“We would not describe Europe as undergoing a uniform deindustrialisation”: Norbert Bürger on Europe’s aluminium industry
Norbert Bürger brings more than 30 years of experience in the global aluminium industry, with a career spanning Austria, Germany, Hungary, Japan and the United States. His expertise covers aluminium rolling and extrusion, plant management, sales, strategy, investments and M&A, with senior roles at AMAG, Pankl and Alcoa.
Today, Bürger is a founding partner of Lightmet Consulting, a Vienna-based independent consultancy focused on the aluminium industry. Led by Bürger and Markus Plakolm, Lightmet brings together eight senior partners with technical, operational and commercial expertise across the aluminium value chain. The firm advises aluminium companies on strategy, operational excellence, investment projects, feasibility studies, M&A, recycling, sustainability and digitalisation.
In this AL Circle interview, Bürger shares his views on aluminium supply chains, trade developments, investment strategies and the key challenges shaping the global aluminium industry.
AL Circle: With US Section 232/338 tariffs now at 50 per cent on Canadian aluminium and certain derivatives, how are European and North American companies adjusting their supply-chain and CAPEX strategies? Are you seeing greater interest in nearshoring, derivative-product restructuring or duty-optimisation projects?
Norbert Bürger: The first point we would make is that the tariff situation has become sufficiently complex that companies should no longer look only at a headline tariff rate. Product classification, origin, metal origin, US content and the distinction between primary metal, scrap and different derivative-product categories can significantly change the effective duty burden.
The strategic consequence is that aluminium companies are increasingly looking at the supply chain together with the manufacturing footprint. In North America, the very high Midwest premium demonstrates how strongly trade policy can influence the regional all-in metal price. In September 2026, the Midwest premium is still around USD 1.09/lb, or approximately USD 2,400 pet tonne, despite having eased from its June peak.
For downstream producers, this changes the CAPEX equation. A project that previously made sense because of low conversion costs in one location may no longer be competitive once metal origin, tariffs, freight and working capital are considered. We therefore see a stronger economic rationale for regionalising certain conversion steps, increasing recycling and remelting capability close to the customer, and designing supply chains that retain more flexibility regarding metal source.
However, we would distinguish genuine industrial restructuring from tariff engineering. Changing a manufacturing route simply to obtain a different customs classification can create significant risk as customs tariffs can change quickly. The more sustainable approach is to optimise the physical supply chain first and then ensure that the customs structure supports the decision.
We propose not to look at tariffs or manufacturing costs in isolation. In our green field projects, we model together with our customers the complete aluminium value chain and compare alternative manufacturing footprints, sourcing strategies and investment scenarios. For a new extrusion, rolling, recycling or fabrication investment, the relevant question is increasingly not simply “Where is conversion cheapest?” but “Where is the lowest sustainable delivered cost after metal, conversion, logistics, duties, working capital and risk?”
AL Circle: The industry is moving from treating sustainability as a side story to focusing more heavily on scrap control, particularly as EU waste regulations tighten and closed-loop schemes scale up. How is Lightmet helping clients capture greater value from post-consumer scrap, and what recycling-content thresholds are buyers now building into contracts?
Norbert Bürger: The discussion has moved from sustainability reporting towards physical control of material flows. Scrap, whether post-consumer or closed-loop customer scrap, is becoming a strategic raw material and a competitive advantage. The current discussion within the EU about export duties for scrap is one consequence of this development.
In terms of recycled-content thresholds, there is no single market-wide contractual number that we would regard as representative. However, 75 per cent recycled content is already commercially established, even in demanding applications. Hydro, for example, markets “recycled aluminium with at least 75 per cent post-consumer scrap”, and Novelis has automotive sheet containing “at least 75 per cent recycled content”. In July, Mercedes-Benz and Hydro announced the introduction of material containing at least 75 per cent post-consumer scrap into series production, compared with a stated previous minimum of 25 per cent.
The important issue is not simply maximising recycled content. It is preserving alloy value. If high-quality wrought-alloy scrap is mixed with lower-value material, a significant part of its economic value can be lost even though it is technically still “recycled”. That is why sorting, segregation, chemistry control, traceability and closed-loop logistics have become strategic levers for modern recyclers rather than operational afterthoughts.
Across our client base, we see a growing number of projects aimed at finding the economically optimal balance of scrap availability, chemistry, metal yield, processing cost, CAPEX and required product quality. The outcome is not necessarily the theoretical maximum recycled content. We analyse the material flow, from scrap generation through collection, sorting, preparation and melting, and identify where value is being lost. Next, we develop scrap specifications and sourcing strategies, design casthouses and CAPEX plans, manage investment projects, and define, track and optimise KPIs which keep these flows under control.
For investment decisions, this analysis clarifies whether additional sorting, decoating, shredding, remelting or holding capacity creates sufficient value to justify the CAPEX. In many cases, the business case hinges not on volume but on how effectively the process protects the alloy value already embedded in the scrap.
