Status

Close to adoption

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Revision of the EU’s pharmaceutical legislation intended to modernize the framework and increase patient access to medicines across the EU.

Competitiveness Advantages

• Better coordination between national authorities and stronger support for research and innovation can reduce regulatory fragmentation and accelerate the development and market launch of new medicines in Europe.  

Competitiveness Risks

• More complex reporting obligations and shorter regulatory data protection will ultimately weaken incentives for long-term and high-risk pharmaceutical R&D.

Status

Adopted/Completed

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Simplification of sustainability reporting frameworks such as CSRD and CSDDD to reduce administrative burdens.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Streamlined and clarified ESG reporting rules across the EU will reduce regulatory complexity and legal uncertainty for companies operating in the Single Market.
• Higher thresholds under CSRD and CSDDD and clearer exemptions will reduce disproportionate compliance burdens for smaller and mid-sized companies, freeing resources for investment, innovation and growth.  

Competitiveness Risks

• Unclear guidance on the information and resources companies may use in their due diligence can increase compliance costs.
• Despite simplification efforts, companies can still face difficulties obtaining reliable ESG information from suppliers in their value chains, meaning administrative burdens and compliance complexity may persist.  

Status

Adopted/Completed 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Simplifies administrative procedures for EU investment programmes.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• The Omnibus package introduces targeted simplifications to the InvestEU framework aimed at improving the efficiency and accessibility of EU investment instruments.
• The agreed changes include an increase of the EU guarantee under InvestEU, the possibility to combine InvestEU with remaining resources from earlier EU financial instruments, and simplified reporting requirements for smaller operations.

Competitiveness Risks

• The overall competitiveness impact of the initiative will depend on whether these simplification measures translate into a materially improved ability to mobilise private capital and accelerate investment across the Union.  

Status

Tabled 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Package aimed at reducing regulatory burdens and simplifying compliance obligations for SMEs and mid-cap companies.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Digitalisation of compliance documentation and simplified information requirements will reduce administrative costs for companies operating across the Single Market.
• Simplified regulatory procedures could improve access to regulatory information and reduce compliance friction for SMEs and mid-cap companies operating across multiple Member States.

Competitiveness Risks

• Unclear or inconsistent terminology regarding product categories and regulatory scope can create legal uncertainty and unintentionallyPexpand compliance obligations.
• Additional operational requirements — including direct access to declarations of conformity, accessibility provisions and customer support obligations — can increase compliance complexity if digitalisation measures are not implemented proportionally.  

Status

Close to adoption

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Defence regulatory simplification package targeting procurement procedures and administrative barriers.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Simplification of procurement procedures under the Defence and Security Procurement Directive can accelerate defence procurement and reduce delays in the production and delivery of defence equipment across Member States.
• Reduced administrative burdens and streamlined regulatory requirements can improve industrial efficiency and support the scaling of Europe’s defence industrial capacity.
• Harmonised rules for transit permits, security clearances and export procedures could strengthen the integration and operational efficiency of the European defence industrial base.

Competitiveness Risks

• Regulatory and administrative delays can persist if changes to certification, permitting, security clearances and cross-border movement do not translate into materially faster approval and delivery processes.

Status

Completed

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Simplification of selected elements of EU chemicals legislation, including labelling and registration requirements.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Simplified labelling, packaging and parts of chemical registration procedures can support innovation and reduce regulatory delays for companies bringing chemical products to market.
• Stronger EU-level monitoring and evaluation of chemical supply chains could improve predictability and resilience for critical chemical inputs used in European industry.
• More predictable regulatory timelines — including mechanisms such as “stop-the-clock” provisions for labelling changes — will improve planning certainty for companies adjusting to new requirements.

Competitiveness Risks

• The expected benefits depend on digital and harmonised processes being practical and accessible for companies of all sizes, including SMEs.
• Implementation challenges — particularly related to reporting requirements, data handling and compliance procedures — can limit the initiative’s impact if regulatory simplification is not delivered in practice.

