With one of the fastest-aging populations in the world, Europe will never be this young again. By 2050, one in three Europeans will be 65 or older, an age when Alzheimer’s disease risk starts doubling every five years. While breakthrough treatments are changing the trajectory of Alzheimer’s disease in other parts of the world, Europe is lagging in access and investment, cutting many people off from care options that could improve their lives. A global shift toward early intervention is showing what is possible, with patients starting to be diagnosed in time for treatment to have an impact.[1], [2] Detecting the disease early is like diagnosing cancer at stage one rather than stage four. It can make a profound difference for patients and families in the moments that matter most. Timely treatment can provide more independence, connection and time to make informed choices. > Detecting the disease early is like diagnosing cancer at stage one rather than > stage four. It can make a profound difference for patients and families in the > moments that matter most. Worldwide, 23 regulators have approved disease modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease, signaling growing confidence in these medicines. Four of the world’s largest economies also provide reimbursement so that cost is not a barrier. Yet in much of Europe, people living with the disease remain unable to access these innovations. Some countries have authorized treatments but failed to provide a reimbursement pathway, creating a two-tiered healthcare system where wealthier patients can afford treatment while others are left behind. Recent developments in the UK offer a cautiously encouraging signal. The appeal process through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has acknowledged that the full value of innovation, including the impact on unpaid carers and the broader burden on informal carers, must be part of the conversation. This is a welcome recognition that systems need to evolve. Health technology assessment frameworks were largely designed to measure short-term, direct healthcare costs for acute interventions. They recognize clinical benefit in narrow terms, and overlook the wider impact that early intervention delivers across health and social care systems:[3] fewer years in residential and nursing home care and a reduced burden on unpaid carers. Such considerations matter enormously to patients and families, yet their voice often remains unheard in the decision-making of many European countries. The cost of this miscalculation compounds. Families are denied treatments that exist today, and future generations inherit health systems ill-equipped for the challenge ahead. Delay is already costing families and health systems When systems delay action, the burden doesn’t disappear. It shifts to families and it costs people good days with their loved ones. Dementia carries the highest global burden of disability, stealing more total years of quality life and independence than any other disease. Its economic toll is staggering, costing Europe 40 percent more than all cancers combined. The vast majority of those costs fall on families and social care. This also increases sharply as the disease progresses, going up by approximately €25,000 more per year as it moves from mild to severe.[4] Slowing disease progression eases the burden on millions of family members who      put aside their own careers and well-being to look after loved ones as unpaid carers.[5]      Yet the 90 percent of dementia costs that fall outside direct healthcare are routinely excluded from value assessments. 4 Including them would fundamentally change the equation. New medicines to treat Alzheimer’s disease have achieved efficacy and safety profiles on par with leading cancer and multiple sclerosis treatments, yet they face more skepticism. 4 Part of the problem is that diseases long considered untreatable suffer from underinvestment in care pathways. When treatments finally arrive, it is families who bear the consequences of health systems that are slow to adapt. This is where leaders can act. When assessing whether these treatments are worth paying for, policymakers must consider the full economic picture, one that captures the long-term value that early intervention delivers, not just short-term direct costs. Science is moving. Europe can lead or fall behind. At a time when European leaders are debating competitiveness, biotech leadership and fiscal sustainability, Alzheimer’s disease is not just a health issue. It is a test of whether Europe can adapt its systems to demographic reality, or allow the gap between scientific progress and patient access to widen further. European policymakers should give people this choice to know and act early. That begins with two priorities: enabling access to innovative diagnostics and treatments within a stronger system of care, and modernizing value assessment so it captures the full benefit of innovation, accounting for long-term savings across health and social care, not just short-term direct costs. > Alzheimer’s disease is not just a health issue. It is a test of whether Europe > can adapt its systems to demographic reality, or allow the gap between > scientific progress and patient access to widen further. By expanding diagnosis and access to innovation, Europe can help more people age with dignity, while reinforcing its position as a destination for research, clinical trials      and long-term investment. Europeans deserve the choice that science now makes possible. If leaders recognize the need for change, the time to act on it is now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Eckhardt, J. “Breakthroughs Changing The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Alzheimer’s” Forbes (2025) Breakthroughs Changing The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Alzheimer’s (Accessed March 15, 2026) [2] Beasley, B. “I Caught My Alzheimer’s at 57, Early Enough to Intervene.” The Wall Street Journal (2026). https://www.wsj.com/opinion/i-caught-my-alzheimers-at-57-early-enough-to-intervene-15072207 (Accessed March 15, 2026) [3] EFPIA. “Taking Action Together to Ensure a Brighter Today and Tomorrow for People with Alzheimer’s Disease.” Position Paper. https://www.efpia.eu/media/412735/taking-action-together-to-ensure-a-better-today-and-tomorrow-for-people-with-alzheimer-s-disease.pdf [4] Frisoni GB, Aho E, Brayne C, et al. “Alzheimer’s disease outlook: controversies and future directions.” The Lancet, Vol. 406, No. 10510, pp. 1424–1442 (September 2025). [5] Abi-Saleh N, So D, Molenkamp V. “Addressing the Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease on Care Capacity in the Netherlands: Implications for Health Technology Assessment.” Poster presentation, ISPOR Europe 2025. https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/presentations-database/presentation-cti/ispor-europe-2025/poster-session-1-2/addressing-the-impact-of-alzheimer-s-disease-on-care-capacity-in-the-netherlands-implications-for-health-technology-assessment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company. * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company. * This article calls on European policymakers to reform health technology assessment and reimbursement systems to improve access to Alzheimer’s diagnostics and treatments, explicitly aiming to influence public health policy in Europe. More information here.

