Arbejdsdokument fra Kommissionens tjenestegrene ledsagedokument til Kommissionens Meddelelse til Europa-Parlamentet, Rådet, det Europæiske Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg og Regionsudvalget - Tænk småt først - En "Small Business Act" for Europa - Resumé af konsekvensanalysen {KOM(2008) 394 endelig} {SEK(2008) 2101}
Date: 2008-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid to undertakings, competitiveness, economic growth, entrepreneurship, financing, impact study, investment aid, market access, public awareness campaign, small and medium-sized enterprises

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 2102 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Think Small First 
A Small Business Act for Europe  

Summary of the Impact Assessment 

{COM(2008) 394 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2101}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
SUMMARY 

This  impact  assessment  (IA)  report  accompanies  the  Proposal  for  a  “Small  Business  Act”  for 
Europe. This proposal is the overarching element of a package of measures intended to fully unlock 
the growth and jobs potential of EU SMEs. 

This IA first shortly synthesises some key findings from the literature on the crucial role that SMEs 
and  entrepreneurship  play  in  economic  growth  and  social  and  regional  cohesion.  SMEs  represent 
almost  70%  of  total  employment  in  Europe  and  are  responsible  for  most  net  job  creation.  In 
addition,  SMEs  and  entrepreneurship  are  increasingly  important  for  economic  growth  in  the 
framework of a knowledge-based and global economy. 

Despite the significant progress achieved thanks to the existing comprehensive EU SME policy, this 
IA shows that SMEs in Europe are not reaching their full potential. In particular, EU SMEs tend to 
have  lower  productivity  growth,  innovate  less  and  grow  more  slowly  post  entry  than  their  US 
counterparts. Even though the existing EU SME policy is performing well and is already targeting 
many of these problems, this worse performance when compared with the US shows that there is 
still room for improvement. 

This  analysis  has  therefore  screened  existing  measures  already  implemented  or  planned  and 
identified a number of remaining issues that might individually or together hamper the performance 
of EU SMEs. This list, which does not claim to be exhaustive, due to the wide scope and inherently 
interdisciplinary nature of SME policy, includes two categories of problems: 

•  coordination and/or implementation issues of existing policies; 
•  remaining market or regulatory gaps not addressed sufficiently by existing policies. 

The table below summarises the results of the screening exercise: 

Remaining problems 

Implementation 
/coordination problems  

Remaining  market  or 
regulatory gaps 

Impact of future EU legislation on SMEs 
Heterogeneity  of  the  implementation  of  the  “Think  Small 
First” principle at national level, including:  
–  Start-ups 
–  Stigma of failure + bankruptcy procedures. 
Entrepreneurship  is  still  not  sufficiently  reflected  in 
education and training policies 
Insufficient level of women’s entrepreneurship  
SMEs’ difficult access to markets 
SMEs’  access  to  public  procurements  and  culture  of 
tendering authorities 
SMEs’  difficulty  in  accessing,  using  and  participating  in 
the development of standards 
Insufficient access to finance 
•  Availability of mezzanine finance 
•  Availability of micro-credit 
•  Fragmentation of venture capital 

Difficulty  taking  advantage  of  the  opportunities  linked  to 
the environment 
SMEs’  difficulties  in  accessing  international  markets  and 
especially fast growing markets  

Against this background, a number of objectives have been set. The general objective for the “Small 
Business Act” is to fully unlock the growth and jobs potential of European SMEs and make full use 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  their  innovative  capacities,  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  objectives  of  the  renewed  Lisbon 
Partnership for Growth and Jobs decided in 2005. 

To reach this general objective, and following the analysis in the problem definition, two different 
types of specific objectives have been designed and can be summarized as follows: 

(1) 

Improve  the  implementation  of  the  “Think  Small  First”  principle  and  the  coordination  of 
existing policies, by: 

•  increasing  the  partnership  with  Member  States  to  better  implement  and  coordinate  existing 

policies; 

•  anchoring the “Think Small First” principle in policy making at EU and national level. 

