What is the state of biodiversity reporting in the beverage industry among diverse

organizational sizes?

1. Introduction
Imagine sitting down to enjoy your favorite beverage on a hot summer day, be it a cold beer
or a refreshing soft drink, only to find out that its production has contributed to environmental
degradation and harmed biodiversity. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too common in the
beverage sector, which has a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, these
companies are a major contributor to greenhouse water consumption, packaging waste,
renewable energies or sustainable sourcing. However, there is hope for a more sustainable
future, as many companies in the sector are taking steps to improve their environmental
performance and promote sustainability. By addressing biodiversity and sustainability issues,
the beverage sector has the potential to become a leader in environmental stewardship,
demonstrating that it is possible to enjoy our favourite drinks while also protecting the planet.
In this paper, we will explore the complex relationship of the beverage sector with
biodiversity and sustainability issues, examining both the challenges and opportunities facing
the industry (and highlighting best practices and strategies for promoting sustainability in this
crucial sector).

3. Methodology: Qualitative Content Analysis

3.1 Sample description

For the analysis of our research question we settled on two companies: Coca-Cola
Deutschland and Neumarkter Lammsbräu. The reason for this choice is the diversity of
the sample. Despite the same industry lines, the companies' portfolios are different:
Coca-Cola specializes in non-alcoholic beverages, while Neumarkter Lammsbräu's main
product is beer. The companies also differ in production level and sales geography.
However, the main reason for choosing Coca-Cola and Neumarkter Lammsbräu is the
difference in the size of the companies. As of 2021, Coca-Cola Beverages Deutschland
has 51.6 times as many employees as Neumarkter Lammsbräu. This difference in company
size allows us to understand whether there is a correlation between the size of a company
and its biodiversity reporting and will help us fully answer our research question.
On top of that, the companies' differences help to better understand the beverage market,
identify sustainability and biodiversity trends, and make clearer recommendations for better
reporting for this particular industry.

Coca-Cola Deutschland is a non-alcoholic beverage company established in 1886. Since

1929 the company has produced its drinks in Germany (Coca-Cola Historie Von 1886 Bis
Heute | Coca-Cola DE, n.d.-b):
 - Portfolio: over 60 different beverages in different packaging variants, making it the
largest beverage producer for non-alcoholic soft drinks in Germany (Coca-Cola
Europacific Partners Deutschland [CCEP], 2022, p.4);
- Sales volume: 3.55 billion liters (CCEP, 2022, p.12);
- Headcount: 8.000 workers (CCEP, 2022, p.22).

Neumarkter Lammsbräu is a German family-owned brewery established 1628:

- Portfolio: 22 types of organic beer, two gluten-free specialties, 13 types of organic
lemonade as well as organic mineral water and an organic spritzer (Über Uns |
Neumarkter Lammsbräu, n.d.);
- Sales volume: 262.917 hl. (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2022, p.4);
- Headcount: 155 workers (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2022, p.12-13).

As a basis for our qualitative analysis, we used the reports that companies publish according
to the Biodiversity in Good Company initiative. We intentionally focus on biodiversity reports
because this area is narrower than sustainability in general, which, according to the Triple
Bottom Line, consists of a balance of economic, social and environmental aspects of a
business (Elkington, 2004). This makes the analysis clearer and allows us to draw more
specific conclusions as a result.

3.2 Data collection

The first report analyzed is the Progress report on the leadership declaration of the
„Biodiversity in Good Company” initiative from Neumarkter Lammsbräu. The report covers
the company's activities in 2019/2020. It is written in English and contains 29 pages.
The second report analyzed is Progress report 2021 of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners
Deutschland GmbH on the Leadership Commitment of the „Biodiversity in Good Company”
Initiative. The reporting period contains the time between 10/2019 – 11/2021. It’s written in
English and contains 12 pages.
Both reports overlap in the reporting period and are small in volume. However, it is important
to note that Coca-Cola published its report for the first time, while for Neumarkter
Lammsbräu this is the third report for the Biodiversity in Good Company Initiative. The
previous two reports covered the periods 03/2017 - 02/2019 and 03/2015 - 02/2017 and can
be found on the initiative page under Reports from previous years/archive.

