A responsible steel industry requires rigorous certification

Note: This opinion piece was originally published in Business Green.

As the world warms, the search is hotting up for a 'green transition' - shifting the building blocks of the economy onto a sustainable footing. There are many uncertainties around how - and how fast - we can make this happen, but one thing is certain: steel will be at its heart. Whether it is wind turbines or electric cars, buses, trains or bicycles, steel has to be part of the solution.

At present, though, it is also part of the problem. Because much of current steel production is highly polluting, dependent on massive blast furnaces which produce the metal by smelting iron ore with heat generated from burning coal. The sector accounts for around a quarter of all industrial emissions globally; if steel were a country, it would be the fourth biggest emitter on the planet.

Change has to happen - and fast. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned the sector as a whole has to cut emissions by 90 per cent by 2050 to keep it in line with global climate goals as set out in the Paris Agreement. Now, a new report from ResponsibleSteel has detailed the speed and scale of the shifts required in the coming years. According to its analysis, every steel plant in the world needs to be emitting less than today's average emissions intensity by 2030. In other words, today's average emitters will become the industry's worst offenders by 2030 - if they do not take steps now to improve.

In this year of elections, it is clear that governments on both sides of the Atlantic are keen to support their domestic steel industries, but also demonstrate they are making progress on the climate front. Meanwhile, major procurers looking to decarbonise their supply chain want action, too. So the search is on for steel which doesn't cause unacceptable environmental impacts.

There is one beguilingly simple answer: make new steel from scrap. This can result in emissions savings of around two-thirds compared to so-called virgin steel. It is also around half the price. Small wonder then that steel producers with access to scrap - or with the purchasing power to gain it - are racing to meet demand.

But as a long-term solution, this leaves much to be desired. For one thing, there simply isn't enough recyclable steel around to meet demand. And the race for scrap risks leaving longer-term solutions, such as systems that use 'green' hydrogen, starved of the investment they need to go to scale.

Any meaningful strategy to decarbonise the sector must combine using all the scrap that is available, with some serious drivers that ensure innovation in primary steel production from iron ore. And that will only come about when the market demands it, and is prepared to pay for it.

But there is another element to the search for sustainable steel: the social and community one. A focus on decarbonisation pure and simple risks leaving people behind - failing to take account of the need for a 'just transition' to a greener future. Threatened closures of relatively high-emitting plants, for example, can destabilise local communities and create huge headaches for governments, as we have seen recently in the UK.

Increasingly, these dilemmas are being recognised by both business and governments, and the search is on for all-round sustainable steel - sustainable environmentally and socially.

But how is that best defined? There's no shortage of 'green steel' labels and initiatives - over 80 at the last count. But their focus - and rigour - vary hugely. Some are global; some regional. Some cover specific steel products; others just company-wide impacts. Most are principally focused on carbon emissions, and don't take into account wider ESG issues such as labour rights, community impacts or biodiversity.

This lack of alignment creates confusion - just at a time when there's increasing impatience with green claims that are not robust. In Europe, the EU's Green Claims Directive is poised to subject businesses found to be making misleading claims to hefty fines and a ban on tendering for public procurement.

Against this background, there's a case for a certification scheme which covers the full spectrum of sustainability impacts - and does so with a rigour that can ensure its credibility. That's where ResponsibleSteel comes in. The result of wide consultations within the industry as well as civil society, its aim is to provide a common language of assessment that steel's customers, communities, investors, and workforce can all get behind.

It uses independent auditors to certify steel production sites, specific steel products, and company-wide impacts, too. It doesn't just assess progress on cutting carbon emissions, but also issues around the local environment and communities, and the way the workforce and supply chain are treated. As a broad-based certification initiative, ResponsibleSteel does seem to be gaining traction: it's been endorsed by the IEA, UNIDO's Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative, as well as the German government and the Chinese Iron and Steel Association.

This is encouraging. But there is no time to lose. The whole sector needs to demonstrate it is shifting - at speed and scale - to steelmaking which protects both communities and the climate, while providing the essential building blocks of a greener future. Transforming the industry will require bold and universal action. No one can sit on the sidelines. Delay is not an option.

By Annie Heaton, CEO, ResponsibleSteel