The Steel Sector’s Global Climate Policy Engagement

This bulletin offers insights on the climate policy engagement of companies and industry associations in the steel sector and value chain from the second half of 2024.

Recent InfluenceMap releases on steel sector advocacy:

• A briefing covering the EU Steel Industry's Engagement with EU Policymakers in 2023-24 (January, 2025)

The European steel industry is calling on the EU to respond to the steel sector’s competitiveness challenges in the 2024–29 legislative cycle. This is part of a wider trend InfluenceMap has tracked across European heavy industry, which appeared to advocate to prioritize industrial competitiveness at the expense of stringent EU climate policy throughout 2024. In response to industry concerns, the EU Commission is expected to release the Clean Industrial Deal on February 26, 2025—a policy package aimed at ensuring industrial competitiveness during the decarbonization of the European economy.

The European Steel Association Eurofer has campaigned for its EU Steel Action Plan to be adopted as part of the Clean Industrial Deal. The association has actively engaged with EU policymakers to discuss steel transition topics, including meeting with Members of European Parliament (MEPs) 11 times between September and December 2024, securing a debate on the steel industry in an EU Parliament plenary session, and regularly meeting with European Commission officials.

Though Eurofer’s Action Plan promotes urgent measures to support a sustainable steel industry that can invest in ambitious decarbonization projects, such as policy to create lead markets for green steel, it also advocates for reforms to existing climate policies that are misaligned with the EU Commission’s original ambition level.

• For example, Eurofer’s Action Plan promotes the inclusion of export rebates in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (EU CBAM), despite the EU Commission stating that export solutions will not form part of the EU CBAM.
• The Action Plan also broadly calls for revisions to existing hydrogen policies—Eurofer has previously advocated against ambitious European hydrogen policies, including the Renewable Energy Directive renewable hydrogen rules.

EU steel companies ArcelorMittal and thyssenkrupp were also not aligned with International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidance in their advocacy on policy issues such as the need for stringent climate policy, carbon capture utilization and storage, and green and ‘low-carbon’ hydrogen. However, the sector’s climate policy leader, SSAB, stood out for its support for an ambitious EU 2040 climate neutrality target and a stringent definition for green steel.

The sector is supportive of the EU’s ambition to create lead markets for green steel, and there is evidence of emerging corporate policy leadership from certain industry players. However, in the context of recent postponements of corporate steel transition plans, the commitment of sector laggards and the regional steel association Eurofer to science-aligned climate policy and the urgent decarbonization of the European steel sector appears to be unclear.

Further analysis on the EU steel sector can be found in InfluenceMap’s 2025 briefing.

InfluenceMap’s tracking of recent steel industry advocacy finds that companies and industry associations in Australia’s mining and metals sector hold a range of positive and negative positions on steel decarbonization. While some companies and industry associations push for the continued use of metallurgical coal or fossil gas, others are beginning to align their advocacy with International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidance.

Several industry actors are advocating for the continued use of metallurgical coal or fossil gas in steel production:

• BHP frequently promotes a continued role for metallurgical coal in the steelmaking process, emphasizing long-term global demand and advocating for continued investment in metallurgical coal projects. It appears to advocate for steel decarbonization pathways that include technologies misaligned with IPCC guidance, including the use of carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) without clearly specified uses or timelines aligned with IPCC guidance.
• The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) appears to strongly support a continued role for metallurgical coal, including advocating for its inclusion in Australia’s critical minerals list and stressing the long-term need for metallurgical coal in the steelmaking process in Asia.
• The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) has called for a transition to fossil gas with an eventual role for hydrogen in the steelmaking process, as well as incentives for carbon capture and storage, while supporting government funding for iron and steel decarbonization. It did not clarify positions on mitigation technologies, the need to transition away from fossil fuels, or the decarbonization of gas.
• The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) appears to advocate for a continued role for fossil gas and “transitional technologies” alongside hydrogen in steel production, without stating a clear timeline for fossil fuel phase-out or the need to fully decarbonize hydrogen production. On the positive side, the association supported a green metals industry in Australia and called for government investment and measures for green iron and steel production.

