01 THE SETUP

Over the past few months, two price-reporting agencies have begun assessing whether “green” copper produced to higher sustainability standards earns a premium. Their results differ.

Meanwhile, producers have since added their own conflicting views to the mix.

Today, we look at how far those positions actually differ, and whether buyers are actually willing to pay a premium for green copper.

02 WHY IT MATTERS

Some producers are increasingly spending on certification and lower-emission copper production in the expectation that it will eventually be reflected in what they are paid. Whether those expectations hold depends on a market with very little public price information. The assessments launched this year are the first attempts to fill that gap.

03 THE DECODE

Much of the apparent disagreement comes from the figures measuring different things against different baselines.

Comparing the premiums

Physical copper in Europe sells at the LME price plus a premium for standard Grade A cathode. Any value attached to sustainability would be an additional amount on top of that standard premium.

CPAL’s assessment measures only that additional amount. Its reported zero means that copper meeting its sustainable definition was not, on the evidence available to it, selling for more than standard Grade A material, which CPAL puts at $130-180/t in Rotterdam.

The Fastmarkets’ $315-411/t figure, by contrast, is an all-in premium over the LME price. On the day it launched (August 18), Fastmarkets assessed the ordinary Grade A premium delivered to Germany at $270-300/t, implying a sustainability premium somewhere in the $45-111/t range. (Although, the premium may be slightly higher — Fastmarkets’ $315-411/t low-carbon assessment is FCA Europe, meaning the buyer generally arranges transport from the designated handover point. The $270-300/t conventional assessment is delivered Germany, which includes transport to the buyer.)

Brixlegg’s €398/t premium (roughly equal to $446/t, give or take, depending on exchange rate) is harder to place. Reuters reports it simply as a “premium,” which means it’s likely an all-in figure. Setting that against Aurubis’ standard 2027 premium of $347/t, Brixlegg’s asking price for low-carbon implies about a $100/t premium. Although, this comparison needs a rather large caveat — it spans two producers with different products and customers, thus it’s a rough indication of the low-carbon element at best.

The premiums aren’t measuring the same thing

While the above premiums imply a vastly different price for green copper, none of them are measuring the same thing. The main difference between them is where they draw the carbon line.

CPAL sets its threshold at 4 t CO₂e/t. However, that simply matches the International Copper Association’s estimate of the global average for refined copper, so a large share of certified production could, in principle, qualify.

Meanwhile, Fastmarkets’ sets its threshold at 1.5 t CO₂e/t, more than 60% below that average while admitting a much narrower group of producers into its benchmark.

As for Brixlegg, it’s carbon footprint sits even lower, at 0.63 t CO₂e/t.

Putting all of that together, we get the following picture:

* CPAL defends its broader threshold on the grounds that its definition covers responsible-production practices beyond emissions (Copper Mark). LME Insight’s latest report also noted market feedback suggesting sustainability attributes could carry additional value, although the evidence was not sufficient to isolate a distinct premium.

Read together, the diverging premiums appear to be consistent with a market that currently pays little or nothing for certification at an average carbon footprint, and a modest amount for material that comes in well below it. However, that reading rests on a limited number of observations, and we’re yet to see transaction data that would confirm it.

Arriagada’s remarks at this week’s LME Metals Seminar fit the first half of that picture. That is, Antofagasta reports no premium, despite its four mines being Copper Mark certified, having contracted electricity from renewable sources, and aiming to draw about 90% of its water from seawater or recirculated sources by the end of the decade. His complaint was that certified and uncertified copper are still priced alike — he described certification as having become an expected standard among customers rather than a source of additional value.

Who supplies the low-carbon tier

The producers that have publicly disclosed footprints at or below 1.5 t CO₂e/t are European smelters with substantial recycled feed. Fastmarkets cites Brixlegg at about 0.63 t, Aurubis at about 1.29 t and Boliden at about 1.5 t. Brixlegg produces from scrap and does not use mass balancing. Aurubis (whose cathodes contain about 45% recycled material) and Boliden both do.

Mass balancing allows a producer to allocate the lower emissions associated with particular inputs, such as scrap or renewable power, to a designated share of its output, instead of averaging them across everything it sells. It is a recognised accounting approach, but market participants told Fastmarkets that it means published footprints are not always directly comparable.

Recycling accounts for much of the difference between these producers and the global average. SMS Group estimates that secondary production emits about 2.1 t CO₂e/t less than primary production. On current disclosures, the publicly identified products in Fastmarkets’ initial European assessment are concentrated among smelters using substantial recycled feed.

Who is buying, and on what terms

The buyers named in reporting are concentrated in a few sectors. Aurubis identified automotive, energy and data-centre customers as showing the strongest interest. BMW told Fastmarkets that copper falls within its material-related decarbonisation requirements. NKT said grid operators in Northern and Western Europe are among the most active adopters, supported by public procurement criteria.

