Market evolution: Mops and brushes (CN 960390) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report examines the evolution of EU external trade in products classified under customs code 960390 over the period 2015–2025. This residual heading covers a broad range of cleaning and sweeping articles, including mops and leather dusters, prepared knots and tufts for broom or brush making, squeegees of rubber or similar flexible materials, and brooms and brushes not elsewhere specified. It bundles three six-digit subcategories: household and road-sweeping brushes (96039091), mops and other residual brush products (96039099), and hand-operated mechanical floor sweepers (96039010).

Over the decade, the EU market for these products underwent a structural transformation. Import volumes surged by 64.6% while export volumes contracted by 7.6%, turning the EU from a region close to trade balance into a heavily import-dependent market. At the same time, EU domestic production tripled in value, revealing a manufacturing base that is growing in output but increasingly oriented toward higher-value segments while relying on external suppliers for volume.

1. The Import Surge That Redefined the EU's Trade Position

EU imports grew far more sharply than exports, creating a structural trade deficit

The headline story of the 2015–2025 period is the dramatic divergence between import and export trajectories.

Import volumes nearly doubled (+78,000 tonnes over the decade), while export volumes actually fell. The trade deficit widened from −€147 million to −€333 million.

EU net import reliance flipped from near self-sufficiency to a third of apparent consumption

The most striking structural indicator is the net import reliance, which shifted from −10.2% in 2015 to +34.4% in 2025 — a swing of 438.5%. A negative value in 2015 indicated that the EU was a net exporter of these products; by 2025, over a third of apparent consumption was met by imports.

Alongside this, trade intensity (the share of trade in total production plus consumption) rose from 57.2% to 67.8%, while export propensity (exports as a share of production) fell from 42.8% to 38.6%. In other words, the EU market became more open overall but tilted decisively toward inbound shipments.

Import volumes grew much faster than the gentle price increase suggests

The relatively modest +5.8% rise in average import prices (from €4,820/t to €5,102/t) masks considerable volatility — prices dipped to a low of €4,648/t before peaking at €6,323/t. The dominant driver of the import value increase was therefore volume growth, not price inflation. This points to a genuine increase in EU demand for externally sourced mops, brushes, and related articles, likely driven by cost-competitive imports displacing lower-end domestic production or simply serving a growing market.

By contrast, export prices rose 41.4% (from €6,547/t to €9,256/t), while export volumes declined. This divergence — falling volumes, rising unit values — is consistent with the EU specialising in higher-value, higher-quality products and gradually ceding the low-end of the market to importers.

2. Persistent China Dependence and Tentative Diversification

China accounts for over 80% of EU import value, and the pattern has barely changed

China's dominance of EU imports in this product category is overwhelming. Its share of import value remained essentially flat at around 81–83% throughout the period:

The import concentration index (HHI) for value barely moved — from 6,718 in 2015 to 6,753 in 2025 (a +0.5% change). For context, an HHI above 2,500 already signals a highly concentrated market; at nearly 6,800, imports are dominated to an extreme degree by a single origin.

A handful of smaller suppliers are growing rapidly, but with high volatility

While China's share is stable, several alternative import sources recorded dramatic (if erratic) growth:

• Dominican Republic: From virtually zero (€5,902) to €12.3 million, but with extreme volatility (coefficient of variation: 0.82) and a peak of €27.8 million interspersed with near-zero years. This pattern is consistent with sporadic, contract-driven shipments rather than a stable supply relationship.
• India: +181% to €4.2 million, with similarly high volatility (CV: 0.68).
• Türkiye: +122% to €8.1 million, somewhat more stable (CV: 0.38).

The volatility analysis reveals that China's import flows, by contrast, are the most stable of all major partners (CV: 0.15), which underscores both the scale advantage and the logistical maturity of the China–EU brush trade.

EU export markets are more diversified, but geopolitical shocks have reshaped the map

The EU's export partner structure is far less concentrated (HHI of 836 in 2025 vs. 702 in 2015). The top destinations tell a story of resilience and disruption:

The collapse of EU exports to Russia (−67.8%, from €12.7 million to €4.1 million) is the clearest geopolitical signature in the data. Exports to Ukraine more than doubled (+129.4%), likely reflecting post-2022 reconstruction and humanitarian demand. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom — now a non-EU partner following Brexit — has become the EU's single largest export market, with trade growing from €30.1 million to €47.2 million.

