Made IN, Made BY, or Made WITH: The Standard That Will Reshape European Supply Chains
Written by Kfir Kedem
A regulation without a deadline is just a suggestion. The EU's "Made in Europe" standard is moving closer to becoming enforceable policy, and the procurement and supply chain implications have not been fully priced in.
We've all picked up an object and seen "Made in China" written on the bottom. Or maybe you even saw "Made in USA" or some other form of the phrase. This indicates a regulated portion of the production was done in the specified country. For China products may be partially produced locally, whereas for the USA, the local manufacturing costs should constitute at least 75% of the production costs. Campaign after campaign, we hear American presidential candidates pushing an agenda to revamp their manufacturing and bring back industrial jobs.
Since 2019, the EU has been promoting a similar trajectory with "Made in Europe." The initial goal was to have European manufacturing be a key driver of productivity and job creation by 2030 by creating a collaborative co-creation process across the continent. Although not yet set in stone, it has been indicated that a "Made in Europe" tagline should be awarded only to products which have been 70% produced in Europe regarding the contents, not the costs. There has been further indication that this standard should mirror the Chinese standard which pushes foreign companies to develop joint ventures with local counterparts when entering the country.
The timing matters. In 2025, the EU advanced the Single Market Strategy and referenced origin labeling as a tool for industrial resilience. Separately, several large manufacturers operating in Central and Eastern Europe have begun quietly restructuring their supplier bases in anticipation of stricter local content requirements. These are not theoretical shifts. They are procurement decisions being made now.
Since coming to Brussels, I have attended multiple EU-hosted events related to manufacturing and every time "Made in Europe" comes up in discussion. The question of cost is a consistent one that comes up. It's true that when compared to what we now think of as manufacturing hotspots, Europe has a higher cost of labor, material, and licensing. So, it is logical to be wary that "Made in Europe" products will result in costs increasing down the value chain all the way to the end customer. Will the individual's purchasing power decrease or will salaries rise as a response and actually increase the European's global buying power?
Another question is how far down the supply chain do we regulate? With the 70% production indication, we can assume that assembly is done in Europe but discussions continuously end up bringing up raw materials and the need for Europe to mine their own materials. Although this would decrease the distance of the supply chain and make logistics more efficient, there would be a major increase in emissions. It should also be noted that not every material is the same, for example iron mined in Portugal is extremely phosphorus which makes it require increased processing and a higher loss rate before usage.
This brings us to another discussion that hasn't been settled which is should it be "Made IN Europe" with the majority of the production done in the continent? Should it be "Made BY Europe" which would be reminiscent of Apple's "Designed in California." Or should it actually be "Made WITH Europe" which indicates a more co-creation approach between Europe and foreign nations as opposed to the focus staying within Europe.
I've seen manufacturing across Europe and I've also seen it leave Europe for lower cost at same or higher quality. I've also seen businesses trying to come into Europe and actively looking for local partners in order to smoothen their entrance. So from my perspective, a focus on "Made IN Europe" with approvals of "Made WITH Europe" should be at the forefront of the standard. It's true that the costs may pain at first but if the entire continent's trade is forced to adhere to such regulation, eventually the overall economy will strengthen, salaries will increase to match, and European industry will regain its power in global trade. The standards should focus on final assembly, tier components, and raw materials where it makes sense.
For procurement and supply chain professionals, the practical consequence is in the design of the standard itself. A threshold set at contents rather than costs changes the negotiation entirely. It shifts leverage toward European tier suppliers, complicates the business case for low-cost country sourcing even where quality is comparable, and forces a conversation about raw material origin that most supplier qualification processes were never built to handle. The companies that will feel this most are not only those who built their cost models around low-cost country sourcing. European OEMs with deeply embedded supplier networks will face their own restructuring logic, particularly where tier two and tier three suppliers cross borders, use non-European raw materials, or rely on processing steps that have long since moved out of the continent.
Sources:
Comments