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

LONDON — Civil servants in Britain’s business department are testing AI-enabled toys to determine their safety ahead of potential new restrictions. The testing is being carried out by the little-known Office for Product Safety & Standards, part of the Department for Business and Trade, and involves officials putting the toys through real-life scenarios to see how they respond, according to one person involved granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the work. AI toys integrate chatbots, which can engage in human-like conversations with the user, into physical toys designed for children — and many are already on the market, even as researchers warn we don’t know much about the risks they might pose to kids. If a toy were determined to be unsafe, the government could intervene through the Product Safety and Metrology Act passed last year, which grants it increased powers to impose regulations on consumer products put on the U.K. market, including those sold online. The government has also said it will consult shortly on “major reforms” to the U.K.’s product safety framework to tackle the prevalence of unsafe products sold to Brits and increase the regime’s enforcement powers. In a written statement in December, Digital Economy Minister Liz Lloyd said the government was committed to reviewing the regulations for toys, which would “examine whether changes are needed to detailed safety requirements to reflect modern challenges, such as the use of AI in toys.” It comes amid warnings from researchers and consumer and parent groups over the safety of AI toys and their impact on children. A study by University of Cambridge researchers this month warned that AI toys are already being marketed to children despite a lack of robust studies about how they could impact early years development. The researchers called for stricter regulation and labeling requirements to help inform parents. Testing one toy, the researchers found that it often misunderstood children and reacted inappropriately to emotions. In one instance a toy reacted to a five-year-old boy saying “I love you” with “please ensure interactions adhere to the guidelines provided.” In an open letter issued before Christmas, U.K.-based campaign group set@16 declared the marketing of AI toys to British toddlers a “national and international emergency” and demanded an “immediate moratorium on sales and an urgent product recall.” Some experts have suggested that a “product safety” approach — whereby the onus is on those marketing a product to demonstrate that it meets consumer safety standards — could provide a blueprint to regulate AI more broadly. Some within Labour have heard that message. Speaking at a conference in London last week, Labour MP Tom Collins argued that a product safety approach could provide a more familiar framework for regulating the novel technology than sweeping regulation. Product safety is “a really good benchmark that we can all agree on,” he said.

LONDON — Brexit was “a colossal mistake” and the U.K. should rejoin the European Union, Alexander Stubb said Tuesday.   But instead of waiting for that to happen, London and Brussels should work together now to deepen their relationship in key areas such as defense and intelligence sharing, trade and access to the single market, and technology and innovation, the Finnish president said.  Speaking at the Chatham House think tank during a visit to London, he said the chaotic state of the world in which the old, rules-based order no longer holds should prompt a radical rethink of the EU-U.K. relationship.  “I think Brexit was a colossal mistake,” said former London student Stubb, who has a British wife and children with dual nationality. “I am too diplomatic to express exactly what I think about those who promoted Brexit during the campaign, and those who still say that Brexit is a good thing … But I do think it’s not only shooting yourself in the foot, but it’s like amputating your leg without medical reason for doing it.”  Stubb said he recognized that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not aim to rejoin the EU but argued that Brits and Europeans should be “pragmatic” now and show flexibility on both sides.  Negotiations have been ongoing over moves toward deepening the partnership between London and Brussels since Starmer’s Labour won power in 2024, but progress has been held back over disagreements over youth mobility programs, student fees and how much the U.K. should pay to take part in an arms investment package.  “We need a U.K. voice in Europe. We really miss you guys,” Stubb said. “I should probably express my view that it took you seven years to negotiate yourselves out of the EU, it will take you seven years to regret it, and then seven years to come back in. I hope.” Stubb said British membership of the EU’s customs union should be possible, alongside participation in the single market. Red lines during years of Brexit negotiations meant the U.K. left both structures five years ago, under a bare bones deal that Boris Johnson negotiated.  “We need to be super pragmatic,” he said, instead of Europeans thinking they should “continue to punish” the U.K. for leaving the bloc. “Get out of the mindset that the U.K. should not be a part of the customs union, or the U.K. should not be a part of the internal market. Think about a flexible way of dealing with it.” More broadly, Stubb suggested the EU should reform its structures to allow more flexibility in the way member countries work together, and work with states that are not formal members of the EU.  He said Iceland is renewing its interest in becoming a member, he’d like to see Norway join the bloc, and he joked to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that Canada should also take a look at EU membership when the pair went running together on Tuesday morning in London. 

