Business Models

and Sustainable
Development
Goals
Edited by
Prescott C. Ensign
Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Sustainability

www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Business Models and Sustainable
Development Goals
Business Models and Sustainable
Development Goals

Editor
Prescott C. Ensign

MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tokyo • Cluj • Tianjin
Editor
Prescott C. Ensign
Wilfrid Laurier University
Canada

Editorial Office
MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel, Switzerland

This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal
Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050) (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/
special issues/sustainable goals business models).

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as
indicated below:

LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Volume Number,
Page Range.

ISBN 978-3-0365-4305-5 (Hbk)

ISBN 978-3-0365-4306-2 (PDF)

Cover image courtesy of Prescott C. Ensign

© 2022 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon
published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum
dissemination and a wider impact of our publications.
The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
license CC BY-NC-ND.
Contents

About the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Prescott C. Ensign
Business Models and Sustainable Development Goals
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2022, 14, 2558, doi:10.3390/su14052558 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Joana Ramanauskaitė
The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877, doi:10.3390/su132212877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Prescott C. Ensign, Shawn Roy and Tom Brzustowski

Decisions by Key Office Building Stakeholders to Build or Retrofit Green in Toronto’s Urban
Core
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969, doi:10.3390/su13126969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Valeska V. Geldres-Weiss, Nicolás Gambetta, Nathaniel P. Massa and

Skania L. Geldres-Weiss
Materiality Matrix Use in Aligning and Determining a Firm’s Sustainable Business Model
Archetype and Triple Bottom Line Impact on Stakeholders
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065, doi:10.3390/su13031065 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Paul Mansell, Simon P. Philbin and Tim Broyd

Development of a New Business Model to Measure Organizational and Project-Level SDG
Impact—Case Study of a Water Utility Company
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413, doi:10.3390/su12166413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Doroteja Vidmar, Marjeta Marolt and Andreja Pucihar

Information Technology for Business Sustainability: A Literature Review with Automated
Content Analysis
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192, doi:10.3390/su13031192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

v
About the Editor
Prescott C. Ensign
Prescott C. Ensign is a Professor at the Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid
Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and holds a PhD in Management (Université
de Montréal/École des Hautes Études Commerciales). His research focus is in the areas of
global business and strategy; entrepreneurship and innovation; economic development at the
periphery and socio-political aspects of indignity; and business model innovation, sustainability, and
social enterprises.

vii
 sustainability

Editorial
Business Models and Sustainable Development Goals
Prescott C. Ensign

Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON N2L 3C7, Canada;
[email protected]

In 2015, all 193 member countries of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Building on the principle of “leaving no one behind,” it emphasizes a holistic approach to
achieving sustainable development [1]. The 2020 environmental, social and governance
(ESG) scoring and reporting document from the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) notes that sustainability investing has grown, primarily due
to the number of funds and investors that have added ESG approaches to their overall
agenda. Corporations, central banks and the public sector are placing a new emphasis on a
greener environment and low-carbon economy [2]. The 2020s was to be a decade of action
but progress has been slow, stalled or reversed in meeting the 17 SDG targets [3]. OECD’s
quantitative analysis provides an indication of the progress made and challenges still ahead
with regard to sustainable development. The wide variety of metrics, methodologies, and
approaches indicate a high number of disparate outcomes that are open to interpretation [4].
The outcome of the 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) held in Glasgow
Scotland (November 2021) is also open to interpretation. COP26 participants took steps to
address the climate crisis by agreeing “to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their
nationally determined contributions . . . by the end of 2022” [4]. These steps fall far short of
delivering the national commitments necessary for a unified global effort to limit annual
planet warming to 1.5 ◦ C [5,6]. To find real SDG and ESG progress, we have to look past
“agreements” by world leaders and metrics designed to influence institutional investors.
Citation: Ensign, P.C. Business
We need to identify, explore and examine SDGs at multiple organizational levels—firm,
Models and Sustainable
sector, regional and national levels. This is where change, success and hope for our planet’s
Development Goals. Sustainability future rests.
2022, 14, 2558. https://doi.org/ This Special Issue on “Business Models and Sustainable Development Goals” presents
10.3390/su14052558 five research studies that examine transformative business models designed to support
achievable sustainable development. Every organization—from start-ups, small and
Received: 11 February 2022
medium size enterprises, multinationals, social enterprises, hybrids, cooperatives, non-
Accepted: 16 February 2022
profits to NGOs and government agencies—has a business model. It reflects management’s
Published: 23 February 2022
explicit or implicit hypotheses on why and how the organization functions. The business
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral model is the engine that powers an organization, defining the value proposition of the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in venture, how it balances resources with the ecosystem where it operates, how it gener-
published maps and institutional affil- ates cash flow and creates value [7]. Changes to an organization’s business model are
iations. recognized as a fundamental approach to implementing innovations for sustainability. The
capability to transform or transition to new business models is an important source of
sustainable competitive advantage and provides leverage to improve the performance
of organizations. Borrowing from Geissdoerfer and Vladimirova, a sustainable business
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
model (SBM) includes pro-active management, monetary and non-monetary value for a
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
broad range of stakeholders, and a long-term perspective [8].
distributed under the terms and
The first study by Ramanauskaité, The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability
conditions of the Creative Commons Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA, explores actions at the organization, sector, regional
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and national level by five influence-shaping organizations that espouse a sustainability
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ orientation. As a country, Lithuania has faced precipitous change since it obtained inde-
4.0/). pendence from the Soviet Union and is now an EU and NATO member. This has been a

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052558 1 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2558

time of accelerated transition for companies moving from a planned economy to a free
market socio-economic system. The paper examines the next question: what will the
transition to sustainability be like? An extensive review of the relevant literature suggests
that resistance by key incumbent actors will negatively affect sustainability at multiple
levels. However, interviews and secondary data obtained in the study reveal the following.
The five powerful and prominent companies that are making transitions to sustainability
were basically promoters and sponsors but still face tension and resistance. Ramanauskaité
provides insight into the need for researchers and practitioners to understand the internal
and external issues involved in transitioning a business model compared to transforming a
business model. The study also provides insight on understanding the impact of corporate
leadership on sustainability—insight that goes beyond the firm and sector to one that
focuses at the national level.
The second paper by Ensign, Roy and Brzustowski, Decisions by Key Office Build-
ing Stakeholders to Build or Retrofit Green in Toronto’s Urban Core, moves the focus of
sustainability and business model inquiry to the urban office building sector and regional
metroplex level. It focuses on aligning new and existing construction decisions to achieve
sustainable environmental goals, e.g., the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Motivation for the study was based on the following. The federal and provincial govern-
ments in Canada had set GHG emissions mitigation targets for 2030 based on the Paris
Climate Agreement and the Pan-Canadian Framework. Toronto’s City Council declared a
climate emergency on 2 October 2019, joining a global call to recognize the urgency of the
climate crisis and adopting a stronger emissions reduction target for Toronto—net zero by
2050 or sooner. In December 2020, Ottawa announced plans to raise the federal carbon tax
from CAD 30/tonne to 170/tonne by 2030. Would these actions impact the office building
sector? The aim of this study was to determine whether key stakeholders (real estate
developers, institutional investors and owner landlords) would choose a business model
for or against sustainability. The authors introduce a six-stage real estate development
process approach used by the sector as a lens for identifying and understanding the point at
which the decision for conventional or green construction is made. In urban core real estate
development, the metrics of each project are unique and the process often more political
than economic. Two hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis (H1 ) LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) certification has a significant positive factor in the
asking rent (market value); and Hypothesis (H2 ) financial drivers will be more influential
than non-financial drivers in a key stakeholder’s decision to pursue LEED certification.
Pearson correlation and linear regression analysis of data on 16 LEED and 52 conventional
buildings did not find LEED certification to be statistically significant in explaining the
variance in the net asking rent (market value). Interviews conducted with senior executives
engaged in Toronto’s real estate development sector provided qualitative data to test H2 .
The expert informants did not view LEED certification as a primary deciding factor but as
one of a combination of factors that impact a firm’s financial bottom line. Transcripts of
these interviews offered insight on positional differences between real estate developers,
institutional investors and commercial office space renters on SDGs, ESG and GHG emis-
sions. Even when LEED construction is selected, the values, goals and actions of the key
stakeholders involved represent a diversity of business models.
The third paper by Geldres-Weiss, Gambetta, Massa and Geldres-Weiss, Materiality
Matrix Use in Aligning and Determining a Firm’s Sustainable Business Model Archetype
and Triple Bottom Line Impact on Stakeholders, presents a tool that can be used to enhance
or transform a company’s traditional business model (TBM) to a sustainable business model
(SBM). It introduces the materiality matrix (MM) as a way for a company to review its
business model with a more comprehensive understanding of the value creation processes
that maximize the total value, not just the financial value for stakeholders. By way of
explanation, the total value for stakeholders is a multidimensional view of material issues
in environmental, social and governance/economics (ESG) as well as corporate social
responsibility (CSR) that collectively influence the value creation process. Data used to

2
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2558

test the MM design include what are typically presented during GRI (Global Reporting
Initiative) sustainability assessment preparation. Linking the MM to the business model
provides the ability to gauge, measure and account for value creation from both an internal
and external perspective. MM can create a triple bottom line impact through shaping
strategic elements in the firm’s business model. The study looked at transforming the
company’s existing TBM into a more sustainable one (inside-out approach) by enabling the
identification of the most appropriate business model archetype to incorporate innovation
into its SBM (outside-in approach). A case study is presented of the large globally prominent
Chilean winery Viña Concha y Toro S.A. (VCT) to illustrate how MM can be used in
transforming TBM into an SBM archetype. Based on GRI reports and interviews the
authors chart and analyze the changes in VCT’s material issues and associated prioritization
between 2017 and 2019. The VCT case facilitates understanding how MM-aided changes
impact an SBM archetype and value creation process. The case study also reports on the
transformational alignment of the MM with implementation of a triple layered business
model canvas (TLBMC) and SBM archetype. VCT’s SBM holds that economic success goes
hand in hand with caring for the environment, making rational use of natural resources
and a commitment to people and the social sphere where VCT operates during each stage
of the value chain.
The fourth paper by Mansell, Philbin and Broyd, Development of a New Business
Model to Measure Organizational and Project-Level SDG Impact—Case Study of a Water
Utility Company, introduces a methodological approach for linking local project-level
sustainability performance to global SDG targets. Infrastructure construction project success
has traditionally been measured (time, cost and scope/quality) when a project is completed
(delivered). If engineers and project managers are the ones responsible for a construction
project’s sustainability, then performance measures agreed on by all the stakeholders
need to begin at the project design phase. A recent Institution of Civil Engineers’ survey
of practitioners cites four critical factors for measuring a project’s SDG success: clear
definitions, holistic performance measurement tools, alignment of business priorities, and
strong leadership. Having defined different ways of classifying project success, the authors
suggest a new SDG transformation business model process for infrastructure projects and
the infrastructure construction sector in general—the SDG infrastructure Impact-Value
Chain (IVC). The conceptual basis embedded in the IVC is that there is a “golden thread”
that links tactical SDG success during project construction and delivery to strategic SDG
success that is embodied in longer-term post-project outcomes. Based on interviews and
secondary sources, a case study of Anglian Water is presented to demonstrate the IVC
new business model approach’s use at the project design phase to align stakeholders on
why/when/how/what SDG targets to measure. Anglian Water is one of the UK’s largest
water utility companies and a leading triple-bottom-line (TBL) sustainability supporter
with a vision to create a resilient environment that allowed sustainable growth and the
ability to cope with the pressures of climate change. Anglian Water’s Wisbech project was
then chosen as part of this case study because data on its delivery are open source on the
Internet. This project is an IVC example because it was delivered by Anglian Water and its
partners as part of their commitment to make a long-term impact on the market town of
Wisbech (for more than the five years that the initial infrastructure project covered). Anglian
Water wanted to assess whether a broad programme of social, economic and environmental
changes in the lives of those in local communities can be linked to using the IVC. The SDG
targets offer a framework to address the more diffuse outcomes and impacts that might
not have been defined and measured using traditional project measurement approaches.
The results of the case study investigation have indicated that there is a verifiable link
across the IVC of activities–inputs–outputs during the “in-project” phase, connecting to the
“post-project” outcomes and SDG impacts. The practical application of IVC is significant.
With improved linkage of tactical delivery to strategic SDG impacts, improved investment
decisions will be made and systemic-level lessons can be applied to increase the likelihood
of success in achieving the SDG 2030 targets.

3
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2558

The fifth paper by Doroteja, Marolt and Pucihar, Information Technology for Business
Sustainability: A Literature Review with Automated Content Analysis, addresses the issue
of managing sustainability in a digitalized environment. The authors conducted a system-
atic literature review and content analysis of 61 articles published between 2008 and 2020,
providing insight on the role of information technologies (IT) in sustainable business mod-
els. They found that the majority of the research in this rapidly developing interdisciplinary
field was from the European Union. This is not surprising since the 2018 European Com-
mission states that competitiveness in the coming years will depend on sustainability and
the ability to exploit IT. This strong interest in sustainability issues by EU policy makers
and enterprises raises an important question. Could this be related to the two-tier system
of corporate governance used in most EU enterprises? This dual system—a structure
of management and a supervisory board with different roles—creates opportunities to
focus on different values (e.g., environmental, social and governance criteria). Decisions
in corporations with a unitary board system that consists of a single board of directors
and absentee shareholders such as in the USA tend to focus on economic gains rather than
social and environmental concerns. During the last decade, digital transformation has
resulted from the emergence of new technologies (e.g., social, mobile, analytics, artificial
intelligence, cloud, high-performance computing, Internet of Things, and robotics) that
have an impact on individuals, enterprises, organizations and society. In a business context,
digital transformation often refers to a process of redesign or innovation of a business
model from the adoption and use of IT to create digital capabilities. This study suggests
that the transformation of IT’s role is bringing about sustainability. IT and digital capacities
are not limited to reactive innovation and application. IT can play a major role as an enabler
and driver for pro-active transformation of a traditional business model to a sustainable
business model as well as create new value propositions.
The goal of this Special Issue was to provide a platform for scholars to share theory-
based research, conceptualization, and case studies. These papers broaden and accelerate
our understanding of innovative business models that support sustainable development.
I trust that you the reader will find that this eclectic collection of papers presents an
interesting examination of the internal and external challenges of aligning business models
to achieve SDGs. A sincere thank you to all the Special Issue authors for their contribution
to enhancing our understanding and providing valuable insights. A special thank you to
the external peer reviewers for providing valuable feedback, comments and suggestions to
improve the significance of the contributions. Finally, we want to express our thanks to
the staff members at the MDPI editorial office, in particular Dana Shen, for their valuable
support and encouragement.

Funding: Ensign received support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada as well as a Principles for Responsible Management Education seed grant from the Lazaridis
School of Business & Economics.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. United Nations. The 17 Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 23 January 2022).
2. Boffo, R.; Patalano, R. ESG Investing: Practices, Progress and Challenges; OECD: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https:
//www.oecd.org/finance/ESG-Investing-Practices-Progress-Challenges.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2022).
3. Stockholm Environmental Institute. Let’s Get the SDGs Back on Track. 2020. Available online: https://www.sei.org/perspectives/
lets-get-the-sdgs-back-on-track/ (accessed on 23 January 2022).
4. The Law Society. Reflecting on COP26: What Were the Key Outcomes? 2021. Available online: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/
topics/climate-change/reflecting-on-cop26-what-were-the-key-outcomes (accessed on 23 January 2022).
5. University of Edinburgh. Was COP26 a Success? Available online: https://www.ed.ac.uk/impact/opinion/was-cop26-a-success
(accessed on 23 January 2022).
6. Bomberg, E. COP26: Are we Looking for Success in the Wrong Places? University of Edinburgh. Available online: https:
//www.ed.ac.uk/impact/opinion/cop26-looking-for-success-in-all-the-wrong-places (accessed on 23 January 2022).

4
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2558

7. Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [CrossRef]
8. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416.
[CrossRef]

5
 sustainability

Article
The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions: A
Case of LITHUANIA
Joana Ramanauskaitė

School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology, LT-44249 Kaunas, Lithuania;
[email protected]; Tel.: +370-630-83-955

Abstract: To explore what roles incumbent actors take in sustainability transitions, this paper in-
vestigates the current situation in the scientific literature, which reveals a shift from opponents to
promoters and the case of a post-Soviet transitioning economy that is exemplified by examining
five sustainability-oriented incumbent actors in Lithuania. A single case study design is selected as
a methodological approach, illustrated by empirical data from interviews and secondary sources
(corporate websites and sustainability reports). These examples provide insights on the initiatives
the organisations that are already interested in sustainability take to promote sustainability ideas and
be active members of the transition themselves, supporting the contemporary view of incumbents as
agents of sustainable transitions.

Keywords: incumbents; sustainability transitions; sustainability; transitioning economy; case of

Lithuania

1. Introduction
Citation: Ramanauskaitė, J. The Role The role of business and organisations in sustainability transitions is receiving in-
of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability creased attention from scholars in the field [1]. Sustainability transition could be explained
Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA. by examples in the current trends for the promotion of high value-added sustainable prod-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877.
ucts, alternative and renewable energy sources, and circular or bio-economies [2–4]. The
https://doi.org/10.3390/
European Union (EU) recognises the importance of sustainability issues and includes them
su132212877
in its policy agenda aimed at building a knowledge-based bio-economy [3,5]. Sustainability
transitions refer to purposeful, long-term, multidimensional, fundamental transformations
Academic Editor: Prescott C. Ensign
of socio-technical systems towards more sustainable modes of production and consumption,
requiring participation of different types of actors [6–8] and therefore, certain structures of
Received: 19 October 2021
Accepted: 18 November 2021
analysis. Multi-level perspective (MLP) could theoretically be one of the main mechanisms
Published: 21 November 2021
to explain these processes [2,6,9].
To understand the sustainability transitions, a holistic picture is necessary. The MLP
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
framework provides a deconstruction of sustainability transitions into three levels: niche,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
regime, and landscape [3,10,11], although it is sometimes considered too simple, rel-
published maps and institutional affil- atively straightforward, and unable to capture the inherent complexity of the system
iations. change [12–14]. It is interesting and complementing to look at the organisational level
of the MLP, best described by the regime level. A regime can be defined as a group of
actors sharing a set of rules that are unique to that regime. Interconnectedness and partial
overlapping of different regimes guiding actors in a socio-technical system is referred to as
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
the socio-technical regime [2]. There are different actors at play when transitioning towards
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
sustainability, because sustainable development does not address the needs of an exclusive
This article is an open access article
group, but rather incorporates the interests of multiple groups of social actors and even of
distributed under the terms and different generations [15]. Organisations are an important part of sustainability transitions,
conditions of the Creative Commons transforming societies and markets; therefore, the business role in this transition is an
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// important aspect to be explored, complementing the outlook regarding the type and size
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of the organisations [16–18]. Socio-technical regimes that have been long established may
4.0/). include large, influential organisations at play. These established prominent actors with a

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212877 7 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

lifelong history are large both in terms of personnel and revenue, have political power, but
are often black-boxed and labelled as homogeneous industry structures with predefined
roles and relations, referred to as “incumbent” in the scientific literature [19,20]. Inter-
estingly, incumbent actors, even big players in industry and overall country or regional
development, were overlooked until quite recently (i.e., [4,20–22]) and are being started to
be investigated by researchers of sustainability transitions.
The role of incumbent actors is still being discussed; it is beneficial to look not only
at the developed countries, but also see how these possible game changers might affect
the developing economies or economies-in-transition. It is noted that the current literature
lacks insights from a geographical perspective in the overall context [23]. Research from
Eastern European post-Soviet countries is left at the border of peer-reviewed scientific
journals, with probable lower acceptance rates of submissions [24]. However, the context
of post-Soviet countries is an interesting area for sustainability transition research, mainly
because of the recent and ongoing transition from a socialist planned to capitalist market
economy [25,26]. There was a shift not only in economical arrangements, but also in
social and psychological attributes. The past is not easily forgotten, and some of the
inhabitants of post-Soviet countries may feel reluctant to engage in sustainability due to
the similarity between the communist and sustainability ideas, i.e., shared goods, renting
instead of buying; even some nomenclature might resemble the days under the “regime”
(i.e., corporate “social” responsibility, “socioeconomic”, etc.). However, this paper is not
aimed at studying the psychology behind the willingness to participate in the sustainability
movement. These remarks on the possible hesitation of post-Soviet communities to address
the sustainability issues might be among the reasons why this context is interesting and
should be addressed as part of a worldwide research concern.
It is important to study how businesses contribute to sustainable development. This
paper relates to Targets 8.3, 12.6, and 12.8 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
encouraging enterprises, especially influential ones, such as incumbent actors, to actively
promote sustainable development, build awareness, and participate in policy and decision-
making, creating a more sustainable environment [1]. This paper looks at how incumbent
organisations promote sustainable development, encourage their stakeholders to be more
sustainability-oriented, and how they act themselves, thus accelerating the progress to-
wards SDGs in the wake of the crises of the modern world [1].
This paper takes an inductive research approach. The idea for this paper came while
investigating contradictions and tensions in corporate sustainability transitions, which
revealed some interesting examples of incumbent actors in the transitioning economy of
Lithuania. As a member of the European Union and one of the post-Soviet countries,
Lithuania might expose some insights on sustainability transitions and the role of incum-
bent actors in them. This paper is structured as follows. Firstly, the theory is presented for
perceptions on incumbent actors in sustainability transitions and the context of post-Soviet
transitioning economy. Secondly, the methodology and a sample of incumbent actors in the
context are described. Following this, the research results are presented. Lastly, conclusions
and discussions are drawn from the observations in the paper.
The research objective of this paper is to explore the initiatives of incumbent actors in
sustainability transitions in a transitioning economy. The research question is formulated as
follows: how do the incumbent actors in transitioning economy contribute to sustainability
transitions?

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions
As mentioned previously and agreed upon by sustainability transition researchers,
the role of incumbent actors in sustainability transitions is underexplored and is a topic for
future research. As was discovered during the scientific literature review, several studies
explored the definition of an incumbent actor in sustainability transitions. Their definitions
are provided in Table 1 below.

8
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

Table 1. Definitions of incumbent actor in the scientific literature on sustainability transitions.

Source Definition Keywords

“By ‘incumbent’ most of the studies I have come
across specify this to be an organisation or an actor
Longstanding history
with a longstanding history; it is large in size, both in
Large size
terms of personnel and revenue; in most cases it is a
Apajalahti [19] High income
well-known firm; and it has political and economic
Well-known
power (there are also other actors, such as industry
Power
associations, that hold power in the sense that they
represent the majority of an industry).” (pp. 31–32)
“However, studies in this field have largely
neglected established actors (i.e., incumbents) and
Established
their potential role(s) in facilitating societal
Potentially powerful
Borghei [20] transformations. Incumbents are black-boxed as a
Homogenous
homogenous set of actors with a pre-defined role in
Inveterate
relation to the established industry structures (Geels,
2002; Holtz et al., 2008).” (p. 4, citing [11,27])
“Drawing from Johnstone et al. < . . . >, we define
incumbent actors or institutions as those “that often
Status-quo
have vested interests in maintaining the status quo
Sovacool et al. [28] Privileged
rather than enabling transitions and will often act to
Protective
strategically protect their privileged position” within
a given socio-technological regime.” (p. 3, citing [29])
“Innovation literature commonly defines
incumbents based on their established nature: “firms
that manufactured and sold products belonging to
Pre-radical innovation products
Hengelaar [30] the product generation that preceded the radical
Manufacturers
product innovation” (Chandy, Tellis 2000,
Henderson 1993, Mitchell 1991, Mitchell, Singh
1993).” (p. 18, citing [31–34])
“Incumbents “are those actors who wield
Disproportionate influence
disproportionate influence within a field and whose
Dominance
Kungl [35] interests and views tend to be heavily reflected in
Strategic field
the dominant organization of the strategic action
Field-bound
field” ([4]: p. 13).” (p. 14, citing [36])
“[I] ncumbents: the firms that mainly have
competencies related to the current technological
Smink, Hekkert and Negro [37] Inveterate
regime, and that (financially) benefit from existing
practices.” (p. 87)

These prominent, powerful organisations have a role in sustainability transitions and

general change in local or regional environment development. However, how these actors
shape the landscape, regime, or niche is still being debated. Earlier works assign a sort of
restraining attributes, seeing incumbent actors as keepers of steady, unmovable regimes
to stay the way they are [28]. More current studies note other traits of these prominent
organisations, characterising them as promoters, sponsors of sustainable transition, those
that can notice the change in the market and the needs of stakeholders and are able to
respond to the most current trends and demands. Nevertheless, incumbency can be
attributed not only to monopolies of firms or powerful governmental players, but also to
varieties of different societal dominions, their levels and degrees (market, state, society,
etc.) [38], that are not necessarily associated with large enterprises [17]. Incumbents pose
a category of specific interest due to their potential power to steer change and entrusted
interest [30]. The extracted keywords in Table 1 complement these notions, where authors
mention the status-quo incumbents take [20,28,37], their ability to apply power [19,20,35];
however, the size or type of the organisation is not mentioned as often [19,30]. Research by
van Mossel et al. [2] provided a categorisation of incumbents by their behaviour during

9
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

transition: first to enter, follow into, remain inert, and delay the transition; also supported
by other authors [3]. The exploration of the role of incumbent actors as perceived by
scientific studies is described in the following paragraphs.
Van Mossel et al. [2] studied the behaviour of incumbent firms during transitions.
They began with the notion that incumbents were mostly perceived as locked in their
behavioural patterns and reacted passively to the social environment changes. Agreeing
with this notion, Hörisch [39], Lindberg, Markard, and Andersen [40], Schaltegger et al. [17],
and Turnheim and Sovacool [38] pointed out that incumbents were more likely to invest
into economically sound innovations at the niche level, but not radical innovations that
disrupt the regime, which the incumbents were more likely to preserve. The size of
the company and bureaucratic inertia were among the reasons preventing investment in
emerging innovations [4] and stalling sustainability transitions [2]. Sometimes incumbent
actors show signs of persistent resistance to or slowing down of the transition because their
business models are challenged, and their capabilities and resources are at risk [35,37,40,41],
additionally blocking grassroot initiatives [3]. Therefore, a frequent hypothesis is that
radical innovations are more likely to emerge from new entrants or smaller enterprises
than incumbent actors [28], who commit to existing socio-technical regimes and oppose
sustainability transitions [42] directing their resources accordingly.
The incumbent actors have access to excessive resources and might distribute them
accordingly to their advantage. These resources (money, capabilities, competencies, influ-
ence) are built around the existing processes and routines, resulting in a lack of interest to
invest in emerging technologies and breakthroughs that could disrupt the current status of
incumbent organisations [4,38]. Changing the direction of resource investment would also
require changes in the business model, viewed by the incumbent actors with reluctance
due to the profitable core activities of economies of scale [4] and the current reputational
status. Noticeably, incumbents are not expected to deploy their resources for social collec-
tive prosperity and distributional fairness [38]. Large incumbent firms are immersed in
multiple regimes, which are also often incumbent, and the resources might be suspended
there [2]. Therefore, resources of large incumbents might be a source of power that might
be used for various reasons, not only tilting the areas that sustainability transitions struggle
in [38], but also to assert the advantage politically.
Although incumbents respond to transitions, the response is not necessarily beneficial
for further successful transition [2]; therefore, it is important to understand how incumbents
shape their environment [40]. One of the ways incumbents can influence the sustainability
transitions is to gain access to policymaking. Some sectors, i.e., energy and agriculture, are
particularly politically powerful and might successfully resist fundamental change [42–44].
Possibilities for the incumbents to resist transitions might emerge in forming political
coalitions, networks, or alliances [2,43]. By doing so, incumbents can strategically set
technical standards and shape expectations and visions for stricter regulations [37], alter
and manipulate information and knowledge [38,45]. Incumbent actors tend to favour
their interest by actively shaping public policies [40,46] that might provide them with
competitive advantage [38]. In any case, active response to sustainability transitions does
result in changes in the behaviours of incumbent actors. One way is to resist and try to
diminish the impact of ongoing change on their daily routines. Another solution would be
to alter their own interorganisational habits, transforming their vision, reorienting their
pathways, and gaining benefits by destabilising the existing regimes [38,47].
However, the perception of incumbents as resisters to sustainability transitions has
been challenged. Although empirical insights on the role incumbent actors take on in
sustainability transitions are scarce [39], incumbents are observed to contribute to the
destabilisation or fragmentation of the regime [38,48]. The Schumpeterian look on incum-
bents notes that they are known for improving continuously and incrementally, whereas
radical change is attributed to small new firms and entrepreneurs [30,49]; incumbents do
contribute to developing innovative transitional technologies [50,51]. Newcomers to the
sector could be perceived as challenging not only the market share of incumbents, but

10
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

also their business models [41]. Although incumbents more often might be the keepers of
existing regimes, some cases show their willingness to cooperate and invest in the strategic
reorientation [41,52]. The incumbents collaborate with new entrants (with or without the
intermediation), create common value, and enable newcomers, given their remarkable
financial, human, and other resources [38,47,51]. This could considerably accelerate and
direct transitions towards sustainability. Although incumbents are more likely to partici-
pate in reconfigurational changes, they might bring up and adopt economically optimal
innovations to the regime from the niche level [39]. Precariously, incumbents tend to
hold the significant power of what innovations to pick out and institute at the regime
level [39]. However, there are studies showing that incumbents use their capabilities to
develop several technological alternatives concurrently to change the directions of stable
pathways [20,50]. Overall, there is contemporary research that shows a significant con-
tribution of incumbents to sustainable transitions as proponents and promoters of new
technologies and change [39,50,53].
Irrespective of the way the incumbents choose to participate in sustainability tran-
sitions, there are reasons behind those decisions. As analysed earlier, there are different
behavioural patterns the incumbents might display. As the majority of the scientific liter-
ature suggests, incumbent actors show a tendency to be hesitant in taking an active role
in developing radical innovations and technologies [54]. However, there are internal and
external barriers or restraints for incumbents to participate in sustainability transitions.
Common external impediments include weak institutions that lack directionality in shap-
ing the transitional context, verbalisation of user preferences, straightforward policies, and
regulations [28]. The interorganisational barriers are somewhat harder to define and re-
quire a more thorough consideration. Managers of incumbent firms may fail to adequately
recognise disruptive threats [28] due to resistance to experimentation and transformation of
their stable business processes and models [13]. Lack of knowledge of innovative products
required by the market [4] might be at the core behind the fear of change. Established
networks that support stable routines of organisations are often supported by technologies
and developed competences that are threatened by the emerging new and radical inno-
vations threatening to destabilise the current position of incumbents [20,28,54,55]. This
notwithstanding, some of the incumbents with active resistance strategies focusing on
niche innovations might sustain the carrying out of business as usual [56] for a while, but
eventually, locking themselves into routines, technical capabilities and failure to recog-
nise the destabilisation caused by disruptive technologies might result in the downfall of
incumbent actors [57].
However, there are stimulating factors, promoting and encouraging incumbents to
take an active and positive turn towards sustainability transitions that are being discussed
in the current literature. Firstly, there are economic incentives at play that bring attrac-
tiveness and financial opportunities to push the transition process towards green niche
innovations [42], whose policies have become more favourable for incumbents in the past
few years, easing the transition [57]. Experimenting with new technological paradigms
and niches provides impetus to overcome both internal and external barriers and allows
to adapt to new markets faster, exploiting their current knowledge base and developing
new competencies [4,17] and increasing their chances of survival, even though an incum-
bent might become dependent on the fate of the niche [2]. Introducing incumbents to
sustainability ideas and societal missions might become important pushing these ideas
into political level decision-making, simultaneously making the transition less disruptive,
therefore, more attractive [28,40]. Moreover, incumbents with diverse capabilities and
resource bases are more likely to survive in unstable environments [2]. Nonetheless, when
faced with external pressure of new more sustainable entrants to the market, incumbents
might engage in sustainability in their own way, achieving broader impact with the scale
of the market they already share [22].
An outside stakeholder could bring a better vision and understanding of the current
situation and of the benefits it could bring to the organisations. These external interested

11
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

parties are “transition intermediaries—agents who connect diverse groups of actors in-
volved in transitions processes and their skills, resources and expectation” [28] (p. 1).
Sovacool et al. [28] dedicated a research to incumbent-oriented transition intermediaries
and noted that this field was getting more prominent. Transition agents bring an upheaval
and disruption to the regime, maintaining contact with stakeholders that have different in-
terests in the transition. By becoming involved into these established ecosystems, transition
intermediaries might cause conflict with incumbent business alliances [28,41]. The interme-
diaries are known for their push of new innovations from the niche level to regimes and
protecting them from being overwhelmed by the resisting incumbents. This also requires
intervention into policymaking. Providing acceptable prospects for both newcomers and
incumbents, transition intermediaries might create win–win situations for the stakeholders,
adding a third win for the sustainability transitions as a public good by using their abilities
in either helping mobilise the resources, consulting on technology use, linking actors with
similar interests and complementing resources, pushing environmental innovations and
enabling the growth of niches, or lobbying at the political level [58]. Enabling new technolo-
gies offers a renewal for success that could be used for benchmarking by the incumbents
and their regimes [41]. Collaboration is nonetheless key for enabling incumbents to invest
in sustainability transitions.
Given the resources and capabilities that incumbents possess, they could be the
accelerators of sustainability transitions if they recognised the necessity to reconfigure and
transform [22,28,42,51]. Nevertheless, incumbents could serve as hybrid actors, linking
niche innovations to incumbencies and thus altering and disrupting the regime [47], by
taking part in the activities both in or between the regime and niche levels, bringing a new
set of rules and requirements, even when operating in their own interest, with creation
of links being their secondary concern [59], supporting the stable socio-technical system
with constant fluctuation, never reaching a firm balance [2]. Hybrid organisations also
possess the ability to gain profit not only with the quality of their services and products,
but also to contribute to positive environmental and social change with their mission,
with the profit not being the main objective, blurring the borders between for-profit and
non-profit organisations [60], creating added value both to business and society [16]. This
becomes achievable because hybrid organisations collaborating with the stakeholders of
their social context strive to solve environmental and social issues through their practices
and products, rather than just trying to reduce their negative impact [16,60]. Even when
starting with incremental improvements, incumbents could create radical innovations,
impacting the market when accelerated, and being adapted throughout the regime and
niches [17]. Nonetheless, it is also necessary to keep in mind that these socio-technical
systems are context-dependent and their individual transitions may vary depending on
different circumstances [40].
Incumbents, being prominent actors in their sectors and regions, that can attribute
their resources to influencing other members of the landscape developments, may take
various roles in sustainable transitions, ranging from inhibitors to promoters and leaders:
• Resourceful opposers of sustainability transitions [4,42,56];
• Politically powerful environment shapers [40,42,44];
• Knowledge manipulators [38,45];
• Keepers of existing regimes [41,52];
• Incremental innovators [30,39,49–51];
• Promoters of new technologies and change [39,50,53];
• Hybrid actors [47,59].
Moreover, as some of the scientific literature on incumbent actors’ role in the scientific
literature on sustainability transitions mention the size and type of the firm (large manufac-
turers), these attributes are not necessarily important to address when looking at incumbent
organisations. Incumbency of the organisation relies more on their strategical stance in
the market, where they are established, prominent, with a set of network connections and
stable positions that are not easily moved [61] by shifts during the development and pertur-

12
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

bances of the landscape or the regime, allowing them to take any of the abovementioned
roles.

2.2. Specificity of the Context of Transitioning Economy of a Post-Soviet Country

Lithuania is a country situated on the south-eastern side of the Baltic Sea with only
30 years of independence from the Soviet Union regime that has been shaping the country
for 46 years. Lithuania is in a geopolitically active area with transit roads and most northern
ice-free port of the Baltic Sea, which places the country in a position to successfully develop
its economy. Currently, Lithuania belongs to the EU and NATO, providing both incentives
and safety for successful independent development [25,62]. Sustainable development was
started to be addressed in the early 2000s by being included into the National Strategy for
Sustainable Development [63] and being recognised by companies creating Lithuanian
Responsible Business Association (LAVA—Lietuvos Atsakingo Verslo Asociacija) in 2005,
extending the work of the National Network of Responsible Business Enterprises (NAVI˛T—
Nacionalinis Atsakingo Verslo I˛moniu˛ Tinklas). Generally, the direction of companies
represents the interests of consumers, shareholders, and other stakeholders, such as gov-
ernments, policymakers, general society, etc. There are studies that investigate transitions
of companies from planned to free market in the post-Soviet bloc [25,64], but not so much
regarding sustainable development of the enterprises or countries. Search on the Web
of Science Core Collection did not provide any results for keywords post-Soviet, sustain-
ability transitions, organisation/business, and their synonyms. This might be due to the
difference between sustainability and market transition, where sustainability is regarded as
socio-technical, and market as a socio-economic system [25]. This notwithstanding, these
systems are highly interlinked and co-dependent.
The Soviet Union did leave an imprint that might be felt in the contemporary society
of the affected countries. The cultural legacy of this regime had multiple indirect negative
impacts [23,65] in a broad variety of areas. Dawson [65] named several attributes linked
with the mentality of post-Soviet countries: “passivity, circumspection, distrust, and a
widespread indifference to environmental issues, pervading society, including governance
systems, at multiple levels” (p. 56). Therefore, instead of gradual transition from one
regime to another, these countries experienced shock-therapy [25,26] and some authors in
the geography field refer to this transition more of as ‘a form of transformation’ [26,66,67].
However, experiencing these transitions, or transformations, possibly prepared the coun-
tries for sustainable transitions. Rodrigo et al. [23] conducted a study on transition dy-
namics and through comparison distinguished four groups of countries in terms of the
way they approach sustainability issues: crossroaders, compliers, athletes, and laggards.
The cluster of compliers contains fifteen ex-eastern bloc nations (except for Uzbekistan)
that do particularly well in the quality of governance, but not in creating wealth cleanly,
though they try to follow more sustainable paths, having not been exposed so much to the
sustainable development concept. Growing economically strong, the compliers’ cluster
is not noted for effective and efficient energy management; however, they are addressing
their effect on socio-environmental conditions, trying to improve it and comply with the
standards raised by alliances such as the EU. Complier countries in the EU or those in
the process of becoming a member must fulfil higher standards; however, they are not
addressing their energy and CO2 emission issues appropriately yet. Lithuania is presented
as one of the exemplar cases complying with sustainability requirements through the use
of some governmental pressures; it adopts improved industrial practices, takes moderate
steps to reduce poverty and CO2 emissions, but uses energy quite inefficiently, however,
trying to develop more sustainably [23]. Citizens of the eastern post-Soviet bloc share
the commonalities of inadequate energy use and a large proportion of the population is
shown to struggle heating their houses in the cold periods and are experiencing energy
poverty [68]; furthermore, are also undecided about the climate change [69].
Some challenges particular to Lithuania include limited availability of public transport;
10.6% of the population do not have access to indoor sanitation; the income of 20% of the

13
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

richest people in the country was 7.1 times higher than 20% of the poorest people [70]; 20th
place in the SDG Index of 2018 among 27 EU countries. Sustainable development principles
in Lithuania are established through the main strategic planning documents of the country:
Lithuania’s Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030”; 2014-2020 National Progress Programme;
National Strategy for Sustainable Development adopted in 2003; the White Paper on
Lithuanian Regional Policy prepared in 2017. The necessity for sustainable development is
also mentioned in the Law on Territorial Planning of the Republic of Lithuania. However,
it is noted that the topic of sustainable development lacks coherence and specificity in
these documents, while the key issue in this regard is strategy: the National Strategy for
Sustainable Development is more of a recommendatory nature [70]. Correspondingly, the
Lithuanian National Sustainable Development Strategy has not been updated since 2011,
whereas its implementation reports have not been submitted since 2014.
Nevertheless, membership in the EU had a major impact on Lithuania’s development
patterns. Post-Soviet countries that are members of the EU established market economy
faster and performed wider-ranged reforms [62]. Integration in the EU can be seen as a
stimulus for improving governance, having examples set by older members and absorbing
sustainable development goals as part of the strategy [71]. Following the lead of more
prominent EU countries that already have transitional experiences and competencies,
should provide these transitioning economies with a boost for integrating sustainable
development principles in their routines. The similarities between socio-technical and
socio-economical system transformations should help transfer the multilevel concept of
sustainable development to the market transition [25]. However, as the analysis above
suggests, it is not to be expected from an incumbent regime to actively engage and invest
in radical innovations as top-down initiatives do not intentionally generate niches and
evolutionary bottom-up processes [18]. Therefore, it is important to address the initiative
grounds of sustainability transitions, which could lay in incumbent actors in the context.

3. Materials and Methods

As a methodological approach, a single case study was selected to explore the incum-
bent actors’ role in sustainability transitions in Lithuania. The majority of sustainability
transitions’ literature on incumbent actors is focused on energy sector. This landscape of
Lithuania also has one of the main incumbent actors operating in energy sector. Therefore,
information and examples of other incumbent actors will be drawn to better illustrate
how companies in an emerging economy take the initiative and promote sustainable
development. Five sustainability-oriented incumbent organisations in Lithuania were
selected using nonprobability purposive sampling. First selection criterion was that the
organisation had to be a part of the UN Global Compact initiative or a member of LAVA.
The interviewed organisations could be categorised as incumbent actors in their sectors
in Lithuania, being prominent and influential actors of their fields and active members
of society, visible to the broader public, as a second criterion, where only two are large
and have annual income above €100 million. After the second criterion was applied, an
organisation that is not a part of UN Global Compact initiative or a member of LAVA
emerged. Since it manages a national environmental brand label, it was included into the
sample. Homogeneity of the sample is assured following the definition of incumbents
that agrees with the research of Borghei [20], Sovacool et al. [28], Kungl [35], and Smink
et al. [37], describing incumbents as established, prominent, and influential organisations.
Characteristics of the interviewed organisations are provided in Table 2.

14
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

Table 2. Characteristics of respondents.

Organi-Sation Sector Size Income, Mill € Years Active UN Global LAVA Respondent
(2019) Compact

OrgC Support 0.3–0.5 18 + - Director

services Very small

Sustainability
OrgD Academic Large 8–11 21 + -
coordinator
Communication
Gas, water and 12 manager for
OrgE Large >100 (84) + +
multiutilities sustainable
development
Environment
and
Support sustainable
OrgM Small 1-3 17 - - development
services
policy
specialist

OrgR Large >100 27 + + Sustainability

Bank manager

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online using video conferencing means

in Lithuanian during the period of November 2019 to August 2020. Interview question-
naire was built in consideration of the researches by Van der Byl and Slawinski [72] and
McGrail et al. [73], revealing the organisations’ stance towards sustainability. Representa-
tive questions are provided below:
• Could you tell when and on whose initiative social responsibility or sustainability
became part of your organisation’s strategy?
• Could you provide examples of social initiatives or solutions that your organisation is
implementing?
• Could you provide examples of environmental initiatives or solutions that your
organisation is implementing?
• Could you provide examples of economic initiatives or solutions that your organisa-
tion is implementing?
• What impact have the stakeholders had on the implementation of the social, environ-
mental, and economic decisions you mentioned?
• What value and why did these social, environmental, and economic decisions bring to
your organisation?
Transcripts of the interviews were made adopting a literal transcription strategy.
Deductive qualitative coding [74] was applied to the transcripts where the codes (initiator;
social, economic, environmental initiatives; stakeholders; value) were developed and
complemented with the information from the interviews.
As additional information sources, corporate websites, and sustainability reports (of
those organisations who report) where consulted using the same representative questions.
This strategy was selected to complement the informants’ knowledge with corporate
sustainability communication, check for testimonies and validate the information.

4. Results
This section is dedicated to exploring the examples of five sustainability-oriented
Lithuanian incumbents. Detailed stories and testimonies from the respondents are pre-
sented in Tables 3–7, providing information on why organisations took on the sustainability
approach, their social, environmental, and economic initiatives, their stance towards stake-
holders, and the value they see in being more sustainable.

15
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

Table 3. Testimony from the respondent on the sustainability of OrgD.

• Environmental institute established in 1991

Whose initiative • Coordinated action since 2010
• Green higher education institution initiative started in 2012

• No jeans month
• Equal Opportunities Commission
• Blood donation campaigns
Social initiatives • Environment cleaning initiatives
• First smart mobile app in Lithuania that helps the deaf to communicate with the hearing
• Improving the infrastructure for all sorts of accessibility

• Modernisation of heat and electricity facilities on the campus

• Reduction in energy usage
Environmental initiatives • Setting an example that we can use renewable energy resources
• Development of technologies for disinfection of drinking water, protection against microbes
• Development of an odour-sensitive sensor system that is able to detect air pollution

• Organisation of events and open lectures for the community

Stakeholders • Representatives participate in various TV and radio shows, provide press comments on various sustainability issues,
spreading the message

• Prestige, representation to the public

Value • Raising awareness

Table 4. Testimony from the respondent on the sustainability of OrgM.

Whose initiative • While consulting another company for a project, it became clear that we also have to become sustainable

• Four-day week
• Organising nature festivals
• Family is brought to work
• Staff and management renovated the office sustainably by themselves
Social initiatives • Blood donation campaigns
• Not engaging in sponsorship or philanthropy
• Shaping the political level
• Representing environmental interest of the public in court
• Defending the public’s right to nature

• Renovating the office using green measures, such as adobe floor, or ecological wall paint
• Calculating eco-footprint
• Sorting, weighting their waste
• Calculating trip costs using data from accounting, and deciding whether to take them, being aware where and what
Environmental initiatives ecologic footprint they leave
• Sustainable requirements for organised events, such as vegetarian food, eco-certified venues
• Curating protected area brand
• Encouraging all small producers in protected areas to put on a brand label
• Training, teaching small producers marketing, sustainability, and responsibility

• Economic responsibility is understood more as product responsibility

• Adapting to the economic capacity of partners
• Economic responsibility is linked to the quality of the service
Economic initiatives • Quality assurance of services
• Principle of fair price
• Publicity

• Raising the awareness of politicians

• Raising the awareness of customers
• Most influential interest group is the European Union and international organisations and their demands
• The Green Deal affects all activities strongly
Stakeholders • Other non-governmental environmental organisations are very important as partners
• Influential academic institutions
• Free meetings for business, where they get a lot information from us about environmental sustainability and we find out
what is relevant in the market from them

• Retention of valuable professionals

Value • Calculating the footprint attracts clientele
• Acting according to their words

16
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

Table 5. Testimony from the respondent on the sustainability of OrgC.

• From the parent organisation

• Global Compact pushed to document
Whose initiative • Being open and transparent were the inner values when starting the
organisation

• Very protective of staff

• Transparency
• Public education on IT skills
• Educating and training customers, businesses, and government agencies in
Social initiatives the area of social responsibility
• Talking about waste through creativity and art
• Students and community interact with the waste management facility
• Initiative of public emotional security project
• Supplementary health insurance for employees

• Educating public sector on green office solutions

• Educating and organising excursions for schools regarding waste
management
Environmental • Collaborating with the university regarding the training of hazardous waste
initiatives managers
• Educating members and employees of governments and municipalities
regarding waste management
• Initiating emission transparency in waste management facilities

• Training economically active people and retirees to use the internet

Economic initiatives • Change in the remuneration of employees in public relations agencies

• Being the initiator of sustainability initiatives

Stakeholders • Avoid spreading disinformation

• Employee loyalty and commitment of employees to adhere to and represent

Value the principles and to adhere to the organisation’s philosophy
• Actions are in line with the philosophy, which is value for the clients

17
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

Table 6. Testimony from the respondent on the sustainability of OrgE.

• Requirement of the Stock Exchange

Whose initiative • The importance of social responsibility has risen from subsidiaries, making it
a part of strategy of the group

• Human rights, zero tolerance for discrimination

• Domestic legislation
• Code of ethics
• Attract more women to technological specialties
Social initiatives • Promoting a culture of safe work
• Internal education campaigns regarding safety at work
• Public education on energy
• Employees tell about efficient energy use to the outside stakeholders
• Maintaining personal contact with communities

• Supporting and meeting environmental management standards

• Promoting energy efficiency
• Helping both the population and business to have a significant impact on the
environment
Environmental • Producing the majority of energy from renewable sources
initiatives • Issuing Green Bonds that are used to finance green energy projects or energy
efficiency projects
• Smart energy club
• Developing the network of electric car charging stations
• Joining the United Nations Business Ambition for 1.5 ◦ C

• Ethics, anti-corruption
• Code of ethics
• Line of trust
• Annual tests for employees regarding anti-corruption
Economic initiatives • Testing partners’ responsibility and sustainability
• Work from home
• Utility bills can be paid for free by customers using their self-service website
• Customers experiencing financial difficulties can defer their payments
• Positive impact on the Doing Business rating for Lithuania

• Clear requirements from the state

• The highest standards of transparency are required by the shareholders and
investors
Stakeholders • Management standards, benefits maximise employee retention
• The media
• Goal—to get stakeholders a little bit more involved so that they would
provide feedback

• Reputation improvement
Value • Periodic public surveys to evaluate the reputation
• No budget for publicising social responsibility

18
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

Table 7. Testimony from the respondent on the sustainability of OrgR.

• Most strategic, political sustainability issues come from the parent company in Scandinavia
Whose initiative • Very high level of enthusiasm and support for this topic comes from the CEO of the Lithuanian branch

• Financial education
• Promoting entrepreneurship
• Building a sustainable society
• Increasing awareness of sustainability
• Employee volunteering initiative
Social initiatives • Equal opportunities and diversity
• Main sponsor of the human rights conference
• Finance laboratory
• Constant communication on personal finance, savings, pensions, investment, macroeconomics
• A diverse programme for small business support
• Endorsing and supporting women and entrepreneurs on innovations

• Helping customers make more sustainable decisions

• Green leasing
Environmental initiatives • Special financing services for solar power
• Investing in sustainable funds with high indices of sustainability
• Sustainability risks are assessed in the same way as any other

• Start-up space for moving to sustainable innovation

• Small Business Growing Programme
Economic initiatives • Promoting innovation in start-ups which then transforms into certain indicators of economic growth
• Having sustainability criteria in the funding processes

• Change of initiatives’ partners is not common

• Employees are always important
• Shareholder and investor relations are always important
• Institutional decision-makers, including the non-governmental sector, other companies with similar values
Stakeholders with whom we can do some joint activities
• Educational mission rather than responding to what clients would like
• We proceed with external initiatives only after coordinating this with our internal audiences
• Internal educational activities about sustainability

• You will not be able to do successful business in any society that is doing badly
• If a company is not sustainable, it will be harder to attract the younger generation of employees
• The international investment community has already made it clear that all investments will be directed only
Value at sustainable businesses
• Failure to comply with legal requirements has the potential might lead to being expelled from the market
• Public image

OrgD is a one of the top state-owned higher education institutions in Lithuania. This
organisation presents its sustainability approach on its website; however, the report is
outdated. The newest sustainability report can be found on the UN Global Compact
website.
OrgM is a non-governmental non-profit organisation that operates in environmental
protection area. OrgM reveals its mission on its website and on its sustainability report (as
a part of its Activity report). Sustainability-oriented projects, activities, and initiatives can
be found in both information sources (Table 4).
OrgC is a public relations organisation with affiliation to a larger company abroad.
Double-checking the corporate website and sustainability report, little information could be
found. Neither the website, nor the sustainability report mentioned stakeholder testimonies
or their impact on the environment. A sustainability report is not on OrgC’s website but it
can be found on the UN Global Compact webpage (Table 5).
OrgE is a state-owned energy company, the most prominent incumbent in Lithuania’s
energy sector. The organisation has a very detailed approach to their sustainability strategy
both on the website and in the sustainability report (which is a part of the annual financial
report provided both on their website and that of the UN Global Compact) Table 6.
OrgR is one of the largest banks in Lithuania based on Scandinavian capital.

19
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

OrgR has sustainability as a part of their strategy, which is visible both on their website
and sustainability report (which is provided alongside the Financial report). The report
presents their activities, initiatives, and achieved results in great detail. The website shows
consistency on all aspects of sustainability as well (Table 7).

5. Discussion
Interesting insights that illustrate Lithuania’s regime and landscape levels could be
drawn from the interviews and secondary data. A similarity shared by these organisations
is that their top managers are involved in sustainability transitions and are active promoters
of these ideas making them active members of transition towards sustainability both in
their activity area and in the broader society. Some of these organisations became involved
in sustainable movements around early 2000’s participating in the development of the
aforementioned association LAVA, making them prominent and long-lasting members
of sustainability transitions in Lithuania. Nevertheless, respondents did notice that their
clients, general society, and other stakeholders were still somewhat reluctant to address the
sustainability issues, thus making it more complicated to initiate change and push these
ideas beyond the company borders. Additionally, these organisations also face struggles
from within. In example, OrgD encounters problems when broader and larger quantities
of resources are required to implement the projects. In essence, looking at the interview
data, website, and sustainability report, OrgD appears to have a fragmented approach
towards sustainability; though, good intentions. OrgE has an abundance of statistical
information on their report; however, some of the declared numbers that might be seen as
controversial are not extensively elaborated upon, i.e., employee distribution by gender.
OrgR’s commitment to sustainable investment seems somewhat vague and unambitious,
renouncing financing only to destructive activities, such as guns, coal energy, and those
violating human rights.
Respondent from OrgM, who also is an expert in environmental and sustainability is-
sues, noticed a huge difference in terms of corporate social responsibility: big organisations
always have documents with clearly defined principles, and small organisations just have
sustainability rising from within. Sustainability relates not so much to the organisation, but
rather to the people that create the culture within. Those organisations that wanted to start
a movement of change towards sustainability began looking for possibilities to collaborate,
collect the positive examples from other companies, maybe even benchmark themselves
against other sustainability-oriented enterprises, thus creating an informal network of
socially responsible businesses in Lithuania (NAVI˛T) in the beginning of 2000’ s. How-
ever, OrgC’s respondent admits that when looking globally, in addressing sustainability,
Lithuania still lags four or five years behind. Therefore, it is necessary to be proactive in dis-
covering sustainability and managing risks in the organisations and other social constructs,
to have a steppingstone to move forward and communicate and consult, and include all
stakeholders, according to the respondent of OrgM. Though the research may not yet show
a strong willingness to pay extra for a sustainability focus in a product or service, that trend
is growing, as noted by the respondent of OrgR. Organisations are also more prone not to
push sustainable ideas actively to the clients, but to focus on philanthropy and sponsor-
ship as an act of sustainability (respondents of OrgM and OrgC). There are organisations
using social events (like marathons) to gather sensitive data on people participating in
them and then promoting their products directly (OrgM’s respondent). Nonetheless, there
are companies that are unequivocally profit oriented and do not have, want to have, or
discuss sustainability. The majority of those who address sustainability still see this as a
responsibility of the communication department. However, respondent of OrgR notes that
unsustainable businesses will not have a place in the future and today, sustainability is
becoming a business topic, an important topic. The enthusiasm that is being expressed
by the respondents of the analysed organisations could be illustrated by the reflection of
OrgM’s respondent: “sustainability and social responsibility are not the implementation of
some standard, they are not the implementation of some postulates, they are not a policy,

20
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

they are not a principle. It’s that jazz that should drive that organisation and should just
be fun, becoming a part of that organisation.” What seems to be clear from the literature
and empirical analysis, is that collaboration between organisations is necessary to tackle
the issues of sustainability [16], with key success factors for adapting sustainability at the
core of the corporation being structure, culture, leadership, communication, employee
qualifications and motivation, and management control [48,75].
Moreover, a trend could be drawn from this small sample of organisations that promi-
nent organisations can dedicate a broad variety of resources to address their corporate
sustainability and the message they send, which is visible in their websites and sustain-
ability reports. Naturally, this does not imply that large incumbents are more interested
in what message to send than actually living up to the promise. Larger organisations
can allocate more resources to various activities, where smaller organisations invest their
limited resources to the actual activities. Additionally, large incumbents ascribe greater
value to SDGs in their communication sources, structuring their messages accordingly:
which SDGs are important to them, to which SDGs do they contribute the most.
This overview on Lithuania’s incumbent actors provides insights that support the
emerging ideas that incumbents are not only stalling the sustainability transition and
anticipating change—they can be active promoters of sustainability ideas who actively
motivate their stakeholders to take the sustainability path and try to educate the larger so-
ciety, taking on initiatives and leading the change, complementing the research of Berggren
et al. [50], Hörisch [39], and Markard [53]. Additionally, OrgM reveals traits that are in-
herent to hybrid actors, linking niche innovations of small enterprises with other market
players [47] and maintaining economic profit while adding value to society and the en-
vironment [16,60]. OrgE provides an example of positive change in the policy of energy
sector acting as a politically powerful environment shaper, bringing up the transition from
inside and supporting decentralisation and green energy ideas, taking action in building a
more sustainable energy supply, whilst other scientific researches provide a more negative
depiction of state-owned enterprises [40,64]. Moreover, even though incumbents as incre-
mental innovators are often referred via technological solutions, OrgR poses as an example
of incremental developer of society, taking small steps for the education of communities in
various directions.
However, the major portion of previous literature on incumbents in sustainability
transitions relies on energy sector examples, whereas the sustainability transitions in the
post-Soviet context focus on urban/rural development and/or agriculture. Consequently,
comparison with other sectors is complicated. Insights on business development and
impact on tackling sustainability issues remain an underexplored area both in the case
of sustainability transitions and post-Soviet country context. Interestingly, Chatzimentor
et al. [24] noted that studies from eastern and post-Soviet countries were often left at the
periphery of peer-reviewed journals, having lower-acceptance rates [76,77]. Nonetheless,
this research, like the larger part of other transition studies, is designed to be more illus-
trative and exploratory than a systematic research, possessing elements of interpretation
and creativity in its methodology [51]. This paper illustrates how organisations of a tran-
sitioning economy take on the initiatives to become more sustainable, empowering their
stakeholders to take a part in the transition towards sustainability, when the government
still lags behind, trying to meet the requirements set by foreign partners and alliances.

6. Conclusions
The aim of the paper was to explore what roles do the incumbent actors take in the
sustainability transitions. The scientific literature review suggested seven roles: resourceful
opposers of sustainability transitions; politically powerful environment shapers; knowl-
edge manipulators; keepers of existing regimes; incremental innovators; promoters of new
technologies and change; hybrid actors. The analysed sample of five sustainability-oriented
incumbent organisations in a transitioning economy revealed that they all are promoters of
change; additionally, one could act as a hybrid actor; two organisations highlighted positive

21
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

attributes of two roles, one being politically powerful shaper and the other—an incremental
innovator. Moreover, the incumbent actors that take on the role of promoting sustainability
are emerging in Lithuania and their positive examples supplement the shifting views
on incumbents in the scientific literature. This paper, as an overview of the situation in
an emerging economy, provides ideas and a steppingstone for future research regarding
the role of incumbents that could be used to advance and facilitate the management of
sustainability transitions.
Limitations of this paper include a purely qualitative approach when investigating
examples of incumbent actors, drawing only from data provided by the organisations:
interviews with respondents who themselves were very interested and vested in sustain-
ability ideas and movement, corporate sustainability reports, and websites. One of the
ways to further develop this research would be to explore the organisations more thor-
oughly, looking within these organisations for clues whether there was interest from certain
individuals, or all members of organisations supported the sustainability ideas. MLP is
better suited for describing events than looking at causal relationships [14,18]; therefore,
this research, aimed at exploring the role of incumbent actors, is limited at the level of
incumbent actors’ initiatives, with only slight insights into why they transition towards
sustainability and their certain manner, contributing more to a geographical perspective of
the sustainable transitions. It could also be interesting to examine whether transition from
planned to market economy provided any advantage transitioning towards sustainability.
Correspondingly, an investigation of how the post-Soviet country mentality shaped the
actions of incumbents could provide fruitful insights into the pathways these organisations
are taking and why. Due to early stages of sustainable development idea implementation
in strategies in transitioning economies, this might be impossible to assess yet.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all interviewees involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions and anonymity
of the respondents.
Acknowledgments: I would like to express my gratitude to the communities of the 27th Annual
Conference of the International Sustainable Development Research Society (ISDRS) and the 6th
NEST conference and the Network for Early career researchers in Sustainability Transitions for the
possibility to present my research and receive feedback that allowed me to develop this paper. I
would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who have brought wonderful insights to improve
my research.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ramanauskaitė, J. Incumbents in sustainability transitions in the context of transitioning economy: An onlook of incumbent actors’
initiatives. In Proceedings of the ISDRS 2021: The 27th International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference:
Accelerating the Progress towards the 2030 SDGs in Times of Crisis, Östersund, Sweden, 13–15 July 2021; Johansson, C.,
Mauerhofer, V., Eds.; Mittuniversitetet: Östersund, Sweden, 2021; p. 392.
2. van Mossel, A.; van Rijnsoever, F.J.; Hekkert, M.P. Navigators through the storm: A review of organization theories and the
behavior of incumbent firms during transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 26, 44–63. [CrossRef]
3. Strøm-Andersen, N. Incumbents in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation
Strategies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5044. [CrossRef]
4. Hansen, T.; Coenen, L. Unpacking resource mobilisation by incumbents for biorefineries: The role of micro-level factors for
technological innovation system weaknesses. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 500–513. [CrossRef]
5. Birch, K.; Levidow, L.; Papaioannou, T. Sustainable Capital? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European
“Knowledge-based Bio-economy.” Sustainability 2010, 2, 2898–2918. [CrossRef]

22
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

6. Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 2012, 41,
955–967. [CrossRef]
7. Schlaile, M.P.; Urmetzer, S. Transitions to Sustainable Development. In Decent Work and Economic Growth; Leal Filho, W., Azul,
A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–16. ISBN
978-3-319-71058-7.
8. Lyytimäki, J.; Vikström, S.; Furman, E. Voluntary participation for sustainability transition: Experiences from the ‘Commitment to
Sustainable Development 2050’. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 25–36. [CrossRef]
9. Fuenfschilling, L.; Truffer, B. The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Res.
Policy 2014, 43, 772–791. [CrossRef]
10. Geels, F.W. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 495–510.
[CrossRef]
11. Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res.
Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [CrossRef]
12. Smith, A.; Voß, J.-P.; Grin, J. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its
challenges. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 435–448. [CrossRef]
13. Hannon, M. Co-Evolution of Innovative Business Models and Sustainability Transitions: The Case of the Energy Service Company
(ESCo) Model and the UK Energy System. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 2012.
14. Svensson, O.; Nikoleris, A. Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory. Res. Policy 2018,
47, 462–473. [CrossRef]
15. Frantzeskaki, N.; Loorbach, D.; Meadowcroft, J. Governing societal transitions to sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 15, 19.
[CrossRef]
16. Loorbach, D.; Wijsman, K. Business transition management: Exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. J.
Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 20–28. [CrossRef]
17. Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business Models for Sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 264–289. [CrossRef]
18. Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417. [CrossRef]
19. Apajalahti, E.-L. Large Energy Companies in Transition—From Gatekeepers to Bridge Builders; Aalto University: Helsinki, Finland,
2018.
20. Borghei, B.B. Incumbent Actors in Sectoral Transformations Towards Sustainability: A Sociotechnical Study of the European Heavy
Commercial Vehicles Sector; Linköping University Electronic Press: Linköping, Sweden, 2018.
21. Dewald, U.; Achternbosch, M. Why did more sustainable cements failed so far? Disruptive innovations and their barriers in a
basic industry. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2016, 19, 15–30. [CrossRef]
22. Hockerts, K.; Wüstenhagen, R. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new
entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 481–492. [CrossRef]
23. Rodrigo, P.; Muñoz, P.; Wright, A. Transitions dynamics in context: Key factors and alternative paths in the sustainable
development of nations. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 221–234. [CrossRef]
24. Chatzimentor, A.; Apostolopoulou, E.; Mazaris, A.D. A review of green infrastructure research in Europe: Challenges and
opportunities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 198, 103775. [CrossRef]
25. Fischer, D. Comparing transitions: Insights from the economic transition processes in former socialist countries for sustainability
transitions. Osteuropa-Wirtschaft 2010, 55, 289–310.
26. Brown, G.; Kraftl, P.; Pickerill, J.; Upton, C. Holding the Future Together: Towards a Theorisation of the Spaces and Times of
Transition. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Sp. 2012, 44, 1607–1623. [CrossRef]
27. Holtz, G.; Brugnach, M.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Specifying “regime”—A framework for defining and describing regimes in transition
research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 623–643. [CrossRef]
28. Sovacool, B.K.; Turnheim, B.; Martiskainen, M.; Brown, D.; Kivimaa, P. Guides or gatekeepers? Incumbent-oriented transition
intermediaries in a low-carbon era. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 66, 101490. [CrossRef]
29. Johnstone, P.; Stirling, A.; Sovacool, B. Policy mixes for incumbency: Exploring the destructive recreation of renewable energy,
shale gas ‘fracking,’ and nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 33, 147–162. [CrossRef]
30. Hengelaar, G. The Proactive Incumbent: Holy Grail or Hidden Gem? Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
2017.
31. Chandy, R.K.; Tellis, G.J. The Incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation. J. Mark. 2000, 64, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
32. Henderson, R. Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic
Alignment Equipment Industry. RAND J. Econ. 1993, 24, 248. [CrossRef]
33. Mitchell, W. Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets
retain their value. Strateg. Manag. J. 1991, 12, 85–100. [CrossRef]
34. Mitchell, W.; Singh, K. Death of the Lethargic: Effects of Expansion into New Technical Subfields on Performance in a Firm’s Base
Business. Organ. Sci. 1993, 4, 152–180. [CrossRef]
35. Kungl, G. Stewards or sticklers for change? Incumbent energy providers and the politics of the German energy transition. Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 8, 13–23. [CrossRef]

23
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

36. Fligstein, N.; McAdam, D. A Theory of Fields; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 0199859957.
37. Smink, M.M.; Hekkert, M.P.; Negro, S.O. Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional
strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2015, 24, 86–101. [CrossRef]
38. Turnheim, B.; Sovacool, B.K. Forever stuck in old ways? Pluralising incumbencies in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transit. 2020, 35, 180–184. [CrossRef]
39. Hörisch, J. How business actors can contribute to sustainability transitions: A case study on the ongoing animal welfare transition
in the German egg industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 1155–1165. [CrossRef]
40. Lindberg, M.B.; Markard, J.; Andersen, A.D. Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy
policy mix. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103668. [CrossRef]
41. Matschoss, K.; Heiskanen, E. Innovation intermediary challenging the energy incumbent: Enactment of local socio-technical
transition pathways by destabilisation of regime rules. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 1455–1469. [CrossRef]
42. Geels, F.W. Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 39, 187–201. [CrossRef]
43. Geels, F.W. Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective.
Theory Cult. Soc. 2014, 31, 21–40. [CrossRef]
44. Walz, R.; Köhler, J. Using lead market factors to assess the potential for a sustainability transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
2014, 10, 20–41. [CrossRef]
45. Sovacool, B.K.; Brisbois, M.-C. Elite power in low-carbon transitions: A critical and interdisciplinary review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
2019, 57, 10. [CrossRef]
46. Hess, D.J. Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 278–283. [CrossRef]
47. Kallio, L.; Heiskanen, E.; Apajalahti, E.-L.; Matschoss, K. Farm power: How a new business model impacts the energy transition
in Finland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 65, 101484. [CrossRef]
48. Wolff, S.; Brönner, M.; Held, M.; Lienkamp, M. Transforming automotive companies into sustainability leaders: A concept for
managing current challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124179. [CrossRef]
49. Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd ed.; Harper & Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1950.
50. Berggren, C.; Magnusson, T.; Sushandoyo, D. Transition pathways revisited: Established firms as multi-level actors in the heavy
vehicle industry. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1017–1028. [CrossRef]
51. Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
2011, 1, 24–40. [CrossRef]
52. Bosman, R.; Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pistorius, T. Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transit. 2014, 13, 45–59. [CrossRef]
53. Markard, J. The life cycle of technological innovation systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 153, 119407. [CrossRef]
54. Mossberg, J.; Söderholm, P.; Hellsmark, H.; Nordqvist, S. Crossing the biorefinery valley of death? Actor roles and networks in
overcoming barriers to a sustainability transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 27, 83–101. [CrossRef]
55. Geels, F.W. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72, 681–696. [CrossRef]
56. Kuokkanen, A.; Nurmi, A.; Mikkilä, M.; Kuisma, M.; Kahiluoto, H.; Linnanen, L. Agency in regime destabilization through the
selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 1513–1522. [CrossRef]
57. Kungl, G.; Geels, F.W. Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilisation: Understanding the downfall of
incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998–2015). Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 26, 78–100. [CrossRef]
58. Mignon, I.; Kanda, W. A typology of intermediary organizations and their impact on sustainability transition policies. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 29, 100–113. [CrossRef]
59. Elzen, B.; van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses.
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2012, 5, 1–18. [CrossRef]
60. Haigh, N.; Hoffman, A.J. Hybrid Organizations: The Next Chapter in Sustainable Business. SSRN Electron. J. 2011, 41. [CrossRef]
61. Black, J.; Hashimzade, N.; Myles, G. A Dictionary of Economics. Incumbent Firm, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2009; ISBN 9780199237043.
62. Cameron, D.R. Creating Market Economies after Communism: The Impact of the European Union. Post-Sov. Aff. 2009, 25, 1–38.
[CrossRef]
63. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė Nutarimas Nr. 1160. Dėl Nacionalinės Darnaus Vystymosi Strategijos Patvirtinimo ir Igyven-
dinimo. Valstyb. Žinios. 2003. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.217644/WPqyZkDuCy
(accessed on 25 October 2021).
64. Tõnurist, P. Framework for analysing the role of state owned enterprises in innovation policy management: The case of energy
technologies and Eesti Energia. Technovation 2015, 38, 1–14. [CrossRef]
65. Dawson, L. Unravelling Sustainability: The Complex Dynamics of Emergent Environmental Governance and Management Systems at
Multiple Scales; Stockholm University: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019.
66. Lynn, N.J. Geography and Transition: Reconceptualizing Systemic Change in the Former Soviet Union. Slavic Rev. 1999, 58,
824–840. [CrossRef]

24
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12877

67. Smith, A. From Convergence to Fragmentation: Uneven Regional Development, Industrial Restructuring, and the ‘Transition to
Capitalism’ in Slovakia. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Sp. 1996, 28, 135–156. [CrossRef]
68. Bouzarovski, S.; Tirado Herrero, S.; Petrova, S.; Frankowski, J.; Matoušek, R.; Maltby, T. Multiple transformations: Theorizing
energy vulnerability as a socio-spatial phenomenon. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2017, 99, 20–41. [CrossRef]
69. Ferenčuhová, S. Not so global climate change? Representations of post-socialist cities in the academic writings on climate change
and urban areas. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2020, 61, 686–710. [CrossRef]
70. Punytė, I.; Simonaitytė, K. Darnaus Vystymosi Tikslu˛ Integravimas ˛i Kompleksinius Teritorinius Planus. Darnaus Vystymosi Tikslai ir
Planavimo Sistema Lietuvoje: Esamos Situacijos Analizė; Kurk Lietuvai: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2018.
71. Leal Filho, W.; Platje, J.; Gerstlberger, W.; Ciegis, R.; Kääriä, J.; Klavins, M.; Kliucininkas, L. The role of governance in realising the
transition towards sustainable societies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 755–766. [CrossRef]
72. Van der Byl, C.A.; Slawinski, N. Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: A Review of Research From Win-Wins and
Trade-Offs to Paradoxes and Beyond. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 54–79. [CrossRef]
73. McGrail, S.; Halamish, E.; Teh-White, K.; Clark, M. Diagnosing and anticipating social issue maturation: Introducing a new
diagnostic framework. Futures 2013, 46, 50–61. [CrossRef]
74. Žydžiūnaitė, V.; Sabaliauskas, S. Kokybiniai Tyrimai: Principai ir Metodai: Vadovėlis Socialiniu˛ Mokslu˛ Studiju˛ Programu˛ Studentams;
Vaga: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017.
75. Engert, S.; Baumgartner, R.J. Corporate sustainability strategy—bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. J.
Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 822–834. [CrossRef]
76. Rotter, A.; Gostincar, C. A Defense of Eastern European Science. Science 2014, 343, 839. [CrossRef]
77. Sutcliffe, L.M.E.; Batáry, P.; Kormann, U.; Báldi, A.; Dicks, L.V.; Herzon, I.; Kleijn, D.; Tryjanowski, P.; Apostolova, I.; Arlettaz, R.;
et al. Harnessing the biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland. Divers. Distrib. 2015, 21, 722–730. [CrossRef]

25
 sustainability

Article
Decisions by Key Office Building Stakeholders to Build or
Retrofit Green in Toronto’s Urban Core
Prescott C. Ensign 1, *, Shawn Roy 2 and Tom Brzustowski †

1 Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON N2L3C7, Canada
2 Offsets and Partner Engagement, MDA, Ottawa, ON K2E8B2, Canada; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† Deceased 19 June 2020. Officer of the Order of Canada, Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering,
Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, First provost of the University of Waterloo, former deputy minister in
the Government of Ontario, president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council for over
10 years, senior advisor to the Institute for Quantum Computing. Honorary member of the Royal Military
College of Canada as well as honorary degrees from University of Guelph, Ryerson Polytechnic University,
University of Waterloo, McMaster University, University of Alberta, Université d’Ottawa, École Polytechnic
de Montréal, Concordia University, Brock University, University of Victoria, York University, University of
Northern British Columbia, Carleton University and Lakehead University.

Abstract: The environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from buildings—especially in

global cities such as Toronto—is well documented. Green mitigation of new and existing buildings
has also been researched. Few studies, however, have focused on the decision to build or retrofit
green. Are key stakeholders in Toronto’s office building sector aligning their decisions to achieve
sustainable environmental goals? Do they support LEED certification regardless of the impact on
market valuation? Are tenants willing to pay higher rents in LEED office buildings? The study first
obtained data on 16 LEED and 52 conventional buildings to determine if LEED certification has a
significant impact on net asking rent. Pearson correlation and linear regression analysis did not find
Citation: Ensign, P.C.; Roy, S.; LEED certification to be statistically significant in explaining the variance in net asking rent (market
Brzustowski, T. Decisions by Key value). The second stage included interviews with senior executives engaged in Toronto’s office
Office Building Stakeholders to Build building sector. The expert informtabants were asked to assess if financial drivers are the deciding
or Retrofit Green in Toronto’s Urban factor in decisions to pursue LEED certification. They concurred that LEED certification is not the
Core. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969. primary driver. It is a combination of numerous factors that overall have an impact on a firm’s
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126969 financial bottom line.

