OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Valmet Oyj

Valmet is a leading developer and supplier of process technologies and automation solutions.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Ville Niinistö (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2026 · Competitiveness

Meeting with Henna Virkkunen (Executive Vice-President) and

12 Jan 2026 · Exchange on global steel market, manufacturing and cybersecurity

Valmet Urges Inclusion of Bioenergy and Paper Manufacturing Technologies

5 Dec 2025
Topic — This review initiative updates and simplifies existing technical screening criteria for the EU taxonomy.
Message — Valmet requests that bioenergy rules align with current renewable energy laws. They want pulp manufacturing and bioenergy maintenance included in taxonomy criteria.123
Why — This would protect Valmet's access to sustainable finance and prevent high capital costs.4
Impact — Environmental advocates lose more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets for the bioenergy sector.5
Read full response

Meeting with Adam Romanowski (Cabinet of Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič), Chiara Galiffa (Cabinet of Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič) and

6 Nov 2025 · EU–US Trade Relations and Competitiveness.

Meeting with Astrid Van Mierlo (Head of Unit Taxation and Customs Union)

10 Oct 2025 · Exchange of views on the Carbon Border Adjustment mechanism (CBAM)

Valmet urges technology-neutral rules for chemical plastic recycling

19 Aug 2025
Topic — EU initiative setting rules for calculating recycled content in single-use plastic bottles.
Message — Valmet supports using a mass balance method for chemical recycling technologies. They recommend a technology-neutral approach that does not favor mechanical recycling.12
Why — This would secure regulatory acceptance and encourage investment in their recycling solutions.3
Impact — Traditional mechanical recycling companies would lose their preferred status in EU regulation.4
Read full response

Meeting with Laia Pinos Mataro (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

8 Jul 2025 · Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

Meeting with Stella Kaltsouni (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen)

7 Jul 2025 · CBAM review and possible extension to downstream sectors

Meeting with Astrid Van Mierlo (Head of Unit Taxation and Customs Union)

7 Jul 2025 · CBAM

Valmet calls for simpler finance rules and pulp sector criteria

30 May 2025
Topic — This consultation reviews EU sustainable finance rules to simplify reporting and prevent greenwashing.
Message — Valmet welcomes activities aiming at reducing the administrative burden on companies. They call for criteria for key sectors such as the pulp and paper industry.123
Why — This would allow the company to more easily secure funding for its industrial projects.456
Read full response

Response to European strategy on research and technology infrastructures

22 May 2025

Valmet is a leading global developer and supplier of process technologies, automation, and services for the pulp, paper, and energy industries. Our R&D focuses on developing technologies, products, and services that meet customer needs and address key global megatrends including improving the efficiency of raw materials, water, and energy use, increasing the use of renewables and reducing emissions. Valmet agrees with the observations made in the reports by both Draghi and Heitor that there is a need to strengthen world-leading research and technology infrastructure facilities in Europe to foster the European RD&I ecosystem. To achieve a beneficial outcome, Valmet highlights the following: When new infrastructure is established, it should generally be located near existing centers of excellence to maximize its impact. This proximity would support both activities, leverage existing European expertise and promote the growth of the knowledge base. It is important that European funding mechanisms support not only academic and public research infrastructures but also technology infrastructures that are vital to European industry. It is also essential to ensure that legislation does not hinder establishing appropriate public-private partnerships, such as joint ventures between universities, research organizations, and companies which are vital for fostering innovation and addressing Europes strategic challenges. The European Commission has undertaken significant steps to advance AI and digital infrastructures. However, it is equally important to remember that if we want to keep the manufacturing industry innovative in Europe, we also need physical infrastructures for test runs, pilot projects, and similar activities. Industrial innovations depend on access to advanced testing, piloting, and demonstration environments, which often require significant investment. European funding can play a key role in enabling such infrastructures, particularly in areas where market failures or high entry costs would otherwise hinder development. In terms of technology infrastructures, overlaps are likely, and on the other hand, certain areas may currently lack the necessary competencies. It is important to identify and address these gaps proactively. However, it must be recognized that a European infrastructure strategy for industry cannot and should not mirror that of research organizations. The dynamics of industrial activity are fundamentally different: companies operate in competitive markets, and this competition is a key driver of innovation. Therefore, it is not only acceptable but also beneficial that similar capabilities exist, as they foster innovation and strengthen European know-how and competitiveness. From a company perspective, we strongly oppose any policy that would, for example, result in a company being forced to allow competitors access to its facilities for critical testing, simply because the infrastructure is the only one in Europe. Such a scenario raises serious concerns related to confidentiality and competitiveness. In the worst case, it could negatively impact on companies willingness to invest in R&I facilities. In general, over-centralization should be avoided, and in the current geopolitical climate, a strategically distributed infrastructure landscape is not only desirable but necessary.
Read full response

