OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Foundry Federation

EFF

EFF- European Foundry Federation - is the alliance of 23 national foundry associations from 22 European countries.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Maria Elena Scoppio (Director Taxation and Customs Union)

29 Jan 2026 · Exchange of views on anti-circumvention for the Carbon Border Adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

Response to Trade measure addressing the negative trade-related effects of global excess capacity on the EU steel sector

14 Dec 2025

The European Foundry Federation (EFF) welcomes the European Commissions initiative to replace the current steel safeguard regime with a new trade defence instrument aimed at addressing global overcapacity, unfair competition and import deflection from mid-2025 onwards. EFF fully supports the objective of strengthening the EUs industrial resilience. To be effective, however, the new instrument must be designed from a metallic value-chain perspective, recognising that steel, castings and casting-intensive components are structurally interconnected and economically interdependent. Global excess capacity, particularly in countries with state-supported industrial systems, continues to distort international prices and undermine fair competition. These distortions have long-term consequences not only for EU steel producers, but also for downstream industries such as foundries, whose competitiveness is directly exposed to global price signals. European foundries are critical downstream users of steel and essential suppliers to strategic sectors including mobility, energy, defence and machinery. The sector is predominantly SME-based and therefore highly sensitive to market distortions, cost volatility and asymmetric competitive pressure. Foundries competitiveness and survival depend on fair, predictable access to metallic inputs, as well as on effective protection from unfairly priced imports embedded in components. Measures that protect upstream production without addressing downstream exposure risk creating a double squeeze: higher input costs on the one hand, and intensified competition from imported finished or semi-finished products on the other. Global excess capacity alone does not explain the current pressure on the EU market. Two additional structural drivers must be taken into account. First, trade diversion resulting from asymmetric global trade regimes, notably the long-standing US tariff framework for metallic products, is redirecting significant Asian export flows towards the EU market, effectively positioning the EU as the adjustment outlet for global overcapacity. Second, exchange-rate dynamics, including the exchange-rate policy of the US dollar and of the renminbi, materially deepen the competitiveness gap faced by European industry and amplify price distortions along the value chain. At the same time, existing EU monitoring tools significantly underestimate downstream competitive pressure. Only a limited share of imports appears in customs statistics as castings. In practice, the bulk of competitive pressure faced by European foundries comes through casting-intensive components embedded in machinery, automotive and equipment imports, which remain largely invisible in conventional trade data. This statistical blind spot risks leading to an incomplete assessment of market conditions and to miscalibrated policy responses. To meet its objectives and avoid unintended consequences, the new trade defence instrument should therefore: adopt a metallic value-chain scope, extending beyond upstream steel products; explicitly integrate trade diversion dynamics in its design and monitoring; address statistical blind spots related to embedded castings and components; avoid downstream displacement effects that weaken SME-based manufacturing; ensure coherence with CBAM implementation and overall EU competitiveness conditions. Industrial resilience cannot be achieved through upstream protection alone. A value-chain-aware trade defence instrument will more effectively safeguard Europes competitiveness, strategic autonomy and capacity to deliver the green and digital transitions. Addressing global excess steel capacity must go hand in hand with protecting the resilience of downstream manufacturing, ensuring that Europe does not reduce dependency at the steel level only to create new strategic vulnerabilities in casting-intensive and component-based industries.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU Ambient Air Quality legislation

14 Jan 2021

According to the latest EEA's “Air quality in Europe - 2020 report”, a better air quality has led to a significant reduction of premature deaths over the past decade in Europe. EU, national and local policies and emission cuts in key sectors have improved air quality across Europe, the EEA report shows. This suggests that the existing, comprehensive EU legislation for the improvement of the air quality has been working excellently. Thus, in CAEF's view, there is no need to give a revision of the European ambient air quality directives an urgent priority. European industry is currently undergoing a tremendously structural change, Furthermore, it also has to cope with the effects of the pandemic. The Corona -related restrictions on business are leaving deep scars on employment and prosperity in the European member states. A forward-looking environmental policy should be committed to the goal of maintaining and expanding Europe as an attractive business location. Policymakers should therefore also act with a sense of proportion in environmental legislation and strongly avoid environmental law becoming an obstacle to investment for companies. Quite the opposite: a remarkable reduction in both bureaucratic burdens and disproportionate regulations is indispensable for economic recovery.
Read full response

