‘Stop bureaucracy, or it will stop Europe,’ warns Christoph Leitl

Europe’s competitiveness is increasingly centred on one issue: bureaucracy. As the EU rolls out new initiatives, policymakers argue that cutting red tape is essential to unlock investment and strengthen the Single Market.

In this interview with Euractiv, Dr Christoph Leitl, president of the European Business Circle and head of the ‘Stop Bureaucracy’ initiative, assesses whether these proposals can finally translate years of simplification promises into tangible results for businesses operating across Europe.

Leitl argues that Europe must move beyond diagnosing its challenges and focus on practical reforms that reduce regulatory burdens, improve market integration and create conditions for companies to innovate, invest and scale.

EV: As Europe seeks to close its competitiveness gap with the US and China, can initiatives such as EU Inc and the Industrial Accelerator Act meaningfully strengthen the EU’s global economic position by cutting bureaucracy?

CL: They can – but only if they strengthen competition and fair market conditions rather than moving Europe toward protectionism. Europe must be able to respond to distortions in global competition, such as massive subsidies or unfair practices. In this context, targeted measures to strengthen European value chains can make sense.

But Europe must remain clear about its economic model. Our prosperity is built on open markets, strong competition and exports. If policies labelled as ‘European preference’ become too broad or politically motivated, they risk increasing costs and weakening competition.

What Europe needs is therefore smart industrial policy: defending fair competition globally while improving competitiveness at home. That means faster procedures, less bureaucracy and a regulatory framework that allows companies to innovate, invest and scale in Europe.

At the same time, Europe should strengthen a culture of regular regulatory review. Where economically appropriate, new rules could include evaluation mechanisms or time limits, ensuring that regulation remains effective and proportionate while maintaining planning certainty for businesses.

EV: Could the proposed EU Inc or ‘28th regime’ remove key barriers for businesses, or does its very necessity reveal how fragmented the Single Market still is?

CL: The idea of a ‘28th regime’ has real potential because it could allow companies to operate under one European framework instead of navigating 27 different national systems.

But if Europe introduces such a regime, it should aim for a broad and practical solution. Otherwise, we risk creating another layer of legal definitions and bureaucratic distinctions – debates about what exactly qualifies as a start-up, a scale-up or an innovative company.

What businesses need is not another category. They need a simple European framework that works for companies that want to grow across borders.

At the same time, the proposal highlights a deeper issue: after more than thirty years, the Single Market is still more fragmented than it should be. The 28th regime should therefore not replace efforts to complete the Single Market. It should serve as a bridge towards deeper integration.

One point is essential: the 28th regime must not become a symbolic political project. Businesses need practical improvements that make the Single Market work in everyday economic life.

EV: The Industrial Accelerator Act proposes shifting from heavy ex-ante compliance towards more trust-based ex-post checks. Would this genuinely reduce regulatory burdens for companies, or simply change how rules are enforced?

CL: It could reduce burdens – but only if it leads to simpler procedures and faster decisions.

Today many industrial projects in Europe face lengthy approval processes and administrative complexity. If the Industrial Accelerator Act accelerates permitting and streamlines compliance, that would be a real step forward.

At the same time, Europe must be careful that industrial policy does not undermine competition. Public procurement and public funding should remain transparent, competitive and efficient, because competition ultimately protects taxpayers and ensures innovation.

Industrial policy should strengthen Europe’s competitiveness – not replace competition with protectionism.

EV: EU capitals blame Brussels for excessive bureaucracy, while the Commission points to national implementation and regulatory divergence. Who is really responsible for Europe’s red tape problem?

CL: Responsibility lies on both sides. European legislation can sometimes become overly complex. At the same time, Member States often add additional requirements when implementing EU rules or apply them differently. This combination creates the fragmentation that businesses experience across Europe.

Instead of assigning blame, both levels should focus on solutions: simpler legislation at European level and more consistent implementation at national level. Only then will the Single Market function as efficiently as it should.

EV: The Commission’s ‘One Europe, One Market’ roadmap sets 2027 as the target for a fully integrated Single Market. Is that timeline credible from a business perspective?

CL: Deadlines can be helpful because they create political momentum. For businesses, however, the decisive question is not the date but the substance of the reforms.

If Europe manages by 2027 to remove key barriers to cross-border business, simplify regulatory frameworks and deepen capital markets, that would already represent significant progress.

Completing the Single Market is a continuous process. What matters most is consistent implementation and real improvements for companies operating across borders.

EV: Beyond current reforms, what must Europe do to ensure that cutting bureaucracy translates into more investment and stronger global competitiveness?

CL: Reducing bureaucracy is necessary, but it is only one part of the solution. Europe must also strengthen the broader conditions for investment: predictable regulation, competitive energy prices, access to capital and strong innovation ecosystems.

Regulation itself should remain dynamic. Where appropriate, new rules should include evaluation mechanisms and time limits, ensuring they deliver results without creating permanent burdens – while still providing planning certainty for businesses.

Above all, Europe needs a shared political understanding that economic strength is essential for protecting Europe’s values in a challenging global environment. Strengthening Europe’s economy should therefore not be a partisan issue. It is a common European responsibility.

Too much bureaucracy is paralysing entrepreneurship and democracy. Therefore, we must ask these questions now: Is it true that only 12 per cent of the Draghi recommendations have been implemented? Is it true that the promised 30 per cent reduction of bureaucracy for SMEs has still not been delivered? Is it true that more new regulations than ever will be introduced this year?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then Europe faces a clear choice: stop bureaucracy now, or bureaucracy will stop Europe tomorrow.

[BM]