“EU compass must point towards the common good, not corporate profits,” warn NGOs
29 January 2025 — The European Commission’s new Competitiveness Compass risks leading Europe astray, environmental NGOs warn. While it rightly calls for cohesion in energy and industrial policy, it remains alarmingly vague on which sectors will be deemed “strategic” and on how “simplification” won’t lead to a rollback on crucial environmental and social safeguards.
Published today, the Competitiveness Compass echoes corporate concerns over energy costs and economic challenges, but sidelines key priorities such as zero pollution and citizens’ wellbeing, failing to guide Europe’s economy towards a clean, prosperous and circular future.
Promoting competitive decarbonisation without integrating social and environmental objectives undermines the very purpose of EU institutions: to serve and defend the common good, reminds the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Europe’s largest network of environmental NGOs.
Christian Schaible, Policy Manager for Zero Pollution Industry, said:
“The EU is more than just a market. The Competitiveness Compass must point in a clear direction: sustainable prosperity for all. Right now, the strategy misses key indicators to ensure that the EU serves society at large and addresses today’s social and environmental crises. There is no market competitiveness on a dead planet.”
Key takeaways
The EEB highlights several issues that merit close attention:
Lowering national ambition: For the first time, the Commission explicitly calls to “fight gold plating”, the practice of Member States adopting stricter measures when transposing EU laws. While some industries may view this as “over-regulation”, the Commission’s endorsement is surprising, as their role is to ensure EU policy goals are met, not to discourage stronger national action.
A dangerous 25% simplification target: Streamlining regulations is welcome, but simplification without thorough assessments could undermine critical health, social and environmental protections. It is not regulation that hinders businesses’ innovation, but a lack of clear rules. Further deregulation would only create a climate of uncertainty and penalise first movers while compromising progress and sustainability.
Productivity does not equal prosperity, and circularity does not equal recycling: The pursuit of productivity in itself does not lead to prosperity, and is more likely to lead to the exploitation of resources beyond planetary boundaries. The EU should focus on resource sufficiency, and take into account negative externalities of new advanced technologies
‘Technological neutrality’ is not competitive: The EU needs to focus its limited time and resources on proven, cost-effective solutions to mitigate emissions, such as renewables, energy efficiency, and grids, not on costly and risky gambles like new nuclear, oversized hydrogen projects, and uncertain carbon capture and storage (CCS). Furthermore, mandatory emission reduction pathways need to be established, especially for hard-to-abate sectors, to ensure that industry is held accountable and moves timely towards climate neutrality.
Overlooking the importance of public investment in strategic sectors: The Compass neglects the need for additional financial resources to drive the socio-ecological transition, either through increased EU budget or EU joint borrowing. The EU urgently needs public investment in essential sectors such as healthcare, sustainable housing, non-toxic products, and resilient food systems. Additionally, mandatory Public Procurement criteria should be introduced to ensure public funds support projects, products, services and materials that meet the highest environmental and social standards.
The EU is more than a marketplace: The Compass’ reliance on private capital markets and simplification to boost productivity growth will mainly benefit corporations and banks. To revive Europe’s industrial and productive capacities, we need strong governments that can discipline the market, and direct reforms to green our economy and revive our public infrastructure and services.
Lowering energy costs: The Compass includes promising elements on lowering energy costs, such as increased investment in infrastructure and electrification, easier power purchase agreements, and “better-designed tariff methodologies.” Such a plan must ensure that the most sustainable energy is also the cheapest and that tariffs are structured to penalise fossil fuels. Yet, the strategy overlooks the crucial role of energy efficiency and sufficiency in reducing costs for both industry and households. It also fails to address the potential of wasted heat and renewable heat – two key factors in driving down industrial energy costs.
Better coordination: The inclusion of the Competitiveness Coordination Tool can help create common priorities for Member States to work on together. The inclusion of energy infrastructure among the first pilot cases is welcome, but it should place greater emphasis on electrification and energy efficiency. In addition, the Competitiveness Coordination Tool should explore joint purchasing of key renewable feedstocks, such renewable hydrogen, and prioritise their use for the most emission-intensive sectors.
[ENDS]