Academic Editor: Ioannis Nikolaou Keywords: green buildings; LEED certification; real estate development process; drivers of sustainability

Received: 3 March 2021

Accepted: 31 May 2021
Published: 21 June 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Global warming and climate change are well-established facts that call for mitigation
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and adaptation actions in the building sector [1]. Some argue that the potential to address
published maps and institutional affil- climate change by green technology is underestimated. Action is needed both in new con-
iations. struction and deep energy retrofits in existing buildings [2–5]. It is especially important in
Canada where the building sector accounts for 12 percent of overall greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions [6]. Toronto’s GHG emissions emitted in 2018 from residential, commercial
and industrial buildings totaled 55 percent or 8.9 megatonnes, an increase of 13 percent
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
compared to 2017 [7]. Toronto’s City Council declared a climate emergency on October 2,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
2019, joining a global call to recognize the urgency of the climate crisis. To underscore this,
This article is an open access article
the City Council adopted a stronger emissions reduction target for Toronto—net zero by
distributed under the terms and 2050 or sooner [7].
conditions of the Creative Commons The federal and provincial governments in Canada have also acted on climate change
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// by setting carbon mitigation targets for the year 2030 based on the Paris Climate Agreement
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and the Pan-Canadian Framework. In December 2020 Ottawa announced plans to raise
4.0/). the federal carbon tax to Canadian dollar (CAD) 170 a tonne by 2030, up from the current

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126969 27 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

CAD 30 a tonne [8]. An increase in the carbon tax acts as a negative reinforcement to
encourage energy efficiency improvements; this has proved to be successful in mitigating
GHG emission [2]. The objective of these efforts is to link the efficiency and productivity of
buildings to the goal of achieving the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) [9]. This will not be easy to achieve and leadership matters.
Interest in sustainable and ecologically benign green office buildings has gained
momentum over the past 20 years in Canada. One indicator is the growth in LEED—
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—certified projects in Canada. LEED
is one of the most widely recognized green building rating systems in the world. Prior
to 2005 Canada had less than 200 buildings registered with LEED [10]. According to the
Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) by the end of 2018 Canada had a cumulative total
of 3254 LEED certified projects with a total of 46.81 million gross square meters [11]. The
significant increase in projects indicates a strong commitment to buildings that promote a
healthier, more sustainable future. In order for Canada to continue its position as a leader
in the adoption of green commercial construction projects it is important to understand
the factors that contribute to this growth in sustainable building development. Toronto—
Canada’s largest office market—is an ideal test site for understanding this issue.
The purpose of this study is to address the question: Why are key office build-
ing stakeholders—real estate developers, institutional investors and owner landlords—
deciding to build or retrofit green in Toronto’s urban core? The particular interest for this
study is to determine (1) the impact of LEED certification on office building market rent
valuation, and (2) to identify the financial and non-financial factors that influence the initial
decision to build or retrofit green.

2. Conceptual Framework for the Study

Green construction and retrofitting of buildings will play an important role in reversing
climate change. This calls for mitigation and adaptation actions at the local, national,
regional and global level. This exploratory study looks at the decisions by key stakeholders
to build or retrofit office buildings green in Toronto’s prime commercial office market. The
framework for this study is developed from an examination of contextual studies and
process theories drawn from a number of different disciplines that address this decision.

2.1. Place-Based Context

Contextual place-based studies on the construction and retrofitting of commercial
office buildings adds to our global understanding for green advocacy. More importantly, lo-
cation specific research can lead to developing and implementing a range of approaches for
green intervention that result in sustainable development strategies. This study helps to fill
the gap in research on cities such as Toronto (central urban population 2.9 m/total greater
Toronto area population 6.8 m) that have successfully transitioned to a post-industrialised
economy. These cities have a large population and central business district (CBD) urban
core with a prime commercial office building market.
Based on a review of studies that focus specifically on green office buildings in
large urban settings, there are three studies that provide insight. These studies looked at
buildings in Singapore, Milan and Hong Kong. The 2009 study of 400 users of commercial
buildings in the city-state of Singapore (5.7 m) found that office occupants were reluctant to
invest in and/or occupy a green building (GB) [12]. One wonders how these respondents
would respond twelve years later. The study of Mangialardo et al. [13] published in 2018
analysed 55 office building projects in Milan (3.1 m), Italy’s most flourishing real estate
market. Their findings indicate that rent premiums and higher prices are generated in
LEED certified properties. Additionally, green properties are absorbed by the market in less
than half the time when compared to those without green certification [14]. The 2019 study
that looked at the city of Hong Kong (7.5 m) by Wadu Mesthrige and Chan [15] found
that developer and investor stakeholders were uncertain and sceptical about the financial
rewards of green certification. The quantitative study tested the factual basis for these

28
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

inhibiters with the actions of the real estate market. A hedonic-model of rent (market) and
building attributes including green certification was used to assess their sample of 67 green
and non-green prime office buildings. The findings suggest that: green certified office space
added value to the property; and tenants were willing to pay 10.9% higher rent than for
comparable non-green space. These studies help to support the view that green real estate
development can and does make a significant contribution to the economic, environmental
and social sustainability of global cities such as Milan, Hong Kong and Toronto.
On the issue of place/location, the Simons et al. [16] study on the US city of Cleveland
(1.8 m) points to the reality that land in a city’s urban core is finite and most of it already
has existing buildings. When a footprint in the urban core comes on the market a number
of developers with competing uses vie for the property. Each developer’s plan will have
varying degrees of positive and negative environmental, social and economic impact. The
point is that a green building project involves numerous stakeholders and potentially
incompatible concerns.

2.2. Decision Process to Build Green

Our review of relevant literature included studies that examined the decision process
in a green commercial office building project. Graaskamp [17] raises the question: ‘Who
participates in the decision process?’ The answer is very few at the initial decision point,
compared to the large number of persons who are involved in designing, selecting sys-
tems, engineering and government approval. This issue is investigated by Goubran and
Cucuzzella [18]. Their Province of Québec study (2019) looked at how localised projects
could integrate the 2030 SDGs Agenda into the building design team process. This team
activity is moved downstream from the upstream process where the critical decision is
made to build green. This initiating decision is an outcome of a logical process [19].
One widely used theoretical process approach for examining decision making at
the micro-level is the entrepreneurial process model suggested by Timmons et al. [20].
It provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of aligning the three critical
components—opportunity, resources and team—that will drive the decision. This ap-
proach would view the key stakeholders (real estate developers) as acting such as serial en-
trepreneurs who approach each new project as though it is the formation of a new venture.
Another widely used process framework for understanding decision-making is to
look at a firm’s business model as dynamic that is adjusting, balancing and evolving over
time. As Teece notes:
‘The essence of a business model is in defining the manner by which the enterprise
delivers value to customers, entices customers to pay for value, and converts
those payments to profit. It thus reflects management’s hypothesis about what
customers want, how they want it, and how the enterprise can organize to best
meet those needs, get paid for doing so, and make a profit’ [21].
A firm’s business model is reflected in the key internal stakeholders’ decisions and
motivations related to green office buildings [22]. Traditional business models view value
creation in a one direction flow as opposed to business models that focus on sustain-
ability [23]. A change to a firm’s business model is not an insignificant change in the
assumptions that guide the organization in shaping its value proposition to clients, balanc-
ing resources in its ecosystem and generates cash flow [20]. The business model canvas [24]
is especially useful for analysis of the decisions that are made at the firm level, but it
requires access to considerable internal information. Joyce and Paquin’s [25] triple lay-
ered (economic, environmental and social) business model canvas study is a particularly
useful approach.
However, Comin et al. [26] note that access to sufficient information is needed. Few
sustainable business models presented in the literature offer explicit ways of operationaliz-
ing the proposed models. Preghenella and Battistella’s [23] bibliographic review presents
an overarching theoretical framework for mapping the research streams of business models
for sustainability. Based on their findings they concluded that the sustainability role in a

29
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

company business model is still undefined in the research. This points to the benefit of an
exploratory study that focuses on the decision process.
Perhaps the best approach is to look at the field of real estate that has its own practi-
tioner devised and applied process model. It takes into consideration that: (1) the metrics
of each urban core real estate project are unique; and (2) the development process is of-
ten more political than economic. In a free market economy, each new building project
is an opportunity for society and key stakeholders to negotiate, debate and reconsider
who pays, who benefits, who risks and who has standing to participate in the decision
process [17]. Whether conventional or green, most real estate development processes
are similar. Zaccack [27] presents it conceptually as a six-stage process: idea inception,
feasibility, pre-construction, construction, operation and measure. The first three stages
of the process are directly applicable to this study. During the idea inception stage, the
developer will do initial studies on the market, design, zoning, and financing to understand
the possibilities available. This stage is typically conducted internally (developer, owner
and investor) and rarely includes outside consultants. During the feasibility stage, external
consultants are hired beginning with an architect and other professionals including LEED.
Working with the firm they develop a feasibility study including conceptual designs, mar-
ket studies, permit documents and information needed to decide whether to pursue the
opportunity and implement the project. During the pre-construction stage, the developer
has fully engaged a development team and an array of outside consultants to get the project
ready for construction. The team will undertake value engineering and redesigning to
ensure the project is within budget. A major part of this process includes obtaining public
approval from governing agencies or departments and making public announcements and
presentations to win support of the larger community. Marketing of office space will start
early in this stage.
In summary, the three conceptual models of the development process—entrepreneurial,
business and real estate—could be condensed into a single conceptual framework but the
real estate development process model provides the most suitable framework for this
specific study. The real estate development process starts with the idea inception stage and
identifies those that will be directly involved in the decision to build green. It also indicates
those who are not directly involved in the initiating decision. The real estate development
process, however, does not provide details on the financial and non-financial influences
that impact or drive the initiating decision to build green.

2.3. Financial Factors

From a contextual place-based perspective, urban core office buildings are often
referred to as prime properties based on the value that accrues to them because of their
location. Based on geography, the bid rent theory holds that the price and demand for
real estate declines as the distance from the CBD increases [28]. This rent gradient is
the marginal cost of distance. Simons et al. [16] note that the rent gradient of a property
significantly influences the competitive actions of real estate developers. Making decisions
about prime property in the CBD rent gradient are high-stakes decisions.
Most studies start with the idea that the major influence on key stakeholders when
making the decision to build green will be financial. This focus is evident from the number
of empirical studies trying to assess the financial benefits of green buildings. These studies
include research in the US [29]; US and Canada [30]; Singapore [31]; and England [32].
Wadu Mesthrige and Chan [15] looked at prime commercial office buildings in Hong Kong
used a hedonic-model of rent and building attributes. A US study conducted in 2018 by
Fuerst et al. [33] also used a hedonic model. They looked at the price investors paid in
sealed bid auctions for foreclosed commercial real estate. Their study analyzed price paid
(dependent variable) and various other building attributes including the classification of
the building as eco-certified (independent variables). A significant finding was that in the
Class A office market segment, eco-certified space (LEED and/or Energy Star) had become
part of the Class A office sector and not a niche submarket. LEED building certification

30
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

had become a factor in the property’s market valuation, defined as premium rent [34]. This
calculation shapes the investment decisions of developers, investors and owner landlords
in determining the degree to that they will pursue specific green building attributes. The
question then is, has LEED become a major hedonic factor such as location, design, or age
that define a commercial office building as ‘investment quality’? [29].

2.4. Non-Financial Factors

There is an equally important body of empirical research that examines various cate-
gories of drivers that influence key stakeholders when making the decision to build green.
This research stream was developed in 2010 by Falkenbach et al. [35] It is based on a compre-
hensive review of literature. They compiled a list of drivers that impacted decisions by real
estate investors. They identified 10 drivers or benefits from environmentally sustainable
buildings. Darko et al. [36] expanded this perspective from real estate investors to a number
of stakeholders involved in building construction. This 2017 study identified 64 drivers
from a review of 42 selected empirical studies. These were conceptualized in a theoretical
framework consisting of five major classifications of green building decision drivers or
inhibitors—corporate level, external level, property level, project level, and individual
level. Darko et al.’s [36] expansion to include the perspective of more stakeholders follows
Zhang’s [37] 2015 review of literature. She looked at green development to identify the
various stakeholders involved throughout the real estate development process.
Other studies have expanded this investigation of drivers. Whitney et al. [38] looked
at the issue of energy usage in Canadian commercial office buildings. Taking a commercial
property investor’s perspective, a 2020 study by Leskinen et al. [39] reviewed 70 empirical
studies that looked at the impact of green certification on discounted cash flow and value.
They link these financial factors to property level drivers influencing sustainable building
adoption that was suggested by Falkenbach et al. [35] and Darko et al. [36]. A relevant factor
that Leskinen et al. [39] looked at is the growing interest in responsible property investing by
real estate companies and real estate investment trusts (REIT). These investors are shifting
from an asset level approach to a portfolio level approach. In summary, all of the studies
that looked at drivers/influencers consider the financial and non-financial factors that
shape the decisions of real estate developers, institutional investors and owner landlords.
There are several other conceptual areas of research on decision making that are worth
noting. The first is the emerging area of game theory-based analysis of decision making
for building or retrofitting green, especially in relation to state provided incentives and/or
regulation of developers [40–42]. A second is the expanding area grounded in human
behavior theories from psychology and sociology. Another approach deals with ethics
and social responsibility discussed in the 2010 research of Eichholtz et al. [43]. They view
their study as the first credible evidence on the economic value of a building’s certification
as green from the perspective of impersonal market transactions rather than engineering
estimates. In addition to the direct effects of energy savings, they found that there were
intangible effects of green certification that also have a role in determining the market
value of green buildings in the marketplace. It is not just rental rates and construction
cost per square foot. It can also be ‘doing good’ at the individual level and corporate
social responsibility level. This raises the issue: is it actually ‘doing good’ or is it self-
reporting that they are ‘intending to do good’? Research in the field of consumer behavior
has long recognized the gap between an individual’s intention and behavior [44]. Zhang
et al. [45] surveyed the driver mechanisms influencing 156 developers on their action to
do redevelopment of industrial brownfields in China. The study concluded that altruistic
motives (awareness of responsibility) can close the gap between intention and behavior. An
awareness of consequences did not. They reasoned that real estate developers as a group are
primarily seeking profit. The fact that green redevelopment could have positive influences
on others was not a significant factor to voluntarily engage in green redevelopment.
Contextually, our exploratory study is the first empirical research that examines the
impact of LEED certification on property values in Toronto’s prime commercial office

31
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

market. Conceptually, it uses the real estate development process to identify the point that
the decision to build green is initiated and the key stakeholders who make this decision.
Finally, in a very general way, it seeks to identify financial and non-financial drivers that
influence the decision to build or retrofit green. The importance of our research study is
that it comes at a critical time for researchers, stakeholders and policy makers if they are to
increase efforts to address the issues of global warming and climate change.

3. Decision to Build or Retrofit Green

It is increasingly recognized that real estate development solutions to support SDGs
and GHG emission standards will require fundamental changes with regard to how busi-
ness is conducted. The diversity and creativity in office building architecture suggests
an industry open to change. A major part of the pre-construction stage of the real estate
development process centers on engagement with government departments and the public
suggesting transparency. However, as noted, the decision of whether to build/retrofit
green is made by a few stakeholders early in a project’s development process [30]. This
is supported in the literature [38,39]. The key stakeholders are real estate developers,
institutional investors and owner landlords. This suggests that it is a rather closed process.

3.1. Decision to Use LEED Certification

LEED certification in Canada is under the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC).
New and major commercial renovations come under LEED Canada NC (new construction)
rating system. LEED Canada EB: O&M (existing building: operation and maintenance)
provides an entry point into LEED certification for owner landlords of existing build-
ings [46]. In 2018 Canada placed third in number and square footage of LEED projects
worldwide—after the United States and China [12]. Commenting on these efforts Thomas
Mueller President and CEO of CaGBC notes:
‘Canada’s building industry is demonstrating how business and sustainability
can go hand in hand . . . owners and developers are increasingly making LEED
an integral part of doing business spurring demand for innovative products . . .
in the process creating jobs and positive bottom lines’ [47].
Will these GB efforts be new office construction or retrofitting of existing buildings?
Compared to other global financial centers, Toronto’s downtown CBD office space has an
extremely low vacancy rate with demand outpacing supply. Downtown Toronto’s office
vacancy rate fluctuated between one and two percent with an inventory of 91.3 million
square feet prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. The asking rent (exclusive of premiums) at
the start of the third quarter 2020 was CAD 39.02 per square foot. New office projects that
are underway will add 9.4 million square feet. It is estimated that 10 to 15 new projects
are anticipated in the next decade [48–50]. The greatest potential for addressing Toronto’s
growing concerns on GHG emissions, energy-efficiency and operating costs will be created
by the greening of existing non-green office buildings and renovating early GBs with older
and less efficient green technologies [3–5]. In order for Canada to continue its position in
LEED projects, especially in Toronto (Canada’s largest commercial real estate market), key
stakeholders will need to lead this effort. It is important to understand: the role that key
office building stakeholders have in making decisions to pursue a green agenda, and the
factors that contribute to their decisions of whether to go green.

3.2. Decision-Making by Key Stakeholders

3.2.1. Real Estate Developers
Real estate developers have a key role in the real estate development process. They
bring together all of the many stakeholders involved in this process—from idea inception
to construction. It is during this process that decisions are made to build or retrofit green. In
the absence of a government mandate, real estate developers are the ones who match market
demand with the supply of green or conventional office buildings. Although environmental
certification protocols such as LEED define, measure and evaluate various levels of green

32
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

in buildings it is the developer who balances a project’s economic, environmental and

social aspects. This is evident in the fact that real estate developers begin to market new
office space well in advance of construction. Their goal is full occupancy, or a very high
percentage of occupancy attained before construction is completed. Mangialardo et al.’s [13]
study of office buildings in Milan found that LEED certified properties generated rent
premiums and higher prices and they were leased in half the time compared non-green.
When a GB is selected for a new construction project it is critical to first determine
which LEED protocols are achievable and incorporate them at an early stage in the project.
At that point, these features can be integrated, effectively supporting each other throughout
the project [51]. Sustainable buildings and efficiency measures are vital to both developer
and tenants but the potential for efficiency and savings is not the same to both. The actual
performance of a GB is inevitably connected to the behavior of its occupants—how they
actually use energy and resources. These factors can significantly reduce a green building’s
positive environmental impact [52].
Real estate developers and institutional investors are understandably uncertain about
how far to pursue environmental investments because much of the economic rationale for
the development of GBs—especially energy costs—is based on site or sub-market specific
evidence [29]. It is also difficult for developers to determine what the most cost-effective
methods of greening their projects are because buildings can be sources of environmental
degradation during their construction, operation, and demolition that requires a life-cycle
or cradle-to-grave assessment [53,54].

3.2.2. Institutional Investors

The actions of institutional equity investors in commercial office building develop-
ment can exercise considerable influence on how sustainable property-related issues are
addressed. In 2000, Bartlett and Howard [55] challenged the traditional focus of GB deci-
sions on cost benefit and value methods that indicated GBs cost 5% to 15% more to build.
They suggested that decision-makers should consider the whole life cost and environmen-
tal impact of buildings. Ten years later, Chegut et al. [56] looked at income performance of
the UK’s green commercial real estate sector. They reported that GBs received 21% higher
rental and 26% higher sales transaction prices both per net square meter, but they added
a caveat—that rental contract features (lease term, rent free period, days on the market,
etc.) decrease these rental premiums about 5%. Zhang et al.’s [57] “Turning green into
gold” offers a comprehensive review of the financial side of ‘going green’. They distinguish
between profitability from a building life cycle perspective by major market participants
and economic viability perspective by developers and occupants. Hsieh et al. [58] shifts
the discussion from owner’s benefits to an examination of capital markets including insti-
tutional investors and building green. Their findings indicate that the cost of equity capital
for the development of LEED certification green buildings was lower. Prior studies have
reported higher cost of equity capital during the development period [59].
While there is no question that financial considerations play a primary role in the deci-
sions of institutional investors, it is also true that over the past twenty years non-economic
consideration have gained a place in the equation and in corporate public reporting [60].
The institutional investors partnering with real estate developers in commercial office
buildings in Toronto include pension, endowment and mutual funds; insurance companies;
and commercial banks. All of them have had to adjust to corporate social responsibil-
ity policies; socially responsible investment; and environmental, social and governance
(ESG) sustainable investing. There is a direct link between investor’s financial metrics, the
efficiency and productivity of building projects and achieving the 2030 United Nations
Agenda and its 17 SDGs [9]. Globally, society is expecting the public and private sectors to
take the lead in adopting sustainable practices that address critical ESG issues.
Nevertheless, while some studies have found evidence on social and corporate respon-
sibility with no strings attached—simply doing good [43]—much of the evidence points
to financial motives [51]. In order to persuade developers, investors, and owners of the

33
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

benefits of eco-investments, the payoff from investment in green buildings needs to be

identified. Early studies found the strongest drivers of responsible property investing to be
traditional considerations such as opportunities to outperform the market [61]. Evidence
continues to emerge that LEED labelled buildings achieve a higher financial return than
conventional buildings in terms of rental and sales prices. Overall, a green premium
is considered to be a potential driver of investment in labelled buildings [62]. To date,
however, it is still unclear to what extent the adoption of green practices and expectation
for financial performance are changing business models from traditional to sustainable,
especially when applied to specific geographic markets [63].

3.2.3. Owner Landlords

Many commercial building owners are single occupant firms that contract for the
construction of an office building on land they have purchased. This type of owner
constructs a LEED certifiable building to house its employees and bear its corporate name.
In this study the focus is on a separate category of owners—owner landlords—that seek
an equity investment in an office building producing rental income from commercial
tenants and leaseholders. Qui et al.’s [64] study of commercial buildings in the state of
New York found that if the buildings were owner occupied there was less likelihood of
green certification. Real estate developers and owner landlords are very often one and the
same, but owner landlords can also be institutional investors such as pension funds that
participate in the building’s entire life cycle. Once constructed they usually contract with a
property management firm or real estate agency to handle marketing, tenant relations and
manage building operations.
LEED building characteristics are a factor in property market valuation (premium
rents) and the operating cost for owner landlords. These calculations shape the investment
decisions of developers, investors and owner landlords in determining the degree that they
will pursue specific green building attributes. The main traditional hedonic factors that
define a commercial office building as ‘investment quality’ are: location; condition; design;
quantity and quality of floor space; amenities and service; adaptability to the requirements
of a tenant; and infrastructure, proximity to transportation and communications [29]. In
assessing the contributing value of these attributes, professional property appraisers such as
the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors will search for and analyze comparable market
data. Owner landlord decisions based on sustainability factors will focus on the ‘green
benefits’ that accrue over the life of the building. Therefore, in the real estate development
process, owner landlords will primarily be interested in the GB cost/benefit analysis [65]
pre-construction phase or architect’s design phase [66]. Once the developer hires an
architect and consultants on sustainability, engineering, geotechnical, landscape, interior,
general contractor, legal, etc., the work can begin. Operationally, building information
modelling (BIM) tools are used to assess the buildings environmental sustainability that
can include a life cycle assessment (LCA) and lifecycle costing (LCC) analysis [67].
Beginning in the pre-construction phase the developer will begin to market space in
the new building, providing the first ‘market test’. Tenants that choose to lease/rent space
in a LEED certified office building usually sign a triple net lease. The tenants receive the
direct benefits from operating cost reduction in LEED certified office space. The developers,
investors or owner landlords receive the benefit of higher lease rates paid by tenants [68].
If tenants are willing to pay a higher rate it is an indication that the market is responding
favorably to LEED certified office space. When determining to what extent investors and
developers should bear additional costs—in efforts to design and construct more socially
responsible property—it is important to keep in mind that market supply and demand
factors dictate the rental level. Ultimately it is the business productivity of tenants that
dictates the tenant’s ability to pay [69]. For investors, this means that it is important to
consider the economic impact that green buildings have on tenants, including economic
benefits such as reduced employee health care costs and sick leave as well as increased
performance of employees [13].

34
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

Research conducted at Carnegie Mellon University for the US government found that
costs associated with employees amounted to 78 percent of total costs. Costs linked directly
to the building—rent, operations, maintenance, and office—made up only 9 percent [70].
Many of the cost/benefit studies conducted in the past have used these figures in attempts
to estimate the economic gains that can be attained from improvements in the indoor
environment offered by green buildings. Even with the best information available, there
is still a high level of uncertainty with estimates on health and associated economic gains
from improvements in the indoor environment. The largest source of uncertainty is the
degree that these health effects could be reduced through practical changes in building
design, operation, and maintenance [71]. To date, indoor environment quality of green
offices studies report occupants’ positive responses but have a lack of evaluating research
on the performance and identification of individual indoor environment quality factors [72].
Such research would help tenants decide if they wanted to rent in a green building and
would guide developers and owners in the decision to build green.

4. Research Methodology
4.1. Study Objectives
This exploratory study has two objectives. The first is to determine the impact of
LEED certification on the market value (expressed as asking rent) for Toronto’s CBD
urban core office buildings. Studies have found that that there is a premium for LEED-
labeled buildings both in terms of rent and sales price [73,74]. The literature suggests
that green certification creates a market premium for green labeled buildings. This in
turn increases green certification adoption and green construction and retrofitting by
key stakeholder decision makers [62]. In accordance with the market and dynamics of
Toronto’s office building real estate, the existence of green rent premiums could potentially
drive the investment and development of new LEED-labeled buildings, as well as the
green-retrofitting of the existing uncertified buildings [75].
The second objective of this study is to identify the factors that influence key stakeholders—
real estate developers, institutional investors, and owner landlords—with regard to whether
or not to seek LEED certification for their office buildings. This initial decision takes
place during the idea inception stage of the real estate development process [17]. It is
primarily an internal decision with only a few executive level personnel participating in
the decision [27]. Both quantitative [13] and qualitative [39] research studies suggest that
the decisions by most stakeholders are driven by financial factors. Research studies that
examine corporate sustainability performance such as meeting 2030 UN SDGs or ESG
targeted-REITs, however, indicate that non-financial factors are the primary drivers during
the decision-making process [42].
Based on these objectives, two hypotheses are proposed. Hypothesis (H1 ): LEED
certification will have a significant positive factor in the asking rent (market value) of
office buildings in Toronto’s CBD urban core. Hypothesis (H2 ): Financial drivers will
be more influential than non-financial drivers in a key stakeholder’s decision to pursue
LEED certification.
The study’s research design uses two stages. The first stage was designed to obtain
quantitative data for a statistical analysis of specific tangible building variables in relation-
ship to market asking rent valuation to test Hypothesis (H1 ). The statistical data provides
an analysis, answer and insight on the first hypothesis. The second stage consisted of inter-
views with experts in Toronto’s real estate development sector. It provided qualitative data
to test Hypothesis (H2 ). The interview data offers clarification, explanation and answers to
many of the issues addressed in this study.

4.2. Stage One Reserch Design

Empirical studies continue to find that most decisions on the adoption of LEED
certification are primarily influenced by financial implications. Traditionally one of the
major considerations is market valuation, expressed as the asking rent of office space per

35
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

square foot. This study uses an approach used by similar studies that were conducted
in Milan [14] and Hong Kong [16]. These studies use a hedonic model in the form of an
ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression model based on a fixed effects approach to
the attributes of commercial office property on rental price.
The independent variables that have been shown to be significant determinants on
the dependent variable asking rent are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Studies of hedonic factors impacting office rents.

Author Region Sample Dependent Variable Independent Variables Found to Be Significant

Size
size, age, number of floors, internal parking,
prestigious address, property tax, air quality,
Los Angeles
Clapp [76] 105 Average 1974 asking rent amount of office space within a two-block radius,
metropolitan area
distance by road to nearest motorway junction,
average community time for employees
existence of ‘good’ architecture, distance from
Hough and Kratz Chicago central
139 Average 1978 asking rent CBD, public parking, age, size, number of floors,
1983 [77] business district
availability of conference facility
age, minimum lease term in years, crow fly
Cannaday and Kang Champaign- Urbana, distance to the CBD, crow fly distance to a
24 Average 1979–1980 asking rent
1984 [78] Illinois shopping centre, average unit size, average
number of units per floor
Actual transacted lease values size of building, size of each unit, lease terms,
Brennan, Cannaday,
Chicago central (incorporating lease terms) loss factor (proportion of area rented but not
and Colwell 1984 29
[79] business district within a building from possible to use), position within the building,
1980–1983 location with respect to centre of CBD
Glascock, Jahanian, Baton Rouge, Asking rents of office units location, building type, size, the year in which the
and Sirmans 1990 Louisiana 675
[80] from 1985–1988 property was let
Asking rents and the age, size, parking, internal restaurant, internal
Mills 1992 [81] Chicago 543 discounted rent over the bank, location outside the CBD (but not
period of a 15-year lease subsectors within the CBD)
size, age, location, air conditioning, acoustic
Dunse and Jones 477 tiling, carpeting cellular layout, double glazing,
1998 [82] Glascow, Scotland Asking rents 1994–1995
internal parking, raised floors, tea
preparation area

Building location (theory of rent gradient [28]), age and size were the variables found
to most consistently explain the variation in the dependent variable asking rent. Each
study shows that a variety of building attributes related to rent are significant, but they
appear significant on a less consistent basis than location, age and size, possibly because
the value attributed to them is unique to the particular office market studied. Although
previous studies provide insight on which combinations of variables have been proven
significant in other markets the results are not necessarily transferable to the commercial
office market in Toronto. Based on a review of the independent variables, in these studies
we generated a list of principal determinants of rent for local market areas that could then
be used to construct a model for downtown Toronto. Data from a quantitative analysis
will be used to determine the variance in office rents and whether LEED certification is a
significant independent variable accounting for variance in office rents in the CBD and
northern business district of Toronto.

4.2.1. Data Collection, Sample and Variables

Data Collection. Information related to specific building variables for both LEED
certified buildings and comparable non-LEED buildings was obtained from the Altus
Group Altus InSite database, Canada Green Building Council and Toronto City Hall’s
property assessment database. The Toronto office market in 2016 included 1293 office
buildings with about 160 million square feet of space, nearly three quarters of that is in the
CBD. In addition, Toronto’s downtown core is one that has the highest number of LEED
certified buildings in Canada. This provided a sufficient sample size making it an ideal site
for investigation [83].
Study Sample. Toronto’s main office market has a total office inventory of 75.7 million
square feet. The average gross rent is CAD 42.35 per square foot [84]. Gross rent is the

36
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

monthly rent charged to occupy an office space, calculated to include all operating costs
(i.e., maintenance, taxes, utilities, etc.). Two geographic areas of Toronto’s main office
building market were selected for this study—the Downtown CBD and Northern Toronto
(north part of the old Toronto district). Both of the areas were used. The comparison of
two submarkets will provide for an accounting of various location characteristics that may
impact the value of LEED in any given submarket but are not explicitly accounted for in
this study [34]. CBD urban core office buildings in this study will refer to the area bounded
by Bloor Street to the North, Lake Ontario to the south, the Don River to the East, and
Bathurst Street to the West. Northern Toronto office buildings in this study fall outside of
the CBD urban core. They are approximately 13 km North of 200 Bay Street and are within
a 3.5 km radius of one another. For purposes of this study, 200 Bay Street is considered to
be the center or rent gradient theory point with the most prestigious prime office area in
Toronto. Additionally, when choosing the comparable office buildings for the study, only
those properties selected were ones that had an area in excess of 30,000 square feet and had
an owner landlord but were not owner-occupied (corporate headquarters or offices).
Initially a sample of 114 office buildings was obtained—24 LEED certified (Canada
Green Building Council database) and 90 non-LEED comparable properties (Toronto City
Hall’s building database). The final sample—after being reduced because of study specifi-
cations and limitations related to data availability—provided 16 LEED certified buildings
and 52 non-LEED certified comparable buildings. Geographically, the sample included 21
buildings from Northern Toronto (four LEED certified and 17 comparable buildings) and
47 buildings from Toronto’s CBD (12 LEED certified and 35 comparable buildings). For
each LEED building included in the study attempts were made to include three or more
non-LEED certified but otherwise comparable office buildings (see Table 2).

Table 2. Sample of Toronto commercial office buildings.

Location LEED Certified Non-LEED Totals

CBD Toronto 12 35 47
Northern Toronto 4 17 21
Totals 16 52 68

Study Variables. Eleven independent variables were selected and used in this study.
Although this list is not exhaustive, the selection is consistent with the precedents of prior
research (see Table 1). These eleven provide a comprehensive list of variables (independent
variables) to be used in a hedonic regression analysis model in which the attribute of asking
rent per square foot of an office space in a commercial office building is the dependent
variable. This study uses asking rent as a proxy or measure for current market value.
Attempts were made to obtain data related to actual transacted rents with a number of
owner landlords, real estate brokers and research firms but those were unsuccessful—most
did not want to disclose this information. Although concerns can be raised on the issue of
using asking rents rather than actual transaction price this has been used in most studies.
Dunse and Jones’s [82] study of the office rental market in the city of Glasgow found initial
asking rent and final transacted rent to have a correlation coefficient of 0.98, showing that
the two variables are highly correlated. Oyedokun et. al. [34] cautioned that the academic
hedonic regression models dealing with green rent premium studies need to guard against
three things: missing variables; coefficients based on equilibrium assumptions during
periods of market volatility; and distinguishing between a new and a green office premium
when green offices represent a high proportion of new offices in a study.
Eleven building measurement factors were selected as independent variables. They
were divided into five categories of attributes (see Table 3). The first is the attribute of green
certification—indicated by whether a building is LEED certified. The second category
focuses on a building’s physical and structural attributes. This category included: age;
total building office area, parking stalls per 1000 square feet of leasable office space; and
BOMA metropolitan base definitions for three building Classes: A, B, or C [85]. The third

37
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

category is vacant office space at the time of the study—indicated by the direct percentage
of building spaces available for lease from the landlord or as a sublease from existing
tenants. The fourth category is based on a building’s common area size such as lounges,
atrium, hallways, etc. It is measured by the total additional monthly rent per square
foot that is charged to tenants above asking rent. This charge is the landlord’s costs for
maintaining these areas. Total additional rent is also included due to its impact on the
gross rent that tenants pay. The fifth category that impacts the variation in rent is the office
building’s location (theory of rent gradient [28]). Due to the clustering of buildings in this
study it was determined to calculate the distance of each building from Toronto’s CBD
center point (200 Bay Street). This was used to define location. This Euclidian straight-line
‘as the crow flies’ distance approach was used to account for any variation in office rents
related to building location—variance usually associated with a prestigious address. The
address of 200 Bay Street is at the heart of Toronto’s business district, an area predominantly
occupied by financial institutions and large professional practices. It also commands top
rents for office space, providing justification for its use as the epicenter of the CBD in
this study.

Table 3. Description of property attributes in the model.

Variables and Expected LEED

Location Measure Description
Abbreviation Correlation
Rental price NET RENT Continuous Asking rent per square foot +
Green certification LEED Dummy LEED certified 1.0
CLASS A Dummy Competes for premium users +
Wide range of users, does not
CLASS B Dummy -
Building’s physical compete with Class A
structure CLASS C Dummy Tenants require functional space -
OFFICE AREA Continuous Total building square footage +
Parking spots per 1000 square feet of
PARKING Continuous +
leasable space
AGE Continuous Age of building in years -
% of building space available for
DIRECT Continuous -
Vacant office space lease from landlord at time of study
% of building space available for
SUBLET AVAILABLE Continuous lease from an existing tenant at time -
of study
Total additional charges (per square
Common area size ADDITIONAL RENT Continuous +
foot) over asking rent
Euclidian distance from subject
Location CROW FLY Continuous -
property to 200 Bay Street

4.2.2. Data Analysis

Data gathered in stage one was subjected to two techniques of statistical analysis.
First, the generation of bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r) to statisti-
cally measure the strength and linear direction in paired dyadic relationships for all of
the variables. A correlation matrix was produced from this paired relationship analysis
revealing a range of values from strong negative (−0.931) relationships to strong positive
(+0.650) relationships. The statistical significance of the correlation coefficients (r values)
was measured by a two tailed test probability distribution for p-values at the 0.05 and
0.01 levels.
Second, in keeping with the approach used in a number of studies [86–89], an ordinary
least squares (OLS) linear regression analysis was used. This analysis was used to develop
a hedonic model that statistically accounts for the variance in office asking rents (the
regressand) in relation to eleven office building attributes. Specifically, these findings will
test Hypothesis (H1 )—LEED certification will be a significant positive factor in the asking
rent (market value) of office buildings in Toronto’s CBD urban core.

38
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

4.3. Stage Two Research Design

After quantitative data was collected in the first stage of the research, qualitative
data was obtained in the second stage. The method of collecting this information was
one-on-one interviews with three executive-level experts. This was to obtain first-hand
information on Toronto’s office building sector, where it is on building green and where it is
headed. This method of qualitative empirical research has wide acceptance in social science
research [90]. Experts are considered knowledgeable on a particular subject. They are
identified as experts by virtue of their knowledge, position, and status. As key informants,
experts provide exclusive knowledge, relevant experience, and an executive perspective on
the complexity of decision making involved in adoption of green initiatives such as LEED
certification [88].
Several of Toronto’s large and influential commercial real estate development firms
were contacted and three executives agreed to be interviewed. Interviewee’s statements
were recorded, later transcribed for analysis and are included in the Appendix A. The
credentials of the three executive-level experts were outstanding.
Interviewee 1: serves as Vice President for one of Canada’s largest landlord developers,
and in that role is responsible for the origination and execution of office, industrial, and
land transactions, together with major property portfolios across Canada.
Interviewee 2: serves as Senior Vice President for one of Canada’s largest landlord
developers, and in that role is involved in informing the decision-making that provides the
company with strategic direction.
Interviewee 3: serves as the National Director of Sustainability and Energy Manage-
ment for one of Canada’s largest landlord developers, and in that role informs company
decision-making related to making the company more environmentally responsible and
energy efficient.
A semi-structured expert interview approach was used to ensure that each interviewee
was presented with the same questions; this was to increase the reliability and credibility of
the data. The interviews focused on understanding the financial and non-financial factors
that key stakeholder firms consider with regard to LEED certification during construction
of new office buildings or retrofitting existing ones. Probing questions were asked as
follow-on questions to obtain more in-depth information, especially if answers seemed
insufficient in detail or more clarification to answers was needed. Special attention was
given to reasons they see for changing their focus to green and assessing the impact that
LEED has on market value of their properties. The interview data provides clarifications,
explanations and answers for the second hypothesis: Hypothesis (H2 )—Financial drivers
will be more influential than non-financial drivers in a key stakeholder’s decision whether
to pursue LEED certification. Analysis of the data, especially with a limited number of
interviews, includes a summary by topics and ideas rather than a statistical analysis.

5. Stage One Results and Discussion

5.1. Findings from Correlation Coefficient Matrix
Our first step of analysis was to construct a correlation matrix to determine the
explanatory power of each variable (see Table 4). The results of the correlation matrix
indicate that the correlation of LEED certification with net asking rent is not significant at
the 0.05> level. This finding does not support Hypothesis (H1 ) = LEED certification will
have a significant positive factor in the asking rent (market value) of office buildings in
Toronto’s CBD urban core. The impact of LEED certification on the market value (asking
NET RENT) of an office building was not found to be statistically significant. Although the
correlation of 0.193 was found not to be statistically significant at the 0.05> level a review
of empirical studies suggests several possible interpretations. First, as Fuerst et al. [33]
and Oyedokun et al. [34] suggest, office buildings with LEED certification generally have
other attributes sought by premium office space renters, thus having a higher correlation
with NET RENT. The 0.01> level positive statistically significant correlation between NET
RENT and ADDITIONAL RENT (0.873 **), PARKING (0.616 **), OFFICE AREA (0.566 **)

39
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

and CLASS A (0.489 **) are all quality building attributes that can demand higher rent per
square foot. The high negative correlations between NET RENT and several other attributes
support this conjecture about relationship to building quality. Negatively correlated with
NET RENT are CROW FLY location (−0.608 **), CLASS B (−0.428 **), and CLASS C
(−0.198). While Class A are prestigious buildings and compete for premier office users,
Class B buildings are fair to good in attributes and location; and Class C buildings are
below average for the area and compete for tenants seeking functional space [85].

Table 4. Correlation matrix.

Sublet Available

Additional Rent
Office Area

Crow Fly
Net Rent

Class A

Parking
Class C
Class B

Direct
LEED

Age
NET RENT 1 0.193 0.489 ** −0.428 ** −0.198 0.566 ** 0.616 ** 0.089 0.214 −0.032 0.873 ** −0.608 **
LEED 1 0.394 ** −0.367 ** −0.102 0.230 0.190 −0.197 −0.060 0.025 0.240 −0.104
CLASS A 1 −0.931 ** −0.260 * 0.390 ** 0.368 ** −0.196 0.001 −0.069 0.489 ** −0.110
CLASS B 1 −0.110 −0.348 ** −0.303 * 0.185 0.008 0.019 −0.406 ** 0.081
CLASS C 1 −0.144 −0.201 0.042 −0.022 0.137 −0.256 * 0.085
OFFICE AREA 1 0.550 ** −0.089 0.198 −0.063 0.650 ** −0.297 *
PARKING 1 0.113 0.135 −0.230 0.649 ** −0.455 **
AGE 1 −0.109 0.058 0.031 −0.171
DIRECT 1 −0.038 0.172 0.060
SUBLET −0.152
1 0.015
AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL
RENT 1 −0.576 **
CROW FLY 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Next, consider the correlations between these building attributes and LEED certifi-
cation. The only two attributes that LEED is significantly correlated at the 0.01 > level
are positive with CLASS A (0.396 **) and negative with CLASS B (−0.367 **). The other
attributes that LEED certification has high ratings that offer some insight. There is positive
direction of relationship between LEED with ADDITIONAL RENT (0.240), OFFICE AREA
(0.230) and PARKING (0.190). These three attributes relate to building area and are posi-
tively correlated with LEED because the buildings in the sample that were LEED certified
tend to be larger buildings. It follows that larger office buildings are also those that are
more likely to have a large amount of common area, parking and more amenities thereby
increasing the amount of additional rent charged to tenants. There is negative direction
of relation between LEED with AGE (−0.197), location CROW FLY (−0.104), CLASS C
(−0.102) and DIRECT from landlord lease space available. The negative correlation coeffi-
cients with AGE, CROW FLY and DIRECT suggest that LEED buildings tend to be newer
properties, situated near the center of the CBD, and have lower than average vacancy.
These negative correlations would suggest an interpretation that LEED certification is
a strong positive factor in terms of its position among office building attributes as well as
in relation to NET RENT. Then why doesn’t LEED certification correlate significantly with
NET RENT? Based on their UK study on the growth of green office buildings, Oyedokun
et al. [34] would propose that green certification is becoming mainstream. Fuerst et al.’s [33]
study of the US office market might go as far as to propose that LEED certified space is
becoming a defining factor in Class A. Three points need to be stated with respect to this
study. First, all LEED certified buildings included in the sample are Class A buildings
thereby resulting in a strong positive correlation with CLASS A and a strong negative
correlation with CLASS B. Furthermore, there were far fewer Class C buildings included in
the study than Class A and Class B buildings. Second, this is a place-based study focused
on Toronto’s urban downtown core and not the Greater Toronto Area—the most populous
metropolitan area in Canada. It would be expected that the office building sector would be
dominated by Class A buildings. Third, the low level of significance for these variables
based on the correlations makes it difficult to generalize about these beyond the study
sample. However, as an exploratory study it provides the groundwork for further research.

40
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

5.2. Findings from Linear Regression Model

Once the correlation relationship (see Table 4) between an office building’s LEED
certification and the coefficients of the other building attributes were analyzed, the hedonic
linear regression model was constructed. An ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis was
conducted to determine which compilation of variables created the equation that best
accounted for the variance in net asking rents (NET RENT). In the analysis, the independent
variable with the highest partial correlation coefficient to NET RENT is entered first into
the model. This process is continued by adding the variable with the next highest partial
correlation coefficient to the model and the adjusted R2 for the new model is evaluated to
compare its explanatory power to that of the previous model. This process is continued
until all of those variables with a partial coefficient significant at the 0.05 level have been
added to the model to assess their impact on the model’s explanatory power. In addition,
as new variables are added to the model, previous variables are removed from the equation
if their significance level falls below the 10 percent critical value.
The first variable included in the model was ADDITION RENT which had the greatest
positive partial correlation coefficient of 0.873 ** with NET RENT. The initial model returned
an adjusted R2 of 0.757, with ADDITIONAL RENT significant at the 99 percent critical
value level. This high adjusted R2 may be cause for concern that ‘ADDITIONAL RENT’
might be drowning out the effect that other variables (including LEED) might have on
NET RENT, especially when considering the degree of correlation between ADDITIONAL
RENT and the other predictor variables. The process of adding and removing variables
from the model based on their partial correlation coefficients and significance levels was
continued until arriving at a model consisting of ADDITIONAL RENT and CLASS B. The
model produced an adjusted R2 of 0.769, with ADDITIONAL RENT significant at the 99
percent critical value level and CLASS B significant at the 95 percent critical value level
(see Table 5a–c). We describe the linear regression model as our ‘best model’.

Table 5. (a) Linear regression model summary; (b) Linear regression ANOVA; (c). Linear regres-
sion Coefficients.

(a) Linear regression model summary.

Model Summary
Std. Error
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square of the
Estimate
CLASS B
ADDITIONAL 0.881 1 0.776 0.769 3.59315
RENT
(b) Linear regression ANOVA.
Sum of Mean Square F Sig.
Model Squares df

Regression 2772.972 2 1386.486 107.390 0.000 3

Residual 800.464 62 12.911
Total 3573.437 64
(c).Linear regression Coefficients.
Coefficients 4
Unstandardised Standardised
Coefficients Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Beta
Error
Constant −5.585 2.340 −2.387 0.020
ADDITIONAL
1.277 0.100 0.100 12.808 0.000
RENT
CLASS B −2.195 1.087 1.087 −2.018 0.048
1 Predictors: (Constant), CLASS B, ADDITIONAL RENT. 2 Dependent Variable: NET RENT. 3 Predictors:
(Constant), CLASS B, ADDITIONAL RENT. 4 Dependent Variable: NET RENT.

41
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

The exclusion of variables from the best model can be explained when we examine
the relation of each variable to ADDITIONAL RENT while taking into consideration the
characteristics of the sample buildings. The first variable that was removed from the model
was PARKING which has a partial correlation coefficient of 0.616 ** but could still not
be deemed significant in a model that already included ADDITIONAL RENT. This is
because ADDITIONAL RENT is typically a composition of those costs associated with
property taxes, common area maintenance, and any other additional expenses the owner
may charge related to building maintenance and services. The greater the amount of
common area a building possesses, the higher the ADDITIONAL RENT. Those buildings
with the greatest amount of common area in downtown Toronto are located in the CBD,
an area where reserved parking is rare and highly sought after. When linking the value
placed on PARKING space in the CBD with the higher ADDITIONAL RENT in the area it is
understandable why the significance of PARKING was drowned out by the ADDITIONAL
RENT variable.
Going down the list of variables with high individual correlation coefficients we see
that the same effect was had on CROW FLY location and total building OFFICE AREA.
These variables too are affected by proximity to the centre point of the CBD. CROW FLY
is affected because it is actually a measure of building proximity to the centre of the CBD
while OFFICE AREA is affected because the buildings in downtown Toronto with the
greatest amount of office space are those in the centre of the city’s CBD. The only other
variable excluded from the model with a significant individual correlation to net asking rent
was CLASS A. CLASS A was excluded because it was replaced by CLASS B that reduced
its significance and provided a model with a higher adjusted R2 . The large changes in the
regression coefficients produced by the inclusion of ADDITIONAL RENT in the model are
an indication of multicollinearity. The tendency toward redundancy as noted is due to the
nature of the model that included multiple factors that respond not only to the response
variable NET RENT but also to each other. This explains the relationship between CLASS
A and CLASS B although the multicollinearity that exists between these two variables was
expected because both are indicators of building class. For this study we chose to evaluate
both to see which contributed most significantly to the model.
In an attempt to reduce multicollinearity, a second stepwise regression analysis was
performed that excluded ADDITIONAL RENT from the model. The first variable included
in the new model was PARKING (partial correlation coefficient of 0.616 **), resulting in an
adjusted R2 of 0.370 with PARKING significant at the 99 percent critical value level. CROW
FLY was added to the model next returning an adjusted R2 of 0.501 while both coefficients
maintained significance at the 99 percent critical value level. OFFICE AREA was then
included, increasing the adjusted R2 to 0.552. Although CROW FLY and OFFICE AREA
remained significant at the 99 percent critical value level the significance of PARKING was
reduced to the 95 percent critical value level.
When CLASS A is added to the model, we see the significance of PARKING and
OFFICE AREA were reduced to the 90 and 95 percent critical value levels respectively
while CROW FLY and CLASS A are significant at the 99 percent critical value levels and
the model’s adjusted R2 moves to 0.604.
Finally, CLASS B is introduced to the model but subsequently removed due to its
negative effect on the significance of the other variables and adjusted R2 . This means that
our best model is comprised of the coefficients PARKING, CROW FLY, OFFICE AREA and
CLASS A, producing an adjusted R2 of 0.604 (see Table 6a–c).

42
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

Table 6. (a) linear regression summary; (b) Linear regression ANOVA; (c) Linear regression coefficients.

(a) linear regression model summary

Model Summary
Std. Error
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square of the
Estimate
PARKING 0.793 1 0.629 0.604 4.70200
CROW
FLY
OFFICE
AREA
CLASS A
(b) Linear regression ANOVA
ANOVA 2
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 2246.908 4 561.727 25.407 0.000 3
Residual 1326.528 60 22.109
Total 3573.437 64
(c) Linear regression coefficients
Coefficients 4
Unstandardised Standardised
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 17.839 1.404 12.710 0.000
PARKING 0.001 0.001 0.200 1.907 0.061
CROW FLY 0.000 0.000 −0.409 −4.616 0.000
OFFICE AREA 0.000 0.000 0.226 2.324 0.024
CLASS A 4.311 1.432 0.264 3.010 0.004
1 Predictors: (Constant), PARKING, CROW FLY, OFFICE AREA, CLASS A. 2 Dependent Variable: NET RENT.
3 Predictors: (Constant), CLASS B, ADDITIONAL RENT. 4 Dependent Variable: NET RENT.

According to the correlation matrix the correlation of LEED with net asking rent is not
significant at the 0.05 level. This would normally disqualify it from inclusion in the model,
but regressions were still conducted to assess the impact of LEED on the explanatory
power of our best model. Ultimately, when LEED was introduced to the model all original
model coefficients fell within their original significance levels, but LEED was not shown
to be statistically significant (0.528), pulling adjusted R2 down to 0.600. It was therefore
concluded that LEED certification should remain excluded because it did not improve the
explanatory power of the model.
When CLASS A is added to the model the significance of PARKING and OFFICE
AREA are reduced to the 90 and 95 percent critical value levels respectively while CROW
FLY and CLASS A are significant at the 99 percent critical value levels and the model’s
adjusted R2 moves to 0.604.
As previously noted, the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix (Table 4) reveals that
the correlation of LEED certification with NET RENT is not significant at the 0.05> level
which causes Hypothesis (H1 ) to be rejected. This would normally disqualify LEED from
inclusion in the model, but regressions were still conducted to assess the impact of LEED
on the explanatory power of our best model. Ultimately, when LEED was introduced to
the model all original model coefficients fell within their original significance levels, but

43
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

LEED was not shown to be statistically significant (0.528), pulling adjusted R2 down to
0.600. It was therefore concluded that LEED certification should remain excluded, because
it did not improve the explanatory power of the model with regard to the NET RENT (i.e.,
asking rent as market value) of green buildings (see Table 7a–c).

Table 7. (a) linear regression model summary; (b) Linear regression ANOVA; (c) Linear regression
coefficients.

(a) linear regression model summary

Model Summary
Std. Error
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square of the
Estimate
LEED
CROW FLY
OFFICE AREA 0.7951 0.631 0.600 4.72555
CLASS A
PARKING
(b) Linear regression ANOVA
ANOVA 2
Sum of
Model df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 2255.920 5 451.184 20.205 0.000 3
Residual 1317.517 59 22.331
Total 3573.437 64
(c) Linear regression coefficients
Coefficients 4
Unstandardised Standardised
Coefficients Coefficients
Model t Sig.
Std.
B Beta
Error
Constant 17.839 1.411 12.651 0.000
PARKING 0.001 0.001 0.200 1.897 0.063
CROW FLY 0.000 0.000 −0.411 −4.615 0.000
OFFICE AREA 0.000 0.000 0.231 2.351 0.022
CLASS A 4.620 1.520 0.283 3.040 0.004
LEED −0.922 1.451 −0.055 −0.635 0.528
1Predictors: (Constant), LEED, CROW FLY, OFFICE AREA, CLASS A, PARKING. 2. Dependent Variable: NET
RENT. 3 Predictors: (Constant), LEED, CROW FLY, OFFICE AREA, CLASS A, PARKING. 4 Dependent Variable:
NET RENT.

6. Stage Two Research Results and Discussion

Stage Two was designed to obtain information on the issues examined in this study rel-
ative to the development of office buildings in Toronto. Three executives in key stakeholder
firms in Toronto were interviewed using a semi-structured format and a five-question
protocol with follow-on questions to ensure that their answers were complete and explana-
tory. These interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis; the full transcripts are
included in the Appendix A.
Reports on LEED certification show that the number of green office buildings in
Toronto have increased during the past twenty years [8,83]. Using an interview format
rather than a written questionnaire provides an opportunity to obtain first-hand knowledge
on the role of key stakeholders in decisions related to building or retrofitting green and
the factors that impact their decisions. Answers to the questions posed to the expert
interviewees provide valuable insight related to the second hypothesis: Hypothesis (H2 )

44
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

= Financial drivers will be more influential than non-financial drivers in the decision of
whether to pursue LEED certification.
A brief synopsis of the three expert’s qualifications is provided.
Interviewee 1: Serves as Vice President for one of Canada’s largest landlord developers.
In that role is responsible for the origination and execution of office, industrial, and land
transactions, together with major property portfolios across Canada.
Interviewee 2: Serves as Senior Vice President for one of Canada’s largest landlord
developers. In that role is involved in informing the decision-making that provides the
company with strategic direction.
Interviewee 3: Serves as the National Director of Sustainability and Energy Man-
agement for one of Canada’s largest landlord developers. In that role informs company
decision-making related to making the company more environmentally responsible and
energy efficient.

6.1. Findings from Interviews

Each interviewee was asked the same questions, although the follow on probing ques-
tions changed with each interview. Their insights are valuable, so readers are encouraged to
examine the full transcripts in the Appendix A. Table 8 provides a summary of interviewee
responses to the five-question protocol used.

Table 8. Summary of interviewee responses.

Questions Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3

Does LEED certification currently
have a significant impact on No No No
achievable gross rent?
Moving forward, do you think LEED
is going to be the new benchmark (i.e., No Yes Yes
the new Class A)?
Could a building built in compliance
with LEED, but without certification
Yes Yes Yes
(label), achieve the same returns as a
LEED certified (labelled) building?
Will LEED certification help attract
Yes Yes Yes
more potential purchasers/tenants?
Do you plan on retrofitting existing
No Yes Selectively
buildings to LEED standards?

6.1.1. Question 1: Does LEED Certification Impact Achievable Gross Rent?

Interviewees were asked if LEED certifications currently have ‘a significant impact on
achievable gross rent’. The question refers to achievable gross rent rather than net asking
rent (the dependent variable in this study) because, as noted in the research [91], we wanted
to distinguish the impact of LEED certification from factors that impact those of operating
costs on rents. LEED buildings tend to have lower operating costs so it is assumed that
owners will increase the net rent portion of the formula to keep their properties comparable
to the market on a gross rent basis [92]. Although potential savings in operating expenses
allows for possible increases in net asking rents the expert interviewees did not see LEED
as having a significant impact on achievable gross rent. All interviewees noted that the
lead tenants, institutional investors (especially pension funds) and occupants linked to
firms with corporate social responsibility policies wanted sustainability green platforms in
buildings. This agrees with the finds of Eichholtz, et al. [43].

45
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

6.1.2. Question 2: Is LEED Going to Be the New Benchmark (New Class A)?
Office buildings in Canada are subjectively classified and ranked in descending order
A, B., or C [85]. As LEED certified buildings already carry a premium asking rent, we
wondered whether LEED is going to be the new benchmark (new Class A)? Interviewees
2 and 3 said yes, they felt it would. Interviewee 1 differed from the others in response to
this question. The reason for the difference of opinion was that Interviewee 1 approached
the question from the standpoint of what tenants’ value which is gross rent. If LEED
is not considered to have a significant impact on gross rent it is not likely to become a
factor in developing a new building standard. Interviewee 2 approached the question from
the standpoint of what valuation professionals consider during the property appraisal
process, noting that there is a factor built into appraisal methodology that gives green
buildings more value because they last longer. Finally, the Interviewee 3 noted that when
they first decided to pursue LEED certification it was a marketing advantage (strategy)
while now it is becoming the accepted standard. Based on a review of the literature, the
interviews and LEED certification data indicate that LEED is becoming part of new office
buildings standards although it is not yet the new benchmark [33,34]. Perhaps a more
important question is, who are the drivers for the focus on green office buildings? Are the
owner landlords, real estate developers and valuation appraisal professionals creating or
following the market? Are institutional investors and tenant/occupants demanding or
responding? This leads to the importance of LEED certification branding or labelling.

6.1.3. Question 3: Could Buildings without Certification Achieve Same Returns?

All interviewees were asked: ‘Could a building built in compliance with LEED, but
without LEED certification (label), achieve the same market results as a LEED certified
(labelled) building?’ Interviewee 1 felt the LEED label would attract more buyers. Inter-
viewee 3 felt that just copying LEED rather than meeting LEED standards for certification
would not result in the same thing. However, all of them did feel that a non-LEED certi-
fied building could achieve the same returns as an otherwise comparable LEED labelled
building. This unanimous opinion seems to have originated from the knowledge that the
returns currently generated from LEED buildings stem from a reduction in operating costs.
Are the key stakeholder firms shifting their business model toward sustainability or is it
still bottom-line finance driven? The answers by the expert interviewees might suggest
that they may be tilting toward sustainability; but no, all three still focused on financial
gains, albeit due to lower operating costs produced by LEED generated efficiency and not
gains in higher rent premiums due to the branding appeal of LEED by those seeking office
space. Interviewee 1 made a blunt statement with regard to the LEED label: ‘Am I going to
get more value for it? No, I don’t think so.’ This question on the energy efficiency of LEED
certified buildings was noted earlier in this paper. A review of research by Amiri et al. [92]
on LEED certified buildings likewise noted concerns with regard to the performance of
LEED certified building in the areas of energy and atmosphere.

6.1.4. Question 4: Will LEED Certification Attract More Purchasers/Tenants?

LEED certification of office buildings is not without the cost of time and effort. We
asked the experts representing stakeholder firms if it was worth it—‘will LEED certification
help attract more potential purchasers/tenants?’ All of the interviewees indicated that
LEED certification does attract potential purchasers/tenants. The consensus, however,
seems to be that potential tenants are not willing to pay a premium on a gross rent basis
for a building that is only advancing the development of green buildings. This is a very
interesting position. Interviewee 1 stated, ‘frankly most are driven by the bottom line.’ As
Xie et al.’s [93] study on consumers would suggest that pro-environment behavior plays
a key role because the number of LEED certified office buildings in Toronto continues to
increase. Tenants/occupants are obviously willing to pay a rental premium for space in
these offices. A reading of the interview transcripts strongly suggests that the development
of LEED buildings is tenant demand-driven. As earlier studies by Eichholtz et al. [86]

46
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

found, tenants/occupants were in part conscious of environmental issues and responsive

in their real estate choices.

6.1.5. Question 5: Interest in Retrofitting Existing Buildings to LEED Standards?

Policy makers and scholars agree that in urban core areas such as Toronto it will not
be green construction but green retrofitting that will most significantly impact climate
change and global warming. However, the interviewees were generally quite positive
about LEED certification and agreed on the idea of achieving sustainability in new green
office buildings. But the question then is, did this support by key stakeholder firms go
deeper to embrace retrofitting of existing buildings? Would they make the decision to ‘have
their building LEED certified and pay the additional costs associated?’ Interestingly only
Interviewee 2 stated that the firm currently had LEED applications on a number of their
office complexes. Interviewee 1 said LEED status would probably not increase occupancy
or translate into higher net rent so the answer is no. Interviewee 3 hedged and said maybe
for some properties where tenants wanted it. But for others with strong markets (meaning
low vacancy rate), long-term leases, utilities performing in peak range, or with serious
utilities issues it wouldn’t be considered. A case study of the strengths and weakness of
retrofitting an existing building is presented by Sun et al. [94] A building belonging to the
University of Hong Kong underwent a significant LEED EBOM Gold project retrofit with
the expectation of energy savings of 30% however actual building performance was 16%
savings on energy. The interviewees were not eager to move in this direction.

6.2. Discussion of Interview Findings

The three expert interviewee responses are summarised in Table 8. The three are
similar in their responses with respect to views on the impact of LEED certification on
achievable rent, ability to lease/rent, attitudes of prospective tenants and ESG based
investing by institutional investors. Their responses explain and provide an answer to
the second hypothesis: Hypothesis (H2 ) = Financial drivers will be more influential than
non-financial drivers in a key stakeholder’s decision whether to pursue LEED certification?
Our interpretation of the interviewee responses to the five questions is that they
perceive financial drivers as being very influential in the decision but with several caveats.
First, the interviewees mention a growing interest in LEED certification by institutional
investors that is also reported in research by Eichholtz et al. [43] and Fuerst et al. [33]. Based
on their description of investor pressure to build or retrofit green we viewed this as financial
influence at the initiating decision point and not as ESG drivers. Second, the interviewees
mention the interest in LEED certified office space by current and perspective tenants. They
state that tenants are willing to pay rent premiums for LEED certified office space. We also
view this as financial influence on the key stakeholders and not environmental or social.
The interviewees’ comments suggest that tenant interest in LEED is taking as being less
of an influence compared to that of investors. This again is viewed as an indication of
the strength of financial influence. The rejection of Hypothesis (H1 ) seems to have been
anticipated by the interviewees. At least for the present, Toronto’s urban core Class A office
space, whether LEED or not, has a very low vacancy rate and asking rent is not an issue.
Third, interviewees’ view of owner landlords—a group that also includes institutional
investors and real estate developers—was quite interesting. While acknowledging their
influence and importance the interviewees seem to scorn owners as out-front innovators (a
quality of entrepreneurs) leading the change to green buildings. A study by Li et al. [95]
suggests a framework for addressing such ‘capital’ barriers that inhibit the promotion of
green buildings.
In general, the results from the interviews are in line with previous findings such as the
recent research by Oyedokun et al. [34], Cook et al. [91] and Chegut et al. [96]. As markets
continue to evolve and tenants and stakeholders place an increasing amount of importance
on sustainability, we are likely to see LEED certification become a more significant factor
in the determination of office rents. However, in the future LEED will probably become

47
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

a standard attribute of Class A office buildings before Class B or C. In addition, as more

new and retrofitted LEED certified buildings come on the market, future studies can have
a larger sample size. This will allow for the investigation of with more subtle impacts on
the model and LEED certification as a significant contributor to property value.

7. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Directions

7.1. Conclusions
This study contributes to the literature on green certification and labelling of office
buildings in global cities. This study focuses on office buildings in the CBD urban core of
Toronto, an area where the financial valuation of green labelling has not attracted sufficient
research. The first stage was designed to obtain quantitative data to determine if LEED
certification (independent variable) has a significant impact on net asking rent (dependent
variable). Pearson correlation and linear regression analysis did not find LEED certification
to be statistically significant in explaining the variance in net asking rent (market value).
Although this is an exploratory study it is important because it provides an understanding
of office buildings in the urban core of Toronto. It is also helpful in setting parameters for
future studies on the decisions by key office building stakeholders to build or retrofit green.
The second stage of this study was designed to examine the financial and non-financial
factors that influence the decisions by key stakeholders to pursue a green agenda. Qual-
itative data were obtained from interviews with senior executives who are engaged in
Toronto’s office building sector. The interviewees provided valuable data to assess if fi-
nancial drivers are the deciding factor in the decision to pursue LEED certification. They
report that institutional investors are most influenced by clients who will only invest in an
office building if it meets green standards. Owner landlords are primarily focused on the
long-term benefits of LEED certification based on energy efficiency gains that then translate
into lower GHG emissions and federal carbon taxes. With respect to real estate developers
who are directly involved in the construction of new and existing office buildings, they
are responsive to investor preferences, tenant trends and owner concerns. On the issue
of whether their decisions are impacted by financial considerations the answer is yes.
However, the answer is no on the one factor of LEED certification but on the overall impact
of factors/benefits that impact their bottom line. In general, key real estate development
stakeholders in Toronto seem unwilling to ‘step out and lead’ with a focus only on green,
but they are also unwilling to be left without green office buildings in their portfolio.
Basically, they are cautious in their commitment to support an all-out endorsement of
a green agenda. It appears that they are ruled by long-standing and slowly evolving
traditions—where the pack stays together, few leap-ahead and few are left behind.

7.2. Limitations
Despite efforts made to ensure the best possible design for this study, there were
several areas of limitation. First, Toronto’s urban core is one that has the most LEED
certified office buildings in Canada. Although this made it an ideal test site because it
provided a sufficient sample it also had one limitation. Most of the office buildings with
LEED certification are rated as Class A, already command premium rent, and are located
in the most prime office area in the city. The sample of conventional (non-LEED) office
buildings that met our criteria were primarily Class B and a few Class C buildings located
outside of the prime urban core. Although the office buildings included in our sample were
all located in the geographic area selected for the study, their rent gradients (CROW FLY)
were not. This suggests that a study of the submarkets within Toronto would increase the
number of office buildings with a sample of different ratings (Class A, B, and C). This would
be similar to the study by Oyedokun et al. [34] that looked at the green office market in the
context of local markets. Another study could be designed to focus only on Class A office
buildings in the prime urban core of Toronto. However, in such a study the significance of
LEED certification could easily be overshadowed by other factors that are associated with
leasing office space in the market’s prime location.

48
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

A second limitation is the fact that importance and growth in numbers of green office
buildings in Toronto is still developing. Data and analysis in this study, however, do
provide an understanding of the increasingly important role that LEED certification has
on the office building sector. This will continue in the future. As this movement matures,
longitudinal studies related to changes in costs and benefits in LEED certified construction,
measured over a period of time and over varying economic conditions, would provide
valuable assistance for addressing the environmental issues of climate change.
Third, there were limitations in terms of how much specific information we could ask
interviewees to provide. The three Toronto real estate development executives volunteered
as anonymous industry experts, not as informants representing their firms. This restricted
depth of questioning on specific examples or on their own positions and firms. A survey
questionnaire of top tier executives from the dozen or so key firms in the Toronto office
building market might have produced data on drivers and influencers for statistical analysis
but obtaining that information is very difficult. This was considered as the research design
was developed but the reality of actually getting a large enough sample of office building
developers seemed unachievable. It also seemed that personal interviews with a few of
the executives in different firms might only produce ‘sound good statements’ rather than
actual reality [43,45].
Finally, it would have been informative to include actual rent paid per square foot.
As stated earlier, most of the firms view information related to tenant lease contracts as
proprietary and confidential. The best alternative was to use average net asking rental
rates for each building as a proxy. Future studies could try to include information related
to actual transacted leases to construct a model that explains the variance between actual
transacted rents and hedonic independent variables such as LEED certification.

7.3. Future Directions

Although this is the first study that looked at issues related to LEED certified build-
ings in Toronto, we hope that scholars will add to our research in ways suggested in
the limitation section. These efforts are needed, especially as the challenges of climate
change and global warming increase the pressure to build and retrofit green. Interest and
pressure are mounting on key stakeholders to address the broader accompanying aspects
of sustainability such as social and corporate governance factors that are gaining traction
in the public and political arena. Considering these developments, we feel our choice of
that the expert interview format to gain first-hand information is a promising direction for
future research.
The framework of this study—looking at the issue from a context dimension (place-
based gradient setting) and process dimension (real estate development process)—was
an excellent approach for understanding the market and decision dynamics on the issue
of building and retrofitting green. Perhaps the question for further study is, should these
issues be viewed at the individual executive level (motivation and ethics) or firm level
(value proposition and business model)? Either approach would provide a theoretical
platform to understand the drivers and barriers that impact this decision. Further research
could look at the cascading decisions and stakeholders involved in the implementation of
this decision.

Author Contributions: The authors contributed equally to the manuscript preparation: writing,
revising and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Institutional Review Board Statement: University Research Grants and Ethics Services provided
approval through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Board, which operates in ac-
cordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement and other applicable laws and regulations in Ontario.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from the three interviewees involved
in the study.

49
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

Data Availability Statement: Interview data are provided in the Appendix A, statistically analysed
data may be obtained by contacting the sources identified.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Transcription of Expert Interviewees

Interviewee 1
Profile: serves as Vice President in one of Canada’s largest landlord developer firms.
In that role is responsible for the origination and execution of office, industrial, and land
transactions, together with major property portfolios across Canada.
In your experience, do you feel that LEED certification has a significant impact on
achievable net rents?
Having a LEED building certainly does cut down the operating expenses, allowing
you to achieve a greater net rent while still remaining competitive with other buildings on
a gross basis. You might be higher on a net basis, but you will be lower on a gross basis
because you are able to achieve some net savings that you can pass on to the tenant.
But above and beyond that—take 18 York Street for example—that is a building that
Gowling WLG is building on behalf of BCIMC [British Columbia Investment Management
Corporation], and their big tenant they have right now is PWC. When these guys pulled
the trigger back in 2008 at a point when the market had already shifted down into tenant
favour. Nobody was leasing space. There was a credit crunch. Investment transactions
were few and far between and yet BCIMC still went ahead to develop that building. And
the reason why was because they wanted to be able to say that they owned a downtown
building that was LEED certified. Their thought was that large tenants on a go forward
basis—banks, insurance firms, law firms—will make it a requirement. That any space that
they lease has to be in a LEED building that is reflective of their overall objective with
respect to the environment in their business plan model. So yeah, I think that over time
you are going to see that rents are only going to go in one direction for LEED buildings.
Do you think that LEED buildings are going to be considered the new A class?
Tenants are only concerned with the gross rents. They do not care what the net rent is,
they do not really care what the taxes and operating costs are. They want to know what
their gross rents are. So as long as their gross rents are competitive to Class A buildings
and they know that their carbon footprint is less and they are doing a good thing for the
environment they’ll go there. Although some tenants will make that a requirement and
will pay more just to be in that building. But, if you are able to track a comparison between
LEED buildings and comparable Class A buildings, I think you are going to see at least a
$2–3/sq. ft. savings, and I think that you will be able to make up for that in net rent.
Above and beyond additional rent savings, do you think that from a marketing perspective,
over the long term, LEED buildings will be able to achieve significantly higher rents?
No. There is an inherent value that you are adding. From a liquidity standpoint, let’s
say, if I am the broker and I have got two buildings I can sell. One is the triple A office
building downtown, and the other is similar building that is LEED certified I believe the
LEED building will attract more buyers because people are feeling conscientious. Am I
going to get more value for it? No, I don’t think so.
Do you think that from a sales standpoint LEED certification is going to help you attract
more potential purchasers?
Yes. I believe that, but I do not think that will necessarily translate into more value.
And that relates back to your earlier question where you asked me if I thought a tenant
would be willing to pay more for a LEED building, and I said no. And the reason I say no is
that tenants have their own going concerns that they are worried about and rent represents
a really big part of their obligations, their costs, especially if you are renting four floors
of downtown office space and frankly they are driven by the bottom line. Yeah, you do

50
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

have some big companies such as maybe PWC that were motivated by the fact that it was
a LEED building, but I think it was just that they were the lead tenant in that project, so
undoubtedly GWL gave them a bit of a concession to get them in and then they could
attract others.
If I had a Class B building that I was planning on retrofitting to bring it up to date with
the aim of reducing my operating costs in an effort to increase my achievable net rent, do
you think I should undertake to have the building LEED certified and pay the additional
costs associated with that? Or do you say if you can reduce additional costs for your
prospective tenants then that is good enough?
I would say—and it’s unfortunate—it’s probably the latter. We are selling a building
right now where they have BOMA BEST certification, where they have acknowledged that
they have been able to reduce operating costs through efficiencies. It is a Class A building
and it is in the suburbs, but at the end of the day if they were able to attain LEED status
I don’t think that would increase their occupancy, or necessarily translate into more net
rents, and it’s unfortunate, but I really don’t think that is the case.
Interviewee 2
Profile: serves as Senior Vice President for one of Canada’s largest landlord developers.
In that role is involved in informing the decision-making that provides the company with
strategic direction.
I understand you have a building in downtown Toronto that you are getting LEED
certified, why did you decide to prescribe to LEED certification, and why this build-
ing specifically?
It goes back some years, while we had the site under contract and we closed in
December of that year. Imagine a board meeting where I was making a presentation to
three owners in September. Three different owners: The first one was the Menkes Family,
who had a 20 percent interest in the property. Their comment was—we have no clue what
LEED is, and this was before LEED was even a thing in Canada—we understand in terms
of the world sustainability is going to be necessary. We are responsible developers, so if you
think it is the right thing to do then it will be one of our specifications and we will figure it
out as we go. That’s 20 percent. Then the hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan, who owned 50
percent. They say—we also don’t know what it is because we haven’t seen anything, no
building exists in Canada. But we, representing our pensioners, all 40,000 of them and wish
to respect sustainability in everything we do. That’s 50 percent. The Harvard endowment
fund, who represented 20 percent, said—if this is not a LEED building we will not invest,
simply because we are setting the standards in terms of regulations of the sort worldwide.
Our people are, our graduates are, and sustainability is a must. That is where it all started.
So, we started as responsible citizens, and then as investors, and then as owners of real
estate in Canada. The LEED manuals didn’t even hit the table until two years later. So,
we were ahead of the curve, and in hindsight every single tenant who walked into the
building asked about our sustainability platform. Every single tenant who walked into the
building wanted a green platform.
Seeing the success, you have achieved with this building, are their plans for the certifica-
tion of others?
We have another office development downtown and the building will be somewhere
in the 900,000 square feet range and we too will be LEED Gold core and shell. Moving
forward it is simply the only standard we have.
Are you only looking to certify new developments, or are you looking at retrofits as well?
In terms of existing buildings, we have numerous applications in for LEED on a
number of our office complexes. No industrial.
Is there a reason why you are not for industrial but are for office buildings?

