AmCham EU has joined eight industry associations to propose several ways to increase the Foreign Subsidies Regulation’s (FSR) proportionality and efficiency. Two years after its entry into force, the FSR has proven overly burdensome, impacting investment decisions and creating uncertainty for companies operating in the EU. The current scope requires excessive data collection and complex filings, diverting resources from growth and innovation. The coalition urges the European Commission to refine the FSR to focus on truly distortive subsidies, streamline procedures and strengthen data protection. Learn how targeted adjustments to the FSR can safeguard fair competition while boosting Europe’s competitiveness in the joint industry statement

The Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) is designed to support fair competition in the EU, but after two years of use it has become more complex and demanding than expected. Companies face heavy reporting requirements, unclear procedures and rising compliance costs, which risk slowing investment and creating uncertainty. To keep Europe competitive, the framework needs to be more focused, balanced and easier to apply. Clearer rules and a more proportionate approach would help ensure the system works as intended. Learn how these improvements can strengthen the FSR and support a more predictable business environment.

On Tuesday, 25 November, AmCham EU hosted Miguel Gil Tertre, Head of Cabinet and Thomas Woolfson, Member of Cabinet to Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera, for an exchange with our Board on Europe’s economic agenda. The discussion explored priorities for strengthening Europe’s competitiveness, ensuring a well-functioning Single Market and advancing effective transaction screening. With US companies closely integrated into the EU economy, a shared commitment to boosting investment and innovation remains essential.

European policymakers are increasingly focused on strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy, reducing strategic dependencies and building greater resilience across critical sectors. This drive is rooted in legitimate concerns about ensuring access to essential goods, increasing the diversity of supply chains and enhancing the EU’s ability to respond to geopolitical and economic challenges. As the EU seeks to address these challenges, its core objective should be to leverage its extensive partnerships and use smart incentives to support the bloc’s long-term competitiveness and security.

Lawmakers are actively considering ways that ‘Made in Europe’ criteria could support these objectives in virtually any process requiring clearance, approval or an auction. Global examples of domestic preference and non-price criteria demonstrate two things. First, if they are designed poorly, they could reduce competitiveness, simplification and resilience. However, they also demonstrate that if they are designed well, they can maximise the value of allies’ economic participation and improve the functioning of the processes they are applied to.

The US’s various ‘Buy America’ programmes provide a useful case study for assessing the risks of different ‘Made in Europe’ regimes. While US procurement and funding programmes with ‘Buy America’ provisions are generally open to foreign-headquartered participants (and actively encourage their participation), they also bring certain categories of risk that should be considered before bringing them to the EU.

If ‘Made in Europe’ effectively excludes firms headquartered in the US and other allied nations, including EU-based subsidiaries of US-headquartered firms, the EU risks introducing more complexity into European public procurement markets and funding programmes. This would ultimately diminish competition and the quality of products and services, while increasing costs and elevating trade tensions that may decreasing the market access of EU-headquartered companies abroad. At a time when the EU is facing urgent competitiveness challenges, policymakers should avoid pursing reactive security and resilience policies that would undermine the EU’s competitiveness goals.

However, if thoughtfully implemented, certain ‘Made in Europe’ regimes could leverage the EU’s Single Market and international partnerships to improve the EU’s competitiveness and resilience.

This year’s Annual Competition Policy Conference, Cutting through the noise to shape effective competition policy, took place on Thursday, 17 October. The event examined how competition policy can contribute to economic resilience and strategic influence amidst growing global uncertainty. Maggy Peeters, Director of Communications and Outreach, and Angélique de Brousse (Johnson & Johnson), Chair, Competition Policy Committee, AmCham EU opened the conference by underscoring the role of competition policy in shaping Europe’s industrial and geopolitical future. 

The first panel explored how geopolitical developments are influencing industrial strategies and the evolving role of competition tools. Astrid Cousin, Head of Unit, Commission Priorities and Strategic Coordination, Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission, discussed how competition policy is adapting to meet the EU’s broader strategic and industrial objectives. Miriam Lexmann, MEP (EPP, SK) emphasised the need for measured policy tools rooted in both security and shared democratic values. Representing the technology sector, Alexandre Roure, Head of Policy, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), highlighted the importance of fair, transparent and predictable policy frameworks for competitiveness and growth. With the guidance of Zach Meyers, Research Director, Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE), the discussion addressed the future of competition policy. 

Following a coffee break, the audience heard a fireside chat between Natalie Harsdorf, Director-General, Federal Austrian Competition Authority and Martijn Snoep, Chairman, Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets. The discussions looked at Austria and The Netherlands’ approaches to anti-competitive subthreshold transactions and reflected on how regulators are adapting their approaches to meet emerging industrial challenges while retaining certainty for investors. Moderated by Nicholas Hirst, Chief Correspondent, EU Competition, MLex, the conversation explored the interplay between certainty and adaptability in merger control. 

Offering an industry perspective, Sharon Marshall, Director, Europe, the Middle East and Africa Partnerships, Google, stressed that effective competition policy should drive innovation and facilitate collaborative partnerships. The conversation, moderated by Thibaut L'Ortye, Senior Director of Public Affairs, AmCham EU, highlighted the significant influence competition rules have on shaping markets. 

The final panel focused on reinforcing EU-US cooperation in competition enforcement. Inge Bernaerts, Director, Policy and Strategy, Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission, emphasised the continued importance of collaboration around shared visions and values between regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Kevin Buckley, Vice-President, Global Government Affairs, Johnson & Johnson, highlighted the private sector’s need for predictability and standards to support innovation. Philip Lowe, Senior Advisor, Kekst CNC, reflected on mutual lessons to be drawn from the European and US approaches to enforcement, including the value of the Single Market as a driver of growth and prosperity. Moderated by Natalie McNelis, Bureau Chief, Mergermarket/PaRR, the panel reaffirmed the continued importance of transatlantic alignment and the Single Market to foster economic resilience and competitiveness. 

Thank you to everyone who attended, as well as our Premium sponsor Google and our Media Partner MLex.