As the European Union (EU) positions itself as a global climate leader, the implementation of its European Green Deal (EGD) and the Global Gateway increasingly hinges on effective partnerships with third countries. However, the EU’s actorness as norm-driven, and the underlying motivations driving external engagment, remain contested. As noted in this study, both agendas emerged under different historical and political conditions: the EGD from a normative climate imperative, and the Global Gateway from geopolitical competition and development finance reform. This study investigates the drivers of “the practical implementation” of these two major strategies through the Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs): a novel class of hybrid instruments combining technical and financial instruments under the Team Europe approach. By compiling and quantitatively analysing new data on the 134 country-level TEIs, this study assesses wether their allocation reflects normative, “needs”- based ambitions for climate mitigation, or is strategically instumentalized by geopolitical and other strategic interests.

The findings reveal that TEIs are shaped by a hybrid logic: While emissions levels, particularly absolute CO₂ emissions, are associated with allocation, this effect weakens when adjusted for equity considerations, suggesting that mitigation potential is a guiding rationale. In addition, structural self-interest factors, such as natural resource rents and bilateral preferences, are consistently strong predictors of the likelihood of a third country hosting a climate-relevant TEI. Notably, geopolitical rivalry, measured through Chinese development projects, does not influence TEI allocation, challenging common assumptions pertaining to the Global Gateway’s role as a direct counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initative (BRI). By offering a novel lens into the practical implementation of the EGD’s external dimension and the Global Gateway, this study contributes the first systematic empirical assessment of climate-relevant TEIs. It advances scholarly debates in climate governance, international development cooperation and EU external relations by demonstrating how so-called “competing” logics intersect in shaping EU cross-cutting climate partnerships, as the alignment between its normative rethoric and operational behaviour through “on-the-ground” hybrid tools, such as the TEIs, are not necessarily contradicting but instead a materialization of multiple and intersecting logics. Ultimately, the results warrant further exploration and reflection on the practical implementation of the EU’s external climate leadership.