Thesis Topics

Description: Mergers and Acquisitions are among the most critical and value-driving strategic decisions for firms, yet empirical evidence on the role of financial advisors remains ambiguous. The aim of this thesis is to systematically review the academic literature on the influence of financial advisors on M&A outcomes. By synthesizing findings across studies, you will assess under what conditions advisors create value, when they may have no effect (or negative effect), and which advisor characteristics (e.g. reputation, number of advisors, experience) matter most. The resulting structured literature review should offer guidance both for academic research and for practitioners contemplating advisor engagement in M&A deals.

Prerequisites: Interest in M&A, financial advisory/investment banking, good command of English, independent and structured working style

Methodology: Systematic Literature Review

Language: English

Start: ASAP

Application: Please stick to the regular application process via our chair’s online form

Contact: Pablo Ruf (pablo.ruf@tum.de)

First literature to start with: 

• Golubov, A., Petmezas, D., & Travlos, N. G. (2012). When It Pays to Pay Your Investment Banker: New Evidence on the Role of Financial Advisors in M&As. The Journal of Finance, 67(1), 271–311.
• McCarthy, K. J., & Noseleit, F. (2022). Too many cooks spoil the broth: on the impact of external advisors on mergers and acquisitions. Review of Managerial Science, 16, 1817–1852.
• Rau, R. (2000). Investment bank market share, contingent fee payments, and the performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 56(2), 293-324

a) Context & Motivation

• Tire wear particles are a major source of microplastics in air, soil, and water.
• Microplastics and TRWP are detected in drinking water, food, and human tissues, raising concerns about chronic exposure.
• Quantifying links between TRWP/microplastics exposure and health-system costs is crucial for regulation and mitigation.

b) Research Gap

• Evidence on TRWP and microplastic health impacts is fragmented across toxicology and epidemiology.
• No widely accepted exposure–response relationship exists for TRWP/microplastics and human health outcomes.
• Few studies combine structured literature review with quasi-experimental methods to estimate health and cost impacts.

c) Research Questions

• RQ1: What are the main human health implications of TRWP and microplastic exposure?
• RQ2: Can we derive exposure–response relationships from existing studies? H
• RQ3: How do changes in TRWP/microplastic exposure relate to health-system costs at city/region level? 

d) Methodology

• Structured literature review with transparent search and inclusion criteria for TRWP/microplastics and health outcomes.
• Evidence mapping and, where possible, meta-analysis to derive exposure–response functions.
• Difference-in-Differences analysis on selected regions/cities with relevant interventions (e.g., low-emission zones, traffic measures).

• Monetization of health impacts using cost-of-illness and WTP estimates, plus sensitivity analysis.

   

e) First literature to start with

• Khan et al. (2020) – "Tyre and road wear particles (TRWP): a review of generation, properties, emissions, human health risk, ecotoxicity and fate", Science of the Total Environment.
• Zhang et al. (2024) – "A review of tire wear particles: occurrence, adverse effects, and environmental fate", Journal of Hazardous Materials.
• Li et al. (2025) – "Occurrence and environmental fate/behaviours of tire wear particles and their toxicological effects", Archives of Toxicology.

• Gandhi et al. (2024) – "Review of Health Effects of Automotive Brake and Tire Wear Particles", Toxics.

   

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please apply via the regular application process on our chair’s online portal
Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de

a) Context & Motivation

• Germany’s 2009 “Abwrackprämie” aimed to stabilize the automotive market and accelerate fleet renewal.
• Goals included stimulating vehicle sales, supporting employment, and reducing CO₂, NOx, and particulate emissions.
• Comparable scrappage schemes were implemented internationally (US CARS, French “prime à la casse”, UK program).
• An integrated economic–ecological evaluation is required to understand real policy effectiveness.
• Future green stimulus design depends on understanding GHG saved per euro invested.

