Europe’s renewed push for 'Made in Europe' amidst global protectionism and internal divisions

Two decades ago, the European Commission explored the idea of implementing a regulation requiring products to be labelled as “Made in Europe,” aiming to tap into consumers’ desire for traceability and to leverage Europe’s reputation for quality manufacturing. The initiative was intended to boost sales of European goods and preserve manufacturing jobs amid growing global competition. However, after extensive industry consultation, the enthusiasm for a pan-European origin label was limited primarily to a few sectors such as furniture, luggage, and Spanish ceramics. Many European countries preferred to maintain their traditional country-specific branding, such as “Made in Germany” or “tradition française,” reflecting deeply entrenched national identities and marketing values. Furthermore, international trading partners did not recognise a broad European origin label, preferring clarity on individual countries of production despite the existence of the EU single market.

One of the few surviving examples of this initiative is in the luggage sector, where Samsonite uses a voluntary “Made in Europe” label, though this remains a private sector practice rather than a mandated regulation from the EU.

Now, after a long hiatus, the concept of “Made in Europe” is experiencing a resurgence amidst shifting global economic and geopolitical dynamics. Other global powers have moved decisively to protect and stimulate their domestic manufacturing bases. The United States, for instance, launched extensive measures such as the Inflation Reduction Act and tariff policies aimed at reshoring production and prioritising local procurement, particularly in manufacturing-heavy regions of the country. Similarly, India’s “Made in India” initiative has gained momentum with financial incentives, deregulation, and promotion efforts to boost domestic industries, while China’s “Made in China 2015-25” plan focuses on subsidising key sectors with tax breaks and low-interest loans. These government-led interventions have also influenced the international trade landscape, making new WTO agreements on government procurement less likely to include China or India.

Against this backdrop, the European Commission plans to unveil a new “Made in Europe” policy proposal on 10 December, aiming to empower member states to prioritise domestic products in procurement, encourage the purchase of European-made vehicles and technology, and heavily subsidise strategic industries such as battery manufacturing. While the full details remain under wraps, the proposal is expected to allow greater latitude for member states to support European production both directly and indirectly, possibly through eco-scheme incentives that favour European green technologies.

This approach comes at a critical time for Europe’s industrial base, particularly as it seeks to reduce dependence on China and the United States for essential supply chains and bolster its competitiveness in emerging technologies. Yet, the discussion over “Made in Europe” is poised to expose rifts within the EU. Northern member states, including Germany and others traditionally sceptical of protectionism, are wary of breaking WTO rules or adopting trade-distorting subsidies, viewing such measures as economically unsound and potentially harmful to consumer costs and single market integrity. Northern countries also raise concerns that “Made in Europe” rules might privilege certain countries over others, thus fracturing the EU’s internal market.

Conversely, southern and some eastern member states, grappling with significant manufacturing job losses to Asia and weakened industrial bases, are more inclined to support firm protectionist policies, even if they risk conflicting with international trade commitments. They believe such measures are necessary to halt economic decline and revive domestic manufacturing.

The tension reflects ongoing debates from a decade ago when the European Parliament disccussed mandatory country-of-origin labelling for consumer goods. Back in 2013, the European Commission proposed labelling products as “Made in the European Union” or by specific member states, aiming for transparency and a level playing field. However, the proposal met strong resistance from countries like Austria, Belgium, and Germany, which cited concerns about trade relations and implementation complexity. Members of the European Parliament advocated for mandatory “Made in” labels on imports to counteract competition from third countries, ensuring consumers could make informed choices and protecting European industry. Despite these calls, the policy did not advance, leaving the matter largely unresolved.

Looking ahead, the Commission’s new proposals are expected to undergo intense scrutiny and negotiation within the Council and Parliament. The challenge will be to design a balanced framework that supports European industry without violating WTO rules that prohibit local content requirements and discrimination against imported products. The European Commission is aware of these risks but faces increasing pressure from the global context and internal market realities to act.

The reaction from trade partners remains uncertain. China, which is likely to be most affected, may challenge the EU measures. The US and India, conversely, might not object given their own protectionist policies and diminishing faith in WTO dispute mechanisms.

Industry stakeholders and policymakers will be watching closely as the EU seeks to craft a “Made in Europe” scheme that harmonises with the single market’s legal framework, respects international commitments, and responds effectively to the challenges of industrial decarbonisation and supply chain resilience. For a region whose economy is heavily service-oriented, the proposal currently seems to prioritise tangible goods, particularly in sectors like automotive and battery manufacturing, with limited focus on fostering European services competitiveness outside infrastructure-related fields.

As the Commission prepares to re-enter the complex arena of product origin labelling and industrial policy, the debate will test Europe’s ability to reconcile diverse national interests, international trade obligations, and the urgent imperative to industrially transform for a sustainable future.