector institutions. He also highlighted the role of support funds like the Swiss technology fund that provides loan guarantees for small and medium enterprises, of CO2 certificates for the funding of electricity production from bio methane, of electricity certificates and of up-front-sales of green electricity to end consumers.

Johanna Köb from Zurich Insurance Group presented yieldcos, securitization and green bonds. While yieldcos allow energy firms to spin off and go public with power plants that already provide stable returns, securitization offers a way to mix, package and standardize financial claims on different energy assets in a way that meets the risk and return requirements of different investors. Institutional investors, like pension funds and insurance companies, often have a preference for stable and foreseeable returns, which is why they invest most of their portfolios in bonds. Consequently, emission of green bonds, whose returns are earmarked for environmental activities, has seen rapid growth in the past years. Since green bonds currently provide similar returns to their non-green counterparts, the green focus is predominantly a transparency and sensitization tool. The market for green bonds is likely to diversify and develop more sophisticated and impactful products over time.

Benjamin Schmid from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) gave an overview on the state of Swiss renewable energy cooperatives. He circumscribed energy cooperatives as one possible form of community energy where a regionally defined group of citizens provides the majority of the capital for an energy facility, co-manages the project and often shares certain non-financial goals. Over the past 120 years in Switzerland energy cooperatives have developed in three phases: one early boom around the turn of the century (construction of local distribution grids) and two recent ones (focus on renewable energies). The introduction of public support policies for renewable energies as well as the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima had an increasing effect on the development of energy cooperatives. Today, almost 300 cooperatives exist, which, however, manage relatively small energy capacities or solely operate the local distribution grids. They are mainly financed through a high share of equity and through classic bank loans.

Vivid discussions started during the presentations and were continued in three break-out sessions. The group discussions also served to develop the following more detailed research questions in the three topic areas:

Power purchase agreements, leasing, contracting, loans and grants
• Which actors are able to bear which prices and risks? This question is important, inter alia, when transitioning from public support-based schemes to market price schemes in renewable energy financing.
• Which financing instruments can reduce risk in which market segments (different technologies for electricity and heat, small scale vs. commercial/industrial vs. large scale)?
• Are end consumers in Switzerland and Northern Europe as open as North Americans to the leasing model for renewable energy? Or do other means to integrate end consumers have more potential, like the up-front-sale of electricity as currently offered by the city of Zurich’s utility?

Green bonds, yieldcos, and securitization
• Is green really green – do green bonds need a central certification scheme to protect their credibility?
• What does it take for institutional investors to increasingly invest into sustainable infrastructure, e.g. changes in financial regulation, adjustment of financing models to better meet institutional investor needs, proof of derisking via ESG integration?
• How can we overcome the bottleneck of a lack of bankable projects? This is linked with the question of how to make small, decentralized projects bankable, e.g. in Switzerland.
• How will the pricing system of the energy market be organized in the long run – energy only or capacity markets?
• Do sustainability criteria in infrastructure lead to lower risks?

Energy cooperatives and crowdfunding
• How can the legal definition of “own consumption”, which gives favorable terms to small producers and direct users of renewable energy in Switzerland, be widened to also include production and consumption from bigger power plants owned by cooperatives?
• What are models for fruitful cooperation between utilities and cooperatives?
• How can the full potential of cooperatives be tapped by implementing a favorable regulatory framework?

If you are interested in tackling one of these questions in your bachelor, master, or PhD thesis, we’d love to hear from you.

Author image

oikos International

posted October 23, 2015

This might be for you.

Learning about Circulation at the oikos CEE Meeting 2015

On a very warm, windy and pleasant Vienna day, the oikos CEE Meeting 2015 commenced. Participants travelled from more than seven countries to be united in learning more about the concept of Circular Economy and generate a flow of interesting perspectives and ideas to share.