b) Research Gap

• No integrated assessment unifying public cost, economic impact, and environmental benefit for the German Abwrackprämie.
• Few harmonized cost‑effectiveness metrics exist (€/tCO₂ saved, pollutant reduction per euro).
• Limited cross-country comparison using consistent indicators for economic and ecological outcomes.
• Weak analysis of age distribution and emission characteristics of scrapped vs. replacement vehicles.
• No consolidated identification of key success factors for high-impact scrappage schemes.

c) Research Questions & Hypotheses

• RQ1: What were the economic and ecological impacts of the German Abwrackprämie?
• RQ2: How much CO₂/NOx/PM was reduced per euro invested (considering vehicle recycling / processing)?
• RQ3: Were pruchases made under the Abwrackprämie just an advancement of already planned purchases?
• RQ4: How does scrapped vehicle age / average car park age relate to emission reduction potential?
• RQ5: What design factors optimize both economic and ecological outcomes based on assessment of similar programs in other countries? 

d) Methodology

• Research and analyze policy design for Germany and major international schemes for car scrapping.
• Analyze economic impacts using public data on sales, registrations, and macroeconomic indicators.
• Model environmental impacts using emission factors for scrapped and replacement vehicles (HBEFA, EEA).
• Estimate lifetime CO₂/NOx/PM changes under baseline vs. early scrappage scenarios (including vehicle recyclong/processing).
• Calculate cost‑effectiveness metrics (tCO₂/€ saved, pollutant reduction per euro, incremental sales per euro).
• Perform harmonized cross-country comparison.
• Identify success factors based on empirical and comparative results.

e) Suggested data

• German program data from BMWK, BMU, KBA, Destatis.
• Emission factor data (HBEFA, EMEP/EEA).
• International evaluations (US CARS, France, UK, Italy, Spain).
• Academic literature on macroeconomic stimulus impacts.
• Fleet composition, vehicle age, and mileage statistics (Eurostat, OECD, KBA).

f) First literature to start with

• Böckers et al. (2012) – "Pull-Forward Effects in the German Car Scrappage Scheme: A Time Series Approach".
• ITF / OECD (2023) – Study on car scrappage schemes and their impacts on CO₂ and NOx emissions in France, Germany and the US.
• ICCT (2024) – "Cleaning up Germany’s vehicle stock" and related analyses of targeted scrappage options.
• German and international government evaluation reports on 2009–2010 scrappage programmes (e.g. US CARS, French prime à la casse).

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please apply via the regular application process on our chair’s online portal
Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de

Description:
Carbon accounting standards are currently being revised, prompting firms to adopt new accounting systems and approaches. Accounting systems can be viewed as organizational technologies—requiring implementation, user acceptance, and structural adaptation. In technology adoption research, the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework is widely used, but its applicability to carbon accounting system adoption remains underexplored.

Aim:
Conduct a systematic literature review that synthesizes TOE-based technology adoption literature and links it to “accounting as a technology” research. Based on this, assess how well the TOE framework explains the adoption of new carbon accounting system approaches and where adaptations may be needed.

Research Questions:

• How is the TOE framework used to analyze technology adoption, and what are its core determinants?
• How does literature conceptualize the adoption of accounting systems as technologies?
• Does the TOE framework adequately capture drivers and barriers of adopting new carbon accounting approaches under evolving standards?

Methodological Approach:

• Systematic search, screening, and synthesis of TOE literature
• Targeted review of accounting-as-technology and carbon accounting adoption research
• Integrative discussion of TOE’s applicability and limitations in this context

Key Data:

• Type: Bachelor thesis (3 months)
• Method: Systematic literature review
• Language: English or German
• Start: ASAP (Preferably Mid December)
• Application: Via our chair’s online portal
• Contact: Hanna Scholta (hanna.scholta@tum.de)

a) Context & Motivation

• EU battery demand (EVs, electronics, small devices) is surging; competitiveness hinges on secure materials, cost-effective manufacturing, robust recycling, and circular business models.
• Insights can inform circularity in other streams (textiles, small electronics).
• New policies demand use of recycled battery materials in new products effectively creating a market for recycled materials within Europe.