There are commercial agreements behind this interest. Aurubis announced a multi-year supply of low-carbon wire rod to NKT in April; ABB has partnered with Boliden on recycled and low-carbon copper; and in February Trafigura completed a sale of low-carbon anodes from Kamoa-Kakula to Aurubis. None of the parties has disclosed a premium.

Fastmarkets’ survey also found that enquiries have not consistently turned into purchases, and that willingness to pay varies between customers. NKT’s head of procurement said demand remains present, but that customers are placing more emphasis on cost and competitiveness.

The demand that exists therefore takes two forms. Some buyers require certification or verified footprints as a condition of supply, without necessarily paying more for them. Others, with specific emissions targets, appear willing to pay for material well below the average. The current assessments suggest the second group is the smaller one, and that it pays a modest amount.

The limits of the current evidence

CPAL’s methodology ranks executed trades as its preferred input, followed by firm bids and offers on trading platforms, and then assessments gathered from market participants. Both its copper and aluminium launch figures relied on the third category, because neither trades nor firm bids were available. Fastmarkets’ range is likewise built from reported offers rather than completed deals.

Hydro made a related point about aluminium, telling Reuters that most current premiums are set through bilateral agreements and that any benchmark needs enough underlying activity to be representative.

Aluminium nonetheless offers a useful comparison. CPAL’s first sustainable aluminium premium, $25-35/t for metal at or below 8 t CO₂e/t, was close to Fastmarkets’ low-carbon figure of $22.50/t, even though Fastmarkets uses a 4 t threshold. In aluminium, the two agencies have arrived at similar numbers. In copper, with different thresholds and little transaction data, they have not.

What this means for producers

On the available evidence, sustainability spending in copper has two distinct commercial effects. Certification appears to be becoming necessary to sell to major industrial buyers, but there is no sign yet that it raises the price received.

Meanwhile, substantially lower emissions do appear to earn an increment based on Fastmarkets’ initial assessment. Although, that premium still appears to be a small fraction of the metal price and, on current disclosures, mainly available to producers with high recycled content.

That balance could shift if procurement requirements tighten or supply becomes scarcer, as Arriagada suggested. For now, the clearest conclusion is that buyers can increasingly require green copper without paying much more for it.

04 WHAT TO WATCH
 
Now → year-end: The remaining 2027 annual premium offers from European producers. Brixlegg has put a price on its low-carbon material; the question is whether other producers quote separate low-carbon terms alongside their standard premiums. Most term contracts are confidential, so the evidence will be partial, although any disclosed agreement with an identifiable low-carbon component would still be among the first firm data points the market has.

CPAL’s copper assessments: Whether the sustainable premium moves away from zero, and whether CPAL can base it on firm bids or executed trades rather than market feedback. Release of the promised Metalshub transaction data would be the most significant change to the quality of the evidence.

Fastmarkets’ indicative spread: The difference between its low-carbon combined premium and its delivered-Germany Grade A premium ($45-111/t at launch) is the most direct published measure of the low-carbon increment.

2027 and beyond: Procurement requirements. Grid operators’ tenders and automakers’ supply-chain targets are the sources of demand most often cited. If they begin to specify maximum footprints, demand for sub-1.5 t copper would become better defined. The question would then shift to how much qualifying supply can be added, which depends on recycled feed as well as investment in lower-emission mining and smelting. Progress towards a common footprint methodology, including how mass balancing is treated, would also make the published figures easier to compare.

/ Goldman Sachs Raises Copper Price Forecasts for 2026 and 2027

Goldman raised its year-end copper forecast from $13,735/t to $14,700/t and its 2027 average from $13,800/t to $15,400/t. The upgrade reflects expectations of persistent ex-U.S. supply tightness.

/ ICSG Forecasts Global Refined Copper Surplus to More Than Triple by 2027

The International Copper Study Group now expects a global refined copper surplus of 104,000 tonnes in 2026, rising to 368,000 tonnes in 2027, as production growth accelerates to 3.4%, outpacing consumption growth of 2.5%.

/ Copper Squeeze Breathes New Life Into Old Mines

High copper prices are encouraging the revival of dormant mines, with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence tracking potential restarts representing up to 1 million tonnes of annual production by 2030.

/ US Tariff Threat Effects Are Fading

Following months of tariff-driven imports, The COMEX-LME arbitrage has narrowed to around $310/t, reducing the incentive to move additional metal into the US even as uncertainty over future tariffs persists.

/ China’s Copper Inventories Decline Despite Weak Consumption in the South

SMM reported Chinese copper inventories just above 100,000 tonnes on October 19, more than 70,000 tonnes below year-earlier levels. Eastern China continued drawing down stocks, while weaker consumption and increased arrivals produced an inventory build in the south.

That's the wire for today. Until next time, don’t forget, no one ever said it was easy being green.

Know someone who keeps asking you about copper?

They can subscribe free at copperwire.news.