Serbia’s goods exports rose 8.9% to 26.89 billion euros in January-September 2026, raising the test for electricity-intensive manufacturers: whether they can sustain stronger sales with affordable, reliable power and emissions records acceptable to European Union customers. Their export competitiveness also depends on providing information about the origin and emissions of production inputs under the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
The Statistical Office reported that Serbian manufacturing output increased 5.1% in September from a year earlier. Total industrial production rose 3.2% in September and increased 0.5% over January-September, while output in electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply declined 7.2% year on year in September.
Those figures describe production changes, not electricity-market prices, and do not establish that power shortages caused any particular factory’s performance. But steel mills, aluminium processors, cement plants and large component manufacturers need reliable electricity as well as commercially acceptable prices to serve export orders.
Short interruptions, voltage issues, variable balancing costs and uncertainty over future supply contracts can affect production schedules and delivery, even when average electricity prices appear manageable. For businesses planning investments with a horizon of a decade or more, the stability of electricity and fuel supplies matters alongside the latest monthly export figures.
CBAM adds evidence requirements
At the MEPS 2026 conference, the Serbian Chamber of Commerce warned that European trade restrictions and unresolved energy-security questions could complicate Serbia’s external economic position. The role of imported fossil fuels was among the risks raised.
The EU’s CBAM definitive regime began on January 1, 2026, covering six sectors, including electricity and selected goods such as iron and steel, aluminium and cement. The EU importer or authorised declarant holds the relevant legal obligations, but suppliers outside the bloc may need to provide emissions information, generation evidence and contractual records if an importer seeks to use actual rather than default values under applicable rules.
A renewable electricity purchase agreement does not automatically establish that an industrial export or electricity shipment qualifies for a particular CBAM emissions treatment. That depends on the applicable legal methodology, physical and contractual links, monitoring data and verification requirements. Evidence must match the product and reporting period being claimed, and unsupported statements about “green power” can create compliance risks for buyers.
For exporters, the financial exposure has three distinct layers: the energy price at the factory gate; interruptions, imbalance charges and fuel or network constraints; and the supplier’s ability to document input emissions and origin to a standard acceptable to EU customers. These factors affect margins in different ways and should not be collapsed into a single carbon-cost estimate.
Energy contracts and records affect investment
Banks financing industrial expansion should incorporate energy-supply, price and carbon-data risks into credit appraisals. A technically efficient production line can still be commercially weak if its power contract exposes the business to uncontrolled prices or an EU customer cannot obtain the required emissions data.
Secure supply agreements, metering systems, clear data ownership and independently checked emissions documentation can strengthen bankability and customer confidence. Industrial buyers can compare fixed-price supply, indexed procurement and bilateral power-purchase arrangements against a transparent risk budget rather than assuming that one model suits every business.
A long-term power contract may reduce one kind of price exposure while introducing credit, volume or shape risk. The appropriate procurement model depends on consumption patterns, the reliability of delivered supply and counterparties’ financial strength. Price exposure, supply interruptions and the ability to document emissions therefore need to be assessed separately.
Companies expanding low-carbon production can design evidence systems alongside the plant, with clear ownership and auditable controls for metering points, production records, precursor inputs and emissions calculations. Establishing those systems during plant development can reduce the need to reconstruct years of operating data after a foreign customer or verifier requests it. Metering and production records can also help determine whether process improvements are reducing energy intensity.
Requirements differ by customer: a domestic buyer may focus mainly on product price and reliable delivery, while an EU importer of covered goods must also assess relevant CBAM obligations. Suppliers serving both markets need a cost model that allocates documentation, verification and contractual expenses without assuming that every tonne or megawatt-hour faces the same carbon charge.
A practical competitiveness programme would combine grid and generation investment with energy-efficiency upgrades, improved industrial metering, credible contracting and export-oriented environmental reporting. Power-market reform alone would not resolve all trade challenges, while compliance work would not replace the need for physical supply infrastructure.
Serbia’s export gains provide a starting point, but do not establish that industrial competitiveness is secure. The next test is whether manufacturers can turn improved sales into durable capacity while controlling energy costs and meeting the documentation standards of their largest external market.