Thyssenkrupp cuts 11,000 jobs as green steel stalls

Thyssenkrupp cuts 11,000 jobs: Green steel fails to save German industry

Germany's largest steelmaker is shrinking from 27,000 employees to 16,000. Thyssenkrupp Steel Europe announced the elimination of 11,000 positions, representing 40% of its staff, alongside a capacity reduction from 11.5 million tons annually to between 8.7 and 9 million. The company attributes this to weak global steel demand, cheap imports from Asia, and energy costs that have eroded profitability. The uncomfortable detail: the flagship decarbonization project, the "green steel" plant in Duisburg, remains on track but with acknowledged internal uncertainties.

What exactly did Thyssenkrupp Steel Europe announce?

The industrial plan distributes the impact in two phases. 5,000 jobs will disappear by 2030 through restructuring in production and administration. Another 6,000 will leave via transfer to external service firms or partial business sales. CEO Dennis Grimm justified the move with the need to "exhaustively optimize and rationalize" the production network to adapt to market conditions.

In parallel, parent company Thyssenkrupp is pushing for the independence of its steel division. Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, through EPCG, already controls 20% and will increase his stake to 50% in a next stage. The company has long been under pressure from cheap Asian imports, high costs, and sluggish demand.

Green steel that doesn't add up financially

The federal government and the state of North Rhine-Westphalia are subsidizing a direct reduction plant to produce hydrogen-based steel with €2 billion. According to reports in German media, abandoning the project was considered internally. The official version now states construction continues while holding "constructive conversations" to ensure economic viability in a rapidly changing landscape.

Here lies the crux of the matter. Producing steel with hydrogen is more expensive than using coal, and the extra cost isn't absorbed by a market buying from China. The subsidy covers the bill temporarily; it doesn't eliminate it.

Russian gas, Nord Stream, and the energy bill

Much of the analysis points to a prior political decision: Germany renounced cheap Russian gas, its main competitive advantage for two decades, taking away the foundation upon which its industry was built. The Nord Stream explosion appears in discussions as the symbol of this point of no return, though no culprit has been identified.

Some argue the problem isn't solely energetic. Social perception against heavy industry—noise, smoke, smell—drives closures and hinders investment. An engineer summarizes it with a daily scene: neighbors calling environmental authorities about water vapor, while the smelly factory is kilometers away.

The shadow of Spain's deindustrialization

The echo of the German case resonates bitterly in Spain. Several messages recall that the industrial conversion of the 1980s devastated Spanish steelmaking and manufacturing fabric, sold then as modernization. The lingering question is whether Germany is receiving the same treatment applied here, with the difference that there is still something left to lose.

The contrast with China closes the circle. While Europe shuts down furnaces and subsidizes prototypes, the Asian country reduces emissions without dismantling its industry. The repeated conclusion: the energy transition has been designed as a sarracena exercise, not an industrial plan.

What happens to the 11,000 workers?

The layoffs aren't immediate: they are phased until 2030, and part of the workforce will be relocated to service companies. The German defense sector, led by Rheinmetall, appears as a partial destination for this labor force, trinc a surge in military spending. It is the paradox of the moment: the industry shutting down for green reasons is heating up due to war.

Can it be reversed? No one in the conversation has the answer. What is clear is that a steel plant doesn't rise in two years, and every closure is irreversible.