We’re shaping a more ResponsibleSteel industry.
We have the opportunity to do things differently.
ResponsibleSteel is a global, not-for-profit organisation created to maximise steel’s contribution to a sustainable world. Working collaboratively with our members, we have developed an independent standards and certification programme for steel via a process that uses the ISEAL Codes of Good Practice as a reference. Together, we are setting the global standard for responsibly produced net-zero steel.
We’re at a pivotal moment in the steel industry.
According to ResponsibleSteel's calculations using data from RMI and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the steelmaking process, from the extraction of raw materials to the production of steel, accounts for 10% of global GHG emissions. We face a collective challenge to transform the industry, reducing global emissions while ensuring a just transition for workers and local communities.
We have over 160 members working to deliver on our mission to drive responsible steel production.
According to the IEA's Net Zero Emissions Scenario, we need to reduce steel industry emissions by at least 90% by 2050, compared to 2022.
We have over 90 ResponsibleSteel certified sites globally.
Over 260,000 workers are covered by ResponsibleSteel certification.
Over 30% of furnaces covered by ResponsibleSteel certification are EAFs.
This is the future of steel.
Our members are at the heart of our work.
ResponsibleSteel’s membership consists of representatives from across the steel value chain, including businesses, NGOs, trade associations, and other organisations with an interest in our mission. This means our standards are uniquely shaped by multiple perspectives, and their adoption requires the support of both business and civil society members. We encourage organisations globally to join us to create lasting impact for people and the planet.
.png)
We have certified sites across the globe.
Latest news & events
New report: Improving EPDs for GHG emissions data for steel procurement
As demand for low emission steel grows, buyers increasingly need reliable and comparable information to understand the emissions performance of the products they are purchasing. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are an established tool for providing this information – but how effectively do they reflect genuine differences in steelmaking emissions?
ResponsibleSteel’s new report, From Data to Decisions: Comparable GHG Emissions Data for Steel Procurement, examines this question using real, verified site-level data from steelmakers.
What did we find?
The analysis demonstrates that GHG values reported at product level can vary significantly, even where products are assessed using the same Product Category Rule. Importantly, methodological choices – including system boundaries, approaches to co-product allocation and background datasets – can have a significant influence on reported emissions.
This means that relying on product-level GWP (Global Warming Potential1) values alone to identify and procure ‘low-emissions’ steel can produce misleading results, potentially rewarding methodological differences rather than genuine decarbonisation progress.
The report does not argue that EPDs are unsuitable for steel procurement. Rather, it highlights the importance of greater transparency, comparability and consistency in the way emissions information is calculated and communicated.
Towards more credible steel procurement
For markets to effectively recognise and reward genuine emissions reductions, buyers need confidence that the emissions data they use allows for meaningful comparison between products and producers.
The report sets out practical recommendations for strengthening the foundations of credible low-emissions steel procurement, including greater transparency around emissions calculations, clearer disclosure of crude steel emissions intensity and scrap content, and approaches that enable more meaningful comparison of steel products.
[1] Global Warming Potential (GWP) in an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a standardised metric that measures how much heat a product's greenhouse gas emissions trap in the atmosphere, relative to carbon dioxide (CO₂).
The steel sector has an emissions data problem
By Dr. Alli Devlin (Decarbonisation Lead, ResponsibleSteel) and Melav Salih (Decarbonisation Advisor, ResponsibleSteel)
The steel sector needs emissions data that can be compared, not just data that can be reported.
That’s why it was a significant development when the Steel Standards Principles’ (SSP) Agreement on transparency in greenhouse gas emissions metrics for steel was published last December.
Established in 2023 by the Clean Energy Ministerial Industrial Deep Decarbonization Initiative (IDDI), International Energy Agency (IEA), ResponsibleSteel, Steel Breakthrough Agenda, World Steel Association and the World Trade Organisation, and launched at COP 28, the SSP now brings together over 65 endorsing organisations including standards bodies, steelmakers, industry associations and civil society.
December’s agreement sets out common disclosure points to improve comparability across steel standards and methodologies – ‘Transparency Criteria’ - which seven standards organisations and initiatives committed to aligning their reporting requirements to. This is an important first step towards achieving comparable GHG data disclosures across the steel landscape.
We recently tested the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard against the Transparency Criteria, and found that our standards already meet nine of the thirteen criteria related to transparent reporting, on critical areas like system boundaries and co-product allocation. For the remaining four criteria, we have clear actions identified to increase transparency in our upcoming standard revision process related to:
- Ferrous scrap inputs
- Use of alternative fuels
- Use and allocation of market-/location-based electricity and contractual instruments, and
- Transmission losses from imported electricity.
