EU Steel Sector Engagement on EU Climate Policies 2023–24

About This Briefing

This briefing provides an overview of the direct and indirect engagement of the five largest corporate actors in the EU steel sector with EU climate-related policies such as the EU 2040 Climate Target, and other policies relevant to the steel industry, including on hydrogen and carbon capture, use and sequestration. Using evidence sourced from entity profiles in InfluenceMap's database, the tables in this briefing detail the direct policy engagement of Climate Action 100+ companies SSAB, thyssenkrupp, Tata Steel, and ArcelorMittal in 2023-24 as well as the indirect policy engagement of these companies through the EU steel association Eurofer.

Background on EU Climate Policy Agenda 2024 - 2029

Following the European Parliament elections in June 2024, the EU Commission for the 2024-2029 institutional cycle took office in December 2024. President Ursula von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines 2024-2029, as well as the mission letters she sent to Commissioners-designate, provide an indication of the EU’s climate policy agenda for the next legislative term.
Upcoming policies relevant to the steel sector include:

• Clean Industrial Deal: Set to be a priority in the first 100 days of the upcoming legislative term, the Deal aims to ensure the competitiveness of European industries by investing in, and ensuring access to, “cheap, sustainable and secure energy supplies and raw materials,” while working towards the 90% GHG emissions reduction target for 2040.
• Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act: As part of the Clean Industrial Deal, the Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act aims to support industries and companies through the energy transition by investing in infrastructure and industry, especially in energy-intensive sectors, and by supporting industry to scale up clean technologies.
• European Competitiveness Fund: This fund will enable increased investment capacity for strategic technologies, including clean technologies, through tools such as Important Projects of Common European Interest.
  
  

Decisions on concrete climate-related policy to be legislated in the upcoming institutional cycle have yet to be made, which means that a limited number of climate policies are currently progressing through the EU’s legislative process.

These include:

• The Industrial Carbon Management Strategy: The Strategy was adopted on 6 February 2024. The EU Commission will continue working on its implementation in the upcoming legislative cycle, focusing on developing a single market for CO2, the enhancement of carbon removals, accelerating work on carbon credits, and supporting hard-to-abate sectors.
• The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR): This policy entered into force on 18 July 2024. The ESPR working plan is expected to be adopted in April 2025 with Delegated Acts to follow on specific products including iron and steel, aluminum, and chemicals.
• The EU 2040 Climate Target: The EU Commission published a non-legislative communication on a 2040 climate target on 6 February 2024 in which it recommended greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 90% by 2040 relative to 1990. The newly formed EU Commission is expected to put forward a legislative proposal in Q1 2025.
• The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): The CBAM will be reviewed by the EU Commission at the end of the transition period which is in place until 31 December 2025.

Steel Decarbonization Science-Based Benchmark

The graphic below overviews InfluenceMap's science-based benchmarks for steel decarbonization based on the IPCC 2022 Working Group III Report and how this aligns with InfluenceMap's scoring methodology.

Figure 1: Science-based benchmarks for steel decarbonization

Findings

Sector Trends

• The EU steel sector’s industry association Eurofer appears to be strategically engaging on the EU’s 2024-29 policy agenda, advocating to policymakers to adopt an EU Steel Action Plan as part of the Clean Industrial Deal to address competitiveness challenges faced by the European steel industry. The association appears to be engaging actively with Members of European Parliament (MEPs), meeting with MEPs six times in September and October 2024, and securing a debate on the steel industry in an EU Parliament plenary session in October 2024. Despite promoting urgent measures to preserve a sustainable steel industry which can invest in ambitious decarbonization projects, the Steel Action Plan put forward by Eurofer also seems to advocate for reforms to existing climate policies which are not aligned with the EU Commission’s ambition (see table below for more details).
• It is unclear whether the steel sector fully supports the need for ambitious and stringent climate policy in the EU. All entities covered in this briefing signed the Antwerp Declaration, coordinated in February 2024 by the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), in which signatories called for an EU Industrial Deal, advocating that EU policymakers “avoid that the Green Deal policy targets are followed by prescriptive and detailed implementing regulations” and emphasizing impacts on international competitiveness as well as risks of carbon leakage from climate policy. However, while some entities reiterated this narrative in other instances of policy engagement, others appeared more supportive of the need for climate policy in their advocacy.
• InfluenceMap detected advocacy on the role of carbon capture and storage technologies and hydrogen that appeared not to be aligned with the EU Commission’s stated ambition in these areas. For example, several entities supported hydrogen-related provisions in the Renewable Energy Directive with exceptions, such as calling for more flexibility in relation to renewable hydrogen targets. Overall, however, the steel sector’s engagement with EU policies on carbon capture and storage technologies and hydrogen appears to have slightly improved since 2023, from positions clearly misaligned with the EU Commission’s ambition to mixed positions or vague advocacy (see InfluenceMap’s EU Steel Sector Briefing 2022-23).
• There appeared to be a split in the positions taken by entities engaging on the EU 2040 Climate Target. While one entity promoted reaching climate neutrality by 2040, support from other entities for a science-aligned target of a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 was absent.
• The steel sector broadly supported legislation on green steel. However, although some entities clearly supported an official definition as well as lead markets for green steel, others did not state clear support for a government-legislated definition or standard and promoted ‘technology agnostic’ standards.
• The steel industry did not appear to support renewable energy policy in 2023-24, advocating on the EU Electricity Market Design Reform with several conditions and exceptions which were misaligned with the EU Commission’s original level of ambition, for example calling for technology neutrality or for power purchase agreements to be voluntary.
• InfluenceMap detected limited engagement from the steel sector on circular economy policy such as the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).
• The steel sector appeared to promote weakening the climate ambition of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), advocating to include export rebates in the policy to protect the international competitiveness of the industry.
  
