Chinese steel shipments to the European Union increased in the first half of 2026 while overall EU steel import demand weakened. Keeping that growth, according to the available reporting, depends on emissions verification, product requirements and access to tariff quotas. The figures cited cover finished steel deliveries and related trade shares.
EU industry data from EUROFER shows Chinese deliveries of finished steel rose 40% year on year during the first six months of 2026. China accounted for 12.3% of EU finished-steel imports by volume in that period. A separate dataset from Eurostat uses a broader HS 72 category to track trade value.
Eurostat data indicates China’s share of EU steel import value increased from about 5% in 2021 to 11% in 2025. The two indicators cover different measures of trade, and they are not presented as a single combined series. The distinction reflects differences between volume-based finished-steel figures and value-based HS 72 totals.
Production routes and emissions evidence under CBAM
Chinese producers supply European customers with flat steel, coated sheet and specialised downstream materials. Manufacturing scale and industrial integration can affect production costs, while emissions intensity varies by installation, fuel consumption, production route and precursor materials. The emissions profile is therefore linked to how each product is made.
Customs origin does not determine the emissions associated with a tonne of steel. Products originating in China may be produced through different routes, including blast-furnace steelmaking and electric-arc production, each with its own emissions profile. As a result, embedded emissions depend on more than country-of-origin declarations.
Under the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), importers may use European Commission default values or use verified actual data to establish embedded emissions. The selected approach affects the calculation of embedded emissions and the resulting carbon liability. This choice can influence compliance costs for imported steel.
For a representative hot-rolled steel classification, published calculations based on third-quarter 2026 default values show a materially higher illustrative carbon cost for Chinese steel than for comparable Turkish or Serbian material. The comparison is not described as a national average for Chinese output. It is used to illustrate how installation-specific emissions data and applicable benchmarks can change outcomes.
EU safeguard quotas from July 2026
Carbon-related obligations are described as only one element of the competitive challenge facing Chinese exporters. A separate EU steel trade measure applies from July 2026, setting annual tariff-free import quotas of about 18.3 million tonnes. Imports above the quota face a 50% duty.
The final cost for imported steel can depend on how quota volumes are allocated by product and country of origin. Origin traceability requirements are also cited as factors that can affect costs. A price advantage at the mill level may not be sufficient if quota access is restricted.
European importers are therefore expected to assess more than the quoted price per tonne when calculating landed costs. Tariff treatment, product classification, origin documentation and CBAM exposure all contribute to the commercial calculation. These elements interact across carbon accounting and trade measures.
Potential CBAM expansion to downstream products
A proposed extension of CBAM to selected downstream products would broaden coverage beyond basic steel and aluminium into manufactured goods containing these materials. The additional coverage would bring precursor emissions accounting into purchasing decisions for machinery, hardware and fabricated products exported from China. This shift would expand which parts of supply chains face carbon-related reporting needs.
The wider product list remains under negotiation and is not yet binding legislation. Its eventual scope would determine which downstream goods face additional compliance requirements and how emissions linked to steel and aluminium inputs are accounted for. For Chinese manufacturers supplying European markets, this could add another compliance consideration alongside production and export costs.
Facility-level documentation and trade diversion risks
Producers seeking stronger positioning in Europe may need more detailed production records, installation-level carbon calculations and longer-term supply agreements with European buyers. Accurate emissions documentation can support differentiation between individual production facilities rather than treating all material from one country as having an identical carbon profile. This requirement links competitiveness to verifiable facility data.
The reporting also notes that exporters could redirect shipments toward markets with less restrictive quota access or lower carbon-related costs. Any extent of trade diversion would need to be established using observed trade data rather than assumptions based on regulatory differences. The impact therefore depends on measurable trade flows.
The competitive position of Chinese steel in Europe is described as depending not only on national export volumes and production costs but also on emissions evidence available for individual products and facilities. Material assessed using default emissions values may face different carbon-cost outcomes compared with verified low-emission material even when both originate in China.