Managing Partner and CEO, Schüco International KG
Special Track Building & Architecture – Andreas Engelhardt - Cradle to Cradle Congress 2017
Am 1. Oktober 2012 übernahm Andreas Engelhardt den Vorsitz der Geschäftsleitung der Schüco International KG und wurde im ...
About Andreas Engelhardt
Andreas Engelhardt, Managing Partner and CEO of Schüco International KG, has been promoting the company's "Value Up" campaign, which focuses on building renovation and circular construction. In a March 2025 interview, he described existing buildings as "the raw material depots of the future" and stated that Schüco offers solutions ranging from minimally invasive improvements to full circular deconstruction and recycling. He emphasized that collaboration with metal fabricators is essential for the industry's development and that he personally works on developing a logistical system for taking back and recycling installed materials. Engelhardt has also discussed his background and political views. In a February 2025 podcast, he noted that he became personally liable partner of Schüco with a secondary school leaving certificate and described the role as involving unlimited personal liability. He has criticized Germany's high construction costs, stating that "37% are state-induced." Regarding sustainability, Engelhardt has long advocated for Cradle to Cradle principles, arguing in 2017 that products should be developed to "100 percent go back into the cycle" and that Germany should use Cradle to Cradle as an "export hit." He has also called for public procurement to prioritize sustainability over lowest-price bidding.
Transcript (35 segments)
A
Andreas Engelhardt0:17
Good day everyone, I've secured my refreshments here first — you probably have too. Very good idea, tastes good too. Thank you very much. Before I start, the good news: according to the schedule, I'm actually already finished. I wish you great presentations.
First of all, to everyone from Lüneburg and the surrounding area, I want to warmly congratulate you on this fantastic building. It is truly a pleasure, an eye-catcher when you drive into the city. I feel very honored that the organizers have placed their trust in me to provide an input. Whether I can fulfill that, I don't know — I'll give my best. So congratulations on the building, I hope you see it the same way. It's a great honor to be part of this large event today.
You know, it's quite impressive when you see it here. You feel younger directly. Someone once said to students: 'I didn't study, but I've seen a university or two from the outside.' And I'm of course also pleased that it didn't happen entirely without our involvement. I'm particularly delighted that something like this can be shown as a reference.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are a good example — you are role models because you're sitting here on a Saturday morning. You've all been here since 9 a.m., more or less. And sustainability is not a trend. Sustainability is a matter of attitude. As my colleagues who are also here — we're accompanying the congress over both days — have often heard, it's a matter of attitude. Sustainability is not a trend, and sustainability and living for people and the environment are shaped by having role models.
In my impulse that I'd like to give here shortly, I hope that not only for the construction industry, which is a key focus here, but also that we generally find and see approaches for why we must be role models, and why it has been proven that wherever role models emerge, it has paid off. We are moving in a world that doesn't stop at the German borders — that's no great revelation. We're moving on the globe, and I'm giving this talk as a human being, as a European, as a global citizen, and of course also as a representative of the company, but first and foremost as a global citizen.
Our megatrends are visible here: Silver Society — I'm already part of that megatrend — the population is aging. Needs for safety and comfort are growing and changing sustainably across the planet. Urbanization accompanies us whether we want it or not, with strong growth rates in the megacities of this world, second-tier cities in China. I was in a city three weeks ago with 15 million inhabitants that belonged to the second-tier cities — so second class, 15 million inhabitants.
We have the megatrend of Neo-Ecology: combining, connecting life, economy, and environment. We've actually been doing this for decades. We Germans do it superbly, by the way, but this term shows just how far-reaching it goes. The megatrend of Health — this morning in our preliminary discussion we spoke about Stuttgart and about Peking. We're developing a 1:1 mock-up window — all things that wouldn't have existed many decades ago.
The megatrend of New World, New Space: How does one work? How does one study? How do buildings look — living and dwelling from the inside? And at the end of the day, the topic of Security overall. You can see here what contribution the construction industry can actually make and how immensely the construction industry influences these megatrends in our collective life in Germany. I'll stay with this: it is a key sector for us. At least 10 percent of GDP — gross domestic product — is spent in the construction industry.
Still strong growth, renovation of buildings, new buildings emerging. You all know we're missing between 350,000 and 400,000 apartments in Germany every year. Over two million people are now employed in the construction industry — a very strong societal foundation. The construction sector ranks ahead of mechanical engineering in production and employment. So it's a concentrated force assembled here that, if it works sustainably — or doesn't — takes considerable influence.
And this 'or doesn't' doesn't exist, because everyone who works there, who bears responsibility, who are role models, contribute to whether our Earth exists as it does today or warms more. And global warming is also an important message: it doesn't stop at the German border. The atmosphere belongs to everyone, and this recognition, ladies and gentlemen, means we have clear responsibility in this industry and beyond.
