At the international trade fair on recycling and the green economy Ecomondo held in Rimini, Italy, on November 4-8, 2025, SteelOrbis interviewed Laila Matta, president of Assofermet Rottami and owner of Trans Commodities. The costs and requirements of decarbonization, the availability of recycled steel in Europe, the European management of strategic raw materials, the complexity of material traceability rules and the bureaucracy linked to customs and environmental rules were the main topics discussed.
Considering that more and more companies are challenged by the costs of decarbonization and many are pulling back or scaling back their investments, do you think it is feasible to achieve Europe's climate goals within the established schedule?
If we want to be realistic, we must take into account the effective challenges that Europe has to face and we must admit that the schedule set by the European Commission is undoubtedly short.
Market players are increasingly concerned about the hurdle of putting adequate financial resources in place in the short term to implement this decarbonization process, as the downstream market is currently struggling to acknowledge the economic consequences of the process.
The question, therefore, arises as to whether this decarbonization path is actually viable. The final goal is not in question, but the tight deadlines are, especially on a continent where the necessary resources are insufficient.
The fact that many companies, but also many countries - the US first - are reconsidering the matter, is proof that the objectives set by the European Union are unattainable with the proposed timeframes and methods.
EU steel producers believe that recycled steel should remain in Europe. On the contrary, scrap suppliers and traders claim that domestic demand is not sufficient and that limiting exports of this raw material would cause an oversupply with serious consequences for the market. What is your position on this issue, and how could the steel sector be supported by creating appropriate conditions for all players?
There is no doubt about the importance and centrality of recycled steel for steel producers. However, it is equally important to reiterate that recycled steel availability in Europe is significantly higher than its demand.
As is well known, annual recycled steel production in Europe equals about 100 million mt, less than 20 percent of which is being exported as it is not consumed by European steel producers.
This surplus, which has consolidated over time, is the result of the reduction in European steel production from 2006 onwards. Our position on this matter has also emerged from recent reports of the JRC (Joint Research Center), a body of the EU Commission, in July and October, where it was made clear that, instead of concentrating efforts to avoid exports, the real need is to make the mainly exported qualities usable through more advanced technologies, thus concretely supporting the recycling sector.
It is clear that, if European steel capacities from EAFs were actually increased by the construction of new electric arc furnaces, the current scrap surplus would gradually be absorbed.
In addition, we are favorable to further measures that encourage the use of European recycled steel within European borders, such as:
- The total elimination of trade barriers between member states;
- Less bureaucracy and greater digitization of user processes;
- The introduction of a percentage of recycled steel in the production of industrial products;
- Mandatory and priority use of recycled products in public procurement;
- Economic support for research and innovation for the recycling sector that allows to improve scrap quality, so that it can be used in the European steel industry for advanced industrial applications.
This would be desirable instead of further export barriers, which would damage the competitiveness of the sector.
We continue to stress our support for European steel production first and foremost, therefore we would be very happy to serve existing EAF production as well as those planned according to the European steel plan, as market players in the recycling segment have always supplied European steel producers as a priority.
The reasons are more than obvious - easier relationships, much more favorable transport and logistics costs, as well as the scheduling of deliveries even on a weekly and daily basis.
Do you think that European autonomy in secondary raw materials is a realistic goal, or does it risk penalizing international trade, given that countries such as China, Indonesia or the United States are adopting protectionist policies to retain strategic raw materials?
European autonomy in secondary raw materials is realistic as far as recycled steel is concerned, it is not realistic for other secondary raw materials for which more time is needed, and certainly a possible closure to imports would be penalizing for Europe.
For some years now, countries have been retaining strategic raw materials on their territory, also depending on their availability, which varies from country to country. An analysis should be made for each strategic raw material to better understand the validity of this protectionist policy that states worldwide are gradually implementing.
Europe is certainly in a weaker condition than countries such as the United States, China, India, Indonesia and others, as it is poor in strategic raw materials.
Therefore, our resources of strategic raw materials, as well as some secondary raw materials, should be carefully and realistically assessed before putting trade barriers in place that could harm, rather than help, the European industry and decarbonization and environmental sustainability objectives.
The issue of material traceability and supply chain sustainability has become central in recent years. How are Italian metal trading operators adapting their business models to these new requirements?
It is a very important issue and Europe is certainly taking it seriously.
Unfortunately, the complexity of the regulations for this purpose makes them once again operationally difficult and somewhat burdensome for players in the trade of ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
To fight undeclared trade and support companies that have always operated legally, we need leaner regulations and a lighter bureaucracy that can help businesses rather than breaking them.
It is also necessary to recognize the economic impact that these new rules have on companies and for which no economic support has been considered at the moment, leaving this cost to be borne entirely by companies and thus putting their competitiveness at risk.
Increasing bureaucracy related to environmental and customs regulations is often an obstacle for SMEs in this business. What regulatory simplifications do you consider a priority to maintain competitiveness and attract investments in the recycling sector?
Unfortunately, bureaucracy is often the main obstacle in many sectors, especially in recycling.
In fact, the complexity of preparing a file for the issuance of an environmental authorization at the various competent bodies varies from province to province, and also waiting times, in addition to being biblical, vary from province to province.
The issue, which has been raised several times also at an institutional level, is the different application of environmental and customs regulations implemented in the various provinces. The latter is sometimes complex and does not adhere to the working reality of the plants, forcing officials to resort to interpretations.
In addition, the understaffing that often affects the competent bodies has a negative impact on the timing of issuing authorizations.
It goes without saying that simplified legislation would avoid interpretations that are often the subject of discussion and discriminatory from province to province, and would certainly reduce the time it takes to issue authorizations. All this would translate into a significant reduction in costs and facilitate any investments in the recycling sector.