The European Parliament adopted a resolution welcoming the European Investment Bank's (EIB, the EU's public bank) 2024-2027 roadmap and calling for more funding for SMEs, critical raw materials, energy and defence. The text is not a law: it expresses Parliament's political position and asks the EIB to act. Parliament also asks the EIB to negotiate an enhanced cooperation agreement with it.
Each year, Parliament reviews the financial activities of the EIB Group and votes on a resolution. This text takes stock of 2025 and of the EIB's 2024-2027 strategic roadmap, which focuses on competitiveness, industrial resilience, security and defence, as well as climate action. The resolution has no legal force: it politically guides the bank and addresses requests to it.
More than 50% for the green transitionParliament supports the EIB's role as the climate bank and notes that climate action is its first strategic priority for 2024-2027, with more than 50% of annual investments devoted to the green transition.
Up to 250 billion euros for TechEUParliament welcomes the launch of the TechEU programme, which mobilises up to 250 billion euros in investments, and calls for a balanced distribution between SMEs, start-ups and scale-ups, as well as an increase in EIB funding by 2027.
40% women in management by the end of 2026Parliament calls for the EIB's diversity, equity and inclusion principles to continue to be applied, in particular the target of at least 40% of management positions held by women by the end of 2026.
Critical raw materials and energyParliament invites the EIB to invest more in critical raw materials (extraction, recycling, processing), to apply technologically neutral criteria for low-carbon energies, including nuclear, and to support energy infrastructure projects to ease prices.
External audit and prudential supervisionParliament calls for concrete measures to close the gaps in external audit and parliamentary scrutiny of operations financed from the EIB's own resources, and encourages its board of governors to comply with the highest standards of external prudential supervision.
The resolution was adopted by 316 votes in favour, 281 against and 39 abstentions, in an electronic roll-call vote.
This resolution does not directly change your rights or obligations: it sets out Parliament's position on how the EU's public bank should invest. In practice, Parliament is pushing the EIB to finance more SMEs and start-ups, clean technologies, critical raw materials and defence, while strengthening transparency and scrutiny of its operations. Parliament also asks the EIB to negotiate an enhanced cooperation agreement with it; these negotiations have not yet been concluded.
Parliament adopted its annual resolution on the European Investment Bank by 316 votes to 281: it supports the 2024-2027 roadmap, defence, SMEs and critical raw materials, while keeping climate action as the top priority with more than 50% of annual investments. But a public bank that has to finance everything ends up financing nothing fast.
The text supports extending the EIB to defence and notes that the European sustainable finance framework does not prohibit these investments. It adds a common-sense requirement: to monitor the effect of this expansion on the AAA rating, which determines the cost of its borrowing. This is the only part of the text that reasons in terms of assumed risk.
But Parliament does not draw the consequence: if the EIB is to keep its AAA rating, it cannot simultaneously finance all the political priorities assigned to it. It would have to say what it stops financing. On guarantees, the text is more solid: temporary and transparent guarantees rather than subsidies, with private investors retaining the main exposure to commercial risk. That is the right logic, provided it also applies to direct loans.
Finally, Parliament calls for an enhanced cooperation agreement and better external audit of operations financed from the EIB's own resources, more than three quarters of its activity. Demanding more control without reducing the scope of action means adding a layer of procedure to a bank already deemed slow.
A useful public bank would do fewer things, better: guarantee the risks the market cannot bear, lend to SMEs and start-ups where European venture capital is lacking, and let member states finance their own energy mix. Parliament comes close to this when it calls for a flexible eligibility framework and respect for each state's right to choose its energy. It moves away from it when it calls for a greater role for the EIB in the next European budget.
The condition for the EIB's credibility is not the length of its list of missions, it is the speed at which it decides and the boldness of what it refuses.
A bank that has to finance everything ends up financing no one on time.
Parliament adopted its annual resolution on the European Investment Bank by 316 votes to 281: it supports the 2024-2027 roadmap, defence, SMEs and critical raw materials, while keeping climate action as the top priority with more than 50% of annual investments. But a public bank that has to finance everything ends up financing nothing fast.
The text supports extending the EIB to defence and notes that the European sustainable finance framework does not prohibit these investments. It adds a common-sense requirement: to monitor the effect of this expansion on the AAA rating, which determines the cost of its borrowing. This is the only part of the text that reasons in terms of assumed risk.
But Parliament does not draw the consequence: if the EIB is to keep its AAA rating, it cannot simultaneously finance all the political priorities assigned to it. It would have to say what it stops financing. On guarantees, the text is more solid: temporary and transparent guarantees rather than subsidies, with private investors retaining the main exposure to commercial risk. That is the right logic, provided it also applies to direct loans.
Finally, Parliament calls for an enhanced cooperation agreement and better external audit of operations financed from the EIB's own resources, more than three quarters of its activity. Demanding more control without reducing the scope of action means adding a layer of procedure to a bank already deemed slow.
A useful public bank would do fewer things, better: guarantee the risks the market cannot bear, lend to SMEs and start-ups where European venture capital is lacking, and let member states finance their own energy mix. Parliament comes close to this when it calls for a flexible eligibility framework and respect for each state's right to choose its energy. It moves away from it when it calls for a greater role for the EIB in the next European budget.
The condition for the EIB's credibility is not the length of its list of missions, it is the speed at which it decides and the boldness of what it refuses.
A bank that has to finance everything ends up financing no one on time.
