Subscribe
A new European model for entrepreneurship, born of both ambition and necessity, appears to be emerging at a time when global economic competition is increasingly fierce, and innovation ecosystems in the United States and Asia continue to attract both capital and talent. The European Union is seeking to redefine the tools it uses to support entrepreneurship with the public launch of a proposal to create a single legal framework for companies, known as “EU Inc.” a proposal that represents one of the most ambitious initiatives in this field in recent years.
The central idea is as simple as it gets, yet it has major implications. Under the “EU Inc.” initiative, any entrepreneur could set up a business in as little as 48 hours, entirely online, from anywhere in the European Union, and at an extremely low cost. This promise addresses a long-standing structural issue in the European Union: legislative fragmentation. Currently, to set up a company, entrepreneurs must navigate a maze of 27 distinct legal systems (since each member state has different legislation) and dozens of different forms of corporate organization. This reality often leads to delays, additional costs, and legal uncertainty. In many cases, setting up a company and launching a business can take weeks or even months, and expanding into another Member State involves additional procedures, translations, legal adaptations, and significant administrative costs. In an economic environment where speed is essential, these obstacles can make the difference between success and failure.
Through this new legislative initiative, the European institutions aim to create an optional yet uniform framework that would operate in parallel with existing national systems. This “28th regime” is not intended to replace Member States’ legislation, but rather to offer a standardized alternative for those who wish to operate in a simpler and more predictable environment. One of the defining elements of this model is full digitization, whereby everything would be handled online, from company registration to the management of day-to-day operations. This approach reflects global trends and the need to adapt to the digital economy, where traditional bureaucratic processes are becoming increasingly irrelevant. In addition, the new framework promises to eliminate certain requirements considered discouraging, such as the minimum share capital (which is mandatory when establishing a company in many European countries) or the requirement for the person(s) establishing the company to be physically present at certain stages. By simplifying these conditions, the European Union is attempting to create a more accessible environment for startups, freelancers, and early-stage entrepreneurs; however, beyond these promises, the key question that remains is how can such a system function effectively in a space as diverse as that of the European Union?
Reactions from the startup ecosystem: moderate enthusiasm and lingering concerns
The launch of the proposal did not go unnoticed among the entrepreneurial community. Startups, investors, and organizations active in the field of innovation have received the initiative with cautious optimism. On the one hand, there is recognition that the “EU Inc.” proposal is a necessary and long-overdue step. On the other hand, concerns persist regarding how this system will function in practice. One of the appreciated aspects is the choice of legislative instrument, as the initiative is formulated as a regulation rather than a directive, meaning the rules would be directly applicable in all member states without divergent national interpretations. This is essential for creating a coherent and predictable framework across the entire EU. Furthermore, the digitization of processes and cost reduction are viewed as positive developments, and the ability to establish a company quickly and without excessive bureaucracy addresses a real need among modern entrepreneurs, who often operate in dynamic and international environments. Another important feature that “EU Inc.” would offer is flexibility in corporate structure, including the ability to issue different types of shares and implement stock option schemes for employees. These tools are essential for attracting and retaining talent, especially in the technology sector.
However, there is also significant criticism, and one of the main issues identified is the lack of a single European business register. Although a common interface is proposed, actual registration would still be carried out through the national registers of the 27 member states, raising questions about the uniformity of the experience and the efficiency of the system. Moreover, the resolution of any disputes would remain, for the most part, the responsibility of national courts. This means that the same rules could be interpreted differently depending on the jurisdiction, which contradicts the idea of harmonization. Similar issues arise in the area of insolvency, where differences in national laws continue to create difficulties for companies operating in multiple countries. Although there are some simplifications for startups, these are not considered sufficient for companies in the expansion phase. Essentially, critics argue that while the concept is sound, the current implementation risks perpetuating the fragmentation it seeks to eliminate because if the system fails to provide a uniform and predictable experience, there is a risk that entrepreneurs will continue to prefer other jurisdictions that are simpler and more consistent.
On site reality: How Long It Takes and How Much It Costs to Start a Business in European Union Countries
It is essential to analyze the current situation in the member states to understand the potential impact of the “EU Inc.” initiative. Across the 27 member states, there are significant differences in both the time required and the costs involved. In some countries, such as Estonia, the process is already almost entirely digitized and can take just a few hours or, at most, a few days. The costs of setting up a company in this country are low, and the system is considered one of the most efficient in Europe. Thus, Estonia has become a benchmark in this regard, attracting entrepreneurs from around the world through programs such as e-Residency. In other countries, such as Germany or Italy, the procedures are more complex and can take between one and four weeks. Additionally, costs in these two countries are higher, including notary fees, minimum share capital, and various other administrative expenses. Another example is France, which has made significant progress in digitization; however, the process of registering a business there can still take anywhere from a few days to a week, depending on the type of company, and the costs are moderate but not negligible. In Spain, launching a startup can take up to two or three weeks, and the procedures are considered bureaucratic. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, the process is fast and efficient, and can be completed in a few days at a relatively low cost. In Central and Eastern Europe, the situation varies. Romania, for example, allows a company to be established in a few days at relatively low cost, but the process is not fully digitized, and certain stages of the registration procedure still require in-person interactions between entrepreneurs and government agencies. Nordic countries, such as Denmark and Finland, offer fast, digital processes, but costs can be higher than in other regions of the EU. This diversity clearly highlights the problem that the European “EU Inc.” initiative is trying to solve. In a single market, such significant differences in access to entrepreneurship can be considered a major obstacle. By comparison, the promise of being able to start a business in 48 hours, entirely online and at a cost of less than 100 euros, would represent a radical change to the system. However, the success of this initiative will depend on the ability to overcome existing structural barriers.
Another key aspect of the European “EU Inc.” initiative is access to financing and capital markets through the simplification of share transfer procedures and the elimination of intermediaries, which could facilitate investment; however, all of this would only be possible if the system is implemented uniformly. Furthermore, the ability to work entirely remotely, without border restrictions, could transform how teams and companies are organized, because in a globalized economy, flexibility becomes an essential competitive advantage. That is why the “EU Inc.” initiative represents more than just an administrative reform, as we can view it as an attempt to redefine how entrepreneurship operates in Europe. However, like any ambitious project, the success of the “EU Inc.” initiative will depend not only on vision but also on execution, and if it succeeds in delivering simplicity, predictability, and efficiency, it could become a widely adopted standard. Otherwise, it risks remaining merely a theoretical option in an economic landscape that remains fragmented. That is why we can say that, through the “EU Inc.” project, Europe is at a decisive moment, and the choice is not between change and stagnation, but between profound reform and incomplete reform which is why the response to this challenge will define the future of European entrepreneurship for decades to come.