Working with a climate strategy in a changing regulatory environment : case Abloy Oy
Siitonen, Siiri (2025)
Diplomityö
2025
School of Energy Systems, Ympäristötekniikka
Kaikki oikeudet pidätetään.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe20251217121557
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe20251217121557
Tiivistelmä
The subject of this master’s thesis is working with a climate strategy in a changing regulatory environment. It examines the most suitable climate strategy for the case company, considering its climate targets, current regulations, and good practices. It defines the optimal way to communicate the climate strategy and the target to the stakeholders.
The studied climate strategies are offsetting, contribution claim and reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The research method is multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). MCDA is implemented using a weighted sum model. The resources used include an employee survey, employee interviews, regulatory documents, and online publications. The evaluation criteria include environmental sustainability, social sustainability, cost per tCO2e reduced or removed from the atmosphere, value for the investment, scalability, innovation potential, customer approval, the Group’s approval and employee approval.
It is discovered that reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions is the most suitable option among these climate strategies. 96.7% of the weightings yielded the same result for the most optimal strategy, being emission reductions. The case company should achieve emission reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and combine them with non-credit-based voluntary climate mitigation actions. The communication must ensure that voluntary mitigation actions do not replace or slow down the company’s own emission reductions to avoid greenwashing.
The studied climate strategies are offsetting, contribution claim and reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The research method is multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). MCDA is implemented using a weighted sum model. The resources used include an employee survey, employee interviews, regulatory documents, and online publications. The evaluation criteria include environmental sustainability, social sustainability, cost per tCO2e reduced or removed from the atmosphere, value for the investment, scalability, innovation potential, customer approval, the Group’s approval and employee approval.
It is discovered that reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions is the most suitable option among these climate strategies. 96.7% of the weightings yielded the same result for the most optimal strategy, being emission reductions. The case company should achieve emission reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and combine them with non-credit-based voluntary climate mitigation actions. The communication must ensure that voluntary mitigation actions do not replace or slow down the company’s own emission reductions to avoid greenwashing.