Lacquer Bay Chemicals
Coatings and intermediates producer, four sites
- Engagement
- 28 weeks
- Office
- Gothenburg
- Lead partner
- Sofia Lindqvist
The challenge
A published emissions target had no plan behind it: no meter-level baseline, no lever list, and a capital plan with no room for one. Energy cost per tonne was 14 percent above the firm's benchmark for comparable sites.
What we did
Sofia Lindqvist's team built the baseline from meter data, priced every reduction lever per tonne and per euro of capex, and resequenced the capital plan around the four levers that paid for themselves inside five years.
Steam system fixes and heat integration went first; the solvent recovery project moved two years earlier once its payback was re-derived with real utility prices.
The outcome
Scope one and two emissions fell 28 percent against the baseline year. Energy cost per tonne fell 14 percent, and the levers that remained carry internal rates of return the board reviews annually.
Scope 1+2 emissions −28 % vs baseline
Energy cost per tonne −14 % vs baseline
Levers with IRR above hurdle +8 count
Bars are scaled per metric against its own maximum. Direction of improvement: Scope 1+2 emissions, Energy cost per tonne, Levers with IRR above hurdle — see each metric.
| Metric | Before | After | Change | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1+2 emissions | 100 % vs baseline | 72 % vs baseline | −28 % vs baseline | Lower is better |
| Energy cost per tonne | 100 % vs baseline | 86 % vs baseline | −14 % vs baseline | Lower is better |
| Levers with IRR above hurdle | 3 count | 11 count | +8 count | Higher is better |
Expertise behind this program
Facing something similar?
Describe your baseline and target. If we have run it, we will say so — and show you the number.