b) Research Gap

• Fragmented view of which policy, industrial, and business model combinations best build a resilient, circular EU battery ecosystem across industries.
• Limited system-level quantification of closed-loop flows and economic implications across scenarios (domestic refining, second life, advanced recycling) & industries.

c) Research Questions (individual focus on one or more possible)

• RQ1: What are the critical success factors (CSFs) for a competitive, circular EU battery value chain by 2030–2035?
• RQ2: Which policy & market levers most effectively close loops (collection targets, recycled-content mandates, green procurement, standards)
• RQ3: How will economics and prices develop once EU law is mandating fixed quotas of recycled materials in new products?

d) Methodology

• Material Flow Analysis for Li, Ni, Co, Mn, Cu, Al, graphite across the EU; scenario modeling for collection and recycling.
• Techno-economic modeling of manufacturing and recycling cost curves; sensitivity to energy prices, yields, and scrap generation.
• Policy simulation: compare portfolios (subsidies, CfDs, recycled-content mandates, eco-design) on investment and circularity KPIs.

• Case studies & benchmarking: EU vs. leading global regions; derive CSFs and transferability principles to textiles/electronics; potentially key stakeholder workshops.

   

e) First literature to start with

• Köhler et al. (2023) – "Analysing policy change towards the circular economy at the example of EU battery legislation", Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews.
• Mikic et al. (2024) – "Greening the global battery chain? Critical reflections on the EU’s new battery regulation", Energy Research & Social Science.
• Council of the EU (2025) – "Towards a sustainable, circular, European battery supply chain" (infographic and background note).

• REINFORCE Project (2025) – "Characterization of the circular battery value chain" (project report).

   

• Language: English or German
• Start: ASAP (Preferably Mid December)
• Application: Via our chair’s online portal
• Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de

Note: this thesis is part of a joint research hub; the best theses each year written in relevant areas will be awarded €1000.

Context & Motivation

• EU and national SUP measures aim to curb plastic waste and drive circularity across packaging and product design.
• Firms must adapt via material substitutions, redesign, reuse/refill, and end-of-life solutions amid compliance costs and uncertainty.
• Clarifying whether strict rules accelerate or chill innovation—and which enabling conditions (subsidies, partnerships, standards) matter—supports better policy and corporate strategy.

b) Research Gap

• Scarce causal evidence linking regulatory stringency/design to the rate and direction of circular innovation.
• Limited understanding of which framework conditions convert compliance pressure into successful innovations at scale.
• Few cross-country syntheses on transferable best practices.

c) Research Questions & Hypotheses

• RQ1: Do stricter SUP provisions increase innovation outputs (patents, pilots, product launches, LCA gains)?
• RQ2: Which framework conditions most strongly mediate success?
• RQ3: Which international best practices to foster innovation by regulation are transferable? 

d) Methodology

• Quasi-experimental: Difference-in-Differences and event studies across countries with varying stringency and timing.
• Comparative case studies: 3–5 exemplar countries; process tracing of policy mixes and industry response.
• Innovation analytics: Patent text-mining, product-launch tracking, LCA performance analysis.

• Network mapping: Collaboration networks (companies–universities–startups).

   

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please apply via the regular application process on our chair’s online portal
Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de

Note: this thesis is part of a joint research hub; the best theses as part of this research hub will be awarded €1000.

a) Context & Motivation

• Collection of small batteries and WEEE lags targets; participation currently hinges on convenience, value, and trust.
• Multi-actor systems (manufacturers, distributors, municipalities, PROs) can deploy financial and non-financial incentives to raise return rates and quality.
• Upcoming EU policies demand use of recycled materials in new products potentially creating competitive advantages for companies with a working take-back system.

b) Research Gap

• Limited comparative evidence on which incentive mixes work best for different actors and channels.

• Few causal field studies isolating the impact of deposits, instant rewards, bundled returns, or nudges on volume and contamination/quality.

   

c) Research Questions (focus on one of two angles possible)

Option 1: Focus on incentive schemes

• RQ1: How should incentives be tailored by actor/channel?
• RQ2: Do behavioral nudges complement financial incentives?
• RQ3: What are implications of different take-back system design alternatives (e.g. influence of monetary vs. non-monetary incentives on collection rates)
• RQ1: Which incentives maximize return rates and net system benefits? 

