EU Parliament adopts its negotiating position on CBAM expansion: which new products and loopholes are on the table

The European Parliament has adopted its formal negotiating position on proposed changes to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, voting to expand the list of products covered and to close loopholes that currently allow some carbon intensive imports to avoid the mechanism. The Parliament's adopted position now passes to trilogue negotiations with the Council and the European Commission, where the final scope and structure of the revised CBAM will be determined. The outcome will define which importers face new compliance obligations and how quickly those obligations phase in.

CBAM currently covers cement, iron and steel, aluminium, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen, with full certificate obligations scheduled to begin in February 2027 under the existing framework. The Parliament's negotiating position would push product coverage beyond those six categories, though the precise additions will be subject to the trilogue process. Closing loopholes is the other major dimension of the Parliament's position: certain indirect import routes and ownership structures have been identified as allowing some operators to sidestep the mechanism, and MEPs want those closed before the full system is operational.

For procurement leads and import compliance teams, the expansion of the product list introduces scenario planning questions that cannot yet be fully resolved. Companies importing goods in categories adjacent to the current six should assess whether their supply chains fall within the scope of whatever final list emerges from trilogue. Importers who believed their categories were outside CBAM's reach may need to begin preparing supplier emissions data and verifier relationships earlier than anticipated, given that the February 2027 certificate deadline for existing categories is already approaching.

The loophole closure dimension is particularly relevant for companies that source from third country suppliers through intermediary jurisdictions. If the Parliament's position holds in trilogue, structures designed to route imports through lower scrutiny channels may no longer provide relief from certificate obligations. Legal and trade compliance teams should review the logic of any current sourcing arrangements that were partly designed around CBAM exposure, because the regulatory ground is shifting before the mechanism has even reached full operation.

The trilogue process does not have a fixed timetable, but both Parliament and Council have incentives to conclude before the February 2027 full obligation date creates a gap between existing rules and any amended scope. ESG and trade teams should track the trilogue calendar closely and engage industry associations that are active in the negotiations. The Parliament's adopted position is now a matter of public record and provides the clearest signal yet of where European lawmakers want CBAM to go.