The European Union unveiled Tuesday a proposal to create "EU Inc." - a single corporate structure that would allow startups to incorporate once and operate across all 27 member states, the Commission's latest attempt to make Europe more attractive for entrepreneurs.
The proposal, presented by the European Commission, creates what Brussels calls the "28th regime" - an optional, digital-by-default corporate framework that sits alongside national company laws rather than replacing them.
Think of it as Europe's answer to Delaware. American startups can incorporate in Delaware and operate in all 50 states. European startups currently face 27 different corporate law systems, 27 different registration processes, and 27 different compliance regimes if they want to scale across the Single Market.
"EU Inc. will make it easier for businesses to start, operate and grow across the EU," the Commission said in its press release, "incentivising them to stay in Europe, and encourage those who once looked elsewhere to return."
The proposal addresses a longstanding complaint from European entrepreneurs: that scaling a business across Europe is legally harder than scaling across America or China, despite the EU's Single Market supposedly guaranteeing free movement of goods, services, capital, and people.
Under current rules, a startup incorporated in France that wants to hire in Germany, raise investment in Netherlands, and sell in Spain faces separate legal requirements in each country. EU Inc. would change that - one incorporation, valid everywhere.
The proposal makes the structure entirely digital. Companies could register online, file reports electronically, and interact with authorities through a single EU platform rather than navigating 27 different bureaucracies in 24 different languages.
But - and there's always a but in EU legislation - this raises immediate questions about tax harmonization and member state sovereignty over corporate law. , , and have built significant economic advantages around favorable corporate tax and legal regimes. Would they support a proposal that could undermine those advantages?