Teresa Graham, © EFPIA European governments navigate an ever more competitive global landscape, stagnating productivity and competing demands on budgets. We have successfully faced and solved many challenges in the past, but this situation is different: the choices we make today will shape our health care systems and patient care, and these choices will dictate Europe’s economic performance and global relevance for decades to come. For those of us in the life sciences, these aren’t just macroeconomic trends — they are the pulse of a system that determines how quickly a breakthrough reaches a patient. It is a high-stakes environment where policies on health care and innovation carry urgent human and economic consequences. When a medicine has the power to treat or potentially cure, neither innovators nor policymakers want to drag their heels, because no person requiring health care can afford the luxury of delay. > The true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but > the cost of failing to do so. Europe’s challenge is clear: we must better align our industrial strength in life science with public health goals, ensuring innovation reaches both patients and economies faster. The question is no longer what Europe wants to be — it is where Europe chooses to invest to remain a global player. Health as e conomic i nfrastructure Under the weight of mounting budget pressures, it is understandable that governments often view health primarily as a cost to be contained. However, this perspective is disconnected from modern economic reality. And let me be clear: the true economic burden of health care isn’t financing health innovation, but the cost of failing to do so. For years, Europe has already been paying the price of lost productivity: citizens forced out of the workforce too early and chronic diseases managed too late. For instance, cardiovascular diseases alone cost the E uropean U nion economy up to €282 billion annually. This creates a massive yet avoidable strain on national budgets, especially as pharmaceutical innovation is estimated to be responsible for up to two-thirds of life expectancy gains in high-income countries . 1 > Every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care > for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. We must shift our mindset . H ealth is not merely a social good; it is economic infrastructure. Healthier societies are inherently more productive and resilient, and every medical breakthrough that enables a citizen to return to work or care for their family is a direct investment in Europe’s economic strength. Investing in innovation today is the only way to secure a competitive workforce and reduce long-term systemic costs. The c ompetitiveness t est: a s trategic a sset, n ot a l ine i tem Europe’s life sciences sector is one of the few remaining areas that retains genuine global competitiveness and strength, contributing more than €300 billion to annual output and supporting 2 million high-skilled jobs across m ember s tates . 2 It anchors Europe’s trade resilience, generating a trade surplus 66 percent higher than all other EU sectors combined . 3 But the warning signs are clear: while Europe still accounts for 20 percent of global pharmaceutical research and development , its share of global investment is shrinking as capital and talent migrate elsewhere . 4 Europe’s world-class science is being held back by fragmentation and regulatory inertia. > We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic > asset, not merely a cost to be managed. If we want to lead the next wave of medical breakthroughs, we must move at the speed of global change. This requires a fundamental shift: simplifying clinical trial regulations, deploying AI-driven digital tools, incentivizing research through strong intellectual property frameworks and establishing a public-private dialogue on innovative pharmaceuticals. We need a clear action plan, not just more legislation, to translate our scientific leadership into tangible health outcomes.   We must treat this sector as a pillar of our sovereignty and a strategic asset, not merely a cost to be managed.  A  c onsequential  c hoice  Europe has to choose. Either we can continue to approach life science innovation as a budgetary threat, only to reali z e too late that we have weakened our competitiveness and delayed new treatments for patients. Or we can recogni z e innovation for what it is  —  an economic multiplier that strengthens our productivity, resilience  and global influence  —  and ensure that Europe remains a place where the next generation of medical breakthroughs is discovered, developed  and delivered to patients.  There is no middle ground. Europe must stop focus ing solely on the cost of innovation and start asking how much innovation it can afford to lose. In the global race for talent and capital, hesitation is a decision. The rest of the world is not waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. The value of health: Investing in Europe’s future [EPC 2026] 2. Economic and Societal Footprint of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe [VE / PwC 2024] 3. International trade of EU and non-EU countries since 2002 by SITC [Eurostat 2026] 4. The 2025 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard [EC 2025] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to  EU pharmaceutical regulation and innovation policy. More information here.