On the first day the participants were escorted to the headquarters of Global 2000, a Vienna-based NGO working on sustainability projects. Linnéa Richter, a certified green cosmetics educator, introduced the group to the concept of sustainable cosmetics. First, statistics were introduced such as the fact that, on average, Europeans utilise 10-15 ‘beauty’ products per day. Second, she highlighted that it is difficult for the plastic used to package cosmetics to degrade and be recycled, thus, making the cosmetics industry unsustainable in nature. Third, the focus was shifted onto the ingredients that cosmetic products contain: adding onto the ‘unsustainable’ and ‘unhealthy’ factor. In order for the group to understand how easily one could avoid using commercial products and turn to using DIY products, Linnéa, guided participants to make their own deodorant and body butter. Participants were amused and surprised by how basic, fast and affordable it is to re-create mainstream products in a 100% natural fashion. The body butter was created out of apples, cinnamon, water and bee wax. The deodorant was composed out of oranges, lemons and baking soda. The results were colourful, pretty and participants took one sample of each product home.

On yet another warm second day, the first session was with Prof. Thomas Ertl from BOKU Wien – University of natural resources and life sciences Vienna. The topics of the session were the key elements in water cycles, the stakeholders and factors of efficient and sustainable water management. During the brainstorming, the participants had to answer the questions: How much water do we really use? Why does the water sometimes have no “cycle”? Who does actually need water? Who are the pollutants? Which is better for running the water services – private or public sector? the costs and revenues in water distribution services were also discussed. The second session was with Martin Wafler, from cewas and seecon international made us think about water as a resource. The session was full of interesting and valuable information, numbers and figures that we found unbelievably interesting and it was a natural start for passionate discussion. Participants were made aware of about strategies for saving water and one of the main conclusions was change in consumption habits. The most impressive information shared was the map of hot spots in Swiss water consumption that showed up that Switzerland imports goods mainly from regions in India, Russia and the Middle East. Mr. Wafler also talked about the water treatment and the difficulties of building a sanitation system. In the end it was an interesting workshop about the creating of the water, energy and raw materials flow chart.

Then the participants visited the biggest water bottling company in Austria – Vöslauer. At the company office, full of certificates showing of how sustainable the company is, they heard about the trends and figures in recycling and reusing of the bottles inside the company. The day ended with a visit to a thermal bath in the Vöslauer mineral water.

Day three started at Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien (WU – Vienna University of Economics & Business) where the participants were inspired by the brilliant lecture on “waste management” given by Mr. Benjamin Steuer (Circular Economy Researcher, WU). He enlightened them on how to convert the dangerous toxic waste into valuable energy resource which they then got to observe in action a bit later in the day, but also the hazards of how this is done by an informal e-waste recycling industry in China. The second speaker for the day was Elena Komarova from ALBA Group. And she talked about recycling technologies and the specific separation of materials that is essential for high-quality recycling. Very enriching was the discovery of green coal technology or in other words processing of residual waste into substitute fuel. ALBA is also turning used plastics into various forms of recycled plastics as recythene and procyclen which can be straightforward used for producing new products. Then was the visit to municipal department Die 48er waste management factory which served as a starting point for a waste management tour. The tour was aimed to give yhe participants a practical understanding of the lecture that was held earlier. The tour guide explained us the whole waste management processing system like how they convert waste (that smells really bad!) to bio-gas through the bio-mass incineration process. Overall, the tour enhanced the knowledge of the participants on waste handling. The different techniques of how the municipality is collecting and categorizing organic waste into kitchen scrap, gardens trimming waste and forest waste. These wastes are then later converted into bio energies in the form of bio-gas, soil enriching compost fertilizers, nitrate content for agriculture, which improves fertilization and plant health. Thus it clearly proves that the bio-gas plant is functioning in a sustainable manner, helping to eradicate 144,000 tons of carbon-dioxide annually and avoiding the risk of transmission of BSE diseases from animals to humans.

See you next year with more regional meetings!

This article is a collage of articles published on the oikos Vienna Blog, edited by Nimisha Ghorpade

Author image

oikos International

posted October 6, 2015

This might be for you.

