Radisson Hotel Group has raised its climate ambition in the hospitality sector. The group now targets 100 verified net-zero hotels by 2030 across its global portfolio. This move builds on its existing science-based net zero commitment by 2050, approved under the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).
Radisson defines verified net-zero hotels as properties that cut operational emissions completely. This is done through energy transition and efficiency upgrades. while using limited offsets only for any remaining emissions.
The company has already launched early examples of this model in Manchester (UK) and Oslo (Norway). These hotels were upgraded through full operational redesigns instead of new construction. The goal is to scale this approach across multiple regions and hotel types.
Radisson Hotel Group CEO Federico J. González Tejera remarked during the release:
“At Radisson Hotel Group, sustainability ultimately starts with people. It is about delivering for our guests, creating value for our owners, and supporting the communities where we operate. Verified Net Zero Hotels are an important step in our net zero transformation, setting a new standard for how hospitality can reduce its environmental impact while continuing to support people, destinations, and economic activity.”
How Net Zero Hotels Work in Practice
Radisson’s net zero model follows a structured decarbonization system developed with industry partners. It is designed to measure, reduce, and gradually eliminate emissions across hotel operations.
The process involves several steps:
- measuring carbon fully,
- switching to renewable electricity,
- electrifying heating and cooking, and
- upgrading efficiency in water, waste, and energy use.
Over time, the goal is to reduce reliance on carbon offsets and focus on real emissions cuts.
The Manchester and Oslo hotels show how this works in practice. Both properties switched to renewable electricity, removed fossil fuel systems, and added low-carbon changes. These include electrified kitchens and waste reduction programs.
Radisson says these pilot hotels cut emissions by about 60%. This shows that significant reductions are possible in existing buildings.
Big Targets, Real Progress: Radisson’s Carbon Cuts
Radisson has set measurable climate targets aligned with global climate frameworks. The company aims to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 46% by 2030, compared with a 2019 baseline. It also targets a 28% reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, which includes supply chain and outsourced activities.
The group has already made measurable progress. By 2023, Radisson achieved a 35% reduction in carbon footprint per square metre compared to 2019 levels. Over the past decade, it has also improved energy and water efficiency by around 30% across operations.
The company works in over 100 countries and manages more than 1,500 hotels. This makes its decarbonization effort one of the biggest in the global hospitality sector.
Industry Shift: Hotels Move Toward Low-Carbon Operations
The hotel industry is increasingly under pressure to reduce emissions. Hospitality is energy-intensive because of heating, cooling, laundry, food services, and continuous building operations.
Hospitality accounts for ~1% of global carbon emissions and ~7.8% of water use worldwide. The sector’s energy intensity averages 200-800 kBtu/sq ft annually, with heating/cooling consuming 50-60% of total energy.
Emissions breakdown by source:
- Building energy: 60-70% (HVAC, lighting, hot water)
- Food/beverage supply chains: 20-25%
- Waste management: 10-15%
Hotels are now focusing on electrification and using renewable energy. They are also upgrading efficiency to cut their carbon footprint and journey toward net positive hospitality.
Radisson is joining a trend toward verified net-zero hotels. These hotels need to cut emissions and get third-party checks. This approach reduces uncertainty in sustainability claims and improves transparency for investors and customers.
Independent verification systems are now widely used to confirm emissions reductions. They help make sure that net zero claims are credible and comparable across the industry.
The standard third-party verification:
- Green Key/SGS: Verify WTTC Hotel Sustainability Basics (12 criteria)
- TÜV Rheinland: Certifies Radisson’s net zero hotels
- Cornell Hotel Sustainability Index: Benchmarks 1,307 global markets
The Net Zero Race in Hospitality: Radisson vs Marriott vs Accor
Radisson Hotel Group, Marriott International, and Accor Hotels all follow long-term net-zero goals. However, their timelines and strategies differ.