Coca-Cola explains this situation in its Progress report: „The annual reports and updates
include the most important activities, challenges and ratios but only since 2017, we have
been covering biodiversity projects more explicitly. With the signing of the BIGC Leadership
Commitment we, moreover, commit ourselves to a regular biodiversity reporting. This
document constitutes our first progress report for the period 10/2019–11/2021.“ (CCEP,
2021, p.8)

To evaluate report content, we used categories from the Evaluation Tool according to the
GRI-reporting principles (GRI 101). According to this tool, 10 categories are used for
evaluation: Stakeholder Inclusiveness, Biodiversity Context, Materiality, Completeness,
Accuracy, Balance, Clarity, Comparability, Reliability, Timeliness. For our analysis, we have
focused on only 3 categories, as these are the categories that can answer our research
question: Stakeholder Inclusiveness, Biodiversity Context and Accuracy.

3.3 Data analysis

To save space and time, we use only a few examples of textual references in our analysis. A
complete analysis of each category with detailed references can be found in the appendix in the
Table 1.

Category 1: Stakeholder Inclusiveness

The stakeholder Inclusiveness Category was chosen as the main category, since
stakeholders are the main target audience of such reports and the main potentially affected
as a result of the company's activities.

According to Coca-Cola's reports, the company actively includes its stakeholders in

biodiversity initiatives. In the 2019/2020 report, we found 13 stakeholder mentions across
several subcategories: stakeholders in general, suppliers, employees, local groups, and
foundations. First and foremost, the company chooses the tool of cooperation, dialogue with
stakeholders, corporate volunteering programs and education in the sphere of biodiversity,
like f.ex. the education together with the National Natural Landscapes organisation about the
relevance of biodiversity for companies (CCEP, 2021, p.7). More often than not, Coca-Cola
backs up this information with specific data on a particular initiative, but not in every case.
Our analysis showed that the subcategories of general environmental initiatives and
suppliers are primarily represented in the report: they account for more than half of the
stakeholder mentions found.

f.ex. subcategory: employees

“Within the framework of our Corporate Volunteering programme we have offered
employees for years the possibility to commit themselves for two days in an ecological or
social environment during their working hours. In 2019 more than 900 employees
accepted the offer and performed more than 5,000 hours of volunteering work.”
(CCEP, 2021, p.7)

According to the analysis of the Neumarkter Lammsbräu report, the Stakeholder

inclusiveness category is also quite pronounced. The company mentioned its stakeholders
more than 15 times, mentioning specific projects and company names. Also on page 28 of
this report, there is an additional list of stakeholders. We can conclude that Neumarkter
Lammsbräu has primarily multistakeholder and supplier initiatives, which make up the
largest part of the analyzed content (13 out of 18 mentions). It is important to note that unlike
Coca-Cola, Neumarkter Lammsbräu did not mention funds, and the company does not have
this subcategory. The main initiatives of Neumarkter Lammsbräu are again communication
with stakeholders on biodiversity protection, training, financial support for regional production
and organic farming, such as EZÖB organic farmers (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.8).

f.ex. subcategory: suppliers

“In addition, we finance the enhancement of biodiversity on their land with tailor-made conservation
plans. These plans are tailored to the farmers and their farms and designed to run for several
years. Since 2010, we have supported at least two EZÖB members each year in the
implementation of such a cultivation plan.” (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.8)

Thus, the Stakeholder Inclusiveness category is almost equally accurately represented in

both companies. Also in the reports of both companies, there is a prevalence of references
to supplier engagement initiatives and general environmental initiatives that involve all
stakeholders. This trend can be explained by the fact that the beverage sector, like the entire
food industry, is inherently highly dependent on suppliers, the quality of raw materials and
the well-being of contractors. Companies are forced to control their suppliers, because in the
end a mistake in the supplier choice can cost the company the loss of trust of its consumers.
Although not always clear-cut, based on the number of stakeholder mentions and their
subcategories we can conclude that Coca-Cola and Neumarkter Lammsbräu engage
stakeholders in their initiatives, take stakeholders’ opinions into account when making and
decisions and, among other things, motivate them to help with the Progress report.