‪#‎TackleFuelPoverty‬

The “Social Innovation to Tackle Fuel Poverty” CHALLENGE (September 1 – October 31 2015)

In Europe, 50 to 125 million persons are living in fuel poverty. Our friends at Ashoka and the Schneider Electric Foundation believe that the most leveraged way to enable underprivileged people to have affordable access to energy is to invest in and engage entrepreneurs who create innovations that lead to system-changing solutions. That is why we are looking for the most innovative social entrepreneurs in the fuel poverty field in six European countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland and UK). The winners will be awarded about 300 hours of mentoring sessions during 3 months to build-up their scaling-up strategies. Furthermore, they will benefit from inspiring meetings within a European network of peers and increased visibility during the whole program, and particularly during COP21, on December 4th, when the winners will be announced in Paris.

More information: http://www.tacklefuelpoverty.eu

Author image

oikos International

posted September 24, 2015

This might be for you.

Dr. Jim Yong Kim’s Dilemma: International Finance Corporation and the Tata Mundra Power Plant

Abstract

The case study is about the dilemma faced by Dr. Jim Yong Kim (Kim), President of the World Bank Group, related to International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) funding of the Tata Mundra Project in India. The Mundra plant was one of the Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs) conceived with the objective of providing cheap electricity to power-starved states of India. Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tata Power, implemented the project with funds from various organizations including a funding of US$450 million from IFC.

Before the Tata Mundra power project went on stream, everyone related to the project claimed that it would be beneficial for infrastructure development, economic growth, as well as for the poor communities living in areas near the power plant site, but the project soon started facing some serious criticism on the environmental and social fronts. Critics alleged that the project had a severe impact on the environment, sea water, water level, soil, air, natural habitats, marine life, fish population, livelihood, and health and society as a whole. IFC’s ‘Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman’ (CAO) did an extensive investigation and found evidence which validated the main aspects of the Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS) complaint. The management of IFC largely rejected the findings of the CAO, and Kim faced a lot of criticism for toeing the management line.

Kim was caught in a dilemma as the criticism grew more strident over the following months. If he still did not accept the findings of the CAO, then he as well as IFC risked being viewed as not doing enough for the environment and communities that were allegedly affected by the Tata Mundra power plant. On the other hand, if he did a U-turn and accepted the finding of the CAO, then he would have to stop the sustainable financing of US$450 million to the Tata Mundra project, which was established with the objective of providing cheap and reliable electricity to millions of people of developing India.

AuthorsDebapratim Purkayastha and Manish Agarwal
InstitutionIBS Hyderabad, IFHE University, India
Competition Year2015
PlaceWinner
TrackSustainable Finance
Key WordsSustainable Finance, Sustainability for banks and financial institutions, Banks and the Energy sector, Coal financing, Human rights as a Management issue, Human rights and sustainability, Businesses as human rights advocates, Business-government-society relationship; Stakeholder management, Stakeholder tension
CoursesElective courses in Financial Management, Corporate Sustainability, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility
Target AudienceMBA
Purchase InformationYou can purchase the case at the Case Centre.
DownloadInspection Copy
Author image

oikos International

posted June 24, 2015

This might be for you.

The German ‘Energiewende’: RWE’s Strategic Choice

Abstract

In July 2012 Peter Terium was named the new CEO of RWE, the biggest electricity provider in Germany. RWE has performed financially well over the previous 40 years with annual sales greater than €50bn since 2010. However, in 2014 the company had to disclose €2.8bn of net losses for the first time in its history.[i] This prompted an urgent need to change RWE’s corporate strategy. Peter Terium now faces a number of challenges in order to guarantee the profitable future of RWE.

First, RWE has to deal with the consequences of a variety of regulations, namely: (a) The German electricity market liberalization, (b) the renewable energy law in Germany, (c) the European Emissions Trading System and (d) the German nuclear phase out. These regulations contribute to a major shift in the electricity market, often referred to as the German Energiewende. The cornerstones of this Energiewende are decentralized and renewable power generation. RWE’s business model is built on centralized electricity generation based on coal and nuclear power and, thus, is contradictory to the German Energiewende.

