Growing the market for low carbon industrial products: policy framework - Chapter 5: Product classifications for embodied emissions  - Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Chapter 5: Product classifications for embodied emissions 

This chapter seeks views on how the government should approach the use of product classifications, and which to recommend for use in demand-side policies like green procurement. It explores the government’s cross-cutting approach to product classifications, including whether to use a single or multiple classification models per sector and goes on to outline sector-specific options for steel, concrete, and cement.

5.1. Do you currently use any form of product classifications, whether as a manufacturer, supplier, or buyer? If yes, please specify which one(s)?

Yes No I don’t know

5.2. If you answered no to Question 5.1, are you interested in starting to use product classifications? Please explain your reasoning, and details of any potential benefits, barriers, or challenges (such as financial implications) you foresee.

5.3. Is there anything that the government should consider regarding its intention to use existing, sector-specific product classifications, rather than develop its own (including any single, cross-sector model)?

5.4. Which option for the approach to product classifications would be most appropriate as a basis of green procurement policies? Please explain your reasoning.

Option 1: A prescriptive approach (recommending the use of one product classification per sector) Option 2: A permissive approach without providing any tools to support interoperability (recommending the use of multiple product classifications per sector) Option 3: A permissive approach but also providing any tools to support interoperability (recommending the use of multiple product classifications per sector) Option 4: Unsure

Please explain your reasoning

5.5. Are there any other steel product classification options that the government has not identified and should consider as potentially suitable, in particular for use in green procurement policies? If so, please provide details.

5.6. Do you agree or disagree that the above is an accurate understanding of the key differences between steel product classifications? Please explain your reasoning, and if any other differences should be considered.

5.7. Do you agree or disagree that the government should use a steel product classification that uses a scrap sliding scale? Please explain your reasoning.

5.8. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonisation Progress Levels (DPLs), or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.9. Do you believe that the emissions reporting and verification requirements to use the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonisation Progress Levels (DPLs) are robust and appropriate for use in green procurement policies, or not? Please explain your reasoning.

5.10. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS), or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.11. Do you believe that the emissions reporting and verification requirements to use the Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS) are robust and appropriate for use in green procurement policies, or not? Please explain your reasoning.

5.12. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the Global Steel Climate Council’s (GSCC) product standard, or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.13. Do you believe that the emissions reporting and verification requirements to use the Global Steel Climate Council’s (GSCC) product standard are robust and appropriate for use in green procurement policies, or not? Please explain your reasoning.

5.14. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the green steel scale in the Construction Leadership Council’s (CLC) Five Client Carbon Commitments (5CCCs), or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.15. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approach to setting limits for low embodied carbon steel, or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.16. Which of the following steel product classification option(s) is best suited to provide an accurate basis for classifying steel products as low carbon? Please explain your reasoning, especially if you are selecting multiple options or if you have a preference. [select all that apply]

Option 1: ResponsibleSteel Decarbonisation Progress Levels (DPLs) Option 2: Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS) Option 3: Global Steel Climate Council’s (GSCC) product standard Option 4: Green steel scale in the Construction Leadership Council’s (CLC) Five Client Carbon Commitments (5CCCs) Option 5: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approach to setting limits for low embodied carbon steel Option 6: Other (please specify) Option 7: None of the above

5.17. Which steel product classification option is best suited to encourage and support improved resource efficiency and a circular economy? Please explain your reasoning. [select all that apply]

5.18. Are there any other considerations that the government should consider regarding the reporting and verification of product level embodied emissions data with respect to the use of steel product classifications? Please explain your reasoning.

5.19. Are there any other concrete product classification options that the government has not identified and should consider as potentially suitable, in particular for use in green procurement policies? If so, please provide details.

5.20. Do you agree or disagree that the above is an accurate understanding of the key differences between concrete product classifications? Please explain your reasoning, and if any other differences should be considered.

5.21. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the Lower Carbon Concrete Group’s (LCCG) Market Benchmark, or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.22. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding Arup-UKRI’s Universal Classification for embodied carbon of concrete, or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.23. Is there anything else the government should consider regarding the GCCA’s Global Ratings adapted for the UK by the MPA, or any points of the description, potential advantages, or disadvantages that you disagree with?

5.24. Which of the following concrete product classification option(s) is best suited to provide an accurate basis for classifying concrete products as low carbon? Please explain your reasoning, especially if you are selecting multiple options or if you have a preference. [select all that apply]

Option 1: The Lower Carbon Concrete Group’s (LCCG) Market Benchmark Option 2: Arup-Innovate UK’s (UKRI) Universal Classification for embodied carbon of concrete Option 3: The GCCA’s Global Ratings adapted for the UK by the MPA Option 4: Other (please specify) Option 5: None of the above

5.25. Which concrete product classification option is best suited to encourage and support improved resource efficiency and a circular economy? Please explain your reasoning. [select all that apply]

5.26. Do you think that a ‘combined approach’, such as the Universal Classification and Market Benchmark, could be utilised for procurement guidance? If so, how useful do you think it would be in practice? Please explain your reasoning.

5.27. Are there any other examples of cement product classifications that the government should consider? If so, please provide details.

5.28. Do you agree or disagree with the government’s proposed approach to not initially pursue a cement product classification? Please explain your reasoning, including examples of when it could be helpful to use a cement classification in addition to concrete.

5.29. In addition to product classifications, are there any policy approaches the government should take to support the scale up of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)? What changes may be required to ensure that some potentially promising SCMs are not disadvantaged?