ResponsibleSteel, a non-profit organization that develops standards for sustainability activities and an independent third-party certification program for the steel value chain, stated that the global warming potential (GWP) values specified in environmental product declarations (EPD) cannot currently be reliably used to determine Its locations are decarbonization Progress Levels (DPLs) due to differences in system boundaries, emissions, accounting methodology, and waste definition.
In its September 2026 report, "From Data to Solutions: Comparable Data on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Steel Purchases," ResponsibleSteel analyzed whether GWP values and waste-related information in EPDS could be converted to data needed for its DPL system. The study was conducted with the participation of four responsible steel companies operating in different regions and producing various steel products. According to the report, the global ferrous metallurgy industry accounts for approximately eight percent of greenhouse gas emissions, while the construction sector consumes 52 percent of steel produced worldwide. More than 130,000 EPDs for construction products have been published worldwide, and these declarations are increasingly being incorporated into procurement requirements, certification systems for environmentally friendly buildings, and regulations. frameworks.
EPD and DPLs use different system границы
The responsible Steel company stated that EPD and DPLs serve different purposes. EPD standards for steel typically measure the environmental impact of individual products from start to finish, including subsequent processes such as rolling and coating. In contrast, the DPL ResponsibleSteel system estimates greenhouse gas emissions from crude oil extraction. steel production immediately after casting, without taking into account subsequent processing and estimating the intensity of emissions depending on the proportion of scrap metal in the source metal.
The study showed that adjusting the boundaries of the system can lead to an increase in emission intensity by 35% or a decrease by 26%. Different by-product allocation methodologies affected the results by up to 27%, while differences in secondary databases for previous emissions resulted in fluctuations of up to 18%.
There is no common conversion factor between EPD values and DPL сведения
Even after adjustments have been made for the three most significant variables, differences of 7-16 percent remain between the EPA value of GWP and the level of the crude steel emissions intensity site. Responsible Steel stated that it was therefore impossible to establish a general conversion factor. Even using 15 additional data, the result was the highest accuracy of recalculation - 94%, which, according to the organization, is not enough to reliably determine DPL.
The definitions of waste contain additional несоответствия
The report also noted inconsistencies in the processing of steel scrap. Responsible Steel noted that recycled material, recycled materials and scrap are interrelated but different concepts that are calculated differently in different countries. standards. Responsible Steel calculates the scrap metal fraction as the amount of qualified scrap divided by the total amount of metal used to produce crude steel, and excludes domestic scrap. According to the report, the level of recovery and recycling of steel scrap in the world has already reached 85%, while the available scrap metal currently meets only about a third of global steel demand.
The organization warned that steel selection should be guided solely by the low GWP EPD. The value may lie in reorienting existing scrap to products requiring low declared emissions, without the need to increase overall scrap availability or reduce emissions from primary steel production.
ResponsibleSteel calls for more transparency in EPD for стали
ResponsibleSteel Recommends that the EPD for steel specify the raw materials, the intensity of steel emissions and the proportion of scrap, as well as information on production sites located upstream of the emissions database and the methodology for the distribution of by-products. It also called for A1-A3 emissions to be presented separately for the supply of raw materials, transportation and production, and not just as aggregated data.
The organization recommended the adoption of criteria for the Principles of Steel Standards to ensure transparency of greenhouse gas emissions reporting and greater methodological consistency between EPD Programs. According to ResponsibleSteel, the EPD should specify the scrap fraction and emission intensity for each steel product, depending on steel production..
EPD and DPLS should be used together, not interchangeably.
ResponsibleSteel concluded that EPD and DPLS should ensure compatibility. His DPL system is theoretically possible, but remains resource-intensive and insufficiently accurate with existing methodologies. Therefore, the organization recommended using these two indicators combined rather than interchangeably, with DPL indicating the effectiveness of decarburization in a steel mill, and EPD indicating the environmental impact of specific steel products from start to finish.
The report clearly states that the A1-A3 EPD values should not be used for calculation or replace the DPL of the responsible steel. It was also recommended that the specifications for low-emission steel use a waste accounting scale based on both emission intensity and waste proportion instead of relying solely on GWP values at the product level.
There are no comments yet.