- Home
- Case Study Solution
The Lego Group: Material Hurdles in the Quest for Sustainable Bricks Custom Case Solution & Analysis
1. Evidence Brief: Case Researcher
Financial Metrics
- Sustainability Investment: The Lego Group committed 400 million USD over three years to accelerate sustainability efforts (Paragraph 4).
- R&D Scope: More than 150 engineers and scientists tested over 600 different materials since 2015 (Exhibit 1).
- Production Volume: The company produces approximately 19 billion Lego elements annually (Paragraph 2).
- Material Composition: ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) accounts for roughly 80 percent of the total plastic used in Lego bricks (Paragraph 5).
Operational Facts
- The rPET Failure: Prototypes made from recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) required additional ingredients for safety and durability, alongside massive energy consumption for drying and processing (Paragraph 8).
- Manufacturing Friction: Switching to rPET would have required retooling every factory, leading to a higher lifetime carbon footprint than traditional ABS (Paragraph 9).
- Quality Standards: Bricks must maintain clutch power — the ability to stick together while being easy for a child to pull apart — with tolerances of 0.005mm (Paragraph 3).
- Circular Initiatives: The Lego Replay program was launched to collect and redistribute used bricks, targeting the 97 percent of owners who keep or pass on their sets (Exhibit 4).
Stakeholder Positions
- Tim Brooks (VP of Sustainability): Acknowledged that rPET was not the magic material and emphasized that the company will not compromise on quality or safety (Paragraph 11).
- Niels B. Christiansen (CEO): Maintained the 2030 goal for sustainable materials but pivoted the strategy toward bio-attributed and recycled versions of existing plastics (Paragraph 1).
- The Sustainable Materials Center (SMC): Tasked with finding a 1:1 replacement for ABS that meets the 2030 deadline (Paragraph 6).
Information Gaps
- Specific Unit Costs: The case does not provide the exact cost per kilogram of bio-attributed ABS versus virgin oil-based ABS.
- Energy Delta: Specific kilowatt-hour requirements for the failed rPET production line versus the current ABS line are absent.
- Supplier Availability: The total global capacity of ISCC-certified bio-feedstock suitable for high-grade plastic production is not detailed.
2. Strategic Analysis: Market Strategy Consultant
Core Strategic Question
- How can Lego fulfill its 2030 sustainability mandate without degrading the iconic clutch power of the product or increasing the net carbon footprint of its manufacturing operations?
Structural Analysis
Applying the Value Chain lens reveals that Lego’s primary sustainability impact is upstream in raw material extraction. The failed rPET experiment proved that a material change at the input stage can create negative externalities in the processing stage. The structural barrier is not the material itself, but the specialized infrastructure built around ABS for over 60 years. Any replacement that requires a total overhaul of the molding and cooling process will fail the carbon neutrality test.
Strategic Options
| Option | Rationale | Trade-offs |
|---|---|---|
| Mass Balance Transition | Mix bio-attributed or recycled feedstock into existing ABS production lines. | Higher material costs; requires complex supply chain certification. |
| Aggressive Circularity | Scale Lego Replay to make used bricks the primary source of growth. | Cannibalizes new set sales; high logistics costs for collection. |
| Material Specialization | Use sustainable materials for non-structural parts (trees, capes) while keeping ABS for bricks. | Fails the 2030 total sustainability pledge; confuses consumers. |