The chip shock: When a single component paralyzes Europe's industry – Europe's semiconductor industry at a crossroads

When semiconductors become weapons: The swan song of a forgotten world power or the last act before rebirth?

On October 21, 2025, the European automotive industry was hit by a shock that reverberated far beyond the corporate headquarters in Wolfsburg. Volkswagen, Europe's largest car manufacturer, was preparing to halt production of its most important models, the Golf and Tiguan. The reason was an acute shortage of inconspicuous but essential semiconductor components from the Dutch-Chinese manufacturer Nexperia. What at first glance appeared to be just another supply chain issue, upon closer inspection revealed the fundamental vulnerability of European industry in a world where microchips have become a geopolitical weapon.

The genesis of this crisis is symptomatic of Europe's structural shortcomings in the semiconductor industry. At the end of September 2025, under massive pressure from the US, the Dutch government took control of Nexperia, a subsidiary of the Chinese technology group Wingtech. China's reaction was swift: Beijing immediately imposed an export ban on approximately 80 percent of Nexperia's products. The result is an unprecedented disruption of critical supply chains, putting not only Volkswagen, but the entire European automotive industry, from BMW and Mercedes to countless suppliers, on high alert.

The Volkswagen crisis is not an isolated event, but the latest chapter in an escalating global struggle for technological supremacy. The semiconductor industry, once just one business sector among many, has become the strategic focal point of the 21st century. Chips are considered the new oil, the material basis of the digital and green transformation. But while other economic regions are expanding their position with immense investments and strategic foresight, Europe risks falling behind.

The raw figures paint a sobering picture: Of the roughly 1,500 large and small semiconductor factories worldwide, only 60 are located in Europe, while Asia has over 900 and the Americas over 350 production facilities. The outlook for the future is even more dramatic: Of the 105 factories currently planned or under construction worldwide, only 10 are in Europe, 15 in the Americas, and 80 in Asia. Europe's market share of global semiconductor production is a meager 9 to 10 percent, a dramatic decline from 30 percent in 1990. The European Union's ambitious goal of doubling this share to 20 percent by 2030 increasingly appears unrealistic.

The European Chips Act, which came into force with great fanfare in September 2023, was supposed to turn things around. With €43 billion in planned public and private investments, Europe was meant to catch up. But just two years later, doubts are growing. The European Court of Auditors described the 20 percent target as unrealistic. A study by the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association (ZVEI) predicts that without drastic additional measures, the European market share could even fall to 5.9 percent by 2045. The member states themselves are now demanding a comprehensive revision of the strategy, which they criticize as being too broad and lacking a clear strategic direction.

This analysis examines the multifaceted dimensions of the European semiconductor crisis. It illuminates the historical milestones that led to this precarious situation, analyzes current market mechanisms and geopolitical upheavals, compares different national strategies, and ventures a look at possible future scenarios. The central question is: Is Europe's semiconductor industry doomed, or does the current crisis offer an opportunity for a strategic new beginning?

Related to this:

• VW in chip crisis – No chips, no cars: Production halt in Wolfsburg and looming short-time work

From pioneer to follower: Europe's decline in the chip industry

The history of the European semiconductor industry is a tale of missed opportunities and strategic missteps. In the 1960s and 1970s, Europe was still considered a serious player in the burgeoning semiconductor industry. Dresden, now home to Silicon Saxony, the largest European semiconductor cluster, began researching molecular electronics as early as 1961. Companies like Philips in the Netherlands, Siemens in Germany, and SGS-Thomson in France and Italy were among the pioneers of the sector.

However, while European companies still held a global market share of around 30 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, a gradual decline began. The reasons were manifold: a lack of production scaling, insufficient investment in research and development, fragmented national markets, and an industrial policy naiveté that underestimated the strategic value of the semiconductor industry. While Japan rose to the top of the world rankings in the 1980s through massive government support programs and the coordination of corporate consortia, Europe largely relied on market forces.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 presented Germany with a historic opportunity. The Saxon state government recognized the potential of the expertise available in East Germany and focused on attracting high-tech flagship companies. Siemens, later Infineon, and AMD, now GlobalFoundries, built their first modern factories in Dresden. This far-sighted policy laid the foundation for today's Silicon Saxony, which, with over 650 members and 20,000 employees, is the largest microelectronics cluster in Europe. One in three chips manufactured in Europe now comes from Dresden.

