Views: 96
Energy issues are becoming “hot issues in the town” all over the world, i.e. often connected to competitiveness. Hence, it has become currently the Commission’s top priority: thus, recent EU energy report reiterates both the critical need to build a secure and resilient “Energy Union”, and assure to provide clean and affordable energy. The report findings will guide EU energy and climate policies on the path to 2030 and beyond.
Background
In September 2025, EU-wide policymakers and experts were invited to discuss most optimal efforts towards the clean and affordable energy’s goal and how they might fit into increasing growth and into the new industrial policy’s parameters. In a context of new industrial policies being developed by the European Commission, a “shift in focus” occurred from the European Green Deal to competitiveness to dealing with the growing international geoeconomic tensions, to being engaged in essential constructive and multi-stakeholder discussions on industrial policy.
Since the release of the Draghi report in the fall of 2024, competitiveness has become the main theme of the European Commission’s priorities.
However, even the definition of competitiveness remains fuzzy and the narrative around it problematic. In the name of competitiveness, different initiatives are advanced that entail deregulation and backtracking on green commitments; in other cases, some suggestions are calling for channeling subsidies to large incumbent companies, also in the name of competitiveness.
More on Draghi report in: https://www.integrin.dk/2024/09/09/eu-wide-competitiveness-challenges-and-perspectives-in-draghi-report/
Competitiveness, as becoming once more (after the end of 2024) a key issue in European policy, few buzzwords shape the current debate, including the national EU states’ reform programs and/or strategies originating from the European Commission. Growth, stability and future viability are promised; yet the guiding paradigm of competitiveness remains illusory.
Thus, e.g. in his paper (called “The competitiveness obsession: questioning promises of growth”), Patrick Kaczmarczyk shows that focusing on lower wages, lower standards and reduced social spending does not lead to greater prosperity. In fact, it undermines demand, investment and productivity.
For the EU member states, this implies that, rather than being trapped in a ‘race to the bottom’, a reorientation of economic policy is required, he noted.
Source: https://brussels.fes.de/e/analysis-the-competitiveness-obsession.html
Five theses for a productive competition
The “competitiveness obsession’s” analysis is based on five theses and highlights the problems inherent in the “obsession”, setting out ways to achieve sustainable development. At the core of this is high-quality competition, which strengthens productivity, innovation and social stability, and is underpinned by strong collective bargaining, European-level wage coordination, and reduced account imbalances. The opponents argue that only through such an approach the EU-27 can meet modern challenges: from climate neutrality to shifting geopolitical power.
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung publication noticed five key problems concerning the EU-wide competitiveness issue; the publication postulates that:
= First, it is impossible to raise competitiveness across all socio-economic sectors at once: i.e. competitiveness is a relative concept; improving one’s position necessarily worsens another’s. In contrast, sustainable prosperity depends on productivity, which can be increased in absolute terms.
= Second, living standards can be improved only through higher productivity: the EU has focused on competitiveness without adopting a coherent strategy for productivity, investment or industrial development. Long-term living standards can only rise with productivity, so competition must drive innovation, efficiency and structural transformation rather than just cost and wage cuts.
= Third, “fixation on competitiveness” in the EU-wide governance undermines domestic demand; besides, focusing on competitiveness encourages large economies to rely on wage restraint, spending cuts and lower standards, thereby weakening domestic demand. As external trade cannot provide sufficient economic stimulus for the EU, domestic demand must be central to securing stability, prosperity, and resilience.
= Fourth, the EU’s obsession with competitiveness has harmed its economy: e.g. one-sided adjustments, particularly in countries with budget deficits, have slowed investment, innovation, and productivity. Short-term cost cuts have dominated, resulting in weak growth, declining economic dynamism, and long-term harm to Europe’s development capacity.
= Fifth, a better competition, not just more competition, could be the key: low productivity and growth stem from a model that pits states against each other. Instead, high-quality competition based on investment, innovation and structural change — not wage cuts or deregulation — can collectively raise productivity, secure sustainable growth and strengthen Europe’s global position.
Source and citations from Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung “European Union and Global Dialogue report”. 2025. Analysis. “The Competitiveness Obsession”, in: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_256
“Clean and Competitive” Summit-2025
In October 2025, at the Copenhagen’s “Clean, Just and Competitive Summit”, the Commission president “revealed” that “competition policy was one of Europe’s greatest success stories”, with the energy that protects consumers and businesses, as a driver in innovation, and ensuring trust and fairness in the EU-wide Single Market.