Given its dominant position in the global iron and steel value chain, Australia’s mining and metals sector has potential to play a significant role in encouraging the decarbonization of the steel industry. Though differences in industry actors’ positions on the role for fossil fuels pose a challenge to decarbonizing the sector, companies Fortescue and Rio Tinto Group are driving support for steel decarbonization in line with the IPCC:

• Fortescue strongly supports steel sector decarbonization and advocates for a green iron metal industry in Australia—this includes supporting government investment and policies to decarbonize iron ore production and incentivize green hydrogen production, as well as calling for the development of a new green iron metal industry.
• The Rio Tinto Group largely supports the decarbonization of steel production, advocating for production credits and incentives for technologies to decarbonize the steel value chain and promoting the replacement of metallurgical coal with sustainably sourced biomass. It has, however, emphasized “uncertainties” around policy, renewable energy, and technology in the steel industry’s transition in Asia, including a lack of “consistent carbon policy to drive change,” but without appearing to take a clear position on policy solutions.

In the second half of 2024, the government of India’s Ministry of Steel announced several policies to decarbonize the domestic steel sector and achieve the climate objectives outlined in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), including the 2070 net-zero emissions target.

• The Ministry of Steel released its "Greening the Steel Sector in India: Roadmap and Action Plan," which examined existing sector policies and outlined strategies and interventions required from the government and industry players.
• The Ministry of Steel unveiled a Taxonomy of Green Steel, which provides a definition for green steel and ranks different levels of green steel based on emission intensity.

While InfluenceMap has not identified engagement from India’s steel sector on these policies, Tata Steel and JSW Steel have engaged on other circular economy steel policies and general steel decarbonization.

• In September 2024, both Tata Steel CEO TV Narendran and JSW Steel CEO Jayant Acharya supported a mandate for steel recycling from old automotives in India, stating it would enable the faster decarbonization of India’s steel sector.
• In October 2024, JSW Steel CEO Jayant Acharya also supported the scale up of CCUS technologies to decarbonize the steel sector. However, without specifying uses for captured carbon, it is unclear whether this is aligned with IPCC recommendations.

India’s announcements demonstrate the government’s commitment to reducing emissions and decarbonizing the steel industry in line with the country’s climate objectives. However, in order to meet targets, India will need to consider a combination of measures and technologies including electrification, hydrogen-based direct reduced iron, energy efficiency, and CCU/CCS and ensure these are aligned with IPCC guidance on steel decarbonization.

In January 2025, Nippon Steel’s bid for the purchase of the United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) was blocked by former US President Biden, a move which the companies are now contesting in a historical lawsuit against the US government. The order by President Biden has been praised by environmental organizations, who have raised concerns that the acquisition would have prolonged coal-based steelmaking and that the plans lacked a clear commitment to transitioning to cleaner steel production.

Nippon Steel is a negative and influential voice in climate policy engagement, especially on critical policies such as Japan’s 7th Strategic Energy Plan. In 2024, investors filed a shareholder resolution on Nippon Steel urging better alignment of the company’s direct and indirect (through industry associations) climate policy engagement with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Still, Nippon Steel’s engagement remains misaligned with science-based policy:

• It has engaged negatively in key government hearings on the 7th Strategic Energy Plan, advocating for new fossil gas-fired thermal power plants alongside the expansion of nuclear and renewable energy, while emphasizing “extremely unfavorable” conditions for renewables. It appears to emphasize concerns around Japan’s industrial competitiveness to call for less ambitious efforts to transition to renewables and decarbonize the energy mix toward 2040.
• It does not show clear support for steel decarbonization in line with IPCC guidance—seemingly promoting thermal power with nuclear energy to power electric arc furnaces, as well as a continued role for coking coal in blast furnaces with carbon capture technologies, but without specifying uses aligned with the IPCC. Although it more positively supports green hydrogen and zero-emissions electricity, it appears to promote domestic and global incentives that may delay the decarbonization of the steel sector.
• It holds executive positions in influential negative industry associations—Nippon Steel Chairman Hashimoto is a director and vice chairman of Japan’s most powerful lobbying group, the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren), which advocated for new construction of fossil gas-fired thermal power plants in the 7th Strategic Energy Plan. Nippon Steel also retains key roles in the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) and Japan Carbon Frontier Organization (JCOAL), which recently supported a less ambitious emissions trading system, advocated for tax exemptions for coking coal, and promoted the importance of coal in the 7th Strategic Energy Plan. InfluenceMap research suggests that the Japanese government is primarily guided by the views of Keidanren, despite the organization’s positions being misaligned with IPCC recommendations.