But this regional success could not halt the continental decline. While Asia, led by Taiwan, South Korea, and later China, invested heavily in expanding production capacity, Europe steadily lost market share. The strategic decision of many European companies to focus on profitable niche markets and leave costly mass production to Asia proved to be a miscalculation in the long run. What appeared economically rational in the short term led to a dangerous dependency.

The chip crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022 dramatically exposed the consequences of this dependence in Europe. Automakers had to reduce production because basic semiconductor components were unavailable. Supply bottlenecks for electronic products became commonplace. The crisis ruthlessly revealed Europe's reliance on a small number of Asian suppliers in critical areas of its digital infrastructure.

The historical genesis of the European semiconductor crisis reveals a recurring pattern: a lack of strategic foresight, insufficient coordination between member states, and an underestimation of the geopolitical dimension of key technologies. While other regions of the world recognized semiconductors as a strategic asset and pursued corresponding industrial policies, Europe relied on the free market and global supply chains. This miscalculation is now taking its toll in a painful way.

The global chip architecture: Europe's role in the web of dependencies

The current structure of the global semiconductor industry is characterized by extreme concentration and specialization, which has maneuvered Europe into a position of structural dependency. To understand the mechanisms of this dependency, one must analyze the complex architecture of the semiconductor value chain.

It all starts with chip design, an area dominated by American Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools. Companies like Synopsys, Cadence, and Mentor Graphics effectively control the market for the highly complex software essential for designing modern semiconductors. Europe plays virtually no role in this segment, a fundamental weakness in the value chain.

Taiwan dominates in actual chip production, holding a global market share of around 60 percent for advanced semiconductors. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world's largest contract manufacturer, controls approximately 90 percent of the production of high-performance chips with feature sizes below 7 nanometers. This extreme concentration in a geopolitically volatile region represents a systemic risk, further exacerbated by the ongoing conflict between Taiwan and China.

Although hampered by American and Dutch export controls in the production of advanced chips, China dominates the production of standard and legacy chips with feature sizes above 28 nanometers. These seemingly insignificant components are, however, indispensable for the automotive industry, industrial automation, and consumer electronics. The Nexperia crisis vividly demonstrates that even seemingly simple semiconductors can become tools of geopolitical leverage.

While Europe possesses significant strengths in niche segments, these are insufficient to guarantee strategic autonomy. The Dutch company ASML holds a de facto monopoly in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems, which are essential for the production of state-of-the-art chips. With a market value exceeding €300 billion, ASML is Europe's most valuable technology company. Infineon is among the world's leading manufacturers of power semiconductors, which are crucial for the energy transition. STMicroelectronics and NXP are key players in automotive and industrial chips, respectively.

However, these strengths should not obscure the fact that Europe is marginalized in actual chip production. None of the world's ten largest semiconductor manufacturers are based in Europe. For advanced chips, Europe is entirely dependent on Asian and American suppliers. Even for legacy chips, where Europe still possesses significant capacity, its market share is steadily shrinking.

The market mechanisms of the semiconductor industry are structurally working against Europe. The immense capital costs for modern chip factories, which run into the tens of billions, require large production volumes for amortization. The generally smaller market sizes in Europe make such investments more difficult. Added to this are energy costs, which are two to three times higher in Europe than in the US or Asia, and lengthy approval processes that delay projects by years.

The players in the global semiconductor industry are aware of their power and use it strategically. While TSMC is building a factory in Dresden, control and the most advanced technologies remain in Taiwan. Intel has halted its planned €30 billion investment in Magdeburg, revealing the fragility of European industrial development policies. The geopolitical superpowers, the US and China, are increasingly instrumentalizing semiconductors as a weapon in the systemic competition, with Europe caught in the crossfire.

The stark assessment: Europe's lagging behind in figures

The current state of the European semiconductor industry in October 2025 can be characterized as a crisis that was entirely predictable. The quantitative indicators paint a clear picture: With a market share of 9 to 10 percent of global semiconductor production, Europe lags far behind Asia (over 60 percent) and even the USA (14 percent). Of the 1,500 semiconductor factories worldwide, only 60 are located in Europe. Of the 105 new factories planned or under construction worldwide, only 10 are in Europe.

