EU's major future strategy “Strategic Foresight Report 2025” – Experts criticize lack of new ideas

Konrad Wolfenstein

9 months ago

EU's major future strategy “Strategic Foresight Report 2025” – Experts criticize lack of new ideas – Image: Xpert.Digital

New EU plan presented: A brilliant idea or just old wine in new bottles?

More political show than real strategy?

With its “Strategic Foresight Report 2025,” the European Commission has presented an ambitious roadmap for the future of the EU. Under the banner of “Resilience 2.0,” the Union aims to become more proactive and resilient against crises such as climate change, technological disruption, and geopolitical tensions. The report outlines a vision of how the EU can not only survive in a turbulent world but emerge stronger.

However, barely published, the paper came under sharp criticism from the European Parliament's Research Service (EPRS). In a detailed analysis, the experts reached a sobering conclusion: the report was less a well-founded analysis of the future than a political agenda for the new legislative term. The main criticism was that the proposed measures were hardly new and instead reiterated already familiar political goals without offering any concrete solutions.

At its core, the Commission report identifies four key areas of tension that the EU must navigate: the conflict between competitiveness and strategic autonomy, the balance between AI innovation and safeguards, the balancing act between prosperity and demographic change, and the defense of democracy against the influence of algorithms. However, the Parliamentary Service's analysis suggests that the proposed areas of action are very closely aligned with the political line of Commission President von der Leyen. The document thus serves as an important point of reference for MEPs: the Commission's initiative is less a neutral assessment than a strategic launch for the implementation of its political objectives in the coming years.

Related to this:

Strategic Foresight Report 2025: A Comprehensive Analysis

Background and context of the report

What is the Strategic Foresight Report 2025?

The Strategic Foresight Report 2025, officially titled “Resilience 2.0: Empowering the EU to thrive in times of turbulence and uncertainty,” is a key document presented by the European Commission on 9 September 2025. It is the first foresight report of the second von der Leyen Commission. Building on established trends, the document offers an updated analysis of global and EU-specific challenges. Its central aim is to strengthen the resilience of the European Union to better prepare it for the future. The report serves as the basis for a new foresight cycle and aims to underpin the political agenda for the coming years with a long-term perspective.

What is the overarching purpose of this type of forecast report?

Since 2020, with the exception of the election year 2024, the European Commission has published such a strategic foresight report annually. These reports serve a dual purpose: firstly, they examine future developments and trends that could affect the EU, and secondly, they highlight the Union's current priorities. According to the Commission, these reports are intended to underpin political priorities and promote long-term policy thinking on cross-cutting issues. This practice is part of a broader effort within the EU institutions to strengthen political foresight. The driving conviction behind this is that traditional planning and policymaking processes are no longer sufficient to effectively address the complex and interconnected challenges of the so-called "polycrises" facing the EU. The aim is to act proactively rather than reactively.

In what context was the 2025 report presented?

Commissioner Micallef described the report as a “bridge between the foresight work of the previous Commission and the new mandate,” underscoring its transitional nature. It builds on a number of important strategic documents published shortly before, including the reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, which deal extensively with the single market and Europe’s competitiveness, as well as the Niinistö report. Furthermore, it is closely linked to the Council’s Strategic Agenda 2024-2029 and the EU’s Preparedness Union Strategy of May 2025. The report thus seeks to synthesize the findings and thrusts of these various initiatives and integrate them into a coherent framework for the future.

The core concept: Resilience 2.0

What is the central theme of the report and what exactly does "Resilience 2.0" mean?

The central and guiding theme of the report is resilience. This was already the main theme of the very first Foresight Report in 2020. However, the Commission argues that the global situation has changed so dramatically since then that a new, more evolved approach to resilience is needed. It calls this new approach “Resilience 2.0.” This new form of resilience is intended to be more transformative, proactive, and forward-looking than the previous conception. While the original idea of resilience already included the concept that the EU should transform and “bounce forward” to become more sustainable, fairer, and more democratic, “Resilience 2.0” appears to place an even stronger emphasis on actively shaping the future and profoundly adapting to a more uncertain world. The text critically notes, however, that it is not entirely clear what the precise difference is from the previous version, as the latter was already formulated very ambitiously. The rebranding to “2.0” also serves to convey a sense of urgency and the necessity of a paradigm shift.

According to the report, what fundamental goals should a resilient EU achieve by 2040?

