Brussels, Belgium – Concerns are mounting among European food service businesses regarding potential international embarrassment should the European Union fail to effectively navigate upcoming trade negotiations and maintain a level playing field for its producers. The anxieties stem from the EU’s ambitious “Made in Europe” initiative, designed to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, particularly from China. While lauded by some as a necessary step to safeguard European industry, the plan has faced resistance and criticism, leading to fears that a fragmented approach could undermine the EU’s negotiating position and damage its reputation on the global stage.
The “Made in Europe” initiative, unveiled in March 2026, aims to increase the share of manufacturing within the EU’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 20% by 2035, up from approximately 14% in 2024. This ambitious goal is driven by concerns over economic security, particularly in the wake of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which exposed vulnerabilities in European supply chains. The initiative proposes requiring companies seeking public funding to meet minimum thresholds for the use of EU-made components, particularly in strategic sectors like automobiles, green technologies, and energy-intensive industries such as aluminum and steel production. However, the implementation of these rules has been fraught with disagreement among member states and within the European Commission itself, leading to repeated delays.
Growing Concerns Over Implementation and Potential Backlash
Lithuania, initially seen as a model for successful economic development, is now being cited as a potential cautionary tale. According to Eurostat data released on March 6, 2026, Lithuania’s GDP grew by 2.9% in 2025, significantly outpacing the EU average of 1.5% and the Eurozone’s 1.4%. However, this success story is juxtaposed with concerns that the “Made in Europe” initiative, if poorly executed, could lead to retaliatory measures from trading partners and ultimately harm European businesses. The fear is that overly restrictive rules could be perceived as protectionist, triggering trade disputes and undermining the EU’s commitment to free and fair trade.
The concerns aren’t limited to Lithuania. Businesses across the EU are worried that the initiative’s focus on domestic content could increase production costs, making European goods less competitive in international markets. This is particularly acute for smaller and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that may lack the resources to quickly adapt to new sourcing requirements. Some argue that the initiative could stifle innovation by limiting access to the best available components, regardless of their origin. The European Commission maintains that the initiative is not about protectionism, but rather about ensuring a resilient and competitive European industrial base.
Economic Performance and Unemployment Figures
The broader economic context adds to the complexity of the situation. While Lithuania experienced robust growth in 2025, with a 2.9% GDP increase exceeding economists’ expectations of 2.4-2.7%, other EU member states lagged behind. Germany and Finland saw particularly slow growth, registering only 0.2% increases. Ireland led the EU with a remarkable 12.3% growth rate, followed by Malta (4.0%) and Cyprus (3.8%). These disparities highlight the uneven economic recovery across the EU and underscore the need for a tailored approach to industrial policy.
Recent unemployment figures offer a mixed picture. In January 2026, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the Eurozone was 6.1%, while the EU-wide rate stood at 5.8%. Lithuania’s unemployment rate was 6.4%. These figures represent a slight decrease compared to December 2025 and January 2025, indicating a gradual improvement in the labor market. However, the persistence of unemployment in some member states remains a significant challenge. Verslo žinios reported on these figures earlier in March.
The “Made in Europe” Initiative: A Deeper Dive
The European Commission’s proposal for the “Made in Europe” initiative includes specific requirements for companies seeking public funding. For example, electric vehicle manufacturers would need to ensure that at least 70% of their car components are sourced from within the EU. These requirements are intended to incentivize domestic production and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. However, critics argue that such mandates could distort the market and lead to higher prices for consumers. The Commission counters that the long-term benefits of a stronger European industrial base outweigh the short-term costs.
The initiative is also intended to address concerns about strategic autonomy, particularly in critical sectors like energy, and defense. By promoting domestic production, the EU aims to reduce its dependence on potentially unreliable suppliers and ensure its ability to respond to future crises. This is particularly relevant in light of geopolitical tensions and the increasing risk of supply chain disruptions. The Commission estimates that failure to address these challenges could result in the loss of approximately 600,000 jobs in the EU over the next decade.
Potential for Trade Disputes
One of the biggest risks associated with the “Made in Europe” initiative is the potential for trade disputes with other countries, particularly China. Beijing has already expressed concerns that the initiative is discriminatory and violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. If the EU proceeds with overly restrictive measures, China could retaliate with tariffs or other trade barriers, harming European exporters. The EU insists that the initiative is consistent with WTO rules and is designed to promote fair competition, not protectionism.
The United States has also voiced concerns about the initiative, although its objections have been less vocal than those of China. Washington worries that the initiative could create barriers to entry for American companies and undermine transatlantic trade relations. The EU has sought to reassure the US that the initiative is not intended to discriminate against foreign suppliers and that American companies will continue to have access to the European market.
Looking Ahead
The coming months will be crucial for the implementation of the “Made in Europe” initiative. The European Commission will need to address the concerns of member states and businesses, and find a way to balance the need for industrial policy with the principles of free and fair trade. The success of the initiative will depend on its ability to foster innovation, enhance competitiveness, and promote sustainable growth without triggering trade wars or undermining the EU’s international reputation.
The next key checkpoint is the ongoing negotiations between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union to finalize the details of the initiative. These negotiations are expected to be contentious, and a compromise will be needed to secure the support of all three institutions. The outcome of these negotiations will have a significant impact on the future of European industry and the EU’s role in the global economy. The initiative’s success hinges on a delicate balance between protecting European interests and maintaining open and collaborative trade relationships.
What are your thoughts on the “Made in Europe” initiative? Share your comments below and let us understand how you think this will impact businesses and consumers.
Related reading