The European semiconductor market saw a year-on-year decline of 8.2 percent in September 2024, while the US market grew by 46.3 percent and China by 22.9 percent. This makes Europe the only global region experiencing declining sales in the semiconductor industry. European manufacturers' revenues totaled just $4.43 billion per month in September 2024, compared to $17.2 billion in the US and $16 billion in China.

Europe's total dependence on advanced semiconductors is particularly problematic. The EU is unable to manufacture chips with a feature size of less than 22 nanometers. Yet these advanced semiconductors are essential for future technologies such as artificial intelligence, autonomous driving, and 5G communication. Europe imports virtually all of its advanced chips from Asia and the USA, which poses a strategic security risk.

The investment gap compared to other regions of the world is glaring. While the US, with its CHIPS Act, is mobilizing $52.7 billion in direct subsidies plus $200 billion in private investment, and China has pumped over €70 billion into its semiconductor industry since 2014, only €43 billion is available in Europe. But even this sum is largely a reallocation of existing funds and not genuine additional financing.

The shortage of skilled workers is exacerbating the situation. On average, Germany is lacking around 62,000 qualified professionals in semiconductor-related professions each year. Every second open position remains unfilled. By 2030, one million skilled workers will be needed worldwide in the semiconductor industry; in Europe alone, there is a shortage of over 100,000 engineers. Demographic change, with an entire generation of skilled workers retiring, is intensifying the problem.

Energy costs represent another fundamental challenge. Semiconductor factories are extremely energy-intensive, and European energy prices are significantly higher than those of its competitors. Even very short power outages can cause millions of euros in damages. Security of supply is not guaranteed everywhere in Europe, which deters potential investors.

The regulatory complexity and lengthy approval processes in Europe present an additional obstacle. While chip factories in Asia and the USA are approved and built within two to three years, comparable processes in Germany often take five years or more. The bureaucratic hurdles, from environmental impact assessments and building regulations to the processing of subsidies, significantly delay projects.

The failure of the Intel project in Magdeburg in July 2025 reveals the fragility of the European strategy. Intel, which just two years ago was considered a beacon of hope for Europe's semiconductor ambitions, withdrew its plans for a 30-billion-euro investment. The promised 10 billion euros in government funding were insufficient to bridge Intel's financial crisis. For Magdeburg and the surrounding region, this means the loss of 3,000 planned jobs and enormous economic opportunities.

The most pressing challenges can be summarized as follows: First, the structural dependence on Asian and American suppliers for critical semiconductors. Second, the insufficient competitiveness of European locations due to high costs and regulatory complexity. Third, the dramatic shortage of skilled workers, which jeopardizes even ambitious expansion plans. Fourth, the lack of coordination between EU member states, leading to duplication of structures and inefficiencies. Fifth, the lack of focus on realistic goals instead of unrealistic full-spectrum ambitions.

Our EU and German expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

How Germany, France and the Netherlands are reshaping Europe's chip strategy

A comparative look at different European approaches to semiconductor policy reveals interesting strategic divergences and illustrates the dilemma between national industrial policy and pan-European coordination.

Germany has become the leading European location for semiconductor investments, driven by the economic importance of the automotive industry and a relatively proactive industrial policy. Dresden, with its Silicon Saxony cluster, forms the hub. The region uniquely combines major companies such as Infineon, GlobalFoundries, X-FAB, and Bosch with over 40 research institutes and a dense network of suppliers. With the planned TSMC factory, for which ground was broken in August 2024, and Infineon's €5 billion investment, Germany boasts the most ambitious expansion plans in Europe.

However, the German strategy has significant weaknesses. The failure of the Intel project in Magdeburg revealed the limitations of an investment policy focused on individual large-scale projects. The promised €10 billion in subsidies ultimately proved insufficient to retain Intel. Critics also argue that Germany relies too heavily on foreign investors instead of strengthening its domestic industry. Germany remains weak in chip design and software, the most value-added segments.

The German microelectronics strategy, adopted by the cabinet in October 2025, aims to strengthen the entire ecosystem. It focuses on areas where Germany has traditionally been strong: power semiconductors, sensors, microcontrollers, and automotive chips. Whether this more pragmatic approach, which relies on specialization rather than a full spectrum, will be successful remains to be seen. High energy costs and bureaucratic hurdles remain fundamental competitive disadvantages.

