COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)
Date: 2018-05-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, commitment of expenditure, dismissal, employment aid, financial aid, general budget (EU), globalisation, reintegration into working life

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.5.2018  SWD(2018) 192 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION  of the  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)  Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)  {COM(2018) 297 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3 

1.1. 

Purpose of the mid-term evaluation .............................................................................. 3 

1.2. 

Scope of the mid-term evaluation ................................................................................. 3 

1.3. 

Purpose and evidence base of present Staff Working Document (SWD) ..................... 4 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ............................................................................. 4 

2.1.  Context .......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.  Baseline ......................................................................................................................... 8 

2.3.  Description of the initiative and its objectives .............................................................. 9 

2.3.1. 

Subject area ........................................................................................................... 9 

2.3.2. 

Objectives of the intervention .............................................................................. 9 

2.3.3. 

Delivery mechanism ............................................................................................ 10 

2.3.4. 

Framework and key specificities of the intervention .......................................... 13 

3.  METHOD/PROCESS FOLLOWED .................................................................................. 14 

3.1. 

Process/methodology .................................................................................................. 14 

3.2. 

Limitations .................................................................................................................. 15 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS and ACTIVITIES) ........................ 16 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................................... 19 

5.1. 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 19 

5.2. 

Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 31 

5.3. 

Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 32 

5.4.  Coherence .................................................................................................................... 34 

5.5.  Relevance .................................................................................................................... 35 

5.6. 

EU added value ........................................................................................................... 39 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 41 

6.1. 

Possible improvements ................................................................................................ 44 

6.2 

Outlook ........................................................................................................................ 46 

ANNEX I  

Procedural information ........................................................................................ 47 

ANNEX II  

Stakeholder consultations .................................................................................... 53 

ANNEX III  Methods ............................................................................................................... 68 

ANNEX IV  Case profile data by country and by sector ......................................................... 70 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of acronyms and abbreviations 

BRG   Better Regulation Guidelines 

EGF   European Globalisation Adjustment Fund 

ERM   European Restructuring Monitor (Eurofound) 

ESF   European Social Fund 

ESIF  European Structural and Investment Funds 

ICT  

Information and Communication Technology 

ISG  

Interservice Steering Group 

OPC   Internet-based open public consultation 

PES   Public employment services 

QFR  EU Quality Framework for Anticipation of Change and Restructuring 

SMEs  Small and medium enterprises 

SWD  Staff Working Document 

YEI   Youth Employment Initiative 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

1. 
The  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  is  one  of  the  European  Union’s 
(EU) instruments to tackle the employment and social dimensions of the challenges of 
structural change. It was set up to show solidarity with, and provide support to, workers 
made  redundant  as  a  result  of  major  structural  changes  in  world  trade  patterns  due  to 
globalisation, or as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. In line with the 
EU’s Europe 2020 strategy, the EGF co-finances active labour market policy measures 
organised  by  the  Member  States  to  help  redundant  workers  re-position  themselves  on 
the labour market and find sustainable employment. There are many eligible measures, 
such  as  personal  guidance  counselling,  tailor-made  training  measures  or  mobility 
allowances.  The  EGF 
is  operating  under  an  overall  budgetary  ceiling  of 
EUR 1.05 billion over a seven-year time span (2014-2020). 

1.1.  Purpose of the mid-term evaluation 
In  compliance  with  Article 20  of  the  EGF  Regulation1,  the  Commission  carried  out  a 
mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EGF  to  assess  how  and  to  what  extent  it  reaches  its 
objectives. 

The EGF Regulation applies to all applications submitted until 31 December 2020. The 
findings of the mid-term evaluation will thus play a role in the possible development of 
a  subsequent  Regulation  or  other  programmes  in  the  area  of  employment  and  social 
affairs. 

Findings  of  the  evaluation  also  feed  into  discussions  of  a  possible  extension  of  the 
derogation clause in Article 6(2) of the current Regulation. This clause allows Member 
States  to  include  young  people  ‘Not  in  Education,  Employment,  or  Training  (NEET)’ 
under certain circumstances in EGF applications until the end of 2017. 

The  evaluation  also  indirectly  serves  accountability  purposes  through  contributing  to 
biennial reports2. 

The results of the evaluation will therefore be sent to the European Parliament and the 
Council3 for information purposes. 

Scope of the mid-term evaluation 

1.2. 
The effectiveness,  sustainability, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU-added  value 
of the results achieved have been assessed. 

1 Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on 
the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 
2 In  accordance  with  Article 19  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 1309/2013,  the  Commission  has  to  present 
comprehensive,  quantitative  and  qualitative  reports  on  the  EGF’s  activities  to  the  European  Parliament 
and  to  the  Council  by  1 August  of  every  second  year,  from  2015  onwards.  The  most  recent  report, 
covering the activities in 2015 and 2016, has been published 31 October 2017. 
3 It will also be made available to other institutions and bodies indirectly involved in the design of future 
legislations, such as the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee 
of  the  Regions,  and  the  social  partners.  The  findings  will  also  be  made  available  online  for  the  wider 
public to use. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
The  mid-term  evaluation  covers  all  EGF  cases  whose  applications  were  received  in 
2014  and  2015,  the  cut-off  date  being  31 December 20154.  An  overview  of  the  cases 
covered is included in Annex IV. 

Furthermore, the evaluation analyses the EGF’s institutional design as an instrument to 
provide assistance to redundant workers. 

It is important to note that the EGF Regulation lists effectiveness and sustainability as 
the  only  criteria  to  be  examined.  In  order  to  have  a  comprehensive  assessment  at 
instrument  and  case  levels,  the  other  criteria  have  been  added  by  the  European 
Commission. 

More detailed information can be found in the evaluation's roadmap5. 

1.3.  Purpose and evidence base of present Staff Working Document (SWD) 
The purpose of the present SWD is to summarise and present critical judgements on the 
findings of the evaluation process and to set-out to which extent the commitments made 
in the roadmap could be fulfilled or to explain why this was not possible. The SWD thus 
is the key deliverable of the evaluation process. The findings of the SWD will be used 
as a basis for future follow-up plans. 

In  accordance  with  the  reporting  requirements  set  out  in  Article  20  of  the  EGF 
Regulation, a Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the EGF will 
be  transmitted  to  the  legislator,  other  EU  institutions  or  stakeholders.  The  SWD 
accompanies the report. 

The  SWD  primarily  builds  on  a  study  provided  by  external  consultants,  including  the 
main  work  of  the  evaluation  research  and  extensive  stakeholder  consultations  (see 
below  chapter  3).  Wherever  it  was  useful,  the  SWD  is  enriched  by  further  evidence 
from  previous  reports,  evaluations,  and  general  experience  in  the  management  of  the 
EGF. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

2.1.  Context 
Traditionally,  production  in  the  most  industrialised  nations  was  organised  inside 
factories  and  industrial  regions  within  these  countries.  Even  though  there  was  an 
international  exchange  of  intermediate  goods  and  services,  this  happened  among  the 
most  industrialised  countries,  and  only  very  little  input  was  sourced  internationally. 
Innovation stayed in these countries, as costs of moving ideas fell less than the costs of 
trading  goods.  Due  to  the  high  costs  of  coordinating  complex  production  processes, 

4 This cut-off date has been set taking into consideration the timeframe of the EGF application procedures 
and the duration of EGF cases. Decisions on applications received at the end of 2015 are only taken in the 
second half of 2016. 
5 Please see http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_empl_022_mid-
term_evaluation_egf_en.pdf . 

4 

 
 
                                                            
most  of  the  production  was  clustered  locally.  Globalisation  was  primarily  associated 
with removing trade barriers and the resulting increase in international trade flows6. 

Since the early 1990s, technological developments led to the revolution in Information 
and Communications Technology (ICT), drastically lowering the costs of moving ideas. 
The ICT revolution enabled companies to separate out production stages and to offshore 
certain stages to developing countries in order to cut costs7. 

The knowledge transfer from industrialised to developing nations resulted in the erosion 
of the industrial base of the industrialised nations. Manufacturing was by far the most 
exposed  to  such  offshoring  activities.  Offshoring  and  outsourcing  of  manufacturing 
activities meant job losses for lower skilled workers. The reorganisation of international 
production happened  at  sector  level,  resulting  in  the  downturn  of  whole  sectors  in the 
industrialised countries8. 

The process also led to the rapid rise of a few newly industrialising nations, resulting in 
significant  income  growth  and  the  evolution  of  highly  competitive  industries  in  these 
countries.  While  the  seven  largest  economies  (G7)  made  up  65 %  of  world 
manufacturing in 1990, this share dropped to 47 % in 20109. 

While  in  the  past  10  years,  offshoring  slowed  down 10,  globalisation  entered  a  new 
phase.  ICT  enabled  the  internationalisation  of  service  activities 11.  Furthermore,  the 
international  organisation  of  production  evolved  into  true  global  value  chains,  which 
often  implies  that  products  cross  borders  several  times  throughout  the  process. 
However,  these  global  value  chains  are  highly  distinct  and  differ  from  company  to 
company, also within the same sector. In the new phase of globalisation, workers with 
similar skill sets are increasingly being affected differently by offshoring, depending on 
whether or not they work in a production stage that was offshored12. 

Even  though  it  is  easy  to  describe  the  multifaceted  ways  of  organising  globalised 
production  networks,  measuring  them  is  far  more  complex.  Companies  make  highly 
specific  decisions  regarding  the  relocating  of  certain  production  processes  abroad  and 
they  are  often  unwilling  to  disclose  the  reasons  for  their  restructuring  activities.  This 
lack of transparency has led to widely varying views on the extent and the consequences 
of globalisation13. 

The rise of a few industrialising countries, in particular highly populated countries such 
as India and China, has lifted the living standards of half of the world’s population. This 

6  Baldwin,  Richard  E.  (2016):  The  Great  Convergence:  Information  Technology  and  the  new 
Globalisation, Cambridge (Mass.), p. 142 ff. 
7 Baldwin (2016), p. 219. 
8 OECD (2007): Moving Up the Value Chain: Staying Competitive in the Global Economy, p. 6f and 14f; 
Baldwin (2016), p. 165f. 
9 Slide 2 of a presentation held at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C., 
by 
at  
15 
https://piie.com/system/files/documents/baldwin20161115ppt.pdf  
10 Eurofound (2016), ERM annual report 2016. Globalisation slowdown? Recent evidence of offshoring 
and reshoring in Europe, p. 30. 
11 OECD (2007), p.9. 
12 Baldwin (2016), p. 165ff. 
13 OECD (2007), p. 6. 

November 

Baldwin 

Richard 

found 

2016, 

on 

5 

 
 
                                                            
not  only  meant  the  opening  of  huge  new  markets,  but  also  the  rise  of  new  economic 
competitors.  As  a  result,  world  production  output  rose  drastically,  while  production 
levels  were  redistributed  among  a  growing  number  of  countries,  increasing  the 
competitive pressure to specialise14. This led to the need for reskilling the workforces of 
the sectors negatively affected. 

While it is widely acknowledged that the effects of globalisation are positive overall and 
offer  significant  benefits  and  opportunities,  adjusting  economic  structures  inevitably 
leads  to  adverse  effects,  as  production  factors  must  move  from  activities  that  are  not 
competitive  anymore  to  those  that  are.  Jobs  are  lost  in  less  competitive  activities, 
although new jobs might be created elsewhere. 

Whereas  regions  with  a  higher  concentration  of  now  less  competitive  industries 
experience  economic  downturns,  other  regions  with  more  competitive  industries 
experience an economic boom. This is also true for the services sector, which follows 
the  global  trend  of  urbanisation,  concentrating  activities  in  certain  specialised  urban 
centres. 

The  further  opening  and  interconnectedness  of  economies  can  lead  to  an  unequal 
redistribution of gains and losses. The resulting asymmetry between the benefits and the 
adverse effects, often concentrated in specific regions, also intensifies public  concerns 
regarding the openness of economies. 

For workers, globalisation could mean that major re- and upskilling efforts are needed 
when knowledge and skills become obsolete. Communities impacted by job losses are 
facing tremendous challenges. They have to re-design their industrial and employment 
policies,  and  try  to  offer  support  to  workers  threatened  by  redundancy  or  who  are 
already  made  redundant.  The  local  or  national  authorities  need  to  overcome  the 
challenges of structural economic change while minimising its social costs15. 

In  the  late  2000s,  the  adverse  effects  of  finance-related  globalisation  became  evident 
when  the  financial  crisis  spread  like  fire  from  one  country  to  another.  The  resulting 
worldwide economic disruptions led to an economic crisis that cost thousands of jobs. 
Workers made redundant had to find new jobs. Therefore retraining or upskilling efforts 
are  regularly  needed  so  workers  can  find  jobs  in  sectors  less  affected  by  the  crisis, 
and/or be ready for times of economic recovery. Regions most affected by the crisis are 
facing  similar  challenges  to  those  adversely  impacted  by  trade-related  globalisation, 
especially  regarding  the  support  of  workers  facing  redundancy  or  who  are  made 
redundant16. Even though the economic situation now is more stable, unemployment is 

14 OECD (2007), p. 19. 
15 The  challenges  of  adjusting  to  structural  changes  in  world  trade  patterns  have  in  particular  been 
analysed  in  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  SEC(2006)274  European  Globalisation 
adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  –  Impact  Assessment,  especially  pages  3-6  thereof.  A  wealth  of  research  is 
available on the evolution of trade-related globalisation. A recent example is Baldwin (2016), p. 79ff (on 
urbanisation, p.212). 
16 An  analysis  of  the  financial  and  resulting  economic  crisis  is  given  in  the  European  Commission’s 
COM(2008)800 final  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Council:  A  European 
Economic Recovery Plan, which also offers different avenues to tackle the consequences of the crisis. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
still high in many parts of the EU, and the effects of recovery vary widely across society 
and regions. It is still a priority to level out the consequences of the crisis17. 

About 1 500 large restructuring events (involving more than 100 job gains or job losses) 
occur  within  the  EU28  (and  Norway)  on  a  yearly  basis  based  on  the  data  captured  in 
Eurofound’s  European  Restructuring  Monitor  (ERM).  During  the  crisis,  job  losses  far 
outnumbered  job  gains.  In  2015  (between  the  first  quarter  of  2015  and  the  second 
quarter of 2016), job gains outnumbered job losses by a small margin (407 000 versus 
387 000).  Manufacturing  accounts  for  the  largest  share  of  restructuring  events,  even 
though  its  share  has  decreased  from  41 %  (during  the  period  2002-2007)  to  currently 
29 % (2015-2016). Manufacturing also still accounts for the largest share of job losses 
due  to  offshoring  (82% 18 .  Overall,  offshoring  accounts  for  around  10 %  of 
manufacturing  job  losses  within  the  EU  arising  from  large-scale  restructuring19.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  more  than  half  of  the  jobs  offshored  in  the  EU  actually  stay 
within the  EU,  the  EU-13  (made  up of  the  most  recent  members to  join the  EU  since 
2004) being the major destination for offshoring20. 

However, it should be noted that the vast majority of larger restructuring cases are not 
triggered  by  trade-related  globalisation,  but  by  technological  advance,  especially 
automation. Even though automation is not a new phenomenon, the accelerating pace of 
technological advance is offering new opportunities in implementing technologies in a 
combinatorial way, triggering many job losses as production technologies evolve. Both 
the scope and the rate of automation are increasing. Recent data show that about 80% of 
job losses can be attributed to automation. The consequences are similar to those caused 
by  trade-related  globalisation:  as  skills  become  obsolete,  major  re-  and  up-skilling 
efforts are needed in order to cushion the adverse effects the adjustment processes have 
on the workforce21. However, technological advance such as digitisation or automation 
can lead to adverse short-term effects on the labour market, it will also be an important 
source of growth. Investment in digital skills will therefore be of utmost importance in 
order to ensure industrial competitiveness. Those negatively affected by changes in the 
work place will be left behind if no help is being offered to them to master the transition 
to the digital age22. 

In many parts of the EU, youth unemployment is a significant problem. As a result of 
the  economic  crisis  the  situation  worsened,  and  the  EU’s  youth  unemployment  rates 
peaked at 23.7 % in 2013. For the young people concerned, experiencing longer periods 
of unemployment at the beginning of their careers is demotivating and can have severe 
impacts on future employment prospects. Therefore, one of the greatest challenges is to 
provide  NEETs  with  the  appropriate  skills  for  the  job  market 23.  In  areas  of  major 

17 European Commission (2017), White Paper on the Future of Europe – Reflections and scenarios for the 
EU27 by 2025, p. 9. 
18 Eurofound (2016), p. 16ff. 
19 Eurofound (2016), p.25. 
20 Jobs offshored in the EU13 for the greatest part also stay within the EU. Please see Eurofound (2016), 
p. 28f. 
21 OECD (2017),The next production revolution: implications for governments and businesses, p. 26ff. 
22 European  Commission,  DG  CONNECT  (2017),  A  concept  paper  on  digitisation,  employability  and 
inclusiveness – the role of Europe, p. 10ff. 
23 For an analysis of the challenges of youth unemployment, and information on EU policies to tackle the 
problem,  please  see,  among  other  things,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)(2016)323 final 

7 

 
 
                                                            
 
structural  disruptions, these young people face even  bigger problems finding  a job,  as 
they are competing with experienced people who are facing job loss or have already lost 
their jobs. 

2.2.  Baseline 
Tackling  the  above  challenges  to  the  workforce  is  the  regular  task  of  national  public 
employment  services  (PES).  However,  such  challenges  might  occur  so  quickly,  and 
might have such a significant impact that these regular systems are pushed to their limits 
in dealing with the scale and level of urgency. 

Experience has shown that adjustment measures should be targeted and have time limits 
with  clear  exit  strategies  in  place.  The  main  objective  should  be  to  ensure  the  re-
integration  of  displaced  workers  into  the  job  market,  optimally  reallocating  workers 
towards higher productivity employment24. 

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the EU may promote the objective of 
solidarity.  The  principle  of  proportionality  restricts  EU  actions  so  they  do  not  go 
beyond  whatever  is  necessary.  The  EU’s  main  solidarity  response  to  the  challenges 
described above are the structural funds25 and the Cohesion Fund, which aim to support 
economic and social cohesion within the EU. In the area of employment, the European 
Social Fund (ESF) is the main instrument. The ESF, like the other structural funds, uses 
a  multi-annual  strategic  approach  and  is  geared  towards  long-term  anticipative  action. 
Offering reactive short-term help in cases of sudden major urgencies would require the 
re-programming of long-term assistance, and would therefore not be efficient. Without a 
policy change, additional short-term assistance would hardly be possible. Workers made 
redundant  would  have  to  rely  fully  on  possible  regular  measures  offered  by  national 
instruments. 