51
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

The tenants are more interested in it. And on industrial it is next to impossible to
achieve on an existing industrial space. You can achieve it moving forward with a new
LEED development, but moving backwards, no.
Comparing your LEED certified building to others in your portfolio and others you
compete with in that market, do you think that the LEED certification has been a factor
in achievable gross rent.
Zero. Now let’s qualify that. There is no history. Everything we put into 25 York was
a projection. People had to believe it was going to happen. I had no ability to get any
higher rent than another office tower in downtown Toronto which doesn’t have it, because
there was no proof. Many a time tenants ask—Well, how do you know? and we would
reply—Because our engineers tell us. And they reply—SO, you know the Prime Minister of
Canada tells us we are going to be debt free too... show me! Ask that question in 5–10 years.
Then the green buildings will stand out.
So, do you think that moving forward LEED is going to be the new standard?
Definitely! As markets go forward and, from an appraisal point of view, there will be
a factor built into all appraisals which give green buildings more value because they will
last longer.
What do you think the impact of LEED certification will be as markets fluctuate?
If it is a tenant’s market, LEED will win first. If it is a landlord’s market, nobody gives
a shit.
Additional discussion.
Every single tenant that moved into our LEED building insisted on construction to
LEED standard. When asked: are you going to certify? One tenant said that, according to
their corporate platform, they wished to be one of the top 50 sustainable companies in the
world. So, they went through a certification process. Every other tenant said—I don’t need
a certification; I don’t need to pay for all that bullshit. I get nothing for the certificate on the
wall. I just want to know myself I did the right thing.
Apart from the reduction in operating costs, do you find any value in the LEED label itself?
Not today.
So, if you had an otherwise comparable property, are you saying that you would not
bother getting the building LEED certified?
You asked me do I perceive any value! Me the landlord. Examining it from the tenant’s
point of view. Not one tenant believes one landlord! Therefore, I have to get a certification
by a third party in order for the tenant to believe me. The tenants perceive value in
the buildings. Long term, LEED count. It may not be called LEED in 10 or 15 years,
but sustainability counts. And what is happening with these buildings is that, over and
over, the manufacturers of materials and equipment are pursuing certification themselves
because they are listening to the politicians saying that it is coming, we have to save the
world. More importantly they are listening to their kids.
On top of that, every single pension plan, the Caisse (Caisse de depot et placement du
Québec)amaz, [unintelligible], Teachers Pension Plan of Ontario, BCIMC, IMCO [Invest-
ment Management Corporation of Ontario]. They have said, they have decreed, they have
policies, if we are developing new office buildings, they shall be green. Representing their
pensioners, their pensioners are average everyday people. It started with BCIMC out of
British Columbia, as it should, that is where the green movement started.
Interviewee 3
Profile: serves as the National Director of Sustainability and Energy Management
for one of Canada’s largest landlord developer firms. In that role informs company
decision-making related to making the company more environmentally responsible and
energy efficient.

52
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

Do you have any LEED certified buildings?

Yes, we do.
Are they new builds or retrofits?
New builds, but we are also going to have a couple of retrofits coming up this year.
With respect to the buildings that you already have certified and the ones that are soon to
be certified, why did you decide to certify these buildings?
Two reasons. At the time LEED was beginning to be considered a competitive advan-
tage, and for the buildings we decided to have certified it was not a complicated process
and the cost premium was not that significant.
When you talk about competitive advantage, are you talking about making it easier to
lease the space thereby reducing vacancy, or are you talking about an ability to achieve
higher gross rents.
When we develop the building pro forma, we put together the project and we start
marketing it so that the building is already tenanted by the time it is delivered. So, as we
were marketing the property some of our clients liked the fact that it was LEED certified.
They see it through two perspectives: One is the PR. Marketing wise they see it as something
they can make use of and portray their companies as more environmentally conscious with
a higher CSR status.
The second is that there is a higher level of predictability when it comes to utilities. So,
they know that if they are coming into a certified building there are higher environmental
and ethical standards, and that the building is going to perform closer to what they have
budgeted for in future years. So, the level of certainty is important, especially for those
companies where real estate is a big component of their finances.
Did LEED certification meet your expectations in terms of competitive advantage for
your buildings?
Yes. Additionally, some of the tenants in our non-LEED certified buildings are looking
for LEED certified space.
Are you noticing LEED as a factor for other potential tenants?
Yes. When we are building a property, potential tenants will ask—do you guys plan
on building it to LEED certified standards; and we say—yes, and that becomes part of
the negotiation. And the big thing is that we wouldn’t do it any other way. We wouldn’t
do it any other way because it is now the market expectation to have your building
LEED certified.
Are you saying that from now on when you build it is going to be LEED certified?
Yes, pretty much. When we had decided to certify one of our buildings about 10,
maybe almost 15 years ago, it was a marketing advantage, while now it is becoming the
standard and I am not sure how far down the road it is going to be detrimental in some
cases where we will have to LEED certify.
Do you think that you could have built to LEED certification standards without getting
the buildings certified and achieved the same results?
Yes, however collecting the data and following the protocols is not as efficient if you
do not have to comply with a certification. The moment you say that we need to do this to
get the certification things start to happen faster. Even if you don’t have the certification
you should be able to do the work to that standard, but at the end it doesn’t seem to work
that way. The certification process acts as a guide throughout the development process.
Do you plan on retrofitting all your buildings as well to be LEED certified?
Not all of them. There are some buildings where it makes a lot of sense, where we have
tenants that want to be in a certified building, some buildings where we have challenges
with utilities, and so on. But there are properties where there is no need for it. It could

53
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

be because they are in a very strong market, because we have long-term leases, because
the building is performing in peak range, so in those cases it wouldn’t be necessary to
pursue certification.
Are there some buildings where you will not look to retrofit because of the difficulty in
getting the building to a state where it complies with LEED standards?
Yes. The capital required to bring some buildings up to LEED standards makes it
impossible for us to get them certified. There are also issues with retrofitting existing
industrial and multi-residential properties, so currently we are only retrofitting office
buildings. However, we are pursuing LEED certification for all new builds.

References
1. United Nations. Climate Change Annual Report 2019. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/unfccc_
annual_report_2019.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2020).
2. Rana, I.A.; Routray, J.K.; Younas, Z.I. Spatiotemporal dynamics of development inequalities in Lahore city region, Pakistan. Cities
2020, 96, 102418. [CrossRef]
3. Carlson, K.; Pressnail, K.D. Value impacts of energy efficiency retrofits on commercial office buildings in Toronto, Canada. Energy
Build. 2018, 162, 154–162. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, Z.; Li, H.; Zhang, B.; Tian, X.; Zhao, H.; Bai, Z. The greater the investment, the greater the loss?—Resource traps in building
energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) market. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105459. [CrossRef]
5. Calvet, S. Morguard Revitalizes 60 Bloor West. Urban Toronto, 4 March 2021. Available online: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/20
21/03/morguard-revitalizes-60-bloor-west (accessed on 18 March 2021).
6. Government of Canada. 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html (accessed on 18 March 2021).
7. City of Toronto. 2018 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/20
20/12/9525-2018-GHG-Inventory-Report-Final-Published.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2021).
8. Lewington, J.; Toronto office tower takes the road to zero carbon. The Globe and Mail, 19 January 2021. Available on-
line: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/industry-news/property-report/article-toronto-office-tower-takes-the-
road-to-zero-carbon/ (accessed on 18 March 2021).
9. Wen, B.; Musa, S.N.; Onn, C.C.; Ramesh, S.; Liang, L.; Wang, W.; Ma, K. The role and contribution of green buildings on
sustainable development goals. Build. Environ. 2020, 185, 107091. [CrossRef]
10. Lucuik, M.; Trusty, W.; Larsson, N.; Charette, R. A Business Case for Green Buildings in Canada; Morrison Hershfield: Ottawa, ON,
Canada, 2005.
11. US Green Building Council. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/us-green-building-council-announces-top-10
-countries-and-regions-leed-green-building (accessed on 21 December 2020).
12. Addae-Dapaah, K.; Hiang, L.K.; Sharon, N.Y.S. Sustainability of sustainable real property development. J. Sustain. Real Estate
2009, 1, 203–225. [CrossRef]
13. Mangialardo, A.; Micelli, E.; Saccani, F. Does sustainability affect real estate market values? Empirical evidence from the office
building in Milan (Italy). Sustainability 2018, 11, 12. [CrossRef]
14. Mok, K.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, R. Stakeholder complexity in large scale green building projects. Eng. Const. Arch. Manag. 2018, 25,
1454–1474. [CrossRef]
15. Wadu Mesthrige, J.; Chan, H.T. Environmental certification schemes and property values: Evidence from the Hong Kong prime
commercial office market. Int. J. Strat. Prop. Manag. 2019, 23, 81–95. [CrossRef]
16. Simons, R.A.; Feltman, D.C.; Malkin, A.A. When would driverless vehicles make downtown parking unsustainable, and where
would the driverless car fleet rest during the day? J. Sustain. Real Estate 2018, 10, 3–32. [CrossRef]
17. Graaskamp, J.A. Fundamentals of real estate development. J. Prop. Val. Invest. 1992, 10, 619–639. [CrossRef]
18. Goubran, S.; Cucuzzella, C. Integrating the sustainable development goals in building projects. J. Sustain. Res. 2019, 1, 190010.
19. Bazhenova, E.; Weske, M. Deriving decision models from process models by enhanced decision mining. In Interna-
tional Conference on Business Process Management; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 444–457. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ekaterina-Bazhenova-2/publication/305520086_Deriving_Decision_Models_from_
Process_Models_by_Enhanced_Decision_Mining/links/5afd9d780f7e9b98e09ede02/Deriving-Decision-Models-from-Process-
Models-by-Enhanced-Decision-Mining.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2021).
20. Timmons, J.A.; Spinelli, S.; Ensign, P.C. New Venture Creation, Canadian ed.; McGraw-Hill: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010.
21. Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [CrossRef]
22. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416.
[CrossRef]
23. Preghenella, N.; Battistella, C. Exploring business models for sustainability: A bibliographic investigation of the literature and
future research directions. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021. [CrossRef]

54
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

24. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Canvas. Self-Published. 2010. Available online: http://www.cenda.cl/images/
descargas/sanvicente.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2020).
25. Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [CrossRef]
26. Comin, L.C.; Aguiar, C.C.; Sehnem, S.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Cazella, C.F.; Julkovski, D.J. Sustainable business models: A literature review.
Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 27, 2028–2047. [CrossRef]
27. Zaccack, N.R. How Real Estate Developers Define and Implement Their Social Impact Goals through the Real Estate Development
Process. Ph.D. Thesis, Master of Science in Real Estate Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2020.
28. Brigham, E.F. The determinants of residential land values. Land Econ. 1965, 41, 325–334. [CrossRef]
29. Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N.; Quigley, J. The economics of green building. Rev. Econ. Stats. 2013, 95, 50–63. [CrossRef]
30. Devine, A.; Kok, N. Green certification and building performance: Implications for tangibles and intangibles. J. Portf. Manag.
2015, 41, 151–163.
31. Deng, Y.; Wu, J. Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers’ perspective. Region. Sci. Urb. Econ.
2013, 47, 35–44. [CrossRef]
32. Chegut, A.; Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N. Supply, demand and the value of green buildings. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 22–43. [CrossRef]
33. Fuerst, F.; Gabrieli, T.; McAllister, P. A green winner’s curse? Investor behavior in the market for eco-certified office buildings.
Econ. Model. 2017, 61, 137–146. [CrossRef]
34. Oyedokun, T.; Jones, C.; Dunse, N. The growth of the green office market in the UK. J. Euro. Real Estate Res. 2015, 8, 267–284.
[CrossRef]
35. Falkenbach, H.; Lindholm, A.L.; Schleich, H. Review articles: Environmental sustainability: Drivers for the real estate investor. J.
Real Estate Lit. 2010, 18, 201–223. [CrossRef]
36. Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat Int. 2017, 60, 34–49. [CrossRef]
37. Zhang, X. Green real estate development in China: State of art and prospect agenda—A review. Ren. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47,
1–13. [CrossRef]
38. Whitney, S.; Dreyer, B.C.; Riemer, M. Motivations, barriers and leverage points: Exploring pathways for energy consumption
reduction in Canadian commercial office buildings. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 70, 101687. [CrossRef]
39. Leskinen, N.; Vimpari, J.; Junnila, S. A review of the impact of green building certification on the cash flows and values of
commercial properties. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2729. [CrossRef]
40. Liang, X.; Peng, Y.; Shen, G.Q. A game theory-based analysis of decision making for green retrofit under different occupancy
types. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 137, 1300–1312. [CrossRef]
41. Cohen, C.; Pearlmutter, D.; Schwartz, M. A game theory-based assessment of the implementation of green building in Israel.
Build. Environ. 2017, 125, 122–128. [CrossRef]
42. Fan, K.; Hui, E.C. Evolutionary game theory analysis for understanding the decision-making mechanisms of governments and
developers on green building incentives. Build. Environ. 2020, 179, 106972. [CrossRef]
43. Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N.; Quigley, J.M. Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 2492–2509.
[CrossRef]
44. Fennis, B.M.; Adriaanse, M.A.; Stroebe, W.; Pol, B. Bridging the intention–behavior gap: Inducing implementation intentions
through persuasive appeals. J. Consum. Psych. 2011, 21, 302–311. [CrossRef]
45. Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y.; Tian, W.; Li, H.; Guo, P.; Ye, F. Bridging the intention–behavior gap: Effect of altruistic motives on developers’
action towards green redevelopment of industrial brownfields. Sustainability 2021, 13, 977. [CrossRef]
46. Canada Green Build Council LEED Canada Rating System. Available online: https://www.cagbc.org/CAGBC/Programs/
LEED/LEED_Canada_Rating_System/LEED_Canada_Rating_System.aspx (accessed on 11 November 2020).
47. Eco Home. Available online: https://www.ecohome.net/guides/1217/canada-ranks-as-the-top-country-for-leed-green-
building-for-second-year-in-a-row/ (accessed on 11 November 2020).
48. Duggan, E.; Toronto’s 5 Largest New or Under Construction Office Buildings: With Toronto’s Office Vacancy Rate at About
One Percent, Developers Have about 9.4 Million Square Feet of New Office Projects Under Way. Vancouver Sun, 12 June 2019.
Available online: https://vancouversun.com/business/commercial-real-estate/torontos-5-largest-new-or-under-construction-
office-buildings (accessed on 18 March 2021).
49. McClintock, A. Did the Pandemic Crush Commercial Real Estate? We Asked a Market Expert. Toronto Life . 24 June 2020.
Available online: https://torontolife.com/real-estate/did-the-pandemic-crush-commercial-real-estate-we-asked-a-market-
expert/ (accessed on 18 March 2021).
50. Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/802500/asking-rent-per-sf-office-space-toronto-by-submarket/
(accessed on 18 March 2021).
51. Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016.
52. Sayce, S.; Ellison, L.; Parnell, P. Understanding investment drivers for UK sustainable property. Build. Res. Info. 2007, 35, 629–643.
[CrossRef]
53. Lippiatt, B.C. Selecting cost-effective green building products: BEES approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1999, 125, 448–455.
[CrossRef]

55
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

54. Yasinta, R.B.; Utomo, C.; Rahmawati, Y. A literature review of methods in research on green building cost analysis. In IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 930, p. 012014. Available online:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/930/1/012014/pdf (accessed on 21 March 2021).
55. Bartlett, E.; Howard, N. Informing the decision makers on the cost and value of green building. Build. Res. Inf. 2000, 28, 315–324.
[CrossRef]
56. Chegut, A.; Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N.; Quigley, J.M. The value of green buildings: New evidence from the United Kingdom. ERES
2010 Proc. Available online: https://immobilierdurable.eu/images/2128_uploads/Chegut_Eichholtz_Kok_green_value_in_the_
uk.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2021).
57. Zhang, L.; Wu, J.; Liu, H. Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 172,
2234–2245. [CrossRef]
58. Hsieh, H.C.; Claresta, V.; Bui, T.M.N. Green building, cost of equity capital and corporate governance: Evidence from US real
estate investment trusts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3680. [CrossRef]
59. Hwang, B.G.; Tan, J.S. Green building project management: Obstacles and solutions for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev.
2012, 20, 335–349. [CrossRef]
60. Tsalis, T.A.; Malamateniou, K.E.; Koulouriotis, D.; Nikolaou, I.E. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United
Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag.
2020, 27, 1617–1629. [CrossRef]
61. Pivo, G. Responsible property investing: What the leaders are doing. J. Prop. Invest. Fin. 2008, 26, 562–576. [CrossRef]
62. Oyedokun, T.B. Green premium as a driver of green-labeled commercial buildings in the developing countries: Lessons from the
UK and US. Int. J. Sustain. Built. Environ. 2017, 6, 723–733. [CrossRef]
63. Samad, N.S.A.; Abdul-Rahim, A.S.; Yusof, M.J.M.; Tanaka, K. Impact of green building certificate on firm’s financial performance.
IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 549, 012076. Available online: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/549/
1/012076/pdf (accessed on 21 March 2021). [CrossRef]
64. Qiu, Y.; Su, X.; Wang, Y.D. Factors influencing commercial buildings to obtain green certificates. Appl. Econ. 2017, 49, 1937–1949.
[CrossRef]
65. Kats, G.; Alevantis, L.; Berman, A.; Mills, E.; Perlman, J. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report of
California’s Sustainable Building Task Force, 134 (October, 2003). Available online: https://noharm-uscanada.org/sites/default/
files/documents-files/34/Building_Green_Costs_Benefits.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2021).
66. Lützkendorf, T.; Lorenz, D. Sustainable property investment: Valuing sustainable buildings through property performance
assessment. Build. Res. Info. 2005, 33, 212–234. [CrossRef]
67. Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. Integration of LCA and LCC analysis within a BIM-based environment. Autom.
Construct. 2019, 103, 127–149. [CrossRef]
68. Warren-Myers, G.; Bienert, S.; Warren, C. Valuation and sustainability are rating tools enough? In Proceedings of the European
Real Estate Society Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 24–27 June 2009.
69. Millington, A.F. An Introduction to Property Valuation, 5th ed.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2013.
70. Seyler, N.J. Sustainability and the Occupant: The Effects of Mindfulness and Environmental Attitudes on Real Estate User Behaviors;
Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2020.
71. Singh, A.; Syal, M.; Grady, S.C.; Korkmaz, S. Effects of green buildings on employee health and productivity. Am. J. Pub. Health
2010, 100, 1665–1668. [CrossRef]
72. Esfandiari, M.; Zaid, S.M.; Ismail, M.A.; Aflaki, A. Influence of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in green office
buildings: A review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 56, 385–390.
73. Das, P.; Wiley, J.A. Determinants of premia for energy-efficient design in the office market. J. Prop. Res. 2014, 31, 64–86. [CrossRef]
74. Fuerst, F.; van de Wetering, J. How does environmental efficiency impact on the rents of commercial offices in the UK? J. Prop. Res.
2015, 32, 193–216. [CrossRef]
75. Oyedokun, T.B.; Dunse, N.; Jones, C. The impact of green premium on the development of green-labeled offices in the UK. J.
Sustain. Real Estate 2018, 10, 81–108. [CrossRef]
76. Clapp, J.M. The intrametropolitan location of office activities. J. Reg. Sci. 1980, 20, 387–399. [CrossRef]
77. Hough, D.; Kratz, C. Can ‘good’ architecture meet the market test? J. Urban Econ. 1983, 14, 40–54. [CrossRef]
78. Cannaday, R.E.; Kang, H.B. Estimation of market rent for office spaces. Real Estate Appraiser Anal. 1984, 50, 67–72.
79. Brennan, T.P.; Cannaday, R.E.; Colwell, P.F. Office rent in the Chicago CBD. Real Estate Econ. 1984, 12, 243–260. [CrossRef]
80. Glascock, J.L.; Jahanian, S.; Sirmans, C.F. An analysis of office market rents: Some empirical evidence. Amer. Real Estate Urb. Econ.
Assoc. J. 1990, 18, 105–119. [CrossRef]
81. Mills, E.S. Office rent determinants in the Chicago area. Real Estate Econ. 1992, 20, 273–287. [CrossRef]
82. Dunse, N.; Jones, C. A hedonic price model of office rents. J. Prop. Valuat. Invest. 1998, 16, 297–312. [CrossRef]
83. CBRE and Maastricht University. International Green Building Adoption Index 2018. Available online: https://static1
.squarespace.com/static/57fa8eb0b3db2b529d44fa66/t/5ade1f3188251b9506c7b346/1524506429700/IGBAI2018.pdf (accessed on
18 March 2021).
84. Devencore Research; Toronto downtown office market, demand for top-tier space drives downtown Toronto office market.
Personal Communication, 2017.

56
Sustainability 2021, 13, 6969

85. Building Owners and Managers Association International. Building Class Definitions. Available online: https://www.boma.org/
BOMA/Research-Resources/Industry_Resources/BuildingClassDefinitions.aspx (accessed on 11 May 2021).
86. Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N.; Quigley, J.M. Why do companies rent green? Real property and corporate social responsibility. In Real
Property and Corporate Social Responsibility (August 20, 2009). Program on Housing and Urban Policy Working Paper; University of
California; Berkeley (W09-004). Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt7br1062q/qt7br1062q.pdf (accessed on
11 May 2021).
87. Wiley, J.A.; Benefield, J.D.; Johnson, K.H. Green design and the market for commercial office space. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ.
2010, 41, 228–243. [CrossRef]
88. Fuerst, F.; McAllister, P. Green noise or green value? Measuring the effects of environmental certification on office values. Real
Estate Econ. 2011, 39, 45–69. [CrossRef]
89. Bera, A.K.; Uyar, S.G.K. Local and global determinants of office rents in Istanbul. J. Eur. Real Estate Res. 2019, 12, 227–249.
[CrossRef]
90. Döringer, S. ‘The problem-centered expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit
expert knowledge. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2021, 24, 265–278. [CrossRef]
91. Cook, J.; Govett, C.; Murray, M. Supreme green: The effect of LEED certification levels on net and gross lease rental rates in
commercial offices. University of the South: Sewanee, TN, USA, 2020. Available online: https://dspace.sewanee.edu/bitstream/
handle/11005/21695/GovettSupremeSS2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 20 June 2021).
92. Amiri, A.; Ottelin, J.; Sorvari, J. Are LEED-certified buildings energy-efficient in practice? Sustainability 2019, 11, 1672. [CrossRef]
93. Xie, X.; Lu, Y.; Gou, Z. Green building pro-environment behaviors: Are green users also green buyers? Sustainability 2017, 9, 1703.
[CrossRef]
94. Sun, X.; Gou, Z.; Lu, Y.; Tao, Y. Strengths and weaknesses of existing building green retrofits: Case study of a LEED EBOM gold
project. Energies 2018, 11, 1936. [CrossRef]
95. Li, Q.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; Chen, F.; Wang, J. Visualized analysis of global green buildings: Development, barriers and future
directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118775. [CrossRef]
96. Chegut, A.; Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N. The price of innovation: An analysis of the marginal cost of green buildings. J. Environ. Econ.
Manag. 2019, 98, 102248. [CrossRef]

57
 sustainability

Article
Materiality Matrix Use in Aligning and Determining a Firm’s
Sustainable Business Model Archetype and Triple Bottom Line
Impact on Stakeholders
Valeska V. Geldres-Weiss 1, *, Nicolás Gambetta 2 , Nathaniel P. Massa 3 and Skania L. Geldres-Weiss 4

1 Department of Management and Economics, Faculty of Law and Business, Universidad de La Frontera,
Temuco 4811230, Chile
2 Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad ORT Uruguay, Montevideo 11300, Uruguay;
[email protected]
3 Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy, University of Malta,
Msida MSD 2080, Malta; [email protected]
4 Department of Economics and Business, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Empresariales y Jurídicas,
Universidad de La Serena, La Serena 1700000, Chile; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +56-9-9735-0999

Abstract: The materiality matrix is a tool that helps companies understand how the stakeholders’
view of material issues in environmental, social, and economic/governance dimensions influences
their value creation process, and creates triple bottom line impacts through shaping their strategic
business model elements. Building on the multidimensional definition of materiality, we propose
to use the materiality matrix as a tool to aid the transformation of a company’s existing traditional
business model into a more sustainable one (inside-out approach), and to enable the identification of
the most appropriate business model archetype to incorporate innovation into its sustainable business
Citation: Geldres-Weiss, V.V.;
model (outside-in approach). This paper presents the materiality matrix as a new tool to enhance and
Gambetta, N.; Massa, N.P.; transpose a company’s business model towards sustainability—as illustrated through the analysis of
Geldres-Weiss, S.L. Materiality Matrix the Viña Concha y Toro business model case. This new tool contributes to sustainable business model
Use in Aligning and Determining a literature and stakeholder theory by incorporating the materiality matrix as a gateway to business
Firm’s Sustainable Business Model model innovation, and as a tool to explain the dynamics in the sustainable value creation process
Archetype and Triple Bottom Line and concomitant impact on stakeholders.
Impact on Stakeholders. Sustainability
2021, 13, 1065. https://doi.org/ Keywords: sustainable business model canvas; sustainable business model archetype; materiality
10.3390/su13031065 matrix; winery; agri-food sector; sustainability

Received: 17 December 2020

Accepted: 15 January 2021
Published: 20 January 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Five years since its globe-spanning adoption by all 193 United Nations (UN) member
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
states, and a mere decade to its target date—the 2030 Agenda for Development resolu-
published maps and institutional affil- tion presents an urgent clarion call. This juncture of aroused awareness and incessant
iations. demands for sustainability and corporate responsibility, now more than ever, present the
perfect opportunity for companies to review their business models in order to under-
stand their value creation processes and gauge whether they are maximising total value to
stakeholders—beyond financial imperatives. Financial crises and social calamities (e.g.,
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
COVID-19), as well as extreme weather conditions, pose an urgent need for companies
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
to do things differently and responsibly, and to embrace a long-term view of prosperity.
This article is an open access article
To achieve this goal, companies need to develop more holistically sustainable business
distributed under the terms and models. Without changing current business models—in which growth is predicated on
conditions of the Creative Commons selling more goods to more people—environmental stresses will increase business risks and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// costs—mitigating and ultimately compromising essential fundamentals of sustainability.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Some companies are examining their business models to make these needed changes—this
4.0/). includes for example circular economy initiatives and B-Corps—but none of these changes

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031065 59 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

are yet mainstream [1]. Recent studies have identified Sustainable Business Model (SBM)
archetypes as a means to enable users to understand potential impacts of innovating in
relation to different types of business models [2], and have also developed a new business
model canvas that incorporates social and environmental layers, expanding on the origi-
nal (economic) business model canvas [3]. However, none of these studies explain how
companies that are in the process of transforming their traditional business models into
more sustainable ones can use the current sustainability information they have, to advance
to these innovative and more SBMs. Companies that are in this process usually have al-
ready identified the material issues for the stakeholders and for the company management.
To help companies speed up their business model transformation, management needs a
simple mechanism to link their company’s materiality matrix (MM) to a SBM archetype in
order to align and identify the innovation needed; and to facilitate their advance from a
traditional business model canvas to a sustainable business model canvas. This will help
transitioning companies make the necessary changes to their business models in a more
practical and intuitive way.
In this context, and aligned with increasing attention and policy focus on global food
security, the agri-food sector has a key role to play in sustainably producing and providing
safe and affordable food for all. Within the agri-food sector, various scholars have logically
highlighted the wine industry’s inextricable connection with the core fundamentals of
sustainability [4–6]. Furthermore, the industry is inherently linked to the terroir and other
ecologically-related environmental aspects, which are directly associated with the product
and its sustainability.
This study aims to understand the role the material issues identified in a com-
pany’s materiality matrix (MM) play in identifying its SBM archetype as developed by
Bocken et al. [2]; and the value creation process as proposed by the Triple Layered Business
Model Canvas (TLBMC) developed by Joyce and Paquin [3].
Towards this end, a case study of an established major Chilean winery, Viña Concha y
Toro S.A. (VCT) is undertaken to analyse and illustrate this holistic view of a company’s
value creation process. Currently, Chile ranks as the seventh largest wine producer, and is
also the fourth largest exporter globally. Established in 1883, and spanning generations,
the case company VCT is based in Chile, and is considered Latin America’s largest winery.
As one of Chile’s oldest wineries, VCT is also one of the world’s top ten wine exporters.
The firm is an ideal candidate for research seeking case-specific, rich, and deep applied
understanding into sustainability operationalisation; and the fact that the company is
extensively internationalised, brings into play various cultural contexts including myriad
stakeholder interaction and relational dependencies in its supply and value chains. Over
the years, the company has instituted various sustainability initiatives, gradually evolving
into a broader holistic commitment informing their strategy.
We undertake a detailed analysis of VCT’s sustainability reports for the period
2017–2019. Furthermore, we also extensively interview the deputy sustainability manager
of the company to garner deeper insights on the key sustainability aspects underpinning
this study. We analyse the changes in VCT’s material issues and any associated changes in
their prioritisation, through the MM analyses between 2017 and 2019—to understand how
these changes impact in the SBM archetype and value creation process.
Our study draws from stakeholder theory, given that this perspective associates value
creation with and for stakeholders [7]. We contribute to SBM literature as we show how
the MM, conceived by a multidimensional expression of materiality, relates to the SBM
archetypes developed by Bocken et al. [2], and the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas
(TLBMC) developed by Joyce and Paquin [3]. We also contribute to stakeholder theory in
that we provide evidence that the value creation of a SBM is brought about by taking into
account stakeholder demands. An effective SBM creates value for stakeholders aligned
with their requirements, which in turn creates a strong link between the company and
its stakeholders—probably stronger than in a common generic business model. Finally,
this study offers the opportunity to understand how the wine industry is changing its

60
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

sustainability material issue priorities. This also underlies the contribution of our study
to stakeholder theory, showing the potential that stakeholders have—through the identi-
fication of material issues—to help a company transform its business model into a more
sustainable one.

2. Literature Review
Though scholars may dispute extents of conceptual similarity or difference among fun-
damentals of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and stakeholder theory [8]—mounting
sensitivity to veritable environmental concerns and finite resources [9], combined with
incessant visible cases of corporate malfeasance, and a post-financial crisis questioning of
sustainability in employed capitalist ideals—has invariably seen key aspects of the two per-
spectives converge. Beyond public and societal demands, increasing policy and regulatory
requirements justly see mounting pressure on businesses to bring stakeholder and sustain-
ability responsibilities to the fore of their agendas. Further to maintaining awareness and
striving for relational harmony among vested parties with at times inherently conflicting
motivations, stakeholder theory “begins with the assumption that values are necessarily
and explicitly a part of doing business” [10]. Managerial in its application, Freeman [11]
consolidates positing that stakeholder theory essentially encapsulates two fundamental
questions. The first, “What is the purpose of the firm?”—directs managers to understand
and establish the shared sense of value they create, and what, through sustainable business
enterprise draws its key stakeholders together. Moreover aligned with Porter’s [12,13]
strategic competitiveness-derived notion of shared value, “this propels the firm forward
and allows it to generate outstanding performance, determined both in terms of its purpose
and marketplace financial metrics” [10] (p. 364). The second question asks of management,
“what responsibility do you owe to stakeholders?” This requires managers to articulate
how they intend to conduct business specifically and operationally, and establish the kinds
of relationships and rapport they need and want to create with their stakeholders to deliver
on their purpose [10]. The latter in particular, inferring the need to visibly communicate,
gauge and account for these relationships with stakeholders.
While keeping in mind the undisputed importance of shareholders and profits, critical
in sustaining operations and growth—stakeholder theory underpins the need for managers
to develop and nurture mutually sustaining relationships, inspire their stakeholders, and
create communities where all parties contribute to deliver the value committed to by the
firm [7,14,15]. Significantly, important profits become the result, rather than sole driver in
the value creation process [8,16–18]. Given current realities, Freeman et al. [10] (p. 364)
holistically observe that at the core lies the notion that “Economic value is created by people
who voluntarily come together and cooperate to improve everyone’s circumstance”—in
itself an inferred requirement for sustainability. Stakeholder theory implies that stakehold-
ers will support a company if they get value back in exchange [7,19], along the long-term
cycle and mutual quest for sustainability.

2.1. Sustainable Business Models and Stakeholders

The origins of stakeholder theory predate the contemporary popular notion of business
models in the literature. Initially a more nuanced view on capitalism, stakeholder theory
emphasised the interconnectedness and relationships between a business, and essentially
the entities it must, to greater or lesser extents, symbiotically interact with in order to sustain
its operations and enterprise—namely, its customers, suppliers, employees, investors and
communities among others—i.e., its stakeholders, as opposed to a quasi-sole focus on
shareholder primacy. In 1984 Freeman [20] had consolidated various perspectives at the
time, detailing his ‘stakeholder theory of organisational management and business ethics’—
at a time when business culture and common perception yet considered the notion of
ethics and any corporate social responsibility beyond Milton Friedman’s [21] paramount
emphasis on shareholder’s profits and adherence to laws and regulations—not comfortably
reconcilable with the motives of business enterprise—put mildly. While Freeman [20]

61
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

had coined the now classic definition of the concept: ‘any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objective’—elusive universal
consensus still sees scholars contest and debate defining ‘stakeholders’, such as ‘who, and
what counts’ [22,23].
In this regard, today’s heightened awareness, questions original notions of stakeholder
theory—as societal, political and regulatory demands converge, perceiving broader holistic
perspectives of stakeholders, and enterprises’ obligations [22,24]—since businesses are
now being actively seen as members of the societies within which they operate. This,
essentially bolstered contemporary stakeholder perspectives, broadening the perceived
remit of businesses’ responsibilities, co-acknowledging and aligning both corporate and
social intent [25]. Perhaps the recent declaration by Freeman [26], considered the father of
stakeholder theory, effectively echoed what is now a generally acknowledged realisation
across all stakeholder groups: that ‘Managing Stakeholders’ is the theme for the 21st century,
and that the task of executives is to create as much value as possible for stakeholders
without resorting to trade-offs. Great companies endure because they manage to get
stakeholder interests aligned in the same direction. In such contexts, the capacity to
‘endure’ derives directly from sustainability.
Complementarily, business models are developed, configured and operationalised
to create value [7,27–29]—with some form of value proposition at their core. While the
conceptual notion of a business model is not new, ‘business models’ per se comparatively
gained scholarly interest more recently [29]. Among various alternative models, Oster-
walder and Pigneur’s [30] business model canvas is considered among the most well
known and extensively deployed by businesses—also equally acknowledged in academic
circles. However, typical of non-sustainability-oriented business models, its emphasis is
on unidirectional economic value—where the business creates value for the customer in
exchange for financial economic value transacted for the business [7].
Drawing from the sustainability movement, and aligned with stakeholder theory,
Stubbs and Cocklin [31] and Lozano [32] proposed that a SBM must consider all the
stakeholders needs—incorporating social and environmental dimensions beyond eco-
nomic imperatives. Stubbs and Cocklin [31] specifically underline the requirement for
sustainable organisations to adopt a stakeholder rather than a shareholder view of the firm—
highlighting that a company’s longer term (and hence sustainable) success is inextricably
related to the success of its stakeholders. In this line, these authors state that companies
also need to treat nature as a stakeholder and promote environmental stewardship; from a
holistic view. Accordingly, Upward and Jones [33] and Stubbs and Cocklin [31] probably
make the first steps toward developing a SBM theoretical framework.
Concurrently, and drawing from an inherent need to account for value, the emergent
and complementary ‘triple bottom line’ concept [34] inferred that the overall outcomes
from a business model had to invariably also consider ecological and social, besides
economic performance.
Guided by this, and building on the established and comprehensive yet easy to
visualise and deploy Osterwalder and Pigneur [30] business model canvas, Joyce and
Paquin [3] incorporated these two additional sustainability components and developed the
TLBMC. Here, ‘stakeholder’ and ‘lifecycle’ perspectives respectively inform components
on the two additional social and environmental canvas layers, expanding on the original
economic business model canvas—seeking to account more fully for sustainability at
strategic and operational levels. This represents an inside-out approach to analyse business
model innovation. Given its foundation on the established and widely-used Osterwalder
and Pigneur [30] canvas, coupled with its novel ease of use in visually enhancing analyses
in conceptualising high-level sustainability-oriented innovation and operational strategies—
we adopt this triple-layer framework for the purposes of our case investigation. As inferred
earlier, sustainability scholars stress that the value of sustainability be necessarily shared
among all actors, including “the natural environment and society as main actors” in order to
be realised, extended and maintained over the longer-term [30,35]. In this regard, literature

62
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

underlines that SBMs are necessarily holistic in their scope—where respective components
are intimately interconnected through the stakeholders and explicable only by reference
to the whole. Grigorescu et al. [36] point out that stakeholders are critically relevant in
the SBM, playing an important role in consistently incorporating sustainability objectives
into business models—concomitant longer-term collective outcomes cascading beyond the
enterprise, to the national level.
In view of this, and the aforementioned core relevance of stakeholders in SBMs,
the theoretical basis informing this research is stakeholder theory. On this foundation,
Freudenreich et al. [7] propose a new approach, where business models create value,
organise and facilitate the exchange of value creation with and for stakeholders, their
proposed stakeholder value creation framework directly relates the organisation to its
stakeholders (Figure 1), it shows this value creation in relation to the confluence from both
the business model and stakeholder theory perspectives. Building on Freeman [11], these
authors stress that the business model must consolidate value creation at the nexus of
business model and stakeholder theory perspectives. They posit that in considering value
creation, a SBM must answer: what and how sustainable value is created (deriving from
traditional business model perspectives), whereas from the stakeholder theory perspective,
the with and for whom that value is created, is addressed.

Figure 1. Business model and stakeholder theory perspectives on value creation.

In relation to the company, this stakeholder value creation framework establishes five
stakeholder groups (societal, financial, employees, customers and business partners) with
and through which value creation dimensions, activities and interactions take place [7].
These authors state that in this framework and within the joint creation processes, stake-
holders are both (co)creators of value and receptors of the value created. Such mutually
sustaining value generating dynamics across stakeholder categories have been empirically
observed and also deemed beneficial and effective in agricultural contexts [9]. The business
model archetypes identified by Bocken et al. [2] configures an outside-in approach to allow
users to understand the potential impacts of innovating in relation to different types of
business models. The archetypes are: maximise material and energy efficiency; create value
from ‘waste’; substitute with renewables and natural processes; deliver functionality rather
than ownership; adopt a stewardship role; encourage sufficiency; repurpose the business
for society/environment; and develop scale-up solutions. The SBM archetypes describe
groupings of mechanisms and solutions that may contribute to enhancing and building up
the business model for sustainability; aiming at developing a common language useful in
facilitating and enabling the development of sustainable business models in practice [2].

2.2. The Materiality Matrix

As acknowledged earlier, investing one’s intent and attention on sustainability and
talking about ‘value’ without the capacity to observe, gauge or assess any such initiative
for the purposes of management and goal attainment is logically a moot point. This funda-
mental need (to gauge, measure and account for) becomes more critical (both internally
and externally) when driven by mounting social (and therefore stakeholder) expectations
and regulatory pressures transposed into evermore quantified obligations and compliance
requirements. Business models at their core inherently infer and align with the need to
analyse, assess and measure—given their strategic scope directly linked to prospective op-
portunities and performance. This need to measure and assess, had seen the development
of Osterwalder and Pignur’s [37] original business model canvas draw from Kaplan and
Norton’s [38,39] balanced scorecard. In itself a strategic management tool and framework,

63
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

this balanced scorecard seeks to manage, assess and direct organisational performance
on a broader set of factors deemed of strategic competitive importance, beyond the usual
focus on financial metrics. Resulting from increasingly perceived needs to account for even
broader stakeholder-related factors in a more focused manner, scholars further developed
extended derivatives from Kaplan and Norton’s original balanced scorecard. Significant
interest in incorporating sustainability metrics for establishing and auditing business per-
formance saw the development of the sustainability balanced scorecard [40]. See also,
Hansen and Schaltegger [41]; Figge et al. [42]—which in turn, and to differing extents
helped shape aspects of emerging SBMs. While the important capacity for management
to account for, value and audit the linkage between strategic direction and goals set, and
actual measurable progress or performance attained—is acknowledged as central to busi-
ness models—it is however at times elusive or more challenging to quantify aspects of
sustainability beyond generic inferences. This more so in the case of complex non-financial,
qualitative measures. Addressing this particularly testing issue for SBMs, in their concep-
tual paper on assessing sustainability-oriented business models, Lüdeke-Freund et al. [40]
(p. 169) highlight this SBM assessment gap and declare: “Whether and how ‘sustainable
business models’ effectively support sustainable development is not just a matter of design,
but also of the measurability and manageability of business model effects”.
Originally derived from financial accounting and legal spheres [43], the concept of
materiality highlights and discerns what is relevant and important. By extension and via
application, materiality assessment is today also broadly adopted and directly linked to
both CSR and sustainability performance—and, thus, invariably concerns stakeholders,
given the usage of, and impact on resources and contingent effects on organisations’
ecosystem realities. This linkage was arguably prompted by Starik in 1995 [30] who
seriously asked: ‘Should trees have managerial standing?’—and called out as a serious
omission the non-recognition of nature as a stakeholder [44,45]. Addressing this persistent
tendency for denying the environment stakeholder status, contemporary sustainability
practice sought to transpose this into materiality assessment. For example, the international
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), considered the global body for
professional accountants, together with consulting and auditing firm KPMG and other
associated environmental partners, staked their commitment in ‘Identifying natural capital
risk and materiality’ [46]. Since its establishment in 2000, the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) established an evolving portfolio of sustainability aspects that serve as an enterprise
sustainability reporting guideline. Recognised and adopted worldwide across industries
in the corporate world, the practicality and application of this assessment framework
has also been acknowledged by scholars [40,47–50]. In its most recent iteration, the GRI
reporting standards were explicit about the need to broaden consultation on aspects of
stakeholder engagement. The GRI G4 guidelines further stress that reporting organisations
should determine materiality and identify a process for accounting for such perspectives—
including the interests of any stakeholders with whom the business may not be in constant
or obvious dialogue. In this respect, it could be said that the materiality concept emerged
as the most important element in the new GRI G4 guidelines on corporate sustainability
reporting—especially, for instance, in the agricultural sector [43].
The GRI framework offers a sound guideline for sustainability reporting, and in the
case of the G4 edition, specifically enhances this through the MM. This edition allows for a
broad stakeholder-oriented approach in defining sustainability priorities, which, in our
case, relate to the wine industry which forms part of the agri-food sector. In this regard,
through the MM, the GRI’s stakeholder approach is also useful for developing our research.
The MM requires that the relevant sustainability aspects, from both the company’s, and
the stakeholder’s perspectives, are juxtaposed—seeking to match and align both in the
MM [40] (Figure 2).

64
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

Figure 2. Illustration of a materiality matrix (MM).

Seeking more graduated assessment, each of a MM’s material issues can also be
identified with, and attributed a number to facilitate further evaluation—where higher
values, indicate higher attributed priorities [51].

2.3. Material Issues in the Wine Industry

Ouvrard et al. [52] note that in the context of intense global competition, mounting soci-
etal expectations and market demands, wine producers and the broader industry ecosystem
are generally very keen on environmentally friendly businesses; and sustainability and
environmental issues tend to be reflected in their business models. Benson-Rea et al. [53] ob-
serve that in the New Zealand wine industry, multiple business models co-exist alongside
each other. In wine production and distribution, topics related with environmental issues
include land, water, energy, and chemical use, the generation and management of organic
and inorganic waste streams, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, and the impact
on ecosystems [54]. Olaru et al. [55] logically underline that sustainability of the wine
industry involves environmental concerns in the grape production and processing systems.
In this industry the stakeholders’ pressures drive sustainable practice [4,56]. With
respect to stakeholder demands and requirements specifically associated with the agri-food
sector, Dania et al. [57] establish stakeholders’ sustainability requirements in agri-food
supply chains across economic, environmental, and social dimensions (Figure 3).

2.4. Research Proposition

From the literature review in Section 2.1 we identified prior studies that have devel-
oped some solutions to help companies transition from a traditional business model to a
sustainable business model. Specifically, Joyce and Paquin [3] developed the TLBMC to
expand the original economic business model canvas allowing firms to account more fully
for sustainability at strategic and operational levels showing the triple bottom line impact
on stakeholders. Bocken et al. [2] identified business model archetypes that may contribute
to building up the business model for sustainability and aim to develop a common lan-
guage useful in accelerating the development of sustainable business models in practice.
From the stakeholder theory perspective, stakeholders have a relevant role to play in the
business model innovation process. Freudenreich et al. [7] propose a new approach, where
business models create value, organise and facilitate the exchange of value creation with
and for stakeholders—while Grigorescu et al. [36] point out that stakeholders are critically
relevant in the SBM, playing an important role in consistently incorporating sustainability

65
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

objectives into business models. However, none of these studies have discussed how the
relevant sustainability aspects from both the company’s and the stakeholder’s perspectives
represented in the MM (see Section 2.2), can be used by companies to apply the solutions
developed in the abovementioned studies—to turn their current business model into a
more sustainable one, and thus, to create sustainable value for their stakeholders and
society as a whole. Based on this, we develop the following research proposition:
Research proposition: The material issues identified in a company’s material-
ity matrix (MM) are useful to align and determine the Sustainable Business
Model archetype (SBM archetype) and the triple bottom line impact on stake-
holders (TLBMC).

Figure 3. Stakeholder requirements in a sustainable agri-food supply chain.

Ensuing support for this proposition, should see companies able to utilise the MM
they would have already prepared for sustainability reporting purposes, as a gateway to
help transform their business model into a more sustainable one.

3. Materials and Methods

To understand the role that the MM plays in identifying the SBM archetype and value
creation process in a SBM, we use an in-depth case study based on Viña Concha y Toro
(VCT)—a well-established and internationalised wine grower and producer operating
in a sector characterised by its inextricable link to elements fundamental to core aspects
of sustainability. Such a case study approach allows rich contextually applied insights,
and the analysis of empirical projects [58] that involve research and theory in the early
or intermediate stages of development [59,60]. In this regard, such approaches have
been effectively used in sustainability studies [61]. Case studies enable one to transform
qualitative evidence into deductive research [60]. This methodology is used to gain an
understanding of the processes and social interactions that develop in organizations in a
specific historical context [62]. The objective of the case study was to extract information
about: (1) VCT’s sustainability approach; (2) VCT’s materiality matrix; and (3) VCT’s SBM
elements. This is based on a thorough evaluation and content analysis of documentary
evidence provided by VCT’s extensive annual sustainability reports published on their
website: Sustainability Report 2017 [63], Sustainability Report 2018 [64], and Sustainability
Report 2019 [65].
Content analysis has been used to study a range of disclosure types in the accounting
literature (e.g., [66,67]), and more specifically in this connection, one notes it is a common
approach in CSR reporting [68].

66
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

The Sustainability Report 2017 [63] was assured by the external auditor provided by
Deloitte, and was performed under the International Standard on Assurance Engagements
(ISAE) 3000. ISAE 3000 is the assurance standard for non-financial information, and is
issued by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). ISAE 3000 is usually applied
for the audit of internal control, sustainability and compliance with laws and regulations.
The sustainability reports for 2018 [64] and 2019 [65] were assured by the external au-
ditor AENOR, who issues GRI standards certificates of compliance. The report review
undertaken by the external auditor consisted in an enquiring process on different VCT
units and management areas which had been involved in the development processes and
drawing up of the report—as well as in the application of analytic procedures and checking
tests. On the basis of procedures, the auditors state that nothing comes to their attention
which causes them to conclude that the selected data for the sustainability reports has not
been prepared in all material respects in accordance with the GRI reporting guidelines.
Moreover, on the basis of validation from well-known and established international audit
firms, we consider this information reliable for the purposes, scope and research objectives
of our study.
The sustainability reports’ content analysis is furthermore supported by our in-depth
interviewing of VCT’s deputy Sustainability Manager, providing further complementary
qualitative and quantitative insights on detailed aspects beyond what was disclosed in the
sustainability reports. The sustainability reports’ content was thoroughly analysed, with
a focus on the evolution of sustainability pillars and elements defined by the company
between 2017 and 2019. In parallel, and aligned with our research objectives, analytic
attention also converged on identifying the priority evolution of sustainability aspects,
specifically the changes in material issues and the changes in their prioritisation, through
the MM analysis. The first step in this study is to identify VCT’s business model elements
and identify the most relevant sustainability aspects through the period 2017–2019. The
second step is to analyse the sustainability aspects prioritisation, in this sense the MM
provides the sustainability priorities—matching the stakeholders’ sustainability priorities
with the company’s sustainability priorities, in a matrix format [40]. The third step is
to analyse possible matching between the material issues identified in the MM, and the
established VCT sustainability pillars; in relation to ensuing elements consolidated in the
TLBMC, and the SBM archetypes.

4. Results
4.1. VCT Sustainability Approach
“VCT’s vision of sustainability is based on understanding that economic success goes
hand in hand with caring for the environment, making rational use of natural resources,
coupled with a commitment to people and the social sphere in which it operates. This
virtuous circle is essential in the company’s business model” [65] (p. 28). The definition of
the objectives’ content and strategic foci were based on their analysis and ensuing themes
aligned with the winery’s main stakeholders—identifying areas and issues requiring inter-
nal and/or external management to achieve strategic goals [65]. In 2018, VCT defined its
2022 corporate strategy, aiming at growth in business profitability and the creation of value
based on the strategic pillars of excellence, sustainability and innovation; further including
in 2019 the people pillar [65]. The components of VCT’s strategic model incorporate the
sustainability strategy into its core business: the production of high-quality wines. The
sustainability strategy considers the product as the central element, and the strategic pillars
emanate from and support this core element. In alignment, VCT’s business model is
articulated as follows: “The business model demands that the company participate actively
in each of the stages of the value chain; vineyards, winemaking cellars, bottling plants and
commercial offices, giving the company a vertical integration that assures the quality of
each of their processes and of the final products” [64] (p. 18).

67
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

The winery defined its sustainability strategy around the following six strategic pillars,
based on an analysis of the most relevant issues aligned with its key stakeholders. Each
pillar’s objectives contribute to fulfil VCT’s vision:
1. Product: provide products of excellence that create the best experience for our customers.
2. Customers: create partnerships with our customers.
3. Supply Chain: be a partner for our suppliers.
4. People: have highly committed employees.
5. Society: create shared value for society.
6. Environment: be an example for the industry on environmental practices
To monitor the implementation of its sustainability strategy, VCT created a Sustain-
ability Executive Committee involving leading executives that manage various pillars, the
General Manager, and the Sustainable Development Area (led by VCT’s deputy Sustain-
ability Manager). In this way, sustainability became an essential element of the company,
differentiating and positioning VCT as an exemplar for the industry in global markets. The
company’s Sustainability Strategy is aligned with the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) defined by the United Nations. While considering all the goals
important and interconnected, the company nevertheless focuses efforts on those that are
critical to its business and where they can have the greatest positive impact.
In 2012, VCT issued its first Sustainability Report prepared under GRI methodology. In
this regard, in 2020, for the sixth consecutive year, VCT has been included in the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index, an established international sustainability index assessing economic,
social, and environmental aspects of a business, as well as corporate governance. Besides,
the company has also been bestowed various awards associated with both sustainability as
well as their wine brands.
The company defined eight categories of stakeholders, these categories were priori-
tised according to the stakeholder’s degree of influence and interest in the organisation.
The categories were classified as external and internal, according to the type of relationship
they have with the company. VCT Internal stakeholders are the following: Employees;
Shareholders; and Investors. VCT External stakeholders are the following: Suppliers;
Communities; Society; Government and authorities; customers and the media. More-
over, VCT [65] (p. 10) declare: “The company seeks to encourage the engagement of
all its stakeholders, with an emphasis on continuously promoting collaboration through
various activities and communication channels where demands, opinions, concerns and
suggestions can be expressed”.
VCT’s deputy Sustainability Manager states that the drivers that led the company
in their sustainability initiative were: “1. The external driver: it came to the company
around 2007 when the first formal requests for information regarding the company’s sus-
tainable management began, at that time, very influenced by the role that retail had taken.
At that beginning, the responses that the company provided regarding the information
requirements were rather informative and without compromising future performance
regarding the different matters, given that the reported practices were only those that were
implemented intuitively. The main concern of retail more than a decade ago was of an
environmental nature, regarding the existence of analysis of impacts or minimal indica-
tors. 2. The internal driver: when we realise that the company did not have a systematic
management on the subject, the creation of a department in charge of proactively manag-
ing and promoting environmental and social issues within the company was formalised.
In addition to formalisation in terms of functions, it is established that the Sustainable
Development area operates in a transversal manner and acting as an internal facilitator.
In addition, the management is formalised, through the generation of a Strategic Plan
2012–2015 in the first stage, which has renewed its continuity for the period 2015–2020”.

4.2. VCT MM Evolution

The company, through surveys and interviews with employees, suppliers and other
stakeholders, carried out [65] (p. 8): “a materiality analysis considering the results of the

68
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

previous year and the structure of its Sustainability Strategy as a basis, in order to update it,
adapting to the changes, trends and new challenges in the matter”. The VCT MM represents
the VCT prioritisation of material topics. Between 2017 and 2019, the material topics were
analysed in order to represent its evolving prioritisation. Figure 4 shows that in 2019,
the company focuses on four material themes which are distributed in three prioritised
groups. These material themes are: water management; mitigation and adaptation to
climate change; employees’ well-being; and waste management and recycling.

Figure 4. Viña Concha y Toro S.A. (VCT) 2017, 2018, and 2019 MM prioritisation of material themes.

The materiality process carried out by the company each year considers the results of
the previous year, the structure of the sustainability strategy as a basis, and the necessary
updates to adapt to changes, trends and new challenges. The VCT prioritisation process
includes surveys and interviews with stakeholders, a review of the industry’s sustainability
context, and the gathering of internal information. Figure 4 represents VCT’s materiality
matrices for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Figure 4 was consolidated in line with the
prioritisation of the material topics indicated by VCT each year in its materiality matrices
published in its 2017, 2018, and 2019 sustainability reports. We assigned a number to

69
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

each material topic, the higher the value, the higher the priority [51]. The numbers were
assigned with the following logic: the first number indicates the priority level for the
company, the second the priority level for the stakeholders and the third the priority of the
item in the corresponding quadrant.
The company defined thirty-three material topics distributed in eight groups in 2017;
forty material topics distributed in six groups in 2018; and thirty-four material topics
distributed in nine groups in 2019 (Figure 4). Although the number of material topics and
groups during 2019 is very similar to 2017, the difference lies in the focus of the topics
distributed in their top three priority groups. In order to carry out this targeting, the
company expanded its MM from 3 × 3 to a 4 × 4 matrix in 2019.
When comparing the MM between 2017 and 2019, the trend of the materiality process
was to focus on the most relevant material issues, observing, during 2019, in the first three
priority groups, the four material topics most relevant to the company (Table 1).

Table 1. VCT Number of material themes between 2017 and 2019, in the first three groups.

Material Themes in MM 2017 2018 2019

First prioritisation 6 2 1
Second prioritisation 8 13 2
Third prioritisation 1 6 1

During 2019, only four material topics (water management, mitigation and adaptation
to climate change, employee wellbeing, and waste management and recycling) were
concentrated in the three highest priority groups. On the other hand, in 2017, there were
sixteen material topics in the top three priority groups, and in 2018, there were twenty-
one. Figure 5 shows that water management represents VCT’s number one priority. The
company’s highest priority issue on sustainability is water management (Figure 5). The
table also shows that the highest priority area contained seven material topics in 2017, two
topics in 2018 and only one in 2019, showing a focused strategy on water management. The
changes made by the company between 2017 and 2019, in terms of prioritising of material
issues, generated a targeting of VCT priorities.

Figure 5. VCT material themes, prioritisation of first group tendency.

4.3. VCT SBM Elements

We defined the elements of the company’s sustainable business model as those ele-
ments that are measured by the company in the main elements reported by VCT in each
pillar of its sustainability strategy. The main elements reported by the company in each
pillar in its annual sustainability reports were considered by this study as elements of the
VCT SBM. In Figure 6, we show the VCT SBM elements between 2017 and 2019.

70
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

Figure 6. The VCT Sustainable Business Model (SBM) elements for the period 2017–2019.

The evolution of the elements of each sustainability pillar of the company between
2017 and 2019 are analysed and outlined below:
• In the Environment Pillar the evolution of its elements is related to the incorporation
of the element of circular economy. The “waste” element was replaced by the “circular
economy” element. The Environment Pillar elements that remain in 2019 are: water,
energy, biodiversity and climate change.
• In the Supply Chain Pillar, the evolution of its elements is related to: first, the replace-
ment of the elements “Carbon Footprint” by “Sustainability Index” and “Packaging”
by “Sustainable packaging”, both changes were made by the company in 2018. Second,
the incorporation of a new element called “Packaging carbon footprint”, a change
made in 2018 and third, the Responsible Supply Chain element was replaced by the
Responsible Sourcing element.
• In the Product Pillar, there are no changes related to its elements during the period,
the elements are the following: innovation, quality, sustainable attributes, and respon-
sible drinking.

71
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

• In the Customers Pillar. there are no changes related to its elements during the period.
In the 2017–2019 period, the elements are the following: efficiency in logistics costs,
efficiency in CO2 emissions and integral customers.
• In the People Pillar, the evolution of its elements is related to the replacement of the
element “Knowledge Center” by “Training” in 2019. The elements of the People Pillar
that remain unchanged in the period 2017–2019 are the following: career development,
engagement and ethical management.
• In the Society Pillar, the evolution of its elements is related to the incorporation of
a new element, called “Entrepreneurship”. The elements of the Society Pillar that
remain unchanged in the period 2017-2019 are the following: productive alliances,
extension for grape growers, communities and education (training).

4.4. Developing the Environmental and Social Canvas Layers for VCT
Using the elements of the VCT SBM 2019 described above, we developed the ‘envi-
ronmental life cycle’ and the ‘social stakeholder’ layers of the TLBMC, as can be seen in
Figures 7 and 8. The criteria and method used was to relate the elements of the VCT SBM
with the framework in the form of the TLBMC developed by Joyce and Paquin [3]. We
developed only the environmental and social layers of the canvas, as the elements of the
VCT SBM are concentrated on these two topics.

Figure 7. The environmental life cycle layer of the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC), 2019 VCT.

The TLBMC built for this case study, specifically the ‘environmental life cycle’ layer
and the ‘social stakeholder’ layer of the TLBMC, allows us: first, to identify and establish a
comprehensive vision of the elements of the company’s sustainable business model; second,
to specify the actions carried out by the company in terms of social and environmental
sustainability; third, to have a holistic vision of the company’s SBM showing the different
types of value creation, in terms of both social and environmental sustainability; and
fourth, to enable the integration of the different types of value creation, in terms of both
social and environmental sustainability. Seeing how the overlaid SBM elements from the
different strategic sustainability pillars defined by VCT match the different components

72
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

of the SBM canvas’ environmental and social layers, provided for useful and interesting
insights directly aligned with our research objectives.

Figure 8. The social stakeholder layer of the TLBMC, 2019 VCT.

4.5. Aligning the MM with the TLBMC and the SBM Archetypes
To test our research proposition, we relate the elements of the 2019 VCT SBM (that
were previously matched with, and consolidated in the TLBMC) with the material issues
defined in VCT’s 2019 MM. We do this in order to visualise how the company responds
and adjusts its business model in relation to the sustainability issues included in the MM
developed—consolidating and considering the importance of the material issues defined
by both the stakeholders and VCT (Figure 9).
Figure 9 shows that all elements of the VCT TLBMC respond to the material issues
identified in the company’s MM. In some cases, each element of the SBM responds to
more than one of the material issues identified. In the ‘environmental life cycle’ and ‘social
stakeholder’ layers of the triple layered business model canvas, it is possible to observe the
case organisation’s progress towards the achievement of the goals related to each element
of its SBM (Figures 7 and 8).
The goals linked to the four more relevant material issues and its level of achievement
are the following:
- Water management: 10% reduction of water footprint (100%);
- Mitigation and adaptation to climate change: 30% reduction in scope 1 and 2 (90%);
- Employee wellbeing: 100% departments with career plans (50%);
- Waste management and recycling: 100% waste avoiding landfills (97%).
Finally, we link each of the material issues included in VCT’s MM with the SBM
archetypes (Figure 9). Out of the eight SBM archetypes, all the material issues included in
the MM are related to four of them:
- Technological—maximise material and energy efficiency;
- Technological—substitute with renewables and natural processes;

73
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

- Social—adopt a stewardship role;

- Technological—create value from waste.

Figure 9. The 2019 VCT MM linked to SBM canvas elements and SBM archetypes.

Interestingly, the four most relevant material issues are linked to these four
SBM archetypes.
As shown in Figure 9, the MM is useful to, both, understand how the company creates
value for stakeholders as shown in the TLBMC; as well as, to identify the SBM archetype
that may contribute to building up the business model for sustainability. These ensuing
results support our research proposition.
These empirical findings were consolidated and supplemented by complementary
insights garnered by means of interviews with VCT’s deputy Sustainability Manager,
seeking support for the aligned SBM archetypes we identify for VCT. After understanding
the different SBM archetypes, the deputy Sustainability Manager stated that there is no
single SBM archetype that identifies VCT, but there are four that best encompass VCT’s

74
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

strategy, and also provided us with the rationale for that statement (using the methodology
developed by Bocken et al. [2] we provided). The four SBM archetypes the manager
identified for VCT, and the rationale provided for each respective choice, is shown below:
1. SBM archetype 1: maximise material and energy efficiency:
a. Value proposition: packaging reduction; introduction of a light bottle with 13%
less weight and therefore a reduction in the generation of waste and reduction
of emissions in transportation and processing.
b. Value creation and delivery: VCT worked with Cristalerías de Chile for the
development of the new light bottle, the eco-glass format, which became a
standard for the Chilean wine industry.
c. Value capture: the light bottle provided for cost savings related to the main
input of VCT’s operations.
2. SBM archetype 2: create value from ‘waste’:
a. Value proposition: currently 98% of waste is recycled, reused or recovered.
Organic waste is used to generate compost that is applied again to the earth due
to its high organic content, which helps to increase the health and productivity
of the soils. VCT is moving towards 100% of waste destined for recycling, reuse
or recovery.
b. Value creation and delivery: VCT has different alliances for each type of waste
to be recovered.
c. Value capture: through its circular economy initiatives VCT generates savings
for transport and disposal of waste, and the sale of waste. For waste that is
generated on a smaller scale, alternatives for use are sought.
3. SBM archetype 3: substitute with renewable and natural processes:
a. Value proposition: VCT has Initiatives to incorporate renewable energy. The
company is moving towards a 100% renewable energy supply in all its facilities.
b. Value creation and delivery: in order to communicate this attribute to its con-
sumers, VCT generated a joint project with CRS (Centre for Resource Solutions)
to bring to Chile the Green-e renewable energy certification standard, which en-
ables the use of a seal on the product to promote and communicate recognition
the said attribute.
c. Value capture: the use of renewable energies has meant lower energy costs and
a reduced carbon footprint. Through product labelling, VCT communicates
this directly to consumers in the most receptive markets—emphasising the
sustainable attributes of its products.
4. SBM archetype 4: adopt a stewardship role:
a. Value proposition: application of ethical standards in the supply chain, through
VCT’s established responsible sourcing program.
b. Value creation and delivery: through VCT certification of the Sustainability
Code of Wines of Chile (Vinos de Chile), environmental and social aspects
are worked upon through collaboration with grape suppliers, focusing on
agricultural practices.
c. Value capture: through supply chain programs, VCT has achieved and en-
joys suppliers’ loyalty. There are different types of programs depending on
the provider segment. Supply chain programs are in place to enhance and
advance suppliers’ quality, productivity, and sustainability. This generates,
promotes and fosters suppliers that operate in a coordinated manner with the
organisation, improving sustainability and response rates.
It is interesting to note that the self-perception of VCT regarding the four SBM
archetypes coincides with the same four SBM archetypes that—based on our analysis—
we linked with the material issues included in the MM. This confirms that the linkage

75
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

we established is aligned and appropriate, confirming the approach we propose and the
usefulness of the MM in this endeavour.
From joint analysis we observed the following: first, the VCT SBM answers the “what
and how value is created” questions from the sustainable business model theory perspective
in the company, in an inside-out approach (Figures 7 and 8). Second, the VCT SBM also
answers the “with and for whom the value is created” questions from the stakeholder
theory perspective (Figure 9—because each of the SBM elements in the canvas are related to
the material issues included in the MM). Third, water management represents the number
one sustainability priority of the company (Figure 5), while the top four priorities are
complemented in 2019 with two more environmental issues (mitigation and adaptation to
climate change, and waste management); and a social issue (employee wellbeing)—as we
indicated in Figure 4. Fourth, the material issues included in the MM are all linked to a
different SBM archetype, and these archetypes are also linked to environmental and social
topics, from an outside-in approach (Figure 9). Finally, the stakeholders’ requirements in a
sustainable agri-food supply chain as stated by Dania et al. [57] are related to environmental
and social topics which are met by VCT, with the exception of the issue related to “easier
access to financial and non-financial support”, which is not explicitly specified in the
company’s sustainability reports.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Previous studies have developed methodologies and solutions to help companies
transform their business model into a more sustainable one, as is the case of the SBM
archetypes [2] and the TLBMC [3]; but none of these studies explored how the materiality
matrix could be a tool to help companies advance towards a sustainable business model.
Our study is motivated by increasing expectations and the urgent need for companies to
transform their business by introducing innovation to their business models in order to
conduct business in a more sustainable way—seeking maximisation not only of financial
and economic value, but also social and environmental value. Drawing from stakeholder
theory, this study’s research objective is to understand the role that the material issues
identified in a company’s MM play in identifying its SBM archetype and its value creation
process as proposed by the TLBMC.
To test and establish support for this study’s research proposition, we use an in-
depth case study focused on Viña Concha y Toro, a world leading winery based in Chile.
VCT conduct business in the agri-food industry, a sector of interest as these companies
need to play a significant role in the 2030 Agenda since they are directly linked to SDG
12—‘Responsible consumption and production’, and SDG 2—‘Zero hunger’.
This paper provides an approach, through the use of the MM, for linking the theoretical
concept of the SBM archetype that aligns and refers to business model innovation, to the
SBM elements represented in a TLBMC. Based on our results, we conclude that the MM
has the potential to help companies identify the SBM archetype relevant to transform their
traditional business model into a more holistically sustainable business model; and to also
better enable an understanding of the dynamics that create triple bottom line impact on their
stakeholders. This study proposes a tool that companies can use to transform their business
model, and to advance toward more comprehensive strategic and operational sustainability
using information from the MM they typically construct during their sustainability report
preparation process.
We contribute to the SBM literature as we show how the MM, conceived by a multidi-
mensional expression of materiality, relates to the SBM archetypes developed by Bocken
et al. [2], and the TLBMC developed by Joyce and Paquin [3]. This also underlies the
contribution of our study to stakeholder theory, showing the potential that stakeholders
have—through the identification of material issues—to transform the firm’s business model
into one of sustainability. This study is novel in linking these three concepts to propose
a useful tool for companies to advance in their sustainability journey. A strength of the
methodology employed in this study is that based on content analysis, in that we gather

76
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

the audited and documented information required to develop the basis of this research,
and we in turn additionally validate and confirm our observations with complementary
rich insights from in-depth interviewing with the senior sustainability management of Viña
Concha y Toro, a recognised world leader in sustainability, ranked in the 2020 Dow Jones
Sustainability Index.
Firms can use the approach we propose with the MM to understand how their stake-
holders’ view of material issues in the environmental, social and economic/governance
perspectives influence both their value creation process, and the triple bottom line im-
pact on stakeholders through shaping and informing their SBM elements. This will help
companies to incorporate in their current business models the sustainability issues that
progressively matter most to their stakeholders over time—and hence, enhance their clar-
ity of vision and alignment in turning their business models into more comprehensively
sustainable ones. This is an internal transformation of the current business model ele-
ments produced by the stakeholders’ influence. Additionally, we propose to use the MM
to identify the more suitable SBM archetypes, or a combination of SBM archetypes, that
will allow the company to explore the potential impacts of innovating towards different
types of business models. Hence, we identify the MM as the gateway for companies to
innovate and develop a business model that allows them to deliver sustainable value to
their stakeholders.
Additionally, and in consolidation, the purpose of understanding the role that the
MM plays in shaping the SBM elements of the company and SBM archetypes, is also
particularly relevant in current times, where new players expect to enter into the sustain-
ability standards issuers’ arena. This, more specifically given the International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS) foundation’s proposal seeking to impose a (simplified) single
view of materiality more closely linked to the financial materiality view—in contrast to
the multidimensional definition of materiality proposed by the GRI framework. In this
regard, this study furthermore shows the enhanced relevance that the multidimensional
definition of materiality represented in a MM has in: shaping the dynamics of a SBM from
an outside-in approach; establishing association with the SBM archetypes developed by
Bocken et al. [2]; and from an inside-out approach, articulating the value created, as in the
TLBMC developed by Joyce and Paquin [3]. The simplified view of materiality, focused on
the enterprise value creation process to shareholders, is a step back in the study of SBM
from the holistic approach provided by the multidimensional view of materiality, which
focuses on the organization’s significant impact on the triple bottom line to a wider range
of stakeholders [69].
That said, there are potential limitations to this proposed use of the MM. Firstly,
the linkage of the material themes to the SBM elements in the canvas, and to the SBM
archetypes is reflective, based on the current business model canvas and SBM archetypes.
This analysis should be revisited periodically to identify new synergies. Secondly, the
industry sector should be considered when using the MM for this purpose, as the SBM
archetypes are related to different groups of business model innovations (technological,
social and organisational), and each of them may be more suited to specific industries.
Our research is based on a case study in the winery industry, other industries could pose
different complexities.
Our study is timely as the issuers of sustainability standards and metrics are entering
into a process of mergers, and in this regard new players will as expected emerge. The
concept of materiality is one of the most relevant to be considered by companies when is-
suing a sustainability report, and we show that its multidimensional definition perspective
should prevail due to its comprehensive nature and potential to promote business model
innovation. Our findings and results create a straightforward methodology for companies
to use in order to incorporate innovation and transform their business models towards
sustainability. It helps sustainability standards issuers and financial reporting standards
issuers to understand the link between materiality and the value creation process; as well
as the triple bottom line impact on strategic operations through the dynamics in the SBM.

