Brussels is revving up its Competitiveness Compass, and President von der Leyen swears it won’t derail the Green Deal, but profits of businesses stay at the core at the expense of social and environmental justice. 

And the European Investment Bank (EIB), the financial firepower of the EU, follows suit. While the Bank gears up to support the Commission’s  new industrial plan, the spotlight shines on the contradictions in its role—championing public investment for the people while propping up corporate profits.

This month, we delve into critical developments: von der Leyen’s Clean Industrial Deal, the controversial Rwanda critical raw materials deal, rising spending for the military industry, and the plans to address the housing crisis. 

Let's break it down.

🥅  A GREEN DEAL PILLAR? MORE LIKE ANOTHER CORPORATE SAFETY NET

Just another industry’s wish list?: Von der Leyen’s first policy package—featuring the Clean Industrial Deal, Action Plan for Affordable Energy, and Omnibus regulation—reflects the EU’s commitment to addressing industrial challenges. It all started in Antwerp, where Europe’s biggest polluters—led by the energy-intensive industry (steel, cement, aluminium and chemicals, the producers of more than ⅕ of EU’s greenhouse gases)—pitched their demands directly to her. The result? The Antwerp Declaration, a corporate wish list now backed by 1,300 companies. Fast forward to February 26th, and von der Leyen is back in Antwerp, handing them in the Clean Industrial Deal.

It’s EIB cash splash: The Bank is gearing up to drive Europe’s industrial makeover, funneling funds into energy-heavy sectors and clean tech. If the Bank follows the CDI, expect more and more guarantees for small businesses and energy-intensive industries, alongside backing for clean technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and hydrogen that let polluters keep polluting. The EIB could lead an actual decarbonization  with some new incentives, but instead it’s still lending to companies out of sync with Paris targets.

Who really benefits from more InvestEU guarantees? With the EIB as the main implementor, our previous report shows that it flows to corporate giants like Engie and Intesa. Even the Commission’s own evaluation flags major flaws: unclear additionality, shaky methodology, and inflated figures based on estimates rather than real mobilized investments.

The EIB’s industrial decarbonisation play:  A €500 million guarantees for corporate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) – contracts between energy producers and the companies fixing the quantity and price at which energy will be sold for a certain period of time. They will not structurally make renewable energy more affordable nor break renewables’ energy prices free from fossil fuels in the current commodified energy market. This setup keeps profits of energy producers as a key element of the prices in these contracts, while the high energy prices keep trickling down on to the consumers.

Powering up: Meanwhile, the EIB will also come up with a ‘grids manufacturing package’ of at least €1.5 billion of counter-guarantees to manufacturers of grid components in European supply chains. The aim? Use public funds as a means to provide businesses with ‘needed certainty’ to ramp-up production.

And there is more:  ‘TechEU’ investment programme is on the way,  to be worked out between the Commission, the EIB and the private sector. It will support disruptive innovation, and scale-up companies developing anything from AI, clean tech, critical raw materials, to quantum computing, semiconductors, and neurotechnology. How much more public cash will cushion private risks (and gains)?

Bottom line: the Clean Industrial Deal props up  the dysfunctional status quo, ignoring the mounting evidence that public ownership would supercharge the clean energy roll out, without just lining corporate projects one project at the time.

👯 ​​A MAJOR WIN: EU PARLIAMENT VOTES TO FREEZE THE GLOBAL GATEWAY CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS DEAL WITH RWANDA

The European Parliament voted to halt the EU-Rwanda raw materials deal—a huge victory against resource exploitation and EU complicity in fueling conflict. Rwanda is actively fueling war in the DRC. While conflict escalates and Kigali backs M23/AFC rebels, Brussels has been turning a blind eye—not out of oversight, but by choice. The EU’s rush for minerals to feed its so-called green transition is trampling over peace, justice, and human rights. By cutting deals with Rwanda despite overwhelming evidence of its role in the war, the EU is undermining DRC’s sovereignty and rewarding aggression that has already caused millions of deaths. These are the kinds of deals concluded under the EU’s Global Gateway strategy, which it claims to be ‘values-driven’.

A collective push: Alongside 63 CSOs across Europe and Africa, we demanded an immediate halt to the deal and a complete shift toward policies that prioritize peace, justice, and the rights of communities in the DRC. We also raised these concerns directly with the EIB Board ahead of its February 5th meeting—because public money should not bankroll conflict. But the fight isn’t over. Now, we need to keep the pressure on the European Commission to act and cancel the deal.

🙅 ​​“MORE EUROPE”? MORE EXPLOITATION

Thank you, but no thank you:  “The world needs more Europe,” declared EU Commissioner for International Partnership Jozef Sikela at the recent informal meeting of EU development ministers on February 10-11, hosted by the Polish presidency.

