Last year marked a decade since the signing of the Paris Agreement and six years since the launch of the ResponsibleSteel Production Standard. In that time, expectations on climate action have shifted dramatically. Global emissions continue to rise, and the 1.5°C warming threshold is now projected to be breached by 2034. To remain on a 1.5°C pathway, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that global CO₂ emissions must fall by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Yet progress in the steel sector is lagging. According to the Mission Possible Partnership’s Global Project Tracker, only 9% of the required operational or committed near-zero steelmaking capacity was in place by the end of 2024.

Against a backdrop of rising global emissions and growing awareness of the consequences of inaction, ResponsibleSteel is undertaking a timely and necessary revision of its climate-related requirements, specifically criteria 10.1 (corporate commitment to the Paris Agreement), 10.2 (corporate climate-related financial disclosure), 10.5 (site-level emissions targets and planning), and 10.7.1 (GHG disclosure and reporting).

A collaborative revision process

From October to January, ResponsibleSteel convened five Working Group (WG) and Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meetings, bringing together 23 representatives from 15 member organisations across certification bodies, civil society, steelmakers, and the wider steel value chain.

As a participant from SteelWatch noted during the process, “Having a diverse group of members involved in the revision process of the standard helps to achieve a balance between what steelmakers deem feasible and where the standard needs to set the bar to trigger ambitious action. ResponsibleSteel has done well navigating and drawing on different perspectives, turning them into concrete proposals that can be submitted for the next steps of the revision process.”

Three guiding principles framed these discussions:

• Ambition: ensuring alignment with global climate goals and science-based pathways
• Feasibility: recognising real-world constraints, particularly in the near term
• Simplicity: avoiding unnecessary complexity while improving clarity and accountability

A key theme that emerged was the foundational importance of credible transition plans that move beyond aspiration and, at the same time, are grounded in realistic assumptions about technology readiness, capital investment cycles, and enabling conditions. As noted by SteelWatch, “Aligning corporate- and site-level requirements is essential in ensuring that top-level corporate ambition and targets translate into actual investment decisions today, and subsequent material transformation and emissions reductions on the ground.”

Moving beyond outdated decarbonisation roadmaps

Under the current Production Standard, certified sites must demonstrate that they have a decarbonisation roadmap aligned with an existing model. However, the WG and TAG agreed that many of these models have not been updated in recent years and no longer reflect technological, economic, or policy realities. As a result, they risk undermining rather than strengthening transition planning. The revised approach moves away from a prescriptive reliance on external models and instead proposes to introduce an explicit requirement for a climate transition plan at the corporate and site level.

A participant from EMSTEEL, a ResponsibleSteel member and certified site, commented, “Revising the ResponsibleSteel Standard is an important step in strengthening the steel sector’s collective transition journey. The process provides members with a valuable opportunity to contribute practical insights, share operational experience, and help shape a standard that is both ambitious and implementable. ResponsibleSteel has done an excellent job in creating an inclusive and transparent revision process, encouraging constructive dialogue among members and ensuring diverse industry perspectives are reflected in the development of a stronger and more credible framework.”

What’s proposed to change in the Production Standard?

The proposed revisions strengthen and connect key elements of Principle 10, with a clearer and more coherent architecture across corporate and site levels.

Key improvements include:

• Quantitative, time-bound emissions reduction targets, covering Scope 1 and 2 emissions and material Scope 3 emissions
• Stronger links between corporate- and site-level planning, ensuring that corporate ambition translates into real investment decisions and on-the-ground transformation
• Improved intensity-based disclosures to support comparability, directly aligned with ResponsibleSteel’s broader harmonisation work
• Alignment with leading frameworks, such as IFRS S2 (International Financial Reporting Standards), while retaining flexibility for different regional and operating contexts
• Clearer guardrails for credibility, moving beyond temperature labels alone

There was strong agreement across the WG that clearer wording and guidance are essential to support consistent interpretation and implementation by sites and auditors alike.

Connecting the dots between the Production Standard’s criteria

One of the most important outcomes of the revision process so far has been a clearer set of connections between criteria that, while related, have not previously been well integrated.