Valmet urges EU water strategy to protect industrial transport

4 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is developing a multi-annual plan for water resource management.
Message — Valmet argues water resource management should remain under national control and seeks EU-wide data standards. They also call for dedicated R&D funding for resource efficiency. Finally, they demand the protection of inland waterways for industrial transport during droughts.12
Why — Safeguarding transport routes ensures Valmet remains competitive when delivering heavy steel products.34
Impact — Competing water users may face supply restrictions if industrial shipping routes are prioritized.5
Read full response

Meeting with Katri Kulmuni (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Jan 2025 · Ajankohtaiset ympäristö- ja kemikaalilainsäädäntöön liittyvät asiat

Meeting with Róża Thun Und Hohenstein (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Independent Retail Europe (formerly UGAL - Union of Groups of Independent Retailers of Europe)

22 Jan 2024 · Waste Framework Directive revision

Response to Waste Framework review to reduce waste and the environmental impact of waste management

5 Oct 2023

Valmet welcomes the Commissions proposal to revise the EU waste framework to better incorporate aspects related to textile waste. Valmet supports extended producer responsibility for textiles to create the necessary economy for collection, sorting, preparation for reuse and recycling, in particular fibre-to fibre recycling, in the EU. Valmet agrees with mandating Member States to take measures to ensure the establishments of sorting systems for textile waste. In recycling, we agree that scaling up of fibre-to fibre recycling should be prioritised. This would create a new source of raw material for the EU textile industry, and above all, would help in maximising the value of natural fibres and minimising the need for additional fossil synthetic fibres in the textile chain. The current requirement in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) to set up separate collection for textiles by 1 January 2025 is an important step to the right direction in this regard but will not alone guarantee the availability of recyclable materials in the fiber-to-fiber value chain. One of the key bottlenecks hindering a larger uptake of fibre-to-fibre recycling technologies is the lack of sorted textile waste. Existing fiber-to-fiber recycling technologies can work to reuse either non-synthetic, cellulosic fibers such as cotton, or synthetic fibers such as polyester. It is not yet possible to handle completely unsorted materials in a way which allows the recovery of all the used fibers. There are chemical depolymerization methods which allow to some extent the sorting of mixed fibers in the raw material, but in these methods either the synthetic polymers or the cellulosic fibers are destroyed and cannot be recovered. Therefore, for fiber-to-fiber recycling to be possible at significant scale, textile waste must be sorted by fiber composition before it can be received at a recycling plant. In view of the above, Member States should be mandated to take measures to ensure the establishment of sorting systems for textile waste in a similar manner that they are now required to do with regard to construction and demolition waste, which must be further sorted into wood, mineral fractions (concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics, stones), metal, glass, plastic and plaster pursuant to Article 11(1) WFD. This could be ensured with the inclusion of the following text to the said article: "Member States shall take measures to promote and facilitate high-quality recycling of textile fibers by ensuring the establishment of separation of textiles deemed not reusable but recyclable, and to ensure the establishment of sorting systems for recyclable textile waste at least for synthetic fibers, cellulosic fibers, including non-synthetic containing fiber blends, and materials of animal origin." Furthermore, Valmet agrees with the need to financially support research and innovation on automatic sorting and composition sorting solutions. Sorted textile waste (synthetic, non-synthetic and animal origin fibers) is a prerequisite to ensure high quality fibre-to-fibre recycling, and uptake of recycled fibre content.
Read full response

Meeting with Mauri Pekkarinen (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Jun 2023 · Discussion on EU waste-to-energy criteria

Meeting with Ruud Kempener (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson)

17 Apr 2023 · Introduction to Valmet Biogas production technologies and energy-from waste

Valmet Challenges EU Packaging Data and Reuse Mandates

23 Mar 2023
Topic — Consultation on reviewing EU requirements for packaging and packaging waste.
Message — The organization requests that restrictions on certain single use packaging be deleted unless evidence is presented. They argue reuse targets should be indicative and set at an EU level.12
Why — The company maintains its market for fiber-based solutions and avoids negative economic impacts.34
Impact — Efforts to achieve a low-carbon circular economy could be slowed by prioritizing single-use packaging.5
Read full response

Meeting with Suvi Leinonen (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and Technology Industries of Finland (Teknologiateollisuus ry) and