Dr. Daniel Steiners This is not an obituary for Germany’s economic standing. It is an invitation to shift perspective: away from the language of crisis and toward a clearer view of our opportunities — and toward the confidence that we have more capacity to shape our future than the mood indicators might suggest. For years, Germany seemed to be traveling along a self-evident path of success: growth, prosperity, the title of export champion. But that framework is beginning to fray. Other countries are catching up. Parts of our industrial base appear vulnerable to the pressures of transformation. And global dependencies are turning into strategic vulnerabilities. In short, the German model of success is under strain. Yet a glance at Europe’s economic history suggests that moments like these can also contain enormous potential — if strategic thinking and decisive action come together. One example, which I find particularly striking, takes us back to 1900. At the time, André and Édouard Michelin were producing tires in a relatively small market, when the automobile itself was still a niche product. They could have focused simply on improving their product. Instead, they thought bigger; not in silos, but in systems. With the Michelin Guide, they created incentives and orientation for greater mobility: workshop directories, road maps, and recommendations for hotels and restaurants made travel more predictable and attractive. What began as a service booklet for motorists gradually evolved into an entire ecosystem — and eventually into a globally recognized benchmark for quality. > In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape > them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. What makes this example remarkable is that the real innovation did not lie in the tire itself or merely even a clever marketing idea to boost sales. It lay in something more fundamental: connected thinking and ecosystem thinking. The decision to see mobility as a broad space for value creation. It was the courage to break out of silos, to recognize strategic connections, to deepen value chains — and to help define the standards of an emerging market. That is precisely the lesson that remains relevant today, including for policymakers. In times of change, those who recognize connections and are willing to shape them strategically can transform uncertainty into lasting strength. Germany’s industrial health economy is still too often viewed in public debate in narrowly sectoral terms — primarily through the lens of health care provision and costs. Strategically, however, it has long been an industrial ecosystem that spans research, development, manufacturing, digital innovation, exports and highly skilled employment. Just as Michelin helped shape the ecosystem of mobility, Germany can think of health as a comprehensive domain of value creation. The industrial health economy: cost driver or engine of growth? Yes, medicines cost money. In 2024, Germany’s statutory health insurance system spent around €55 billion on pharmaceuticals. But much of that increase reflects medical progress and the need for appropriate care in an aging society with changing disease patterns. Innovative therapies benefit both patients and the health system. They can improve quality and length of life while shifting treatment from hospitals into outpatient care or even into patients’ homes. They raise efficiency in the system, reduce downstream costs and support workforce participation. > In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care > system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and > the financing of our social security systems. Despite public perception, pharmaceutical spending has remained remarkably stable for years, accounting for roughly 12 percent of total expenditures in the statutory health insurance system. That figure also includes generics — medicines that enter the ‘world heritage of pharmacy’ after patent protection expires and remain available at low cost. Truly innovative, patent-protected medicines account for only about seven percent of total spending. Against these costs stands an economic sector in which Germany continues to hold a leading international position. With around 1.1 million employees and value creation exceeding €190 billion, the industrial health economy is among the largest sectors of the German economy. Its high-tech products, bearing the Made in Germany label, are in demand worldwide and contribute significantly to Germany’s export surplus. In short, the industrial health economy is not merely part of our health care system. It is a key industry, underpinning economic strength, prosperity and the financing of our social security systems. Its overall balance is positive. The central question, therefore, is this: how can we unlock its untapped potential? And what would it mean for Germany if we fail to recognize these opportunities while economic and innovative capacity increasingly shifts elsewhere? Global dynamics leave little room for hesitation Governments around the world have long recognized the strategic importance of the industrial health economy — for health care, for economic growth and for national security. China is demonstrating remarkable speed in scaling and implementing biotechnology. The United States, meanwhile, illustrates how determined industrial policy can look in practice. Regulatory authorities are being modernized, approval procedures accelerated and bureaucratic barriers systematically reduced. At the same time, domestic production is being strategically strengthened. Speed and market size act as magnets for capital — especially in a sector where research is extraordinarily capital-intensive and requires long-term planning security. When innovation-friendly conditions and economic recognition of innovation meet a large, well-funded market, global shifts follow. Today roughly 50 percent of the global pharmaceutical market is located in the United States, about 23 percent in Europe — and only 4 to 5 percent in Germany. This distribution is no coincidence; it reflects differences in economic and regulatory environments. At the same time, political pressure is growing on countries that benefit from the American innovation engine without offering an equally attractive home market or recognizing the value of innovation in comparable ways. Discussions around a Most Favored Nation approach or other trade policy instruments are moving in precisely that direction — and they affect Europe and Germany directly. For Germany, the implications are clear. Those who want to attract investment must strengthen their competitiveness. Those who want to ensure reliable health care must appropriately reward new therapies. Otherwise, these global dynamics will inevitably affect both the economy and health care at home. Already today, roughly one in four medicines introduced in the United States between 2014 and 2023 is not available in Europe. The gap is even larger for gene and cell therapies. The primacy of industrial policy: from consensus to action — now Germany does not lack potential or substance. We still have a strong industrial base, a tradition of invention, outstanding universities and research institutions, and a private sector willing to invest. Political initiatives such as the coalition agreement, the High-Tech Agenda and plans for a future strategy in pharmaceuticals and medical technology provide important impulses, which I strongly welcome. > A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is > the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient > health system. But programs must now translate into a coherent action plan for growth. We need innovation-friendly and stable framework conditions that consider health care, economic strength and national security together — as a strategic ecosystem, not as separate silos. The value of medical innovation must also be recognized in Germany. A fair market environment without artificial price caps or rigid guardrails is the strongest magnet for private capital, long-term investment and a resilient health system. Faster approval procedures, consistent digitalization and a determined reduction of bureaucracy are essential if speed is once again to become a competitive advantage and a driver of innovation. Germany can reinvent itself, of that I am convinced. With courage, strategic determination and an ambitious push for innovation. The choice now lies with us: to set the right course and unlock the potential that is already there.

