The Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) has strongly rejected the “sliding scale” methodology and public communications suggesting that it incentivises the use of recycled steel. While the methodology applies adjustment factors based on the proportion of recycled material (scrap) used, BIR warns that such claims are misleading and risk undermining the credibility of green steel classifications, in a press statement. 

Steel production accounts for approximately 8% of global energy sector emissions and 30% of industrial emissions. While there is no universal definition of “green steel”, it is widely understood to refer to steel produced with low or near-zero carbon emissions based on carbon intensity measurements. 

The BIR stated: "We collectively warn that recent public communications claiming the “sliding scale” methodology incentivises the use of recycled steel are misleading and set a dual standard that greenwashes high-emission production processes. BIR, representing the recycling industry in 72 countries with over 30,000 companies, firmly rejects this claim."

Currently, the “sliding scale” methodology uses a dual-standard, scrap-adjusted approach. Installations that use less recycled steel as material input are likely to emit more CO₂ than installations using a significantly higher ratio of recycled material, yet they can still be called “green steel”. This creates a perverse incentive structure. Instead of better environmental performance, it effectively rewards more carbon‑intensive steel production and penalises those using more recycled materials. 

The statement further added that this approach is not scientifically robust or environmentally credible, as it weakens the clear link between real emissions and sustainability claims. This puts basic principles of circularity and resource efficiency at risk. If adopted in regulations or markets, it could mislead policymakers, investors and end‑users, weakening trust in green steel classifications.

"Therefore, any suggestion that the “sliding scale” methodology directly or indirectly incentivises steel recycling is inaccurate and misleading. On the contrary, allowing higher emission thresholds to be offset by adjustment factors dilutes the environmental benefits of the use of recycled content, rather than strengthening it."

The recycling industry is fully committed to decarbonising the steel sector. This includes transforming primary steel production, which is still important for global decarbonisation efforts, as steel production accounts for approximately 8 % of global carbon emissions. A credible green steel label needs transparency, scientific integrity and real comparability of emissions data. The “sliding scale” methodology accomplishes none of these objectives, it said. 

Green steel classifications must reflect actual, verifiable carbon intensity and not rely on distorting adjustments.  They should recognise the unique characteristics of primary and secondary steelmaking routes to create a fair, predictable and investment-grade framework.

A one‑size‑fits‑all methodology that blurs these distinctions puts at risk decarbonisation objectives and the development of a genuinely circular steel economy.

The BIR urged policymakers and industry stakeholders to recognise that a single, unified, process-agnostic standard will level the playing field for global decarbonisation efforts in the steel industry. It is important that communications affecting policy and the market are accurate, transparent and reliable.