77
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

Our study provides a tool that the leading firm of a value chain can use to coordinate
and require other members of the value chain to apply, with the purpose of identifying
collaboration opportunities to align and comprehensively strengthen the sustainability
of the value chain, by finding and establishing mutually reinforcing complementarities.
This study also opens avenues for future research as we need to better understand how
the multidimensional concept of materiality impacts the quantified figures of financial
statements as a result of the dynamics in the company’s value creation process—and more
specifically, how these dynamics generate triple bottom line impact on stakeholders.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: V.V.G.-W., N.G.; N.P.M.; S.L.G.-W. Methodology: V.V.G.-

W.; N.G.; S.L.G.-W. Investigation: V.V.G.-W., N.G.; N.P.M.; S.L.G.-W. Writing—Original draft prepara-
tion: V.V.G.-W., N.G.; N.P.M.; S.L.G.-W. Writing—review and editing: N.P.M. Project administration:
V.V.G.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Funded by the Universidad de La Frontera, Project DI20-0087.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. World Resources Institute. The Elephant in the Boardroom: Why Unchecked Consumption is not an Option in Tomorrow’s
Markets. Available online: https://www.wri.org/publication/elephant-in-the-boardroom (accessed on 8 January 2021).
2. Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [CrossRef]
3. Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [CrossRef]
4. Gilinsky, A.; Newton, S.K.; Vega, R.F. Sustainability in the global wine industry: Concepts and cases. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia
2016, 8, 37–49. [CrossRef]
5. Maicas, S.; Mateo, J.J. Sustainability of wine production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 559. [CrossRef]
6. Santini, C.; Cavicchi, A.; Casini, L. Sustainability in the wine industry: Key questions and research trends a. Agric. Food Econ.
2013, 1, 9–22. [CrossRef]
7. Freudenreich, B.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Schaltegger, S. A Stakeholder’s theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for
Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 166, 3–18. [CrossRef]
8. Brown, J.A.; Forster, W.R. CSR and Stakeholder theory: A Tale of Adam Smith. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 301–312. [CrossRef]
9. Savarese, M.; Chamberlain, K.; Graffigna, G. Co-Creating Value in Sustainable and Alternative Food Networks: The Case of
Community Supported Agriculture in New Zealand. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1252. [CrossRef]
10. Freeman, R.E.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15,
364–369. [CrossRef]
11. Freeman, R.E. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Bus. Ethics Q. 1994, 4, 409–421. [CrossRef]
12. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84,
78–92. [PubMed]
13. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77.
14. O’Brien, I.M.; Jarvis, W.; Soutar, G.; Ouschan, R. Co-creating a CSR Strategy with Customers to Deliver Greater Value. In
Disciplining the Undisciplined? CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance, 1st ed.; Brueckner, M., Spencer, R., Paull, M., Eds.; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 89–107.
15. Iglesias, O.; Markovic, S.; Bagherzadeh, M.; Singh, J.J. Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer
Trust, and Customer Loyalty. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 163, 151–166. [CrossRef]
16. Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [CrossRef]
17. Carroll, A.B. Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2004, 18,
114–120. [CrossRef]
18. Carroll, A.B.; Buchholtz, A. Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability and Stakeholder Management, 7th ed.; Cengage Learning:
Mason, OH, USA, 2009.
19. Bridoux, F.; Stoelhorst, J.W. Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value
creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 229–251. [CrossRef]
20. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, 1st ed.; Pitman Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
21. Friedman, M. A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. 13
September 1970. Available online: https://nyti.ms/1LSi5ZD (accessed on 2 October 2020).
22. Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who
and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886. [CrossRef]
23. Miles, S. Stakeholders: Essentially contested or just confused? J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 108, 285–298. [CrossRef]

78
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

24. Lépineux, F. Stakeholder theory, society and social cohesion. Corp. Gov. 2005, 5, 99–110. [CrossRef]
25. Brugann, J.; Prahalad, C.K. Cocreating Businesses’ New Social Compact. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 85, 80–90. [PubMed]
26. Edward Freeman, R. Stakeholder Management. Available online: https://redwardfreeman.com/stakeholder-management
(accessed on 20 November 2020).
27. Richardson, J. The business model: An integrative framework for strategy. Strateg. Chang. 2008, 17, 133–144. [CrossRef]
28. Wirtz, B.W.; Pistoia, A.; Ullrich, S.; Göttel, V. Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range
Plann. 2016, 49, 36–54. [CrossRef]
29. Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The business model: Recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1019–1042. [CrossRef]
30. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, 1st ed.; John
Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
31. Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127. [CrossRef]
32. Lozano, R. Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2018, 27, 1159–1166. [CrossRef]
33. Upward, A.; Jones, P. An ontology for strongly sustainable business models: Defining an enterprise framework compatible with
natural and social science. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 97–123. [CrossRef]
34. Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add up, 1st ed.; Henriques, A., Richardson, J., Eds.;
Taylor and Francis London: Earthscan, UK, 2004; Chapter 1; pp. 1–16.
35. Freeman, R.E. Managing for stakeholders: Trade-offs or value creation. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 96, 7–9. [CrossRef]
36. Grigorescu, A.; Maer-Matei, M.M.; Mocanu, C.; Zamfir, A.M. Key Drivers and Skills Needed for Innovative Companies Focused
on Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 102. [CrossRef]
37. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc.
Inf. Syst. 2005, 15, 1–40. [CrossRef]
38. Kaplan, R.; Norton, D. The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive Performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1992, 70, 71–79.
39. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1996, 74, 75–85.
40. Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Freudenreich, B.; Saviuc, I.; Schaltegger, S.; Stock, M. Sustainability-Oriented Business Model Assessment—A
Conceptual Foundation. In Analytics, Innovation and Excellence-Driven Enterprise Sustainability, 1st ed.; Edgeman, R., Carayannis,
E., Sindakis, S., Eds.; Palgrave: Houndmills, UK, 2017; Chapter 7; pp. 169–206.
41. Hansen, E.G.; Schaltegger, S. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures. J. Bus. Ethics 2014,
133, 193–221. [CrossRef]
42. Figge, F.; Hahn, T.; Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard—Linking Sustainability management to
Business Strategy. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2002, 11, 269–284. [CrossRef]
43. Jones, P.; Comfort, D.; Hillier, D. Managing Materiality: A Preliminary Examination of the Adoption of the New GRI G4
Guidelines on Materiality within the Business Community. J. Public Aff. 2016, 16, 222–230. [CrossRef]
44. Starik, M.; Marcus, A. Introduction to the Special Research Forum on the Management of Organizations in the Natural Environ-
ment: A Field Emerging from Multiple Paths, With Many Challenges Ahead. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 43, 539–547. [CrossRef]
45. Phillips, R.; Reichart, J. The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness-Based Approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 23, 185–197. [CrossRef]
46. ACCA Global. 2013 ACCA, Flora & Fauna International and KPMG LLP. Identifying Natural Capital Risk and Materiality. Avail-
able online: https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/technical-activities/technical-resources-search/2014/january/identifying-
natural-capital-risk-and-materiality.html (accessed on 22 November 2020).
47. Alonso-Almeida, M.M.; Llach, J.; Marimon, F. A Closer Look at the ‘Global Reporting Initiative’ Sustainability Reporting as a
Tool to Implement Environmental and Social Policies: A Worldwide Sector Analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014,
21, 318–335. [CrossRef]
48. Dennis, P.; Connole, H.; Kraut, M. The efficacy of voluntary disclosure: A study of water disclosure by mining companies using
the global reporting initiative framework. J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Issues 2015, 18, 87–106.
49. Marimon, F.; Alonso-Almeida, M.D.; Rodríguez, M.D.; Alejandro, K.A.C. The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting
initiative: What is the point? J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 33, 132–144. [CrossRef]
50. Toppinen, A.; Li, N.; Tuppura, A.; Xiong, Y. Corporate Responsibility and Strategic Groups in the Forest-based Industry:
Exploratory Analysis based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 19,
191–205. [CrossRef]
51. Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Ghiron, N.L.; Menichini, T. Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: A tool for directing
corporate sustainability towards emerging economic, environmental and social opportunities. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2019, 25,
1016–1038. [CrossRef]
52. Ouvrard, S.; Jasimuddin, S.M.; Spiga, A. Does Sustainability Push to Reshape Business Models? Evidence from the European
Wine Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2561. [CrossRef]
53. Benson-Rea, M.; Brodie, R.J.; Sima, H. The plurality of co-existing business models: Investigating the complexity of value drivers.
Ind. Mark. Manag. 2013, 42, 717–729. [CrossRef]
54. Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L. Critical environmental concerns in wine production: An integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53,
232–242. [CrossRef]
55. Olaru, O.; Galbeaza, M.A.; Bănacu, C.S. Assessing the Sustainability of the Wine Industry in Terms of Investment. Procedia Econ.
Financ. 2014, 15, 552–559. [CrossRef]

79
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1065

56. Forbes, S.L.; Cohen, D.A.; Cullen, R.; Wratten, S.D.; Fountain, J. Consumer attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine:
An exploratory study of the New Zealand marketplace. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1195–1199. [CrossRef]
57. Dania, W.A.P.; Xing, K.; Amer, Y. Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 851–864. [CrossRef]
58. Yin, R.K. Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Eval. Pract. 1994, 15, 283–290. [CrossRef]
59. Edmondson, A.C.; McManus, S.E. Methodological fit in management field research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32,
1155–1179. [CrossRef]
60. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 25–32.
Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159839 (accessed on 5 January 2021). [CrossRef]
61. Bolis, I.; Brunoro, C.M.; Sznelwar, L.I. Work for sustainability: Case studies of Brazilian companies. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 57, 72–79.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Hartley, J.F. Case studies in organizational research. In Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, 1st ed.; Cassel, C., Symon,
G., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1995; pp. 208–229.
63. Viña Concha y Toro 2020a. Sustainability Report 2017. Available online: https://conchaytoro.com/content/uploads/2021/01/
REPORTE-VCT-2017_ENG.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2020).
64. Viña Concha y Toro 2020b. Sustainability Report 2018. Available online: https://conchaytoro.com/content/uploads/2021/01/
REPORTE-VCT-2018_ENG.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2020).
65. Viña Concha y Toro 2020c. Sustainability Report 2019. Available online: https://conchaytoro.com/content/uploads/2021/01/
REPORTE-VCT-2019_ENG.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2020).
66. Beck, A.C.; Campbell, D.; Shrives, P.J. Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the
method in a British–German context. Br. Account. Rev. 2010, 42, 207–222. [CrossRef]
67. Merkl-Davies, D.M.; Brennan, N.M. Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate narratives: Incremental information or
impression management? J. Account. Lit. 2007, 27, 116–196. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10197/2907 (accessed on 5
January 2021).
68. Guidry, R.P.; Patten, D.M. Market reactions to the first-time issuance of corporate sustainability reports. Sustain. Account. Manag.
Policy J. 2010, 1, 33–50. [CrossRef]
69. Impact Management Project. Statement of Intent to Work Together towards Comprehensive Corporate Reporting. 2020.
Available online: https://impactmanagementproject.com/structured-network/statement-of-intent-to-work-together-towards-
comprehensive-corporate-reporting/ (accessed on 11 December 2020).

80
 sustainability

Article
Development of a New Business Model to Measure
Organizational and Project-Level SDG Impact—Case
Study of a Water Utility Company
Paul Mansell 1,2, *, Simon P. Philbin 2 and Tim Broyd 1
1 Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management, University College London,
London WC1E 7HB, UK; [email protected]
2 Nathu Puri Institute for Engineering & Enterprise, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 11 June 2020; Accepted: 5 August 2020; Published: 10 August 2020

Abstract: Achievement of the United Nations’ 2030 Global Goals for Sustainability is of paramount
importance. However, for engineers and project managers to take meaningful action, they need the
practical tools, processes and leadership to turn grand rhetoric into viable engineering solutions.
Linking infrastructure project sustainability performance to sustainable development goals (SDG)
targets is problematic. This article builds on the previous development of an innovative infrastructure
business model, called the “Infrastructure SDG Impact-Value Chain” (IVC) to link local-level project
delivery with global-level SDG impacts. It uses a case study of a water utility company to demonstrate
how the IVC business model can integrate the “triple bottom line” to ensure the balanced definition
of success across economic, environmental and social thematic areas. The results led to a proposed
methodology for business leaders to align stakeholders on a common definition of project success
during the design phase. The study includes the selection of longer-term outcomes and strategic
SDG impacts, which, it is suggested, are improved definitions of project success. Although the
findings that are from a single case study cannot automatically be extended to the entire water
industry, the study’s methodology has potential to be used to evaluate multiple projects across
different sectors. The practical application is significant since it offers the flexibility to be used at
both project and portfolio levels, thereby linking tactical delivery to organisational SDG impacts and
leading to improved investment decisions with increased likelihood of success in achieving the SDG
2030 targets.

Keywords: sustainable development goals (SDGs); sustainability; sustainable development; project

success; infrastructure project; strategy; public management

1. Introduction
The construction industry has a major role in achieving a measurable impact against the sustainable
development goals (SDG) 2030 targets. The estimated USD $94 trillion [1] of investment in infrastructure
projects that is required globally by 2040 represents a massive opportunity to stimulate economic
prosperity, reduce poverty and raise standards in health, education and gender equality. However,
the linking of infrastructure project success to SDG targets is problematic as a recent Institution of
Civil Engineers’ survey [2,3] demonstrated: while the appetite for SDG reporting at project level is
very strong (87%), especially among millennials, only a third of the 325 survey respondents assessed
current tools as “fit for purpose”. The research study identified four critical success factors (CSF) for
measuring projects’ SDG impacts:

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413; doi:10.3390/su12166413 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

81
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

• CSF #1: strategic success definition. Clear understanding of project success: is it about time,
cost and scope (doing the projects right) or is it about outcomes and strategic impacts (doing the
right projects) or a balance of both?
• CSF #2: holistic performance measurement tools. The need for tools that could measure traditional
outputs of time, cost and scope as well as more opaque successes, such as outcomes, benefits
and impacts.
• CSF #3: aligned business priorities. Balancing competing business priorities, which were perceived
to weight “profit” too heavily against “people” and “planet”, otherwise known as the “triple
bottom line” [4–6].
• CSF #4: strong leadership. The need for leaders who can galvanize and motivate their teams,
capturing their “heads and hearts” to drive forward changed behaviours.

The shortcomings of not having the four CSFs in place, which was the main finding from the
survey, represents both a theoretical knowledge gap and, for the practitioner, it results in weaker
investment decisions since SDG lessons are not being learned from project delivery successes and
failures. The problem is complex and multifaceted in nature at both the project and organisational
levels. At its core, the most important issue is to understand what defines project success. Too often
this has been done by measuring the project management processes of delivering a project to time,
cost and scope (and quality), otherwise known as the “iron triangle”. However, for linkage to the SDGs,
there needs to be a broadening of the success definition to become more holistic. In short, it needs a
new business model. To do so requires a refresh of underpinning theories, specifically in regard to
sustainable development.
Before the paper addresses the specific nature of the SDGs and their potential to be used to improve
project success definition, on a broader canvas than just “time-cost-scope”, the paper will briefly review
the definition of sustainability and also introduce sustainability measurement on infrastructure projects.
It will discuss these areas in the following three subsections: the definition of infrastructure (which is
the sector that the case study is situated in), the concept of sustainability and sustainable development,
and definition and measurement of sustainable infrastructure at organisational and project levels.

1.1. Defining ‘Infrastructure’ (the Relevant Sector for the Case Study)
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate defined infrastructure as: “structures and
facilities that underpin power and other energy systems (including upstream infrastructure, such as
the fuel production sector), transport, telecommunications, water and waste management. It includes
investments in systems that improve resource efficiency and demand-side management, such as
energy and water efficiency measures. Infrastructure includes both traditional types of infrastructure
(including energy to public transport, buildings, water supply and sanitation) and, critically, also natural
infrastructure (such as forest landscapes, wetlands and watershed protection)” [7,8].

1.2. Sustainability and Sustainable Development

In order to understand the SDGs, it is first necessary to explore the concepts of sustainability and
sustainable development that jointly inform much of the nomenclature surrounding SDGs. Research
into the definition of sustainability has indicated [9] that there are in excess of 50 separate definitions of
sustainability. This highlights that there is a lack of agreement on the practical and theoretical derivation.
As an example, Sverdrup and Rosen [10] suggest that sustainability and sustainable development
implies the longer term harnessing of the ecosystem to a point at which the resource-capital base,
framework or application of the ecosystem is not damaged or adversely changed. Conversely, Costanza
and Patten [11] believe that the essence of sustainability is that it provides a litmus test to indicate
whether a system survives or perishes. It can thus be shown that sustainability has become mired in
value-laden language and is often vague in concept [12], which can cause diffusion of interpretation
and confusion in practice [13]. Potentially, this is the reason that Glavic and Lukman [14] suggested

82
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

that defining sustainable development in a practical way can be somewhat uncertain since there are
several interpretations that can be deployed.
Over the past 50 years, the phraseology and understanding of “sustainable development” [15,16]
has become an increasingly central theme of nation states and their citizens. Unlike sustainability,
the definition of sustainable development at least has a generally agreed definition from the report of
the Brundtland Commission [17]. According to the Commission, it can be defined as “development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs” [17]. Building on this definition, sustainability and sustainable development embody
a connectivity with ecological (i.e., planet) and social (i.e., people) as well as economic (i.e., profit)
systems. Today, the planetary boundaries provide a global litmus test for how we are doing, using the
nine boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations, with the
latest evidence showing that we are failing on most but most critically on three [18].

1.3. Defining and Measuring Sustainable Infrastructure at Organisational and Project Levels
The earlier definition of sustainable infrastructure by Ainger and Fenner [19] was recently
developed further by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Group as “infrastructure projects
that are planned, designed, constructed, operated, and decommissioned in a manner to ensure economic
and financial, social, environmental (including climate resilience), and institutional sustainability over
the entire life cycle of the project” [20]. The focus of their investigation was on the detailed analysis
of existing sustainability reporting methods across two of the hierarchy levels, i.e., at the project
and organisational levels. While there are literally hundreds of sustainability methods used globally,
from simple spreadsheet-based approaches to enterprise-wide, cloud-based systems, there are few
comparisons of these tools with methods for measuring SDG impacts. Following on from the IDB
research, a recent paper by Mansell et al. [21] partially closes this gap by completing a deep and broad
analysis of relevant measuring tools. Their work established a golden thread from CEEQUAL (which
was compared with other global project measuring tools) with links to the Global Reporting Initiative’s
(GRI) global standard for organisational sustainability measurement. Importantly, their research shows
both can be linked to SDGs, although both are at a nascent stage of doing so. The research was
conducted with the collaboration of both GRI and the Building Research Establishment (BRE), which is
UK’s leading centre of building science. BRE, as the owners of CEEQUAL, gave full access to their
systems and standards to enable completion of the detailed text and process analysis of both standards
in comparison to the SDG targets and indicators. A summary of some of the leading sustainability
reporting frameworks from this study [21], at organisational and project levels, is shown in Table 1
with a brief analysis of their explicit or implicit alignment with SDG measurement. It does not purport
to provide a full in-depth comparison or discussion of the relative merits, which can be found in the
Mansell et al. paper [21].

83
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

Table 1. Summary of some of the leading infrastructure sustainability reporting tools/methods at

organisational and project levels; for full discussion on these tools and in-depth analysis of CEEQUAL
and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), see further research by Mansell et al. [21].

Tools and Methods Relevance for the Case Study

Based on analysis of the industry leading sustainability reporting
frameworks [26,27], GRI was shown to be the most frequently
used by leading companies. Indeed, of the world’s largest 250
corporations, 92% report on their sustainability performance and
74% of these use GRI’s standards to do so, with 23, 00 corporate
sustainability reports currently in the GRI database [22,28]. For
example, it was used by 6671 organisations in 2017 [22] and 75%
of Fortune 250 companies across 91 countries.
1. Organisational level tools and methods. Global
Whilst the UN Global Compact has the “SDG Compass”
Reporting Initiative [22], UN Global Compact [23],
methodology to support organisations to measure SDG impacts
Carbon Disclosure Project, GHG Protocol [24], OECD
at subnational level, it remains at a high level and does not
guidelines and integrated reporting [25].
include any accepted standards for measurement or subnational
criteria. The case study expands on the challenge of trying to use
the national level targets at organisational and project levels.
The GRI has also tried to leverage the widely accepted
framework [21] to explicitly measure SDGs but, to date, this has
proved problematic since the national level measurement
framework is too complex [21], with its 169 targets and
232 indicators (discussed in a later section).
The project-level sustainability frameworks were assessed
2. Organisational and project level tools and
against their ability to measure SDGs. Most of these were
methods. Thirteen sustainability assessment
developed before the SDGs were agreed at the UN by the 193
methods were examined, including the following:
states in 2015 and thus have no formal linkage to SDG
CEEQUAL (UK & Ireland Projects/International
measurement. Some, such as CEEQUAL, have started to link to
Projects) BREEAM [29], Halstar [30]; SPeAR [31],
both SDGs and to the GRI to establish a golden thread from
ASPIRE [32], ISO14001 [33], OHSAS 45001 [33],
project level to organisational level to national-global levels [21].
Jacobs Value [34], LEED [35], ENVISION rating
However, although this research has confirmed there is the
system by ISI and Harvard University [36], IS rating
potential for the “golden thread” from project to global goals,
scheme by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of
there is no evidence yet found of projects and organisations
Australia [37], infrastructure voluntary evaluation
having achieved this requirement.
sustainability tool (INVEST) [38], SuRe® Standard for
Therefore, this confirms the knowledge gap and explains why
Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure [39],
the case study in this paper is important to commence the
sustainable transportation appraisal rating system
research into how leading companies have addressed this matter
framework (STARS) [40], IFC Performance Standards
(the choice of Anglian Water was motivated by their award of the
on Environmental and Social Sustainability, and
UK’s national prize in 2017 as “Sustainability Company of
World Bank Environmental and Social Framework.
the Year”).

1.4. Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations’ “Transforming Our World” report [41] was adopted by 193 states at the
United Nations General Assembly. This has provided a globally agreed sustainable development
framework consisting of 17 goals (as shown in Figure 1) and 169 targets to be achieved by 2030.
However, progress towards the 2030 targets is perilously slow, especially for the most disadvantaged
and marginalised groups [42]. While there have been some significant advances since the Rio Summit
in 1992, the “+20” in 2012, and the Kyoto Protocol, such as the transformational technologies for
battery-powered cars and renewable energy, even a rise of 1.5 ◦ C now appears to be inevitable [43].
This temperature rise would potentially wipe out almost all of the world’s coral with hundreds of
millions of people potentially killed from the effects of drought and coastal flooding, while the threat
of starvation will likely trigger unprecedented mass migration [43].

84
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

Figure 1. The United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals [41] (full details can be accessed at
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/). (Usage of graphic agreed by UN).

The delivery targets are understandably ambitious and needed a reporting framework that would
drive meaningful and verifiable progress towards the 2030 targets. In 2017, the UN’s Inter-agency
Expert Group on Targets and Indicators for Sustainable Development designed a mechanism that
linked goals, targets and indicators across the geographic and governance boundaries at national,
regional and global levels [44]. Within this framework, shown in Figure 2, the Expert Group designed
thematic areas that could also be used at the subnational level but, because the targets and indicators
were originally designed to be used at global, regional and national level, they had reduced applicability
at organisational or project levels. Simply stated, “one size does not fit all”. This provides a significant
challenge because most of the investment needed (USD $94 trillion) to respond to the global goals [1]
is delivered through the business sector, typically through infrastructure projects, which contribute to
the systems and services that can positively impact health, wealth and inequalities.

Figure 2. The sustainable development goals (SDG) Targets and Indicators’ framework designed by
the UN IAEG-SDGs [44].

As stated earlier, the SDGs consist of 17 major goals and 169 concrete targets and, because some of
the targets are not expressed as concrete numbers, the UN also developed a framework of 232 indicators
for monitoring and reviewing the targets. Research into the use of the SDG framework [21,45]
on infrastructure projects has identified that the targets (N = 169) and indicators (N = 232) are
too numerous and complicated and therefore, unfortunately, they are rarely used by engineering
practitioners. The research concluded that a new way was needed to reduce the scientific and statistical
complexity of the SDG measurement framework. The starting point for this approach was to evaluate

85
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

their usability and applicability at the project level on a sector-by-sector basis. For example, in the
infrastructure sector, recent analysis [46] indicates that 81% of the SDG targets are influenced by
infrastructure investment projects. However, “influence” is a comparatively weak word without
specifying “attribution” (i.e., directly impacting with verifiable evidence) or “contribution” (i.e., linkage
presumed but without evidence) and, therefore, despite the positive conclusion from the UNOPS’s
analysis [46], further research is needed to identify which of the SDG targets can be used at project
level. This provides a fifth CSF:
Additional critical success factor for measuring projects’ SDG impacts (#5): prioritisation of (a
limited) number of SDG targets relevant to the infrastructure project.
The problem of identifying suitable SDG measurement is compounded at the indicator level, where
a further 232 measurement metrics reside. For example, the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS)
online portal, responsible for reporting UK’s progress against global SDG indicator measurement,
shows that, in April 2019, they only had data for 173 of the 232 indicators, with 69 being without
data [47]. The ONS’s challenge of collating reporting evidence for the 232 indicators was further
corroborated by recent analysis [45] of the viability of using each of 232 indicators for infrastructure
project-level measurement of success. The analysis, based on inductive reasoning using the project
success framework proposed by Morris [48] and Cooke-Davies [49] and then analysed against the
cost-benefit measurement framework from the HMT Green & Orange Books [50] and the World Bank
monitoring, reporting, evaluation and learning methodology [51], highlighted there were only a small
number of indicators (N = 28; 12%) relevant to engineering projects. Of these, only 8% (N = 20) have
close alignment with the engineering projects and 4% (N = 8) have marginal relevance, as shown in
Figure 3. This analysis highlighted a “gap” of not having suitable indicators below the SDG target
level that could be used on infrastructure projects.

h E^ '' Ž Ă ůƐΘ d ĂƌŐĞƚƐͲZĞůĞǀ ĂŶ ĐĞƚŽ ŝǀŝů ŶŐŝŶ ĞĞƌŝŶŐWƌŽũĞĐ ƚƐ ΘKƌŐĂ ŶŝƐ ĂƚŝŽ ŶƐ
2Q  0D U  WK H 8Q LW HG 1 DWL RQV6WD WL VWLFD O&RP PL VVLR Q V,Q WHUD JH Q F\DQ G([S HU W*URX SRQ 6'*,Q GL FDWR UV ,$(* 6'*V D JU HHG R Q LQ GLYLG XDO LQ G LFD WRUVWRP R QLWRU WK H JR D OVD QG   WD UJH WVR IWKH 6'*V
hE^   džƚ Ğ ƌ Ŷ Ă ů  / Ŷƚ Ğ ƌ Ŷ Ă ů 
d Ă ƌŐĞ ƚ Ɛ / Ŷ Ě ŝĐĂ ƚ Ž ƌƐ ;Ĩƌ Ž ŵ Ϯ ϯ ϮͿ /Ŷ Ě ŝ Đ Ă ƚŽƌ  W ƌ Ž ũ Ğ Đ ƚͲ ď Ă Ɛ Ğ Ě  K ƌŐ Ă Ŷ ŝ Ɛ Ă ƚŝ ŽŶ  W ƌŽũ Ğ Đ ƚͲ ď Ă ƐĞ Ě Y Ƶ ĂŶ ƚŝ ƚĂ ƚŝǀ Ğ Ͳ  W ƌŽũ Ğ Đ ƚͲ ď Ă ƐĞ Ě Y Ƶ Ă ů ƚŝ ƚĂ ƚ ŝǀ Ğ Ͳ 
' Ž ĂůƐ Ž ĚĞ Ɛ Ώ
ƚ Ă ƌŐ Ğ ƚ Ɛ ƚ Ă ƌŐ Ğ ƚ Ɛ W ŽƐƐ ŝ ď ů Ğ  Ŷ Ő ŝŶ Ğ Ğ ƌ ŝŶ ŐD Ğ ƚ ƌŝĐ Ɛ W ŽƐ Ɛŝ ď ů Ğ  Ŷ Ő ŝ Ŷ Ğ Ğ ƌŝ Ŷ Ő ^ ƚŽ ƌŝ Ğ Ɛ ǁ ŝ ƚ ŚƉŚŽ ƚŽƐ ͬǀ ŝĚ Ğ ŽƐ

' Ž Ăů  ϭ ͗  E Ž  Ŷ Ě ƉŽ ǀĞ ƌƚLJ ŝŶ Ă ůů ŝ ƚƐ ĨŽ ƌŵ Ɛ ϭ ͘ϭ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ďĞ ůŽ ǁƚŚĞ ŝ Ŷƚ ĞƌŶĂƚ ŝ ŽŶĂ ůƉŽ ǀĞƌ ƚLJůŝ ŶĞ ͕ Ϭ ϭϬϭ Ϭϭ
ϭ͘ϭLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕Ğƌ ĂĚ ŝĐĂƚĞĞdžƚƌ Ğŵ ĞƉ Ž ǀĞƌ ƚLJĨŽ ƌĂůů Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ Ğ ǀĞƌ LJǁŚ Ğƌ Ğ͕Đ ƵƌƌĞ Ŷƚů LJŵĞ ĂƐƵ ƌĞ ĚĂƐ Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ ů ŝǀŝ ŶŐŽ Ŷ  ď LJƐĞ dž͕Ă ŐĞ͕ĞŵƉ ůŽ LJŵĞŶ ƚƐƚĂƚ ƵƐ ĂŶ ĚŐĞ ŽŐƌ ĂƉ Ś ŝĐĂůů ŽĐĂ ƚŝŽ Ŷ 
Ğǀ ĞƌLJǁ ŚĞ ƌĞ ϭ ͘ϭ
ů ĞƐƐ ƚŚĂŶ Ψϭ ͘Ϯ ϱĂĚ ĂLJ
W Ž ǀ Ğ ƌƚLJ ;Ƶƌ ďĂŶ ͬƌ ƵƌĂů Ϳ

ϭ͘ϮLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ƌ ĞĚƵ ĐĞĂƚůĞ ĂƐƚďLJ Ś Ăů Ĩƚ ŚĞƉƌ ŽƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ ŵĞ Ŷ͕ǁŽŵ ĞŶ Ă ŶĚĐŚ ůŝ Ěƌ ĞŶ Ž ĨĂů ůĂ ŐĞƐůŝ ǀŝŶ ŐŝŶƉŽ ǀĞ ƌƚ LJ ϭ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ů ŝǀŝŶ ŐďĞů Žǁƚ ŚĞŶĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů Ɖ ŽǀĞƌƚ LJů ŝŶ Ğ͕ Ϭ ϭϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϭ ͘Ϯ
ŝ ŶĂů ůŝ ƚƐ Ě ŝŵĞŶ ƐŝŽ ŶƐĂĐĐŽ ƌĚ ŝŶ ŐƚŽ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů ĚĞĨŝ Ŷŝ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛ ď LJƐĞ džĂŶĚ Ă ŐĞ
ϭ ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨŵĞŶ ͕ǁŽ ŵĞ ŶĂŶ Ě Đ Śŝ ůĚ ƌĞ ŶŽĨ Ă ůů ĂŐ ĞƐůŝ ǀŝ ŶŐŝ Ŷ Ϭ ϭϬϮ ϬϮ
Ɖ ŽǀĞ ƌƚ LJŝ ŶĂů ůŝ ƚƐ Ěŝ ŵĞŶƐŝŽ ŶƐ Ă ĐĐŽ ƌĚ Ŷŝ ŐƚŽ Ŷ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂů ĚĞĨ ŝ Ŷŝƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛ

,QGLFDWRUVKLJKO\UHOHYDQWWR(QJLQHHULQJ3URMHFWV 
ϭ ͘ϯ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ĐŽ ǀĞƌ ĞĚ ď LJƐŽ Đŝ Ăů Ɖ ƌŽ ƚĞ ĐƚŝŽ Ŷ Ϭ ϭϬϯ Ϭϭ
Ĩů ŽŽƌ Ɛͬ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ͕ďLJ ƐĞdž͕Ěŝ Ɛƚŝ ŶŐƵ ŝƐŚŝ ŶŐ Đ Śŝ ůĚƌĞ Ŷ͕Ƶ ŶĞŵƉ ůŽ LJĞĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽŶ Ɛ͕
ϭ͘ϯ/ŵƉů ĞŵĞŶ ƚŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůů LJĂ ƉƉƌ ŽƉƌ ŝĂƚ ĞƐŽĐŝ ĂůƉ ƌŽ ƚĞĐƚŝŽ Ŷ ƐLJƐƚĞ ŵƐĂŶ ĚŵĞĂƐ ƵƌĞƐĨŽ ƌĂ ůů͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ Ĩů ŽŽƌ Ɛ͕ĂŶĚ 
ϭ ͘ϯ ŽĚ ů ĞƌƉ ĞƌƐŽŶ Ɛ͕Ɖ Ğƌ ƐŽŶ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚ Ě ŝƐĂď ŝů ŝ ƚŝĞƐ͕Ɖƌ ĞŐ ŶĂŶ ƚǁŽŵĞ Ŷ͕Ŷ ĞǁďŽ ƌŶ Ɛ͕

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ďLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ Ă ĐŚ ŝĞ ǀĞƐƵ ďƐƚĂŶƚŝ ĂůĐŽ ǀĞƌ ĂŐĞŽĨƚ ŚĞ Ɖ ŽŽƌ ĂŶĚ ƚ ŚĞǀƵů ŶĞƌ Ăďů Ğ
ǁŽ ƌŬ Ͳŝ ŶũƵƌ LJǀŝĐƚŝ ŵƐĂŶ ĚƚŚĞ ƉŽ ŽƌĂŶĚ ƚ ŚĞ ǀ Ƶů ŶĞƌ Ăď ůĞ

ϭ͘ϰLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƚŚ Ăƚ Ăů ůŵĞŶ Ă ŶĚǁŽ ŵĞ Ŷ͕ŝŶ Ɖ Ăƌƚŝ ĐƵ ůĂ ƌƚŚ ĞƉŽŽ ƌĂŶ ĚƚŚ ĞǀƵů ŶĞ ƌĂ ďů Ğ͕Ś ĂǀĞ Ğ ƋƵĂ ůƌ ŝŐŚ ƚƐ ϭ ͘ϰ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ů ŝǀŝŶ ŐŝŶ Ś ŽƵƐ ĞŚ Žů ĚƐǁŝ ƚŚ Ă ĐĐĞƐ ƐƚŽ  Ϭ ϭϬϰ Ϭϭ
ď ĂƐŝĐ Ɛ Ğƌ ǀŝĐĞ Ɛ
ƚŽ Ğ ĐŽ ŶŽŵ ŝ ĐƌĞƐŽ Ƶ ƌĐĞƐ͕Ă ƐǁĞů ů Ă ƐĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽďĂƐŝ ĐƐĞ ƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ŽǁŶ ĞƌƐŚŝƉ ĂŶ ĚĐŽ Ŷ ƚƌ Žů ŽǀĞ ƌů ĂŶĚ Ă ŶĚŽƚ ŚĞƌ 
ϭ ͘ϰ
ĨŽ ƌŵƐ Ž ĨƉƌ ŽƉ ĞƌƚLJ͕ŝŶ ŚĞƌŝ ƚĂŶ ĐĞ ͕ŶĂƚƵ ƌĂ ůƌ ĞƐŽ Ƶƌ ĐĞƐ͕Ă ƉƉƌ ŽƉƌ ŝĂƚ ĞŶ ĞǁƚĞĐŚ ŶŽů ŽŐ LJĂŶ ĚĨŝ ŶĂ ŶĐŝ Ăů ƐĞ ƌǀ Đ
ŝ ĞƐ͕
ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ Ŷŝ ŐŵŝĐƌŽ ĨŝŶ ĂŶĐĞ
ϭ ͘ϰ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚŽ ƚĂ ůĂĚƵ ůƚƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚŝ ŽŶǁŝ ƚŚ ƐĞĐƵ ƌĞƚĞŶ ƵƌĞƌŝ ŐŚ ƚƐ Ϭ ϭϬϰ ϬϮ
ƚŽů ĂŶĚ ͕ǁŝ ƚŚ ůĞŐ Ăůů LJƌĞ ĐŽŐŶŝ njĞ ĚĚŽĐ ƵŵĞŶ ƚĂƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚǁŚŽ Ɖ ĞƌĐĞŝ ǀĞ 
ƚŚĞ ŝƌ ƌŝ ŐŚƚƐ ƚ ŽůĂŶ ĚĂ ƐƐĞ ĐƵƌ Ğ͕ďLJƐĞdžĂŶ ĚďLJƚLJƉĞ Ž ĨƚĞŶƵ ƌĞ
ϭ͘ϱLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ďƵ ŝů Ěƚ ŚĞƌ ĞƐŝ ů ŝĞŶĐ ĞŽ ĨƚŚ ĞƉ ŽŽ ƌĂ ŶĚƚŚ ŽƐĞŝ ŶǀƵů ŶĞ ƌĂ ďů ĞƐŝ ƚƵ Ăƚ Ž
ŝ ŶƐĂŶĚ ƌĞ ĚƵĐ ĞƚŚ Ğŝ ƌĞdžƉ ŽƐƵƌ Ğ ϭ ͘ϱ͘ϭ E Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Ě ĞĂƚ ŚƐ͕ŵŝ ƐƐŝŶ ŐƉĞ ƌƐŽŶƐĂ ŶĚƉĞ ƌƐŽŶƐ ĂĨĨĞ ĐƚĞĚďLJ  Ϯ ϬϬϯ Ϭϯ
a
ϭ ͘ϱ ĂŶ ĚǀƵů ŶĞ ƌĂ ďŝ ůŝ ƚLJƚŽ Đůŝ ŵĂƚ ĞͲƌĞ ůĂƚĞ ĚĞdž ƚƌ ĞŵĞĞǀĞŶ ƚƐĂ ŶĚŽƚŚ ĞƌĞĐŽŶŽ ŵŝ Đ͕ƐŽ Đŝ Ăů ĂŶĚ Ğ Ŷǀŝƌ ŽŶŵ Ğ ŶƚĂůƐŚŽĐŬƐ Ě Ɛŝ ĂƐƚĞ ƌƉ ĞƌϭϬϬ ͕Ϭ ϬϬƉ Ğ ŽƉů Ğ
ĂŶ ĚĚŝ ƐĂƐƚĞƌƐ
ϭ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ  ŝƌ ĞĐ ƚĚŝ ƐĂ Ɛƚ ĞƌĞ ĐŽ ŶŽ ŵŝ Đů ŽƐƐ ŝŶ ƌ Ğů Ăƚ ŝ ŽŶƚŽ Őů ŽďĂ ůŐƌ ŽƐƐ Ϭ ϭϬϱ ϬϮ
a
Ě ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐƉƌŽ Ě ƵĐƚ ;' WͿ
ϭ ͘ϱ͘ϯ E Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Đ ŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐǁŝƚŚ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ Ăů ĂŶĚ ůŽ ĐĂůĚŝ ƐĂ Ɛƚ Ğƌƌ ŝƐŬ Ϯ ϬϬϯ Ϭϰ
ƌĞĚ ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶƐƚ ƌĂƚĞ ŐŝĞƐ a
ϭ ͘ϱ͘ϰ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩů ŽĐĂ ůŐ ŽǀĞ ƌŶ ŵĞ ŶƚƐƚŚ ĂƚĂ ĚŽƉ ƚĂŶ Ěŝŵ Ɖ Ğ ů ŵ ĞŶƚ Ϯ ϬϬϯ Ϭϱ
ůŽĐ ĂůĚŝ ƐĂƐƚĞƌƌ ŝƐŬƌĞ ĚƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐ ŝĞ Ɛŝ Ŷůŝ ŶĞ ǁŝƚ ŚŶ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůĚ ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌ

,QGLFDWRUVZLWKPDUJLQDOUHOHYDQFHWR(QJLQHHULQJ3URMHFWV 
ƌŝ ƐŬƌ ĞĚƵ ĐƚŝŽ ŶƐƚ ƌĂƚĞ ŐŝĞƐ
ϭ͘ĂŶ ƐƵƌ ĞƐ ŝŐ Ŷŝ Ĩŝ ĐĂ Ŷƚ ŵŽ ďŝ ůŝ njĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩƌ ĞƐŽ Ƶƌ ĐĞƐĨƌ ŽŵĂǀĂ ƌŝĞƚ LJŽĨ ƐŽƵ ƌĐĞƐ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚ ŝŶ ŐƚŚ ƌŽƵ ŐŚĞŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞĚ  ϭ ͘Ă͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝŽŶ Ž ĨĚŽ ŵĞƐƚ ŝ ĐĂůů LJŐĞ ŶĞƌ ĂƚĞĚ ƌ ĞƐŽƵƌ ĐĞ ƐĂůů ŽĐĂƚĞ ĚďLJ Ϭ ϭϬĂ Ϭϭ
ĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶƚ ĐŽŽ ƉĞƌ ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ͕ŝ ŶŽƌ ĚĞ ƌƚŽ Ɖ ƌŽ ǀŝ ĚĞĂĚ ĞƋƵ Ăƚ ĞĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌĞ Ěŝ ĐƚĂďů ĞŵĞĂŶ ƐĨ Žƌ Ě Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ Đ ŽƵŶ ƚƌŝĞ Ɛ͕ ƚŚĞ Ő ŽǀĞ ƌŶ ŵĞŶƚ Ě ŝƌĞĐ ƚů LJƚ ŽƉŽǀ ĞƌƚLJ ƌ ĞĚ ƵĐƚ ŝ ŽŶƉƌ ŽŐƌĂŵŵ Ğ Ɛ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϭ ͘Ă
ŝ ŶƉĂƌ ƚŝ ĐƵů ĂƌůĞĂ Ɛƚ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉĞĚ ĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌ ŝ ĞƐ͕ƚŽ ŝ ŵƉů ĞŵĞ Ŷƚ Ɖ ƌŽ ŐƌĂ ŵŵĞƐĂ ŶĚƉŽ ůŝĐŝ ĞƐƚŽ Ğ ŶĚƉŽ ǀĞƌ ƚLJŝŶ Ăůů ŝƚƐ
Ěŝ ŵ ĞŶ ƐŝŽ ŶƐ
ϭ ͘Ă͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝŽŶ Ž ĨƚŽƚĂ ůŐ ŽǀĞ ƌŶ ŵĞ ŶƚƐƉĞ ŶĚŝ ŶŐ Ž ŶĞƐƐĞŶ ƚŝĂů ƐĞƌǀŝ ĐĞƐ Ϭ ϭϬĂ ϬϮ
;ĞĚ ƵĐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ŚĞ Ăů ƚŚ ĂŶ ĚƐŽ Đŝ Ăů Ɖƌ ŽƚĞ Đƚŝ ŽŶ Ϳ
ϭ ͘Ă͘ϯ ^ ƵŵŽĨƚ ŽƚĂů Őƌ ĂŶƚ ƐĂŶ Ě ŶŽ Ŷ ͲĚ Ğďƚ ͲĐ ƌĞ Ăƚ Ŷ ŝ ŐŝŶ Ĩů ŽǁƐ Ěŝ ƌĞ Đƚ ůLJ Ϭ ϭϬĂ Ϭϯ
Ăůů ŽĐĂƚ ĞĚƚŽƉŽǀ ĞƌƚLJ ƌ ĞĚ ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶƉƌ ŽŐƌĂŵŵ Ğ ƐĂƐĂ Ɖ ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩ'W
ϭ͘ďƌ ĞĂƚĞƐŽƵŶ Ě ƉŽ ůŝ ĐLJĨƌĂ ŵĞǁŽ ƌŬƐĂ ƚƚ ŚĞŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů͕ƌ ĞŐŝ ŽŶ Ăů Ă ŶĚŝŶ ƚĞƌ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůůĞǀĞ ůƐ͕ď ĂƐĞĚŽŶ Ɖ ƌŽͲ ƉŽŽ ƌ ϭ ͘ď ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨŐŽ ǀĞƌ ŶŵĞ Ŷƚƌ ĞĐƵ ƌƌĞŶ ƚĂŶ Ě ĐĂƉ ƚŝ Ăů ƐƉĞ ŶĚŝ ŶŐƚŽ Ϭ ϭϬď Ϭϭ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϭ ͘ď ĂŶ ĚŐĞŶ ĚĞƌ ͲƐĞŶ Ɛŝ ƚŝǀĞ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŵĞ ŶƚƐƚƌ Ăƚ ĞŐŝ ĞƐ͕ƚŽƐƵ ƉƉ Ž ƌƚ Ă ĐĐĞů Ğƌ Ăƚ ĞĚŝ ŶǀĞ Ɛƚ ŵĞŶƚ ŝŶ Ɖ ŽǀĞ ƌƚLJĞƌ ĂĚ ŝĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ  ƐĞĐƚŽ ƌƐƚ ŚĂƚĚŝ ƐƉ ƌŽƉ Žƌ ƚŝŽ ŶĂƚĞ ůLJďĞŶ ĞĨŝƚ ǁŽŵ ĞŶ͕ƚŚ ĞƉŽŽ ƌĂŶ Ě
ĂĐƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛ ǀƵů ŶĞƌ Ăď Ğ ů Ő ƌŽ ƵƉƐ

' Ž Ăů  Ϯ ͗  E Ž  Ŷ Ě ŚƵ ŶŐ Ğ ƌ͕ Ă Đ Ś ŝĞǀ Ğ ĨŽ Ž Ě Ϯ ͘ϭ͘ϭ W ƌĞ ǀĂů ĞŶ ĐĞ Ž ĨƵŶ Ě ĞƌŶŽ Ƶ ƌŝ ƐŚ ŵ ĞŶƚ Ϭ ϮϬϭ Ϭϭ
Ɛ ĞĐ Ƶƌŝ ƚLJ ĂŶĚ ŝ ŵƉ ƌ ŽǀĞ Ě ŶƵ ƚƌ ŝƚŝŽ Ŷ Ϯ͘ϭLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ĚŚƵŶ ŐĞƌ ĂŶĚ Ğ ŶƐƵ ƌĞ Ă ĐĐĞƐƐďLJĂůů ƉĞŽ Ɖů Ğ͕ŝ ŶƉĂ ƌƚŝ ĐƵ ůĂƌ ƚŚ ĞƉŽŽ ƌĂŶĚ Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ ŝŶ ǀ Ƶů ŶĞƌĂďů Ğ
, Ƶ ŶŐ Ğ ƌ ĂŶ Ě Ɖƌ Ž ŵŽ ƚĞ Ɛ Ƶ ƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăď ůĞ  Ɛŝ ƚ ƵĂƚŝ ŽŶƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐŝ ŶĨĂŶƚ Ɛ͕ƚŽ ƐĂĨĞ͕Ŷ Ƶƚ ƌŝ ƚŝ ŽƵ ƐĂŶ ĚƐƵĨĨŝĐ ŝĞŶƚ ĨŽŽ Ě Ăů ůLJ ĞĂƌƌŽƵ ŶĚ
ĂŐ ƌŝĐ Ƶůƚ ƵƌĞ
Ϯ ͘ϭ͘Ϯ W ƌĞ ǀĂů ĞŶ ĐĞ Ž Ĩŵ ŽĚĞ ƌĂ ƚĞ Ž ƌƐĞ ǀĞƌĞĨŽŽ Ě ŝ ŶƐ ĞĐ Ƶƌŝƚ LJŝ ŶƚŚĞ  Ϭ ϮϬϭ ϬϮ
Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ďĂ ƐĞĚ Ž ŶƚŚ Ğ&ŽŽ Ě/Ŷ ƐĞ ĐƵƌ ŝ ƚLJ džƉĞ ƌŝ ĞŶ ĐĞ^ĐĂů Ğ;&/^Ϳ
Ϯ͘ϮLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ĚĂů ůĨ Žƌ ŵƐŽĨŵĂ ůŶ Ƶƚ ƌŝ ƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ŝŶĐ ůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐĂĐŚŝ Ğǀ Ŷ
ŝ Ő͕ď LJϮϬ Ϯϱ͕ƚŚĞ ŝŶ ƚĞƌ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů LJ
ů Ă Őƌ ĞĞĚ ƚĂƌ ŐĞ ƚƐ Ϯ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ W ƌĞ ǀĂů ĞŶ ĐĞ Ž ĨƐƚ ƵŶ ƚŝ ŶŐ; ŚĞŝŐ ŚƚĨŽƌ ĂŐĞфͲϮƐƚĂŶĚ ĂƌĚĚĞ ǀŝ Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ Ϭ ϮϬϮ Ϭϭ

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ^ŽĐŝĂů ,QGLFDWRUVKLJKO\UHOHYDQWWR(QJLQHHULQJ&65 
ŽŶ ƐƚƵ Ŷƚŝ ŶŐ ĂŶĚ ǁĂƐƚ ŝŶ Őŝ ŶĐŚ ŝů Ěƌ ĞŶƵŶ ĚĞƌ ϱ LJĞĂ ƌƐŽ ĨĂŐ Ğ͕ĂŶĚ Ă ĚĚƌ ĞƐƐƚŚ ĞŶƵƚ ƌŝ ƚŝŽ ŶĂů ŶĞĞ ĚƐŽ ĨĂĚ ŽůĞƐĐĞŶƚ ĨƌŽ ŵƚŚ Ğ ŵ ĞĚ ŝĂŶŽĨ ƚŚ ĞtŽ ƌůĚ,Ğ Ăů ƚŚ Kƌ ŐĂŶ ŝnjĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ;t,KͿ Ś ŝůĚ 
Őŝ ƌůƐ͕Ɖƌ ĞŐ ŶĂŶ ƚĂŶ ĚůĂĐƚĂƚ Ŷŝ ŐǁŽŵĞŶ Ă ŶĚŽůĚ ĞƌƉĞ ƌƐŽŶƐ 'ƌŽǁƚ Ś^ƚ ĂŶ ĚĂƌ ĚƐͿĂŵ Ž ŶŐĐŚ ŝůĚ ƌĞŶ Ƶ ŶĚĞ ƌϱLJĞ ĂƌƐŽĨ ĂŐĞ
Ϯ ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ W ƌĞ ǀĂů ĞŶ ĐĞ Ž Ĩŵ Ăů ŶƵ ƚƌ ŝƚŝ ŽŶ;ǁĞŝ ŐŚƚ ĨŽ ƌŚĞŝ ŐŚƚхн ϮŽ ƌф ͲϮ  Ϭ ϮϬϮ ϬϮ
ƐƚĂ ŶĚĂ ƌĚ Ě Ğǀŝ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĨ ƌŽ ŵƚ ŚĞŵĞĚ ŝĂ ŶŽĨƚ ŚĞ t ,K  Śŝ ůĚ 'ƌ Žǁƚ Ś
^ƚĂ ŶĚĂ ƌĚ ƐͿ Ăŵ ŽŶŐ Đ Śŝ ůĚƌĞ ŶƵŶĚ Ğƌ ϱ LJĞĂƌƐŽ ĨĂŐ Ğ͕ď LJƚLJƉĞ;ǁĂƐƚŝ ŶŐ 
ĂŶĚ Žǀ Ğƌ ǁĞŝ ŐŚƚͿ
Ϯ͘ϯLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĚŽ Ƶ ďů Ğƚ ŚĞĂŐ ƌŝ ĐƵ ůƚƵ ƌĂů ƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀŝƚ LJĂŶ ĚŝŶ ĐŽŵĞ ƐŽĨ Ɛŵ Ăů ů ͲƐĐĂůĞ ĨŽŽ ĚƉƌŽ ĚƵĐĞƌ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Ɖ Ăƌƚŝ ĐƵůĂ ƌ Ϯ ͘ϯ͘ϭ s Žů ƵŵĞŽĨƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ Ɖ Ğƌ ů Ăď ŽƵƌ ƵŶŝ ƚď LJĐů ĂƐƐĞƐ Ž Ĩ Ϭ ϮϬϯ Ϭϭ
ǁŽŵĞ Ŷ͕ŝ ŶĚ ŝŐ ĞŶ Ž ƵƐƉĞ ŽƉů ĞƐ͕Ĩ Ăŵŝ ůLJĨĂ ƌŵĞ ƌƐ͕ƉĂ Ɛƚ Žƌ ĂůŝƐƚƐ ĂŶ Ě Ĩ ŝ ƐŚĞ ƌƐ ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ě ŝŶŐƚ ŚƌŽƵ ŐŚƐĞĐƵ ƌĞĂŶĚ Ğ ƋƵĂ ů ĨĂƌŵ ŝŶ Őͬ ƉĂƐƚŽ ƌĂ ͬů ĨŽ ƌĞ ƐƚƌLJĞ Ŷƚ ĞƌƉ ƌŝ ƐĞƐŝ njĞ
ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽůĂ ŶĚ͕ŽƚŚĞƌ ƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀĞƌĞƐŽƵ ƌĐĞƐĂŶ ĚŝŶƉ ƵƚƐ͕ŬŶ ŽǁůĞĚŐ Ğ͕Ĩŝ ŶĂŶ Đŝ ĂůƐĞ ƌǀŝĐ ĞƐ͕ŵ Ăƌ ŬĞƚƐĂ ŶĚ
ŽƉ Ɖ Žƌ ƚƵ Ŷŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ Ĩ Žƌ ǀĂů ƵĞ Ă ĚĚŝ ƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ Ŷ Ž ŶͲĨĂƌŵĞŵƉ ůŽ LJŵĞŶ ƚ

dŽƚĂů /ŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌƐZĞůĞǀĂŶƚƚŽ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ 

Ϯ ͘ϯ͘Ϯ  ǀĞƌ ĂŐĞŝŶ ĐŽ ŵĞ ŽĨƐŵĂů Ͳů ƐĐĂů ĞĨ ŽŽĚ Ɖ ƌŽĚ ƵĐĞƌƐ͕ď LJƐĞ džĂŶĚ  Ϭ ϮϬϯ ϬϮ
ŝŶĚ Őŝ ĞŶŽ ƵƐ ƐƚĂ ƚƵ Ɛ
Ϯ͘ϰLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƐƵƐƚ Ăŝ ŶĂ ďů ĞĨŽ ŽĚ Ɖƌ ŽĚ ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶƐLJ Ɛƚ Ğŵ ƐĂŶĚ ŝ ŵƉ ůĞŵĞŶ ƚƌĞ Ɛŝů ŝĞ Ŷƚ Ă Őƌ Đ ŝ Ƶů ƚƵ ƌĂ ůƉ ƌĂĐƚŝ ĐĞ Ɛ Ϯ ͘ϰ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨĂŐƌŝ ĐƵ ůƚ Ƶƌ Ăů ĂƌĞĂƵŶ ĚĞƌ Ɖ ƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀĞ ĂŶ Ě Ϭ ϮϬϰ Ϭϭ
ƚŚ Ăƚŝ ŶĐƌĞ ĂƐ ĞƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀŝƚ LJĂŶ ĚƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ƚŚĂƚ Ś Ğů ƉŵĂŝ Ŷƚ Ăŝ ŶĞĐŽƐ LJƐƚĞŵƐ͕ƚŚĂ ƚƐƚƌĞ ŶŐƚŚ ĞŶ ĐĂƉ ĂĐ ƚŝ LJĨŽ ƌ ƐƵƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďů ĞĂŐ ƌŝĐƵ ůƚƵƌ Ğ
ĂĚ ĂƉƚ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶƚŽ Đ ůŝŵ ĂƚĞĐŚĂŶ ŐĞ͕Ğdžƚƌ ĞŵĞǁĞĂ ƚŚ Ğƌ͕Ěƌ ŽƵŐ Śƚ ͕Ĩ ůŽ ŽĚŝ ŶŐ Ă ŶĚŽƚ ŚĞ ƌĚ ŝƐĂ Ɛƚ ĞƌƐĂŶ ĚƚŚĂ ƚ
Ɖƌ ŽŐƌ ĞƐƐŝ ǀĞ ůLJŝŵƉ ƌŽǀ Ğů ĂŶĚ Ă ŶĚƐŽ ŝů ƋƵ Ăů ŝƚLJ
Ϯ͘ϱLJ Ϯ ϬϮϬ͕ŵĂŝ Ŷƚ ĂŝŶƚ ŚĞŐĞ ŶĞƚ ŝ ĐĚŝ ǀĞ ƌƐŝƚLJŽĨƐĞĞ ĚƐ͕ĐƵ ůƚ ŝǀĂƚĞĚ Ɖ ůĂ Ŷƚ ƐĂŶ ĚĨĂƌŵĞĚ Ă ŶĚĚŽ ŵĞƐƚŝ ĐĂ ƚĞĚ  Ϯ ͘ϱ͘ϭ E Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Ɖ Ă ů Ŷƚ ĂŶ ĚĂŶ ŝŵĂ ůŐĞŶĞ ƚŝ ĐƌĞƐŽ ƵƌĐĞƐĨŽƌ ĨŽ ŽĚĂŶ Ě Ϭ ϮϬϱ Ϭϭ
ĂŶ ŝŵĂ ůƐ ĂŶ Ěƚ ŚĞŝ ƌ ƌ Ğů ĂƚĞĚ ǁŝů ĚƐƉ ĞĐŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐƚŚƌ ŽƵŐ ŚƐŽƵ ŶĚů LJŵĂŶ ĂŐ ĞĚĂŶ ĚĚŝ ǀĞƌ Ɛŝ ĨŝĞ ĚƐĞ ĞĚĂŶ ĚƉů ĂŶƚ  ĂŐƌ ŝĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĞ ƐĞĐƵƌĞ ĚŝŶ Ğŝ ƚŚĞ ƌŵ ĞĚ Ƶ ŝ ŵŽ ƌů ŽŶŐ Ͳƚ Ğƌ ŵĐŽŶƐĞƌ ǀĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ
ďĂ ŶŬƐ Ăƚƚ ŚĞŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů͕ƌ ĞŐŝ ŽŶ Ăů Ă ŶĚŝŶ ƚĞƌ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůůĞǀĞ ůƐ͕Ă ŶĚƉƌ ŽŵŽ ƚĞĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽĂŶ Ě ĨĂŝƌ ĂŶ Ě ĞƋ Ƶŝƚ Ăďů Ğ ĨĂĐŝů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ
ƐŚ Ăƌ ŝŶ ŐŽ Ĩď ĞŶĞ Ĩŝ ƚƐ Ăƌ ŝƐŝŶ ŐĨƌŽŵ ƚ ŚĞƵƚ ŝůŝ njĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨŐĞ ŶĞƚ ŝ ĐƌĞ ƐŽ Ƶ ƌĐ ĞƐĂ ŶĚĂƐƐŽ Đŝ Ăƚ ĞĚƚ ƌĂ Ěŝƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů ŬŶŽǁů ĞĚ ŐĞ͕
ĂƐ ŝ ŶƚĞƌ ŶĂ ƚŝŽ ŶĂů ůLJ Ă ŐƌĞĞĚ

,QGLFDWRUVPDUJLQDOUHOHYDQFHWR(QJLQHHULQJ&65 
Ϯ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩů ŽĐĂ ůď ƌĞĞ ĚƐĐůĂ ƐƐŝĨŝ ĞĚĂƐď Ğŝ ŶŐ Ă ƚƌ Ɛŝ Ŭ͕ŶŽƚ ͲĂ ƚͲƌŝƐ Ŭ Ϭ ϮϬϱ ϬϮ
Ž ƌĂƚ ƵŶ ŬŶŽǁŶ ů ĞǀĞů Ž Ĩƌ Ɛŝ ŬŽĨĞdžƚ ŝ ŶĐƚ ŝ ŽŶ

ZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ
Ϯ͘Ă/ŶĐƌ ĞĂ ƐĞŝ Ŷǀ ĞƐƚŵ ĞŶ ƚ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ ƚŚƌ ŽƵ ŐŚĞŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞĚ ŝ Ŷƚ ĞƌŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůĐŽ ŽƉ ĞƌĂƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ŝŶ ƌƵ ƌĂ ů ŝ ŶĨ ƌĂ Ɛƚ ƌƵ ĐƚƵ ƌĞ ͕ Ϯ ͘Ă͘ϭ d ŚĞĂŐƌŝ ĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĞŽƌ ŝ ĞŶƚĂƚ ŝŽ Ŷŝ ŶĚ ĞdžĨŽ ƌŐŽ ǀĞƌ ŶŵĞŶ ƚĞdž ƉĞŶ Ěŝ ƚƵ ƌĞ Ɛ Ϭ ϮϬĂ Ϭϭ
ĂŐ ƌŝĐƵ ůƚƵƌ Ăů ƌĞƐĞĂ ƌĐ ŚĂŶ Ě Ğ džƚĞŶƐŝ ŽŶƐĞ ƌǀŝĐ ĞƐ ͕ ƚ ĞĐŚ ŶŽů ŽŐ LJĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶƚ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ůĂ ŶƚĂŶĚ ů ŝǀĞƐ ƚŽĐ ŬŐĞŶ ĞďĂ ŶŬƐ 
ŝ ŶŽƌĚ Ğƌ ƚ ŽĞŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞĂŐƌŝ ĐƵů ƚƵƌ Ăů Ɖƌ ŽĚƵ Đƚ ŝǀĞĐĂ ƉĂĐŝƚ LJŝ ŶĚĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ ͕ŝ ŶƉĂƌ ƚŝĐƵů Ăƌ ů ĞĂ Ɛƚ ĚĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉĞĚ 
ĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ
Ϯ ͘Ă͘Ϯ d Žƚ Ăů Ž ĨĨ ŝ Đŝ Ăů Ĩů ŽǁƐ ;ŽĨ ĨŝĐŝĂ ůĚ ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉŵĞŶ ƚĂƐƐŝ Ɛƚ ĂŶ ĐĞƉů ƵƐ ŽƚŚ Ğƌ  Ϭ ϮϬĂ ϬϮ
Ž ĨĨŝ ĐŝĂů Ĩů ŽǁƐͿƚŽ ƚŚĞ Ă Őƌ ŝĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĞ ƐĞĐƚŽ ƌ
Ϯ͘ďŽ ƌƌ ĞĐƚ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌĞ ǀĞŶ ƚƚƌĂĚ ĞƌĞ Ɛƚƌŝ Đƚ ŝ ŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ Ě ŝƐƚŽ ƌƚŝŽ Ŷ Ɛŝ ŶǁŽƌ ůĚĂŐƌŝ ĐƵůƚ ƵƌĂ ůŵĂ ƌŬĞƚƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐƚŚƌŽ ƵŐŚ  Ϯ ͘ď ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ĚƵ ĐĞƌ^ ƵƉƉ Žƌƚ Ɛƚŝ ŵĂƚĞ Ϭ ϮϬď ϬϮ
ƚŚ ĞƉĂƌĂů ů ĞůĞů ŝŵŝ ŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨĂů ů Ĩ Žƌ ŵƐŽĨĂŐƌŝ ĐƵ ůƚ ƵƌĂ ůĞ džƉ Ž ƌƚ Ɛ Ƶď Ɛŝ Ěŝ ĞƐ ĂŶ ĚĂů ů ĞdžƉ ŽƌƚŵĞĂƐƵƌ ĞƐǁŝ ƚ ŚĞƋƵŝ ǀĂů ĞŶƚ
ĞĨ ĨĞ Đƚ ͕ŝŶ ĂĐĐŽƌ ĚĂŶ ĐĞ ǁŝƚ ŚƚŚ ĞŵĂŶĚ ĂƚĞŽĨ ƚ ŚĞ Ž ŚĂĞ ǀĞůŽ Ɖ ŵĞŶƚ Z ŽƵ ŶĚ
Ϯ ͘ď ͘Ϯ  ŐƌŝĐƵ ůƚƵ ƌĂůĞdžƉ ŽƌƚƐƵďƐ ŝĚ ŝĞ Ɛ Ϭ ϮϬĐ ϬϬ
Ϯ͘ĐĚ ŽƉƚ ŵĞ ĂƐƵƌĞƐƚ ŽĞŶƐƵƌ ĞƚŚ ĞƉƌŽ ƉĞƌ ĨƵ ŶĐƚ ŝ ŽŶŝ ŶŐ Ž ĨĨŽŽĚ ĐŽ ŵŵŽĚ ŝƚ LJŵĂƌ ŬĞ ƚƐĂ ŶĚƚŚĞŝ ƌĚĞ ƌŝ ǀĂƚŝ ǀĞ ƐĂŶ Ě Ϯ ͘Đ͘ϭ /ŶĚ ŝĐĂƚŽƌ Ž ĨĨ ŽŽĚ Ɖ ƌŝĐĞ Ă ŶŽŵ Ăůŝ ĞƐ Ϭ ϮϬĐ ϬϮ
ĨĂĐŝ ůŝƚ ĂƚĞƚŝŵ ĞůLJ ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ ŵ ĂƌŬĞ ƚŝ ŶĨŽƌ ŵĂƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ŝ ŶĐ ůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐŽŶ Ĩ ŽŽ ĚƌĞ ƐĞƌ ǀĞƐ͕ŝŶ Ž ƌĚĞ ƌƚ ŽŚĞů Ɖůŝŵŝ ƚ Ğ džƚƌĞŵĞ 
ĨŽ ŽĚƉƌ ŝ ĐĞǀŽů Ăƚŝů ŝ ƚLJ

' Ž Ăů  ϯ ͗  ' Ž Ž Ě  Ŷ Ɛ ƵƌĞ ŚĞ ĂůƚŚ LJ ů ŝǀĞ ƐĂ Ŷ ĚƉƌ Ž ŵŽ ƚĞ  ϯ ͘ϭ͘ϭ D Ă ƚĞ ƌŶĂ ůŵ Žƌƚ Ăů ƚŝ LJƌ ĂƚŝŽ Ϭ ϯϬϭ Ϭϭ
ǁ Ğů ůͲď ĞŝŶ Ő ĨŽ ƌ ĂůůĂƚ Ă ůůĂŐĞƐ
, Ğ Ă ůƚŚ Θ t Ğ ůů  ϯ ͘ϭ ϯ͘ϭLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ƌ ĞĚƵ ĐĞƚ ŚĞŐů Žď Ăů ŵĂ ƚĞ ƌŶ Ăů ŵ Ž ƌƚ Ăů ŝƚLJƌ ĂƚŝŽ ƚ ŽůĞƐƐƚŚ ĂŶϳϬ Ɖ Ğƌ ϭ ϬϬ͕ϬϬ Ϭůŝ ǀĞ ďŝ ƌƚ ŚƐ

,QGLFDWRUVZLWKOLWWOHUHOHYDQFHWRHLWKHU 
 Ğ ŝŶ Ő
ϯ ͘ϭ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩďŝ ƌƚŚƐ ĂƚƚĞŶ ĚĞĚ ď LJƐŬŝů ůĞĚ Ś ĞĂů ƚŚ ƉĞƌ ƐŽ ŶŶ Ğů Ϭ ϯϬϭ ϬϮ

KƚŚĞƌ
ϯ ͘Ϯ ϯ͘ϮLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ĚƉƌ ĞǀĞ Ŷƚ Ăďů ĞĚ ĞĂƚ ŚƐŽĨŶĞǁď Žƌ ŶƐĂŶ ĚĐŚ ŝůĚ ƌĞŶ Ƶ ŶĚĞ ƌϱLJĞ ĂƌƐŽĨ ĂŐĞ͕ǁŝ ƚŚĂůů ĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌ ŝ ĞƐ ϯ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ h ŶĚĞ ƌͲ Ĩŝ ǀĞ ŵŽ ƌƚ Ăů ŝ ƚLJƌ Ăƚ Ğ Ϭ ϯϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϯ ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ E ĞŽŶ ĂƚĂ ůŵŽ ƌƚ Ăůŝƚ LJƌ ĂƚĞ Ϭ ϯϬϮ ϬϮ

WƌŽũĞĐƚƐΘ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ ^Z

ϯ ͘ϯ ϯ͘ϯLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ĚƚŚ ĞĞƉ ŝĚĞ ŵ Đ
ŝ ƐŽĨ/^͕ƚƵď Ğƌ ĐƵů ŽƐŝ Ɛ͕ŵĂ ůĂ ƌŝ ĂĂŶ ĚŶ ĞŐů ĞĐƚ ĞĚ ƚƌŽ Ɖŝ ĐĂ ůĚŝ ƐĞ ĂƐĞƐ Ă ŶĚĐŽ ŵď Ăƚ  ϯ ͘ϯ͘ϭ E Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Ŷ Ğǁ,/sŝŶ ĨĞ Đƚ ŝŽ ŶƐƉĞ ƌϭ͕ϬϬ ϬƵŶŝ ŶĨ ĞĐƚĞĚ ƉŽ Ɖ Ƶů Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ͕ Ϭ ϯϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϯ ͘ϯ͘Ϯ d ƵďĞ ƌĐƵů ŽƐŝƐ ŝ ŶĐŝ ĚĞŶ ĐĞƉĞ ƌϭ͕ϬϬ ϬƉŽ Ɖ Ƶů Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ Ϭ ϯϬϯ ϬϮ

ϯ ͘ϯ͘ϯ D Ă ůĂ ƌŝ Ăŝ ŶĐŝĚ ĞŶĐ ĞƉ Ğƌ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ϭ ϯϬϯ Ϭϯ

ϯ ͘ϯ͘ϰ , ĞƉĂ ƚŝ ƚŝ Ɛ  ŝŶ ĐŝĚ ĞŶĐĞƉĞ ƌϭϬ Ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝŽŶ Ϭ ϯϬϯ Ϭϰ

ϯ ͘ϯ͘ϱ E Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Ɖ ĞŽ Ɖ ůĞƌ ĞƋ Ƶŝ ƌŝŶ Őŝ Ŷƚ Ğƌ ǀĞŶ ƚŝ ŽŶ ƐĂŐ Ăŝ ŶƐ ƚŶĞŐ ůĞĐƚĞĚ  Ϭ ϯϬϯ Ϭϱ
ƚƌŽ Ɖŝ ĐĂ ůĚŝ ƐĞĂƐĞƐ
ϯ͘ϰLJϮϬ ϯϬ͕ƌĞ ĚƵĐĞďLJŽ Ŷ ĞƚŚ ŝƌĚ Ɖ ƌĞŵĂ ƚƵƌ Ğŵ ŽƌƚĂ ůŝƚ LJĨƌŽ ŵŶŽ ŶͲĐŽŵŵƵ Ŷ ŝĐĂď Ğ
ů Ě ŝƐĞĂ ƐĞƐ ƚŚ ƌŽƵ ŐŚ ϯ ͘ϰ͘ϭ D Ž ƌƚĂů ŝƚLJƌĂƚ ĞĂƚ ƚƌ ŝď Ƶƚ ĞĚƚŽĐĂƌ Ěŝ Žǀ ĂƐĐƵů Ăƌ Ěŝ ƐĞĂ ƐĞ ͕ĐĂŶĐ Ğƌ͕ Ϭ ϯϬϰ Ϭϭ
ϯ ͘ϰ
Ɖƌ ĞǀĞ ŶƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ƚƌ ĞĂƚŵ ĞŶƚĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽ ŵŽƚĞ ŵĞ Ŷƚ Ăů Ś ĞĂůƚ ŚĂŶĚ ǁĞů ůͲďĞ ŝŶ Ő ĚĂŝ ďĞƚ ĞƐ Ž ƌĐŚ ƌŽ ŶŝĐƌĞ ƐƉ ŝƌ ĂƚŽƌ LJĚ ŝƐĞ ĂƐĞ
ϯ ͘ϰ͘Ϯ ^ Ƶŝ Đŝ ĚĞ ŵŽ ƌƚĂů ŝƚLJƌĂƚ Ğ Ϭ ϯϬϰ ϬϮ

ϯ ͘ϱ͘ϭ  Ž ǀĞ ƌĂŐĞŽĨƚƌĞĂ ƚŵĞŶ ƚŝ Ŷƚ ĞƌǀĞŶ ƚŝ ŽŶƐ ;Ɖ ŚĂƌ ŵĂĐŽů ŽŐŝ ĐĂ ů͕ Ϭ ϯϬϱ Ϭϭ
ϯ͘ϱ^ƚƌĞ ŶŐƚŚĞ ŶƚŚ ĞƉƌĞǀĞ ŶƚŝŽ Ŷ ĂŶĚ ƚ ƌĞĂƚ ŵĞŶƚ Ž ĨƐƵďƐƚĂ ŶĐĞ Ăď ƵƐĞ͕ŝŶ ĐůƵĚ ŝŶ ŐŶĂƌ ĐŽ ƚŝĐĚƌƵ ŐĂ ďƵƐĞĂŶ Ě 
ϯ ͘ϱ Ɖ ƐLJĐŚŽ ƐŽĐŝ Ăů ĂŶĚƌ ĞŚĂ ďŝ ŝů ƚ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ Ă Ĩƚ ĞƌĐĂƌĞƐ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞƐͿĨ ŽƌƐƵď ƐƚĂŶĐĞ
ŚĂ ƌŵĨ Ƶů Ƶ ƐĞ Ž ĨĂů ĐŽ Ś Žů
Ƶ ƐĞĚ ŝƐŽ ƌĚĞƌ Ɛ
ϯ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ , ĂƌŵĨƵů ƵƐĞŽĨĂ ůĐŽŚŽ ů͕ĚĞĨŝ ŶĞĚ Ă ĐĐŽƌ Ěŝ ŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů  Ϭ ϯϬϱ ϬϮ
ĐŽŶƚ ĞdžƚĂƐĂů ĐŽŚ Žů Ɖ Ğƌ Đ ĂƉ ŝƚ ĂĐŽ ŶƐƵ ŵ ƉƚŝŽ Ŷ;Ă ŐĞĚ ϭ ϱLJĞĂ ƌƐĂŶĚ Ž ůĚ ĞƌͿ
ǁŝ ƚ Śŝ ŶĂĐĂ ůĞ ŶĚĂ ƌLJĞ Ăƌ ŝ Ŷůŝƚ ƌĞƐ ŽĨ ƉƵƌ ĞĂů ĐŽ ŚŽů
ϯ ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϲLJ Ϯ ϬϮϬ͕ŚĂ ůǀĞƚŚ ĞŶƵŵď Ğƌ Ž ĨŐůŽď Ăů Ě ĞĂƚŚƐ ĂŶĚ ŝ ŶũƵƌ ŝĞƐĨ ƌŽ ŵƌŽĂĚ ƚ ƌĂĨĨŝ ĐĂĐĐŝ ĚĞ ŶƚƐ ϯ ͘ϲ͘ϭ  ĞĂƚŚƌĂ ƚĞ Ě ƵĞƚ ŽƌŽ ĂĚƚƌĂĨĨ ŝĐŝ ŶũƵƌŝ ĞƐ Ϭ ϯϬϲ Ϭϭ

ϯ͘ϳLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƵŶ ŝǀĞƌ ƐĂ ůĂĐ ĐĞ ƐƐƚŽƐĞ džƵĂů Ă ŶĚƌĞƉƌ ŽĚƵ Đƚ ǀ ŝ ĞŚĞĂů ƚŚͲĐĂƌĞ Ɛ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĨĂŵŝ ůLJ ϯ ͘ϳ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨǁŽ ŵĞ ŶŽĨƌ ĞƉƌŽ Ě ƵĐƚ ŝ ǀĞĂŐĞ;ĂŐĞ ĚϭϱͲ ϰϵ LJĞĂƌƐͿ Ϭ ϯϬϳ Ϭϭ
ϯ ͘ϳ Ɖů ĂŶ Ŷŝ ŶŐ͕ŝŶ ĨŽ ƌŵĂƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚĞĚƵ ĐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ͕ĂŶ Ě ƚŚĞ ŝ ŶƚĞŐ ƌĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƌĞ Ɖƌ ŽĚƵ Đƚ ŝǀĞŚĞĂ ůƚŚŝ Ŷƚ ŽŶ Ăƚ ŝ ŽŶĂ ůƐƚƌ ĂƚĞ Őŝ ĞƐ  ǁŚ ŽŚĂǀ ĞƚŚ Ğŝ ƌŶĞ ĞĚĨŽ ƌĨĂŵŝ ů LJƉ ůĂŶŶ ŝŶ ŐƐĂƚŝ ƐĨŝ ĞĚǁŝƚŚ ŵŽ ĚĞƌ Ŷ
ĂŶ ĚƉƌŽ ŐƌĂŵ ŵĞƐ ŵĞ ƚŚ Ž ĚƐ
ϯ ͘ϳ͘Ϯ  ĚŽů ĞƐĐĞ Ŷƚď ŝƌ ƚŚ ƌĂƚ Ğ;Ă ŐĞ ĚϭϬͲϭϰ LJ ĞĂƌ Ɛ͖ĂŐĞĚϭϱ Ͳϭϵ LJĞĂƌƐͿƉ Ğƌ Ϭ ϯϬϳ ϬϮ

