--- title: "Green steel labelling debate in Europe: EAF producers push back" type: "article" canonical: "https://greensteel.com.tr/article/green-steel-labelling-debate-in-europe-eaf-producers-push-back" site: "Green Steel" lang: "en" published_at: "2026-03-16T03:25:51+00:00" updated_at: "2026-10-04T16:58:50+00:00" categories: - "Steel Carbon Data and Standards" - "Low-Carbon Steel Certification" - "Low-Carbon Steel Policy and Markets" - "Global Green Steel" tags: - "Electric Arc Furnace" - "Carbon footprint" - "Green Steel" entities: - "Recycling Europe" - "European Commission" word_count: 330 reading_time_minutes: 2 image: "https://greensteel.com.tr/img/c1pLTh8kEa0_o9cJPT4vlmJis4j5oJ-dDJ5VZz1xrmc/pr:c16x9_1200/dXBsb2Fkcy83MS9jOWM3OTVkOTEwZWUxMjA1LmpwZw.jpeg/green-steel-labelling-debate-in-europe-eaf-producers-push-back.jpeg" --- # Green steel labelling debate in Europe: EAF producers push back > European scrap processors and EAF steel producers have written to the European Commission objecting to a one-size-fits-all sliding scale label, arguing it fails to recognise the low CO2 profile of Europe's EAF industry. Recycling Europe (formerly the Euric association), EAF steel producers such as Aperam, Pittini, Sidenor, Ovako, Megasa, Duferco, and Feralpi, and major scrap dealers including Galloo and Derichebourg, wrote a letter to the European Commission (EC) raising objections. They recommend that the Commission avoid applying a single sliding-scale label across all steel production processes, arguing that such a system would fail to account for the low CO2 profile of Europe's EAF industry. This industry's output accounts for approximately 45% of EU steel production and is already largely electric, circular, and low-emission. The sliding scale concepts were primarily developed for coal-based primary steel production. Applying the same metric to electric arc furnace production could be inefficient and distort competition by favouring higher-emission imports. The letter, obtained by Kallanish, states: “We find it difficult to believe that the European Commission would pursue such an unbalanced and discriminatory policy while being unaware of the devastating consequences it would create for half of the EU steel industry and the value chain. Furthermore, we do not believe the Commission would ignore the political and legal challenges such a policy would inevitably face.” The signatories warn that a “one-size-fits-all” label would fail to reflect the different challenges faced by the BF-BOF and EAF routes and could lead to inconsistent policy outcomes across markets. They add that the initiatives shaping the sliding scale methodology have so far consulted almost exclusively with primary producers, leaving the recycling segment insufficiently represented. ## **Europe's dependence on imported raw materials could increase** The signatories warn that misaligned criteria could lead EU EAF production to be displaced by high-carbon primary steel from abroad, which would increase Europe's dependence on imported raw materials and undermine decarbonisation targets. They call for a more balanced approach that aligns with existing carbon footprint methodologies and combines both circularity and decarbonisation. They add that they are ready to work with policymakers to ensure that future frameworks support Europe's climate goals while also preserving the competitiveness of the recycling-based steel value chain. ## FAQ ### What is the controversy over the EU’s sliding-scale green steel labelling system? The proposed sliding scale gives a higher green classification as the share of scrap used decreases, which would make DRI-EAF steel appear greener than scrap-based EAF steel despite higher actual emissions. EAF producers and scrap processors argue this is discriminatory and distorts competition. ### Who signed the letter to the European Commission objecting to the labelling methodology? Recycling Europe (formerly Euric), EAF steelmakers including Aperam, Pittini, Sidenor, Ovako, Megasa, Duferco, and Feralpi, plus major scrap dealers Galloo and Derichebourg. ### How significant is EAF production in the EU steel mix? EAF production accounts for approximately 45 percent of total EU steel output and is already largely electric, circular, and low-emission. ### What is the risk of applying a sliding scale developed for BF-BOF production to EAF? It could favour higher-emission primary steel imports over domestic low-emission EAF production, increasing EU dependence on imported raw materials and undermining the bloc’s own decarbonisation targets. ### What alternative approach do the EAF producers and scrap industry advocate? A balanced framework that aligns with existing carbon footprint methodologies and combines both circularity and decarbonisation, ensuring that recycling-based steelmaking is fairly represented and rewarded. ## Categories - [Steel Carbon Data and Standards](https://greensteel.com.tr/steel-carbon-data-and-standards) - [Low-Carbon Steel Certification](https://greensteel.com.tr/low-carbon-steel-certification) - [Low-Carbon Steel Policy and Markets](https://greensteel.com.tr/low-carbon-steel-policy-and-markets) - [Global Green Steel](https://greensteel.com.tr/global-green-steel) ## Tags - [Electric Arc Furnace](https://greensteel.com.tr/tag/electric-arc-furnace) - [Carbon footprint](https://greensteel.com.tr/tag/carbon-footprint) - [Green Steel](https://greensteel.com.tr/tag/green-steel)