The Carbon Border Has Already Arrived for UK Manufacturers

Ask a mid-market manufacturer about the UK's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the answer is fairly predictable. It is a 2027 issue. Probably for the big steel and cement firms. Possibly worth a look closer to the date. The reality is somewhat different. For a significant slice of UK manufacturers, particularly those who export to the EU, sell to customers who do, or buy in steel and aluminium from outside the UK, the carbon border is already in their commercial life. The 2027 UK go-live is the second wave. The first wave has been quietly running since January.

This piece is about what is actually happening now, what is coming in 2027, and why the right response to it is more commercial and operational than it is regulatory.

‍

What is actually live right now?

The EU's CBAM moved into its definitive phase on 1 January 2026. The two-year transition al reporting period is over. EU importers of steel, aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, and iron now have to obtain verified embedded emissions data for the products they bring into the EU, surrender CBAM certificates against those emissions, and pay a carbon cost benchmarked to the EU ETS price, net of any explicit carbon price already paid in the country of origin.

For a UK manufacturer who exports any of those materials to the EU, that obligation falls on the EU customer, but it does not stop with them. The EU customer needs verified emissions data on the supplier's product to make its own CBAM return. Increasingly, that data request is coming back up the supply chain to the UK manufacturer who made the steel section, the aluminium extrusion, or the cement product in the first place. A surprising number of mid-market UK manufacturers have, in the last six months, taken a call from a German, Dutch, or Italian customer asking for product-level emissions data they do not have on file.

The commercial implication is twofold. The first is that the inability to provide accurate, third-party verified emissions data risks the EU customer falling back on default values published by the EU. Those default values are deliberately conservative, in other words, high. The CBAM cost calculated against them is higher than it would have been against real data. That cost flows back into the price negotiation. UK suppliers who cannot produce the data find themselves quietly under-bid by international competitors who can.

The second implication is sharper. The EU Commission has been clear that CBAM scope will expand over the coming years. A December 2025 proposal flagged a move further downstream into steel and aluminium-intensive products, including a list of roughly 180 categories spanning machinery, appliances, and vehicles. Manufacturers in those segments who today consider themselves out of scope should not assume that position is permanent.

‍

The data problem most manufacturers haven't solved

The unglamorous core of the CBAM question is data. Calculating embedded emissions for an industrial product is not, conceptually, complicated. It involves identifying the direct emissions from production processes, the indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity and heat, and applying these against a defined unit of output. Doing it accurately, in a form that an EU verifier will accept, is another matter.

Most mid-market UK manufacturers have a reasonable handle on their site-level energy consumption. Many have already done some carbon accounting at the corporate level, often driven by customer ESG questionnaires or large customer net zero commitments. Very few have product-level emissions data that has been independently verified to the standard CBAM requires.

Building that data capability is not a one-week project. It involves understanding the boundary of each production process, allocating shared overheads such as compressed air or heating, deciding how to treat scrap and recycled inputs, and putting in place a recurring process so the data can be updated. The manufacturers who started this work in 2024 are in reasonable shape. Those starting now are, in practice, going to spend most of 2026 catching up while their competitors get the negotiating advantage of clean numbers.

‍

What about the trade diversion question?

UK Steel and others have flagged a structural concern about the gap between the EU CBAM going fully live in January 2026 and the UK CBAM following in January 2027. The concern is that high-carbon steel which is no longer cost-effective to export to the EU may be redirected into the UK market for the intervening year, undercutting domestic producers and complicating an already fragile sector.

The government has responded with planned steel safeguards following the expiry of the current measures in July 2026, but the design of those safeguards is still being worked through. For UK manufacturers who use steel as a major input, this matters in two ways. In the short term, there is genuine optionality on the buy side, with high-carbon imports likely to be available at competitive prices through 2026. In the slightly longer term, the moment the UK CBAM goes live in 2027 closes that arbitrage, and the cost of carbon embedded in imported steel becomes a real line item.

The point is not that manufacturers should rush to lock in cheap, high-carbon steel before the UK CBAM bites. It is that procurement decisions made in 2026 have a tax tail attached to them in 2027, and the contracts being signed now need to reflect that.

‍

What changes when UK CBAM goes live in 2027?

From 1 January 2027, UK importers of in-scope goods, aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron, and steel, who bring in more than £50,000 worth in a twelve-month period, will be liable for CBAM at a rate benchmarked to the UK ETS price, net of any explicit carbon price already paid in the country of origin. The first accounting period covers the whole of 2027, with returns due by 31 May 2028. From 2028 onwards, reporting moves to quarterly.

For a UK manufacturer using imported steel as a core input, this is, in commercial substance, an input cost increase, the size of which depends on the carbon intensity of the source, the prevailing UK ETS price, and any existing carbon price already paid. Where suppliers can provide low-carbon options, the differential becomes a meaningful commercial variable. Where they cannot, default emissions values apply, and the cost is higher.

The administrative apparatus is also non-trivial. Importers will need to register with HMRC, calculate their liability per product type, retain documentation on overseas carbon prices already paid, and integrate the obligation into existing customs processes. None of this is impossible, but for businesses that have not previously thought of themselves as having a carbon reporting obligation, the lead time required to be operationally ready is not generous.

‍

Is this just another reporting burden?

It is worth steel-manning the sceptical view. The CBAM regime, in either its EU or UK form, can reasonably be characterised as a complex, data-heavy intervention that adds compliance cost without changing the underlying carbon intensity of global production in any meaningful way. The smaller importer exemption thresholds and the focus on a narrow list of materials limit the scope of the effect. For many manufacturers, particularly those whose carbon footprint is genuinely modest, CBAM may turn out to be more annoying than transformative.

That reading has some merit, but it underweights two dynamics. The first is the customer signal. Even where CBAM does not directly apply to a particular product, the act of regulating embedded emissions at the border has accelerated a shift in how procurement teams at large customers think about carbon. Major OEMs, retailers, and public sector buyers are increasingly asking for product carbon footprints as standard procurement information, irrespective of CBAM scope. Manufacturers who can answer that question quickly and credibly are winning work. Those who cannot are quietly losing it.

The second dynamic is the trajectory of scope. Both the EU and UK schemes have been designed with explicit review points and expansion mechanisms. The pattern in EU climate regulation has been consistent widening of coverage over time. Manufacturers who plan only for the current scope are likely to find themselves having the same scramble in 2028 or 2029 that the steel sector is having now.

‍

What good preparation looks like now

The manufacturers who will come through this best are treating CBAM as a commercial data question rather than a tax compliance question, because that is what it primarily is. Practical priorities for the next twelve months tend to look similar across the businesses doing this well. Establish a defensible product-level emissions methodology, even if the first version is rough, and refine it from there. Get external verification in train, because EU customers will increasingly require it and UK CBAM will eventually require it. Have a procurement view on the carbon intensity of key imported inputs, particularly steel and aluminium, because the cost differential between low- and high-carbon sources is going to widen. Talk to customers about how they are thinking about carbon data requirements, because that conversation reveals more about the trajectory of demand than any policy paper does.

None of this requires the kind of upfront capital that, say, a net zero production overhaul does. It does require a coordinated effort across operations, procurement, finance, and customer-facing teams. The businesses that have already started are quietly building a small commercial advantage. The carbon border is here. The only question is which side of the data divide a given manufacturer finds itself on when the conversation gets serious.

‍

This article has been prepared for information purposes only. Formal professional advice is strongly recommended before making decisions on the topics discussed in this release. No responsibility for any loss to any person acting, or not acting, as a result of this release can be accepted by us, or any person affiliated with us.

‍