Member States experiencing major disruptions build up their own mechanisms to tackle 
the  restructuring  challenges  resulting  from  globalisation  or  the  crisis,  even  without 
further EU assistance. However, the extent of these mechanisms would depend on the 
economic  means  and  the  institutional  and  governance  framework  of  a  Member  State, 
resulting in adverse effects on the EU’s economic and social cohesion. 

The absence of further help might also lead to negative public opinion on globalisation, 
as  workers  might  feel  they  are  being  left  to  fight  alone  against  economic  forces  they 
perceive as a threat. 

The Youth Guarantee and Youth Employment Initiative three years on. See also European Commission 
(2017), White Paper on the Future of Europe – Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025, p. 9.  
24  See  Commission  SWD  SEC(2006)274  European  Globalisation  adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  –  Impact 
Assessment,  p.  18,  which  bases  its  analyses  on  the  OECD’s  Trade  and  Structural  Adjustment: 
Recommendations for Good Practice (2005). The Commission later designed its own framework to tackle 
the  challenges  of  restructuring,  the  EU  Quality  Framework  for  anticipation  of  change  and  restructuring 
(QFR), see Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2013)882 final. 
25 The  structural  funds  include  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  the  European 
Social Fund (ESF)  

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                              
2.3.  Description of the initiative and its objectives 

2.3.1.  Subject area 
The EGF was designed as a means of reconciling the overall long-term benefits of open 
trade  in  terms  of  growth  and  employment  with  the  short-term  adverse  effects  which 
globalisation  may  have,  particularly  on  the  employment  of  the  most  vulnerable  and 
lowest-skilled  workers.  In  line  with  the  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan,  the  rules 
were  amended  in  2009 26  to  respond  more  effectively  to  the  global  financial  and 
economic crisis. This  provision  was maintained and now support can also be given to 
workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis27. 

Due to the high youth unemployment rates in many parts of the EU, a derogation clause 
was introduced under the EGF Regulation (Article 6(2)), allowing Member States with 
high  youth  unemployment  rates  to  include,  under  certain  circumstances,  the  same 
number of NEETs as workers made redundant in EGF applications28. 

The  EGF  co-finances  active  labour  market  policy  measures  organised  by  the  Member 
States  to  help  the  redundant  workers  re-position  themselves  on  the  labour  market  and 
find  new  jobs.  The  EGF  supplements  national  labour  market  measures  in  situations 
where  sudden  collective  redundancy  processes  —  due  to  their  large  scale  and  their 
impact  on  the  local  economy 29  —  put  the  public  employment  services  under 
extraordinary pressure. The EGF can provide a more personalised and targeted approach 
to the most vulnerable redundant workers. 

2.3.2.  Objectives of the intervention 
The EGF aims to contribute to smart, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and to 
promote  sustainable  employment  in  the  EU.  It  aims  to  express  solidarity  with  and 
provide support to workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity 
ceased due to globalisation or the global financial and economic crisis (see above). 

The EGF’s objectives thus have two different dimensions: it has been designed to act as 
a solidarity as well as an emergency relief instrument. 

The solidarity aspect relates to the EU’s opportunity to express solidarity with workers 
made redundant by offering one-off support to enable their re-integration into the labour 
market. A particular focus is put on targeting the most vulnerable groups of dismissed 
workers. 

26 Initially, the EGF was temporarily enlarged to also support workers made redundant as a result of the 
economic and financial crisis. The crisis criterion applied to all applications received from 1 May 2009 to 
30  December  2011.  The  crisis  criterion  was  then  re-introduced  in  the  current  Regulation  for  the  2014-
2020 period. 
27 As addressed in Regulation (EC) No 546/2009.  Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 is  not  only  covering  the 
continuation of the global financial and economic crisis, but also possible future crises. 
28 This  derogation  is  permitted  provided  that  at  least  some  of  the  redundancies  within  the  meaning  of 
Article  3  occur  in  NUTS  2  level  regions  eligible  under  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative.  The  support 
may be rendered to NEETs under the age of 25, or where Member States so decide under the age of 30, in 
those NUTS 2 level regions eligible under the Youth Employment Initiative. 
29 In  accordance  with  the  subsidiarity  principle,  EU  support  can  only  be  mobilised  if  objectives  can  be 
better reached at EU level than at national level. In the case of the EGF this means that a mobilisation is 
possible for unexpected large-scale redundancies that have a significant impact on the local, regional or 
national economy. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
The emergency aspect relates to the intention of providing quick support in urgent cases 
to workers made redundant during unexpected mass redundancies. 

Main Objectives of the EGF: 

  demonstrate solidarity towards workers made redundant 

  offer  assistance  to  workers  made  redundant  to  re-integrate  into  the 
job  market,  finding  high  quality  employment  within  6  months  after 
the end of EGF assistance. 

2.3.3.  Delivery mechanism 
EGF  assistance  is  provided  through  projects  which  support  redundant  workers  -  the 
beneficiaries  of  EGF  funding.  However,  potential  beneficiaries  cannot  apply  directly. 
Only Member States can submit an application. A combination of several projects in an 
application  from  a  Member  State  is  known  as  a  case.  Cases  are  implemented  through 
coordinated  packages  of  active  labour  market  policy  measures  aimed  to  support  the 
dismissed  workers.  The  EGF  can  co-finance  a  range  of  services  for  the  redundant 
workers,  from personalised guidance and training courses to assistance in  setting up a 
business. These services help the workers to regain employment as quickly as possible 
by enabling them to update their knowledge and skills. Workers can also benefit from a 
range of other suitable means, e.g. mobility allowances. 

The  EGF  is  implemented  under  shared  management,  meaning  that  the Member  States 
are  responsible  for  implementing  the  assistance  granted  and  for  ensuring  national  or 
third-party co-financing. 

Due to its  role as an emergency relief instrument, it was decided that the EGF should 
stay outside the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF). This implies that for each 
EGF  application,  the  Commission  needs  to  propose  the  mobilising  of  the  EGF  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council, who then decide on its mobilisation. 

The timeline of an EGF case from start to finish is set out in Figure 1 below. 

10 

 
 
Source: own elaboration. 

The overall intervention logic of the EGF is summarised in Figure 2 on the following 
page. 

11 

 
 
 
Figure 2: Intervention Logic of the EGF 

Source:  based  on  ICF  International  Consulting  (2016),  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  —  Final  Report,  p. 6.

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.4.  Framework and key specificities of the intervention 
The EGF was established at the end of 2006 with the first EGF Regulation30 applying 
from January 2007. 

Initially,  in  the  2007-2013  funding  period,  the  EGF  was  operating  under  an  annual 
maximum  threshold  of  EUR  500  million,  and  was  targeting  large-scale  redundancy 
events  in  which  a  minimum  of  1 000  workers  were  made  redundant.  Case 
implementation  took  place  over  a  12-month  timeframe.  The  EGF  was  co-financing 
measures at a rate of 50 %. 

Based on the experiences made during the 2007-2013 funding period, several changes 
were  introduced  in  the  2014-2020  period  in  order  to  improve  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of EGF and to adapt it to the economic situation within the EU. 

The main new elements31 in the EGF Regulation for 2014-2020 are: 

1.  The  re-introduction  of  the  crisis  criterion  which,  in  addition  to  workers  made 
redundant  by  trade  related  globalisation,  also  allows  the  fund  to  support  workers 
made redundant because of the economic crisis. 

2.  The  possibility  to  include  new  categories  of  workers  such  as  fixed-term  and 

temporary workers, as well as self-employed persons. 

3.  The  inclusion  of  the  provision  of  support  to  NEETs  in  regions  of  high  youth 

unemployment under a derogation clause running until the end of 2017. 

4.  The  intervention  criteria  have  been  changed  to  allow  a  lower  threshold  of 
effected  redundancies.  Whereas  the  threshold  during  the  former  period  was  1 000 
redundancies effected, the threshold now is 500. 

5.  The time given to implement measures was extended from 12 to 24 months. 

6.  The  EGF  Regulation  now  imposes  time  limitations  on  the  Commission,  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  This  shortens  the  procedures  used  to 
mobilise funding, while also requiring Member States from the outset to present the 
Commission  with  applications  containing  all  the  relevant  information  for  an 
assessment. 

7.  The co-funding rate has been raised to 60 % (from 50 %32). 

Since  the  beginning  of  2014,  the  EGF  is  operating  with  a  considerably  lower 
maximum budget than that of the previous period. The overall ceiling for the 2014-
2020  period  is  EUR 1.05 billion  (which  equates  to  EUR 150 million  per  year  in 

30 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 
31 The  decision  on  these  changes  was  largely  based  on  the  EGF’s  mid-term  evaluation  for  the  period 
2007-2013. They were later re-confirmed by the EGF ex-post evaluation 2007-2013, the European Court 
of  Auditors’  special  report  No 7  (2013)  on  the  EGF,  and  the  European  Parliament’s  European 
Implementation Assessment of the EGF 2007-2014. 
32 Along with the crisis criterion, the co-funding rate was raised from 50 % up to 65 % from 1 May 2009 
to 30 December 2011. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2011  prices).  The 
funding  period  was 
EUR 500 million  per  year.  The  maximum  amount  ever  used  in  a  given  year  was 
EUR 132.1 million. 

threshold  during 

the  previous 

The below Figure 5 shows the evolution of the key specifics of the EGF since 2007: 

(2016),  European 
Source:  own  elaboration,  based  on  European  Parliament 
Implementation  Assessment:  The  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  between 
2007 and 2014; p. 10. 

3. 

METHOD/PROCESS FOLLOWED 

3.1.  Process/methodology 
The first preparations of the evaluation started in March 2015. The Commission decided 
to contract out an evaluation study to an external consultant on which the Commission 
could  draw  conclusions  and  develop  this  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD).  The 
evaluation study provided by the contractors covers the whole range of evaluation work, 
including  the  different  kind  of  stakeholder  consultations  according  to  a  predefined 

14 

Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 amended by Regulation (EC) No 546/2009.Regulation (EC) No1927/2006 amended byRegulation (EC) No546/2009.Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013(repealing Regulation1927/2006)Applicability period2007-20092009-20112012-20132014-2020Co-fundingrate (max.)50% co-funding rate65% co-funding rate until 31 December 201150% co-funding rate60% co-funding rateScopeglobalisation globalisation or financialand economic crises(crisis derogation).globalisation No crisis derogation.globalisation or financialand economic crises(broadened scope permanently reintroducing the crisis criterion)(further modifications include new categories of beneficiaries (NEETs,  as well as previously self-employed people)  and new measures (supporting beneficiaries to start their own business or support for employee take overs (max. €15000))Minimumredundancies1000+ redundancies over a period of 4 months in a Member Stateor9 months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises.If conditions not entirely met, intervention remains admissible when redundancies have serious impact on employment and the local economy.500+ redundancies over a period of 4 months in a Member Stateor9 months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises.If conditions not entirely met, intervention remains admissible when redundancies have serious impact on employment and the local economy.500+ redundancies over a period of 4 months in a Member Stateor9 months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises.If conditions not entirely met, intervention remains admissible when redundancies have serious impact on employment and the local economy.500+ workers being made redundant or self-employed persons' activity ceasing, over a period of 4 months, in an enterprise in a Member Stateor9 months, particularly in SMEs, all operating in the same economic sector.Projects in small labour markets or exceptional circumstances may be considered if conditions not entirely met, intervention remains admissible when redundancies have serious impact on employment and the local economy.Funding period12-month period24-month period24-month period24-month period 
 
 
stakeholder  consultation  strategy33.  The  external  evaluators  carried  out  the  evaluation 
research throughout 2016. The details on procedural information and the methodology 
used are set out in Annexes I and III, respectively. 

The most important research methods used were: 

  desk research 
 
  quantitative analyses (limited data availability). 

targeted as well as open stakeholder consultations 

3.2.  Limitations 
The legislator had set a deadline of 30 June 2017 to conduct the evaluation, also in order 
to  take  findings  into  consideration  regarding  a  possible  extension  of  the  derogation 
clause for the NEETs. This timing turned out to be a challenge as the implementation 
cycle  had  not  progressed  enough  in  time  to  produce  a  meaningful  base  of  cases  to 
conduct quantitative analyses especially considering the extended duration of 24 months 
to implement EGF cases. Thus, only a few final results were available34. 

Finding suitable comparators continued to be difficult as already identified in the 2007-
2013  ex-post  evaluation.  Also,  a  comparison  with  data  from  the  2007-2013  funding 
period  is  only  of  limited  usefulness,  due  to  the  several  changes  in  the  instrument’s 
design shown in figure 5 above, especially the extended duration of implementation of 
EGF cases35. 

Further limiting factors were the relatively small number of EGF applications received 
during the period covered by the evaluation (please also see Section 5 below), as well as 
a general lack of comparative data to conduct counterfactual analyses. In certain cases, 
monitoring systems in place were not able to produce the required case data on time. 

The  EGF  Regulation 36 and  the  corresponding  Commission  decisions  on  a  financial 
contribution  only  stipulate  basic  reporting  requirements,  such  as  overall  re-integration 
rates, and beneficiary statistics broken-down by gender and by age groups. 

The  available  data  therefore  is  very  limited  and  does  not  allow  further  statistical 
analyses  of  the  categories  of  beneficiaries,  or  a  further  break-down  of  beneficiaries  to 
the  type  of  dismissing  enterprise  (e.g.  the  principal  enterprise,  or  suppliers  or 
downstream producers; or especially in the case of sectoral applications also SMEs or 
self-employed).  This  problem  had  already  been  identified  by  the  European  Court  of 

33 Please see http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14431&langId=en. 
34 The first final reports of cases covered under this evaluation were received in August 2016 only. By the 
end of 2016, 9 final reports were received. However, case data could be taken into account to a varying 
degree, depending on data made available by national authorities in the course of the case research. 
35 It should be noted here that the ex-post evaluation 2007-2013 had also considered the identification of 
comparators  as  a  major  challenge.  See  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment 
Fund  (EGF)-  final  report  (2015),  p.  90ff.  In  general,  attributing  single  outcomes  to  specific  policy 
intervention is a common challenge in scientific evaluations. 
36 See Article 18 of the EGF Regulation 

15 

 
 
                                                            
Auditors (ECA) during the audit of the EGF 2007-201337 and in the course of the mid-
term and ex-post evaluations of the EGF 2007 - 201338. 

Due to the small number of cases – 29 cases in 21 different sectors, it was not possible 
to  conduct  sectoral  analyses.  Whenever  available,  possible  findings  by  the  Member 
State  concerned  are  set  out  in  replies  to  the  evaluation  questions.  Overview  tables  on 
case profile data sorted by country and by sector can be found in Annex IV39. 

Despite  all  efforts  by  the  external  contractor,  the  Commission  and  the  national  EGF 
Contact  Persons,  there  were  low  participation  rates  in  some  of  the  stakeholder 
consultations, especially the internet-based open public consultation (OPC), but also the 
beneficiary survey. The data therefore have to be taken with caution. In certain cases, it 
wasn’t  clear  whether  the  respondent’s  judgement  was  influenced  by  possible  previous 
experience  with  the  EGF  during  the  2007-2013  funding  period,  or  if  reflections  were 
fully based on the current funding period. 

More information is set out in Annex III. 

Despite these limitations, analyses based on a combination of methods ('triangulation') 
ensure the reliability of findings. Triangulation consisted primarily of the combinatory 
use  of  qualitative  data,  desk  research,  stakeholder  consultations  and  case  studies. 
Wherever further limitations persist, this is specified (in Annex I). 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS and ACTIVITIES) 

4. 
Since  the  EGF’s  inauguration,  the  number  of  applications  has  been  highly  cyclical, 
responding with an evident delay to economic developments40. 

Under  the  first  EGF  Regulation  2007-2013,  a  total  of  128  applications  were  received, 
out of which 15 were withdrawn and one was rejected. The successful applications were 
submitted  by  20  Member  States,  concerned  39  sectors  and  requested  some 
EUR 478  million to help more than 105 000 workers. 

The  second  EGF  Regulation  for  2014-2020  entered  into  effect  on  1 January 2014  and 
immediately  applied  to  all  new  submissions.  Applications  made  under  the  first 
Regulation continue to be implemented and wound up under the first Regulation. These 
cases are not subject to this evaluation, however. 

During  the  current  funding  period  2014-2020,  38  applications  have  been  submitted 
(state  of  play  31 December 2016)  out  of  which  3  were  later  withdrawn.  The  other  35 
applications met the funding criteria and therefore resulted in the EGF being mobilised. 