Status

Close to adoption

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Competitiveness Advantages

• More streamlined and harmonised data privacy rules, common templates and a single reporting mechanisma for cybersecurity incidents could reduce administrative burden. Longer reporting deadlines and a stronger focus on serious breaches may further lower administrative costs. 
• A clearer legal basis for processing data to develop and operate AI models,, could improve legal certainty, data mobility and competition, particularly for SMEs.

Competitiveness Risks

• Reporting obligations can remain cumulative across multiple digital regulations, limiting expected burden reductions if companies continue to face overlapping compliance requirements.
• Limited progress in simplifying cybersecurity product requirements can constrain competitiveness if compliance costs for manufacturers remain high and fragmented across legislation.  

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Streamlining of EU energy labelling and ecodesign requirements to cut regulatory complexity while preserving the effectiveness of existing rules.  

Competitiveness Assessment

• Streamlined energy labelling and ecodesign requirements can reduce duplicative documentation and testing obligations for manufacturers placing products on the Single Market.
• More consistent and digital product information requirements will lower compliance costs and make it easier to introduce more energy-efficient products.
• Clearer alignment between energy labelling, ecodesign and related product legislation can improve legal certainty and shorten time-to-market for energy-related products. 

Competitiveness Assessment

• The expected competitiveness benefits will depend on whether simplified environmental assessments translate into materially faster and more predictable permitting decisions in practice.
• Divergent or inconsistent implementation across Member States could preserve regulatory fragmentation and legal uncertainty, while temporary changes to extended producer responsibility requirements may provide only limited relief if they are not followed by a more coherent and proportionate EU framework.

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Streamlining key EU corporate tax legislation, including the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and the Directive on Administrative Cooperation, to eliminate overlapping rules and reduce compliance burdens for businesses.  

Competitiveness Assessment

• Removing withholding taxes on cross-border dividend, interest and royalty payments between EU companies could reduce tax-related frictions and improve conditions for investment across the Single Market.
• Simplifying the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and removing unnecessary restrictions on genuine third-party and market financing may improve legal certainty and access to finance.
• Higher reporting thresholds for online sales could further reduce disproportionate administrative burdens, particularly for private sellers of second-hand goods.

Competitiveness Assessment

• The expected competitiveness benefits will depend on whether Member States maintain the proposal's level of ambition during negotiations.
• The requirement for unanimity in the Council may delay adoption or lead to key simplification measures being diluted, limiting the extent to which companies benefit from more uniform, predictable and less administratively burdensome tax rules across the EU.

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

EU Inc. is a voluntary, harmonised EU corporate legal regime designed to provide companies with a single set of company-law rules for establishment, governance and cross-border scaling in the Single Market.

Competitiveness Advantages

• A genuinely uniform EU Inc. with flexible internal governance and capital structures — including non-par value shares, convertible instruments, different share classes and employee share-option schemes — could help start-ups and scale-ups attract capital and talent across borders.
• Digital-only registration, the once-only principle and proportionate safeguards based on solvency and balance-sheet tests could reduce establishment costs and administrative burdens, while generating positive spill-over effects for cross-border digital company-law procedures across the Single Market.

Competitiveness Risks

• EU Inc. could fail to reduce cross-border barriers if core company-law matters continue to depend on national legislation, creating fragmentation, legal uncertainty and potentially 27 different interpretations, including for directors’ duties.
• Unclear boundaries between the Regulation, articles of association and national law could deter uptake, while a narrowly designed fast-track procedure, restrictive model articles or disproportionate safeguards could increase registration costs and undermine the flexibility needed by start-ups and scale-ups. 

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Initiative aimed at harmonising innovation frameworks and improving access to research infrastructure and innovation procurement.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Harmonisation of innovation-related rules and definitions for startups, scale-ups and innovative companies can reduce fragmentation and improve conditions for scaling innovative businesses across the Single Market.
• Improved access to research and technology infrastructure could strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem by enabling companies — particularly SMEs and startups — to test, develop and scale new technologies.
• Easier access to innovation procurement will further support competitiveness by creating stronger market demand for new technologies and innovative solutions.

