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.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