Option 2: Focus on economic implications

• What are economic implications of different take-back system design choices?
• How will prices for recycled materials will develop given upcoming EU law?

• Will successful take-back schemes be a competitive advantage in the future?

   

d) Methodology

Option 1: Focus on incentive schemes

• Field experiments/A-B tests with partner retailers & municipalities: randomized incentive arms (deposit, voucher, loyalty points, charity match, gamified app).
• Discrete Choice Experiments to estimate WTP and participation elasticities across consumer segments.
• Cost–benefit & system modeling: net system cost per kg collected, including safety incidents avoided.
• Stakeholder analysis: incentive design for manufacturers, PROs, retailers, municipalities; contract structures and fee pass-through.

Option 2: Focus on economic implications

• Economic cost model of different take-back system alternatives
• Scenario assessment based on policy outcome options

• Market price modeling for scrap / recycled materials form WEEE

   

f) First literature to start with

• adelphi (2021) – "Analysis of EPR schemes" with case studies on WEEE, packaging and batteries in Europe.
• OECD (2016, 2023) – reports on Extended Producer Responsibility performance and design.
• US EPA (2024) – "Extended Battery Producer Responsibility (EPR) Framework".
• Lorang et al. (2024) – "Designing and operationalising extended producer responsibility under the EU Green Deal", Waste Management & Research.

Key Data:

• Language: English or German
• Start: ASAP (Preferably Mid December)
• Application: Via our chair’s online portal
• Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de

Note: this thesis is part of a joint research hub; the best theses each year written in relevant areas will be awarded €1000.

Context & Motivation

• National transpositions of SUP vary (definitions, timelines, enforcement). EPR schemes can eco-modulate fees by design performance.
• Affected products (incl. plastic components) face divergent incentives and market signals across countries.

b) Research Gap

• Lack of systematic cross-country evidence on how design choices and EPR fee modulation influence innovation pathways.
• Ambiguity on availability and real-world performance of alternatives (incl. biodegradable/compostable).
• Limited evaluation of litter reduction attributable to the Directive vs. confounders.

c) Research Questions & Hypotheses

• RQ1: How do national implementations affect innovation incentives?
• RQ2: Do EPR fee levels/modulation drive or deter innovation?
• RQ3: Are sustainable alternatives available and viable? View on biodegradable plastics?
• RQ4: Has the Directive reduced presence/litter of targeted items?

d) Methodology

• Panel econometrics: Country–year panel linking policy attributes & EPR fees to innovation outputs and litter/collection indicators.
• Staggered-adoption DiD with robustness checks for heterogeneous timing.
• Expert elicitation/Delphi on biodegradable plastics readiness.

• Market landscaping: Supplier scans, techno-economic screens, LCA comparisons.

   

e) First literature to start with

• European Commission – "Single-use plastics" policy page and implementation reports.
• IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (2022) – "Experiences with implementing the EU Directive on Single-Use Plastics".
• adelphi (2021) – "Analysis of EPR schemes" for WEEE, packaging and batteries in Europe.

• OECD (2023) – "New Aspects of Extended Producer Responsibility" (ENV/WKP(2023)17).

   

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please apply via the regular application process on our chair’s online portal
Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de
 

Note: this thesis is part of a joint research hub; the best theses as part of this research hub will be awarded €1000.

a) Context & Motivation

• EV technology reshapes vehicle architecture and performance.
• Key vehicle concept parameters include weight, power, acceleration, bodyshape, and energy consumption thad differ fundamentally between Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICE).

b) Research Gap

• No recent integrated dataset comparing EV vs. ICE vs. hybrid concept parameter trends exists.
• Limited analysis of long-term parameter evolution (2015–2025).

c) Research Questions & Hypotheses

• RQ1: How do key concept parameters differ across drivetrains?
• RQ2: How have parameters evolved over time? Are there any drive-train dependent trends?
• RQ3: Convergence or divergence of vehicle concepts?
• RQ4: What are key implications of concept trends on key parameters like vehicle emissions, material usage & infrastructure usage?

d) Methodology

• Build dataset (50-100 models) of EV/ICE/hybrid vehicles sold in the EU.
• Structured literature review & database analysis.
• Normalize consumption metrics and segment classifications.
• Trend analysis, regression modelling, PCA/clustering.

