Inside EU Inc: How a New Movement is Bridging Europe's Startup, VC, and Policy Worlds
An In-depth Interview with Co-initiator Philipp Herkelmann on Building a Groundbreaking Coalition to Reimagine Foundations of European Innovation
In late 2024, as the European Union grappled with its global competitiveness, a grassroots initiative called EU Inc emerged with unprecedented momentum. Beyond its ambitious policy goals, the initiative stands out as a fascinating new model to bridge Europe's traditionally separate worlds of venture capital, entrepreneurship, and policymaking.
The timing proved pivotal - former ECB President Mario Draghi had just called for €800 billion in additional annual investment, while EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made supporting innovation a cornerpiece of her second term, signaling a shift from what she called a "Regulation Commission" to an "Investment Commission." Rather than following traditional lobbying paths, EU Inc applied startup methodologies to policy-making: open-sourcing proposals on Notion, rapid stakeholder iteration, and building in public. Within weeks, this approach gathered over 13,000 signatures and united an unlikely coalition of European unicorn founders, global tech leaders like Stripe's Patrick Collison, major venture firms like Index Ventures, Atomico, Speedinvest or Sequoia, and startup associations from France Digitale to the German Startup Verband — and traction in Brussels.
Their mission: create a single pan-European entity under the "28th regime" - an alternative to the existing patchwork of 27 national frameworks, similar to how Delaware incorporation provides a go-to structure for U.S. startups. But perhaps more importantly, they're prototyping a new model for how Europe's innovation ecosystem can pragmatically move policy forward through collaboration. At a time when Europe's tech ecosystem faces existential questions about its ability to compete globally, EU Inc is testing whether startup methodologies can break through the region's notorious political gridlock.
For VC+POLICY, Paul Fehlinger spoke with Philipp Herkelmann, whose background spans venture capital, company building at Entrepreneur First, and working for Google and X-The Moonshot Factory in Silicon Valley and Europe, about their bid to rewrite not just corporate law, but how Europe bridges its venture capital, entrepreneurship, and policy worlds.
Paul Fehlinger: The concept of a pan-European business entity isn't entirely new. The Societas Europaea has existed since 2004. Why hasn't that solved the problem?
Philipp Henkelmann: [Laughs] That's actually a funny anecdote about European policy-making. The European company statute took about 55 years to be implemented – the idea was first floated around 1950, and it took literally five decades to become reality.
But more importantly, while there was initially a lot of hope for the Societas Europaea, it turned out to be mainly useful for multinationals. It requires substantial existing presence in different member states before you can even apply, plus far too much capital for startups. It was clear from the start that this wouldn't be relevant for European startups.
PF: How did EU Inc come into being? Walk us through the origin story.
PH: The groundwork was laid through years of effort by various startup associations developing the concept of a "28th regime." Organizations like France Digital had working documents, and Allied for Startups contributed to positioning papers. It made it into the Mario Draghi report – though just as one page in a 265-page document. This was the classical way of policy making, with associations writing papers that typically end up being discussed somewhere in Brussels around beige tables.
What changed in 2024 was the broader context. There was this prevailing meme about Europe being the laggard, that Europe couldn't innovate, that it was boring – at best just a holiday destination. In April 2024, one of the co-initiators, Andreas Klinger, wrote a blog post titled "Please Europe, Wake Up!" addressing how we were lagging behind and not utilizing Europe's potential due to system-induced fragmentation. Andreas has a significant following on X (formerly Twitter), and this message really resonated, even if just within our tech bubble initially.
By August, several of us decided we needed a more structured approach to make this publicly relevant. We started with a WhatsApp group of 15-20 diverse stakeholders that we used to challenge our thinking and essays. We wrote multiple versions, testing each against this group's diverse and strong opinions. By September, we realized we needed to distill our complex essays into a simple, clear message that could resonate broadly. It was intense work with lots of back-and-forth, all aimed at delivering a petition to the European Commission.
We then connected with the folks behind Not Optional and Index Ventures for expert interviews. They asked us if we were ready to commit to this for at least the next five years, and we said yes. We knew we couldn't submit an official petition to the EU Commission – that would require a million votes – so we needed a different strategy to create public awareness.
PF: Your approach to policy innovation seems quite different from traditional methods. How did you execute this?
PH: We ran it like a startup would. We looked at what people normally do and deliberately chose to do things differently. Our strategy was to communicate clearly so the masses could understand it, build something people could identify with, and put the community signing the petition at the forefront rather than ourselves.
When we launched, we thought success would mean 700 signatures by the end of the week. We hit that number in the first 20 minutes. This early momentum came from securing support from heavyweight figures across Europe's tech ecosystem. The initiative quickly gathered over 13,000 signatures, uniting an unlikely coalition of industry leaders. Key supporters included Stripe's Patrick Collison, Skype founder Niklas Zennström, Wise's Taavet Hinrikus, and Matt Clifford of Entrepreneur First. We also saw strong backing from leaders at companies like DeepL, Pigment, Supercell, and Wolt, or innovation ecosystems like Station F. Major venture firms formally joined the cause, with Index Ventures, Sequoia, Atomico or Seedcamp all lending their support. The initiative further gained momentum through endorsements from startup associations across the continent, from France Digitale to the German Startup Verband, creating unprecedented unity across Europe's tech ecosystem. Their collective endorsement gave us massive credibility.