Competitiveness Risks

• The initiative could increase regulatory complexity if a new EU framework introduces additional administrative requirements rather than simplifying existing rules.
• Overlap with existing EU initiatives addressing similar policy areas will limit the initiative’s effectiveness if multiple frameworks create additional layers of regulation and documentation requirements.

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Revision of EU procurement rules to modernise procedures and improve market access.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• A single directly applicable EU regulation could create more consistent procurement rules across the Single Market, while a stronger focus on quality, functional requirements and access to negotiation may reward suppliers that invest in innovation, competence and service rather than competing mainly on price.
• Clearer protection of suppliers’ existing intellectual property could support reuse and further commercial development of solutions.
• If implemented through interoperable systems, the once-only principle and improved procurement data could reduce repeated documentation, make relevant tenders easier to identify and lower administrative costs for cross-border bidders.

Competitiveness Risks

• Union origin requirements must be applied in a targeted manner and in line with the EU’s trade agreements and existing FDI instruments to avoid sliding into protectionism, double regulation, higher administrative burdens, and ultimately weakened competitiveness.
• Overlapping reporting and documentation requirements across procurement and sector-specific legislation risk introducing additional administrative burdens for companies.
• Procurement frameworks pursuing multiple policy objectives simultaneously can reduce efficiency if contracting authorities face conflicting requirements and administrative overload.  

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026) 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Initiative to modernise and better align the EU’s product compliance, standardisation and market surveillance frameworks.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• A more harmonised product framework will reduce regulatory fragmentation, legal uncertainty and compliance costs for companies placing products on the EU market.
• Clearer and more digital compliance requirements will lower administrative burdens and make it easier for companies to operate across the Single Market.
• Stronger and better coordinated market surveillance should improve enforcement and help protect compliant companies against unfair competition from non-compliant products.

Competitiveness Risks

• The initiative can weaken competitiveness if it adds new horizontal requirements without sufficiently simplifying or aligning existing product rules.
• Broad or complex digital information requirements will increase costs and legal uncertainty, especially for manufacturers and SMEs with limited digital capacity.  

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026) 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Policy framework to strengthen recycling systems, secondary material markets and circular value chains.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Strengthening recycling infrastructure and secondary material markets can improve resource efficiency and reduce Europe’s dependence on external raw material supply.
• Harmonised rules on waste classification, end-of-waste criteria and cross-border waste transport can create scale for recycling investments and support the development of a European market for secondary materials.
• Investments in specialised recycling systems and circular infrastructure can strengthen Europe’s industrial resilience by enabling recovery of critical materials and reducing supply chain vulnerabilities.  

Competitiveness Risks

• Continued fragmentation in waste classification, transport rules and end-of-waste decisions across Member States can limit the initiative’s effectiveness and increase administrative burdens for companies.
• Poorly calibrated regulatory requirements — such as broad recycled content mandates or extended producer responsibility schemes — can increase costs and distort markets if sector-specific conditions and technological maturity are not adequately considered.
• Administrative burdens associated with compliance, reporting and take-back schemes could reduce incentives for companies to invest in circular solutions.

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Initiative aimed at strengthening Europe’s biosolutions ecosystem by improving regulatory conditions, investment frameworks and industrial scaling of biotechnology used in manufacturing, energy, agriculture and food production.

Competitiveness Advantages

• Faster and more predictable regulatory approvals — including the use of regulatory sandboxes and a clearer risk–benefit approach — can reduce time-to-market for new biotech products developed and commercialised in Europe.
• Improved access to scale-up financing — including proposals such as a European BioScale Fund and stronger use of IPCEI instruments — can help close Europe’s investment gap and enable industrial-scale biomanufacturing.
• Support for biotech clusters, talent attraction and AI-enabled biomanufacturing can strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and improve the ability of biotech firms to scale globally.  