• Assessment of potential implications on key externalities

   

e) First literature to start with

• Hasan et al. (2024) – "Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption and Performance of BEVs, FCEVs, and HEVs", Technologies (MDPI).
• Zhang et al. (2024) – "A comparative study of vehicle powertrain efficiency: data-driven analysis of real-world energy use", eTransportation.
• GIZ / NDC-TIA (2023) – "Comparative Analysis of Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles from a Resource Efficiency Perspective".
• Public EV specification datasets such as the "Electric Vehicle Specifications 2025" dataset (Kaggle/GitHub).

Language: English or German
Start: ASAP
Application: Please apply via the regular application process on our chair’s online portal
Contact: david.fiedler@tum.de

Description:  Germany’s energy transition relies heavily on wind and solar power, but achieving a fully decarbonized and reliable electricity system also requires firm low-carbon generation. This thesis explores the potential role of nuclear energy as part of Germany’s future power mix. Using the open-source PyPSA framework, the project models alternative decarbonization pathways to assess how nuclear power would interact with variable renewables, storage, and cross-border exchanges. The goal is to evaluate implications for system costs, reliability, and emissions under different nuclear deployment strategies.

Methodology: You will use an open-source energy system model called PyPSA-eur

Prerequisites: Strong python skills, Interest in energy system modelling, energy transition, Independent working style  

Start: ASAP

Contact: Sophie Westphal (sophie.westphal@tum.de) . Please follow the official application process as described here.

Relevant literature: 

• Brown, T., Hörsch, J. and Schlachtberger, D. (2018) PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. Journal of Open Research Software, 6, 4.
• Victoria, M., Zeyen, E. and Brown, T. (2022) Speed of technological transformations required in Europe to achieve different climate goals. Joule, 6, 1066–1086.
• Kamilla Aarflot Moen, Martin Hjelmeland, Jonas Kristiansen Nøland,The total costs of energy transitions with and without nuclear energy, Applied Energy, Volume 402, Part A,2025,126888,ISSN 0306-2619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.126888.

Description: Germany’s energy transition increasingly depends on variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. To maintain system stability and ensure a reliable, fully decarbonized electricity supply, additional flexible resources are needed. Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles (SAEVs) could provide such flexibility through Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) services, offering distributed storage and balancing capabilities. This thesis investigates the potential contribution of SAEV fleets to the German power system through V2G. Using the open-source PyPSA-Eur model, the project integrates SAEV charging (already exists at our chair) and discharging behavior (to be implemented) into the energy system framework and analyses how different adoption levels and operating strategies affect system costs, reliability, and emissions. 

Methodology: You will use an open-source energy system model called PyPSA-eur

Prerequisites: Strong python skills, Interest in energy system modelling, electric mobility, Independent working style  

Start: ASAP

Contact: Sophie Westphal (sophie.westphal@tum.de) . Please follow the official application process as described here.

Relevant literature: 

• Brown, T., Hörsch, J. and Schlachtberger, D. (2018) PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. Journal of Open Research Software, 6, 4.
• Victoria, M., Zeyen, E. and Brown, T. (2022) Speed of technological transformations required in Europe to achieve different climate goals. Joule, 6, 1066–1086.
• Li, Y., Li, X. and Jenn, A. (2022) Evaluating the emission benefits of shared autonomous electric vehicle fleets: A case study in California. Applied Energy, 323, 119638.
• Pruckner, M. and Eckhoff, D. (2020) Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles and the Power Grid: Applications and Research Challenges, 2020 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT-Europe), pp. 1151–1155: IEEE.

