One European Company (EU-INC)
The idea of a single European company keeps returning. Not because it’s easy, but because Europe keeps running into the same limits.
In November, when I wrote about Europe’s AI future, I described ideas like “EU Inc.” as early. Interesting, but distant. The kind of structural reform that makes sense on paper, yet tends to move slowly once it enters the European institutional machinery.
Fast forward a few months, and the tone has shifted.
At Davos, Ursula von der Leyen spoke openly about competitiveness, scale, and Europe’s position in a more confrontational geopolitical world. Around the same time, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a proposal that has been circulating for years: a so-called “28th regime”, an optional European company structure, often referred to as “EU Inc.”
The headlines suggest momentum. Some people sense a turning point. Others respond with a shrug: we’ve seen this before.
Both reactions are understandable.
What actually happened?
The recent vote in the European Parliament did not create a new European company overnight. It was not a law. It was a strong, cross-party signal: a request to the European Commission to come forward with a concrete proposal for a unified, optional company regime that would sit alongside the 27 national systems.
In practical terms, Parliament is asking for a legal form that allows startups and scale-ups to operate across Europe without constantly translating themselves into different national legal languages. A company that is European by default, rather than Dutch first, German second, French third.
The Commission is expected to present a proposal in the coming months. After that, the long part begins: negotiations with member states, legal design, compromises.
This is why nothing has “changed” yet in the lived reality of entrepreneurs. But something has shifted in tone and alignment.
“But I founded my company just fine”
If you have incorporated a company in the Netherlands, Estonia, or a handful of other countries, you might reasonably ask what the problem is. Setting up a business can already be fast, digital, and inexpensive. I had the same experience.
And that is precisely the point.
The issue EU Inc. is trying to address is not the moment of incorporation. It is what happens after, when a company starts to grow across borders.
Selling across Europe from one entity is often straightforward. Hiring people, opening offices, offering equity, raising capital, merging, or relocating headquarters is where friction accumulates. Each additional country brings its own company law, governance logic, equity rules, and legal expectations.
A startup active in three or four European countries is already navigating multiple legal universes. Investors know this. Founders feel it. Over time, it shapes where companies choose to scale, or where they choose to exit.
EU Inc. is an attempt to reduce that structural friction, not to erase national differences.
Rob Hoeijmakers
What EU Inc. is, and what it is not
The proposed “28th regime” would be optional. National company forms would remain. Taxes would remain national. Labour law would remain national.
This is not a leap towards a European super-state.
It is better understood as legal infrastructure: a shared base layer for companies that intend to operate across borders, with standardised rules for governance, shares, and cross-border activity.
Think less “harmonising everything” and more “removing unnecessary translation costs”.
That distinction matters, because it explains both the appeal and the resistance.
Why scepticism persists
If this idea sounds familiar, that is because it is. Variants of a European company regime have been discussed for decades. Previous attempts stalled in the face of national sensitivities, fears of regulatory arbitrage, and concerns about labour protections.
Those concerns are still present.
Trade unions worry about a race to the bottom. Some governments fear losing control over company law. Others question whether a new regime is necessary, or whether existing frameworks could be improved instead.
Even the name has become political. “EU Inc.” sounds efficient and global, but also American. In Parliament, some prefer a neutral Latin label to avoid the symbolism altogether.
These are not side issues. They are signals of how deeply company law touches questions of sovereignty, social models, and identity.
So why does this feel different now?
Not because Europe has suddenly become fast.
But because pressures have aligned.
Europe has struggled to produce globally scaled tech companies. Capital markets remain fragmented. Strategic dependence on the US and China feels riskier than it did a decade ago. And geopolitical tensions are no longer abstract background noise.
In that context, ideas that once felt optional start to feel necessary. Not urgent in the sense of “done by next year”, but urgent in the sense of “no longer ignorable”.
EU Inc. benefits from that shift. It is being reframed less as a market experiment and more as economic infrastructure.
Holding two thoughts at once
It is possible to say all of the following without contradiction:
- This is a meaningful proposal that addresses a real structural problem.
- It will not be implemented quickly.
- It will involve compromises that disappoint almost everyone.
- It still matters whether Europe even tries.
If EU Inc. eventually materialises, it will not be because of a Davos speech. It will be because member states accept that a single market without scalable legal structures remains incomplete.
In November, calling this “early” was accurate. Today, the world feels more compressed, more pressured. The timeline has not magically shortened, but the stakes have become clearer.
That alone is already a change.