In the current Production Standard:

• Corporate transition planning (10.1) is weakly connected to climate-related financial disclosures (10.2)
• Site-level transition planning (10.5) is not sufficiently aligned with corporate-level strategies
• Public GHG emissions disclosure requirements (10.7.1) are limited, focusing mainly on a site’s medium-term reduction target

The proposed changes aim to address these gaps by:

• Requiring climate transition plans to include climate-related financial risks and opportunities, including dependencies that may impose structural barriers, planned changes to business models and strategy;
• Aligning corporate- and site-level planning approaches to reduce carbon leakage risks and ensure consistency across operating boundaries; and
• Strengthening public disclosure requirements to better support accountability, comparability, and progress tracking over time.

Flexibility, credibility, and the reality of steelmaking

The WG and TAG discussions also surfaced a shared understanding of the structural barriers currently slowing decarbonisation in the steel industry. These include:

• Limited technology maturity at scale
• Supply chain and infrastructure constraints
• Energy availability and cost
• Inconsistent or insufficient policy support
• Weak demand signals for low-emission steel
• Trade and competitiveness pressures

Given the long investment timelines and asset lifetimes involved, feasibility in the near term is particularly critical. As such, there was strong support for a flexible, disclosure-driven approach that pairs quantitative targets with qualitative indicators of progress, allowing ResponsibleSteel to uphold high ambition and transparency while recognising that steelmakers cannot address systemic barriers alone.

As ResponsibleSteel’s Decarbonisation Analyst, Melav Salih observed, “A robust climate transition plan must embed decarbonisation within broader strategic and financial planning. It needs to recognise that steelmakers’ transition pathways are shaped by long-lived assets, billion-dollar investment decisions, and dependencies on an ecosystem of change that includes energy systems, infrastructure, policy, and markets.”

Looking ahead

As the Paris Agreement enters its second decade, and as legal, financial, and societal expectations on climate accountability intensify, ResponsibleSteel’s role as a credible, independent standard for the steel industry has never been more important.

By strengthening climate transition planning across corporate strategy, site-level action, financial disclosure, and public reporting, revisions to the Production Standard aim to support steelmakers in navigating this transition transparently and at pace.

Together with parallel work on harmonisation and disclosure alignment, the revisions to climate transition planning requirements represent a critical step toward turning climate commitments into credible, comparable, and feasible transition pathways for the global steel industry.

Learn more about the revision of ResponsibleSteel’s International Production Standard here.

As policymakers, businesses, and investors set their sights on rapid industry decarbonisation, less attention has so far been paid to the workers and communities most impacted by the transition.

Last month, ResponsibleSteel released a first-of-its-kind report with the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) outlining key principles to support a just transition for the steel and mining sectors. The report follows a year-long project funded by the ISEAL Innovations Fund with support from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.

ResponsibleSteel’s Director of Programmes, Amy Jackson, outlines why it’s vital that industry decarbonisation is not only fast but fair, and how this latest report could influence the ongoing revision of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard.

Why does a just transition matter?

Mining and steel are responsible for a significant share of global energy-related emissions, up to 10% from mining and likewise around 10% from steel. So, there’s no question: decarbonising these sectors is absolutely essential to reaching global climate goals. But what’s often overlooked is the human impact of this transition. We know the shift will be profound, but we’re only beginning to understand what it will look like in practice.

If we don’t take deliberate action, the workers and communities most affected by these transitions risk being left behind. Globally, steel employs around six million people, mining around 20 million, and millions more rely on these industries indirectly.

A just transition ensures that the benefits of industrial transformation are shared. This includes opportunities for safer jobs, new skills, economic diversification, and improved access to clean energy infrastructure and other low-emission goods and services. It also means embracing more equitable benefit‑sharing approaches, including co‑ownership and equity models, so that affected communities can participate meaningfully in the value created by the transition.  

What prompted ResponsibleSteel and IRMA to look more closely at just transition issues in steel and mining?

New technologies are opening the door to a cleaner future, but they can also be very disruptive, especially in heavy industries like steel and mining.

Steel production is already beginning to change in some geographies, as blast furnaces close, companies shift toward EAF and DRI technologies, and electric and hydrogen-based routes emerge. These transformations will also require significantly expanded renewable energy capacity and major changes to transport and logistics systems to support new supply chains. Mining is facing changes of a similar scale with the decline of coal and the increasing demand for critical minerals. Together, these developments will reshape the mining and steel supply chains, with major implications for employment patterns and local economies.