France is pursuing a strategy more focused on European champions. With STMicroelectronics, a Franco-Italian joint venture, the country boasts one of the few European semiconductor manufacturers ranked among the world's top 20. The joint project between STMicroelectronics and GlobalFoundries for a €7.5 billion factory in southeastern France underscores this ambition. France traditionally relies more heavily on state intervention and industrial policy coordination, which has both strengths and weaknesses.

The French government is also pushing forward with research initiatives in the field of advanced semiconductor technologies. A research, development, and design center that Intel originally planned to establish in France exemplifies this strategy. However, France, too, is struggling with implementation problems. Many announced projects are being delayed or scaled back. Coordination between the national and European levels remains challenging.

The Netherlands occupies a special position, as it possesses ASML, the most valuable technology company in Europe. ASML's monopoly on EUV lithography systems gives the Netherlands immense strategic importance. No advanced chip factory worldwide can operate without ASML technology. This position has made the Netherlands a stage in the geopolitical struggle between the USA and China.

The Nexperia case illustrates the ambivalence of this position. In September 2025, the Dutch government was forced, under American pressure, to take control of the Chinese-owned company. This decision, primarily geopolitically motivated, had immediate economic consequences for the entire European automotive industry. The Netherlands thus finds itself caught between securing ASML as a strategic asset and maintaining economic relations with China, one of its most important trading partners.

A comparison of the three countries reveals differing priorities: Germany focuses on attracting businesses and expanding production capacity, France on European champions and state control, and the Netherlands on defending its monopoly position in critical technologies. All three approaches have strengths, but no single strategy is sufficient on its own. The lack of coordination between member states leads to inefficiencies, duplication of structures, and suboptimal resource allocation.

The contrast with Asian strategies is revealing. Taiwan is concentrating all its industrial policy power on TSMC, thereby creating a global champion. South Korea supports Samsung by all means, thereby accepting oligopolistic structures within its own borders. China is pursuing a comprehensive, state-capitalist strategy with investments exceeding €70 billion since 2014. Japan, reviving its semiconductor industry after decades of neglect, is relying on its strategic partnership with TSMC and the Rapidus project for advanced 2-nanometer chips.

Europe, on the other hand, is struggling with fragmented national approaches, unclear priorities, and the tension between competition policy and industrial strategy. The European Chips Act was intended to resolve these coordination problems, but its implementation has fallen short of expectations. EU member states are now themselves calling for a revision, as the 20 percent target is considered unrealistic and the strategy too broad in scope.

Related to this:

• Europe's secret superpower ASML in the chip war: How a single company holds the future of EU chip AI in its hands

The other side of the coin: Risks and conflicting objectives of the European chip offensive

The ambitious plans to expand the European semiconductor industry are associated with considerable risks and unresolved conflicts of interest, which often remain under-examined in public debate. A critical assessment must shed light on these downsides.

The first fundamental question is: Is the 20 percent target even achievable and sensible? The European Court of Auditors, the EU member states, and independent analysts now share the assessment: no. To double its market share from the current 10 percent to 20 percent by 2030, Europe would have to roughly quadruple its production capacity. Given the limited timeframe, the massive investments of its competitors, and Europe's structural disadvantages, this seems illusory. Worse still, this unrealistic target ties up political energy and financial resources that would be better spent on focused niche strategies.

The second critical question concerns the environmental dimension. Semiconductor production is extremely resource-intensive. A modern chip factory consumes millions of liters of water and enormous amounts of energy every day. Manufacturing a single wafer requires thousands of liters of highly purified water and dozens of different, sometimes highly toxic, chemicals. While Europe promotes environmental standards, the semiconductor boom threatens to undermine these ambitions. The conflict between climate policy commitments and the expansion of energy-intensive industries has so far been inadequately addressed.

The third controversy revolves around the issue of state subsidies. The planned and, in some cases, already pledged billions in aid for chip factories raise fundamental questions about competition policy. Critics argue that Europe is fueling a ruinous subsidy race that it ultimately cannot win. The US and China have significantly greater financial resources and political will. Furthermore, the Intel debacle in Magdeburg demonstrates that even multi-billion-euro commitments offer no guarantee of actual investment.

Added to this is the problem of opportunity costs: every euro spent on semiconductor subsidies is a euro missing elsewhere. The reallocation of funds from the Horizon Europe and Digital Europe research programs to finance the Chips Act weakens the European research landscape. The long-term consequences of this prioritization are difficult to predict, but could negatively impact Europe's innovative capacity in other future technologies.