Category 2: Biodiversity Context

In the context of a research question, the Biodiversity Context category is important because
it allows us to determine whether the content of the report coincides with the intent of the
Biodiversity in Good Company initiative and also to understand whether the company is not
just engaging in empty talk. According to the Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (Haines-Young, Roy et.al., 2018), we have settled on 4 items to analyze
the scope of companies in the context of biodiversity: basic, provisioning, regulation services
and ecosystem services in general.

Coca-Cola confirms that for four of the six sustainability areas from its action plan,
biodiversity takes center stage (CCEP, 2021, p.4). In total, biodiversity was mentioned 14
times in the report. Coca-Cola presented all 4 subcategories in the report, where the basic
services subcategory dominates: 7 mentions out of 14. This means that the company
primarily selects projects that protect and preserve habitats for species and maintain genetic
diversity, like the biosphere areas of Rhön, Schwäbische Alb and Thüringer Wald (CCEP,
2021, p.11). Coca-Cola also touches the subcategory provision services on water, promising
to protect water, reduce water consumption, treat wastewater, create water (CCEP, 2021,
p.5). Coca-Cola differs from Neumarkter Lammsbräu in that it also addresses the issue of
regulatory services when it mentions the reduction of our CO2 emissions (CCEP, 2021,
p.5-6).

f.ex. subcategory: habitat

“In 2021 the principles for sustainable agriculture of The Coca-Cola Company [...] were
revised. The guidelines protect the conservation of natural habitats, biodiversity and
ecosystems, secure human and workplace rights, support animal health and welfare and
contribute towards the development of prospering communities.” (CCEP, 2021, p.2)

At the center of the Neumarkter Lammsbräu mission is an active contribution on a daily

basis, to return more to nature than the company extracts from it. In doing so, they inspire
others to produce and enjoy 100% organic products (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.5).
There were a total of 10 mentions of biodiversity initiatives in the report, but they were large
in length and sometimes (and unfortunately not in every case) contained statistical data.
In the context of biodiversity, the brewery shows its best side. In the subcategories basic,
provisioning services are equally represented, ecosystem services in general are presented
slightly more. This means that the company prefers to implement complex projects to protect
biodiversity by combining different types of services, like a biodiversity project in Pará, which
combined provision and basic services (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.15). The report of
Neumarkter Lammsbräu has no regulation services subcategory.

f.ex. subcategory: ecosystem services in general

“Upgrading brewery sites with biodiversity enhancing measures, Support of the "soil
practitioner" trainings for farmers; ideal and financial support of the soil education project at
schools in the district of Neumarkt in cooperation with the LPV Nm
Financial support of the follow-up project “Preserving and promoting arable wild herbs with
organic farms in Bavaria” in cooperation with Biobauern Naturschutz Gesellschaft mbH...”
(Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.18)

Both reports touch on biodiversity frequently enough to match the content of the report with
the goal of Biodiversity in Good Company. The content is also diverse, as the reports provide
information on different subcategories. Neumarkter Lammsbräu is dominated by the
subcategory of ecosystem services in general, which can be explained by its active work
with stakeholders (see category 1: Stakeholder Inclusiveness). This gives the company the
opportunity to implement multi-faced projects from different subcategories, from greened
area to the "soil practitioner" trainings for farmers. For its contribution to biodiversity
conservation Neumarkter Lammsbräu received the Blooming Company Award (Neumarkter
Lammsbräu, p.11). This award is given to companies that promote biodiversity and insect
diversity in their outdoor areas.

Coca-Cola, on the other hand, prefers initiatives from the basic service subcategory, which
retain habitat. We can assume this is due to their commitment: “In 2021 the principles for
sustainable agriculture of The Coca-Cola Company (Principles for Sustainable Agriculture -
PSA) were revised. The guidelines protect the conservation of natural habitats, biodiversity
and ecosystems, secure human and workplace rights, support animal health and welfare
and contribute towards the development of prospering communities.” (CCEP, 2021, p.11)
Although the report of Coca-Cola mentions the description of biodiversity goals and existing
information and corresponding measures, it lacks the description of its performance and
long-term biodiversity strategy.

Category 3: Accuracy
In the context of the preceding paragraph, the question arises as to how much of the data is
unsubstantiated. Whether the company has relevant statistics, the report indicates the data
that have been measured or whether the qualitative statements in the report are consistent
with other reported information and other available evidence. That's why our last category is
accuracy.

