Related items

This blog is authored by Malte Lohan, CEO, AmCham EU.

What exactly is ‘single’ about a market where the same product needs different national markings, a cyber incident can require dozens of reports and a professional qualification may stop being recognised at the border?

These examples come from different sectors, but they point to the same contradiction. The EU creates common rules, yet companies still encounter national requirements that divide Europe into separate markets in practice.

The stakes are high for American companies invested in Europe. The United States is the largest single source of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) into the EU. In 2025, American companies invested more in Europe (53%) than they did the rest of the world combined. This has been the case for decades. Much of this appeal lies in the promise of a large, prosperous Single Market.

Yet there are signs that this position is coming under pressure. While Europe remains the leading destination for US investment, its share of total US outward FDI has fallen to its lowest level in more than four decades. More recent indicators point in the same direction too. EY’s 2026 European Investment Monitor found that 943 US companies invested in Europe last year, 16% below the annual average of 1,124 over the previous five years. To reverse these trends, Europe needs to make itself a more attractive place to invest, beginning with a more integrated Single Market.

That is why the simplification agenda cannot lose steam – in Brussels and national capitals. In her September State of the Union address, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted the need for EU-wide coordination. ‘Simplification cannot be a one-way street’, she said. ‘All levels have to have skin in the game’.

As EU leaders check in on progress under the ‘One Europe, One Market’ roadmap at this week’s European Council meeting, they should look closely at how national choices affect companies operating across borders. That means addressing three related but distinct problems: gold-plating, uneven implementation and the national barriers that continue to fragment the Single Market.

At RAID 2026, Thibaut L’Ortye, Chief Policy and Public Affairs Officer, AmCham EU joined a panel discussion on EU-US regulatory approaches to technology. Taking place on Tuesday, 29 September 2026, the discussion explored how transatlantic cooperation can focus on shared outcomes rather than identical rulebooks, including on cybersecurity, AI safety, consumer protection and resilient supply chains. Mr L’Ortye also highlighted the wider conditions needed to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.

"Gold-plating" of EU legislation has become a structural challenge for companies operating across the Single Market. While Member States are often permitted to introduce additional national measures when implementing EU law, these divergences frequently create fragmented compliance requirements, administrative burdens and increased costs for businesses.

Drawing on examples from AmCham EU member companies across digital policy, cybersecurity, data protection, telecommunications, environmental regulation, consumer protection, tax transparency and labour law, the paper shows how national additions to EU rules can result in parallel compliance systems, duplicate reporting obligations, country-specific product adaptations and barriers to cross-border operations.

The paper highlights four key findings:

• Divergence between Member States is often a bigger cost driver than any single regulatory requirement.

• Fragmentation extends beyond directive transposition and also arises through opening clauses, national guidance, administrative practices and regional measures.

• Minimum-harmonisation legislation can still create significant Single Market fragmentation.

• Gold-plating occurs at both national and sub-national levels.

The European Commission should address these issues through greater consistency in implementation, increased transparency around national additions, reduced duplication in reporting and registration requirements, stronger implementation dialogue and the use of Single Market enforcement tools where appropriate. The objective is not to remove legitimate national discretion, but to prevent unnecessary regulatory barriers within the Single Market.