The fourth fundamental disruption concerns the geopolitical instrumentalization of semiconductors. The Nexperia crisis demonstrates how Europe is caught in the crossfire of the American-Chinese systemic rivalry. The US is exerting massive pressure on European governments to block Chinese investments and technology transfers. China is responding with its own export controls and economic pressure. Europe risks becoming a pawn in this game, lacking the strategic clout to assert its own interests.

This situation carries the risk of forced bloc formation. Should Europe be forced to choose between an American-dominated and a Chinese-dominated technology ecosystem, this would spell the end of any ambition for strategic autonomy. The dependency would merely be shifted, not reduced. The question of how Europe can maintain its capacity to act in this bipolar situation remains largely unanswered.

The fifth controversy concerns the social dimension of the semiconductor transformation. While the highly automated chip factories create highly skilled jobs, their number is limited. The promised 2,000 to 3,000 jobs per factory are modest compared to the immense investment sums. Furthermore, there is a risk of regional concentration: Dresden benefits while other regions are left behind. The distributional effects within Europe have so far been insufficiently addressed.

The sixth fundamental question is: Can Europe still catch up? Some experts argue that the train has already left the station for Europe. The technological gap in advanced semiconductors is so large that it cannot be closed within a decade. TSMC's lead in 3-nanometer manufacturing is several years. Even if Europe invests massively, its Asian competitors will not stand still. The race is like trying to catch a departing train as it continues to accelerate.

The seventh disruption concerns the question of resilience versus efficiency. Global supply chains and specialization have led to enormous efficiency gains over decades. Attempting to bring critical value chain stages back to Europe (reshoring) means relinquishing this efficiency. The consequence is higher costs, which are reflected in product prices. Society must be prepared to pay this resilience premium – a discussion that has not yet been openly debated.

An eighth controversy revolves around the question of military versus civilian use. The increasing importance of semiconductors for defense systems means that the sector is increasingly viewed through the lens of security policy. EU member states are now calling for the semiconductor industry to be prioritized as a strategic industry, similar to aerospace or defense. This militarization of semiconductor policy carries its own risks and shifts priorities away from civilian innovations.

The ninth fundamental question concerns governance: Who ultimately makes the strategic decisions? The tension between the EU Commission, national governments, and industry interests leads to suboptimal compromises. The lack of democratic legitimacy in many industrial policy decisions, which are negotiated behind closed doors between governments and corporations, is problematic from a democratic perspective.

The tenth, and perhaps most fundamental, controversy is this: Should Europe even attempt to be present in all areas of the semiconductor value chain? Critics argue for a radical focus on areas where Europe is already strong – equipment (ASML), power semiconductors (Infineon), sensors, and specialty chemicals. Trying to compete in advanced logic chips could consume resources without ever becoming competitive. This fundamental strategic question has so far been inadequately addressed in the debate surrounding the Chips Act.

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, five-fold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital possesses in-depth knowledge across various industries. This allows us to develop tailored strategies precisely aligned with the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continuously analyzing market trends and monitoring industry developments, we can act proactively and offer innovative solutions. The combination of experience and expertise generates added value and provides our clients with a decisive competitive advantage.

More information here:

• Benefit from Xpert.Digital's 5 areas of expertise in one package – starting from just €500/month

A look into the future: Five scenarios for Europe's chip industry

The future of the European semiconductor industry cannot be predicted with certainty, but based on the analyzed trends and structures, various scenarios can be outlined that depict different development paths.

The pessimistic scenario, which can be described as "continued decline," assumes that current efforts are insufficient and come too late. In this scenario, further major projects fail following the Intel debacle. The TSMC factory in Dresden remains an exception, producing only older generations of automotive chips. Europe's market share continues to fall below 8 percent by 2030 and reaches the projected 5.9 percent by 2045. Strategic dependence on Asian suppliers intensifies.

In this scenario, Europe becomes a mere sales market and loses any ability to set its own standards. Geopolitical crises lead to recurring supply bottlenecks, weakening European industries. The automotive industry, already under pressure from electrification, loses further competitiveness. Highly skilled workers migrate to the USA or Asia, exacerbating the problem. Europe becomes a technological appendage of the global semiconductor industry.

