We have been producing Vocking liver sausage according to a traditional family recipe since 1891. Sales channels are retail, catering and wholesalers. We also produce (liver) sausage varieties under private label.

4

Full-time equivalent

Not applicable

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

By using the integrated calculationtool in this SME Climate portal; we\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve used the financial data of our annual businessreport BJ2024.

No

Positively critically constructive we are convinced that literally every legal entity (= company and person) simply causes emissions by \"its own right to exist\" and is therefore by definition polluting / burdening the environment. Think for example of consumption, transport, energy consumption, (business) travel etc. This right to exist causes EMISSIONS. The terms emissions and CO2 neutrality should certainly NOT be confused with each other because CO2 is part of emissions apart from methane, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxides, particulate matter etc. Greenwashing is then lurking and can for example be harmful to e.g. company image. For example: focus on driving around with electric trucks or bicycles is nice ... but how are these cars / bicycles actually built and what else does the company / person in question do based on minimizing their emissions? Shooting Kate Perry into the air for 10 minutes of weightlessness doesn't exactly help either, does it? In short, what does the legal entity in question focus on? (In)direct emissions / impact on the environment is really a given based on the right to exist. In our opinion, it is mainly about finding a good balance between limiting emissions and the STRIVE to be almost CO2 neutral. This ambition can be achieved by reducing own emissions (including the use of sustainable energy, cooperation with competitors, combined transport, less travel, etc.), compensation (= green energy certificates) and/or transparency and control. Take retail as an example: how can a large internationally operating company with the core business of selling groceries to consumers worldwide be CO2 neutral? Think of Walmart, Ahold, etc. Delivering 1:1 to homes, attracting consumers to the shops, suppliers, etc. etc. How does this compare to 1 local supplier who does NOT deliver worldwide? By the way, one company cannot exist without the other company because consumption will always be there. Relativity principle: the larger the company, the more complex the chains, the greater the absolute emissions (CO2 is part of this). For a larger company, it is easier to focus on green initiatives. But that does not mean that larger companies are less polluting than smaller companies. But this image is slowly starting to emerge incorrectly. After all, both companies exist and, as previously indicated, the fact of existence is by definition a burden on the environment. In short, the aim of achieving the lowest possible environmental impact (= reduction of CO2) is by definition good; but zero emissions are by definition not credible. And, last but not least, do not forget: CO2 neutral is certainly not the same as being climate neutral. So, in this case, please always be critical towards international, large company’s => think global, act local!