EU ‘Buy European’ Procurement Plan: What the Proposed 50% Content Rule Could Change

Public procurement is becoming a more explicit tool of EU industrial and economic-security policy. A draft Public Procurement Act, expected to be presented on 9 September after an earlier timetable slipped, would consolidate the EU’s procurement framework and give public authorities more latitude to account for supply-chain origin, reciprocity and strategic dependence. The proposal remains subject to change—and would still need agreement from EU lawmakers before it can take effect. 1719

The core change: one EU regulation instead of three directives

The reported draft would repeal and replace the three main 2014 procurement directives covering public-sector procurement, utilities and concessions with a single regulation. Unlike a directive, a regulation applies directly across EU member states rather than requiring each country to transpose it into national law. The stated direction of the wider revision is a more consistent framework, simpler procedures and stronger tools for economic security and sovereignty. 18

That matters to suppliers as much as public buyers: a single rulebook could reduce variation in national implementation, but it would also make EU-level procurement conditions more consequential across the bloc.

What “Buy European” would mean in practice

The leaked plan is not a universal instruction to purchase only EU-made goods. Instead, it would give contracting authorities tools to favour European supply in major or strategic procurement.

Reported measures include:

• allowing authorities to rule out bids for large contracts when less than 50% of relevant content comes from the EU; 19
• potentially extending eligibility to partner countries that provide reciprocal access to their public-procurement markets;
• giving EU firms an advantage in strategic sectors; and 19
• reducing the weight placed on lowest price where procurement creates strategic dependencies or other security concerns.

The exact thresholds, contract categories, exemptions and treatment of partner-country content will depend on the Commission’s final proposal and the subsequent legislative negotiations. The published text could therefore differ materially from the draft reporting. 19

Why China is seen as the main target

China is not named in the July-reported draft, but the policy is widely understood as responding to EU concerns about dependence on foreign suppliers, including China’s position in critical materials and industrial supply chains. Reuters reported that the planned measures were intended to curb foreign dependence and followed a widening EU-China trade gap. 19

There is also a clear precedent. In June 2025, the Commission used the International Procurement Instrument for the first time to restrict Chinese participation in EU public tenders for medical devices worth more than €5 million. The measure also limits China-origin medical-device inputs to no more than 50% in relevant successful bids, subject to exceptions where no alternative suppliers exist. The Commission said the action followed findings of discrimination against EU medical-device producers in China’s procurement market.

That existing action is targeted by sector and contract value. The proposed Public Procurement Act would be a broader redesign of the EU’s underlying procurement rules.

Industry pressure: resilience, costs and jobs

European manufacturing groups are urging Brussels to act more forcefully. Eurometal, a trade body representing metals distribution and processing interests, forecast that 300,000 EU manufacturing jobs could be lost during the remainder of 2026 amid stronger competition from Chinese component suppliers. That is an industry forecast, not an official estimate of announced job losses. 616

The group staged a Brussels protest on 7 September using ten symbolic coffins to highlight concerns over competitiveness, industrial jobs and factories. 21

Supporters of tougher procurement conditions argue that European manufacturers face cost pressures—from energy, carbon-related obligations and other regulatory requirements—while competing with lower-cost imports. Those arguments are politically influential, but they do not by themselves establish that procurement preferences will preserve jobs or improve competitiveness. The central policy trade-off is between building resilient European capacity and maintaining open competition and low prices for public buyers.

The case for reciprocity—and the risk of retaliation

The Commission frames procurement restrictions as a means of obtaining fair and reciprocal market access, rather than simply closing Europe’s market. Its 2025 medical-device action was explicitly designed to encourage China to end discriminatory treatment of EU firms and products.

The proposed preference for countries with reciprocal procurement arrangements follows the same logic: market access may be more favourable for partners that offer comparable access to EU suppliers.

China-linked commentary has criticized the prospective overhaul as protectionist, arguing that excluding lower-cost Chinese suppliers could mean higher public costs and less competition in Europe. That response illustrates the diplomatic risk. A broader EU preference system could invite legal disputes, commercial countermeasures or new barriers affecting European exporters.

What happens after the Commission proposal

A Commission presentation would begin, not end, the legislative process. The European Parliament and the Council of the EU, which represents member-state governments, must negotiate and approve the final legislation. A Q4 2027 conclusion is listed as a target in Parliament’s Legislative Train Schedule, but it is not a guarantee. 17

The difficult questions are likely to include:

• which contracts and sectors qualify for origin-based conditions;
• how EU and partner-country content is calculated and verified;
• what exceptions protect competition, affordability and supply continuity;
• how the rules interact with international procurement commitments; and
• whether member states accept a more centralised, directly applicable regime.

The bigger picture: procurement as de-risking policy

The Public Procurement Act sits alongside the EU’s broader move toward local-content, low-carbon and resilience criteria in strategic industries. The separate Industrial Accelerator Act, for example, proposes EU-made and low-carbon requirements for selected manufacturing and technology-related public spending. 20

The policy direction is therefore clear even before the procurement proposal is final: Brussels wants public purchasing to do more than obtain the lowest-priced offer. It wants procurement to support supply-chain resilience, reciprocal market access and industrial capacity. Whether the eventual law can achieve those aims without increasing costs, reducing competition or provoking retaliation will be decided in the negotiations to come. 171819