EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3055 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation 
Adjustment Fund 
 
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 867 final}  
{SEC(2008) 3056} 
 
EN 2   EN CONTENTS 
Executive summary.............................................................................................................. .... 5 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties........................................ 8 
1.1. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board  
1.2. Organisation and timing  
1.3. Consultation of Member States and social partners 
1.4. Main results from the stakeholder consultation 
2. Problem definition.................................................................................................... 11 
2.1. Background to the EGF 
2.2. Current situation of the EGF 
2.3. Need for action 
2.4. Affected stakeholders 
2.5. Consequences of inaction 
2.6. Legal basis for action by the EU 
2.7. Data sources 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. 19 
3.1. General policy objectives 
3.2. Specific policy and operational objectives 
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies 
4. Policy Options........................................................................................................... 19 
5. Impact analyis........................................................................................................... 21 
5.1 Economic and social impact 
5.1.1. Impact of Option 1"No change"  
5.1.2. Impact of Option 2 "No change plus improvements  
5.1.3. Impact of Option 3 "Improvements a nd operational changes, Variant A: Trade " 
5.1.4. Impact of Option 3 "Improvements a nd operational changes, Variant B: Markets " 
5.1.5. Impact of Option 4 "Improvements and opera tional changes responding to a serious 
disturbance in the economy caused by globalisation".  
 
EN 3   EN 5.2 The budgetary impact 
6. Comparing the Options ........................................................................................... 35 
6.1. Effectiveness 
6.2. Added value for the EU 
6.3. Budgetary constraints 
6.4. Comparison of Options against the objectives 
6.5. Conclusion  
7. Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................... 37 
Annexes ........................................................................................................................ ........... 35 
 
EN 4   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Report on the impact assessment of the Pr oposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Re gulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing 
the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund 
Lead DG: EMPL 
Other departments involved: TRADE,  ENTR, REGIO, COMP, SG, SJ  
Agenda Planning or WP reference: 2008/EMPL/012 
 
EN 5   EN Executive summary 
In the light of the scale and the speed of the cu rrent economic crisis the proposal prepared by 
the present impact assessment had to be adapted. The Commission announced in its European Economic Recovery Plan, adopted on 26 Novembe r 2008, that it would propose to extend the 
scope of the EGF as part of Europe's crisis re sponse and turn it into an early, more effective 
intervention instrument in line with the fundamenta l principles of solidar ity and social justice. 
This led to the introduction in the final proposal of the extension of the scope to "a serious disturbance in the economy due to globalisation", an element that was not covered by the 
version of the impact assessment presen ted to the Impact Assessment Board.  
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (hereafter the EGF) wa s created in December 
2006 in order to enable the Union to show so lidarity with and provide support for workers 
made redundant as a result of major structural  changes in world tr ade patterns due to 
globalisation. The Fund supports measures such  as assistance with job-search, training and 
mobility allowances and thus makes it easier for the workers to find new jobs. With the decision to create the EGF for an initial period  of 7 years (2007-13) and provide it with an 
annual maximum budget of EUR 500 million the Un ion also decided to actively complement 
the efforts of the Member States at national, regional and local levels. It was assumed in the 
Impact Assessment of the original proposal  that the EGF could support 35,000 to 50,000 
workers per year with between EUR 10,000 and EUR 20,000 each. 
The outcome of the first 18 months of EGF opera tions is significantly lower than that: During 
2007 and the first half of 2008 the EGF received 12 applications from 8 Member States. They 
concerned EUR 67.5 million of EGF support fo r 15.000 workers, giving an average of EUR 
4.500 per worker. 
There was and is broad consensus within the European Union on the need to address at 
European level the negative effect s of globalisation for those citi zens who have lost their jobs. 
The key issue is whether the stated objective of solidarity is being met by the current EGF, i.e. 
whether the EGF is available to the redundant workers concerned and whether its actions match the needs of the individuals. 
In 2007 the European Restructuring Monitor record ed 66 cases of restructuring of enterprises 
involving more than 1000 worker s, and there were a further 38 in the first half of 2008, as 
compared to 12 EGF cases during 2007 and 2008. ERM figures cover all recorded events 
regardless of their nature and some of these events quite clearly fall outside the current EGF definition of eligibility. However, Member St ates have informed the Commission departments 
that even under current rules further applicatio ns could have been made for EGF assistance, 
but were not for a variety of reasons. Eviden ce gathered from national administrations and 
opinions expressed during the consultation sugges t that cases might exist where redundancies 
are stretched over a longer period, not allowi ng the threshold to be reached within the 
reference period. Particularly di fficult is the co llection of information from the regional and 
local levels within short reference periods.  
The ERM also recorded 73 ev ents involving between 500 and 1,000 workers and, just as for 
the larger cases, it is likely that some of these events are caused by changes in international trade patterns. However these trade-redundant workers can not benefit from EGF assistance 
due to its current eligibility criteria. 
 
EN 6   EN From these two considerations it can be conclu ded that the objective of solidarity of the EGF 
is only partially being met under the present rule s and that this situation can be addressed by 
lowering the redundancy threshold for EGF applications from 1000 to 500 workers. 
Moreover the Commission has identified the need  to make the EGF a more effective early 
intervention instrument and to fully exploit its potential as part of the crisis response. The 
current EGF Regulation specifies that only trade related redundanc ies are eligible for support. 
However the global crisis impacts the real economy and employment in many other ways 
beyond (international) trade. In addition to  lowering the threshold for support, the 
Commission is proposing to include changes in the definition of EGF eligibility so that 
redundancies occurring as a result of a serious disturbance in the economy may be included, 
and the Fund can thus directly respond to the ef fects of the crisis on employment. In this way 
the EGF will be able to provide  support to more workers who are in fact made redundant by 
globalisation but who could not be assisted so far. 
On the issue of whether EGF actions match the needs of individual workers, analysis of the 
EGF cases, the FAQs to the Commission depart ments and input from the Member States' 
experts and other stakeholders  indicate that the combinati on of requirements (especially 
implementing a coordinated package of personalis ed services within a 12 month period) is 
detrimental to the quality of the actions and does not leave sufficient time for the measures to 
be effective in re-integrating particularly the most vulnerable workers into new jobs. It is 
therefore proposed to extend the im plementation period to 24 months. 
Besides, in order to make the EGF co-funding more  attractive to Member States it is proposed 
to increase the common intervention rate to 75  % to bring it into line with the Structural 
Funds. 
These proposals fully respect the fundamental nature  of the EGF, while turning it into a more 
efficient crisis response instrument. 
Since the first annual report on the EGF was adopted on 2 July 2008 the Commission has 
consulted the Member States twice: first by wa y of a questionnaire rela ted to EGF operations 
and management and including the issues identifi ed in the annual report and secondly at a 
conference of Member State representatives an d stakeholders at the beginning of September 
2008. This has allowed the Commission to assemb le a maximum of information and views in 
the available time and discuss and exchan ge ideas on the EGF Regulation and its 
implementation. 
Based on the information thus available th e Commission departments have examined 4 
Options: first to continue w ith no changes; second to in troduce a number of operational 
improvements which can be undertaken without ch anges to the EGF Regulation; and third to 
introduce specific amendments to the Regula tion. The third Option has two variants as 
concerns eligibility: one where trade continues to  be the only criterion and one where trade is 
supplemented with market changes as descri bed above. The fourth Option proposes an 
expansion beyond market changes to enable th e EGF to react rapidly to redundancies brought 
about by disruption of the economy caused by globalisation. The 4 Options have been 
analysed and assessed in light of the overall  objective laid down in the EGF Regulation, of 
providing support to workers made  redundant due to globalisati on, ensuring that the solidarity 
objective of the EGF is met and that the EGF provisions adequa tely take into account the 
economic, social and territorial char acteristics of all Member States.  
 
EN 7   EN The analysis of the social and economic impacts has led to the conclusion that the Option 1 
"No change" would not make it possible to addre ss the shortcomings in the implementation of 
the current EGF Regulation. Th e Option 2 "No change plus improvements" would simplify 
procedures and application and information requi rements, provide clarif ication on eligibility 
rules, increase visibility of the EGF thr ough the use of existing networks and promote 
exchange of experience and good practice. It woul d not address the main obstacles that make 
the EGF less effective as a financing instrume nt than had been intended by the legislator. 
Option 3, Variant A "Trade" would allow a larg er number of redundant workers to benefit 
from the EGF and to benefit for a longer peri od. Whilst this Option would make it possible to 
address most of the problems identified, it w ould not allow for equal treatment of workers 
made redundant as a result of major changes in  world markets. Option 3, variant "Markets" 
would extend the benefits to a wider field and encompass also the workers affected by events 
which fall under a more comprehensive concep t of globalisation. Option 4 would further 
extend the scope to a wider range of redundanc ies caused by globalisation while offering all 
the other advantages of Option "3  Markets". Therefore, Option 4 is considered to better fulfil 
the objective of solidarity in as much as it makes support available to more redundant 
workers. 
 
EN 8   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board  
In the light of the scale and the speed of th e current economic crisis the proposal prepared 
by the present impact assessment had to be adapted. The Commission announced in its 
European Economic Recovery Plan, adopted on 26  November 2008, that it would propose to 
extend the scope of the EGF as part of Europe 's crisis response and turn it into an early, 
more effective intervention inst rument in line with the fundamental principles of solidarity 
and social justice. This led to the introduction in the final proposal of the extension of the 
scope to "a serious disturban ce in the economy due to globa lisation", an element that 
was not covered by the version of the impac t assessment that was presented to the 
Impact Assessment Board. 
The Draft Impact Assessment report on the EGF was examined by the Impact 
assessment Board at its meeting of 24 September 2008. In its opinion issued on 29 
September 2008 the Board stated that it w ould like to examine and issue an opinion 
on a revised IA report. 
The Board made a number of recommendati ons for improvements of the draft IA 
report. 
The first recommendation concerned the im provement of the problem definition. 
This has been addressed systematically in Section 2, point 2.3, of  the revised report, 
including specific references to the needs ar ising from the global financial crisis. It 
describes for each of the proposed changes: eligibility threshold, duration of implementation, intervention rate, globalisa tion event, technical assistance and 
introduction of definitions in the EGF Regulation the main deterrents related to the efficiency of implementation of the cu rrent EGF Regulation. Concrete examples 
based on information received during the consultation period from the member 
States, are provided to illust rate the problems related to implementation. Given the 
lack of adequate data on potentially eligible  cases, in particular whether these cases 
could meet the strict intervention criteria, it is not possible to provi de an analysis of 
cases where Member States have not applied for EGF support, as requested by the Board. The description of the impact of a ba se line scenario that  takes into account 
the economic outlook of the macro-economic environment is referred to under 2.5 and further addressed in 5.1.1. and 5.2. 
Secondly the Board recommended that th e report should further develop the 
description of the proposed changes to the EGF Regulation and substantiate the 
choice of the specific parameters. The propos ed changes are described in detail in 
Section 5 under point 5.1.3. of the revised report, where the choice of specific 
parameters is also further substantiated. The same sub section contains the position 
of the Member States on the proposed changes to each of the specific parameters. For further information the detailed position of  the individual Member States' experts on 
the issues addressed in the questionnaire – which also cove rs the questions addressed 
by the proposed changes to the Regulation – ha s been added as Anne x 2 to the report. 
Finally it is noted that the proposed extens ion of the duration of the implementation 
period from 12 to 24 months is fully in lin e with the European Employment Strategy 
which suggests that every person becoming unemployed must be offered a new start 
 
