In the town of Angul, Odisha, Jindal Steel & Power runs one of the largest steel complexes in the country. The plant has been expanding fast, adding blast furnaces and coal-gasification DRI capacity over the past two years.
The expansion shows up in the filings. JSPL's verified emissions rose from 19.7 million tonnes of CO2 in FY 2023-24 to 36.3 million tonnes in FY 2025-26. That's an 84% increase in two years.
JSPL: Emissions Trajectory
+84%Annual Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions, million tonnes CO2e
All three years verified from BRSR filings (Principle 6 Q7). The FY24-25 spike coincides with new blast furnace capacity at Angul, Odisha.
Look at that chart for a moment. This is not a gradual trend. This is a step-change — the kind that happens when you commission new heavy industrial capacity. And it tells you something important about how India's steel sector emissions will be shaped for the next four decades.
A blast furnace operates for 40 to 50 years. Once built, you don't shut it down early. JSPL just locked in 16 million tonnes of new annual CO2 until the 2060s.
This is overwhelmingly a volume story, not an efficiency story. JSPL's emission intensity moved only slightly — from 2.58 to 2.68 tCO2/tcs, about 4%. What changed is production: implied crude steel output rose from ~7.6 Mt to ~13.5 Mt (roughly +78%), as the company brought new capacity online at Angul. The emissions followed the steel.
JSPL has announced a 2047 net zero target — 23 years ahead of India's national pledge. But its trajectory is heading in the opposite direction. The company's own filings show emissions rising every year, with no published interim milestones or SBTi validation.
At some point, the trajectory and the target need to meet. Right now, they are moving apart.
Why the Production Route Is Everything
JSPL's story is dramatic, but it's not unique. It's a symptom of a structural choice facing every Indian steelmaker: which production route to invest in. That choice — more than any efficiency programme, carbon offset, or net zero pledge — determines a company's emissions for decades to come.
Most discussions frame this as a binary: blast furnace (dirty) versus EAF (clean). The reality in India is a three-way split, and the distinction matters enormously.
The Three Routes to Steel
Blast Furnace (BF-BOF)
Coking coal as reductant + fuel. ~55% of India's production.
Coal is a chemical ingredient, not just fuel. Cannot decarbonise without replacing it (hydrogen or CCS, neither proven at scale). Lock-in: 40-50 years.
Coal-Based DRI + EAF
Coal gasification as reductant, electric melting. Large in India.
Often called “EAF” but still coal-dependent. JSPL Angul is the world's largest coal-gasification DRI plant. Lower than BF-BOF but does not benefit from grid greening the way scrap-EAF does.
Scrap-Based EAF
Electricity + recycled scrap. The lowest-carbon route.
No coal in the process. Emissions come from electricity, which falls as the grid gets cleaner. Limited by scrap availability. Can also run on green hydrogen DRI for virgin steel.
BF-BOF range based on JSW Steel (2.44) and JSPL (2.68) from BRSR filings; IEA global average is ~2.3 (Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap, 2020). Coal-DRI range from JSPL Angul (2.68) and industry estimates for smaller coal-based DRI producers. Scrap-EAF range from Jindal Stainless (1.76, stainless) and worldsteel estimates for carbon-steel scrap-EAF (0.4-0.6).
The gap between these routes shows up clearly in company data. Blast furnace steelmakers in our dataset emit 2.4 to 2.7 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of steel they produce. Scrap-based EAF operators can sit below 1.0. But much of India's non-BF capacity is coal-based DRI — often labelled “EAF” but still coal-dependent. JSPL's Angul plant, the world's largest coal-gasification DRI facility, runs at 2.68 tCO2/tcs. That's lower than a blast furnace, but it's not the clean EAF story people assume.
Carbon Intensity by Company
Tonnes of CO2 per tonne of crude steel (tCO2e/tcs). Lower is better.
15.6 MTPA
37 MTPA
2.3 MTPA
Source: Company BRSR filings. Intensity = Scope 1+2 per tonne of crude steel, as reported by each company. JSPL: FY2025-26. JSW: FY2024-25. Jindal Stainless: FY2025-26. *Jindal Stainless produces stainless steel (different product and input chain from carbon steel), so its intensity is not directly comparable to BF-BOF producers. Tata Steel excluded: its reported intensity of 3.20 may conflate group emissions (including Netherlands operations) with India-only production. Under review. Full rankings
India's expansion choices right now are overwhelmingly in the first two categories — blast furnace and coal-DRI. The capacity being built today will still be running coal in 2065.
