On November 6, a dialogue on the future of the German steel industry took place in Berlin at the invitation of the German Chancellor. How satisfied are you with the results?
The dialogue was an important step. Overall, we view the results positively.
The Chancellor's clear support for effective trade protection is particularly important to us. Now it is important that the EU Commission's proposal is adopted quickly. In addition, for the first time, there is a clear commitment from the German government to “European content.” This is a really strong signal to keep value creation in Europe. We are pushing for rapid implementation. There is no lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of action.
You mention trade protection: Why is there such a great need for action here?
Europe is the last major market without effective trade protection, and global overcapacity is pushing its way in unchecked. The OECD expects around 680 million tons of overcapacity by 2025 – five times European production. 2025 will be another record year for imports.
While capacity continues to grow in Asia and the Middle East, plants in Europe are being shut down and transformation projects postponed. Without rapid and effective trade protection, we will continue to lose market share, added value, and jobs. In strategic steel application areas, there is an acute threat of new dependencies – with tangible risks for our economic security.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission presented a proposal for a new trade instrument at the beginning of October. So are we on the right track here?
Yes, definitely.
We welcome the European Commission's proposal. Halving duty-free import quotas, imposing a 50 percent tariff on imports exceeding these quotas, and introducing “melt-and-poured” are absolutely necessary. The steel industry is pushing for rapid adoption. But that is not enough to secure value creation in Europe. The sharp increase in imports of processed steel is also alarming. That is why effective trade protection for steel derivatives is also needed. If the political will is there, the EU can present and adopt such a legislative proposal in a few months. To achieve this, steel producers and steel users must present a united front and speak with one voice.
What do you say to those who see this approach as protectionism, which weakens competition in the procurement of steel products in this country?
This is not about isolationism, but about fair competition. Imports will still be possible. But we have to recognize that the world has changed: major industrial nations are protecting their markets through trade policy measures and local content requirements. We believe the feared price effects will be moderate: around one euro more for a washing machine and around fifty euros for a car. In our view, that is a very fair price to pay for securing our industrial base.
Let's move on to the topic of “European content,” which the German government has also addressed in the context of the steel dialogue. Does this mean that only domestic steel will be used in bridges or railways in the future?
We welcome the fact that the German government and trade unions are clearly committed to European content. When public funds are used, domestic companies should be given preference—this strengthens security of supply and industrial sovereignty. Many countries have been doing this for a long time. Yes, it can be more expensive, but if you want to avoid dependencies, you must not weaken your own industry.
In addition, incentives are needed for the use of low-carbon steel made in Europe, which will also benefit our customers – for example, by counting CO2 savings in steel toward the fleet limits of the automotive industry. This creates demand for “green” steel and gives the automotive industry more flexibility in achieving its goals.
When it comes to emissions trading, the German government wants to accommodate industry and postpone the phase-out of free allowances in the emissions trading system. Doesn't this jeopardize the transition?
No, on the contrary. Postponing the phase-out of free allowances can actually stabilize the transition. Climate protection must be part of a European resilience and security policy—and climate policy, fair competition, and industrial strength must be considered together. It is crucial for us that free allowances are only reduced once the CBAM has been reformed and its effectiveness has been clearly proven. Until that is the case, too steep a reduction would only jeopardize competitiveness without benefiting the climate.