Regretfully, Coca-Cola did not do well in this category. Despite 9 mentions of various
statistics, almost all of the percentages were not evidence of implemented projects, but
plans for the future. In the report, the company presented only 3 statistics on already
implemented projects (subcategory measurements and statistics). Coca-Cola's completed
plans relate to water conservation and management (CCEP, 2021, p.5), renaturing the old
arm of the Elbe River (CCEP, 2021, p.10), and the initiative to operationalize biodiversity
(CCEP, 2021, p.11-12). The plans concern water again (CCEP, 2021, p.5-10), as well as
reducing the carbon footprint (CCEP, p.6) and enhancing the supply chain (CCEP, 2021,
p.7-8).

f.ex. subcategory: plans

“We will ensure that 100% of our most important agricultural ingredients such as sugar and raw
materials as well as PET for our packages will originate from sustainable sources.
- Target value 2020: 100% suppliers audited on sustainability, ethics and human rights.” (CCEP, 2021,
p.4)

To measure the progress towards achieving the goals, Neumarkter Lammsbräu has placed
its company goals in the context of the global development goals (SDGs) and matched them
up with suitable indicators. The company has chosen the following goals: SDG 6 - Clean
Water and Sanitation, SDG 12 - Responsible Comsumption and Production, SDG 15 - Life
on Land (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.19-24). The company has chosen GRI indicators
for this purpose in order to ensure good comparability over subsequent years (Neumarkter
Lammsbräu, 2021, p.19). Thus, Neumarkter Lammsbräu also focused on future plans, but
unlike Coca-Cola, the company presented twice as many statistics on completed projects,
like Neumarkter Lammsbräu's investment helping to protect more than 86,000 hectares of
forest in the Amazon (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.15). In total we found 16 different
statistics and measurements in the report.

f.ex. subcategory: measurements and statistics

“The indicator for biodiversity at our brewery site is determined from the proportion of
unsealed and greened area in relation to the company's total area. This remained
unchanged to the previous year at 13 % at the brewery site in 2020. The proportion of
unsealed area at the site used since 2020 for the Blomenhof logistics center (secondary site)
with a total area of 11,878 m² is 40%. This is made up of green areas and infiltration pits at
the edges of the site as well as lawn joint paving laid in the parking space areas…”
(Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.11-12)

Thus, both reports are dominated by the subcategory of plans. Unfortunately, the
measurable part of the implemented projects is much smaller than the subcategory of plans.
The main problem for all biodiversity projects in both reports is the complexity of
measurement. Mainly the reports are dominated by the ideas of SDG and GRI tools, but
unfortunately both of the reports don't show how the data have been estimated, or the
underlying assumptions and techniques used for the estimation.

can be helpful for results!! - good for the conclusion + own/our opinion to this topic

Coca-Cola is new to making reports, the company may have mistakes. Neumarkter
Lammsbräu, on the contrary, is doing it for the third time.

NO TITLE AND PAGE NUMBERS at Coca-Cola

reports are voluntary, they are optional, so in theory you can justify that they are not exactly
quality

4.Result

4.1 Main category 1

The main category one is stakeholders Inclusiveness.After we conducting the content about
Coca-Cola's reports and Neumarkter Lammsbräu report of analysis.We found that the
Stakeholder Inclusiveness category is almost equally accurately represented in both
companies,and in the reports of both companies, there is a prevalence of references to
supplier engagement initiatives and general environmental initiatives that involve all
stakeholders.Therefore,we get some results that Coca-Cola and Neumarkter Lammsbräu
engage stakeholders in their initiatives, take stakeholders’ opinions into account when
making and decisions and, among other things, motivate them to help with the Progress
report.

f.ex1. subcategory: employees

“Within the framework of our Corporate Volunteering programme we have offered
employees for years the possibility to commit themselves for two days in an ecological or
social environment during their working hours. In 2019 more than 900 employees
accepted the offer and performed more than 5,000 hours of volunteering work.”
(CCEP, 2021, p.7)

f.ex2. subcategory: suppliers

“In addition, we finance the enhancement of biodiversity on their land with tailor-made conservation
plans. These plans are tailored to the farmers and their farms and designed to run for several
years. Since 2010, we have supported at least two EZÖB members each year in the
implementation of such a cultivation plan.” (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.8)

