Market evolution: Silicones (CN 3910) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report examines the evolution of EU trade in silicones in primary forms (customs code 3910) over the period 2015–2025. Silicones are high-performance polymers used across a wide range of industries—from construction and automotive to electronics, healthcare, and personal care. As a strategic intermediate material, the trade dynamics of this product reflect broader trends in EU industrial competitiveness, supply chain restructuring, and external dependency.

The analysis draws on EU trade data covering imports, exports, production, concentration, and vulnerability indicators. Over the decade, the EU's overall trade position in silicones evolved significantly: export values rose by 40.7% while import values grew by 55.8%, widening the trade deficit from €168 million to €322 million. However, these headline figures conceal important structural shifts in pricing, sourcing, and partner concentration that deserve closer examination.

1. A Widening Deficit Driven by Import Growth and Price Dynamics

The EU's trade deficit in silicones widened substantially over the period, despite rising export values. This section unpacks the volume and price components underlying this trend.

1.1 Export volumes declined while import volumes expanded

Between 2015 and 2025, EU export quantities of silicones fell by 8.9%, from 82,214 tonnes to 74,885 tonnes—the lowest level observed in the dataset. Over the same period, import volumes grew by 26.5%, rising from 135,149 tonnes to 170,907 tonnes. This divergence in physical volumes indicates that the EU increasingly relies on external suppliers to meet domestic demand, even as its own producers face constraints or shift focus.

Source: General Overview

1.2 Unit prices rose sharply, especially on the export side

A key feature of the 2015–2025 period is the pronounced increase in unit values. Export unit prices climbed by 54.5%, from €4,828 per tonne to €7,458 per tonne, while import unit prices rose by 23.2%, from €4,180 to €5,151 per tonne. The gap between export and import prices widened considerably: by 2025, EU silicones were exported at a 44.8% premium over the average import price, up from just 15.5% in 2015. This suggests that EU producers increasingly focused on higher-value, specialty-grade silicones, while more commoditised grades were sourced from abroad.

Source: General Overview

1.3 Net import reliance increased but remained moderate

The net import reliance ratio rose from 8.1% in 2015 to 10.7% in 2025 (+31.3%). While this level of reliance is still moderate by international standards, the upward trajectory is notable—particularly given that EU domestic production volumes declined by 4.2% over the period (from 731 million kg to 700 million kg), even as production values rose by 38.7% (from €2.36 billion to €3.28 billion). This indicates that EU manufacturers are producing less by volume but capturing more value—a pattern consistent with a strategic move upstream into specialty and high-margin applications.

2. Shifting Partner Landscape: The Rise of Asian Suppliers

The geographic composition of the EU's silicone trade changed dramatically over the decade, with Asian suppliers gaining ground and traditional partners losing share. This restructuring has implications for both supply security and trade concentration.

2.1 China emerged as a major import source, while the UK saw reduced share

The most striking shift in EU import partners was the rise of China. Chinese silicone exports to the EU surged by 595.1%, from €21.2 million in 2015 to €147.7 million in 2025—making China the second-largest source of EU silicone imports by value. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, historically the EU's largest import partner, saw its share decline by 11.6% (from €260.6M to €230.4M), a trend likely influenced by Brexit and the resulting trade frictions.

Source: Top partners by value

2.2 Asian suppliers contributed to import diversification

The concentration of EU imports, as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), declined substantially from 3,507 in 2015 to 2,232 in 2025—a 36.4% reduction. This marked drop indicates a meaningful diversification of the EU's supply base. The entry and growth of suppliers such as Japan (+234.8%), Thailand (+341.2%), South Korea (+87.5%), and Canada (+123.5%) helped reduce dependence on any single partner. However, export concentration remained broadly stable (HHI declining only 4.2%), suggesting that the EU's customer base was already relatively diversified at the start of the period.

Source: Concentration analysis

2.3 EU exports shifted toward the US and China, while Russia collapsed

On the export side, the United States became the EU's largest non-EU customer, with exports increasing by 142.1% (from €40.6M to €98.2M). Exports to China also rose by 91.0% (from €46.4M to €88.6M). In stark contrast, exports to the Russian Federation collapsed by 99.8%, falling from €18.4M to just €31,200—a decline almost certainly attributable to the sanctions regime imposed following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The United Kingdom remained the largest single export destination but saw a 15.1% decline (from €91.0M to €77.2M).

Source: Top partners by value

3. Shocks, Volatility, and the EU's Strategic Positioning

The decade was not one of smooth evolution: external shocks, notably the 2022 energy and supply chain crises, left a clear mark on silicone trade. Meanwhile, the EU's internal structure of production and trade revealed a sector becoming more specialised and export-oriented.

3.1 The 2022 crisis triggered pronounced price shocks in EU exports

The shock detection analysis identifies the year 2022 as a period of significant price abnormality. Exports to the United Kingdom experienced a 54.1% price shift with an abnormality score of 49.0—the highest in the dataset. Similar, if smaller, price shocks were recorded in exports to Egypt (+81.5%) and the United Arab Emirates (+117.8%). These events coincide with the global energy price spike and supply chain disruptions of 2022, which disproportionately affected energy-intensive chemical production. Given that silicone manufacturing is highly energy-intensive, these shocks are consistent with the broader context of the European energy crisis.

Source: Supply shocks

3.2 Volatility varied widely across trading partners

The coefficient of variation of trade values reveals significant differences in partner stability. On the import side, Norway (CV: 1.69) and Hong Kong (CV: 1.48) showed extreme volatility, while the United Kingdom (CV: 0.18) and the United States (CV: 0.25) were far more stable. On the export side, Russia (CV: 0.47) was the most volatile partner—a reflection of the sanctions-driven collapse—but even here, traditional markets like the UK (CV: 0.13) and Switzerland (CV: 0.14) provided a stable anchor.

3.3 The EU is becoming more export-oriented and specialised

Several indicators point to a structural shift in the EU's positioning in the global silicone market. The trade intensity index rose from 25.1% to 36.8% (+46.7%), while the export propensity surged from 10.6% to 18.0% (+69.8%). This suggests that EU producers are increasingly oriented toward external markets.

At the Member State level, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands emerge as the most specialised silicone exporters, with revealed symmetric comparative advantage (RSCA) values of 0.55, 0.39, and 0.38 respectively. Within the EU, Belgium and Netherlands dominate both import and export flows, consistent with their roles as major chemical trading hubs with deep-port logistics infrastructure. Meanwhile, Italy showed the most striking growth in exports (+112.5%), rising from €34.6M to €73.6M and suggesting the emergence of new production or processing capacity.

Conclusion

Over 2015–2025, the EU's trade in silicones in primary forms underwent a dual transformation. First, the physical trade balance deteriorated: export volumes declined while import volumes expanded, widening the trade deficit to €322 million. Second, and more positively, the value composition of trade shifted upward, with EU producers capturing significantly higher unit prices and increasingly focusing on specialty-grade products.

The geographic landscape of silicone trade was reshaped by three forces: the rise of Asian suppliers (notably China and Japan) into the EU import market, the decline of the UK as a trade partner following Brexit, and the near-total cessation of exports to Russia following the 2022 sanctions. Import diversification improved markedly, reducing concentration risk.

The 2022 energy crisis left a visible imprint through sharp price shocks, particularly in EU exports. Nevertheless, the overall trajectory suggests that the EU is repositioning itself as a higher-value, more specialised producer of silicones, while relying on a more diversified set of suppliers for commodity-grade inputs. The increasing export propensity and rising production values—despite flat volumes—point to a sector that is moving up the value chain rather than expanding capacity in volume terms.