EN 9   EN within 12 months; extending the period does not limit the possibility of intervening 
early but offers the opportunity to interv ene for a longer period of time and thus 
helps increasing the rate  of re-integration of the redundant workers. 
The third recommendation concerned the need to provide a more explicit definition 
of the eligibility criteria under Option 3.B "Markets". This  is addressed in Section 5 
under point 5.1.4. of the revised report which co vers the considerations related to the 
crisis response function of the EGF and where the role of the Member States in preparing and justifying the a pplications is reiterated. It is explained which evidence 
would be required from Member States fo r the purpose of providing an analysis of 
the link between the major structural cha nges in world markets and the redundancies 
covered in their application.  
An administrative recommendation concer ned the explanation of why no inter-
service group was set up for the IA. This e xplanation is provided in Section 1 under 
point 1.1. 
The Board issued a second opinion on 6 October 2008 on the revised Impact 
Assessment in which the Board recognised that many of its recommendations had 
been taken on board and made further recommendations. 
A general recommendation concerned strengthening the arguments for an 
amendment to the EGF Regulation at the pres ent time. The issue of the timing of the 
proposal has been clarified in the problem definition, with a clear reference to the 
economic crisis and the European Econom ic Recovery Plan, which includes an 
amended EGF among the proposed measures to face the crisis. To this end it is 
proposed to widen the scope of  the EGF even further than envisaged in the "markets" 
Option, namely to cover redundancies resul ting from a serious disturbance in the 
economy due to globalisation a nd include this as a fourth Option. By enabling the 
EGF to respond to more cases of globalis ation induced redundancies it should reach 
more workers affected by the economic cris is than the present Regulation permits, 
and therefore be distributed more fairly – which also in part responds to the second 
recommendation below. 
The first recommendation concerns the analysis of the Member States' willingness 
and ability to use the EGF support and reco mmends that eligible cases not presented 
for EGF co-financing, be examined. The Com mission services ar e aware of 4 or 5 
such cases. However in every case the Member State concerned was either still gathering information about the circumstances  and was therefore not in a position to 
establish clearly if the case would indeed be eligible; or the case concerned too few 
workers for even an application under Ar t. 2(c), despite the other conditions for 
applying to the EGF having b een met. The proposal to lo wer the threshold should 
help on this respect. 
The second recommendation concerned clarification as to how the proposed open-
ended eligibility criteria can be implemente d fairly and appropriately. The use of the 
EGF has always been subject to an assessment by the Commission based on the merits of each specific case. This is alr eady being done under the criteria of "major 
structural changes in world tr ade patterns", "substantial increase in imports" or "rapid 
decline of EU market shares". The new pr oposal will not remove the element of 
assessment, nor will it make it more diffi cult for the Commission to decide. It should 
 
EN 10   EN be recalled that the EGF does not pursue an  objective of equal di stribution of funds 
among Member States or regions. 
The third recommendation asked for an assessm ent of the likely increase in demand 
for the EGF that will result from the ec onomic slowdown and assess EU value added. 
As it was already stated in the IA the ta ke-up of EGF funding depends critically on 
the propensity of Member States to apply for assistance. This continues to be the case, because the principle of a demand driven Fund remains unchanged. The number of potential cases depends in tu rn on the depth and length of the economic 
crisis and on how Member States' economies c ope with it. It is not possible to make 
quantitative estimates with any degree of confidence. In contrast, however, the 
amended EGF will serve to underline the Un ion's solidarity with redundant workers 
who have lost their jobs through no fau lt of their own, but  due to the world-
embracing economic downturn.  
1.2. Organisation and timing 
Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006
1 on establishing the European 
Globalisation Adjustment Fund ("the EGF Regulation" ) stipulates that each year the 
Commission must present to the European Parliament and the Council a quantitative 
and qualitative report on the activities of th e EGF in the previous year. Article 20 of 
the EGF Regulation also provides that the Commission may submit a proposal to 
review the Regulation on the basi s of its first annual report. 
The Commission adopted its report on the fi rst year of oper ation of the EGF2 on 2 
July 2008. In that report the Commission indicated that it would examine ways to improve the performance of the Fund and outlined a number of issues to be looked into, including expanding the Fund to cove r changes in internat ional markets, the 
intervention thresholds and the length of implementation periods (see Annex 1 for 
the full report). 
As this proposal concerns a revision of ex isting legislation, the problem at issue and 
the objectives pursued by the EGF in its curr ent form have already been defined in 
the impact assessment
3 accompanying the original legi slative proposal. Therefore, 
the present impact assessment looks only in to the specific problems to be addressed 
by the proposed amendments. 
The proposed amendments to the EGF Regul ation are partially of a cross-cutting 
nature, and DG EMPL has consulted the ot her departments concerned on an ad hoc 
basis during the period of preparati on. This working method was considered 
necessary to meet the tight deadlines for making progress within the current 
Parliament. 
1.3. Consultation of Member States and social partners 
                                                 
1 OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p.1, Regulation as corrected in OJ L 48, 22.02.2008, p. 82 
2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Solidarity in the 
face of change: The European Globalisation Fund: 2 007 Review and Prospects, COM(2008)421 final of 
2.7.2008 
3 Sec(2006)274 accompanying COM(2006)91 final 
 
EN 11   EN Since the first annual repor t on the EGF was adopted on 2 July 2008 the Commission 
departments have consulted the Member Stat es' experts and social partners twice: 
first by way of a questionnaire relating to EGF operations and management and 
including the issues identifie d in the annual report and secondly at a conference of 
Member State representatives and social partners at the beginning of September 
2008.  
The questionnaire asked the Member States and the stakeholders  to provide their 
views on the usefulness of in cluding factors of globalisati on other than changes in 
international trade; on the number and na ture of redundancy cases involving more 
than 1000 workers as well as cases involving between 500 and 1000 workers; on the appropriateness of the time periods estab lished in the Regulation (reference periods 
and implementation periods); and on a number  of issues relating to administration of 
the EGF at EU and national levels. Replie s were received from 22 Member States 
and a few social partner organisations. 
A second consultation of the Member States ’ experts and social partners took place 
at a conference held in Brussels on 4 September 2008. The conference agenda covered the issues identified in the annual re port as highlighted in the responses to 
the questionnaire, summarized for ease of reference in an issues paper which was 
sent to all participants  prior to the meeting.  
1.4. Main results from the stakeholder consultation 
The Commission departments particularly wa nted to know the views of the Member 
States and other stakeholders on the core i ssues identified in its  annual report and to 
receive additional information and data if  possible. These views are addressed in 
detail in the assessment of the Options in  Section 5. An overview  table is given in 
Annex 2. It should be noted that the views of  the Member States reflect the experts' 
opinion and not necessarily the formal  position of the Member States. 
The information received was considered su fficient in terms of representation of the 
different interests. Given the limited scope of the proposed amendments further public consultation was not considered necessary. 
2. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Background to the EGF  
There is an urgent need for action to prot ect Europe's citizens from the worst effects 
of the global financial crisis and ensure  rapid re-integration into employment of 
workers who have been made redundant, and thus to avoid long term unemployment.  
The EGF was established as a community instrument to help workers made 
redundant due to major changes in world tr ade patterns. Member States may apply 
for EGF support if major stru ctural changes in world trad e patterns lead to a serious 
economic disruption, notably a substantial in crease of imports into the EU, or a rapid 
decline of the EU market shar e in a given sector or a delo calisation to third countries. 
 
EN 12   EN However the global economic crisis has repercussions for employment far beyond 
what can be attributed to changes in worl d trade, and under the current rules of the 
Regulation the EGF is not in a pos ition to address these issues. 
The EGF contributes to funding active la bour market measures designed to re-
integrate redundant workers into the labour  market. The EGF has been set up for the 
period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013, to coincide with the duration of the 
financial framework. It has a maximu m annual reserve of EUR 500 million. The 
contribution of the EGF may not exceed 50 % of the total estimated costs of the 
proposed intervention. The duration of EGF su pport, which may start as soon as the 
Member State begins to implement measur es for the redundant workers concerned, is 
set to finish at the latest 12 months after the date of submission of an application. 
EGF support is granted to the Member State on the basis of an individual financing 
decision taken by the Commission follo wing a decision by the EU Budgetary 
Authority to mobilise the EGF. For reasons  of efficiency, proposals to mobilise the 
EGF are presented in batches covering two or more separate applications. 
Member States can apply for EGF support under one of the following eligibility 
criteria of Article 2 of  the current Regulation: 
(a) at least 1,000 redundancies ove r a period of 4 months in a Member State, 
including workers made redundant in its suppliers or downstream producers, or 
(b) at least 1,000 redundancies, over a period of  9 months, particularly in small or 
medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 sector in one region or two contiguous 
regions at NUTS II level, or 
(c) in small labour markets or in excepti onal circumstances, duly substantiated by 
the Member State(s) concerned, even if  the conditions under a) and b) above 
are not entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment 
and the local economy. 
2.2. Current situation of the EGF 
The outcome of the first 18 months of  EGF operations can be summarized as 
follows: During 2007 and the first half of 2008 the EGF received 12 applications for 
support from 8 Member States. They c oncerned EUR 67.5 million of EGF support 
for 15,000 workers, giving an average of about EUR 4,500 per worker.  
A total of 6 decisions have been taken, re sulting in payments of EUR 18.6 million in 
2007 (or 3.7 % of EUR 500 million)  and EUR 3.1 million in 2008.  
A detailed case by case presen tation of the Fund's activities so far is available at the 
EGF web site4. More information can also be f ound in the first annual report in 
Annex 1.  
The twelve applications rece ived so far have come from  eight Member States: Italy 
(4), France (2), Germany, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Lithuania (1 each). 
                                                 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/egf/index_en.html 
 
EN 13   EN The other nineteen Member States have  not yet raised any cases with the 
Commission for potential presentation to the EGF. No applications have led to a 
negative decision. 
These results fall significantly  short of the assumptions made for EGF support in the 
Impact Assessment for the original proposal5 where is was assumed that the EGF 
could support 35,000 to 50,000 workers per year. 
2.3. Need for action 
In the light of the situati on described above and in par ticular the need to provide 
support for workers made redundant through the economic impact of globalisation 
the central question is therefore whether the stated objective of solidarity is being met with the current EGF, i.e. is th e EGF available to the redundant workers 
concerned and do the actions matc h the needs of individuals? 
This question has to be examined within the scope as limited by Article 20 of the 
EGF Regulation, which provides for review  of the EGF on the basis of its first 
annual report with the two-fold aim (1) to ensure that the solidar ity objective of the 
EGF is met and (2) that its provisions adequately take into account the economic, 
social and territorial characteristics of  all Member States. Achievement of the 
solidarity objective implies reaching and re -integrating into the labour market a 
larger number of redundant workers th an is the case under the current EGF 
Regulation.  
At this stage it is not the intention to eval uate the effectiveness and sustainability of 
the results obtained by the EGF. To that e ffect a mid-term eval uation will be carried 
out in accordance with Article 17 of the EGF Regulation by 31 December 2011. 
Indeed, as the first final reports from Member States on the implementation of specific EGF interventions were only deliv ered in September 2008, consideration of 
actual outcomes has not been possible. 
The proposed amendments aim at improving in the short term the implementation 
and performance of the EGF in relation to the above objectives. 
Some improvements could be achieved by addressing the shortcomings related to the 
implementation of the current eligibility cr iteria. These relate to the complicated 
procedures and information requirements, the lack of interest of existing networks to 
promote the EGF, the lack of clarity as rega rds the eligibility of the services sector, 
of transnational mobility allowances and micro-credits and the absence of trade related reference material for the preparati on of applications, the absence of adequate 
support enabling systematic exchange of experience and good practice as well as a lack of visibility of  the EGF. These problems can be so lved to a large extent without 
amending the Regulation. 
However, more far-reaching improvements would need to address the inadequacy of 
the current eligibility criteria with a view  to meeting the solidarity objective. Four 
main causes can be identified for the under-p erformance of the Fund with respect to 
its solidarity objective: the eligibility threshold, the globalisation event creating the 
                                                
 
5 SEC(2006)274, op.cit., p. 15 
 
EN 14   EN eligibility, the duration of the implementa tion and the intervention rate. These are 
analysed below. 
Eligibility threshold  
In 2007 the European Restructuring M onitor (ERM) record ed 66 cases of 
restructuring of enterprises involving more  than 1000 workers, and a further 38 in the 
first half of 2008 as comp ared to 12 cases notifie d to the EGF in 2007 and 2008. 
ERM figures cover all recorded events rega rdless of their nature and some of these 
events fall completely outside the current EGF definition of eligibility. 
Member States have informed the Commi ssion departments that, even under current 
rules, further applications might have been  made for EGF assistance, but were not, 
for a variety of reasons, includ ing lack of relevant data, e .g. due to difficulties with 
disaggregation of regional an d sectoral redundancy statistic s. This is particularly 
relevant for redundancies in sectoral case s in a single or two contiguous regions 
involving a large number of SME's (Article 2(b) cases). 
Evidence gathered from national administ rations and opinions expressed during the 
consultation process suggest that cases mi ght exist where redundancies are stretched 
over a longer period, not allowing the thres hold to be reached within the reference 
period. 
The ERM also recorded more than 73 events in the same period involving between 
500 and 1,000 workers, and some of these events would be caused by changes in 
international trade patterns. However thes e trade-redundant workers can not benefit 
from EGF assistance due to the cu rrent threshold of 1,000 redundancies. 
The experience gained by the EGF so far demonstrates that, in practice, many 
redundancy events tend to be long-drawn out. Even in cases of company closure, the 
actual process of laying off the workers may be slow, with more senior workers 
benefitting from a longer period of notice before their final redundancy. This has 
made it difficult (as Finland informed the Commission departments in respect of its 
Perlos application) to count over 1,000 re dundancies within the tight reference 
period, even though the event clearly affected  more than 1,000 workers. The problem 
is further exacerbated by the legal impossi bility under the current EGF Regulation to 
include workers made redundant before th e start of the refe rence period in the 
package of measures. Two possible solutions to thes problems have been considered: 
(i) extending the reference period to greater than four months (in Article 2(a) cases) 
or nine months (in Article 2(b) cases) , or (ii) reducing the number of actual 
redundancies that must occur within the re ference period in combination with the 
inclusion of workers made redundant before  the start of the re ference period . In 
order to avoid extending th e reference periods , and thus extending the whole 
application and decisional process to un acceptable lengths, a reduction of the trigger 
number of redundancies in combination with the inclusion of the redundancies 
occurring before the start of the reference period is considered th e best solution. The 
effect of such a reduction will be two-fold : it will make it easier for Member States 
to make an application in cases of draw n-out redundancies, it will ensure equal 
treatment between workers dismissed before and after the reference period and it will allow smaller redundancy events to be eligib le. This latter effect clearly extends the 
 
