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
Consultation now open: Help shape Version 3.0 of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard
The International Production Standard is the foundation of ResponsibleSteel's certification programme and a key tool for driving more socially and environmentally responsible steel production globally.
As the steel industry continues to evolve, it is essential that the Production Standard remains relevant, credible and effective. The proposed revisions will inform any revised Version 3.0 of the Production Standard and address a range of topics identified through stakeholder feedback, implementation experience and developments across the regulatory and sustainability landscape. These include:
- Climate Change & GHG Emissions
- Just Transition
- Evolving ESG and Regulatory Frameworks
- Annual Leave Requirements
- Enabling product claims
The survey is open from Wednesday 30 September until Monday 23 November (08:00 UTC).
We invite all interested stakeholders to review the proposed revisions and provide feedback through our consultation process. Your input will play an important role in ensuring the Production Standard remains practical, robust and responsive to the needs of the industry and wider society.
Find out more
Visit the main landing page for detailed information on the proposed revisions, supporting materials, timelines and how to participate - go to page
Focused Discussions
Want to discuss any of the proposed revisions in more detail? Complete our form to let us know which areas you’d like to explore, and we will be in touch - Fill in this form
Consultation Survey
If you are already familiar with the consultation process and proposed changes, you can complete the consultation survey here - Access the survey
We encourage you to share this consultation with colleagues and others who may have an interest in the futuredevelopment of the Production Standard. If you have any questions about the consultation or Standard Revision ingeneral, please contact standards@responsiblesteel.org.
ResponsibleSteel and HILT CRC Convene Experts in London to Advance Low-Emission Steel Standards Interoperability
ResponsibleSteel and the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre (HILT CRC) brought together industry leaders, standards organisations, policymakers, researchers and civil society representatives for the London Interoperability Roundtable on 7 September at the Australia High Commission in London. The discussion focused on one of the most important challenges facing emerging low-emission steel markets: how different climate and steel standards can work together effectively across jurisdictions.
The roundtable explored how greater interoperability between standards can help reduce complexity, improve comparability and support the development of global markets for low-emission steel. Discussions drew on ResponsibleSteel's ongoing partnerships with the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) and the Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS), whose combined memberships represent the majority of global steel production.
Opening remarks were provided by Hon Jay Weatherill AO, Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, and the programme featured perspectives from Jiang Wei, Secretary General, China Iron and Steel Association (CISA); Dale Seymour, Independent Board Director, ResponsibleSteel; Åsa Ekdahl, Director of Climate Advocacy, worldsteel; Associate Professor Emma Aisbett, Australian National University; Jenny Selway, CEO, HILT CRC; Amy Jackson, Director of Programmes, ResponsibleSteel; Carmen Oswald, Secretary General, Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS); Feng Chao, Deputy Secretary General, CISA and Simon Sharpe, S-Curve Economics. The roundtable was chaired by Annie Heaton, CEO, ResponsibleSteel, and inspired contributions from around the table.
Participants highlighted the growing need for alignment in emissions accounting, measurement and assurance approaches, while recognising that policy thresholds and market requirements may continue to vary between regions.
By the close of the meeting, there was strong agreement that the conversation has evolved beyond whether interoperability is needed to how it can be implemented in practice. Participants identified two key priorities for future collaboration: developing common approaches to emissions accounting and verification, and building greater international alignment around claims, thresholds and definitions of low-emission steel.
The event forms part of ResponsibleSteel's wider work to support credible, transparent and internationally connected markets for responsibly produced, low-emission steel.
Beyond the GWP Number: Rethinking how we identify ‘low emissions’ steel
With every heat wave, the need for ‘low emissions’ steel intensifies. And yet awareness of the complexity of measuring and comparing emissions and GHG performance across the steel industry is also growing. The growing use of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), especially in the construction sector, signals a welcome shift towards greater transparency around emissions and other environmental impacts. But they also come with risks when used in isolation.
In the recently published report “From Data to Decisions: Comparable GHG Emissions Data for Steel Procurement”, ResponsibleSteel explores to what extent product-level Global Warming Potential (GWP) values reported in EPDs can be reliably linked to the underlying GHG emissions performance of the steelmaking site. Supported by a data collection and conversion process with four steelmaker members, the research suggests the answer is: not yet.
