Scenarios for achieving climate neutrality by 2030 in scopes 1 and 2 : a case study of Eesti Pandipakend
Jefimova, Viktoria (2026)
Diplomityö
2026
School of Energy Systems, Ympäristötekniikka
Kaikki oikeudet pidätetään.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe20260618100404
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe20260618100404
Tiivistelmä
Climate change and global temperature rise have been becoming more acute problems with each passing year over the last few decades (IPCC 2023). Many governments, international organisations and companies worldwide have tried to address this issue by establishing emission reduction goals and objectives for becoming climate neutral (United Nations n.d.; SBTi 2024; Bäckstrang 2022). Corporations can play a crucial role in bringing forward climate neutral economies and by doing so reap benefits for the environment, economy and wider society (SBTi 2024).
The case-company of this study is Eesti Pandipakend (EPP), which is the main deposit return bottle handler and recycler in Estonia. The organisation has been a front-runner in sustainability and in 2024, announced the goal to become climate neutral in scopes 1 and 2 by 2030. However, the concrete measures and financial investments of attaining that goal were uncertain. These knowledge gaps were the driving force for conducting this study, which aimed to eventually answer the research questions of how EPP could achieve climate neutrality in scopes 1 and 2 and what would be the return on investment (ROI) of different emission reduction scenarios. Relying on the definitions from relevant literature (UNFCCC 2024), in this thesis the term climate neutrality was defined as reducing GHG emissions as much as possible and neutralising the remaining emissions to achieve net-zero.
The methodology used in this thesis was based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) Corporate Net Zero Standard V1.3 and return on investment approach. To create the emission reduction pathways, the emissions inventory of EPP was made for the base year 2024 and 2025. Followingly, the emission reduction pathway was created through SBTi’s Absolute Contraction Approach, which helped to visualise how much emissions would be allowed in a year on the road to an ideal 90% emission reduction by 2030.
As a consequence of this study, three emission reduction pathways were created: a planned actions scenario, complementary actions scenario and ambitious actions scenario. They included various combinations of emission reduction measures and brought emission reduction down by 72%, 86% or 90% accordingly. The financial ROI analysis calculated the financial implications of all measures and scenario packages and found that the most cost-positive scenario to implement would be scenario 1, as it would not have any additional costs. Nevertheless, as it would only target scope 2 through fully switching to renewable electricity and consequently achieving 72% reduction, it would be advised for EPP to consider other scenarios as well to reach maximum possible reduction. Scenarios 2 and 3 had a high initial cost of investment and therefore negative ROI percentages. Nevertheless, the payback periods for measures with highest ROI such as switching to electric vehicles would have a payback period of around 2.7-3.5 years. Moreover, it was found how electrification of the car fleet would be financially justified in the light of significantly increasing carbon prices by 2030.
The most feasible scenario to implement for EPP resulted being scenario 2 with a 86% maximum reduction percentage. Although scenario 3’s measures would help to achieve the highest reduction percentage that could go as high as 100%, there is a high technical uncertainty of the measure that would help to reduce the last remaining emissions in scope 1 - switching from natural gas to biomethane. The remaining emissions from scenario 2 that are not feasible to reduce could then be off-setted by purchasing carbon credits from companies such as eAgronom or Arbonics. By reducing emissions as much as possible by 86% through measures in scenario 2 and neutralising the remaining emissions by carbon credits, EPP could successfully achieve climate neutrality in scopes 1 and 2 by 2030. Nevertheless, further research is advised to find out ways on how to reduce emissions and achieve climate neutrality in scope 3 as well.
The case-company of this study is Eesti Pandipakend (EPP), which is the main deposit return bottle handler and recycler in Estonia. The organisation has been a front-runner in sustainability and in 2024, announced the goal to become climate neutral in scopes 1 and 2 by 2030. However, the concrete measures and financial investments of attaining that goal were uncertain. These knowledge gaps were the driving force for conducting this study, which aimed to eventually answer the research questions of how EPP could achieve climate neutrality in scopes 1 and 2 and what would be the return on investment (ROI) of different emission reduction scenarios. Relying on the definitions from relevant literature (UNFCCC 2024), in this thesis the term climate neutrality was defined as reducing GHG emissions as much as possible and neutralising the remaining emissions to achieve net-zero.
The methodology used in this thesis was based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) Corporate Net Zero Standard V1.3 and return on investment approach. To create the emission reduction pathways, the emissions inventory of EPP was made for the base year 2024 and 2025. Followingly, the emission reduction pathway was created through SBTi’s Absolute Contraction Approach, which helped to visualise how much emissions would be allowed in a year on the road to an ideal 90% emission reduction by 2030.
As a consequence of this study, three emission reduction pathways were created: a planned actions scenario, complementary actions scenario and ambitious actions scenario. They included various combinations of emission reduction measures and brought emission reduction down by 72%, 86% or 90% accordingly. The financial ROI analysis calculated the financial implications of all measures and scenario packages and found that the most cost-positive scenario to implement would be scenario 1, as it would not have any additional costs. Nevertheless, as it would only target scope 2 through fully switching to renewable electricity and consequently achieving 72% reduction, it would be advised for EPP to consider other scenarios as well to reach maximum possible reduction. Scenarios 2 and 3 had a high initial cost of investment and therefore negative ROI percentages. Nevertheless, the payback periods for measures with highest ROI such as switching to electric vehicles would have a payback period of around 2.7-3.5 years. Moreover, it was found how electrification of the car fleet would be financially justified in the light of significantly increasing carbon prices by 2030.
The most feasible scenario to implement for EPP resulted being scenario 2 with a 86% maximum reduction percentage. Although scenario 3’s measures would help to achieve the highest reduction percentage that could go as high as 100%, there is a high technical uncertainty of the measure that would help to reduce the last remaining emissions in scope 1 - switching from natural gas to biomethane. The remaining emissions from scenario 2 that are not feasible to reduce could then be off-setted by purchasing carbon credits from companies such as eAgronom or Arbonics. By reducing emissions as much as possible by 86% through measures in scenario 2 and neutralising the remaining emissions by carbon credits, EPP could successfully achieve climate neutrality in scopes 1 and 2 by 2030. Nevertheless, further research is advised to find out ways on how to reduce emissions and achieve climate neutrality in scope 3 as well.