Description:
Achieving deep decarbonization of the U.S. electricity system requires rapid deployment of wind, solar, storage, and transmission. However, the necessary speed of technological transformation remains poorly quantified, especially under different climate targets. This thesis investigates which build-out rates of renewable generation, interregional transmission, hydrogen storage, and battery capacity are required for the United States to meet certain CO₂ reduction scenarios by mid-century.
Using the open-source PyPSA-USA modeling framework, the project analyses multiple decarbonization pathways and quantifies the implications of deployment constraints, regional resource potential, and technology cost trajectories. The goal is to identify which technologies and regions drive bottlenecks and to evaluate how realistic policy-driven build rates compare to optimal system needs.

Methodology:
You will use the open-source energy system model PyPSA-USA to simulate future U.S. electricity systems under several CO₂ reduction targets. The analysis includes:

• setting up scenarios with different decarbonization levels (80%, 95%, 100%)
• optimizing build-out of wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen storage, and transmission
• conducting sensitivity analyses on cost assumptions, technology learning rates, and infrastructure permitting constraints
• comparing optimal modelled build rates to historical deployment rates
• assessing system-wide effects on costs, curtailment, and reliability

Prerequisites: Very strong Python skills, interest in energy system modelling, and an independent working style.

Start: ASAP
Contact: Lars Nickel (lars.nickel@tum.de). Please follow your institution’s application process here.

Relevant literature:

• Victoria, M., Zeyen, E. & Brown, T. (2022) Speed of technological transformations required in Europe to achieve different climate goals. Joule, 6, 1066–1086.
• Brown, T., Hörsch, J. & Schlachtberger, D. (2018) PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis. Journal of Open Research Software, 6, 4.
• Larson, E. et al. (2021) Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts.
• NREL (2023) Renewable Energy Futures and Build Rate Analyses.

Description:
Long-term energy planning must account for variability in weather patterns, extreme events, and multi-year renewable resource fluctuations. While many studies focus on single weather years, a robust decarbonized U.S. electricity system must remain reliable under diverse conditions such as prolonged wind droughts, heatwaves, or winter storms.
This thesis uses PyPSA-USA to evaluate the cost-optimal generation and storage mix for a 100% renewable U.S. power system across multiple historical weather years. The project examines how weather extremes influence renewable siting, long-duration storage needs, transmission requirements, and overall system costs. The goal is to identify technology portfolios that perform consistently well across a wide range of meteorological conditions.

Methodology:
You will employ the open-source PyPSA-USA model and integrate multi-year weather datasets to simulate U.S. electricity operations. The workflow includes:

• preparing renewable availability time series for 10–20 historical weather years
• modelling a 100% renewable electricity system with optimal investments in wind, solar, storage, and transmission
• identifying extreme-event stressors (e.g., “Dunkelflaute” periods, polar vortex conditions)
• performing robustness and sensitivity analyses
• comparing fluctuating system costs, storage requirements, and curtailment across years
• determining a portfolio that minimizes risk from weather variability

Prerequisites: Very strong Python programming skills, interest in variable renewable integration and extreme weather impacts, experience with data handling, and an independent working style.
Start: ASAP
Contact: Lars Nickel (lars.nickel@tum.de). Please follow your institution’s application process here.

Relevant literature:

• Brown, T., Hörsch, J. & Schlachtberger, D. (2018) PyPSA: Python for Power System Analysis.
• Brown, T. et al. (2020) Robust multi-year weather analyses for high-renewables systems (PyPSA-EUR). Energy Policy, various publications.
• Collins, S. et al. (2018) Weather variability impacts on power system planning. Nature Energy.
• Staffell, I. & Pfenninger, S. (2016) Long-term patterns of variability in wind and solar. Energy.

Description: In the impact venture capital ecosystem, clear changes can be observed in how funds publicly communicate about impact, climate, sustainability and social issues. Impact investing funds increasingly shift their linguistic focus – for example, from classic “sustainability” rhetoric towards terms such as “resilience”, “risk mitigation” or “long-term value”. At the same time, certain topics – such as social indicators or diversity – are emphasized more strongly or communicated more cautiously depending on the market context.

