From Promise to Performance –Transforming Global Gateway
Strengthening the geopolitical impact of Europe‘s external infrastructure investments
September 23, 2025
Summary
Global Gateway was launched in 2021 but still falls short of its potential. The Commission ought to seizetheongoingnegotiationsontheMultiannualFinancialFrameworkfortheperiod2028to2034 as atimely opportunity – not merelytosettlethebudgetaryarrangements forGlobal Gateway,but alsoto advance the initiative with greater strategic foresight.
With this paper, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) proposes recommendations on how the EuropeanUnion(EU)shouldtransformGlobalGatewaytoincreasethegeopoliticalimpactofEurope’s external infrastructure investments.
To enhance the effectiveness of the Global Gateway strategy, the EU should turn it into a platform for bottom-up collaboration, enabling European SMEs to jointly realize infrastructure projects and access newmarketsthroughreducedfinancialrisks,strategicprogramming,andsimplifiedprocurementrules. Global Gateway should become a platform for bottom-up collaboration, enabling European SMEs to jointlyrealize infrastructureprojectsandaccessnewmarketsthroughreducedfinancialrisks,strategic programming, and simplifiedprocurementrules. Strengthening business involvement, improvingcommunication, streamliningbureaucratic processes,andevolvingrisk-sharingandfinancingtoolsareessential to ensure that Global Gateway serves both the EU’s strategic interests and the development needs of partner countries.
Introduction
GlobalGatewayistheEU'sstrategyforglobalinfrastructureanditscontributiontotheG7’sPartnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). Under the oversight of the Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA), the EU aims to contribute a total of €300 billion through Global Gatewayby 2027to fundsustainable,resilient,inclusiveand high-qualityinfrastructureprojectsworldwide (European Commission 2025). While sub-Saharan Africa continues to be a priority with planned investments of €150 billion by 2027, the EU has – with good reason – committed €45 billion to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Toreachtheglobal investmenttargets,theEuropeanCommissionandEU member states arepooling financial resources through the Team Europe approach, consisting of the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the member states’ development finance institutions (DFIs). Key financing instruments are the investment guarantees of the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+): The goal is to mobilize up to €135 billion in private capital with around €40 billion in EFSD+ guarantees. An additional €145 billion will flow into Global Gateway projects from other European DFIs. Since its launch in 2021, Global Gateway has identified investments across a range of 264 flagship projects in five key sectors: climate and energy, transportation, digitaltechnology,health, education andscience. Under thenextMultiannualFinancial Framework from 2028 to 2034, the EU plans to expand Global Gateway through the program “Global Europe”, the EU’s instrument for a common foreign and security policy, established in 2021.
State of Global Gateway
From the perspective of German industry, Global Gateway falls short of its expectations. It has not beenabletofulfilthepromiseto‘connect Europe with the world in a more crisis-proof way’ (quotefrom Ursula von der Leyen). Many companies remain unaware or too poorly informed about the process of identifyingprojects,possiblefinancingsupportandpossibleEuropeanpartnersfor theimplementation of projects. So far, the impression remains that the initiative has rather served as an instrument to supportexisting projects andnotmuchas anincentive for newprojects implementedby the European private sector. Companies that want to get involved are missing a clear common thread that embeds the projects in an overall foreign policy strategy, that serves the EU’s geopolitical goals.
Moreover, the messaging around the pledged €300 billion in new investments by 2027 has lacked clarity. For too long, it has remained unclear how much funding comes directly from public budgets andhowmuchisintendedtobecontributedthroughprivatecapital.Thereisalsoalackoftransparency in the tendering process for projects: For interested companies, there is no EU-wide overview of the projects being tendered under GlobalGateway besides the more visible flagship projects.
The low level of dialogue with the private sector in the development of projects bears the risk that the strengths of European companies are not strategically incorporated. As a result, too many projects financedbytheEUarewonandimplementedbycompaniesfromoutsidetheEU,includingbyChinese (state-owned) enterprises (Politico,2024).This creates aEuropean visibility problem,as GlobalGatewayprojectsareperceivedasChineseprojectsinthepartnercountries.Overall,GlobalGatewaylacks astrategicfocus.Currently264flagshipprojectsarebeingpursued,fromsustainablecocoacultivation in Côte d'Ivoire to municipal WiFi hotspots for the Western Balkans and hospital construction in Moldova (GTAI 2025). A common thread for European interests is difficult to recognize.
Yet, global disruption and trade wars could make Global Gateway one of the EU's most important strategies. In a world of more and more protectionist policies and geopolitical turmoil, the risks for Europeanindustryinsofarestablishedsalesandinvestmentmarketsincrease.GlobalGatewaycould serve as a tool of supporting nearshoring and diversification policies at the same time. New markets are urgently needed to diversify value chains, source critical resources and minerals and enhance the footprint of Europeancompanies inkey sectors. An effectiveGlobalGateway strategy couldserve the interests of Europeanindustry by openingnew markets,fostering strategic partnerships,andensuring more resilient, diversified supply chains that enhance long-term competitiveness. Specifically, the expansion of digital infrastructures can create the basic conditions for European companies to do business.
