European industry is under pressure. Major restructuring is underway, with thousands of jobs being lost. Business leaders complain about a lack of competitiveness. Industry lobbies and their political supporters blame Europe’s regulations. They have captured the European Commission, which is executing their demands with a bonanza of “omnibus” laws that will lead to sweeping dismantling of Europe’s rules and reporting obligations, leaving workers and communities less protected.

On top of this, Russia and the United States have become unreliable trading partners. Donald Trump has ripped apart the veneer of international rules and exposed that “might is right” remains a pillar of our global order.

In that context, the European Union is considering a Made in Europe label, convening a “leaders’ retreat” to discuss this initiative. The proposed Industrial (Decarbonisation) Accelerator Act should establish a preference for EU-made “clean products”, strengthening the EU economy and our autonomy whilst assisting industries facing competitive pressures. This could apply to batteries, cement and steel, as well as clean-tech infrastructures, and would stimulate domestic EU production.

The Commission is struggling to define what Made in Europe means. The Act was initially expected by the end of 2025, then 28 January, and now somewhere in February 2026. Member states are divided. Stéphane Séjourné, executive vice-president of the European Commission for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy, has been a vocal supporter and put together a coalition of chief executives and industry lobbies for an opinion piece supporting Made in Europe, published in several European newspapers on 2 February.

The label matters profoundly. If a corporation qualifies for it, tens of billions of euros of public funds become available. The criteria for this label would then become part of the revised Public Procurement Directive.

Estimated to be 14–15 per cent of gross domestic product, public procurement funds represent around €2.5 trillion annually. The majority of this money is raised through taxes paid by workers. The stakes are high—for all of us.

That is why EPSU—the European Federation of Public Service Unions, representing public service workers across Europe—argues that the industrial logic must be expanded. Access to public funds and public contracts must come with social, environmental, and tax-related conditionalities: respect for labour rights, collective bargaining, fair taxation and climate commitments. These should be written into legislation. Without them, Made in Europe becomes another scheme to channel public money to corporations that deliver little or no benefit to society.

Public money must come with public accountability

Public funds should support companies that uphold workers’ rights, respect the environment and contribute to societal well-being. No public funding should go to companies that exploit European workers and communities through tax avoidance and evasion, overpaid chief executives, high dividend pay-outs, share buy-backs and other wealth-extraction schemes.

These practices leave public coffers reeling from irresponsible corporate behaviour at a time when austerity measures already mean a shortage of teachers, health and care staff. Cuts to public budgets are causing understaffing across public administrations and agencies. Addressing third-party violence and stress at work becomes almost impossible.

Research in the United States suggests around $10 trillion was used for share buy-backs in the last two decades—and that is the lower end of estimates. Dutch research group SOMO estimates that the largest EU companies spent $534 billion on buy-backs between 2016 and 2023. It would be ludicrous to support companies that do not invest in workers and innovation, but rather in overpaid chief executives, private equity and wealthy shareholders who strip our companies—and societies—clean.

Similarly, the EU should not give money to companies engaged in tax avoidance. Estimates vary widely, but a 2015 European Parliament report estimated this behaviour at around €50–70 billion annually, growing to a staggering €160–190 billion a year if profit-shifting is included.

EPSU research estimates that member states could hire one million health workers a year for a fraction of that money. This could address health staffing shortages in the EU, estimated by the Commission to be 1.2 million and growing.

Tax avoidance makes some people very rich. Oxfam released its annual report on global inequalities just before the Davos Forum, showing how wealth inequalities are growing. Several of the billionaires it references run or invest in companies that benefit from public contracts. This includes areas such as technology, where the EU is seeking more sovereignty. Several of those companies avoid paying a fair share of taxes.

A new report on tax and procurement by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) points to Microsoft, Amazon Web Services and Oracle as examples.

The solutions suggested by CICTAR are similar to those proposed by a coalition of EPSU, Fiscal Matters and others. A regime that works for Europe’s people and workers is possible. That is why we must discuss government income when we talk about the use of public funds—and we must discuss taxing the rich. Quentin Parrinello, Gabriel Zucman and others have demonstrated how a minimum tax on very wealthy people can fuel a European transition.

And what if the companies with a Made in Europe label are bought by US private equity or Chinese state companies? The Dutch got a dose of reality when digital service providers Solvinity and Zivver—used by ministries, municipalities and public hospitals for cloud services or secure email, and seen as alternatives to Big Tech—were sold to US firms, along with their public contracts. That is why we have argued elsewhere for public ownership of digital infrastructures.

There was zero reference to these conditionalities in Vice-President Séjourné’s previously mentioned opinion piece.

Made in Europe for people, not profit

A framework of measures to accelerate industrial capacity, competitiveness and decarbonisation in strategic sectors of the EU economy could be worthwhile. Raza and others (2025) argue for a progressive agenda for industrial policy in the EU. Acceptance is key. “Legitimacy thus rests upon three foundations: greater political participation, equitable sharing of burdens and benefits, and effective implementation. A transformation vision grounded in solidarity must guarantee a stable social safety net through to 2050, reinforced by a pan-European public services agenda.”

Europe’s people and public service workers will be hurt if public money is diverted to fill the pockets of those who are already rich.

The funds will no longer be available to improve salaries for low-paid care workers, who are among the lowest paid workers in some countries. That makes implementation of planned EU policies like the European Care Strategy and Council Recommendations on Long-Term Care—which foresee improvements in pay and conditions—more difficult. The same is true for childcare workers. The Draghi report highlighted that improving their conditions is needed, crucially to lay the basis for future innovation, prosperity, competitiveness and well-being.

Across public services—health, prisons, public administration, judiciaries and beyond—every euro lost to tax dodgers is a euro not spent tackling staffing shortages, waiting lists and backlogs. And it is Europe’s patients, children and public service users, including businesses, who will pay that price.

A Made in Europe label must be about companies proudly claiming their products and services contribute to the well-being and welfare of Europe’s people: good pay and conditions, quality public services, social protection, a safe working environment, local content, no harm to our environment, and greater strategic autonomy. If tax money is used by corporations, we expect a return through fair taxation—to fund public pensions and ensure our public services can deliver.

The Made in Europe debate should therefore be a debate on the Europe we wish to see for all, not the few.

This post is sponsored by EPSU