ArcelorMittal will invest €1.3 billion (about $1.5 billion) to build a new electric arc furnace (EAF) at its steel site in Dunkirk, France. The company said the project marks a major step in cutting emissions from its French steel production.
The steelmaker announced the decision as French President Emmanuel Macron visited the Dunkirk site. ArcelorMittal said it now has more confidence to move forward because of recent policy and market changes in Europe and France. CEO Geert van Poelvoorde said,
“The decision to proceed with building an EAF in ArcelorMittal Dunkirk, to produce low-carbon emissions steel at scale for our customers, has been made possible because we now have the conditions in place to make this project a success…We will now focus on steering the Dunkirk EAF project to completion and commercial success.”
The EAF is scheduled to start up in 2029. It will have a capacity of 2 million tonnes of steel per year.
A 2M-Tonne Shift Toward Scrap-Based Steel
Electric arc furnaces make steel mainly by melting scrap steel. They can also use low-carbon inputs like HBI/DRI (hot briquetted iron / direct reduced iron) mixed with hot metal. ArcelorMittal said its Dunkirk EAF will use a mix of scrap, HBI/DRI, and hot metal.
The company also gave a clear emissions estimate. It said the new EAF will emit about 0.6 tonne of CO₂ per tonne of steel and deliver three times less CO₂ than steel made in a blast furnace route.
This matters because steel is a hard sector to decarbonize. The industry produces significant CO₂e emissions, due to energy-intensive processes and heavy fossil fuel use.
Per World Steel Association, the steel industry produces ~3 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, accounting for ~9% of global emissions. The industry emits an average of 1.89 tonnes CO₂ per tonne in 2020. Producing one tonne of steel generates 1.7-1.8 tonnes of CO₂ on average, depending on technology use as seen below.
How Will France Support the Investment?
ArcelorMittal said part of the project will receive public support through Energy Efficiency Certificates (CEE). CEE is a regulatory mechanism in France that promotes energy savings and CO₂ reductions. The company said the support amount will represent 50% of the €1.3 billion investment.
The steelmaker also pointed to a key energy step in France. It said it recently signed a contract with EDF to secure a long-term supply of low-carbon, competitive electricity. The company described this as a major part of its energy strategy in France.
Electricity supply is critical for EAFs. The carbon benefit of an EAF depends heavily on how clean the grid is and how stable power prices are over time.
Why Did ArcelorMittal Invest in Bunkirk?
ArcelorMittal said three developments gave it confidence to confirm the Dunkirk investment.
- Import Controls
First, it cited new European Commission proposals to limit unfair imports through a Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) mechanism. ArcelorMittal said this approach would limit import quantities and impose additional duties if imports exceed set limits.
- CBAM
Second, it pointed to proposed reforms to the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). ArcelorMittal said it expects these measures—if fully implemented—to restore “fair and competitive conditions” in the European steel market.
CBAM is the EU’s tool to apply a carbon price to certain carbon-intensive goods entering the EU. The European Commission says CBAM’s transitional phase runs from 2023 to 2025, and the definitive regime starts in 2026.
ArcelorMittal’s message was direct. It said it is important to implement the TRQ and adjust CBAM to close remaining loopholes as quickly as possible.
- EDF Deal
Third, it highlighted its EDF electricity deal as another factor supporting the project.
€500M Bet on Electrification Demand
ArcelorMittal also highlighted another major investment near Dunkirk. At its Mardyck plant, close to Dunkirk, the company said it is starting up a new electrical steel production unit this quarter.
It said the company invested €500 million in this facility. ArcelorMittal described it as its largest investment in Europe in the last 10 years, excluding decarbonization projects.
Electrical steel is used in electric motors and other electrification applications. ArcelorMittal said the new plant supports the electrification of industrial and automotive uses. This point matters for demand.
Steelmakers often need clearer long-term demand signals for low-carbon materials before committing large capital to new production routes.
- SEE MORE: Steel’s Heavy Carbon Burden: Is ArcelorMittal Pulling Back on Its Net Zero Climate Pledge?
From Blast Furnaces to EAFs: ArcelorMittal’s Broader Decarbonization Program
ArcelorMittal says it remains committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The company set this as a group-wide goal in 2020.
In its latest sustainability update, ArcelorMittal’s absolute emissions for its 2024 operating perimeter are almost 50% lower than its 2018 operating perimeter. The steel manufacturer further said it has invested $1 billion in decarbonization projects over that period.
The company is also shifting more steel production to the electric arc furnace (EAF) route. EAF production accounted for about a quarter of its global steelmaking in 2024, up from 19% in 2018.
In Europe, ArcelorMittal is moving ahead with several EAF-led projects. It said it started construction of a 1.1 million-tonne EAF at its long products plant in Gijón, Spain, which it expects will cut emissions by 1 million tonnes of CO₂e. It is also increasing output at Sestao, Spain, to 1.6 million tonnes by 2026, using two EAFs.
ArcelorMittal markets its low-carbon products under the XCarb® brand. The company said it can deliver low-carbon steel with a footprint as low as 300 kg CO₂ per tonne of steel, and it expected XCarb sales to rise to around 400,000 tonnes in the year it reported.
More notably, the company already operates an industrial-scale carbon capture and utilization (CCU) facility at Ghent, Belgium, with two additional pilots underway at the same site.
Carbon Pricing and Competitiveness Reshape Steel
Steel decarbonization requires major capital and new infrastructure. It also needs policy support that reduces carbon leakage risk and helps companies compete with lower-cost imports.
The EU’s CBAM design aims to put a fair carbon price on imports and reduce the incentive to shift production outside the EU. The Commission notes that CBAM is also aligned with the phase-out of free allowances under the EU ETS to support industrial decarbonization.
At the same time, the steel sector still needs faster progress on emissions cuts. The IEA notes that steel emissions and emissions intensity need to fall by about 25% by 2030—around 3% per year—to get on track for net zero by mid-century.
ArcelorMittal’s Dunkirk EAF fits this direction. It shifts part of production toward a lower-emissions process and signals confidence that market rules are moving toward stronger climate and competitiveness safeguards.
Execution Phase: Can Policy and Profit Align?
ArcelorMittal said it will now focus on delivering the Dunkirk EAF project through to completion and commercial success.
The company also said it will review the possibility of building further EAFs elsewhere in Europe, but it plans to take a cautious approach based on its “economic decarbonisation” strategy.
For France, the project adds to broader efforts to keep heavy industry competitive while cutting emissions. Meanwhile, it reflects a wider shift toward low-carbon industrial investment for Europe backed by border measures, market defenses, and energy contracts.
For customers, the key outcome is supply. A 2-million-tonne EAF could provide lower-carbon steel at scale, starting in 2029, if the project stays on schedule and the policy measures ArcelorMittal cited take effect as planned.
The post ArcelorMittal Confirms $1.5 Billion Low-Carbon Steel Investment in France 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