The green steel revolution in 2025 – navigating a new frontier
As we prepare for the arrival of carbon emission-free steel, it is critical to understand the implications for pricing models, market dynamics, and the way supply chains will need to evolve. The key question for the industry is no longer whether zero-carbon steel will happen – it is how to adapt to a world where it becomes the norm. To succeed, stakeholders must adopt new strategies, embrace transparency, and collaborate more deeply than ever before.
Steel mills: balancing innovation with viability
Steelmakers are at the forefront of the green transition, embracing hydrogen-based direct reduction iron (DRI) in Europe and scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology in the US. While hydrogen shows great promise, its adoption is hindered by high costs, limited availability of green hydrogen, and the need for significant infrastructure upgrades.
Energy costs pose an additional challenge. In traditional EAF steelmaking, energy accounts for 15-20% of production costs, but in new hydrogen-based DRI/EAF processes, this could rise to over 40%, reflecting the energy-intensive nature of hydrogen production.
Regulatory pressures, such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which comes into full effect in 2026, further complicate operations. While CBAM incentivizes decarbonization by protecting low-emission producers from cheaper high-carbon imports, it also pressures steel mills to accelerate investments in green technologies to stay competitive in a changing global market. Rising energy costs and potential supply chain bottlenecks add financial strain, requiring steelmakers to adopt more agile production and procurement strategies.
End users: the demand for decarbonized supply chains
Industries like automotive and construction face dual pressures to reduce carbon footprints while controlling costs. Green steel promises a lower-emission alternative, but its premium – which has consistently tracked at an additional cost of 20-40% across Fastmarkets’ global suite of green steel differentials – remains a stumbling block for many end users.
The solution lies in strategic partnerships between steelmakers and end users, with long-term offtake agreements that balance costs while ensuring supply chain sustainability. Certification standards, still evolving, will become critical to verifying claims and aligning procurement decisions with climate goals.
Middle players: navigating complexity and uncertainty
For middle players such as traders, distributors, and service centers, the green steel transition adds layers of complexity. Managing inventories that include traditional, low-emission, and zero-carbon products introduces logistical challenges, while pricing volatility and regulatory compliance add further strain.
The EU’s upcoming Waste Shipment Regulation, which limits scrap exports to non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, will increase competition for high-quality feedstocks within the EU. Middle players must adapt to tighter supply conditions, rising prices, and shifting trade dynamics to maintain their roles in the value chain.
Raw material producers: rising demand for premium inputs
As steel production increasingly pivots to hydrogen-based and EAF technologies, raw material producers face growing demand for higher-quality inputs like DRI-grade iron ore and quality scrap. To meet this demand, these producers may need to innovate by developing methods to improve the quality of lower-grade ores or increase the efficiency of extraction processes. The EU’s upcoming restrictions on scrap exports to non-OECD countries will further disrupt traditional supply chains. Scrap producers will need to adapt by enhancing the quality of their materials through better sorting technologies or exploring regional supply chains to comply with the regulations. Strengthening relationships with steelmakers and securing long-term contracts will be key to ensuring a steady demand for premium materials as steel mills shift toward low-emission production.
Financiers: decoding risks and opportunities
Green steel projects require enormous capital investments, often without guaranteed returns in the short term. For financiers, this raises questions about risk and reward, particularly as regulatory environments evolve. Financial instruments like sustainability-linked loans and green bonds are increasingly critical, and their effectiveness depends on the availability of consistent benchmarks for green premiums.
Financiers also face pressure to align with environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals, and the complexity of valuing decarbonization efforts presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Those who can effectively quantify and mitigate risks tied to green steel investments stand to play a pivotal role in enabling the sector’s transformation.
The role of multi-stakeholder platforms
Collaborative initiatives are essential for navigating the complexities of green steel production. Multi-stakeholder efforts such as UNIDO’s (United Nations Industrial Development Organisation) Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative, and the Climate Group’s SteelZero, bring together policymakers, producers, and end users to align on decarbonization goals and drive systemic change.