Competitiveness Risks

• Fragmented regulatory regimes and slow approval timelines across Member States will continue to hinder innovation and delay market entry for biotech solutions if regulatory reforms are not sufficiently ambitious.
• Limited access to scale-up financing and complex EU funding procedures could constrain industrial deployment of biotech solutions, particularly during the transition from pilot to commercial production.
• Europe risks losing investment and technological leadership to competitors if regulatory conditions, talent attraction and financing environments remain less competitive.  

Status

TBC

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Initiative requiring COMPET and ECOFIN ministers to assess the costs and benefits of new EU legislation for businesses, strengthening political oversight of regulatory impacts on competitiveness.  

Competitiveness Assessment

Assessment pending – to be assessed once the proposal is published.  

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

As part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034), the fund focuses support on strategic technologies, closing Europe’s innovation gap and strengthening its global market position.

Competitiveness Advantages

• The European Competitiveness Fund will strengthen Europe’s competitive position by consolidating multiple EU funding instruments into a single large-scale investment platform focused on strategic technologies and industrial scale-up.
• An excellence-based EU funding approach can reduce subsidy competition between Member States and strengthen the Single Market by providing a credible alternative to fragmented national state aid schemes.
• By creating a continuous funding chain from research to scale-up and industrial deployment, the fund could help address Europe’s structural gap in translating strong research performance into globally competitive industries.  

Competitiveness Risks

• The fund’s impact can be reduced if negotiations dilute its focus on competitiveness and redirect resources toward regional or cohesion objectives rather than productivity and industrial scale-up.
• Promised simplification may not materialise if approval procedures, reporting requirements and governance structures remain complex, limiting access for SMEs and smaller firms.

Status

Initiative published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

As part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034), the EU’s flagship research and innovation programme supporting cross-border scientific collaboration and technology development.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Expanded funding for research, digital technologies, energy infrastructure and defence-related innovation will strengthen Europe’s capacity to develop and deploy critical technologies.
• Cross-border research collaboration under Horizon Europe can improve knowledge sharing and technological development across Member States, strengthening Europe’s innovation ecosystem  

Competitiveness Risks

• Fragmented governance and weak coordination with other EU funding instruments — particularly the European Competitiveness Fund — can limit the programme’s impact on industrial scale-up.  

Status

Announced 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Initiative to deepen European capital markets and improve cross-border capital flows.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• The Savings and Investment Union can strengthen Europe’s competitive position by increasing the availability of risk capital through deeper and more integrated European capital markets.
• Measures aimed at mobilising household savings may unlock significant private financing for strategic sectors, including green technologies, digital innovation and security-related industries.
• Simplification of regulatory requirements and reduction of administrative burdens will improve investment conditions and increase the attractiveness of European capital markets for investors.

Competitiveness Risks

• Limited progress in improving the overall business environment in Europe will constrain the initiative’s impact if regulatory complexity and administrative burdens continue to discourage investment.
• The proposed measures on fragmentation across national capital market structures will continue to limit cross-border investment if coordination efforts do not sufficiently address structural barriers.
• (DISCLAIMER:  The effectiveness of the Savings and Investment Union is dependent on how ambitious the proposed initiatives turn out to be to achieve the intended goal of increasing availability of finance (e.g. include a Banking Union, an EU savings and retail investment product)  

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026) 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Initiative aimed at strengthening European research and innovation capacity by increasing R&D investment, improving coordination of research funding and strengthening framework conditions for researchers. 

Competitiveness Assessment

Assessment pending – to be assessed once the proposal is published.  

Status

Proposal published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Policy package aimed at accelerating investment in electricity infrastructure and cross-border interconnections. 

Competitiveness Advantages

• Expanding and modernising electricity grids will support industrial competitiveness by enabling greater deployment of renewable energy and electrification across the European economy.
• Accelerated grid investments and improved cross-border interconnections can strengthen energy security and improve reliability for energy-intensive industries.

Competitiveness Risks

• Reopening core electricity market legislation — including the Renewable Energy Directive and Electricity Market Directive — will create regulatory uncertainty if negotiations extend beyond grid infrastructure issues.  

