Cement is one of the most widely used construction materials in the world, but its production is a major source of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Holcim, a global leader in building materials, is working to change this. The company has officially launched the OLYMPUS project in Milaki, Greece. This project uses advanced carbon capture technology to reduce emissions and aims to set a new standard for the cement industry.
This big move in sustainable building aims to create a modern carbon capture plant. It will make 2 million tons of near-zero cement by 2029. Backed by the Heracles Group, the project plans to reduce CO₂ emissions significantly. It will also create over 1,000 jobs, benefiting both the environment and the local economy.
What Is the OLYMPUS Project Trying to Achieve?
Traditional cement production heavily impacts the planet, releasing about 8% of global CO₂ emissions. This is because making cement involves heating limestone at very high temperatures. This releases a large amount of carbon dioxide into the air.
Holcim wants to change this with its OLYMPUS project. The new plant in Milaki will use advanced carbon capture technology. Its goal is to produce 2 million tons of near-zero cement each year starting in 2029. This means that the cement made at the site will have very low carbon emissions compared to traditional cement.
The project supports the European Union’s wider target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It also backs the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across industries. Holcim’s initiative will do more than meet environmental goals. It will also create job opportunities for local economies during the entire project lifecycle.
Miljan Gutovic, CEO Holcim Group said:
“Holcim is on course to make near-zero cement and concrete a reality at scale this decade, as the leading partner for sustainable construction. The OLYMPUS project in Greece is one of our seven large-scale, European Union-supported carbon capture, utilisation, and storage projects that are setting the Clean Industrial Deal in motion. Together, these will enable Holcim to offer over 8 million tpy of near-zero cement across Europe by 2030.”
How Carbon Capture Works at OLYMPUS
The OLYMPUS plant will use two cutting-edge systems: OxyCalciner and Cryocap™ FG. These technologies trap carbon dioxide from cement production and store or reuse it. Together, they can capture about 1 million tons of CO₂ per year at full capacity. This significantly lowers harmful emissions from the cement-making process.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach recognized by experts and policy leaders as essential to fighting climate change. The European Union sees CCS as a key part of its strategy to decarbonize industries like cement, steel, and chemicals.
Holcim’s adoption of CCS also reflects a growing trend in the construction sector to adopt cleaner, tech-driven practices. Producing 2 million tons of near-zero cement each year helps lower emissions in construction. This supports countries in reaching climate goals and cutting pollution from buildings.
Along with its environmental goals, the plant will have a strong economic impact. The effort will require an investment of €400 million, including €125 million from the EU Innovation Fund.
Moreover, it will bring over 1,000 construction jobs and over 100 long-term roles once operations begin. The plant will support hundreds of families and strengthen the local economy.
This initiative is also a big part of Holcim’s commitment to decarbonize its operations and reach its net zero goal.
Holcim’s Net Zero Journey: Progress and Initiatives
Holcim has committed to becoming a net-zero company by 2050, with a clear, science-based roadmap aligned with the 1.5°C climate goal validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). The company’s net-zero strategy covers all greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain, including:
- Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect emissions such as those from supply chains and product use).
Key Targets and Progress:
- Near-term goals: Holcim aims to reduce gross Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 26.2% per ton of cementitious materials by 2030 (from a 2018 baseline) and Scope 3 emissions by 25.1% per ton of purchased clinker and cement by 2030 (from a 2020 baseline).
- Long-term goals: By 2050, Holcim targets a 95% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions and a 90% reduction in absolute Scope 3 emissions.
The company has already made progress, reducing its CO₂ emissions intensity per ton of product and increasing its use of alternative and renewable fuels.
Major Emission Reduction Initiatives:
Holcim’s net-zero journey is driven by several initiatives:
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS): Holcim plans to invest CHF 2 billion by 2030 in CCUS technologies, aiming to capture over 5 million tons of CO₂ annually and produce 8 million tons of net-zero cement per year. Projects like OLYMPUS in Greece and GO4ZERO in Belgium exemplify this commitment.
Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials: The company is replacing fossil fuels with biomass and other waste-derived fuels in its cement kilns, reducing reliance on carbon-intensive energy sources.
Low-Carbon Products: Holcim offers green concrete (ECOPact) and green cement (ECOPlanet), which have significantly lower carbon footprints than traditional products. These products enable customers to reduce their own emissions in construction projects.
Circular Economy and Recycling: Holcim is a world leader in recycling construction and demolition waste, having recycled 6.8 million tons in 2022 and targeting 10 million tons by 2025. This reduces the need for virgin raw materials and lowers overall emissions.
Smart Design and Digital Innovation: Technologies such as 3D printing allow Holcim to build with up to 70% less material without compromising performance, further reducing embodied carbon in construction.
Holcim’s net-zero journey combines ambitious targets, significant investments in carbon capture and renewable energy, innovative low-carbon products, and circular economy practices. These initiatives show measurable progress and a comprehensive plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
What Do the Market Trends Show for Cement and Carbon Capture?
The global demand for cement is expected to rise due to urbanization and infrastructure development. However, this growth presents challenges for reducing emissions. Without changes in production methods, CO₂ emissions from cement could reach 3.8 gigatons in 2050. CCUS technologies can reduce life cycle CO₂ emissions from cement production by nearly 70%.
The market for carbon capture is growing rapidly. The experts predict that global CCS market could reach $7.5 billion by 2026, with an annual growth rate of 25.2%. Governments want greener industry practices.
Thus, the demand for cleaner materials and emissions technology is rising. Projects like OLYMPUS prove that we can cut emissions significantly. They can also shape future policies and boost investments in green technologies.
Adopting CCUS technologies requires significant investment. The cost of cement is expected to rise from $90–$130 per ton today to at least $160–$240 by 2050 as carbon capture systems are integrated.
Major producers are still investing in CCUS, despite the costs. Successful projects like Holcim’s OLYMPUS can boost innovation and encourage more adoption in the industry.
Setting an Example for the Construction Industry
Holcim’s OLYMPUS project shows that it is possible to produce cement with much lower emissions using current technology. By investing in carbon capture and producing near-zero cement, Holcim is setting a benchmark for the global construction market.
This effort helps meet climate goals. It also boosts the local economy and sets an example for the global construction industry. As demand for cement rises, projects like OLYMPUS prove that it would be possible to build a cleaner, more sustainable future for people and the planet.
The post Concrete Change: Holcim Launches €400 Million OLYMPUS Project for Near-Zero Cement appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
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