7RWDO6'*,QGLFDWRUV 
ϭ ͕Ϭ ϬϬǁŽŵĞ ŶŝŶ ƚŚĂ ƚĂŐ ĞŐƌ ŽƵƉ
ϯ ͘ϴ͘ϭ  Ž ǀĞ ƌĂŐĞŽĨĞƐƐĞŶ ƚŝ Ăů ŚĞĂ ůƚŚƐ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞƐ;Ě ĞĨŝ ŶĞ ĚĂƐƚ ŚĞ ĂǀĞƌ ĂŐ Ğ Ϭ ϯϬϴ Ϭϭ
ĐŽǀĞƌĂ ŐĞŽ ĨĞƐƐĞŶ ƚŝ Ăů ƐĞ ƌǀ Đ ŝ ĞƐď ĂƐĞĚŽŶ ƚ ƌĂĐĞƌŝŶ ƚĞ ƌǀ ĞŶƚŝ ŽŶƐ ƚ ŚĂ ƚ
ϯ͘ϴĐŚŝ ĞǀĞ Ƶ Ŷŝ ǀĞ ƌƐĂů Ś ĞĂů ƚ ŚĐŽǀ Ğƌ ĂŐĞ ͕ŝ ŶĐ Ƶ
ů Ě ŝŶŐĨŝŶ ĂŶĐŝ Ăů ƌŝ ƐŬƉ ƌŽƚ ĞĐƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ĂĐ ĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽƋ ƵĂů ŝƚ LJĞƐƐĞ ŶƚŝĂů ŚĞĂ ůƚŚͲ ŝŶĐ ůƵ ĚĞƌĞƉƌ ŽĚ ƵĐƚŝ ǀĞ͕ŵ Ăƚ ĞƌŶ Ăů ͕Ŷ ĞǁďŽ ƌŶĂ ŶĚĐŚ ůŝ ĚŚĞ Ăů ƚŚ ͕ŝ ŶĨĞĐƚŝ ŽƵƐ 
ϯ ͘ϴ
ĐĂƌĞ Ɛ Ğƌ ǀŝ ĐĞ ƐĂŶĚ ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ Ɛ ĂĨ Ğ͕ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝ ǀĞ͕Ƌ ƵĂů ŝƚLJĂ ŶĚĂĨĨ ŽƌĚ Ăď ůĞ Ğ ƐƐĞŶƚ ŝĂů ŵĞ Ěŝ Đŝ ŶĞƐ ĂŶ Ě ǀ ĂĐĐŝ ŶĞƐĨŽ ƌĂů ů Ě Ɛŝ ĞĂ ƐĞƐ͕Ŷ ŽŶͲ ĐŽ ŵŵƵ Ŷŝ ĐĂ ďů ĞĚ ŝƐĞ ĂƐĞ ƐĂŶ ĚƐĞƌǀŝ ĐĞĐĂƉ ĂĐŝƚLJĂŶ Ě
ĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕Ăŵ ŽŶŐ ƚ ŚĞ Ő ĞŶ ĞƌĂ ůĂŶ Ě ƚŚ ĞŵŽƐƚ ĚŝƐĂĚǀĂ ŶƚĂŐĞ ĚƉŽƉ Ƶů ĂƚŝŽ ŶͿ

ϯ ͘ϴ͘Ϯ E Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Ɖ ĞŽ Ɖ ůĞĐ ŽǀĞƌĞ ĚďLJŚ ĞĂů ƚŚŝŶ ƐƵƌ ĂŶ ĐĞŽƌ ĂƉƵď ůŝ Đ Ϭ ϯϬϴ ϬϮ
Ś ĞĂů ƚ ŚƐLJƐƚ ĞŵƉĞƌ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ
ϯ͘ϵLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕Ɛ Ƶď ƐƚĂ Ŷƚŝ Ăůů LJƌ ĞĚƵ ĐĞƚ ŚĞŶ Ƶ ŵďĞƌ Ž ĨĚĞ ĂƚŚƐ Ă ŶĚŝ ů ŶĞ ƐƐ ĞƐ Ĩ ƌŽ ŵ Ś ĂnjĂƌĚ ŽƵƐ ĐŚ Ğŵ ŝĐĂůƐĂŶ ĚĂŝ ƌ͕ ϯ ͘ϵ͘ϭ D Ž ƌƚĂů ŝƚLJƌĂƚ ĞĂƚ ƚƌ ŝď Ƶƚ ĞĚƚŽŚŽƵ ƐĞŚ Žů ĚĂŶĚ Ă ŵďŝ ĞŶƚ Ăŝ ƌ Ϭ ϯϬϵ Ϭϭ
ϯ ͘ϵ
ǁĂƚĞƌ ĂŶ ĚƐ ŽŝůƉŽ ůů Ƶƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶ ĚĐŽŶ ƚĂ ŵŝŶ Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ Ɖ Žů Ƶ
ů ƚŝ ŽŶ
ϯ ͘ϵ͘Ϯ D Ž ƌƚĂů ŝƚLJƌĂƚ ĞĂƚ ƚƌ ŝď Ƶƚ ĞĚƚŽƵŶƐ ĂĨ ĞǁĂƚĞƌ ͕ƵŶ ƐĂĨĞƐĂŶŝ ƚĂƚŝŽ Ŷ ĂŶĚ  Ϭ ϯϬϵ ϬϮ
ůĂĐŬŽĨŚLJŐŝĞ ŶĞ;ĞdžƉ ŽƐƵƌĞ ƚŽƵŶ ƐĂ ĨĞ tĂƚĞƌ ͕^ĂŶŝ ƚ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ,LJŐŝ ĞŶ Ğ
ĨŽƌ ůů ;t^,ͿƐ Ğƌ ǀŝ ĐĞ ƐͿ
ϯ ͘ϵ͘ϯ D Ž ƌƚĂů ŝƚLJƌĂƚ ĞĂƚ ƚƌ ŝď Ƶƚ ĞĚƚŽƵŶŝ Ŷƚ ĞŶƚ ŝŽ ŶĂůƉŽ ŝƐŽŶ ŝŶ Ő Ϭ ϯϬϵ Ϭϯ
ϯ͘Ă^ƚ ƌĞ ŶŐƚŚĞ ŶƚŚ ĞŝŵƉ Ğ ů ŵ ĞŶ ƚĂƚ ŝŽ ŶŽ ĨƚŚĞ tŽ ƌů Ě,ĞĂ ůƚ ŚKƌŐĂŶ ŝnjĂƚŝ ŽŶ&ƌĂŵĞ ǁŽƌŬŽŶ ǀĞŶ ƚŝ ŽŶŽŶ dŽ ďĂĐĐŽ ϯ ͘Ă͘ϭ  ŐĞͲ ƐƚĂŶ ĚĂƌ Ěŝ njĞ ĚƉ ƌĞǀĂ ůĞŶĐ ĞŽĨ ĐƵƌ ƌĞŶ ƚƚ ŽďĂ ĐĐŽƵƐĞ Ă ŵŽŶŐ  Ϭ ϯϬĂ Ϭϭ
ϯ͘Ă
 ŽŶ ƚƌ Žů ŝŶ Ăůů ĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝĞƐ͕Ă ƐĂƉƉ ƌŽ ƉƌŝĂ ƚĞ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽ Ŷ ƐĂŐ ĞĚϭϱ LJ ĞĂƌƐĂ ŶĚŽů ĚĞ ƌ
ϯ͘ď^Ƶ ƉƉŽ ƌƚ ƚ ŚĞ ƌ ĞƐ ĞĂƌ ĐŚ Ă ŶĚĚĞ ǀĞ ůŽ Ɖŵ ĞŶƚŽĨ ǀ ĂĐĐŝ ŶĞƐĂŶĚ ŵĞ Ěŝ Đŝ ŶĞƐ ĨŽ ƌƚŚ ĞĐŽŵŵƵ Ŷŝ ĐĂďů ĞĂŶĚ  ϯ ͘ď ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚŚ ĞƉ ŽƉ Ƶů Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶǁŝƚŚĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽĂĨ ĨŽƌĚ Ăďů Ğ Ϭ ϯϬď Ϭϭ
ŶŽ Ŷ ͲĐŽ ŵŵƵŶ ŝĐĂď ůĞ Ě ŝƐĞĂƐĞƐƚŚĂ ƚƉƌ ŝ ŵĂƌŝů LJĂĨ ĨĞĐƚ ĚĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌ ŝĞƐ͕Ɖƌ ŽǀŝĚ ĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ Ă ĨĨŽ ƌĚĂ ďůĞ  ŵĞ Ěŝ Đŝ ŶĞƐ ĂŶĚ ǀ ĂĐĐŝ ŶĞƐŽŶĂƐƵ ƐƚĂŝ ŶĂ ďů Ğď ĂƐŝ Ɛ
ĞƐƐĞ Ŷƚŝ ĂůŵĞĚ ŝĐ Ŷ ŝ ĞƐ Ă ŶĚǀĂ ĐĐŝŶ ĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĂĐĐ ŽƌĚ ĂŶ ĐĞǁŝ ƚŚ ƚŚĞ  ŽŚĂ  ĞĐů Ăƌ Ăƚ ŝ ŽŶŽŶ ƚ ŚĞd Z/W^Ő ƌĞĞ ŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ 
ϯ ͘ď
WƵ ď ůŝĐ , ĞĂů ƚŚ͕ǁŚ ŝĐŚĂĨĨŝ ƌ ŵƐƚŚ Ğƌŝ ŐŚ ƚŽĨ Ě Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ Đ ŽƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐƚ ŽƵ ƐĞ ƚŽƚŚ ĞĨ Ƶů ůƚ ŚĞƉƌŽ ǀŝƐŝŽ ŶƐ ŝ ŶƚŚĞ
ŐƌĞĞ ŵĞŶƚ ŽŶdƌĂĚ ĞͲZ ĞůĂƚ ĞĚƐƉĞ ĐƚƐŽĨ / Ŷƚ Ğů ů ĞĐƚƵ ĂůWƌ ŽƉ ĞƌƚLJZ ŝ ŐŚƚƐ ƌĞŐĂƌ Ěŝ ŶŐĨů Ğdžŝďŝ ů ŝƚ ŝĞƐ ƚ ŽƉƌŽ ƚĞĐƚ Ɖ Ƶďů ŝ Đ
ŚĞ Ăů ƚŚ͕ĂŶ Ě͕ŝ ŶƉĂ ƌƚ ŝĐƵů Ăƌ ͕Ɖ ƌŽǀ ŝĚ ĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽŵĞĚŝ ĐŝŶ ĞƐĨ ŽƌĂ ůů
ϯ ͘ď ͘Ϯ d Žƚ ĂůŶ Ğƚ Ž ĨĨ ŝĐŝ Ăů Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŵ ĞŶ ƚĂƐƐŝ ƐƚĂ ŶĐĞƚ ŽŵĞĚ ŝĐĂů ƌĞƐĞĂ ƌĐŚ Ϭ ϯϬď ϬϮ
ĂŶĚ ďĂ Ɛŝ ĐŚĞ Ăů ƚŚ ƐĞĐ ƚŽ ƌƐ
ϯ͘Đ^Ƶ ďƐ ƚĂŶ ƚŝ Ăů ů LJŝ ŶĐƌ ĞĂƐĞŚ ĞĂů ƚŚ Ĩŝ ŶĂŶĐŝ ŶŐĂ ŶĚƚ ŚĞƌ ĞĐƌ Ƶŝ ƚŵĞ Ŷƚ͕ĚĞ ǀĞůŽ Ɖ ŵĞŶƚ ͕ƚ ƌĂŝ Ŷŝ ŶŐĂŶ ĚƌĞ ƚĞŶ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚŚ Ğ ϯ ͘Đ͘ϭ ,ĞĂů ƚ ŚǁŽƌ ŬĞƌ ĚĞŶ Ɛŝ ƚLJ Ă ŶĚĚŝƐ ƚƌ ŝď Ƶƚ Ž ŝ Ŷ Ϭ ϯϬĐ Ϭϭ
ϯ͘Đ
ŚĞ Ăů ƚŚǁŽ ƌŬĨŽƌ ĐĞ ŝŶ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ Ɖŝ ŶŐĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝĞ Ɛ͕Ğ ƐƉ ĞĐŝ Ăůů LJŝŶůĞ ĂƐƚĚĞ ǀĞůŽ Ɖ ĞĚĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝĞ ƐĂŶĚ ƐŵĂů ů ŝ Ɛ ůĂ ŶĚ
ϯ͘Ě^ƚƌĞ ŶŐƚŚ ĞŶ ƚŚ ĞĐĂƉ ĂĐŝƚLJŽĨĂů ůĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝĞ Ɛ͕ŝ ŶƉ Ăƌƚ ŝĐƵů ĂƌĚĞǀ Ğů ŽƉ ŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕Ĩ ŽƌĞ Ăƌů LJǁĂƌŶ ŝŶ Ő͕ƌ ŝƐŬ ϯ ͘Ě ͘ϭ /Ŷƚ ĞƌŶ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂů ,ĞĂ ůƚŚZĞ ŐƵů Ăƚŝ ŽŶƐ ;/,Z ͿĐĂƉ ĂĐŝƚ LJĂŶ ĚŚĞĂůƚ Ś
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϯ ͘Ě
ƌĞ ĚƵĐ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ă ŶĚŵĂŶ ĂŐĞŵĞŶ ƚŽĨŶ Ăƚ Ž ŝ ŶĂů ĂŶĚ Ő ůŽď ĂůŚĞ ĂůƚŚ ƌ ŝƐŬƐ Ğŵ ĞƌŐĞŶ ĐLJƉƌ ĞƉ Ăƌ ĞĚŶ ĞƐƐ
Ϭ ϯϬĚ Ϭϭ

' Ž Ăů  ϰ ͗  Y Ƶ Ă ůŝ ƚLJ  Ŷ Ɛ ƵƌĞ ŝŶ ĐůƵ Ɛ ŝǀ ĞĂŶ Ě ĞƋƵ ŝ ƚĂ ď ůĞ ϰ ͘ϭ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĐŚŝ ů Ěƌ ĞŶ ĂŶ ĚLJŽƵ ŶŐƉ ĞŽ Ɖů Ğ͗;ĂͿŝŶŐƌ ĂĚ ĞƐϮͬ ϯ͖;ďͿ Ϭ ϰϬϭ Ϭϭ
ĂƚƚŚĞĞŶ ĚŽĨƉ ƌŝ ŵĂƌ LJ͖Ă ŶĚ;ĐͿĂ ƚƚ ŚĞĞŶ ĚŽĨ ůŽǁĞ ƌƐĞĐŽ ŶĚĂ ƌLJ
Ƌ ƵĂ ůŝƚLJ Ğ ĚƵ ĐĂ ƚŝŽ Ŷ ĂŶ Ě Ɖ ƌŽ ŵŽ ƚ Ğ ϰ͘ϭLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƚŚ Ăƚ Ăů ůŐŝƌ ůƐ ĂŶ Ě ď ŽLJƐ ĐŽ ŵƉ ůĞ ƚĞ ĨƌĞ Ğ͕ĞƋ Ƶŝ ƚĂďů ĞĂ ŶĚƋƵ Ăů ŝƚLJƉƌ ŝŵĂƌLJ ĂŶĚ ƐĞĐŽ ŶĚĂ ƌLJ  ĂĐŚŝ Ğǀŝ ŶŐĂƚ ůĞ ĂƐƚĂŵŝ Ŷŝ ŵƵŵ ƉƌŽ Ĩŝ Đŝ ĞŶ ĐLJ ů Ğǀ Ğů ŝŶ ;ŝ ͿƌĞ ĂĚ ŝŶ ŐĂŶĚ 
 Ě Ƶ Đ Ă ƚŝŽ Ŷ ů ŝĨĞ ůŽ ŶŐ ůĞ ĂƌŶ ŝŶŐ ŽƉ ƉŽ ƌ ƚƵ Ŷ ŝƚŝĞ Ɛ
ϰ ͘ϭ
ĞĚ ƵĐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ů ĞĂĚ ŝŶŐƚ ŽƌĞ ůĞ ǀĂŶ ƚĂŶ Ě ĞĨ ĨĞ Đƚ ŝǀĞůĞ Ăƌ Ŷŝ ŶŐŽƵ ƚĐ ŽŵĞƐ
;ŝ ŝͿŵĂƚŚĞŵ Ăƚŝ ĐƐ͕ďLJ ƐĞdž
ĨŽ ƌ Ăůů
ϰ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĐŚŝ ů Ěƌ ĞŶ ƵŶ ĚĞƌϱLJĞĂ ƌƐŽ ĨĂŐĞǁŚŽ ĂƌĞ  Ϭ ϰϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϰ͘ϮLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƚŚ Ăƚ Ăů ůŐŝƌ ůƐ ĂŶ Ě ď ŽLJƐ ŚĂǀ ĞĂĐĐĞƐ Ɛƚ ŽƋƵĂ ůŝ ƚLJĞĂƌ ů LJĐŚ ŝů ĚŚ ŽŽĚ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉŵĞŶ ƚ͕ĐĂƌĞĂŶĚ 
ϰ ͘Ϯ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉŵĞŶ ƚĂ ůůLJŽŶ ƚƌ ĂĐŬ ŝŶ Ś ĞĂů ƚŚ͕ů ĞĂ ƌŶ ŝŶ ŐĂŶĚ Ɖ ƐLJĐŚŽ ƐŽĐŝ Ăů ǁĞ ůů Ͳ
Ɖƌ ĞͲƉ ƌŝŵĂ ƌLJĞ ĚƵĐ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶƐŽƚŚ Ăƚ ƚŚ ĞLJĂƌ ĞƌĞĂĚ LJĨŽ ƌƉƌ ŵ ŝ ĂƌLJ Ğ ĚƵ ĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ
ď ĞŝŶŐ͕ďLJƐĞdž
ϰ ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ WĂ ƌƚŝ Đŝ ƉĂƚ ŝŽŶ ƌ ĂƚĞŝŶ Ž ƌŐĂŶŝ njĞ ĚůĞ Ăƌ Ŷŝ ŶŐ;ŽŶĞ LJ ĞĂ ƌďĞĨŽƌ ĞƚŚĞ Ϭ ϰϬϮ ϬϮ
Ž ĨĨŝ ĐŝĂů Ɖ ƌŝŵ Ăƌ LJĞŶ ƚƌ LJĂŐ ĞͿ ͕ďLJƐĞdž
ϰ͘ϯLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞĞƋ ƵĂů ĂĐĐĞƐƐĨ Žƌ Ăůů ǁŽŵ ĞŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĞ ŶƚŽĂĨĨŽƌ ĚĂď ůĞ ĂŶ ĚƋ Ƶ Ăů ŝƚ LJƚ ĞĐŚ Ŷŝ ĐĂ ů͕ǀŽĐĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂů ϰ ͘ϯ͘ϭ WĂ ƌƚŝ Đŝ ƉĂƚ ŝŽŶ ƌ ĂƚĞŽĨLJ ŽƵƚ ŚĂŶĚ ĂĚƵ ůƚ Ɛŝ ŶĨŽ ƌŵĂů ĂŶ ĚŶŽŶ ͲĨŽƌ ŵĂů  Ϭ ϰϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϰ ͘ϯ

$QDO\WLFDO
ĂŶ ĚƚĞƌƚ ŝĂ ƌLJ ĞĚ ƵĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ͕ŝ ŶĐů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ Ƶ Ŷŝ ǀĞƌ Ɛŝ ƚ LJ ĞĚ ƵĐĂƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ƚ ƌĂŝ Ŷŝ ŶŐŝ ŶƚŚ ĞƉ ƌĞǀŝ ŽƵ ƐϭϮŵ ŽŶ ƚŚ Ɛ͕ď LJƐĞ dž
ϰ͘ϰLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕Ɛ Ƶď ƐƚĂ Ŷƚŝ Ăůů LJŝ ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ƚŚĞ Ŷ Ƶŵď ĞƌŽĨ LJ ŽƵƚ ŚĂŶ Ě ĂĚƵ ůƚ ƐǁŚ ŽŚĂǀ ĞƌĞ ůĞ ǀĂŶ ƚƐŬŝ ůůƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ ŝŶ Ő ϰ ͘ϰ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ LJŽƵ ƚŚ Ă ŶĚĂĚ ƵůƚƐ ǁŝƚ ŚŝŶ ĨŽ ƌŵĂ ƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ  Ϭ ϰϬϰ Ϭϭ
ϰ ͘ϰ
ƚĞ ĐŚ Ŷŝ ĐĂů ĂŶĚ ǀŽĐ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂů ƐŬ ŝů ůƐ͕ĨŽƌĞŵƉů ŽLJ ŵĞŶƚ ͕Ě ĞĐĞ Ŷƚ ũ Žď Ɛ ĂŶ ĚĞŶƚ ƌĞ Ɖƌ ĞŶĞ ƵƌƐŚŝ Ɖ ĐŽŵŵ ƵŶ ŝĐĂƚŝŽ ŶƐ ƚ ĞĐŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJ; / dͿƐ Ŭŝ ů ůƐ͕ďLJƚLJƉĞŽĨ ƐŬŝ ů ů
ϰ ͘ϱ͘ϭ WĂ ƌŝƚ LJŝŶ Ěŝ ĐĞ Ɛ;ĨĞŵĂ ůĞ ͬŵĂůĞ ͕ƌƵ ƌĂůͬ Ƶƌ ďĂŶ ͕ďŽ ƚƚŽŵ ͬ ƚŽ Ɖ ǁĞĂůƚ Ś Ϭ ϰϬϱ Ϭϭ
ϰ͘ϱLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕Ğů ŝ ŵŝŶ ĂƚĞŐĞŶ ĚĞƌĚŝ ƐƉ Ăƌŝ ƚŝĞ Ɛŝ ŶĞĚƵ ĐĂƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚĞŶƐƵƌ ĞĞƋ Ƶ Ăů ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ Ăů ůů ĞǀĞ ůƐŽĨĞ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ 
Ƌ Ƶŝ Ŷƚŝů ĞĂŶ Ě Ž ƚŚĞƌ ƐƐƵ ĐŚ Ă ƐĚŝ ƐĂď ŝůŝ ƚ LJƐƚ Ăƚ ƵƐ͕ŝ ŶĚŝ ŐĞ ŶŽ Ƶ ƐƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞƐ Ă ŶĚ
ϰ ͘ϱ ĂŶ ĚǀŽĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ Ăů ƚƌ Ăŝ Ŷŝ ŶŐĨ Žƌ ƚŚĞ ǀƵů ŶĞ ƌĂď ůĞ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐƉĞ ƌƐŽŶƐ ǁŝƚ ŚĚŝ ƐĂď ŝů ŝƚ ŝĞƐ͕ŝŶ Ěŝ ŐĞŶ ŽƵƐ ƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞƐĂŶ Ě
ĐŽŶĨ ůŝĐƚͲĂĨ ĨĞĐƚ ĞĚ ͕ĂƐĚĂƚ ĂďĞ ĐŽŵĞ ĂǀĂŝů Ăď ůĞ ͿĨŽ ƌĂů ůĞĚƵ ĐĂƚ ŝ ŽŶ
ĐŚ ŝůĚƌ ĞŶ ŝ ŶǀƵ ůŶ Ğƌ Ăďů ĞƐ ŝƚ ƵĂƚŝ ŽŶƐ
ŝŶĚ Đ ŝ Ăƚ Žƌ ƐŽŶƚŚ ŝƐů ŝƐ ƚƚ ŚĂƚĐĂŶ ď ĞĚŝ ƐĂ ŐŐƌ ĞŐĂƚ ĞĚ
ϰ ͘ϲ͘ϭ WĞ ƌĐĞŶƚ ĂŐ ĞŽĨƉ ŽƉƵ Ă ů ƚŝ ŽŶ ŝŶĂŐŝǀ ĞŶĂŐ ĞŐƌ ŽƵƉ Ă ĐŚ ŝĞ ǀŝŶ ŐĂƚ Ϭ ϰϬϲ Ϭϭ
ϰ͘ϲLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƚŚ Ăƚ Ăů ůLJŽ ƵƚŚĂŶĚ Ă Ɛ Ƶď ƐƚĂŶƚ ŝ ĂůƉ ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝŽ Ŷ Ž ĨĂĚ Ƶů ƚƐ͕ďŽ ƚŚ ŵĞ ŶĂŶĚ ǁŽ ŵ ĞŶ ͕ĂĐŚ Ğ
ŝ ǀĞ
ϰ ͘ϲ ůĞĂ Ɛƚ ĂĨŝ džĞĚ ůĞ ǀĞůŽĨ Ɖ ƌŽ Ĩŝ Đŝ ĞŶ ĐLJ ŝ ŶĨƵ ŶĐƚŝŽ Ŷ Ăů ;ĂͿůŝ ƚĞƌ ĂĐLJ ĂŶĚ ; ďͿ
ů ŝƚ Ğƌ ĂĐLJĂŶĚ Ŷ Ƶ ŵĞƌĂĐ LJ
Ŷ ƵŵĞƌ ĂĐ LJƐŬ ŝůů Ɛ͕ďLJƐĞdž
ϰ ͘ϳ͘ϭ džƚĞ Ŷƚƚ ŽǁŚ ŝĐŚ ;ŝ ͿŐůŽ ď Ăů Đŝ ƚŝnjĞŶ ƐŚŝ ƉĞĚƵ ĐĂƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ Ě;ŝ ŝ Ϳ Ϭ ϰϬϳ Ϭϭ
ϰ͘ϳLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌĞƚŚ Ăƚ Ăů ůů ĞĂƌŶĞ ƌƐĂĐƋ Ƶŝ ƌĞ ƚ ŚĞŬŶŽǁů ĞĚ ŐĞĂŶ ĚƐŬ ůŝ ů ƐŶĞ ĞĚĞ ĚƚŽ Ɖ ƌŽŵŽ ƚĞ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶ Ăďů Ğ
ĞĚ ƵĐĂƚŝŽ ŶĨŽ ƌƐƵ ƐƚĂŝ ŶĂď ůĞĚĞǀ ĞůŽ ƉŵĞ Ŷƚ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ Ŷ ŝ ŐŐĞŶ ĚĞƌĞƋƵ Ăů ŝƚLJ
ĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶƚ ͕ŝ ŶĐ ůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶ ŐŽƚ ŚĞƌƐ͕ƚŚ ƌŽƵ ŐŚĞ ĚƵ ĐĂƚŝŽ ŶĨŽ ƌƐƵ Ɛƚ Ăŝ ŶĂď Ğ ů Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶ ƚĂŶ ĚƐƵ Ɛƚ ĂŝŶĂď ůĞ 
ϰ ͘ϳ ĂŶĚ ŚƵ ŵĂŶƌ ŝŐ ŚƚƐ͕Ă ƌĞ ŵ ĂŝŶ Ɛƚ ƌĞ Ăŵ ĞĚ Ă ƚĂů ů ů ĞǀĞů ƐŝŶ͗ ;ĂͿŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ů
ů ŝĨĞƐ ƚLJůĞ Ɛ͕ŚƵŵĂ Ŷƌŝ ŐŚ ƚƐ͕ŐĞŶ ĚĞ ƌĞƋ ƵĂů ŝ ƚLJ ͕Ɖ ƌŽŵ Žƚŝ ŽŶ ŽĨ ĂĐƵ ůƚ Ƶƌ ĞŽĨƉ ĞĂĐĞĂŶ Ě ŶŽ ŶͲǀŝŽ ůĞ ŶĐĞ ͕Őů Žď Ăů 
ĞĚ ƵĐĂƚŝŽ ŶƉŽů ŝ Đŝ ĞƐ͕;ďͿ ĐƵƌ ƌŝ ĐƵ Ă ů ͕;ĐͿƚĞĂ ĐŚ ĞƌĞĚ ƵĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ ĂŶĚ ; ĚͿƐƚƵ ĚĞŶ ƚ
Đŝƚ ŝnjĞŶƐŚŝ ƉĂŶ ĚĂƉƉ ƌĞ ĐŝĂƚ ŝŽ ŶŽĨĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĂůĚŝ ǀĞ ƌƐŝƚLJĂŶ ĚŽĨĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĞ͛ƐĐŽŶ ƚƌ ŝď Ƶƚ ŝŽ ŶƚŽ ƐƵƐƚĂŝ ŶĂď ůĞĚĞ ǀĞůŽƉ ŵĞ Ŷƚ
ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵ ĞŶ ƚ
ϰ ͘Ă͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ ƐĐ ŚŽŽ ůƐ ǁŝƚ ŚĂĐ ĐĞƐƐƚ Ž͗;ĂͿĞů ĞĐƚƌ ŝĐŝƚ LJ͖;ď ͿƚŚĞ Ϭ ϰϬĂ Ϭϭ tŚĂ ƚů ĞǀĞ ůŽĨ;ά ͬΨƉ ĂͿŝ Ŷǀ ĞƐƚŵ ĞŶ ƚŝ ŶƐĐŚ ŽŽů Ɛ  Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ƐĐŚŽŽ ůĐŚ ŝů Ěƌ ĞŶ ǁŝ ƚ ŚŶĞǁ
/ŶƚĞƌ ŶĞƚ ĨŽ ƌƉĞ Ě ĂŐ ŽŐŝ ĐĂ ůƉ ƵƌƉ ŽƐĞƐ͖ ;ĐͿĐŽ ŵƉƵƚ ĞƌƐĨ ŽƌƉ ĞĚĂ ŐŽŐ Đ ŝ Ăů ŝ ŶĨƌĂ ƐƚƌƵ ĐƚƵƌĞ ĂŐĂ ŝŶ Ɛƚ Ě ĞĨ Ŷ
ŝ ĞĚĐĂƚĞ ŐŽƌ ŝĞƐ Ĩ ĂĐŝůŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ ĞŶĂ ďů ŝŶ Őŝ ŵƉ ƌŽ ǀĞĚ Ğ ĚƵĐĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂůďĞ ŶĞĨ ŝƚƐ
ϰ͘ĂƵ ŝů ĚĂŶ ĚƵ ƉŐƌĂ ĚĞĞĚ ƵĐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ĩ ĂĐ ŝůŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ ƚŚ ĂƚĂ ƌĞĐ Śŝ Ě
ů ͕Ěŝ ƐĂďŝ ů ŝƚLJĂŶ ĚŐĞŶ ĚĞƌ ƐĞŶ Ɛŝƚ ŝǀĞĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽ ǀŝ ĚĞƐĂ ĨĞ ͕ Ɖ ƵƌƉ ŽƐĞƐ͖;Ě ͿĂĚ ĂƉƚ ĞĚ ŝ ŶĨ ƌĂƐƚ ƌƵ Đƚ Ƶƌ ĞĂŶĚ ŵĂ ƚĞ ƌŝ Ăů ƐĨŽƌ ƐƚƵ ĚĞŶ ƚƐ ǁŝƚ Ś
ϰ͘Ă
ŶŽ Ŷ Ͳǀ ŝŽ ůĞŶƚ ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ɛŝ ǀĞ Ă ŶĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝ ǀĞů ĞĂƌŶ ŝŶŐ Ğ Ŷǀŝƌ ŽŶŵ ĞŶ ƚƐĨŽ ƌĂů ů Ě Ɛŝ Ăď ŝů ŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ͖;ĞͿ ď ĂƐŝĐ Ě ƌŝ ŶŬ Ŷ
ŝ ŐǁĂƚ Ğƌ ͖;ĨͿ Ɛ ŝŶŐů ĞͲƐĞdžďĂ Ɛŝ ĐƐĂŶŝ ƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ 
ĨĂĐŝů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ͖ĂŶ Ě; ŐͿď ĂƐŝĐ Ś ĂŶĚ ǁĂƐŚŝ ŶŐĨĂĐŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ ;ĂƐƉ Ğƌƚ ŚĞ t ^ ,
ŝŶĚ Đ ŝ Ăƚ Žƌ Ě ĞĨŝŶ ŝƚŝ ŽŶ ƐͿ
ϰ͘ďLJ Ϯ ϬϮϬ ͕Ɛ Ƶ ďƐƚĂ Ŷƚŝ Ăůů LJĞdž ƉĂŶ ĚŐů Žď Ăů ůLJƚ ŚĞ Ŷ Ƶ ŵďĞ ƌŽĨ Ɛ ĐŚ Žů Ăƌ ƐŚŝ ƉƐ ĂǀĂ ŝůĂ ďů ĞƚŽ Ě ĞǀĞ Ž
ů Ɖ ŝŶŐĐŽƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ Ŷ ϰ ͘ď ͘ϭ sŽ ůƵ ŵĞŽĨŽ ĨĨ ŝĐŝ Ăů Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶ ƚĂƐƐŝ ƐƚĂŶĐĞ Ĩ ů ŽǁƐ Ĩ Žƌ Ϭ ϰϬď Ϭϭ
ƉĂ ƌƚ Đŝ Ƶů Ăƌ ů ĞĂƐƚ ĚĞǀĞů ŽƉĞ ĚĐŽ Ƶ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ƐŵĂůůŝ Ɛů ĂŶ ĚĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ^ƚĂƚĞ ƐĂŶ ĚĨƌŝ ĐĂ ŶĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕Ĩ ŽƌĞ ŶƌŽ ůŵĞ Ŷƚŝ Ŷ ƐĐŚ Žů ĂƌƐŚŝƉ Ɛ ď LJƐĞ Đƚ Žƌ Ă ŶĚƚ LJƉĞ Ž ĨƐƚƵĚ LJ
ϰ ͘ď
Śŝ ŐŚ ĞƌĞ ĚƵ ĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐǀŽĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů ƚ ƌĂ ŝŶŝ ŶŐĂŶ ĚŝŶ ĨŽ ƌŵĂƚŝ ŽŶ ĂŶ ĚĐŽ ŵŵƵ Ŷŝ ĐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶƐ ƚĞ ĐŚ Ŷ Žů ŽŐLJ ͕ƚĞĐŚ Ŷŝ ĐĂů͕
ĞŶ Őŝ ŶĞĞ ƌŝ ŶŐ Ă ŶĚƐĐŝ ĞŶƚŝ ĨŝĐƉƌŽ ŐƌĂŵŵĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉĞĚ ĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌ ŝ ĞƐĂ ŶĚŽƚ ŚĞƌ ĚĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ
ϰ ͘Đ͘ϭ W ƌŽƉ Žƌ ƚŝ ŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚ ĞƌƐŝ Ŷ͗;ĂͿƉƌĞ ͲƉ ƌŝ ŵĂƌ LJ͖;ďͿƉƌ ŝŵ ĂƌLJ ͖;ĐͿ  Ϭ ϰϬĐ Ϭϭ
ϰ͘Đ LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚ ŝĂ ů LJŝŶĐ ƌĞ ĂƐĞ ƚ ŚĞ Ɛ ƵƉ Ɖ ůLJŽĨƋ ƵĂů ŝ Ĩŝ ĞĚ ƚĞĂ ĐŚĞ ƌƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐƚŚƌŽ ƵŐŚ ŝ ŶƚĞƌ ŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů ůŽǁĞ ƌƐĞĐŽ ŶĚĂ ƌLJ͖ĂŶ Ě;Ě ͿƵ ƉƉ ĞƌƐĞĐ ŽŶĚ ĂƌLJĞĚƵ ĐĂƚ ŝŽŶ ǁŚŽ Ś ĂǀĞ
ϰ͘Đ ĐŽ ŽƉĞ ƌĂƚŝ ŽŶĨŽƌ ƚ ĞĂ ĐŚ Ğ ƌƚƌĂŝ Ŷŝ ŶŐ ŝŶ Ě ĞǀĞ Ž
ů ƉŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌ ŝĞ Ɛ͕ĞƐƉ ĞĐŝ Ăůů LJů ĞĂƐƚĚ ĞǀĞ Ž ů ƉĞĚ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐĂŶ ĚƐŵĂů ů  ƌĞĐ Ğŝ ǀĞĚ ĂƚůĞĂ Ɛƚ ƚŚĞ ŵŝ Ŷŝ ŵƵŵ Ž ƌŐĂŶ ŝnjĞĚ ƚĞĂ ĐŚĞ ƌƚƌĂŝ ŶŝŶ Ő;Ğ ͘Ő ͘
ŝ Ɛů ĂŶĚ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ^ƚĂ ƚĞ Ɛ Ɖ ĞĚĂŐŽŐ ŝĐĂů ƚƌ ĂŝŶŝ ŶŐ ͿƉƌ ĞͲƐĞ ƌǀŝĐ ĞŽ ƌŝ ŶͲƐĞ ƌǀ Đ ŝ ĞƌĞ ƋƵŝ ƌ ĞĚĨŽƌƚĞĂĐŚŝ ŶŐ 
ĂƚƚŚĞƌĞ ůĞǀĂ Ŷƚů Ğǀ Ğů ŝ ŶĂŐ ŝǀĞŶĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌ LJ

JULG  
' Ž Ăů  ϱ ͗  ' Ğ Ŷ Ě Ğƌ  Đ Ś ŝĞǀĞ ŐĞŶ Ě Ğƌ Ğ ƋƵ Ăů ŝƚ LJ Ă Ŷ Ě  ϱ ͘ϭ͘ϭ tŚĞ ƚŚĞ ƌŽƌ ŶŽƚ ůĞ ŐĂůĨƌĂŵĞ ǁŽƌŬƐĂƌ Ğŝ ŶƉů ĂĐĞƚŽ Ɖ ƌŽŵŽ ƚĞ ͕ Ϭ ϱϬϭ Ϭϭ
ĞŶ ĨŽƌĐĞĂŶ ĚŵŽŶŝ ƚŽ ƌĞƋ ƵĂů ŝ ƚLJ ĂŶĚ Ŷ Ž ŶͲĚŝ ƐĐƌŝ ŵŝ ŶĂƚ ŝŽŶ ŽŶ ƚ ŚĞďĂ Ɛŝ ƐŽ Ĩ
Ğŵ ƉŽ ǁ Ğƌ Ăů ů ǁŽ ŵ ĞŶ ĂŶ Ě ŐŝƌůƐ ϱ ͘ϭ ϱ͘ϭŶ ĚĂůůĨŽ ƌŵƐŽĨ Ě ŝƐĐƌ ŝŵŝ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ă ŐĂ ŝŶ Ɛƚ Ă ůů ǁŽŵ ĞŶ ĂŶĚ Ő ŝƌů ƐĞǀĞƌLJ ǁŚĞ ƌĞ

 
 Ƌ Ƶ Ă ůŝƚLJ ƐĞdž

ϱ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĞǀĞ ƌͲƉĂ ƌƚŶĞƌ ĞĚ ǁŽ ŵĞŶĂŶ ĚŐŝ ƌůƐ Ă ŐĞĚ ϭϱLJĞĂƌƐ Ϭ ϱϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϱ͘Ϯů ŝŵ ŝŶ Ăƚ ĞĂů ůĨŽƌ ŵƐŽĨ ǀ ŝŽ ůĞ ŶĐĞĂŐĂ ŝŶ Ɛƚ Ăů ůǁŽŵĞ ŶĂŶĚ Ő ŝƌů Ɛŝ ŶƚŚ ĞƉƵď ůŝ ĐĂŶ ĚƉƌ ǀ
ŝ ĂƚĞƐƉ ŚĞƌ ĞƐ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚ ŝŶ Ő ĂŶĚ Žů ĚĞ ƌƐƵ ďũĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŽƉŚ LJƐŝĐĂů ͕ƐĞdžƵ ĂůŽƌƉƐLJĐŚŽů ŽŐ ŝĐĂůǀŝ ŽůĞŶ ĐĞď LJĂ 

dĂƌŐĞƚƐŚŝŐŚůLJƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƚŽ
ƚƌ ĂĨ ĨŝĐŬŝ ŶŐĂ ŶĚƐĞ džƵ Ăů Ă ŶĚŽƚŚĞ ƌƚLJƉĞƐŽĨĞ džƉůŽ ŝƚ ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ ĐƵƌ ƌĞ ŶƚŽƌ ĨŽ ƌŵĞƌ ŝŶ ƚŝ ŵĂƚĞƉĂ ƌƚŶĞƌ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ Ɖ ƌĞǀŝ ŽƵƐ ϭ ϮŵŽŶƚ ŚƐ͕ďLJ 
ĨŽƌ ŵŽ ĨǀŝŽ ůĞ ŶĐĞ Ă ŶĚďLJ ĂŐĞ
ϱ ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ǁŽŵ ĞŶ Ă ŶĚŐŝ ƌůƐ ĂŐĞ Ě ϭϱLJĞĂƌ ƐĂŶ ĚŽůĚ Ğƌ  Ϭ ϱϬϮ ϬϮ
ƐƵďũĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƐĞdžƵĂů ǀŝ Žů ĞŶ ĐĞďLJ Ɖ Ğƌ ƐŽ ŶƐ Žƚ ŚĞ ƌƚŚ ĂŶĂŶ ŝŶ ƚŝ ŵĂƚ Ğ
Ɖ Ăƌ ƚŶĞ ƌŝ ŶƚŚ ĞƉ ƌĞǀŝ ŽƵ ƐϭϮŵ ŽŶ ƚŚ Ɛ͕ďLJĂŐĞĂŶĚ Ɖ ůĂĐĞ Ž ĨŽĐĐƵ ƌƌ ĞŶĐĞ
ϱ ͘ϯ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ǁŽŵ ĞŶ Ă ŐĞĚ Ϯ ϬͲϮϰLJĞĂƌ ƐǁŚŽ ǁĞ ƌĞ ŵĂ ƌƌ ŝĞĚŽƌ ŝ Ŷ Ϭ ϱϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϱ͘ϯů ŝŵ ŝŶ Ăƚ ĞĂů ůŚĂ ƌŵ ĨƵů ƉƌĂĐƚŝ ĐĞƐ͕ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐĐŚ ŝůĚ ͕ĞĂ ƌů LJĂŶ ĚĨŽ ƌĐ ĞĚŵĂƌƌŝ ĂŐĞĂŶ ĚĨĞ ŵĂů ĞŐĞŶ ŝƚ Ăů ŵƵƚŝ ů Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ
ĂƵ Ŷŝ ŽŶďĞ ĨŽ ƌĞ Ă ŐĞϭϱ Ă ŶĚďĞ ĨŽ ƌĞ ĂŐĞϭϴ
ϱ ͘ϯ͘Ϯ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ Őŝ ƌů ƐĂ ŶĚǁŽŵĞ ŶĂŐĞ Ě ϭϱͲ ϰϵ LJ ĞĂƌƐǁŚ ŽŚĂǀĞ Ϭ ϱϬϯ ϬϮ
Ƶ ŶĚĞ ƌŐŽŶĞ Ĩ Ğŵ ĂůĞ Ő ĞŶŝƚ Ăů ŵ Ƶ ƚŝ ů ĂƚŝŽ ŶͬĐ Ƶƚ ƚŝ ŶŐ ͕ď LJĂ ŐĞ
ϱ͘ϰZĞ ĐŽ ŐŶŝ njĞ Ă ŶĚǀĂ ůƵ ĞƵŶƉ Ăŝ ĚĐĂ ƌĞ Ă ŶĚĚŽ ŵĞƐƚ ŝ ĐǁŽƌ ŬƚŚ ƌŽ ƵŐŚ ƚŚ ĞƉ ƌŽǀ ŝƐŝŽ ŶŽ ĨƉƵď ůŝ ĐƐ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞƐ͕ ϱ ͘ϰ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŝ ŵĞƐƉ ĞŶƚ ŽŶƵŶ ƉĂŝ ĚĚ Ž ŵĞƐƚ ŝĐĂŶ ĚĐĂƌ ĞǁŽƌ Ŭ͕ď LJ Ϭ ϱϬϰ Ϭϭ
ŝ ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌ ƵĐƚƵ ƌĞ Ă ŶĚƐŽ Đŝ Ăů ƉƌŽ ƚĞ Đƚ ŝŽ ŶƉŽů ŝ Đŝ ĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƚ ŚĞƉƌ ŽŵŽ ƚŝŽ ŶŽĨƐŚ ĂƌĞĚ ƌĞ ƐƉ ŽŶƐŝď ŝů ŝ ƚLJ ǁŝƚ Śŝ ŶƚŚ Ğ ƐĞdž͕ĂŐ ĞĂŶĚ ůŽ ĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ
ŚŽ Ƶ ƐĞ ŚŽů ĚĂŶ Ě ƚŚ ĞĨĂ ŵŝů LJĂƐŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůů LJĂƉ Ɖƌ ŽƉƌ ŝĂƚĞ

 
ϱ͘ϱŶ ƐƵƌ ĞǁŽŵ ĞŶ ͛ƐĨƵ ůůĂŶ ĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀ ĞƉĂƌ ƚŝ ĐŝƉ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ Ğ ƋƵĂ ůŽƉ Ɖ ŽƌƚƵ Ŷŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ ĨŽƌ ůĞ ĂĚĞ ƌƐŚŝ ƉĂƚ Ăů ůůĞǀĞ ůƐŽ Ĩ ϱ ͘ϱ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƐĞĂƚƐŚĞů ĚďLJǁŽ ŵĞŶŝ ŶŶ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůƉ Ăƌů ŝ Ăŵ ĞŶ ƚƐĂŶĚ  Ϭ ϱϬϱ Ϭϭ
ĚĞ ĐŝƐŝŽŶ ͲŵĂŬ ŝŶŐŝ ŶƉŽů ŝƚŝ ĐĂ ů͕ĞĐ ŽŶŽ ŵŝĐĂ ŶĚƉƵ ďů ŝĐůŝ ĨĞ ůŽĐ ĂůŐŽǀ Ğƌ Ŷŵ ĞŶ ƚƐ
ϱ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ǁŽŵ ĞŶ ŝ ŶŵĂŶ ĂŐĞ ƌŝ Ăů Ɖ ŽƐŝ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛ Ϭ ϱϬϱ ϬϮ

ϱ͘ϲŶ ƐƵƌ ĞƵŶ ŝǀĞƌ ƐĂůĂĐĐĞƐƐƚ ŽƐĞ džƵĂ ůĂŶ ĚƌĞ Ɖƌ ŽĚƵ Đƚŝǀ ĞŚĞĂ ůƚŚ ĂŶ ĚƌĞ ƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀĞƌŝŐŚ ƚƐ ĂƐĂŐ ƌĞ ĞĚŝ Ŷ ϱ ͘ϲ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ǁŽŵ ĞŶ Ă ŐĞĚ ϭ ϱͲϰϵLJĞĂƌ ƐǁŚŽ ŵĂ ŬĞƚ ŚĞŝ ƌ Ž ǁŶ Ϭ ϱϬϲ Ϭϭ
ĂĐĐŽƌ ĚĂŶ ĐĞ ǁŝƚ ŚƚŚ ĞWƌ ŽŐƌ Ăŵŵ ĞŽ ĨĐƚŝ ŽŶŽĨƚŚ Ğ/Ŷ ƚĞ ƌŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů  ŽŶĨ Ğƌ ĞŶ ĐĞŽŶ W ŽƉ Ƶ Ă ů ƚŝ ŽŶ ĂŶĚ  ŝŶĨ Žƌ ŵĞĚĚĞ Đŝ Ɛŝ ŽŶ ƐƌĞ ŐĂ ƌĚŝ ŶŐƐĞdž ƵĂůƌĞ ůĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛ͕ĐŽŶ ƚƌ ĂĐ ĞƉƚŝ ǀĞƵƐĞĂŶ Ě
ŝ ŶĂŶĚ ƚ ŚĞ Ž ƵƚĐŽŵĞ Ě ŽĐƵ ŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚ Ğŝ ƌƌĞ ǀŝ ĞǁĐŽ ŶĨĞ ƌĞ ŶĐĞ Ɛ ƌĞƉ ƌŽĚ ƵĐƚŝ ǀĞŚ ĞĂů ƚŚ ĐĂƌĞ
Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉ ŵĞ ŶƚĂ ŶĚƚ ŚĞ Ğ ũŝ ŝ ŶŐWůĂ ƚĨŽƌ ŵĨ Žƌ Đƚ Ž
ϱ ͘ϲ͘Ϯ EƵ ŵď Ğƌ Ž ĨĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝĞ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚů ĂǁƐ ĂŶ ĚƌĞŐƵ ůĂƚŝ ŽŶ ƐƚŚ ĂƚŐ ƵĂƌĂŶ ƚĞ Ğ Ϭ ϱϬϲ ϬϮ
ǁŽ ŵ ĞŶ ĂŐ ĞĚϭϱ Ͳϰ ϵLJĞ ĂƌƐĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƐĞdž ƵĂůĂŶ ĚƌĞ ƉƌŽ ĚƵ ĐƚŝǀĞ Ś ĞĂůƚ Ś
ĐĂƌĞ͕ŝ ŶĨŽƌ ŵĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶ Ě ĞĚƵ ĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ϱ ͘Ă͘ϭ ;ĂͿW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝŽ Ŷ Ž ĨƚŽƚĂ ůĂ ŐƌŝĐ Ƶů ƚƵ ƌĂů Ɖ ŽƉ Ƶů Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶǁŝƚŚŽǁŶ ĞƌƐŚ ŝƉ  Ϭ ϱϬĂ Ϭϭ
ϱ͘ĂhŶĚ Ğƌ ƚĂ ŬĞƌ ĞĨŽƌŵƐ ƚŽŐŝǀ ĞǁŽŵ ĞŶ Ğ ƋƵĂ ůƌ Ő ŝ Śƚ ƐƚŽ Ğ ĐŽ Ŷ Žŵŝ ĐƌĞ ƐŽ ƵƌĐĞƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůů Ă ƐĂĐ ĐĞƐƐƚŽ ŽǁŶĞ ƌƐŚŝ Ɖ
Ž ƌƐĞ ĐƵ ƌĞƌ ŝŐŚƚ ƐŽǀĞƌĂŐƌŝ ĐƵů ƚƵƌ Ăů ůĂŶ Ě͕ď LJƐĞdž͖ĂŶ Ě;ď ͿƐŚ Ăƌ ĞŽĨ
ĂŶ ĚĐŽ Ŷ ƚƌ Žů Ž ǀĞ ƌůĂŶĚ Ă ŶĚŽƚ ŚĞƌ ĨŽ ƌŵƐŽ ĨƉƌ ŽƉĞ ƌƚLJ͕Ĩŝ ŶĂ ŶĐŝ Ăů ƐĞ ƌǀ Đ
ŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ ŶŚĞ ƌŝ ƚĂŶĐ ĞĂŶĚ Ŷ Ăƚ ƵƌĂů ƌĞƐŽ ƵƌĐĞƐ͕ŝ Ŷ
ǁŽ ŵ ĞŶ ĂŵŽ ŶŐŽǁŶ Ğƌ ƐŽ ƌƌ ŝ ŐŚƚ ƐͲď ĞĂƌ ĞƌƐŽ ĨĂ Őƌ ŝĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĂ ůů ĂŶĚ ͕ďLJ ƚLJƉ Ğ
ĂĐĐŽƌ ĚĂŶ ĐĞ ǁŝƚ ŚŶ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůů ĂǁƐ
Ž ĨƚĞŶ ƵƌĞ

IUDPHZRUN
ϱ ͘Ă͘Ϯ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ ĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ ǁŚ ĞƌĞƚŚ ĞůĞ ŐĂůĨƌĂŵĞ ǁŽƌ Ŭ;ŝ ŶĐ ůƵ ĚŝŶ Ő Ϭ ϱϬĂ ϬϮ
ĐƵƐƚŽŵĂ ƌLJů ĂǁͿŐƵ ĂƌĂŶƚ ĞĞƐǁŽŵ ĞŶ ͛ƐĞƋƵ Ăů ƌ ŝŐŚƚ ƐƚŽůĂ ŶĚŽǁŶ ĞƌƐŚŝ Ɖ
ĂŶĚ ͬ ŽƌĐ ŽŶƚƌ Žů
ϱ͘ďŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞƚ ŚĞƵƐĞŽ ĨĞ ŶĂď ůŝŶ ŐƚĞ ĐŚŶ Žů ŽŐLJ͕ŝ ŶƉĂƌƚ ŝĐƵů Ăƌŝ ŶĨŽƌ ŵĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶ Ě ĐŽŵŵƵ Ŷ ŝĐĂƚŝ ŽŶƐ ƚ ĞĐŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJ͕ƚŽ  ϱ ͘ď ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽ ŶŽ ĨŝŶ Ěŝ ǀŝ ĚƵĂ ůƐ ǁŚŽŽǁŶ Ă ŵŽ ďŝ ůĞƚĞůĞ ƉŚ ŽŶ Ğ͕ď LJƐĞ dž Ϭ ϱϬď Ϭϭ
Ɖƌ Žŵ ŽƚĞƚŚ ĞĞŵ ƉŽ ǁĞƌ ŵĞŶƚ ŽĨǁŽ ŵĞŶ
ϱ͘ĐĚ ŽƉƚ ĂŶ ĚƐ ƚƌ ĞŶŐ ƚŚ ĞŶƐŽƵŶ Ě Ɖ Žůŝ ĐŝĞƐ Ă ŶĚĞŶ ĨŽ ƌĐĞĂď ůĞ ů ĞŐ ŝƐ ů ĂƚŝŽ ŶĨŽ ƌƚŚ ĞƉ ƌŽŵ ŽƚŝŽ ŶŽĨ ŐĞŶĚ Ğƌ ĞƋ ƵĂůŝ ƚLJ ϱ ͘Đ͘ϭ W ƌŽƉ Žƌ ƚŝ ŽŶŽĨĐŽ Ƶ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ ǁŝƚ ŚƐLJƐƚ ĞŵƐƚŽ ƚƌ ĂĐ ŬĂŶ ĚŵĂŬĞ Ɖ Ƶďů ŝ Đ Ϭ ϱϬĐ Ϭϭ
ĂŶ ĚƚŚĞ Ğŵ ƉŽǁĞƌŵĞ Ŷƚ Ž ĨĂů ůǁŽ ŵĞŶĂŶ ĚŐŝƌů Ɛ ĂƚĂůů ů ĞǀĞů Ɛ Ăůů ŽĐĂƚ ŝŽ ŶƐ ĨŽƌ ŐĞŶ ĚĞƌ Ğ ƋƵĂ ůŝƚ LJĂŶ ĚǁŽŵĞŶ ͛ƐĞ ŵƉŽǁĞ ƌŵĞ Ŷƚ

 
' Ž Ăů  ϲ ͗   ůĞ Ă Ŷ Ŷ Ɛ ƵƌĞ ĂǀĂŝ ůĂď ŝůŝƚLJ  ĂŶĚ  ϲ ͘ϭ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ƵƐ Ŷ
ŝ ŐƐĂ ĨĞ ůLJŵĂ ŶĂŐ ĞĚĚƌŝ ŶŬŝ ŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ Ϭ ϲϬϭ Ϭϭ /ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ĚηŽĨ Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ ǁ ŝ ƚŚĂĐĐĞƐ Ɛƚ ŽƐ ĂĨĞů LJ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĨĂ ŵŝů LJĚƌ ŝ ŶŬŝ ŶŐ Ĩƌ Žŵ
Ɛ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞ Ɛ ŵĂŶ ĂŐĞĚ Ěƌ ŝŶ ŬŝŶ ŐǁĂƚĞ ƌ Ĩ ů Žǁŝ ŶŐƚĂƉ
Ɛ Ƶ ƐƚĂŝŶ Ăď ůĞ ŵĂ ŶĂ ŐĞ ŵĞ Ŷ ƚ Ž Ĩ
t Ă ƚĞ ƌ  Θ  ǁ ĂƚĞ ƌ ĂŶ ĚƐ ĂŶ ŝƚĂƚŝŽ Ŷ ĨŽ ƌ Ăůů
ϲ ͘ϭ  LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ĂĐ Śŝ Ğǀ ĞƵŶŝ ǀĞ ƌƐĂůĂŶĚ Ğ ƋƵŝ ƚĂďů ĞĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽƐĂĨĞ ĂŶĚĂĨĨ ŽƌĚ ĂďůĞ Ě ƌŝ ŶŬŝŶ ŐǁĂƚ ĞƌĨ ŽƌĂ ůů

^ Ă Ŷ ŝƚĂ ƚŝ Ž Ŷ
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ĂĐ Śŝ Ğǀ ĞĂĐĐĞƐ ƐƚŽ ĂĚĞ ƋƵĂ ƚĞĂ ŶĚĞƋ Ƶŝ ƚĂď ůĞƐĂŶ ŝƚĂƚ ŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚŚ LJŐ ŝĞŶ ĞĨ Žƌ Ă ůů ĂŶ ĚĞŶĚ Ž ƉĞŶ Ě ĞĨĞĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ͕ ϲ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ƵƐ ŝŶ ŐƐĂ ĨĞ ůLJŵĂ ŶĂŐ ĞĚƐ ĂŶŝ ƚ ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ Ϭ ϲϬϮ Ϭϭ /ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ĚηŽĨ Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ ǁ ŝ ƚŚĂĐĐĞƐ Ɛƚ ŽƐ ĂĨĞů LJ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĐŚŝ ů ĚǁĂƐ Śŝ ŶŐŚ ĂŶĚ Ɛ 
ϲ ͘Ϯ
ƉĂ LJŝ ŶŐƐƉĞĐ Ă ŝ ůĂƚƚ ĞŶƚŝ ŽŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ Ŷ ĞĞĚ ƐŽĨǁŽŵĞŶ Ă ŶĚŐŝ ƌ ůƐ ĂŶ Ěƚ ŚŽƐĞŝ ŶǀƵů ŶĞ ƌĂ ďů ĞƐŝ ƚƵ ĂƚŝŽ ŶƐ  Ɛ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐĂ Ś ĂŶĚ ͲǁĂ ƐŚ ŝŶ ŐĨĂĐŝů ŝƚ LJǁŝƚŚ ƐŽĂƉ Ă ŶĚǁĂ ƚĞƌ ŵĂŶ ĂŐĞĚ ƐĂ Ŷŝ ƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ă ŶĚŚĂŶ ĚǁĂƐŚŝ ŶŐ Ž ƵƚƐŝ ĚĞŶĞ ǁƚŽŝ ů Ğƚ
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ŝŵ ƉƌŽ ǀĞ ǁĂ ƚĞ ƌƋƵ Ăů ŝƚLJďLJƌ ĞĚ ƵĐŝ ŶŐ Ɖ Žů ůƵ ƚŝ ŽŶ ͕Ğů ŝ ŵŝŶ ĂƚŝŶ ŐĚƵŵƉ ŝŶ ŐĂŶ Ě ŵŝŶ ŝŵ ŝnjŝ ŶŐ ƌ Ğů ĞĂ ƐĞŽĨ ϲ ͘ϯ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨǁĂƐƚĞ ǁĂƚ ĞƌƐ ĂĨĞů LJƚ ƌĞĂƚĞ Ě Ϭ ϲϬϯ Ϭϭ /ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ĚŐĂů ů ŽŶƐ ͬĐƵ ďŝ ĐŵĞƚ ƌĞ ƐŽĨ ǁ Ă Ɛƚ ĞǁĂƚĞƌ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ďĞĨŽƌ ĞͬĂĨ ƚĞƌŝŵ ƉĂĐƚŽ Ĩ
ϲ ͘ϯ ŚĂ njĂƌ ĚŽ ƵƐĐŚĞŵ ŝĐĂůƐĂŶĚ ŵĂ ƚĞ ƌŝ ĂůƐ͕ŚĂů ǀŝŶ ŐƚŚ Ğ ƉƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƵŶ ƚƌ ĞĂ ƚĞĚ ǁĂƐƚ ĞǁĂ ƚĞƌĂŶ ĚƐƵď Ɛƚ ĂŶƚŝ Ăů LJ ů  Ɛ ĂĨĞů LJƚƌĞĂ ƚĞĚ ŝ ŶĨ ƌĂƐƚ ƌƵ Đƚ Ƶƌ ĞƐŚ Ž ǁŝ ŶŐŶĞ ǁĨĂĐŝ ůŝ ƚŝĞ Ɛ
ŝ ŶĐƌĞĂ Ɛŝ ŶŐƌ ĞĐLJĐů ŝ ŶŐĂ ŶĚƐĂ ĨĞ ƌ ĞƵ ƐĞŐůŽ ďĂů ů LJ
ϲ ͘ϯ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨďŽ Ěŝ ĞƐŽĨǁĂƚ Ğƌ ǁ ŝ ƚŚ ŐŽŽ ĚĂŵďŝ ĞŶ ƚǁĂƚ Ğƌ ƋƵĂ ůŝ ƚLJ Ϭ ϲϬϯ ϬϮ /ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ĚŐĂů ů ŽŶƐ ͬĐƵ ďŝ ĐŵĞƚ ƌĞ ƐŽĨ ǁ Ă ƚĞ ƌǁŝ ƚŚ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ďĞĨŽƌ ĞͬĂĨ ƚĞƌŝŵ ƉĂĐƚŽ Ĩ
ŐŽ ŽĚĂŵď ŝĞ ŶƚǁĂƚĞ ƌƋ Ƶ Ăů ŝƚ LJ ŝ ŶĨ ƌĂƐƚ ƌƵ Đƚ Ƶƌ ĞƐŚ Ž ǁŝ ŶŐŶĞ ǁĨĂĐŝ ůŝ ƚŝĞ Ɛ
ϲ ͘ϰ͘ϭ  Ś ĂŶ ŐĞŝ ŶǁĂƚĞƌ ͲƵ ƐĞĞ ĨĨŝĐŝ ĞŶĐLJŽǀĞƌƚŝŵĞ Ϭ ϲϬϰ Ϭϭ YƵ ĂŶƚ ŝĨŝ ĐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŚLJƐŝ ĐĂů ŝ ŵƉƌ ŽǀĞŵ ĞŶƚƐ͗ĞŐ /ŵ ƉĂ ĐƚŽ ĨĐŽ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ďƵ ƚŝ ŽŶĞŐ ĞŐ^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚŽ ͬ ǀŝ ĚĞ ŽͿŽ Ĩ
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ƐƵ ďƐƚĂŶƚŝ Ăůů LJŝ ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ǁĂ ƚĞ ƌͲ ƵƐĞĞĨĨŝ ĐŝĞŶ ĐLJĂ Đƌ ŽƐƐĂůůƐĞĐƚ Žƌ ƐĂŶ Ě ĞŶƐƵ ƌĞƐƵ Ɛƚ ĂŝŶĂď ůĞ ǁŝƚ ŚĚƌ ĂǁĂ ůƐ 
ŵĞƚ ƌĞƐŽĨ Ž ůĚ Ɖŝ ƉĞƌ ĞƉů ĂĐ ĞĚ͖ƌĞ ƉĂŝ ƌ Ž ĨůĞĂŬ Ɛ͖ ď ĞĨ ŽƌĞ ͬĂĨƚĞ ƌŝ ŵƉ ĂĐ ƚŽĨ ŝŶ ĨƌĂƐƚƌƵ Đƚ ƵƌĞƐŚ Žǁŝ ŶŐ
ϲ ͘ϰ ĂŶ ĚƐƵƉ Ɖ ůLJŽĨĨƌ ĞƐŚ ǁĂƚ Ğƌ ƚŽĂĚ ĚƌĞ ƐƐǁĂƚĞƌƐĐĂƌ Đŝ ƚ LJĂŶĚ ƐƵď Ɛƚ ĂŶ ƚŝ Ăů LJ ů ƌĞĚ ƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ Ŷ Ƶŵď ĞƌŽĨƉĞŽ Ɖů Ğ
ŐĂů ůŽ ŶƐͬ ĐƵ ďŝ ĐŵĞƚ ƌĞ ƐŽĨ ǁ Ă ƚĞ ƌǁĂƐƚĞ Ɖ ƌĞ ǀĞŶ ƚĞ Ě Ŷ ĞǁĨĂ Đŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ
ƐƵ ĨĨĞƌ ŝŶ ŐĨƌŽ ŵǁĂƚ Ğƌ ƐĐĂƌĐŝ ƚLJ

ϲ ͘ϰ͘Ϯ > Ğǀ Ğů Ž ĨǁĂƚ ĞƌƐƚ ƌĞƐƐ͗Ĩƌ ĞƐ ŚǁĂ ƚĞƌǁŝƚŚĚ ƌĂ ǁĂů ĂƐ ĂƉƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ  Ϭ ϲϬϰ ϬϮ
ĂǀĂŝů Ăď ůĞ ĨƌĞ ƐŚ ǁĂƚ Ğƌƌ ĞƐŽƵƌ ĐĞ Ɛ
ϲ ͘ϱ͘ϭ  ĞŐƌĞĞ Ž Ĩŝ ŶƚĞ Őƌ ĂƚĞĚǁĂƚĞƌ ƌĞ ƐŽƵ ƌĐ ĞƐŵ ĂŶ ĂŐ ĞŵĞŶ ƚ Ϭ ϲϬϱ Ϭϭ ƚ ŚŝƐŝ ƐŐŽǀĞƌ ŶŵĞŶ ƚů ĞǀĞ ůĂ ŶĚƉƌ ŽďĂ ďů LJŶŽ ƚĂƐ  ĞĨŝŶ ĞLJŽƵ ƌŽ ǁŶ Ƌ ƵĂŶ ƚŝ ƚĨ ŝĐĂƚŝ ŽŶŵĞƚ ƌŝĐ ƐĨŽ ƌƚ Śŝ Ɛ
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ŝŵ Ɖů Ğŵ ĞŶ ƚŝ ŶƚĞ Őƌ ĂƚĞĚǁĂƚĞƌ ƌĞ ƐŽƵ ƌĐ ĞƐŵ ĂŶĂŐ ĞŵĞŶ ƚĂƚ Ăů ůůĞǀĞ ůƐ͕ŝ ŶĐ ůƵ ĚŝŶ Őƚ Śƌ ŽƵŐŚ 
ϲ ͘ϱ ŝŵ Ɖů Ğŵ Ğ ŶƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ ;Ϭʹ ϭϬϬ Ϳ ƌ ĞůĞǀĂ Ŷƚŝ ŶĚ ŝĐĂƚ ŽƌĨ ŽƌĞŶŐ ŝŶ ĞĞƌŝ ŶŐƉƌ ŽũĞĐƚ /Ŷ Ě Đ
ŝ Ăƚ Žƌ
ƚƌ ĂŶ ƐďŽ ƵŶĚ Ăƌ LJĐŽ Ž ƉĞƌĂƚ ŝ ŽŶĂƐ ĂƉƉ ƌŽƉ ƌŝ Ăƚ Ğ
ŵĂŶ ĂŐĞƌƐ
ϲ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚƌĂŶ Ɛď ŽƵ ŶĚ ĂƌLJďĂƐŝŶĂƌ ĞĂǁŝ ƚŚ Ă ŶŽƉĞ ƌĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů  Ϭ ϲϬϱ ϬϮ

XVHGIRU
Ăƌƌ ĂŶŐĞŵ ĞŶ ƚĨŽƌ ǁĂƚĞ ƌĐŽ ŽƉĞ ƌĂƚŝ ŽŶ
 LJϮ ϬϮϬ ͕ƉƌŽ ƚĞĐƚĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƚŽ ƌĞ ǁ Ă ƚĞ ƌͲƌĞ ůĂ ƚĞ ĚĞĐŽƐLJ Ɛƚ ĞŵƐ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚ ŝŶ Őŵ ŽƵŶ ƚĂŝŶ Ɛ͕ĨŽ ƌĞƐƚƐ͕ǁĞ ƚů ĂŶ Ě Ɛ͕ƌŝ ǀĞ ƌƐ͕ ϲ ͘ϲ͘ϭ  Ś ĂŶ ŐĞŝ ŶƚŚ ĞĞdžƚĞŶ ƚŽĨ ǁĂƚĞƌ ͲƌĞů ĂƚĞĚĞĐŽƐ LJƐƚĞŵƐŽǀĞ ƌƚŝŵ Ğ Ϭ ϲϬϲ Ϭϭ
ϲ ͘ϲ
ĂƋ Ƶŝ ĨĞƌƐ Ă ŶĚů ĂŬĞ Ɛ
ϲ ͘Ă͘ϭ  ŵŽƵŶ ƚŽĨǁĂƚĞ ƌͲ ĂŶ Ě Ɛ ĂŶ ŝƚ ĂƚŝŽ ŶͲ ƌĞ ůĂ ƚĞ ĚŽĨĨŝ Đŝ Ăů ĚĞǀ Ğů ŽƉŵĞ Ŷƚ  Ϭ ϲϬĂ Ϭϭ ƚ ŚŝƐŝ ƐŐŽǀĞƌ ŶŵĞŶ ƚů ĞǀĞ ůĂ ŶĚƉƌ ŽďĂ ďů LJŶŽ ƚĂƐ
 LJϮ ϬϮϬ ͕ƉƌŽ ƚĞĐƚĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƚŽ ƌĞ ǁ Ă ƚĞ ƌͲƌĞ ůĂ ƚĞ ĚĞĐŽƐLJ Ɛƚ ĞŵƐ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚ ŝŶ Őŵ ŽƵŶ ƚĂŝŶ Ɛ͕ĨŽ ƌĞƐƚƐ͕ǁĞ ƚů ĂŶ Ě Ɛ͕ƌŝ ǀĞ ƌƐ͕
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϲĂ ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂ ŶĐĞƚŚ ĂƚŝƐ ƉĂ ƌƚ ŽĨĂŐ ŽǀĞƌŶ ŵĞŶ ƚͲĐŽŽƌ Ěŝ ŶĂ ƚĞ ĚƐƉĞ ŶĚŝ ŶŐ Ɖ ůĂŶ ƌ ĞůĞǀĂ Ŷƚŝ ŶĚ ŝĐĂƚ ŽƌĨ ŽƌĞŶŐ ŝŶ ĞĞƌŝ ŶŐƉƌ ŽũĞĐƚ
ĂƋ Ƶŝ ĨĞƌƐ Ă ŶĚů ĂŬĞ Ɛ
ŵĂŶ ĂŐĞƌƐ
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕Ğdž ƉĂŶ ĚŝŶ ƚĞ ƌŶ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů ĐŽŽ ƉĞƌ Ăƚŝ ŽŶ ĂŶ ĚĐĂƉ ĂĐŝƚ LJͲ ďƵŝ ů ĚŝŶ ŐƐƵƉƉ Ž ƌƚƚŽ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ Ɖŝ ŶŐĐŽ ƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ ƐŝŶ ǁĂƚĞƌͲ ϲ ͘ď ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩů ŽĐĂ ůĂĚŵ ŝŶ ŝƐƚ ƌĂƚŝ ǀĞƵ Ŷŝ ƚƐ ǁŝ ƚ ŚĞƐƚĂď ůŝ ƐŚĞĚ ĂŶ Ě Ϭ ϲϬď Ϭϭ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϲď ĂŶ ĚƐĂŶ ŝƚĂƚ ŝ ŽŶͲƌĞ ůĂƚĞ ĚĂĐƚŝǀŝ ƚŝĞ ƐĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽ Őƌ ĂŵŵĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐǁĂƚ ĞƌŚĂƌ ǀĞ Ɛƚ ŝŶ Ő͕Ě ĞƐĂů ŝŶ Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ͕ǁĂ ƚĞ ƌ Ž ƉĞƌĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂůƉŽ ůŝ Đŝ ĞƐ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽĐĞĚ ƵƌĞ ƐĨŽƌƉĂƌƚ ŝ Đŝ ƉĂƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ ůŽ ĐĂů
ĞĨ Ĩŝ ĐŝĞ ŶĐLJ ͕ǁĂ Ɛƚ ĞǁĂƚĞƌ ƚƌĞĂƚ ŵĞŶ ƚ͕ƌĞĐLJĐůŝ ŶŐĂŶĚ ƌ ĞƵƐĞƚ ĞĐŚ ŶŽ ůŽ ŐŝĞ Ɛ ĐŽŵŵ ƵŶ ŝƚŝ ĞƐŝ ŶǁĂƚĞƌ Ă ŶĚƐĂŶ ŝƚ ĂƚŝŽ ŶŵĂŶĂ ŐĞŵĞ Ŷƚ

' Ž Ăů  ϳ ͗  Ŷ Ɛ ƵƌĞ ĂĐĐ ĞƐƐ ƚŽ ĂĨ ĨŽ ƌĚ Ăď ůĞ ͕ ϳ ͘ϭ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ǁŝ ƚŚ Ă ĐĐĞ ƐƐƚŽĞů ĞĐƚƌŝ Đŝ ƚLJ Ϭ ϳϬϭ Ϭϭ dŽ ƚĂ ůŝ ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ Ě ŶƵ ŵď ĞƌŽ ĨƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞǁŝƚŚĂĐĐĞ ƐƐ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĨĂ ŵŝů LJƵƐŝ ŶŐĞů ĞĐƚƌ ŝ Đƚ LJĨŽ ƌ
ƚ ŽĞů ĞĐƚƌ ŝĐŝƚLJ ů ŝ ŐŚƚŝ ŶŐƚŽ Ɛƚ ƵĚLJ Ž ƌƚ ŽĐŽŽ ŬƐĂ ĨĞ ůLJ
ƌ ĞůŝĂď ůĞ ͕ ƐƵƐ ƚĂŝ Ŷ Ăďů ĞĂŶ Ě ŵ ŽĚ ĞƌŶ 
 ĨĨ Ž ƌ Ě Ă ď ůĞ Θ  ĞŶ Ğ ƌŐLJ ĨŽ ƌ Ă ůů
ϳ ͘ϭ  LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ĞŶ ƐƵƌĞƵŶ ŝǀ ĞƌƐĂ ůĂĐ ĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽĂĨ ĨŽ ƌĚ Ăďů Ğ͕ƌĞ ůŝ Ăď ůĞ Ă ŶĚŵŽĚ Ğƌ ŶĞŶĞ ƌŐ LJƐĞ ƌǀŝĐ ĞƐ

 ůĞĂ Ŷ  Ŷ Ğ ƌŐ LJ
ϳ ͘ϭ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝŽŶ ǁŝ ƚŚ Ɖ ƌŝ ŵĂƌ LJƌĞ ŝů ĂŶ ĐĞ Ž ŶĐů ĞĂŶ ĨƵĞ ůƐ  Ϭ ϳϬϭ ϬϮ dŽ ƚĂ ůŝ ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ Ě ŶƵ ŵď ĞƌŽ ĨƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞǁŝƚŚĂĐĐĞ ƐƐ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ďĞĨŽƌ ĞͬĂĨ ƚĞƌŝŵ ƉĂĐƚŽ Ĩ
ĂŶĚ ƚ ĞĐŚ ŶŽ ůŽŐ LJ ƚ ŽĐů ĞĂ ŶĨƵ Ğ ůƐΘƚĞĐŚŶ Žů ŽŐLJ  Đ ůĞĂŶ ĨƵ ĞůƐ Θ ƚ ĞĐŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJĞŐ Ś LJĚ ƌŽƉŽ ǁĞƌ Ɛ ƚĂ ƚŝŽŶ 
ϳ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ Z ĞŶĞ ǁĂďů ĞĞ ŶĞƌ ŐLJƐŚĂƌ Ğŝ ŶƚŚ ĞƚŽ ƚĂůĨŝŶ Ăů Ğ ŶĞƌŐLJ Đ ŽŶƐƵŵƉ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ϭ ϳϬϮ Ϭϭ dŽ ƚĂ ůŝ ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŝ Ŷƌ ĞŶ Ğ ǁĂďů ĞĞ ŶĞƌ ŐLJ;< ǁƚ Ϳ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĨĂ ŵŝů LJƵƐŝ ŶŐĞů ĞĐƚƌ ŝ Đƚ LJĨŽ ƌ
ϳ ͘Ϯ  LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ŝŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ƐƵďƐƚĂ ŶƚŝĂ ůů LJƚŚ ĞƐŚĂƌ ĞŽĨƌĞŶ ĞǁĂ ďů ĞĞŶ ĞƌŐ LJŝŶ ƚŚ Ğ Ő ůŽ ďĂů ĞŶ ĞƌŐ LJŵŝ dž
ĂǀĂŝ ů Ăďů ĞĨŽƌ Ƶ ƐĞ͕Θ͕ƌ ĞŶ ĞǁĂď ůĞ < ǁƚĐŽ ŶƐƵ ŵĞĚ ů ŝ ŐŚƚŝ ŶŐƚŽ Ɛƚ ƵĚLJ Ž ƌƚ ŽĐŽŽ ŬƐĂ ĨĞ ůLJ
ϳ ͘ϯ͘ϭ  ŶĞƌ ŐLJ ŝ ŶƚĞŶ Ɛŝ ƚLJŵĞĂƐƵƌ ĞĚŝ ŶƚĞ ƌŵƐŽ ĨƉƌ ŝŵĂ ƌLJĞ ŶĞƌ ŐLJ ĂŶĚ ' W Ϭ ϳϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϳ ͘ϯ  LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ĚŽ Ƶďů Ğƚ ŚĞŐůŽ ď Ăů ƌ Ăƚ ĞŽĨŝŵƉ ƌŽǀ ĞŵĞŶ ƚŝ ŶĞŶĞ ƌŐLJĞĨ Ĩŝ ĐŝĞ ŶĐLJ

dĂƌŐĞƚƐǁŝƚŚŵĂƌŐŝŶĂů
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ĞŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞŝŶƚ Ğƌ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůĐŽ ŽƉĞ ƌĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ƚ ŽĨĂ Đŝ ů ŝƚĂƚ ĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚ ŽĐů ĞĂ ŶĞŶ ĞƌŐ LJƌĞ ƐĞĂ ƌĐ ŚĂŶ Ě ƚĞĐŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJ͕ ϳ ͘Ă͘ϭ /Ŷƚ ĞƌŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůĨ ŝŶ ĂŶ Đŝ Ăů Ĩů ŽǁƐ ƚŽĚĞ ǀĞůŽ Ɖ Ŷ
ŝ ŐĐŽ Ƶ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ ŝŶ ƐƵƉ Ɖ Žƌƚ Ϭ ϳϬĂ Ϭϭ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϳĂ ŝ ŐƌĞ ŶĞǁĂ ďů ĞĞŶ ĞƌŐ LJ͕ĞŶĞ ƌŐLJĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶ ĐLJĂ ŶĚĂĚ ǀĂŶ ĐĞ ĚĂŶĚ ĐůĞ ĂŶĞ ƌĨ ŽƐƐŝ ůͲĨƵĞů ƚĞĐŚŶ Žů ŽŐLJ͕ĂŶ Ě
ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ Ŷ Ž ĨĐů ĞĂ ŶĞŶ ĞƌŐ LJƌĞ ƐĞ ĂƌĐŚĂŶ ĚĚĞǀ ĞůŽ ƉŵĞ Ŷƚ Ă ŶĚƌ ĞŶĞ ǁĂďů ĞĞŶ ĞƌŐLJ
Ɖƌ Žŵ ŽƚĞŝ ŶǀĞ Ɛƚ ŵĞŶƚ ŝŶ Ğ ŶĞƌ ŐLJŝ ŶĨƌ ĂƐƚ ƌƵĐƚƵƌ ĞĂŶĚ Đů ĞĂŶ Ğ ŶĞƌ ŐLJƚ ĞĐ ŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJ Ɖ ƌŽ Ě ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ͕ŝŶĐů ƵĚ ŝŶ ŐŝŶ Ś LJďƌŝ ĚƐLJ ƐƚĞŵ Ɛ
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕Ğdž ƉĂŶ ĚŝŶ Ĩƌ ĂƐƚƌ ƵĐƚƵ ƌĞĂŶĚ ƵƉ ŐƌĂ ĚĞƚ ĞĐŚŶ ŽůŽ ŐLJĨŽƌƐƵƉƉ ůLJŝŶ ŐŵŽĚĞ ƌŶ Ă ŶĚƐƵ ƐƚĂŝ ŶĂ ďů ĞĞŶ ĞƌŐLJ ϳ ͘ď ͘ϭ / Ŷǀ ĞƐƚŵĞŶ ƚƐ ŝŶ Ğ ŶĞƌ ŐLJ Ğ ĨĨŝ Đŝ ĞŶĐ LJĂƐĂƉƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝŽ Ŷ Ž Ĩ'W ĂŶĚ ƚ ŚĞ Ϭ ϳϬď Ϭϭ dŽ ƚĂ ůďƵ ĚŐĞ ƚŽĨ Ɖ ƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶ ǀĞƐƚĞ ĚŝŶ ĞŶƐƵ ƌŝ ŶŐ  Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ƉƌŽ ũĞĐƚůĂ ƵŶĐŚŽƌ Ɛ ŝŐŶŝ ŶŐ 
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϳď ŝ ĞƐĨ Žƌ Ăů ůŝŶĚĞǀ Ğů ŽƉŝ ŶŐĐŽ Ƶ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ŝŶ ƉĂƌ ƚŝĐ Ƶů Ăƌ ů ĞĂƐƚ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉĞ ĚĐŽ Ƶ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ƐŵĂ ůůŝ Ɛů ĂŶĚ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ
ƐĞ ƌǀ Đ Ăŵ ŽƵŶ ƚŽĨ ĨŽƌ Ğŝ ŐŶ Ě ŝƌ ĞĐƚŝ ŶǀĞ Ɛƚŵ ĞŶƚŝŶ Ĩŝ ŶĂŶ Đŝ Ăů ƚƌ ĂŶƐĨĞƌĨŽƌ  ĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽĂĨ ĨŽƌĚ Ăďů Ğ͕ƌĞ ůŝ Ăď ůĞ͕ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶ Ăďů ĞĂŶĚ  Ž ĨĐŽ Ŷƚ ƌĂĐƚƚ ŽĚĞůŝ ǀĞ ƌŝ ŵƉƌŽ ǀĞĚ ĞŶ ĞƌŐLJĂĐĐ ĞƐƐͬ ƵƐĞ
^ƚ Ăƚ ĞƐ͕ĂŶ ĚůĂ ŶĚͲ ůŽ ĐŬĞĚ Ě ĞǀĞ Ž ů ƉŝŶ ŐĐŽ ƵŶƚƌ ŝĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Ă ĐĐŽ ƌĚ ĂŶ ĐĞǁŝ ƚŚƚ ŚĞŝ ƌ ƌ ĞƐƉĞĐƚŝ ǀĞƉƌŽ ŐƌĂŵŵ ĞƐŽ ĨƐƵ ƉƉŽ ƌƚ ŝŶĨ ƌĂƐƚ ƌƵ Đƚ Ƶƌ ĞĂŶĚ ƚ ĞĐŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJƚ ŽƐƵ Ɛƚ Ăŝ ŶĂď ůĞ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŵĞ ŶƚƐ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞƐ ŵŽĚ Ğƌ ŶĞŶĞ ƌŐLJĨŽ ƌĂů ů

' Ž Ăů  ϴ ͗   Ğ Đ Ğ Ŷ ƚ  W ƌŽ ŵŽ ƚ ĞƐƵ Ɛƚ ĂŝŶ Ğ Ě ͕ŝŶĐ ůƵ Ɛ ŝǀĞ ĂŶ Ě ϴ͘ϭ^Ƶ ƐƚĂŝ ŶƉĞƌ ĐĂƉ ŝƚĂĞĐŽŶ Žŵŝ ĐŐƌ Žǁƚ ŚŝŶ ĂĐĐŽƌĚ ĂŶĐĞǁŝ ƚŚ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů Đŝ ƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶ ĐĞ ƐĂŶĚ ͕ŝŶƉĂ ƌƚŝĐ Ƶů Ăƌ ͕Ăƚ 
ϴ ͘ϭ͘ϭ Ŷ ŶƵĂ ůŐƌ Žǁƚ ŚƌĂƚĞ Ž Ĩƌ ĞĂů 'WƉĞ ƌĐĂƉŝ ƚĂ Ϭ ϴϬϭ Ϭϭ

DQDO\VLVRI
Ɛ Ƶ ƐƚĂŝŶ Ăď ůĞ ĞĐŽ Ŷ Žŵ ŝĐ Őƌ Žǁ ƚŚ͕  ϴ ͘ϭ
ů ĞĂƐƚϳƉĞ ƌĐĞ ŶƚŐ ƌŽ ƐƐĚ ŽŵĞƐƚŝ ĐƉƌ ŽĚ ƵĐƚ Őƌ ŽǁƚŚ ƉĞƌ Ă ŶŶƵ ŵŝ ŶƚŚĞů ĞĂƐƚĚ ĞǀĞůŽ Ɖ ĞĚ Đ ŽƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ
t Ž ƌŬ Θ  ĨƵ ůů Ă ŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽ Ě ƵĐ ƚŝǀĞ Ğ ŵ Ɖ ůŽ LJŵĞ Ŷ ƚ 
ϴ͘ϮĐŚŝ ĞǀĞ Ś ŝŐ ŚĞƌůĞ ǀĞ ůƐŽ ĨĞĐŽŶ Ž ŵŝĐƉƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀŝƚ LJƚŚ ƌŽ ƵŐŚ Ě ǀ ŝ Ğƌ ƐŝĨŝ ĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ͕ƚ ĞĐŚŶŽ ůŽ Őŝ ĐĂů ƵƉ ŐƌĂ Ěŝ ŶŐĂŶ Ě ϴ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ Ŷ ŶƵĂ ůŐƌ Žǁƚ ŚƌĂƚĞ Ž Ĩƌ ĞĂů 'WƉĞ ƌĞŵƉ ůŽ LJĞĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽ Ŷ Ϭ ϴϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘Ϯ
ŝ ŶŶŽ ǀĂƚŝ ŽŶ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ ƚŚ ƌŽƵ ŐŚĂĨŽĐƵ ƐŽ ŶŚ ŝŐ ŚͲǀĂů ƵĞ ĂĚĚ ĞĚ ĂŶĚ ů Ăď ŽƵƌ ͲŝŶ ƚĞŶ Ɛŝ ǀĞ ƐĞĐƚŽ ƌƐ
ϴ͘ϯWƌ ŽŵŽƚ ĞĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶƚ ͲŽ ƌŝ ĞŶ ƚĞ ĚƉŽů ŝĐŝ ĞƐ ƚ ŚĂ ƚƐƵ ƉƉ Ž ƌƚ Ɖ ƌŽ ĚƵĐƚŝ ǀĞ Ă Đƚ ŝǀŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ͕ĚĞ ĐĞ ŶƚũŽďĐƌĞĂƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ ϴ ͘ϯ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŝŶ ĨŽ ƌŵĂů Ğŵ ƉůŽ LJŵĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ŷ ŽŶͲĂŐ ƌŝ ĐƵ ůƚƵƌ Ğ Ϭ ϴϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϯ ĞŶ ƚƌ ĞƉƌĞŶ ĞƵƌ ƐŚ ŝƉ ͕Đƌ ĞĂ ƚŝ ǀŝ ƚLJĂŶĚ ŝ ŶŶ ŽǀĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ĂŶ ĚĞŶĐŽƵ ƌĂŐ ĞƚŚ ĞĨŽ ƌŵĂ ůŝ njĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ă ŶĚŐƌŽǁƚŚ ŽĨ ŵŝĐƌŽͲ͕Ɛ ŵĂů ů Ͳ Ğŵ Ɖů ŽLJŵ ĞŶ ƚ͕ďLJ Ɛ Ğdž
ĂŶ ĚŵĞĚŝ Ƶŵ ͲƐŝ njĞ ĚĞŶƚĞƌ Ɖƌ ŝƐĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĐ Ƶ ů ĚŝŶ Őƚ ŚƌŽ ƵŐŚ ĂĐĐ ĞƐƐƚŽ Ĩŝ ŶĂŶ ĐŝĂů ƐĞƌǀŝ ĐĞƐ
ϴ͘ϰ/ŵƉƌŽ ǀĞƉ ƌŽŐ ƌĞ ƐƐŝǀĞů LJ͕ƚŚƌ ŽƵ ŐŚϮϬ ϯϬ͕Őů ŽďĂ ůƌ ĞƐŽƵƌ ĐĞ Ğ ĨĨ ŝĐŝĞŶĐ LJŝ ŶĐŽŶ ƐƵ ŵƉ ƚŝŽ Ŷ Ă ŶĚƉƌ ŽĚ ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶĂŶĚ  ϴ ͘ϰ͘ϭ D Ă ƚĞ ƌŝ Ăů ĨŽ Ž ƚƉ ƌŝ Ŷƚ ͕ŵ ĂƚĞƌ ŝ Ăů ĨŽŽ ƚƉ ƌŝ Ŷƚ Ɖ Ğƌ ĐĂƉŝ ƚĂ͕Ă ŶĚŵĂƚĞƌ ŝ Ăů Ϯ ϬϬϮ ϬϮ
ĞŶ ĚĞĂ ǀŽƵ ƌƚŽ Ě ĞĐŽƵ ƉůĞ Ğ ĐŽŶ Žŵŝ ĐŐƌŽǁƚ ŚĨƌ ŽŵĞŶǀŝ ƌŽŶ ŵĞŶƚ Ăů Ě ĞŐ ƌĂ ĚĂƚ ŝ ŽŶ͕ŝŶ ĂĐĐŽƌĚ ĂŶĐĞǁŝ ƚŚ ƚŚĞϭϬ Ͳz ĞĂƌ  ĨŽŽ ƚƉƌ ŝŶ ƚƉ Ğƌ' W
ϴ ͘ϰ
&ƌ Ăŵ ĞǁŽƌŬ Ž ĨWƌŽ ŐƌĂ ŵŵĞƐŽŶ ^ ƵƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďů Ğ Ž ŶƐƵ ŵƉƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ W ƌŽ Ě ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ͕ǁŝ ƚŚĚ ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉĞĚ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ ƐƚĂ Ŭŝ ŶŐ 
ƚŚ ĞůĞĂĚ

ƌĞůĞǀĂŶĐĞ ƚŽŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ
ϴ ͘ϰ͘Ϯ Ž ŵĞƐƚ ŝ ĐŵĂƚĞƌ ŝĂ ů ĐŽ ŶƐƵŵƉƚ ŝŽ Ŷ͕Ě ŽŵĞƐƚŝ ĐŵĂ ƚĞ ƌŝ Ăů  Ϯ ϬϬϮ Ϭϯ
ĐŽŶƐƵŵ Ɖƚŝ ŽŶƉĞ ƌĐĂ Ɖŝ ƚĂ ͕ĂŶ ĚĚŽŵĞ Ɛƚ ŝĐŵĂƚĞƌŝ ĂůĐŽ ŶƐƵ ŵƉƚ Ž ŝ ŶƉ Ğƌ
'W
ϴ͘ϱLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĂĐŚŝ Ğǀ ĞĨƵ ůůĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽ ĚƵĐ ƚŝ ǀĞ Ğ ŵƉů ŽLJŵĞ Ŷƚ ĂŶĚ ĚĞ ĐĞŶ ƚǁŽƌ ŬĨŽƌ Ă ů ǁŽŵĞŶ Ă ŶĚŵĞŶ ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚ ŝŶ Ő ϴ ͘ϱ͘ϭ ǀĞƌ ĂŐĞ Ś ŽƵƌ ů LJĞĂƌŶ ŝŶŐ ƐŽĨ ĨĞŵĂ ůĞĂŶĚ ŵĂ ůĞ Ğ ŵƉ ůŽ LJĞ ĞƐ͕ďLJ Ϭ ϴϬϱ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϱ
ĨŽ ƌLJŽ ƵŶŐ Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽŶ ƐǁŝƚŚĚŝ ƐĂďŝ ů ƚŝ ŝ ĞƐ͕ĂŶ ĚĞƋƵ Ăů Ɖ ĂLJĨŽƌ ǁŽ ƌŬ Ž ĨĞƋ ƵĂů ǀĂů ƵĞ Ž ĐĐƵƉ Ăƚŝ ŽŶ͕ĂŐ ĞĂŶĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽ Ŷ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚĚ ŝƐĂďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ
ϴ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ hŶ ĞŵƉů ŽLJ ŵĞŶƚ ƌĂƚ Ğ͕ďLJƐĞdž͕ĂŐĞĂŶĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽŶ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚĚŝƐ Ăďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ Ϭ ϴϬϱ ϬϮ

ϴ ͘ϲ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ŽĨ LJŽƵ ƚŚ ;ĂŐ ĞĚϭϱ ͲϮ ϰLJĞĂ ƌƐ ͿŶŽ ƚŝ ŶĞĚƵ ĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ͕ Ϭ ϴϬϲ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϲ ϴ͘ϲLJ Ϯ ϬϮϬ͕Ɛ Ƶď ƐƚĂ Ŷƚŝ Ăůů LJƌ ĞĚƵ ĐĞƚ ŚĞƉ ƌŽƉ Ž ƌƚ ŝ ŽŶŽĨLJŽƵ ƚŚŶ Ž ƚŝ ŶĞŵƉů ŽLJ ŵĞŶƚ͕Ğ ĚƵĐ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶŽƌ ƚƌĂ ŝŶ ŝŶŐ
Ğŵ Ɖů ŽLJŵ ĞŶ ƚŽ ƌƚƌ Ăŝ ŶŝŶ Ő
ϴ͘ϳdĂ ŬĞŝ ŵŵĞĚŝ ĂƚĞĂŶ ĚĞĨĨĞ Đƚŝǀ Ğŵ ĞĂ ƐƵƌ ĞƐƚ ŽĞƌ ĂĚ ŝĐĂƚĞĨŽ ƌĐ ĞĚů ĂďŽ Ƶƌ ͕ĞŶ ĚŵŽĚĞ ƌŶƐůĂǀĞƌ LJĂŶ ĚŚƵŵĂ Ŷ ϴ ͘ϳ͘ϭ Wƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ ĂŶ ĚŶƵŵ ď ĞƌŽ ĨĐŚ ŝůĚ ƌĞŶ Ă ŐĞĚ ϱ Ͳϭ ϳLJĞĂ ƌƐĞŶŐ ĂŐĞ ĚŝŶ  Ϭ ϴϬϳ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϳ ƚƌ ĂĨ ĨŝĐŬŝ ŶŐĂ ŶĚƐĞ ĐƵ ƌĞƚŚ ĞƉƌ ŽŚ ŝď ŝƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶ Ě Ğů ŝŵŝ ŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚŚ ĞǁŽ ƌƐƚ ĨŽƌ ŵƐŽĨ ĐŚŝ ů Ěů ĂďŽ Ƶƌ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚ ŝŶ Ő ĐŚŝ ůĚ ůĂ ďŽƵ ƌ͕ď LJƐĞ džĂŶ ĚĂŐĞ
ƌĞ Đƌ Ƶŝ ƚŵĞ ŶƚĂ ŶĚƵƐĞŽĨĐŚ ŝů ĚƐŽů Ěŝ Ğƌ Ɛ͕ĂŶ ĚďLJϮϬ ϮϱĞŶ ĚĐŚ ŝů Ěů ĂďŽ ƵƌŝŶĂů ů ŝ ƚ ƐĨŽ ƌŵƐ
ϴ͘ϴWƌŽ ƚĞ Đƚů Ăď ŽƵƌ ƌŝ ŐŚ ƚƐ Ă ŶĚƉƌ ŽŵŽ ƚĞƐĂĨ ĞĂŶĚ ƐĞĐ ƵƌĞǁŽƌŬŝ ŶŐĞŶ ǀŝ ƌŽ ŶŵĞŶ ƚƐĨŽƌ Ăů ůǁŽƌ ŬĞ ƌƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ ŝŶ Ő ϴ ͘ϴ͘ϭ &ƌĞƋ ƵĞŶ ĐLJƌ ĂƚĞƐŽ ĨĨĂƚĂ ůĂ ŶĚŶŽ ŶͲĨĂƚ Ăů ŽĐĐƵƉ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů ŝŶ ũƵ ƌŝ ĞƐ͕ďLJ  Ϭ ϴϬϴ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϴ
ŵ ŝŐƌĂ ŶƚǁŽ ƌŬĞƌ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Ɖ Ăƌƚŝ ĐƵůĂ ƌǁŽŵ ĞŶ ŵŝ ŐƌĂŶ ƚƐ͕Ă ŶĚƚŚ ŽƐĞŝŶ Ɖ ƌĞ ĐĂƌ ŝ ŽƵƐĞ ŵƉů ŽLJŵĞ Ŷƚ ƐĞdžĂŶ Ěŵ ŝ Őƌ ĂŶƚƐƚ ĂƚƵƐ
ϴ ͘ϴ͘Ϯ /ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ŝŶŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ĂůĐŽ ŵƉů ŝ ĂŶ ĐĞŽ ĨůĂ ďŽƵ ƌƌŝ ŐŚƚƐ ;Ĩ ƌĞ ĞĚŽ ŵ Ž Ĩ Ϭ ϴϬϴ ϬϮ
ĂƐƐŽ Đŝ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚĐŽ ůů ĞĐƚŝǀĞ ď Ăƌ ŐĂŝŶ ŝŶ ŐͿď ĂƐĞ ĚŽŶ/Ŷƚ ĞƌŶ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂů>ĂďŽ Ƶ ƌ
KƌŐĂ Ŷŝ njĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ; />KͿƚ ĞdžƚƵ ĂůƐŽƵ ƌĐĞƐĂŶ ĚŶĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ăůů ĞŐŝƐ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ďLJ ƐĞdž ĂŶ Ě
ŵŝ Őƌ ĂŶ ƚƐƚ ĂƚƵ Ɛ
ϴ͘ϵLJ Ϯ ϬϯϬ͕ĚĞ ǀŝ ƐĞ Ă ŶĚŝ ŵƉů ĞŵĞŶ ƚƉŽ ůŝĐŝ ĞƐ ƚŽ Ɖ ƌŽŵŽ ƚĞ ƐƵƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďů Ğƚ ŽƵƌ ŝƐŵƚŚĂƚĐƌĞĂ ƚĞ ƐũŽďƐ Ă ŶĚƉƌŽ ŵŽƚ ĞƐϴ ͘ϵ͘ϭ dŽ Ƶƌ ŝƐŵĚ ŝƌĞĐ ƚ'W ĂƐĂƉƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ ƚŽ ƚĂů'W ĂŶ Ěŝ ŶŐƌ Žǁƚ Ś Ϭ ϴϬϵ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϵ
ů ŽĐĂůĐƵů ƚƵƌ ĞĂŶ ĚƉƌ ŽĚƵ ĐƚƐ ƌĂƚ Ğ
ϴ ͘ϵ͘Ϯ EƵ ŵď Ğƌ Ž ĨũŽďƐ ŝŶ ƚ ŽƵƌ ŝƐŵ ŝ ŶĚƵ Ɛƚƌŝ ĞƐ ĂƐĂƉƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶŽĨ ƚŽƚ Ăů  Ϭ ϴϬϵ ϬϮ

WƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ũŽ ď ƐĂŶ Ě ŐƌŽ ǁƚŚ ƌ Ăƚ ĞŽĨũŽ ďƐ͕ďLJƐĞdž

WDUJHWV
ϴ͘ϭϬ ^ ƚƌ ĞŶŐ ƚŚ ĞŶƚ ŚĞĐĂ ƉĂĐŝ ƚLJ Ž ĨĚŽ ŵĞƐƚ ŝ ĐĨŝ ŶĂ ŶĐŝĂ ůŝŶƐƚŝ ƚƵ ƚŝ ŽŶ ƐƚŽ Ğ ŶĐŽ Ƶƌ ĂŐĞ Ă ŶĚĞdžƉĂ ŶĚĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽďĂŶ Ŭŝ ŶŐ͕ ϴ ͘ϭϬ͘ϭE Ƶŵď ĞƌŽĨĐ ŽŵŵĞƌ Đŝ ĂůďĂ ŶŬďƌĂŶ ĐŚĞ ƐĂŶ ĚĂƵƚ ŽŵĂƚ ĞĚ ƚ Ğů ůĞƌ  Ϭ ϴϭϬ Ϭϭ
ϴ ͘ϭ
ŝ ŶƐƵ ƌĂ ŶĐĞ Ă ŶĚĨŝŶ ĂŶĐŝ Ăů Ɛ Ğƌ ǀŝĐĞ ƐĨŽ ƌĂů ů ŵĂ ĐŚŝ ŶĞ Ɛ;dD ƐͿƉĞ ƌϭϬϬ ͕Ϭ ϬϬĂ ĚƵů ƚƐ
ϴ ͘ϭϬ͘ϮW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨĂĚ Ƶ ůƚƐ ;ϭϱ LJĞĂ ƌƐĂŶ ĚŽ ůĚ ĞƌͿ ǁŝƚŚĂŶ Ă ĐĐŽƵ ŶƚĂƚĂ  Ϭ ϴϭϬ ϬϮ
ď ĂŶ ŬŽ ƌŽƚŚĞ ƌĨŝ ŶĂ ŶĐŝĂ ůŝ ŶƐ ƚŝ ƚƵ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ƌǁŝ ƚŚĂŵŽ ď ŝůĞ ͲŵŽŶ ĞLJͲƐĞƌǀŝ ĐĞ
Ɖ ƌŽ ǀŝ ĚĞƌ
ϴ͘Ă/ŶĐƌ ĞĂ ƐĞŝ ĚĨŽƌ dƌĂ ĚĞƐƵ ƉƉŽ ƌƚ ĨŽƌ Ě Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ ŶƉĂƌ ƚŝ ĐƵů Ăƌů ĞĂƐƚĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉĞ ĚĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ ϴ ͘Ă͘ϭ ŝ ĚĨŽ ƌd ƌĂĚĞĐŽ ŵŵŝƚ ŵĞŶƚƐĂ ŶĚĚŝ Ɛď Ƶƌ ƐĞŵĞ Ŷƚ Ɛ Ϭ ϴϬĂ Ϭϭ
ϴ͘Ă ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ Ŷŝ ŐƚŚ ƌŽ Ƶ ŐŚ ƚ ŚĞŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞ Ě/Ŷ ƚĞ ŐƌĂ ƚĞ Ě&ƌĂŵĞǁŽ ƌŬĨŽ ƌdƌĂĚĞ ͲƌĞů Ăƚ ĞĚ dĞ ĐŚ Ŷ ŝĐĂůƐƐŝ ƐƚĂŶĐĞƚŽ >ĞĂƐƚ
Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉ ĞĚ  ŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ
ϴ ͘ď ͘ϭ d Žƚ ĂůŐ ŽǀĞ ƌŶ ŵ ĞŶƚƐƉĞ ŶĚŝ ŶŐ ŝ ŶƐ ŽĐŝ ĂůƉƌ Žƚ ĞĐƚ ŝŽŶ ĂŶ Ě Ϭ ϴϬď Ϭϭ
ϴ͘ďLJ Ϯ ϬϮϬ ͕ĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ĂŶ ĚŽ Ɖ ĞƌĂƚ Ž ŝ ŶĂů ŝ njĞ Ă Ő ůŽ ďĂů ƐƚƌĂ ƚĞ ŐLJĨ ŽƌLJ ŽƵƚ ŚĞŵ Ɖ ůŽ LJŵ ĞŶ ƚĂŶ ĚŝŵƉ ůĞ ŵĞŶƚƚŚĞ 'ůŽ ď Ăů 
ϴ ͘ď Ğŵ Ɖů ŽLJŵ ĞŶ ƚƉ ƌŽŐ ƌĂ ŵŵ ĞƐĂ ƐĂƉƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝŽ ŶŽĨƚ ŚĞ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů ďƵĚ ŐĞƚ Ɛ
:Ž ďƐ W ĂĐƚ Ž ĨƚŚĞ /Ŷƚ Ğƌ ŶĂƚ ŝ ŽŶĂ ů>Ăď ŽƵ ƌKƌ ŐĂŶ ŝnjĂƚ ŝ ŽŶ
ĂŶĚ 'W

' Ž Ăů  ϵ ͗  Ƶŝ ůĚ ƌĞ ƐŝůŝĞ Ŷƚ ŝŶ ĨƌĂ Ɛ ƚƌ Ƶ ĐƚƵƌ Ğ͕ ϵ ͘ϭ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚŚ ĞƌƵ ƌĂ ů ƉŽ Ɖ ƵůĂƚ ŝ ŽŶǁŚŽ ů ŝ ǀĞ ǁŝ ƚŚŝ ŶϮŬŵ ŽĨ ĂŶĂů ůͲ Ϭ ϵϬϭ Ϭϭ ηŽĨƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞǁŚŽ ů ŝ ǀĞǁŝƚŚ ŝŶ Ϯ ŬŵŽĨĂŶ Ă ůů Ͳ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ƐĐŚŽŽ ůĐŚ ŝů Ěƌ ĞŶ ŐĞƚ ƚŝŶŐ 
ƐĞĂƐŽŶ ƌ ŽĂ Ě ƐĞĂƐŽŶƌŽ ĂĚ Ž Ŷď ƵƐ ŝŶ Ƶ Ŷŝ ĨŽƌŵ ƐĂŶĚ ĐĂƌƌ LJŝ ŶŐ ď ŽŽŬ Ɛ
Ɖ ƌŽ ŵŽ ƚ ĞŝŶĐ ůƵ Ɛŝ ǀĞĂŶ Ě  Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉ Ƌ Ƶ Ăů ŝ ƚLJ͕ƌĞů ŝĂ ďů Ğ͕Ɛ Ƶ ƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďů ĞĂŶ ĚƌĞ Ɛŝů ŝĞ ŶƚŝŶĨ ƌĂƐƚ ƌƵ Đƚ ƵƌĞ ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ě ŝŶŐƌ ĞŐŝ ŽŶ Ăů ĂŶĚ ƚ ƌĂŶ Ɛď Žƌ ĚĞƌ
/ Ŷ Ě Ƶ Ɛ ƚƌLJ  Ɛ Ƶ ƐƚĂŝŶ Ăď ůĞ ŝŶ Ě ƵƐ ƚƌŝĂ ůŝnj ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂ Ŷ Ě ϵ ͘ϭ ŝ ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌ ƵĐƚƵ ƌĞ ͕ƚŽ ƐƵƉ ƉŽƌ ƚĞĐ ŽŶŽ ŵŝĐĚĞǀ ĞůŽƉ ŵĞ ŶƚĂ ŶĚŚƵ ŵĂŶǁĞůů Ͳď ĞŝŶ Ő͕ǁŝƚŚĂĨ ŽĐƵƐŽŶ Ă ĨĨ Žƌ ĚĂď Ğ ů Ă ŶĚ
/ Ŷ Ŷ Ž ǀ Ă ƚŝŽ Ŷ Θ  ĨŽ ƐƚĞ ƌ ŝŶŶ Žǀ Ă ƚŝ ŽŶ ĞƋ Ƶŝ ƚĂď ůĞĂĐĐ ĞƐƐĨŽ ƌĂů ů 

/ Ŷ Ĩ ƌĂ Ɛ ƚƌƵ Đ ƚƵ ƌ Ğ
ϵ ͘ϭ͘Ϯ W ĂƐƐĞŶ ŐĞƌĂŶĚ Ĩƌ Ğŝ ŐŚƚǀŽů ƵŵĞ Ɛ͕ď LJŵŽĚ ĞŽĨƚƌĂ ŶƐƉ Žƌ ƚ Ϭ ϵϬϭ ϬϮ /ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞ ĚWĂƐ ƐĞ Ŷ ŐĞ ƌĂŶ Ě ĨƌĞŝ ŐŚ ƚǀŽ ůƵŵĞ Ɛ͕ďLJ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĨŽ ŽĚƐĨ ƌŽ ŵůŽ ĐĂůĨĂƌŵ
ŵŽĚ ĞŽĨ ƚ ƌĂ ŶƐƉŽƌ ƚĞŶ Ăďů ĞĚ ď LJĂů ůͲƐĞĂƐ ŽŶƌŽĂĚ ď Ğŝ ŶŐƚƌĂ ŶƐƉ Žƌ ƚĞĚ ƚŽŵĂƌ ŬĞ ƚ
Wƌ Žŵ ŽƚĞŝ ŶĐů ƵƐŝ ǀĞĂŶ ĚƐƵ Ɛƚ ĂŝŶĂď ůĞ ŝ ŶĚ ƵƐ ƚƌŝĂ ůŝ njĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ͕ďLJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕Ɛ Ő
ŝ Ŷŝ Ĩŝ ĐĂŶƚ ůLJƌĂŝ ƐĞŝŶ ĚƵƐƚƌ LJ͛Ɛ ƐŚĂƌ ĞŽĨ ϵ ͘Ϯ͘ϭ D Ă ŶƵĨĂĐƚƵ ƌŝ ŶŐǀ ĂůƵĞĂĚ ĚĞĚ Ă ƐĂƉƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽ ŶŽ Ĩ'W ĂŶ ĚƉĞƌ  Ϭ ϵϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϵ ͘Ϯ ĞŵƉ ůŽ LJŵĞŶ ƚĂŶĚ ŐƌŽ ƐƐĚ Žŵ ĞƐƚŝ ĐƉ ƌŽĚ ƵĐƚ͕ŝ Ŷůŝ ŶĞǁŝƚŚ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů Đŝ ƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶ ĐĞ Ɛ͕Ă ŶĚĚŽ Ƶďů ĞŝƚƐ ƐŚĂ ƌĞŝ Ŷů ĞĂƐƚ ĐĂƉŝ ƚĂ
ĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ĞĚĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝĞ Ɛ
ϵ ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ D Ă ŶƵĨĂĐƚƵ ƌŝ ŶŐĞ ŵƉ ůŽLJŵĞ ŶƚĂƐĂƉƌ ŽƉŽ ƌƚŝŽ ŶŽĨ ƚ Žƚ Ăů Ϭ ϵϬϮ ϬϮ ηŽĨůŽ ĐĂ ůͬ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚŝ ŽŶĞŵƉ ůŽ LJĞĚ Ž Ŷ
Ğŵ Ɖů ŽLJŵ ĞŶ ƚ Ɖƌ ŽũĞĐƚ
/ŶĐƌĞĂ ƐĞƚŚ ĞĂĐĐĞ ƐƐŽ ĨƐŵĂ ůůͲ ƐĐĂů Ğŝ ŶĚƵ Ɛƚƌŝ ĂůĂŶĚ Ž ƚŚĞ ƌĞŶ ƚĞ ƌƉ ƌŝ ƐĞ Ɛ͕ŝ ŶƉĂƌƚ ŝ ĐƵů ĂƌŝŶ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐ͕ƚŽ ϵ ͘ϯ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƐŵĂ ůů ͲƐĐĂů ĞŝŶĚ ƵƐƚƌŝ ĞƐ ŝŶ ƚ ŽƚĂů ŝ ŶĚ ƵƐƚ ƌLJǀĂů ƵĞ  Ϭ ϵϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϵ ͘ϯ
Ĩŝ ŶĂŶ ĐŝĂůƐ Ğƌǀŝ ĐĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐĂĨĨŽƌ ĚĂď ůĞ ĐƌĞĚ ŝƚ͕ĂŶ Ě ƚ ŚĞ ŝƌ ŝŶ ƚĞŐ ƌĂ ƚŝŽ Ŷ ŝŶƚ ŽǀĂůƵ ĞĐŚ Ăŝ ŶƐĂŶ ĚŵĂƌŬĞƚƐ ĂĚĚ ĞĚ
ϵ ͘ϯ͘Ϯ W ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƐŵĂ ůů ͲƐĐĂů ĞŝŶĚ ƵƐƚƌŝ ĞƐ ǁŝ ƚ ŚĂůŽ ĂŶŽƌ ůŝ ŶĞ Ž ĨĐƌĞĚ ŝƚ Ϭ ϵϬϯ ϬϮ

 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ƵƉ Őƌ ĂĚĞ ŝ ŶĨƌĂ ƐƚƌƵ Đƚ Ƶƌ ĞĂŶĚ ƌ Ğƚ ƌŽ Ĩŝ ƚŝ ŶĚ ƵƐƚ ƌŝĞ ƐƚŽ ŵĂ ŬĞƚ ŚĞŵƐƵ ƐƚĂŝ ŶĂ ďů Ğ͕ǁ ŝ ƚŚ ŝŶ ĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ƌ ĞƐŽ Ƶƌ ĐĞͲ ϵ ͘ϰ͘ϭ  K ϮĞŵŝ ƐƐ ŝ ŽŶƉĞ ƌƵŶŝ ƚŽ ĨǀĂ ůƵ ĞĂĚ ĚĞĚ Ϭ ϵϬϰ Ϭϭ

DQG
ϵ ͘ϰ ƵƐ ĞĞĨĨŝ Đŝ ĞŶ ĐLJ Ă ŶĚŐƌ ĞĂƚĞ ƌĂĚ ŽƉƚ ŝŽ ŶŽĨĐů ĞĂŶ Ă ŶĚĞŶ ǀŝ ƌŽ ŶŵĞŶ ƚĂůů LJƐŽ ƵŶĚ ƚĞĐ ŚŶŽ ůŽ ŐŝĞƐ Ă ŶĚŝ ŶĚƵ Ɛƚ ƌŝĂů 
Ɖƌ ŽĐĞ ƐƐĞƐ͕ǁŝ ƚŚ Ă ůů ĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ ƚĂŬŝ ŶŐĂĐƚŝ ŽŶ ŝ ŶĂĐĐŽ ƌĚ ĂŶĐĞǁŝ ƚŚƚŚĞŝ ƌ ƌĞƐƉĞĐ ƚŝ ǀĞĐĂƉ Ăďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ 
Ŷ ŚĂŶ ĐĞƐĐŝĞŶƚ ŝ Ĩŝ Đƌ ĞƐĞ ĂƌĐŚ͕Ƶ ƉŐƌĂ ĚĞƚŚĞƚ ĞĐŚ ŶŽů ŽŐ ŝĐĂů ĐĂƉĂď ŝů ŝ ƚŝ ĞƐŽ Ĩŝ ŶĚƵ Ɛƚ ƌŝ Ăů ƐĞ Đƚ ŽƌƐ ŝŶ Ă ůů ĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ Ŷ ϵ ͘ϱ͘ϭ Z ĞƐĞĂƌ ĐŚ Ă ŶĚĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŵ ĞŶ ƚĞdžƉ ĞŶĚ ŝƚ Ƶƌ ĞĂƐ Ă Ɖ ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩ'W Ϭ ϵϬϱ Ϭϭ tŚĂ ƚů ĞǀĞ ůŽĨ;ά ͬΨͿŝŶ ǀĞ Ɛƚ ŵĞŶƚ ŝŶ ƚ ĞĐŚ ŶŽů ŽŐ LJ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ŝŶ Đƌ ĞĂƐĞĚ Ƶ ƐĞŽĨ 

dĂƌŐĞƚƐŚŝŐŚůLJƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƚŽ
ŝ Ƶů Ăƌ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐ͕ŝŶ ĐůƵĚ ŝŶ Ő͕ď LJϮϬϯ Ϭ͕Ğ ŶĐŽƵ ƌĂŐŝŶ ŐŝŶ ŶŽǀ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ƐƵďƐƚĂŶ ƚŝĂ ůůLJ ŝ ŶĐƌĞĂƐŝ ŶŐ 
ƉĂ ƌƚ Đ ĂŶ ĚŝŶ ŶŽǀĂƚ ŝŽ Ŷ;ƐƉĞ Đŝ ĨŝĞĚ Ğ džĂ ŵƉ ůĞƐͿ ͖ǁŚ Ăƚ ĚŐŝ ŝƚŝ ƐĂ ƚŝŽ ŶƐƵĐŚ Ă Ɛ /D
ϵ ͘ϱ
ƚŚ ĞŶƵŵď Ğƌ Ž ĨƌĞ ƐĞ Ăƌ ĐŚ ĂŶ ĚĚĞǀ ĞůŽ ƉŵĞ Ŷƚ ǁ Ž ƌŬĞƌ ƐƉĞƌ ϭŵŝů ů ŝŽ ŶƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞĂŶ ĚƉƵď ůŝ ĐĂŶ ĚƉƌ ŝǀĂƚĞƌĞ ƐĞĂƌĐ Ś ZΘ ŝ Ŷǀ ĞƐ ƚŵĞ ŶƚƉƉ ͬLJ ƌ
ĂŶ ĚĚĞǀ ĞůŽƉ ŵĞ ŶƚƐƉĞŶ Ě ŝŶ Ő
ϵ ͘ϱ͘Ϯ Z ĞƐ ĞĂƌ ĐŚ ĞƌƐ;ŝ ŶĨƵů ůͲƚŝ ŵĞĞƋ Ƶŝ ǀĂ ůĞ ŶƚͿƉ Ğƌŵŝů ů ŝŽ Ŷŝ ŶŚ Ăďŝ ƚĂŶ ƚƐ Ϭ ϵϬϱ ϬϮ

&Ă Đŝ ůŝƚ ĂƚĞƐƵ Ɛƚ Ăŝ ŶĂď ůĞ Ă ŶĚƌĞƐŝů ŝ ĞŶƚŝŶ ĨƌĂƐƚƌƵ Đƚ ƵƌĞĚĞ ǀĞůŽƉ ŵĞŶƚŝŶ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ Ɖŝ ŶŐĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ ƐƚŚ ƌŽ ƵŐŚ Ğ ŶŚĂŶ ĐĞ Ě ϵ ͘Ă͘ϭ d Žƚ Ăů Ž ĨĨ ŝ Đŝ Ăů ŝŶ ƚĞƌŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ĂůƐƵƉ Ɖ Žƌƚ;ŽĨĨŝ Đŝ Ăů ĚĞǀ Ğů ŽƉŵĞ Ŷƚ  Ϭ ϵϬĂ Ϭϭ tŚĂ ƚů ĞǀĞ ůŽĨ;ά ͬΨƉ ĂͿŝ Ŷǀ ĞƐƚŵ ĞŶ ƚŝ Ŷů ŝƐƚ ĞĚ  Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ŝŶ Ĩƌ ĂƐ ƚƌ ƵĐƚƵƌ Ğŝ Ŷ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϵĂ Ĩŝ ŶĂŶ ĐŝĂů͕ƚĞĐŚŶ Žů ŽŐŝ ĐĂůĂ ŶĚƚ ĞĐŚ Ŷŝ ĐĂ ůƐƵ ƉƉŽ ƌƚƚŽĨ ƌŝĐĂŶĐŽ ƵŶƚƌ ŝĞ Ɛ͕ůĞ ĂƐƚ ĚĞǀĞů ŽƉĞ ĚĐŽ ƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ͕ů ĂŶ ĚůŽ ĐŬ ĞĚ ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂ ŶĐĞƉů ƵƐŽƚŚ ĞƌŽĨĨŝ ĐŝĂ ůĨ Ž ů ǁƐͿƚŽŝ ŶĨƌĂ ƐƚƌƵ Đƚ ƵƌĞ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ ƐƚŚ ƌŽ ƵŐŚ ŝ ŶĨƌĂ ƐƚƌƵ Đƚ Ƶƌ ĞĚĞǀĞů ŽƉŵĞ Ŷƚ ƌ ĞĐĞŝ ǀŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌ LJ
ĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ Ă ŶĚƐŵĂůůŝ Ɛů ĂŶ ĚĚ Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉŝ ŶŐ ^ƚĂƚĞ Ɛ Ɖƌ ŽũĞĐƚƐ
^Ƶ ƉƉŽ ƌƚ Ě ŽŵĞƐƚŝĐƚĞĐŚ ŶŽů ŽŐLJĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶƚ ͕ƌ ĞƐ ĞĂƌ ĐŚ Ă ŶĚŝ ŶŶŽ ǀĂƚŝ ŽŶŝ ŶĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵĚ ŝŶ ŐďLJ ϵ ͘ď ͘ϭ W ƌŽ ƉŽ ƌƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨŵĞĚ ŝƵ ŵĂ ŶĚŚŝ ŐŚ Ͳƚ ĞĐŚŝŶ ĚƵƐƚƌLJǀĂ ůƵ ĞĂĚ Ě ĞĚŝ Ŷ Ϭ ϵϬď Ϭϭ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϵď ĞŶ ƐƵ ƌŝ ŶŐĂĐŽ ŶĚƵ Đŝ ǀĞ Ɖ Ž ůŝĐLJĞŶ ǀŝ ƌŽ ŶŵĞŶ ƚĨŽ ƌ͕ŝŶ ƚĞ ƌĂů ŝ Ă͕ŝŶĚ ƵƐƚƌ ŝĂ ůĚŝ ǀĞ ƌƐŝ ĨŝĐĂƚŝ ŽŶ Ă ŶĚǀĂ ůƵ ĞĂĚ Ě ŝƚŝ ŽŶƚŽ  ƚŽƚ Ăů ǀĂůƵĞ Ă ĚĚĞ Ě
ĐŽ ŵŵŽĚ ŝƚŝ ĞƐ 
ϵ ͘Đ͘ϭ W ƌŽ Ɖ Žƌƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ Ɖ ƵůĂƚ ŝ ŽŶĐŽ ǀĞƌĞĚ ď LJĂŵŽď ŝů ĞŶĞ ƚǁŽ ƌŬ͕ďLJ  Ϭ ϵϬĐ Ϭϭ tŚĂ ƚů ĞǀĞ ůŽĨ;ά ͬΨƉ ĂͿŝ Ŷǀ ĞƐƚŵ ĞŶ ƚŝ Ŷů ŝƐƚ ĞĚ  Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ ŝŵƉ ƌŽǀ ĞĚ
^ŝ ŐŶ Ĩŝ ŝ ĐĂŶ ƚů LJŝ ŶĐ ƌĞ ĂƐĞ Ă ĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ ŝŶĨ Žƌ ŵĂƚŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ĐŽŵ ŵƵŶ ŝĐĂƚ ŝŽ ŶƐ ƚĞĐŚŶ Ž ůŽ ŐLJĂŶ ĚƐƚƌŝ ǀĞƚŽƉ ƌŽǀ ŝĚ ĞƵŶŝ ǀĞ ƌƐĂů
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϵĐ
ĂŶ ĚĂĨĨŽƌĚ Ăďů ĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚ ŽƚŚ Ğ/Ŷ ƚĞƌŶ Ğƚŝ ŶůĞ ĂƐƚĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ĞĚĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ ďLJϮϬ ϭϮ
ƚĞĐŚ ŶŽ ůŽ ŐLJ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ ƐƚŚ ƌŽ ƵŐŚ ĐŽŵ ŵƵŶ ŝĐĂƚŝŽ Ŷ Ɛ Đ ŽŵŵƵŶ Đ ŝ Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ͕Ğ ŐƐĂ ĨĞ Ž Ŷů ŝŶ ĞďĂŶ Ŭŝ ŶŐ Ğ ŶĂď ŝů ŶŐ 
ŝ ŶĨƌĂ ƐƚƌƵ ĐƚƵƌĞ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŵĞ ŶƚƉƌ ŽũĞĐƚƐ ƐĂĨ ĞΘ Ƌ ƵŝĐŬƚƌĂŶƐĨĞ ƌƚ ŽĞŶĂď ůĞĞů ĞĐƚƌŝĐŝ ƚLJ

' Ž Ăů  ϭ Ϭ ͗  ZĞĚ Ƶ Đ ĞŝŶ ĞƋƵ Ă ůŝƚLJ ǁ ŝƚŚ ŝŶ ĂŶ Ě  ϭ Ϭ͘ϭ͘ϭ' ƌŽǁƚŚƌ Ăƚ ĞƐŽĨŚŽƵ ƐĞ ŚŽ ůĚ Ğdž ƉĞŶ Ěŝ ƚƵ ƌĞŽƌ ŝŶ ĐŽŵĞ Ɖ ĞƌĐ ĂƉ ŝƚ Ă ϭ ϬϬϭ Ϭϭ
Ăŵ ŽŶŐ ƚ ŚĞ ď ŽƚƚŽŵ ϰϬ Ɖ Ğƌ ĐĞŶƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶĂŶĚ ƚŚ ĞƚŽ ƚĂ ů
Ăŵ ŽŶ Ő Đ ŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝĞ Ɛ ϭϬ ͘ϭ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ɖ ƌŽ ŐƌĞ ƐƐŝǀĞů LJĂĐŚŝ ĞǀĞĂŶĚ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶ ŝ ŶĐŽ ŵĞŐ ƌŽǁƚŚŽĨ ƚŚ ĞďŽƚ ƚŽ ŵϰ ϬƉĞƌ ĐĞŶ ƚŽĨƚŚ Ğ Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ
Z Ğ Ě ƵĐĞ  ϭϬ͘ϭ
ƉŽ Ɖ Ƶů Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂƚĂ ƌĂƚ ĞŚŝ ŐŚ Ğƌ ƚ ŚĂ ŶƚŚ ĞŶĂƚ ŝŽ ŶĂůĂǀĞƌ ĂŐĞ
/ Ŷ Ğ Ƌ Ƶ Ă ůŝƚ ŝĞ Ɛ

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ^Z
ϭϬ ͘Ϯ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ğ ŵƉŽ ǁĞ ƌĂŶ Ě Ɖ ƌŽŵ ŽƚĞƚŚ ĞƐŽĐŝ Ăů͕ĞĐŽŶ Ž ŵŝĐĂŶĚ Ɖ Žů ƚŝ ŝ ĐĂů ŝ ŶĐů ƵƐŝŽ ŶŽĨĂ ůů͕ŝƌƌĞ ƐƉ ĞĐƚ ŝ ǀĞŽĨ ĂŐĞ ͕ ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉĞ ŽƉů Ğů ŝǀŝ ŶŐďĞ ůŽ ǁϱ ϬƉĞƌ ĐĞŶ ƚŽĨ ŵ ĞĚŝ ĂŶ  ϭ ϬϬϮ Ϭϭ
ϭϬ͘ϭ
ƐĞ dž͕Ě ŝƐĂď ŝů ŝ ƚLJ ͕ƌĂĐĞ͕Ğ ƚŚŶ ŝĐŝ ƚLJ ͕Žƌŝ Őŝ Ŷ͕ƌĞů ŝ Őŝ ŽŶ Žƌ ĞĐŽ ŶŽ ŵŝ ĐŽƌ Žƚ ŚĞƌ ƐƚĂƚƵ Ɛ ŝŶĐ ŽŵĞ͕ďLJĂ ŐĞ͕ƐĞ džĂŶĚ Ɖ Ğƌ ƐŽŶ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚ Ě ŝƐĂďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ
ϭ Ϭ͘ϯ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƚŚĞƉŽ ƉƵ ůĂƚ ŝŽ ŶƌĞ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŶŐŚĂǀ Ŷ ŝ ŐƉĞƌ ƐŽ ŶĂů ůLJĨĞů ƚ Ϯ ϬϬϮ Ϭϰ
ϭϬ ͘ϯ  ŶƐƵ ƌĞ ĞƋ ƵĂůŽƉ ƉŽƌ ƚƵ Ŷŝ ƚLJĂ ŶĚƌĞĚƵ ĐĞŝ ŶĞ ƋƵ Ăůŝ ƚŝĞ ƐŽĨ Ž Ƶ ƚĐŽŵĞ ͕ŝŶĐů ƵĚ ŝŶ ŐďLJ Ğ ŝů ŵŝ ŶĂƚ ŝŶ ŐĚŝ ƐĐƌ ŝŵŝ ŶĂƚŽ ƌLJ Ě Ɛŝ Đƌ ŝŵŝŶ ĂƚĞ ĚĂŐ Ăŝ ŶƐƚ Žƌ Ś ĂƌĂƐƐĞĚ ǁŝ ƚŚŝ ŶƚŚĞ Ɖ ƌĞ ǀŝ ŽƵƐ ϭϮŵ ŽŶ ƚŚƐŽ Ŷ
ϭϬ͘ϭ
ů ĂǁƐ͕ƉŽ ůŝ Đŝ ĞƐ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĂ ŶĚƉƌ ŽŵŽƚ ŝ ŶŐĂƉ Ɖƌ ŽƉƌ ŝĂ ƚĞ ů ĞŐŝ Ɛů ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ͕Ɖ Žů ŝĐŝ ĞƐĂŶ ĚĂĐ ƚŝ ŽŶ ŝ ŶƚŚŝ ƐƌĞ ŐĂƌ Ě ƚŚĞ ď ĂƐŝ Ɛ Ž ĨĂŐƌ ŽƵ ŶĚŽĨ Ěŝ ƐĐƌŝ ŵŝŶ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶƉƌŽ Śŝď ŝƚĞ ĚƵŶĚ Ğƌ ŝŶƚ Ğƌ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ů
Ś ƵŵĂŶ ƌŝ ŐŚƚ ƐůĂǁ
ϭϬ ͘ϰ Ě ŽƉƚ ƉŽ ůŝ Đŝ ĞƐ͕ĞƐƉĞ Đŝ Ăů ůLJĨŝ ƐĐĂů ͕ǁĂ ŐĞĂ ŶĚƐŽ ĐŝĂů ƉƌŽ ƚĞ ĐƚŝŽ ŶƉŽů ŝ Đŝ ĞƐ ͕ĂŶ ĚƉ ƌŽŐƌ ĞƐƐŝ ǀĞ ůLJĂĐŚ ŝĞ ǀĞŐƌ ĞĂƚĞ ƌ ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ͘ϭ>Ăď ŽƵƌ ƐŚĂ ƌĞŽ Ĩ'W ͕ĐŽ ŵƉƌŝƐŝŶ ŐǁĂŐ ĞƐĂŶ ĚƐŽ Đŝ Ăů ƉƌŽ ƚĞ Đƚ Ž ŝ Ŷ  ϭ ϬϬϰ Ϭϭ
ϭϬ͘ϭ

LQGLFDWRUV
ĞƋ ƵĂů ŝ ƚLJ ƚƌĂ ŶƐĨĞ ƌƐ
ϭϬ ͘ϱ /ŵƉƌ ŽǀĞ ƚŚĞ ƌ ĞŐ Ƶů ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ ĂŶĚ ŵŽ Ŷ ŝƚŽ ƌŝ ŶŐŽ ĨŐů Žď Ăů Ĩŝ ŶĂŶ Đŝ ĂůŵĂƌŬ Ğƚ ƐĂŶ ĚŝŶ Ɛƚŝƚ Ƶƚŝ ŽŶƐ Ă ŶĚƐƚƌ ĞŶ ŐƚŚĞ ŶƚŚ Ğ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ͘ϭ&ŝ ŶĂŶ Đŝ Ăů ^ŽƵ ŶĚŶ ĞƐƐ/Ŷ Ěŝ ĐĂ ƚŽƌ Ɛ ϭ ϬϬϱ Ϭϭ
ϭϬ͘ϭ
ŝ ŵƉ ůĞŵĞŶ ƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ ŽĨ ƐƵĐŚƌĞ ŐƵ ůĂ ƚŝŽ ŶƐ
ϭϬ ͘ϲ  ŶƐƵ ƌĞ ĞŶ ŚĂŶ ĐĞ ĚƌĞ Ɖƌ ĞƐĞ Ŷƚ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ǀŽŝ ĐĞ Ĩ ŽƌĚ ĞǀĞ ůŽ Ɖŝ ŶŐĐŽ ƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ ƐŝŶ ĚĞĐ ŝƐŝŽŶ ͲŵĂŬ Ŷ ŝ ŐŝŶ Őů ŽďĂů  ϭ Ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨŵĞŵď ĞƌƐĂŶĚ ǀ Žƚ Ŷ ŝ Őƌŝ ŐŚ ƚƐŽ ĨĚĞ ǀĞůŽ Ɖ ŝŶ Ő Ϯ ϬϬϮ Ϭϱ
ϭϬ͘ϭ ŝ ŶƚĞ ƌŶ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂů ĞĐŽ ŶŽŵŝ ĐĂ ŶĚĨŝŶ ĂŶĐŝĂ ůŝŶƐƚŝ ƚƵ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛŝ ŶŽƌĚ Ğƌƚ ŽĚĞ ůŝǀĞ ƌŵ ŽƌĞĞĨĨĞ Đƚ ŝǀĞ͕Đƌ ĞĚŝ ďůĞ͕ĂĐĐŽ ƵŶ ƚĂ ďů Ğ ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐŝ ŶŝŶ ƚĞ ƌŶ ĂƚŝŽ Ŷ Ăů ŽƌŐĂŶ ŝnjĂƚ Ž ŝ ŶƐ
ĂŶ ĚůĞ Őŝ ƚŝ ŵĂƚĞŝ ŶƐƚ ŝƚƵ ƚŝ ŽŶƐ
ϭϬ ͘ϳ & ĂĐŝů ŝ ƚĂƚĞŽƌ ĚĞ ƌů LJ͕ƐĂĨĞ͕ƌĞ ŐƵů ĂƌĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƉŽ Ŷ Ɛŝď ůĞŵŝ Őƌ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶĚ ŵŽ ďŝ ůŝƚ LJŽĨ Ɖ ĞŽƉ ůĞ ͕ŝ ŶĐůƵ Ě ŝŶ ŐƚŚ ƌŽ Ƶ ŐŚ  ϭ Ϭ͘ϳ͘ϭZ ĞĐƌƵŝ ƚ ŵĞŶƚ ĐŽƐƚďŽ ƌŶ ĞďLJĞŵ Ɖ ůŽ LJĞĞ Ă ƐĂƉƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ Ž ĨLJĞĂ ƌůLJ ϭ ϬϬϳ Ϭϭ
ϭϬ͘ϭ
ƚŚ ĞŝŵƉ ůĞ ŵĞŶƚ Ăƚ ŝ ŽŶŽĨƉů ĂŶŶ ĞĚĂŶ ĚǁĞů ůͲŵĂŶ ĂŐĞĚ ŵ ŝŐƌĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ɖ Žů ŝĐŝ ĞƐ ŝŶĐ ŽŵĞĞĂ ƌŶ ĞĚŝ ŶĐŽ ƵŶ ƚƌLJŽ ĨĚĞ ƐƚŝŶ Ăƚ Ž ŝ Ŷ
ϭ Ϭ͘ϳ͘ϮEƵŵ ďĞ ƌŽĨ ĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ ƚ ŚĂ ƚŚĂ ǀĞŝ ŵƉů ĞŵĞŶ ƚĞ ĚǁĞů ůͲŵĂŶ ĂŐĞ Ě ϭ ϬϬϳ ϬϮ
ŵŝ Őƌ Ăƚŝ ŽŶƉŽ ůŝ Đŝ ĞƐ
ϭϬ ͘Ă /ŵƉů ĞŵĞ ŶƚƚŚĞƉƌ ŝ ŶĐŝ Ɖů ĞŽ ĨƐƉ ĞĐŝ ĂůĂŶ ĚĚŝ ĨĨ ĞƌĞŶƚ ŝ Ăůƚ ƌĞĂƚ ŵĞŶƚ ĨŽ ƌĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ͕ŝ ŶƉĂƌƚŝ ĐƵů Ăƌ ϭ Ϭ͘Ă͘ϭWƌ ŽƉŽ ƌƚŝŽ Ŷ ŽĨ ƚĂƌ ŝĨĨů ŝ ŶĞƐ ĂƉƉ ŝů ĞĚ ƚ Žŝ ŵ ƉŽƌƚƐĨƌ ŽŵůĞ ĂƐƚ ϭ ϬϬĂ Ϭϭ
ϭ Ϭ͘Ă
ů ĞĂƐƚĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ĞĚĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ Ğ ŝ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Ă ĐĐŽƌĚ ĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ tŽƌ ů Ědƌ ĂĚĞ KƌŐĂ Ŷŝ njĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ă ŐƌĞĞŵĞ ŶƚƐ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉĞĚ ĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌ ŝ ĞƐĂ ŶĚĚĞ ǀĞůŽ Ɖ ŝŶ ŐĐŽ Ƶ Ŷƚƌŝ ĞƐǁŝƚ ŚnjĞ ƌŽ ͲƚĂƌ ŝĨĨ
ϭϬ ͘ď  ŶĐŽ ƵƌĂŐĞ Ž ĨĨŝ ĐŝĂů Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉŵĞ ŶƚĂƐƐŝ Ɛ ƚĂ ŶĐĞ Ă ŶĚĨŝŶ ĂŶĐŝ Ăů Ĩ ů ŽǁƐ ͕ŝ ŶĐů ƵĚ ŝŶ ŐĨŽ ƌĞ ŝŐŶ Ěŝ ƌĞ Đƚ ŝŶ ǀĞƐƚŵĞŶ ƚ͕ƚŽ ϭ Ϭ͘ď ͘ϭd Žƚ Ăů ƌ ĞƐŽƵƌ ĐĞ Ĩů ŽǁƐ Ĩ Žƌ Ě Ğǀ Ğů ŽƉŵĞ Ŷƚ͕ďLJƌ ĞĐŝƉ ŝĞ ŶƚĂ ŶĚĚŽ ŶŽƌ  ϭ ϬϬď Ϭϭ
^ƚ Ăƚ ĞƐǁŚ Ğƌ ĞƚŚ ĞŶĞĞ ĚŝƐ ŐƌĞ ĂƚĞƐƚ͕ŝŶ Ɖ Ăƌƚ ŝĐƵů ĂƌůĞĂƐƚĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ĞĚĐŽƵ Ŷƚƌ ŝĞ Ɛ͕Ĩƌ ŝ ĐĂŶ ĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌ ŝ ĞƐ͕ƐŵĂ ů ŝƐůĂŶĚ  ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐĂŶ ĚƚLJƉĞŽĨĨůŽǁ;Ğ͘Ő͘Ž ĨĨŝ ĐŝĂů ĚĞǀĞů ŽƉŵĞ Ŷ ƚĂ ƐƐŝƐƚĂ ŶĐĞ͕
ϭϬ͘ď
ĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŝŶ Ő^ƚĂƚ ĞƐĂŶĚ ů ĂŶĚ ůŽ ĐŬĞ ĚĚĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŝŶ ŐĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƌŝĞƐ͕ŝ ŶĂĐĐŽƌ ĚĂ ŶĐĞ ǁŝƚ ŚƚŚ ĞŝƌŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů Ɖ ůĂŶ ƐĂ ŶĚ ĨŽƌ Ğŝ ŐŶ Ě ŝƌ ĞĐƚŝ ŶǀĞ Ɛƚŵ ĞŶƚĂŶĚ Ž ƚŚĞ ƌĨ Ž ů ǁƐͿ
Ɖƌ ŽŐƌ Ăŵ ŵĞ Ɛ
ϭϬ ͘Đ  LJϮϬϯ Ϭ͕ƌĞĚ ƵĐĞ ƚŽů ĞƐ ƐƚŚ ĂŶϯƉĞ ƌĐĞŶ ƚƚ ŚĞ ƚ ƌĂŶ ƐĂĐƚŝ ŽŶĐŽ ƐƚƐŽĨ ŵ Ő ŝ ƌĂ Ŷƚƌ Ğŵŝ ƚƚĂŶ ĐĞƐĂŶĚ Ğ ůŝŵ ŝŶĂƚ Ğ ϭ Ϭ͘Đ͘ϭZĞŵŝ ƚƚĂ ŶĐĞ ĐŽƐƚƐ Ă ƐĂƉƌ ŽƉ Žƌƚ ŝŽŶ Ž ĨƚŚ ĞĂŵŽƵ Ŷƚƌ Ğŵ ŝ ƚƚ ĞĚ ϭ ϬϬĐ Ϭϭ
ϭ Ϭ͘Đ
ƌĞ ŵŝƚ ƚĂŶĐĞĐŽ ƌƌ ŝĚ ŽƌƐ ǁŝƚ ŚĐŽ Ɛƚ ƐŚŝŐŚ Ğƌ ƚŚĂ ŶϱƉĞƌ ĐĞŶ ƚ

' Ž Ăů  ϭ ϭ ͗  D ĂŬĞ Đŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ ĂŶ ĚŚ Ƶ ŵĂŶ  ϭ ϭ͘ϭ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƵƌď ĂŶƉŽƉ Ƶ ůĂƚŝ ŽŶ ů ŝǀŝ ŶŐŝ ŶƐůƵ ŵƐ͕ŝ ŶĨŽƌ ŵĂů  ϭ ϭϬϭ Ϭϭ ηŽĨƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞǁŚŽ Ś ĂǀĞ ď ĞĞŶ ů ŝ Ĩƚ ĞĚ ŝŶƚ Ž Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ŶĞǁƌ ĞƐŝ ĚĞ ŶƚŝĂ ůď Ƶ ŝůĚ ŝŶ ŐƐ
Ɛ Ğƚƚů Ğŵ Ğ ŶƚƐŽƌ ŝ ŶĂ ĚĞƋ ƵĂƚĞŚŽ ƵƐŝ ŶŐ ŝ ŵƉƌ ŽǀĞ Ě ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽ Ě Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶƚŚ ƌŽ Ƶ ŐŚ 
Ɛ ĞƚƚůĞŵ ĞŶ ƚƐ ŝ ŶĐ ůƵ Ɛŝ ǀĞ ͕ƐĂ ĨĞ ͕ ŝ ŶĨƌĂ ƐƚƌƵ ĐƚƵƌĞ Ɖ ƌŽ ũĞĐƚ͕ĂŶ Ěͬ ŽƌάŝŶǀ ĞƐƚ ĞĚ
^ Ƶ Ɛ ƚĂ ŝŶ Ă ď ůĞ  ƌ ĞƐŝ ůŝ ĞŶ ƚ ĂŶĚ Ɛ ƵƐ ƚĂŝ ŶĂď ůĞ ϭϭ ͘ϭ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ğ ŶƐƵƌĞ Ă ĐĐĞƐƐĨŽ ƌĂů ůƚ ŽĂĚ ĞƋ Ƶ Ăƚ Ğ͕ƐĂĨĞĂŶ Ě ĂĨĨŽƌ ĚĂ ďů ĞŚŽƵ ƐŝŶ ŐĂ ŶĚďĂ Ɛŝ ĐƐĞ ƌǀ ŝĐĞƐĂŶ Ě
ϭϭ͘ϭ
ƵƉ ŐƌĂ ĚĞƐůƵ ŵƐ
 ŝƚŝĞ Ɛ Θ 
 Ž ŵ ŵ Ƶ Ŷ ŝ ƚŝĞ Ɛ
ϭϭ ͘Ϯ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ɖ ƌŽ ǀŝ ĚĞĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚŽƐĂ ĨĞ ͕ĂĨĨŽ ƌĚĂď ůĞ ͕ĂĐ ĐĞ ƐƐ ŝď ůĞ ĂŶĚƐ ƵƐƚĂŝ ŶĂ ďůĞƚƌ ĂŶ ƐƉ Ž ƌƚ Ɛ LJƐ ƚĞ ŵƐĨŽ ƌĂů ů ͕ ϭ ϭ͘Ϯ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉŽ ƉƵů Ăƚŝ ŽŶƚŚ ĂƚŚ ĂƐĐŽŶǀ ĞŶŝ ĞŶ ƚĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽƉƵ ďů ŝĐ ϭ ϭϬϮ Ϭϭ ηŽĨƉĞŽ Ɖů ĞǁŚŽ Ś ĂǀĞ Ă ĐĐ ĞƐƐ;ǁŝƚ Śŝ Ŷϭ Ŭŵ ͿƚŽ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽ ƉƵ ďů ŝĐƚ ƌĂŶ ƐƉ Žƌƚ
ϭϭ͘Ϯ ŝ ŵƉ ƌŽ ǀŝ ŶŐƌ ŽĂĚ ƐĂĨĞƚ LJ͕ŶŽƚ Ăď ůLJ ď LJĞdžƉ ĂŶ Ě ŝŶŐƉƵ ďů ŝĐƚ ƌĂŶƐƉŽƌ ƚ͕ǁŝ ƚŚƐƉĞĐŝĂů Ă ƚƚ ĞŶƚ ŝŽ Ŷƚ ŽƚŚĞ Ŷ ĞĞ ĚƐŽĨ ƚŚŽ ƐĞ ƚƌĂ ŶƐƉŽƌ ƚ͕ďLJƐĞdž͕ĂŐ ĞĂŶĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽ Ŷ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚĚ ŝƐĂďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ ƉƵ ďů ŝĐƚƌĂŶƉ Žƌ ƚĞŶ Ăďů ĞĚ ď LJŝŶ Ĩƌ ĂƐƚƌ ƵĐƚ Ƶƌ Ğ ƐƵ ĐŚĂƐď Ƶ Ɛ; ǀŝ ĂŶĞǁƌ ŽĂĚ ƐͿ͕ƚ ƌĂ ŝŶ Ğ ƚĐ 
ŝ Ŷ Ɛ͕ǁŽŵĞ Ŷ͕ĐŚ ŝůĚ ƌĞ Ŷ͕Ɖ ĞƌƐŽŶ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚĚŝ Ɛ Ăďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ Ă ŶĚŽů ĚĞ ƌƉĞ ƌƐŽŶƐ
ŝ ŶǀƵůŶ ĞƌĂ ďů ĞƐŝƚƵ Ăƚ Ž Ɖƌ ŽũĞĐƚ
ϭϭ͘ϯ ϭϭ ͘ϯ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ğ ŶŚĂ ŶĐĞŝŶ Đů ƵƐŝǀ ĞĂŶĚ ƐƵƐ ƚĂ ŝŶ Ăď ůĞƵƌ ďĂ Ŷŝ njĂƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚĐĂ ƉĂĐŝƚLJĨŽƌ Ɖ Ăƌƚŝ Đŝ ƉĂ ƚŽ ƌLJ͕ŝŶ ƚĞ ŐƌĂƚĞ ĚĂŶ Ě ϭ ϭ͘ϯ͘ϭZ Ăƚ ŝŽ Ž ĨůĂŶĚ ĐŽ ŶƐƵŵƉ ƚŝ ŽŶƌĂƚ ĞƚŽ Ɖ ŽƉƵ ůĂ ƚŝ ŽŶŐƌŽǁƚŚƌ ĂƚĞ ϭ ϭϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϭ ϭ͘ϯ͘ϮWƌ ŽƉŽ ƌƚ ŝŽ ŶŽĨĐŝƚ ŝĞƐ ǁŝ ƚŚĂĚŝƌĞ Đƚ Ɖ Ăƌƚŝ Đŝ ƉĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛƚƌ ƵĐƚƵƌ ĞŽĨ Đŝ ǀŝ ů  ϭ ϭϬϯ ϬϮ zĞ Ɛͬ EŽͲƉ ƌŽũĞĐƚŚ ĂƐĨƵ ůůLJ ŵĞ ƚďĞ Ɛƚ Ɖ ƌĂ Đƚ ŝĐĞŝŶ  ^ ƚŽ ƌŝĞƐ Ž ĨƐƚĂŬĞŚ Žů ĚĞƌ Ğ ŶŐĂŐĞ ŵĞŶƚ ƚŚĂ ƚƐ Ɖ ĞĐŝĨŝ ĐĂů ů LJ
ƐŽĐŝĞ ƚLJ ŝ ŶƵ ƌďĂ ŶƉů ĂŶŶ ŝŶ ŐĂŶĚ ŵĂ ŶĂŐ ĞŵĞŶ ƚƚ ŚĂƚŽƉĞ ƌĂƚĞƌ ĞŐƵ Ă ů ƌů LJ ďƵ ŝů Ěŝ ŶŐƉĂƌ ŶĞƌ ƐŚ ŝƉ Ɛǁŝ ƚŚ Đ ŝǀŝ ůƐŽ Đŝ ĞƚLJŝŶ Ƶƌď ĂŶ ď ƵŝůĚ ƐƉĂ ƌŶĞ ƌƐŚŝ ƉƐ ǁ ŝ ƚ ŚĐŝ ǀŝ ů Ɛ ŽĐŝĞ ƚLJ ŝŶ Ƶƌ ďĂ Ŷ
ĂŶĚ ĚĞ ŵ ŽĐƌ Ăƚŝ ĐĂů ů LJ Ɖů ĂŶ Ŷŝ ŶŐΘ ŵ ĂŶ ĂŐĞ ŵĞŶƚ  ů ŶŶŝ ŶŐ Θ ŵĂ ŶĂŐĞŵ ĞŶ ƚ
ƉĂ
ϭ ϭ͘ϰ͘ϭdŽƚ ĂůĞdžƉ ĞŶ Ě ŝƚƵƌ Ğ;ƉƵď ůŝ ĐĂŶ ĚƉƌ ǀ ŝ ĂƚĞͿ Ɖ Ğƌ ĐĂƉŝ ƚ ĂƐƉ ĞŶƚ Ž ŶƚŚ Ğ ϭ ϭϬϰ Ϭϭ
Ɖ ƌĞ ƐĞƌ ǀĂƚŝ ŽŶ ͕Ɖƌ ŽƚĞĐƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ ĚĐŽ ŶƐĞ ƌǀ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶŽĨĂ ůůĐƵ ůƚ Ƶƌ ĂůĂ ŶĚŶĂ ƚƵ ƌĂ ů
Ś Ğƌŝƚ ĂŐ Ğ͕ď LJƚLJƉ ĞŽĨ ŚĞƌŝ ƚĂŐĞ;ĐƵ ůƚ ƵƌĂ ů͕ŶĂ ƚƵƌ Ăů ͕ŵŝ džĞĚĂŶ ĚtŽ ƌůĚ 
ϭϭ͘ϰ ϭϭ ͘ϰ ^ ƚƌ ĞŶŐ ƚŚ ĞŶĞĨĨ ŽƌƚƐƚ ŽƉƌ ŽƚĞĐƚĂŶĚ ƐĂĨĞŐƵ Ăƌ ĚƚŚ ĞǁŽƌ ůĚ ͛ƐĐƵů ƚƵ ƌĂ ůĂŶ ĚŶ ĂƚƵƌ ĂůŚĞƌ ŝ ƚĂ ŐĞ ,Ğƌŝ ƚ ĂŐĞ  ĞŶƚƌ ĞĚĞƐŝŐŶ Ăƚŝ ŽŶͿ͕ů ĞǀĞů ŽĨŐ ŽǀĞ ƌŶ ŵĞŶƚ ;ŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů͕ƌ ĞŐŝ ŽŶ Ăů 
ĂŶĚ ů ŽĐĂů ͬŵƵ Ŷ Đ ŝ ŝƉ Ăů Ϳ͕ƚLJ ƉĞŽ ĨĞdžƉĞŶ Ěŝ ƚƵƌĞ;Ž ƉĞ ƌĂ ƚŝ ŶŐ
ĞdžƉĞ ŶĚŝ ƚ ƵƌĞͬŝ Ŷǀ ĞƐƚŵ ĞŶ ƚͿ ĂŶĚ ƚ LJƉ ĞŽĨ Ɖ ƌŝ ǀĂƚĞ ĨƵŶ Ěŝ ŶŐ;ĚŽŶ Ăƚŝ ŽŶ Ɛŝ Ŷ
ŬŝŶ Ě͕Ɖ ƌŝ ǀĂ ƚĞ Ŷ ŽŶ ͲƉƌ ŽĨŝƚ ƐĞĐƚŽ ƌĂŶ ĚƐƉ ŽŶƐŽƌ ƐŚŝ ƉͿ
ϭϭ ͘ϱ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ɛ ŝ ŐŶŝ ĨŝĐĂŶƚ ůLJƌĞĚ ƵĐĞƚŚ ĞŶƵŵ ď ĞƌŽ ĨĚ ĞĂƚŚ ƐĂŶ ĚƚŚ ĞŶƵŵď ĞƌŽĨƉĞŽ Ɖ ůĞĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚĂŶ Ě ϭ ϭ͘ϱ͘ϭEƵŵ ďĞ ƌŽĨ Ě ĞĂ ƚŚ Ɛ͕ŵŝ ƐƐŝ ŶŐƉ ĞƌƐŽŶ ƐĂŶĚ Ɖ Ğƌ ƐŽŶ ƐĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ ď LJ Ϯ ϬϬϯ Ϭϯ
ƐƵ ďƐƚĂŶ ƚŝ Ăů ů LJĚĞ ĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚ ĞĚŝ ƌĞ Đƚ Ğ ĐŽŶ Žŵŝ Đů ŽƐƐĞƐ ƌ ĞůĂƚ ŝ ǀĞƚŽ Őů ŽďĂ ůŐ ƌŽƐƐĚŽ ŵĞƐƚŝ ĐƉƌ ŽĚƵ Đƚ ĐĂƵ ƐĞĚ ď LJ Ě Ɛŝ ĂƐƚĞ ƌƉ ĞƌϭϬϬ ͕Ϭ ϬϬƉ Ğ ŽƉů ĞĂ
ϭϭ͘ϱ
Ěŝ ƐĂ Ɛƚ ĞƌƐ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ ǁĂƚĞ ƌͲ ƌĞů ĂƚĞ ĚĚ ŝƐĂ Ɛƚ Ğƌ Ɛ͕ǁŝƚŚĂĨŽĐƵ ƐŽŶƉƌŽ ƚĞĐƚŝ ŶŐ ƚ ŚĞ Ɖ ŽŽƌ ĂŶ ĚƉ ĞŽ Ɖů Ğŝ ŶǀƵ Ŷ
ů ĞƌĂ ďů Ğ
Ɛŝ ƚ ƵĂƚŝ ŽŶƐ
ϭ ϭ͘ϱ͘Ϯ ŝƌĞĐ ƚĚŝ ƐĂ ƐƚĞƌ Ğ ĐŽ ŶŽŵ ŝĐůŽƐƐ ŝŶ ƌ ĞůĂƚ ŝ ŽŶƚŽŐů ŽďĂ ů'W ͕ ϭ ϭϬϱ ϬϮ
ŝŶĐ ůƵ Ěŝ ŶŐĚ ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌĚĂŵĂ ŐĞƚ ŽĐƌ ŝƚŝ ĐĂ ůŝ ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵ ƌĞ ĂŶĚ Ěŝ ƐƌƵƉ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž Ĩ
ď ĂƐŝĐ Ɛ Ğƌ ǀŝĐĞ ƐĂ
ϭ ϭ͘ϲ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƵƌď ĂŶƐŽů ŝ ĚǁĂƐƚĞ ƌĞŐ Ƶů ĂƌůLJ Đ Žů ůĞĐƚĞĚ Ă ŶĚǁŝƚŚ  ϭ ϭϬϲ Ϭϭ Wƌ ŽũĞĐƚŝ ŶǀĞ Ɛƚŵ ĞŶƚƚŽ ƚĂ ůŝ ŶƚŽƵƌď ĂŶǁĂƐƚĞ  Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ǁĞů ůŵĂŶ ĂŐ ĞĚǁĂƐƚĞ 
ϭϭ ͘ϲ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕ƌ ĞĚ ƵĐĞ ƚ ŚĞ Ă ĚǀĞ ƌƐĞƉĞ ƌĐĂ Ɖŝ ƚĂ Ğ Ŷǀŝ ƌ ŽŶŵ ĞŶ ƚĂ ůŝ ŵ ƉĂĐƚŽ ĨĐŝ ƚŝĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐ ď LJƉĂLJŝ ŶŐƐƉ ĞĐŝ Ăů
ϭϭ͘ϲ ĂĚĞƋ Ƶ Ăƚ ĞĨŝŶ ĂůĚ ŝƐĐŚ Ăƌ ŐĞŽƵ ƚŽĨ ƚŽƚ ĂůƵƌ ďĂŶ Ɛ Žů ŝĚ ǁĂƐƚ ĞŐĞ ŶĞƌ Ăƚ ĞĚ ͕ďLJ ŵĂŶ ĂŐĞŵ ĞŶƚ ů ŽĐ Ăƚ ŝŽ Ŷ
Ăƚ ƚĞ Ŷƚ ŝŽ ŶƚŽ Ă ŝƌ Ƌ ƵĂůŝ ƚLJĂŶĚ ŵƵ Ŷŝ Đŝ ƉĂů ĂŶ Ě ŽƚŚ Ğƌ ǁĂ Ɛƚ Ğŵ ĂŶ ĂŐĞ ŵĞŶƚ

dĂƌŐĞƚƐŵĂƌŐŝŶĂůƌĞůĞǀĂŶĐĞ
Đŝƚŝ ĞƐ
ϭ ϭ͘ϲ͘ϮŶ ŶƵ ĂůŵĞ ĂŶů ĞǀĞů ƐŽĨĨŝ ŶĞƉĂ ƌƚŝ ĐƵů Ăƚ Ğŵ Ăƚ ƚĞ ƌ;Ğ͘Ő͘W DϮ͘ϱĂŶĚ  ϭ ϭϬϲ ϬϮ

 
W DϭϬͿ ŝŶ Đŝƚ ŝ ĞƐ; ƉŽƉ Ƶů ĂƚŝŽ ŶǁĞŝ ŐŚ ƚĞĚ Ϳ
ϭϭ ͘ϳ  LJϮϬϯϬ͕Ɖ ƌŽ ǀŝ ĚĞƵŶ ǀŝ Ğƌ ƐĂůĂĐĐĞ ƐƐƚ ŽƐĂĨĞ ͕ŝ ŶĐů ƵƐŝǀĞĂŶ ĚĂĐ ĐĞƐƐŝ ďů Ğ͕Őƌ ĞĞŶ ĂŶĚ Ɖ Ƶďů ŝ ĐƐƉ ĂĐĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ ϭ ϭ͘ϳ͘ϭǀĞƌ ĂŐ ĞƐŚ ĂƌĞŽĨƚ ŚĞďƵ ŝů ƚͲƵ ƉĂƌ ĞĂŽĨĐŝ ƚŝĞƐƚŚĂ ƚŝ ƐŽƉ ĞŶƐƉ ĂĐĞ ϭ ϭϬϳ Ϭϭ
ϭϭ͘ϳ
ŝ Ƶů Ăƌ ĨŽƌ ǁŽ ŵĞŶ ĂŶ ĚĐŚ ŝůĚ ƌĞŶ ͕Žů ĚĞ ƌƉĞ ƌƐŽŶ Ɛ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ĞƌƐŽŶ ƐǁŝƚŚĚŝ ƐĂďŝ ůŝƚ ŝ ĞƐ
ƉĂ ƌƚ Đ ĨŽƌ Ɖ Ƶďů ŝ ĐƵƐĞĨŽ ƌĂů ů ͕ďLJƐĞdž͕Ă ŐĞĂŶ ĚƉĞƌ ƐŽ ŶƐǁŝƚ ŚĚŝ ƐĂď ŝůŝ ƚŝ ĞƐ
ϭ ϭ͘ϳ͘ϮWƌ ŽƉŽ ƌƚ ŝŽ ŶŽĨƉ ĞƌƐŽŶ Ɛǀŝ Đƚ ŝ ŵŽ ĨƉŚ LJƐŝ ĐĂů Ž ƌƐĞ džƵ Ăů Ś ĂƌĂƐƐŵ ĞŶƚ͕ ϭ ϭϬϳ ϬϮ
ď LJƐĞ dž͕Ă ŐĞ͕Ěŝ ƐĂ ďŝ ůŝƚ LJƐƚ ĂƚƵ Ɛ Ă ŶĚƉů ĂĐĞŽĨŽĐĐƵƌ ƌĞ ŶĐĞ ͕ŝ ŶƚŚ ĞƉƌĞǀŝ ŽƵ Ɛ
ϭ Ϯŵ ŽŶƚŚ Ɛ
ϭ ϭ͘Ă͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨƉ Ž ƉƵů Ăƚ ŝ ŽŶů ǀ
ŝ ŝŶ Őŝ ŶĐŝ ƚŝ ĞƐƚŚĂ ƚŝ ŵƉů ĞŵĞŶ ƚƵƌ ďĂŶ  ϭ ϭϬĂ Ϭϭ
ϭϭ ͘Ă ^Ƶ ƉƉ ŽƌƚƉŽƐŝ ƚŝ ǀĞ Ğ ĐŽŶ Žŵ ŝĐ͕ƐŽĐŝĂ ůĂ ŶĚĞŶ ǀŝ ƌŽ ŶŵĞŶ ƚĂů ů ŝŶ ŬƐďĞ ƚǁĞ ĞŶƵ ƌďĂ Ŷ͕Ɖ Ğƌ ŝͲƵƌ ďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ƌ ƵƌĂ ůĂ ƌĞĂƐ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϭ ϭĂ
ďLJ Ɛƚƌ ĞŶ ŐƚŚ ĞŶŝŶ ŐŶĂƚ ŝŽŶ ĂůĂŶ ĚƌĞ Őŝ ŽŶĂ ůĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶƚ ƉůĂŶŶ ŝŶ Ő
ĂŶĚ ƌ ĞŐŝŽ Ŷ Ăů Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ŵĞŶ ƚƉů ĂŶ Ɛŝ ŶƚĞŐƌ Ăƚ ŝŶ ŐƉ ŽƉ Ƶů ĂƚŝŽ ŶƉƌ ŽũĞĐƚ ŝŽ ŶƐ 
ĂŶĚ ƌ ĞƐŽ Ƶƌ ĐĞŶĞ ĞĚƐ͕ď LJƐŝ njĞ Ž ĨĐŝƚ LJ
ϭϭ ͘ď  LJϮϬϮ Ϭ͕Ɛ Ƶ ďƐƚĂŶƚ ŝĂů ůLJ ŝ ŶĐ ƌĞ ĂƐ ĞƚŚ ĞŶƵŵ ďĞ ƌŽĨ Đŝ ƚŝ ĞƐĂŶ Ě Ś ƵŵĂŶ Ɛ Ğƚƚů ĞŵĞ ŶƚƐĂĚŽ Ɖƚ ŝŶ ŐĂŶĚ  ϭ ϭ͘ď ͘ϭW ƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝŽ Ŷ Ž Ĩů ŽĐĂ ůŐ ŽǀĞ ƌŶ ŵĞ ŶƚƐƚŚ ĂƚĂ ĚŽƉ ƚĂŶ Ě ŝŵƉ Ğ ů ŵ ĞŶ ƚ Ϯ ϬϬϯ Ϭϰ Wƌ ŽũĞĐƚŝ ŶǀĞ Ɛƚŵ ĞŶƚƚŽ ƚĂ ůŝ ŶƚŽĚŝ ƐĂƐƚĞ ƌƌŝ ƐŬ Ğ Ő^ƚ Žƌ LJ;Ɖ ŚŽƚ Žͬ ǀŝ ĚĞŽ ͿŽĨ ŶĞǁĨůŽ Ž ĚƉ ƌŽƚ ĞĐƚŝ ŽŶ
ůŽĐ ĂůĚŝ ƐĂƐƚĞƌƌ ŝƐŬƌĞ ĚƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐ ŝĞ Ɛŝ Ŷůŝ ŶĞ ǁŝƚ ŚƚŚ Ğ^Ğ Ŷ ĚĂŝ ƌ ĞĚƵ Đƚ ŝŽ ŶƐƚƌĂ ƚĞ Őŝ ĞƐ ď Ăƌ ƌŝ Ğƌ Ɛ
ŝ ŵƉ ůĞŵĞŶ ƚŝ ŶŐŝ Ŷƚ ĞŐƌĂƚ ĞĚ Ɖ Žů Đ ŝ ŝĞƐĂŶ ĚƉů ĂŶƐ ƚŽ ǁĂƌĚ Ɛŝ ŶĐůƵ ƐŝŽ Ŷ͕ƌĞ ƐŽƵ ƌĐĞĞĨĨŝ Đŝ ĞŶ ĐLJ ͕ŵ ŝƚŝ ŐĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ ĂŶ Ě
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϭ ϭď
ĂĚ ĂƉƚ Ăƚ ŝŽ ŶƚŽ Đ ůŝŵ ĂƚĞĐŚĂŶ ŐĞ͕ƌĞ Ɛŝ ůŝĞ ŶĐĞ ƚ ŽĚŝ ƐĂ ƐƚĞƌ Ɛ͕ĂŶĚ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ ƉĂŶĚ ŝŵ Ɖů ĞŵĞ Ŷƚ͕ŝ ŶůŝŶ ĞǁŝƚŚƚŚ Ğ^ĞŶ ĚĂŝ  &ƌĂ ŵĞǁŽ ƌŬĨŽƌŝ ƐĂƐƚ ĞƌZŝ ƐŬZĞ ĚƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ Ϯ Ϭϭϱ ͲϮ ϬϯϬ Ă
&ƌ Ăŵ ĞǁŽƌŬ ĨŽƌ ŝ ƐĂƐƚĞƌZŝ ƐŬZ ĞĚ ƵĐƚ ŝ ŽŶϮϬ ϭϱͲ ϮϬ ϯϬ͕Ś Žů ŝƐƚ ŝĐĚŝ ƐĂƐƚĞƌƌŝƐŬŵĂŶ ĂŐĞ ŵĞŶƚ ĂƚĂ ůůůĞ ǀĞ ůƐ
ϭ ϭ͘ď ͘ϮE Ƶŵ ďĞƌŽĨ Đ ŽƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐǁŝƚŚ Ŷ ĂƚŝŽ ŶĂů ĂŶ Ě ůŽ ĐĂůĚŝ ƐĂ Ɛƚ Ğƌ ƌ ŝƐŬ Ϯ ϬϬϯ Ϭϱ
ƌĞĚ ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶƐƚ ƌĂƚĞ ŐŝĞƐĂ
ϭ ϭ͘Đ͘ϭWƌŽ ƉŽƌ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ž ĨĨŝŶ ĂŶĐŝ Ăů ƐƵƉƉ Žƌ ƚƚŽ ƚŚ Ğů ĞĂ ƐƚĚĞǀ ĞůŽ ƉĞ Ě ϭ ϭϬĐ Ϭϭ
ϭϭ ͘Đ ^ ƵƉƉ Žƌ ƚůĞĂƐƚĚ ĞǀĞů ŽƉ ĞĚĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞ Ɛ͕ŝŶ ĐůƵĚ ŝŶŐ ƚ ŚƌŽ ƵŐŚĨŝŶ ĂŶĐ ŝĂůĂŶ ĚƚĞ ĐŚ Ŷ ŝĐĂůĂƐƐŝ Ɛƚ ĂŶ ĐĞ͕ŝŶ ď Ƶŝ ůĚ ŝŶ Ő ĐŽƵŶ ƚƌ ŝĞƐƚ ŚĂƚŝƐ Ăů ůŽ ĐĂƚ ĞĚ ƚŽƚŚ ĞĐŽ ŶƐƚ ƌƵ Đƚ ŝŽ ŶĂŶ ĚƌĞƚƌ ŽĨŝ ƚƚŝ ŶŐŽ Ĩ
ŵ Ğ ĂŶƐ ŽĨ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ůĞ ŵ ĞŶ ƚŝŶ Ő ƚŚĞ ƚĂ ƌŐĞ ƚƐ ϭ ϭĐ
ƐƵ ƐƚĂŝ ŶĂď ůĞĂŶĚ ƌ ĞƐŝů ŝ ĞŶƚ ď Ƶŝ ůĚŝ ŶŐƐ Ƶƚŝů ŝ njŝ ŶŐůŽĐ ĂůŵĂ ƚĞ ƌŝ Ăů Ɛ ƐƵƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďů Ğ͕ƌĞ Ɛŝ ůŝ ĞŶ ƚĂŶ ĚƌĞ ƐŽ Ƶ ƌĐ ĞͲĞĨĨŝĐŝ ĞŶ ƚďƵ ŝů Ěŝ ŶŐ ƐƵ ƚŝ ůŝ njŝŶ ŐůŽ ĐĂů 
ŵĂ ƚĞ ƌŝ Ăů Ɛ

ƚŽŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ^Z
' Ž Ăů  ϭ Ϯ ͗  Ŷ Ɛ ƵƌĞ ƐƵ Ɛ ƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďů ĞĐ Ž ŶƐƵ ŵ ƉƚŝŽ Ŷ  ϭ Ϯ͘ϭ͘ϭE Ƶŵď ĞƌŽĨĐ ŽƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐǁŝ ƚŚ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶ Ăďů ĞĐŽŶƐƵŵ Ɖƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ Ě ϭ ϮϬϭ Ϭϭ
Ɖ ƌŽ Ě ƵĐƚŝ ŽŶ;^W ͿŶĂ ƚŝ ŽŶ Ăů Ă Đƚŝ ŽŶ Ɖů ĂŶ ƐŽƌ ^WŵĂŝ ŶƐƚƌ ĞĂ ŵĞĚĂƐĂ
ĂŶ Ě Ɖƌ Ž ĚƵ ĐƚŝŽ Ŷ Ɖ Ăƚƚ ĞƌŶ Ɛ
Z Ğ Ɛ Ɖ ŽŶ Ɛ ŝď ů Ğ /ŵƉ ůĞŵ ĞŶƚƚŚ ĞϭϬͲ LJĞ Ăƌ ĨƌĂŵ ĞǁŽ ƌŬŽ ĨƉƌ ŽŐƌ ĂŵŵĞ ƐŽŶƐƵƐƚ Ăŝ ŶĂď ůĞĐŽ Ŷ ƐƵ ŵƉƚŝ ŽŶ ĂŶĚ Ɖ ƌŽĚ Ƶ Đƚ ŝŽŶ ͕Ăů ů Ɖ ƌŝ Žƌ ŝƚ LJŽƌ ĂƚĂƌŐ Ğƚŝ Ŷƚ ŽŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůƉ Ž ůŝĐ Ğ
ŝ Ɛ
ϭϮ͘ϭ ĐŽ ƵŶƚ ƌŝ ĞƐ ƚĂŬŝ ŶŐĂĐƚŝ ŽŶ ͕ǁŝ ƚŚ Ě ĞǀĞů ŽƉĞ ĚĐŽƵ Ŷ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ ƚĂŬŝŶ ŐƚŚ ĞůĞ ĂĚ͕ƚĂ Ŭŝ ŶŐ ŝ ŶƚŽ ĂĐĐŽƵ Ŷƚ ƚ ŚĞ Ě ĞǀĞ ůŽ Ɖŵ ĞŶƚ
 Ž Ŷ Ɛ Ƶŵ ƚ ŝŽ Ŷ  Θ  ĂŶ ĚĐĂƉ Ăďŝ ů ŝƚŝ ĞƐ Ž ĨĚĞ ǀĞů ŽƉ Ŷ
ŝ ŐĐŽ ƵŶ ƚƌŝ ĞƐ

W ƌŽ Ě Ƶ Đ ƚ ŝŽ Ŷ
ϭ Ϯ͘Ϯ͘ϭD ĂƚĞ ƌŝĂů ĨŽ ŽƚƉ ƌŝ Ŷƚ͕ŵĂ ƚĞƌŝ Ăů ĨŽŽ ƚƉ ƌŝ ŶƚƉ Ğƌ ĐĂƉŝ ƚĂ͕ĂŶ Ěŵ ĂƚĞƌ ŝ Ăů  Ϯ ϬϬϮ ϬϮ ǀŝ ĚĞŶ ĐĞŽĨ ď ĞƐƚƉƌ ĂĐƚŝĐĞ ƐƵƐ ƚĂ ŝŶ Ăďŝ ůŝƚ LJ
ϭϮ͘Ϯ  LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ĂĐ Śŝ Ğǀ ĞƚŚ ĞƐƵƐƚĂ ŝŶ Ăď ůĞ ŵĂ ŶĂŐ Ğŵ ĞŶ ƚĂŶ ĚĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶ ƚƵƐĞŽĨŶ Ăƚ ƵƌĂů ƌĞƐŽ ƵƌĐĞ Ɛ ĨŽŽ ƚƉƌ ŝŶ ƚƉ Ğƌ' W ŵĂŶ ĂŐĞŵ ĞŶƚŝŶ Ɖ ůĂĐĞ Ͳ ƚĂ ƌŐĞƚƐĚĞĨŝ ŶĞĚďLJ 
Ɖƌ ŽũĞĐƚ
ϭ Ϯ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ ŽŵĞƐƚŝ ĐŵĂƚĞƌ ŝ Ăů ĐŽŶ ƐƵŵƉ ƚŝ ŽŶ͕ĚŽŵĞ Ɛƚ ŝĐŵĂƚĞƌŝ Ăů Ϯ ϬϬϮ Ϭϯ
ĐŽŶƐƵŵ Ɖƚŝ ŽŶƉĞ ƌĐĂ Ɖŝ ƚĂ ͕ĂŶ ĚĚŽŵĞ Ɛƚ ŝĐŵĂƚĞƌŝ ĂůĐŽ ŶƐƵ ŵƉƚ Ž ŝ ŶƉ Ğƌ
'W
 LJϮ ϬϯϬ ͕ŚĂůǀ ĞƉ ĞƌĐĂ Ɖŝ ƚĂŐ ůŽ ďĂůĨŽ ŽĚǁĂƐƚĞ ĂƚƚŚĞƌ ĞƚĂŝ ůĂŶ ĚĐŽ Ŷ ƐƵ ŵĞƌůĞǀ ĞůƐĂŶ ĚƌĞĚ ƵĐĞĨŽ Ž Ěů ŽƐƐ ĞƐ Ă ůŽ ŶŐ ϭ Ϯ͘ϯ͘ϭ' ůŽ ďĂů ĨŽ ŽĚů ŽƐƐ ŝŶ ĚĞdž ϭ ϮϬϯ Ϭϭ
ϭϮ͘ϯ
Ɖƌ ŽĚƵ ĐƚŝŽ Ŷ ĂŶĚ Ɛ ƵƉ Ɖů LJĐŚĂ ŝŶ Ɛ͕ŝŶ Đů ƵĚŝ ŶŐƉŽƐƚͲ ŚĂƌǀĞ ƐƚůŽ ƐƐĞƐ
ϭ Ϯ͘ϰ͘ϭEƵŵ ďĞ ƌŽĨ Ɖ Ăƌ ƚŝĞ ƐƚŽ ŝ ŶƚĞƌ ŶĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ůŵƵů ƚ ŝů Ăƚ Ğƌ Ăů ĞŶ ǀŝƌ ŽŶ ŵĞŶƚ Ăů ϭ ϮϬϰ Ϭϭ Wƌ ŽũĞĐƚĚĞ Ĩŝ ŶĞ ĚƚĂ ƌŐĞƚƐŽŶďĞ ƐƚƉ ƌĂ ĐƚŝĐ Ğ
 LJϮ ϬϮϬ ĂĐ Śŝ Ğǀ ĞƚŚ ĞĞŶǀ ŝƌ ŽŶ ŵĞ ŶƚĂů ůLJƐŽƵ ŶĚ ŵ ĂŶ ĂŐĞ ŵĞŶƚ Ž ĨĐŚĞŵŝ ĐĂů ƐĂŶĚ Ăů ůǁĂƐƚĞ ƐƚŚƌŽ ƵŐŚ ŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƌ ůŝ Ĩ Ğ
               
ϭϮ͘ϰ

Figure 3. Analysis of the SDG Targets and Indicators’ measurability.

Additional critical success factor for measuring projects’ SDG impacts (#6): selection of (a
limited) set of specific infrastructure indicators (not SDG indicators) relevant for infrastructure projects.

1.5. Project Success

Before sharing the new process model, it is important to reflect on the different ways of defining
project success, particularly since its relevance is linked to two of the original critical success factors:
critical success factor #1 (strategic success definition) and critical success factor #3 (aligned business
priorities). While project success is a heavily researched field of study within the field of project

86
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

management (see for example the work of [52,53] the quantitative analysis of success criteria, and their
alignment to outputs or outcomes, is less evident. For example, Thiry [52] highlights that “too many
critical success factors are related to inputs and management processes and not enough on outcomes”.
This is further supported by those [48,49] who identify two primary levels of success criteria: project
management success (was the project done right?) and, secondly, project success (was the right
project done?). To explain the difference, it is helpful to go back to basics—that projects are temporary
organisations that have a well-recognised development process, referred to as the project life cycle [48].
To achieve its “ends” (post project), the project management team harnesses the “ways” of tools
and techniques, and employs practices, processes and procedures by ”means” of a group of skilled
individuals. Together the ends, ways and means form a distinct body of knowledge, such as the APM’s
and PMI’s body of knowledge. There is, however, a fundamental problem that, as a discipline, project
management too often defines success by the best use of these practices instead of what its impact is on
producing outcomes of real value [48]. This is important to resolve because of the huge investment
across all projects to effect successful change, especially when related to strategic SDG impacts. The two
fundamental parts of defining project success are shown in Figure 4. The first question is focused on
the delivery phases and is tactical in nature, while the second seeks to define the longer-term outcomes
and impacts, which are more strategic in orientation.

Tactical Impact-Value Chain Return on Investment Strategic

Question 1 – Delivery Phase Question 2 – Post-Delivery

‘Doing projects right’ ‘Doing the right projects’
1) In project delivery, how does the design and 2) What does the completed project do for the
construction of the project impact on the economic, community eg waste water treatment plant
societal and environmental status quo eg what is improves sanitation, thereby improving health &
the impact on air and water quality during hygiene?
construction?

Project Delivery Project Outcome Project Impact

Process Project Output Delivers an SDG
Success Success 1 2 Impact
• Governance of sustainability • Time (schedule) / Cost (budget) / • Investor outcomes; user
issues – accountabilities and • Impact across SDGs
Project Scope – Specification / community outcomes • Performance measured against
responsibilities Requirement & Quality • Effectiveness & Resilience selected SDGs eg to ascertain
• Risk & opportunity • Acceptance / User Satisfaction • Delivering the infrastructure Social Value (actual RoI) of
management • Were inputs used sustainably & were system balancing economic, investment – learn lessons
• Change control – adapt activities delivered in efficient & environmental and social benefits • Eg social equality; reduced #s
sustainably to changes effective way (economic, • Eg wealth creation or increased in poverty; improved hygiene
• Quality management environmental and social success)? future job creation for vulnerable groups etc
• Stakeholder alignment to • Were sustainability output targets
align expectations met?

Figure 4. Framework for sustainability and project success reporting. The two core sustainable
development questions at project level.

1.6. Infrastructure SDG Impact-Value Chain (IVC) Process Model

Having defined the different ways of classifying project success, a new SDG business model
was developed for the infrastructure sector [21]. It provides the “lens”, called the SDG infrastructure
impact-value chain (IVC), to analyse whether there is evidence of a “golden thread” between best practice
sustainability reporting frameworks at project and organisational levels and those at strategic-level
SDG impacts.
The IVC model (see Figure 5) is based on four underpinning theoretical models including: (1) the
Theory of Change [54,55], (2) creating shared value [56,57], (3) infrastructure systems approach [58–61]
and (4) the triple bottom line [4–6]. The last of these, the TBL, provided the link to SDGs through a

87
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

more holistic “systems approach” to address infrastructure sustainability in the SDG context. The IVC
provides a new holistic method to potentially improve sustainability on projects and programmes
by guiding decision makers in their investment choices through confidence that they link to specific
SDG targets.

Figure 5. The infrastructure SDG transformation process model—the impact-value chain (IVC).
Adapted from ICAS/IIRC’s “The Sustainable Development Goals, integrated thinking and the integrated
report” [62].

In practice, the golden thread (the TBL thematics of economic, social and environmental), shown
in Figure 5, can be used to map the TBL against the five stages of the IVC as shown in Table 2 (with
columns a–e also represented in Figure 5). The examples provided indicate that there are clear “Theory
of Change” [54,55] patterns that build through the iterative stages and this can be linked directly to
project- and organisational-level understanding of sustainability reporting.

Table 2. IVC table illustrating golden thread mapping of the TBL with the five stages of the IVC.

(a) Input (b) Activity (c) Output (d) Outcome (e) Impact
Project completion to Economic growth
Job creation; income;
Finance/investment, time/cost/scope— enabled by
wages; source, move
insurance, risk bridge, building, completed assets as a
and assemble
contingency road, etc.; income; system, more
materials; build
allocations, WLC profit; taxes from resilience, wealth SDGs 8, 9, 10
Economy iteratively through
analysis, stable in-project business creation, ownership, and 12.
defined activities, such
government and and net present increased future
as early earthworks,
noncorrupt financial value provides investment and
and local and wider
context. strong RoI against additional job
supply chain activity
whole life costs. creation.
Infrastructure
Collaborative Asset’s social utility,
People, social enabled change
innovation, health and meeting
networks, cultural across health,
wellbeing, stakeholder stakeholders’
and technical education, etc., e.g.,
engagement, skills and objectives, individual SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4,
Social knowledge, and reduced mortality;
learning, working and group learning, 5, 7 and 11.
listening and gender equality;
conditions, production and reinforced
working with social equity; justice
activity and user community
stakeholders. and post-project
engagement. stakeholder groups.
knowledge sharing.

88
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

Table 2. Cont.

(a) Input (b) Activity (c) Output (d) Outcome (e) Impact
Managed effects on
GHG emissions; Restored/improved
Raw materials, land completion of asset;
pollution; noise and air biodiversity and
take, water, light, replanted trees, etc.;
quality and works’ natural balance, e.g.,
clean air, energy, improved local area;
effects pre and during increased long-term SDGs 6, 13, 14
Environment planned land use no net loss on eco
production, e.g., waste positive effect on and 15.
and ecology system footprint and
management, nitrogen, environment
ecosystem valuation short-term
carbon dioxide and through improved
assessment. environmental
acidification levels. sustainability.
targets met.

The data in Table 2 provide the conceptual basis for proposing that there is a golden thread that
links tactical success during delivery to the strategic success embodied in the post-project outcomes
and SDG strategic impacts.
The next section uses a case study of a UK water utility company, Anglian Water, to demonstrate
how the IVC process model can integrate the “triple bottom line” [4–6] to ensure balanced definition of
success across economic, environmental and social thematics. The emphasis is switched from “doing
projects right” to “doing the right projects”; both are important, but the latter is critical. This is an
explicit part of the IVC model, ensuring that short-term project success measures are balanced with
post-project longer term outcomes and SDG strategic impact, which many [48,49] have suggested are
improved definitions of project success.

2. Methods
The preceding literature review provided insights into the specific research problem of
infrastructure project SDG measurement. The review included several themes (infrastructure,
sustainability and sustainable infrastructure) as well as reviewing pre-2015 (when the SDGs were
agreed at the UN) sustainability measurement methodologies and tools. The learning derived from the
literature review illustrated the knowledge gap that exists when using previous sustainability tools,
which were not designed for the SDGs, indicating that their use on SDG measurement is uncertain.
The case study enables an opportunity to assess an approach by a leading UK water utility company to
close the gap. This approach is consistent with what May [63] identified as the fact “that literature
should support the researcher in designing and planning the frameworks for the research”. In this
way, the literature review enabled the choice of the methodology.

2.1. Using the Realist Evaluation Methodology to Structure the Research

The research study adopts the critical realism perspective of ideological philosophers, such as
Bhaskar [64], to inform the choice of the realist evaluation approach, primarily because of its practical
utility and its widespread use in social science research into the impacts of programmes [65]. It also
provides a way to develop theory-led investigations, which is what this research seeks to do on
SDG measurement. The adoption of the realist evaluation’s context-mechanism-outcome (C-M-O)
configuration [66,67] is widely used across clinical research and increasingly across social sciences [65].
Indeed, Pawson and Tilley specifically recommend the C-M-O strategy so that “programme theories
can be tested for the purposes of refining them” [66] (p. 12). In this regard, the investigation is
not about what works but asks instead “what works for whom in what circumstances and in what
respects, how?” [66] (p. 2). Therefore, this research approach provides a strong framework for
analysing engineers’ perceptions of the context of SDG measurement as well as the potential outcome
on redefining investment decisions to achieve broader SDG impacts. For the purposes of this study,
the definitions of C-M-O are:

• Context: the conditions in a context of action encompass “material resources and social
structures, including the conventions, rules and systems of meaning in terms of which reasons are
formulated” [68].

89
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

• Mechanism: the underlying entities, processes or structures that operate in particular contexts to
generate outcomes of interest [69].
• Outcome: the practical effects produced by causal mechanisms being triggered in a given
context [70].

2.2. Using a Case Study to Test the Transformation Process Model

The research team’s method was based on using a case study investigation to test and validate
the application of SDG measurement on infrastructure projects. The starting point, as shown in
Figure 6, was to establish the parameters of the research, briefly outlining the SDGs and the challenge
of measuring goals, targets and indicators at project level. This led to the proposed infrastructure
SDG transformation process model, called the “Infrastructure SDG Impact-Value Chain” (IVC) [21],
that links tactical-level project delivery with global-level strategic SDG impacts. In the process of this
analysis, it identifies six areas linked to the “context-mechanism-outcome” (C-M-O) framework that are
evolved from the four critical success factors (CSF) in the survey [3], each with its own underpinning
question. These CSF questions are then tested against the case study of Anglian Water, a water utilities
company that has developed a new business model approach and started the process of embedding
SDG reporting at both organisational and project levels. Finally, the results from the case study enable
an adaption of traditional business models that have typically focused too much on short-term financial
business cases for their investment decisions. It shows that, by using the IVC, the new business model
approach could be used at the project design phase to align stakeholders on why/when/how/what SDG
targets to measure.

1. Establish the research parameters by analysis of:

SDG measurement; and, definition of project success.

2. Outline the recent

recen development of a new business model, based on
theories fo
leading theories, fforr m
measuring SDG targets: the ‘Impact Value Chain’ (IVC).

3. From formulation off the

th IVC model, 4. Use the CSF to assess whether the case
identify Critical Success Factors (CSF) study (Anglian Water) supports the potential
that can be tested in a case study. use of the IVC model on infrastructure projects.

5. Based on the results, define a new business model approach, using the IVC, that could be used
at the project design phase to align stakeholders on why/when/how/what SDG targets to measure.

Figure 6. Research methodology employed.

As shown in steps three and four, the case study analytical approach was structured to investigate
the four CSFs that were identified from the survey [3] and the two additional CSFs that have been
identified from the development of the IVC model [21], as shown in the composite CSF table below
(Table 3).

90
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

Table 3. Critical success factors (CSF) for embedding SDG target measurement at project level.

C-M-O Critical Success Factors for SDG

Category Derivation
Measurement
Context—strong leadership. What is the role From engineers’ survey
1 of leadership to champion the SDG impacts [3]. Identified as #4
across the TBL? critical success factor.
CSF enablers (context Outcome—clarity of IVC project success
and outcome) definition. Do businesses have a clear
From engineers’ survey
understanding of the need to separate the
2 [3]. Identified as #1
definition of success between “in-project”
critical success factor.
inputs/activities/outputs and “post-project”
outcomes and impact?
Mechanism—step 1—prioritising SDG goals
aligned to strategic vision. Do businesses
have a clearly defined strategy that can guide
From engineers’ survey
the prioritisation of SDG goals? The “Ends,
3 [3]. Identified as #1 and
Ways, Means” model requires clarity of the
#3 critical success factors.
“ends” prior to defining project success
(in-project and post-project). See column e in
Table 2.
Mechanism—step 2—select targets relevant
to the project. Which SDG goals and which From SDG analysis [45]
relevant targets are selected at project level to and identified in this
CSF for selection and 4
measure impact? Prioritisation of (a limited) paper as #5 and #6
reporting SDGs number of SDG targets relevant to the critical success factors.
(mechanism) infrastructure project.
Mechanism—step 3—aligned business
priorities/integrate the targets across the TBL. From engineers’ survey
5 How are the project success criteria balanced [3]. Identified as #3
across the triple bottom line and what critical success factor.
trade-offs are made?
Mechanism—step 4—reporting and
communication. Are the tools available for From engineers’ survey
6 holistic measurement of success? What is the [3]. Identified as #2
best way to share data on SDG progress, critical success factor.
internally and externally?

2.3. Central Investigation Using the C-M-O Approach

The central investigation was to test the new IVC business model against current practice using
the example of one of the UK’s largest water utility companies, Anglian Water. It is amongst the UK’s
leading sustainability and sustainable development reporting pioneers (with early use of SDG targets)
and was the winner of Business in the Community’s (BITC) Responsible Business of the Year Award in
2017. This recognised Anglian Water’s ambitions, laid out in its “Love Every Drop” (of water) vision,
which aimed to create a resilient environment that allowed sustainable growth and the ability to cope
with the pressures of climate change.
The data for the case study were accessed by interviewing (1.5 h) a senior board-level member
of the Anglian Water executive who, at the time, was the Director for Asset Management (DirAM).
A second interview was held with the head of Anglian Water’s sustainability management, as a
further source of data and information. The DirAM was also the chair of the UK government’s Green
Construction Board’s [71] Infrastructure Working Group and has been a major sponsor and champion
of the sustainable development programme across Anglian Water, as well as the infrastructure sector
more generally, for the past 10 years. The DirAM provided publicly available documents (i.e., as a
form of secondary research) to support the in-depth insights into the company’s pioneering work in
sustainable development. This research was triangulated by further review and evaluation of the

91
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

company’s website and related documents, as well as social media, on the company’s approach to
sustainable development in order to verify the data’s validity. Formal agreement for the review and
the publication of the findings was agreed by the company in writing by DirAM and Anglian Water’s
Director of Brand and Communications.

3. Results and Findings

3.1. Case Study Investigation: Anglian Water—Organisational Focus on Sustainable Development

The Anglian Water approach to sustainability and the SDGs is explained in their Annual Integrated
Report [72]. The report includes a description of their impact-value objectives (performance against
outcomes) assessment, which correlates with the triple bottom line of the economic, social and
environmental thematics. In summary, Anglian Water (AW) describe their TBL priorities as follows
(Table 4).

Table 4. Anglian Water’s performance against outcomes.

Anglian Water Outcomes Objectives

1. Smart business. Innovating by exploring new ways i. Resilient business.
to operate more sustainably and helping customers, ii. Investing for tomorrow.
business partners and employees to embrace our iii. Fair charges, fair returns.
Love Every Drop strategy. iv. Our people: healthier, happier, safer.
2. Smart communities. Collaborating and engaging
i. Positive impact on communities.
with customers, colleagues and business partners,
ii. Safe, clean water.
and inspiring them to take positive steps towards
iii. Delighted customers.
achieving our vision for a sustainable future.
3. Smart environment. Transforming behaviours by
i. A smaller footprint.
playing a leading role in reshaping how society
ii. Flourishing environment.
values and uses water and reducing our combined
iii. Supply meets demand.
impact on the world around us.

These are shown below in the images from the Annual Report [72] (pp. 25, 29) (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Anglian Water alignment of purpose-outcomes and SDGs [72].

The following analysis of the case study is structured according to each of the CSF titles. The data
are shown in the form of key quotes from the Director for Asset Management (DirAM) for the company,
supported by data gathered from open source documents.

92
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

3.2. Context—CSF1: Strong Leadership. What Is the Role of Leadership to Champion the SDG Impacts across
the TBL?
Consistent with the survey results [3], Anglian Water place a high priority on leadership to
galvanise commitment to their corporate-level sustainability objectives. They achieve this through
consistent and strong communications, both graphically, such as through their “Purpose Wheel”
(Figure 8), and by the high-profile championing of their sustainable development approach by their
board and executive.

Figure 8. Anglian Water purpose wheel [72] aligned to the triple bottom line.

DirAM, a Director and Executive Board member at Anglian Water, observed (note: in future,
all quotes from the interview are labelled as “DirAM” followed by the quotation): “Leadership is
the most important critical success factor, both internally and externally, to align and galvanise our
employees, our communities and the supply chain. It was about getting us all to be more collaborative
in finding novel, innovative ways of delivering sustainable solutions . . . It is about the leaders capturing
the hearts and minds of the stakeholders to champion changed behaviours to achieve big, bold strategic
outcomes.”
In his view, it played an important part in Anglian Water becoming a sustainable development
leader across the sector. DirAM: “there are a number of reasons why we won Business in the
Community’s (BITC) Responsible Business of the Year Award in 2017—but a key part was that our
CEO brought a very specific challenge back to the business having been inspired by a ‘Seeing is
Believing’ visit, organised by BITC, to an area near the Olympic Park in London. The visit looked at
how businesses were able to create opportunities and skills for those living in areas of high deprivation
and low social mobility. The CEO’s response was: ‘how can we do something on a similar scale,
in the region we serve, to make a real difference?’. This led to our hugely successful programme in

93
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

Wisbech and helped us develop an approach that we have subsequently used on project work in Nepal
alongside Water Aid.”
(Note: The Wisbech project, discussed further in Section 3.8, was a forerunner of the Lahan project
in Nepal. Lahan was the first WaterAid project with significant engagement from the utilities’ supply
chain and became a beacon to demonstrate how such projects can be driven across Nepal and beyond.)
The quote also reinforces Porter’s theory of creating shared value [56,57] because, in this example,
there are tangible benefits for the business to be seen to be actively “putting back” into society.
He also notes the moral values that are implicit in the choice of making sustainable development
a core business priority for Anglian Water. DirAM: “a vital part of leadership is doing the right thing,
just because it is the right thing to do, not because of a box-ticking exercise”. DirAM expands this
to state the following: “Our leadership was engaging the supply chain proactively to collaboratively
change the way we thought about, and did, our business . . . We wanted the approach to become
part of the way we jointly became leaders in delivering our businesses successfully . . . We wanted
to establish meaningful change across the supply chain, and we recognised that, to do this, we had
to develop long-term relationships; hence, we contracted on a five-, plus five-, plus five-year basis.
This built longevity into our thinking and allowed true innovation to develop solutions to the bigger
sustainable development issues across the environment—driving efficiency and effectiveness.”
This was not necessarily an approach that was either quick or easy and it needed a tough
commitment from the leadership; DirAM: "It is 50% belief and 50% belligerence when you start
something like this; that is, holding yourself and others to account. That is what I mean by belligerence.
In other words, ‘seeing it through’.”
The core principles of governance [73] of accountability, responsibility and transparency were
also noted; DirAM: “a key part of the leadership is the ownership of the sustainable development
strategy. It is also about accountability and having the resources to deliver the solution. That is
why the ‘Infrastructure Clients’ are the single most important stakeholders in addressing sustainable
development. If they ‘own’ and champion the solution, then the supply chain will follow . . . hence,
leadership and procurement are the biggest elements of the recent Green Construction Board’s ‘Three
Years On Report—Reducing Carbon Reduces Cost’ report” [71].

3.3. Outcomes—CSF 2: Clarity of IVC Project Success Definition. Do Businesses Have a Clear Understanding
of the Need to Separate Definitions of Success between “In-Project” Inputs/Activities/Outputs and
“Post-Project” Outcomes and Impact?
In the Anglian Water Integrated Report 2018, [72] (p. 8), the CEO says: “We are continuing to plan
and to invest in protecting customers and the environment. This year saw the publication of our draft
Water Resources Management Plan, which sets out how we propose to balance supply and demand in
a fast-growing region over the next 25 years and to protect customers from severe water restrictions
in a future drought.” The Annual Report highlights that Anglian Water explicitly assesses both the
short-to-medium term economic factors that their investors value as well as the longer term strategic
sustainable development impacts that are more aligned to SDG targets.
DirAM explains how Anglian Water used the overall “Love Every Drop” banner campaign to
balance long-term and short-term priorities: “In 2015 we refreshed our ‘Love Every Drop’ goals and
aligned them with the Outcomes Wheel shown in the Annual Report. So, we thought long and hard
about not just the goals that we created but how that fit with a set of longer-term outcomes in our
region and what that would look like in terms of implementation. This was our way of meaningfully
connecting the strategy with outcomes that our stakeholders recognised.”
It was also noted that Anglian Water uses simple and accessible language (see CSF 6 on
communications) to explain their “Purpose Wheel” and its linkage to outcomes-impacts. This aligns
with the IVC model and indicates a viable way of thinking “big and long” whilst managing the
activities and outputs on a short-term basis to track progress.

94
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

3.4. Mechanism—CSF 3: Prioritising SDG Goals Aligned to Strategic Vision. Do Businesses Have a Clearly
Defined Strategy that Can Guide the Prioritisation of SDG Goals? The “Ends, Ways, Means” Model Requires
Clarity of the “Ends” Prior to Defining Project Success (In-Project and Post-Project)
The Anglian Water approach aligns closely with the IVC model, since it also uses an “Ends, Ways,
Means” logic similar to the Theory of Change concept (Figure 5), [54,55]. DirAM: “you must start with
the end in mind, even if you have not got a detailed routemap to deliver at every stage of the journey.
Part of the mantra is to set big audacious goals and then adopt an attitude of ‘I have started so I will
finish’ and, by the way, you never actually finish, because the end goal is moving; it is like you achieve
one peak but realise it is a false horizon, and so you continue your climb to the next summit.”
As well as the ten prioritised goals, Anglian Water have also prioritised 35 targets that are most
easily measured at project level, which are reproduced below (Figure 9).

Smart Environment Smart Communities Smart Business

Anglian Water Priority SD Goals -
Anglian Water Priority SD Goals - SMART COMMUNITIES Anglian Water
W ter Priority SD Goals -
Wa
SMART ENVIRONMENT SMART BUSINESS

SDG 6: Clean Water & Sanitation

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure SDG 3: Good Health & Well Being
6.3 - Improve water quality by reducing
4 x Goals; 10 x targets

pollution halving the proportion of untreated

wastewater and substantially increasing
recycling and safe reuse globally
3.4 - Reduce by one third premature
3 x Goals; 16 x targets

9.1 - Develop sustainable and resilient

6.4 - Increase water-use efficiency across all mortality from non-communicable diseases
infrastructure to support economic sectors and substantially reduce numbers of
and promote mental halvah nd well-being.
development and human well-being people suffering from water scarcity.

3 x Goals; 9 x targets
6.5 - Implement integrated water resource 3.6 - Halve the number go global deaths
9.4 - By 2030, upgrade infrastructure to management at all levels. and injuries from road traffic accidents
make them sustainable, with increased
resource-use efficiency and greater 6.6 - Protect and restore water-related ecosystems.
3.9 - Substantially reduce the number of
adoption of clean and environmentally
6.b - Support and strengthen the participation of local deaths and illnesses from hazardous
sound technologies communities in improving water and sanitation chemicals and air, water and soil pollution
management.
and contamination

SDG 13: Climate Action SDG 11: Sustainable Cities & Communities
SDG 4: Quality Education

11.3 - Enhance sustainable urbanisation

13.1 - Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to and capacity for sustainable human
climate-related hazards and natural disasters settlement planning and management.
4.4 - Substantially increase the number of youth and
11.4 - Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard adults who have relevant skills, including technical and
13.2 - Integrate climate change measures into the world's cultural and natural heritage. vocational skills, for employment.
national policies, strategies and planning.
11.5 - Reduce the number of deaths and
substantially decrease the direct economic 4.7 - Ensure that all learners acquire
13.3 - Improve education, awareness-raising on losses caused by disasters, including knowledge and skills needed to promote
climate change mitigation and adaptation water-related disasters. sustainable development, including, among
11.7 - Provide access to safe, inclusive and
others, through education for sustainable
accessible, green and public spaces. development and sustainable lifestyles.
SDG 14: Life Below Water
11.a - Support positive economic, social and
environmental links between urban, per-urban and
rural areas by strengthening national and regional SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth
development planning.

14.1 - Significantly reduce marine pollution 11.b - Increase the number of settlements
of all kinds, in particular from land-based adopting and implementing integrated
policies and plans towards resource 8.3 - Promote development-oriented
activities, including nutrient pollution efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to
climate change, resilience to disasters.
policies that support productive activities,
14.3 - Minimize and address the impacts of decent job creation, entrepreneurship,
ocean acidification, including through enhanced creativity and innovation, and encourage
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption & production formalization and growth of micro-,small-
scientific cooperation at all levels
and medium-sized enterprises, including
through access to financial services.
SDG 15: Life on Land 12.2 - Achieve the sustainable manage‐
8.4 - Improve resource efficiency in
ment and efficient use of natural resources.
consumption and production and
12.4 - Achieve the environmentally sound
endeavour to decouple economic growth
management of chemicals and all wastes
throughout their lifecycle. from environmental degradation.
15.1 - Ensure conservation, restoration and
sustainable use of terrestrial and inland 12.5 - Substantially reduce waste 8.5 - By 2030, achieve full and productive
generation through prevention, reduction,
freshwater ecosystems. recycling and reuse.
employment and decent work fro all
women and men, including for young
15.5 - Reduce the degradation of natural 12.6 - Encourage companies to adopt people and persons with disabilities, and
sustainable practices and to integrate equal pay fro work of equal value
habitats, halt loss of biodiversity and, prevent the sustainability information into their
extinction of threatened species reporting cycles.
8.6 - By 2020, substantially reduce the
15.9 - By 2020, integrate ecosystems and 12.8 - Ensure that people everywhere have proportion of youths not in employment,
the relevant information and awareness for
biodiversity values into national and local planning education or training.
sustainable development and lifestyles in
harmony with nature.

Figure 9. Anglian Water has three business priorities that are balanced across the triple bottom line (for
illustration only). The specific SDG targets (N = 35) in this figure are reproduced in readable format in
Table 5.

The value of having clarity of the strategic ends is noted, albeit with a caution that the identification
of targets for tracking performance must not become a “box-ticking” exercise that distorts clarity of
outcomes; DirAM: “if you actually begin with the end in mind of the outcome you are seeking and
how you wire your DNA to achieve that, you are far more likely to achieve those outcomes, and in
so doing the boxes get ticked. But if you predicate your thinking with thoughts about just filling the
boxes, you have constrained yourself.”
Therefore, to overcome the box-ticking mentality, DirAM explained their approach: “Anglian
Water thought long and hard about its position in the region and how we contributed strategically as a
major player in the region and we created the concept of “Love Every Drop” and, in essence, our own
SDGs to align our strategy with local outcomes . . . We used the “Love Every Drop” goals to identify
ambitious aspirations, which meant that our business had to think longer term.”

3.5. Mechanism—CSF 4: Select Targets Relevant to the Project. Which SDG Goals and Which Relevant Targets
Are Selected at Project Level to Measure Impact? Prioritisation of (a Limited) Number of SDG Targets Relevant
to the Infrastructure Project
The chart in Figure 10 illustrates the 35 targets selected by Anglian Water, which at first sight is
impressive, but the interview identified that it is challenging to move beyond the rhetoric of great
sounding qualitative statements. Therefore, it is important to agree and publish hard quantitative
targets that the success of the organisation can be assessed against; DirAM: “ . . . so we nailed our
colours to the mast and started reporting against those. One of them was to take 50% of the carbon out

95
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

of the assets we build by 2015. It was the one that had a specific date on and a specific quantity, and I
deliberately did that because I believed it and I was belligerent enough to drive it. . . . That is the one
that, perhaps, out of all sustainability targets and goals, Anglian Water had the greatest recognition
from and probably reflects the greatest change programme that has gone on across the whole of the
supply chain.”

Smart Environment Transforming behaviours by

Anglian Water Priority SD Goals playing a leading role in reshaping how society
values and uses water, and reducing our
combined impact on the world around us.
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure • A smaller footprint
Smart Environment SDG 13: Climate Action
• Flourishing environment
• Supply meets demand
SDG 14: Life
f Below Water
Smart Communities Collaborating and engaging
SDG 15: Life
f on Land with customers, colleagues and business partners,
SDG 6: Clean Water & Sanitation
and inspiring them to take positive steps towards
achieving our vision for a sustainable future.
Smart Communities SDG 11: Sustainable Cities & Communities • Positive Impact on Communities
• Safe, clean water
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption & production • Delighted customers
SDG 3: Good Health & Well Being
Smart Business Innovating by exploring new
SDG 4: Quality Education
ways to operate more sustainably and helping
Smart Business SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth customers, business partners and employees to
embrace our Love Every Drop strategy.
SDG 1: End Poverty i. Resilient Business
SDG 2: No Hunger ii. Investing for Tomorrow
iii. Fair charges, fair returns
SDG 5: Gender Equality
Anglian iv. Our People: healthier, happier,
SDG 7: Energy Waters’ safer
Secondary
SDG 10: Inequality
SDGs
SDG 16: Institutions

SDG 17: Implementation

Figure 10. Anglian Water has three business priorities that are balanced across the triple bottom line.

3.6. Mechanism—CSF 5: Aligned Business Priorities/Integrate the Targets across the TBL. How Are the Project
Success Criteria Balanced across the Triple Bottom Line—What Trade-Offs Are Made?
A representation of the linkage of the Anglian Water three TBL thematic outcomes [4–6], aligned
to their ten prioritised SDG goals, is shown below.
In the Anglian Water integrated report of 2018 [72] (p. 9), the CEO, Peter Simpson, says:
“Since becoming Responsible Business of the Year, we have been working hard to show others how
sustainability makes good business sense”. This quote emphasizes the Anglian Water experience
that aligns with the creating shared value [56,57,74]. It implies that the TBL [75] can be balanced—a
strategy that focuses on the environment and society, which can equally achieve economic success.
When in harmony, real growth is delivered to the benefit of all, as shared by DirAM: “For example,
our approach to ‘product lifecycle management’ was learned from the aeronautical and automotive
industry from 2004–2005 and this meant that we looked at the whole life costs, which not only ensured
we were more outcomes focused, but, by the way, improved our productivity by 3% each year, year on
year, highlighting that good sustainable development also made good business sense”.

3.7. Mechanism—CSF 6: Reporting and Communication. What Is the Best Way to Share Data on SDG
Progress, Internally and Externally?
It has already been noted that Anglian Water had a policy of thinking long-term, explaining
their sustainable development approach in accessible language and also the need to uphold strong
governance principles of accountability and transparency [74]. This has led to a strong ethic of being
held accountable for delivering meaningful change, including publishing their strategic objectives
in quantifiable terms (such as the carbon figures noted in the paragraph above) as well as, equally
importantly, the results; DirAM: “learning from the likes of Marks and Spencer’s Plan A, we realised
you had better publish your sustainability plans and outcome targets so that you are kept honest in
the process—there is very little point nailing your colours to the mast and then not living to the high
expectations . . . so the message was that we must commit to do the things that matter to us. That is
what gets people excited, because it really matters. We are tough on ourselves on reporting what
happens, and this allows us to measure what impact we are having so that we can measure the benefit.”

96
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

The theme of honesty and allowing stakeholders to hold the executive and board to account
is a powerful lesson that also relates to measuring SDG impacts at project level; DirAM: “But the
point about turning your ambitious goals into reality, to avoid superficial statements, is that it is
all recorded—it is published annually, which is an important part of defining where you are going.
Driving towards it with no ‘U’ turns when some tough decisions have to be made. It is obvious that
you have to make loads of tough decisions rather than duck them, and then recording your progress in
an open and visible way helps keep you honest in that process.”
A cautionary note about communication was that the messaging should be kept simple and
accessible; DirAM: “We found that our campaign and collaborative working with partners had created
a different conversation with different language. Ultimately, accessible language on meaningful
outcomes is what people can buy into and this is what creates the momentum of changed behaviours
. . . Through engagement and innovative solutions addressing the big problems, Wisbech is an example
of working with the community to achieve meaningful long-term changes.”

3.8. Overview Analysis of Anglian Water’s Projects Set against the IVC Framework
The reference to Anglian Water’s Wisbech project in the previous quote provides a holistic test
against the six critical success factors and a useful way to cap the case study analysis. Launched in
January 2013 as part of Anglian Water’s “Wisbech 2020” vision [75], the Wisbech project was chosen as
part of this case study because data on its delivery are open source on the internet. It was delivered by
Anglian Water with its partners as part of their commitment to make a long-term impact on the market
town of Wisbech for more than the five years that the initial project covered. Located just 40 miles from
Cambridge, UK, Wisbech faced many socio-economic challenges but also had potential for significant
growth and development [75]. The vision proposed a new garden town with 10,000 homes, bringing
transport, education and health benefits to the town and surrounding region. By using this project as
an example, Anglian Water wanted to assess whether a broad programme of social, economic and
environmental change to improve the local communities’ lives could be linked to the SDGs using
the IVC.
The table below mirrors the formatting of the IVC table (Table 2) and has been updated with data
from the Wisbech project [75]. The simple steps to achieve the Wisbech-adapted IVC included: reading
and analysis of the publicly available documentation of the Wisbech project, identification of key data
across the IVC framework, cross-checking across authors to assess the credibility of interpretation
and sharing the final table with Anglian Water to ensure the consistency and accuracy of project data.
This provides an assessment as to whether projects could have both the “in-project” successes measured
as well as the “post-project” outcomes and SDG impacts as defined in the Theory of Change [54,55].
It is evident that it is easier to define quantifiable success criteria for the inputs-activity-outputs during
the in-project phase because they are tangible and delivered as core delivery performance measures,
such as time, cost and scope/quality. On the other hand, the outcome and impacts are typically
delivered after the completion of the project and are more diffuse. Thus, the example from the Wisbech
project shown below is not conclusive but gives indications that the IVC provides a useful framework
to engage stakeholders on what project success looks like during and post-delivery. It should be
noted that the Wisbech project is an outreach community programme inspired by HRH The Prince of
Wales‘ “Seeing is Believing” initiative, which seeks to find ways to support marginalised communities.
The SDGs therefore offer a framework to address the more diffuse outcomes and impacts that might
not typically have been defined and measured using traditional project measurement approaches.

3.9. Policy Implications Derived from Analysis of Anglian Water’s Use of the IVC Framework.
There are a number of policy implications, shown in Table 5, that emanate from the analysis of the
Anglian Water case study. These are listed at both the organisational and project levels and involve
multiple stakeholders, including clients, investors, suppliers and communities, who all benefit from
the use of the derived models proposed in this paper.

97
 Table 5. Applying Anglian Water’s Wisbech project initiative to the IVC grid with mapping of the TBL with the five stages of the IVC.

Input Activity Output Outcome Impact

Worked jointly with the local Championing apprenticeships
Fenland District Council to and a training scheme with 20 Bills, affordability and profits to
Seconded a senior operational develop a longer term strategy trained and employed year on stimulate and sustain the local
manager to Wisbech in 2013 beyond their existing 2020 Vision, year. Turning the community economy, especially those on lower
and agreed support from which was thought to be too centre from a £30, 00 per annum incomes (bills have only increased by
other supply chain partners to short-term to encompass the “big, loss-making entity to a vital 10% since 1990). Viability of the future
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

SDGs 8, 9, 10
Economy become involved in the hairy, audacious” strategic goals community hub, fuelling future rail and integrated transport system
and 12.
project. This allowed the cost, that could achieve economic success. Confirming the attracting more regional investment
expertise and effort to be transformational change, building lease and implementing the and raising local people’s aspirations.
shared across a broad range of a business case for the “Garden creation of the “Jobs Fair” and the Market town proposal, with planning
partners. Town” that would attract “Jobs Café” and the campaigning for over 10, 00 new homes, providing
investment and large transport body for getting rail back—now in “scale of growth” confidence.
infrastructure improvements. the County Transport Plan.
Collaborative innovation with the Providing a community centre
local community in open and (refurbishment of the Queen Mary
Achieving “Business in the
honest talks, health and wellbeing, Centre) that is the hub of
Started by listening in order to Community” outcomes such as
stakeholder engagement, skills employment opportunities; active
understand the local issues regeneration; building on the “Seeing
and learning, working conditions, STEM subjects engagement with
from the local community’s is Believing” community initiatives;

98
production activity, user schools; specifically focusing
perspective. Brought together understanding the value of long-term
engagement, keeping the local efforts on helping those not in
senior leaders from “The thinking; providing safe, clean and
community at the heart of the employment, education or SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4,
Social @One Alliance”, creating a reliable water; improving the
project plans and delivery, training; untapped, unused 5, 7 and 11.
collaborative multistakeholder town’s/region’s standing as the sixth
working with the College of West human resource; organised the
approach. Focused on worst ranked town on the social
Anglia to train more mechanical BITC “Big Connect” event,
building long-term mobility index in the UK and
and electrical engineers, aligning business connectors from
sustainable relationships with addressing the life expectancy that
designing and running new across UK; and a second phase for
the local community. was three years less than in
courses and providing IT support the Queen Mary community
Cambridge.
from partners to raise the Centre to include theatres and a
aspirations of unemployed. music teaching centre.
Management plans for the flood A commitment to protecting and Building resilience to cope with future
Raw materials, land take,
risk, building resilience into restoring our wealth of wetland challenges. Protecting the
water, light, clean air, energy,
engineering designs and using habitats and making a difference environment we live in. Through the SDGs 6, 13, 14
Environment planned land use and ecology
innovative modelling techniques to rare and common species, be Flourishing Environment Fund, and 15.
ecosystem valuation
developed by the Dutch they in wet grasslands, open helping environmental organisations
assessment.
government. water, fens or mires. deliver real benefits for nature.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

Organisational policy implications:

• There is evidence that businesses identify value in the adoption of global SDG performance
measurement at the local level. This is consistent with the theory of creating shared value [56,57,73]
that identified a greater benefit to businesses than CSR being an add-on. The complexity of the
global-national measurement framework makes measurement at subnational level challenging.
The need for simplicity is important and examples of success, such as this case study, are helpful in
galvanizing others to follow and share lessons learned. This is important for users of the models
because the case study makes clear that some organisations are employing the language of SDG
measurement but without a formalised methodology to do so. This makes it difficult to replicate
because the ad-hoc nature of the measuring methodology used by Anglian water does not easily
support cross-sector comparisons using a common framework that would have facilitated further
knowledge sharing and delivery improvements.
• The SDG measurement approach can align with existing approaches to sustainability measurement.
This offers efficiency of processes and systems if they can be linked. The case study gives confidence
that existing reporting approaches to sustainability, such as CEEQUAL, are complementary to the
proposed SDG measuring methodology. This highlights that the IVC can be adapted, such as
by using language that “makes sense” to the local stakeholders and does not alienate existing
project delivery teams who would not want an additional large reporting system mandated.
The opportunity to align existing sustainability reporting metrics to SDG targets offers a valuable
line of future research.
• There is evidence that businesses that already have a strong track record in sustainability
measurement can readily adapt to the language and approach of using SDGs. Anglian Water
had recently been awarded the UK’s Sustainability Company of the Year, which meant that the
case study interviews and review of their documentation were conducted with a highly mature
organisation that had a well-developed plan for delivering clear impacts. They also had a strong
leadership team to champion the trialling of the SDG measurement approach. The bigger question
remains how successful the lower performing companies might be at addressing the complexities
of SDG measurement. Again, this is an area for further study since that is where the majority of
benefit might come from, by developing an approach that is easily replicated across the sector.
• The contextual issues, such as leadership, are a critical success factor. Strong leadership that
is meaningfully engaged in championing the use of SDG measurement will be more likely to
deliver tangible evidence of SDG impacts. This becomes a critical point as the strategic nature of
organisational change has to be driven from the top [76]. There was recognition by the Anglian
Water executive that, in reality, this meant that leaders at all levels were needed as champions,
which, for SDG measurement, needed to be aligned with success stories that would make sense
to the target audience written in their language and justifying “why” followed by explaining
clearly “how”.
Project level policy implications:
• The effective use of SDG measurement at project level needs buy-in from both internal and external
stakeholders. The engagement of suppliers is critical to ensure common focus on identifying
what SDG success looks like and to work collaboratively to seek innovative solutions to deliver
meaningful SDG delivery success.
• There are a number of mechanistic issues that become critical to SDG measurement success.
These include: prioritising relevant targets and indicators (do not select too many); seeking to
understand how the few selected goals and targets can have a simple indicator framework that
allows the capture of reliable evidence; and ensuring that reporting and communicating is open,
honest and timely, sharing both good news and bad news. There is also a need continually to learn
and evolve and so build a better framework that achieves a more balanced investment decision
across the TBL of people, profit and planet [4–6,73].

99
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

4. Conclusions
The central investigation in the case study of Anglian Water was to test and validate whether the
new infrastructure business model, called the “Infrastructure SDG Impact-Value Chain” (IVC), could
link local-level project and organisational delivery with global-level strategic SDG impacts. The study
used the “golden thread” of the TBL thematic areas (namely economic, social and environmental)
to interrogate whether one of the UK’s leading water utility companies, Anglian Water, was already
delivering strategic sustainable development solutions that could be mapped to SDG targets. Although
the research was conducted in the UK, the findings have possible broader applicability to other
countries since most of the issues are neither culturally nor geographically specific. This is a valuable
area of future research that could potentially engage with a number of construction firms with global
footprints to compare the differences and similarities of measuring SDGs across and within different
regional areas. For example, UNOPS [46] research indicates that there are many contextual global
issues that affect the use and measurement of SDGs but, while noting the differences, they suggest that
all issues should have a consistent framework to enable cross-cutting comparisons.
The results of the case study investigation have indicated that there is a verifiable link across
the IVC of activities-inputs-outputs during the “in-project” phase, connecting to the “post-project”
outcomes and SDG impacts. A number of Anglian Water’s projects were mapped to this schematic
(although, for brevity, only one, Wisbech, is reproduced in this article) and this gave confidence that
the approach could have wider applicability. Therefore, the results led to a proposed methodology
for project leaders to use as a way of strategically aligning stakeholders on a common definition of
success, linking tactical “in-project” success of outputs with the more strategic outcomes and SDG
impacts “post-project”. The methodology would ideally be used during the design phase of the project.
The emphasis is switched from “doing projects right” to “doing the right projects”. It includes the
selection of longer-term outcomes and strategic SDG impacts, which, it is suggested, offer improved
definitions of project success.
The five proposed steps, shown in Figure 11, emanated from the six critical success factors that
were used as a framework for the case study. These are proposed as a way to initiate the “right project”
in the “right way” and with increased clarity of “Ends, Ways and Means”.

Figure 11. The proposed infrastructure SDG measurement methodology derived from the six critical
success factors and the application of the impact-value chain (IVC) model to the Anglian Water
case study.

Future Work
The research study has focused on a single case study in the UK and cannot automatically be
extended to the entire water industry, either nationally or internationally. The methodology adopted,
however, has potential to be used to evaluate multiple projects across different industry sectors. In this

100
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

way, the results can thus provide insights for further research across the water industry and also
potentially across other infrastructure sectors and geographical regions.
The next stage of the research is to develop the infrastructure SDG measurement methodology
proposed in Figure 11 into a fully defined methodology that is adaptable to the scale of the project
and also its position in the project-programme-portfolio hierarchy. Thus, the model could be tested
in industrial scenarios on identified projects. The case studies will be broadened to include both
developing and developed countries and will focus on a single asset type across the national economic
infrastructure categories of energy, waste, water, transport and ICT. The practical application is
significant since, with improved linkage of tactical delivery to strategic SDG impacts, improved
investment decisions will be made, and systemic level lessons can be applied to increase the likelihood
of success in achieving the SDG 2030 targets.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.M.; methodology, P.M.; validation, P.M., S.P.P. and T.B.; formal
analysis, P.M.; investigation, P.M.; data curation, P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, P.M.; writing—review
and editing, P.M., S.P.P. and T.B.; visualization, P.M.; supervision, S.P.P. and T.B.; project administration, P.M.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was indirectly funded by the Nathu Puri Institute for Engineering and Enterprise, School of
Engineering, London South Bank University, through the funding of the doctoral research support to Paul Mansell.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the following for their advice and support through this
phase of research: Chris Newsome (former Director of Asset Management at Anglian Water Plc), Andy Brown
(Head of Sustainability at Anglian Water), Ian Nicholson (Buildings Research Establishment) and the Institution of
Civil Engineers (ICE).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Global Infrastructure Outlook. Infrastructure Investment need in the Compact with African Countries.
Available online: https://outlook.gihub.org/?utm_source=GIHub+Homepage&utm_medium=Project+tile&
utm_campaign=Outlook+GIHub+Tile (accessed on 4 August 2019).
2. Mansell, P. Quantitative Survey Analysis: What Engineers and CEOs Currently Think about Sustainability
and the SDGs. 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327602328_Engineers_
perception_of_value_of_SDGs_and_the_current_ability_to_measure_projects’_SDG_impact (accessed on
6 June 2020).
3. Mansell, P.; Philbin, S.P.; Konstantinou, E. Using ‘Creating Shared Value’ to Support Measurement of
the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Targets for Infrastructure Projects. Available online: http:
//www.euram-online.org/annual-conference-2019.html (accessed on 6 June 2020).
4. Elkington, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable
development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [CrossRef]
5. Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 23–38.
6. Elkington, J. 25 years ago I coined the phrase Triple bottom line. Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 2018, 25, 25. Available online: https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-
line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it?utm_source=Master%20List&utm_campaign=ef4332d048-EMAIL_
CAMPAIGN_2018_01_30_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_458e074771-ef4332d048-
449020321 (accessed on 10 July 2020).
7. Bhattacharya, A.; Oppenheim, J.; Stern, N. Driving Sustainable Development through Better Infrastructure:
Key Elements of a Transformation Program. Brookings Global Working Paper Series. Available online: https:
//g24.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Driving-Sustainable-Development-Through-Better-Infrastructure-
Key-Elements-of-a-Transformation-Program-Bhattacharya-Oppenheim-Stern-July-2015.pdf (accessed on
10 July 2020).
8. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
2014. Available online: https://www.deutsches-klima-konsortium.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Briefings/
Morgan_12_Nov_15.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).