However, the EUis losing market share in the so-called GlobalSouth, while China is now Africa's and South America’s largest trading partner (Deutsche Bank 2025 & Council on Foreign Relations 2025). In2000,almost halfofallAfricanexportswenttoEurope.Sincethen,thisshareof Africanexports has fallenbyonequarter(MoIbrahimFoundation2023).Asoneresult,Europeanindustryiscomingunder increasing pressure in its supply of raw materials. The high share of raw material exports from Africa toChina, where mostof the processing takes place, makes Europe highly dependent on the country’s imports.
Hence, the Draghi Report rightly emphasizes that Global Gateway must be upgraded “to ensure greater involvement of the private sector” and to strengthen its focus “on the EU’s and European industry’s strategic interests.”
However,Europeisnotalonewithitsexternalinvestmentstrategy:ThroughtheBeltandRoadInitiative (BRI) China has strategically positioned itself as the global leader in infrastructure development. With cumulativeengagementestimatedtoexceed1.3trillionUSD(GriffithUniversity2025)theBRIisdrawing the so-called Global South in China’s geoeconomic orbit. At their summit in Rio de Janeiro in July 2025, the BRICS agreed to further deepen economic cooperation with the other countries of the socalled Global South, including by introducing a cross-border payment system and a multilateral hedging initiative that mobilizes private investment for infrastructure and sustainable development.
Recommendations
Transform Global Gateway into a platform for effective bottom-up collaboration
The success of Global Gateway hinges to the extent to which the strategy is able to make the EU an attractive, reliable and effective partner.
Against the backdrop of geopolitical pressure, many companies are open to intensifying their involvement in countries of the so-called Global South. However, the entrepreneurial community in Europe consists to a large extent of SMEs. When enteringnew markets, there is not a lack of will, butrather a perceivedhighfinancialriskandalackofpartnerswithwhomlargeinfrastructureprojectscanbejointly realized.ThisputstheEuropeanbusinesslandscapeatacompetitivedisadvantagecomparedtoother countries’ big general contractors, who are able to take on large infrastructure projects from start to finish on their own. By transforming Global Gateway into a platform that supports the setting up of competitive European consortia, partner countries could benefit from new attractive offers.
Moreover, for the European corporate landscape to successfully, sustainably and, above all, proactively realize projects in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America or South (East) Asia, Global Gateway
needs to evolve from the development of top-down projects to a platform which offers Europeancompaniestheopportunitytoidentify,planandrealizejointprojectsbottom-up.Inparallel, such a platform could also facilitate participation in calls for proposals issued for example by the EIB, thereby increasing the likelihood that EU-funded projects are implemented more frequently by European companies themselves.
Establish strategic programming based on European USPs
The EU needs to urgently clarify how Global Gateway can become an integrated offer that matches infrastructureinvestmentswithpoliticalflanking,financing,tradeandindustrialpolicyactions,technical cooperation measures and macro-economic support. While aiming at win-win situations with the partnercountries, theEU shoulduseGlobalGateway as aninstrument tosupportEuropeancompaniesin setting up new procurement and sales markets as well as in establishing European economic and technical standards abroad.
It is essential to focus on where European companies are competitive and willing to invest or where geopoliticalpressureishigh,forexampleinsecuringaccesstorawmaterials.Therefore, apreliminary selection of countries and subregions should be made to allocate financial resources as effectively as possible while taking other donors’ activities into account.
In the energy sector, for example, it is essential to match European industry’s strengths with the individual path to climate neutrality of the partner country. While German industry is equipped to support forexampleazero-emissionsironproductionfacilityoramodernhydropowerplant,itcanalsoprovide efficient bridging technologies (gas, blue hydrogen), at least until the expansion of locally available renewable energies is sufficiently advanced.
In the digital sector, Global Gateway shouldfocus on cooperation measures in key enabling technologies – including AI, microelectronics, quantum computing, cloud infrastructure and satellite communication. By embedding open standards, interoperability and European norms into its partnerships, the strategy would sharpen its profile as a geopolitical instrument.
Moreover,GlobalGatewayshouldbealignedwithotherForeignPolicyInstruments,suchastheSouthern Neighbourhood Policy. The region has been awarded three projects but could offer much more in termsofconnectivity,climatecooperationaswellasenergytransition.Lastly,insteadofadministrating double structures, synergies with the G7 PGII and ASEAN Connectivity 2025 should be used.
Strengthen the involvement of business
TheEUneedsanopendiscussionontheprocesswherebyflagshipinitiativesaredetermined,involving the business community in decisions and clarifying how companies can contribute their own project proposals, first on the respective national level – and if financial gaps remain or politicalsupport lacks – on the European level.
Therefore, next to the proposed platform approach the role of the Business Advisory Group should be upgraded to engage more powerfully in the definition of new projects and to ensure European participation in tenders. It must be noted that the announced Global Gateway Investment Hub should not come with additional bureaucratic burdens, and access to it should be designed to be as simple as possible. The EU delegation in the target regions for Global Gateway projects should develop into a point of contact for companies, assist in the design of individual projects, and mediate between the attachés of various Directorates-General and the European External Action Service (EEAS).