The 21st century is more likely to belong to Beijing than to Washington — at least that’s the view from four key U.S. allies. Swaths of the public in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. have soured on the U.S., driven by President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions, according to recent results from The POLITICO Poll. Respondents in these countries increasingly see China as a more dependable partner than the U.S. and believe the Asian economic colossus is leading on advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence. Critically, Europeans surveyed see it as possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. but harder to reduce reliance on China — suggesting newfound entanglements that could drastically tip the balance of global power away from the West. Here are five key takeaways from the poll highlighting the pivot from the U.S. to China. The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — found that respondents in those four allied countries believe it is better to depend on China than the U.S. following Trump’s turbulent return to office. That appears to be driven by Trump’s disruption, not by a newfound stability in China: In a follow-up question, a majority of respondents in both Canada and Germany agreed that any attempts to get closer to China are because the U.S. has become harder to depend on — not because China itself has become a more reliable partner. Many respondents in France (38 percent) and the U.K. (42 percent) also shared that sentiment. Under Trump’s “America First” ethos, Washington has upended the “rules-based international order” of the past with sharp-elbowed policies that have isolated the U.S. on the global stage. This includes slow-walking aid to Ukraine, threatening NATO allies with economic punishment and withdrawing from major international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council. His punitive liberation day tariffs, as well as threats to annex Greenland and make Canada “the 51st state,” have only further strained relationships with top allies. Beijing has seized the moment to cultivate better business ties with European countries looking for an alternative to high U.S. tariffs on their exports. Last October, Beijing hosted a forum aimed at shoring up mutual investments with Europe. More recently, senior Chinese officials described EU-China ties as a partnership rather than a rivalry. “The administration has assisted the Chinese narrative by acting like a bully,” Mark Lambert, former deputy assistant secretary of State for China and Taiwan in the Biden administration, told POLITICO. “Everyone still recognizes the challenges China poses — but now, Washington no longer works in partnership and is only focused on itself.” These sentiments are already being translated into action. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney declared a “rupture” between Ottawa and Washington in January and backed that rhetoric by sealing a trade deal with Beijing that same month. The U.K. inked several high-value export deals with China not long after, while both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have returned from recent summits in Beijing with Chinese purchase orders for European products. Respondents across all four allied countries are broadly supportive of efforts to create some distance from the U.S. — and say they’re also more dependent on China. In Canada, 48 percent said it would be possible to reduce reliance on the U.S. and believe their government should do so. In the U.K., 42 percent said reducing reliance on the U.S. sounded good in theory, but were skeptical it could happen in practice. By contrast, fewer respondents across those countries believe it would actually be possible to reduce reliance on China — a testament to Beijing’s dominance of global supply chains. Young adults may be drawn to China as an alternative to U.S. cultural hegemony. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 were significantly more supportive than their older peers of building a closer relationship with China. A recent study commissioned by the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences — a Beijing-based think tank — suggests most young Europeans get their information about China and Chinese life through social media. Nearly 70 percent of those aged 18 to 25 said they rely on social media and other short-form video platforms for information on China. And the media they consume is likely overwhelmingly supportive of China, as TikTok, one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, was built by Chinese company ByteDance and has previously been accused of suppressing content deemed negative toward China. According to Alicja Bachulska, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, younger generations believe the U.S. has led efforts to depict China as an authoritarian regime and a threat to democracy, while simultaneously degrading its own democratic values. The trend “pushes a narrative that ‘we’ve been lied to’ about what China is,” said Bachulska, as “social sentiment among the youth turns against the U.S.” “It’s an expression of dissatisfaction with the state of U.S. politics,” she added. There’s a clear consensus among those surveyed in Europe and Canada that China is winning the global tech race — a coveted title central to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s grand policy vision. China is leading the U.S. and other Western nations in the development of electric batteries and robotics, while Chinese designs have also become the global standard in electric vehicles and solar panels. “There has been a real vibe shift in global perception of Chinese tech and innovation dominance,” said Sarah Beran, who served as deputy chief of mission in the U.S. embassy in Beijing during the Biden administration. This digital rat race is most apparent in the fast-paced development of artificial intelligence. China has poured billions of dollars into research initiatives, poaching top tech talent from U.S. universities and funding state-backed tech firms to advance its interests in AI. The investment appears to be paying off — a plurality of respondents from Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is more likely to develop the first superintelligent AI. But these advancements have done little to change American minds. A majority of respondents in the U.S. still see American-made tech as superior to Chinese tech, even in the realm of AI. As Washington and its allies grow more estranged, the perception of the U.S. as the dominant world power is in retreat — though most Americans don’t see it that way. About half of all respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. believe that China is rapidly becoming a more consequential superpower. This is particularly true among those who say the U.S. is no longer a positive force for the world. By contrast, 63 percent of respondents in the U.S. believe their nation will maintain its dominance in 10 years — reflecting major disparities in beliefs about global power dynamics between the U.S. and its European allies. This view of China as the world’s power center may not have been entirely organic. The U.S. has accused Beijing of pouring billions of dollars into international information manipulation efforts, including state-backed media initiatives and the deployment of tools to stifle online criticism of China and its policies. Some fear that a misplaced belief among U.S. allies in the inevitability of China surpassing the U.S. as a global superpower could be helping accelerate Beijing’s rise. “Europe is capable of defending itself against threats from China and contesting China’s vision of a more Sinocentric, authoritarian-friendly world order,” said Henrietta Levin, former National Security Council director for China in the Biden administration. “But if Europe believes this is impossible and does not try to do so, the survey results may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.” METHOLODGY The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 9, surveying 10,289 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, U.K., France and Germany. Results for each country were weighted to be representative on dimensions including age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