37 European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  (2013),  Special  Report  No  7:  Has  the  European  Globalisation 
Adjustment Fund delivered EU added value in reintegrating redundant workers?,p. 28. 
38 European Commission (2011), p. 52 and European Commission (2015), p. 121. 
39 According to Article 20 (3) of the EGF Regulation, evaluations ‘shall include the figures showing the 
number  of  applications  and  shall  cover  the  performance  of  the  EGF  by  country  and  by  sector,  so  as  to 
assess whether the EGF is reaching its targeted recipients’. 
40 Regarding the cyclical advent of job displacements, also see OECD (2013), Back to work: Re-
employment, earnings and skill use after job displacement, p. 13. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
Figure  3:  State  of  Play:  Number  of  applications  received  (without  withdrawn  and 
rejected applications) 2007-2016 (based on EGF Database) 

Crisis-related 
Trade-related 
Total 
% of total 

2007 
0 
8 
8 
5% 

2008 
0 
5 
5 
3% 

2009 
22 
5 
27 
18% 

2010 
23 
6 
29 
20% 

2011 
17 
5 
22 
15% 

2012 
0 
9 
9 
6% 

2013 
0 
12 
12 
8% 

2014 
11 
7 
18 
12% 

2015 
3 
8 
11 
7% 

2016 
1 
5 
6 
4% 

Total  
77 
70 
147 
100% 

Source: EGF Database 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  4:  State  of  play:  number  of  applications  received  and  funding  requested  by 
Member State (without withdrawn and rejected applications) 2007 - 2016 

EGF applications (without rejected and withdrawn applications) 
by Member State 
 up to 31 December 2016 

Member 
States which 
have applied 
for EGF 
funding 

Number of 
applications 

EGF 
contribution 
(€ million) 

Number of 
targeted 
beneficiaries 

Average amount 
requested per 
beneficiary 

AT 

BE 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

6 

12 

1 

9 

10 

1 

7 

21 

8 

8 

10 

13 

5 

1 

17 

5 

5 

2 

5 

1 

27.998.089 

34.600.057 

323.820 

1.952 

14.562 

460 

52.887.448 

14.517 

63.680.782 

1.131.358 

38.010.100 

47.779.871 

30.605.338 

89.760.859 

67.720.204 

60.537.811 

2.861.618 

681.207 

28.974.321 

2.575.712 

8.632.111 

6.513.830 

25.371.716 

2.247.940 

6.298 

800 

6.799 

14.468 

10.161 

17.586 

11.209 

12.786 

3.013 

675 

8.792 

1.806 

4.367 

2.416 

4.968 

2.554 

14.343,28 

2.376,05 

703,96 

3.643,14 

10.111,27 

1.414,20 

5.590,54 

3.302,45 

3.012,04 

5.104,11 

6.041,59 

4.734,70 

949,76 

1.009,20 

3.295,53 

1.426,20 

1.976,67 

2.696,12 

5.107,03 

880,16 

Total 

147 

592.894.192 

140.189 

4.229,25 

Source: EGF Database 

18 

 
 
During the period 2014-2015 covered by the evaluation study, a total of 30 applications 
were submitted, one of which had been withdrawn and later resubmitted (still during the 
timeframe  observed).  The  29  funded  cases  were  submitted  by  10  different  Member 
States  (6  by  Greece,  5  by  Belgium,  4  by  France,  3  by  Finland  and  Ireland,  2  by 
Germany,  Spain,  and  Italy,  1  by  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden).  The  cases  cover  21 
different sectors, with the automotive sector (4 cases) and retail sector (3 cases) being 
the sectors most often subject to EGF applications during the time period observed. 

Of  the  cases  studied,  15  were  submitted  under  the  trade-related  globalisation-criterion 
and 14 under the economic and financial crisis criterion. 

The total EGF contribution granted for the 29 cases was almost EUR 100 million (out of 
a  theoretical  ceiling  of  EUR  300  million  over  the  2014-2015  period),  targeting  about 
35 000 workers made redundant41. 

None  of  the  funded  cases  under  the  2014-2020  Regulation  have  been  subject  to  any 
infringement procedures. 

In order to promote the exchange of best practice models and discuss about latest EGF-
related  developments,  the  Commission  organises  biannual  EGF  Contact  Persons’ 
Meetings42,  and  biannual  EGF  Networking  Seminars  (aimed  at  EGF  implementers). 
Activities in 2017 take place in light of the EGF’s 10th anniversary. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5. 
The evaluation questions that guide the evaluation process are set out in the evaluation 
roadmap 43.  No  further  sub-questions  have  been  formulated  by  the  Commission,  nor 
have sub-questions been added by the external contractor44. 

5.1.  Effectiveness 
The effectiveness criterion analyses how successful the EGF has been in achieving its 
objectives. This is done in particular by analysing the extent to which EGF manages to 
ensure  sustainable  re-integration  of  redundant  workers,  what  case  specific  aims  have 
been  defined,  the  availability  of  monitoring  data,  the  factors  hindering  the  application 
for EGF assistance and its use. It also provides information on the use of the derogation 
for support to NEETs and the complementarity to national measures. 

Re-integration rates 

In  each  case,  the  main  aim  was  to  bring  workers  made  redundant  back  into  work  as 
quickly  as  possible.  In  13  out  of  29  cases  analysed,  the  implementation  period  had 
ended and data were available in time for the contractor’s report. The re-integration rate 

41 Please also see financial tables in Annex IV. 
42 Contact Persons’ are the Member States’ representatives responsible for managing the EGF 
43 Please see  
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_empl_022_mid-term_evaluation_egf_en.pdf. 
44 It  should  be  noted  that  the  set  of  questions  was  slightly  altered  for  the  terms  of  reference.  The 
contractor’s report follows the set of questions as set out in the terms of reference, whereas the present 
SWD follows the questions as set out in the roadmap. 

19 

 
 
                                                            
in  these  cases  averaged  56 %  (re-integration  rate  based  on  official  case  data45),  and 
varied between 23 % and 88 %46. This is higher than in the 2007 – 2013 programming 
period, and higher than the target of 50% as set in the impact assessment for the EGF 
2014 – 202047. However, this apparent improvement needs to be taken with caution as 
the implementation period for cases is currently twice as long as in the previous funding 
period. 

Figure 4: Case re-employment rates48  

Source: ICF(2016), p. 11. 

During  the  OPC 49,  about  25 %  of  participating  organisations 50 (20 %  of  individual 
respondents) did not consider the additional assistance offered by the EGF as necessary 

45 Member States report on the re-integration rate in the final report of a case, due six months after the end 
of the implementation period. 
46 ICF (2016), p. 10f. 
47 Commission Staff Working Paper – Impact Assessment SEC(2011) 1130 final, p.33. 
48 Caution: Data were not available for seven cases. Note: Re-employment figures refer to the share of re-
employed EGF beneficiaries. The following exceptions apply: 1) For IE Lufthansa Technik, IE Andersen, 
PWAI International, FR Mory Ducros, EL Attica Broadcasting and BE Ford Genk, the figures refer to the 
share of workers reemployed out of all dismissed workers. In these cases, the reemployment figures may 
also include dismissed workers who found new employment without EGF support. 2) All BE cases except 
Hainaut Namur Glass include pre-pensioners, who do not actively have to look for work. 
49 Regarding the representativeness of the results of the OPC, please see caveat in Section 4 above or in 
Annex III. 
50  Regarding  institutional  respondents,  out  of  34  organisations  that  participated,  9  were  national 
ministries, 5 were trade unions or other organisations representing workers at national level. Other types 

20 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
for  finding  sustainable  employment,  and  approximately  the  same  proportion  was 
indifferent (about 29 % of institutional and 21 % of individual respondents). However, 
the  remaining  respondents  showed  positive  or  strong  views  in  favour  of  the  EGF 
assistance (45 % of institutional and almost 60 % of individual respondents)51. 

Regarding  the  sustainability  of  the  new  employment  found,  two  thirds  of  the  55 %  of 
participants  in  the  beneficiary  survey52 that  had  found  employment  reported  they  had 
found  a  permanent  position.  One  third  of  the  respondents  had  found  a  non-permanent 
position.  Most  of  the  respondents  to  this  beneficiary  online  consultation  were  higher-
educated ICT professionals, mostly from Finnish EGF cases covering the ICT sector. A 
higher  response  rate  among  more  vulnerable  beneficiary  groups  would  probably  have 
delivered different results.53 

Data  on sectoral employment outcomes  were  available in 19 cases.  In 8 cases,  people 
moved away from the sector in which they had been made redundant. It is worth noting 
that 7 out of these 8 cases had been submitted under the globalisation criterion. Of the 
11  other  cases,  in  which  people  found  employment  in  the  same  sector,  7  had  been 
submitted  under  the  crisis  criterion54.  This  underlines  the  general  understanding  that 
jobs  lost  due  to  globalisation  are  jobs  that  have  become  obsolete  in  the  regions 
concerned, and that people need retraining. In the case of jobs lost due to the crisis there 
is a need to update and upgrade skills, as the dismissed workers may well be in demand 
again when the economy recovers. 

Comparing re-integration outcomes with suitable comparators proved to be challenging, 
as also confirmed by the majority of stakeholders interviewed. The external evaluators 
tried  to  define  comparators  based  on  previous  EGF  cases  in  the  country  concerned55, 
and/or  similar  national  measures.  Among  the  13  cases  where  comparators  could  be 
defined, in 7 of those, the EGF cases showed similar or higher re-integration rates than 
the comparators56. However, EGF cases are implemented under specific circumstances 
in  different  regions  and  target  different  types  of  workers.  In  the  2007-2013 
programming  period,  EGF  cases  furthermore  had  a  far  shorter  implementation  period, 
so  that  re-integration  rates  are  hard  to  compare.  Unlike  national  assistance,  the  EGF 
usually  targets  the  most  vulnerable  of  the  dismissed  workers,  which  also  complicates 
comparisons. 

of  organisation  were  regional  authorities,  employment  services,  academia  etc.  As  the  low  number  of 
participating  organisations  is  spread  over  a  wide  range  of  categories,  a  further  break-down  of  results 
would not make sense as the results would not be representative. 
51 ICF (2016), p. 15f and p.131. 
52 It should be noted that only 5 % of beneficiaries participated in the survey. 
53 ICF (2016), p.16 and p. 134.  
54 ICF (2016), p. 18. 
55 Regarding the problems of comparing implementation periods of different length, see above. 
56 ICF (2016), p. 19. 

21 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                              
Comparing re-employment rates does not make much sense if the levels of hardship on 
the supply (skills of the workers targeted) and demand side (economic situation) are not 
taken into consideration57. 

Regarding  EGF  cases,  it  seems  to  be  necessary  to  develop  case-specific  targets  and 
compare to what extent these targets have been reached. 

The lack of quantitative re-integration objectives set by the Member States has already 
been  criticized  by  the  ECA  in  an  audit  on  the  EGF  2007  –  2013.  The  ECA  also 
concluded that without such indicators, it would not be possible to accurately measure 
the effectiveness of an EGF case58.  

Other case-specific aims 

The  overall  aim  of  all  cases  observed  was  to  bring  workers  who  had  been  made 
redundant  back  to  or  closer  to  the  labour  market.  Some  more  specific  aims  such  as 
fostering  mobility,  boosting  confidence  or  up-  and  re-skilling  could  be  identified,  but 
they all have the ultimate objective of bringing people back into employment. Besides 
this, no other case-specific aims were identified. 

In general, there do not seem to be any misunderstandings about the ultimate goal being 
the  re-integration  of  dismissed  workers  into  employment.  Unfortunately,  this  goal  is 
never  really  specified  in  the  case  design,  and  no  quantifiable  outcome  targets  are 
defined.  Even  though  Member  States  need  to  report  on  the  employment  status  of 
beneficiaries, this is not connected to any specific targets. The specific character of each 
EGF  case  and  the  differing  economic  circumstances  during  which  implementation  is 
taking place make a universal target useless. Member States would need to define case-
specific  targets  which  would  need  to  be  adjusted  to  changes  in  the  economic 
environment. 

In  several  cases,  stakeholders  involved  in  delivering  EGF  measures  identified  a 
perceived  need  to  spend  all  of  the  EGF  funding  received.  This  perceived  need  stems 
from  pressure  by  the  media  or  by  organisations  representing  dismissed  workers. 
However,  the  stakeholders  confirmed  that  it  was  not  their  aim  to  spend  all  the  EGF 
funding  received.  Unfortunately,  the  external  evaluators  could  not  substantiate  these 
findings with numbers.59 

No further case specific aims were identified. During the application phase, applications 
are checked by the Commission to ensure that aims are in line with the EGF Regulation. 
Possible problems are addressed directly60. 

Data collection to ensure monitoring of results 

57 Comparisons of re-integration rates after job displacements across countries or even across regions 
within a country therefore need to be taken with caution. Please also see OECD (2013), Back to work: 
Re-employment, earnings and skill use after job displacement, p. 20ff.  
58 ECA (2013),p. 14ff. 
59 ICF (2016), p. 21f. 
60 ICF (2016), p. 21f. 

22 

 
 
                                                            
The  fact  that  many  cases  were  still  ongoing  hindered  the  analysis  of  the  monitoring 
systems  in  place,  as  Member  States  were  reluctant  to  offer  information  on  ongoing 
cases.  However,  the  general  analysis  of  the  systems  did  not  indicate  that  the  Member 
States might not be able to fulfil their monitoring requirements at case end. 

According to the EGF Regulation, Member States need to produce a final report at the 
case closure stage, 6 months after the end of the personalised measures, informing about 
the employment status of the beneficiaries. In the Commission Implementing Decisions 
awarding  a  financial  contribution,  the  Commission  also  requires  Member  States  to 
deliver data on the employment status of beneficiaries (broken down by gender and by 
category of worker) 1 year after the end of the measures. 

The general analysis of systems in place identifies two main categories: some countries 
(Belgium,  Germany,  Ireland,  Finland,  Sweden)  use  mainstream  monitoring 
procedures  of  the  regular  PES  or  other  public  authorities.  In  general,  these  systems 
deliver robust data, but could face difficulties when asked to produce EGF-specific data. 
Others (Greece, Spain, France, the Netherlands) use systems tailor-made for each case. 
This  is  often  outsourced  to  external  organisations.  However,  such  systems  are  very 
complex and prone to error if not designed properly. Whereas the systems used in the 
Netherlands  and  in  Spain  seem  to  provide  robust  information,  difficulties  were 
identified in France, where different systems are implemented by different organisations 
in each case. The external evaluators faced major problems in obtaining data in several 
of  those  cases.  This  experience  was  replicated  a  few  months  later,  when  the 
Commission  asked  the  French  authorities  for  similar  data  for  reporting  purposes,  but 
they were unable to provide them and asked for more time. In France, there are no plans 
to  streamline  the  systems.  Particular  challenges  have  also  been  identified  in  Greece, 
especially regarding the future follow-up of data a year after the case ends. More efforts 
to improve institutional capacity building seem to be necessary in Greece to ensure the 
timely delivery of robust data61. 

EGF case implementation – success factors 

The limited amount of available data meant it was not possible to conduct a multivariate 
analysis that would have led to robust results. 

Therefore,  a  thorough  qualitative  analysis  of  the  information  available  has  been 
performed  to  analyse  which  factors  help  or  hinder  EGF  cases  reach  their  objectives. 
This  analysis  was  primarily  based  on  the  case  reports  and  on  interviews  with  case 
stakeholders. 

One  of  the  most  important  success  factors  is  past  experience  in  EGF  implementation, 
because  it  means  those  concerned  could  build  on  existing  partnerships  and  delivery 
mechanisms. Integrating EGF measures into the regular measures offered by national or 
local authorities or by the dismissing enterprise could also help EGF cases achieve their 
objectives.  This  is  especially  true  when  adding  new  services  to  the  regular  support 
offered, or by intensifying the regular support offered. It is equally important to provide 
individualised  and  targeted  support  for  the  dismissed  workers  at  an  early  stage.  A 
further  key  factor  is  strong  cooperation  between  the  delivery  partners  and  social 

61 ICF (2016), p. 22ff. 

23 

 
 
                                                            
partners.  To  a  large  extent,  this  depends  on  the  solidity  of  delivery  structures  for 
employment  and  social  policies  and  on  the  overall  strength  of  social  dialogue  in  the 
country. 

The possibility of finding employment generally depends on supply as well as demand. 
Regarding the supply factors, it seems little surprising that higher-skilled people were 
identified as having fewer problems securing a new employment than the lower-skilled. 
Furthermore, older people faced greater challenges than younger ones. On the demand 
side, the evaluation confirms that it is easier to find employment in areas with generally 
high  demand  for  labour  and  with  lower  unemployment  rates  than  it  is  in  areas  with 
lower demand and high unemployment rates62. 

However, it needs to be borne in mind that difficult demand or supply situations cannot 
really  be  classified  as  factors  that  prevent  EGF  cases  from  reaching  their  objectives, 
even though they are classified as such in the contractor’s evaluation study. As the EGF 
aims specifically to target the most vulnerable groups of workers made redundant, and 
to  offer  this  help  especially  in  regions  that  have  been  hit  particularly  hard  by 
restructuring events, these situations rather seem to be pre-requisites for EGF assistance. 

The analysis also identified a few very case-specific factors. In one case, this relates to 
very limited public transport possibilities in a rural area affected. In two other cases, the 
reluctance  of  workers  to  take  up  employment  with  far  lower  pay  than  before  was  a 
factor.  In  one  of  these  two  cases,  this  occurred  in  combination  with  a  very  high 
additional unemployment benefit and severance pay package offered by the dismissing 
enterprise,  disincentivising  new  employment  until  the  end  of  the  additional  severance 
package63. 

Scope of the EGF 

The  scope  of  the  EGF  covers  both  applications  submitted  for  measures  targeting 
workers  made  redundant  due  to  globalisation,  and  measures  targeting  people  made 
redundant  due  to  the  ongoing  global  financial  and  economic  crisis.  The  applications 
submitted by the Member States were analysed and the national EGF Contact Persons 
were  interviewed  in  order  to  respond  to  this  question.  Of  the  29  cases covered  by the 
evaluation, 15 were submitted as a globalisation case and 14 as a crisis case. 

The analysis found that in several cases Member States would have been able to put a 
case  forward  under  either  of  the  criteria.  A  comparison  among  cases  revealed  that 
indeed many similar cases were submitted under different criteria. This shows that the 
system offers a certain level of flexibility so that Member States can choose the criterion 
which is easier to evidence. However, it also shows that a clear-cut distinction between 
the two criteria is not always possible64. 

Indeed, the EGF Regulation does not include definitions of the terms ‘globalisation’ or 
‘global financial and economic crisis’. 

62 ICF (2016), p. 28f.  
63 ICF (2016), p. 29ff.  
64 ICF (2016), p. 33f. 

24 

 
 
                                                            
Several authorities responsible for preparing an EGF application, as well as authorities 
feeding these applications with required information, indicated that putting together the 
documentation  required  to  submit  an  application  under  either  criterion  is  the  biggest 
challenge during the application process65. 

In  general,  the  current  scope  is  useful  in  a  sense  that  Member  States  are  able  to  put 
forward applications so that funding reaches the beneficiary groups targeted. However, 
clearer definitions are needed. 

Use of possible EGF assistance by Member States 

Overall,  not  all  the  funding  available  under  the  EGF  is  used.  During  the  time  period 
covered  by  the  Regulation,  i.e.  between  2014  and  the  autumn  of  201666,  a  total  of  29 
applications  were  approved  with  a  combined  EGF  contribution  of  EUR 98 521 851, 
compared to the EUR 150 million annual ceiling (in 2011 prices). 

Being an emergency relief instrument, full spending of the EGF is usually not a priority. 
An  emergency  relief  instrument  needs  a  comfortable  safety  margin  in  order  to  be 
prepared  for  worst  case  scenarios.  During  normal  times,  it  is  therefore  obviously 
expected to spend far less than the ceiling. As for all emergency relief instruments, it is 
not possible to accurately predict the amount of assistance needed in a given year. 