EN 15   EN coverage of the EGF to events which alt hough of a smaller size  can be locally or 
regionally catastrophic.  
It is proposed to reduce the trigger nu mber of redundancies to 500. A reduction to, 
for example, 800 would not si gnificantly increa se coverage. On the other hand, the 
Commission considers that a figure below 500 would not represent a European-level 
shock and unit cost of preparing, negotia ting and managing too small interventions 
may be disproportionate. 
Duration of the implementation  
Commission analysis of the EGF cases that have been received, the FAQs to the EGF 
internet site and input from the Member St ates and other stakehol ders indicate that 
the requirement that a coordinated package of personalised services to be implemented within a 12 month period can be detrimental to the quality of the 
actions and does not leave sufficient time for the measures to be effective in re-integrating workers who are hard to place in to new jobs. If more time was available 
to conceive, develop and implement the individual measures higher rates of re-
integration could be achieved. Experience in the largest EGF intervention so far 
(Germany, BenQ) demonstrates that after one  year of intensive support, over 40% of 
the assisted workers had still not found a replacement job. This figure was also 
observed in the French Peugeot EGF cas e, where 41% of workers were still 
unemployed at the end of their EGF assistance. In the French Renault case the outcome was better but around a quarter of the workers w ho had benefitted from the 
assistance were still without a durable out come. It should be underlined that these 
remaining workers who have normally a consistent job history have good chances to be placed if they receive  substantial support.  
The Commission departments share the opinion  of the Member States that a longer 
period of implementation of the EGF-funde d activities would allow a greater number 
of affected workers to return to empl oyment. In particular, given that those 
remaining unemployed after one year are li kely to be in an increasing difficult 
situation on the labour market , an extension of the period of implementation would 
allow a better achievement of the solidarity objective of the Fund. 
A longer intervention period w ould also allow Member Stat es to elaborate better 
targeted packages of measures and to ca rry out the necessary administrative and 
financial steps to set them up. 
Intervention rate
 
The EGF Regulation in its Ar ticle 20 provides that the review of the Fund must 
ensure that the solidarity objective of th e EGF is met, and that its provisions 
adequately take into account the economic, so cial and territorial characteristics of all 
Member States. In this regard the Co mmission departments consider that the 
application of a single intervention rate has had the inadvertent effect of discouraging 
applications from the less advantaged regions of the EU, which enjoy a higher 
intervention rate from the Structural Funds  than granted under the EGF. Such less 
advantaged regions may be discouraged fr om applying to the EGF because the cost 
to the national exchequer is higher than other, admittedly less focussed, instruments such as the ESF. The Commission departme nts considered the Option of applying 
 
EN 16   EN different rates to different re gions, as in the St ructural Funds, but considers that for 
reasons both of efficiency, simplicity and so lidarity, it would be preferable to use a 
single intervention rate, but that this rate should be increased. 
Globalisation event  
Among the ERM cases mentioned above, th ere are some which are related to 
changes in world market conditions, but wher e it is difficult to establish a link with 
changes in trade patterns, as required  under the current Regulation. However, 
"globalisation" has many other facets than (i nternational) trade, such as changes in 
production and product technology, changes in the organisation of production (such 
as company outsourcing) and the access to, and price of, raw materials and other 
inputs and the speed with which this happens. Such cases are not covered by the existing Regulation, but should become elig ible through the broadening of the scope 
of the Fund. 
Furthermore the financial crisis has made  evident that major redundancies can be 
brought about by problems in the banking an d financial sector s on a global scale 
which negatively impacts the real economy in the EU and the Member States. There is a need to adapt the Regulation to enable the EGF to be responsive to the broadest 
possible range of globalisation events. 
Two additional problems experienced by the EG F in its first year of implementation 
related to: 
Technical Assistance
 
The lack of guidance, expert advice, peer learning and mutual exchanges led to some 
cases of inadequate applications which re quired considerable efforts to improve, and 
which slowed down the decisional process.  The Commission departments regretted 
these delays, but found themselves unable to address them adequately due to the 
inflexibility of the Technical a ssistance arrangements for the Fund. 
Introduction of definitions in the EGF Regulation  
The difficulties faced by the Member States in interpreting certain elements of the 
EGF regulation, which led to some confusi on, and risked creating greater problems 
of a legal or audit nature in the future.  
Conclusion  
The consultation has shown support for st rengthening the performance of the EGF 
with a view to better meeting the solidar ity objective as intended by the legislators. 
It can be expected that, if no action is ta ken, the EGF will only reach and re-integrate 
into the labour market a small share of the redundant workers for whom it was 
created. However it would leave out a si gnificant number of workers who are 
considered victims of globa lisation by the wider public.  
2.4. Affected stakeholders 
 
EN 17   EN The most affected stakeholders are the workers who become redundant as a 
consequence of structural changes in worl d trade patterns and other types of changes 
in world markets and who, depending on th e Option chosen, may or may not be 
eligible for support from the EGF. 
Article 1 of the EGF Regulation recognises th at various stakeholders are also to be 
found in the regional or local economy surrounding each potential or actual EGF 
case.  
The national authorities in the Member States are responsible for submitting 
applications for EGF support, and thus will also be directly affected by any changes 
in the Regulation. 
2.5. Consequences of inaction 
The consequences of not taking action are addressed as policy Option 1 "No change" 
below under sections 4 to 6. This would mean leaving the EGF Regulation unchanged and leaving the identified probl ems identified un-addressed. However, as 
the economic prospects for the future are less favourable than those observed in 2007 
and the first half of 2008, the baseline scenario is likely to lead to more redundancies 
caused by developments in the world econom y. It is therefore likely that, even 
without the proposed modifi cation of the Regulation, more redundant workers would 
have to be assisted by the EGF. The num ber of workers affected by globalisation 
who could not be supported due to shortcomings in the Regulation would also 
increase. 
2.6. Legal basis for action by the EU 
The proposal seeks to modify the existing EGF Regulation, which is based on Article 
159 3rd Paragraph of the Treaty. Changes to this Regulation can only be initiated by 
a proposal from the Commission. In addition, the possibility of a rapid amendment to 
the original EGF legislation has been provi ded for by the legislator: Article 20 of the 
EGF Regulation lays down that the Commission may su bmit a Proposal, on the basis 
of the first annual report, for the European Parl iament and the Counc il to review the 
EGF Regulation.  
The Proposal does not affect the fundamental  rights of citizens as laid down in the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
2.7. Data sources 
The consultation has shown that Member States do not systematically collect 
statistical data on mass redundancies by company, region or sector. In most instances, scattered data are availabl e on announced redundancies in individual 
enterprises in application of  Council Directive 98/59/EC
6 on collective redundancies. 
However, there is often a significant di fference between the number of redundancies 
announced prior to the negotiations with th e workers' representatives and the number 
of actual redundancies resulting from these negotiations. 
                                                 
6 OJ L 225, 12.8.98, p. 16 
 
EN 18   EN For the purposes of providing quantitative estimates in this Impact Assessment the 
Commission departments have used the in formation on company restructuring and 
redundancies available at the European Monitoring Centre for Change (EMCC) at 
the European Foundation for the Improvement  of Living and Working Conditions as 
well as the data collected during the first year of implementing the EGF. 
The ERM, located within the EMCC, collects and presents cases of  restructuring that 
affect at least one EU Member States and: 
• entail an announced or actual re duction of at least 100 jobs; or 
• involve sites employing more than 250 pe ople and affecting at least 10% of 
workforce; or 
• create at least 100 jobs. 
The information concerning restructuring ca ses is extracted from leading European 
daily newspapers and the business press, and cross-checked and completed with the 
help of other sources, such as compan y web sites and trade union web sites. 
The ERM database recorded 573 events in 2007 and 282 in the first half of 2008. To 
date a total of 7,850 events have been re gistered, which make the ERM the most 
complete source of information on restructuring across the European Union.  
However, although the ERM provides data as ac curately as possible, its reliability is 
affected by the nature of the data sampling technique:  
• possible over-representation of bi g firms and large workforce reductions , as these 
are more likely to be reported in the me dia; as firm size is correlated with a 
number of important factors,  such as economic sector, size bias  may lead, for 
instance, to a higher reporting rate for manufacturing compared to services;  
• regional bias , which is likely to occur when media coverage is not evenly spread 
throughout the country; 
• country size bias , which may exist because rest ructuring events involving 100 
employees occur less and are more media re levant in small Member States than in 
large Member States, with conse quences for reporting frequency; 
• type of restructuring bias , which may occur if public and media focus is more 
concentrated on certain types of re structuring (e.g. company closure); 
• possible over-estimation of the number of redundancies , as it is based  on the 
announced redundancies as reported in the media at a very early stage of the 
collective redundancy process.  
Furthermore it is not possibl e to identify just the "EGF " type events among all the 
events recorded. The ERM data therefore reflects a number of event which are not 
potentially relevant to the EGF. 
A comparison of ERM data with the num ber of redundancie s notified to the 
Commission in the cases analysed so far in the EGF context shows a significant 
 
EN 19   EN degree of correspondence between these sour ces, albeit that the ERM figures tend to 
overestimate the number of actual redundancies. 
Further data on this aspect of collective redundancies is av ailable from the report by 
GHK " Verification of Collective Redundan cy Notification and European 
Restructuring Monitor Data "7. This document consists of a comparison of data 
recorded by the ERM and those reported to  national authorities in compliance with 
Council Directive 98/59/EC, which lay do wn that the employers notify the 
competent public authority of any projected collective redundancies.  
Another source of information is the annual report of the EGF, containing a detailed 
overview of applications handled so fa r, as well as specific information on 
redundancy events. The Commission depart ments have moreover drawn on the EGF 
web site, particularly the Fr equently Asked Questions, as these point to the issues 
most in need of attention. Finally, th e Commission departments have taken full 
account of the answers given by the Member States' experts and stakeholders during 
the consultation. Information from the fi nal reports on the French EGF cases, 
received on the 24th of September 2008, was also taken into account. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General policy objectives 
The general policy objective is to provide th e Union with an efficient instrument to 
respond flexibly and confidently to seri ous economic disrupti on brought about by 
globalisation. There is broad consensus in  the EU that openness to trade in global 
markets and international investment incr eases the ability of the EU to provide 
growth and prosperity to its  citizens. However, it is al so generally recognised that 
globalisation may have negative consequen ces, particularly for the most vulnerable 
and least qualified workers in some sect ors, and that these should be addressed8. 
The EGF is concrete proof of Community so lidarity with the workers thus affected. 
3.2. Specific policy and operational objectives 
The policy objective pursued with this proposal is to make the EGF a better 
performing and more flexible instrument by extending the coverage of the Fund and 
enhancing its effectiveness in re-int egrating workers made redundant by 
globalisation into the labour market. 
The operational objectives are to: 
(1) Adapt the eligibility criteria to better  reflect labour market characteristics 
(2) Increase the effectiveness of reintegration measures 
(3) Make co-funding from the EGF more  attractive to Member States 
                                                 
7 Project No 0298/Contract No 06-3030-47, 26.4.2007 
8 See i.a. COM(2006)567 final of 4.10.2006, Communication from the Commission on Global Europe 
competing in the world. A contribution to the EU's growth and jobs strategy. 
 