The report defines three fundamental pillars that should characterize a resilient European Union in 2040. First, ensuring peace through European security. This reflects the changed geopolitical landscape, in which security issues play a central role in all policy areas. Second, upholding the values of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This is a response to internal and external threats to these fundamental values. Third, ensuring the well-being of people. This objective is broadly defined and encompasses the social, economic, and environmental aspects of life in the EU. These three fundamentals form the overarching framework within which the report's specific challenges and areas for action must be understood.

Global developments and EU-specific challenges

Which global developments does the report identify as particularly influential for the EU?

The report identifies three global developments that have a significant impact on the future of the EU. The first is the growing centrality of security issues across all policy areas. Security is no longer viewed as an isolated issue of defense or foreign policy, but as a cross-cutting theme that permeates economic, energy, health, and even education policies. The second development is the erosion of the rules-based international order. Institutions and agreements that ensured stability for decades are losing influence, leading to a more unpredictable and confrontational world. The third global development is the ongoing impact of climate change and the progressive deterioration of the state of nature and water resources. These environmental crises have direct consequences for security, the economy, and well-being in the EU.

The report refers to four EU-specific challenges as "balancing acts." What does this mean, and which is the first balancing act?

The four EU-specific challenges are presented as "balancing acts." This formulation underscores the inherent conflicts of objectives and the difficulties faced by policymakers. It is not about easy solutions, but about balancing competing priorities.

The first balancing act is to increase the EU's competitiveness while simultaneously pursuing its open strategic autonomy. On the one hand, the EU must remain open to global trade and attractive to investment to maintain innovation and economic strength. On the other hand, it must reduce its dependence on external actors and its vulnerability to shocks. The report suggests that national interests should occasionally take a back seat to joint measures such as joint energy procurement or preferential purchasing of goods and services from the EU. A concrete example of this dependence is the digital sector, where 70% of the EU's cloud infrastructure is controlled by just three US companies. Greater independence should also be achieved through the expansion of clean energy, improved energy efficiency, and the promotion of the circular economy to reduce dependence on energy imports.

What is the second balancing act described?

The second balancing act addresses the tension between promoting technological innovation and creating and maintaining safeguards. On the one hand, a competitive environment should be created that unleashes the full potential of new technologies and thus strengthens the EU's economic resilience. On the other hand, appropriate safeguards must be put in place to protect against risks to security, the rights of citizens and workers, privacy, the environment, and democracy. The report explicitly mentions new technologies such as quantum computing, biotechnology, neurotechnology, advanced materials, robotics, and, in particular, artificial intelligence (AI). Regarding AI, the Commission notes that while it has spread rapidly, the market dominance of a few global players is blurring the lines between commercial and public actors and spaces.

What is the third balancing act?

The third balancing act addresses the challenge of maintaining the EU's high level of well-being while responding to demographic and climate change. The EU is known for its high standard of living, strong economies, environmental standards, and healthcare system. However, this model is under pressure. Demographic change, particularly the aging population, means fewer people are contributing to the economy, while the need for care and healthcare services is increasing. The report avoids an in-depth discussion of migration but suggests that regular migration is a possible way to meet the demand in EU labor markets with talent from abroad. Furthermore, the report establishes a direct link between human well-being and the health of the planet. It argues that acting in harmony with nature contributes to security and economic prosperity, for example, by helping to mitigate pandemics through climate action and adaptation, or by ensuring food security.

And what is the fourth and final balancing act?

The fourth balancing act focuses on the tension between the need to uphold democracy and fundamental values and adapting to the algorithm-driven use of (social) media. The report calls for strengthening democratic decision-making but also acknowledges that people's opinions are increasingly shaped by algorithm-based, personalized sources. This significantly restricts the space for democratic debate based on shared facts and evidence. Additionally, the report warns of a "new global oligarchy" in which a few tech billionaires are increasingly influencing democratic processes. This could further weaken democracy and undermine citizens' trust. In response, the report calls for strengthening democratic resilience through social cohesion, institutional checks and balances, and innovative improvements to democracy itself.

Hub for Security and Defense - Advice and Information

Hub for Security and Defense - Image: Xpert.Digital

The Security and Defence Hub offers expert advice and up-to-date information to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defence policy. Working closely with the SME Connect Defence Working Group, it particularly promotes small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that wish to further develop their innovative capacity and competitiveness in the defence sector. As a central point of contact, the Hub thus creates a crucial bridge between SMEs and European defence strategy.

Related to this:

The SME Connect Defence Working Group – Strengthening SMEs in European Defence

EU resilience under scrutiny: opportunities, gaps and specific points of criticism

Criticism of the EU report: Why concrete implementation paths are lacking

The Strategic Foresight Report 2025 sets eight action areas on the agenda to strengthen the EU's resilience against geopolitical, economic, and societal risks. In terms of content, the report covers key areas—from global vision to security, technology, and economic resilience, to education, democracy, and intergenerational equity—thus reflecting the guidelines of Commission President von der Leyen and the Council's Strategic Agenda. However, a critical point is that the report often reads more like a political agenda: concrete links between the identified challenges and the proposed measures are lacking, implementation pathways remain vague, and genuine innovations are rare. The discrepancy between ambitious goals (e.g., global AI standards or WTO reform) and the EU's realpolitik capacity remains striking. The report also poses a challenge for parliaments: cross-sectoral issues are difficult to address within traditional committee structures, which is why various models of parliamentary foresight are being discussed—from specialized committees and individual ombudspersons to the integration of foresight into legislative processes.

The eight areas of action and the critical evaluation

What eight areas of action does the report propose to strengthen the EU's resilience?

The final part of the report identifies eight key areas for action to strengthen the EU's resilience. These areas are intended to address both EU-specific challenges and global developments. The eight areas are:

Develop a global vision.
Strengthen internal and external security.
Making technology and research usable.
Strengthening economic resilience.
Promoting sustainable and inclusive well-being.
Rethinking education.
Strengthening the foundations of democracy.
Strengthening intergenerational fairness.

These areas reflect the political guidelines of the second von der Leyen Commission and the Strategic Agenda of the European Council.

What criticism is leveled at the portrayal of these areas of activity?

The briefing offers a fairly clear critique of this section of the report. A key criticism is the lack of explicit links between the eight proposed areas of action and the previously identified challenges or global developments. This weakens the focus and impact of the proposals. The report would have been more persuasive if the actions had been more clearly linked to the specific problems.

Another key criticism is that this section reads less like a forward-looking analysis and more like a political agenda or a collection of declarations of intent. The tone is described as rather directive, with frequent phrases such as "the EU must" or "the EU should".

Furthermore, it is criticized that the proposed actions contain few surprises and largely build upon existing policies and objectives of the Commission. Hardly any truly new approaches or instruments are presented to achieve the ambitious goals.

Specific examples of criticism, especially regarding feasibility

The briefing cites specific examples to support the criticism. For instance, in the area of "global vision," the report calls for the EU to shape the discussion on reforming multilateralism, including reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO). The critical commentary is that the report fails to explain how this is to be achieved, particularly at a time when the EU's ability to fully utilize its trade policy instruments is under pressure, primarily from the US.

Another example concerns artificial intelligence. The report calls for the establishment of global standards and the development of strategic autonomy in AI research. Here, too, the question is raised as to how this is to be achieved when the report itself has previously stated that the AI sector is dominated by "a few tech billionaires" who are part of a "new global oligarchy." The discrepancy between the ambitious demand and the realistic distribution of power remains unresolved.

In the area of economic resilience, many goals are mentioned, such as industrial transformation or the resilience of supply chains, but no new ways of achieving these goals are outlined. Calls for a circular economy or a genuine savings and investment union are simply repetitions of existing policy objectives.

Are there any new ideas or approaches in these areas of action?

The text suggests that most of the proposals are repetitions of familiar policy demands. For example, the call to shift taxes away from labor and toward taxing negative externalities (such as pollution) is a long-standing demand in EU policy. Similarly, the goal of preparing citizens not only for specific professions but for multiple transitions throughout their lives has long been part of the education policy debate. The only demand highlighted as truly new and as a form of anticipatory governance is the call for the "promotion of AI literacy" among the population.

Placing the report in the strategic context of the EU

How does the Strategic Foresight Report 2025 relate to the Council's Strategic Agenda 2024-2029?

A comparison of the two documents reveals both similarities and notable differences. Two of the three fundamental objectives of the Foresight Report, namely achieving peace through European security and upholding democracy and human rights, directly reflect two of the main themes of the Council's Strategic Agenda: "a strong and secure Europe" and "a free and democratic Europe".

The crucial difference, however, lies in the treatment of the third theme of the Strategic Agenda: “a prosperous and competitive Europe.” This objective does not appear in the Foresight Report as an independent, fundamental goal. Instead, economic issues such as competitiveness and economic resilience are subsumed under the overarching goals of European security and the well-being of its people. It seems as if the Commission has consciously chosen not to present economic prosperity as an end in itself, but primarily as a tool for achieving the overarching goals of resilience, security, and well-being. This impression is reinforced by the fact that security is presented as a guiding principle that permeates all EU policy areas.

How does the report relate to the political guidelines of Commission President von der Leyen?

There is a very close link. The political guidelines presented by the President in July 2024 are divided into seven chapters. These chapters address, broadly speaking, the same topics as the eight action areas of the Foresight Report, albeit in a different order and grouping. There is broad thematic overlap with the three main themes of the Council's Strategic Agenda. The only area of the political guidelines that has no clear parallel in the Foresight Report or the Strategic Agenda is the final chapter, entitled "Acting together and preparing our Union for the future." This chapter deals with budgetary ambitions, institutional reforms, and cooperation with Parliament—that is, more with the internal workings of the EU.

Is there a link between the report and the State of the Union (SOTEU) speech in 2025?

Yes, the connection is very strong and supports the assessment that the Foresight Report is more of a political agenda than a pure analysis. President von der Leyen's State of the Union address was delivered the day after the Foresight Report was presented. In terms of content, the speech largely followed the eight areas of action outlined in the report. The speech was somewhat more specific in some policy areas, such as migration, but omitted the issue of intergenerational equity mentioned in the report. The temporal and thematic proximity suggests that the Foresight Report served as a strategic foundation and a preparatory communication document for the Commission President's political leadership speech.

How does this report compare to previous Strategic Foresight Reports since 2020?

There is a remarkable continuity in the themes over the years. While the first report in 2020 identified only four dimensions of resilience (social and economic, geopolitical, green, and digital), the 2021 and 2022 reports each listed ten key themes or areas for action. Recurring core themes include strengthening the EU's open strategic autonomy (particularly in technology, raw materials, and energy), addressing health and environmental challenges, defending the EU's democratic values, and strengthening defense capabilities and the global partner network. Although the language and buzzwords change—hardly anyone speaks of the "dual, green, and digital transition" of earlier reports anymore—the underlying problems and challenges remain the same. The 2025 report, in particular, avoids painting an overly bleak picture of impending war or a security-dominated society. He maintains a focus on positive goals linked to democratic values and the well-being of citizens, although the seriousness of the combined challenges is described as worrying.

Possible institutional follow-up measures

How do EU institutions typically react to such reports?

The reactions of the various EU institutions have traditionally differed. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has issued opinions on all previous Foresight Reports since 2020 and will do so again for the 2025 report. In contrast, the European Council and the European Parliament have not published any formal responses or positions on previous reports. Given the horizontal, cross-policy nature of the report, the European Council would actually be a suitable forum for adopting Council conclusions. Similarly, the European Parliament could respond through an exchange of views and a resolution.

What problems does the European Parliament face when dealing with such cross-departmental reports?

The main problem for the European Parliament lies in its internal structure. The parliamentary system of referring documents to one or more specialized committees is ill-suited to handling documents of such a broad, cross-sectoral nature. A forward-looking report covering topics ranging from security and the economy to education and democracy does not fall within the remit of a single committee. Referring it to several committees can lead to coordination problems and a fragmented outcome.

The text suggests looking to national parliaments for guidance. Which is the first described model for parliamentary foresight?

The first and most prominent option is the establishment of a special committee of members of parliament, such as a "Foresight Committee" or a "Future Committee." The first such committee was established in Finland in 1993, and seven other national parliaments have since followed suit. The success of this model depends on several crucial conditions. It requires active, cross-party support to avoid becoming a pawn in partisan politics. Close ties with the executive branch's foresight work and with think tanks are essential to remain relevant and access sound analysis. Furthermore, a non-polarizing debate culture focused on long-term, cross-sectoral challenges is important. This also helps to avoid conflicts with existing standing committees and the ongoing legislative process.

What is the second option for anchoring foresight in parliaments?

The second option is to assign the foresight task to a single person or a small unit, such as an ombudsman or a commissioner for foresight or future generations. However, this approach carries significant risks, as experience in Hungary and Israel has shown. There is a risk of debates arising about the impartiality of the officeholder, which can undermine the legitimacy of the work. Another major risk is the lack of continuity. Activities can be abruptly discontinued after elections or political changes if the political will to support this position no longer exists. Institutionalization is therefore considerably weaker with this model.

And what is the third option?

The third option is to integrate foresight elements into the regular legislative process on a case-by-case basis. This would mean that long-term aspects and future scenarios would also be considered when drafting specific laws in the relevant committees. However, this sectoral approach has a crucial drawback: it cannot adequately address the complex, cross-sectoral challenges that are at the heart of foresight and the Commission's foresight reports. The strength of foresight lies precisely in overcoming silo thinking and analyzing the interactions between different policy areas. A purely sectoral approach would not do justice to this core objective.

Consulting - Planning - Implementation

Markus Becker

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group