Streamline procurement rules
In2024,Chinesefirmswon agreatershareof EIB-fundedcontractvaluethanEUcompanies(Politico, 2024). Even though there are no concrete figures for Global Gateway projects, the challenge is clear:
It is up to the EU to fully utilize the scope of OECD rules that allow tying aid to its own economy. It is key to make the use of public funds conditional on development banks accepting to tie tenders to the European economy – to ensure the pursuit of the EU’s strategic interests. Moreover, competition-distorting state providers should be excluded from international tenders in partner countries, while qualitative criteria should be strengthened. For example, the integration of local employees, sharing technical know-how and offering training should influence tender decisions more strongly.
Improve communication and erase bureaucracy
Global Gateway should be utilized to showcase European involvement around the world. The EU authorship of projects should be emphasized more strongly on site and projects should be accompanied by strong politicalbacking, e.g. through high-ranking delegation visits with European companies.
The Global Gateway strategy needs a clear, comprehensive presentation and communication of all Global Gateway projects, not only flagships. Additionally, companies require an EU-wide overview of all planned, ongoing and completed tenders, concrete funding opportunities, potential business partners. Additionally, companies need clarity on the status of projects and how they can engage.
Application and call-off procedures as well as the administration and auditing of EU funds throughout member states should be simplified and standardized.
Evolve risk sharing mechanisms and adapt financing tools
Some projects of European companies in partner countries have failed due to the lack of creditworthiness of local public customers.TheOECD‘s sustainable lending requirements prevent further borrowing if public debt is already too high.
Instead of identifying Global Gateway projects only top-down, these kinds of bottom-up projects need tobe supportedas well–unbureaucratically with financialsupportfor theindustry’s customers inpartner countries. The EU should not let competitors take over if such strategically relevant infrastructure projects, e.g. in the water, energy, and healthcare sector, are in danger of failing. It needs “blended finance” instruments both nationally and under Global Gateway to enable customers to buy European technologies. Practices of other countries should be examined and evaluated.
Moreover, Global Gateway could evolve its offer through financially supporting feasibility studies, by lowering currency risks to shield borrowers and lenders from exchange rate volatility or by offering concessional loans with lower interest rates and extended grace periods that reflect the geostrategic policygoalsoftheEUaswellasitspartnercountries.Overall,thesetofsupportinginstrumentsshould be marked by flexibility. The financing toolbox should be adaptable to different volumes, risks and project phases.
EXCURSUS – Global Gateway in practice
To transform Global Gateway into an effective instrument for securing Germany’s and Europe’s supply of critical raw materials (CRMs), reforms should focus on prioritisation, integration, and risk-mitigation:
1) Prioritisation - End-to-End Raw Material Partnerships
1. Target strategic geographic corridors, e.g. the lithium triangle in South America, rare earth regions in Africa and nickel/cobalt in Indonesia.
2. Use a full value-chain approach from extraction → processing → refining → recycling → logistics → energy supply for facilities.
3. Establish EU flagship projects dedicated to raw materials as a separate category withinthe Global Gateway pipeline.
4. Embed local value-addition requirements (e.g. processing and refining in partner countries) to build trust and reduce the risk of export bans or protectionist measures.
2) Integration - Linking Industry, Finance, and Partner Countries
1. Fund early-stage project preparation including feasibility studies, environmental and social impact assessments, and support the structuring of long-term offtake agreements.
2. Develop standardized Public-Private Partnership (PPP) templates for mining and processing infrastructure to lower entry barriers for medium-sized equipment suppliers.
3) Risk-Mitigation - Competitive Financing and Secure Access
1. Combine German export credit guarantees (Hermes) with EU EFSD+ guarantees to cover exploration, development, and processing phases.
2. Tie Global Gateway support to long-term offtake contracts between European/German buyers and project developers, providing certainty for both sides.
3. Adjust procurement rules to place stronger weight on quality, environmentalstandards, ESG compliance, and delivery reliability and thus, reduce the attractiveness of low-cost offers without equivalent standards.
4. Co-finance critical enabling infrastructure (ports, rail, renewableenergy) in the same investment package to ensure export capability.
Imprint
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI)
Breite Straße 29, 10178 Berlin www.bdi.eu
T: +49 30 2028-0
German Lobbyregister Number R000534
Editorial
Jonathan Kaupenjohann
Senior Manager sub-Saharan Africa
T: +49 30 2028-1464 j.kaupenjohann@bdi.eu
Vanessa Wannicke
Senior Manager Development Policy and Foreign Trade Promotion
T: +49 30 2028-1563 v.wannicke@bdi.eu
Patricia Schetelig
Senior Representative Foreign Trade Policy
T: +32 27 9210-08 p.schetelig@bdi.eu
Frederik Hermle Intern
BDI Document number: D 2160