The  question  rather  is  whether  there  could  have  been  more  possible  cases,  and  if  so, 
why the Member States did not submit applications. However, it is extremely difficult 
to  find  suitable  data  to  come  to  conclusions.  The  most  comprehensive  source  of  data, 
Eurofound’s  European  Restructuring  Monitor  (ERM),  records  all  announcements  of 
redundancies  in  a  certain  year  based  on  a  screening  of  the  principal  media  sources  in 
each  of  the  Member  States  by  a  network  of  national  correspondents.  However,  the 
timeframe  of  the  announced  restructuring  events  is  not  always  indicated.  As  an 
example, if an enterprise announces that it will lower its workforce by 5 000 full-time 
equivalents (this could also mean 10 000 people on half-time) over the coming 6 years, 
this is recorded as 5 000 redundancies. However, in order to qualify for EGF support, at 
least 500 workers must have actually been made redundant during a period of 4 months 
(or  9  months  in  the  case  of  sectoral  applications).  Drawing  a  comparison  is  further 
complicated by the fact that derogations for EGF assistance could apply. Therefore, the 
ERM  could  serve  as  one  indicator,  but  more  comparative  data  are  needed  to  draw 
conclusions. A few Member States permanently scan the market for new possible EGF 
cases, but most do not. A far more in-depth study seems to be necessary to find out how 
many  redundancy  events  would  have  qualified  for  EGF  assistance  in  order  to  then 
investigate why no application had been filed. Such an in-depth study was not possible 
given the short time frame of the mid-term evaluation. 

However,  a  qualitative  analysis  of  interviews  with  stakeholders  was  conducted, 
especially with national EGF Contact Persons involved in filing EGF applications. 

65 ICF (2016), p. 34. . 
66 The  approval  of  cases  refers  to  the  applications  received  in  2014  and  2015  that  are  subject  to  the 
evaluation. 

25 

 
 
                                                            
One  of  the  main  challenges  for  not  applying  for  EGF  assistance  is  a  Member  State’s 
business  demography  in  relation  to  the  eligibility  criteria.  Unfortunately,  the 
contractor’s  study  does  not  reveal  to  which  extent  these  are  perceived  difficulties  or 
proven ones. However, differences in business demography certainly exist. An example 
is the lack of large factories in certain countries67. 

Another major reason identified is the timing of the redundancies. Many redundancies 
happen over a longer time frame, far longer than the 4 months (or 9 months in sectoral 
applications)  set  by  the  EGF  Regulation.  Often,  it  is  a  process  comprising  different 
waves of redundancies over a longer timeframe. 

Given that the EGF is an emergency relief instrument, it is also interesting to note that 
the  procedures  are  still  perceived  as  being  too  long.  However,  there  was  no  evidence 
that  this  hindered  Member  States  from  applying  for  EGF  assistance 68 .  Lengthy 
procedures had been identified as a hindering factor during an audit by the ECA on the 
EGF  2007-  2013,  however69.  This  means  that  the  time  limits  imposed  by  the  current 
Regulation 2014 – 2020 are effective, as the length of procedures does not seem to be a 
hindering  factor  anymore.  The  EGF  Regulation  now  imposes  time  limitations  on  the 
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. According to evaluations of the 
former  programming  period,  the  application  and  mobilisation  process  took  about  300 
days. Since the start of the new programming period, the average duration is only about 
200 days70. 

It  is  a  pre-requisite  for  any  EGF  case  that  the  Member  State  can  prove  that  the 
redundancies  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  local  or  regional  labour  market.  This 
allows the EGF to offer assistance in large-scale cases of urgency. The Regulation also 
offers derogations if not all the EGF criteria are met, provided the Member State is able 
to  show  that  the  redundancies  are  likely  to  have  a  significant  impact.  However,  the 
Regulation  does  not  further  define  what  constitutes  a  ‘significant  impact’.  A  clearer 
definition might encourage Member States to file an application even though not all the 
selection  criteria  are  met.  Thought  should  especially  be  given  to  a  definition  of  the 
impact in relative terms.  

Practical  issues  also  kept  Member  States  from  applying.  Many  Member  States  named 
capacity  problems  as  a  major  issue,  both  during  a  possible  application  as  well  in  the 
implementation  phase.  These  problems  relate  to  difficulties  in  collecting  the  data  and 
documentation necessary for providing the background analysis to be submitted as part 
of  the  application,  especially  for  sectoral  cases  that  involve  dismissals  in  several 
different companies, often in different locations. In some cases, the collaboration with 
the  dismissing  enterprise  proved  difficult,  to  the  extent  that  Member  States  did  not 
receive lists of workers made redundant. Based on the experience of the Commission in 
dealing  with  EGF  applications,  an  often-stated  capacity  problem  is  the  lack  of  pre-
financing  of  the  technical  assistance  (the  costs  for  preparing  and  managing  an  EGF 

67 However, these countries might be able to apply for a derogation if fewer than 500 workers are made 
redundant from an SME but the impact is significant. 
68 ICF (2016), p. 36f.  
69 ECA (2013), p. 13. 
70 See Ex-post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)- final report (2015), p. 
23. Data of current programming period based on own analysis of EGF database. 

26 

 
 
                                                            
case). Member States can include the costs occurred for preparing an application in the 
Technical Assistance budget, but run the risk of the case not getting approved. Member 
States therefore regularly propose to have a permanent basic technical assistance budget 
not tied to an actual application. 

During the time frame observed not a single application was filed by one of the newer 
Member States (EU-13)71. To a large extent, large-scale industrial restructuring occurred 
in the EU-13 prior to joining the EU.  Many of the EU-13 are on the receiving end of 
global  value  chains,  receiving  jobs  from  western  European  countries72.  Even  though 
there are many other possible lines of argumentation under the globalisation criterion73, 
it is clear that offshoring has had so far less adverse effects in the newer Member States 
(EU-13)  than  in  many  of  the  older  Member  States  (EU-15).  However,  determining  to 
what  extent  these  countries  have  been  hit  by  the  crisis,  or  to  what  extent  they  have 
experienced other adverse effects of globalisation, and how the influx of jobs from the 
EU-15 could cushion other job losses would require further research. 

Furthermore, these Member States have higher financial envelopes from the Structural 
Funds and are usually allowed higher co-financing rates in the ESF for less developed 
regions74. In case targeted beneficiaries could also join regular ESF measures, this was 
thus  more  favourable75.  In  an  audit  on  the  EGF  2007  –  2013,  the  ECA  had  identified 
higher  ESF  co-financing  rates,  coupled  with  a  faster  deployment  of  ESF  funds,  as  a 
factor discouraging EGF applications.76 

Use of assistance granted by Member States 

During  the  timeframe  of  the  evaluation  study,  only  six  cases  had  been  fully 
implemented and a final report submitted, including a statement certifying expenditure. 
Therefore,  very  little  data  were  available  to  give  a  qualified  analysis  of  the  extent  to 
which  the  assistance  granted  has  been  picked  up  and  why.  Even  though  a  qualitative 
analysis  was  performed,  the  information  collected  was  insufficient  to  identify  which 
factors  influence  the  actual  use  of  the  assistance  provided  by  the  Member  State.  The 
study  broke  down  the  planned  assistance  per  beneficiary  targeted  and  the  actual 
assistance  spent  per  beneficiary  targeted.  The  main  reason  for  spending  more  per 
beneficiary targeted was higher upskilling needs than anticipated. The main reason for 
spending  less  was  lower  upskilling  needs  than  anticipated.  Up-skilling  needs,  rather 
than  regional  or  local  specificities  appear  to  be  the  main  drivers  of  spending  per 
beneficiaries. 

71 It  should  be  noted  here  that  just  after  the  end  of  this  period,  Estonia  submitted  its  first  ever  EGF 
application. 
72 Please see Eurofound (2016), p. 23ff. Considering the 2003-2016 timeframe, 83.9 % of the offshoring 
events registered in the European Restructuring Monitor occurred in the EU-15, and only 16.1 % in the 
EU-13. Of the jobs offshored from the EU-15, 44.8 % were offshored to the EU-13. 
73 Under Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation, any major structural changes in world trade patterns caused 
by globalisation are eligible. 
74 ESF  co-financing  rates  vary  between  50 %  and  85 %  (95 %  in  exceptional  cases)  of  the  total  project 
costs depending on the relative wealth of the region. 
75 ICF (2016), p. 36f.  
76 ECA (2013), p. 13. 

27 

 
 
                                                            
However, this does not fully answer the question to what extent the assistance granted 
has  been  used  overall.  The  only  reason  identified  by  the  external  evaluators  was 
difficulties  in  identifying  and  selecting  beneficiaries,  usually  because  of  problems 
retrieving  data  from  the  dismissing  enterprises,  PES  or  other  national  authorities.  The 
external evaluators  also  found  that  it  is  a  challenge  for  the  applicant  Member  State  to 
accurately plan the number of targeted beneficiaries, because this number is influenced 
by  various  factors  that  prevent  beneficiaries  using  the  assistance  offered.  A  safety 
margin  may  have  been  included  in  initial  calculations,  but  during  implementation  the 
margin turns out to be unnecessarily high. The number of workers wishing to participate 
in the respective individual measures may also have been overestimated in the planning 
phase77. 

It should be noted here that since 2015, the Commission has allowed Member States to 
review  planned  budgets  during  the  application  process.  This  is  possible  until  the 
Commission  launches  the  procedures  to  propose  the  mobilisation  of  the  EGF  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council. This enables Member States to adjust the budget 
to developments identified since the initial design of the application. 

Use of the offered assistance by targeted beneficiaries 

Case  research,  including  beneficiary  surveys,  identified  several  reasons  that  hinder  a 
targeted beneficiary’s use of the assistance offered. These include: 

  unexpected changes in the economic environment (for example, in one German 
case,  the  closed-down  factory  was  unexpectedly  bought  by  another  enterprise, 
and  many  of  the  workers  made  redundant  found  new  employment  in  the  very 
same factory); 

  a  long  time  period  elapsing  between  the  redundancies  and  the  start  of 
implementation  of  EGF  measures  (so  that  beneficiaries  had  already  found 
employment  —  which  also  implies,  however,  that  EGF  assistance  might  not 
have been needed); 

  poor public transportation possibilities to the measure; 
  a  lack  of  knowledge  that  measures  actually  exist  (implying  that  the  national 
authorities were not able to identify possible beneficiaries, and/or did not put in 
enough effort into guidance measures); and 
the  measures  not  being  regarded  as  useful  (implying  that  the  package  of 
measures was designed without closely involving the beneficiaries). 

 

The  main  factors  influencing  beneficiary  participation  in  measures  have  thus  been 
identified as: 

 
 

finding a job sooner than expected; 
the  early  development  and  implementation  of  general  information  and 
personalised guidance measures; 

  starting the package of personalised measures early on; 
  mechanisms  for regularly  adjusting the guidance and the measures provided to 

current developments; and  

77 ICF (2016), p. 37ff. 

28 

 
 
                                                            
  having  the  right  incentives  to  participate  in  measures  (in  certain  cases,  high 
redundancy and severance packages were identified by stakeholders, particularly 
implementers, as a disincentive). 

Overall,  the  majority  of  participants  in  the  beneficiary  survey  were  satisfied  with  the 
measures  offered.  However,  a  still  significant  share  of  32 %  reported  a  slight  or 
significant mismatch between measures offered and what was perceived as needed.  

Satisfaction rates varied greatly from case to case, ranging from 100 % satisfaction, to 
33 % stating the support did not match their needs at all. The overall dissatisfaction rate 
is biased by the very high participation rate of beneficiaries from a Finnish IT-case in 
the beneficiary survey. Many of these highly-educated IT professionals reported that the 
measures they had participated in were not as cutting-edge as they had expected. 

In another Finnish case assisting former shipyard workers, the dissatisfaction rate was 
also  high  because  the  Finnish  authorities  saw  a  need  to  retrain  workers  to  find 
employment  in  new  sectors,  whereas  the  majority  of  workers  did  not  want  to  change 
careers due to their advanced age, and therefore did not regard the measures offered as 
useful 78 .  It  leaves  room  for  speculation  whether  the  need  to  retrain  had  been 
communicated  effectively,  as  retraining  seems  to  have  been  perceived  as  paternalistic 
by the beneficiaries.  

Dissatisfaction rates are very case-specific, and also vary widely within countries. Most 
of  the  reported  dissatisfaction stems  from  the  fact  that  measures  offered  turned  out  of 
not  being  of  the  expected  quality.  However,  in  a  few  instances,  a  mismatch  between 
measures offered and the needs of the beneficiaries hindered beneficiaries to participate. 

Little  information  is  available  on  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  beneficiaries 
targeted.  The  monitoring  data  provided  only  allow  a  breakdown  according  to  gender 
and  age,  but  not  to  further  characteristics  such  as  educational  or  professional 
backgrounds  or  the  type  of  employment  contract.  Out  of  a  total  of  27  000  workers 
targeted, about 20 000 were men. This phenomenon had been addressed in a Study for 
the FEMM Committee of the European Parliament79. It reflects the gender segregation 
of jobs, and the industries prone to larger restructuring events because of globalisation, 
especially  manufacturing  sector,  are  predominantly  male  industries.  However,  this  is 
case  dependent.  Cases  covering  the  retail  sector  commonly  deal  with  a  far  larger 
number of female workers made redundant then men. 

Concerning the age groups, out of 27 000 workers targeted, equally 20 000 of targeted 
beneficiaries fall in the age group 25-54. It would be useful if the age brackets would be 
not so wide, in order to get a better view on the age structure of beneficiaries. 

78 ICF (2016), p. 39ff and p.150. 
79 European Parliament (2016), Assessment of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund from a 
gender equality perspective, p. 13 and 34ff. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
NEETs-derogation clause 

There  are  19  Member  States  that  could  potentially  qualify  for  assistance  targeted 
towards  NEETs80.  However,  in  order  to  be  eligible  for  the  inclusion  of  NEETs  in  an 
EGF  case,  at  least  some  of  the  redundancies  must  have  happened  in  a  region  eligible 
under the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). The possibility to include NEETs in EGF 
assistance has been used by three Member States:  

  Belgium included NEETs in 2 out of 5 applications submitted;  
  Greece in 4 out of 6; and  
 

Ireland in all 3 applications assessed.  

Data were available in five of a total of nine cases, as the other cases were still  being 
implemented.  Out  of  the  five  cases  with  available  data,  three  had  reached  the  full 
number  of  NEETs  initially  planned,  whereas  the  other  two  cases  reached  66 %  and 
75 % respectively. In one case, the target was not reached because the target population 
was  dispersed  over  three  localities. In  the  other  case  there was  a  perceived  threat  that 
people  would  lose  other  social  benefits  if  they  participated,  which  required  further 
information sessions, etc.81 

Based on the Commission’s experience in dealing with EGF applications, Spain could 
have included NEETs in all applications, but preferred not to do so, as its co-financing 
rate under the YEI is far more favourable (at 93%) than the EGF co-financing rate. In 
one Belgian case, the respective region was not eligible under YEI. Italy applied for the 
inclusion of NEETs in one application, which had to be rejected as the respective region 
was not eligible under the YEI.  

This  means that eligible Member States showed a great interest to  use the derogation, 
with the exception of Spain. Further coordination and alignment between YEI and the 
EGF can better align incentives in this regard. 

Replacement of mandatory national measures by EGF assistance 

The  EGF  was  complementing  regular  measures  by  increasing  the  level  of  aid  and 
intensifying regular measures,  as confirmed by the stakeholder  consultations. In  many 
cases, EGF assistance lifted barriers to the participation in regular (or EGF) measures, 
as  EGF  could  offer  assistance  in  travel,  accommodation,  childcare  or  course  material 
facilities82. 

In order to provide proportional assistance and in line with the findings of an audit of 
the EGF 2007  – 201383, for the period 2014-2020 the co-financing of allowances was 
capped at 35% of the total package of personalised measures. Such allowances can only 
be co-financed if they are connected to the participation in EGF measures. 

80 These are Member States with regions where youth unemployment rates were above 25% in 2012. For 
the  EGF  Regulation,  it  is  the  2012  data  which  counts.  It  should  be  noted  here,  however,  that  in  some 
Member  States,  the  situation  has  improved  in  the  meantime:  based  on  2015  figures,  only  15  Member 
States fall into this category.  
81 ICF (2016), p. 43ff. 
82 ICF (2016), p. 45. 
83 ECA (2013), p. 28. 

30 

 
 
                                                            
Sustainability 

5.2. 
The  sustainability  criterion  analyses  the  long-term  impact  of  the  intervention.  This  is 
done in particular by analysing: 

 
 

the long-term effects generated 
learning processes as a consequence of interventions and mainstreaming of ideas 

Long-term effects generated 

A qualitative analysis of the cases under implementation was conducted which showed 
improved  general  employability  of  beneficiaries  due  to  up-  and  re-skilling  and  due  to 
higher  self-esteem,  which  is  likely  to  result  in  a  more  proactive  approach  to  job 
seeking84. 

It  would  have  been  interesting  to  analyse  re-integration  rates  12  months  after  case 
completion.  This  was  not  possible,  however,  as  none  of  the  cases  finished  in  time  to 
have data available 12 months after case completion. 

Learning effects and mainstreaming of ideas 

In  countries  with  extensive  experience  in  assistance  in  mass  redundancy  situations, 
regulatory  frameworks  and  general  implementation  mechanisms  are  in  place.  So,  the 
delivery  partners  test  new  and  innovative  services  that  are  not  covered  by  the  regular 
package  of  assistance  offered,  enabling  the  Member  State  to  incorporate  best  practice 
later on into the regular package offered. This is the case in Belgium, France, Finland, 
Germany and Sweden. 

In  Member  States  with  little  experience  in  delivering  assistance  in  mass  redundancy 
cases,  EGF  assistance  offers  the  greatest  potential  for  lessons  learned  on  the  general 
design of such assistance, offering the possibility to build up a regulatory framework or 
general  implementation  mechanisms.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in  Greece,  where 
major efforts still seem to be needed to build up institutional capacity85. 

