Blog

Achieving a coherent policy mix – meaning a set of different policies that are synergetic and don’t conflict with each other while pursuing a specific goal – has long been an objective in EU policymaking.

As early as 2001, the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development argued for improved policy coherence and reduced policy spillovers to achieve ‘economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development’.

In the 2019-24 political cycle, the European Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan emphasised that a coherent mix of policies across all stages of a product’s lifecycle can help scale up green business models and sustainable resource consumption. Similarly, the Green Deal Industrial Plan identified a coherent policy environment as a key pillar in its strategy for rolling out green technologies.

Policy coherence is gaining more prominence as the Commission advances its Omnibus work to simplify the regulatory framework and reduce administrative burdens for EU businesses. In theory, a well-aligned policy mix with minimal conflicts can help ease these burdens and support the EU’s sustainability and competitiveness goals.

But where do things stand today? In short, there’s been some positive developments, but more can (and should) be done – and next year’s expected Circular Economy Act would be a good starting point.

Coherence in the present policy mix – it’s a mixed picture

While coherence with existing EU and international policies is one of the criteria in impact assessments, in line with the Commission’s better regulation guidelines, there are very few empirical assessments of the level of coherence in the overall policy mix – and none specifically for the circular economy.

A new paper (full disclaimer, co-written by this author with Valeria Zambianchi) seeks to address this gap by focusing on the EU’s circular economy policy mix as it was shaped during the 2019-24 political cycle. The analysis focuses on four sectors – electronics and ICT, batteries, automotive and critical raw materials – and drew on the experiences of business actors working within these sectors.

The assessment paints a mixed picture. On average, the policies in the mix have a medium-to-high degree of coherence with each other. Importantly, at the strategic level, the European Green Deal stood out as the most coherent policy. Put simply, its long-term framework and strategic direction were seen by businesses as largely in line with the other individual policies in the mix, suggesting a strong and consistent signal to EU businesses.

However, issues start to emerge one level down. Two follow-up strategies – the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and the EU Industrial Strategy – ranked the lowest in terms of experienced policy coherence. Moreover, four major strategies, namely the Circular Economy Action Plan, the EU Industrial Strategy, the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and the Green Deal Industrial Plan, all show medium-to-low levels of policy coherence with each other, which suggests their goals are not well-aligned.

Issues of incoherence become more apparent when looking into how different directives and regulations in the mix interact with each other. Chemicals policies, namely the Reach Regulation  and the RoHS Directive, show low-to-medium levels of coherence with several other policies, including the recently adopted Batteries Regulation, Right to Repair Directive and Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. What these tensions highlight is that the longstanding disconnect between circularity and chemicals policies persists, despite recent legislative developments.

Even more eye-opening is the low-to-medium coherence between the EU Taxonomy Regulation and most of the other assessed policies in the mix, including the Critical Raw Materials Act, the EU Industrial Strategy and the Green Deal Industrial Plan. Introduced in 2020 to provide a transparent framework for defining sustainable investments, the Taxonomy Regulation has caused businesses to doubt about whether the criteria and selection of sectors are consistent with the priorities of the other policies in the mix.

The Waste Shipment Regulation is another example of a policy demonstrating low-to-medium coherence, reflecting its limited alignment with various other policies. Businesses highlighted the persistent mismatch between waste transport rules and circularity objectives. They pointed to the lack of synergies between the Regulation and the EU’s industrial policy goals, particularly those that aim to boost the use of secondary raw materials stemming from the Critical Raw Materials Act.

Finally, another notable finding is that many businesses perceive limited synergies between the circular economy’s objectives and those of the trade and climate policy domains.

Taking steps towards a more coherent policy mix

Amid ongoing discussions over the need to reduce the burden on businesses, the above findings highlight areas where sectoral and horizontal policies within the expanded circular economy policy mix have intersected and resulted in incoherence. Going forward, efforts to improve coherence should begin with the Circular Economy Act proposal – expected sometime in 2026 – that will aim to develop an EU single market for circular products and services.

The Act’s upcoming impact assessment is a good opportunity to include an explicit analysis of how synergies between the various policies can be improved and conflicts avoided. This can then provide the groundwork for concrete actions to strengthen the single market for circular products and services, which would be supported by a thorough trade-off analysis.

One such action could be in the domain of public procurement criteria for circular goods and services. These would need to balance climate and circularity objectives and thoroughly consider impacts across the different lifecycle stages of products.

A comprehensive fitness check, like the one conducted in 2014 for the waste acquis, could also be conducted to reflect policy developments over the past decade. On top of this, an oversight cross-DG team within the Commission could be tasked with screening different legislation and promoting compatibility between different policies.

Given that policy goals increasingly integrate objectives from industrial policy, competitiveness, the circular economy, and climate policy, it will also be important to send consistent signals to EU businesses. To do this, future strategies in these domains should be accompanied by a dedicated roadmap outlining how different actions impact cross-cutting areas, as well as a dedicated monitoring framework to easily track progress.

 

This Expert Commentary is based on the journal article ‘Unpacking policy coherence: a network analysis of the EU policy mix for the circular economy’

Applications

21/10/2025
6 views
0 likes

Better in-flight streaming and video-calling might just become more accessible thanks to a project supported by the European Space Agency (ESA). Building upon the success of an experiment for a new type of antenna terminal together with ESA, Viasat – a global leader in satellite communications – now plans to commercialise its new in-flight connectivity solution called Viasat Amara.

Viasat Amara has a dual-beam phased array antenna that provides both better access to video calling (a latency-sensitive use), as well as video streaming such as watching a football match (a bandwidth-sensitive use). This is possible because the antenna can connect to satellites both in low Earth orbit and in geostationary orbit, depending on what is needed. Links using satellites in low Earth orbit have lower latency with minimal communication delays, whereas those with satellites in geostationary orbit have a high bandwidth and so can transmit much more data.

