30/10/2026
The Good Lobby, as a co-founder of the Future Generations Initiative, welcomes the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)’s opinions on:
- The EU Commission’s Strategy on intergenerational fairness
- The EU Commission’s Communication on a Simpler, Clearer and Better Enforced EU Rulebook
In September, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted two opinions that send the EU Commission a clear message: intergenerational fairness will only become real if the EU builds it into how it makes law.
When the Commission unveiled its first Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness, we welcomed the step ahead made but warned that it leaned on a familiar toolbox of dialogue and existing instruments (youth check, youth dialogues and awareness-raising tools) rather than structural change.
The EESC’s opinion on the Intergenerational Fairness Strategy, adopted by 153 votes to 25 with 38 abstentions, shares that concern. It asks that fairness be treated as “a measurable outcome and not merely as a guiding principle”, backed by long-term targets and indicators, a transparent dashboard in the European Semester, intergenerational budgeting for the 2028–2034 EU budget, a “no social regression” principle and a European Council for Intergenerational Solidarity.
Notably, amendments that would have softened this language were rejected by wide margins. They would have swapped new targets for “existing” ones, turned the Council into a forum and diluted the no-regression principle.
Our ask, in the EESC’s words
The opinion also says that all new EU laws should include an assessment of their impact on future generations. It adds that the Youth Check should be fully integrated into the Better Regulation framework, with a public methodology and public results. This is the core of our manifesto: a future generations impact assessment within the Better Regulation Guidelines, an ask we have made clear especially after the Commissioner’s portfolio was created.
Better regulation: the other half of the story
The EESC’s second opinion, on the Commission’s “Simpler, Clearer and Better Enforced EU Rulebook”, was adopted by 187 votes to none. It insists that better regulation must not be equated with deregulation. It regrets that the Commission’s new “matrix of key impacts” is so vaguely described, and warns that classifying initiatives as “major”, “targeted” or “urgent” at the Commission’s discretion could shield proposals from full scrutiny. It notes that more than half of the current Commission’s legislative proposals have relied on a staff working document rather than a full impact assessment. It also calls for qualified Regulatory Scrutiny Board opinions on all impact assessments and for keeping 12-week public consultations.
Yet this second opinion says nothing on intergenerational fairness beyond the Youth Test. An intergenerational assessment applied only to “major” files, or only on paper, would repeat the pattern we have flagged before: strong diagnosis, limited follow-through. As the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox are reviewed, the Commission should introduce a proportionate future generations impact assessment with a public methodology, ask the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to look at long-term and horizontal effects, and make sure “urgent” or “targeted” labels do not become a way around intergenerational scrutiny.
Citizens themselves asked for governance that protects future generations through anticipation, accountability and inclusive participation. The EESC has now added the voice of organised civil society.