Brussels, 26 February 2025 – The European Commission unveiled a sweeping legislative package today, including a Clean Industrial Deal. While the package does not derail the Green Deal, it weakens its holistic approach, using competitiveness as a false pretext to justify unacceptable concessions to polluters, warns the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

The EU Commission’s rhetoric has shifted. Six years ago, the European Green Deal was hailed as a “man on the moon” moment by President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking to all Europeans. Today, the narrative seems tailored primarily to energy-intensive industries and big corporations. But industrial policy should prioritise public interest, not just industry demands.

In a revealing move, von der Leyen will present her Clean Industrial Deal later today at a closed-doors event hosted by some of Europe’s biggest polluters, including the chemicals industry lobby, CEFIC.

Christian Schaible, Head of Zero Pollution Industry at the EEB, added:

“EU policymakers seem increasingly detached from the triple planetary crisis we are facing. The so-called ‘Clean’ Industry Deal focuses on decarbonisation but overlooks broader pollution and environmental responsibility, failing to show how the EU can lead by example. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel-reliant industries that resisted change for decades have secured a front-row seat in shaping this deal. It’s alarming that the Commission claims the deal is ‘directly tailored’ to the ‘needs’ outlined in the Antwerp Declaration—a manifesto written by polluters, for polluters. EU industry is far more than just energy-intensive sectors, yet their interests are being placed front and centre.”

Luke Haywood, Head of Energy and Climate at the EEB, added:

“The Affordable Energy Action Plan contains many welcome initiatives: Accelerating renewables, grids and flexibility will reduce costs drastically. We also welcome measures to achieve fairer energy taxation and tariffs. More effort is needed to reduce energy demand and ensure that renewable electricity and heat benefit the most vulnerable households. The inclusion of fossil gas infrastructure and nuclear energy are completely at odds with the plan’s stated objective: these energy sources will only make energy less affordable.”

Key takeaways

The EEB has listed the good, the bad, and the mixed proposals that merit close attention:

Clean Industrial Deal

The Good:

A strong tool for industrial decarbonisation – The deal reinforces two key drivers for transforming energy-intensive industries: electrification with renewables, and circularity. 

The bad:

Limited scope, favouring only energy-intensive industry – It frames “productivity growth” as the sole priority while treating energy-intensive industries as an exclusive club, deserving all EU political and financial support.

“Clean” means more than climate neutral – A “clean” deal that ignores pollution is a contradiction. The chemical industry escapes scrutiny, with no plans to detoxify, monitor or clean up its processes and sites. Europe must also prioritise zero-pollution and toxic-free manufacturing capacity.

Massive investment gap for industrial transformation – The proposed long-term €480 billion annual investment and explicitly stated approximate funding commitments of €207 billion fall far short of what’s needed. The EU must create fiscal space for a true green industrial transformation through joint borrowing and a larger budget, with strong environmental and social conditionalities to ensure it serves the public interest. While the plan mentions taxes and fossil fuel subsidy phase-outs, it lacks concrete details and measures to apply the polluters pay principle.

No 2040 climate targets linked – A last-minute decision has postponed the announcement of the 2040 climate targets, which were expected to be part of this package. These should have been presented together with the Clean Industrial Deal, as clear and ambitious targets provide investment security, making it cheaper for industry to decarbonise.

The mixed:

Circular economy takes center stage – The plan rightly identifies the circular economy as a core element. However, the goal of becoming a ‘world leader’ in circularity by 2030 is vague. To achieve a truly circular economy, the EU must establish clear resource use reduction targets, and prioritise the development of toxic-free material cycles.

Green Public Procurement gains ground – Public procurement is a powerful tool for driving clean and strategic investments, such as green steel and low-carbon concrete. While the inclusion of life-cycle CO₂ performance standards is welcome, the framework should go further by assessing broader environmental impacts and introducing mandatory independent labels and not self-developed by industry, as the Communication announces. 

Weak conditionalities for state aid –  Aid for nuclear energy risks distorting competition in the EU’s electricity market for decades, undermining fundamental EU treaty provisions. Moreover, industry receiving public funds should serve the broader public interest beyond profit maximisation. We call for a rigorous update of state aid rules in the upcoming Clean Industry State Aid Framework, including toxic-free and zero-pollution compatibility checks.

Shared responsibility for climate ambition – Expanding the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to more sectors, downstream products, and indirect emissions is a step toward fairer competition for EU net-zero industries. But Europe must aim higher: pushing for global cooperation on environmental and social well-being. Trade policy should also be a tool to improve labour conditions worldwide.

Just transition, social fairness and quality jobs – While the plan commits to support workers in the industrial transition, its focus is too narrow. A just green transition must address economic disparities, invest in resilient green industries, education, and healthcare, and ensure fair working conditions, while including female-dominated sectors.

Lack of benchmarking tools to track progress on the ground – The communication lacks additional proposals, such as databases or tools, to ensure effective monitoring and enhance public accountability in the industrial transformation.

Affordable Energy Action Plan

The Good

 Renewables as the cheapest option – The plan sets the right priorities: lowering taxes on clean electricity and boosting the deployment of renewables, grids, and flexibility solutions to cut overall energy costs.

The Bad

 LNG investments abroad – Pouring money into fossil gas infrastructure abroad undermines climate goals, energy independence, and locks us into volatile gas markets. Instead, we must double down on renewables to cut reliance on fossil fuel imports—not just from Russia but also from the US, a partner that is no longer reliable.

 Nuclear energy will not provide affordable energy, neither in the short nor medium term, and should therefore be excluded from this document. Furthermore, the suggestion to speed up authorisation procedures for nuclear reactors (whether old or new, large or small) is deeply concerning, as any assessment must be conducted with the utmost rigor.

The Mixed

 Citizens, communities, and heating in focus – The plan rightly looks beyond industry to tackle energy affordability for households, but lacks concrete measures to fight energy poverty and expand renewable heating and energy communities for low-income households.

[ENDS]