There’s growing recognition that heavy industries need to better address human rights, Indigenous rights, and social equity, and to genuinely integrate local knowledge into transition planning and due diligence. Stakeholders are also calling for more inclusive approaches to ensure transitions are fair and collaborative rather than imposed.

This is why ResponsibleSteel and the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) partnered on this project - to take a closer look at the social implications of industrial transitions. We wanted to understand the role voluntary sustainability standards can play in helping companies navigate these shifts in a way that is both responsible and inclusive.

What is the Just Transition Framework?

The Just Transition Framework builds on internationally recognised principles from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, as well as extensive inputs from the published literature on this topic and from stakeholders.

We drew on three key dimensions of justice commonly used in academic theory - procedural, distributive, and restorative justice - and began by mapping 16 existing just transition frameworks from international bodies, industry, advocacy groups, and Indigenous peoples.

This provided the basis for a draft framework, which we then tested and refined through extensive stakeholder engagement. We spoke with workers, unions, supply chain actors, companies, governments, civil society, communities, and Indigenous groups, and brought stakeholders together for workshops in Johannesburg and Brussels.

The final Just Transition Framework brings together these insights into nine principles and 50 core elements, along with five recommendations for VSSs, offering a structured but adaptable foundation for embedding just transition concepts into global sustainability schemes.

Were there any other important findings or points from the framework worth highlighting?

One of the clearest findings that emerged from this work is that transitions are highly context‑specific. The social impacts and opportunities associated with them depend heavily on local conditions, from the economic role a mine or steel site plays in a region, to the availability of alternative jobs, to the presence of strong institutions and community organisations. Understanding this is a critical first step, because it means recognising that there is no one‑size‑fits‑all approach.

Another important insight is that while voluntary sustainability standards have an important role to play, they cannot drive a just transition on their own. Nor can it be directed by steelmakers or mining companies alone. A truly just transition requires collaboration with a much wider group of actors, such as local and national governments, financial institutions, workers and trade unions, communities, and Indigenous peoples. The Framework helps clarify where VSSs can contribute most effectively, but it also emphasises that delivering a fair transition is ultimately a shared responsibility, not something any single organisation or sector can dictate or deliver in isolation.

How will the framework impact ResponsibleSteel’s International Production Standard?

Following the production of the Just Transition Framework, we benchmarked it against the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard to identify where just transition concepts are already well covered and where there may be gaps.

One of the key findings from this exercise and from our discussions with our Just Transition Working Group is that many just transition elements are already embedded in the Standard, even if they aren’t described using that specific terminology. For example, existing requirements around stakeholder engagement, site decommissioning and closure, labour rights and the development of closure plans all support just transition outcomes.

Where the Framework has added value is by providing a structure for the conversation, which enables discussions around the most important elements for inclusion in the standard, and helps to identify where we could make these expectations more explicit about their application to transitions.

What’s next?

As we move forward with the standard revision, our focus is on making more explicit where requirements will support a just transition, in the standard itself or in supporting guidance. For example, strengthening guidance around due diligence, particularly how sites should identify and address just transition‑related risks and impacts, and clarifying what a robust just transition plan should contain. This might cover identified risks, mitigation actions, and support measures such as worker training or reskilling.

The aim isn’t to introduce major new requirements. Instead, the intention is to build on what’s already there, ensuring the Standard continues to evolve in a way that supports a fair, inclusive, and responsible transition across the steel value chain.

Learn more about the latest report.

Learn more about the Standard revision process and find out how to get involved on our Standard revision webpage.

ArcelorMittal’s Hamburg site has achieved ResponsibleSteel Core Site Certification, marking an important moment for Europe’s only direct reduced iron (DRI) - electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking site.

The certification recognises the site’s performance against ResponsibleSteel’s International Production Standard and its commitment to responsible steelmaking across environmental, social and governance issues. It follows a comprehensive, two‑year independent audit process carried out by certification body GUTcert, including on‑site assessments, worker interviews and engagement with external stakeholders. Certification confirms that the Hamburg site meets ResponsibleSteel’s globally recognised requirements, with a strong emphasis on transparency and continuous improvement.