Generally speaking, however, it is hard to isolate specific factors that lead to a change 
in  policy  design.  In  most  cases,  this  learning  takes  place  across  all  different  types  of 
delivery  mechanisms  and  funding  possibilities  involved,  so  EGF  assistance  is  one 
variable feeding into a decision-making process. In a few cases, it was possible to single 
out  how  EGF  directly  helped  in  mainstreaming  innovative  ideas  and  in  redesigning 
policy instruments. Two examples are set out below. 

In  a  case  in  the  Netherlands,  the  Dutch  authorities  found  that  highly  individualised 
face-to-face meetings with counsellors offered during EGF assistance proved far more 
effective  than  the  online  consultations  offered  during  regular  measures.  As  a 
consequence  of  beneficiaries  finding  new  employment  quicker,  the  money  saved  on 
unemployment  benefits  outweighed  by  far  the  additional  expenses  for  the  closer 
guidance, so this concept will be incorporated into regular packages as well. 

84 ICF (2016), p.47. 
85 ICF (2016), p.51ff. 

31 

 
 
                                                            
In  a case in Spain, the EGF package inspired the design of a new programme  for the 
long-term unemployed in the region of Aragón. Even though it will not be possible to 
offer the same intensiveness of services, the general philosophy of the new programme 
follows the philosophy of the EGF package, which proved to be of great benefit86. 

5.3.  Efficiency 
Efficiency  analyses  the  relationship  between  resources  used  and  changes  generated. 
This has been done in particular by analysing at case and instrument level the resources 
used to achieve the results as well as the decision-making process. 

Efficiency at case level 

The  stakeholder  consultations  reveal  the  amounts  available  for  the  measures  are 
considered  to  be  sufficient.  Trade  unions  were  an  exception  to  this  finding,  as  they 
perceived a need for far higher assistance to be made available. 

Data on the absorption rate of the Fund (the percentage of the spending of the assistance 
granted) and on the re-employment rate were available only in three cases. Comparing 
these  cases  did  not  reveal  any  correlation  between  the  level  of  absorption  and  the  re-
employment  rate.  Even  though  this  re-confirms  similar  findings  of  the  ex-post 
evaluation of the EGF 2007 – 201387, it is premature to call it a pattern during the 2014-
2020 period, however. 

On the implementation costs (i.e. spending on managing and monitoring the delivery of 
measures), evidence shows that many of the implementation costs are fixed, no matter 
how large a case is. The reporting of such expenditure as a percentage of the total of the 
overall  EGF  assistance  granted  is  therefore  frequently  regarded  as  not  giving  a  fair 
picture, as smaller cases that incur more or less the same costs as larger ones inevitably 
look ‘inefficient’ if the percentage of implementing costs is reported as part of the total. 

Almost 60 % of the respondents to the OPC that replied on behalf of their organisation 
believed  that  such  assistance  could  not  have  been  provided  with  fewer  overall 
resources88. 

The  duration  of  implementation  of  EGF  cases  was  extended  from  12  months  during 
2007  –  2013  to  24  months  during  the  current  programming  period.  Some  44 %  of 
respondents to the OPC that replied on behalf of their organisation were of the opinion 
that  EGF  assistance  could  not  have  been  delivered  in  a  shorter  timeframe.  However, 
considering the fact that most cases were still implementing at the time of research, it 
seems premature to draw conclusions. 

Due  to  the  lack  of  data  availability,  it  could  not  be  reliably  answered  if  the  costs 
incurred  were  justified.  Even  though  the  external  evaluators  tried  to  conduct  a 
qualitative assessment, the stakeholders interviewed did not feel competent to comment 
on this, as they did not feel well enough informed. 

86 ICF (2016), p.59ff. 
87 European Commission (2015), p. 83f. The rates of expenditure per beneficiary and the outcomes 
achieved were compared with previous EGF cases implemented in the same Member State. 
88 ICF (2016), p. 61ff. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
As a general rule, EGF assistance is more costly than regular measures. However, there 
are  indications  that  EGF  assistance  leads  to  higher  re-employment  rates.  An  educated 
judgement as to whether additional costs are justified or not would also require further 
studies  into  the  societal  costs  of  lower  re-employment  rates.  Ultimately  this  is  also  a 
question of political judgement89. 

Efficiency at instrument level 

The evaluation report does not answer the question whether the same results of overall 
EGF  support  could  have  been  achieved  with  fewer  resources90.  Possible  avenues  to 
investigate could have been alternative delivery methods such as: 

  delivering  measures  through  direct  management,  meaning  the  funds  granted 

 

would be managed by the Commission instead of the Member State; 
removing the documentation requirements on the analysis of the globalisation or 
crisis criteria; 

  allowing potential beneficiaries to apply directly to the Commission. 

However, investigating the optimal delivery method for such assistance would be a vast 
undertaking.  The  evaluation  question  asked  was  possibly  far  too  far-reaching 
considering the timeframe and the scope of a mid-term evaluation. 

Based  on  the  Commission’s  experience  in  dealing  with  EGF  applications,  the  most 
promising  avenue  to  increase  efficiency  relates  to  the  removal  of  the  documentation 
requirements  on  the  analysis  of  globalisation  or  crisis  criteria.  Member  States  could 
save  a  lot  of  resources  (time  and  money)  when  filing  an  application,  but  also  the 
Commission’s time to analyse an application would be cut short. This will also imply an 
enlargement of the scope of the Fund. 

Another possibility relates to the funding mechanism of the EGF. As the EGF is outside 
the  MFF,  a  full  budgetary  procedure,  involving  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council,  is  needed  in  order  to  mobilise  the  funds  for  EGF  assistance. If  the  EGF  was 
inside  the  MFF,  this  would  not  be  necessary,  and  the  funds  could  be  made  available 
within a much shorter period of time – at least 2 months91. 

Both solutions can be considered for the period post-2020. 

The current Regulation 2014  – 2020 imposes a time limit on the Commission and the 
Budgetary Authority. Applications are thus processed within 20 weeks. About 45 % of 
organisations consulted believe that procedures in place still take far too long. However, 
39 %  believe  that  there  are  no  other  more  cost-effective  instruments  available. 
Considering the emergency relief character of the fund, this result should be interpreted 
as a call for further shortening procedures. 

The  Commission  has  always  expressed  its  readiness  to  offer  assistance  and  guidance. 
Still  many  Member  States  feel  that  the  cooperation  with  the  Commission  could  have 

89 ICF (2016). p. 64. 
90 ICF (2016), p. 66f.  
91 It should be noted here that having the EGF inside the MFF would only mean a faster deployment if the 
remainder of the institutional set-up remained the same.  

33 

 
 
                                                            
been better during the application phase. In the absence of an implementing regulation, 
a  publication  of  the  ‘EGF  FAQs’  proved  useful  and  it  was  prepared  and  published  in 
May 201792. 

This shows that in terms of operational efficiency, further efforts are needed to shorten 
the  length  of  procedures.  This  could  be  done  by  either  minimising  requirements  to 
evidence  applications,  and/or  by  changes  to  the  inter-institutional  decision  making 
process on the mobilisation of EGF funding. 

5.4.  Coherence 
Coherence looks at how well different types of interventions work together. This is done 
in particular by analysing complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives at both 
instrument and case level as well as with national measures. 

Complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives 

The EGF complements the ESF in the area of employment policies. However, the ESF 
has been designed to offer a more long-term approach, which also makes it possible to 
anticipate structural change, in contrast to the short-term one-off support offered by the 
EGF. At case level, no displacements between the ESF funding and EGF funding have 
been  identified.  The  EGF  commonly  builds  on  existing  national  or  ESF  or  other 
measures by intensifying them or by offering different, additional measures93. There is 
scope to further increase complementarity between the ESF and the EGF, for instance 
by increasing the flexibility of deployment of the EGF, while maintaining the mid-and 
long-term focus of the ESF. 

An extensive study of the coherence of the European Structural and Investment Funds 
(ESIFs)  and  various  other  instruments  such  as  the  EGF  is  currently  ongoing94 and  is 
expected to be completed in the course of 2018. 

Complementarity with national measures 

At case level, the above also stands true when checking for overlaps between the EGF 
and other national measures offered. No significant overlaps could be detected, the EGF 
being complementary to the regular national measures offered. At case level, however, a 
more integrated approach consisting of a package of EGF and regular national measures 
could be observed95. 

The  evidence  suggests  that  an  integrated  approach  of  complementary  and  additional 
measures leads to synergy effects, but not to overlaps. As an example, EGF assistance 
in Belgium is now delivered in a regional scheme under a regional action plan, ensuring 
that  national  measures  and  EGF  assistance  are  provided  in  a  coordinated  approach, 
avoiding overlaps, but designed to produce synergies96. 

92 To avoid misunderstandings, it should be stressed that a guidance document can obviously not replace a 
legally binding act, thus the two are not interchangeable. 
93 ICF (2016), p. 72ff. 
94 Study on the coordination and harmonisation of ESI Funds and other EU policies (ongoing). 
95 ICF (2016), p. 75f. 
96 ICF (2016), p.76f. 

34 

 
 
                                                            
In general, the EGF could be better coordinated with the recommendations set out in the 
EU Quality Framework for anticipation of change and restructuring (QFR)97, which is 
the  EU  policy  instrument  setting  a  framework  of  best  practice  for  anticipating  and 
dealing  with  corporate  restructuring.  For  instance,  while  Structural  Funds  and  EGF 
interventions  are  consistent  with  the  principles  set  out  in  the  quality  framework,  this 
policy  instrument  is  not  referenced  in  guidance  to  Member  States  when  designing  or 
implementing measures. 

The  QFR  offers  a  comprehensive  framework  on  how  the  challenges  of  economic 
adjustment  and  restructuring  and  their  employment  and  social  impact  should  be 
addressed by adequate policy means. The QFR stresses that investment in human capital 
is  essential  to  support  productivity  and  ensure  a  job-rich  and  inclusive  growth  in  the 
future.  In  this  sense,  the  QFR  is  meant  to  prevent  human  capital  from  being  wasted 
through inactivity or underutilisation of people's employment potential. 

Increasing the complementary design of the EGF and the ESF can thus ensure that the 
social  impact  of  restructuring,  especially  the  adverse  effects  on  employment,  can  be 
cushioned more effectively. 

5.5.  Relevance 
Relevance analyses to what extent societal  needs are reflected in  the objectives  of the 
intervention. This is done in particular by analysing the scope, the NEET's derogation 
clause,  the  intervention  criteria  and  the  response  to  the  needs  of  the  targeted 
beneficiaries. 

Relevance of the NEETs derogation clause 

Youth unemployment remains a major challenge in many regions in the EU. 

During the timeframe observed, three Member States made use of the derogation clause 
to  include  NEETs  in  some  or  all  of  their  EGF  applications.  Out  of  the  2 944  NEETs 
targeted during the timeframe of the evaluation study, about 75 % related to Greek EGF 
applications. 

Some 56 % of institutional participants and 64 % of individual participants in the OPC 
did  regard  the  inclusion  of  NEETs  as  relevant  for  the  EGF  and  were  in  favour  of 
possibly  extending  the  derogation  clause.  Several  participants  not  in  favour  of  an 
extension supported their view by citing other instruments, such as the Youth Guarantee 
and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as being more relevant98. 

Due  to  the  persisting  problems  regarding  youth  unemployment,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the derogation clause remains relevant. The OPC results show that those not in favour 
of an extension of the NEETs derogation actually do not question the relevance of the 
clause as such, but the delivery mechanism of aid to the NEETs. It is often regarded as 
fostering  inequity  that  support  is  connected  to  restructuring  events  that  fall  under  the 
very limited scope of the EGF. NEETs face the same problems in regions shattered by 
mass restructuring events caused by automation or any other cause. Not helping young 

97 COM(2013)882 final. 
98 ICF (2016), p.77ff. 

35 

 
 
                                                            
people in other cases is often regarded as being unfair. Therefore, instruments such as 
the YEI seem to offer greater flexibility. 

The Commission has already put forward a proposal to extend the derogation clause for 
NEETs99. This proposal is motivated by the fact that youth unemployment remains an 
important challenge, and that first interim results of the EGF mid-term evaluation had 
shown that most Member States concerned made use of the NEETs derogation, and the 
help had been picked up to a high degree by the potential beneficiaries. 

Relevance of the scope of the EGF 

The scope of the EGF relates to the causes that trigger redundancy events. The EGF can 
only  be  mobilised  if  the  redundancies  have  been  caused  by  either  trade-related 
globalisation or the global financial and economic crisis. 

The relevance of the scope of the EGF was supported by 72 % of institutional and 77 % 
of individual respondents to the OPC while 25 % of institutional and 4 % of individual 
respondents  believed  it  was  not  appropriate  anymore.  Those  institutional  participants 
that substantiated their replies suggested that the crisis criterion was no longer relevant. 
However, the crisis criterion is still frequently used in applications. 

Some 33 % of institutional and 22 % of individual respondents felt the need to change 
the scope of the EGF, all of whom suggested that the fund should be inclusive and reach 
more workers made redundant100. 

As  for  the  crisis  criterion  itself,  however,  it  should  be  recalled  that  the  crisis  had 
different repercussions in different countries. Due to the interconnectedness of markets 
and  the  relevance  of  global  supply  chains,  companies  in  a  Member  State  where  the 
crisis  is  assessed  to  be  over  can  still  experience  repercussions  caused  by  a  crisis  still 
ongoing  in  another  country.  Furthermore,  even  in  times  of  economic  recovery, 
consumer  and  investor sentiments  can  still  be influenced  after the  crisis.  Furthermore, 
economic  crises  occur  in  cycles.  Therefore,  the  EGF  Regulation  extends  the  crisis 
criterion to any future global economic crisis.  

Globalisation  has  changed  dramatically  since  the  first  design  of  the  EGF.  In  the 
contemporary  world  of  global  value  chains,  offshoring  decisions  are  often  highly 
individualised,  the  dismissing  enterprise  being  the  only  one  knowing  why  such  a 
decision was taken101. The boundaries between internal reorganisation and globalisation 
seem to be getting more and more blurred.  Therefore, it may be useful to reconsider the 
need  to  link  assistance  in  the  case  of  mass  redundancy  events  to  globalisation  or 
economic crisis in the future.  

99  Proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  financial  rules 
applicable to the general budget of the Union and amending Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, Regulations 
(EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, EU No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1305/2013, (EU) 
No 1306/2013, (EU) No 1307/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) 
No 223/2014,(EU) No 283/2014, (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
Decision No 541/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.  
100 ICF (2016), p. 80ff and 140f. 
101 Baldwin (2016)), p. 142ff. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
As  the  EGF  was  designed  as  a  solidarity  instrument,  it  is  even  more  pertinent  to 
examine if the EGF is not actually fostering inequity by making a distinction between 
workers made redundant because of globalisation or the crisis (especially if these terms 
are not  clearly defined), and workers made  redundant  in mass  redundancy events of a 
similar magnitude, but caused by any other factors such as automation, etc. Seen from 
the perspective of a dismissed worker who does not receive assistance because his job 
has  ‘only’  been  replaced  by  a  robot,  it  seems  highly  unfair  not  to  support  him,  but  to 
support instead another dismissed worker who lost his job because it has been offshored 
to  Asia.  The  same  applies  for  a  job  lost  in  western  Europe  that  has  been  offshored  to 
eastern Europe: this is because offshoring within the EU would not qualify as a result of 
major structural changes in world trade patterns. 

As shown under the effectiveness criterion, the use of the fund by the EU-13 is still low. 
Besides other facts, this relates also to differences in the industrial structure. A widening 
of the scope to include other economic trends such as automation could make the fund 
more  relevant  for  the  needs  in  the  EU-13.  Indeed,  EU-13  countries  are  among  those 
most exposed to the risk of restructuring due to automation102. 

As a conclusion, it is clear that the elements of the scope of the EGF are still relevant. 
However, thought should be given to what extent the EGF could also respond to other 
societal needs, for example the trends in technological advance, by extending the scope 
to any large-scale restructuring event. 

Relevance of the intervention criteria of the EGF 

The intervention criteria relate to the number of redundancies that occurred in a single 
enterprise  or  an  economic  sector.  The  latter  is  particularly  aimed  at  allowing 
applications combining redundancies in SMEs operating in the same sector. Among the 
29 cases subject to the evaluation, 18 concerned redundancies in a single enterprise, 8 
were sectoral applications, and 3 used the derogation clause. 

The threshold had been lowered from 1 000 redundancies in the 2007 – 2013 period to 
500  in  the  2014  –  2020  period.  Among  the  29  cases  subject  to  the  evaluation,  20 
concerned restructuring events involving less than 1 000- redundancies. This means that 
the  lower  threshold  definitely  triggered  more  applications.  However,  it  should  be 
reiterated that full spending per se is not an aim of the Fund. Assistance is supposed to 
be granted to where it is needed. In the absence of objective indicators, the significant 
impact is a rather subjective decision. 

For  41 %  of  consulted  organisations,  the  threshold  was  not  appropriate,  with  the 
organisations favouring a lower threshold. Those substantiating their response suggested 
lowering the threshold in order to: 

  make the fund more attractive to smaller Member States; 
  allow Member States to take the whole country into consideration when filing a 

sectoral application; 

  extend the reference period to 12 months. 

102 OECD (2016), Policy Brief on the Future of Work. 

37 

 
 
                                                            
The OPC made suggestions to clearly define the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the 
derogation  clause  and  to  define  the  ‘significant  impact’  on  the  local  economy  that  is 
necessary to substantiate EGF applications should these criteria be kept in the future. 

However, it needs to be reiterated that in line with the subsidiarity principle, the EGF 
can only be accessed if the redundancies have such a significant impact that the national 
authorities would face difficulties dealing with the challenges. Therefore, more research 
and  clear  indicators  seem  to  be  necessary  to  define  what  is  considered  ‘significant 
impact’. With the current derogation clauses in place, it is already possible to apply for 
EGF  assistance  if  the  threshold  of  500  redundancies  cannot  be  reached,  as  long  as  a 
significant  impact  can  be  substantiated  by  the  Member  State.  It  seems  clear  that  the 
threshold  itself  does  not  serve  as  good  indicator  to  justify  a  significant  impact.  500 
redundancies in large and prosperous conurbations have a far smaller impact than 500 
redundancies in a remote region. Therefore, a lower threshold might trigger more help 
going to regions that might not actually need it. 

the  evaluation  work,  an  analysis  was  performed  of 

the  redundancy 
During 
announcements  recorded  in  the  European  Restructuring  Monitor  (ERM).  As  set  out 
above, the ERM cannot really be used as a tool to analyse the exact number of potential 
EGF cases. Given the numbers of the ERM as an indicator, there would be a potential 
for about 40 % more possible EGF cases if the threshold were lowered to 300 dismissed 
workers.  However,  the  total  number  of  workers  that  could  be  targeted  would  only 
increase by 10 %103.  

