The Industrial Accelerator Act aims to support Europe’s reindustrialisation by simplifying permitting procedures, creating lead markets for low-carbon products and attracting strategic investments. Its effectiveness will depend on clear implementation, legal certainty and the ability to reconcile industrial ambition with investment attractiveness, labour shortages and the complexity of global value chains
The Industrial Accelerator Act should also be assessed against the broader objective set by the European Commission of increasing manufacturing’s contribution to EU GDP from approximately 14% today to 20% by 2035. This target reflects a growing awareness that a strong industrial base is essential not only for Europe’s competitiveness, but also for its strategic autonomy, innovation capacity and green transition.
To help close this gap, the Commission proposes a combination of measures aimed at improving investment conditions and strengthening demand for European industrial production. The package is built around three main pillars: faster permitting procedures, the creation of lead markets for low-carbon products and a dedicated framework for large strategic investments. Among the key measures are digital one-stop shops and streamlined authorisation processes, “Made in Europe” criteria in public procurement and support schemes, as well as specific conditions for non-EU investments exceeding €100 million in sectors where third-country firms hold a significant share of global production capacity.
While the overall direction is welcomed, some aspects of the proposal generate concern. In particular, the conditions attached to strategic investments above €100 million raise questions about the balance between industrial policy objectives and investment attractiveness. Minimum EU workforce requirements are intended to maximise the local benefits of major projects, but can such provisions effectively support reindustrialisation without discouraging investment? More fundamentally, can Europe simultaneously seek to expand its industrial base while many sectors continue to face persistent labour and skills shortages? Similar questions arise regarding the proposed “Made in Europe” criteria. Success will depend not only on the ability of implemented Union preference production without creating unnecessary trade frictions or undermining the efficiency of globally integrated value chains.
By contrast, the permitting pillar remains one of the strongest components of the package. The introduction of one-stop shops, simplified procedures and clearer timelines directly addresses a long-standing concern of European industry. Yet even here, the final impact will largely depend on implementation. In particular, the way Member States identify and designate Industrial Manufacturing Acceleration Areas is likely to determine whether the new framework succeeds in translating regulatory simplification into concrete industrial investment on the ground. By assessing common environmental and planning requirements at cluster level, such a model could provide greater regulatory certainty, reduce administrative overlaps and facilitate the expansion of industrial activities within established manufacturing ecosystems. To fully deliver these benefits, however, the framework should be applied across the entire industrial value chain and provide clear guidance on its interaction with existing sector-specific authorisation regimes, including those required under the Industrial Emissions Directive. Greater legal certainty is also needed to ensure that already developed industrial sites can be designated as acceleration areas and that investments aimed at modernising, upgrading or extending existing facilities can benefit from the envisaged simplifications. These concerns have also been highlighted in a joint statement issued by Eurochambres together with a broad coalition of European industrial, business and energy organisations, which called for a more coherent and predictable permitting framework capable of accelerating industrial investment while preserving regulatory clarity across the Union. Without such clarifications, there is a risk that one of the proposal’s most effective instruments may fall short of its intended impact.