4.2 Main category 2

The main category two is Biodiversity Context .After our group performing the content about
Coca-Cola's reports and Neumarkter Lammsbräu report of analysis.It is obvious that both
reports touch on biodiversity frequently enough to match the content of the report with the
goal of Biodiversity in Good Company. The content is also diverse, as the reports provide
information on different subcategories.On the one hand, Neumarkter Lammsbräu is
generally dominated by the basic services in general subcategory.This gives the company
the opportunity to implement multi-faced projects from different subcategories, from greened
area to the "soil practitioner" trainings for farmers. On the other hand,Coca-Cola prefers
initiatives, which retain habitat. Although the report of Coca-Cola mentions the description of
biodiversity goals and existing information and corresponding measures, it lacks the
description of its performance and long-term biodiversity strategy.
f.ex1. subcategory: basic services
“In 2021 the principles for sustainable agriculture of The Coca-Cola Company [...] were
revised. The guidelines protect the conservation of natural habitats, biodiversity and
ecosystems, secure human and workplace rights, support animal health and welfare and
contribute towards the development of prospering communities.” (CCEP, 2021, p.2)

f.ex2. subcategory: provisioning services

“The raw materials for our now lemonades can only be sourced regionally in part due to
cultivation conditions. [...] Biological diversity or biodiversity on farms is to be maintained and
promoted to the best of our ability; this includes the diversity of ecosystems, the diversity of
species and genetic diversity.” (Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.9)

4.3 Main category 3

The main category three is Accuracy .After we analyzed the Coca-Cola report and the
Neumarkter Lammsbräu report.We realize that Coca-Cola did not do well in this category
and Neumarkter Lammsbräu also focused on future plans, but unlike Coca-Cola, the
company presented twice as many statistics on completed projects.For this,We conclude
that both reports are dominated by the subcategory of plans. Unfortunately, the measurable
part of the implemented projects is much smaller than the subcategory of plans. The main
problem for all biodiversity projects in both reports is the complexity of measurement. Mainly
the reports are dominated by the ideas of SDG and GRI tools, but unfortunately both of the
reports don't show how the data have been estimated, or the underlying assumptions and
techniques used for the estimation.

f.ex. subcategory: plans

“We will ensure that 100% of our most important agricultural ingredients such as sugar and raw
materials as well as PET for our packages will originate from sustainable sources.
- Target value 2020: 100% suppliers audited on sustainability, ethics and human rights.” (CCEP, 2021,
p.4)

f.ex. subcategory: measurements and statistics

“The indicator for biodiversity at our brewery site is determined from the proportion of
unsealed and greened area in relation to the company's total area. This remained
unchanged to the previous year at 13 % at the brewery site in 2020. The proportion of
unsealed area at the site used since 2020 for the Blomenhof logistics center (secondary site)
with a total area of 11,878 m² is 40%. This is made up of green areas and infiltration pits at
the edges of the site as well as lawn joint paving laid in the parking space areas…”
(Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.11-12)

5. Discussion
The biodiversity reports of these two companies have their own advantages and
disadvantages.For Neumarkter Lammsbräu report,its strengths mainly include these
aspects,such as,focusing on active stakeholder engagement in every chapter of the
report,focusing on Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as part of company policy,and
having provable content with examples, graphics, maps, photos...By contrast,its weakness is
that there is no logical connection between the company and its project.For Coca-Cola
report,its strengths mainly contain two points.In one thing is that the biodiversity of
Coca-Cola is reflected in its values, operation methods and other aspects.In other one is that
Coca-Cola has clear and comprehensive corporate biodiversity management objectives.In
addition,its weaknesses main are that Coca-Cola lack of data support and link to initial data
and the organization can’t provide reliable evidence to support assumptions or complex
calculations.It is noteworthy that Coca-Cola is new to making reports, the company may
have mistakes. Neumarkter Lammsbräu, on the contrary, is doing it for the third time.