The medium scenario, “Specialized Resilience,” assumes a pragmatic realignment. Europe abandons the unrealistic 20 percent target and focuses on niche markets where it is competitive. Power semiconductors for the energy transition, sensors for industrial applications, automotive chips, and specialty semiconductors for defense and critical infrastructure are prioritized. Investments are concentrated in a few flagship locations like Dresden, which are developed into genuine clusters of excellence.

In this scenario, Europe accepts its dependence on advanced logic chips but secures itself through diversification of supply sources and strategic partnerships with trusted countries like Japan and Taiwan. ASML's position as an essential supplier is strengthened and politically protected. Europe develops into an important, but not dominant, player in specific segments of the semiconductor value chain. Its market share stabilizes at 10 to 12 percent.

The optimistic scenario, “European Renaissance,” is based on the assumption that Europe learns from its current mistakes and achieves a fundamental realignment. The second phase of the Chips Act, which the member states are demanding, brings a clear strategic focus, significantly increased investment, and accelerated approval processes. Germany, France, and the Netherlands effectively coordinate their industrial policies and avoid duplication of structures.

In this scenario, a complete European value chain is successfully established in selected sectors. The EU chip design platform becomes a success, providing European startups and SMEs with access to EDA tools and IP libraries. European universities produce a sufficient number of skilled workers through massively expanded training programs. Energy costs are made competitive through targeted industrial electricity pricing.

Technological breakthroughs in areas such as energy-efficient chips, quantum computing semiconductors, and neuromorphic processors are opening up new markets where Europe doesn't have to compete against established market leaders. Europe is positioning itself as a pioneer in sustainable semiconductor production and turning this into a competitive advantage. Its market share is projected to rise to 15 percent by 2035.

The disruptive scenario, "Technological Paradigm Shift," is based on fundamental technological upheavals. New semiconductor materials beyond silicon, such as gallium nitride or graphene, or radically new computer architectures like quantum computing, render the existing advantages of Asian manufacturers obsolete. In this scenario, Europe would have the opportunity to be involved in a technological restart from the outset and to set its own standards.

Europe's strong research landscape, with over 40 institutes in Dresden alone, could become a decisive asset in such a paradigm shift. The integration of semiconductors with new technologies like photonics or the development of neuromorphic computing could be areas in which Europe can become a leader. This scenario is speculative, but it illustrates that technological developments are not deterministic.

The geopolitical crisis scenario, “fragmentation of the global economy,” assumes increasing bloc formation. The technology conflict between the US and China escalates further, with Taiwan becoming the scene of direct confrontation. In this scenario, the US forces Europe to completely decouple from Chinese semiconductor supply chains. At the same time, the US uses its market power to put pressure on Europe.

In this scenario, Europe would have no alternative to the accelerated development of its own production capacities, regardless of the costs. Security of supply would become the overriding goal. The semiconductor industry would effectively be declared critical infrastructure, with all the consequences of mandatory investment and subsidies. Europe would have to pay a high economic price for enforced self-sufficiency, but would have no alternative.

Which scenario is most likely depends on numerous factors, some of which are outside European control. Crucial factors will be: first, the capacity for political coordination between EU institutions and member states; second, the extent of further investments amounting to billions; third, the solution to the skilled labor shortage; fourth, the development of the overall geopolitical climate; and fifth, technological breakthroughs or setbacks.

The most likely scenario is a combination of the medium and geopolitical scenarios: Europe will have to pragmatically focus on niche markets, while simultaneously being forced to make greater investments in resilience due to increasing geopolitical tensions. The result is likely to be a European market share of 12 to 15 percent by 2035 – more than today, but significantly less than the originally targeted 20 percent.

The crucial question for Europe is not whether it can catch up with the world's leading nations – realistically, that opportunity has been lost. Rather, the question is whether Europe can build sufficient capacity to avoid being completely vulnerable to blackmail in a crisis and to remain competitive in specific niche markets. This more modest ambition is achievable, but it requires political will, financial resources, and above all, strategic clarity.

Related to this:

• Germany's underappreciated superpower: Smart Factory – Why our factories are the best launchpad for the AI ​​future

Europe's way out of the chip crisis – a realistic assessment

The analysis of the European semiconductor industry paints a picture of a region caught between inflated ambitions and sobering reality. The answer to the initial question of whether Europe's semiconductor industry is doomed or poised for a renaissance is: neither. Europe finds itself in a state that could be characterized as a "controlled decline with remaining opportunities.".

