China was the largest origin by value for European Union trade in goods covered by the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in 2025, with supplies worth 17.09 billion euros. Eurostat-based calculations show Türkiye led by mass, supplying 14.81 million tonnes.
Türkiye’s CBAM-code trade was valued at 10.83 billion euros. Britain recorded 7.28 billion euros, followed by India at 5.30 billion euros and Russia at 4.89 billion euros, according to the calculations. The figures show that the leading origin by value was not the leading supplier by volume.
The gap between those rankings reflects differences in product mix, metal prices and industrial structure. A country-level total can therefore obscure the characteristics of the goods being traded, including the more carbon-intensive product streams that matter for assessing the addressable compliance market.
Norway and Switzerland also appeared as large origins in trade statistics, but their goods are exempt under the relevant CBAM origin provisions. China is a major supplier of steel and aluminium; Türkiye combines significant steel volumes with aluminium and cement. Egypt is prominent in fertilisers, while the Western Balkans are especially consequential for electricity connections with neighbouring EU markets.
Recorded trade value should not be treated as equivalent to financial liability under CBAM, since doing so risks overstating the addressable compliance market. A supplier’s commercial opportunity depends on the precise product code, installation technology, embedded emissions and delivery reliability, rather than national totals alone.
For EU importers, supplier assessment is an industrial procurement stress test. Delivered product prices need to be compared with carbon-certificate costs after statutory adjustments, transport, tariff treatment and quality requirements. A foreign plant with higher invoiced prices but verified low emissions can be competitive against a cheaper producer whose emissions are assessed using unfavourable default values.
Weak emissions evidence can create administrative risk even when the production process is relatively clean. Cross-border industrial groups also need to account for materials imported into one EU country and incorporated into products made in another. Assessing commercial advantages requires tracking the corridor from the non-EU installation to the EU importer and onward processing plant, rather than reducing it to an origin-destination pair.