Status

Proposal published

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Industrial policy initiative aimed at accelerating strategic industrial projects through faster permitting, targeted procurement provisions and strengthened foreign investment screening.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Faster permitting and approval procedures will accelerate the deployment of industrial projects and support the scaling of strategic industries in Europe.
• The creation of industrial acceleration areas could strengthen competitiveness by facilitating investment in industrial infrastructure and production capacity.
• This initiative can strengthen Europe’s competitive position by supporting more resilient industrial capacity and more secure supply chains in strategic sectors, particularly where Europe faces growing geopolitical and market vulnerabilities.

Competitiveness Risks

• Union origin requirements must be applied in a targeted manner and in line with the EU’s trade agreements and existing FDI instruments to avoid sliding into protectionism, double regulation, higher administrative burdens, and ultimately weakened competitiveness
• Tighter foreign investment screening will constrain investment flows if the framework lacks sufficient clarity and predictability for international investors.
• The proposal’s reliance on delegated acts for key operational elements will reduce legal certainty if critical regulatory details are determined only after the legislation is adopted.

Status

Initiative published 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

• The fund can help maintain a level playing field for European industry by mitigating carbon leakage risks during the transition away from free ETS allowances and the gradual introduction of CBAM.
• Temporary support can preserve incentives for industrial decarbonisation while cushioning the impact of rising carbon costs during the transition period.

Competitiveness Advantages

• The fund can help maintain a level playing field for European industry by mitigating carbon leakage risks during the transition away from free ETS allowances and the gradual introduction of CBAM.
• Temporary support can preserve incentives for industrial decarbonisation while cushioning the impact of rising carbon costs during the transition period.

Competitiveness Risks

• Administrative complexity and reporting requirements can reduce the effectiveness of the instrument if companies face additional compliance burdens alongside existing ETS and CBAM obligations.
• Weak coordination between the fund, CBAM and the EU ETS could create overlapping regulatory requirements and increase uncertainty for investment decisions.
• Unclear phase-out conditions can weaken long-term investment incentives if companies cannot anticipate the duration and structure of the support mechanism.

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q4 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Update of the EU's Energy Union governance framework to better reflect current geopolitical and regulatory realities, streamline energy and climate planning, and include provisions for the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies.

Competitiveness Advantages

• A stable and predictable carbon pricing framework under EU ETS can strengthen investment certainty for industrial decarbonisation.
• A strong EU ETS provides market-based investment signals that support industrial decarbonisation, innovation and modernization of Europe’s energy system.

Competitiveness Risks

• Weakening the EU ETS can undermine existing and planned industrial investments by reducing the predictability of carbon pricing signals.
• Weak carbon price signals can increase pressure on public funding mechanisms and weaken market-based incentives for industrial decarbonisation.  

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q1 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Revision of the EU energy security framework to strengthen resilience against physical, cyber, and climate-related risks to critical infrastructure, covering both gas and electricity supply security.

Competitiveness Assessment

Assessment pending – to be assessed once the proposal is published.  

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Policy framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy projects by simplifying permitting procedures, designating renewables acceleration areas, and removing barriers to power purchase agreements.  

Competitiveness Assessment

• A stable and progressively strengthened post-2030 renewable energy framework could provide the long-term certainty needed to continue mobilising green investments.
• By accelerating electrification and the deployment of renewable energy, Europe can secure lower energy costs, reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel imports and create a more attractive environment for industrial investment. 
• Recognising the role of sustainable biogas, biomethane, biomass and biofuels would further strengthen energy security and system resilience, providing businesses with a reliable foundation for growth and decarbonisation.

Competitiveness Risks

• A potential reopening of the material provisions of the renewable energy framework would significantly increase the risk of re-regulation or weakening of ambitions.
• Investments in new renewable energy plants are long-term investments primarily driven by private investments. For private long-term investments
  regulatory instability poses a significant risk that could slow down the willingness of private investors to invest in renewable energy.

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Policy framework to reinvigorate EU energy efficiency efforts by streamlining the implementation of existing rules and mobilising investment across key sectors.