8 Mar 2023 · Energy, competitiveness

Valmet urges EU to clarify rewards for technological carbon removals

6 Mar 2023
Topic — The European Commission is proposing a framework for certifying sustainable carbon removals.
Message — Valmet requests clear guidelines on how certificates are used to ensure rewards for high-cost technological investments. They also propose an EU fund to manage carbon release risks and want bioenergy rules to match existing standards.123
Why — This would secure financial returns for Valmet's technologies and prevent new, burdensome regulatory hurdles.45
Impact — The voluntary carbon market would lose flexibility if certificates are banned from offsetting emissions.6
Read full response

Response to Review of cogeneration reference values

23 Dec 2022

Valmet is a leading global developer and supplier of process technologies, automation and services for the pulp, paper and energy industries. Regarding category S6 (Municipal and industrial waste), we take note that the efficiency value 25 % is proposed to remain the same as it has been for a very long time. This efficiency value does not reflect in any way the technological development, or investments made in several countries (see. Eg. Review of the Reference Values for High-Efficiency Cogeneration RICARDO-AEA. Report for EC DG Energy ENER/C3/2013-424/SI2.682977 ED59519). Therefore, we propose the efficiency value be raised to 28-30 %. In general, we urge the European Commission to look into the question of efficiency in the waste-to-energy sector. The continuous references to low ambition levels is a message not to invest on more sustainable energy recovery - as well as a wasted opportunity with a view to the EU's Climate ambitions, the Circular Economy and current energy crises.
Read full response

Meeting with Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

25 Oct 2022 · Meeting on Data Act

Meeting with Mauri Pekkarinen (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jun 2022 · Discussion on Fit for 55

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2019/856 as regards the application procedure

14 Apr 2021

Valmet is the leading global developer and supplier of process technologies, automation and services for the pulp, paper and energy industries. We have experience of the Innovation Fund and NER 300 application processes through applications by our customers. The first call for large-scale projects received more than 300 applications. In total, the applicants requested more than EUR 20 billion of grants, compared to the call volume of EUR 1 billion. As a reply to this high oversubscription, the European Commission is now proposing to re-introduce a one-phase selection procedure to the calls for large-scale projects. The two-phase application process was introduced in the Innovation Fund as an improvement compared to the one-phase application process used in its predecessor NER 300. The two-phase application was supposed to streamline the process by reducing the administrative burden and excess work for project proponents. Going back to the one-phase process would therefore mean losing this important improvement, and the possibility for a lighter screening process. In our experience, preparation of an application for the one-phase application process can be a real risk for the proponents in terms of available resources. Preparation of the demonstration project is already a large R&D project in itself and the related work should not be underestimated. A one-phase application process could therefore in practice favor larger applicants with more resources compared to the smaller ones. Should the winning applications fall on the larger applicants due to the proposed change in process, this would not necessarily lead to an optimal outcome in terms on innovativeness of the projects and climate benefits. Ensuring a fair possibility - in practice - also for the smaller applicants to participate the calls would therefore be important. To summarize, in Valmet’s view, rather than pursuing a step back to a highly laborious process, which potentially eliminates competent parties that are unable to invest in a one-phase application process, a more selected and clearly targeted call would reduce the amount of applications while maintaining the set purpose of the 2-step method.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

15 Dec 2020

Valmet welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 and Annexes. The Annexes play a significant role in detailing how the financial sector in Europe directs sustainable investments in the future. Valmet kindly requests the Commission to consider the following points to Annex I when finalizing the delegated regulation: 1) Classification of bioenergy as transitional activity Concerns articles: 4.8, 4.20 and 4.24 Sustainable bioenergy meets the criteria set by article 10. 1 (a); (c) and (h) of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 and must therefore be referred to, as an activity contributing substantially to climate change mitigation. 2) Multifuel technology in bioenergy production Concerns articles: 4.8, 4.20 and 4.24 There is a growing need in the market to maximise the use of investments and infrastructure to generate heat/steam in a single boiler from side streams and non-recyclable residual waste that cannot be used for other purposes in but energy recovery. From the perspectives of resource efficiency, sustainability and economy, this should be supported, and the option included in the Taxonomy. However, installations should be taken into account only if they do not use fossil fuels as a main fuel (ref. (EU) 2018/2001 Art. 29(11)). Only verified use of biomass should determine the share of the cost/revenue considered sustainable. 3) Installation, maintenance and repair of renewable energy technologies Concerns article: 7.6 Include bioenergy bioenergy plants and the ancillary technical equipment to the individual measures listing other renewable energy technologies. 4) Research, development and innovation Concerns article: 9.1 Enabling activities, and in the absence of better solutions transitional activities, are essential for the EU to reach its climate neutrality target. Include them as possible activities for R&D&I financing. 5) Manufacturing, installation, maintenance and repair as well as upgrade of technologies making a significant contribution to climate change mitigation Add a new chapter to the delegated regulation specifying manufacturing, installation, maintenance, repair and upgrade of all technologies making a significant contribution to climate change mitigation as enabling activities.
Read full response