EN 20   EN (4) Ensure equivalent treatment of all workers affected by developments in 
global markets 
(5) Improve the quality of a pplications and measures 
(6) Provide legal certainty about undefine d key elements in the current EGF 
Regulation. 
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies 
Community support for workers who beco me redundant as a consequence of 
increased competition in global markets clearly underpins the objectives of the 
Lisbon strategy on growth and job creation. It is fully consistent with the overarching 
objectives of the European Employment Strategy of achieving full employment and 
reducing unemployment and inactivity, improving quality and productivity at work, improving the attractiveness of  jobs and strengthening soci al and territorial cohesion. 
EGF assistance complements actions co-f inanced by the Structural Funds, in 
particular the European Social Fund. 
The EGF underpins the Integrated Guidelines  of the European Em ployment Strategy, 
in particular Guidelines 20, 21 and 24. Thes e guidelines concern the need to pursue 
integrated flexicurity policies and im proved matching of labour market needs 
through  removing obstacles to mobility for workers across Europe, as well as 
through the better anticipation of skill needs, labour market shortages and 
bottlenecks. They promote flexibility th rough the better antic ipation and positive 
management of change, notably linked to trade opening, so as to minimise social costs and facilitate adaptation, and offer s upport for transitions in occupational status, 
including training, self-employment, business creation and geographical mobility. They also support best use of education and training systems in response to new 
competence requirements by responding to new occupational needs, key competences and future skill requirements by improving the definition and transparency of qualifications, their eff ective recognition and the validation of non-
formal and informal learning. 
The Annual Report on the operations of the EGF is a key element in the Renewed 
Social Agenda
9 recently adopted by the Commission, as this Fund enables the Union 
to show its solidarity with those who are negatively affected by globalisation. In this 
report, the Commission announced its intenti on to take appropriate  initiatives on the 
EGF before issuing its next annua l report, which is due in 2009.  
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
This section will explain the Options whic h are available to achieve the objectives. 
As stated under 2.3 these Options remain w ithin the scope of the review clause in 
Article 20 of the EGF Regulation that points to the need "to ensure that the solidarity 
objective of the EGF is met and that its prov isions adequately ta ke into account the 
economic, social and territorial characteristics of all Member States". It does not call 
for a proposal for a new or re-defined EGF that would change th e fundamental nature 
                                                 
9 COM(2008) 412 final of 02.07.2008 
 
EN 21   EN of the Fund, i.e. timely support for worker s who lose their j obs as a result of 
globalisation. 
While a more fundamental examination may be  undertaken at a late r stage, at present 
it is appropriate only to concentrate on th e immediate needs in respect of the EGF 
Regulation itself. 
The Commission departments have therefor e focused their analysis of the policy 
Options on the three examined below. At th is stage more radical changes to the EGF 
Regulation are not pursued, such as ame nding the Inter Institutional Agreement and 
incorporating the EGF under the current Financial Framework; merging the EGF 
with the ESF (ESF multi-annual operati onal programmes cannot easily respond to 
abrupt changes in world tr ade patterns); or changi ng the EGF into a funding 
mechanism for the restructuri ng of enterprises (which woul d change the focus of the 
instrument from the workers to the enterpri se). Such Options cannot be justified on 
the basis of the review called for by Article 20 of the Regulation and do not, 
therefore, fall within its scope. 
Nor was the Option considered of discont inuing the EGF altogether. This would 
remove the only Community instrument speci fically addressing the needs of workers 
made redundant because of globalisation, a nd it would be politic ally unacceptable. 
Some shortcomings related to the implemen tation of the current eligibility criteria 
can be remedied without  changing the Regulation : the Commission departments 
will, in co-operation with the Member States review the application forms and the information needed with a view to simplif ication; provide suppor t for exchange of 
experience amongst Member States and make  full use of the ex isting networks to 
improve the visibility of the EGF. More can also be done to draw attention to 
activities which have not so far been propos ed, e.g. EGF use for the services sector, 
for mobility allowances (including intr a-EU mobility) and micro-credits, and to 
ensure availability of reference materi al useful for preparing applications.  
In the first annual report the Commission identified some issues which are 
particularly important for addr essing the inadequacy of the current eligibility criteria. 
In the consultation these were agreed w ith, and so the Commission departments are 
proposing an adaptation of  the EGF Regulation  in the following ways: 
Firstly , by ensuring that the EGF can assist in all cases where an important number 
of workers lose their jobs due to globalis ation. The proposal is to lower the number 
needed for an application from 1000 to 500 redundancies. It is also proposed, for 
reasons of equal treatment, to include wo rkers made redundant before the reference 
period in the individualised measures, if their jobs were  functionally linked to the 
same globalisation-induced event 
Secondly , by making sure that the time available to prepare and implement the 
individual measures is adequa te to ensure that re-integra tion into the labour market 
can actually be achieved. It is also propos ed to increase the period of EGF assistance 
from 12 to 24 months  from the date of application. 
 
EN 22   EN Thirdly , in order to make the EGF co-funding more  attractive to Member States it is 
proposed to increase the common interventio n rate to bring into line with the 
Structural Funds. 
Fourthly , by extending eligibility  to workers who have be en made redundant due to 
globalisation effects other than trade. Th ese could be effects related to changing 
market conditions such as major i nnovations in global production and product 
technology, changes in organisation of production, access to and price of raw 
materials and other inputs, or to a more  general disturbance of the economy brought 
about by globalisation.  
Fifthly , the Commission is proposing to use technical assistance for preparation, 
monitoring, information, creation of a knowledge ba se relevant to the 
implementation of the EGF, admi nistrative and t echnical support , audit, control and 
evaluation activities necessary to implement the Regulation. 
Sixthly , the Commission is taki ng the opportunity offered by this proposed revision 
of the Regulation to add clarity concerning certain key definitions where these have 
caused uncertainty to applicants Member States. 
The consultation has shown that a major ity of Member States support these 
envisaged changes as set out  in chapter 5 and annex 2. 
It is clear that the use of the EGF to create jobs, training and opportunities for those 
European workers who are made redundant as a consequence of globalisation, and 
thus also the solidarity demonstrated by the Fund, can be increased  within the current 
budgetary reserve of EUR 500 million. There is therefore no need to propose any change in this respect at present.  
In the European Economic Recovery Plan th e Commission has indica ted that it will 
review the budgetary means av ailable for the Fund in the light of the implementation 
of the revised Regulation. 
5. I
MPACT ANALYSIS  
Following the preliminary screening the following Options have been examined: 
– Option 1: "No change" 
–  Option 2: "No change plus improvements" 
–  Option 3: "Improvements and operational changes"  
– Variant A: Trade  
– Variant B: Markets  
– Option 4:  "Improvements and operational ch anges responding to a serious 
disturbance in the economy  caused by globalisation". 
 
EN 23   EN Each Option will be assessed as to its soci al and economic impact. An assessment of 
the budgetary impact will be carried out.  
As a financial instrument aimed at mitigating the negative effects of globalisation on 
the workers concerned, the EGF has no direct  environmental impact. Therefore, the 
environmental impact is not assessed. 
5.1. Economic and social impact  
5.1.1 Impact of Option 1 "No change"  
Under this Option, the EGF Regulation w ould continue to apply unchanged. The 
advantages of this Option relate to con tinuity, both in terms of the legislative 
framework for preparing, assessing and deci ding EGF funding, and in terms of the 
practical aspects of implem entation of EGF funded actio ns. The national and other 
authorities with EGF related responsibiliti es have by now become acquainted with – 
and understand how to use – EGF funding. The European Institutions have also by now established working procedures for mo st aspects of EGF management. Finally 
in the absence of any final reports and th erefore documented conc rete experience it 
would be premature to change the basic provisions of the Regulation. 
The normal evolution of the Fund, from star t-up to established instrument, may be 
expected to bring some improvements in its performance. The year 2007 was not a 
typical year for the Fund, as it only star ted its operations in January. The Member 
States had no previous expe rience to draw on and in some  cases had to adjust their 
own internal procedures. Furthermore there was no carry-over of a pplications in the 
adOption pipeline from the previous y ear. Both 2007 and 2008 (Q1 and Q2) were 
particular in that there wa s an exceptionally low number of mass redundancy events. 
The number of cases with more than 1,000 re dundancies in this period was only half 
of the average over the last  six years in EU15. If the economic situation were the 
same as over the last six years, one would expect the number of EGF eligible events 
to double in 2009 and beyond. In addition, the economic prospects for the future are 
less favourable than those observed since 2002. Even without any additional action at EU level this is likely to l ead to even more redundancies. 
Views of Member States:
 A small number of Member States consider that the current 
EGF Regulation does not need to be modified at this stage. 
Overview table – Option 1: " No change"  
Objective to be 
achieved/problem to be addressed Rating of impact against 
baseline scenario Comments 
Adapt the eligibility criteria 
to better reflect labour market characteristics 0 Existing thresholds continue 
to apply and workers dismissed before the reference period are not eligible 
Increase the effectiveness of 0 Current intervention period 
 
EN 24   EN reintegration measures continues to apply 
Make co-funding from the 
EGF more attractive to Member States 0 No incentive for Member 
States to apply for EGF support in respect of less advantaged regions 
Ensure equivalent treatment of all workers affected by developments in global markets 0 Only trade related 
redundancies ar e eligible 
Improve the quality of 
applications and measures 0 Very limited access to 
technical assistance for the Commission  
Provide legal ce rtainty about 
undefined key elements in the current EGF Regulation. 0 Commission guidelines and 
FAQ cannot provide sufficient legal certainty 
5.1.2 Impact of Option 2: "No change plus improvements" 
Without any changes to the Regulation improvements could be achieved in the 
following ways as the Commission indicated in the EGF Annual Report for 2007: 
• simplify procedures to respond quickly and clearly to Memb er States on the 
eligibility of their applications. Th e Commission will disseminate detailed 
information on the previous cases, successful or unsuccessful, in order to help Member States assess the criteria used by the EU Institutions in coming to their 
decisions. The Commission will examine wa ys of accelerating the processing of 
applications, streamlining its internal procedures while maintaining a high quality of analysis; 
• review the application form and the info rmation requirements for applications in 
order to reduce the administrative burden; 
• make use of existing networks to promot e interest in the EGF among potential 
stakeholders at national, regional and local levels and in civil society; 
• clarify eligibility of the EGF in the se rvices sector, for mobility allowances, 
(including intra-EU mobility) and micro-cr edits, and to ensure availability of 
reference material useful for preparing applications; 
• promote exchange of experience and good practice, including the methodologies 
extensively tested throu gh the ESF, and in partic ular the EQUAL Community 
Initiative. This could reduce delays arising in the Member States while they devise 
adequate measures for a large-scale redundancy crisis; 
• intensify awareness-raising activities in or der to achieve greater visibility of the 
Fund, and to reinforce the message that it applies to all economi c sectors, and to 
all structural changes in  world trade patterns.  
 
EN 25   EN There are, however, a number of drawbacks with this Option: Member States face 
difficulties in putting together applications because the EGF intervention criteria are 
more difficult to meet than originally thought (1000 redundancies in a 4- or 9-month 
period, links with changes in world trade and no re sources for Commission 
departments Technical Assistance). Furthe rmore, the short funding period makes it 
difficult to provide actions which meet th e needs of the workers concerned. These 
obstacles combine to make the EGF less eff ective as a financing instrument than had 
been intended by the legislator. 
Views of Member States and social partners:  The Commission departments asked 
whether such actions such as micro credits and mobility allowances should be actively promoted under the EGF as they have alread y been tested under ESF 
operations. Several Member States are in  favour of using EGF funds for micro-
credits as part of a broader package of m easures. There are practical problems related 
to the use of micro-credits within the s hort implementation period of one year. No 
Member State opposed the use of micro-credit s in the context of the EGF as a matter 
of principle.  
On intra-Community mobility allowances se veral Member States replied that such 
measures can be seen as a normal part of the EGF and that they contribute to 
European integration. In the same way as for micro-credits, the use of such 
allowances is at the discretion of the Member State. 
Member States raised several problems rela ted to the practical administration of EGF 
funding. The delays between redundancies,  submission of an application and 
payment of funds were mentioned by se veral Member States as serious and 
unacceptable problems. These delays cause uncertainties and resultant problems, such as the need to advance national f unding and the difficulties to undertake the 
necessary public procurement before an  EGF application has been formally 
approved. 
Several Member States mention the fa ct that the management and control 
requirements for the EGF and the ESF are different, and that new procedures and 
structures were needed at national level.  
Overview table – Option 2: "No change plus improvements"  
Objective to be 
achieved/problem to be addressed Rating of impact against 
baseline scenario Comments 
Adapt the eligibility criteria 
to better reflect labour market characteristics 0 Existing thresholds continue 
to apply and workers dismissed before the reference period are not eligible 
Increase the effectiveness of reintegration measures 0 Current intervention period 
continues to apply 
Make co-funding from the 0 No incentive for Member 
 
EN 26   EN EGF more attractive to 
Member States States to apply for EGF 
support in respect of less advantaged regions 
Ensure equivalent treatment of all workers affected by developments in global markets 0 Only trade related 
redundancies ar e eligible 
Improve the quality of 
applications and measures +  Promotion of exchange of 
experience and good practice, intensify awareness of EGF within a limited budget, highlighting not explicitly mentioned measures and sectors 
Provide legal ce rtainty about 
undefined key elements in the current EGF Regulation. 0 Commission guidelines and 
FAQ cannot provide sufficient legal certainty 
 
