Executive brief. Climate change mitigation goods accounted for 7.4% of global merchandise trade in 2025, growing by an annual average of 8.0% between 2017 and 2025, compared with 4.7% for merchandise trade overall. China supplied 26% of exports in this category and Germany around 10%. These are central findings of KfW Research and Deloitte’s 70-page report, The power of global trade: Market dynamics and economic opportunities in climate change mitigation goods, released on 11 November 2026 at a COP31 side event in Antalya, Türkiye.
Yet the report also makes a crucial qualification: its trade statistics do not directly measure products’ life-cycle emissions or actual emissions reductions. For suppliers, the implication is clear. A growing green market creates opportunities, but a product’s inclusion in a green trade category does not establish that it has a low carbon footprint. That requires traceable, verifiable product-level evidence.
This English analysis is adapted from Nanozeo’s Chinese article, drawing on the November 2026 report and KfW’s press release. We distinguish the report’s findings from our supply-chain interpretation. All page references refer to the report’s printed page numbers.
1. What the report measures
The study uses the OECD’s Combined List of Environmental Goods (CLEG) to identify 314 six-digit HS2017 product codes covering green goods. Of these, 182 are classified as climate change mitigation (CCM) goods, grouped into renewable energy systems, energy-efficient buildings and clean mobility.
Data for 2017–2024 come from CEPII BACI. The 2025 estimates use ITC Trade Map data under HS2022. The central question is whether international trade enables or restricts the spread of climate mitigation technologies.
The report also proposes four pillars for action: develop exports through complete value-chain solutions; connect trade, industrial, climate and financing policies; manage concentration risks through diversification and circularity; and strengthen international cooperation within a reliable, rules-based trading environment (p.5).
2. The key numbers—and their limits
- All green goods: environmental protection, recycling and CCM goods together represented 11.4% of global merchandise trade in 2025, approximately USD 2.8 trillion, based on estimates (pp.4, 11).
- CCM goods specifically: 7.4% of global merchandise trade, roughly two-thirds of trade in green goods (p.11).
- Annual average growth, 2017–2025: CCM goods 8.0%; all merchandise 4.7%; all green goods 6.3%; environmental protection goods 3.8%; recycling goods 3.5% (p.11).
- CCM export shares in 2025: China 26%, Germany around 10%, Japan 7% and the United States 6%. China and Germany’s shares of overall merchandise exports were 14% and 7%, respectively (p.4).
- Leading product categories: lithium-ion batteries accounted for 7% of CCM exports; photovoltaic cells and LEDs for 5% (p.4).
- Production capacity differs from export share: China held nearly 85% of battery-cell capacity, versus 59% of finished-battery exports; more than 80% of photovoltaic capacity, versus 47% of cell and module exports. Some assembly has shifted to Southeast Asia (p.4).
- Clean mobility: China and Germany accounted for 18% and 17% of exports, respectively, in 2025. This was the fastest-growing CCM segment (p.6).
- Energy investment: global clean-energy and electrification investment was expected to reach around USD 2.2 trillion in 2026, compared with approximately USD 1.2 trillion for fossil fuels (pp.5, 7).
Three qualifications matter when using these figures. First, 11.4% and 7.4% describe different scopes: the broader green-goods category and its CCM subset. Second, 2025 values are estimates and involve a change of data source and HS classification; comparisons across 2024 and 2025 require caution. Third, gross trade flows include re-exports and cross-border assembly, so they do not directly measure domestic value added (pp.9–11).
3. A green classification is not proof of a low carbon footprint
The methodology explicitly acknowledges that HS codes can include products with multiple uses. The results therefore describe trade in product categories associated with climate change mitigation. This trade analysis does not directly measure life-cycle emissions, actual deployment or emissions avoided during use, and does not account for transport emissions (p.10).
A box on page 47 illustrates why this distinction matters. It cites a study comparing photovoltaic modules installed in southern Europe: modules manufactured in China using high-carbon electricity had roughly twice the life-cycle carbon footprint of comparable European-manufactured modules. Their energy payback time was 20–30% longer. This is a specific comparison under particular manufacturing and installation conditions, not a universal ratio for all Chinese and European products.
The same discussion provides context: photovoltaic energy payback periods have fallen from around five years in 1992 to about one year. Manufacturing impacts therefore need to be assessed alongside the benefits delivered over a system’s operating life (p.47).
A customs code identifies a product category. A product carbon footprint, with a clear method and evidence, assesses its emissions. When buyers compare suppliers within the same green category, traceable product-level data can help explain meaningful differences.
