

The October edition of the ResponsibleSteel Newsletter is out!
The most noteworthy event in October was the launch of the public consultation - a critical stage of our Standard Revision process where proposed revisions to the International Production Standard are opened up to public feedback. If you haven't participated, you still have until 23 November to do so.
In this edition, we also report back from Bangkok Climate Action Week and a World Trade Organisation session on interoperability. Then, we look forward to November, particularly ResponsibleSteel's attendance at COP31 in Antalya, Turkiye, as well as our Steelmakers and Civil Society Reference Groups and important working groups. Not to mention, we highlight ResponsibleSteel's newest member: Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS).
Highlights include:
- Launch of the public consultation
- ResponsibleSteel's COP31 attendance in Antalya, Turkiye
- Steelmakers & Civil Society Reference Groups
- Working groups on Principle 10 & Chain of Custody
- Bangkok Climate Action Week
- World Trade Organisation session on interoperability
- Initial meetings with automotive industry in ResponsibleSteel's Auto Accelerator
- New members and community updates
- Upcoming ResponsibleSteel audits and events
Read the full October newsletter here.


How should steel products get credit for cutting emissions? Final Principle 10 workstream begins 3 November
The ResponsibleSteel Decarbonisation Scale is a framework for decarbonising steel while acknowledging the physical limits of scrap availability. Evaluations of how far any given steel-producing site has gone in cutting its climate impact is currently based on a whole steelworks’ average emissions. That average encourages sites to improve as a whole. But steelmakers rarely change everything at once. A new, cleaner production line often runs alongside older equipment, and its progress disappears into the site average.
From 3 November, a working group will explore whether, and how, sites could make claims for individual products or production lines, so that cleaner steel can be marketed as such as early as possible. It will look at what is assessed, how emissions are shared between products, what safeguards and tracking are needed, and how claims are communicated.
In a 2025 survey, 68% of responding ResponsibleSteel members supported this, provided strong safeguards are in place. Proposed safeguards include:
- the whole site must be certified
- the whole site must first reach the first progress level
- the approach would end on a set date (for example 2035), as a bridge through the transition
- no product could claim lower emissions than the site’s best technology can physically achieve
- sites could only claim as much low-emission steel as they actually produce
Renewable energy purchases could play a limited, tightly tracked role, but carbon offset credits would not count.
The group’s input will feed directly into version 3.0 of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard and its guidance and annexes. The aim is recognition that is fair, credible and comparable, without opening loopholes.
ResponsibleSteel members are welcome to join. Anyone can request the detailed proposal to give feedback, or ask questions, at standards@responsiblesteel.org.
You can access a detailed work plan which sets out the scope, purpose, objectives & intended outcomes of the working group, as well as the guiding principles, governance structure and proposed timeline.


Call for Members: Working Group on Chain of Custody Standard and Claims & Logo Use Guidelines Revision
ResponsibleSteel is forming a new Working Group to guide the revision of our Chain of Custody (CoC) Standard and the Claims & Logo Use Guidelines.
Robust Chain of Custody and Claims Guidelines are essential to ResponsibleSteel’s certification programme, ensuring credible claims for products originating from ResponsibleSteel certified sites.
This Working Group will focus on:
- Enhancing Value & Market Growth: Revise the CoC Standard so that it supports credible, substantiated and third-party verified claims on steel from ResponsibleSteel certified sites, adds value across the steel value chain, and grows the market for certified steel.
- Strengthening Claims: Revise the Claims and Logo Use Guidelines, including the claim rules and oversight needed for credible and legally compliant product claims, and add new claim types.
Meeting Schedule & Next Steps
Meetings will take place between late November 2026 and Q1/Q2 2027. Your expertise will help ensure our standards remain robust, practical, and responsive to industry needs.
- Learn More: Review the full Terms of Reference for detailed work plan.
- Get Involved: Interested parties (including steelmakers, processors, traders, buyers, certification bodies or civil society), please complete the Registration Form by 13 November 2026.
If you have any questions or would like a discussion before registering, please reach out to Margaret Ho at mho@responsiblesteel.org.


