European Commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) – a BusinessEurope position paper

Key messages

• The Commission’s proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) contains several provisions pointing in a competitiveness-friendly direction, at least in terms of the intentions expressed. However, many aspects of the proposals remain unclear, and some raise concerns. BusinessEurope appreciates the aim to simplify the structure of EU programmes, including reducing their overall number and pursuing a more efficient delivery of funding. The proposal’s emphasis on improving accessibility for SMEs, enhancing stakeholder involvement for competitiveness-related programs, increasing flexibility in resource allocation, and strengthening performance tracking is also seen as a positive step forward by the European industry. Notably, resource constraints, partly driven by the need to repay NextGenerationEU (NGEU) liabilities, mean that the real increase in the next MFF compared to the current one remains limited: in terms of GNI, the funding for the new framework would rise from 1.14% under the 2021–2027 MFF to a proposed 1.26%, of which 0.11 percentage points are earmarked for debt servicing. This raises the need to prioritise resources towards those programs and actions that are more effective in increasing the Union’s competitiveness. Finally, a timely agreement, possibly by the end of 2026, is essential to enable the effective adaptation to the new framework and ensure the prompt disbursement of funding from the outset of 2028.
• On the financing side, BusinessEurope identifies two clear red lines. First, the introduction of new own resources through additional levies on companies, such as the proposed turnover-based contributions (“CORE”), must be avoided, as it would risk further undermining the goal of re-launching the EU’s competitiveness. Second, any potential reallocations of revenues from the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) should be avoided, given the EU competitiveness challenges. BusinessEurope believes that ETS and CBAM revenues should be explicitly earmarked to support the decarbonisation efforts, technological
  innovation and cost compensation measures of the companies that are already financially contributing through these mechanisms, otherwise they would just represent further business taxation.
• BusinessEurope welcomes the proposal to establish a European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), consolidating a range of competitiveness-related programmes under a single rulebook. While the principles of merit and excellence should be safeguarded, it is fundamental to ensure that the ECF leads to the competitiveness and resilience of the EU as a whole and its effects are spread as widely as possible. The next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10) will be governed by a standalone regulation. The total proposed allocation of €362 billion (in 2025 prices), including €155 billion for FP10, represents a necessary increase in resources that should be defended, and potentially reinforced in the case of collaborative research, throughout
  the negotiations. This initiative could provide a vital support to the EU’s resilience and innovation capacity, particularly if the main criteria for allocation of funding are open competition and excellence, privileging the quality and impact of the projects.
• From a European business perspective, cohesion policy remains an important component of the EU’s mission, balancing the needs for convergence with competitiveness. To effectively contribute to EU strategic objectives and regional competitiveness, cohesion policy under the next MFF requires adequate funding, and its funds should be increasingly targeted towards competitiveness. BusinessEurope appreciates, in principle, the shift
  towards a performance-based approach, as proposed in the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), partially inspired by the model used for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which could help increase the effectiveness of funding by linking disbursements to the implementation of specific reforms or investments.
  However, it is crucial that the targets and milestones used by the Commission to evaluate the Plans are closely aligned with the objectives and the geographical context of the NRPPs projects. There are, however, concerns with the impact that the merger of the Cohesion Policy and CAP under a single envelop will have on cohesion, given that these policies do not share the same end objectives. Moreover, under the proposed scheme, transition and more developed regions risk being excluded from any form of support. To ensure results, it is very important that regions and social partners remain at the heart of the process. Strengthening private sector involvement, both in the design and implementation of the funds, would likely contribute to a more impactful cohesion policy. Moreover, BusinessEurope firmly supports the European Social Fund (ESF) remaining a standalone programme, as proposed. The ESF should be efficient and effective, with at least 50% of its resources earmarked for the development of skills and 15% for employer incentives to support workforce training. In this context, we welcome as an important step the Commission’s recommendation of 25 November 2025 for a Council recommendation on human capital. This recommendation has the potential to underpin European semester related investments and reforms to increase the relevance of skills training to the labour market, thereby enabling a significant GDP
  increase in the long run.
• The proposed allocation of €72 billion to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), especially for the largely increased funding for cross-border energy infrastructure and transport network, should be maintained throughout the negotiations, as it would enable a more resilient and interconnected Single Market. However, the risk of duplications and of crowding out private financing is a point of caution, together with the lack of a definition
  for “EU added value” for CEF-T.
• The proposed boosted funding for enlargement and global engagement, with €177 billion earmarked for Global Europe, underscoring the EU’s commitment to its strategic role and external partnerships, should be maintained. The shift to non-binding indicative allocations among the different policy windows, rather than fixed targets, is seen as a positive step toward more efficient resource use, if it doesn’t undermine clarity or commitment stability.