Every day across Europe, millions of citizens wear, sleep on, eat off or rely on rental textiles provided by industrial laundries. From hospital linens and reusable surgical gowns to industrial workwear, hotel bedding, restaurant textiles and hygiene products, textile services operate quietly but indispensably at the heart of Europe’s economy. In many countries, more than 90 percent of hospitals and hotels would be forced to close within days without a continuous supply of hygienically cleaned textiles, while pharmaceutical and food production facilities would halt operations within 24 hours. Behind this essential service stands a highly organi z ed European industry that combines operational excellence with a circular, service-based business model — washing and keeping textiles in use for longer, reducing waste and lowering environmental impact while safeguarding public health. By relying on reuse, repair and professional maintenance, the system significantly reduces the need for virgin raw materials sourced from outside Europe. At the same time, these locally anchored service models create skilled jobs, generate tax revenues in the communities where companies operate and drive continuous innovation in circular solutions — supporting new business opportunities and industrial development across the European Union . > In this time of on going and challenging geo-political change, it will become > crucial to fully recogni z e the strategic value of circular, service-based > business models, which strengthen competitiveness and resilience while > delivering on Europe’s sustainability objectives. > > Hartmut Engler, CEO of CWS Workwear As several important legislative files move forward in Brussels, it is time to reflect on what textile services need to continue to implement sustainable solutions. Public procurement rules are a great vector to promote and encourage circular business models while delivering on the strategic autonomy ambition of the EU. Public authorities across the EU spend over € 2.6 trillion annually on purchasing services, works and supplies, accounting for around 15 percent of the EU ’s GDP. However, too much of this investment is directed toward linear services and disposable goods, slowing down progress toward Europe’s environmental and industrial objectives. With the revision of the EU public procurement rules, it should be recogni z ed that the EU’s circular economy and environmental aims are greatly advanced by the textile rental industry. Specifically, g reen p ublic p rocurement should become mandatory across all EU m ember s tates and should also encourage alternatives to direct purchase such as leasing models or product-as-a-service business models. Public procurement should not be driven solely by value-for-money considerations, but by a holistic lifecycle approach that reflects long-term environmental and social performance. Introducing mandatory lifecycle costing as an award criterion would ensure that sustainability is measured over the full duration of a contract, not just at the point of purchase. > Longevity of product should be the first priority of the upcoming Circular > Economy Act. The most sustainable product is ultimately the one that is kept > in use the longest, putting durability and repairability at the centre of > environmental benefits. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association European Textile Services Association (ETSA) members already deliver sustainable business models with product-as-a-service models implementing repair, reuse and extended use. Such business models should be empowered and further supported in legislation, hand in hand with recycling. Extending a product’s useful life delivers far greater climate and resource benefits than breaking products down for recycling after short use cycles. It preserves the embedded energy, water and raw materials already invested. However, prioriti z ing longevity does not mean neglecting end-of-life solutions. At the same time, ETSA members are joining forces to invest in a joint recycling pilot project, translating circular ambition into practical industrial solutions. They are developing innovative processes to transform end-of-life textiles into recycled fib er s suitable for insulation materials, industrial wipers and other high-value applications — with the long-term vision of advancing closed-loop systems in which recycled fib er s can increasingly serve as raw materials for new textile production. Recycling requires stable markets and long-term policy certainty, and the sector is actively investing in building both. By developing concrete use cases for recycled content, these initiatives help strengthen European recycling value chains while further reducing dependency on third-country suppliers. > Europe does not need to invent circular solutions from scratch. They already > exist. The priority now is to put in place policies that support circular, > service-based business models. These models are built on durability and > extending product lifespans to get more value from the resources we already > use. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association Textile services are not an emerging concept but a proven, scalable European solution — reducing consumption, anchoring jobs locally, safeguarding public health and lowering emissions. By recogni z ing and supporting service-based reuse models in forthcoming legislation, the EU can accelerate its sustainability ambitions while strengthening competitiveness and strategic autonomy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * The ultimate controlling entity is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * This political advertisement advocates for the recognition and support of circular, service-based business models within forthcoming EU legislation; by addressing the Circular Economy Act, the revision of EU Public Procurement rules, Green Public Procurement requirements and lifecycle costing criteria, it seeks to influence policymakers and the public debate on EU sustainability, industrial policy and procurement frameworks, bringing it within the scope of the TTPA. More information here.

