‘Sliding scale’ approach to measuring, reporting steel carbon emissions allows for greenwashing

The Global Steel Climate Council (GSCC) is challenging the “sliding scale” method used by steelmakers to measure and report steel carbon emissions and unveiling its own global standard

Formed in November 2022, the GSCC consists of steel manufacturers, associations and other organizations in the steel supply chain. Its founding members are the Steel Manufacturers Association, Nucor Corporation, CELSA Group, Steel Dynamics, Inc., Commercial Metals Company and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries.

The emissions reporting standard released by the GSCC, the Steel Climate Standard, offers a single protocol that would apply to all steel producers equally and would let steel buyers compare carbon emissions, the GSCC announced on Wednesday April 26.

The new standard differentiates itself from the “sliding scale” approach adopted by some steelmakers, which features one standard for steel made from traditional production processes that rely on mined and processed coal, iron ore and limestone, and another for steel made from circular processes such as using electric-arc furnaces (EAFs), according to the GSCC.

“The sliding scale is greenwashing because it allows for a higher threshold on steel products, depending on the production route. In other words, an integrated or blast furnace steel producer can produce the exact same steel product as an EAF producer but that still would have nine times higher carbon content,” Phil Bell, president of the Steel Manufacturers Association, told Fastmarkets in an interview.

The GSCC asserts that the “ferrous scrap usage sliding scale” used in other standards allows high-emission steel products to be erroneously labeled as “green.”

Under a sliding scale, two steel products could be classified as equally ‘green,’ even though one was produced by creating multiple times more carbon emissions than the other

“Under a sliding scale, two steel products could be classified as equally ‘green,’ even though one was produced by creating multiple times more carbon emissions than the other,” the GSCC said.

“Creating a dual standard would allow high-carbon emissions steel to be prioritized over lower-carbon steel. This is a form of greenwashing and serves to discourage innovation and allows high-carbon steelmakers to postpone making changes in their production process,” Bell said.

“The problem we have with [the sliding scale method] is that it discriminates against steel producers that use the EAF method and recycled ferrous scrap as their primary raw material,” he continued. “It essentially says that coal-based steel production is just as clean as electric steel production that uses recycled material…What we need is one standard, regardless of the steel making route, that is easy to understand and that is fair.”

The “sliding scale” is one component of ResponsibleSteel’s — a third-party global provider of sustainability standards and certifications — International Standard.

ResponsibleSteel did not respond to Fastmarkets’ request for comment.

Demand for a single standard: Bell

The GSCC’s new standard comes amid an ongoing effort to align various methodologies of calculating and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the steelmaking process, which has become a challenge, sources previously told Fastmarkets.

“We need to continue the debate and the discussion about what is the right standard for the global steel industry,” Bell said.

“We need to coalesce around one [standard] to be able to communicate to stakeholders, particularly governments — the US government and the EU — about how to approach carbon reduction in the sector, and if they see all of these different standards floating around it’s really tough for them to have something to refer to,” he added.

“The GSCC single standard will encourage all producers to reduce their carbon emissions and create a level playing field for all manufacturers. The US-EU negotiations should not create a double standard and a slippery slope toward a dirtier environment,” Bell said.

The goal of the Steel Climate Standard is in accordance with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) carbon budget for the iron and steel sector to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2050, the GSCC said.

What to read next
The playing field for global iron ore brands could be poised to be leveled, given a recent announcement on lower iron content in a key mainstream Australian direct shipping ore, iron ore market participants told Fastmarkets, adding that the development could narrow the price disparities between major Australian mid-grade iron ore brands.
This strategic launch is intended to offer the market a single reference price denoting the differential between US Midwest rebar and heavy melting-grade scrap, a key component in the production of that grade. Details of the previous launches can be found via this link. The methodology specification for this differential is: MB-STE-0930 Steel reinforcing bar […]
The Chinese steel market is expected to remain reliant on export-led growth for the rest of 2025, amid poor domestic consumption and a lack of investor confidence in the property sector, delegates were told at the Singapore International Iron Ore Forum on Wednesday May 28.
The following prices were published at 4:24pm London time, instead of by the scheduled time of 4pm London time: MB-IRO-0002 Pig iron export, fob main port Black Sea, CIS, $/tonneMB-IRO-0014 Pig iron import, cfr Italy, $/tonneMB-FE-0004 Hot-briquetted iron, cfr Italian ports, $/tonne These prices are a part of the Fastmarkets Steel Raw Materials Physical Prices package. For more […]
Seaborne iron ore prices are on the rise due to increased trading activity and stable market fundamentals, highlighting steady demand and opportunities for growth while emphasizing the importance of monitoring market trends to manage risks effectively.
The recent doubling of Section 232 tariffs to 50%, announced by President Trump, has introduced significant uncertainty to the US steel market, with traders reporting disruptions to imports, paused domestic mill quotes and concerns over potential price increases amid modest demand. Industry participants are now assessing how the additional costs will be absorbed across the supply chain.