This week, we are delighted to present an interview with Christoph Stiller, one of our interns who has recently successfully completed his Bachelor's thesis on the topic of "Germany's Supply Chain Due Diligence Act: Opportunity or Competitive Disadvantage" at the University of Applied Sciences Munich (HM). In this interview, he shares his experiences during the thesis work, the insights he gained, and his future outlook regarding his field of study and career goals.
1. How would you explain your bachelor’s thesis in a few sentences to someone unfamiliar with the topic?
In 2021, Germany enacted a law aimed at protecting human rights within the supply chains of companies, known as the Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz (LkSG). The LkSG mandates that German companies, particularly those with over 1000 employees from 2024 onward (or those with over 3000 employees from 2023), establish a system to assess their supply chains to prevent and address human rights violations resulting from their actions or those of their suppliers. I have examined how companies perceive this law. In the first half, I introduced the LkSG, compared it to similar laws, and explored the opportunities and challenges it presents based on literature. In the second part of the thesis, I conducted interviews with eight experts from manufacturing companies to gauge their stance on the law. The goal was to determine whether companies view the LkSG as an opportunity or a competitive disadvantage and how they envision future legislation in this regard, particularly within the framework of the EU Directive on due diligence in the supply chain, which was under negotiation at the time.
2. What was the most significant challenge during the thesis work, and how did you overcome it?
The most significant challenge for me was conducting and analyzing qualitative interviews for the first time in my academic journey. This was a major source of stress, as I always had in mind, "If the interviews don't go well, the entire thesis won't work." My solution was to prepare meticulously for the interviews, not only in terms of content but also in terms of the technical aspects of expert interviews and researching the backgrounds of the experts. I believe this approach ensured that my interviewees felt comfortable throughout the process and were willing to share their experiences. However, it also meant that I only started writing the thesis after the final interview. While I highly recommend thorough interview preparation, it would have been more beneficial to have at least a rough draft of the written part in place before the interviews. This would have allowed me to frame some questions differently.
3. What key insights did you gain from your work, and how could these be applied in practice?
For the experts interviewed, the LkSG initially appears as a competitive disadvantage, imposing significant burdens and challenges on companies for implementation. This applies not only to companies directly subject to the law, with a certain number of employees but also to smaller companies forced to comply due to large customers' requirements, even though they are not legally obligated and lack the same capacities to establish the necessary systems. The EU Directive is seen as an opportunity, as it is expected to alleviate the competitive disadvantage for companies affected by the LkSG, provided the legislation is uniform for all EU companies. There is hope that this harmonization of due diligence obligations will promote a single method of human rights due diligence fulfillment that companies can ideally use globally, at least across the EU, instead of having to meet different specifications for each country. These insights can serve as a foundation for future research, exploring how perceptions of the LkSG change, especially in light of the EU Directive. Additionally, they can inform potential improvements in future regulations from the perspective of the companies surveyed, such as advocating for harmonization at the European level rather than a patchwork of regulations or considering specific provisions for smaller companies to prevent overburdening.
4. How did working on your bachelor’s thesis influence your perspective on your field of study and career goals?
Regarding my field of study, my bachelor’s thesis highlighted that despite the widespread feeling that the business world largely ignores sustainability and prioritizes profit maximization, there is a growing awareness of social sustainability that goes beyond marketing aspects. This is evident in the numerous mentions in the interviews regarding the potential sustainability aspects arising from the LkSG. However, it appears that, in both the business world and the field of business administration, sustainability topics are often compartmentalized. In companies and in my field of study, one can easily avoid engaging with sustainability issues by saying, "I'll leave that to those who are interested." This approach is unlikely to drive meaningful change unless there is a recognition that sustainability is a cross-cutting issue that should not pit ESG or compliance departments against other departments within a company. Therefore, while having a sustainability focus is valuable, sustainability should ideally be embedded in all areas of study so that future decision-makers are not divided into "interested in sustainability" and "interested in business success" but rather pursue both objectives simultaneously. In terms of my career goals, I have felt more determined to keep sustainability management in my sights—a field that coordinates a company's sustainability efforts and, hopefully, collaborates seamlessly with various departments.
5. What advice would you give to future bachelor’s students working on their theses?
A classic piece of advice is not to start writing too late. I invested a lot of effort into my bachelor’s thesis and started relatively early. However, my mistake, as mentioned earlier, was dedicating too much time to interview preparation and source research, which could have been channeled into writing the initial chapters. While it was beneficial to have all the sources ready after the interviews, it would have been more comfortable to focus solely on analyzing the interviews at that point. In terms of thesis supervision, my suggestion is to find a supervisor with whom you can work well. I would even go so far as to say that the supervisor is more crucial than the topic itself. My initially planned topic differed from what it eventually became, which I didn't find problematic but somewhat regrettable. As I delved deeper into the new topic, it became more fascinating because I was becoming an expert on it and could share my insights with others. I'm optimistic that this could be the case with most topics, even if they initially seem "wrong." A supervisor with whom you have a good working relationship, someone you can rely on, who is genuinely interested in the topic, and with whom you can ask questions or seek assistance without fearing judgment, is irreplaceable. In summary, consider a topic that at least fundamentally interests you, but also think carefully about accepting a suggested topic from a supervisor, even if it may not sound exciting initially.
Thank you, Christoph, for the interview, and best of luck with your master’s studies in Kassel!