These platforms help stakeholders address overlapping challenges, from standardizing low-emission certifications to developing frameworks for sustainable supply chain finance. By fostering collective action, they reduce uncertainty and promote scalable solutions.
Navigating the challenges of today – trade tensions, and the just transition
The global push for decarbonization is colliding with escalating trade tensions. Tariffs on steel and its raw materials could undermine efforts to create open markets for green steel. The CBAM rollout might trigger friction with trading partners, with some viewing it as protectionist.
But this challenge opens the door to regional collaborations. Agreements between climate-aligned countries could streamline trade for green steel, providing a much-needed competitive edge for low-emission producers.
Decarbonization is as much about people as it is about technology. The shift to green steel production risks leaving traditional steelworkers behind, especially in regions dependent on emissions-intensive plants. Without investment in retraining and support, the transition could exacerbate inequality.
Yet, the human dimension also presents an opportunity. Companies prioritizing a just transition will attract ESG-driven investors, build stakeholder trust, and gain a competitive edge by integrating social considerations into their business models.
What lies ahead in 2025
The road to decarbonization in 2025 will be defined by:
• The first zero-carbon steel production in Sweden, setting a global benchmark.
• The phased implementation of CBAM, reshaping trade flows and emissions accounting.
• The fine-tuning of international standards for low-emission steel, providing long-awaited clarity for buyers and sellers.
• Supply-chain disruptions in scrap and iron ore markets, necessitating greater agility and foresight.
• Gradual energy sector transformation in Europe to feed new DRI capacities.
Navigating the transition
Reliable market intelligence will be critical for navigating this new frontier. Clarity of pricing across the entire steel value chain – from raw materials and semi-finished products to finished goods – provides a foundation for informed decision-making. Fastmarkets’ robust pricing solutions, including green steel and green ferroalloy differentials, empower stakeholders to manage volatility, enhance transparency, and build confidence in their strategies.
With the right tools, insights, and collaborations, the steel value chain can transform the challenges of 2025 into pathways for growth and leadership in a decarbonized future.
Decarbonizing logistics: charting the path ahead
As global organizations chart a path to net zero, many are looking to the next frontier of emissions reduction: “Scope 3” emissions. These emissions are not directly produced by a company’s operations, but embedded in its supply chain. They account for the vast majority of companies’ emissions, and a significant portion are generated from supply chain and logistics activities—in particular, from the combination of road and ocean freight.In total, logistics emissions from freight and warehousing account for at least 7 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Any successful path to net zero will thus need to address them as part of a company’s holistic environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategy.
Carbon border adjustment debate divides EC, steelmakers
European Union steelmakers may be at loggerheads with the European Commission on how a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism can be introduced in Europe, according to views expressed during a European Steelmakers’ Association March 17 webinar that focused on EU climate policy.
Introduction of a CBAM on top of the EU’s current Emissions Trading System would be an “overcompensation” in terms of ensuring a fair market for clean steel and risks not being compatible with World Trade Organization policies, Mette Koefoed Quinn, the European Commission’s head of unit, ETS Implementation and IT, DG Climate Action, told industry representatives on the Eurofer webinar. The ETS currently offers some free allocations to steelmakers to avoid carbon leakage.
Eurofer’s members are meanwhile pressing for the ETS to continue for a transition period of eight years after the CBAM is introduced, during which time free ETS allocations would continue to be made to EU steelmakers, the association’s director general Alex Eggert said.
This transition period should run until a sustainable market for “green” steel is fully formed in 2030, according to the association.
“We’ve had intense discussions with trade lawyers who all confirm that carbon border measures are absolutely compatible with WTO….. and even a combination of the two (CBAM and the ETS) to cover the delta between free allocations and carbon costs at the border is compatible,” Eggert said. Europe’s steel industry has already suffered a competitive disadvantage – estimated to have cost the sector some Eur3 billion in 2018 at current prices – due to the ETS system, where the shortage of free ETS allocation to the sector is currently put at around 20%, he said.