I'm still amazed by their trust in lending their names and credibility to our petition. We had about an 85-90% conversion rate with the key decision-makers on our wish list. This pre-launch credibility gave us a massive boost on social media. We also did a professional press release and contacted tier-one media outlets. There was initial skepticism, but after 2-3 days, the momentum became clear.
PF: How do you maintain momentum after the initial buzz?
PH That was actually our biggest challenge. Social media typically has a burning fire for a day or two, then it's lost in the eternity of timelines and news feeds. So we had to innovate to keep engagement up.
We took one of the most boring topics out there – Commissioner hearings – and made it newsworthy. Nobody in Europe typically understands Commissioner hearings or what kinds of questions are asked. We took video clips, edited them, and turned mentions of the 28th regime into news events. We created a continuous engagement news cycle around what's arguably one of the most boring topics in the world: innovating at entity level.
We've also maintained community engagement through our open proposal on Notion, getting feedback from founders, startup employees, lawmakers, VCs, and startup makers. This open-source approach to policy development is quite unusual in EU policy-making.
PF: Looking at the data, what shows the urgency of this reform?
PH: If you look at the Mario Draghi report, there's a striking graph showing how Europe invested primarily in automotive over the last three decades – whether in OEMs, suppliers, or automotive companies directly. Meanwhile, the US was investing in digital technology, healthcare, and data infrastructure. This investment pattern has had profound consequences.
In the US, the VC-backed market generates jobs at 10-12 times the acceleration of the traditional job market. In Europe, it's only six times. This gap represents massive untapped potential. Eight of the ten most valuable companies globally are in the digital data economy, and Europe has produced none of them.
The issue isn't talent – Europeans are building remarkable companies in Silicon Valley. The challenge is that to be a successful entrepreneur in Europe today, you need to be what we call "unfairly lucky." The system-induced fragmentation creates unnecessary barriers that we can't afford in a competitive global landscape.
PF: The initiative requires coordinating a complex web of stakeholders – from the new Commission appointees to national startup associations, EU-level bodies, individual member states, founders, VCs, innovation ecosystems, and lawyers. How do you manage this in practice?
PH: We operate with a core group of 4-5 people, coordinating through WhatsApp groups and email threads. We have weekly coordination meetings now, though initially they were daily. We've organized into subgroups with specific responsibilities – mapping policy stakeholders, managing relationships with founders and VCs, and coordinating legal engagement with tier-one law firms like Orrick and Bird & Bird, who are supporting us pro bono with expertise and review.
Our operating model is "loosely connected, highly aligned." We've created workstreams managed by lawyers and entity experts. The startup associations, from France Digital to the Dutch Startup Association, have been crucial partners as they've already spent significant time thinking about these issues. We wanted to ensure we were aligned and speaking with one unified voice.
PF: You've successfully engaged the private sector in this open policy development process. But I'm curious about the public sector side - are policymakers actively participating in iterating these proposals, or is the relationship more traditional?
PH: We've seen interesting signals of engagement at different levels. We've heard about EU Inc caps appearing in Commission meetings and internal briefings circulating in Brussels about our initiative. But what's been most telling is the nature of the feedback - when we shared our preliminary proposal, we started receiving detailed technical questions from policymakers, suggesting real engagement with the substance.
We've been proactively funneling specific statements and papers towards the Commissioner hearings. Sometimes we'd see our exact formulations appearing in speeches by top-tier politicians in Brussels. We're not waiting for policy input; instead, we're proactively providing it and seeing the feedback in how it's being incorporated into the discussion.
PF: What are the next concrete steps to make this a reality?
PH: The 28th regime is essentially the operating system on which EU Inc can be implemented – it's an artificial, virtual legal space where you can set up new rules without breaking Member State rules. This will be part of the Commission's working program for 2025.
Our proposal consists of several pillars. The first is EU Inc as a standardized company structure, which could potentially be implemented in EU regulation within 12-24 months – very fast for EU standards, but theoretically possible. The same timeline applies to an EU registry or EU dashboard.
Some aspects will take longer, particularly questions around taxation, which remains under member state authority, and specific employment questions. But having the first trials for a standardized company structure within 2-3 years would be a significant achievement.
PF: What's really at stake here for Europe?
PH: What EU Inc demonstrates is a new level of participation from a powerful minority in Europe – founders of small companies, SMEs, and exceptional talent that might otherwise move to the US. Even Paul Graham, who led Y Combinator for years, is one of our core signatories. Michael Jackson, a VC influencer who hasn't always had the best words about Europe, is pushing us forward.
There's clearly strong identification with Europe's potential – we have the talent, we have a strong R&D landscape, and Europeans are building great products and companies in Silicon Valley. If we fail, Europe has much bigger problems than our failed initiative. We'd be losing our best talent, jobs, tax revenue, and innovation potential to other regions.
But I'm optimistic. The fact that we've gotten this far shows there's an appetite for change. We have all the tools we need – the ability to reach millions through social media, access to decision-makers, and most importantly, a community ready to participate in shaping Europe's future. What we need now is a new system to maintain this momentum and turn it into concrete action.
More information about EU Inc at https://www.eu-inc.org/