This exercise highlights an important principle: transparency and comparability require standard setters to look critically at their own methodologies, not just call for alignment from others.
As demand for ‘low emissions’ steel grows through procurement, green building schemes and regulation, differences in system boundaries, allocation methods and datasets can have a major influence on reported emissions – sometimes obscuring the differences that matter.
Our call to the sector: standard-setters, EPD programme operators and certification bodies should assess and publish how their methodologies align with the SSP Transparency Criteria.
Alignment will only work if everyone is prepared to be transparent about where they stand and where they need to improve.
It also points to a bigger challenge: what will it take for site- and product-level steel emissions data to genuinely speak the same language?
If you’re interested in possible answers to this question, we are currently preparing a paper examining this question for EPDs and the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonisation Progress Levels (DPLs), which will be available soon.
Learn more about the ResponsibleSteel approach to GHG emissions accounting and classification
.jpeg)
Shaping Version 3.0 of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard
The revision of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard is picking up pace. Launched in late 2024 with a scoping consultation, the revision process is now reaching an inflection point: we have been consolidating input from the various Working Groups and other stakeholders’ feedback into a first draft for public consultation.
Below, we reflect on who ourstakeholders are, why their engagement matters, and how different perspectives can help drive the future of responsible steel production.
Why stakeholder engagement matters
Revising an international standard affects not only steel producers and workers, but also other businesses in the value chain, communities, auditors, civil society organisations, and governments — and more — worldwide. This requires a process that is transparent, credible, and robust.
The steel industry is under growing pressure to decarbonise, strengthen human rights protections, and improve transparency across supply chains. A credible sustainability standard must reflect not only technical expertise and best practice, but also the realities faced by those implementing, auditing, and impacted by the standard.
That is why stakeholder engagement sits at the heart of the revision process, ensuring that the Production Standard is informed by a diversity of perspectives, grounded in real-world experience, and trusted by not only steelmakers but industry stakeholders more widely.
Mapping stakeholders across the steel ecosystem
As part of our standard revision work, we identified a broad range of stakeholders who are either directly or indirectly affected by the Production Standard and its revision.
Groups most directly affected are ResponsibleSteel value chain members and certificate holders, certification bodies, and recognised standard-setting schemes, as they directly implement, assess, or depend on the Production Standard.
These stakeholders provide practical insight into how requirements function on the ground, including challenges related to auditing, implementation, and operational feasibility.
More widely, ResponsibleSteel seeks input from members across all stakeholder groups, including:
· civil society organisations and NGOs,
· industry representatives,
· governments,
· scientists and academics, and
· communities affected by steel production.
We also welcome perspectives from non-member organisations, including companies across the steel value chain, whose experience and expertise help strengthen the revision process.
Each group brings different expectations and priorities to the process — from scientific rigour and legal alignment to labour rights, environmental integrity, and local community impacts.
Creating multiple channels for participation
Recognising that stakeholders engage in different ways, we have developed a multi-channel communications and engagement strategy.
Engagement spans channels like in-person and online meetings, webinars, Working Groups, Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs), member reference groups, member newsletters, targeted outreach, social media, and public consultations.
This layered approach helps ensure that both highly engaged technical participants and broader stakeholder audiences can contribute meaningfully to the revision process.
From awareness to active participation
The revision process has progressed through several stages, from raising awareness and sharing information, to convening Working Groups, member reference groups and Technical Advisory Groups to explore key technical and social topics in greater depth. Throughout, ResponsibleSteel has sought to create meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to engage with and inform the development of the revised Production Standard.
The public consultation: a milestone for stakeholder engagement
One of the most important milestones for stakeholder engagement in the revision of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard will be the public consultation, expected to launch in late-Q3 2026.
While Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups provide dedicated forums for technical discussion and expert input, the consultation opens the process to a much broader audience. It creates an opportunity for anyone with an interest in responsible steel production, from steelmakers and downstream manufacturers to civil society organisations, researchers, governments, workers, and affected communities, to have their voice heard.
This stage is about more than simply inviting comments. It is an opportunity to hear directly from stakeholders about their real-world experiences, identify issues that may not have emerged during technical discussions, and understand how the proposed revisions could affect different parts of the steel value chain. By bringing together a wide range of perspectives, the consultation helps strengthen both the quality of the Production Standard and confidence in the process used to develop it.
The consultation will be supported by webinars, outreach activities, newsletters, and detailed consultation materials designed to help stakeholders understand the proposed changes and provide informed feedback. Every submission will be reviewed and considered part of the revision process, helping to shape the final version of the Production Standard. ResponsibleSteel will share further details on how to participate in the coming weeks and months.
Learn more about the standard revision process here.