Second, RWE is endangered by market developments: (a) RWE’s bottom-line is suffering from decreasing electricity market prices as a result of an oversupply of electricity due to the growing amount of renewable sources. (b) Many small competitors, sometimes even RWE’s former customers, have entered the electricity market thereby decreasing RWE’s market share. (c) In 2014 one of RWE´s main competitors E.ON started to respond to the altering market conditions and announced a substantial change in its business strategy and to focus entirely on renewables.

Third, the company faces specific expectations from external stakeholders: (a) As a consequence of the developments above, 10,400 jobs are up for redundancy.[ii] Local governments – of which some are RWE`s shareholders – are worried about these figures. (b) RWE also carries reputational risks because some well-known NGOs like the WWF criticize its lack of a low-carbon strategy.

Finally, the organization also faces an internal challenge. The internal structures have developed over decades and are based on the dominant logics of centralized coal and nuclear power production. As is typical for change processes in large organizations, these dominant logics may lead to structural inertia.

This case has been written to facilitate classroom discussion and engage debates for MBA/MS-level students in the form of a stakeholder role-play. The case focuses on the challenge of RWE to determine its future corporate strategy. It enables students to understand how legislative developments, market transformations and new technologies can fundamentally impact incumbents in a traditional industry.

[i] RWE, Annual Reports 2010 – 2013

[ii] “RWE streicht jede zehnte Stelle“, Zeit Online, http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/2013-11/energiekonzern-rwe-stellenabbau, accessed on September 30, 2014

Authors: Timo Busch and Marcel Richert
Institution: University of Hamburg, Germany
Competition Year2015
PlaceThird Prize
TrackCorporate Sustainability
Key WordsEnergy transition, renewable energy, electric utilities, low carbon strategy
CoursesStrategic management, CSR, business ethics, finance
Target AudienceMaster level, MBAs
Permission RightsThis case is part of the oikos free case collection. Download a free online copy below. If you are a faculty member and you are interested in teaching this case, you can request a free teaching note by sending us an email to freecase@oikosinternational.org.
DownloadFree Online Copy

Author image

oikos International

posted June 24, 2015

This might be for you.

Energy Learning Circle Updates

The Energy Learning Circle 

A room on 19th floor of the Warsaw Financial Center is lighted by passion for solar energy. The sun is setting over the city when the Polish part of the Energy Learning Circle is still discussing financing models for the PV installations. Dominika, Hubert and Łukasz are wondering which option the FutureLab participants will choose to finance a project to decrease the carbon footprint of their university. And you, how would you finance the transformation of the energy system towards sustainability?

The FutureLab 2014

The oikos FutureLab is the biggest event in the annual oikos calendar which gathers representatives from the entire oikos community. It provides a 2-day platform for 120 participants to inspire, discover and develop joint perspectives on the future of sustainability in management and economics. It leverages our global network of student members, alumni, advisors, faculty and partners for action. It offers a “laboratory” to design initiatives, engage the oikos community in pursuing them and fuel our journey towards higher impact.

For more information click here.

What are Learning Circles?

A Learning Circle is a highly interactive, participatory structure for organizing group work within a subject area. The goal is to build, share and express knowledge through a process of open dialogue and deep reflection. Within each Learning Circle people with a common interest gain experience, knowledge and establish networks in their chosen subject area. The Learning Circle structure gives the oikos community the opportunity to map the landscape of a specific topic, get in touch with external inspirational experts and systematically spread the knowledge in our network. In 2014, seven Learning Circles were initiated: Leadership, Finance, Entrepreneurship, Energy, Economics, Fashion/Supply Chain and Management.

Learn about other Learning Circles here.

Author image

oikos International

posted October 7, 2014

This might be for you.