Response to EU rules on industrial emissions - revision

21 Apr 2020

As it currently stands the art. 42 (1) of IE-Directive is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. The paragraph 2 reads “This Chapter shall not apply to gasification or pyrolysis plants, if the gases resulting from this thermal treatment of waste are purified to such an extent that they are no longer a waste prior to their incineration and they can cause emissions no higher than those resulting from the burning of natural gas”. The provision includes many difficulties due to the unclear wording of the Article • It departs from the general EU approach of setting fuel specific emission limits. In addition to this, producer gas is not natural gas, but the composition of these two types of gases is different. As such, they cannot be fully compared. • Emissions are always measured at the stack or at the place of release, not at the point of combustion so it should be clarified that also this case this principle is valid. • The wording makes it unclear whether the comparison to natural gas should be read as requiring direct comparisons to product qualities of natural gas or the emissions caused by a plant burning of natural gas. Further, the reference to natural gas is linked to possible emissions from natural gas, not to any specific natural gas emission limits, not even to those provided in the annexes to the Industrial Emissions Directive for plants burning natural gas. • Even if the wording of Article 42(1) would be changed to refer to the emission limit values of natural gas as provided in the annexes of the Industrial Emissions Directive, these focus on certain emissions (SO2, NOx, Co and dust particles). Other components (such as heavy metals and chlorine), have not been considered as requiring limit values. Because of the product quality differences in producer gas and natural gas, there is a need to create limit values for those components. • It fails to provide clear rules on how to alter the environmental permit of the plant so that it can continue to operate as a combustion plant with emission standards for the new mix of fuels when the gases resulting from this thermal treatment of waste are purified to such an extent that they are no longer a waste. • While it makes a clear reference to the end-of-waste process under Directive 98/2008/EC, it does not specify criteria for this process. As such, Article 42(1) is not coherent with the other EU emission legislation. Further, it does not provide the required clarity and legal certainty for the permitting officials or investors to be implemented in practice as intended. As a result, the Article blocks the EU market for technologies, the application of which require a clear definition of what does not fall under the provisions of waste incineration/ waste co-incineration of the IE-Directive. Innovations that could be used to help the EU to meet its climate targets and that would be in line with the Circular Economy policies cannot get into the market. Therefore, we ask for the European Commission to clarify Article 42(1) so that it is understandable to all stakeholders. A solution proposed by DG ENV in its non-paper “Gasification of waste under Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED)” (https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/d279c9c9-0b7a-4b7c-b586-7deb62819404/Chapter%203%20Implementation%20of%20IED%20Article%2042(1).pdf ) would be acceptable.
Read full response

Meeting with Marika Lautso-Mousnier (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

7 Oct 2019 · Topical EU-issues

Response to Evaluation of the Industrial Emissions Directive

3 Dec 2018

Chapter IV of the Directive 2010/75/EU provides special provisions for waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants. Article 42(1) of the directive provides for the scope for when these special provisions are to be used. Unfortunately, the current wording of Article 42(1) makes a direct comparison between waste derived producer gas and natural gas. This causes many problems: • By making the direct comparison with natural gas, the Article departs from the general practice and logic in setting emission standards for various fuels in the European Union (EU). This unclear reference causes direct discrimination of producer gas and the producers of this type of gas. • Further, the reference to natural gas is linked to possible emissions from natural gas, not to any specific natural gas emission limits, not even to those provided in the annexes to the IE-Directive. Given that emissions from burning of natural gas are highly user and technology specific, this lack of precision is unfortunate. This creates uncertainty for both licensing authorities and economic operators applying for permits. • Another difficulty arises from the fact that emission standards set for natural gas focus on certain emissions (SO2, NOx, Co and dust particles). Other components, though some of these can be present in natural gas in small quantities, but are more significant for producer gas, have not been considered as requiring limit values for natural gas utilisation (such as heavy metals and chlorine). Because of the product quality differences in producer gas and natural gas, there is a need to create limit values for those components. The current formulation of Article is not effective with a view to reaching the aims of the directive, but rather only unnecessarily blocks the market for new innovations as the permitting officials are experiencing serious problems in issuing environmental permits based on it. In terms of coherence, the direct comparison between producer gas and natural gas is not internally consistent, or in line with other EU environmental legislation. Producer gas should be treated in-line with other fuels for energy production and setting of producer gas specific limit values for emissions. This approach would ensure legal certainty for economic operators, clarity of interpretation for public authorities and high level of environmental protection.
Read full response

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President) and Confederation of Finnish Industries EK and

11 May 2017 · Future outlook of the Energy Union package