AL Circle: With LME aluminium prices up strongly year on year and Midwest premiums remaining firm amid US trade policy changes, how are your rolling-mill and extrusion clients managing input-cost volatility? Which pricing and pass-through mechanisms are proving the most resilient?
Norbert Bürger: The key principle is to separate the different components of the aluminium price rather than treating aluminium as a single number. Depending on the market, the commercial price may contain the LME component, regional premium, product and alloy upcharges, conversion charge, freight and, increasingly, specific sustainability attributes.
The most resilient contracts therefore align a sales contract’s price mechanism as closely as possible with the producer's actual cost exposure. LME pricing and regional premiums are usually indexed, combined or separately, where they represent a genuine procurement exposure rather than buried in the conversion charge.
However, we see a trend toward indexing additional cost drivers: billet and slab upcharges, alloying elements, energy, freight, and other inflation-related risks.
For scrap-intensive producers the situation becomes even more complex because the price of scrap does not necessarily move one-for-one with primary aluminium or premiums; and melt loss (or yield) must be built into the cost calculations.
Our role is to help companies translate these market-price structures into product-level contribution margins, design adequate risk management and contract frameworks, and strengthen commercial departments’ understanding of metal-price mechanics. Particularly in extrusion and rolling, an apparently attractive sales price can produce a poor margin if the metal-price formula, duties, scrap spreads, melt loss and conversion cost are not properly aligned.
AL Circle: What real-world energy consumption figures, in kWh per tonne, are you seeing for extrusion, rolling and machining operations in Europe compared with Asian countries? How do these figures compare with client assumptions and commonly used industry benchmarks?
Norbert Bürger: This is an area where we would caution against apparently precise benchmarking. Energy consumption depends enormously on the system boundary. For extrusion, for example, one plant may report only press electricity while another includes billet heating, ageing, compressed air, finishing and other auxiliary processes. The resulting kWh/t figures are not directly comparable.
Published European data illustrate the problem, with very broad ranges reported for both rolling and extrusion. For machining, a single kWh/t benchmark is even less meaningful. The result is dominated by material-removal rate, machine utilisation, component geometry, coolant and compressed-air systems and, importantly, whether energy is divided by incoming material or finished-part mass.
It also depends significantly on the product mix. Comparing simple, standard products with high-end, specialty products that involve complex production processes, such as aerospace-grade products, is challenging.
We therefore prefer to benchmark a plant after defining a consistent process boundary and product mix. Then we break energy consumption down by process step — for example billet heating, extrusion, ageing, compressed air, cooling and finishing. The same principle can be applied to rolling and machining operations.
Geography by itself is not a sufficiently good predictor. A modern, highly utilised Asian extrusion line can be considerably more energy-efficient than an older European installation, while the reverse can equally be true.
AL Circle: Published scrap prices, such as extrusion-grade scrap at around 104 per cent of LME, can lag behind spot transactions. What pricing formulas, indexation lags and quality-adjustment mechanisms are actually being used? Are you also seeing premiums for certified low-carbon or ASI-compliant scrap?
Norbert Bürger: The 104 per cent figure may be credible and can be useful indeed as a market reference for a specific standard scrap quality, but an average market indicator should not be confused with the price of an individual scrap parcel.
Physical scrap pricing must reflect recoverable metal rather than simply gross tonnes. It has to reflect a market that may be mirrored by an indexation, but most scrap is not a fully exchangeable commodity. Chemistry, contamination, coatings, attachments, moisture, sorting quality, freight, packaging and the specific installation’s expected melt loss all influence value. Consequently, a commercially useful formula often starts with an agreed metal reference and then applies a negotiated differential or recovery factor appropriate to the scrap category.
Timing also matters. Using a monthly LME average against a spot scrap purchase can create temporary distortions, particularly in a rapidly rising or falling market. This is one reason why sophisticated recyclers increasingly analyse scrap spreads independently rather than assuming a fixed percentage relationship to LME, and the latter is often priced at the seller’s convenience rather than based on an average.
On certified low-carbon or ASI-related material, we would be careful about quoting a universal “green scrap premium”. Certification and traceability clearly have commercial value, particularly where customers need auditable recycled-content and carbon-footprint data. But we do not see enough transparent public evidence to claim a standard market-wide EUR/t premium for certified scrap.
Lightmet can help companies convert these factors into a transparent output-based scrap-value model. In our view, scrap should ultimately be valued according to the metal units that can economically be recovered and returned to the required alloy system. Such a model makes it possible to compare suppliers, scrap qualities and processing alternatives on an equivalent basis and can also support make-or-buy decisions for sorting and recycling operations.
AL Circle: Following the energy shocks of 2022, which European downstream aluminium players have permanently rationalised capacity, and which have instead invested in energy efficiency? Have markets such as Germany and Italy seen a fundamental shift in their competitive landscape?