Response to Protection of workers from risks related to carcinogens

20 Oct 2020

It is with great concern that we are following the discussions on the reduction of the benzene OEL within the framework of a Proposal for a Directive to further adapt the "Cancer Directive" (4th wave). Although foundries neither manufacture nor use benzene, our industry would be significantly affected by a significant reduction of the workplace exposure limits. In foundries operating sand casting, benzene is occurring due to pyrolytic combustion processes during the pouring of hot metal into the sand moulding. To harden the mouldings as well as for later separation of casting and mould, certain organic input materials are necessary. To substitute or to modify them is not trivial. We have been in close contact for many years to the manufacturers of these binder chemicals to improve the environmental and safety performance of these materials. Although the activities in the development of low-pollution binder systems have already led to some success – a complete reduction of the exposure of benzene is not feasible. Unlike other industries, foundry processes do not take place in closed systems nor can the occurring emissions be fully captured. Due to the typical installations and necessary transport processes in foundries, an emission extraction close to the sources is technical not feasible. We are fully aware of the benzene issue and have therefore participated both in the socio-economic impact assessment study of COWI as ordered by the EU commission and the discussions within the Working Party of Chemicals last year. In order to continue foundry operations even in an economically difficult and fiercely competitive environment we would highly appreciate the setting of a reasonable OEL which corresponds to the health concerns as well as to the technical possibilities for its reduction. Therefore, we take great comfort in knowing that our concerns were taken seriously by the ASCH as well es by the European Commission. We highly welcome the Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work as published on 22 September 2020. In its recital (14) it is said: “With regard to benzene, a revised limit value of 0.2 ppm (0.66 mg/m³) may be difficult to be complied with in some sectors in the short term. A transitional period of 4 years after entry into force of this Directive should be introduced. From two years up to four years after entry into force, a transitional limit value of 0.5 ppm (1.65 mg/m³) should apply.” Feedback from our member companies confirms that this proposed limit value is extremely ambitious but could be achieved after the transitional period by using technical solutions that are still to be identified. A further tightening of the limit value would impose a disproportionate burden for our SME industry without achieving a further remarkable reduction in workplace emissions. We hereby clearly support the adoption of the proposed limit value for benzene.
Read full response

Response to EU rules on industrial emissions - revision

20 Apr 2020

The European Foundry Industry Association CAEF highly welcomes the opportunity to comment the Inception Impact Assessment on the Industrial Emission Directive (IED) review. Regrettably, the feedback period doesn’t consider at all the current situation given by the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, any assessment of legislative proposals is only possible to a very limited extend. Additionally, the IED evaluation process is not yet completed. In general, we don't see a need for a modification of the EU Directive on Industrial Emissions at this stage. The Directive and its instruments have proved to be extremely practical. The objectives of the directive - to improve the quality of the environment and to create a level playing field – are being achieved. Furthermore, the BAT process established in the Directive ensures that the best available techniques for industrial installations are applied, continuously reviewed and further developed. Basically, we reject the approach of regulating GHG abatement via IED approvals. This is part of the EU ETS and should remain so. We believe, however, that the BAT process itself should be improved. Though, this does not require a modification of the IED. The implementation of the BAT process could be improved by amending the BAT guidelines or by changing the framework conditions and approach in the process. The following improvements to the BAT process would be desirable: • Establishing a reliable framework for an effective and operational BAT process • Adapting workload to the limited capacities of the stakeholders involved – in particular for SME sectors • Improving the capacity and competence of EIPPCB staff • Improving the expertise of the Technical Working Group • Reduction of data collection to the essential (actual application of the Focused Approach) • Obligation to carry out an impact assessment • Issuing unambiguously formulated BAT conclusions that are implementable in practice – BAT conclusions must be open to technology and must not exclude technologies that contribute to an equivalent level of environmental protection. Entrepreneurial freedom and freedom of process design must be given top priority here.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Leakage List 2021 - 2030

