EESC calls for recalibration of the EU Green Deal to address emerging challenges

Almost five years after it was launched, the Green Deal – Europe’s blueprint for a carbon-free Europe – has seen its implementation become increasingly complex. It is high time for a review of the green transition targets and to ensure they will not be achieved at the expense of Europe’s industrial and social systems, workers’ well-being and the EU’s competitiveness.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has called for a recalibration of the European Green Deal, urging the European Commission to adjust the framework in response to recent geopolitical and economic challenges. While fully backing the Green Deal’s objective of a carbon-neutral Europe, the EESC emphasised the need to adapt its scope and structure to reflect new realities, including energy security and economic resilience.

In the opinion adopted at its September plenary session, the EESC noted that the monitoring and assessment of measures proposed under the Green Deal had so far been neither systematic nor regular. Obligations and rights arising from it have not been adequately presented to the public. This has created confusion for businesses and the public regarding understanding the rules, and as a consequence, with their compliance and enforcement.

‘The EESC agrees that the Green Deal needs to be reviewed and proposes specific areas where it should be recalibrated. It calls on the European Commission to set up the mapping of adopted measures within the Green Deal to avoid overlaps, conflicts and a cumulative burden,’ rapporteur of the opinion, Alena Mastantuono, said.

She stressed that ‘the new EU mandate will have to take into account the broader impact of actions adopted within the Green Deal and correct measures that are going in the opposite direction, while strengthening the competitiveness of the EU economy and maintaining jobs’.

The growing complexity of regulatory requirements linked to the Green Deal is creating significant challenges for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. The burden of compliance is preventing many companies from investing in green innovation, as they are forced to allocate resources to navigating red tape.

In the opinion, the EESC lists examples of provisions that might inadvertently lead to uncertainty and provides concrete proposals for adjusting them. Among other things, the EESC’s list of possible recalibration areas includes the energy efficiency directive, the EU Emissions Trading System, the renewable energy directive III and the regulations on ecodesign for sustainable products and packaging as well as for packaging waste.

Another key challenge to the Green Deal’s success is the significant financing gap that still exists. The EESC emphasised that bridging this gap will require both increased public investment and greater involvement of private capital. However, many financial institutions are reluctant to invest in green projects, viewing them as risky due to limited historical data and uncertainties around returns.

To overcome this, the EESC urged the EU to create incentives for banks to invest in sustainable projects. It also called for better coordination of financial resources, proposing that the Commission establish a one stop shop for the different financing programmes within the Green Deal and promote broader knowledge of European and national funding opportunities through portals that identify synergies between different funding sources.

Another necessity is for the Green Deal to align more closely with Europe’s industrial strategy. The EESC warned that without careful coordination, the Green Deal could jeopardise Europe’s industrial competitiveness, leading to job losses and reduced tax revenues.

The EESC also reiterated the importance of a ‘just transition’, emphasising that the shift to a carbon-neutral economy must be fair and equitable. It called for a framework that ensures vulnerable regions and communities are not disproportionately affected by climate action policies.

Another challenge is the risk of carbon leakage, where businesses relocate outside the EU to avoid stringent environmental regulations. The Committee warned that such relocations could undermine global emissions reductions by shifting pollution elsewhere, rather than cutting it overall.

To prevent this, the EESC recommended that future Green Deal policies ensure European industries remain competitive while maintaining their workforces. ‘The European continent does not lie behind glass walls. The Green Deal must contribute to reducing global emissions, not just European ones,’ the Committee noted in the opinion.

The EESC is proposing that it should be given a more prominent role in assessing the implementation of the Green Deal. As the representative body for civil society, it can provide independent, evidence-based assessments of the progress made under the Green Deal, highlighting both achievements and areas for improvement.

The latest figures from the European Commission show that the EU is not on track for Fit for 55 but for 51, which means that by 2030 emissions can be reduced by 51% rather than by 55% as planned. The EU is also lagging behind in achieving other 2030 targets, with, for example, energy efficiency measures showing a 5.8% reduction in consumption instead of the required 11.7%.