Search

Mitigation actions in all sectors of society, including sports, to limit global warming have become an increasingly hot topic in public discussions and sports management. However, so far, there has been a lack of understanding and practical examples of how these organizations, especially in team sports, can holistically assess and reduce their climate impacts to achieve carbon neutrality. This paper presents a carbon footprint assessment, implemented actions for GHG emission reduction, and offers the example of a professional Finnish ice hockey team that achieved carbon neutrality. The study is based on a life cycle assessment method. The Results show that the team's carbon footprint was reduced from 350 tCO 2eq by more than 50% between seasons 2018–2019 and 2021–2022 in the assessed categories. The most GHG emission reductions were achieved in the team's and spectators' mobility and ice hall energy consumption. Furthermore, the team compensated for their remaining emissions to achieve carbon neutrality. Multiple possibilities for further GHG emission reductions were recognized. The majority of the GHG emissions were linked to the Scope 3 category, indicating that co-operation with partners and stakeholders was a key to success in attaining carbon neutrality. This paper also discusses the possible limitations and challenges that sport organizations face in assessing climate impacts and reducing GHG emissions, as well as the prospects of overcoming them. Since there are many opportunities for sports to contribute to climate change mitigation, relevant targets and actions to reduce GHG emissions should be integrated into all sport organizations' management. [Display omitted] • This the first assessment of professional ice hockey team's carbon footprint. • Multiple actions led to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. • Concludes how sport organizations can manage their environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reaching climate neutrality and limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 °C, which are the main targets of the Paris Agreement, requires both mitigation measures and offsetting. Despite existing standards to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of carbon offsets, they face challenges associated with their quality. Incorrect replacement factors or baseline values used for the calculations can lead to credits being overestimated. The quality of carbon offsets and its assurance through offsetting standards are addressed in many publications that provide quality criteria that should be fulfilled. However, the abundance of studies and the unclear consistency of quality criteria for carbon offsets make it difficult to draw generalized conclusions. The fragmented understanding of offset quality and its contribution to climate neutrality requires a comprehensive analysis to identify prevailing consensus and areas needing further research. The paper aims to fill this gap by synthesizing existing criteria through a qualitative meta-analysis of the current literature. Consensus and discrepancies in the carbon offset quality criteria and the ratings of the offsetting programs were identified providing a holistic overview. While only the criteria 'additionality' and 'permanence' are consistently addressed in all publications, their definitions and associated aspects vary. Although consensus exists for the criterion 'ex-post', it only appears in 57% of the publications. Differences in definitions are not reflected in the program ratings. The analysis has several challenges, such as accommodating varying study scopes and methods. However, the results highlight the need for a common understanding and provide a baseline reference to enhance the quality assessment of offsets to effectively contribute to climate neutrality. • A consensus on quality criteria for offsets is missing. • Definitions of quality criteria for offsets may vary. • Only two common criteria found in all publications. • Comprehensive offset evaluation criteria needed. • More transparency to increase offset effectiveness needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]