You joined ANDRITZ in 2014, citing the entrepreneurial spirit and fast decision-making as key draws. Now, as CEO, how have you built on that legacy to shape the company in 2025?
We still want to be on that path. Fast decision-making and entrepreneurial spirit are clearly in the DNA of this company. ANDRITZ was founded 173 years ago by a Hungarian craftsman who passed through Graz and started working at a metal company. After a year, he proposed to the owner that he take over the business because he had better ideas for it.
As the company grows, it becomes more difficult to stay lean and make quick decisions. However, we have a highly decentralized structure, which gives our teams on the ground significant decision-making power. Our growing market share in many areas confirms that customers value this approach.
ANDRITZ is deeply involved in the circular economy and renewable energy. Across technologies like hydropower and biofuels, where do you see the greatest opportunity for scalability?
I see opportunities across all of these key initiatives. Hydropower is certainly the most reliable form of renewable energy we have today. We have a solid installed base and capacity. Recent blackouts in Portugal and Spain demonstrate the need for storage capacity alongside volatile renewables.
The transition to green hydrogen is also being driven by the need to store and transport energy, since the areas where solar and wind are generated aren’t always where energy is consumed.
Carbon capture, especially in hard-to-abate industries, is gaining traction.
Hydropower remains on the most steady and significant growth path globally—in Europe, North America, Asia—because it’s reliable and good for both the planet and consumers.
What is the biggest barrier to the wider adoption of hydropower today?
In Europe, North America, and Canada, we are currently mainly talking about modernizing existing facilities and making small additions. Large-scale projects will be in developing countries where there is an opportunity to install significant amounts of green energy. For instance, the World’s largest hydropower plant is in Paraguay, and selling its power makes up a significant part of the country's GDP. Over time, this may influence societies to accept the need for new hydropower capacities.
Pulp and paper have long been a cornerstone of your strategy. How is ANDRITZ redefining waste as a resource in 2025?
We clearly see two major trends. First, in pulp production, there’s a growing move to use side streams to create new products. For instance, biomethanol production is now becoming commercially viable—we have two plants delivered to Northern Europe producing biofuel. Resources like Lignin and sulfuric acid, once treated as waste and incinerated or landfilled, are now being recovered and refined into valuable resources—used in bio-based materials, chemicals, and even energy applications.
Second, pulp is increasingly replacing plastics. You see it in everyday life—your coffee cups and even the lids are often made from pulp, not plastic. The lids, especially, are an innovation—they’re 3D paper products, unlike typical 2D sheets. This innovation is pushing into packaging applications in supermarkets. Also in textiles, cotton is limited due to its environmental footprint, and polyester dominates. We're working with customers on converting pulp into textiles like viscose and lyocell, which are more costly now but can be scaled to bring costs down and close the recycling loop.
What are the biggest technological or material gaps still holding back paper-based innovations and alternatives?
The biggest obstacle is drainability—the lack of a waterproof barrier in paper. For many applications, this is a challenge. While paper can surprisingly hold water quite well, it's usually only for a day or two.
As an engineer, I can say that everything can be done. Once a good idea is implemented, it initially looks costly, but as it moves into industrial practice and we optimize the processes, the costs go down. So, there will be solutions, and from what I can see, you'll be young enough to witness them becoming part of daily life.
You’ve spoken about plans to make operations more autonomous. What cybersecurity risks do you face as a result, and how are you addressing them?
We see more opportunities than risks. If we want to run autonomously, we need to control cybersecurity. Eight years ago, we couldn’t find a suitable technology for machinery security, so we started a joint venture in Israel with cybersecurity experts. We developed a software suite specifically for machinery and equipment, not traditional IT. Unlike IT systems, you can't just patch automation systems in plants without risking operations or certifications. We built these products to a good level, then sold the joint venture to a US company this year. They provide a full suite for IT and OT cybersecurity. We still use these products to secure our operations and customer interfaces.
Autonomous operations are a strong trend. It’s like driving: machines make fewer mistakes. Tracking is better, and you reduce accidents and malfunctions. Working in pulp or steel mills isn’t as attractive anymore. So, autonomous systems are a good fit, and overall, the risk-reward balance is very positive.
ANDRITZ had goals to cut emissions and water use by 2025, and also to have over 50% of its revenue from green products. How are you faring with those goals?
We exceeded most of our environmental targets already in 2024 and are now developing new ones. For greenhouse gas emissions, we’re working with the Science-Based Targets initiative. We were a bit too optimistic with our timeline, but by the end of Q2, we should have clarity and will most likely communicate the new targets in Q3.
As for green products, we define them as technologies that help our customers to meet their sustainability goals, like renewable energy, carbon capture, green hydrogen, or e-mobility support. We’ve put in a check-and-balance system to avoid greenwashing, since views on what counts as “green” can vary. Our engineers are passionate about their work, but we challenge them to meet stricter internal standards. For example, replacing plastic in certain uses or offering e-methanol qualifies. Just using less energy doesn’t—it’s helpful, but not green by our definition.
