Peeling back the label on a 'Made in Europe' policy

What stood out was not just the diversity of perspectives in the room, but the convergence around a single, deceptively simple idea: 'Made in Europe'.

It was not discussed as a slogan or branding exercise. Instead, it emerged as a strategic question, one that cuts to the core of Europe’s energy transition. What does 'Made in Europe' actually mean in a system that is increasingly digital, interconnected and geopolitically exposed?

As the EU advances initiatives such as the Industrial Accelerator Act, the debate is clearly evolving. The focus is shifting away from the traditional notion of manufacturing origin and towards something far more consequential: control. Not just of physical assets, but of the layers that truly define modern energy systems: design, software, data, and critical components.

Tomás Llobet, Managing Director at ESMIG, captured this nuance during the discussions: “The Industrial Accelerator Act is an important opportunity for the EU to strengthen its industrial base. But if ‘Made in Europe’ criteria are reduced to where a product is finally assembled, it risks missing the strategic objective.” His point reflects a broader concern; that Europe may win the label, but lose control over the technologies that underpin its infrastructure.

This distinction becomes even more critical as energy systems digitalise. The grid is no longer just a physical network; it is a complex, software-driven ecosystem. In this context, cybersecurity cannot be treated as a purely technical issue. It is also economic and geopolitical. As Llobet noted, dependencies on external suppliers, particularly those backed by states with differing strategic interests, can create long-term vulnerabilities for Europe’s critical infrastructure.

At the same time, there is a growing sense among industry stakeholders that openness must be matched with fairness. European companies often face barriers when accessing third-country markets, while competing domestically with heavily supported foreign players. The question of reciprocity in public procurement is therefore gaining traction not as protectionism, but as a matter of balance.

None of this suggests that Europe should retreat from global markets. Openness remains a cornerstone of the European project. However, there is increasing recognition that openness without strategy can lead to dependency. A more deliberate approach is needed. One that safeguards resilience while maintaining competitiveness and innovation.

In this light, 'Made in Europe' is less about geography and more about governance. It is about who designs the systems, who maintains them, who updates them, and ultimately, who controls them.

As the concept gains momentum, the challenge for policymakers will be to define it in a way that is both meaningful and actionable. Because the real question is no longer where things are made, but who holds the keys.

And perhaps more importantly: how far should Europe go in defining and protecting 'Made in Europe' in its energy systems?

What do you think?