European steel importers are increasingly weighing carbon liabilities alongside customs charges, import restrictions and logistics costs when comparing overseas material with domestic supply. Indicative CBAM exposure reported by Italian market participants ranges from €30–40 per tonne to nearly €100 per tonne for certain imported steel products, depending on the producer, product type and assumed emissions intensity.
The estimates are commercial assessments rather than final statutory liabilities. Nevertheless, the variation highlights the potential effect of embedded emissions on import economics as European buyers seek greater certainty over the total cost of delivered steel.
The pressure is particularly evident in the market for Turkish hot-rolled coil (HRC). Around 90,000 tonnes of Turkish material has been cited in the market as potentially exposed to difficult quota and customs decisions, leaving buyers to consider whether to hold cargo in storage or accept additional charges after relevant import quotas have been exhausted.
Turkish HRC has been discussed at approximately €570 per tonne CFR. However, that quoted price does not capture the full cost of bringing material into the European market once carbon exposure, financing, port storage, customs duties and quota risks are included.
Landed costs increasingly determine steel purchasing decisions
For European buyers, the comparison between imported and domestic steel increasingly extends beyond the purchase price and freight. The calculation incorporates customs charges, quota exposure, financing costs, storage expenses, CBAM liabilities and the risk associated with emissions verification.
This broader cost assessment makes supplier-specific emissions data increasingly relevant to procurement. Two steel mills offering the same nominal price may generate significantly different final costs for an EU importer if their products have different embedded emissions.
Producers that can substantiate emissions calculations with reliable installation-level data may have an advantage over competitors whose customers must rely on conservative default values. The difference becomes more financially significant as the applicable carbon price rises, increasing the cost associated with each additional tonne of embedded CO₂.
The result is a closer relationship between emissions documentation and commercial pricing. Importers must assess not only the price offered by a supplier but also the predictability of the carbon liability and the supporting evidence available for verification.
Southeast European mills compete on delivery and emissions transparency
The changing cost structure creates potential opportunities for Serbian and other Southeast European steel suppliers serving EU markets. Regional producers can benefit from shorter transport routes and potentially lower freight, inventory and delivery-time risks compared with suppliers located farther away in Asia and other distant markets.
Geographical proximity alone, however, does not guarantee a competitive advantage. Exporters must also provide predictable emissions information, reliable precursor data and documentation acceptable to the EU importer and its verifier.
A regional supplier with inadequate emissions records could lose the benefit of shorter transport distances if uncertainty over the CBAM calculation increases the buyer’s expected costs. Conversely, a producer combining relatively short delivery times with credible emissions documentation could appeal to customers seeking to reduce working-capital requirements and exposure to unpredictable carbon charges.
For Serbian and wider Southeast European exporters, the quality of emissions data is therefore becoming an additional factor in competition for European steel contracts.
Turkish steel faces combined quota and carbon exposure
Turkey remains an important reference point for European steel purchasing because of its geographical proximity, extensive manufacturing base and direct competition with Western Balkan producers across several steel categories.
Its position as a nearby supplier does not eliminate the effects of EU steel safeguards, import quotas and carbon-border requirements. The interaction of these measures can alter the economics of individual shipments, particularly when quota exhaustion creates additional customs costs or delays.
A relatively small difference in the initial steel price can be outweighed by higher carbon exposure, quota-related duties and financing expenses associated with delayed clearance or port storage. Buyers must therefore consider import timing as well as the origin of the material when evaluating competing offers.
The approximately 90,000 tonnes of Turkish steel cited as potentially affected by quota and customs decisions illustrates the scale of material involved in these commercial assessments. Whether buyers retain cargo in storage or accept additional costs depends on the applicable import conditions and the resulting landed-cost calculation.
CBAM is only one factor influencing European steel flows
Changes in import volumes and supplier market shares cannot be attributed to CBAM alone. Weak demand, EU steel safeguards, quota exhaustion, freight costs, interest rates, inventory cycles and trade-remedy measures also influence purchasing decisions.
Stockpiling and front-loading ahead of regulatory deadlines can further distort short-term customs data. As a result, country-level import figures need to be assessed alongside these other market conditions before changes are attributed to carbon-border costs.
A decline in imports from a particular country does not necessarily mean that CBAM has made its steel uncompetitive. The effect depends on the interaction between carbon liabilities, base prices, trade restrictions, logistics and demand.
For market participants comparing suppliers, separating the impact of CBAM from conventional steel-market pressures remains important when assessing changes in sourcing patterns and import economics.
Carbon uncertainty creates additional working-capital risks
The expanding role of CBAM in import pricing also has implications for banks and trade-finance providers. When an importer cannot establish the final carbon cost at the time of ordering, the working capital required to complete the transaction becomes less predictable.
Similar uncertainty arises when shipments remain in port because of quota restrictions or customs-clearance issues. Delays can increase storage and financing costs while leaving buyers uncertain about the final landed price.
Credit committees may consequently need to consider the emissions profile of the underlying steel alongside the financial position of the buyer and supplier. Reliable emissions documentation can affect financing conditions indirectly by helping importers estimate their total costs more accurately.
Exporters able to provide a credible range for the final delivered cost may therefore be easier for buyers and financiers to assess than suppliers whose carbon liabilities remain uncertain until late in the transaction.
For European steel trade, CBAM is increasingly a component of import pricing alongside quotas, duties, freight, storage and financing, with supplier-specific emissions evidence influencing the predictability of the overall cost.