Annie Heaton, CEO of ResponsibleSteel, welcomed the announcement, saying, “We congratulate ArcelorMittal Hamburg on achieving ResponsibleSteel Core Site Certification. As Europe’s only DRI‑EAF steelmaking site, this is an important milestone for the region’s steel industry. As the site works towards its ambition of producing near‑zero steel, this certification demonstrates that decarbonisation is being pursued alongside strong social and environmental practices. We look forward to continuing to support ArcelorMittal Hamburg on its journey towards responsible, lower‑emission steel.”

As Europe’s steel sector accelerates efforts to decarbonise, ResponsibleSteel’s Production Standard provides a robust framework that goes beyond greenhouse gas emissions to address workers’ rights, occupational health and safety, community impacts, pollution, biodiversity, and water stewardship.

ResponsibleSteel's Head of Membership and Communications, Joe Woodruff, was on the ground to present the team at ArcelorMittal Hamburg with the site's certificate. He emphasised, "This is a significant achievement, and one that deserves to be recognised and celebrated. Certification is never just a technical exercise. It represents commitment, perseverance, and real courage. To achieve certification, steelmaking sites must work through challenges, address non-conformities, strengthen systems, and demonstrate openness to scrutiny and improvement. That process is what ResponsibleSteel certification is designed to support, not perfection from day one, but credible progress built on transparency and accountability."

The audit process confirmed that the site has established management systems in place and is actively addressing environmental and social impacts, while also identifying areas for further improvement, which is a core principle of ResponsibleSteel’s approach to certification. In particular, the auditors recognised the site's strong commitment to health and safety, which was evident throughout the process. ResponsibleSteel certification is valid for three years, with regular surveillance audits required to ensure ongoing conformity with the Production Standard.

Thoralf Winkel, CEO of ArcelorMittal Hamburg, commented, “For us, the ResponsibleSteel certification is far more than a formal piece of documentation. It stands for our shared values and our consistent commitment to sustainability, integrity and responsible conduct. With this, we are making a clear promise – to the environment, our local communities and future generations.”

ArcelorMittal Hamburg has been in operation since 1970. The site produces liquid steel and hot‑rolled wire rod and has an annual production capacity of up to 800,000 tonnes of wire rod.

With the certification of the Hamburg site, all four of ArcelorMittal’s steelmaking sites in Germany are now certified against the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard, alongside Bremen, Duisburg and Eisenhüttenstadt. This reflects a broader commitment across the company’s German operations to independent verification, stakeholder engagement and continuous improvement in responsible steelmaking practices.

Take a look at the certificate and the public audit summary here.

Earlier this year, ResponsibleSteel was in China to mark an important milestone following the announcement at COP30 of our agreements with the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) and the Brussels‑based Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS). The visit culminated at CISA’s annual LCA conference, where we presented the project to the Chinese steel value chain and celebrated our shared ambition to advance steel decarbonisation through global collaboration.

In this video, we speak with voices from across the steel value chain, including ResponsibleSteel’s CEO, Annie Heaton, and Director of Programmes, Amy Jackson; CISA’s Vice Secretary General, Feng Chao; VAMA’s Chief Technology Officer, Li Xiang; and Hang Lung Properties’ Deputy Director - Sustainability, John Haffner. They reflect on why interoperability between global standards matters, and how collaboration between ResponsibleSteel and CISA can help unlock trusted, comparable data for low‑ and near‑zero‑emission steel.

Together, these partnerships are laying the foundations for a more transparent global market, one that supports informed procurement, targeted investment, and real emissions reductions across the steel value chain.

What do ResponsibleSteel's interoperability projects look like in practice?

In short, interoperability means measuring emissions using rules that are as aligned as possible, and recognising the differences, to enable comparison on a like-for-like basis. Imagine the benefit this would bring for anyone wanting to distinguish what good looks like, for example, procurement teams, investors, and policymakers.

But making interoperability work in practice requires a lot more if we want a reliable, credible and sustainable system that generates high-quality, comparable data.

We've outlined the key components of this in our Framework for Credible Interoperability, which will inform both our work with LESS and CISA:

• Aligned GHG accounting rules
• A reliable calculation tool
• A robust assurance mechanism
• Credible claims protocols
• Good governance, oversight and resourcing
• Appropriate data management
• Strong operations management systems

This is how markets are built: first with innovation, then with the necessary rules and systems that enable good information to flow – so that steel buyers can understand, investors can evaluate, and steelmakers can compete, based on emissions performance that everyone can trust.