The steel sector has an emissions data problem
The steel sector has an emissions data problem
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