4. Implication one: build evidence that can be reused
What the report recommends (pp.53, 55). Where tariffs are already low, customs procedures, testing and certification can remain important barriers. The report calls for:
- Common definitions and measurement methods, with harmonisation or mutual recognition where requirements are equivalent.
- Greater transparency on technical requirements, documentation, testing procedures, timelines and fees.
- Avoiding duplicate testing and certification when equivalent evidence already exists, while keeping requirements proportionate to risk.
- Technical cooperation and capacity building so smaller suppliers can meet demanding requirements and participate in international value chains.
The purpose is to remove unnecessary friction while maintaining environmental integrity, safety and confidence in green claims.
Nanozeo’s supply-chain interpretation. Customers ask for different outputs: product carbon footprints, CDP responses, environmental product declarations (EPDs), CBAM information and battery-related disclosures. Repeating the entire data-collection exercise for every request is costly. A reusable foundation can instead be organised into three layers:
- Shared source records: factory activity data, bills of materials, energy and transport records, supported by original evidence.
- Method and boundary differences: explicit records of system boundaries, allocation rules and emission-factor sources required for each application.
- An evidence index: identification of measured data, database background values and estimates, with sources, versions and verification scope.
AI can help map customer requirements and data gaps, turning broad supplier questions into specific choices and confirmation requests. Suppliers still need to confirm their information; qualified professionals and, where required, third parties still need to review it.
Source data can be shared across applications, but conformity with each scheme must be checked separately. The same model or dataset is not automatically valid for every disclosure regime. Reducing repeated collection and verification depends on clear methods, accessible evidence and confirmed conditions of use.
5. Implication two: turn carbon data into investment decisions
What the report recommends (pp.52–54, 56). Trade opportunities and resilience need to be assessed across complete value chains:
- Evaluate complete solutions. Deployment depends on upstream components, infrastructure, maintenance, certification and financing. Opportunities may lie in core technologies, complementary components, system integration or services (p.52).
- Set priorities using three dimensions: market growth, comparative advantage and competitive pressure. The fastest-growing market is not necessarily the one where a company has the strongest position (p.52).
- Look beyond the lowest purchase price. Where disruption materially affects cost or delivery, consider supplier diversity, technical capability and supply security. Project due diligence should assess alternatives and the time and cost of switching components (p.54).
- Distinguish concentration from dependence. The report notes that, across most product categories, leading supplier countries’ average global shares remain below 30%. Strategic autonomy means retaining options and the ability to adapt, rather than pursuing self-sufficiency in everything (pp.54, 56).
- Include circularity in resilience. Recycling, remanufacturing and repairable design can reduce exposure to concentrated raw-material supplies (p.54).
The report cites earlier research estimating that, had Germany relied entirely on a domestic photovoltaic supply chain, module prices faced by installers in 2020 would have been around 83% higher (pp.48, 56). This is a counterfactual scenario estimate, not a record of an actual price increase. It illustrates why resilience measures need to be proportionate to their costs and benefits.
Nanozeo’s supply-chain interpretation. Comparing a decarbonisation option’s purchase-price premium with its emissions reduction is only the beginning. A useful assessment should include four cost groups:
- Implementation: equipment, tooling, process changes and staff training.
- Ongoing operation: maintenance, consumables, data updates and system upkeep.
- Evidence and assurance: modelling, verification, certification and the time spent on repeated checks.
- Supply risk: availability of alternatives, switching time and delivery losses during disruption.
Compare these costs alongside emissions reductions and customer requirements to decide where to invest first. Orders, renewals and green premiums should be treated as expected benefits to validate with customers, rather than returns already secured. The report does not establish a green premium for any particular supplier or industry.
Carbon data becomes useful for management when it makes options comparable: emissions performance, complete delivery costs, supply risks and customer demand all belong in the decision.
6. Four takeaways for suppliers
- Growing green markets increase the value of credible evidence. Product classification alone cannot substantiate a low-carbon claim. A product footprint and its supporting records help buyers compare like with like.
- Collect once, reuse where appropriate. Build a common source-data foundation, then apply each customer’s rules. Additional requests should become easier to handle without assuming that all standards are interchangeable.
- Include verification and supply risk in decarbonisation costs. A purchase-price-only comparison can understate implementation effort and overstate the speed of returns.
- Resilience does not require making everything locally. Knowing which alternatives are available and how quickly a supplier can switch may be more efficient than rebuilding an entire supply chain.
These two themes—obtaining effective, reusable data and using it to prioritise decarbonisation investments—also underpin SSBTi Chair Raymond Wang’s two mentoring sessions in the inaugural Climate ECHO Fellowship.
Sources and further reading
Chinese versions: Nanozeo Taiwan: full analysis; The Real Footprint Digest (later sections require membership).