On 28 July 2026, Renew Europe MEP Svenja Hahn filed a parliamentary question urging the European Commission to revise the benchmark-based methodology used to price CO₂ emissions embedded in imported steel under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Hahn argues that the current design, combined with regional subsidies for non-EU metalworking companies, is undermining the competitiveness of EU small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the metalwork industry and contributing to significant job losses. She specifically cites a policy brief by the ZEW – Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research (No. 26-10/2026) that identifies disadvantages of the benchmark approach, and asks whether the Commission would consider basing CBAM pricing on average steel production values, including the energy sources used, to reduce both distortions and administrative burden.
The question, submitted as a parliamentary question with a request for written answer, also seeks clarity on whether five specific CN codes (93052000, 87089499, 87089997, 84339000, and 84799070) fall unambiguously within CBAM's scope, and if not, what steps the Commission will take to close the gap. In a third query, Hahn asks what measures the Commission plans to address the competitive disadvantage and job losses suffered by EU metalworking SMEs due to CBAM circumvention, unfair competition from non-EU countries, and subsidised foreign production, pending any revision of CBAM's design.
The question reflects a broader concern among some EU policymakers and industry stakeholders that CBAM's implementation may inadvertently harm EU producers, particularly SMEs, by failing to account for the full carbon intensity of foreign production and by creating administrative complexities. Hahn's proposal to shift from a benchmark-based to an average-based pricing model would likely increase the carbon cost applied to imports, potentially raising prices for downstream users but also levelling the playing field for EU producers who already face higher carbon costs. The Commission is expected to respond within six weeks, and its answer will signal whether it is open to revisiting CBAM's technical design in response to industry pressure.