But the energy situation in the EU and around the world has changed quickly during last four-five years. Though the EU member states’ companies increasingly compete on a global level, presently, at “times of endless technological transformation”, they need vast investment to stay effective, she added.
Meanwhile the competitors around the world often benefit from massive state support: this is why the EU has to make its continental competition policy fit for a new age. That is, to keep markets open and fair, and facilitate the EU delivering on its strategic goals: one of them is to enable European companies to scale up, to innovate faster and to compete successfully in truly global markets.
However, the Commission says, “the values that drive EU competition policy do not change: it will continue to make sure that the European consumers get the best quality at the best price”. And the EU must also make competition policy work for the member states, so that efficient European companies can become the global leaders, and that innovative efforts can turn existing challengers into progressive solutions for firms to emerge and thrive. Only on these grounds, the EU member states can compete and consequently win in a tougher geo-economy.
Thus, the Commission President already in the 2025-fall acknowledged that “to show that Europe can lead in the clean industries of the future, and that European firms can thrive in an unforgiving global environment…, the EU can build a stronger, more independent Europe”.
However, she added, the general priority was clear: “Europe is in a fight for its future; we live in a world, which is increasingly shaped by power rather than principle, by export controls and disrupted supply chains. A world of intense economic and technological rivalry, where every dependency is weaponised. Faced with a more hostile global order, Europe must act decisively, stay true to its values and become more independent”.
Citations from: https://collections.fes.de/publikationen/id/1886156
Available energy sources are becoming a focal point in competition. The EU energy policy presently (in 2026) centers on accelerating the European Green Deal to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, driven by the REPowerEU plan to eliminate reliance on Russian fossil fuels. Key strategies include boosting energy efficiency, expanding renewables, enhancing grid interconnections, and strengthening industrial competitiveness through the Clean Industrial Deal.
Core perspective points for 2026
= Security and independence: following the REPowerEU plan, the EU’s focus remains on diversifying supplies, fast-tracking renewables, and boosting energy savings to eliminate Russian fossil fuel dependency.
= Sustainability and decarbonization: the EU targets a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, supported by accelerating the deployment of wind, solar, and hydrogen technologies.
= Competitiveness and affordability: the 2026 agenda emphasizes the Clean Industrial Deal to keep energy costs manageable for consumers and businesses while closing the innovation gap with the U.S. and China.
= 2026 strategic priorities: key initiatives for 2026 include an Electrification Strategy (covering heating/cooling), a new Energy Security Package, and planning for post-2030 Energy Union goals.
More in: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/strategy/energy-union/10th-report-state-energy-union_en
Citizens’ initiative
The European Commission has registered a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) at the end of January 2026, entitled ‘Stop Funding Russia’s War: Phase Out Harmful and Useless Russian Imports into the EU’. The initiative invites the Commission “to propose firm, immediate measures to end the EU’s remaining import dependencies on Russia and Belarus by introducing sectoral bans or decisive phase-outs”. To this end, the organisers indicate that the “objective is to stop the flow of EU funds to the Russian state, eliminate structural vulnerabilities in critical supply chains and reinforce a coherent and values-based trade policy”.
As this initiative fulfils the formal conditions established in the relevant legislation, the Commission considers it legally admissible under the European Citizens’ Initiative Regulation. The Commission has not analysed the substance of the proposals at this stage. The registration does not influence the Commission’s final decision on its merits, or any potential action it may take. The Commission will take a decision on the initiative only if it collects at least one million signatures from EU citizens.
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_251
However, the opponents often reveal some other points; thus:
= First, the present Russian “war economy” can survive through already several (about twenty) the EU and the world-wide sanctions. Hence, Russian GDP is still on par with the EU member states’ level.
= Second, limiting and/or abandoning fossil fuel (cheap gas and oil) import doesn’t, actually, seriously affected the economy and the “war machine”. Even in the present world, the major source in the energy mix is still based on fossil fuels: on global accounts, fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) still dominate in the world-wide energy structures, accounting for approximately 80 percent of total primary energy consumption (the 2023-24 data). Despite rapid growth in renewables, fossil consumption reached a record high of 505 exajoules: key trends include peaking usage in advanced economies, while demand in emerging economies (led by China/India) continued rising.
Source: https://www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description
= Third, the dramatic EU’s shift to “green energy”, although a definitely positive step on all accounts (specifically, in climate mitigation and in the sustainability directions), still has had an extremely negative effect in the EU states, reducing the GDP growth almost to zero.
thanks for this