Based on the research results and existing literature, there are some recommendations for
improving the biodiversity reports of the two companies.For Neumarkter Lammsbräu report,it
is crucial to improve potentials regarding the biodiversity reporting is that strengthen the
logical connection between the company and its projects.For example,in this part, there are
no suppliers from Brazil and no products containing Brazil nuts. Where are the hops? And
malt? Water use? logistics?(Neumarkter Lammsbräu, 2021, p.15). For Coca-Cola
report,firstly,they could improve the description of data in the report to show the relevant
calculation process (CCEP, 2021, p.7).Through this approach,It will make the report more
persuasive and influential.Secondly,the company could further communicate and cooperate with
professionals and institutions, meanwhile they could cultivate employees' expertise in
biodiversity.Last but not least,the biodiversity report is mainly theoretical, with few
corresponding pictures to supplement or display. For this, if they can add some pictures ,it will
make the report richer and more interesting than now.

6. Conclusion
The question of interest in this paper is what is the status of institutional theory in biodiversity
reporting in the beverage industry at different organizational scales? Qualitative content analysis
was used to analyze the reports of the Coca-Cola report and the Neumarkter Lammsbräu.
These conclusions were obtained: (1) Coca-Cola and Neumarkter Lammsbräu engage
stakeholders in their initiatives, take stakeholders' opinions into account when making and
decisions and, among other things, motivate them to help with the Progress report.(2) Both
reports address biodiversity often enough to match the content of the report with the objectives of
Biodiversity in Good Companies. The content is also diverse, as the reports provide information
on different subcategories. (3) Coca-Cola did not do well in this category and Neumarkter
Lammsbräu also focused on future plans, but unlike Coca-Cola, the company presented twice as
many statistics on completed projects.However ,the limitations of the seminar paper are also
evident, (1) the data collected are highly subjective due to the qualitative research approach.
One researcher can collect data that other researchers consider meaningless and unimportant.
This can lead to inaccurate and unreliable data. (2) This thesis is mainly based on the reports of
these two companies, and lacks the ability to compare the most recent information and other
data.
Future research can also do two more things: first, whether biodiversity reporting is important for
business development. On the one hand, companies need to improve the structure of this report.
On the other hand, economic factors can be added to the report. Secondly, whether sustainability
reporting can be used as one of the criteria to measure the economy. Therefore, subsequent
studies could be based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, or on the
collection of data on the overall biodiversity of the industry according to the specific industry into
which the company enters, as a reflection of the complementary resources of the specific
industry, so that the role of biodiversity for the development of the company can be understood.

Literature
1. Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Deutschland GmbH. (2022). Kurzbericht
Nachhaltigkeit Coca-Cola Deutschland 2021.
https://www.coca-cola-deutschland.de/content/dam/one/de/de/documents/nachhaltig
keitsberichte/Kurzbericht_Nachhaltigkeit_2021.pdf)
2. Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Deutschland GmbH. (2021). Progress report 2021 of
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Deutschland GmbH on the Leadership Commitment
of the “Biodiversity in Good Company” Initiative.”
https://www.business-and-biodiversity.de/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Die_Initia
tive/Fortschrittsbericht/CCEP_Progress_Report_2019_2021.pdf
3. Coca-Cola Historie von 1886 bis heute | Coca-Cola DE. (n.d.).
https://www.coca-cola-deutschland.de/uber-uns/geschichte
4. Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the Triple Bottom Line.
5. Haines-Young, Roy et.al. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES) V5.1.
https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf
6. Neumarkter Lammsbräu. (2022). Gemeinwohlbericht 2021. Das Wichtigste im
Überblick.
https://2695425.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/2695425/NL_GW%C3%96-Be
richt2021_Kompakt_web.pdf)
7. Neumarkter Lammsbräu. (2021). Progress report on the leadership declaration of the
'Biodiversity in Good Company' initiative 2019 / 2020.
https://www.business-and-biodiversity.de/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Die_Initia
tive/Fortschrittsbericht/Neumarkter_Lammsbr%C3%A4u_Progress_Report_2019_20
20.pdf
8. Über uns | Neumarkter Lammsbräu. (n.d.). https://www.lammsbraeu.de/ueber-uns
Alex:
what we see in beer brewing?

don’t fill bottles!

8\9 liters, Carlsberg - 2 liters
water used for domestic things, zero-waste-concept?
production: 50.000 liters
to-go-cups

enjoy the life!! selling experience!!

near Bautzen - LOCAL SUPPLIERS
not a successful marketing

small start
first Nikolaivorstadt, Haus der Blume