101
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

9. Hartshorn, J.; Maher, M.; Crooks, J.; Stahl, R.; Bond, Z. Creative destruction: Building toward sustainability.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2005, 32, 170–180. [CrossRef]
10. Sverdrup, H.; Rosen, K. Long-term base cation mass balances for Swedish forests and the concept of
sustainability. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 110, 221–236. [CrossRef]
11. Costanza, R.; Patten, B.C. Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 15, 193–196. [CrossRef]
12. Emas, R. The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles. Brief
for GSDR 2015. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. United Nations. 2015.
Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_
concept_definiton_rev.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
13. Moore, J.E.; Mascarenhas, A.; Bain, J.; Straus, S.E. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability.
Implement. Sci. 2017, 12, 110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Glavič, P.; Lukman, R. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1875–1885.
[CrossRef]
15. Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Durand-Delacre, D. Preliminary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Index and
Dashboard; Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
16. Sachs, J.D.; Woo, W.T.; Yoshino, N.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Importance of Green Finance for Achieving
Sustainable Development Goals and Energy Security. In Handbook of Green Finance; Springer Science and
Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 3–12.
17. Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
18. Rockström, J. Wedding Cake (Donut) View of the Economy and Social Embedded as Parts of the Biosphere
(Stockholm Resilience Centre). Available online: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-
news/2016-06-14-how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html (accessed on 10 July 2020).
19. Ainger, C.M.; Fenner, R.A. Sustainable Infrastructure: Principles into Practice; ICE Publishing: London, UK, 2014.
20. Inter-American Development Bank, IDB. What is Sustainable Infrastructure? A Framework to Guide
Sustainability across the Project Cycle. Available online: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/
document/What_is_Sustainable_Infrastructure__A_Framework_to_Guide_Sustainability_Across_the_
Project_Cycle.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
21. Mansell, P.; Philbin, S.P.; Broyd, T.; Nicholson, I. Assessing the impact of infrastructure projects on global
sustainable development goals. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability;
Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2020; Volume 173, pp. 196–212. [CrossRef]
22. Global Reporting Initiative. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx (accessed
on 10 July 2020).
23. Global Compact, United Nations. Reporting on SDGs. Making Global Goals Local Business. Available
online: https://twitter.com/globalcompact (accessed on 20 August 2019).
24. Barrett, J.R.; Peters, G.P.; Wiedmann, T.O.; Scott, K.; Lenzen, M.; Roelich, K.; Le Quéré, C. Consumption-based
GHG emission accounting: A UK case study. Clim. Policy 2013, 13, 451–470. [CrossRef]
25. De Villiers, C.; Rinaldi, L.; Unerman, J. Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research.
Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 1042–1067. [CrossRef]
26. Corporate Reporting Dialogue (CRD). SDGs and the Future of Corporate Reporting. 2019. Available
online: http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-
and-the-future-of-corporate-reporting-1.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2019).
27. Scott, L.; McGill, A. From Promise to Reality: Does Business Really Care about the SDGs? London: PwC.
2018. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/SDG/sdg-reporting-2018.pdf (accessed on
10 July 2020).
28. Global Reporting Initiative. Carrots and Sticks, Global Trends in Sustainability Reporting Regulation and
Policy’. 2016. Available online: https://www.carrotsandsticks.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Carrots-
Sticks-2016.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
29. Building Research Establishment (BRE). Available online: https://www.breeam.com/engage/research-and-
development/consultation-engagement/ceequal-v6-consultation/ (accessed on 26 August 2019).
30. Pearce, O.J.; Murry, N.J.; Broyd, T.W. Halstar: Systems engineering for sustainable development. In Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2012;
Volume 165, pp. 129–140.

102
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

31. McGregor, I.M.; Roberts, C. Using the SPeAR TM assessment tool in sustainable master planning.
In Proceedings of the US Green Building Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 12–14 November 2003.
32. Siew, R.Y.J.; Balatbat, M.C.A.; Carmichael, D.G. A Review of building/infrastructure sustainability reporting
tools (SRTs). Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2013, 2, 106–139. [CrossRef]
33. International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). ISO 14000 Family—Environmental Management.
2019. Available online: https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmental-management.html (accessed on
21 March 2019).
34. Gasparatos, A. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J. Environ.
Manag. 2010, 91, 1613–1622. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and estidama critical
analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 11, 25–29. [CrossRef]
36. Shivakumar, S.; Pedersen, T.; Wilkins, S.; Schuster, S. Envision: A measure of infrastructure sustainability.
In Pipelines 2014; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2014; pp. 2249–2256.
37. Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA). Available online: https://www.isca.org.au/is_ratings
(accessed on 24 March 2019).
38. Clevenger, C.M.; Ozbek, M.E.; Simpson, S. Review of sustainability rating systems used for infrastructure
projects. In Proceedings of the 49th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings, San Luis Obispo,
CA, USA, 10–13 April 2013; pp. 10–13.
39. Butler, D.; Farmani, R.; Fu, G.; Ward, S.; Diao, K.; Imani, M. A new approach to urban water management:
Safe and sure. Procedia Eng. 2014, 89, 347–354. [CrossRef]
40. Sakamoto, K. Toward a Sustainability Appraisal Framework for Transport. Available online: https:
//think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/1417/sdwp-031.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 24 March 2019).
41. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by
the General Assembly; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
42. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
files/report/2018/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2018-EN.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2019).
43. United Nations. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C, an IPCC Special
Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas
Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable
Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
44. Inter-agency and Expert group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs). Resolution Adopted by the General
Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(A/RES/71/313). Available online: https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 (accessed on 6 June 2020).
45. Mansell, P.; Philbin, S.P.; Plodowski, A. Why Project Management is Critical to Achieving the SDGs, and How
This Can be Achieved. Available online: https://pmcongress2019.org/ (accessed on 6 June 2020).
46. United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). Infrastructure: Underpinning Sustainable Development.
UNOPS, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online: https://www.itrc.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/ITRC-UNOPS-
Infrastructure_Underpining_Sustainable%20Development.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2020).
47. Office of National Statistics (ONS). Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment-uk.github.io/reporting-
status/ (accessed on 6 June 2020).
48. Morris, P.W.G. Reconstructing Programme Management; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2013.
49. Cooke-Davies, T. The “real” success factors on programmes. Int. J. Progr. Manag. 2007, 20, 185–190.
[CrossRef]
50. HM Treasury. The Green Book—Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation. 2013. Available
online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
685903/The_Green_Book.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2020).
51. Dudwick, N.; Kuehnast, K.; Jones, V.N.; Woolcock, M. Analyzing Social Capital in Context. A Guide to Using
Qualitative Methods and Data; World Bank Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 1–46.
52. Thiry, M. Value management. In Guide to Managing Projects; Morris, P., Pinto, J., Eds.; Wiley: Holbroken, NJ,
USA, 2004.
53. Müller, R.; Jugdev, K. Critical success factors in projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2012, 5, 757–775. [CrossRef]

103
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6413

54. Weiss, C.H. Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive
community initiatives for children and families. In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives:
Concepts, Methods, and Contexts; Aspen Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 65–92.
55. Stein, D.; Valters, C. Understanding Theory of Change in International Development.
2012. Available online: http://www.theoryofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/toco_library/pdf/
UNDERSTANDINGTHEORYOFChangeSteinValtersPN.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2020).
56. Porter, M.E. Advantage creating and sustaining superior performance. In Competitive Advantage; Harvard
Busines School Publishing: Brighton, MA, USA, 1985.
57. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value, Rethinking Capitalism. Harv. Bus. Rev.
2011, 89, 62–67.
58. Hall, J.W.; Tran, M.; Hickford, A.J.; Nicholls, R.J. The Future of National Infrastructure: A System of Systems
Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
59. Hall, R.P.; Ranganathan, S.; Gc, R.K. A general micro-level modeling approach to analyzing interconnected
SDGs: Achieving SDG 6 and more through multiple-use water services (MUS). Sustainability 2017, 9, 314.
[CrossRef]
60. Thacker, S.; Hall, J. Engineering for Sustainable Development; Infrastructure Transition Research Consortium
(ITRC), University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2018.
61. Thacker, S.; Adshead, D.; Fay, M.; Hallegatte, S.; Harvey, M.; Meller, H.; O’Regan, N.; Rozenberg, J.;
Watkins, G.; Hall, J.W. Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 324–331. [CrossRef]
62. Adams, C.A. The Sustainable Development Goals, Integrated Thinking and the Integrated Report. 2017.
Available online: http://tsss.ca/inside-the-csr-report (accessed on 6 June 2020).
63. May, T. Qualitative Research in Action; University of Sheffield: Sheffield, UK, 2002.
64. Bhaskar, R. A Realist Theory of Science; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013.
65. Linsley, P.; Howard, D.; Owen, S. The construction of context-mechanisms-outcomes in realistic evaluation.
Nurse Res. 2015, 22, 28–34. [CrossRef]
66. Pawson, R.; Tilley, N.; Tilley, N. Realistic Evaluation; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997.
67. Pawson, R.; Tilley, N. Realistic evaluation bloodlines. Am. J. Eval. 2001, 22, 317–324. [CrossRef]
68. Sayer, A. Why critical realism? Crit. Realis. Appl. Organ. Manag. Stud. 2004, 11, 6–20.
69. Astbury, B.; Leeuw, F.L. Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am. J.
Evaluat. 2010, 31, 363–381. [CrossRef]
70. Tilley, N. EMMIE and engineering: What works as evidence to improve decisions? Evaluation 2016, 22,
304–322. [CrossRef]
71. Green Construction Board. Three Years on Report—Reducing Carbon Reduces Cost; Leeds City Council: Leeds,
UK, 2015.
72. Anglian Water. Responsible Business. Annual Integrated Report 2018. Available online: https:
//www.anglianwater.co.uk/siteassets/household/about-us/annual-intergrated-report-2018.pdf (accessed on
6 June 2020).
73. Griggs, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.;
Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.; Noble, I. Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013,
495, 305–307. [CrossRef]
74. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate
Governance. Paris. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/g20-oecd-principles-of-
corporate-governance-2015_9789264236882-en (accessed on 6 June 2020).
75. Anglian Water. New Models for Collaborative Working. A Guide to Community Regeneration in
Wisbech—An Anglian Water Perspective. Available online: https://www.bitc.org.uk/sites/default/files/
bitc_lr_wisbech_v1.compressed.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2020).
76. Kotter, J.P. Leading Change; Harvard Business Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2012.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

104
 sustainability

Review
Information Technology for Business Sustainability:
A Literature Review with Automated Content Analysis
Doroteja Vidmar *, Marjeta Marolt and Andreja Pucihar

Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia; [email protected] (M.M.);
[email protected] (A.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +386-4-2374281

Abstract: An extremely dynamic and fast-moving environment is pushing enterprises to continuous

innovation and change. Managing sustainability in a digitalized environment seems to be of central
importance for policy makers, as information technologies (IT), in combination with sustainability
objectives, offer a wide range of opportunities for positive change. Through a systematic literature
review and the application of automated content analysis, this study aims to provide insights into the
latest research in the interdisciplinary field of sustainable business models and information systems.
The results of the analysis, combined with a researcher’s perspective, suggest that IT, which can be
used to achieve sustainability objectives, are already in place and have an infinite number of potential
implications in the future. The results suggest that positive economic, social, and environmental
changes can be achieved by using IT as long as they are used to identify unsustainable actions and
enable positive change. The analysis of research trends revealed a discrepancy between the research
in the European Union and the rest of the world and pointed to several avenues for future research.

Keywords: information technology; enterprise; business model; sustainability; business sustainability;

sustainable business model; IT; IS; BM; SBM
Citation: Vidmar, D.; Marolt, M.;
Pucihar, A. Information Technology
for Business Sustainability: A
Literature Review with Automated 1. Introduction
Content Analysis. Sustainability 2021,
Over the last two decades, business models (BM) have become an important research
13, 1192. https://doi.org/
topic. However, it is only in recent years that research has underlined the importance of
10.3390/su13031192
implementing sustainable development goals through the development and innovation of
Academic Editor: Prescott C. Ensign
BM [1]. These so-called sustainable business models (SBM) address sustainability issues
Received: 30 November 2020 by creatively integrating eco-efficient and eco-effective innovations into existing value
Accepted: 20 January 2021 creation, value delivery, and value capture elements of a BM [2]. Stubbs and Cocklin [3]
Published: 23 January 2021 conceptualized SBM by bringing together fields of organizational sustainability and BM.
SBM then quickly gained momentum as a field of research [4,5] and attracted researchers
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral from various disciplines [4,6–10], e.g., environmental sciences, social sciences, engineering,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in computer science, mathematics, and medicine [1].
published maps and institutional affil- To uncover new ways for value creation, value delivery, and value capture elements
iations. of BM, several authors see the potential in emerging information technologies (IT) [11].
Chesbrough [12] was the first to point out the link between IT and BM. Subsequently, a
number of research papers focused on the role of IT in reshaping BM [2,13–20]. Researchers
in the area of information systems (IS) have discussed not only the contributions of IS to
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. business value [21] but also its impact on sustainability [22]. A turning point seems to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. have occurred in 2010, when several authors argued for the involvement of IS in pursuit
This article is an open access article of business sustainability [23,24]. The first years of sustainability research in IS focused
distributed under the terms and exclusively on reduced resource consumption (e.g., saving energy, paper, and ink), a small
conditions of the Creative Commons segment of environmental sustainability, now known as the Green IS field [25–27]. This
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// marks an important development in business sustainability that has influenced the way
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ enterprises around the world operate. From early observations, some researchers argued
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031192 105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

that Green IS should not only focus on the environmental impacts of corporate performance
but at least also on the indirect social and economic impacts [22,28–30].
Nowadays, business environment is extremely dynamic. Digital maturity and the
use of digital innovation are crucial for enterprises to successfully navigate pressures from
customers, competitors, and policy makers [31–33]. The use of IT to innovate business
practices through information, automation, and transformation is well documented [22,34].
Since IT can be used to enable capabilities and improve performance, the combination
of IT’s capabilities with sustainability objectives represent a potential to create positive
changes in terms of economic, environmental, and social benefits [22,23].
Although there has been a growing interest on IT and its role in the emergence
and viability of SBM among academics and practitioners in recent years [17,34–36],
Nosratabadi et al. [1] argue that the focus is mainly on “sharing economy” cases and
that many research topics and methodological approaches remain mainly untouched. Their
comprehensive literature review [1] included work published between 2002 and 2017,
and since then, several contributions have been made (e.g., [17,35,37–41]) to increase un-
derstanding of the impact of IT on SMB. Furthermore, as governing sustainability in a
digitalized environment seems to be of central importance for policy makers [42,43], a
comprehensive understanding of current knowledge on this topic is required. The present
study, therefore, aims to provide insights into the latest research in the interdisciplinary
field of SBM and IS and provide further research directions.
In accordance with this study objective, we conducted a systematic literature review
using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
approach [44] and reviewed papers on the role of IT on SBM. The identified papers were
analyzed not only manually, but also with the content analysis tool Leximancer which
helped to identify and visualize key research themes to provide an understanding of the
role of IT in SBM.
Our study has two contributions. First, we provided a comprehensive review of an
emerging and rapidly developing interdisciplinary field that integrates the current knowl-
edge about the role of IT in SBM. Second, we identified avenues for future investigation of
this increasingly important research area.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the following section, we present
the methodology of the literature review. We then present the results and provided contri-
butions to the discussion and further research directions. Finally, we provide concluding
remarks and limitations of the study.

2. Methods and Data Collection

2.1. Selection of Papers
To provide an overview of current research, we first conducted a systematic literature
search, using the following research terms and combining them with Boolean operators
(AND and OR): business model*, sustainab*, information systems, information technolog*,
and digit*. Among the publications of interest are scientific journal papers and book
chapters from various disciplines. We searched the online database Web of Science.
After we obtained the first search results, we identified a total of 106 papers. Based on
the recommendations of Levy and Ellis [45], we performed an additional search as follows:
we searched for relevant papers by authors from the list of obtained relevant papers (eight
additional papers); we searched for relevant papers by references of the obtained papers
(25 additional papers), resulting in a total of 33 additional relevant papers. Based on the
PRISMA statement [44], we also included four papers recommended by other sources (e.g.,
personalized recommendations by Mendeley, ResearchGate, and other publishers).
Following the PRISMA statement [44] and the guidelines of Kitchenham and Char-
ters [46], we carried out an initial screening and quality assessment of the papers obtained
through an initial search. Based on the review of the title and abstract, we eliminated
81 papers that were not relevant. A more detailed reading (quality assessment) of the
remaining papers followed, which led to the elimination of one more paper.

106
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

At the end, we obtained a list of 61 papers, which we further examined to determine

the main findings and to identify further research directions. The number of papers that
we obtained through the search, assessed, and included in our content analysis is shown in
the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Selection of papers in the PRISMA flow diagram.

2.2. Analysis
While adapting the analysis process to material and research questions is challenging,
immersing yourself in the data can bring many interesting points that would otherwise
remain uninvestigated [47,48]. Since the available knowledge on our topic of interest
is limited [49], we used qualitative content analysis to describe the phenomenon under
investigation. This approach enables researchers to analyze textual material, regardless of
its origin [48,50], with the aim of creating categories [50].
First, we used Tableau software [51] to analyze the number of papers per year, the
journals in which they were published, and the authors’ place of affiliation, to see if there
are countries where research is more concentrated. Then, we continued with content
analysis, combining two perspectives—that of a software program capable of quantifying
and analyzing large amounts of data, and that of a human researcher capable of taking a
broader perspective while looking at what is missing in the picture.

107
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

To analyze large amounts of text, we first used an automated approach to content

analysis, which was performed with Leximancer [52]. The Leximancer software for au-
tomated content analysis (text analysis) that we used for our research applies Bayesian
learning algorithm to break down large amounts of text into a conceivable number of
relationships and categories [52,53]. From concepts and relationships, Leximancer creates
“concept maps” that visualize relationships between concepts and aggregate concepts with
related meanings into themes [53,54].
To ensure better results of the automated text analysis, all pdf files were first converted
into text files. In addition, all unnecessary texts not related to the content were deleted,
e.g., authors and their affiliation, journal name, chapter titles, tables, and captions. These
files were then imported into the content analysis software Leximancer. Through several
iterations of text analysis with Leximancer, we adjusted the settings of the word processor;
we added standard English “stopwords” (list of common words excluded from analysis), to
which we added some words, e.g., Table A1 and Figure 4. We also used the function “merge
word variants”, which combines concepts that have the same stems into one concept. In
our case, this means that singular and plural words (e.g., model and models) are treated as
one concept. We did not find any complex stemming in the results of this analysis. The
results provided by Leximancer helped us to identify the main concepts, which we further
elaborated through the researchers standpoint.
The results of the content analysis are presented in the following sections.

3. Results
3.1. Field Evolvement by Numbers
The literature search led to a classification of 61 papers. An analysis on an annual
basis showed that the maximum number of papers was published in 2018 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Number of papers per year.

The papers were also analyzed to find out in which journals they had been published
over the years. Figure 3 shows that papers were published in 28 journals, the majority in
the Journal of Cleaner Production and journal Sustainability.

108
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Figure 3. Number of publications per journal and year.

The classification in Figure 4 indicates that 31 publications were theoretical, 23 qual-

itative, while only three were mixed methods and two quantitative. The remaining two
publications are book chapters where no specific approach was applied. All included
papers, methodologies as they were stated by the authors, and assigned methodological
categories are listed in Table A1 in the Appendix A.

Figure 4. Article distribution by approach.

Further analysis revealed that the majority of research was conducted in European
countries (Figure 5). Nevertheless, we found there are not only collaborations between

109
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

authors within one country but also between different European countries, or the collabora-
tion involves at least one researcher from outside of Europe (e.g., United States of America
(USA), Canada, and Australia) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Number of corresponding authors per country.

3.2. Results of Content and Thematic Analysis

By analyzing 61 papers with Leximancer, we identified 14 themes (Figure 6). Themes
identified by the analysis (as shown in Figure 6; the order is descending by the number
of matches from the analyzed text) are “business”, “sustainability”, “value”, “process”,
“research”, “support”, “use”, “products”, “customers”, “effects”, “information”, “study”,
“future”, and “people”.
With the help of Leximancer, we also obtained a “concept map”, which is shown in
Figure 7. The concept map consists of themes (colored circles) and concepts that form each
theme (text within the themes in black letters). The importance of themes is shown by
color as a “heat map” (the brighter the theme, the more often it was found in the analyzed
text) and size (the larger the theme, the more concepts were combined into it) [53,54].
The concept map also shows which themes are overlapping, e.g., in our case “business”
and “sustainability”; which concepts are shared between two themes, e.g., in our case
concept “innovation” lies in the overlap of themes “business” and “sustainability”; and

110
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

which relationships between the concepts maintain relationships between the themes, e.g.,
(“business”) “model”–“innovation”–“sustainability”.

Figure 6. Identified themes.

Figure 7. Leximancer concept map.

111
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Based on our knowledge, understanding of the field, and the observations from the
concept map (Figure 7), we identified the following 3 theme clusters:
The 1st cluster, which we named “Sustainable business”, consists of themes “sustain-
ability”, “business”, and “value”. This cluster is marked with a violet dotted line. This
cluster is related to value creation through SBM.
The 2nd cluster, which we named “Value creation and delivery”, consists of “infor-
mation”, “use”, “people”, “process”, “products”, and “customers” themes. This cluster is
marked with a green dotted line. The cluster is related to value creation and delivery with
the use of IT in the business processes and in service and product design for the customers.
The 3rd cluster, which we named “Research”, consists of “research”, “future”, “study”,
“effects”, and “support” themes. This cluster is marked with a red dotted line and presents
current research results and future research directions in the field of business sustainabil-
ity IT.
Each cluster is thematically related to the other two clusters. The 1st cluster “Sustain-
able business” is connected to the 2nd cluster “value creation and delivery” through the
intersection of themes “value” and “customer”. More precisely, the concept “value” is
connected through the concept “companies” to the concept “market”. This connection can
be understood as follows: “value”, created by the enterprises (“companies”), is provided
to the “customers” in the “market”. The second connection between these two clusters is
through the “network” and “market”-“based” “activities”. These connections illustrate
that “activities” of companies are “networked” with business partners in the “market”
(ecosystem). From the broader perspective, we can also see that IT and other technologies
play an important role in SBM. By using IT enterprises, we are able to collect and process a
large amount of customer and other data. For instance, customer data can help identify
customer needs and wants, and these insights can be used to provide value added to
products and services for them. Furthermore, the production data and data from business
processes can help to monitor day-to-day business tasks and processes and thus help
to identify critical processes that present a threat to the environment. With this kind of
knowledge, enterprises can more easily approach developing SBM.
The 2nd cluster “value creation and delivery” is connected to the 3rd cluster “research”
through the themes “use”, “patterns”, and “study”. From Figure 7, we may notice that
there are not many interrelations between these two clusters. However, it is important to
emphasize that the 2nd cluster also includes the use of IS in the process of value creation
and delivery. Therefore, these results are not so surprising and as such support previous
findings, which indicate that the multidisciplinary research of impact of IS and IT on BM
and sustainability is still in its infancy.
Figure 7 shows that there are more connections between the 3rd cluster “research”
and 1st cluster “sustainable business”. There are five paths of connections, each indicating
research on BM and sustainability. The 1st path is “sustainability”, “research”, “case”, and
“environment”. This is aligned with previous research, which confirms that environmental
perspective was the first focus in multidisciplinary investigation of sustainability, BM, and
IS. The 2nd path is through “social”, “economic”, “practice”, and “potential”, “effects”.
This path shows that from a triple bottom line perspective of sustainability, research and
actions should go beyond the economic perspective and should also include (previously
already mentioned) environmental and social perspectives. The 3rd path illustrates a
connection between “sustainability”, “literature”, “focus”, “perspective”, and “concept”.
The 4th path shows a connection between “business model” and “strategies”, and the 5th a
connection between “business model” and “support”. These three paths (the 3rd, 4th, and
5th) indicate that previous research was focused on the literature review and investigation
of cases (which can also be seen in Figure 4 and Table A1). Furthermore, the focus was
more on the multidisciplinary field of BM and sustainability (as an important strategy
and urgent need of future development of enterprises), with observable lack of IS (and
IT) perspective.
In the next paragraphs, we present each cluster in detail.

112
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

3.2.1. 1st Cluster: Sustainable Business

The “sustainable business” cluster is the underlying theme of analyzed materials and
represents the relationships between sustainability, BM, and value.
The text analysis showed that the strongest relationship in the analysis is between
concepts “model” and “business”. Concepts “business” and “model” are closely and
directly connected; the strength marked in Leximancer is 5/5, as we anticipated based on
the selected literature. Due to the nature of analyzed material dealing with BM, it can be
assumed that in most cases this is a single concept—“business model” (BM). We confirmed
that “BM” is used as one concept in most cases by examining the literature matches report.
Therefore, we use “BM” as one concept throughout this paper.
“Business” and “sustainability” are the themes with the most hits from the investigated
literature, closely followed by the theme “value” (Figure 6). Furthermore, the concept map
(Figure 7) shows that themes “business” and “sustainability” overlap. Three concepts are
shared between both themes, namely, “innovation”, “management”, and “approach”. If
we take a closer look, two paths connect themes “business” and “sustainability”.
The first path, which connects the themes “business” and “sustainability”, leads
through the concepts “BM”, “innovation”, and “sustainability” and confirms that inno-
vation of BM can lead to sustainability [14,15,34,40,55–57]. This path is also linked to
the concept “value” (“value”–“BM”–“innovation”–“sustainability”), which indicates that
value is used as a focal point of a BM concept by various authors [55,58–61] and in various
BM frameworks [10,59,62,63]. Furthermore, it suggests that BM innovation could be the
key initiator of business sustainability [2,9,55]. This indicates that when innovating BM,
not only economic value but also social and environmental benefits should be taken into
consideration and shared with multiple stakeholders [3,8,61,64,65].
The second path, which links the themes “business” and “sustainability”, is through
the concepts “BM”, “management”, and “approach”. The entire path is classified under the
theme “business”, but the two concepts “management” and “approach” are shared between
the two themes “business” and “sustainability”. This is consistent with the observations of
other researchers. For example, Jabłonski [66] stated that there are common approaches
when it comes to managing BM for sustainability, including balancing stakeholders’ needs
and ensuring economic, environmental, and social benefits. If stakeholders value social
and environmental outcomes, the value creation process should reflect this [3,61]. However,
Schaltegger et al. [15] noted that business practices that lead to sustainability do not just
happen, but need to be designed and deliberately and actively managed. In this cluster, the
value represents a link that connects strategic goals of moving towards SBM using value
creation and delivery processes that are represented in the 2nd cluster.

3.2.2. 2nd Cluster: Value Creation and Delivery

Cluster “value creation and delivery” represents the use of IS and IT in (business) pro-
cesses to create value added products and services for customers. More close observation
of the 2nd cluster indicates the interplay of “people” using “information” (“systems” and
“technologies”) in various “processes” to generate and provide value added “products”
(and “services”) with a particular focus on “customers” via (also online) “environment”
(“sharing”, “economy, and “platforms”). In this cluster, we noticed two pairs of concepts
that are strongly connected and, in most cases, represent one concept. The first two con-
cepts are “digital” and “technologies” (in a theme “process”), which, based on the strength
of connections as well as in-depth investigation of the literature, represent one concept,
“digital technologies”. The second pair of concepts is “information” and “systems” (in the
theme “information”). Additionally, in this case, based on the in-depth literature review,
we understand these two concepts as a single concept “information systems”.
Although we could not identify a separate theme that would include all technological
(IT and IS) aspects (see Figure 7), deeper observation of the whole cluster includes a plethora
of concepts related to IT and IS, for example: “digital”, “technologies”, “platforms”,
“online”, “information”, “systems”, and “data”. This could be explained by the fact that

113
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

technology nowadays plays a strategic role in business. However, it is no longer considered

as a separate part, but is strongly interwoven with every area and process in enterprises.
Further observation of the cluster “value creation and delivery” shows that themes
“products” and “information” overlap most with other themes (“use”, “people”, “process”,
and “customer”) in this cluster. Theme “products” consists of constructs “products”,
“services”, “consumers”, “sharing”, and “platforms”. This indicates that these concepts are
very closely related to a product (and service) or value proposition. The literature suggests
that proposed value today often consist of bundles of these concepts [34,38,57,67–69]. In
the context of IT, products are bundled with smart sensors and/or digital services and
are provided via digital platforms. If not, these products are considered to be of limited
use by customers [57,67]. The direct connections between theme “products” and themes
“customers”, “processes”, and “people” indicate that customers and users are directly
involved in the development of products and services through the processes which are
supported by different IT [68,70].
Theme “information” consists of concepts “information systems”, “large”, “resources”,
“change”, “public”, “local”, and “online”. This suggests that there are various (“large”
numbers of) “information systems” that use different “resources” to process “information”
from online “public” (e.g., open data, Internet) and local “data” (IS within enterprise).
The direct connection between theme “information” and themes “use”, processes”, and
“people” implies that “data” are generated through the ”use” of ”information systems”
(and technologies) by ”people” (”users”) to support and streamline different business
”processes”. The implication of the use of ”information systems“ and ”technologies“ is
”digital“-ization of ”processes“, which leads to optimization, more precisely to shorter
“time” and increased “quality” of business operations (“processes”), reduced “waste” of
“resources” and overall ”cost“ reduction (e.g., [34,35]).
Even though themes “information” and “products” are not directly connected, the
connections between them through the themes “people” and “process” imply (a) “informa-
tion” as a “resource” generated and used by “people” consuming “products” and related
“services” on digital “platforms” [34,35] and (b) “information” as a “resource” that helps
successfully incorporate “information systems” and “technologies” into enterprise “pro-
cesses” with an aim to deliver innovative “products” and “services” via online experiences
(“platforms”) [35,67].

3.2.3. 3rd Cluster: Research

The cluster “research” represents the state of research until early 2020, future sustain-
ability issues and organizational effects as presented in the analyzed materials, as well as
the support that research can offer to enterprises.
In addition to the economic and social dimensions of sustainability, which are included
with the theme “sustainability”, the environmental dimension is included with the theme
“research”. This shows that the state of research and literature on business sustainabil-
ity has historically been significantly oriented towards the environmental dimension of
sustainability [24,30,71,72].
The themes “research” and “sustainability” are directly connected by the concepts
“sustainability”, “research”, and “case”, pointing to the body of knowledge that consists
mainly of qualitative research case studies located in different businesses [56,57,67,68].
Theme “research” is also linked to the theme “future” through the concepts “future”,
“issues”, “impact”, and “environmental”, which refer to either (a) research regarding re-
solving environmentally unsustainable practices in order to prevent negative consequences
in the future [56] or (b) research determining scope and severity of future issues that may
arise from environmentally unsustainable practices [7].
On the other side of the cluster, there is a theme “study”. Theme “study” overlaps
with the theme “future” and connects to the theme “use” (included in the cluster value
creation and delivery). It appears that theme “study” in this case is related to research

114
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

on how the use of IT-enabled sustainable solutions help enterprises achieve sustainable
objectives [34,35,38,67].

4. Discussion and Further Research Directions

The aim of our study was to provide a comprehensive review of an emerging and
rapidly developing interdisciplinary field and to integrate current knowledge on the
role of IT in SBM. To this end, we conducted a systematic literature review of 61 papers
related to the role of IT in SBM using the content analysis tool Leximancer. Based on
the analysis, we identified 14 themes interrelated through various concepts (key words).
Observations of the visual results, provided by Leximancer (Figure 7) helped us to gain
deeper insights into the current body of knowledge in this interdisciplinary field, provide an
interpretation according to our understanding (human perspective), and suggest avenues
for future research.
In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss the scope and outlets of current publica-
tions and results. Furthermore, we provide avenues for future research.

4.1. Discussion of Scope and Outlets of Current Publications

The results of our literature review on IT, BM, and sustainability show that the number
of contributions has been increasing in recent years. Even though the number of papers
published in 2019 was lower than that of 2018, we expect the trend towards more quality
and quantity of research in this interdisciplinary field to continue. At least, and above all,
this can be said for the European Union (EU), where the European Commission (EC) is
pushing the agenda for research on digitalization and sustainability. EC Agenda states that
competitiveness in the coming years will depend on the sustainability and the ability to
exploit IT [42]. However, this research should not be limited to the EU, as digitalization
and sustainability are global matters that should concern enterprises and policy makers
worldwide [73].
Figure 5 (number of corresponding authors per country) shows that the majority of
authors of published papers are based in the EU, where policy makers and enterprises in
general have a strong interest in sustainability issues. It is worrying that this could be a
result of a different corporate governance structure. Most EU enterprises are governed by
a two-tier board system of corporate governance [74]. A dual structure of management
and supervisory board that have different roles creates opportunities for different types of
values (e.g., economic, environmental, and social), while a unitary board system consisting
of a single board of directors, as is common in the USA, tends to outweigh social and
environmental concerns in favor of economic gains [74,75]. This is consistent with Stubbs
and Cocklin [3] who argue that absentee shareholders (shareholders who are not involved
in a community in which the enterprise operates) tend to focus on economic rather than
social and environmental benefits.
The findings in Figure 3 (number of publications per journal and year) are supported
by Parida et al. [17], who note the debate on sustainability has moved from journals on
environmental management to journals on strategic management and entrepreneurship,
where sustainability, innovation, and competitiveness are now the central issues. It is
also notable that many journals from the IS discipline in recent years have organized
Special Issues on the emerging theme of sustainability [76–78], where the central point
of investigation was related to the use of IT, digitalization, and digital transformation for
innovation or development of SBM.

4.2. Discussion of Findings

The IS discipline has more than five decades of evolvement (Davis, 2006). A historical
view of development of the field shows that the early phase of investigation was related to
electronic data interchange between organizations (up to the 1980). This era was followed
by electronic business, which was enabled by a wider use of the Internet (1990 to 2005).
From 2005 on (up to 2011), research was focused on electronic interactions between all stake-

115
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

holders in society. The last decade (from 2011 on) was dedicated to digital transformation,
which is the result of new emerging technologies (e.g., social, mobile, analytics, artificial
intelligence, cloud and high performance computing, Internet of Things, and robotics) and
their impact on enterprises, organizations, individuals, and society [54]. In the business
context, digital transformation refers to a process of redesign or innovation of BM as a
result of the adoption and use of IT, which create digital capabilities [54,79] However, in
the last decade, there has also been an emerging need for another transformation—so-
called sustainability transformation [35]. IT and digital transformation bring enormous
opportunities to respond to this emerging need pursued not only by evidence from the
environment, and expectations from citizens and customers, but also as a formal demand
from governments [80,81].
It is evident that IT have become a main component of innovation and new, changed
ways of value generation, delivery, and resource distribution [40,82,83]. Our findings
suggest that processes coupled with digital capabilities and IT can lead to savings not
only in terms of costs but also in general resource use and distribution. In addition,
innovative, digital BM show that data (e.g., time and patterns of use, generated waste)
automatically provided by users via IT can help identify excessive resource use and waste,
e.g., excessive fuel use and need for maintenance in car sharing [34,35]. Furthermore,
by changing BM in a way that charges for access to products instead of ownership [35]
(e.g., car sharing), ownership is left in the hands of enterprises. Ownership provides an
incentive for enterprises to create high quality products, cause less waste through the
use of products, and positively influence economic and environmental sustainability [8].
Taking ownership of products out of business transactions provides lower entry costs for
users; social sustainability is improved by enabling people to pay only for the actual use of
products [57], and larger customer pools for products with higher added value (e.g., higher
quality and sustainably sourced) are created.
According to Yang, Evans, Vladimirova, and Rana [59], identifying uncaptured value
through data on waste and resource use can lead to new value opportunities and improved
sustainability. Value uncaptured can be transformed into value captured faster than new
value can be created (by creating products out of wasted resources or by charging for
previously free services). For example, through online business processes and the online
presence of products and users (e.g., websites, digital platforms, and social media), data
are collected [35]. These data enable continuous business model innovation (BMI), iterative
development of solutions, and rapid validation of business viability, saving time and
resources in the process [59,64]. In addition, our results suggest that environmental effects,
such as the reduction in waste and resource use of enterprises, can be realized through
customer needs if appropriate BM is used [34]. This implies that innovative, potential SBM
are enabled by the use of IT.
Existing studies are focused either on the business perspective or the customer perspec-
tive. The business perspective attempts to capture individual experiences of enterprises
and provide a deeper understanding of how enterprises use IT and tackle sustainability
issues. The customer perspective attempts to investigate customer use of resources or their
motivation to use IT with the aim of achieving sustainable goals. Research topics include
the role of customers and motivating customers by rewarding sustainable behavior. The
latter is based on innovative BMs that are designed to achieve environmental and social
goals, including lower resource consumption, less negative effects for the environment,
inclusive models that reduce the entry price of resources by allowing customers to pay for
use rather than ownership, or sharing savings with the enterprise. The customer perspec-
tive, including how to engage customers in sustainable business activities, is related to this
research and is an important issue in itself [35,67].
There is no indication that a particular type of IT could be most beneficial for SBM,
which suggests that SBM are evolving in line with IT advancements [17,41]. Enterprises
invested in continuous BMI strive to embed state-of-the-art IT that are compatible with
their existing processes, technologies, strategies, and objectives [41]. It is evident that in

116
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

the future, new technologies will continue to emerge, and digital transformation will be an
ongoing process in every enterprise and society. Digital transformation should be used as
an enabler for the transformation of enterprises towards designing more responsible BMs,
which in addition to economic also consider environmental and social dimensions of BM.

4.3. Future Research Directions

In the last decade, the importance of the sustainability perspective has already been
raised by researchers in different disciplines. For example, Seidel et al. [84] urged IS
researchers to integrate sustainability as an essential part of their research. Although it is
evident that continuous digitalization and digital transformation of BM provide enormous
opportunities for development of SBM [17,41], the interdisciplinary field of research in
this area is still at its early stage of development. Researchers are still searching for a
deeper understanding of how enterprises achieve sustainability objectives with the use of
IT [17,66,85].
Our analyses show that in most cases, the focus of previous research was towards
the effects of IT on organizational performance and work (business processes and op-
erations) [34,57]. Another relatively well-represented focus is towards environmental
sustainability [26,30,86,87]. Furthermore, our results suggest that future research should
continue to focus on sustainable consumption of resources (re-use and circular economy),
especially natural (e.g., water and energy), and on environmental perspectives of sustain-
ability. Moreover, current research and practice in SBM have to date paid little attention
to customer (human–social perspective) needs and their integration with IT to generate
sustainable business value [64].
Results of our study support suggestions of previous research, emphasizing the need
for deeper exploration of the emerging field of SBM [4,5,8], with particular focus on the
impacts of IT on achieving sustainability goals [23,34,86]. In the future, interdisciplinary
research on sustainability and IS will be needed for further investigation of this dynamic
and fast evolving field [17,22,66,71,84,85].
Our results suggest that existing research is mainly of a qualitative nature [1,4,34,57],
namely, case studies conducted in different enterprises. As the field of research is still in
its early phase and of a multidisciplinary nature (and as such of higher complexity), case
studies will remain an important research method. For the purpose of generalization of
research results, a multimethod approach, the pursuit of novel data sources, methods, and
tools to experiment with ways to reach sustainability objectives will be needed [1,4,34].
In addition, as current research from an enterprise perspective is based mostly in the EU,
more research is needed to identify if there is a correlation between sustainability efforts
and management system (one-tier vs. two-tier) on an organizational and national level.
With the rapid development of digital transformation and the urgent need for sustain-
ability transformation, this interdisciplinary field will be extremely dynamic in the future
from the perspective of its evolvement and research opportunities.

5. Conclusions and Limitations

The momentum of digital transformation and the rapid pace of digitization, coupled
with the need for more sustainability in business, provide substantial opportunities for
creating new value propositions as well as new BM [41]. Many emerging SBM are fully
digitalized and heavily driven by widespread use of IT [34,67].
It is evident that unsustainable BM, driven only by economic value, has already caused
observable damage to our environment as well as in society. However, in recent years,
policy makers of many countries have put sustainability at the top of their agendas for
future development [88,89]. For example, the European Commission (EC) [42] has already
emphasized that future competitiveness will depend on the ability to exploit the oppor-
tunities of IT to move towards sustainability and resource-efficiency. Another important
achievement from the policy and law perspective is related to obligatory reporting of sus-
tainability practices for large enterprises. Namely, from 2018, large public-listed enterprises

117
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

in the EU have to provide public reports about the environmental and social effects of their
business practices on their employees and society [80,81]. Therefore, we may say that the
overall performance of enterprises is nowadays already measured from the sustainability
perspective, which includes economic but also social and environmental perspectives at
least in large enterprises. However, to ensure that sustainability will become an integral
part of daily business and of our lives, many regulations and (behavioral) changes will
have to be implemented in the future.
Nowadays, IT are an integral part of enterprise strategy. Its role is represented in IT or
digital strategy, which must be aligned with business strategy [90]. As such, IT supports
operations of practically all elements of BM. The momentum of digital transformation and
the rapid pace of digitalization, coupled with the need for more sustainability, provide
substantial opportunities for creating new value propositions as well as new BM [41].
It is evident that the implementation of IT only to achieve higher efficiency and com-
petitive advantage is insufficient. Much more responsible, and less exploitative, economic
and BM practices are needed for the overall benefit of human beings, societies, and our
natural resources and environment [54]. In the future, IT will have to be used to design
solutions and BMs aligned with sustainability goals. For example, solutions will have to
be made to address different societal challenges, where IT can provide new value-added
services. In the context of demographic challenges, digital (care) services for the elderly,
e-inclusion of the elderly, digital health solutions for citizens, etc. will have to be further
designed. In the context of consumption, better planning and monitoring of food pro-
duction according to the real needs, fair distribution, less waste, and other solutions can
be developed. In recent years, we have observed heavy pressures on various tourism
destinations and points of interest around the world. As this type of, to date, in many cases,
only economically driven, BM has already caused damage in the natural environment, it is
obvious that new solutions are needed to regulate (over) tourism in the future and protect
natural and cultural heritage. New solutions can be related to virtual reality, mobile apps
that will alert and redirect tourist to less populated points of interest, co-creation of new
itineraries by providers and tourists, etc.
Since March 2019, the world has also faced the COVID-19 pandemic. While scientists
provided the vaccine in only 9 months, IT played another important role in enterprises.
In some industries, those enterprises, which were able to provide their employees remote
access to the IS from their homes, were able to continue their business operations. On the
other hand, many enterprises, which were in an earlier stage of digitalization, had to close
their businesses. The momentum of the COVID-19 pandemic crises has pointed to the
importance of IT like never before. In this time, many enterprises increased investments in
IT and moved to digital business faster than ever before. This movement should be, from
now on, permanent and continuous.
We may conclude that the results of our study provide insights into past research in
the multidisciplinary field of IS and management, with particular focus on the impact of
IT on SBM. Our results revealed that this multidisciplinary field of research is relatively
young, however fast evolving in the last decade. New technologies will create new op-
portunities for digital transformation and design of digital solutions, services, models,
and societies. However, these solutions will have to be created according to sustainability
goals. To achieve these goals, the collaboration of all stakeholders in society will be needed
(governments, enterprises, researchers, IT providers, etc.). In addition, researchers from
different disciplines will have to cooperate and take an active role in these endeavors.
Although the approach with which we combined the strengths of IT and the human
mind to analyze large amounts of data has its advantages, it also has shortcomings. First,
the content analysis tool did not provide a definitive answer through analysis, but only a
starting point. It is up to the researcher to provide a meaningful discussion supported by the
literature, move from description and patterns to interpretation, determine the underlying
meanings of concepts and relationships identified, and observe the gaps in the process—
something that software cannot do. In other words, it is possible the results provided by the

118
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

content analysis tool influenced our final judgements. In addition, Leximancer identifies
single words as concepts, which means that multiword concepts cannot be identified, but
are broken down into single word concepts and even placed under different themes (e.g.,
BM, IS, IT, and SBM). Although there are instances where it is possible to conclude that
such a multiword concept is involved (e.g., overlapping concepts business and model
and information systems), we found that this is a problem for content analysis in the field
of information systems, as two main concepts, “information systems” and “information
technology”, cannot be identified. In addition, the authors frequently used the acronyms
“IS” and “IT” in the articles analyzed, which cannot be treated separately from the English
words “is” and “it” in Leximancer. Thus, in our content analysis, IS and IT are reflected
in the results through concepts such as “information”, “systems”, and “technologies” as
well as other related concepts, such as “digital”, “data”, and “platforms”. Since our aim
was to provide insight into the extent and ways IT and IS are involved in SBM, there may
be variations in the results provided by Leximancer. However, this also represents an
opportunity for further investigation in the field.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.V. and A.P.; methodology, D.V.; software, D.V. and
M.M.; validation, D.V., M.M. and A.P.; formal analysis, D.V.; investigation, D.V.; resources, D.V.; data
curation, D.V. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.V.; writing—review and editing, D.V.,
M.M. and A.P.; visualization, D.V. and M.M.; supervision, A.P.; funding acquisition, D.V. and A.P. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency: Program No. P5-0018—
Decision Support Systems in Digital Business and postgraduate research funding for Young Re-
searchers No. 1000-20-0552.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
All the selected papers that were identified and analyzed in the review with Lexi-
mancer are listed in Table A1. Table A1 includes 61 papers published from 2008 to 2020.
Papers are listed in descending order by year of publishing.
Table A1 includes 6 columns: authors; year—year when a paper was published; title—
full title of paper (book chapter titles are followed by book title); journal—title of journal in
which paper was published (book chapters and conference papers are marked as such);
type of paper (as stated by authors)—type of paper or methodological approach as authors
described it in each paper; and assigned methodological category. We assigned one of
four methodological categories to each paper for clarity and in order to be able to visually
present the methodological approach. We categorized all papers except book chapters
(marked N/A) into four methodological categories.
The assigned methodological categories are: theoretical (literature reviews, intro-
duction to Special Issue, editorial, overview, framework development, and scientometric
analysis), qualitative (case study, experimental design, and framework development based
on or tested with case studies), quantitative (survey), mixed methods (combination of
qualitative and quantitative—usually case study and survey, also when preceded by a
literature review).

119
 Table A1. Selected papers that were analyzed in the review.

Assigned
Type of Paper (as
Authors Year Title Journal Methodological
Stated by Authors)
Category
Literature and
Bocken, Nancy, Lisa Smeke Morales, and “Sufficiency Business Strategies in the Food
2020 Sustainability practice review, case Qualitative
Matthias Lehner Industry—The Case of Oatly”
study
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

“Digital Transformation and Localizing the Ecological

ElMassah, Suzanna, and Mahmoud Mohieldin 2020 Case study Qualitative
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” Economics
“Dominant Consumer Attitudes in the Sharing
Buda, Gabriella, Barbara Pethes, and Jozsef Lehota 2020 Resources Survey Quantitative
Economy—A Representative Study in Hungary”
Economic
Gil-Gomez, Hermenegildo, Vicente “Customer Relationship Management: Digital
Research-
Guerola-Navarro, Raul Oltra-Badenes, and José 2020 Transformation and Sustainable Business Literature review Theoretical
Ekonomska
Antonio Lozano-Quilis Model Innovation”
Istraživanja
“Sustainable Consumption through New Business
Models: The Role of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship” In Sustainable Book chapter—
Bocken, Nancy 2019 Entrepreneurship: Discovering, Creating and Book chapter exploration through N/A
Seizing Opportunities for Blended Value illustrative cases
Generation, edited by A. Lindgreen, F. Maon, and

120
C. Vallaster.
Delgado-de Miguel, Juan-Francisco, Tamar
“Proximity Trade and Urban Sustainability: Small
Buil-López Menchero, Miguel-Ángel Semi-structured
2019 Retailers’ Expectations Towards Local Sustainability Qualitative
Esteban-Navarro, and Miguel-Ángel in-depth interviews
Online Marketplaces”
García-Madurga
Ievoli, Corrado, Angelo Belliggiano, Danilo “Information and Communication Infrastructures
European
Marandola, Pierluigi Milone, and Pierluigi 2019 and New Business Models in Rural Areas: The Case study Qualitative
Countryside
Ventura Case of Molise Region in Italy”
“Can Pay-As-You-Go, Digitally Enabled Business
Ockwell, David, Joanes Atela, Kennedy Mbeva, Literature review,
Models Support Sustainability Transformations in
Victoria Chengo, Rob Byrne, Rachael Durrant, 2019 Sustainability workshops, Qualitative
Developing Countries? Outstanding Questions
Victoria Kasprowicz, and Adrian Ely interviews
and a Theoretical Basis for Future Research”
Olah, Judit, Nicodemus Kitukutha, Hossam “Achieving Sustainable E-Commerce in
Literature review
Haddad, Miklos Pakurar, Domician Mate, and 2019 Environmental, Social and Economic Dimensions Sustainability Qualitative
and case study
Jozsef Popp by Taking Possible Trade-Offs”
Framework
“A Networked Analysis and Engineering
Vorraber, Wolfgang, and Matthias Müller 2019 Sustainability development, Qualitative
Framework for New Business Models”
case study
 Table A1. Cont.

Assigned
Type of Paper (as
Authors Year Title Journal Methodological
Stated by Authors)
Category
Dumitriu, Dan, Gheorghe Militaru, Dana Corina “A Perspective Over Modern SMEs: Managing
Deselnicu, Andrei Niculescu, and Mirona 2019 Brand Equity, Growth and Sustainability Through Sustainability Survey Quantitative
Ana-Maria Popescu Digital Marketing Tools and Techniques”
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Denuwara, Navodya, Juha Maijala, and “Sustainability Benefits of RFID Technology in the
2019 Sustainability Literature review Theoretical
Marko Hakovirta Apparel Industry”
Freudenreich, Birte, Florian Lüdeke-Freund, and “A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Journal of Framework
2019 Theoretical
Stefan Schaltegger Models: Value Creation for Sustainability” Business Ethics development
“Sharing versus Collaborative Economy: How to Discourse analysis
Journal of Sustain-
Gössling, Stefan, and Michael Hall 2019 Align ICT Developments and the SDGs in and literature Theoretical
able Tourism
Tourism?” review
Jose, Charbel, Chiappetta Jabbour, Ana Beatriz “Unlocking the Circular Economy through New Technological
Framework
Lopes De Sousa Jabbour, Joseph Sarkis, and 2019 Business Models Based on Large-Scale Data: An Forecasting and Theoretical
development
Godinho Filho Integrative Framework and Research Agenda” Social Change
“Why and How to Compete through International
Literature review,
Sustainability: A Review and Outline of Trends Entrepreneurship
Parida, Vinit, and Joakim Wincent 2019 introduction to Theoretical
Influencing Firm and Network-Level and Management
Special Issue

121
Transformation” Journal
Literature review,
“Reviewing Literature on Digitalization, Business introduction to
Parida, Vinit, David Sjödin, and Wiebke Reim 2019 Model Innovation, and Sustainable Industry: Past Sustainability Special Issue, Theoretical
Achievements and Future Promises” framework
development
“Big Data for the Sustainability of Healthcare Simulations based
Moro Visconti, Roberto, and Donato Morea 2019 Sustainability Qualitative
Project Financing” on empirical cases
Digital Policy,
Bouwman, Harry, Shahrokh Nikou, Francisco J “The Impact of Digitalization on Business Survey and case
2018 Regulation and Mixed methods
Molina-Castillo, and Mark De Reuver Models” study
Governance
Mixed methods
“Value Migration to the Sustainable Business
(survey and analysis
Jabłonski, Marek 2018 Models of Digital Economy Companies on the Sustainability Mixed methods
of available
Capital Market”
documents)
Literature and
“Sustainable Business Model Archetypes for the Journal of Cleaner practice review,
Yip, Angus W. H., and Nancy Bocken 2018 Mixed methods
Banking Industry” Production semi-structured
interviews, survey
 Table A1. Cont.

Assigned
Type of Paper (as
Authors Year Title Journal Methodological
Stated by Authors)
Category
“Research on Sustainable Business Model
Lüdeke-Freund, Florian, René Bohnsack, Henning Patterns: Status Quo, Methodological Issues, and
2018 Book chapter Book chapter N/A
Breuer, and Lorenzo Massa a Research Agenda” In Sustainable Business
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Models, edited by A. Aagaard.

Research Journal Positioning essay
“Fashion 4.0. Innovating Fashion Industry
Bertola, Paola, and Jose Teunissen 2018 of Textile and enriched by case Qualitative
through Digital Transformation”
Apparel studies
Framework
“Exploring How Usage-Focused Business Models
Bressanelli, Gianmarco, Federico Adrodegari, development based
2018 Enable Circular Economy through Sustainability Qualitative
Marco Perona, and Nicola Saccani on literature and
Digital Technologies”
case study
Business and Quasi-experimental
“Sharing Yet Caring: Mitigating Moral Hazard in
Hildebrandt, Björn, Andre Hanelt, and Sebastian Information research design
2018 Access-Based Consumption through IS-Enabled Qualitative
Firk Systems based on a case
Value Co-Capturing with Consumers”
Engineering study
“What Makes a Sustainable Business Model
Piscicelli, Laura, Geke D S Ludden, and Tim Journal of Cleaner
2018 Successful? An Empirical Comparison of Two Case study Qualitative

122
Cooper Production
Peer-to-Peer Goods-Sharing Platforms”
“Implementation and Unification of the ERP
Pohludka, Michal, Hana Stverkova, and
2018 System in a Global Company as a Strategic Sustainability Case study Qualitative
Beata Ślusarczyk
Decision for Sustainable Entrepreneurship”
California
Rajala, Risto, Esko Hakanen, Juri Matilla, Timo “How Do Intelligent Goods Shape
2018 Management Case study Qualitative
Seppälä, and Mika Westerlund Closed-Loop Systems?”
Review
“Assessing Indirect Environmental Effects of
Bieser, Jan C. T., and Lorenz M. Hilty 2018 Information and Communication Technology Sustainability Literature review Theoretical
(ICT): A Systematic Literature Review”
Framework
“Transformative Sustainable Business Models in
development based
Brenner, Barbara 2018 the Light of the Digital Imperative—A Global Sustainability Theoretical
on literature and
Business Economics Perspective’
practice review
Camacho-Otero, Juana, Casper Boks, and Ida ‘Consumption in the Circular Economy: A
2018 Sustainability Literature review Theoretical
Nilstad Pettersen Literature Review”
 Table A1. Cont.

Assigned
Type of Paper (as
Authors Year Title Journal Methodological
Stated by Authors)
Category
Dentchev, Nikolay, Romana Rauter, Lára
“Embracing the Variety of Sustainable Business Overview—an
Jóhannsdóttir, Yuliya Snihur, Michele Rosano, Journal of Cleaner
2018 Models: A Prolific Field of Research and a Future introduction to the Theoretical
Rupert Baumgartner, Timo Nyberg, Xingfu Tang, Production
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Research Agenda” Special Issue

Bart van Hoof, and Jan Jonker
Journal on
“Mapping Hotspots and Emerging Trends of
Wireless Scientometric
Jin, Yuran, and Shoufeng Ji 2018 Business Model Innovation under Networking in Theoretical
Communications analysis
Internet of Things”
and Networking
Overview
“Re-Architecting Oral Healthcare for the Journal of
Shetty, Vivek, John Yamamoto, and Kenneth Yale 2018 (methodology not Theoretical
21st Century” Dentistry
stated in the paper)
Geissdoerfer, Martin, Doroteya Vladimirova, and “Sustainable Business Model Innovation: A Journal of Cleaner
2018 Literature review Theoretical
Steve Evans Review” Production
“Business Intelligence Issues for Multi-dimensional
Mountean, Mihaela 2018 Sustainability Theoretical
Sustainability Projects”. data modeling
“Bridging Sustainable Business Model Innovation
Baldassarre, B., G. Calabretta, Nancy Bocken, and Journal of Cleaner Research through

123
2017 and User-Driven Innovation: A Process for Qualitative
T. Jaskiewicz Production design
Sustainable Value Proposition Design”
“Driving Business Transformation toward
Hanelt, Andre, Sebastian Busse, and Lutz M. Sustainability: Exploring the Impact of Information
2017 Case study Qualitative
Kolbe Supporting IS on the Performance Contribution of Systems Journal
Eco-Innovations”
Moreno, Mariale, Christopher Turner, Ashutosh “Re-Distributed Manufacturing to Achieve a
Conference
Tiwari, Windo Hutabarat, Fiona Charnley, Debora 2017 Circular Economy: A Case Study Utilizing IDEF0 Case study Qualitative
proceedings
Widjaja, and Luigi Mondini Modeling”
Framework
“Value Uncaptured Perspective for Sustainable Journal of Cleaner
Yang, M, S Evans, D Vladimirova, and P Rana 2017 development, Qualitative
Business Model Innovation” Production
case study
Evans, Steve, Doroteya Vladimirova, Maria “Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Business Strategy
Holgado, Kirsten Van Fossen, Miying Yang, 2017 Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of and the Literature review Theoretical
Elisabete A. Silva, and Claire Y. Barlow Sustainable Business Models” Environment
 Table A1. Cont.

Assigned
Type of Paper (as
Authors Year Title Journal Methodological
Stated by Authors)
Category
Analysis of
“Sustainable Business Model Research and Journal of Cleaner
Lüdeke-Freund, Florian, and Krzysztof Dembek 2017 emerging research Theoretical
Practice: Emerging Field or Passing Fancy?” Production
field
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Pagoropoulos, Aris, Daniela C. A. Pigosso, and “The Emergent Role of Digital Technologies in the Conference
2017 Literature review Theoretical
Tim C. McAloone Circular Economy: A Review” proceedings
“The Game-Changing Potential of Digitalization Editorial,
Seele, Peter, and Irina Lock 2017 for Sustainability: Possibilities, Perils, and Sustain Sci introduction to Theoretical
Pathways” Special Issue
Environmental
“Towards a Sufficiency-Driven Business Model: Innovation and
Bocken, Nancy, and S. W. Short 2016 Case study Qualitative
Experiences and Opportunities” Societal
Transitions
“Technology-Enabled Value Co-Creation: An Industrial
Breidbach, Christoph F., and Paul P. Maglio 2016 Empirical Analysis of Actors, Resources, and Marketing Case study Qualitative
Practices” Management
Research in
“Crowdsensing-Based Transportation

124
Heiskala, Mikko, Jani-Pekka Jokinen, and Transportation
2016 Services—An Analysis from Business Model and Case study Qualitative
Markku Tinnilä Business and
Sustainability Viewpoints”
Management
Analysis of
Davidsson, Paul, Banafsheh Hajinasab, Johan “The Fourth Wave of Digitalization and Public
2016 Sustainability literature and Theoretical
Holmgren, Åse Jevinger, and Jan Persson Transport: Opportunities and Challenges”
explorative studies
Editorial,
Schaltegger, Stefan, Erik G Hansen, and “Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Organization and
2016 introduction to Theoretical
Florian Lüdeke-Freund Present Research, and Future Avenues” Environment
Special Issue
“An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business
Organization and Framework
Upward, Anthony, and Peter H. Jones. 2015 2015 Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Theoretical
Environment development
Compatible with Natural and Social Science”
“A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Journal of Cleaner Literature and
Bocken, Nancy, S. W. Short, P. Rana, and S. Evans 2014 Theoretical
Sustainable Business Model Archetypes” Production practice review
“Business Models for Sustainable Technologies:
Bohnsack, René, Jonatan Pinkse, and Ans Kolk 2014 Exploring Business Model Evolution in the Case Research Policy Content analysis Theoretical
of Electric Vehicles”
 Table A1. Cont.

Assigned
Type of Paper (as
Authors Year Title Journal Methodological
Stated by Authors)
Category
“Business Models for Sustainable Innovation:
Journal of Cleaner
Boons, Frank, and Florian Lüdeke-Freund 2013 State-of-the-Art and Steps towards a Literature review Theoretical
Production
Research Agenda”
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

Overview—an
Boons, Frank, Carlos Montalvo, Jaco Quist, and “Sustainable Innovation, Business Models and Journal of Cleaner
2013 introduction to the Theoretical
Marcus Wagner Economic Performance: An Overview” Production
Special Issue
International
“Business Cases for Sustainability The Role of Journal of
Schaltegger, Stefan, Florian Lüdeke-Freund, and Framework
2012 Business Model Innovation for Innovation and Theoretical
Erik G Hansen development
Corporate Sustainability” Sustainable
Development
Journal of
“From Green to Sustainability: Information
Strategic Framework
Dao, Viet, Ian Langella, and Jerry Carbo 2011 Technology and an Integrated Theoretical
Information development
Sustainability Framework”
Systems
“Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Literature review
Elliot, Steve 2011 Sustainability: A Resource Base and Framework MIS Quarterly and framework Theoretical

125
for IT-Enabled Business Transformation” development
Proposition of
actions for renewal
“Embedding Strategic Agility A Leadership
Long Range and transformation
Doz, Yves L, and Mikko Kosonen 2010 Agenda for Accelerating Business Model Qualitative
Planning of business models
Renewal”
based on practice
review
“Towards a Conceptual Framework of ’Business Conference Framework
Lüdeke-Freund, Florian 2010 Theoretical
Models for Sustainability” proceedings development
Development of
“Information Systems Innovation for
Melville, Nigel P. 2010 MIS Quarterly research agenda Theoretical
Environmental Sustainability”
and framework
Case study,
“Conceptualizing a ‘Sustainability Business Organization and
Stubbs, Wendy, and Chris Cocklin 2008 framework Qualitative
Model’” Environment
development
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

References
1. Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable Business
Models: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1663. [CrossRef]
2. Boons, F.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J.
Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 9–19. [CrossRef]
3. Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127. [CrossRef]
4. Dentchev, N.; Rauter, R.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Snihur, Y.; Rosano, M.; Baumgartner, R.; Nyberg, T.; Tang, X.; van Hoof, B.; Jonker, J.
Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: A prolific field of research and a future research agenda. J. Clean. Prod.
2018, 194, 695–703. [CrossRef]
5. Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Dembek, K. Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy? J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 168, 1668–1678. [CrossRef]
6. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [CrossRef]
7. Broman, G.I.; Robert, K.-H. A framework for strategic sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 140, 1–15. [CrossRef]
8. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C.Y. Business Model Innovation
for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017,
26, 597–608. [CrossRef]
9. Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E.G.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research, and Future
Avenues. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10. [CrossRef]
10. Upward, A.; Jones, P.H. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible
with Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 2015, 29, 97–123. [CrossRef]
11. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strategy Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [CrossRef]
12. Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy Leadersh. 2007, 35, 12–17. [CrossRef]
13. Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plann. 2010, 43, 354–363. [CrossRef]
14. Lüdeke-Freund, F. Towards a Conceptual Framework of Business Models for Sustainability. In Proceedings of the Knowledge
Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation—Conference Proceedings, 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable
Consumption and Production (ERSCP) & 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU), Delft, The
Netherlands, 25–29 October 2010.
15. Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business Cases for Sustainability The Role of Business Model Innovation for
Corporate Sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 6, 95. [CrossRef]
16. Bouwman, H.; Nikou, S.; Molina-Castillo, F.J.; De Reuver, M. The Impact of Digitalization on Business Models. Digit. Policy Regul.
Gov. 2018, 20, 105–124. [CrossRef]
17. Parida, V.; Sjödin, D.; Reim, W. Reviewing Literature on Digitalization, Business Model Innovation, and Sustainable Industry:
Past Achievements and Future Promises. Sustainability 2019, 11, 391. [CrossRef]
18. Rayna, T.; Striukova, L. From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing business model innovation.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 102, 214–224. [CrossRef]
19. Tiscini, R.; Testarmata, S.; Ciaburri, M.; Ferrari, E. The blockchain as a sustainable business model innovation. Manag. Decis.
2020, 58. [CrossRef]
20. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Business Model Innovation Strategy: Transformational Concepts and Tools for Entrepreneurial Leaders; John Wiley &
Son Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
21. Melville, N.; Kraemer, K.; Gurbaxani, V.; Carroll, W.E. Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An
Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 283–322. [CrossRef]
22. Dao, V.; Langella, I.; Carbo, J. From green to sustainability: Information Technology and an integrated sustainability framework.
J. Strategy Inf. Syst. 2011, 20, 63–79. [CrossRef]
23. Melville, N.P. Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 1–21. [CrossRef]
24. Watson, R.T.; Boudreau, M.-C.; Chen, A.J. Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informat-
ics and New Directions for the IS Community. Source MIS Q. 2010, 34, 23–38. [CrossRef]
25. Boudreau, M.-C.; Chen, A.; Huber, M. Green IS: Building Sustainable Business Practices; Watson, R.T., Ed.; Information Systems,
Global Text Project: Athens, GA, USA, 2008.
26. Gholami, R.; Sulaiman, A.B.; Ramayah, T.; Molla, A. Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and
environmental performance: Results from a field survey. Inf. Manag. 2013, 50, 431–438. [CrossRef]
27. Molla, A.; Cooper, V.; Pittayachawan, S. IT and eco-sustainability: Developing and validating a green IT readiness model. In
Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 15–18 December 2009.
28. Faucheux, S.; Nicolaï, I. IT for green and green IT: A proposed typology of eco-innovation. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2020–2027.
[CrossRef]
29. Hedman, J.; Henningsson, S.; Selander, L. Organizational Self-Renewal: The Role of Green Is in Developing Eco-effectiveness. In
Proceedings of the ICIS 2012 Proceedings, Orlando, FL, USA, 16–19 December 2012.
30. Molla, A.; Abareshi, A.; Cooper, V. Green IT beliefs and pro-environmental IT practices among IT professionals. Inf. Technol.
People 2012, 27, 129–154. [CrossRef]

126
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

31. Kane, G.C.; Palmer, D.; Phillips, A.N.; Kiron, D.; Buckley, N. Achieving Digital Maturity; MIT Sloan Management Review; Deloitte
University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2017.
32. Kane, G.C.; Palmer, D.; Phillips, A.N.; Kiron, D.; Buckley, N. Coming of Age Digitally: Learning, Leadership, and Legacy; MIT Sloan
Management Review; Deloitte Insights: Boston, MA, USA, 2018.
33. Sebastian, I.M.; Mocker, M.; Ross, J.W.; Moloney, K.G.; Beath, C.; Fonstad, N.O. How Big Old Companies Navigate Digital
Transformation. MIS Q. Exec. 2017, 16, 197–213.
34. Hanelt, A.; Busse, S.; Kolbe, L.M. Driving business transformation toward sustainability: Exploring the impact of supporting IS
on the performance contribution of eco-innovations. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 27, 463–502. [CrossRef]
35. Hildebrandt, B.; Hanelt, A.; Firk, S. Sharing Yet Caring: Mitigating Moral Hazard in Access-Based Consumption through
IS-Enabled Value Co-Capturing with Consumers. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2018, 60, 227–241. [CrossRef]
36. Kathan, W.; Matzler, K.; Veider, V. The sharing economy: Your business model’s friend or foe? Bus. Horiz. 2016, 59, 663–672.
[CrossRef]
37. Gil-Gomez, H.; Guerola-Navarro, V.; Oltra-Badenes, R.; Lozano-Quilis, J.A. Customer relationship management: Digital
transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Econ. Res. Istraž. 2020, 33, 2733–2750. [CrossRef]
38. Ockwell, D.; Atela, J.; Mbeva, K.; Chengo, V.; Byrne, R.; Durrant, R.; Kasprowicz, V.; Ely, A. Can Pay-As-You-Go, Digitally Enabled
Business Models Support Sustainability Transformations in Developing Countries? Outstanding Questions and a Theoretical
Basis for Future Research. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2105. [CrossRef]
39. Dumitriu, D.; Militaru, G.; Deselnicu, D.C.; Niculescu, A.; Popescu, M.A.-M. A Perspective Over Modern SMEs: Managing Brand
Equity, Growth and Sustainability Through Digital Marketing Tools and Techniques. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2111. [CrossRef]
40. Jose, C.; Jabbour, C.; De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Sarkis, J.; Filho, G. Unlocking the circular economy through new business models
based on large-scale data: An integrative framework and research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 546–552.
[CrossRef]
41. Brenner, B. Transformative Sustainable Business Models in the Light of the Digital Imperative—A Global Business Economics
Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4428. [CrossRef]
42. European Commission Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central
Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank Annual
Growth Survey. 2018. Available online: https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vkjl90nh6wxh (accessed on
31 July 2018).
43. Seele, P.; Lock, I. The game-changing potential of digitalization for sustainability: Possibilities, perils, and pathways. Sustain. Sci.
2017, 12, 183–185. [CrossRef]
44. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6. [CrossRef]
45. Levy, Y.; Ellis, T. A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research. Inf.
Sci. 2006, 9, 181–212. [CrossRef]
46. Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering; Software Engineering
Group, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University: Staffs, UK; Department of Computer Science, University
of Durham: Durham, UK, 2007.
47. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [CrossRef]
48. Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution; Social Science Open Access
Repository: Klagenfurt, Austria, 2014.
49. Hsieh, H.F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [CrossRef]
50. Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th ed.; Sage Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
51. Tableau. Available online: https://www.tableau.com/ (accessed on 16 April 2020).
52. Leximancer. Available online: https://info.leximancer.com/ (accessed on 16 April 2020).
53. Randhawa, K.; Wilden, R.; Hohberger, J. A Bibliometric Review of Open Innovation: Setting a Research Agenda. J. Prod. Innov.
Manag. 2016, 33, 750–772. [CrossRef]
54. Pucihar, A. The digital transformation journey: Content analysis of Electronic Markets articles and Bled eConference proceedings
from 2012 to 2019. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 29–37. [CrossRef]
55. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416.
[CrossRef]
56. Bocken, N.; Smeke Morales, L.; Lehner, M. Sufficiency Business Strategies in the Food Industry—The Case of Oatly. Sustainability
2020, 12, 824. [CrossRef]
57. Piscicelli, L.; Ludden, G.D.S.; Cooper, T. What makes a sustainable business model successful? An empirical comparison of two
peer-to-peer goods-sharing platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4580–4591. [CrossRef]
58. Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1019–1042.
[CrossRef]
59. Yang, M.; Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Rana, P. Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable business model innovation. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 140, 1794–1804. [CrossRef]
60. Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [CrossRef]

127
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1192

61. Freudenreich, B.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Schaltegger, S. A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for
Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 166, 1–16. [CrossRef]
62. Richardson, J. The Business Model: An Integrative Framework for Strategy Execution. Strateg. Chang. 2008, 17, 133–144.
[CrossRef]
63. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
64. Baldassarre, B.; Calabretta, G.; Bocken, N.; Jaskiewicz, T. Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven
innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 175–186. [CrossRef]
65. Vladimirova, D. Building Sustainable Value Propositions for Multiple Stakeholders: A Practical Tool. J. Bus. Model. 2019, 7, 1–8.
66. Jabłonski, M. Value Migration to the Sustainable Business Models of Digital Economy Companies on the Capital Market.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3113. [CrossRef]
67. Chian Tan, F.T.; Cahalane, M.; Tan, B.; Englert, J. How GoGet CarShare’s Product-Service System is Facilitating Collaborative
Consumption. MIS Q. Exec. 2017, 16, 265–277.
68. Heiskala, M.; Jokinen, J.-P.; Tinnilä, M. Crowdsensing-based transportation services—An analysis from business model and
sustainability viewpoints. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2016, 18, 38–48. [CrossRef]
69. Gössling, S.; Hall, M. Sharing versus collaborative economy: How to align ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism? J. Sustain.
Tour. 2019, 27, 74–96. [CrossRef]
70. Breidbach, C.F.; Maglio, P.P. Technology-enabled value co-creation: An empirical analysis of actors, resources, and practices. Ind.
Mark. Manag. 2016, 56, 73–85. [CrossRef]
71. Malhotra, A.; Melville, N.P.; Ross, S.M.; Watson, R.T. Spurring Impactful Research on Information Systems for Environmental
Sustainability. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 1265–1274. [CrossRef]
72. Cooper, V.; Molla, A. Information systems absorptive capacity for environmentally driven IS-enabled transformation. Inf. Syst. J.
2017, 27, 379–425. [CrossRef]
73. Ripple, W.J.; Wolf, C.; Newsome, T.M.; Galetti, M.; Alamgir, M.; Crist, E.; Mahmoud, M.I.; Laurance, W.F. World Scientists’
Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Bioscience 2017, 67, 1026–1028. [CrossRef]
74. Lessambo, F.I. Corporate Governance in Continental Europe. In The International Corporate Governance System; Palgrave Macmillan:
London, UK, 2014; pp. 114–129.
75. Lessambo, F.I. Corporate Governance in the United States of America. In The International Corporate Governance System; Palgrave
Macmillan: London, UK, 2014; pp. 46–80.
76. Alt, R. Electronic Markets on sustainability. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 667–674. [CrossRef]
77. Gholami, R.; Watson, R.T.; Hasan, H.; Molla, A.; Bjorn-Andersen, N. Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustain-
ability: How Can We Do More? J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2016, 17. [CrossRef]
78. Elliot, S.; Webster, J. Editorial: Special issue on empirical research on information systems addressing the challenges of environ-
mental sustainability: An imperative for urgent action. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 27, 367–378. [CrossRef]
79. Jeansson, J.; Bredmar, K. Digital Transformation of SMEs: Capturing Complexity. In Humanizing Technology for a Sustainable
Society, Proceedings of the 32nd Bled eConference, Bled, Slovenia, 16–19 June 2019; Pucihar, A., Kljajić Borštnar, M., Bons, R., Seitz, J.,
Cripps, H., Vidmar, D., Eds.; University of Maribor Press: Maribor, Slovenia, 2019; pp. 523–541.
80. European Commission. Member State Implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
81. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. DIRECTIVE 2014/95/EU; European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union: Strasbourg, France, 2014.
82. Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Perona, M.; Saccani, N. Exploring How Usage-Focused Business Models Enable Circular Economy
through Digital Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 639. [CrossRef]
83. Camacho-Otero, J.; Boks, C.; Nilstad Pettersen, I. Consumption in the Circular Economy: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2018,
10, 2758. [CrossRef]
84. Seidel, S.; Bharati, P.; Fridgen, G.; Watson, R.T.; Albizri, A.; Boudreau, M.-C.; Butler, T.; Kruse, L.C.; Guzman, I.; Karsten, H.; et al.
The Sustainability Imperative in Information Systems Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2017, 40, 3. [CrossRef]
85. Parida, V.; Wincent, J. Why and how to compete through sustainability: A review and outline of trends influencing firm and
network-level transformation. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 15, 1–19. [CrossRef]
86. Hedman, J.; Henningsson, S. Developing ecological sustainability: A green IS response model. Inf. Syst. J. 2016, 26, 259–287.
[CrossRef]
87. Kurkalova, L.A.; Carter, L. Sustainable production: Using simulation modeling to identify the benefits of green information
systems. Decis. Support Syst. 2017, 96, 83–91. [CrossRef]
88. European Commission. Monitoring the Digital Economy & Society 2016–2021; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015;
Volume 52. [CrossRef]
89. European Commission. Integration of Digital Technology: Europe’s Digital Progress Report 2017; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2017.
90. Levstek, A.; Hovelja, T.; Pucihar, A. IT Governance Mechanisms and Contingency Factors: Towards an Adaptive IT Governance
Model. Organizacija 2018, 51, 286–310. [CrossRef]

128
 MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax +41 61 302 89 18
www.mdpi.com

Sustainability Editorial Office

E-mail: [email protected]
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
MDPI
St. Alban-Anlage 66
4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel: +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-4306-2