Advancing environmental assessment of recycled resources: the role of product declarations and circularity metrics in green(er) steel

Abstract Purpose While Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) provide a standardised Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework, standard end-of-life (Module C & D) interpretations can obscure the critical value of circularity for products with high recycled content. This paper proposes using circularity metrics as complementary measures to bridge this gap and set benchmarks driving competitive progress toward green(er) production. Consequently, the study asks: How can EPD-aligned LCA be methodologically extended with circularity indicators to provide a transparent, reproducible and comparable assessment of recycled resources, thereby establishing a rigorous basis for defining green(er) steel? Methods To establish a performance baseline (RQ1) and benchmark against industry (RQ2), scrap-based electric-arc-furnace (EAF) steel production was assessed using operational data from the industry partner. Moving beyond static hotspot analysis to optimise material and energy selection, the study identifies the electricity emissions intensity threshold required to substantiate a green(er) performance claim. As an illustrative case for recycled resources, the assessment framework was then methodologically extended (RQ3) by calculating the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) and Circularity Index (CI) using life cycle inventory data. These metrics are integrated alongside standard end-of-life modules to provide a more complete interpretation of the impacts and benefits of resource circularity. Results Assessing how recycling reduces environmental impacts from resource-intensive industries is essential. Producing one tonne of secondary steel generated under 360 kgCO₂e (cradle-to-gate), satisfying current ‘green’ benchmarks. By providing standalone, reproducible circularity metrics (MCI 0.93; CI 0.60), the proposed methodology confirms a strong inverse relationship between circularity performance and embodied carbon. However, the analysis of these circularity metrics exposes critical end-of-life allocation loopholes and trade-offs where high circularity does not intrinsically guarantee a lower environmental footprint. These results validate the framework, demonstrating that circularity indicators provide a necessary counterbalance to ‘circularity at any cost,’ generating transferable lessons for assessing recycled resources beyond steel. Conclusions Advancing EPD methodology requires clearer communication of the quality and utility of resource recovery. To operationalise this, the study recommends procurement specifications mandate both an EPD and a concise circularity statement – explicitly disclosing the MCI, CI, and recycled input percentage. This approach establishes a necessary ‘accountability’ guardrail, ensuring that the value of resource recovery is defined by its ability to operate within sustainable ecological limits rather than mass alone. Ultimately, this research suggests that linking EPD-aligned LCA with product-level circularity indicators can play a more strategic role in supporting global carbon reduction strategies by transparently articulating performance improvements across supply chains and between life cycles.