BRUSSELS — In the corridors of Brussels, policymakers endlessly debate the intricacies of the Vision for Agriculture and Food, the urgency of the European Child Guarantee and the future of the Common Agricultural Policy. Yet the place where these high-level strategies actually collide, and succeed or fail, is likely the noisiest room in any building: the school canteen. This week, as we mark International School Meals Day, we need to stop treating school food as a mere logistical cost or a side dish to education. Instead, we must recognize it for what it is: the single most powerful but under-utilized lever for systemic change. Beyond the plate: a systemic warning The statistics are sobering. Today, one in four European adolescents is overweight or obese, according to the World Health Organization. This is not merely a matter of individual choice or poverty. This trend is driven by a food landscape where ultra-processed, low-nutrient options have become the most accessible and affordable default for almost every family, regardless of socio-economic background. For many children, school meals are the only reliable window of high-quality nutrition in a day otherwise dominated by a broken food system. On the production side, our farmers are protesting for fair incomes, while the climate crisis demands a shift to sustainable food systems. It sounds like an impossible knot to untie. But for the past three years, a growing revolution has been taking place in close to 4,000 schools across 22 European countries, reaching over one million children. > For many children, school meals are the only reliable window of high-quality > nutrition in a day otherwise dominated by a broken food system. Through the EU-funded initiative SchoolFood4Change (SF4C), cities and schools have gone far beyond updating their menus; they have dismantled the old model entirely. While thousands have begun transforming how food is sourced, prepared and valued, more than 850 schools have taken the leap even further by fully implementing the Whole School Food Approach (WSFA). The results, published by Rikolto in a new report this week, offer a blueprint for an EU-wide roll-out of the model. “Evidence proves the framework works, yet we are currently hitting a bureaucratic ceiling,” explains Amalia Ochoa, head of sustainable food systems at ICLEI Europe and coordinator of SF4C. “Healthy school meals combined with food education represent the most accessible pathway to food system transformation, directly benefiting the 93 million children and young people across Europe. By aligning existing initiatives under a coherent framework, the EU can deliver on its promises to public health and both economic and environmental sustainability in one integrated approach.” Breaking the silos The WSFA works because it shifts the focus from the individual plate to the entire ecosystem. It recognizes that school meals are not an isolated education cost, but a powerful crossroads where public health, regional economics and environmental policy meet. Credit: LAYLA AERTS The approach integrates four pillars: meaningful policy leadership; sustainable procurement (favoring local and organic); hands-on education (gardening and cooking); and community partnership. When procurement is aligned with regional sustainability goals, magic happens. Children understand the value of food, waste less and local farmers gain a stable, predictable market, shielding them from global market volatility, while simultaneously lowering the long-term healthcare costs associated with diet-related diseases. The missing ingredient: it’s not just the food, it’s the people However, the report reveals a critical bottleneck. The biggest barrier to scaling this success isn’t necessarily the cost of the ingredients; it is the lack of dedicated coordination. > School meals are not an isolated education cost, but a powerful crossroads > where public health, regional economics and environmental policy meet. Transformation requires human power. It needs local coordinators who can navigate the labyrinth between a city’s health department, the procurement office and the school board. Too often, we fund the infrastructure but forget the implementation. For the WSFA to become an EU-wide standard, national and regional authorities need to move beyond project-based thinking. It’s not just another subsidy; it’s a strategic investment in Europe’s social and ecological resilience. As Thibault Geerardyn, director at Rikolto Europe, notes in the report:“The true obstacle to scaling up is institutional, not ideological. Changes in policy must be embedded in the current system, not merely added to it as a ‘nice to have’ project.” The mandate for change: a strategic imperative As the EU begins implementing its new mandate, school food offers a rare ‘triple dividend’ that hits every major political target on the Brussels agenda. It serves as a public health shield, a guaranteed market for local farmers and a tangible safety net for the European Child Guarantee. > Systemic change cannot be led by temporary staff or volunteers. The EU can > make the difference. However, this potential remains locked as long as school food is treated as a secondary concern. Systemic change cannot be led by temporary staff or volunteers. The EU can make the difference. We call on the European Parliament and Commission to: 1. Standardize quality: establish an EU-wide minimum standard of healthy school food and education to drive quality upwards across all member states. 2. Fund the coordinators: move away from short-term grants toward long-term strategic investment in the permanent operational implementation and coordination needed to guide schools through this transition. You cannot build a resilient system on temporary project cycles. 3. Connect the dots: create an interdepartmental taskforce. School food is currently a political orphan, sitting awkwardly between agricultural, health, youth and social policies. It needs a permanent home in the EU institutions and a unified strategy. The revolution is on the menu. We have the recipe. We have the evidence from more than 850 schools. Now, what’s needed is the political courage to serve it. Read the full evidence-based report here: “From Pilots to Policy: Evidence from Three Years of Implementing the Whole School Food Approach in Europe.” This article has been published with funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101036763. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Rikolto België vzw * The ultimate controlling entity is Rikolto België vzw * The political advertisement is linked to encouraging change to European policy on food systems with calls to action for EU Institutions. Reference to the Green Deal, the European Child Guarantee, and agricultural reform. More information here.