As  a  conclusion,  the  pure  threshold  does  not  seem  to  be  a  valuable  indicator  for  the 
significant  impact.  Even  though  the  derogation  clause  is  currently  in  place  for 
exceptional  circumstances  and  small  labour  markets,  Member  States  are  uncertain  on 
how to evidence the significant impact. 

Relevance of measures offered 

The beneficiary survey detected that the vast majority of respondents (75 %) confirmed 
that the measures offered matched their needs, whereas 16 % said that their needs had 
not been matched at all. Among those that claimed their needs had not been matched, 
younger  participants  below  45  years  of  age  were  particularly  well  represented. 
Furthermore, highly educated respondents with a Doctorate or Master’s degree felt that 
measures  did  not  meet  their  needs  more  often  than  people  with  lower  education 
attainment levels. Even though the EGF is often vaunted for its tailor-made assistance, 
the beneficiary study suggests possible room for improvement, as measures seem to best 
fit the needs of beneficiaries with average educational backgrounds, but not the ones at 
either  end  of  the  spectrum104.  An  example  is  the  aforementioned  case  of  Finnish  IT 
professionals,  who  felt  that  the  measures  were  not  cutting  edge  enough  and  thus  not 
matching their needs. However, these results do not come as a major surprise since one 
of the objectives of the EGF is to concentrate on the most vulnerable groups, especially 
older and lower skilled workers. 

103 ICF (2016), p. 82ff. 
104 ICF (2016), p. 84ff. 

38 

 
 
                                                            
EGF assistance is restricted to reactive measures that are offered once people have been 
made  redundant.  The  measures  offered  overall  match  the  needs  identified  and  are 
therefore relevant. However, the political question remains whether other societal needs, 
such as the anticipation of change, should be included as well. 

5.6.  EU added value 
EU added value analyses to what extent changes have been due to an EU intervention. 
This is done in particular by analysing the added benefits compared to a scenario with 
Member States' assistance only and the effect of discontinuation of EGF. 

A  methodology  was  used  that  categorises  EU  added  value  into  volume  effects,  scope 
effects, role effects and process effects. 

The  results  of  the  beneficiary  survey  highlight  how  the  beneficiaries  perceived  EU 
added value. Some 67 % of the respondents were of the opinion that the EGF represents 
an  added  value.  Some  few  factors  that  might  have  influenced  the  opinion  of  the  non-
satisfied  beneficiaries  are:  the personal situation of the beneficiary (i.e. employed/not-
employed); whether the measures were better adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries; 
and how many beneficiaries were aware that their measures had actually been funded by 
the EGF (only 45 % of the respondents knew that the measures they had participated in 
were co-financed by the EGF)105. 

How did the EGF add value to a scenario with Member States' assistance only 

The  evaluators  define  volume  effects  as  effects  that  show  in  which  way  the  EGF  has 
added volume to the national measures in place. The evaluators based their judgement 
primarily on the case research and on the consultations conducted. Some 92 % of those 
involved in the delivery of the EGF confirm that the EGF has added volume effects to 
the  delivery  of  services.  Four  ways  in  which  the  EGF  adds  to  volume  have  been 
identified:  

  Firstly, the EGF increases not only the overall number of services, but especially 
also  the  variety  of  services  offered.  When  the  impact  of  mass  redundancies  is 
significant,  national  authorities  would  have  at  best  struggled  to  offer  the  same 
number  of  services.  Furthermore,  the  EGF  adds  to  the  flexibility  of  services 
offered, e.g. as the starting date can more flexibly be arranged to the needs of the 
workers. 

  Secondly,  the  EGF  intensifies  the  regular  services  offered.  For  example,  in  a 
Spanish case, the case providers determined that the per capita amount available 
was almost five times higher with the EGF than with regular measures, enabling 
a far more personalised approach. 

  A  third  element,  observed  in  fewer  cases,  was  that  additional  EGF  measures 
actually raised awareness in the sense that other service providers stepped in to 
offer additional funding and to re-programme some funds initially earmarked for 
different purposes. 

  Fourthly, in several countries the duration of specialised services was extended 

compared to what was available at national level. 

105 ICF (2016), p. 87. 

39 

 
 
                                                            
All these factors stand true for services towards NEETs as well106. 

When new policy areas that would otherwise not have been covered by national policies 
are targeted or when specific groups of beneficiaries that would otherwise not have been 
helped are targeted, the arising effects are called scope effects. For the EGF, these were 
far  less  pronounced  and  fewer  in  numbers  than  volume  effects.  Specific  effects  have 
been  observed  in  two  cases  only.  In  one  Swedish  case, it was  possible  to  help  people 
that had temporary contracts, which would not have been the case in the regular national 
system  of  public  employment  measures.  In  a  Spanish  case,  the  EGF  enabled  service 
providers  to  reach  beneficiaries  in  remote  rural  areas,  due  to  a  tripartite  approach 
involving trade unions and employer organisations. The EGF did not affect any policy 
areas otherwise not covered107. 

Role effects relate to the extent to which innovative ideas could be tested, best practices 
identified  and  incorporated  into  the  regular  package  of  provision.  Even  though  most 
cases  were  still  being  implemented,  a  few  examples  could  already  be  identified.  One 
example  was  a  case  in  Italy,  where  an  EGF  case  served  as  a  role  model  for  the 
development of a new national approach in restructuring help. Another example comes 
from Spain, where the tripartite approach in one case served as a role model for regular 
measures offered by the national authorities. Even though only a few cases have been 
identified  so  far,  54 %  of  the  respondents  to  the  OPC  that  have  experience  in  the 
delivery  of  EGF  replied  that  EGF  experience  is  applied  elsewhere108.  However,  the 
consultants do not mention whether this has been substantiated further. It is likely that 
the  respondents  base  their  judgements  on  past  experience  with  cases  from  the  former 
programming period 2007-2013. 

Process  effects  relate  to  the  general  improvement  of  delivery  processes  thanks  to 
experiences  during  EGF  implementation.  No  direct  evidence  could  yet  be  found  on  a 
systematic  influence,  which  might  also  be  because  most  cases  were  still  being 
implemented  at  the  time  of  research.  However,  in  some  of  the  cases  observed,  EGF 
cases led to an improved cooperation mechanism between delivery partners, improving 
the  quality  of  coordination  in  restructuring  events.  This  was  especially  the  case  in 
Belgium,  where  several  cases  were  being  implemented  at  the  same  time,  with  the 
constant  exchange  between  case  coordinators  leading  to  improvements  in  the  case 
delivery mechanism. However, at the time of research, in Greece this was regarded as a 
missed  opportunity.  Even  though  several  cases  were  being  implemented,  and  little 
previous  experience  existed,  hardly  any  types  of  efforts  to  improve  coordination  in 
order to build up delivery mechanisms were observed. 

Besides  delivery  mechanisms,  experiences  of  EGF 
influence  general  national 
frameworks.  This  can  also  relate  to  social  partners,  as  an  example  involving  Belgian 
trade unions shows. The trade unions now take a far more proactive approach, having 
developed  systems  to  identify  vacant  positions  in  other  companies,  trying  to  help  the 
workers made redundant to find new employment. 51 % of respondents to the OPC that 

106 ICF (2016), 87ff. 
107 ICF (2016), p. 89ff. 
108 ICF (2016), p. 91f. 

40 

 
 
                                                            
are  experienced  in  EGF  delivery  are  of  the  opinion  that  EGF  generates  process 
effects109. 

Previous  evaluations110 have  shown  a  high  degree  of  visibility  of  the  EGF  assistance 
granted in cases where the assistance is concentrated in a confined territory. This is also 
due to the fact that many large-scale restructuring events attract high media attention per 
se. Those EGF cases dealing with a restructuring event in a single enterprise therefore 
attract  a  lot  of  attention  in  regional  or  national  media.  However,  as  opposed  to  the 
visibility in the general public, the current evaluation shows that Member States need to 
put more efforts in informing beneficiaries about the source of assistance granted. Only 
45%  of  respondents  in  the  beneficiary  survey  were  aware  of  EGF  co-funding  of  the 
measures they had participated in111. 

The  high  visibility  of  the  EGF  further  helps  to  stress  the  Fund’s  character  as  an 
instrument showing European solidarity.  

Consequences of discontinuing the EGF 

The  evaluators  conclude  that  regions  affected  by  mass  redundancy  events  that  could 
currently be helped by the EGF would experience greater economic shocks without the 
existence of the EGF112.  

It is obvious that none of the described volume, scope, role and process effects would 
occur in the absence of EGF funding. 

CONCLUSIONS 

6. 
The  Commission  carried  out  a  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EGF  to  assess  how  and  to 
what  extent  the  EGF  is  reaching  its  objectives.  The  effectiveness,  sustainability, 
efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added  value  of  the  results  achieved  were 
assessed. In addition to the conclusions from the evaluation study, additional reports and 
studies have been used to deepen the analysis and develop the directions for the future. 

The early timing of the EGF mid-term evaluation allowed for only limited information 
and experience from the current period. Furthermore, the improvement in the economy 
had  led  to  a  downturn  in  the  number  of  EGF  applications,  further  reducing  available 
evidence.  Despite  the  Commission’s  efforts  to  evaluate  as  broadly  as  possible  and 
consult as widely as possible, the results of the evaluation have to be taken with caution, 
due to the limited robustness of data available.  

On organisational learning, an important lesson learned during this exercise is that, for 
the  purposes  of  the  evaluation  of  the  results  achieved,  future  initiatives  should  be 
allowed  to  advance  far  enough  in  the  implementation  cycle  to  ensure  ample  evidence 
could be collected and analysed. 

109 ICF (2016), p. 92ff. 
110 Ex-post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)- final report (2015), p. 64. 
111 ICF (2016), p. 87. 
112 ICF (2016), p. 94f. 

41 

 
 
                                                            
On  the  effectiveness  of  the  EGF,  the  re-integration  rate  of  redundant  workers into  the 
job  market  improved  compared  to  the  previous  funding  period  (from  49 %  to  56 %). 
However,  evidence  suggests  that  the  re-integration  rates  are  very  case  specific,  for 
example  depending  on  the  specific  economic  situation  in  the  area  concerned.  It  is 
therefore  not  only  difficult  to  compare re-integration  rates  over  cases,  but  also  to  find 
suitable  other  comparators  of  similar  measures.  It  would  be  useful  if  Member  States 
could develop case specific targets. 

The mobilisation of assistance offered to workers made redundant can either be justified 
by  showing  that  redundancies  occurred  as  a  consequence  of  ‘globalisation’  or  the 
‘global  financial  and  economic  crisis’.  However,  neither  of  the  two  terms  has  been 
clearly  defined  in  the  EGF  Regulation.  In  general,  the  lack  of  definitions  can  be 
perceived as offering a certain flexibility, but also as leaving grey areas of uncertainty. 
Finding  the  right  evidence  to  justify  a  case  is  a  major  challenge  and  frequently  keeps 
Member States from applying. 

Even though smaller redundancy cases could be eligible under Article 4(2) of the EGF 
Regulation, Member States are not certain how to show that redundancies are likely to 
have  a  significant  impact  on  the  economy,  especially  on  employment  levels,  as  this 
impact is also not further defined by the Regulation. It seems to be of great importance 
to  define  the  significant  impact  more  clearly,  for  example  by  developing  specific 
indicators or a scorecard that would help analyse the social impact. 

Administrative  and  financial  capacity  problems  during  both  the  application  and 
implementation  phases  are  a  further  obstacle  for  Member  States  when  deciding  on  a 
possible application. 

Regarding the fact that the EGF is little used by the EU13, a decisive factor lies in the 
industry  structure  of  most  countries  concerned.  Many  of  these  countries  received  jobs 
from western Europe, but did not lose that many jobs in turn to non-EU countries. The 
phenomenon of jobs lost due to structural change caused by trade-related globalisation 
is thus far more prevalent in the EU-15. 

EGF measures are always offered on top of regular national measures and/or intensify 
them.  No  displacement  effects  were  observed  at  case  level.  The  help  offered  would 
otherwise  not  have  been  available.  This  is  a  clear  sign  of  the  complementarity  and 
additionality of EGF measures. 

The main factors influencing beneficiary participation in EGF measures are: 

  an early and intensive general information package; 
  an early start to personalised measures; 
  continuous mechanisms to adjust measures in response to current developments. 

EGF  assistance  also  helps  to  remove  barriers  of  participation  in  national  or  EGF 
measures, by offering additional services such as travel assistance or childcare facilities. 

Concerning  the  NEETs  derogation,  eligible  Member  States  showed  a  great  interest  in 
using it, with the exception of Spain. In total, the derogation was used in 9 cases in 3 
different Member States. Still, wherever it has been used, the help has been picked up to 
a very high degree by the young people targeted, a help they would otherwise not have 

42 

 
 
received.  In  a  few  cases,  the  evaluation  has  highlighted  certain  problems  in  ensuring 
timely delivery of monitoring data. Should this difficulty persist, the Commission would 
need to consider taking appropriate measures. 

The limited monitoring requirements set out under Article 18 of the EGF Regulation are 
an issue and an obstacle for making a more thorough analysis of EGF performance. 

On  the  sustainability  of  results,  since  the  implementation  cycle  was  not  advanced 
enough,  no  robust  data  is  available.  General  employability  improved  due  to  the 
upgrading  and  updating  of  skills.  At  an  individual  level  it  was  observed  that 
beneficiaries  developed  higher  self-esteem,  which  was  likely  to  result  in  a  more 
proactive approach in job seeking. The most significant effects observed are thus in the 
area of the development of human capital. 

At an institutional level, the use of EGF assistance fosters the development of a general 
delivery mechanism of restructuring assistance in Member States with little experience 
in dealing with mass redundancies. In Member States that can already build on a wealth 
of  experience  and  delivery  mechanisms  in  place,  the  EGF  serves  as  a  tool  to  test 
innovative  measures,  which  could  later  be  mainstreamed  in  employment  and  social 
policies. 

As  for  the  efficiency  of  the  assistance  mobilised,  the  length  of  procedures  during  the 
decision-making  process  has  been  criticised  despite  the  substantial  shortening  of  the 
timing  and  the  stricter  deadlines  for  Commission  and  Member  States.  In  half  of  the 
cases did Member States express a positive opinion on the guidance received from the 
European Commission during the application phase. 

More  efforts  are  needed  to  ensure  the  coherence  of  funding.  While  at  case  level,  no 
overlaps with other EU or national funding could be identified, there is scope to better 
align  the  EGF  and  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF).  The  EGF  was  designed  to  offer 
measures that complement other instruments such as the ESF. An integrated approach 
can at best be observed in the interplay of national funding and EGF. However, Member 
States currently do not design strategic human capital investment packages into which 
they  could  integrate  EGF  assistance  when  faced  with  major  restructuring  events.  In 
addition, the EGF could be better coordinated with the recommendations set out in the 
EU Quality Framework for anticipation of change and restructuring (QFR). 

As for the relevance of EGF funding, particularly those stakeholders with experience in 
the  delivery  of  EGF  measures  questioned  whether  the  EGF  was  the  right  channel  to 
deliver  assistance  to  NEETs.  To  a  far  smaller  but  still  significant  degree,  the  crisis 
criterion  was  regarded  as  not  relevant  anymore.  In  the  light  of  changes  in  how 
globalisation  works,  the  increasing  development  of  global  value  chains  become  more 
difficult  to  substantiate.  Considering  the  difficulties  in  evidencing  applications,  it  is 
clear  that  the  EGF  could  be  mobilised  far  quicker  if  no  or  less  documentation  was 
necessary (which would be the case if all major restructuring events were eligible). The 
EGF would then correspond better to its function as an emergency relief instrument.  

This  would  also  need  to  be  seen  in  the  light  that  the  scope  of  the  EGF  covers 
globalisation  and  crisis,  but  no  other  major  economic  developments.  Workers  made 
redundant  due  to  other  reasons,  for  example  automation,  face  very  similar  challenges, 
and  outnumber  those  made  redundant  because  of  globalisation.  If  the  scope  would  be 

43 

 
 
widened to cover any type of restructuring event causing a significant adverse impact, 
the  fund  would  be  fit  to  respond  to  any  developments,  and  the  argumentation 
requirements would not be necessary anymore. 

The evaluation found that the EGF generated EU added value. This is particularly true 
in  terms  of  its  volume  effects,  meaning  that  EGF  assistance  not  only  increases  the 
number and variety of services offered, but also their level of intensity.  

EGF  cases  connected  to  large  scale  restructuring  events  in  a  single  enterprise  have  a 
very high level of visibility. However, as opposed to the visibility in the general public, 
Member States need to put more efforts in informing beneficiaries on the source of the 
assistance received. 

6.1.  Possible improvements 
Evidence  shows  that  the  EGF  is  attaining  its  goals  to  contribute  to  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  priority  of  inclusive  growth.  This  is  achieved  by  showing  solidarity  with  and 
supporting workers made redundant as a consequence of globalisation and the financial 
and  economic  crisis.  There  is  common  understanding  and  substantiated  evidence  that 
this help is useful, and that it would otherwise not have been offered.  

However,  the  institutional  design  of  the  EGF  leaves  room  for  improvement.  Several 
challenges could be tackled for the future. 

On the scope  

Evidence shows that the design of the EGF would require revision or further definition, 
such  as  the exact  scope  of  the  EGF  and  the  criteria  that  trigger  its  use.  In  accordance 
with  the  subsidiarity  principle,  restructuring  events  must  have  a  significant  impact  on 
the economy in order to justify the mobilisation of EGF assistance. However, the notion 
of 'significant impact' is not clearly defined. Especially for smaller redundancies below 
the usual threshold of 500 workers made redundant, in rural areas, they could well be 
eligible under the derogation clause, but Member States are not sure of how to evidence 
the  impact.  It  seems  important  to  define  a  clear  indicator,  especially  as  the  business 
demography of many Member States is predominated by SMEs.  

