Leading carbon neutrality in businesses and communities: an Interivew with Park Kyu-ri

Extending one's personal vision of achieving carbon neutrality to other people's lives is a complex task, yet a much-needed job for an entire society to accomplish net-zero goals. As a current greenhouse gas consultant and previously an environmentally-friendly lifestyle campaigner, Park Kyu-ri is a passionate climate leader who continues to spread her enthusiasm for sustainability. In this interview, Park shared thoughts about the need for businesses' increased commitment for carbon neutrality and the various strategies that were effective in guiding citizens to a net-zero lifestyle.

How exactly does greenhouse gas consulting and ESG consulting services work?

For greenhouse gas or ESG consulting, we sometimes make direct sales calls or send emails, but most often, companies reach out to us first. These companies need greenhouse gas or ESG consulting, so they reach out. Alternatively, we might use support programs to recruit companies seeking our greenhouse gas or ESG consulting services. Our service process is largely similar in most cases. We need to understand the situation first before we can provide consulting, so we do that, and then check things like the mid-to-long-term strategy that fits this company or where they should start reducing emissions.

Are there specific greenhouse gas issues that companies are most concerned about and discussing the most right now?

Recently, the third phase of the greenhouse gas reduction plan period ended. In Korea, based on the Framework Act on Green Growth, we set targets to reduce greenhouse gases by a certain percentage by specific dates, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050. The third plan period, covering up to 2025, recently concluded.

During that third plan period, too many emission credits were simply given away for free. Because of that, a significant surplus of emission credits remains. Despite this, the industrial sector recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse gases and has been contemplating how to achieve this reduction. However, to be honest, no clear solution has emerged. It's a situation where reducing greenhouse gases is impossible without significant financial investment.

So, depending on how we reduce emissions, we're now researching methodologies through external projects and considering buying a lot of emission credits from outside. The biggest problem for companies now is how to obtain more emission credits. The fourth plan period is approaching, and with it also comes changes.

As mentioned earlier, our NDC has a target for 2030, and we must achieve greater reductions accordingly. However, under current circumstances, we cannot find ways to reduce further. So we are now deeply concerned about external project methodologies to obtain additional greenhouse gas emission credits, such as carbon offsets.

You mentioned the emissions trading system a lot. What are your thoughts on from your consulting perspective, considering how in Korea, it's actually not as well-developed as in Europe or other countries?

This is just my personal opinion, but ultimately, reducing greenhouse gases themselves is a process transition. Ultimately, if you just look at the numbers they had in mind, process transition or energy transition is the most effective.

But from a company's perspective, it's difficult to change both of these, right? So now they're saying things like, “Implement eco-friendly design.” But honestly, just doing eco-friendly design alone means that in the life cycle assessment, the design stage determines how production, consumption, and disposal will reduce greenhouse gases. Ultimately, a structural shift is needed, but that's not easy. So they're introducing strategies like designing as eco-friendly as possible and transforming the supply chain to be eco-friendly, aiming to reduce greenhouse gases.

You also mentioned the new NDC targets in Korea. How are these elevated targets currently impacting companies?

Well, they say the national NDC target has been raised. But if you break down the details, the industrial sector's target hasn't increased as much as expected. The reduction required between the 2030 NDC and the 2035 NDC is smaller than anticipated. So, since drastic reductions ultimately become a competitiveness issue for companies, it seems like they've been given considerable leeway.

But here's the thing: companies that haven't managed greenhouse gases at all—I mean, most are now covered by either the emissions trading system or the greenhouse gas target management system—but there are companies that haven't been regulated that need to do a lot too.

So, across the entire supply chain—while I can't manage every secondary or tertiary vendor—if those vendors voluntarily participate, or if they use green finance when borrowing money, or issue green bonds, or if financial institutions themselves refuse to lend money that won't be used for greenhouse gas reduction before regulations are fully established, there are aspects that require voluntary action.

Aside from consulting work, how have you led lifestyle campaigns? Among the campaigns you've run so far, what was the most influential or memorable example?

At my previous workplace, I created an app called Climate Action 1.5. Back then, I planned and built that app, focusing on how to effectively promote it to people. Before that, the organization ran a “Reduce 1 Ton of Greenhouse Gases per Person” campaign. The idea was that if each person reduced just one ton of greenhouse gases, since there are over 50 million people in Korea, the total reduction would be significant.

But honestly, I believed campaigns targeting students had far greater impact. Students are forming their lifestyle habits now. So, if students start saying things like, “Mom, why aren't you doing this? Why aren't you doing that?” then parents change too. And gradually, society changes. That was the idea behind the campaign. But the content has to be something students can actually practice.

For elementary school students, since parents usually don't let them go anywhere alone, telling them to use public transportation just doesn't resonate. That's why, since even elementary students use phones and apps these days, we decided to create a school competition, divided by grade level from elementary to high school. Through this, we even went to COP to give a presentation. By witnessing carbon footprint reduction, we found there are actually many things students can do.

For example, instead of just using paper cups at school, using tumblers, or finishing all your food. Just finishing your food reduces leftovers, which lowers food waste disposal costs. There were also things like using streaming services less. AI usage is also rapidly increasing these days, so, even if AI doesn't work for pointless searches, that helps reduce data usage a bit. Thinking about things like that seems important, beyond just changing people's habits.

Now, seeing things like school competitions or class competitions, adults are actually saying, “Hey, I want to try this too.” And we're doing team competitions here at my company. We're using that app I was working on for school competitions. We're looking at how much did the planning team reduce? How much did the sales team reduce? So, how much did our company reduce? That sort of thing. So, it would be great if such things became more active among adults too.

When running such campaigns, what was the most effective strategy for encouraging citizen or student participation? Was it creating a competitive framework?

Honestly, if we just vaguely say this for the environment, people won't really participate unless there's a benefit for them personally. So when designing it, we say things like, "You can improve your health through walking, cycling, or eating plant-based meals. Or you can strengthen friendships by doing it together." If you even incorporate recognition or rewards, people are more inclined to participate.

So it's not just about me benefiting. Ultimately, it benefits me, but it's also good for the planet. We need to frame it like this: first, it's good for me; second, it's good for my community; third, it's good for the climate. Designing participation structures that make this clear is the most effective approach.

If you had one piece of advice for students considering careers in carbon neutrality or future generations unsure how to contribute to environmental goals, what would it be?

I initially explored the concept of climate inequality extensively. Ultimately, it all connects. I want to live in a carbon-neutral society. That's my number one priority, my overarching goal. But others might see me as someone who's tried this and that, someone who's explored a lot.

So, if you think, “Whatever I do, I must work for the planet and carbon neutrality,” then honestly, everything you do can be connected. I was just a junior employee, not someone who could change things. Trying to shift the framework was incredibly stressful and exhausting at times. But ultimately, everything I did—running the fine dust campaign, creating the carbon neutrality app, working on manufacturing ESG—all connects to my current consulting and solution development work. Since everything contributes to carbon neutrality in some way, I hope people can see that and feel they can keep going.