Last week, the European Commission and the Member States gathered with the industry to discuss how to restore European competitiveness. The chosen remedies were familiar: deregulation and strengthening the internal market by tearing down regulatory barriers. It is both astonishing and deeply alarming that the ecological transition — which, under the previous Commission, led by the very same Ursula von der Leyen, ranked unequivocally as the top priority — is now simply being silenced. Worse, it is increasingly portrayed as part of the problem — an alleged contributor to Europe’s weakened economic position.

---

Meanwhile, the climate crisis accelerates. Damage from extreme weather escalates. Scientific warnings grow sharper. Yet in Brussels, the narrative shifts toward economic survival through deregulation and a return to “competitiveness” defined largely on traditional industrial terms.

The political mistake — made in quiet alignment with parts of industry — is the deliberate omission of a fundamental truth: the ecological transition is not an economic burden. It is an economic opportunity. It can generate growth, technological leadership, industrial renewal and resilience. Instead, the public is offered a more comforting story: that clinging to polluting technologies and outdated economic models will somehow secure Europe’s prosperity.

It is a seductive message. It suggests that life can continue unchanged. We may continue flying south in summer and driving to the Alps in winter without consequence. No need to think about melting glaciers, collapsing ecosystems or heatwaves that push cities beyond human tolerance.

The LEV sector was not invited to the table last week with von der Leyen, De Wever, Macron and others. The LEV sector does not fit comfortably into a competitiveness agenda framed around legacy industries.

The LEV-sector depends on – and actively advances – the ecological transition. Electric cargo bikes become more effective as cities limit cars, vans and trucks. Speed pedelecs allow commuters to abandon second cars. Europeans travel on average 30 to 35 kilometres per day. For a large proportion of those journeys, using an SUV is a grotesque inefficiency. Micro-cars and light electric vehicles offer a rational alternative.

In other words, the LEV sector is a thorn in the side of a significant part of the traditional mobility industry. The Commission and the Member States cannot openly admit this. Instead, they simply ignore the LEV sector.

Last year, in a meeting with the Commission to discuss the regulatory hell in which the LEV-sector is forced to operate, we were bluntly told that there was no time for LEVs and no pressure “from above” — meaning from the Commissioners and the Member States — to prioritise them. That remains the case.

The consequences are not abstract. In recent months, several speed pedelec manufacturers have issued recalls due to (possible) defects in front forks. This “malaise” is entirely attributable to legislation that is not only inadequate but also creates clear safety risks.

The type-approval legislation requires that the frame, forks, handlebar and stem be tested on the basis of ISO4210:2014 [sic], with certain adjustments made to the minimum test forces. ISO4210:2014 does not exist. Until 2023, there was a series of standards under that designation covering conventional bicycles — not electric bicycles. Part 6 of ISO 4210 concerned frame and fork test methods.

On top of the incorrect reference in the legislation, it points to a version that has since been withdrawn and replaced by the 2023 edition of the series. As a result of this serious legislative negligence, test services are legally obliged to test against a non-existent standard.

Manufacturers are, of course, fully aware that this is a dangerous anomaly and take sufficient precautions, conducting additional testing outside the above legal framework in an effort to ensure forks can withstand the higher speeds — and thus greater forces — of speed pedelecs. However, as the recalls demonstrate, this is far from a straightforward process.

Manufacturers would undoubtedly benefit from structured dialogue among themselves and with accredited test houses on this and the many other issues related to type-approval. Currently, discussions on type-approval for L-category vehicles take place in the Commission’s Motorcycle Working Group — yes, you read that correctly. So much time is spent debating emissions and noise from internal combustion engine vehicles that barely any time remains for meaningful attention to LEVs.

The European Commission, despite being responsible for this hazardous flaw in the legislative text, is taking no initiative to correct it. This is just one example of how current European regulation not only fails to support the LEV industry but actively works against it.

Another topic discussed last week between industry and European policymakers was the fragmentation of the internal market caused by national rules. Von der Leyen repeatedly highlighted the example of trucks permitted to operate at 44 tonnes on Belgian roads but limited to 40 tonnes in France.

The LEV sector can present equally striking examples. E-scooters must comply with widely divergent technical and operational rules in almost every Member State. A harmonised European technical framework exists — although one might wonder whether the Commission itself is aware of it — yet Member States are effectively allowed to reinvent the e-scooter wheel. Or consider the legally non-existent “fatbikes,” for which school principals, mayors and ministers compete to introduce special rules, down to maximum tyre widths.

While European LEV companies struggle under an ever-increasing inadequate regulatory burden, hundreds of thousands of illegal LEVs enter the market. There is little to no effort to identify the authorised representatives of these companies within the EU, let alone to verify technical documentation or the authenticity of the numerous labels and markings that must now be affixed to LEVs and their components.

Against that backdrop, last week’s meeting between industry and politics felt bitter and discouraging for us as part of the LEV industry. We experienced a similar situation in early 2025, when — at the invitation of Commissioners Hoekstra and Roswall — we were briefly allowed to participate in so-called strategic dialogues in preparation of the automotive package. The extent to which this amounted to a greenwashing exercise was most evident in the fact that the Small Car Initiative is accessible to cars up to 4.2 metres long, but not to micro-cars.

Together with our members, we work day and night on sustainable mobility — and currently receive nothing in return from policymakers. Nevertheless, we will continue knocking on their doors because we are convinced that LEVs are indispensable for achieving sustainable mobility. Because we remain convinced that greening mobility is a matter of vital necessity. And because we know that sustainable mobility will strongly contribute to sustainable economic growth and to Europe’s competitiveness.

If you share our vision of a competitive Europe built on sustainable mobility and sustainable growth, stand with us. Join us and help turn that vision into reality. Your support has never been more crucial.