ONE WORD THAT CHANGES DOCTRINE. THE QUIET BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRY

At the beginning of March, the European Commission unveiled the Industrial Accelerator Act, a regulation set to change the rules of the game in European industry. It sounds serious, and right from the start, Commission Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné did not mince words: he declared a change of doctrine and stated that “Made in Europe” was entering EU law. But before we heard that declaration, a quiet yet fundamental battle had already been fought not over paragraphs, but over two words.

For weeks before the Act’s publication, two competing visions circulated in Brussels: “Made in Europe” – produce in the EU or forget about public money, and “Made with Europe” build alongside European partners, even if the factory sits in Asia or any other part of the world that is not Europe. The difference may appear semantic, but it absolutely is not. The choice between these two slogans determined whether billions of euros in public procurement representing over 14% of the Union’s GDP would stay in Europe or flow into global value chains.

Narrative precedes legislation

A mechanism known from theory, but rarely encountered in such a pure form: narrative framing that does not merely describe policy, but co-creates it. Before Séjourné presented any legislation, he published an op-ed co-signed by over a thousand CEOs, deploying the phrase “Made in Europe.” This was no accident. It was a deliberate move to set the playing field and – to stay with the sports terminology – press the opponents: anchoring the public debate around a specific frame that made it harder which made it difficult to later dilute the proposal. The Brussels-based think tank Bruegel responded with counter-framing, advocating for “Made with Europe” — an approach open to trusted trade partners.

Alliances formed around words

Member States took positions immediately and they did so along narrative lines, not just economic ones. Germany promoted the “Made with Europe” variant, consistent with the interests of its export-import industrial model. The Nordic-Baltic group: Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands – warned that European preference would add yet another layer of regulation. Poland, Hungary, Belgium, and Italy supported a sector-specific approach, but crucially, they accepted the very idea of preference.

In other words: when the debate was about “whether Made in Europe,” the key question was a binary yes-or-no on protectionism. But once Séjourné shifted the debate to “how Made in Europe,” the question changed from existential to technical. Opponents had to negotiate scope, not essence. Whoever defines the question controls the answer.

What this means for Central Europe

For businesses and institutions across the CEE region, this doctrinal shift carries a double significance. First, the IAA creates real opportunities. If public procurement must buy “European,” then countries with competitive labour costs and a growing industrial base become natural beneficiaries provided they can position themselves effectively within the legislative process in the EU Council and the European Parliament.

Second, the IAA introduces hard conditions for foreign investments exceeding €100 million in strategic sectors: joint ventures, technology transfer, and a minimum 50% European employment threshold. For CEE countries that have long attracted FDI primarily through lower costs, this is a moment of redefinition. It is no longer enough to be a cheap location. You must be a European location with added value.

Europe learns to say “we”

The Industrial Accelerator Act should not be viewed merely as an industrial regulation. It is a moment in history when the European Union so often criticised for indecision and an instinct for compromise chose to deliver an unambiguous message.

In a world where the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars on the Inflation Reduction Act, and China subsidises its industry by several percentage points of GDP each year, Europe for years responded mainly with reports and endless consultations that, in the eyes of critics, mostly provoked ridicule. Now it has responded with a slogan that deliberately leaves no room for ambiguity. “Made in Europe” is not just a procurement preference. It is perhaps the declaration of a much-needed new identity, a new narrative.

Whether this declaration will survive negotiations in the Council and Parliament is another story. But the very fact that the Commission chose the language of doctrine over the language of compromise says more about the direction of European policy than any single paragraph of this Act.