5.1.3 Impact of Option 3 "  Improvements and operational changes, variant A: Trade"  
In Option 3 'variant A: Trade' the eligib ility criterion c ontinues to be changes in 
world trade patterns. 
In this Option it is proposed to amend the EGF Regulation in the following ways to 
respond directly to th e problems identified: 
1. Trigger number of redundancies 
Reduction of the trigger number of redunda ncies from 1000 to 500 workers. This 
reduction will increase the number of potentia l EGF events, both in terms of Article 
2(a) cases (redundancies in a main ente rprise and its suppliers and downstream 
producers) as well as in Article 2(b) cases (redundancies in a sector in a region). The 
reference periods (4 and 9 months respectively) would remain unchanged. 
To illustrate the effects of this change, the table below gives the ERM figures 
(number of events and number of worker s involved) for 2007 and the first half of 
2008: 
ERM restructuring data 2007 2008 
(1st half) 
Restructuring events : 573 282
- over 1000 redundancies 66 38
- over 500 redundancies 139 67
 
EN 27   EN No. of workers made 
redundant in these restructuring events : 399,305 227,322
- of whom, in cases of > 1000 
redundancies 264,846 166,150
- of whom, in cases of > 500 
redundancies 314,347 184,695
The table shows that reducing the trigge r from 1000 to 500 workers could double the 
number of potential EGF events and incr ease the coverage of  redundant workers 
from 68 % to almost 80 %. Potentially, ther efore, this amendment to the Regulation 
could lead to a significant increase in th e number of EGF applications and to more 
workers being assisted to re-i ntegrate into employment.  
Views of the Member Stat es and social partners:  More than a half of the Member 
States are in favour of lowering the th reshold to increase the number of mass 
redundancy events eligible. 
2. Redundancies occurring before  the start of the reference period  
This amendment would concern Article 2(a)  cases where provision would be made 
for the inclusion of redundancies occurring before the start of the reference period, 
provided that they are clearl y linked to the same restructuring event, and provided 
that the trigger number of redundancies is reached within the reference period. The 
effect of this amendment is likely to be  very limited in terms of numbers but highly 
significant in terms of equal treatment of  the workers concerned. Under the current 
Regulation, it is only possible to include workers made redundant within and after 
the reference period; this unequal treatment  poses an inequity and discrimination 
problem and should be corrected. 
Article 2(b) (sector cases in a region / two contiguous regions) is not concerned by 
this change. 
Views of the Member Stat es and social partners:  According to Article 2(a) of the 
current Regulation, the eligibility threshold of 1,000 workers must be attained within 
a 4-month reference period. A large majority  of Member States are in favour of 
including workers made redundant before th is period so that they may be included 
for the purposes of EGF support measures , provided that a clear link can be 
established with the globalisation event. 
3. Duration of implementation  
The time period allowed for implementation is extended from 12 to 24 months, as 
experience has shown that 12 months are no t sufficient in many cases to bring most 
of the affected workers back  into jobs. A longer period wi ll make it possible to better 
match the training of the re dundant workers to the skill needs and to labour market 
requirement, to assure longer time for the sound preparation and, if necessary, adaptation of the re-integration package a nd to help improve the gender balance of 
the action. 
 
EN 28   EN View of the Member States and social partners : Most Member States favour an 
extension to 18 or 24 months , while some Member States find the 12-month period 
appropriate. 
4. Technical assistance  (TA) budget  
The change seeks to clarify that the 0.35%  for technical assistance mentioned in 
Article 8 of the current Regulation, app lies to the maximum reserve of EUR 500 
million available per annum, and not to  the amounts actually committed for 
individual cases. 
When presenting the annual EGF report each year, the Commission will also present 
its ideas for its activities to be funded under TA the following year. It will put 
forward a proposal for its planned activities,  so as to ensure that the necessary 
amount is available at the start of the budgetary ye ar, allowing the relevant 
commitments to be made at the start the ye ar. It is proposed to broaden the scope of 
TA to include preparation (e.g. on-site vi sits during the pre-a pplication phase) and 
awareness-raising. 
Follow-up requests from the Commission for further amounts up to the ceiling (EUR 
1.75 million) may be made s ubsequently if needed.  
Views of the Member States and social pa rtners: There is a hi gh degree of consensus 
amongst Member States that TA should be available for forward-looking activities 
such as sector or horizontal analyses a nd studies of the eff ects of globalisation, 
because they may contribute to the prepara tion of more solid applications, lead to 
better understanding of the dr ivers of globalisation and to  a better exch ange of good 
practices amongst Member States. 
Some Member States, while agreeing that  forward looking activities should be 
pursued, do not consider the EGF to be the appropriate instrument for that purpose. 
5. Definition of the "use " of the Fund  
Confirming the current implementation pr actice of the Fund, the Commission will 
specify that the Member State shall carry out  all eligible actions included in the co-
ordinated package of persona lised services within the revised period of 24 months 
following the date of application. 
6. Standard intervention rate  
The standard intervention rate  is set to 50 % in the curr ent Regulation. It is proposed 
to increase the EGF intervention rate to 75%, which is more in line with ESF intervention rates. This increase maintains the simplicity of the single intervention rate. 
Views of the Member States and the social partners:
 The current intervention rate is 
up to 50 %. Most Member States indicated in  their responses that they would prefer 
an increase of the rate up to 75 or 85%, or matching the rate to the ESF co-financing rates. One Member State favour s a rate of 100 % in order to facilitate innovation, for 
which national co-funding might not be availabl e; one Member State prefers a rate of 
25% and some would keep the 50% rate. 
 
EN 29   EN During the stakeholder conference this quest ion was discussed in some detail, and 
two important points were made: (i) there should be a single rate for reasons of 
simplicity; (ii) that the intervention rate should be raised ab ove the current 50 %. 
Conclusion 
Option 3 'variant A: Trade' would allow a greater number of redundant workers to 
benefit from the Fund, and to benefit for a longer period. The impact would therefore be considerable in terms of solidarity a nd social inclusion. The longer period for the 
use of the funding would ensure that a highe r percentage of workers would re-enter 
employment, and that their training coul d be better focused on the emerging jobs 
market. The employment impact of this would be considerable. Whilst this Option 
would make it possible to address most of  the problems identifie d, it would not make 
it possible to ensure equal treatment for workers made redundant as a result of major changes in world markets, such as cha nges in production a nd product technology, 
changes in the organisation of producti on (such as company outsourcing) and the 
access to, and price of raw ma terials and other inputs. 
 
EN 30   EN  
Overview table – Option 3: " Improvements and operational changes – Variant A: 
Trade"  
Objective to be 
achieved/problem to be addressed Rating of impact against 
baseline scenario Comments 
Adapt the eligibility criteria 
to better reflect labour market characteristics + Lower threshold will 
contribute to increased coverage and discriminatory treatment of workers dismissed before the reference period will be eliminated 
Increase the effectiveness of reintegration measures ++ Longer intervention period 
will contribute to higher placement rates 
Make co-funding from the 
EGF more attractive to 
Member States ++ Higher intervention rate will 
increase recourse to the EGF 
amongst less advantaged regions 
Ensure equivalent treatment of all workers affected by developments in global markets 0 Only trade related 
redundancies ar e eligible 
Improve the quality of 
applications and measures ++ Promotion of exchange of 
experience and good practice, intensify awareness of EGF with more certainty about availability of financial means, highlighting not explicitly mentioned measures and sectors 
Provide legal ce rtainty about 
undefined key elements in the current EGF Regulation. + Inclusion of the missing 
definitions in the legal body of the Regulation 
5.1.4. Impact of Option 3 "  Improvements and operational changes, variant B: Markets ". 
Option 3 'variant B: Markets' is identical to Option 3 'variant A: Trade' with one 
difference: eligibility is expanded from major changes in world trade patterns  to 
include also major changes in world markets , such as changes in production and 
product technology, changes in the organisa tion of production (such as company 
 
EN 31   EN outsourcing) and the access to , and price of, raw material s and other inputs and the 
speed with which this happens. 
The EGF would continue to be  targeted to helping redunda nt workers who lost their 
jobs due to changes in trade, but the scope of the Fund would expand to encompass also those affected by events which fa ll under a more comprehensive concept of 
globalisation. Such changes may lead to ne w world trade patterns in time and would 
constitute an element of pro-activeness in  the EGF. It would furthermore correspond 
much better to the public con cept of globalisation, which to  most Europeans is much 
more than just a matter of trade statistics. 
In the Communication on the EGF Annual Report, adopted on 2 July 2008, the 
Commission indicated that it would examine this issue.  
This extension has several consequences: Firstly, on world markets where EU enterprises sell goods and services, 
technological change may lead to a dr amatic decline in EU sales – and to 
redundancies – even if EU ma rket shares remain stable. Take the example of the 
introduction of digital phot ography: within a few years, the consumer markets for 
emulsifier films (and much of the phot o paper demand) have disappeared. The 
market decline was felt by all major operat ors in Europe and el sewhere, and although 
the European market share did not fall,  employment in the industry did. Similar 
effects may be identified in markets for c onsumer electronics; or for mobile phones 
following the integration of phone, camer a, GPS, TV and net access into one 
application. The proposed change to "marke ts" will make it possible to provide EGF 
support in such cases. 
Secondly, changes in trade in raw material s, energy, commodities or other inputs for 
EU enterprises are largely outside the focus of the existing EGF Regulation, and 
redundancies caused in Europe because of rapidly increasin g prices or diminishing 
supplies of input cannot easil y be covered. With the ame ndment to include "markets" 
in the intervention criteria these situations  would become potentially eligible EGF 
events of globalisation. It should also be noted that Member States could present 
EGF applications based on their specific know ledge of the relevant market rather 
than relying on trade statistics  which may not (yet) be availa ble or able in all cases to 
give the correct picture becau se of small trading volumes. 
Thirdly, globalisation also c oncerns the way in which enterprises organise their work 
and how that organisation changes over ti me, again more rapidly than before. 
Company outsourcing of specific functions, not only to low in come areas, but also to 
provide 24/24 services  e.g. through call centres locate d around the globe, the use of 
tele-working over long distances, and th e breaking up of operations into profit 
centres are also results of globalisation, whic h are not picked up by trade statistics in 
the short run. The EGF should be availa ble to offer support in such cases.  
It would in every case be up to the Member State to provide an analysis of the link 
between the major structural changes in world markets and the redundancies covered 
by an application. The supporting data can be trade statistics as now, but also market 
information data from business organisa tions, market observers, analysts and 
professional organisations. The applications  will continue to be assessed on a case-
 
EN 32   EN by-case basis by the Commission and the appr opriate proposals made for financing 
to the Budgetary Authority. 
This Option extends the benefits into a wider field, and thus both social and 
employment impacts would be expected to  increase proportiona tely. However it is 
not at present possible to give any quantitative forecast based on analysis of existing data. The numbers of recorded re structuring even ts in 2007-2008 (1
st half) (see point 
5.1.3) clearly leave room for so me events related to market  changes, whatever trigger 
number of redundancies is considered. 
Views of the Member States and social partners : Several Member States would 
welcome broadening the EGF eligibility crite ria to cover a wider range of changes 
(going beyond, but also including changes in  trade); in this way the EGF would be 
better in line with a concept of "globalis ation" that acknowledges its multi-faceted 
character. Others preferred to remain with the current trade related criterion, quoting 
in particular data availability as an important issue.  
Overview table – Option 3: " Improvements and operational changes – Variant B: 
Markets"  
Objective to be 
achieved/problem to be 
addressed Rating of impact against 
baseline scenario Comments 
Adapt the eligibility criteria 
to better reflect labour market characteristics + Lower threshold will 
contribute to increased coverage and discriminatory treatment of workers dismissed before the reference period will be eliminated 
Increase the effectiveness of reintegration measures ++ Longer intervention period 
will contribute to higher placement rates 
Make co-funding from the EGF more attractive to Member States 
 ++ Higher intervention rate will 
increase recourse to the EGF amongst less advantaged regions 
Ensure equivalent treatment 
of all workers affected by 
developments in global markets + Redundancies caused by 
other aspects of globalisation 
become eligible 
Improve the quality of applications and measures ++ Promotion of exchange of 
experience and good practice, intensify awareness of EGF with more certainty about 
 