  

High Level Company Findings

• ArcelorMittal’s advocacy focused on policies related to hydrogen and carbon capture, use and sequestration in 2024, such as the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonisation Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen. In both policy areas, the company’s positions did not appear to align with the EU Commission’s original policy ambition, nor with IPCC science. The company also supported the ReFuelEU Aviation SAF mandate, which includes recycled carbon fuels, suggesting an overall preference for policies which allow for decarbonization pathways that rely on carbon capture technologies.
• SSAB is the EU steel sector leader on climate policy in 2024, due to its support for climate neutrality in the EU by 2040, and its advocacy for ambitious zero-emission steel standards. However, the company’s positions on carbon use and sequestration do not appear to be aligned with IPCC recommendations, and it did not fully support the EU Electricity Market Design Reform in line with the EU Commission’s original level of ambition.
• Tata Steel did not engage with specific climate-related policies in the EU in 2024. It broadly promoted the use of carbon capture, use and storage technologies to decarbonize the steel sector, although its advocacy did not appear to align with IPCC recommendations. The company did not state clear support for government-regulated emissions standards for steel.
• thyssenkrupp’s positions on most policy areas covered in this briefing in 2024 did not appear to be science-aligned. The company supported the EU Hydrogen and Gas Market Decarbonisation Package with exceptions, as it did not support the EU Commission’s original ambition to separate fossil gas and hydrogen networks, and its engagement on carbon capture and utilization did not appear to align with IPCC recommendations. thyssenkrupp is the only European steel company that advocated against the EU 2040 GHG emissions target of 90% proposed by the EU Commission.
• All four companies hold influential positions within Eurofer, which actively and negatively engages on several key EU climate policies for the steel sector. However, no company disclosed an accurate account of its indirect engagement on climate policy through the association in 2024.
  
  

Entity Positions on Key Climate Policies

The tables below outline key EU steel actors' engagement on policy areas and files which are being legislated on in 2024 and which are material to the sector. Engagement ranges from direct engagement with policymakers to CEO statements and corporate reporting from 2023-2024. InfluenceMap includes in this 2024 briefing evidence of corporate advocacy from 2024 and from 2023 when the evidence was collected (for example, through a Freedom of Information Request) and scored in 2024.

Entity positions are categorized in the following way:

Figure 2: Table of EU steel industry sector's positions on key EU climate policies in 2023-24.

ArcelorMittal

The table below includes the most recent and relevant engagement from ArcelorMittal on the climate policy areas covered in this briefing in 2023-24. For more evidence of engagement on other climate policies please see ArcelorMittal's profile.

SSAB

The table below includes the most recent and relevant engagement from SSAB on the climate policy areas covered in this briefing in 2023-24. For more evidence of engagement on other climate policies please see SSAB's profile.

Tata Steel

The table below includes the most recent and relevant engagement from Tata Steel on the climate policy areas covered in this briefing between 2023-24. For more evidence of engagement on other climate policies please see Tata Steel's profile.

thyssenkrupp

The table below includes the most recent and relevant engagement from thyssenkrupp on the climate policy areas covered in this briefing in 2023-24. For more evidence of engagement on other climate policies please see thyssenkrupp's profile.

European Steel Association (Eurofer)

The table below includes the most recent and relevant engagement from Eurofer on the climate policy areas covered in this briefing in 2023-24. For more evidence of engagement on other climate policies please see Eurofer's profile.

Climate Policy Engagement Disclosures and Review Processes

The table below outlines InfluenceMap’s assessment of EU steel companies’ disclosures and alignment review processes around climate policy engagement. For more details on InfluenceMap’s assessment methodology, benchmarked against the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying, please see here. Individual scorecards of reviews by the companies included in this briefing are linked in the table below. Green indicates the disclosure has broadly met the assessment criteria, yellow indicates partial alignment, and red indicates assessment criteria has not been met.