The key findings of this study can be summarized as follows: For decades, Europe made strategic errors by underestimating the geopolitical dimension of semiconductors and relying on the global division of labor, while other regions systematically built up their own capacities. The European Chips Act came late and is inadequate in its current form. The 20 percent target is unrealistic and ties up resources that would be better spent on more focused strategies.

Europe's structural disadvantages – high energy costs, lengthy permitting processes, skills shortages, and fragmented national approaches – are real and cannot be remedied in the short term. The investment gap with the US and China is massive. The geopolitical situation is increasingly forcing Europe into a role between blocs, lacking the strategic mass to assert its own interests.

Nevertheless, Europe possesses significant assets: ASML's monopoly in EUV lithography, strengths in power semiconductors and sensors, an excellent research landscape, and, with Dresden, a functioning semiconductor cluster. These strengths are not enough for a return to the top of the world, but they form the basis for a specialized, resilient position in the global semiconductor industry.

The strategic implications for European policymakers are clear: First, the unrealistic 20 percent target must be replaced by a focused niche strategy. Europe should concentrate on power semiconductors, automotive chips, sensors, and specialized applications, instead of trying to compete in every sector. Second, structural competitive disadvantages must be addressed – industrial electricity prices, accelerated approval processes, and a massive expansion of skilled worker training.

Third, significantly better coordination between EU member states is needed. The current fragmentation leads to inefficiencies and suboptimal resource allocation. Fourth, Europe needs a clear concept for strategic partnerships with trusted countries such as Japan, South Korea, and potentially Taiwan, in order to diversify dependencies. Fifth, the financing of semiconductor expansion must be placed on a more solid footing, instead of relying primarily on reallocations from research budgets.

For business leaders in affected industries, the analysis means that the hope for rapid European self-sufficiency in critical semiconductors is illusory. Resilience strategies must focus on diversifying global supply sources, strategic inventories, and developing chips using European legacy technologies. The automotive industry must accept that its dependence on Asian suppliers will persist in the medium term and develop appropriate risk management strategies.

For investors, specialized European semiconductor companies in niche markets offer considerable potential. ASML remains a strategic investment due to its monopoly position. Infineon, STMicroelectronics, and other European manufacturers could benefit from the energy transition, which is creating massive demand for power semiconductors. However, expectations of quick returns from semiconductor startups should be tempered – the industry requires long-term perspectives and substantial capital investments.

The long-term importance of this issue for Europe cannot be overstated. Semiconductors are the foundation of virtually all future technologies, from artificial intelligence and autonomous driving to the energy transition. A region marginalized in this area will also fall behind in downstream technologies. Europe's strategic autonomy, a frequently invoked goal, is unattainable without minimum semiconductor production capacities.

The Nexperia crisis of October 2025, which motivated this analysis, is a warning sign. It shows that even inconspicuous legacy chips can become weapons in geopolitical conflict. Europe's vulnerability is real and is more likely to increase than decrease in the future. The question is not whether Europe will experience further such crises, but when and how severe they will be.

Is the situation hopeless? No. Europe certainly has the resources, technology, and human capital to remain competitive in specific areas of the semiconductor industry. But time is running out. Every lost year exacerbates the dependency and widens the gap. The next two to three years will show whether Europe can muster the political will to implement the necessary reforms and invest sufficiently.

The demise of the European semiconductor industry is not yet over. But the public is growing impatient, and competition on the global stage is relentless. Europe faces a choice: a radical strategic realignment with painful compromises, or a slow decline into technological irrelevance. The coming years will show which path the continent chooses. The future is still being written – but time is running out to change the script.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your native language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I and my team are happy to be available to you as your personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form here or simply call me at +49 7348 4088 965. My email address is: [email protected]

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, five-fold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital possesses in-depth knowledge across various industries. This allows us to develop tailored strategies precisely aligned with the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continuously analyzing market trends and monitoring industry developments, we can act proactively and offer innovative solutions. The combination of experience and expertise generates added value and provides our clients with a decisive competitive advantage.

More information here:

• Benefit from Xpert.Digital's 5 areas of expertise in one package – starting from just €500/month