Export price shocks have been isolated but notable

The detected supply shocks are concentrated in EU exports, not imports:

• South Africa (2022): Abnormality score of 13.9, with a price shift of +34.8%, likely linked to post-COVID logistics backlogs and freight cost surges.
• Türkiye (2017): Abnormality of 9.9, with a staggering +70.4% price shift.
• Israel (2021): Abnormality of 8.4, price shift of +32.5%.

All three are modest in terms of export value share (1.9% each), suggesting these were contract-specific or logistics-driven events rather than systemic market disruptions. Notably, no major import-side shocks were detected — further evidence of the remarkable stability of the China-dominated import supply chain.

3. Booming Domestic Production and a Value-Differentiated Export Strategy

EU domestic production tripled in value, far outpacing trade growth

One of the most striking — and perhaps counterintuitive — findings is that EU production volumes for this product category surged over the period:

Production value grew by nearly 300% — substantially faster than import value (+74.2%) or export value (+30.7%). This indicates that the EU is not simply losing market share to imports; rather, the overall market is expanding, and EU manufacturers are capturing a growing share of that expanding domestic consumption, albeit at different price tiers than imported goods.

The most specialised EU producers, measured by revealed comparative advantage (RCA), include Lithuania (RCA 2.6), Czechia (RCA 2.2), Denmark (RCA 2.0), Belgium (RCA 1.5), and Poland (RCA 1.3). These countries are driving export specialisation, with Czechia and Belgium accounting for a combined 23% of EU production share in this category.

EU exports command a substantial price premium over imports across all subcategories

A consistent pattern emerges when comparing export and import unit values at the sub-product level. In 2025, EU exports were priced significantly higher than imports in every segment:

This persistent premium — between 67% and 90% across subcategories — strongly suggests quality differentiation. The EU imports lower-cost, mass-market products (predominantly from China) and exports higher-value, branded or specialised items to wealthy neighbouring markets. The EU is not competing with China on price; it is competing on quality, customisation, and proximity.

Household brushes drive the import volume surge, but mops now dominate by value

Looking at the segment-level import breakdown, a notable compositional shift occurred:

• 96039091 (household and road brushes): Imports grew from 36,342t / €170.0M to 59,507t / €253.0M — the largest contributor by volume.
• 96039099 (mops, prepared knots, n.e.s.): Imports grew from 27,954t / €147.7M to 47,135t / €291.0M — the fastest value growth (+97.7%), and now the largest category by value.
• 96039010 (mechanical sweepers): Imports remained modest at €14.1M with volatile volume (around 2,800t per year).

In 2015, household brushes (96039091) accounted for 52.5% of import value; by 2025, the mops and residual category (96039099) had overtaken it, representing 51.6% of total import value — a shift that may reflect evolving demand patterns, such as growing demand for professional and institutional cleaning products.

On the export side, the mix remained more stable, with 96039099 (mops/n.e.s.) consistently accounting for about 59–61% of export value. However, export volumes in the household brush segment (96039091) declined by 20.2% (from 12,831t to 10,233t), even as export values rose by 25.6% — a clear sign of uptrading toward higher-unit-value products.

Major EU member states show divergent import and export trajectories

Within the EU, import and export patterns varied significantly across member states:

Top EU importers (2025):

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Poland more than doubled their import intake, reflecting both genuine consumption growth and the role of ports like Rotterdam and Antwerp as entry hubs for redistribution within the EU.

Top EU exporters (2025):

Spain stands out on both sides of the ledger — its exports grew by 140.4% while its imports doubled, consistent with an economy that both serves as a gateway for African and Mediterranean imports and hosts competitive brush and mop manufacturers.

Conclusion

The EU trade in mops, brushes, and related products (CN 960390) between 2015 and 2025 tells a story of two simultaneous dynamics: a massive inflow of low-cost imports and a vigorous domestic production response focused on higher-value segments.

China remains the overwhelmingly dominant supplier, accounting for over 80% of import value with a near-monopolistic concentration (HHI ≈ 6,800). Attempts at diversifying import sources — via the Dominican Republic, India, or Türkiye — remain nascent and volatile. On the export side, the collapse of trade with Russia (-67.8%) and the growth of the UK as the leading export destination reflect the reshaping of EU trade geography by geopolitical realignment and Brexit.

The most encouraging finding for EU competitiveness is the near-tripling of domestic production value (+297%) and the consistent export price premium (67–90% above import prices). This suggests that EU manufacturers are not being displaced by imports in aggregate; rather, they are moving upmarket while ceding the bottom of the market to Asian suppliers. Whether this value-differentiated strategy can be sustained in the face of continued import volume growth — and potentially intensifying competition from emerging low-cost origins — remains the central question for the next decade.