The terms globalisation and crisis are not defined either,  and Member States are often 
ambiguous  under  which  criterion  they  should  submit  an  application,  as  they  might  be 
able to substantiate both criteria. Evidencing an application is regularly regarded as one 
of the main obstacles for a Member State to apply. In the light of these difficulties, and 
considering that far more jobs are lost e.g. because of technological change (redundant 
workers face the same challenges as those made redundant because of globalisation, as 
their skills become outdated or obsolete), a possible solution would be the widening of 
the  scope  to  all  large  scale  redundancy  events  that  cause  a  significant  impact  on  the 
regional  economy  and  labour  market.  This  would  remove  the  obstacle  of  having  to 
evidence an application (substantiating an analysis on why redundancies were triggered 
by  globalisation  or  the  financial  and  economic  crisis).  As  this  is  also  one  of  the  two 
most  time-consuming  steps  during  the  application  phase,  this  simplification  would 
speed  up  the  mobilisation  of  EGF  assistance  by  a  few  weeks.  This  would  also  offer 
more possibilities for EU 13 countries to apply for assistance. 

44 

 
 
Restricting  assistance  to  workers  made  redundant  due  to  globalisation  could  also  be 
regarded  as  fostering  inequity,  as  workers  made  redundant  because  of  technological 
advance or other reasons are left behind. Opening the scope would therefore also seem 
to be a fairer solution. 

On monitoring and reporting 

In  order  to  enable  a  better  analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  EGF,  Member  States 
should  be  required  to  collect  more  detailed  data,  especially  regarding  the  category  of 
workers  (professional  and  educational  background)  and  their  employment  status  (e.g. 
type of employment found). 

Capacity to apply and implement EGF cases   

The main reason that keeps Member States that would have had a potential EGF cases 
from  applying  are  financial  and  institutional  capacity  problems.  On  the  one  hand,  it 
could simply be a lack of manpower – Member States currently can ask for Technical 
Assistance  only  if  they  implement  an  EGF  case.  Since  redundancies  can  happen 
unexpectedly, it would be important that Member States are ready to react immediately 
and  can  submit  an  application  without  any  delays.  Furthermore,  in  certain  Member 
States, more profound institutional capacity building efforts seem necessary in order to 
ensure an efficient and effective implementation of EGF cases. Therefore, a permanent 
Technical  Assistance  budget  could  help  ensure  a  constant  capacity  building  in  the 
Member States. 

Supportive measures  

It seems necessary to embed EGF assistance more closely into the QFR and to design a 
better  co-ordinated  approach  of  both  preventive  measures  in  anticipation  of  major 
restructuring events, and one-off reactive measures as those currently co-financed by the 
EGF. This could mean a widening of the range of activity of the EGF, or a more closely 
co-ordinated  approach  together  with  other  EU  instruments  such  as  the  ESF.  Even 
though  the  instrumental  design  shows  a  clear  complementarity  of  the  funds,  Member 
States  could  better  embed  EGF  assistance  into  a  comprehensive  package  of 
restructuring  aid.  Labour  market  transitions  require  intensive  investments  in  human 
capital, both in the form of proactive anticipative measures and reactive measures. 

NEETs derogation clause 

Youth unemployment will still remain a major  challenge. Experience  shows that  EGF 
assistance, if offered to NEETs, is picked up by a very high degree. However, thoughts 
should  be  given  to  whether  the  EGF  is  the  right  avenue  to  offer  such  assistance  or  if 
other  channels  would  offer  better  chances  of  reaching  out  to  the  young  people 
concerned. It could be regarded as fostering inequity if help is only offered to NEETs in 
regions affected by a mass restructuring event caused by globalisation or crisis, but not 
to those in regions affected by i.e. automation. 

45 

 
 
 
 
6.2  Outlook 
In  its  Reflection  Paper  on  Harnessing  Globalisation,  the  Commission  identifies  the 
combination of trade related globalisation and technological change as the major drivers 
of  an  increased  demand  for  skilled  and  decreasing  demand  for  lower  skilled  labour. 
Despite the overall uncontested tremendous advantages of more open trade and a further 
integration  of  world  economies,  these  negative  side  effects  need  to  be  tackled.  As 
already  today  globalisation’s  benefits  are  unequally  distributed  among  people  and 
regions, causing a special impact on those adversely affected, there is a danger that the 
ever faster evolving technological advances will fuel these affects even further. In order 
to  prevent  a  further  widening  of  the  gaps,  Europe  will  need  to  help  the  workforce  to 
attain the required skills. With a specific view to the EGF, the Reflection Paper argues it 
should  be  considered  to  make  the  instrument  more  operational,  in  order  to  ensure  a 
faster deployment in case of a major restructuring event. In order to enable it to support 
a broader range of economic development actions than the current focus on the affected 
workers, more flexibility would be needed. The gap between short-term measures and 
longer-term conversion strategies supported by cohesion policy will need to be bridged. 

The  Commission  launched  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  which  takes  into 
account  the  changing  realities  of  the  world  of  work.  More  specifically,  the  Pillar  puts 
forward a principle related to activation and facilitating transitions on the labour market: 
”Everyone has the right to timely and tailor-made assistance to improve employment or 
self-employment  prospects.  This  includes  the  right  to  receive  support  for  job  search, 
training  and  re-qualification.  Everyone  has  the  right  to  transfer  social  protection  and 
training entitlements during professional transitions.” The EGF offers an important and 
visible  instrument  at  EU  level  to  put  this  principle  into  practice  in  the  case  of 
restructuring.  

The  mid-term  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  EGF  is  creating  EU  added-value  by 
offering  assistance  to  workers  made  redundant  in  major  restructuring  events.  The 
Commission  is  therefore  looking  forward  to  further  discuss  with  the  European 
Parliament and Council and all major stakeholders, the assistance currently delivered by 
the EGF. The EGF is regarded as an essential element in the overall package of human 
capital investment. The Commission is considering its further development in order to 
be ready for the challenges of the post-2020 period. 

46 

 
 
 
ANNEX I   Procedural information 

The  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  (BRG)  lay  down  the  framework  for 
evaluations. In line with the BRG, the following approach to the division of work and 
responsibilities was chosen: 

Role of the Commission departments 

By definition in the BRG, Commission departments are the owner of evaluations. The 
Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (DG  EMPL) 
took the lead in the evaluation exercise and included the evaluation in the Commission’s 
Agenda  Planning  System  (2015/EMPL/022).  DG  EMPL  drafted  the  evaluation 
roadmap,  the  stakeholder  consultation  strategy  and  the  terms  of  reference  (for  the 
contract  with  an  external  consultant),  and  presented  them  to  the  ISG  for  feedback 
discussions  and  approval.  DG  EMPL  also  served  as  the  main  contact  point  for  the 
external contractor and ensured the publication of all relevant evaluation documents. In 
the final phase of the evaluation, it is the responsibility of DG EMPL to: 

  draft this staff working document; 
  draft the report disseminating the evaluation findings to stakeholders; 
  conduct  follow-up  activities,  making  sure  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  are 

taken into consideration for future policy design. 

Role of the Interservice Steering Group (ISG) 

According to the BRG, an ISG involving representatives of all key stakeholders within 
the  Commission  departments  needs  to  be  established  to  steer  the  whole  evaluation 
process.  Besides  representatives  of  DG  EMPL,  seven  other  DGs 113  and  Eurofound 
participated. The ISG has been involved in all key steps of the evaluation, starting with 
the  design  and  publication  of  the  evaluation  roadmap,  the  stakeholder  consultation 
strategy, the design of the terms of reference for the external study conducted, and the 
discussion  and  approval  process  of  all  deliverables  of  the  contractor.  The  ISG  was 
called upon for discussion and approval of this staff working document, and will also be 
called upon for the report to be sent for information purposes to other EU institutions 
and to social partners. 

Role of the contractor 

The  contractor  was  tasked  with  providing  a  report  offering  answers  to  the  evaluation 
questions  in  the  form  of  findings,  conclusions  and  recommendations.  The  report  was 
also  to  be  accompanied  by  annexes  that  provide  information  on  the  individual  cases 
(case reports). 

The report draws on a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information and relies on a 
variety of sources of information to reach conclusions. 

To  be  able  to  come  to  a  conclusive  judgement,  the  contractor  was  also  tasked  with 
conducting  all  stakeholder  consultations  planned,  submitting  reports  on  each  one  of 

113 The seven other DGs are: BUDG, COMP, GROW, REGIO, SG, SJ, and TRADE. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                            
these activities and providing an overall synopsis report covering all consultation work 
done (see Annex II). 

This  meant  that  the  contractor  had  to  deliver  an  inception  report,  an  interim  report,  a 
final report, case study reports, consultation reports and the consultation synopsis report. 

The contractor chosen was ICF International Consulting, London. 

Role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) 

The Commission set up the RSB114 as an independent advisory body to provide quality 
control  and  support  functions  for  evaluation  work.  The  RSB  examines  and  issues 
opinions  and  recommendations  on  all  major  and  other  select  evaluations.  The  present 
mid-term evaluation was chosen for scrutiny by the RSB. (see below) 

Challenges and limitations 

As  set  out  in  Section  4,  the  timing  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  turned  out  to  be  a 
challenge as the implementation cycle had not progressed enough in time to produce a 
meaningful base of cases to conduct quantitative analyses.  Economic recovery resulted 
in a downturn in the number of applications, further reducing available evidence. 

For the evaluation process, the introduction of the BRG meant an unexpected and major 
extension of the scope of the evaluation, both in terms of the evaluation criteria to be 
assessed as well as the extent of stakeholder consultations. 

The delayed start and the extended scope therefore represented a tremendous challenge 
considering time and budget constraints. 

Despite  all  the  efforts  of  the  Commission,  the  Member  States  and  the  external 
consultants,  participation  rates  in  both  the  OPC  and  in  beneficiary  surveys  remained 
low. 

Obtaining robust data that could be used for counterfactual analyses was made even less 
likely  by  there  being  two  different  types  of  possible  EGF  applications,  namely:  (i)  to 
help workers made redundant in a single enterprise over a period of 4 months; and (ii) to 
help workers made redundant in different enterprises operating in the same sector and 
located  in  adjacent  regions  over  a period  of  9 months.  Only  in  a  very  few  cases  were 
such data available at national level. The doubling of the implementation period of EGF 
cases  makes  direct  comparisons  between  results  of  the  former  funding  period  and  the 
new funding period challenging. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  above,  limitations  on  data  availability  and  the  limited 
robustness  of  data  hindered  quantitative  analyses.  Some  of  the  results  of  the  analyses 
therefore have to be taken with caution. 

114 For further information, please see https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/regulatory-
scrutiny-board_en. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Timeline 

  March 2015:    

  19 May 2015:  
  12 June 2015:  

  23 July 2015:   
  21 August 2015: 

first preparations were started, but then put on hold until 
publication of BRG 
publication of BRG 
DG EMPL invited interested Commission departments to 
nominate members to the ISG 
appointment of ISG members 
first ISG consultation (by email) on 
the  draft  roadmap  and  the  draft  stakeholder  consultation 
strategy 

  10 September 2015:  political validation of initiative by the Director-General 

(DG  EMPL)  and  inclusion  in  the  Commission’s  Agenda 
Planning (2015/EMPL/022) 

  11 September 2015:  publication of stakeholder consultation strategy 
  21 September 2015:  publication of draft roadmap and start of 4-week feedback 

  23 October 2015: 

period 
first meeting of the ISG; final ISG approval of roadmap 
(end of four-week consultation period); discussion and 
approval of terms of reference 
start of tendering procedure (for external evaluation study) 

  30 October 2015: 
  22 December 2015:  award decision, external contractor chosen: ICF 

  21 January 2016: 
  25 February 2016: 

  2 March 2016: 

  31 March 2016: 

  18 May 2016:  

International Consulting, London 
kick-off meeting between DG EMPL and ICF Consulting 
ISG meeting and discussions of draft inception report 
presented by ICF 
stakeholder consultation event: EGF Networking 
Seminar, discussion of planned further consultations 
ISG meeting, discussion of results of seminar, further 
comments and approval of inception report and on 
questionnaire for OPC 
Start of 12-week internet-based OPC (later extended to 16 
weeks due to summer holidays and low response rate) 

  22 September 2016:  ISG meeting, discussion of OPC results and of draft 

interim report presented by ICF (submission was initially 
planned for June but then postponed by 2 months due to 
low participation rate in OPC) 
ISG consultation (by email) on revised interim report 

  3 November 2016: 
  15 November 2016:  ISG meeting, further discussions and approval of revised 

interim report, discussion of first draft final report 
ISG meeting, discussions on revised draft final report 

  9 December 2016: 
  16 December 2016:  ISG consultation (by email) on deliverables 
  22 December 2016:  approval of deliverables of contractor and of the Quality 

49 

 
 
  20 March 2017: 
  19 April 2017: 
  10 May 2017:  
  6 June 2017:   
  8 June 2017:   
  30 June 2017:  

Assessment of the evaluation report 
ISG meeting, discussions of first draft of SWD 
ISG consultation (by email) on revised draft SWD 
draft SWD submitted to RSB 
RSB meeting 
RSB opinion 
concluding ISG meeting 

Results of RSB consultation (RSB opinion) 

RSB – main considerations 

Comment DG EMPL  - explanation how consideration were 
incorporated in revised draft 

does 

The  mid-term  evaluation  does 
not make enough use of existing 
reports  and  evaluations  of  the 
EGF. 
The  report  does  not  evaluate 
the  changes  in  the  programme 
that were introduced in 2014. In 
not 
particular, 
it 
sufficiently  assess  whether 
it 
was useful to extend the fund to 
cover  young  people  that  are 
"not  in  education,  employment 
or training" (NEETs). 
The  mid-term  evaluation  does 
not  draw  clear  conclusions  or 
lessons from the evidence it has 
collected 
RSB- further considerations and 
adjustment requirements 
Scope and lessons learnt 
The  Staff  Working  Document 
(SWD) 
the 
purpose  and  general  context  of 
this evaluation. Since the results 
of this mid-term evaluation feed 
into  the  development  of  future 
programmes,  it  should  identify 
and cover all relevant aspects. 
Overall,  the  SWD  should  go 
summarising 
beyond 
conclusions  of 
the  external 
study,  using  a  wider  set  of  data 
and  relevant 
learned. 
While  acknowledging  changes 
over  time  in  the  fund,  it  should 
past 
take 
experience  with  the  EGF. 
It 
its  analysis, 
should  embed 
findings  and  conclusions 
in 
from 
available 
existing  reports  and  evaluations 

knowledge 

account 

lessons 

should 

clarify 

into 

Existing reports, evaluations and studies all refer to the EGF 2007 – 
2013. Wherever useful, the findings of the evaluations and studies of 
the former programming period have been taken into account. The 
report of the ECA audit is also used and some national reports. 
The  main  new  elements  are  set  out  in  chapter  2.3.4.  (p.12).  In 
chapter  5,  conclusions  on  whether these  changes  were useful  have 
been included to the extent possible (e.g. there are no available data 
on  the  number  of  previously  self-employed  beneficiaries  or 
beneficiaries  made  redundant  by  SMEs).  The  judgement  on  the 
NEETs  has  been  re-evaluated,  also  taking 
into  account  the 
experience of the Commission in dealing with EGF applications. 

To the extent possible, considering the evidence base from the mid-
term  evaluation  report  and  also  other  reports  and  studies,  clearer 
conclusions were drawn (both chapter 5 and 6). 

The  purpose  and  scope  of  the  evaluation  had  been  set-out  in  the 
evaluation's roadmap in 2015. They are presented in chapter 1 of the 
SWD  (in  line  with  the  roadmap).  28  evaluation  questions  had  been 
formulated  to  guide  the  evaluation  work,  comprising  all  relevant 
aspects to inform future policy design. 
Furthermore,  the  purpose  of  the  present  SWD  has  been  set  out  in 
chapter 1.3. 
The  external  study,  conducted  under  close  scrutiny  by  the 
evaluation's  ISG,  makes  use  of  all  data  available,  including  all 
stakeholder consultations conducted. The SWD always references to 
the stakeholder consultations (the consultation had been conducted 
by  the  external  contractor,  and  the  extensive  results  of  all 
consultations  are  to  be  found  in  the  annex  of  the  contractor's 
report).  Relevant  parts  not  covered  by  the  external  study,  in 
particular  an  analysis  of  relevant  economic  trends,  have  been 
conducted based on a variety of available research. 

In addition to the results of the study, wherever relevant, the revised 
SWD  also  takes  into  account  the  findings  of  reports  and  studies  on 
the previous programming period and audit reports, and includes the 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
of the EGF. These include a 2015 
ex-post  evaluation,  a  2013 
European  Court  of  Auditors 
Special Report and stakeholders' 
views. 

experience of the Commission in the management of the EGF. 

To the extent possible, clearer conclusions were drawn (both chapter 
5 and 6). 

The  main  new  elements  are  set  out  in  chapter  2.3.4.  (p.12).  In 
chapter  5,  conclusions  on  whether these  changes  were useful  have 
been included to the extent possible (e.g. there are no available data 
on  the  number  of  previously  self-employed  beneficiaries  or 
beneficiaries  made  redundant  by  SMEs).  The  judgement  on  the 
NEETs  has  been  re-evaluated,  also  taking 
into  account  the 
experience of the Commission in dealing with EGF applications. 

clear 

conclusions. 

changes 
to 

(e.g. 
criteria, 
rates, 

As regards the new elements of 
to 
the  EGF 
eligibility 
co-
financing 
intervention 
thresholds),  the  report  should 
better  assess  their  impacts  and 
draw 
In 
particular,  the  report  should 
programme 
assess 
extension  to  NEETs  and  draw 
implications  with 
to 
possible  reauthorisation  of  this 
derogation clause beyond 2017. 
This 
the  stated 
objectives of this evaluation. 

is  one  of 

regard 

the 

Included in chapter 3.2 and 5.1 as well as in the conclusions. 

The report should be clearer on 
which of the current monitoring 
arrangements  might 
need 
adjustment 
together  with 
relevant  recommendations  for 
the future. 