What does this mean concretely? I see the responsibility — and you can see it in the individual contributions here today in the products — in the construction industry: creating sustainable buildings and sustainable life cycles. We also briefly discussed today creating a shift in consciousness around the value of buildings, talking more about it, calculating more, so that a renovated building or one built sustainably from the start — considering cradle-to-cradle principles — is also worth more because it lasts longer and ideally returns all raw materials used.
This consciousness can only be changed by talking about it much, finding as many allies as possible, and finding role models. Role models emerge partly through regulation — being pushed a bit — and through voluntary commitment. I'd like to belong to the latter, and we strive to do it massively where we can. That naturally also includes neutral institutions. I've listed the most important ones here — besides cradle-to-cradle, there are others like the DGNB, which plays an essential role, and international certification and societies that ensure things happen sustainably and are verifiable.
This year we created our first voluntary sustainability report, which also includes what wasn't yet so good. That's part of the truth — the truth of being a role model in the industry. As entrepreneurs, we are particularly responsible for this. That applies to each of you too, whether it's separating waste or buying sustainable clothing — that must also be verifiable if what you're doing is genuine. For us as a company, this is certainly the case, and it's absolutely not about using this as a marketing instrument, but simply showing that this is a matter of attitude for us.
That's our task. That's why our employees, or those of other companies and institutions, naturally cannot convey these things if they don't talk about them repeatedly and make clear how important it is to them, and what successes they've had with measures introduced in the past. There are many good examples, and this whole effort — everyone together, each in their place — contributes to a shift in consciousness.
When an investor plans a building from the start, it must become self-evident to build it sustainably. As an investor, you do that because you watch your money and want your return on investment. But then you also do it as a global citizen, because you run a company, have responsibility for employees, for customers. I don't want to end up in social waffling, but if you followed our works council meetings, you'd hear no different words. The measures we present sometimes provocatively as lighthouses — to show how important it is to us — you'd understand even better that this shouldn't just be empty words.
At the end of the day, it's about the supply chain. We're part of this supply chain, but we also have responsibility toward our suppliers, our partners. In this supply chain, what's essential is the raw material we have only once — whose resources are completely limited. Any company that ignores this and treats it as infinite will not exist in a few years. All companies that ignore this have no future viability. That's why it's only about finding products in a technical cycle — products, systems, and services that meet this standard.
We all know the biological cycle personally. We discussed it briefly this morning, and you also raised a question about it — how far do we actually return our sustainably acquired clothing, and how certain are we that these things are actually returned to the cradle-to-cradle cycle? That also belongs to the truth: making this transparent and communicative. We're now in the technical cycle where engineering, where many things that companies, universities, and institutions can contribute — further developing products and systems and proving they can do it.
That it is possible to reuse an aluminum window 100 percent again and again. That also involves letting yourself be asked critical questions about the primary energy expended in producing aluminum. Sure, ignoring that would be completely wrong. We're going about this quite offensively: we want suppliers who generate their raw materials and products with hydropower, and when at the end of the life cycle — which has no end because it can always be used 100 percent again — we will have achieved what we want.
The impulse is recycling, recovery, and cradle-to-cradle, again and again. It's also not unsexy — clothing manufactured according to cradle-to-cradle principles is beautiful and has a certain sympathy, a good feeling. And here you see courageous investors — the RAG Zollverein. You may have seen the building — fantastic. We had the great pleasure of working with the architects and the investor CADA Wittfeld and the planners to use our own products, and something beautiful emerges from that.
And there are even more beautiful things. The building being created there, which we also had the joy of being involved in, will be completely dismantled in ten years and completely returned in the cradle-to-cradle concept to another purpose, another material. We already know that today. The investor has already committed and said that's exactly how I want it — I want everything returned 100 percent. So it goes — I said earlier — role models. The attitude of investors like the RAG and many, many others have committed to this.
Of course, you also need to accept some financial commitment. For example, if you have neutral certification done, that's part of it. If you say I need a neutral entity to confirm that what we say corresponds to reality — as we know from other things too. I find it important that this is realistic, traceable, and transparent, because it simply shows that the role models acted correctly in the end. And that's why the discussion doesn't stop: a building doesn't have to just be cheap — I must ensure as an investor, as a person, as a stakeholder, that the building meets my requirements for returning to the complete cycle.
It must become common understanding. It must become good form. It also has a bit to do with politeness toward the Earth playing a role. One should also be allowed to say it's not sexy when you don't do it.
Of course, it's not only companies and scientists that play a role — the state does too. We want as little regulation as possible, clearly. But thank you for your introductory words. Why do federal buildings actually need to undergo their own certification? I don't understand that at all. Why don't they all undergo certification like everything else? Whether that's good or bad, I can only partially judge, but why don't we commit to a unified certification procedure and uniform rules and say: this is how it must be? And why don't we commit in the associations that operate here — there are different ones in this hall — to having the same rules for everyone?