EN 33   EN availability of financial 
means, highlighting not explicitly mentioned measures and sectors 
Provide legal ce rtainty about 
undefined key elements in the current EGF Regulation. + Inclusion of the missing 
definitions in the legal body of the Regulation 
5.1.5. Impact of Option 4 "Improvements and opera tional changes responding to a serious 
disturbance in the economy caused by globalisation".  
This Option is identical to Option 3.B Markets but expands the scope of  the EGF even further 
to cover workers made redundant as a result of  a serious disturbance in the economy due to 
globalisation. It responds di rectly to the need  identified by the Commission to support 
redundant workers in the face of the crisis. It also  has all the characteristics described in detail 
above; in addition this Option enables the EG F to respond to redundancies which are not 
directly attributable to specific events in trading patterns or market developments, or to any specific sectors of the economy. In this way Opti on 4 is more in line with the provision of the 
Regulation which establishes in Article 20 that the present review should ensure that the EGF 
provisions adequately take  into account the economic and soci al characteristic s of all Member 
States. 
Overview table – Option 4: " Improvements and operational changes responding to a serious 
disturbance in the economy  caused by globalisation". 
Objective to be 
achieved/problem to be addressed Rating of impact against 
baseline scenario Comments 
Adapt the eligibility criteria 
to better reflect labour market characteristics + Lower threshold will 
contribute to increased coverage, and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment of workers dismissed before the reference period 
Increase the effectiveness of reintegration measures ++ Longer intervention period 
will contribute to higher placement rates 
Make co-funding from the EGF more attractive to Member States 
 ++ Higher intervention rate will 
increase recourse to the EGF in less advantaged regions 
Ensure equivalent treatment of all workers affected by developments in global ++ Redundancies caused by any 
external disturbance become eligible regardless of sector 
 
EN 34   EN markets or trade indicators 
Improve the quality of 
applications and measures ++ Promotion of exchange of 
experience and good practice, intensify awareness of EGF with more certainty about availability of financial means, highlighting not explicitly mentioned measures and sectors 
Provide legal ce rtainty about 
undefined key elements in the current EGF Regulation. + Inclusion of the missing 
definitions in the legal body of the Regulation 
5.2 The budgetary impact 
Options 1 and 2  are unlikely to lead to any stru ctural increases in the EGF budget 
deployed.  
However, for these two Options the budget use will depend critically on the number 
of future restructuring cases and the pr opensity of Member States to apply for 
assistance. As mentioned before, the year s of activity of the EGF (2007 and 2008) 
were exceptional in that only very few cases of mass redundancies occurred (see 
table in annex 3). As pointed out in 5.1.1, in  a normal year one would expect an 80% 
increase of the number of cases as in thes e two years, which will be reflected in the 
likely call on the budget.  
The ERM data would indicate that by lowering the threshold from 1000 
redundancies to 500 would increase the number  of potential cases by a factor of 2, 
i.e. bring twice the number of cases into e ligibility as would be the case without the 
change. As can be seen from the table in chapter 5.1.3, a corr esponding increase in 
the potential number of workers covere d can be estimated at about 20 %. 
Statistics made available by the French au thorities in their final report on the PSA 
case show that 41% of supported workers did not find any placement within the current 12-month intervention period and we can assume that this proportion would 
have progressively decreas ed over the proposed 12 additional months of 
implementation. Therefore, ex tending the maximum interven tion period from 12 to 
24 months to provide longer support for workers who cannot be placed within the present intervention period is likely to increase the budget requested for a typical 
intervention by 25%. 
Implementing a higher funding rate from 50%  to 75% would lead to another 50% 
increase of the annual amount spent to support workers. 
Extending the criterion to in clude market changes could add a potential extra number 
of cases of about 30 % over and above the "Trade" Option. 
Starting from the current annual level of about EUR 35 million in applications and 
taking into account that 2007 and 2008 ar e years with exceptionally low mass 
 
EN 35   EN redundancy events, in Option 3 'variant A: Tr ade', the lowering of the threshold from 
1000 to 500 redundancies, coupled with the extension of the implementation period 
and the raising of the intervention rate, coul d potentially increase this volume to an 
estimated amount of EUR 141 million. 
The widening of eligibility under Option 3 'v ariant B: Market' c ould increase this 
estimate to a figure around EUR 183 million. 
The widening of eligibility under Option 4 has not been sepa rately estimated; it is at 
least as important as the previous Option (because it covers all the same potential 
redundancies and more). The budgetary maximum of EUR 500 million will be 
respected. 
These figures indicate that the EGF would still be able to face the increased demands 
resulting from prolonged adverse econo mic conditions for European industry. 
Overview table of budgetary impact 
 Estimated budgetary impact Estimated cumulative Budget 
Average EGF budget for 
2007 and 2008  EUR 35 million 
Higher uptake due to 'normal' 
year +80%  
 EUR 63 million 
 
Eligibility threshold lowered 
from 1,000 to 500 worker +20%  
 EUR 75 million 
 
Intervention period extended 
from 12 to 24 months + 25% EUR 94 million 
 
Funding rate increased from 
50% to 75% + 50%  EUR 141 million 
 
EGF scope enlarged to 
changes in world markets + 30% EUR 183 million 
 
EGF scope enlarged to 
"economic disturbance" Not estimated Up to EUR 500 million 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Effectiveness  
The principle of effectiveness concerns ach ieving the intended results of the action. 
The intended result for the EGF is to assi st workers made redundant as a result of 
globalisation to re-integrate  into employment. Both variants of Option 3 have the 
potential to reach more workers and addres s more globalisation events than under the 
unchanged scenario under Option 1. Furthe rmore, both variants of Option 3 and 
Option 4 give the labour market authoritie s more time to fine tune the package of 
 
EN 36   EN individualised services offe red to each redundant worker , ensure that the package 
meets the real needs of the worker concerned, and implement it until quality results are achieved. 
6.2. Added value for the EU 
The EGF was created to enable the Commun ity to provide support for workers made 
redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Under 
Options 1, 2 and 3 "Trade", changes in world trade continue to be the focus of EGF actions. Under Option 3 "Market", which itsel f includes changes in world trade, as 
well as under Option 4, other globalisation events leading to redundancies can also 
be included. In all 4 cases, the EGF allows the Community to show its solidarity with 
the workers concerned, and th erefore represents a clear added value for the EU. By 
concentrating on cases with a European dimension and by complementing measures 
of the Member States, Community actions ar e clearly additional to the efforts made 
at national, regional and local levels. 
By limiting the proposed amendments to thos e required to achieve the specific policy 
objectives of making the EGF a better perfor ming and more flexible instrument, the 
principle of proportiona lity is respected. 
In respect of the principle of  subsidiarity, the Member Stat es continue under all three 
Options to hold the same role as today vis-à-vis the EGF: they design and present the applications for EGF assistance and define, in  the application, the nature and range of 
active measures to be included; moreove r, they remain responsible for the 
implementation of measures. 
6.3. Budgetary constraints 
The basic assumption for all 4 Options under examination is to remain within the 
current budgetary reserve of EUR 500 million per year. Therefore, budgetary 
constraints are not relevant for any of the 4 Options. 
6.4. Comparison of Options against the objectives. 
The following table compares the three Op tions against the operational objectives: 
Objective to be 
achieved/problem to be addressed Option 1 Option 2 Option 3- 
Variant A Option 3- 
Variant B Option 4 
Adapt the eligibility criteria 
to better reflect labour market characteristics 0 0 + + + 
Increase the effectiveness of 
reintegration measures 0 0 ++ ++ ++ 
Make co-funding from the 
EGF more attractive to Member States 0 0 ++ ++ ++ 
 
EN 37   EN Ensure equivalent treatment 
of all workers affected by developments in global markets 0 0 0 + ++ 
Improve the quality of 
applications and measures 0 +  ++ ++ ++ 
Provide legal certainty about 
undefined key elements in the current EGF Regulation. 0 0 + + + 
6.5. Conclusion  
Of the two variants Trade and Markets in Option 3 the "Markets" variant appears to 
be the one that best expands eligibility for EGF assistance without breaking the link 
between the EGF and changes in world trad e patterns, as trade-related redundancies 
continue to be eligible; the market-related events becoming eligible under Option 3 Markets could lead to future changes in world trade patterns and thus add a 
prospective element to the EGF. Th is is also the case under Option 4. 
From the analysis above, it appears that  Option 4 – " Improve ments and operational 
changes responding to a serious disturban ce in the economy caused by globalisation" 
– provides all the benefits of Options 1 and 2 and 3, both variants, and in addition 
can lead to more affected workers receiv ing assistance from the EGF. Option 4 is 
therefore considered to bette r fulfil the objectives of res ponsiveness and of solidarity 
in as much as it makes support available to more redundant workers. 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The EGF Regulation in its Article 16 provi des that the Commission shall present 
each year to the European Parliament a nd the Council a quantita tive and qualitative 
report on the activities carried  out under the EGF Regulation in the previous year. 
This report contains inter alia the Commission's observations on its monitoring 
activities during the year in question. 
Under Article 17 of the EGF Regulation, the Commission is required to carry out by 
31 December 2011, in close cooperation with Member States, a mid-term evaluation 
of the effectiveness and sust ainability of the results obtained under the EGF. Member 
States have already made a commitment  to provide information on individual 
beneficiaries for the purpose of the evalua tion. For this reason policy Options 3 and 4 
entail no extra procedural burdens in te rms of monitoring a nd evaluation. By 31 
December 2014, the Commission is required to  carry out, with the assistance of 
external experts, an ex-post evaluation in order to measure the impact of the EGF and 
its added value. 
In addition to the formal evaluation arra ngements, the Commission departments will 
continue to monitor the main indicator  (number of workers reinserted into 
employment) on the basis of final reports received from the Member States. 
 
EN 38   EN Annex 1 
 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.7.2008 
COM(2008) 421 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIA MENT AND THE COUNCIL 
Solidarity in the face of Change: 
The European Globalisation Adjustment F und (EGF) in 2007 - Review and Prospects 
 
EN 39   EN COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIA MENT AND THE COUNCIL 
Solidarity in the face of Change: 
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in 200710 - Review and Prospects 
The EGF one year on 
One of the main themes of the Renewed Social Agenda11 is responding flexibly and 
confidently to change brought a bout by globalisation. Part of that  response includes showing 
solidarity to those who are ne gatively affected by globalisati on. The European Globalisation 
Adjustment Fund (EGF) was designed as one way to show solidarity – to help workers made redundant by globalisation to find a new job quickly. Following the ad Option of Regulation 
(EC) No. 1927/2006 by the European Parliament and Council on 20 December 2006, the EGF became operational from 1 January 2007. 
This Communication reviews the EG F after one year in operation and makes suggestions as to 
immediate and longer term ways to improve its performance. 
Helping workers to adjust to change 
The EGF received ten applicati ons in 2007 targeting 11,339 workers.  Four applications were 
approved by the Commission before the end of 2007, following mobilisation of the necessary 
funds by the EU Budgetary Authority; five remained under consideration, and one was 
withdrawn (to be re-submitted at the beginni ng of 2008 after some technical modifications). 
The EGF granted assistance amounting to € 18.6 million or 3.7% of the maximum amount 
allowed under the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
12. The funds were used for active labour  market measures for the 5,113 workers 
concerned. The details for the year 2007 of th e applications and decisions made, and the 
actions funded, can be found in the annex to this report. 
The maximum annual amount of € 500 million per year  is not an expenditure target. Rather, it 
is entered in the budget reserve and provides for the possibility  of adequate funding, should 
there be a high incidence of re structuring in any gi ven year. The commitment appropriations 
necessary for each intervention are mobilised by  means of transfer to  the EGF budget line, 
following agreement of the Budgetary Au thority upon proposal fr om the Commission. 
That being said, take-up is limited. There are various reasons for this. It is partly due to the 
favourable economic climate in 2007. It is natura l that the Member States did not apply for 
support in a period when labour markets were working well. But the limited take-up could 
also reflect Member State uncertainty about  eligibility for fundi ng. Although the EGF can 
                                                 
10 Report submitted under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No. 1927/2006  (OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1, 
Regulation as corrected in OJ L 48, 22.02.2008, p. 82) 
11 COM(2008) 412 of 02.07.2008 
12 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 
budgetary discipline and sound financial management (2006/C 139/01). OJ C139, 14.6.2006, p.1; 
Agreement as amended by the Decision of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 
2007 amending the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound 
financial management as regards the multiannual fina ncial framework (2008/29/ EC). OJ L6, 10.1.2008, 
p. 7-8. 
 
