We’re shaping  a more responsible steel industry.

Earlier this year, we welcomed Amy Jackson to ResponsibleSteel as our new Head of Programmes. With a background spanning ethical trade, to agriculture and responsible investment, read on to learn more about her experience in the standards industry, what brought her to ResponsibleSteel, and what she sees as key priorities for the standards and assurance programme moving forward.

1.     You’ve spent a significant amount of time working on global sustainability standards. What originally sparked your interest in this work?

My journey began as a case of being in the right place at the right time. After completing my degree in Animal Biology and Marine Conservation, I moved to London, seeking adventure, and worked in a restaurant whilst job hunting. I overheard some regulars speaking about sustainability and oceans - I introduced myself, started volunteering, and eventually, a paid opportunity opened at the Marine Stewardship Council. I stayed for 11 years!

I’ve always had a passion for sustainability, and the inclusive, science-based, solutions-focused approach of sustainability standards appealed to me. They acknowledge the importance of ensuring good actors are recognised and rewarded for their work, and to me, this seemed a very constructive way of engaging people and businesses in improving practices.  

Joining MSC in its early days helped me experience all sides of the system, from standard-setting to assurance, fundraising, communications, commercial engagement, and all from within a global organisation. The diversity of the challenge, the evolving landscape in how standards are seen and used, and the commitment to credibility are what kept me involved for so long.  

2.     Your experience spans ethical trade, agriculture, sustainable cotton, and responsible investment. How has your work in these areas shaped your approach to sustainability at ResponsibleSteel?

I’ve been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to engage with this wide range of sectors and different groups of stakeholders. In each of these, the basis has been on a defined agreement of good practice (the most important first step!), then the organisations work to find different ways to aid, verify, and reward progress towards the good practice. So, the basics are quite similar, with different organisations employing different theories of change as to the most effective levers to pull.

The most significant benefit of learning each new area has been the important reminder that, apart from your key partners and stakeholders, no one is thinking about your area of work as much as you are, or as much as you think they are. This means it’s very important to be clear about the benefits that each stakeholder gets from engaging with your system, and to make sure you are listening.

3.     At ISEAL, you played a role in developing best-practice frameworks. How will those experiences influence your work on ResponsibleSteel’s International Production Standard?

The most valuable learning from those processes was how to bring diverse stakeholders together to reach an agreement. In a multi-stakeholder environment, differing opinions on some of the specifics are inevitable, so we must instead focus on the objectives we are trying to achieve, which is usually where we can find common ground.

It is also essential to ensure each group’s voice is heard, and not just the loudest! For our standard revision, we will ensure we are clear, from the outset, about the stakeholder map and the minimum level of response needed from each group. At the same time, we need to be aware that because of the differing perspectives, it will likely be impossible to reach overall (enthusiastic)consensus in all areas. At ISEAL, finalising the Credibility Principles involved asking stakeholders to indicate for each one whether a) they were happy and wouldn’t change a thing, b) could not live with it, or c) they could live with it, but had some tweaks or improvements to suggest. This allowed us to understand where the deal breakers were and what was causing them. It also allowed us to move forward and finish the document, while still noting the potential areas to review for the next version.

4.     What excites you most about the future of sustainability in the steel industry, and what role do you see ResponsibleSteel playing in it?

It has been an exciting and sharp learning curve coming into the steel industry, and I know this will continue for some time. This might be a standards nerd thing to say, but the thing that excites me the most is the agreement on the need for harmonisation and alignment of the methodologies we’re using to assess steel sustainability.

When I was preparing for my interviews for the job, I learned that depending on the methodology used, emissions numbers could vary by as much as 30%! This makes comparing performance and tracking improvements very difficult and means so much time is wasted on completing different reporting templates, rather than focusing on times and resources on making sustainability improvements.

With the Steel Standards Principles and the efforts of ResponsibleSteel and others to ensure interoperability, I think we are in a good place. In other sectors, this need for alignment has been noted. For example, in disclosure with the TCFD and TNFD, it allows all efforts to be pointed in the same direction, resulting in greater effectiveness and less wasted time.

What also stands out is the passion of the people involved –from the ResponsibleSteel team to our members and other stakeholders. There is a personal commitment to improving how steel is produced, and this passion and leadership are essential for making a difference.

5.     You’ve worked on standards development, chain of custody, and assurance. What do you think are the most essential components when it comes to forming credible and impactful sustainability initiatives?

One reason I have come back to working with voluntary sustainability standards systems is because I love how beautifully all the different pieces fit together. Agreeing on what good looks like, assessing progress, assuring that a certain level is met, building capacity - it’s a whole system designed for continuous improvement, and it's what makes sustainability standards systems unique and special actors in the landscape. There are other standards, but it’s one thing to say what to do, it’s a whole other (harder)thing to make sure everyone’s doing it (assurance), and an even greater challenge to be certain that we’re making a difference (MEL: monitoring, evaluation and learning). This continued engagement with ensuring the effective implementation of the standard once it’s released is perhaps one of our collective community’s most understated USPs.

To help improve the accessibility of ResponsibleSteel’s emissions methodology and accelerate robust emissions accounting and reporting, ResponsibleSteel has today published extracts from Principle 10 of the ResponsibleSteel International Production Standard relating to Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.