These shifts reflect broader political and economic developments, including growing polarization around ESG in the United States, regulatory changes in Europe, and geopolitical events such as wars or energy crises. Such developments are particularly visible in public communication on LinkedIn, where funds position themselves towards LPs, portfolio companies and the wider public.

The aim of this thesis is the systematic analysis of LinkedIn posts of selected impact investing funds in the USA and Europe (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) since 2019. The data will be collected in a structured way, categorized, and used for an initial exploratory analysis of changing narratives and themes.

Prerequisites: Interest in Impact Investing and new narratives due to geopolitical/macroeconomic changes, Independent working style  

Methodology: Discourse analysis using qualitative content analysis and quantitative text analysis

Start: ASAP 

Application: Please stick to the regular application process via our chair’s online form

Contact: Lubna Al-Duri (lubna.al-duri@tum.de)    

First literature to start with:

• Agrawal, A., & Hockerts, K. (2021). Impact Investing: Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 153-181.
• Barber, B. M., Morse, A., & Yasuda, A. (2021). Impact investing. Journal of Financial Economics, 139(1), 162–185.
• Kovner, Anna and Josh Lerner, “Doing well by doing good? Community development venture capital,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2015, 24 (3), 643–663.

Description: 

The thesis will be embedded in a larger study examining how companies with significant Scope 3 emissions profiles respond to strategic and institutional uncertainty. The project investigates how firms navigate limited control over their value chain, increasing regulatory pressure, and growing demands for climate legitimacy—and what strategies, mechanisms, and trade-offs emerge in the process.

Research Questions:

• How do companies identify barriers and leverage points in Scope 3 governance?
• What role do stakeholders play in value chain decarbonization?
• Which strategic response mechanisms do companies adopt—accept, improve, avoid, explore, or reflect?
• To what extent do firms perceive Scope 3 frameworks (e.g., GHG Protocol, CSRD, SBTi) as fit for purpose?
• How do Scope 3 strategies vary by industry, supply chain position, or governance maturity? 

Prerequisites: Good German and English language skills, Interest in ESG, corporate sustainability strategies, and climate policy, Independent working style  

Methodology: 

You will conduct a qualitative case study based on expert interviews and company documents (e.g., climate reports, SBTi targets, ESG ratings). Your thesis will contribute to the theoretical understanding of corporate responses to Scope 3 complexity and complement an ongoing multi-case study

Start: ASAP 

Application: Please stick to the regular application process via our chair’s online form

Contact: Victoria Fohrer (victoria.fohrer@tum.de)     

First literature to start with:

• Hettler, M. & Graf-Vlachy, L. (2023). Corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting as an enabler of supply chain decarbonization: A systematic review and comprehensive research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(2), 263–282.
• Buchenau, N., Oetzel, J., & Hechelmann, R.-H. (2025). Category-specific benchmarking of Scope 3 emissions for corporate clusters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 208, 115019.
• Vieira, L.C., Longo, M., & Mura, M. (2024). Impact pathways: The hidden challenges of Scope 3 emissions measurement and management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 44(13), 326–334.

Description: The incorporation of ESG criteria has been the most significant change in executive compensation in the past years. However, the empirical literature on executive compensation primarily focuses on US companies. There is a lack of research for companies outside the US. The aim of this thesis is to collect compensation data (from remuneration reports) for german companies (DAX40, MDAX) for the last decade. On the basis of this database, the data should be quantitatively evaluated with regard to the development of ESG criteria in management board remuneration. 

Methodology: Data collection, Quantitative analysis  

Start: ASAP

Contact: Victoria Fohrer (victoria.fohrer@tum.de) (Please follow the official application process as described here)

First papers to start with: 

Beck, D., Friedl, G. & Schäfer, P. Executive compensation in Germany. J Bus Econ 90, 787–824 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-00978-y 

Cohen, S., Kadach, I., Ormazabal, G. & Reichelstein, S. Executive Compensation Tied to ESG Performance: International Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), 805-853 (2023), DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12481.