Von der Leyen needs to be decisive on the EU’s climate action course

The EU could remain a global leader on climate action. But for this to happen, Ursula von der Leyen needs to commit to transparency in green policymaking

World leaders are watching closely as the European Union develops its climate policies. They want to know if Europeans are changing direction; if the global leader in climate action is slowing down in its commitments.

Countries’ external perceptions of EU action will influence how they, in turn, tackle the climate issue—especially in a geopolitical landscape characterised by an aggressively anti-climate US leadership.

Communicate and innovate

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s statement that the EU is “staying the course” on climate action was confirmed in February’s Clean Industrial Deal proposal. This contains important initiatives on financing, innovation support and resource efficiency: but while it brings new momentum to the climate agenda, other decisions are raising concerns.

For example, networks of investors as well as environmental NGOs have described  the commission proposal to weaken sustainability requirements on companies as a backlash to green policies. Forthcoming reviews of other green EU rules, such as the Reach regulation on shielding humans and the environment from potentially harmful chemicals, might also lead to lower levels of protection.

There is a clear risk that lower European standards will affect other parts of the world. If the EU is not able to fulfil its ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, other countries might also take a less ambitious route. As such, Europeans needs to retain their high climate ambitions and effectively communicate their role in environmental protection, for which several innovative companies are also advocating.

Green problem response

For its part, Europe also benefits from being a global leader in climate action, both economically and as part of its soft power. European industry has significant strengths, including electricity grid technology, wind power and in areas of circular economy such as recycling. EU legislation is driving further innovation in these important areas, which is in turn improving competitiveness.

But the EU can do more: to make low-carbon steel competitive, for example, the bloc needs quotas for its level of use in buildings, infrastructure and cars.

Other parts of the world continue to copy EU legislation on, for example, air and water quality and carbon pricing. Several countries are implementing emission trading systems similar to the EU, which creates advantages for European companies that do not have to comply with different global legislative regimes and can influence the standards at an early stage.

In green energy, at least, the “Brussels effect” is still strong. The EU weakening its environmental laws would be detrimental for export opportunities and the overall global green transition.

Challenging China

In addition, the Clean Industrial Deal proposes a “buy European” policy in areas such public procurement—but this risks alienating partners needed by the EU both for the green transition and in other aspects such as development and security.

While the bloc is trying to counter this by pursuing the creation of partnerships with third countries, such as a Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships with South Africa, the EU should do more to support countries’ green industrial development. This could be achieved by developing a separate part of the envisaged competitiveness fund which focuses solely on the EU’s green partnerships outside of its borders.

Chinese companies in particular are challenging the notion that the EU is a global leader in green technology and environmental protection, for example in sectors such as electric vehicles and renewable energy. A main objective of the Clean Industrial Deal is to help European companies in the face of such fierce competition, with several initiatives in the commission proposal including a more strategic use of EU money to promote companies in strategic sectors.

However, weakening green European regulations will not help. On the contrary, mandatory quotas for electric vehicles and other products have been one of the factors behind China’s success. 

Ensuring just transitions

When the EU used the 2024 Eurobarometer to ask its citizens its priorities for the next five-year mandate, climate action and environmental protection remained among the top. But the EU needs to ensure “just transitions”—in which it mitigates any negative societal impacts in its pursuit of a greener economy—to secure public support for its work on climate action and trust in the bloc in general.

The EU needs to ensure “just transitions”—in which it mitigates any negative societal impacts in its pursuit of a greener economy—to secure public support for its work on climate action and trust in the bloc in general

Reducing worker protections would undermine the acceptance of the green transition, such as in von der Leyen’s “28th regime”. The idea, which suggests that EU countries could allow European companies to forgo national laws on working conditions to become more innovative and competitive, has provoked strong opposition from trade unions.

Von der Leyen’s five-year agenda largely builds on Mario Draghi’s “competitiveness” work: several proposals in the Competitiveness Compass and the Clean Industrial Deal, such as increasing investment, are necessary for green and socially just transitions. But this move for innovation means that green policy transparency is also required.

Competitiveness and transparency

As such, the lack of proper consultation and documentation in the Draghi report is concerning. Many industry organisations had an input; the report includes harsh and partially incorrect criticism of the present EU chemicals legislation.

However, the project group did not save meeting notes or emails from the most influential parts of that particular industrial sector. There is also no documentation about Draghi’s contacts with Business Europe and the European Round Table for Industry.[1]

This is part of a wider pattern which has led to the EU ombudsman repeatedly criticising the commission’s lack of transparency in various aspects. In addition, right-wing parties in the European parliament are attacking funding for non-governmental organisations, risking undermining vital support for the green transition. Transparency is crucial for the EU to secure trust both in its institutions and its policies; civil society plays a crucial role in social acceptance of low-carbon transitions.

But populism and disinformation are already undermining support for European integration. If there is policy capture by some business groups in Brussels without sufficient transparency, public support for necessary green action at European level will become even more difficult. Von der Leyen is in the midst of a complicated balancing act: she is trying to reconcile green-deal ambitions from the previous mandate with industry concerns over competitiveness.

*

In contrast to the US, Europeans are not making a 180-degree-turn on green politics. The EU and its member states remains champions of multilateralism and progress on global public goods, such as environmental protection.

Still, many in civil society are worried that the European Commission is now moving in a dangerous direction. “Reducing red tape” is a main theme in the recently launched Competitiveness Compass, but its proposals go much further than simplification with more to come. Von der Leyen should take heed from trade union, consumer and environmental organisation protests and recognise that it is counterproductive for the EU to create further divisions at a time when social cohesion is crucial.

The EU also needs to take citizens’ concerns about climate change and other pressing issues seriously, and consider its own objectivity when faced with intense lobbying. Most importantly, the EU needs to be transparent in its policymaking. It is time to cement Europe as a democratic example for other countries to follow.

---

[1] From the author’s own research