The September edition of the ResponsibleSteel Newsletter is out!
September marks an important milestone for ResponsibleSteel with the launch of the public consultation on proposed revisions to the International Production Standard. Stakeholders are now invited to review and provide feedback on proposals relating to greenhouse gas emissions, just transition, regulatory alignment, annual leave requirements and enabling product claims, helping to shape the future direction of responsible steel production.
In this edition, we share insights from our recent London Interoperability Roundtable, explore why identifying low-emissions steel requires looking beyond a single GWP number, reflect on discussions at Climate Week NYC, and highlight opportunities to get involved with ResponsibleSteel.
Highlights include:
- Launch of the public consultation on proposed revisions to the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard
- Insights from the London Interoperability Roundtable
- Reflections from Climate Week NYC
- Webinar on EPD-DPL interoperability and comparable GHG emissions data
- ResponsibleSteel vacancies
- Upcoming ResponsibleSteel audits and events
Read the full September newsletter here.
.png)

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”.


The August edition of the ResponsibleSteel Newsletter is out!
August was a busy month for ResponsibleSteel, marked by the publication of our new report, From Data to Decisions: Comparable GHG Emissions Data for Steel Procurement, which explores how greenhouse gas emissions data can be used more effectively to support credible steel procurement decisions.
In this edition, we also share insights from our assessment of the International Production Standard against the Steel Standards Principles (SSP) Transparency Criteria, provide updates on preparations for our interoperability roundtable in London, and look ahead to Climate Week NYC, where ResponsibleSteel will be participating in discussions on steel decarbonisation and responsible sourcing.
Highlights include:
- Launch of our report From Data to Decisions: Comparable GHG Emissions Data for Steel Procurement
- Upcoming webinar exploring the report's findings and recommendations
- Assessment of the International Production Standard against the SSP Transparency Criteria
- Updates on interoperability and collaboration across the steel standards landscape
- ResponsibleSteel at Climate Week NYC
- New members and community updates
- Upcoming ResponsibleSteel audits and events
Read the full August newsletter here.


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.


New report: How greater policy coherence can accelerate global steel decarbonisation
Steel is essential to modern economies, underpinning everything from buildings and transport to energy infrastructure and manufacturing. Yet the sector is also responsible for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making its decarbonisation a critical component of achieving global climate goals.
Today, ResponsibleSteel has published a new report, Global Steel Decarbonisation: From complexity to coherence, examining how fragmented policy frameworks are creating barriers to the transition to low-emission steelmaking.
Across the world, governments are introducing policies designed to reduce emissions from steel production while maintaining competitiveness, supporting jobs and strengthening industrial capacity. While these objectives are often aligned in principle, they are increasingly being pursued through separate and sometimes incompatible policy frameworks.
The result is a growing patchwork of regulations, reporting requirements, emissions methodologies and product classifications that can increase complexity for producers, create uncertainty for investors and make it more difficult for markets to recognise and reward genuine decarbonisation progress.
As Annie Heaton, CEO of ResponsibleSteel, explains:
“Right now, policy fragmentation is slowing down the very transition it is meant to accelerate. Greater alignment is entirely achievable, and essential, if we are to unlock investment and deliver steel decarbonisation at the pace required.”
A global review of steel decarbonisation policy
The report provides a global review of steel decarbonisation policy, with a particular focus on the European Union and India, two of the world's largest steel producers and consumer markets.
It examines the expanding mix of policies shaping the transition, including trade measures, sustainable finance frameworks, public procurement requirements, green steel labelling initiatives and ESG-related regulations.
While policy activity is accelerating in both regions, the report finds that many frameworks are built on different foundations. Diverging definitions of low-emission steel, inconsistent emissions accounting methodologies and varying approaches to recycled steel content can create friction across markets and weaken investment signals.
From complexity to coherence
The report argues that governments do not need to start from scratch. Instead, greater policy coherence can be achieved through stronger alignment between existing standards, certification systems and data requirements.
To support this, the report identifies a number of practical actions that policymakers can take:
- Establish more consistent approaches to measuring and reporting steel emissions.
- Reduce duplicated reporting requirements through greater recognition of independently verified data across jurisdictions.
- Develop common approaches to accounting for recycled and primary steel content, including the use of scrap-variable metrics.
- Strengthen traceability through credible chain-of-custody systems across steel supply chains.
- Better integrate environmental, social and governance considerations into steel decarbonisation policy frameworks.
Together, these measures can help create more transparent and competitive markets for low-emission steel, reward producers making genuine progress on decarbonisation and support the investment needed to accelerate the transition.
Download the report
Global Steel Decarbonisation: From complexity to coherence explores these challenges and opportunities in greater detail, providing practical recommendations for policymakers, industry stakeholders and investors seeking to support the transition to low-emission steel.


%20(1).jpg)