Testing the antenna

The antenna terminal was developed, designed and tested within an ESA partnership, under  ESA’s programme of Advanced Research in Telecommunications Systems (ARTES). The experiment, conducted in 2021, consisted of a demonstration flight from Rotterdam in the Netherlands to Payerne in Switzerland. The antenna provided a reliable satellite connection en route, enabling passengers to stream content on Youtube and Netflix, and video call with colleagues on the ground.

The antenna’s design

The antenna uses an innovative design known as an electronically steered phased array. Rather than relying on a single large antenna that physically moves to track satellites, it uses many small components. These individual elements coordinate the timing of their signals to have a unified connection, similar to how a stadium wave forms as each person stands up consequently. This mirrors movement and provides not only a faster way to connect, but also the possibility of connecting to two satellites simultaneously.

Viasat’s in-flight solution’s commercial service is expected to begin in 2028. Thanks to its modular technology, the product can be easily incorporated into existing antennas, making it cheaper and easier to incorporate in passenger airlines.

“Phased array antennas are an evolutionary and much needed step towards more energy and space efficient in-flight connectivity solutions, and we are proud to have contributed to Project Aidan – a key milestone that led Viasat to developing Amara. We’re looking forward to next opportunities for cooperation with Viasat, and many other industry partners – for the benefit of all ESA Member States,” said Massimiliano Simeoni, Aidan’s Project Implementation Manager at ESA Connectivity and Secure Communications.

“The Viasat Aera terminal is a key part of Viasat Amara, our next generation in-flight connectivity solution going far beyond fast and free high-speed Wi-Fi,” said Viasat on its Viasat Amara announcement. “Our pioneering mission remains to help our airline customers maximize connectivity’s enormous potential for brand, loyalty, and growth. It’s been great to work with ESA as one of our key partners to help bring it to fruition.”

This antenna development marks the beginning of exciting opportunities for the future of onboard connectivity.

Like

Thank you for liking

You have already liked this page, you can only like it once!

LAWRENCE — According to new research, social media may be a surprisingly reliable source for stock tips … if you know where to look.

“We find that when investors discuss analyst revisions on Twitter, it helps the market better understand and more quickly impound the information in the analyst report,” said Eric Weisbrod, associate professor of accounting at the University of Kansas.

His article titled “Social Media Discussion of Sell-Side Analyst Research: Evidence from Twitter” examines sell-side analysts’ stock recommendation revisions on Twitter, observing increased levels of price discovery during intraday windows with more revision-related tweets. This is especially notable for tweets with more user engagement and those posted by more influential authors.

Weisbrod’s work is forthcoming in an issue of Review of Accounting Studies. 

“Whether it’s on Twitter or WallStreetBets on Reddit or whichever platform, people will post about the profits they’ve been making … or sometimes, humorously, about their losses,” Weisbrod said.

“But for the individuals who are making money, other people see that on their social media feed, and since they would like to experience similar profits, they try to follow these individuals’ advice. It’s similar to any type of celebrity or influencer.”

Co-written by KU doctoral candidate Matt Peterson, Andrew Call of the University of Southern California and Mehmet Kara of the University of Georgia, the research finds that platforms such as Twitter have emerged in this space due to the barriers retail investors face in accessing analysts’ stock recommendation revisions in a timely fashion.

“The common metaphor for Twitter is it’s the digital town square. We find that’s true with respect to this piece of information. When an analyst changes their recommendation, the revision used to be very proprietary to only the clients of the brokerage where the analysts work. But the more times information is discussed in the town square, the more that all investors can incorporate the news,” said Weisbrod, who notes the data for the article was culled prior to July 2023, when Elon Musk took over Twitter and changed its name to X.

One key question is why people make any financial decisions based on social media discussions.

“We’re putting one more data point in this debate that there’s good and bad information on social media, and I think that’s the challenge we all face these days of trying to identify what’s credible and what’s not,” Weisbrod said.

His team found several tests to determine if the information is reliably helpful for investors.

“For example, if there’s a link to an underlying source document that can show this was an analyst report — not just a random bot recommending a stock — that makes it more credible. Or if it’s from a verified account. And since our data is from the original Twitter period, to be verified you actually had to submit documentation. It wasn’t just ‘pay for verification’ like it is now. So if you were a verified public figure and tweeted about an analyst recommendation, then your tweets were more credible,” he said.

The impetus for this story stemmed from a presentation Weisbrod and Peterson attended concerning how viral tweets about earnings were bad for investors.

“We both had been thinking, ‘I wonder if people discuss analyst reports on Twitter? And is that good or bad?’ So the two of us started talking, and it evolved from there,” Weisbrod said.

Since analyst research is typically proprietary, the researchers were unsure how much Twitter discussion they would find. Yet they were able to analyze 50,286 recommendation revisions announced from 2013 to 2020. They observed at least one revision-related tweet during the two trading-day announcement window for 90.1% of all these revisions.

“Brokerages don’t really want their analysts’ research getting out because they want it to be more valuable to their own clients,” he said. “But we didn’t know that the leaks or discussion of these things would be quite so prevalent.”

Weisbrod previously served as an academic fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. The Dallas native came to KU in 2020, where his research focuses on financial data providers and financial analysts.

“There’s a lot of information of questionable credibility on social media. Since we’re in the business school, we mostly think about investment-related social media. Even within that, some people are just pumping and dumping stocks, and it’s hard to know who to trust,” Weisbrod said.

“What we found is one way to capitalize on seeing people discussing a stock on social media. You can trust this more if it references a certified financial analyst, and then maybe this person has actually done their homework instead of just trying to scam you into buying a stock.”