The EU is extremely exposed to international competition, with a high cost susceptibility because the EU imports around 30 million mt of steel a year and exports some 20 million mt/year, according to Eurofer data.
CBAM may be implemented in 2023
The European Parliament March 10 approved the principle of setting up a CBAM and the EC is expected to move ahead with a legislative proposal for its introduction in June, for possible implementation in 2023. Andrei Marcu, founder and executive director, European Roundtable and Climate Change and Sustainable Transition, said that so far the only place that a CBAM has been applied is in California. However, US President Biden is understood to be considering one at national level.
WTO Deputy Director-General Alan Wolff said last month that cooperation between nations will be essential to avoid disputes around carbon border taxes. On March 5 the WTO launched a Trade and Environmental Sustainability joint initiative group with 53 member countries, which is expected to be a forum for the discussion of carbon border taxes.
Under the European Green Deal, the EU steel industry needs to reduce its carbon emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030, and achieve net-zero carbon production by 2050. According to Eurofer’s climate and energy director, Adolfo Aiello, this may involve investments of Eur144 billion including in breakthrough technologies which could increase steel production costs and prices by between 35% and 100% above current levels, as a well as supplies of up to 400 TWh of climate-neutral electricity, seven times more than what the sector purchases from the grid today .
The investments required are expected to come from steel sector companies themselves, public sector bodies such as the EU Innovation Fund, and ETS revenues, around 80% of which are currently being used for “green” actions, according to the EC.
“We support climate ambition but it needs to be achieved in the most cost-efficient way: higher climate ambition means and needs better carbon leakage protection, and more support for low carbon technologies,” Aiello said. Carbon is currently priced in the EU at around Eur40/mt, having risen dramatically over the past three years after hovering around Eur7/mt for several years. This decade carbon prices might even rise to “three-digit” levels, he said.
“Fair burden-sharing is needed between ETS and non-ETS sectors,” he said, adding the commission needs to redirect more of the ETS revenues to industry.
EC considering six options
The EC is looking at six different options to decarbonize, but does not consider that a CBAM could be complementary to the ETS system, Quinn said. It would be an alternative, she said.
Phase 3 of the EC’s ETS allocation system has just finished, without carbon leakage having been seen, she said. In Phase 4 of the ETS, designed to cover the January 2021 to 2030 period, free allocations to companies are now being calculated.
The overall structure of the ETS is being reviewed: there will be sufficient free allocation, to the benefit of steelmakers, Quinn said. “The current system foresees the sufficient allocation of free allowances until 2029-30: giving adequate carbon leakage protection. However, we’re now looking at whether to introduce CBAM… the commission says it’s either CBAM or free allocation, you can’t have both because that’s a risk of double compensation…. but a transition period might be needed and that’s one of the alternatives we’re looking at,” she told the webinar.
While ETS free allocations are currently giving adequate carbon leakage protection, they are reducing the incentive to go for quick decarbonization: “The pricing is not coming through as it should into the products and this is a problem,” Quinn said. CBAM could provide a useful incentive to the steel industry to decarbonize within Europe and externally, she said.
— Diana Kinch
EC Carbon border adjustment mechanism – Legislative proposal
The European Green Deal adopted by the Commission on 11 December 2019 includes the goal of enshrining the
long-term objective of climate neutrality by 2050 in legislation and increasing the EU’s climate ambition to reduce
greenhouse gases emissions by 50-55% from 1990 levels by 2030. In this context, the European Green Deal
emphasized that “should differences in levels of ambition worldwide persist, as the EU increases its climate
ambition, the Commission will propose a carbon border adjustment mechanism, for selected sectors, to reduce
the risk of carbon leakage”.
The Paris Agreement on climate, as well as strong international diplomacy and leadership, are the EU’s main
instruments to achieve higher climate ambition globally. By COP26 in November in Glasgow, Paris Agreement
Parties need to communicate or update their climate commitments and submit their mid-century strategies, in line
with the Paris objectives. The EU will continue to work with partners to raise the global ambition.