The product of certain heavy industry sectors is composed of relatively abundant material that undergoes an energy intensive production process, but that has relatively low value-added per pound (cement being a good example). In contrast, the steelmaking process adds sufficient value to its raw material that transportation of the finished product can be well worth the cost of shipping. As a result, steel is a heavily globalized industry, and steelmakers must respond to global economic and socio-political trends.
The U.S. steel industry has not remained insulated from the environmental currents flowing through its major global markets (most notably Europe). But it has apparently responded in a (characteristically) somewhat defensive fashion, as befits an industry lately in the news for having thrown its resources behind protectionist impulses. Some industries, particularly those with many small to mid-sized producers, have actively encouraged widespread adoption of the EMS approach, to the point of having companies assisting their competitors by making their methods public. In contrast, the U.S. steel industry has so far resisted that modern paradox of "better competition through better collaboration", at its apparent peril.
Sector-specific guidance for this industry is probably available from consultants at a price. But virtually none was apparent from publicly available sources.
A review of the EMS resources identified for this analysis shows several articles announcing ISO registration on the part of several large U.S. firms. But while lists of registered facilities are relatively easy to find, technical details of the obstacles to be overcome, aspects and impacts, or even benefits gained by U. S. steel producing facilities seem remarkably scarce. As is typical for many sectors, the few sources of information with any technical detail at all relate to European facilities.