Climate Policy Engagement Analysis
Climate Policy Engagement Overview: The Australian Steel Institute (ASI) is actively engaged on climate policy and demonstrates policy engagement that is partially aligned with policy pathways aiming to deliver the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. While ASI supports the introduction of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the need for circular economy regulation in Australia, it appears to adopt a more unsupportive position on Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism. In addition, although ASI supports an expanded role for green hydrogen in the steelmaking process, it appears to emphasize the technical barriers to achieving this to promote a prolonged role for fossil gas.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: ASI displays limited top-line messaging on climate policy. The association supported the goals of the Paris Agreement on the ‘Energy and Sustainability’ page of its corporate website, accessed May 2025. Although ASI advocated for a “sectoral approach to emissions reduction” on the ‘Advocacy’ page of its corporate website, accessed May 2025, it is unclear if its position is aligned with IPCC recommendations.
Engagement with Climate-Related Policies: ASI displays a mix of positive and negative positions on climate-related policy in Australia. The association has consistently supported the introduction of a CBAM in Australia, for example in July 2024 and December 2024 consultation submissions. ASI is also supportive of circular economy policy, with the association advocating for the Australian government to reduce all barriers to a circular economy, including banning the export of steel scrap, in a May 2024 consultation submission.
ASI appears to demonstrate more conflicting positioning on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets and Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism. Although the association supported Australia’s 2030 GHG emissions target in a July 2024 joint letter, it also appeared to emphasize the risks of forecasting technology development to suggest that Australia should not set overly ambitious targets if it is unlikely to achieve them in comments to the Climate Change Authority’s Issues paper on Australia’s 2035 emissions targets. ASI also appears to support Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism with exceptions. For instance, in a December 2023 consultation submission, ASI emphasized the cost disadvantage and resulting risk of carbon leakage the policy presents to domestic steel producers.
Positioning on Energy Transition: ASI adopts a mix of positive and negative positions on the energy transition. The association is generally supportive of the need to accelerate the transition to renewable energy, including calling for urgent government investment in net zero emissions energy sources in a July 2024 joint letter. However, while ASI supports an expanded role for green hydrogen in the steelmaking process, it appears to emphasize the technological difficulties in decarbonizing the steel industry to advocate a prolonged role for fossil gas, as seen in a May 2024 consultation submission. ASI reiterated this position in a July 2024 consultation submission, supporting policy to scale the development of renewable energy and green hydrogen, yet also advocating for federal policies to ensure ongoing supply of fossil gas to support an expanded role for fossil gas in direct reduced iron production, with some ambiguities around a timeline for a long-term transition to green hydrogen.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a regular basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). Due to the limited engagement detected by InfluenceMap on climate policy from this association, the analysis informing the association's scores and summary is updated periodically. This assessment was last updated in Q3 2025.