Competitiveness Assessment

• Maintaining a binding EU-level energy-efficiency target and the Energy Efficiency First principle could strengthen investment predictability while reducing energy demand, system costs, grid constraints and dependence on imported fossil fuels.
• A whole-system approach combining demand-side efficiency with electrification, waste-heat recovery, district heating and efficient heating and cooling could improve industrial resilience and make the energy transition more cost-effective.
• Harmonised monitoring, interoperable consumption data, streamlined digital reporting and practical energy audits could further support investment decisions and reduce duplicate administrative work. 

Competitiveness Risks

• A potential reopening of the material provisions of the energy efficiency framework would significantly increase the risk of re-regulation or weakening of ambitions. 
• Investments in energy efficiency measures are long-term investments primarily driven by private investments.
• For private long-term investments
  regulatory instability poses a significant risk that could slow down the willingness of private investors to invest in energy efficiency.

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Legislative framework to develop competitive CO2 transportation infrastructure and markets by ensuring cross-border interoperability, third-party access, and regulatory certainty across the CO2 value chain, in support of the EU's carbon capture and storage ambitions. 

Competitiveness Assessment

• Common EU targets for CO₂ capture and storage, combined with an integrated value-chain approach, could provide long-term investment certainty and support infrastructure planning at scale.
• Removing legal barriers to cross-border CO₂ transport, aligning access rules and accelerating permitting could connect industrial emitters with storage hubs across Member States. 
• A strong EU ETS price signal, targeted EU financing and risk-sharing instruments for first-mover projects could mobilise private investment, while a harmonised market for certified carbon removals could support deployment of CCS, CCU, BECCS and direct air capture on technology-neutral terms. 

Competitiveness Risks

• Premature or overly detailed regulation of a still-developing CO₂ market could constrain viable business models and slow market formation. Complex and lengthy permitting, fragmented cross-border transport and access rules, and insufficient coordination between capture, transport and storage projects could delay infrastructure deployment.
• An inadequate carbon price signal, limited public financing or insufficient risk-sharing could leave first-mover projects exposed to demand uncertainty and mismatched investment timelines.
• Over-centralising domestic permitting at EU level could also reduce efficiency where national authorities are better placed to manage project development.

Status

Completed

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Updated EU climate commitments under the Paris Agreement shaping long-term climate policy.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Clear and credible NDC commitments will strengthen investment predictability for companies developing low-carbon technologies and supply chains.
• Long-term climate targets can position European companies for first-mover advantages in emerging clean technology markets. 

Competitiveness Risks

• Higher climate ambition may increase energy and compliance costs for trade-exposed industries if global competitors adopt less ambitious climate policies.
• Competitive imbalances can emerge if international climate policies diverge significantly and carbon leakage risks are not adequately addressed.

Status

Initiative published 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Revision of the EU ETS1 for 2031–2040, covering the future emissions cap, carbon leakage protection, financing instruments and extended coverage. It is the pledge's central mechanism for cost-efficient decarbonisation and for meeting the EU's 2040 climate target.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• A liquid ETS1 fit to meet the 2040 climate target, with a carbon price that is kept intact and gradually increases, provides the long-term predictability that capital-intensive investments require to become bankable.
• Conditional free allocation combined with effective investment plans can make carbon leakage protection an active asset in directing investments and strengthen incentives to reinvest in EU-based activities. Continued benchmark-based free allocation protects EU industry while it faces carbon costs not matched by global competitors.
• The integration of carbon removals and improvements to the functioning of the Innovation Fund combined with the Decarbonisation Fund can create a stronger business case for industrial carbon removal projects, including BECCS. They can also reduce investment risks for projects in energy efficiency, electrification, green fuels and CCUS.

