Scenarios for the 2030s – updated (2025) Four possible futures for industry associations in 2030

In the autumn of 2024, on the occasion of Lejeune's 60th anniversary, we explored four future scenarios for industry organisations towards 2030. We used the methodology of De Ruijter Strategy and their AI tool for scenario planning. Just like the motto of their famous namesake, Admiral De Ruijter, scenario planning is all about agility: being able to change course in changing circumstances.

In 2025, that was precisely the case. This year, we veered diametrically away from the 'dream scenario' of inclusive growth towards the opposite scenario of polarisation and fragmentation. However, the reports by Mario Draghi for the EU and Peter Wennink on the competitiveness of the European and Dutch economies respectively mean that hope for the dream scenario is not yet lost.

Based on developments in 2025, we have refined the scenarios from 2024, with the aim of engaging in dialogue with management, members and boards about legitimacy, strategic choices and the necessary agility of your association.

Fundamental changes in 2025

The world has changed fundamentally:

Donald Trump has been re-elected as President of the United States. The post-war world order based on free trade, globalisation and multilateralism seems to be over. NATO is coming under pressure. European defence and strategic autonomy are being prioritised.
The war in Ukraine is escalating. NATO countries are increasing their defence budgets to 3.5% of GDP, with an additional 1.5% for supporting infrastructure.
The new European Commission is choosing a course focused on competitiveness, strategic autonomy and technology — less on broad ESG commitments.
In the Netherlands, the transition is stalling under the lame duck Schoof cabinet. The formation of a new cabinet is underway, but under the influence of the Wennink report, policy may shift towards selective, targeted economic policy.

The Draghi Committee's advice: back to the Dream Scenario?

In his much-anticipated 2024 report commissioned by the European Commission, former ECB President Mario Draghi sets out a bold vision: Europe must radically rethink its economic governance and investment strategy if it wants to remain relevant in a world dominated by geopolitics, technology, and major transitions. At its core, Draghi argues that prosperity and security can no longer be left to markets alone. Europe needs a new era of economic policy marked by:

Massive public–private investments in strategic sectors (energy, digital, defence, health);
Deeper European coordination in industrial and fiscal policy;
Simplified and faster governance, capable of mission-driven execution;
And crucially, the completion of the internal market, especially for services, capital and data, to unlock scale, innovation, and resilience across Member States.

Draghi identifies Europe’s lack of execution power and fragmented market structures as its greatest vulnerabilities. Without bold reforms, the EU risks strategic irrelevance. His recommendations aim to make Europe not just greener or more digital, but more decisive, cohesive and sovereign — capable of acting at scale in a multipolar world.

These developments are forcing industry associations to reassess their role, position and legitimacy. Those who want to retain policy, resources and influence will have to demonstrate strategic relevance.

Two fundamental choices: who controls, and for whom?

Based on the above, we are redefining the scenarios for 2030 on the basis of these fundamental, policy-relevant uncertainties:

1. Direction of technological adoption - Who determines the use of technology?

Market-driven: companies and chains use AI, automation and platforms for competitive advantage.
Strategically driven: government and the EU steer technology towards vital domains (security, energy, defence).

2. Selectivity of government control - Who gets access to policy, subsidies, space and support?

Broad/generic: government maintains broad guidance on sustainability, inclusion and ESG for all sectors.
Selective/strategic: government opts for a sector-specific focus — only 'crucial sectors' receive support or space.

Scenario matrix: four futures for industry organisations in 2030

Scenario 1: Governments steer, but selectively.

Technology serves strategic goals.

In response to geopolitical tensions and internal divisions, Europe opts for a course of strategically driven sustainability and technological sovereignty. Governments invest in a targeted manner in sectors that contribute to energy security, defence, digital autonomy and circular industry. Sustainability remains important, but only where it pays off strategically. The role of technology, particularly AI, is crucial: applications are governed by European standards and deployed within public-private ecosystems. Government policy is strict but predictable, focused on measurable results such as emission reduction, cyber resilience and chain innovation.

In this context, industry associations have become fully-fledged transition partners. They translate strategic policy into actionable programmes, help their members to innovate and act as a bridge between business, government and knowledge institutions. Their legitimacy is growing, provided they move in line with the strategic direction and have sufficient implementation power. At the same time, risks arise: sectors outside the focus are in danger of falling out of the picture, smaller companies may struggle to keep up, and the pressure to perform within policy frameworks is higher than ever.