EN 40   EN intervene immediately once workers are made redundant, the Member States have been 
hesitant to apply for EGF funding right from th e first day of the redundancy crises because of 
uncertainty over whether or not thei r application would be approved.  
Hence, there is room for improvement in EGF performance. 
Improving the current operation of the EGF  
Immediate steps can be taken to improve the operation of the EGF:  
– Simplify procedures:  The Commission will simplify its pr ocedures to respond quickly and 
clearly to Member States on the eligibility of their applications13. It will also disseminate 
detailed information on the previous cases, su ccessful or unsuccessful , in order to help 
Member States assess the criteria used by the EU  Institutions in comi ng to their decisions. 
The Commission will examine ways to accel erate the processing  of applications, 
streamlining its internal procedures while maintaining a high quality of analysis. 
– Promoting exchange of experience and good practice , including the methodologies 
extensively tested through th e ESF, and in particular the EQUAL Community Initiative. 
This can reduce delays arising in the Member States while they devise adequate measures 
for a large-scale redundancy crisis. A comm endable example is the approach used by 
Portugal, where a Ministerial Decision adopted a set of measures which can be drawn on at 
short notice in typical EGF cases. 
– Intensify awareness-raising activities  in order to achieve great er visibility of the Fund. 
Looking to the future - adjusting the EGF Regulation  
In the light of experience, with a view to rein forcing the impact of the EGF on the creation of 
jobs, training and opportunities for Europe's workers, the Comm ission is actively examining 
ways in which the Fund could be modified, w ithin the present budgetary  limits, so as to 
improve its performance.  
The EGF Regulation (in its Article 20) inde ed provides that the Commission may submit a 
proposal, on the basis of the first annual report,  for the European Parliament and the Council 
to review the Regulation. 
Covering redundancies not directly attri butable to changes in trade patterns : 
The EGF focuses on redundancies caused by major structural changes in global trade patterns. 
Globalisation may also work thr ough other types of structural change. Such changes include 
major progress in production and product te chnology; changes in the organisation of 
production (such as company outsourcing); and th e access to, and price of, raw materials and 
other inputs. This is particular ly illustrated by recent increases in oil prices and their impact 
on sectors where fuel inputs represent a high co st factor. Such major and abrupt changes may 
lead to redundancies which cannot be cove red by the existing Regulation. The Commission 
                                                 
13 Including: the definition of a redundancy (Article 1 of the EGF Regulation); the interpretation to give to 
criteria such as 'a substantial increase' or 'a rapi d decline' (Article 2); th e definition of small labour 
markets and exceptional circumstances (Article 2); the precise meaning of the 'use' of a financial 
contribution (Article 13.2). 
 
EN 41   EN will examine these drivers of globalisation to see if they could be considered triggers for EGF 
support. 
Expanding the scope of the EGF to smaller redundancy events : 
The general requirement of at least 1,000 redundanc ies could be reduced in  order to give more 
flexibility to Member States to present app lications, including for SMEs and isolated labour 
markets14. The Commission is analysing the implic ations of reducing this threshold on 
numbers of eligible pe rsons and the budget. A possible alte rnative to reducing the existing 
threshold could be to include not just the redundancies in the supp liers or downstream 
producers of the main company in question but al so other redundancies in other companies in 
the concerned geographical area. 
Expanding the duration of EGF assistance : 
As not all workers who lose jobs find employ ment during the period of  EGF support, there is 
a need for longer term support. Considerati on could be given to extending the maximum 
period for the use of EGF funding beyond the 12 m onths specified in th e current regulation. 
Other possibilities such as using the EGF to foster mobility of workers between Member 
States are also being examined. Consideratio n might also be given to devoting a limited 
amount of funds to analysis and anticipa tion of the changes due to globalisation. 
Conclusion 
The Commission invites the European Parliament  and the Council to take note of the positive 
impact of the EGF in its first year of opera tion. The Commission will simplify procedures, 
promote exchange of good practice and intensif y awareness-raising about the EGF. It will 
assess the feasibility of modifyi ng the Regulation and will make appropriate proposals in this 
regard before issuing th e next annual report.  
                                                 
14 The report " l’Europe dans la mondialisation " presented to the French Ministers for the Economy, 
Industry and Employment, and for Work, Social Relations, Family and Solidarity, and published on 15 
April 2008, alluded to such a possibility. 
 
EN 42   EN ANNEX  
1. Applications received in 2007  
Table 1: Applicati ons received in 2007  
Of the 10 applications for assi stance received by the EGF in 2007, four were approved before 
the end of the year, five remained under cons ideration, and one was withdrawn (to be re-
submitted at the beginning of 2008 afte r some technical modifications).  
No applications were refused in 2007, either on grounds of ineligibility or due to a lack of 
sufficient appropriations. 
Details of all applications are availa ble on the Commission's EGF web site, at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_s ocial/egf/applications07_en.html   Date of 
application Member 
State Firm, sector or 
region affected Number 
of 
workers 
affected Workers 
targeted 
for 
assistance EGF 
support 
requested 
(Euro) Intervention 
criterion 
(Art. 2 of R. 
1927/2006)  
1 9/3/2007 France Suppliers to 
Peugeot-
Citroën 1,345 267 2,558,250 Art. 2 (a) 
2 23/3/2007 France Suppliers to 
Renault 1,057 628 1,258,030 Art. 2 (a) 
3 27/6/2007 Germany BenQ 3,303 3,303 12,766,150 Art. 2 (a) 
4 18/7/2007 Finland Perlos 915 915 2,028,538 Art. 2 (c) 
5 9/8/2007 Italy Textile sector 
in Sardinia 1,044 1,044 12,038,700 Art. 2 (b) 
6 10/8/2007 Italy Textile sector 
in Piedmont 1,537 1,537 9,286,850 Art. 2 (b) 
7 17/8/2007 Italy Textile sector 
in Lombardy 1,848 1,848 14,660,750 Art. 2 (b) 
8 12/9/2007 Malta Textile sect or 675 675 681,207 Art. 2 (c) 
9 8/10/2007 
(withdrawn) Spain Delphi   
10 9/10/2007 Portugal Automobile 
sector in 
Lisboa-
Alentejo 1,549 1,122 2,425,675 Art. 2 (b) 
Total 13,273 11,339 57,704,150  
 
EN 43   EN EGF Applications in 2007 per Member State: 
Seven Member States applied for a contribution from the EGF, including Italy in respect of 
the textile sector in three se parate regions, and France in re spect of two separate redundancy 
events. The application from Spain was wit hdrawn and subsequently re-submitted in 2008. 
EGF Applications in 2007 by the amount of contribution requested: 
The amount of assistance requested is at the di scretion of the applicant Member State, and 
depends inter alia upon the severity of the re dundancy event to which the application refers. 
There is no recommended or maximum amount. The requested amounts range from € 681,207 in the Maltese applic ation (EGF/2007/008) to  € 14,660,750 in the Ital ian application in 
respect of the textile sect or in Lombardy (EGF/2007/007). 
EGF Applications in 2007 by the number  of workers targeted for assistance: 
Although the EGF is designed primarily to assi st in cases of larg e-scale redundancies, 
Member States may also make applications in respect of small labour markets or exceptional 
circumstances. Furthermore, a Member State ma y choose to focus the assistance on only some 
of the redundant workers, if it feels that these face exceptional difficulties in remaining in 
employment. While most applic ations (5 out of 9) target  over 1,000 workers, two others 
concerning 'small labour markets' target a smaller number, and in the case of the two 
contributions granted to France (EGF/ 2007/001 and EGF/2007/002), the Member State 
specifically aimed the assistan ce at a sub-set of the worker s affected, whose employer had 
gone bankrupt. 
EGF Applications in 2007 by the amount of contribution requested per worker (Euro): 
The package of individualised se rvices that the appli cant Member States pr opose to offer is at 
their discretion. The amount requested per worker affected can therefore vary according to the 
severity of the redundancy event, the labour ma rket situation in the region affected, the 
individual circumstances of the workers affecte d, or even the general cost structures in the 
Member State or region concerne d. In practice, the amounts proposed per worker have varied 
greatly, from just over € 1,000 in the case of Malta (EGF/2007/008) up to over € 11,000 in the 
case of the Italian application in respect of the textile sector in Sardinia. In general terms, the 
assistance proposed per worker tends to be higher in regions, or sectors, in which the workers 
face particular labour market problems, or in wh ich the costs are higher than the EU average. 
EGF Applications in 2007 by intervention criteria: 
The EGF permits applications that respect one of  the three criteria in Article 2 of Regulation 
(EC) No. 1927/2006. An application may be made if major structural ch anges in world trade 
patterns lead to a serious economic disruption, not ably a substantial incr ease of imports into 
the EU, or a rapid decline of the EU market share in a given sector or a delocalisation to third 
countries, resulting in: 
(a) at least 1,000 redundancies over a period of 4 months in an enterprise in a Member 
State, including workers made  redundant in its suppliers or  downstream producers, or  
 
EN 44   EN (b) at least 1,000 redundancies,  over a period of 9 months, particularly in small or 
medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 sector in one region or two contiguous 
regions at NUTS II level. 
Three of the applications receiv ed in 2007 cited the cr iteria of Article 2(a) . Four more cited 
the criteria of Article 2(b). 
In addition, taking into account the small size of  some EU labour markets, or other undefined 
exceptional circumstances, an EGF contribution may be made; 
(c) in small labour markets or in excepti onal circumstances, duly substantiated by the 
Member State(s) concerned, even if the cond itions set out in (a) and (b) above are not 
entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employ ment and the local 
economy.  
Two of the applications r eceived in 2007 cited the criteria of Article 2(c).  
2. Contributions granted in 2007 
Following mobilisation of the necessary funds by the Budgetary Authority, the Commission 
took decisions to award financia l contributions from the Fund in the following four cases: 
Table 2: Contributions gran ted by the Commission in 2007  
EGF number Member 
State Case Amount 
granted 
(Euro) Decision of the 
Budgetary 
Authority Financing 
Decision of the 
Commission 
EGF/2007/001 France Suppliers 
to PSA 2,558,250 2007/726/EC  
of 23/10/2007  
(OJ L 294, 13/11/2007, p.21) C (2007) 6150  
of 4/12/2007 
EGF/2007/002 France Suppliers 
to Renault 1,258,030 2007/726/EC  
of 23/10/2007  (OJ L 294, 
13/11/2007, p.21) C (2007) 6149  
of 4/12/2007 
EGF/2007/003 Germany BenQ 12,766,150 2008/30/EC  
of 18/12/2007  
(OJ L 6, 10/01/2008, p. 9) C (2007) 6747  
of 18/12/2007 
EGF/2007/004 Finland Perlos 2,028,538 2008/30/EC  
of 18/12/2007  (OJ L 6, 
10/01/2008, p. 9) C (2007) 6742  
of 18/12/2007 
 
EN 45   EN Total 18,610,968   
The Budgetary Authority did not reject any pr oposal put to it by the Commission for funding 
from the EGF, and did not modify in any way the proposals as submitted by the Commission. 
3. Actions funded 
The EGF Regulation limits the Fund to fina ncing Active Labour Market Policy (ALMP) 
measures that form part of a coordinated p ackage of personalised services designed to 
reintegrate redundant workers into the labou r market. In addition, the EGF may finance 
Technical Assistance activities carried out by th e Member State to facilitate the preparation, 
management, information and publicit y, and control of the contribution. 
The breakdown of the estimated costs of the pr oposed actions in the four EGF interventions 
granted in 2007, along with thei r supporting Technical Assistance activities, is as below. 
Table 3: Expenditure of specific Ac tive Labour Market Policy measures  
Eurostat Classification of Labour Market Policy (LMP) Interventions EGF Amount 
(Euro) % of total 
LMP services  
1 Job-search assistance  
1.1.2 Individual case-management services 306,623 1.6%
LMP measures  
2 Labour market (re-)training  
2.1 Institutional training 2,715,632 14.6%
 Training allowances/Job search  allowances 13,476,688 72.4%
4 Employment incentives  
4.1 Recruitment incentives 821,050 4.4%
4.2 Employment maintenance incentives 325,000 1.7%
7 Start-up incentives 326,475 1.8%
Technical Assistance (Article 3 of R. 1927/2006) 639,500 3.4%
Total 18,610,968 100%
Measures not shown above were not proposed  by the Member States in the four EGF 
interventions granted in 2007. 
4. Profile of the workers benefiting from EGF assistance 
 
EN 46   EN A total of 5,113 workers have benefited fro m assistance from the EGF in the four 
contributions granted in 2007. These workers ar e spread across a number of regions of 
France, Germany and Finland. 
 
