EU budget 2028–2034: contributing evidence before priorities are settled

Understand what is proposed and what remains to be decided

The Commission presented its proposal for a multiannual financial framework 2028–2034 on 16 July 2025, supplemented by sectoral proposals in September. The proposed envelope is approaching 2,000 billion euros in current prices. This amount describes a proposal, not credits awarded to businesses. The Commission's page on the 2028–2034 budget presents this architecture. [1]

As of October 7, 2026, the Council's monitoring describes negotiations, including partial positions on certain programs. The regulation establishing the financial framework requires unanimity in the Council and the approval of the European Parliament, according to the procedure explained by the Council. An agreement on a sectoral aspect is therefore not enough to establish the outcome of all arbitrations. [1] [2]

This distinction must be reflected in the company's discourse. She can defend a priority, participate in a consultation or explain her need for investment. It must not announce that a future scheme will finance its project before its rules, its procedure and the corresponding decision are established.

Start from a problem that goes beyond the company’s project

The temptation is to take the words of European priorities and add them to a commercial presentation. This method often produces an interchangeable folder. A useful contribution rather describes a concrete obstacle: too high a demonstration cost, difficulty in qualifying equipment, lack of skills, fragmentation of infrastructure or lack of sufficiently predictable outlets.

The company must then show why this obstacle cannot be resolved by its decision alone. What coordination is missing? What risk prevents investment? What value would be created beyond the direct beneficiary? The argument must be able to be discussed by a decision-maker who has no commercial interest in the project.

Finally, you must present what the company is ready to provide: planned co-investment, data, experimentation capabilities or contribution to training. These contributions must be distinguished from irrevocable commitments. A conditional scenario remains useful if it clearly indicates the conditions for its realization.

Structure a contribution around five questions

The mechanism must not be reduced to a requested amount. It may relate to access conditions, risk sharing, coordination between programs or the quality of data necessary for a decision. A specific request is easier to review than a general plea for more support.

The file must also set out the rejected options. If a simpler measure could solve the problem, it should be explored. If funding already exists, explain what it allows and what it does not cover. This demonstration avoids confusing the novelty of a program with real usefulness for the field.

Work together without erasing the interests represented

A coalition can provide a broader vision than an isolated testimony, provided that its composition and method are clear. We recommend making its members, its financing, the process of adopting its positions and possible disagreements identifiable. A federation, a company, a university and a territorial actor do not automatically speak in the name of the same interests.

The common base must therefore be limited to what is actually shared. For example, several actors can agree on a need for industrial qualification while defending different financing methods. Presenting this diversity gives the decision-maker more useful information than artificial unanimity.

The procedures must also be coordinated between Brussels, the capitals and the territories concerned. Teams must know what decision they are seeking to inform, at what stage and with whom. Transparency requirements applicable to planned interactions must be verified before implementation; an influence strategy should not be based on the opacity of representation.

Fictional example: a shared industrial demonstrator

Let's imagine several companies and a research center that wish to accelerate the qualification of an industrial process. Their first note requests funding for a new building. After analysis, the main obstacle appears elsewhere: companies cannot reserve enough testing time and the results are not documented in a reusable format.

The contribution is then reformulated around access to the demonstrator, the sharing of tests and the dissemination of non-confidential results. It distinguishes the direct beneficiaries, the expected benefits for suppliers and the sharing conditions. It compares several possible modalities without claiming that a future program will authorize them all.

This fictitious scenario shows the benefit of a contribution based on usage. The real estate project may remain necessary, but it becomes a means within an explicit device. The discussion now focuses on the problem to be solved, the commitments of the actors and how to measure progress.

Prepare an internal mandate before taking a position

The executive team must validate the objectives, negotiable positions and commitments that the company can support. Without this mandate, teams risk having multiple meetings with different requests. A memo to the steering committee can bring together the context, options, missing evidence and the expected decision. [1]

The first set of deliverables may include a short position note, a costed annex, a map of stakeholders and a grid for monitoring developments in the text. Each version must bear a date and distinguish the company's findings, its proposal and the state of the European negotiation.

Support in European public affairs aims to make this contribution useful and coherent. It does not promise privileged access or funding. Its immediate result is more concrete: a defensible position, identified interlocutors and an ability to respond to objections throughout the arbitrations. [1]