But if "more Europe" means Global Gateway’s relentless push for European business interests at any cost—no thanks. More of this Europe means more plunder, not fair, people-centred cooperation. And EU officials aren’t even hiding it: “We want to build mutually beneficial partnerships with our counterparts, contributing to their development while opening new opportunities to our companies,” Sikela admitted.

Take Mauritania, in the spotlight for that meeting. In December 2024, the EU signed a fresh Global Gateway deal—one that funnels funds into military infrastructure, equipment, and border control, all branded as "complementary engagement." But where’s the development? 👀 
In the meantime, the EU attempts to turn Mauritania also into the EU’s future green hydrogen hub—its land and water drained to power Europe while European oil and gas giants rake in massive profits. A new era of resource grab, same old exploitation, a paradigm well exposed in our and Eurodad’s report. 

And there's more. Sikela also revealed that Global Gateway’s approach will expand further: “Team Europe should be built on a strong ‘Team Nationals’—each Member State supports its companies in developing truly impactful development projects, scaling them up, and working with the EU to provide the right financial tools.”

Translation? More corporate handouts, more public money backing European multinationals. Will this also mean export credit agencies stepping in as ‘development’ actors? We have unpacked the risks of this strategy. One thing’s clear: Global Gateway continues being a corporate giveaway, not a development plan.

🛡️ ARMED AND FUNDED: THE EU’S DEFENCE DILEMMA

Defence, weapons, security… These words have dominated EU debates lately. Leaders met, the Munich Conference happened, and—unusually—the EIB is at the center of it all. 

How come? With the US threatening to leave NATO and the war on its doorstep, a desire is mounting for some in the EU to boost military capacity. The numbers are daunting—€500 billion is supposedly needed over the next decade to strengthen defence, but ‘only’ €8 billion is earmarked in the current budget. Member States, already stretched by economic challenges, are reluctant to foot the bill themselves. That’s where the EIB comes in. If the Bank expands its role in defence financing, it could provide cheap loans without directly draining national budgets—a politically convenient way to ramp up military spending without Member States having to cough up the cash. 

The push is on: 19 countries have asked the Commission to loosen EIB rules for more military lending. Another idea is floating: “defence bonds”—mirroring COVID-19 recovery funds but with a twist: national governments must chip in upfront to cut borrowing costs. The irony? The EU refuses common bonds for green investment but is suddenly open to pooling debt for the arms industry. Will these demands shape the March White Paper? We’re watching closely.

We oppose this shift. Last year, together with 29 civil society groups and trade unions we urged the EIB not to become a piggy bank for the arms industry. Why? Because it’s already funneled money to companies like Leonardo—whose tech has enabled Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

✏️ 📋 GREEN TRANSITION ON THE MENU

A(nother) crisis that the market won’t fix: The EU’s housing crisis is spiraling. Millions face skyrocketing rents, overcrowding, or outright homelessness. In 2023, over 10% of city households spent more than 40% of their income on housing, while rents shot up 18% in just over a decade.

Why? Years of public underinvestment left housing at the mercy of private developers who profit from speculation instead of ensuring affordability.

So, where does the EIB come in? On February 5, the EIB Board of Directors* met to discuss support for EU electricity networks under REPowerEU—especially in decarbonizing housing, a flagship priority for this Commission. Its new Housing Task Force and investment platform could be a game-changer—but only if public interest comes first. We’ve mapped out a five-point action plan to make sure public money serves people – especially those most in need, not landlords' profits.

We don’t stand alone. Ahead of this EIB meeting, 49 MEPs sent a letter to the EIB Board, urging it to take action. The choice is clear: break with failed market-driven approaches, or let inequality and exclusion deepen.

*Board of what? It’s a governing body of the EIB, which meets monthly to decide on loans, guarantees, and borrowings. It’s a 59-seat powerhouse: 28 directors (one per EU country + one from the Commission) and 31 alternates, appointed for five-year terms.
Who calls the shots? Votes aren’t one-person-one-vote—power is weighted. Most decisions need a third of members + 50% of capital, while key areas demand 18 votes + 68% of capital. In short? Big capital holders have the loudest voice at the table.

🍜 WHAT’S COOKING AT THE EIB?

This month, the EIB approved 17 projects, of which 4 were signed*: 12 in the EU and 5 outside. Most of them were credit lines (4), transport investments (4), and water and sanitation projects (3).

*What’s the difference between signed and approved? An approved project has been reviewed and endorsed by the EIB's Board of Directors but has not yet reached the final agreement signing stage, meaning its terms and conditions are still being finalized. A signed project has gone through all negotiations, and a formal financing agreement has been concluded between the EIB and the project promoter.

🚨 In the spotlight 

🕵️ Uncovering the beneficiary 

🤝 Signed & sealed