Across Europe, governments are moving quickly to harness the potential of artificial intelligence (AI). National strategies are being announced, innovation hubs funded and pilot programs launched. From healthcare to taxation, I have seen how AI is emerging as a powerful lever to enhance public services and safeguard digital resilience. Europe’s population is aging and economic pressure is being felt across the continent. At the same time, citizens expect faster, simpler services. In this context, departments are looking for targeted AI uses that reduce manual workload and improve service quality without adding risk or cost. > In order for AI to add value to an organization, it needs up‑to‑date data, > clear ownership and simple routes to information sharing across teams. However, progress is uneven. Many organizations are still at the trial stage. Capgemini research shows that nearly 90 percent plan to explore, pilot or implement agentic AI within the next two to three years, while EU institutions and member states are committing billions to digital transformation centered around AI. Only 21 percent of public sector organizations have advanced beyond experimentation to pilots or actual deployment of generative AI. The practical blocker is not enthusiasm: it is whether data is accurate, shared when needed and safe to use. A reality check for AI maturity In order for AI to add value to an organization, it needs up‑to‑date data, clear ownership and simple routes to information sharing across teams. Less than one in four organizations globally report high maturity in these fields. For civil servants, this often translates into small teams juggling operational delivery with transformation agendas, learning new tools on the job and managing risk without clear playbooks. > More than half of public sector organizations are concerned about AI > sovereignty, which is becoming central to safeguarding digital resilience. This gap matters. AI initiatives built on fragile data foundations may face risks such as inefficiency, bias and security vulnerabilities, which can erode trust in automated decisions, both internally and with citizens. Strengthening public sector data is therefore not only key to enabling AI, but also essential for improving the accuracy, efficiency and reliability of government decision-making. Getting the basics right also helps deliver ‘once‑only’ service patterns so citizens no longer need to repeatedly provide the same information to different authorities. By creating greater interoperability and portability, governments can reduce lock-in and strengthen long-term resilience. The readiness gap Europe is not lacking in ambition. Progress is underway, but common challenges remain; data silos between agencies, varying quality standards, unclear governance for data sharing and legacy systems that limit interoperability. Cultural hesitancy toward data-driven decision-making adds complexity, but it is not insurmountable. The good news is that these issues can be addressed with a strategic focus on data foundations and practical steps that reflect how government works: small, safe changes; clear owners; and visible benefits to users and staff. When data is accessible, trusted, and well managed, civil servants can share information confidently, driving innovation while maintaining compliance and security. > Setting clear targets, aligning strategy with operational reality, and > encouraging collaboration and shared behaviors across teams helps embed data > use into everyday work rather than treating it as an added burden. Through engagement with industry and public-sector stakeholders, I see growing momentum around these priorities and an opportunity for Europe to lead the way in scaling AI responsibly to deliver smarter, more efficient public services for citizens. Building the foundations of public sector AI Governments cannot buy their way into AI readiness, but can work to build it through sustained investment in four interconnected pillars. First, data sharing. Solving complex public sector challenges with AI depends on information flowing safely across organizational boundaries. In practice, this means making it easier for departments and agencies to reuse data that already exists. While most public sector organizations have initiatives underway, only 35 percent have rolled out or fully deployed data-sharing methods. Second, data control and sovereignty. Concerns about compliance and control are a daily reality for public sector leaders, and they are slowing AI adoption. More than half of public sector organizations are concerned about AI sovereignty, which is becoming central to safeguarding digital resilience. Compliance with data-localization laws and control over sensitive information become more complex when AI services are hosted in foreign jurisdictions. A 2024 European Commission report found that 80 percent of Europe’s digital technologies and infrastructure are imported. Third, a data-driven culture. This is a critical pillar of AI readiness. Setting clear targets, aligning strategy with operational reality, and encouraging collaboration and shared behaviors across teams helps embed data use into everyday work rather than treating it as an added burden. Fourth, data infrastructure. Robust, cloud-based data infrastructure is essential for storing, processing and analyzing data at scale, while respecting sovereignty requirements. Today, the lack of such infrastructure is the primary obstacle to effective data use. Only 41 percent of public sector executives say they can access data at the speed required for decision-making. Budget constraints are a real barrier, but they need not be paralyzing. By focusing on gradual, outcome-driven improvements rather than costly overhauls, organizations can demonstrate value and realize business outcomes. Public sector organizations such as the City of Tampere illustrate this four-pillar approach. By building data foundations gradually and strategically, while addressing data sharing, sovereignty, culture and infrastructure together, Tampere has shown how thoughtful investment can deliver tangible results without losing sight of long-term ambition. Achieving digital maturity AI can transform the public sector, but only if data readiness becomes the true measure of digital maturity. With sustained focus on governance, interoperability, culture, and infrastructure, governments can start to turn ambition into impact and deliver smarter, more trusted public services for every citizen.