EN 47   EN Table 4: Profile of the workers benefiting from EGF assistance in 2007  
 EGF/2007/001 EGF/2007/002 EGF/2007/003 EGF/2007/004 Total 
 PSA (France) RSA (France) BenQ 
(Germany) Perlos 
(Finland)  
Total workers targeted for 
assistance 267 628 3,303 915 5,113
of which: women 41 155 797 302 1,295
% 15% 25% 24% 33% 25% 
of which: non-EU citizens 0 5 91 0 96 
of which, aged:      
15-24 2 15 34 91 142 
25-54 236 553 3,149 787 4,725
55-64 29 60 121 37 247 
65+ 0 0 0 0 0 
of which, with a long-
standing health problem or disability 4 49 n/a 50 103 
5. Complementarity with actions funded by  the Structural Funds, notably the ESF 
The EGF funds only Active Labour Market Measures and, like th e ESF, cannot contribute to 
passive social protection measures. However, while the Structural Funds consist of multi-
annual programmes in support of  strategic, long-term goals  – notably anticipation and 
management of change and restructuring, with activities such as life-long-learning – the EGF 
is a response to a specific, large-scale crisis. Th us, while its actions are similar to those of the 
ESF, it provides one-off, time-limited individual support, geared directly  to helping workers 
who have suffered trade-related redundancies. Member States can  start to implement actions 
under the EGF immediately upon learning of a ma jor redundancy event, and therefore do not 
have to change an existing Structur al Fund programme in order to do so. 
Member States are encouraged, however, to use the period of implementation of the EGF 
contribution (12 months from the date of app lication) to assess the longer-term needs caused 
by the redundancy event, and to m odify any ESF programmes necessary. 
All applicants are required, as part of the application process for the EGF, to describe how 
they intend to promote the complementarity of the EGF actions with those of the Structural 
Funds. 
 
EN 48   EN 6. Results achieved 
2007 was the first year of implementation of the EGF. The principal source of information on 
results achieved by the EGF will be the final report to be presented by the Member State after the end of the period specified for the use of the contribution, which is twelve months from 
the date of application. This final report must be submitted by the Member States no later than 
six months after the end of the period of use of  the contribution. None of  the Final Reports in 
respect of contributi ons granted in 2007 were due duri ng 2007, and thus the Commission has 
as yet no detailed informati on on the results obtained.  
Table 5: The reporting timetable fo r the contributions granted in 2007
 
 Date of 
application Member State Contribution 
granted End of 12 month 
period for use of 
the contribution Deadline for 
Final Report 
1 9/3/2007 France 23/10/2007 8/3/2008 8/9/2008 
2 23/3/2007 France 23/10/2007 22/3/2008 22/9/2008 
3 27/6/2007 Germany 18/12/2007 26/6/2008 26/12/2008 
4 18/7/2007 Finland 18/12/2007 17/7/2008 17/1/2009 
The Commission will wind up the financial contribut ion no later than six months after it has 
received all of the informati on required in the Final Report. 
7. Technical Assistance activities und ertaken by the European Commission 
Information and publicity Regulation (EC) No. 1927/2006 (A rticle 9) places a responsibility on the Commission to: 
"set up an Internet site, ava ilable in all Community languages, to provide information on the 
EGF, guidance on the submission of  applications, as well as updat ed information on accepted 
and refused applications, hi ghlighting the role of the budgetary authority." 
Internet site
 
The internet site ( http://ec.eu ropa.eu/egf ) has been operational since March 2007, and 
contains sections on basic questions and an swers about the EGF, news, key documents, 
applications, a library of relevant reports and links, and details of the EGF responsible 
authorities in the Member States. The website  was updated and improved  on a regular basis, 
with documents in different languages be ing added as they became available.  
EGF video  
In 2007 the Commission released a video on the EGF for the us e of the media, and other 
interested parties. The nine minute video incl udes coverage of the French and Finnish EGF 
activities, and can be viewed at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video /video_prod_en.cfm?type=detail&prodid=4097  
 
EN 49   EN Leaflet  
In 2007 the Commission published an information leaflet on the EGF in 22 languages (all 
official languages apart from Irish). This leafle t is available in limited quantities on paper, but 
is also freely available on the Commission's EGF internet site, at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_s ocial/egf/docs/egf_leaflet_en.pdf   
(for other languages the 'en' can be repl aced with the relevant  two-letter code). 
Audit and control activities 
There were no specifically EGF audit or contro l activities carried out by the Commission in 
2007. 
Evaluation 
The EGF Regulation does not provide for an evaluation of the EGF until 31 December 2011. 
The Commission has already taken steps to ensure that appropriate information is gathered by 
the Member States from the start of the EGF. 
Meetings with the National Authorities 
At the start of 2007 the Commission established a network of contact po ints in the Member 
States, in order to assist the Member States to prepare for potential applications as well as the 
implementation of the Fund. The network is re gistered formally as the 'Expert group on 
Contact Persons of the Europ ean Globalisation Adjustment F und', or in short, the 'EGF 
Contact Persons' (code E02100). 
The Commission regularly updates the members of  the group on the Fund, and invites them to 
meetings for exchanges of experience and information. The members of the group are officials within the ministries in the Member St ates that either have, or are likely to have, 
responsibility for applying for or impl ementing a contribution from the EGF. 
Two meetings of the group were held in Br ussels during 2007, on 1 March and 9 October. 
8. Financial report 
Funds contributed Under the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006, the EGF may not exceed a maximum 
annual amount of EUR 500 million (2006 prices) which can be drawn from any margin 
existing under the global expenditure ceiling of  the previous year, and/or from cancelled 
commitment appropriations from the previous two years, excluding those related to heading 
1B of the financial framework. In additi on, under Article 12.6 of Regulation (EC) No. 
1927/2006, at least one quarter of the annual ma ximum amount must remain available on 1 
September of each year in order to cover needs arising until the end of the year. 
During 2007 four EGF contributions were grante d by the Budgetary Authority (see Table 2). 
The funds granted by the Budgetary Author ity represent 3.72% of the maximum annual 
amount. No contributions were granted before  1 September 2007, and therefore the entire 
amount remained available in order to cove r needs arising until the end of the year. 
 
EN 50   EN Reimbursements 
There were no reimbursements made during 2007. 
Technical assistance expenditure 
There was no expenditure during 2007 under the T echnical Assistance provi sions of Article 8 
of Regulation (EC) No. 1927/2006, as the rele vant budget line had not  yet been created. 
Irregularities reported during 2007 
There were no irregularities reported to the Commission under Commi ssion Regulation (EC) 
No 1681/9415 during 2007 in respect of the EGF. 
Irregularities closed during 2007 
As 2007 was the first year of operation of the EGF,  there were no irregularities from previous 
years to be closed. 
9. Winding up of financial contributions made 
None of the contributions granted since the start of the EGF were wound up in 2007. The 
Regulation governing the EGF provides for a pe riod of twelve months from the date of 
application for the Member State to use the contribution, followed by a maximum of six 
months in which it must presen t a report on the execution of th e financial contribution. Only 
after receiving that report may the Commi ssion proceed to wind up the contribution. 
Expenditure on the first contribu tion granted by the Budgetary Aut hority, which relates to the 
application EGF/2007/001 made on 9 March 2007 by France, was eligible until 8 March 
2008, and France then has until 8 September 2008 to present its final report. 
                                                 
15 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of 
sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organization of an 
information system in this field OJ L 178, 12/07/1994 p. 43 
 
EN 51   EN Annex 2 
Overview of opinions expressed by experts from the Member States: 
    Member States 
in favour Member States 
opposed No response 
Q1: Do you consider that other factors, such 
as technological changes, the changing 
costs of inputs, etc., which lead to 
major structural changes in world markets including trade, should be included as the basis for making applications to the EGF by your 
Member State (ref: Annual Report of 
the EGF, 2007, page 2)? BG, CZ, IE, 
EL, ES, FR, 
LV, HU, MT, 
AT, PL, PT, RO, FI DK, DE, LT, 
NL, SK, SE, 
UK BE, EE, IT, 
KY, LU, SL 
Q2a: How many cases of mass redundancy in 
an enterprise (more than 1000 job losses; more than 500 job losses within 4 months) occurred in your Member State between 01 January 2007 and 30 
June 2008? -- -- -- 
Q2b: How many cases of concentrated 
redundancies in a sector (more than 
1000 job losses; more than 500 job losses within 9 months) occurred in your Member State between 01 January 2007 and 30 June 2008? -- -- -- 
Q2c: What was the total number of workers 
made redundant in these cases? -- -- -- 
Q3: Should workers made redundant before  
the 4-month period of reference 
mentioned in Article 2(a) of the 
Regulation be eligible for support from the EGF? Do you consider that a modification of the regulation to specifically permit the funding of actions in favour of these workers is 
warranted? BG, CZ, DE, 
IE, EL, ES, IT, 
LV, LT, HU, 
MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, FIDK, FR, SE, 
UK BE, EE, KY, 
LU, AT, SI 
Q4: Is the 4-month reference period (Art 
2(a) of the EGF Regulation) sufficient to cover all redundancies in a typical case of mass redundancy in your country? BG, CZ, DK, 
IE, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK DE, EL, ES BE, EE, FR, 
KY, LU, PL, SL 
Q5: Has your Member State considered 
making an application for funding from 
the EGF in favour of redundant workers NL, AT BG, CZ, DK, 
DE, EL, ES, 
IT, LV, LT, BE, EE, IE, 
FR, KY, LU, 
SI 
 
EN 52   EN in service sectors (such as financial and 
insurance activities, or other service 
sectors)? HU, MT, PL, 
PT, RO, SK, 
FI, SE, UK 
Q6: Are you aware of cases of redundancy 
in your Member State that would, in your opinion, have been eligible for a contribution from the EGF, but for which no application was made? If so, 
please explain why no application was 
made. EL, ES, FR, 
IT, LV CZ, DK, DE, 
LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK BG, BE, EE, 
IE, KY, LU, AT, SI 
Q7: The Option of using the EGF to provide 
micro-credits to redundant workers is mentioned in a recital to the Regulation. Should this measure be promoted? Please explain your answer. BG, CZ, EL, 
LT, HU, MT, NL, RO, UK DK, DE, ES, 
FR, LV, PL, PT, SK BE, EE, IE, IT, 
KY, LU, AT, SI, FI, SE 
Q8: Would the use of 'mobility allowances' 
(ref. Article 3 of the EGF Regulation) 
to cover the expenses incurred by 
redundant workers in moving to another Member State to seek alternative employment or training activities be of interest to your Member State when 
dealing with mass redundancies? BG, CZ, DEK, 
DE, EL, ES, 
FR, IT, HU, 
MT, NL, AT, PL, PTSK LV, LT, RO, 
FI, SE, UK BE, EE, IE, 
KY, LU, SI 
Q9: The Commission is considering using 
the technical assistance of the EGF to 
undertake forward-looking activities, such as analyses and studies to anticipate changes due to globalisation, and to support expert personnel, both in 
Member States and by the Commission. 
Please give us your comments on this proposal. BG, CZ, IE, 
EL, ES, IT, 
LV, LT, MT, AT, PL, PT, SK, FI DK, DE, HU, 
NL, SE, UK BE, EE, FR, 
KY, LU, RO, 
SI 
  Specific criteria for Q. 10 50% OK 50% too high 50% too low 
Q10: Currently the EGF contributes up to 
50% of the total cost of the coordinated package of personalised services provided to the redundant workers. Do you consider that this intervention rate 
is correct, too high, or too low? Please 
explain your view.  BG, DK, DE, 
ES, HU, NL, SK, SE UK CZ, EL, FR, 
IT, LT, MT, AT, PL, PT, RO 
  Specific criteria for Q. 11 12 months OK Greater than 
12 18 to 24 
months 
Q11: Currently Member States must use the 
EGF financial contribution, as well as any interest earned thereon, within 12 months. Should this period be DK, DE, SK, 
SE, UK CZ, ES, FR, 
AT, FI BG, EL, IT, 
LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO 
 
EN 53   EN prolonged, and if so, for how long? 
    Yes No No response 
Q12: Regardless of whether or not your 
Member State has applied for EGF support, are there any particular 
administrative problems (at EU, 
national or regional level) you would like to mention here? CZ, DE, IE, 
EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, HU, 
MT, PL, PT DK, LV, RO, 
UK BG, BE, EE, 
KY, LU, SI 
Q13: In order to use EGF funding, was or is 
there a need to set up new administrative procedures or make changes to existing ones? Please give 
details if possible. DE, LT, HU, 
SK, FI, UK DK, EL, MT, 
NL, PL, PT BG, BE, CZ, 
EE, IE, ES, FR, IT, KY, LV, LU, AT, 
RO, SI, SE 
 
EN 54   EN Annex 3 
Comparison between mass redundancies a nd growth rate in the EU15 (2002-2007)16 
  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200817
≥1,000 workers 68 80 70 77 68 34 38 Number of mass 
redundancy events listed in the ERM ≥500 workers  117 144 146 176 145 87 67 
Annual GDP Growth rate 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.8 2.9 2.7 n.a. 
 
Over the period 2002-2007, the correlation coefficient between the number of mass 
redundancy events recorded by the ERM for the EU15 and the annual GDP growth rate is: 
• -0,55 for mass redundancies equal to or above 1,000 workers;  
• -0.19 for mass redundancies equal to or above 500 workers.  
                                                 
16 The comparison for EU 27 is not possible as the ERM did not systemat ically record comprehensive data 
for the New Member States over  the period 2002 – 2007.  
17 Q1 and Q2