Norbert Bürger: Germany provides one of the clearest examples of structural change. Speira initially curtailed 50 per cent of primary aluminium production at Rheinwerk in 2022 because of high energy prices and subsequently decided to close the remaining smelting operation. At the same time, it redirected investment towards recycling, including approximately EUR 40 million of additional recycling capacity. This is a good illustration of the wider European shift: reducing exposure to electricity-intensive primary production while increasing investment in recycling and downstream value creation.
Other companies have followed a different path. Trimet, for example, restarted previously curtailed German and French smelter capacity as raw material and electricity prices improved, while continuing energy-efficiency and decarbonisation projects. In other European countries, Alcoa finalized the restart of the San Ciprian smelter this year and announced a substantial investment in recycling capacity at the casthouse of the Mosjoen smelter. Hydro has been closing extrusion sites and casthouses, but at the same time built modern recycling centres and plans to reopen curtailed primary production at Slovalco. They also invested in energy-efficient extrusion equipment, cooling systems, onsite solar and battery storage at German downstream plants.
So, we would not describe Europe as undergoing a uniform deindustrialisation. The more important structural change is increasing differentiation between assets. Plants with efficient equipment, secure energy arrangements, strong scrap access, broad recycling capabilities, and/or specialised market positions have a much stronger investment case than energy-intensive assets competing primarily on commodity conversion margins.
Germany illustrates this particularly clearly because energy cost and grid conditions have become strategic variables rather than simply operating expenses. Italy faces many of the same energy-cost pressures, but we would not claim that the Italian downstream sector has undergone the same documented structural shift without more plant-specific evidence.
AL Circle: Which downstream aluminium product categories - such as thermal-break profiles, battery enclosures and aerospace plate – are commanding sustainable price premiums in 2026, and which are becoming more commoditised despite green or low-carbon claims? What premium ranges, in euros per tonne, are you observing in confidential contracts?
Norbert Bürger: We would separate a product premium from a sustainability premium. Customers will pay sustainably higher conversion margins where the supplier solves a difficult technical problem: tight tolerances, difficult alloys, complex geometry, machining and joining, safety-critical guarantees, hefty qualification and certification efforts, surface requirements, or extremely demanding delivery performance.
This is why specialised aerospace plate, highly engineered automotive structures and complex battery-system components can maintain attractive conversion margins. By contrast, standard profiles and other products that can be supplied by a large number of qualified producers remain much more exposed to price competition.
The same principle applies to low-carbon aluminium. Simply attaching a “green” description to an otherwise interchangeable product does not guarantee a durable premium. The value becomes defensible only when the carbon footprint or recycled content is independently verified and lets the customer achieve a specific contractual, regulatory, product-level or cost related objective, for example CBAM compliance, OEM emission targets, or recycled‑content thresholds. In those cases, buyers may accept a differentiated price, but there is no verifiable evidence for a consistent, market‑wide €/t sustainability premium. What we observe instead is case‑by‑case negotiation where a supplier’s credible strategy with certifications and traceability aligned do influence the commercial outcome, but not in a uniform or easily quotable way.
AL Circle: For clients operating closed-loop recycling systems, such as returning automotive stamping scrap to sheet production or extrusion offcuts to billet, what cost savings in USD per tonne are you seeing compared with purchasing scrap on the open market? Are there additional quality or certification premiums associated with these closed-loop models?
Norbert Bürger: The biggest advantage of a closed loop is often not simply the headline scrap purchase price. It is the transparency, preservation of information and protection of alloy value.
If clean production scrap is kept segregated, its chemistry is known. That can reduce sorting requirements, contamination risk and the need for primary-metal dilution when it is remelted. It can also reduce exposure to volatile raw materials markets and thus improve the risk position of the producer. These advantages become particularly valuable when clean wrought-alloy scrap trades at high percentages of LME.
There can also be a traceability benefit. A controlled loop makes it easier to document origin, alloy family and recycled content, which can support customer sustainability requirements.
Automotive stamping provides a good example because the scrap volumes are substantial: published industry examples indicate that approximately 30–40% of automotive sheet can remain as manufacturing scrap after stamping. Closed-loop systems return this material to the sheet producer on a predictable basis rather than allowing it to enter a bidding process and, worst case, a mixed scrap stream. The same logic applies to clean extrusion offcuts returned directly to the billet producer, where chemistry and other material properties are well understood.
Overall, there is a good case for a markup reflecting the low risk of closed-loop recycling. And don’t forget the added value to the supplier-customer partnership as intangible factor. A closed-loop project should be a long-term commitment and thus difficult to evaluate against volatile swings in scrap prices. We would therefore resist quoting a transparent or universal USD/t premium. The economics depend on the alternative open-market scrap price, transport distance, tolling charge, payment terms, sorting cost, melt loss, metal yield and the contractual ownership of the scrap.