(2) 

Address the remaining regulatory and market gaps EU SMEs are facing: 

•  fostering entrepreneurship, by: 

–  promoting entrepreneurship and the image of entrepreneurs, including in the education 

system; 

–  encouraging new entrepreneurs, in particular female entrepreneurs; 

•  developing further SMEs’ access to finance, by:  

–  increasing the availability of micro-credit and mezzanine finance for SMEs; 
–  reducing venture capital market fragmentation at EU level; 

•  increasing SMEs’ access to markets, by: 

–  fostering a more SME-friendly culture among tendering authorities; 
–  improving SMEs’ access to, use of and participation in the development of standards; 

•  increasing  SMEs’  awareness  of  the  opportunities  of  sustainable  products  and  processes  by 

developing on the ground environmental and energy advice; 

•  improving SMEs’ access to international markets and especially to the fast growing markets of 

China and India. 

According to these objectives, policy options have been developed. However, due to the particular 
nature of the “Small Business Act”, which is a package of measures of different nature (legal and 
non-legal), only two options could be assessed: 

•  the first option consists of the existing EU SME policy, which is mainly based on the exchange 
of best practice and targeted EU support programmes. This “no additional action” option serves 
as the baseline against which the other option is assessed; 

•  the  second  option  consists  of  stepping  up  the  existing  EU  SME  policy  through  a  political 
partnership  approach  with  the  Member  States,  aimed  at  enhancing  framework  conditions  for 
SMEs and entrepreneurship and including targeted policies to address the remaining market and 
regulatory gaps. It aims to establish a true political dynamic between the EU and Member State 
level  to  put  SMEs  at  the  forefront  of  economic  policies  as  part  of  a  long-term  vision.  In 
substance,  this  requires  first  an  improvement  in  the  policy  approach  towards  SMEs  both  at 
Community and national levels by making sure that legislation and programmes are conceived 
from the start and then implemented in a way that respects the needs and specific characteristics 
of SMEs (the “Think Small First” principle). Secondly, a set of new actions could be developed 
into a coherent framework, in the policy areas where a justification to act has been ascertained. 

A  third  option,  proposed  by  many  stakeholders,  could  have  consisted  of  developing  and 
implementing a fully-fledged Community approach to SME policy with legally binding objectives 
and  principles  to  be  implemented  at  EU  and  Member  State’  level  and  far-reaching  Community 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
programmes to address the remaining regulatory and market gaps EU SMEs are facing. However, 
as  many  of  the  areas  relevant  to  SMEs’  growth  potential  are  mainly  or  partly  in  the  remit  of 
Member States (e.g. education, start-up, insolvency law), setting legally binding objectives would 
be clearly in contradiction with the subsidiarity principle, which is a requirement and presupposition 
for Community action. This option was therefore not selected for further analysis. 

The  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  each  option  presents  a  qualitative  assessment  of  the  positive  and 
negative impacts. It gives an indication of the extent to which each of the options can resolve the 
remaining  issues  established  in  the  problem  definition  as  well  as  indications  of  the  potential 
drawbacks. Given that the proposal for a “Small Business Act” represents a package of measures in 
a  wide  range  of  areas  of  a  different  nature,  and  that  the  detailed  impacts  of  any  measures  which 
would  normally  require  an  impact  assessment  will  be  analysed  separately,  a  quantitative  analysis 
could not be performed. This would have required complex modelling going beyond the scope of 
proportionality for this impact assessment and would have included a very high level of uncertainty. 
Therefore,  the  impacts  of  the  options  are  compared  on  a  qualitative  basis  and,  where  possible, 
quantitative estimation of the effects on economic growth, social and environmental dimensions is 
provided. 

The conclusion of this impact assessment is that the second option is preferable. This option would 
enable substantial SME growth, job creation and increased environmental  protection,  while at the 
same time being cost-effective, and being part of the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs. This 
approach  would  allow  for  a  balanced  approach  between  the  ownership  needed  at  all  levels  and  a 
necessary  degree  of  peer  pressure  through  a  regular  monitoring  of  a  high  level  political 
commitment.  Indeed,  the  “Small  Business  Act”  for  Europe  would  be  monitored  regularly  in  the 
framework  of  the  Partnership  for  Growth  and  Jobs  in  order  to  adapt  the  actions  over  time  and 
optimize the impacts in a cost-effective manner. 

EN 

4 

   EN