Competitiveness Risks

• The proposed 1.7% LRF for 2036–2040 risks a 2040 carbon price significantly lower than what is built into already made investments. This would damage front-runners' business cases, prevent future investments from becoming bankable and increase the probability of oversupply and future ad hoc interventions.
• At the end of the 2030s, a full impact of the 5% volume of international credits risks weakening the investment signal and increasing uncertainty for the very investors the system is intended to support. These credits will not direct the investment flow towards the EU.
• Conditional free allocation will impose excessive administrative burdens, especially on smaller installations, if requirements are not built on existing reporting processes. The same applies if they do not account for whether companies have real access to clean energy, electricity grids and other necessary infrastructure.

Status

Adopted/Completed

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

EDIP allocates €1.5 billion from the EU budget (2025–2027) to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the European defence technological and industrial base.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Stronger coordination of defence investment, procurement and industrial cooperation across Member States can improve scale and efficiency in Europe’s defence industrial base.
• Support for advanced defence technologies and joint projects can strengthen European defence value chains and reduce dependency on external suppliers.
• A €300 million Ukraine Support Instrument will strengthen cooperation between Ukrainian defence companies and the European industrial base, supporting supply chain integration and industrial capacity.

Competitiveness Risks

• Union origin requirements must be applied in a targeted manner to avoid limiting supply chain flexibility or increasing costs where access to global partners and technologies remains important.  

Status

close to adoption

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Defence package aimed at strengthening Europe’s defence industrial base through faster permitting, simpler intra-EU transfers and procurement rules, and stronger financing via SAFE to scale production capacity and defence investment. 

Competitiveness Assessment

Assessment pending

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Legislative package to reduce administrative burdens in EU defence procurement and accelerate access to innovative and readily available defence capabilities. 

Competitiveness Assessment

Assessment pending – to be assessed once the proposal is published.  

Status

Announced (Commission Work Programme indicative date: Q3 2026)

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Policy initiative supporting coordinated investment in quantum technologies, research infrastructure and industrial deployment.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Coordinated European investment in quantum infrastructure, research and industrial capacity can strengthen Europe’s ability to scale emerging quantum technologies.
• Support for pilot projects, production capabilities and talent development could accelerate industrial adoption of quantum technologies across European industries.

Competitiveness Risks

• Premature or overly complex regulation of a still-maturing technology will slow innovation and reduce Europe’s attractiveness for quantum investment.  

Status

Initiative published 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Follow-up initiative strengthening Europe’s semiconductor ecosystem and supply chain resilience.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• Expanded access to semiconductor design platforms, pilot lines, competence centres, specialised skills and start-up finance could lower barriers for SMEs and scale-ups and accelerate the transition from European research to industrial production.
• Strategic projects, open foundries, faster permitting and simplified State-aid procedures could strengthen production capacity across chip design, materials, equipment, packaging and assembly.
• A Demand Forum, co-design projects and innovation procurement could connect European suppliers more closely with industrial users, while stronger monitoring and a common crisis framework could improve preparedness for semiconductor shortages.

Competitiveness Risks

• Continued fragmentation of EU and national funding instruments can limit investment scale and weaken Europe’s ability to compete with global semiconductor initiatives.
• Complex state aid procedures and slow approval timelines can reduce Europe’s attractiveness for semiconductor investment if project development remains cumbersome  

Status

Initiative published 

Relevance to the Copenhagen Pledge

Policy initiative aimed at expanding European cloud infrastructure and computing capacity needed for artificial intelligence development.  

Competitiveness Advantages

• EU-level funding for cloud and AI leadership initiatives could support frontier, industrial and physical AI and help European providers scale.
• Data Centre Acceleration Zones, single points of contact and permit deadlines of up to 12 months could accelerate investment in computing capacity.
• Common EU cloud-assurance levels could improve security for sensitive public-sector use cases and reduce dependence on individual non-EU providers.

Competitiveness Risks

• Fragmented implementation across Member States will limit the initiative’s effectiveness if interoperability and portability rules are not harmonised and operationally practical.
• Limited availability of competitive energy supply and suitable infrastructure locations can constrain data centre expansion in Europe.
• Overly rigid sovereignty or procurement requirements can reduce competition and innovation if they restrict market access or technological flexibility.