EU budget 2028–2034: making a useful contribution before the decisions are settled

Separate the proposal from the decisions still to come

The Commission presented its proposed Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028–2034 on 16 July 2025, followed by sectoral proposals in September. The proposed envelope is close to €2 trillion in current prices. This describes a proposal, not funding allocated to individual businesses. The Commission’s budget overview explains the proposed architecture.

As of 7 October 2026, the Council’s public overview describes ongoing negotiations and partial positions on individual programmes. The MFF regulation requires unanimity in the Council and the European Parliament’s consent, under the procedure explained by the Council. Progress on one programme should not be presented as agreement on the entire framework.

A company can advocate a priority, respond to a consultation or explain an investment need. It should not announce that a future scheme will finance its project before the relevant rules, process and decision have been established. Internal forecasts and external communications should preserve that distinction.

Start with a problem larger than the company’s project

Adding the language of European priorities to a sales presentation rarely creates a strong policy contribution. Begin instead with a specific obstacle: demonstration costs, difficulty qualifying equipment, missing skills, fragmented infrastructure or uncertain demand that prevents a project from progressing.

Then explain why an individual corporate decision cannot resolve the problem. What coordination is missing? Which risk blocks investment? What benefit would extend beyond the immediate recipient? The argument should remain understandable to an official with no commercial interest in the company.

Set out what the company could contribute, such as proposed co-investment, operational data, testing capacity or participation in training. Distinguish those possibilities from binding commitments. A conditional scenario can inform policy if its conditions are explicit; uncertainty does not make it useless, but hiding uncertainty makes it unreliable.

Answer five questions in the contribution

The proposal should be more precise than a funding amount. It may concern access conditions, risk sharing, coordination between programmes or the information needed to make an investment decision. A specific request is easier to examine than a general argument for greater support.

Explain the alternatives as well. If a simpler measure could resolve the obstacle, consider it. If a programme already exists, describe what it enables and where the gap remains. A new instrument is not automatically more useful than improving access to an existing one.

Build coalitions whose interests remain visible

A coalition can offer a broader perspective than an individual company, provided its membership and method are clear. We recommend identifying its members, funding, process for agreeing positions and significant areas of disagreement. A trade association, university, business and local authority do not necessarily represent the same interests.

Limit the common position to what is genuinely shared. Several actors may agree that industrial qualification is a bottleneck while preferring different funding mechanisms. Explaining that distinction gives policymakers more useful information than an artificial appearance of unanimity.

Coordinate engagement across Brussels, national capitals and the regions concerned. Teams need to know which decision they seek to inform, at what stage and with which institution. Check the transparency requirements applicable to the planned interactions before proceeding. A credible strategy should make representation understandable rather than depend on obscuring it.

Illustrative scenario: a shared industrial demonstrator

Imagine a fictional group of companies and a research centre trying to accelerate qualification of a manufacturing process. Their first paper asks for a new building. Further analysis reveals that the main obstacle is access to testing time and the absence of reusable, non-confidential evidence from earlier trials.

The contribution is reframed around access to the demonstrator, shared testing and dissemination of suitable results. It identifies direct beneficiaries, expected value for suppliers and the conditions for sharing information. It compares possible mechanisms without implying that a future programme will permit every option.

The building may remain necessary, but it becomes a means within an explicit operating model. The discussion can now examine the problem, participants’ commitments and how progress would be assessed. This fictional scenario illustrates policy preparation; it does not describe a funding award or client result.

Agree an internal mandate before taking a position

The executive committee should approve objectives, negotiable positions and commitments the business can support. Without that mandate, teams may pursue different requests in different meetings. An executive committee note can bring together the context, options, missing evidence and decision required.

Initial deliverables can include a short position paper, an evidence annex, a stakeholder map and a tracker of relevant proposals. Date each version and distinguish the company’s observation, its recommendation and the state of the European negotiation. This is particularly important when headquarters outside the EU are making investment assumptions from a European policy announcement.

European public affairs support helps make that contribution coherent and useful. It does not guarantee privileged access or funding. The immediate outcome is more practical: a defensible position, a clear understanding of the decision process and the ability to answer objections as negotiations develop.