Following an initiative at the European Parliament backed by multiple political parties, Francesca Bria, along with Fausto Gernone and Paul Timmers, coordinated the release of the “EuroStack – Building a European alternative for technological sovereignty” report today. The Bertelsmann Stiftung commissioned the report, with support from CEPS, Stiftung Mercator, and UCL IIPP[1]. It follows a pitch already published by Cristina Caffara and a repository of existing European open source solutions for a digital stack compiled by Stéfane Fermigier.
An ambitious contribution to European debates on digital sovereignty
This new report is so far the most comprehensive and ambitious contribution to the debate on European digital sovereignty and the strategic role of public digital infrastructures. It provides a level of analysis that was not previously available to policymakers—mapping the geographies, political economy, policy initiatives and even European companies of all “interconnected layers of advanced technologies, ranging from semiconductors and artificial intelligence (AI) to cloud computing and quantum systems”, “to lay the groundwork for future-oriented digital self-determination”.
The report also sets exactly the kind of ambition needed for the new European Commission. It obviously builds on the momentum created by the Draghi report, which seems already largely shared by the Commission: concerns about Europe’s 80% dependence on imported digital technologies, the widening innovation gap, and the lack of scaling capital for European tech firms. But the report also takes the conversation further, shifting the focus beyond emerging technologies like AI and showing how our future technological resilience depends on a broader digital infrastructure landscape.
In addition to its technical insights, the EuroStack report sets out clear principles that align well with a European values-driven digital strategy that we have been calling for and the need to invest in public digital infrastructures. The report is based on an “approach prioritizes sustainability, inclusivity, and interoperability, ensuring Europe’s digital future aligns with its democratic values, social equity goals, and economic aspirations.” This vision should be translated into privacy-by-design and security-by-design frameworks, “De-proprietarization and Interoperability” by promoting open source and federated digital infrastructure to reduce reliance on foreign proprietary platforms, but also investments that are aligned with climate goals.
The Big Question: What institutions are needed to implement this?
One key message from this report is the need to move beyond fragmented national efforts and establish a common digital stack integrating platforms, innovation, procurement, and investment. A key question then comes: who will implement this vision and how will it be different from current policy responses? The report calls for a “forward-looking digital industrial policy” focused on coordinated investment, harmonized regulations, and public procurement favoring European-made solutions. To some extent this could be the role of the European Commission, particularly of the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. If not, what institutional and policy changes would be required to change the status quo?
There is a hint in the report that such an effort could require the creation of new institutions or international agreements. The report suggests creating an independent governance body modeled after the European Central Bank. But it also references existing instruments, such as EDICs (European Digital Infrastructure Consortiums) and IPCEIs (Important Projects of Common European Interest), which should be fast-tracked, but leaves open the question of what “fast-tracking” these mechanisms would entail. Are they sufficient to meet EuroStack’s ambitions? Should they simply be expanded? This leads to the follow-up of this conversation that will be needed: understand and assess what potential institutional responses that are politically acceptable and feasible can provide good answers to the many different challenges the report rightfully points to.
The Sovereign Tech Fund: Everything everywhere all at once?
A key proposal of this report is the creation of a €300 billion Sovereign Tech Fund (STF)[2]. The fund aims to tackle everything from raw materials and semiconductor R&D to AI, cloud infrastructure, and “Minimum Viable Products” for public digital services. While ambitious, the question remains: can a single fund effectively address such diverse challenges, or would a more specialized institutional approach be better?
One could indeed argue that the different challenges – rightfully identified in the report – might require distinct institutional responses and policy answers. High-risk innovation and deep tech R&D probably requires a DARPA-style agency, but should such an institution also enable cross-border public services that require mostly public-sector coordination, support the maintenance of infrastructures and digital commons, and secure Europe’s hardware and software supply chains?
What’s next? Political negotiations and hard trade-offs
The EuroStack report is an important contribution to the conversation on European digital sovereignty, offering a much-needed framework to rethink digital infrastructure investments. To advance this discussion and turn its vision into reality, the European Commission and Member States must now translate its insights into concrete institutions and policies.
However, implementation will require difficult political choices that remain partially unresolved in the report. Recent Commission announcements on AI investment suggest that funding will be diverted from Horizon and other programs, potentially weakening investments in other layers of the digital stack. The report’s broad approach might leave hard trade-offs unaddressed, given that priorities will inevitably have to be set.
The report advocates pooling funds from EU member states, the European Investment Bank (EIB), national institutional investors, and private capital. The Commission seems to be set on a clear path to mobilize more venture capital as part of the European Savings and Investments Union. But private and public funding do not create the same kind of value. While venture capital seeks maximum profit, public investment supports essential technologies for the common good. Can different sources of funding be interchangeable, or do they serve fundamentally different purposes?
The report does not resolve all the dilemmas, but it provides a strong starting point for important and urgent discussions about strengthening Europe’s digital future.
Footnotes
- Open Future provided feedback on sections of the report and the Bertelsmann Stiftung is one of our funders.^
- The proposal for the creation of a European Sovereign Tech Fund is partially inspired by the German Sovereign Tech Fund – now called the Sovereign Tech Agency.^
