The point of view of organised civil society in the EU Member States on national reform and investment proposals and their implementation (2025-2026 European Semester cycle)

Key points

• Across all Member States, the country-specific recommendations are widely accepted, perceived as generally relevant and aligned with key national economic and structural challenges. However, this acceptance is consistently accompanied by reported shortcomings regarding the translation of these recommendations into concrete policy actions by national governments, as well as the involvement of the social partners and civil society. In addition, stakeholders frequently point to an imbalance in policy priorities: social dimensions, including labour market conditions, wages and inequality, are often viewed as underrepresented across different policy frameworks. This imbalance is seen as contributing to a broader structural democratic deficit in the European Semester, which may undermine both the legitimacy and effectiveness of EU policy coordination;
• As regards the implementation of the RRF, many stakeholders identify gaps between policy design and actual delivery, with implementation described as uneven, partial or constrained by administrative and institutional limitations.
• Stakeholders highlight the limited resources, the heavy administrative burden and the fragmented processes when it comes to monitoring the implementation of the national medium-term fiscal structural plan and the annual progress report. This affects both the execution of reforms and their ability to monitor progress effectively. These constraints are often compounded by insufficient transparency and limited availability of timely and usable data;
• While formal consultation mechanisms exist in most Member States, the participation of social partners and civil society organisations in the European Semester and related EU instruments is widely characterised as insufficient in substance. It is often taking place too late in the process or having limited influence on final policy decisions. This results in a perception that engagement remains largely procedural rather than impactful;
• While the closer alignment between EU instruments, in particular the European Semester and the next MFF, and national policies is recognised as a potential way to improve coherence and effectiveness, stakeholders in several Member States raise concerns about its implications. These include potential impacts on national autonomy, risks to democratic oversight and possible imbalances in decision-making processes, particularly if governance becomes more centralised or conditionality increases.