13 Nov 2017

Grundsätzlich: Die Teilnahme der Gießerei-Industrie am EU-Emissionshandel kann nahezu keinen klimaschützenden Effekt haben. Von 4.700 Gießereien in Europa nehmen mit 29 Unternehmen lediglich 0,6% der Branche teil. Der Anteil der Gießereien an den europaweiten CO2-Emissionen liegt deutlich unter 0,5%. Das Erschmelzen von Metall in brennstoffbefeuerten Öfen hat einen extrem hohen Wirkungsgrad, ist eine hoch optimierte Technik und in hohem Maße wirtschaftlich. Trotz ständiger Verbesserung der Technologieeffizienz, stoßen weitere spürbare Einsparpotenziale mittlerweile jedoch an physikalische Grenzen. Das Thema Carbon Leakage (CL) hat für die Gießerei-Industrie höchste Priorität. Wenn die Anzahl der CL-gefährdeten Sektoren von über 90 auf gut 50 reduziert werden, würden viele Branchen bereits im Jahr 2020 aus der Zuteilung nach Benchmarks herausfallen und müssten sämtliche Zertifikate zukaufen. Alleine im Jahr 2020 würde das einen Zukauf von mindestens 900.000 Zertifikaten für unsere mittelständische Branche bedeuten, was bei einem Börsenpreis von dann über 10 EUR finanziell untragbar wäre. Der Vorschlag des EU-Parlaments zur Neufassung der ET-Richtlinie („Amendment 86“) will nun die Einstufung als CL-gefährdet über das Qualitative Assessment (QlA) davon abhängig machen, dass eine Handelsintensität bezogen auf das Produkt multipliziert mit der Emissionsintensität über den Schwellenwerten von 0,18 (Kommission) bzw. 0,15 (Ratspräsidentschaft) oder 0,12 (Parlament) liegt. Das Problem ist dabei nicht die Höhe dieser Werte, sondern der Nachweis der Handelsintensität. Dafür werden neben den Produktionsdaten (NACE- oder PRODCOM-Codes) auch Außenhandelsdaten benötigt. Für Gießerei-Produkte liegen bei Eurostat in der „Combined Nomenclature“ (CN) jedoch keine repräsentativen Außenhandelsdaten vor und alternative Quellen werden nicht für die quantitative Prüfung zugelassen. Gegossene Komponenten sind in der CN in hohem Maße in Sammelpositionen mit Produkten anderer Herstellungsverfahren zusammengefasst. Die Repräsentationslücke liegt beim Abgleich mit Erhebungen nationaler Verbände bei deutlich über 30 Prozent. Die Carbon-Leakage-Gefährdung der Gießereien ist auch auf Seiten der Kommission unstreitig. Bereits in dem Beschluss der Kommission vom 24.12.2009 (K(2009) 10251, ABl. L 1/12, 05.01.2010) hieß es: „Für den Sektor „Eisengießereien“ (…) wurde hauptsächlich deshalb eine qualitative Bewertung durchgeführt, weil auf Unionsebene keine offiziellen Handelsdaten zur Beurteilung der Handelsintensität vorliegen, da die wichtigsten Gießereiprodukte in der Comext-Datenbank von Eurostat in unterschiedliche Gruppen aufgeteilt sind […] Außerdem deuten Handelsdaten aus alternativen Quellen darauf hin, dass Gießereiprodukte zunehmend international gehandelt werden. Unter Berücksichtigung der kombinierten Auswirkungen dieser Faktoren ist davon auszugehen, dass dieser Sektor einem erheblichen Risiko einer Verlagerung von CO2-Emissionen ausgesetzt ist.“ Auch das erneute QlA vom 27.10.2014 (C(2014) 7809, ABl. L 308/116, 29.10.2014) bestätigte die CL-Gefährdung von Gießereien: „Für „Eisengießereien“ […] wurde die Schlussfolgerung gezogen, dass die Gegebenheiten, die die Aufnahme dieser Sektoren in das Verzeichnis der Sektoren und Teilsektoren rechtfertigten, noch immer vorliegen. Daher sollte angenommen werden, dass diese Sektoren auch im Zeitraum 2015-2019 einem erheblichen Risiko der Verlagerung von CO2-Emissionen ausgesetzt sind.“ Auch nach hiesigen Erkenntnissen hat sich die Gefahr des Carbon Leakage auch in den letzten drei Jahren für Gießereien weiter verschärft. Als Gießerei-Industrie können wir daher nach wie vor mit öffentlichen Statistiken weder für ein QlA noch für jedwede neue Eingangsschwelle einen Nachweis erbringen. Damit ist nicht nur die qualitative CL-Prüfung unverzichtbar, sondern auch eine Prüfung ohne jede quantitative Eingangsschwelle. Das vollständige Dokument des QlA vom 04.04.2014 stellen wir angehängt zur Verfügung.
Read full response