Train to Stockholm – a step towards more sustainable work-related trips

 Work-related trips are not the largest source of CO₂ emissions at SDU. Purchasing goods and services is, accounting for 75 per cent of SDU's total emissions. However, the category is composed of diverse sources of emissions, which makes it more difficult to reduce emissions in a targeted way.

In comparison, work-related trips account for 17 per cent of total emissions. This is a large share in itself – and it is also a category where SDU can take direct action and where changing behaviour can lead to noticeable reductions.

– This is precisely why work-related trips are an obvious focus area. SDU's employees can act and relatively easily achieve a climate benefit without negatively affecting the organisation's core tasks – and that's why we must prioritise it, says University Director Thomas Buchvald Vind.

Behavioural change with effect

How have work-related trips and CO₂e emissions in this category developed since 2018, when SDU started keeping climate accounts?

The pandemic caused a hard slowdown where almost all travel activity stopped, but emissions from work-related trips have been increasing since 2021. Air travel is the largest part of the category with 77 per cent of total emissions from work-related trips.

Despite the increase from 2021, the category has decreased by 36 per cent since 2018, while air travel alone has decreased by 44 per cent. However, the increase in travel activity means that it is important that SDU employees are aware of choosing the most sustainable form of travel if a reduction of 57 per cent by 2030 is to be achieved.

– In concrete terms, this means finding the most sustainable way of travelling, where both economy, time and climate are considered. And it's a good idea to be open to new travel options, even if they take a little longer, emphasises Thomas Buchvald Vind.

A concrete decision – the train to Stockholm

And that is exactly what six colleagues from Financial Services and SDU HR did recently when they travelled to an event in Stockholm organised by Oracle, the supplier of SDU's financial and HR system.

Two of them are Chief Accountant Jens V. Kierkegaard and Chief Controller Heidi Krieber, both from Financial Services.

– SDU has a code of practice that says that as a general rule, you should choose the most climate-friendly form of transport and consider train rather than plane, says Jens V. Kierkegaard and refers to SDU's circular on work-related trips , which, among other things, encourages employees to avoid domestic air travel and to avoid air travel under 500 km.

– So, we decided to take the train to Stockholm. As it turned out, there were no barriers – both booking tickets on dsb.dk and the journey itself was smooth, and there are departures from Odense every two hours.

– We left at 8am and arrived in Stockholm at exactly 3.31pm. Seven hours and 31 minutes, and the important thing is that we travelled from the centre of Odense to the centre of Stockholm in that time.

Travelling time – and working time

Travelling by plane on the route takes one hour and ten minutes from Kastrup to Arlanda. But on top of that you must add transport to Kastrup, check-in and baggage drop-off, security control, boarding, baggage collection and train into Stockholm. When travelling shorter distances in Europe, the travel time by plane is low, but the total travel time makes travelling by train competitive.

– All in all, the total travel time from Odense to Stockholm city centre is close to the same by train and plane, explains Jens V. Kierkegaard.

– The only difference is that there is not much time to concentrate on tasks such as work when travelling by plane on short or medium routes, adds Chief Controller Heidi Krieber.

The train provides space for conversations and collaboration.

– It's easy to immerse yourself in the train, and that's compared to the hustle and bustle you experience when flying short-haul routes in Europe and travelling to and through airports. We were on a fast train, and we could buy food and drinks, we could stretch our legs, walk around a bit – these are opportunities you don't have on a plane, she explains.

– It's a comfortable way to travel and you can spend time with your colleagues in a completely different way than you can on a plane. The four of us from Financial Services had seats opposite each other, and it's really nice that you can talk both privately and professionally and immerse yourself in work.

Jens V. Kierkegaard notes that there may of course be situations where it makes sense to consider air travel.

– Because of course frequency matters – for example, if there was only one train a day to Stockholm from Malmö, and if there were ten flights from Copenhagen Airport to Arlanda at the same time, that restriction could lead you to choose the plane. But it's not difficult to get to Hamburg by train, for example, and then onwards into Europe.

– It's all about accessibility and what makes the most sense in the situation you're in. But it's important to think of travelling by train as an option on short routes – I think flying is often just a habit and people forget to consider trains as an option, adds Heidi Krieber.

Thomas Buchvald Vind agrees.

– We shouldn't always choose the train when travelling in Europe, but trains should always be considered as an option for short and medium distances. When we plan our journeys with climate, convenience and collaboration in mind, we get much more than just lower CO₂ emissions.