ArcelorMittal, the world’s second-largest steelmaker, announced a delay in its planned green steel investments in the European Union (EU), citing challenges posed by regulatory uncertainty. This decision underscores the tension between net zero commitments and economic pressures that ArcelorMittal and others face in the industry.
Major Decarbonization Plans in Limbo
The steelmaking industry is responsible for around 7% of global carbon emissions. This substantial carbon footprint prompts steelmakers to look for ways to cut their emissions.
In January, ArcelorMittal secured €850 million ($885 million) in subsidies from the French government to support its €1.7 billion decarbonization program at its Dunkirk and Fos-sur-Mer sites in France. A key component of this plan involves replacing 2 of 3 blast furnaces in Dunkirk with green hydrogen-powered facilities.
Despite the substantial funding, the company has yet to finalize these investments. ArcelorMittal stated in an email:
“We are operating in a difficult market, and there are a number of policy uncertainties that are impacting the industry… We need an effective carbon border adjustment mechanism, as well as more robust trade defense measures, to strengthen the business case.”
The steelmaker emphasized the need for robust EU policies to support such initiatives.
EU Policy Uncertainty Hampers Progress
A significant factor in the delay is the lack of clarity regarding the European Commission’s Steel and Metals Action Plan. It is expected to address emissions reduction targets and competitive challenges.
Industry analysts, like Philip Gibbs from KeyBanc, note that ArcelorMittal has been clear about its stance: it will not commit to substantial decarbonization investments unless supportive EU policies are in place.
Eurofer, the European Steel Association, echoed similar concerns. It highlighted that steelmakers face mounting pressure to cut emissions while maintaining profitability in a fiercely competitive global market.
The production of green steel hinges on emerging technologies like green hydrogen, which is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable energy sources. It is considered a cleaner alternative with green electrical energy used to producing green steel as shown below.
However, green hydrogen remains expensive and technologically nascent, adding to the challenges faced by steelmakers.
ArcelorMittal is not alone in grappling with these issues. German steel giant Thyssenkrupp announced in October that it is reviewing its €3 billion plan for green steel production, further highlighting the economic and policy hurdles in achieving emissions targets.
How the EU’s Green Deal and CBAM Impact the Steel Industry’s Transition
European steelmakers, among the largest global CO2 emitters, are under intense scrutiny to decarbonize. At the same time, they face fierce competition, particularly from China, where lower production costs allow for cheaper steel exports.
The European Commission’s Green New Deal, introduced in 2020, aimed to replace coal-fired blast furnaces with hydrogen-powered facilities. The initiative included a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), intended to level the playing field by imposing tariffs on imported goods with high carbon footprints.
However, delays in its implementation and uncertainty over its effectiveness have added to the hesitation among companies like ArcelorMittal. The company pointed out critical weaknesses in the CBAM.
They have seen green steelmakers remain uncompetitive in the face of imports from coal-fired steelmakers in China. These flaws have allowed cheaper, high-emission imports to undercut European green steel producers, undermining efforts to make decarbonized steel cost-competitive.
ArcelorMittal’s Commitment to Net Zero: A Path Forward or a Stalled Dream?
Despite these challenges, ArcelorMittal reaffirmed its dedication to sustainability. The company had initially outlined plans to achieve net zero by 2050 through innovative technologies, including hydrogen-powered furnaces.
CEO Aditya Mittal remarked on the company’s commitment to reaching net zero emissions, saying that:
“ArcelorMittal remains absolutely committed to decarbonization. It is the right thing to do, both for the company and the planet. I remain confident that we can still achieve our net-zero by 2050 target, but the shape of how we will achieve this could differ from what was previously announced.”
ArcelorMittal Net Zero Roadmap
The world’s leading steel producer has outlined 5 key levers to achieve its net-zero emissions target by 2050, which include:
- Steelmaking Transformation: Using innovative technologies such as Smart Carbon and direct reduced iron (DRI) processes to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
- Energy Transformation: Shifting to clean energy like green hydrogen, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and circular carbon solutions from sustainable sources.
- Increased Scrap Usage: Enhancing recycling methods to integrate more scrap metal into steel production.
- Sourcing Clean Electricity: Transitioning to renewable energy sources to meet operational energy needs and partnering with clean energy providers to ensure sustainable electricity supply.
- Offsetting Residual Emissions: Purchasing high-quality carbon offsets or developing carbon credit projects that rely on its direct intervention.
The steel giant’s decarbonization strategy unveiled in 2020, relied on favorable policies, technological advancements, and supportive market conditions to offset the high capital and operating costs of transitioning from coal to green hydrogen-powered steel production. However, significant challenges put a break in its decarbonization efforts.
The slow progress of green hydrogen adoption and inadequate policy support have made large-scale investments risky. This forced the company to reconsider its roadmap.
The Path Forward
While ArcelorMittal remains committed to decarbonization, its delays reflect a broader challenge for the steel industry: achieving ambitious climate goals without undermining competitiveness. Clearer EU policies will be critical to unlocking investments in green steel technologies.
For now, the industry’s ability to transition to greener operations hangs in the balance. Companies like ArcelorMittal are waiting for the right combination of market conditions and policy support to move forward toward their net zero goal.
The post ArcelorMittal Delays €1.7B Net Zero Plan: Is The EU Policy to Blame? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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