European legislators have proposed sweeping new rules to force strategic industries toward domestic sourcing within three years, but the fine print reveals thresholds far softer than the political rhetoric. The Industrial Accelerator Act arrived on 4 March 2026 as COM(2026)100, complete with an impact assessment and three staff working documents.
The proposal now sits in the ordinary legislative procedure. Parliament and Council have yet to stake out positions, leaving the final shape of these requirements far from settled.
What the Act actually requires
The origin rules differ sharply by sector. Starting 1 January 2029, concrete and mortar used in buildings, infrastructure or vehicles must include at least 5 percent Union-origin content. Aluminium faces a higher bar of 25 percent. Steel, meanwhile, skips origin rules entirely and confronts low-carbon standards instead.
Automotive gets the strictest treatment. Electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles face EU assembly requirements, minimum EU content thresholds for components and specific battery sourcing rules, six months after the Act enters force. Net-zero technologies receive their own differentiated thresholds through amendments to the Net-Zero Industry Act, spanning solar, batteries, heat pumps, wind and nuclear.
The scope follows NACE codes: energy-intensive industries C17, C19, C20, C22, C23, C24, plus automotive C29.
The numbers tell the story
A 5 percent requirement on concrete amounts to a signal, not an industrial policy. Requiring one part in twenty of the material to originate in Europe will not rebuild a supply chain on its own. Aluminium at 25 percent carries more weight, yet still leaves three quarters of the metal sourced from anywhere.
The modesty has a purpose. General derogations apply wherever origin requirements would create insufficient competition, disproportionate costs, technical incompatibility or significant delays. That drafting is sensible. It also opens a large door.
What the Act does not touch
European tech discourse has raced ahead of the text. Nothing in the origin rules covers engineering software, cloud hosting or design tools.
Christina Rebel, chief executive of engineering collaboration platform CAD ROOMS, argues it should. “If Made in EU becomes a condition of public procurement, the conversation can’t stop at the product rolling off the line,” she told tech.eu. “It has to start much earlier.”
That amounts to advocacy, not description. The current draft concerns concrete, cars and solar panels. Rebel sells an alternative: CAD ROOMS is EU-hosted, end-to-end encrypted and ISO certified.
The electronics gap
Rebel’s strongest point carries no commercial interest. Enclosures can be fabricated in Europe or the US. The components inside them frequently cannot.
“The core electronic components simply weren’t available locally, or the European pricing made the final product uncompetitive,” she said.
China’s ecosystem depth explains why. Component suppliers, manufacturing expertise and entrepreneurs operate within reach of each other. The same pattern now shows up in robotics, where China builds 97 percent of humanoid robots shipped worldwide.
The investment screen
One provision merits more scrutiny. The Act screens foreign investments above €100 million where the investor’s country accounts for at least 40 percent of global production in the relevant technology. Four sectors qualify: battery technologies and storage, electric and fuel-cell vehicles, solar photovoltaics, and critical raw materials.
Investors must then satisfy four of six conditions, including a minority stake, an R&D commitment worth at least 1 percent of annual Union revenue, and at least half the workforce inside the EU. The 40 percent test names no country. Nobody needs it spelled out.
The counterargument
None of this builds anything, critics note. Sovereignty cannot be regulated into existence. Yet Rebel’s own capital complaint grows weaker. Cambridge Aerospace raised $300 million at a $3.4 billion valuation for drone interceptors less than two years after founding.
Money follows European hardware now, particularly defence and deep tech with obvious buyers. It still does not follow a €30,000 prototype.
What happens next hinges on three questions inside the legislative process. Will Parliament or Council extend origin rules beyond physical goods? Nobody has tabled that amendment. Will thresholds rise? Five percent survives lobbying; 25 percent may not. And will derogations swallow the rules, letting contracting authorities dodge requirements whenever European supply costs more?
The Act before Parliament concerns concrete, aluminium and cars. The tools that design them remain somebody else’s jurisdiction.