The research examined how GWP values for steel products are calculated in EPDs and whether these values, together with information on Secondary Materials, could be used to determine a steelmaking site's Decarbonisation Progress Level (DPL). This analysis is framed against the Steel Standards Principles' (SSP) Criteria for Transparency in GHG Reporting which is a benchmark already recognised across the sector to improve transparency, understanding and comparability of GHG metrics.
The findings reveal significant challenges in translating between product-level EPD data and site-level measures of decarbonisation.
GWP values for the same steel product could vary substantially even when calculated using the same Product Category Rule. EPDs also do not consistently disclose the use of Secondary Materials. To bridge these gaps, the research team collected more than 30 additional quantitative and qualitative data points directly from participating steelmakers. Even with this additional information, significant variation remained between cases, making the approach unsuitable for reliable conversion.
Three factors were particularly important: system boundaries, co-product allocation and background datasets. Methodological choices within EPDs can have a greater influence on the reported number than genuine differences between steel producers. Using EPD GWP thresholds alone to define 'low emissions' steel could therefore produce misleading procurement outcomes that can stall progress rather than driving meaningful emissions reductions.
This does not mean EPDs should be abandoned. They remain valuable and well-established tools for communicating environmental information, including declarations beyond the GWP value. Instead, the research points to three practical improvements: greater transparency about what each GWP value represents; tighter application of existing standards to reduce methodological variation; and a consistent approach to reporting scrap, distinguishing clearly between scrap, Secondary Material and recycled content.
Ultimately, the product-level GWP value and site-level decarbonisation metric answer different questions. The most credible approach is to use them together: EPDs can provide product-level environmental information, while complementary metrics such as ResponsibleSteel's DPLs can provide evidence of genuine decarbonisation performance.
The SSP Transparency Criteria reinforce this direction bycalling for disclosure of information such as the reporting boundary, steel production route, primary data share, scrap inputs and key accounting choices. Greater transparency of this kind would make it easier for buyers to understand what a reported GWP actually represents and how it can, and cannot, be compared with other emissions metrics.
The direction of travel is already clear. Initiatives including the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI), Catena-X,CEN's draft steel-specific standard, ISO harmonisation work and the SSP are all pointing towards greater transparency and methodological consistency within EPDs.
If steel procurement is to genuinely drive decarbonisation, we need to move beyond a single GWP number. EPD programme operators, steelmakers, manufacturers, specifiers, standards bodies, policymakers and civil society should work together to make product-level emissions data more transparent, comparable and fit for purpose.
The goal is not to replace EPDs, but to make the information they provide more meaningful—and to ensure it is used alongside the right complementary metrics to identify genuinely lower-emissions steel.
What does this mean for steel procurement?
Procurement is one of the most powerful levers for change. But to genuinely drive decarbonisation, buyers need the right data, used in the right way.
We put forward the following recommendations to producers and users of the EPD system:
1. Make EPDs more transparent. Policies, labels and programmes using EPD GWP values for steel should recognise only EPD programmes that meet the SSP Criteria for Transparency in GHG Reporting and disclose key information, including crude steel emissions intensity and scrap share.
2. Look beyond GWP alone. ‘Low emissions’ steel specifications should consider both GHG emissions intensity and scrap share, using a defined, scrap-variable framework such as ResponsibleSteel’s DPLs. EPDs should therefore disclose these metrics alongside GWP, enabling specifiers and procurers to assess emissions performance more meaningfully.
3. Harmonise how steel EPDs are calculated. EPD programme operators, Programme Category Rule (PCR) developers and steel-sector stakeholders should work together to reduce methodological inconsistencies in calculating steel product GWP values, improving comparability while building on the EPD systems already in use.
Read the full report where we dive deeper into the methodology, findings and recommendations for applying DPLs and EPDs together in decision making.
Sign up for the upcoming webinar
This study builds on the findings of the recent policy paper, titled “Global Steel Decarbonisation: From complexity to coherence”.
