Viewpoint: Robotics should drive Europe’s resilience strategy

Europe, a leader in global robotics since the 1970s, is now experiencing a steady erosion of its industrial base in this sector. Market share is shrinking, ownership of key robotics companies has moved abroad, expertise is being lost and control over critical production supply chains is weakening.

This decline coincides with a freezing point in transatlantic relations. From diplomatic pressure regarding Greenland to unilateral tariffs on European goods and shifting commitments to NATO, the US has signalled a structural departure from traditional alliances. In this new, protectionist, multipolar era, Europe must rely on itself.

In an interconnected global economy, true resilience requires technological leadership anchored in secure, stable and diversified supply chains. Supply-chain security is no longer merely an industrial concern; it is the cornerstone of national economic policy.

To safeguard its sovereignty, Europe must establish robust instruments, such as a European Sovereignty Fund, to provide swift, unbureaucratic support to industrial leaders during crises. Europe must also build circular ecosystems around critical businesses and enable rapid regulatory intervention to prevent strategic assets from being sold abroad. 

Fostering European champions along the critical value chain is essential to Europe’s competitiveness in the global technological race. And robotics should be high on the list of sectors for attention, for a range of reasons.

Robotics can address acute labour shortages in defence, manufacturing and services, and improve workplace safety by automating dangerous tasks. Robotics can also reduce the pressure on companies to relocate manufacturing abroad, and facilitate the return of vital industrial production to European soil.

Robotics can drive demand for domestic motors, batteries, critical raw materials and rare earth minerals, while cultivating a high-performance workforce of engineers and technicians possessing strategic domain expertise.

Crucially, Europe’s robotics agenda must remain human-centred. While robotics can relieve workers of hazardous tasks, support aging societies and boost productivity, deployment must go hand in hand with strong safety standards, reskilling, collective bargaining and quality jobs. 

The same values that guided the AI Act must steer Europe’s industrial transition: innovation must be trusted, rights-preserving and socially useful.

The AI delusion

Despite its rich engineering heritage, Europe is losing its grip on robotics due to a fundamental strategic miscalculation: European policy has focused disproportionately on artificial intelligence, often treating robotics as a mere subset of software. This is a critical error. While the two fields intersect, they are fundamentally different.

Robotics are deeply rooted in physical engineering, actuators and mechanics, whereas AI belongs to the realm of software and algorithms. Robotics markets prioritise physical precision, safety and proven industrial returns. Conversely, recent AI investments have favoured generative software and speculative brain-body narratives that lack established industrial track records.

Finally, robotics require higher capital expenditure and longer development cycles, but they create tangible assets and resilient ecosystems. Meanwhile, many AI valuations rely on highly optimistic projections, a risky gamble in a global economy where total debt exceeded 310% of GDP by the end of 2025.

Europe must revitalise its core industrial strategy, sustaining its foundational industries while actively cultivating new ones. Currently, a lack of targeted investment has triggered a mass exodus of strategic capabilities. Former European robotics innovators are now in US, Japanese, or Chinese hands. 

Lessons from history

History warns us of severe, long-term consequences of failing to protect critical technology. In the 1980s, for example, Japan controlled 75% of the global semiconductor market. Under intense US pressure via the Plaza Accord and the 1986 Semiconductor Agreement, Japan was forced to cede market access, permanently undermining its technological competitiveness.

Move forward to 2009, and Europe allowed memory-chip leader Qimonda to collapse over a disputed €300 million state-support package. Today, memory chips are recognised as highly critical technologies. Because their production is so complex and capital-intensive, rebuilding a modern equivalent to Qimonda would require investments far exceeding the tens of billions of euros currently allocated under the European Chips Act. 

What could have been saved for millions will now take decades and billions to replace. China capitalised on this mistake. By pursuing a long-term, incremental strategy, Beijing built a resilient ecosystem around these abandoned assets. Notably, Qimonda’s patents and personnel were instrumental in the rise of the Chinese memory-chip giant CXMT.

Today, we watch with a sense of irony and regret as former Qimonda competitors, namely SK Hynix and Micron, see their valuations surge past $1 trillion in May 2026, driven by the insatiable global demand for memory chips.

The EU has not fared better when it comes to batteries. In a rush to achieve a green transition, European policymakers directed tens of billions of euros into building over a dozen domestic battery factories. Today, most of these factories are bankrupt. The strategic mistake was skipping the foundational innovation steps and attempting to build factories without a competitive, localised supporting ecosystem.

Then there is the case of ABB Robotics. In 1967, the Norwegian company Trallfa pioneered the world’s first commercial industrial painting robot. Acquired by ABB, this business became a global champion, generating over €2.3 billion in revenue with a 12% profit margin in 2024. Yet, when the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank acquired a significant stake in this highly profitable branch, Europe failed to intervene. 

This raises a critical question: why did Europe fail to safeguard an established, highly profitable champion and its surrounding ecosystem, while simultaneously pouring billions into unproven, missing battery manufacturing supply chains?

A central pillar

As the global order shifts from a US-dominated unipolar system to a protectionist, multipolar world, Europe cannot afford to become a geopolitical appendage. We owe it to the next generation to hand down a Europe that stands on its own feet, securing their economic welfare and retaining high-value jobs along critical industrial value chains.

We are entering a new era of geopolitical tension, where economic growth and sustainability require open strategic autonomy. Europe urgently needs a dedicated sovereignty fund and investment strategies rooted in resilient, existing business ecosystems.

Robotics must be the central pillar of this industrial transition and a standalone thematic area in the next Horizon Europe research and innovation. By coordinating development across the entire supply chain, from raw materials to advanced manufacturing, Europe can secure a sovereign industrial future that honours its proudest engineering traditions.

Nabil Belbachir is research director at Norce Research and sits on the euRobotics board of directors. Brando Benifei is member of the European Parliament with the Socialists and Democrats group. Anita Krohn is vice-chair of the European Innovation Council Board.