BRUSSELS — Maroš Šefčovič delivered a blunt message Friday. The EU’s trade commissioner told an audience at the European Policy Centre that diversification from China no longer happens by choice alone. It demands a dedicated instrument.
One idea under consideration would bar companies from sourcing more than 40% of critical stocks from any single supplier. Another would require at least three distinct sources for sensitive materials. Not all from the same country. The goal is simple. Shield European industry from sudden export bans, price spikes and geopolitical shocks. But the path to enforcement is anything but.
Šefčovič’s remarks mark the clearest signal yet that Brussels intends to move beyond voluntary guidelines. Past efforts focused on mapping vulnerabilities. Now officials talk about binding obligations on private firms. The proposal forms part of a larger review of EU trade defenses expected by the third quarter. That package includes faster anti-dumping procedures and fresh tools to counter overcapacity. Reuters reported the details hours after the speech.
The timing feels deliberate. China has tightened export controls on rare earths and magnets. Those moves disrupted automotive production lines across Europe last year. Similar restrictions hit other inputs. European officials watched Russian gas leverage in 2022 and drew hard lessons. They won’t repeat the same pattern with Beijing.
From Mapping Risks to Mandating Change
Šefčovič pointed to the EU’s successful unwinding of Russian energy dependence as a model. That shift required coordinated policy, investment and political will. He believes a comparable approach can work for supply chains. “Diversification now requires a dedicated instrument,” he said at the Brussels Economic Security Forum, according to multiple accounts including Politico.
The commissioner avoided naming exact sectors in public. Yet chips, rare earth magnets, chemicals and industrial machinery sit high on the list. These areas show extreme concentration. One country dominates processing and refining. Over-reliance leaves factories idle when shipments stop. And stop they have.
Industry has already begun adjusting. More than 70% of European firms operating in China reviewed their supply strategies over the past two years. A quarter shifted production. Some onshored within China. Others built parallel chains elsewhere. The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China documented this acceleration in December. Costs rose. Logistics grew complicated. Still, many companies moved.
But voluntary action hits limits. Smaller firms lack the capital to duplicate suppliers. Larger ones hesitate when alternatives cost 20% or 30% more. Security comes with a premium. Šefčovič acknowledged as much in earlier comments. Companies must prepare to pay it. Stockpiling helps too. Yet neither replaces structural change.
Critics warn of unintended consequences. Forcing diversification could raise consumer prices. It might slow green technology deployment that relies on Chinese components. Trade partners outside the bloc could view the rules as protectionist. Beijing will certainly object. Relations already sit at a low point. The EU labels its current trade imbalance with China unsustainable. The bloc runs a deficit exceeding €360 billion annually in recent data.
Still, momentum builds. EU leaders gather for a summit later this month. They will give the Commission political guidance on concrete tools. Šefčovič expects direction on economic security measures. The diversification instrument represents one option. Others include tariffs or investment screening expansions.
Implementation won’t be easy. Defining “critical supplies” invites lobbying. Setting thresholds at 40% or 30% feels arbitrary to some executives. Monitoring compliance across thousands of firms requires new bureaucracy. Enforcement against violations could spark legal battles. And then there’s the question of retaliation. China holds leverage in multiple raw materials Europe needs for its climate goals.
Yet the alternative looks worse. Repeated disruptions erode competitiveness. Strategic autonomy loses meaning without actual independence in key inputs. The Commission learned from semiconductors during the pandemic. It learned again from energy in 2022. Dependencies carry real costs. They distort markets. They hand influence to adversaries.
So officials now favor hard rules over gentle nudges. The Critical Raw Materials Act and Net Zero Industry Act already push for domestic capacity and diversified sourcing. Those laws set benchmarks. The new instrument would add teeth at the company level. Firms in designated sectors might face reporting requirements, audits or even penalties for excessive concentration.
Details remain sparse. Šefčovič offered no draft text. He sketched concepts. Three suppliers. No single source above a certain share. Modeling after the Energy Union. His team will refine these ideas based on summit feedback. The full proposal could arrive before year end.
Business groups offer mixed reactions. Many support reducing risks. Few relish new compliance burdens. The European Chamber in China noted that Beijing’s self-reliance drive and export controls accelerate the very diversification Europe seeks. Companies don’t need much convincing on the problem. They differ on the solution’s shape.
Meanwhile, global supply chains continue shifting. Vietnam, India, Mexico and Eastern European countries pick up volume. Friend-shoring gains traction. Yet China retains advantages in scale, infrastructure and speed. Complete separation remains unrealistic. The EU talks derisking, not decoupling. Šefčovič echoes that line.
The coming months will test whether rhetoric translates into regulation. Europe’s economic security strategy hinges on this pivot. If the instrument materializes, it could reshape how global manufacturers plan production. If it stalls amid internal divisions, vulnerabilities will persist. Friday’s speech suggests the former path holds more appeal in Brussels these days.
One thing is clear. The era of unchecked concentration in supply chains draws to a close. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic reach similar conclusions. The United States deploys tariffs, subsidies and export controls. Europe prefers regulatory caps and diversification mandates. Different tools. Shared diagnosis. Overdependence on a single strategic rival carries unacceptable risk.
Šefčovič’s call for a dedicated instrument reflects that consensus. Whether companies and member states follow remains the open question. The answer will shape Europe’s industrial base for decades.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication