Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled Creating an entrepreneurial Europe: The activities of the European Union for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)"
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European Commission, activity report, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 107/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Report from the Commission to the Council,
the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
entitled Creating an entrepreneurial Europe: The activities of the European Union for small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’

(2002/C 107/20)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘Creating an entrepreneurial Europe — The
activities of the European Union for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’ (COM(2001) 98 final);

having regard to the Decision of the Commission on 1 March 2001, under the first paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

having regard to the Decision of the President of the Committee of the Regions on 28 March 2001 to
instruct Commission 6 (Employment, Economic Policy, Single Market, Industry and SMEs) to draw up an
opinion on this subject;

having regard to the Conclusions of the Lisbon and Stockholm European Councils concerning further
policy actions with a view to making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy in the world;

having regard to its Opinion on a Report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force
(BEST) and the Commission Communication promoting entrepreneurship and competitiveness — The
Commission’s response to the BEST Task Force report (CdR 387/98 fin) (1);

having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission — The competitiveness of
European enterprises in the face of globalisation: How can it be encouraged? (CdR 134/99 fin) (2);

having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission — Challenges for enterprise
policy in the knowledge-driven economy and the proposal for a Council Decision on a multiannual
programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship (2001-2005) (CdR 185/2000 fin) (3);

having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and European
Parliament on ‘Innovation in a knowledge-driven economy’ (CdR 468/2000 fin) (4);

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR199/2001 rev. 2) adopted unanimously by Commission 6 on
28 September 2001 (rapporteur: Mr Van den Brande, B-EPP, Senator, member of the Flemish Parliament);

whereas SMEs are vitally important to economic growth and employment in the EU and the applicant
countries; and whereas it is therefore essential to examine the impact on SMEs of various policymaking
areas,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 41st plenary session held on 14 and 15 November
2001 (meeting of 14 November).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

1.1.
The CoR appreciates the Commission’s efforts to
provide an overview of the measures to help SMEs. The
Commission report provides a good and indeed a detailed
overview of all the measures taken at EU level to support

(1) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 48.
(2) OJ C 57, 29.2.2000, p. 23.
(3) OJ C 22, 24.1.2001, p. 10.
(4) OJ C 253, 12.9.2001, p. 20

SMEs. The CoR wishes to take this opportunity to put forward
recommendations in respect of not only the Commission
report but also the general context of EU policy on SMEs.

EU policy on SMEs has economic, social, regional and
1.2.
other aspects. It cannot therefore be viewed separately from
other policymaking areas, particularly enterprise policy in the
broader sense. Both policies are complementary. SMEs should
thus, for example, be given prominence in the policy on
developing the knowledge-based economy and providing
support for high-tech sectors.

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/65

1.3.
It is, however, not always clear from the report whether
the measures listed are designed to bring about a general
improvement in the business environment or whether we are
dealing with a policy to develop and promote SMEs. The
report does not always provide the necessary indications as to
the impact on SMEs of the policy being pursued, perhaps
because the specific nature of SMEs is not always adequately
recognised in EU enterprise policy.

1.4.
The Commission rightly highlights the fact that many
SMEs are a source of innovation for the EU economy. However,
SMEs’ importance for the EU economy goes further than that.
Even enterprises in the more ‘traditional’ sectors have the
capacity to create jobs, particularly for less skilled workers
who cannot find work in the high-tech sector. Such jobs can
be created in a variety of different ways, for example in the
social economy.

1.5.
For anyone wishing to make a thorough and, at the
same time, critical appraisal of EU enterprise and SME policy,
and to propose adjustments, where necessary, the Commission
report is a valuable tool. In its opinion, the CoR has, of
necessity, confined its observations to just a few subjects, but
it also wishes nonetheless to address the Commission’s future
strategy for the business world as a whole (as amended in the
light of the Lisbon Summit) and the impact of EU enlargement.
The CoR wishes to set out
its recommendations under
four headings: simplicity and transparency, consultation and
dialogue with the SME sector; SMEs and EU enlargement; and
SMEs and the regional economy.

1.6.
It should be pointed out in this context that the report
would be a better report if it were to be more explicit in its
conclusions with regard to the policy options for the SME
sector. The CoR expects that the communication due to be
issued on the consequences for enterprise policy of the new
economy will shed light on this subject.

2. Recommendations made by the Committee of the

Regions

2.1.

Simplicity and transparency

2.1.1.
The development of SMEs is often hampered by the
fact that they do not have a specific — business-friendly and
decentralised — contact point (one-stop shop). Whether the
Euro Info Centres (EIC) offer the appropriate facilities in
this respect is a matter which could be examined. Small
businessmen certainly have other worries than having to find
their way through the labyrinth of EU legislation and support
measures. The CoR also points out that the efficiency of one-
stop shops can be increased by promoting the use of advanced
— but customer-friendly — communication technologies. Use

of these technologies should also make it possible to monitor
the progress of dossiers, so that enterprises always know which
administrative body is dealing with a particular dossier.

2.1.2.
Regional and local authorities have an excellent
knowledge of the SME sector on the ground because of their
proximity. They can provide an appropriate framework for
passing on information concerning administrative obligations
and support measures. The CoR calls on the Commission to
study ways of involving local and regional authorities more
effectively in the operation of the EIC and other EU initiatives.

A large number of initiatives and measures set out in
2.1.3.
the report clearly have a beneficial effect on the general
business environment in the EU, but one may well ask whether
there is a risk of overlap and whether the measures always
reach the right target group. The CoR calls upon the European
Commission to examine the measures from the point of view
of entrepreneurs, who have to handle information from many
sources and have to be able to take decisions at short notice
everyday. This implies that the Commission should set about
making the dozens of support measures simpler and more
transparent and lowering the thresholds for SME access to the
financial instruments. These measures will also undoubtedly
bring about a sharp improvement
in the efficiency and
effectiveness of SME policy.

2.1.4.
The European Commission should urgently ask itself
whether the various support initiatives should not be better
coordinated and whether consideration should not be given
reducing the number of initiatives. Such an approach must be
feasible, since all aspects of enterprise policy are handled and
coordinated by one directorate-general.

2.1.5.
If the measures are simpler and more transparent
and if they are reduced in number, their appraisal may also be
simpler and more transparent. The CoR calls on the Com-
mission to attach considerable importance to the effectiveness
of SMEs when carrying out this appraisal.

2.1.6.
SMEs frequently contact the authorities via inter-
mediary bodies that provide advice and support. In order to
reach the ultimate target group of SME entrepreneurs, the
Commission should therefore provide these intermediary
bodies with clear, updated information on SME policy. These
bodies can then ensure that the information that they provide
to individual entrepreneurs is both appropriate and current.

2.1.7.
The Commission should ensure that SMEs do not
suffer competitive disadvantage as a result of the fact that they
generally have a limited administrative capacity. This applies,
in particular, in the case of calls for tender. In this context the
CoR urges the Commission to simplify EU procedures.

C 107/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

2.2. Consultation and dialogue with the SME sector

2.2.1.
The SME sector is very heterogeneous, both as
regards the industries it covers and the size of the enterprises.
Each sub-category has specific characteristics which need to be
taken into account by policymakers. By way of example, it
appears that most of the measures designed to promote
innovation and high-technology applications are geared pri-
marily to medium-sized enterprises. Small enterprises should,
however, also have a say in EU enterprise policy. These
enterprises, too, are sources of innovation and new jobs.

2.2.2.
The European Commission has traditionally engaged
in consultations with EU-level organisations representing
SMEs. These organisations are consulted on new legislative
initiatives in the SME sector. The CoR believes that this
tradition needs to be strengthened and to become a part of the
EU’s enterprise culture. However, not only employers and self-
employed persons, but also SME workers must be involved in
these consultations on an ongoing basis.

It is frequently the case that proposals and measures
2.2.3.
in other policy areas have an impact on SMEs, in particular by
increasing the burden of administrative obligations on these
enterprises. This applies, for example, in the case of environ-
mental policy. The CoR calls on the Commission to make a
prior appraisal of the impact which all measures may have on
SMEs and, where necessary, to consult the SME sector.

SMEs are well represented on some sectoral dialogue
2.2.4.
committees (European social dialogue). Consideration could
be given to setting up a specific social dialogue for SMEs that
extends beyond sectoral boundaries, in view of the specific
problems facing small businesses.

2.2.5. When preparing new policy measures for SMEs, the
European Commission could give due consideration to new
forms of consultation. Possibilities include written procedures
for consulting networks and the organisation of hearings. The
aim must be to involve in the consultations the parties most
directly affected and to collect a wide variety of views,
especially in such a heterogeneous sector.

2.3.2.
Since the third multiannual programme for SMEs
has been opened up to participants from nine applicant
countries, the possibilities which may be available to SMEs
from these countries should be studied more thoroughly and
the need for additional initiatives should be examined. By way
of example, it may well be necessary to extend the SMEs
sector’s access to funding in these countries and to take
measures to promote cross-border initiatives.

2.3.3.
EU enlargement will have consequences not only for
the applicant countries and for existing Member States, but
also for other countries, particularly in central and eastern
Europe. The CoR recommends that the EU measures in respect
of these countries pay greater attention to SMEs in order to
ensure that greater priority is given to entrepreneurship within
in these
the socio-economic fabric and society in general
countries.

The Stockholm European Council agreed that steps
2.3.4.
should be taken to involve the applicant countries more
actively in the goals and procedures of the Lisbon strategy. In
this connection, whenever SME initiatives are taken by the
they should include an
European Commission in future,
assessment of their impact on the applicant countries and,
more especially, on their SME sectors.

2.3.5.
The Commission places special emphasis on inno-
vation and high technology in its SME policy (creation of high-
quality jobs). This is the right approach but there are grounds
for wondering whether the applicant countries, because of the
nature of their SME sectors, have the potential and capacity to
tap the European funding available. The thresholds in respect
of these countries must be kept at a sufficiently low level. In
this context it could be borne in mind that even sectors of a
more traditional nature can make a considerable contribution
to economic renewal.

2.3.6.
As part of the enlargement process, enterprises in
the applicant countries and organisations representing these
enterprises must be provided with instruments for strengthen-
ing the consultative process and social dialogue.

2.4.

SMEs and regional economies

2.3.

SMEs and EU enlargement

2.3.1.
As EU policy is also to apply to the applicant
countries, it would be particularly beneficial to harmonise the
collection of policy data. The CoR advises the Commission to
ensure that the same methodology is applied in the applicant
countries as in the EU Member States for the collection of
structured data on businesses. The CoR also recommends that,
wherever possible, the use of this methodology even be
extended to other states.

2.4.1.
Since enterprises are often established in geographi-
cal clusters, the knowledge-based economy has implications
for the regional distribution of economic activity and employ-
ment. The Commission should therefore ensure that all regions
can benefit from the enterprise policy in terms of innovation
and the new economy. This also applies in the case of the
policy for promoting e-commerce. The CoR calls on the
Commission to make use of the Structural Funds, where
necessary, as an instrument for helping backward regions to
renew their economies.

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/67

2.4.2.
Local and regional authorities have an excellent local
knowledge and are therefore the ideal partners for helping to
implement EU enterprise and SME policy. The CoR calls on
the Commission to examine EU policy (e.g. the SME Action
Plan 2000-2006) in terms of the policy priorities of local and
regional authorities and, where appropriate, to hold seminars
on this issue.

2.4.3.
of coordination will

The strength and effectiveness of the open method
interested parties are

increase if all

Brussels, 14 November 2001.

involved in drawing up indicators. This applies in particular to
local and regional authorities.
to
involve these authorities in the establishment of evaluation
instruments, indicators and benchmarking instruments.

is highly important

It

2.4.4.
Education and training should encompass entrep-
reneurship as a valid alternative source of employment for
young people and advice for young independent businessmen,
with due regard to regional subcultures.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT