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

Xpert pre-release

Language selection 📢

Published on: October 8, 2025 / Updated on: October 8, 2025 – Author: Konrad Wolfenstein

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 to 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 world of turmoil, but emerge stronger.

But barely published, the paper came under sharp criticism from the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). In a detailed analysis, the experts reached a sobering conclusion: the report is less a well-founded analysis of the future than a political agenda for the new legislative period. The main criticism is that the proposed measures are hardly new and instead repeat familiar political goals without offering concrete solutions.

At its core, the Commission's 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 context for MEPs: The Commission's initiative is less a neutral assessment of the situation than a strategic prelude to implementing its political goals in the coming years.

Suitable for:

Strategic Foresight Report 2025: A Comprehensive Analysis

Basis and context of the report

What is the 2025 Strategic Foresight Report?

The 2025 Strategic Foresight Report, officially titled "Resilience 2.0: Empowering the EU to thrive in times of turmoil and uncertainty," is a key document presented by the European Commission on September 9, 2025. It is the first foresight report of the second von der Leyen Commission. The document builds on established trends and offers an updated analysis of global and EU-specific challenges. Its central objective 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 overall purpose of these types of forward-looking reports?

Since 2020, the European Commission has published such a strategic foresight report annually, with the exception of the election year 2024. These reports serve a dual purpose: first, they examine future developments and trends that could affect the EU, and second, they shed light on the Union's current priorities. According to the Commission, these reports are intended to underpin policy priorities and promote long-term political 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 policy-making processes are no longer sufficient to effectively address the complex and interlinked challenges of the so-called "polycrises" facing the EU. It is therefore about acting 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 last Commission and the new mandate," underscoring its transitional nature. It builds on several important strategic documents published shortly before. These include the reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, which deal intensively with the single market and Europe's competitiveness, as well as the Niinistö report. It is also closely linked to the Council's Strategic Agenda 2024-2029 and the EU Strategy for a Readiness Union of May 2025. The report thus attempts to consolidate the findings and thrust of these various initiatives 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 topic 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 advanced approach to resilience is required. 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 of the EU transforming 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 adapting profoundly to a more uncertain world. However, the text critically notes that it is not entirely clear what the exact difference is from the previous version, as the latter was already very ambitious. The rebranding to “2.0” also serves to convey a sense of urgency and the need for a paradigm shift.

What fundamental goals should a resilient EU achieve by 2040, according to the report?

The report defines three basic pillars or "fundamentals" that should characterize a resilient European Union in 2040. First, ensuring peace through European security. This reflects the changed geopolitical situation 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 people's well-being. This objective is broadly defined and encompasses social, economic, and environmental aspects of life in the EU. These three fundamentals form the overarching framework within which the specific challenges and fields of action of the report are to 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 in all policy areas. Security is no longer viewed as an isolated issue of defense or foreign policy, but as a cross-cutting issue 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 provided 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 ecological 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 what is the first balancing act?

The four EU-specific challenges are presented as "balancing acts." This formulation underscores the inherent conflicting objectives and the difficulties facing policymakers. They are not about simple solutions, but about balancing competing priorities.

The first balancing act is to increase the EU's competitiveness while pursuing its open strategic autonomy. On the one hand, the EU must remain open to global trade and attractive for 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 procurement of EU goods and services. 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 will also be achieved through the development 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 must be created that unleashes the full potential of new technologies, thus strengthening the EU's economic resilience. On the other hand, appropriate safeguards must be put in place to ward off 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 boundaries between commercial and public actors and spaces.

What is the third balancing act?

The third balancing act addresses the challenge of maintaining the high level of well-being in the EU while responding to demographic change 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 demand for care and healthcare services is increasing. The report avoids an extensive 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 contain pandemics and ensuring food security through climate mitigation and adaptation.

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-based use of (social) media. The report calls for strengthening democratic decision-making, but at the same time recognizes that people's opinions are increasingly shaped by algorithm-based, personalized sources. This significantly limits the common 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 increasingly influence democratic processes. This can 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 hub for security and defense offers well-founded advice and current information in order to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defense policy. In close connection to the SME Connect working group, he promotes small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) in particular that want to further expand their innovative strength and competitiveness in the field of defense. As a central point of contact, the hub creates a decisive bridge between SME and European defense strategy.

Suitable for:

The Working Group Defense of the SME Connect - Strengthening SMEs in European defense

EU resilience under review: opportunities, gaps and concrete criticisms

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

The 2025 Strategic Foresight Report sets eight areas for action on the agenda to strengthen the EU's resilience against geopolitical, economic, and societal risks. The report covers key areas—from global vision to security, technology, and economic resilience, as well as education, democracy, and intergenerational equity—and thus reflects the guidelines of Commission President von der Leyen and the Council's Strategic Agenda. Critically, however, the report often seems more like a political agenda: concrete links between the identified challenges and the proposed measures are lacking, implementation paths remain vague, and genuine innovations are rare. The discrepancy between ambitious goals (e.g., global AI standards or WTO reform) and the EU's practical capacity to act remains striking. The report 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 to 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 section of the report identifies eight key areas for action to strengthen the EU's resilience. These 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.
Promote sustainable and inclusive well-being.
Rethinking education.
Strengthen the foundations of democracy.
Strengthening intergenerational equity.

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

What criticism is made of the presentation of these areas of action?

The briefing offers a rather clear criticism of this section of the report. A key criticism is that no explicit links are made 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 convincing 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 statements of intent. The tone is described as rather directive, with frequent phrases like "the EU must" or "the EU should."

Furthermore, it is criticized that the proposed actions contain few surprises and largely build on the Commission's existing policies and objectives. They hardly identify any truly new paths or instruments for achieving the ambitious goals.

Concrete examples of criticism, especially regarding feasibility

The briefing cites concrete examples to support the criticism. In the area of "global vision," for example, the report calls for the EU to shape the debate on multilateral reform, including reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The critical comment is that the report fails to explain how this will be achieved, especially at a time when the EU's ability to fully utilize its trade policy instruments is under pressure, primarily from the United States.

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 can be achieved when the report itself previously stated that the AI sector is dominated by "a few tech billionaires" who are part of a "new global oligarchy." The discrepancy between this 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 supply chain resilience, but no new paths to achieving these goals are outlined. Calls for a circular economy or a genuine savings and investment union are repetitions of existing policy goals.

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

The text suggests that most of the proposals are repetitions of familiar policy demands. For example, the call for a tax shift away from labor and toward taxing negative externalities (such as environmental pollution) is a long-standing demand in EU policy. Likewise, the goal of preparing citizens not just for specific occupations, 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 "promoting AI literacy" among the population.

Placement of the report in the strategic context of the EU

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

Comparing 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 a standalone, fundamental goal. Instead, economic issues such as competitiveness and economic resilience are subsumed under the overarching objectives of European security and human well-being. 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 leitmotif that permeates all EU policy areas.

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

There is a very close connection. The political guidelines presented by the President in July 2024 are divided into seven chapters. These chapters broadly address the same topics as the eight areas of action in the Foresight Report, albeit in a different order and grouping. There is a 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 ambition, institutional reforms, and cooperation with Parliament—in other words, more with the internal workings of the EU.

Is there a connection between the report and the 2025 State of the Union Address (SOTEU)?

Yes, the connection is very strong and supports the assessment that the Foresight Report is more of a political agenda than pure analysis. President von der Leyen's State of the Union Address was delivered the day after the presentation of the Foresight Report. 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 proximity in timing and content suggests that the Foresight Report served as a strategic basis and preparatory communications document for the Commission President's keynote speech.

How does the report compare with previous Strategic Foresight Reports since 2020?

There is a remarkable continuity of themes over the years. While the first report in 2020 identified only four resilience dimensions (social and economic, geopolitical, green, and digital), the 2021 and 2022 reports each listed ten leading 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 have changed—for example, hardly anyone speaks of the "dual, green, and digital transition" of previous reports—the underlying problems and challenges remain the same. The 2025 report avoids painting an overly bleak picture of impending war or a security-dominated society. It maintains a focus on positive goals associated with 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 the EU institutions usually react to such reports?

The reactions of the various EU institutions have traditionally varied. 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 formal responses or positions on the previous reports. Given the horizontal, all-policy nature of the report, the European Council would actually be a suitable forum to adopt Council conclusions. Similarly, the European Parliament could respond through an exchange of views and a resolution.

What problems does the European Parliament face in dealing with such interdepartmental 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 for dealing with documents of such a broad, cross-sectoral nature. A foresight report covering topics ranging from security and the economy to education and democracy does not fit within the remit of a single committee. Assigning it to multiple committees can lead to coordination problems and a fragmented outcome.

The text suggests taking national parliaments as a model. What is the first model described for parliamentary foresight work?

The first and most prominent option is the establishment of a dedicated body of members of parliament, such as a "Foresight Committee" or "Future Committee." The first such body 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 plaything of partisan interests. Close links with the executive's foresight work and with think tanks are crucial to remaining relevant and accessing sound analyses. Furthermore, a non-polarizing debate culture focused on long-term, cross-sectoral challenges is important. This also helps avoid conflicts with existing standing specialised 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 for future generations. However, this approach has significant risks, as the experiences in Hungary and Israel have shown. There is a risk that debates about the impartiality of the incumbent may arise, which could undermine the legitimacy of the work. Another major risk is the lack of continuity. Activities can be abruptly halted after elections or political changes if the political will to support this position no longer exists. Institutionalization is therefore significantly weaker in 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 taken into account when drafting specific laws in the specialist committees. However, this sectoral approach has a crucial disadvantage: 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 concern.

Advice - planning - implementation

Markus Becker

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group