France, Germany and Spain are divided over how the European Union should define “Made in Europe” as Brussels prepares industrial rules intended to strengthen European manufacturers and respond to Chinese competition.
The disagreement centres on the European Commission’s proposed Industrial Accelerator Act. The initiative would give products made in Europe—including cars, steel and green technologies—preferential treatment in public procurement, but member states have different views on which countries and supply chains should qualify.
What the EU industrial proposal would do
The Industrial Accelerator Act is a European Commission proposal, not yet final EU law. Its stated purpose is to reinforce Europe’s industrial capacity by giving European-made products an advantage in public contracts.
Public procurement covers major purchases by national, regional and local authorities. Depending on the final text, the rules could influence demand for European electric vehicles, construction materials, steel, renewable-energy equipment and other strategic goods.
The central question is how narrowly “European-made” should be interpreted:
- Should preference be limited to products manufactured within the 27 EU member states?
- Should companies from closely integrated partners such as Norway and Switzerland also qualify?
- Could countries with free-trade agreements or reciprocal access to public procurement be included?
- Should third-country suppliers be allowed to provide critical components when the EU lacks sufficient manufacturing capacity?
France argues for a strict European preference
France is pressing for an approach focused primarily on the European Union’s own industrial base. This position reflects a preference for strengthening production capacity inside the 27-member bloc and ensuring that public spending supports European companies.
A strict model could provide stronger protection for EU manufacturers, particularly in sectors viewed as strategically important. It could also support efforts to reduce dependence on external suppliers for energy technology, transport equipment, metals and other industrial goods.
However, a narrowly defined system could make procurement more expensive or limit access to products and components that are not sufficiently manufactured within the EU. That tension is one reason the debate has become politically and economically significant.
Germany backs a broader “made with Europe” model
Germany supports a more open approach. In a position paper, Berlin argued that the rules should include countries that cooperate closely with the EU and offer European companies equivalent access to their own public-procurement markets.
The German position could cover:
- Countries participating in the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement;
- Countries linked to the EU through a free-trade agreement or customs union;
- European Economic Area partners such as Norway;
- Other trusted partners, potentially including Canada and Switzerland.
German Economic Affairs Minister Katherina Reiche described the principle as “made with Europe”. The approach would recognise the interconnected nature of modern supply chains, in which products may be designed, assembled and sourced across several countries.
Germany’s argument is that an open system could preserve industrial partnerships while still encouraging European production. It could also avoid excluding companies from countries that provide reciprocal market access to EU businesses.
Spain proposes three levels of preference
Spain has put forward a compromise designed to bridge the French and German positions. Its proposal would divide eligible countries and suppliers into three groups.
- The EU’s 27 member states: This would form the core of the European preference and the main focus of efforts to expand production inside the bloc.
- European and trusted partners: This group could include European Economic Area countries and countries offering reciprocal access to public procurement.
- Countries linked through trade arrangements: This category could cover countries with free-trade agreements or customs unions with the EU, as well as participants in the WTO procurement agreement.
Spain’s position also allows for products or components from third countries where they are critical to the EU’s economic security and the bloc does not have enough manufacturing capacity or alternative sources of supply.
Industry Minister Jordi Hereu said the approach would reinforce the EU’s productive base while preserving “open strategic autonomy”—the ability to strengthen internal capacity without abandoning cooperation with international partners.
Italy has not chosen a final position
Italy, the EU’s third-largest economy, has not yet adopted a definitive position. Industry Minister Adolfo Urso said he supported a European preference that remained open to strategic partners.
Italy’s position could become important in negotiations because the country has a large manufacturing sector and is likely to weigh both industrial protection and access to international supply chains.
What happens next?
The proposal remains subject to negotiations among EU member states and the other stages of the EU legislative process. The European Commission’s draft does not become binding simply because it has been presented.
Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union until the end of 2026, is expected to seek a compromise among the 27 member states by December. The presidency can help organise negotiations and build agreement, but it cannot impose a final outcome on governments.
The eventual rules will also need to clarify how origin is established, how reciprocal access is assessed and which strategic products or components qualify. Those technical details could determine how much practical protection European manufacturers receive.
Why the dispute matters for European industry
The debate is part of a wider EU policy effort to improve competitiveness, protect strategic supply chains and respond to industrial competition from China and other global producers.
A strict preference could direct more public-contract spending toward companies based inside the EU. A broader model could strengthen partnerships with countries that share economic or regulatory links with the bloc. Spain’s proposal attempts to combine both objectives.
The final decision may affect manufacturers, public authorities and suppliers well beyond the three countries leading the debate. It could also influence procurement decisions in areas including transport, clean technology, construction and defence-related supply chains.
Conclusion
The dispute over what counts as “Made in Europe” is still unresolved. France wants a clear EU-centred preference, Germany supports a wider network of reciprocal partners, and Spain is seeking a tiered compromise. With Ireland chairing Council negotiations until the end of the year, the next major step will be an effort to find a position that supports European production without cutting the bloc off from essential international supply chains.