Scenario 2: Government withdraws.

The market determines what works. AI determines who wins.

After years of slow policy-making, Europe opts for a liberal course in which the market takes the leading role in technological and economic development. Governments focus exclusively on strategic core tasks such as defence and infrastructure, while sustainability and AI development are largely left to private players. Competition between companies and regions increases, and technological advantage sets the standard. In the Netherlands, this course translates into targeted investments in defence-related innovation and technological hubs, while broad sustainability and social goals fade into the background.

Industry associations are changing along with them: they support members in their digital and AI transformation, offer platforms for technological knowledge sharing and operate as advocates in a rapidly changing market. However, their role is becoming more transactional: the emphasis is on direct value creation rather than collective standards or sector-wide frameworks. Collaboration between companies is becoming more difficult, inequality between frontrunners and laggards is growing, and sustainability is only pursued where it is commercially profitable.

Scenario 3: Governments want everything at once. Regulatory pressure and implementation deficits dominate.

In this future, under social and ecological pressure, Europe opts for a broad governance model in which the government wants everything at once: climate neutrality, social inclusion, technological regulation and security. The result is an overly ambitious, complex and bureaucratic policy framework. Despite good intentions, governments become bogged down in procedures and regulations. AI, ESG and sustainability are strictly regulated, but implementation stalls. The Netherlands also follows this path: high ambitions remain intact, but administrative fragmentation and limited implementation power lead to increasing frustration and reduced capacity.

In this scenario, industry associations have become crucial links in the policy landscape — but mainly as 'compliance intermediaries'. They help members comply with rules, translate European standards into sector practices, and negotiate with governments on feasibility. Their influence is significant, but reactive and procedural. Innovation suffers from regulatory pressure, and the scope for setting one's own course in terms of sustainability or digitisation is limited. Sectors that do not meet the standard are at risk of being sidelined — not because of a lack of ambition, but because of overload.

Scenario 4: Central control disappears. Regions and chains organise themselves.

In this scenario, central control in Europe largely collapses. National governments lose their clout, while regional authorities, cities and companies take the lead themselves. The application of AI, sustainability and strategic investments varies greatly by sector or area. Where innovation clusters emerge, the economy and technology flourish; elsewhere, development stagnates. European frameworks are applied selectively or not at all. This dynamic is clearly visible in the Netherlands: the national government is paralysed, while provinces and urban regions shape policy. The result is growing inequality and a patchwork of initiatives without a coherent national framework.

Industry associations are transforming into support structures in a fragmented landscape. They organise cooperation in niches and regions, connect companies with local authorities and knowledge institutions, and build their own platforms for knowledge, financing and advocacy. In the absence of national policy, they take responsibility for structure and direction within their domain. Some organisations develop into strong self-organising networks; others disappear due to a lack of critical mass or connecting capacity. Survival and prosperity increasingly depend on the strength of the network and the flexibility of the organisation.

Probability of the scenarios

Each of the scenarios described above has opportunities and risks that can coexist. If the European Commission embraces the approach recommended by Mario Draghi, Europe shifts closer to Scenario 1 (Strategic Sustainability): selective, government-driven innovation aligned with shared strategic goals. Industry associations would become key intermediaries — not just lobbying groups, but operational partners in steering transformation.

Yet Draghi’s vision also implicitly warns against the other scenarios:

Scenario 3 (State of control) — the risk of fragmentation and bureaucratic overload if reforms stall.
Scenario 2 (AI as market master) — if public governance lags behind private tech dynamics.
Scenario 4 (Decentralised survival) — if EU integration falters and Member States pursue solo strategies.

The key message: strategic autonomy, execution capacity and European scale — these are the imperatives Draghi sees for the 2030s. Without them, Europe's position in the world will fade. But that requires choices, cooperation and administrative agility.

And industry organisations that determine their choices within this playing field.

Accountability: how we used AI

When updating these scenarios, we used AI as a sparring partner: to bundle developments from 2025, test assumptions and identify blind spots. AI is not an oracle and does not make predictions. The interpretation, choices in wording and translation into practice by industry organisations are human work and have been editorially reviewed. Therefore, view the scenarios as a tool for discussing legitimacy, agility and strategic priorities towards 2030 with management, the board and members.

The Hague, December 2025