Importantly, this is not an independent standard against which steelmakers can make certification claims. Instead, ResponsibleSteel's Fundamentals for GHG Emissions Accounting and Classification is designed as a valuable resource for steelmakers, steel buyers, policymakers, investors, and civil society organisations to use as a reference to measure and track progress as the global industry transitions to lower-emission production practices.

The document aims to improve the comparability, consistency and transparency of emissions accounting and reporting across the global steel industry by outlining three of Principle 10’s fundamental components:

1. ResponsibleSteel’s methodology for the calculation and disclosure of crude steel GHG emissions intensity at the site level.
2. ResponsibleSteel’s classification system to assess a steelmaking site’s decarbonisation progress.
3. ResponsibleSteel requirements for GHG emissions intensity declarations at product-level.

ResponsibleSteel’s “Decarbonisation Scale” approach enables all steelmaking sites, globally, to be compared on a like-for-like basis, based on transparent and fair accounting rules. By adopting this approach, the industry has the opportunity to increase the transparency and consistency of emissions data across the value chain, reducing administrative burdens and enabling more effective implementation of decarbonisation policies and mechanisms.

This new publication will be particularly valuable for stakeholders either looking to align with ResponsibleSteel’s approach or to build interoperability between GHG-specific frameworks, regulations, and procurement systems.

It is important to note that no claims relating to ResponsibleSteel certification, or its equivalency, or Decarbonisation Progress Level achievement, can be made based on this document alone. The document only represents a subset of Principle 10, which in full also addresses corporate commitments to the Paris Agreement, climate-related financial disclosures, and additional site-level emissions reductions. Nor does it include any of the other 12 Principles outlined in the Production Standard relating to the responsible production of steel.

We believe that truly responsible steel production requires steelmakers to go beyond decarbonisation and take steps to mitigate other social and environmental impacts. But amidst the growing urgency of the climate crisis, ResponsibleSteel remains committed to supporting global steel decarbonisation through practical tools developed with multi-stakeholder support. This latest publication reflects that commitment to offering robust, credible, scalable tools to accelerate emissions reductions at scale.

For any questions about the use or development of ResponsibleSteel’s Emissions Metrics, please contact standards@responsiblesteel.org.

Learn more about ResponsibleSteel’s Fundamentals for GHG Emissions Accounting and Classification here.

ResponsibleSteel and the Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS aisbl) today jointly release a new policy briefing, ‘The Steel Decarbonisation Scale’, urging European policymakers to adopt a more robust and realistic approach to steel decarbonisation—one that recognises the physical limits of scrap supply and incentivises genuine emissions reductions across all steel production routes.  

The study highlights that Europe’s steel industry, as the world’s second-largest producer, is responsible for 6% of the European Union’s total emissions. With ambitious EU targets aiming for a 55% reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050, the way steel decarbonisation is measured and incentivised is of critical importance.  

A key finding of the study is that current policy discussions, including the European Steel and Metals Action Plan (ESMAP) and proposals for voluntary carbon labels for steel, risk undermining climate goals if they fail to account for the fundamental constraints on scrap availability. Despite a high global steel recycling rate of 85%, only about 32% of the world’s demand for new steel can currently be met with recycled scrap due to the long lifetime of steel products, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). While the amount of available scrap is set to increase, the IEA estimates that scrap will still only be sufficient to meet 46% of steel demand by 2050.

“Steel decarbonisation requires an appropriate base for comparing steel products in terms of their global climate impact,” said Dr. Martin Theuringer, Secretary General of LESS aisbl. “Scrap is a valuable and limited resource. Any label or standard that ignores this risks distorting markets and ultimately slowing down the transition to truly low-emission steel. Our approach ensures that both primary and scrap-based production are incentivised to decarbonise, not just to compete for a fixed pool of scrap.”  

ResponsibleSteel and LESS propose the adoption of a “steel decarbonisation scale” that complements traditional carbon footprinting by explicitly accounting for the ratio of scrap and primary iron used in steelmaking. This approach, already recognised by the G7 and incorporated into international standards, would:  

• Prevent fruitless competition for a limited scrap supply  
• Incentivise decarbonisation across all steel production routes  
• Promote technology-neutral, WTO-compliant solutions  
• Support the competitiveness of European industry while advancing global climate goals  

“A European label for steel is a great opportunity to incentivise steelmakers to become globally competitive on their real decarbonisation progress,” said Annie Heaton, CEO of ResponsibleSteel. “A well-designed classification system will do this by taking into account scrap content in addition to the measurement of steel‘s carbon intensity, recognising that scrap will at best provide half of the world’s steel by 2050. As a result, this ‘steel decarbonisation scale’ approach incentivises investments that drive progress in the steelmaking process itself, whether in primary or secondary iron and steel making.”  

The two organisations call on the European Commission to integrate the steel decarbonisation scale into the development of voluntary labels, lead markets, and investment support mechanisms, ensuring that future measures are effective, fair, and aligned with Europe’s climate ambitions.

Download the briefing here.

Access ResponsibleSteel’s approach to GHG emissions metrics here.