A year ago, the European Commission announced the Industrial (Decarbonisation) Accelerator Act (IAA) as the centrepiece of the Clean Industrial Deal (CID). The aim is to increase demand for clean products manufactured in the EU, not least by establishing criteria for ‘Made in Europe’ products, which are to be applied in particular to public procurement and tenders. The goal is to guarantee that at least a certain amount of value is generated within Europe. After the proposal was expected before Christmas and was postponed again just a few days ago, it is now expected to be published on 4 March 2026. Reports indicate that EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné faces contentious matters and unanswered questions that need to be addressed before the deadline.

A discussion at a crucial moment

At the well-attended event, which was attended by numerous representatives of EU institutions and interest groups, Julia Eder, expert on EU and international affairs at PRO-GE, introduced the topic of the evening with a presentation. This was followed by David Hafner (ÖGB) moderating a lively panel discussion with Reinhold Binder (Federal Chairman of PRO-GE), Judith Kirton-Darling (Secretary General of industriAll Europe), MEP Evelyn Regner (S&D) and Michael Soder, Industrial Policy Expert at AK Vienna. The panellists welcomed the initiative in principle but criticised the EU deregulation agenda being pursued in parallel. There was disagreement about the geographical scope of ‘Made in Europe’.

Opportunities and threats for Europe

In her welcoming address, Julia Eder (PRO-GE) outlined the geopolitical situation in which Europe finds itself. The challenges facing the EU are complex: competition from China, US policy under Donald Trump, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and the transformation of the European economy. In addition, the EU lags behind the US and China in terms of technology and competitiveness. The downsides of global supply chains have also become apparent in recent years, whether during the pandemic or the semiconductor crisis. Nevertheless, ‘Made in Europe’ offers an alternative to ‘Made by China in Europe’ or ‘America First’. The essential reindustrialisation of Europe has the potential to safeguard current industrial employment, generate additional job opportunities, and enhance regional value creation by promoting increased local production. In doing so, care must be taken to ensure that the entire supply chain is controlled and that the production of critical components takes place in Europe. Moreover, in order to safeguard production, labour and environmental standards, it is important that ‘local content’ – a minimum share of production in Europe – is linked to social conditionalities and that breaches can be sanctioned. This would not only secure Europe's autonomy with regard to (critical) infrastructure and resources but also guarantee security of supply.

Nevertheless, many crucial questions remain unanswered. One key issue is the geographical scope of ‘Made in Europe’. Are the European Economic Area (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) and/or the Customs Union (Greenland, Turkey) included? And what about the EU accession candidates and the United Kingdom? According to Eder, however, PRO-GE's position is clear: the geographical scope should be limited to the EU Single Market. A larger expansion could lead to industry relocating to low-cost production countries. Moreover, purchasing power in Europe needs to be strengthened, as ‘Made in Europe’ would remove competitive pressure and lead to an increase in prices in Europe. However, Eder sees clear conflicts of interest between ‘Made in Europe’ and the EU's current deregulation and austerity agenda. This is because ‘Made in Europe’ requires control and sufficient funding.

Strengthening European industry, protecting workers

Judith Kirton-Darling (industriAll Europe) joined the debate on geographical expansion but took a different view. She argued in favour of including candidate countries, citing Turkey and Ukraine as examples. Coupled with social conditionalities, this would not only improve social standards in these countries but also bind them to the European family. She also emphasised the challenges mentioned by Eder and the need for Europe to act swiftly. Europe currently demonstrates the lowest levels of investment, and only two out of twenty industrial sectors are performing robustly. According to Kirton-Darling, the three main reasons for this situation are high energy prices, overcapacity and trade problems, and lack of demand in Europe. To counteract these problems and the risk of a downward spiral, she is calling for a comprehensive European agenda. ‘Made in Europe’ needs a value-based approach, and the quality of production and social standards must differ from those in the US and China. Location-specific or place-based industrial policy must be linked to social conditionality in order to promote regional economic areas and local communities. This includes quality jobs and the establishment of long-term, resilient security structures. Kirton-Darling also highlighted the importance of coordinating the different 'Made in Europe' initiatives with each other. This includes in particular the reform of the EU Public Procurement Directives and the EU Automotive Package.

Evelyn Regner (MEP) expressed criticism when asked what she thought of the Commission's current deregulation and debureaucratization course. She said it was doubtful whether debureaucratization would contribute to increasing competitiveness. Even the often-cited Draghi Report on European competitiveness focuses primarily on strategic investments and joint projects. Debureaucratization should not mean that employee protection is discarded, as was the case with the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). In contrast, ‘Made in Europe’ is a sensible strategy for strengthening the Single Market and European unity – and a reasonable response to the unfair trade practices of the US and China. Public procurement contracts must be awarded only to companies that follow regulations and pay taxes correctly. This principle must also be observed at the Industrial Accelerator Act, as must the anchoring of social conditionality as an integral part of ‘Made in EU’ requirements.

Michael Soder (AK Vienna) emphasised the importance of strengthening and preserving Europe's industrial backbone, stating Europe has no future without it. He also criticised the Commission's current deregulation agenda. Instead, he said, it was necessary to clarify what capacities public administrations and states as a whole needed in order to deal with major uncertainties in an uncertain world. The aim should be to enable long-term strategic planning, provide guidance and make the right investment decisions. On the supply side, this requires capacity expansion in future technologies, basic industrial goods, basic and digital infrastructures, and basic industries in order to increase Europe's strategic autonomy. However, so far the discussion has overlooked the demand side: alongside strategic supply policies for capacity building, we also need demand policies that develop key markets and coordinate them effectively.

Reinhold Binder (PRO-GE) also saw great potential in strengthening European unity and the European single market through ‘Made in Europe’. In doing so, he said, people must always be at the centre, because they are the most important resource of the future. Industrial policy must therefore always be combined with social policy. A Europe-wide campaign to attract skilled workers and improve qualifications is crucial, and transitions to new areas of responsibility must be supported. One positive effect of this initiative would also be the upskilling of women, who are currently disproportionately represented in the lower wage categories and could thus be brought into good jobs and full employment. Binder considered Austria's industrial strategy to be an important step taken by the Austrian federal government, providing a basis for further concrete measures. Finally, Binder praised the many Austrian family businesses that have been very committed to Austria's industrial strategy and appreciate the value of good wages and framework conditions.

Further information:

AK EUROPA: The European automotive industry caught between conflicting interests
AK EUROPA: Progressive industrial policy for the twin transformation
AK EUROPA: Revision of the EU procurement directives. Social and environmental criteria must be given greater consideration
AK EUROPA: Industry, energy and automotive. New plans for the transformation
AK EUROPA: Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness
AK EUROPA: Linking EU funding to social criteria. What options are there?
AK EUROPA: Net-Zero Industry Act: Realignment of EU industrial policy must be socially and ecologically responsible
AK EUROPA: Green Deal Industrial Plan. Promoting the green transition and Europe's net-zero industry
AK EUROPA Position Paper: The Clean Industrial Deal
EU-Parliament: Industrial Accelerator Act