I was given a mandate to give an impulse. That doesn't mean everything I say is right, but most of it is. That was the test — the restrained applause. Most of it was right — much better applause. But that's just a joke.
I had the opportunity on Monday to speak with nine other entrepreneurs and the Green Party parliamentary group leadership about preparing — well, not preparing, they listened to us and asked what we from the industry's perspective should bring into the coalition negotiations. On Tuesday I had a personal conversation with Mr. Laschet, who's also a member of the negotiating delegation, and I gave both an important message: please don't come to me with a lowering of standards in Germany just because we need so many apartments and should build much cheaper and less sustainably than we currently do.
And also — this is on my own behalf, I just forgot — take a look. We do this ourselves too, what I just said. We don't preach wine and drink water. Although sometimes it's the other way around, but for us it's important that our buildings that emerge here at our headquarters in the heart of Europe, in Bielefeld, look pretty cool. We want to reach all standards that are somehow achievable and show our customers that something like this is possible, and that such a building emerges and that it will still be beautiful in 30 years when I'm long in retirement.
I wanted to say again why we shouldn't lower these standards just because we're under pressure to build apartments. The world is so global and things are changing so massively that our 'Made in Germany' label — especially regarding sustainable living — the Germans, I almost have to say, have always been ahead. The construction of sustainable buildings has now become significantly better in the Nordic countries than in Germany. And it wasn't the Nordic countries that contributed to that.
We are very strongly represented there as a company. We do very homogeneous concepts with architects and investors there who are much further ahead than we are. We've simply lost this lead because we didn't protect its value, because we didn't say we want to make sustainable buildings an export hit — using the capabilities of industry, science, engagement, associations, the attitude of people up to industry — because the world ultimately lives off it.
The worst thing we can do now is send political signals of retreating from this aspiration to be world champion in cradle-to-cradle concepts. That would be the most wrong thing Germany could do. That's why it's so important that we hold congresses with many role models who commit themselves and sit here, and that we all, in our responsibility where we can exert influence, ensure role models. We simply identify the topics and say how important they are to us, and each is a mosaic piece toward a technology, an attitude, a fact.
The raw materials of the world that creation has given us are simply not infinitely available. What does that mean for you today? What does that mean for us in the coming months and years? How can we contribute? How can we make a decisive contribution? How do we become world champions? We need to do excellent public relations. We always talked about brand affinity in the restaurant — how do we bring the cradle-to-cradle brand more into the consciousness of decision-makers, stakeholders as it's modernly called. And everyone is a stakeholder — every architect lives privately, every investor lives privately, they breathe the same air as anyone else who uses the building. There's no difference.
So this consciousness, strengthening this brand — we try to support this strongly as a company, not just today but beyond, because it's a shared topic. It's not a marketing instrument for me either, I say it quite openly. Of course I'm happy when buildings like this emerge with us, but it doesn't happen through events like this — it happens because many people work on bringing sensible products into sensible concepts. That's really the achievement behind it. That's why it's so important that we collectively do good public relations and talk about it repeatedly across all channels.
I keep looking over to that young lady there to see if it's okay — I understand I only have 30 seconds left. We also need perception among architects and investors. Investors naturally ask: what happens during the life cycle of a building? We have a lot of educational work to do — that you don't look at seven or ten years but at 30 years, at reusability, and at the ethical foundation that the material will be completely returned.
We want to make that contribution too. We have good access to architects and building owners and want to do a lot there. But we also need companies that commit to this and make it a principle. I have the great fortune of working in a company that develops products to make the building envelope sustainable — that's a very, very big advantage. I didn't press any button but the light going off is probably a subtle hint. Done nicely.
And finally, we also need legal provisions. We need the courage to bring in regulations — not to build bureaucracy. You said we don't need bureaucracy to prove something; we have institutes that show us whether we're doing it right. The state should also have more trust there and say: if the seal is on it, it's right. There are of course examples where it worked really badly — if I look in the direction of the automotive industry. That's not how we want to do it, and I tell you we won't do it that way, because we don't just look at it that way — it's simply not our attitude.
To be clear and final, also directed at the public sector: why is it usual in a bidding process to always take the cheapest provider? By the way, I told the Greens and Mr. Laschet: you can make a great contribution. And immediately comes the knockout argument: well, you want to sell expensive premium products. Of course I do, but that's not the point at all. It's not about being the fifth or sixth most expensive provider getting the order. It would already be great if the second-best provider had the chance, because that provider in all likelihood has considered much more cradle-to-cradle principles and builds sustainably. We should be able to afford that. Thank you very much, I hope that was reasonably sensible.