Tata Steel vs JSW Steel: An Open Question
Editor's note (September 27, 2026)
The original version of this section reported Tata Steel's emission intensity as 3.20 tCO2/tcs based on data in our tracker. On review, this figure likely conflates group-level emissions (66 Mt, which includes Tata Steel Nederland / IJmuiden operations) with India-only crude steel production (~20.6 Mt), producing an inflated intensity. Tata Steel's actual India intensity is likely in the low 2s. We have removed the direct intensity comparison and the derived claims (including an incorrect “11 Mt” reduction figure) until we can source India-specific intensity from the filing. This correction has been logged in our corrections log.
Tata Steel and JSW Steel are India's two largest steelmakers, both operating blast furnaces at roughly 35-37 MTPA capacity. Tata Steel reports 66 Mt of total emissions; JSW reports 55 Mt. But a direct intensity comparison is not straightforward.
Tata Steel's 66 Mt is a group figure that includes its Netherlands operations (IJmuiden), which produce roughly 7 Mt of crude steel (Tata Steel Europe annual report) at an estimated ~1.75 tCO2/tcs (derived from reported European emissions and production). The reported intensity of 3.20 appears to divide group emissions by India-only production, which inflates it. Until we can isolate India-specific emissions and production from the filing, we cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison.
What we can say: JSW Steel is the only Indian steelmaker with SBTi-validated targets and reports Scope 3 emissions (8.7 Mt in FY 2024-25). Tata Steel also reports Scope 3 in its integrated report and targets net zero by 2045, five years earlier than JSW's 2050. Both companies were contacted for comment.
1 Out of 26
Here is the number that should worry you more than any emissions chart.
We track 26 steel companies. Only one — JSW Steel — has submitted its climate targets to independent validation through SBTi. The rest rely on self-declared commitments with no external scrutiny.
SBTi Scorecard: Steel Sector
Only 1 of 26 steel companies has independently validated climate targets.
JSW Steel
Net zero: 2050 | 55 Mt | 2.44 tCO2/tcs
Tata Steel
Net zero: 2045 | 66 Mt | under review tCO2/tcs
JSPL
Net zero: 2047 | 36 Mt | 2.68 tCO2/tcs
Jindal Stainless
Net zero: N/A | 3.6 Mt | 1.76 tCO2/tcs
SBTi = Science Based Targets initiative. Validates that a company's emissions reduction plan aligns with limiting warming to 1.5C. Checked against the public SBTi company list as of September 2026. The remaining 25 steel companies in our database have no SBTi-validated commitment.
Net zero targets across the sector span 25 years — from 2045 to 2070. But a target without validated milestones and independent scrutiny is an aspiration, not a plan. When a company sets a 2070 net zero target with a 12% interim reduction, no external body tests whether that is credible.
What This Adds Up To
India plans to nearly double steel capacity to 300 MTPA by 2030. That's not a projection — it's the government's stated target, and JSPL's expansion is exactly what hitting it looks like. The question that will define the country's industrial emissions for the next 40 years is simple: how it makes that steel.
Three things stand out from the filings:
New blast furnaces lock in emissions for 40+ years.
JSPL's Angul expansion added ~16 Mt of annual CO2 in two years. Every new BF commissioned today will still be running coal in 2065. Once built, the economics of shutting down a working blast furnace before end-of-life are prohibitive.
Coal-DRI is not the same as scrap-EAF.
Much of India's “EAF” capacity is actually coal-based DRI, which still depends on coal as a reductant. JSPL Angul at 2.68 tCO2/tcs is lower than a blast furnace but far above scrap-EAF (<1.0). The commonly cited BF-vs-EAF binary understates the problem.
Independent scrutiny is nearly absent.
1 of 26 companies has SBTi validation. The rest set their own targets, verify against their own baselines, and report on their own timelines — with no external body testing whether those targets are credible.
India's steel capacity will nearly double by 2030. Whether that new capacity is blast furnace, coal-DRI, or scrap-EAF will determine the sector's emissions trajectory for the next four decades. The filings show which direction the industry is choosing right now.
Methodology Note
All figures are from BRSR filings submitted to BSE and NSE. Where marked “verified,” we confirmed each number against the original PDF, the specific page, and Principle 6 Q7. Emission intensity figures are as reported by the company (Scope 1+2 per tonne of crude steel). Sector totals and chart data include only companies whose most recent filing has verified data, matching our rankings page. Tata Steel's reported intensity (3.20 tCO2/tcs) has been flagged as potentially conflating group and India-only figures; see editor's note above. Full methodology
Tata Steel, JSW Steel, JSPL, and Jindal Stainless were contacted for comment prior to publication. Any responses received will be incorporated into this analysis.
Corrections: If any figure in this story is wrong, email hello@sustainabilityforyou.com with the correct number and the source filing. We will verify, fix, and credit you in our public corrections log.
Analysis #2
Published September 27, 2026 · Sustainability For You