From analysis to action: how do we prevent European complacency?

In a rapidly changing world where geopolitical, technological and economic challenges are mounting, the European Union wants to remain competitive and prosperous. The question of how Europe maintains its leadership and secures its future was central in Mario Draghi’s 2024 report. At the request of the European Commission, he analysed which structural steps are needed to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and strategic autonomy.

This week, more than a year later, the independent advice of Peter Wennink – former CEO of ASML – is published. The Dutch Council of Ministers asked him to translate the key insights from Draghi’s work into the Dutch context: where are the structural bottlenecks, what opportunities exist for our future earning capacity and which concrete choices and steps are now needed? His advice should help the future cabinet develop a clear and forward-looking economic compass.

With Draghi’s analysis as a foundation and Wennink’s advice as a follow-up, a crucial moment arises. The challenge now is: how do we ensure that urgency is not lost and we do not lapse into complacency, precisely when action is needed?

Transitions fail when there is a lack of perceived urgency

In transition research we repeatedly see the same pattern. Major system changes such as digitalisation or industrial sustainability rarely fail due to lack of knowledge. They fail mainly because of the absence of perceived urgency. Three mechanisms play a structural role in this:

1. As long as a crisis simmers, the willingness to change remains limited.
   Many transitions unfold slowly but inevitably. Think of climate change. Everyone knows it is becoming more urgent, but without direct tangible pressure, action remains limited.
2. Only when the pain is clearly felt do we dare to take unpopular measures.
   The coronavirus crisis showed this. Only when the need was high could government, science and business switch rapidly. But as soon as the pressure eases, room for delay and regression emerges.
3. National interests almost always outweigh collective long-term logic.
   Not out of unwillingness, but because institutions, funding flows and political reality are organised nationally. While value chains and technological positions are cross-border.

These three patterns make clear why the step from Draghi to Wennink does not happen automatically. Draghi has outlined the playing field sharply; Wennink must help translate that into executable choices for the Netherlands. And my own observation is that much has indeed changed since 2024. There is a stronger awareness that we must piece the puzzle together at European level, that we must increase our strategic autonomy and that innovation is a foundation for our future prosperity. We also see more attention and resources becoming available for innovation and scaling up.

But at the same time we are still lagging behind on crucial components. Analyses by TNO show that the Netherlands is still far from meeting the commitment to invest 3% of GDP in research and innovation. This leaves us behind the countries we want to compete with – and creates a risk that newly acquired awareness is mistaken for actual action.

That is precisely where complacency lurks: when the feeling ‘we are on the right track’ obscures the structural choices that still need to be made. It is therefore essential that the urgency Draghi exposed does not disappear, but remains guiding for the choices Wennink now advises.

What does this mean for the next phase under Wennink?

Now that the baton is being passed from Draghi to Wennink, the question shifts from analysis to activation. Draghi showed what is needed. Wennink will have to help determine how we are actually going to do it.

1. Combine the energy of new players with the power of established parties.
The necessary acceleration requires both the scale and clout of established organisations and the fresh perspective, speed and sharpness of new players.

• New entrepreneurs and innovative companies often see earlier where systems stall.
• Their critical attitude and imagination are not a detail, but essential.
• The recommendations of Wennink can only succeed if this innovative energy is connected with the strength of existing institutions.
  
  

2. Create urgent imagination without waiting for real crises.
We must learn to think and act as if we are already in the midst of an industrial crisis, without all signals needing to turn red first. It is about making urgency tangible before systems grind to a halt.

Tools that help include scenarios, transition paths and research into control points and interventions – instruments that make clear where choices have the greatest impact.

3. Build a shared European direction – not many parallel national versions.
Each European country works to strengthen its own economic and technological position, but often does so within national frameworks. The major transitions, however, require a shared course.

The advice of Wennink will only have impact if we get countries on board with one joint transition compass, instead of many national variants that overlap or counteract each other. That requires diplomacy, the courage to make choices and clarity about where we really want to deepen our knowledge and innovation position.

From insight to action

The transition from Draghi to Wennink is not a formal relay between two documents, but a critical phase in a larger transition process. Draghi has provided the analysis; Wennink must sharpen the action perspective.

The real question now is: how do we prevent leaning back now that the analysis is there? If we take one lesson from transition research, it is this: Transitions only accelerate when urgency is felt, cooperation is truly European and we give space to innovative voices that keep us sharp.

*In the creation of this reflection, Microsoft Copilot, based on GPT-4, 2025, was used.