Milica Stankić, a member of the European Parliament from the EPP, said corporate fleet electrification, stricter oversight and balanced funding are central to the EU’s approach to zero-emission mobility.
On corporate fleets electrification (EP10): is the Parliament prepared to impose binding obligations on large companies, and how do you expect industry to respond?
“As a member of the EPP, I am very satisfied with how EP10 has been shaped. The call for a legislative proposal by the end of 2026 mandating phased electrification of large corporate fleets (for companies with over 250 employees) reflects exactly the kind of forward-looking, demand-side policy we support. Corporate fleets are a key lever—they renew quickly and can drive large-scale adoption of zero-emission vehicles. Parliament’s proactive approach shows both ambition and political courage, and we look forward to the proposal being delivered on time.”
Some amendments tighten oversight (annual reporting, penalties, weighting future evaluations). Are you concerned this could discourage investment or innovation?
“I am very pleased with the balance Parliament has achieved. These measures are not punitive, but essential for ensuring the credibility and environmental integrity of the flexibility mechanism. Without transparency and accountability, flexibility could turn into a loophole. The EPP has always emphasized that ambition must go hand in hand with predictability, and clear, consistently monitored rules provide exactly the certainty industry needs.”
The proposal includes allocating revenues to a just transition programme. How realistic is it to ring-fence these funds at EU level?
“Regarding the just transition revenue allocation under EP9, I want to be diplomatic but also honest. Our colleagues in the Council of the EU found themselves in a somewhat confusing position when engaging with this provision. There appears to have been a degree of mix-up in how they interpreted some of the objections being raised, and at certain points their concerns seemed directed at a version of the Parliament’s proposal that did not quite reflect what we had actually put on the table.
From our side, we worked in good faith with all institutions and made every possible effort to align our positions and find the maximum common ground available. I am happy to say that after further reflection, the Council also came to recognise this, and I think we all understand that in complex multilateral negotiations of this kind, these things happen. It is human to make mistakes, and what matters is that we course-correct together and move forward constructively toward a text that works for workers, regions, and the climate alike.”
Leave a Reply