-
Radisson Hotel Group
Radisson Hotel Group aims for net zero across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 2050. It has a near-term target to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 46.2% by 2030 (2019 base year) and reduce Scope 3 emissions by 27.5%.
Radisson has also launched “Verified Net Zero” hotels powered by 100% renewable electricity and low-waste operations. It is adding energy-saving upgrades. This includes LED lighting, smart heating and cooling systems, and building retrofits throughout its portfolio. It also pushes waste reduction programs, including food waste tracking and recycling systems in many hotels.
-
Marriott International
Marriott International also targets net zero across its value chain by 2050, with science-based approval. It plans to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 46.2% and Scope 3 emissions by 27.5% by 2030 (2019 baseline). It is investing in large-scale renewable electricity procurement through long-term power purchase agreements.
Marriott is also improving building efficiency with smart energy management systems across thousands of properties. Marriott is also promoting low-carbon supply chains. They are working with suppliers to reduce packaging and use more sustainable materials.
-
Accor
Accor also targets net zero by 2050, with a strong focus on operational efficiency and procurement reform. It is upgrading hotels with energy-efficient systems and expanding renewable electricity use across its brands.
Accor is also reducing food-related emissions by increasing plant-based menu options and cutting food waste. However, it provides less detailed interim emission reduction percentages than Radisson and Marriott. It focuses more on operational efficiency and engaging suppliers to make progress.
Overall, all three groups are moving toward net zero, but Radisson and Marriott show more defined short-term emissions targets. In contrast, Accor focuses more on operational changes and supply chain improvements.
ESG and Sustainable Hospitality: Green Travel Is No Longer Optional
Sustainability is becoming a stronger factor in travel decisions. More guests now prefer hotels that show clear environmental performance and use verified sustainability systems.
Corporate travel buyers are also adding ESG requirements to hotel contracts. This includes emissions reporting, renewable energy use, and waste reduction commitments. As a result, sustainability is becoming a competitive factor in hotel selection.
The global hospitality sector is adopting structured plans for decarbonization. This includes energy efficiency upgrades and using renewable electricity. Digital tracking of emissions is also becoming more common, especially for large hotel groups.
Radisson’s net-zero hotels are part of this shift. Sustainability-focused hotels can boost guest engagement and enhance brand positioning. This is backed by industry case studies. These strategies help hotels stand out in competitive markets.
The Hard Truth About Scaling Net Zero Hotels
Scaling net-zero hotels globally is complex. One major challenge is the cost of retrofitting existing buildings. Many hotels require major upgrades to heating, cooling, and kitchen systems to reduce emissions.
Another challenge is uneven access to renewable electricity across regions. Some markets still rely heavily on fossil fuels. This limits emissions reductions, even when hotels switch to cleaner operations.
Supply chain emissions also remain difficult to control. These include food sourcing, construction materials, and outsourced services. Tracking and reducing Scope 3 emissions requires coordination across many suppliers.
Finally, implementation varies by country due to differences in regulation, infrastructure, and energy systems. This creates uneven progress across global hotel portfolios.
Can Net Zero Become the New Hotel Standard?
Radisson’s plan to reach 100 net-zero hotels by 2030 marks a significant step in hospitality decarbonization. If achieved, it would create one of the largest verified net-zero hotel networks globally.
The strategy also supports its long-term goal of achieving net zero emissions across its entire value chain by 2050, aligned with global climate targets.
Future progress relies on quicker electrification of hotel operations, broader access to renewable energy, better ESG reporting, and ongoing investment in low-carbon technologies.
If done right, net-zero hotels could be the norm in global hospitality within the decade. This would change how hotels run and compete in international travel.
- READ MORE: The Net Zero Game: Are Hotels and Restaurants Truly Committed to Reducing Carbon Emissions?
The post Radisson Hotel Group Ramps Up Net Zero Push by 2030: How Does it Compare with Marriott and Accor? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits