Industrial Accelerator Act: will it deliver for European industry?

The Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) aims to support industrial transformation, strengthen strategic value chains, and accelerate the deployment of low-carbon technologies, but its implications and impact across different sectors raise concerns.

This was the focus of the debate on "Unpacking the Industrial Accelerator Act: A Sectoral Exchange" hosted by the EESC Employers' Group with representatives from key industrial stakeholders: Axel Eggert, Director General of the European Steel Association (EUROFER); Koen Coppenholle of Chief Executive of Cement Europe; Maria Linkova-Nijs, Executive Head of the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA); Paul Voss, Director General at European Aluminium; and Alberto Mazzola, CCMI coordinator of the EESC Employers' Group delegates.

While recognising the strategic need for an EU Industrial Accelerator Act, the discussion identified a core risk: without real simplification, it may become an “Administrative Act” rather than an industrial accelerator. Heavy compliance and reporting burdens risk stifling impact, while excessive reliance on delegated acts creates uncertainty. Although permitting is addressed, concerns remain as to whether the Industrial Accelerator Act is ambitious enough in practice. Without tackling structural drivers, above all high energy costs, the proposal may fall short on competitiveness and the green transition.

Methodology and administrative burden

A first central theme concerns the lack of definitional clarity and methodological precision. Across sectors – automotive, steel, cement, and aluminium – participants emphasised that key concepts such as “low-carbon” materials and “Made in Europe” criteria remain inadequately specified. This creates a structural uncertainty that undermines both compliance feasibility and investment planning. The extensive reliance on delegated acts was widely criticised, not only for generating legal uncertainty but also for shifting essential elements of the framework outside the direct control of co-legislators.

Panellists also agreed on the risk of excessive administrative burden. While the objective of stimulating demand for low-carbon industrial products is broadly supported, stakeholders warned that complex reporting, compliance, and certification requirements could transform the instrument into a bureaucratic exercise rather than an effective market-shaping tool. This concern is particularly acute given the capital-intensive nature of the sectors concerned and the need to ensure rapid deployment of decarbonisation investments.

Sector-specific realities

There is also a fundamental tension between horizontal regulatory design and sector-specific realities. Several interventions stressed that the IAA tends to treat heterogeneous industrial ecosystems uniformly, despite significant differences in exposure to public procurement, global competition, and cost structures. This raises doubts about whether the instrument can effectively address the specific needs of distinct sectors, particularly those most exposed to international competition or reliant on public demand.

In addition, demand-side instruments alone are insufficient to restore competitiveness. In this respect, the IAA was criticised for addressing symptoms rather than underlying drivers. The absence of a fully integrated approach linking industrial policy with energy, trade, and competition policy was seen as a major limitation.

International dimension and governance 

Regarding the scope of the IAA, the international dimension emerged as a critical concern. Several speakers underlined that competing jurisdictions deploy more assertive and coherent industrial strategies, often combining local content requirements, subsidies, and simplified regulatory frameworks. By contrast, the EU approach was characterised as fragmented and hesitant, attempting to reconcile openness with strategic autonomy without fully resolving the inherent trade-offs. This creates a structural disadvantage for EU industry, particularly in sectors facing heavily subsidised global competitors.

Furthermore, speakers raised questions about governance and institutional competence. The extensive use of delegated acts, the limited legal basis for a comprehensive industrial policy in the Treaties, and the lack of coordination among Member States were all identified as structural constraints. These governance issues contribute to regulatory complexity and weaken the credibility and effectiveness of the proposed instrument.

Conclusion

Overall, while the IAA is broadly welcomed as a step in the right direction, the overall assessment is that it falls short of creating strong and credible market signals. In particular, it does not sufficiently guarantee demand for low-carbon industrial products produced in the EU, nor does it adequately address the cost gap associated with decarbonisation. The risk is therefore that the instrument remains symbolic rather than transformative.

The effectiveness of the IAA will depend on substantial revisions. These include clarifying core definitions, limiting reliance on delegated acts, simplifying administrative requirements, and embedding the instrument within a broader, coherent industrial strategy that addresses energy costs, financing conditions, and global competitive distortions. Without such adjustments, the IAA risks failing to deliver on its central objective of strengthening European industrial competitiveness while supporting the green transition.