Analysis  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency 

of 
The 

The  SWD  should  more  clearly 
explain  the  reasons  for  limited 
take-up  of 
instrument 
the 
despite  several  adjustments  to 
framework.  What 
the 
are 
repeated 
for 
reasons 
underspending 
EGF 
appropriations? 
report 
should  also  address  why  the 
fund  is  still  used  only  by  some 
Member  States,  and  whether 
this  might  be  linked  to  "forum 
shopping"  between  this  fund 
and the European Social Fund. It 
should  further  assess  to  what 
extent EGF targets SME workers 
in  the  supply  chain,  and  what 
impact  has  been  of 
the 
self-employed, 
introducing  a 
temporary 
fixed-term 
workers 
the 
eligibility criteria. 

and 
category 

in 

report 

should 

The 
better 
analyse  possible  mismatches 
between  measures  offered  and 
the  needs  of  participants,  given 
that 32% of beneficiaries believe 

Extensive analysis is provided in chapter 5.1. 
No  data  are  available  on  the  extent  to  which  SME  workers  in  the 
supply  chain  are  targeted,  or  to  the  extent  to  which  newly 
introduced  categories  of  workers  could  benefit  from  EGF  support. 
The lack of monitoring data is set out above and indicated as an issue 
that needs to be addressed in the future. 

Analyses included in chapter 5.1 and 5.5.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
that such mismatches exist. The 
report  should  explore  whether 
such 
might 
mismatches 
discourage  EGF  participation.  It 
should elaborate on the reasons 
why  workers  choose  not  to 
participate  in  EGF  programmes, 
basing  conclusions  on  robust 
evidence, 
when 
considering factors such as high 
unemployment 
additional 
benefits  and  severance  pay 
packages. 

notably 

of 

for 

simplification 

lessons 
while 

The  SWD  should  better  assess 
the  potential  for  cost  reduction 
or 
the 
procedures 
This analysis  should provide the 
identifying  more 
basis 
concrete 
and 
conclusions, 
being 
transparent about shortcomings 
in the evidence-base. 
Relevance and EU added value 
The  report  should  reinforce  the 
justification for the added value 
of  action  at  EU  level.  To  this 
end,  the  SWD  should  include 
statistics  on  the  distribution  of 
the  funds  per  Member  State 
and per category of beneficiary. 
It  should  present  trends 
in 
regions 
Member  States  or 
the 
affected  and 
programme  with  the  national 
support schemes.  
should  examine 
The 
SWD 
is  fit  for 
whether  the  fund 
purpose in terms of assisting, at 
national  or 
level, 
workers  who  lost  jobs  either 
due  to  globalisation  or  to  the 
global  financial  and  economic 
crisis.  To  what  extent  does  the 
scope of the EGF reflect current 
trends 
in  globalisation  and 
technological development such 
as  automation?  How  does  the 
programme target redundancies 
that are linked to globalisation?  

compare 

regional 

This is assessed under the efficiency criterion in chapter 5.3 

The shortcomings in the evidence base have been made even clearer 
(chapter  3  and  annex  III),  more  concrete  lessons  learned  were 
formulated. 

The  statistics  on  the  EGF  2007-2017  per  Member  state  have  been 
added. 
Extensive  overview  tables  on  the  cases  covered  by  the  evaluation 
can be found in annex IV. However, monitoring data do not allow a 
further  breakdown  of  data  according  to  the  categories  of 
beneficiaries apart from age and gender. 
An  analysis  of  trends  in  Member  states  or  regions  affected  is  not 
available.  However,  an  overview  on  the 
impact  of  offshoring 
activities in western and eastern Europe is given in chapter 2.1. 

The  current  EGF  Regulation  does  not  cover  automation.  However, 
the challenges of automation have been set out in chapter 2, as an 
addition  to  the  extensive  description  of  recent  trends  regarding 
globalisation. 

The  SWD  as  a  whole  sets  out  how  the  EGF  targets  redundancies 
linked to globalisation. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II   Stakeholder consultations 
According  to  the  BRG,  part  or  all  of  the  consultation  work  can  be  conducted  by  the 
external  contractor.  After  approval  by  the  evaluation’s  ISG,  DG  EMPL  tasked  the 
contractor with conducting the consultations in close cooperation with the Commission 
departments,  and  with  producing  reports  on  each  consultation  activity  and  a  synopsis 
report  covering  all  consultation  activities.  All  questionnaires  used  during  the 
consultations  were  discussed  and  approved  by  the  ISG  beforehand.  Like  all  other 
deliverables,  the  reports  were  also  subject  to  scrutiny  and  approval  by  the  ISG.  The 
Commission  did  not  conduct  any  further  consultations.  The  report  provided  by  the 
external  contractor  therefore  presents  a  complete  picture  of  the  consultation  activities. 
The  evaluation  study  provided  by  the  contractor  also  draws  on  the  consultation 
activities.  However,  when  drafting  this  staff  working  document,  the  Commission  not 
only  used  the  contractor’s  report,  but  also  the  results  of  the  specific  consultations  in 
order to double check the validity of data. All reports on the specific consultations are 
annexed to the contractor’s report and contain the results of the activities, including all 
responses to the online questionnaires etc. 

The  report  below  was  provided  by  ICF  International  Consulting  as  Annex  VI  to  the 
contractor’s report. 

Consultation report 

An EGF consultation strategy was put together to guide the way in which consultation 
was undertaken in the mid-term evaluation. The strategy states that, ‘In order to ensure 
that  the  general  public  interest  of  the  Union  —  as  opposed  to  special  interests  of  a 
narrow range of stakeholder groups — is well reflected in the future design of the EGF, 
the Commission regards it as a duty to conduct stakeholder consultations, and wishes to 
consult as widely as possible115.’ 

This presented an opportunity for the evaluation to include open consultation, allowing 
a wider range of stakeholders to play a part in the evaluation and contribute their views. 
The evaluation was still also required to carry out targeted consultation, considering the 
views of those involved in the design, delivery and participation in 29 cases that were 
approved  in  2014  and  2015.  The  following  sections  describe  the  open  and  targeted 
consultation that took place in this evaluation. 

Open public consultation (OPC) 

Open  consultation  presented  a  good  opportunity  to  involve  a  wider  range  of 
stakeholders in the evaluation than had previously been possible in evaluations of EGF. 
To encourage as many relevant stakeholders to participate as possible, it was agreed that 

115 European Commission Stakeholder Consultation Strategy EGF mid-term evaluation. p.2. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en. 

53 

 
 
 
                                                            
consultation and piloting of the questions and consultation format should be undertaken. 
This was done through ISG discussion and using an EGF networking event to discuss 
the draft OPC questions. 

A networking seminar was held with stakeholders to develop the OPC 

EGF Networking Seminars are usually held semi-annually to provide a platform for the 
EGF Contact Persons and representatives from organisations that deliver EGF measures 
or similar support to unemployed people in Member States to meet and discuss issues of 
common interest. 

The  seminar  was  held  on  2 March 2016.  It  was  used  specifically  for  the  purposes  of 
providing  information  and  obtaining  input  to  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  EGF  and  to 
inform  the  content  and  work  plan  for  the  OPC  to  be  carried  out  as  part  of  this 
evaluation. 

The seminar provided an opportunity to discuss the OPC draft questions and work plan. 
A report of the EGF Networking Seminar is contained in Annex 3. Full details available 
here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=326&eventsId=1128&furtherEven
ts=yes 

The  result  of  the  exercise  was  an  improved  set  of  questions  for  the  OPC,  with  raised 
awareness of the process and role in the evaluation among attendees. 

Process of the open public consultation 

Consultation undertaken for the OPC 

The purpose of the OPC was to enable a wide range of stakeholders to provide opinion 
and evidence to inform the evaluation. As described in the preceding section, targeted 
consultation with those delivering EGF cases was undertaken, so that the OPC enabled a 
wider range of stakeholders to provide opinion and evidence to inform the evaluation. 
The OPC took the form of an online questionnaire placed on the Commission website. 
The questionnaire contained questions on each of the evaluation themes (effectiveness, 
sustainability, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added value of EGF). 

To develop the specific questions for the OPC an EGF Networking Seminar116 held on 
2 March 2016 was used specifically to obtain input from EGF national contact persons 
on a set of draft questions and on how to disseminate the OPC. 

The work plan for dissemination of the OPC followed the following process: firstly, an 
email  was  sent  out  to  target  organisations  by  the  Commission.  This  communication 

116 EGF Networking Seminars are held biannually to provide a platform for EGF national contact persons 
and representatives from organisations that deliver EGF measures or similar support to unemployed 
people in Member States to meet and discuss issues of common interest. 

54 

 
 
                                                            
explained the purpose of the OPC with a link to the online survey. For the 10 Member 
States  included  in  the  29  cases  that  were  part  of  this  evaluation,  ICF  promoted 
participation  in  the  OPC.  This  was  done  through  national  contact  persons,  by  asking 
them to promote the consultation on their networks. Typically this resulted in the details 
of the OPC being placed on websites. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  was  planned  for  a  12-week  period,  planned  to  run  from 
May to August 2016. The Commission monitored the responses received, and as a result 
of a low response rate it was decided that the OPC should  be extended by 1 month so 
that more responses could be submitted following the summer break. The OPC closed 
on 19 September 2016.  

The table below provides a breakdown of the responses received and Annex II provides 
a detailed report on the responses received through the OPC. 

Table  A6.1  Breakdown  of  OPC  responses  by  Member  State  and  nature  of 
organisation 

Member State 

Organisations 

Individuals  

Austria 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Malta 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

The entire EU 

Czech Republic 

Finland 

1 

10 

4 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

2 

54 

1 

1 

1 

2 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus 

France 

1 

1 

There  were  97  responses  to  the  OPC,  34  of  which  were  provided  on  behalf  of 
organisations, and 63 were submitted on behalf of individuals. Of those responding on 
behalf  of  their  organisation,  a  quarter  responded  on  behalf  of  their  national  ministry. 
Almost half of respondents indicated they had never been directly involved in the EGF. 
A similar number had  been  involved in  the EGF in  the last  12  months. Only few  had 
been involved in previous iterations of the EGF. 

Targeted Consultation: Case research 

Targeted  case  research  was  undertaken  to  assess  the  effectiveness,  sustainability, 
efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  added  value  in  29  cases  approved  in  2014  and 
2015.  This  process  started  with  discussion  with  Commission  officials  and  then 
proceeded by following a consistent approach for each of the case studies. These steps 
are described below. 

Interviews with EGF team case handlers 

ICF  case  researchers  met  with  the  Commission’s  EGF-team  staff  responsible  for  the 
case  studies  included  in  this  evaluation.  Interviews  with  the  case  handlers  were 
conducted in the last 2 weeks of April 2016. 

This comprised short meetings to discuss the following issues: 

the  background  to  the  case  —  when  it  was  first  brought  to  the  EGF  team’s  attention, 
whether it was the Member State that first suggested that the case be put forward; 

  whether there any particular issues in developing and processing the application 

— whether the Member State was able to provide necessary detail; 

  whether the scope of the EGF fund is well understood by the Member State in 
this  respect  —  or  was  assistance  required  to  develop  the  application  so  that  it 
came within the scope of the Regulation (No 1309/2013); 

  how the measures included in the application were developed and whether they 

involved any specific assistance from the EGF team; 

  whether  delivery  commenced  at  the  planned  time  and  whether  it  was  on 

schedule or behind schedule; 

 

if  there  currently  any  issues  in  the  delivery  of  the  case  and  if  so,  what  factors 
have helped/hindered delivery of the case; and 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
  whether  there  is  anything  to  be  learned  from  this  case  regarding  the  factors 
which help Member States to apply for EGF funding or prevent them from doing 
so. 

Case study research 

The table below provides an outline of each of the research tasks completed for the 29 
cases included in this evaluation. 

Table A6.2 Case study research activities 

Research task  timing 
Task  2.5:  Case 
study briefing 

 May  2016 
—  October 
2016 

Task  2.6:  EGF 
study 
case 
research 

 May  2016 
—  October 
2016 

Activities 
 Preparation  for  conducting  case  research  followed  an 
identical  process:  a  written  briefing  note  and  verbal 
discussion with case researchers. 
The  written  briefing  note  provided  policy  background,  aims 
and  objectives  for  the  evaluation,  a  briefing  on  the  OPC,  a 
description of key case researcher tasks and deadlines, topic 
guides for interviews and the case report template.   
A  face-to-face  or  skype  briefing  was  undertaken  to  ensure 
common  understanding  of  the  tasks  and  discuss  any  issues 
raised by case researchers. 
This  was  part  of  a  process  of  ongoing  communication 
between  the  project  manager  and  case  researchers,  started 
upon commencement of the contract.  
 Consists  of  a  range  of  research  tasks  to  complete  case 
research  (further  detail  on  the  interviews  and  beneficiary 
consultation is outlined below):   
- 
- 
- 
- 
-  consultations with beneficiaries 
-  consultations with national labour market experts 
-  case-level  review  of  national  level  documentation  and 

review of background documentation 
interviews with national EGF contact persons 
interviews with EGF case coordinators 
interviews with delivery partners 

Task  2.7:  Case 
Study reporting 

Beneficiary survey 

data 

For  each  of  29  EGF  cases,  a  separate  case  report  has  been 
produced. 
Case  reports  submitted  have  been  sent  to  national  contact 
persons.    

Understanding the extent to which outcomes achieved can be understood to be the result 
of EGF is also an issue in understanding the effectiveness of the measures provided to 
beneficiaries.  To  establish  the  causality  between  outcomes  observed  and  the  support 
provided  an  online  beneficiary  survey  was  conducted.  The  survey  achieved  a  5 % 
response rate with a total of 1 116 assisted workers submitting a response out of a total 
of 22 264. A table of responses by case is detailed below. 

57 

 
 
 
Table A6.3 Beneficiary survey returns 

Case 
reference  

Case name 

EGF/2014/011  BE Caterpillar 

EGF/2014/004 

ES  Comunidad  Valenciana 
metal 

EGF/2014/008  FI STX Rauma 

EGF/2015/001  FI Broadcom 

EGF/2015/005  FI Computer programming 

EGF/2014/005  FR GAD 

EGF/2014/012  BE ArcelorMittal 

EGF/2014/013  EL Odyssefs Fokas 

EGF/2015/003  BE Ford Genk 

EGF/2015/007  BE Hainaut-Namur Glass 

EGF/2015/012  BE Hainaut Machinery 

EGF/2014/014  DE Aleo Solar 

Number  of 
respondents  

49 

23 

102 

141 

400 

3 

47 

49 

187 

28 

79 

8 

Grand Total 

1 116 

Interviews with national EGF contact persons 

ICF case researchers contacted the relevant national EGF contact persons and arranged 
interviews  with  officials  responsible  for  the  EGF  cases  examined  in  this  mid-term 
evaluation. An important part of this interview process was to understand what data are 
held  on  beneficiary  outcomes  and  what  method  will  be  possible  for  beneficiary 
consultation. At least one case coordinator was consulted in all 29 of the EGF cases. 

Interviews with delivery partners 

In  addition,  partners  involved  in  the  implementation  of  EGF  funded  measures  have 
been/will be interviewed. These can be representatives from the trade unions, employer 
organisations,  local  or  regional  government  representatives,  PES  officials  and  others. 
The  list  of  such  partners  will  be  determined  through  contacts  with  the  national  EGF 

58 

 
 
 
contact  person  and  the  EGF  case  coordinator.  At  least  one  delivery  partner  was 
consulted in all 29 of the EGF cases. 

A full table of consultees included in the targeted consultation is provided below. 

Table A6.4 Types of stakeholders consulted during case research 

Case name 

Type of stakeholder 

Organisation 

BE ArcelorMittal  Case coordinators 

EGF case coordination unit at Le FOREM 

Arcelor  Mittal 
FOREM 

reconversion  unit  LE 

Delivery partners 

Wallonia CSC 

Wallonia FGTB 

University of Liege HEC 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

BE Caterpillar 

Case coordinators 

Caterpillar reconversion unit Le FOREM 

Walloon Le FOREM 

Delivery partners 

Wallonia CSC 

Wallonia FGTB  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

BE Ford Genk 

Case coordinators 

VDAB 

Delivery partners 

ESF Vlaanderen 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

BE 
Machinery 

Hainaut 

Case coordinators 

Caterpillar  and  Carwall  reconversion  unit 
Le Forem 

Doosan reconversion unit Le Forem 

Walloon Le FOREM 

Delivery partners 

Social councillor Doosan 

Wallonia CSC 

59 

 
 
Wallonia FGTB  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

Hainaut-

BE 
Namur Glass 

Case coordinators 

Saint  Gobain 
FOREM 

reconversion  unit  LE 

AGC Glass reconversion unit LE FOREM 

Walloon Le FOREM 

Delivery partners 

Wallonia CSC 

Wallonia FGTB 

University of Liege HEC 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

DE Adam Opel 

Case coordinators 

Organisations to be listed 

Delivery partners 

Organisations to be listed 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

DE Aleo Solar 

Case coordinators 

Organisations to be listed 

Delivery partners 

Organisations to be listed 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

EL 
Broadcasting 

Attica 

Case coordinators 

Case  coordination  unit,  University  of 
Athens 

Vice Rector at the University of Athens 

Ministry of Employment  

Delivery partners 

Job counsellor (the EGF case) 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

1 beneficiary 

Attica 

Case coordinators 

EEDE 

Ministry of Employment  

EL 
Publishing 

60 

 
 
Services 

Delivery partners 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

(beneficiary 
cancelled on the day) 

interviews 

planned 

but 

EL Nutriart 

Case coordinators 

INE-GSEE 

Ministry of Employment  

Delivery partners 

EEDE 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

Odyssefs 

Case coordinators 

EL 
Fokas 

Institute  of  Commerce  and  Services 
(INEMY-ESEE)  

Ministry of Employment  

Delivery partners 

Coordinating guidance counsellor 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

EL Sprider Stores  Case coordinators 

coordination,  Association 

Case 
of 
Industrial  Employers  of  Northern  Greece 
(SBBE) 

Analysis  unit,  Association  of  Industrial 
Employers of Northern Greece (SBBE) 

Ministry of Employment  

EL  Supermarket 
Larissa 

Delivery partners 

Guidance counsellor 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

3 beneficiaries 

Case coordinators 

No case coordinator appointed yet 

Ministry of Employment  

Delivery partners 

No partners appointed yet 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

No beneficiaries supported yet 

ES Aragon 

Case coordinators 

Aragón regional employment service  

EGF 

national 

contact 

point 

(2 

61 

 
 
 
interviewees) 

Delivery partners 

Aragón CCOO (Comisiones Obreras) trade 
union 

Aragón  UGT 
Trabajadores) trade union 

(Unión  General 

de 

Aragón CREA (Confederación regional de 
empresarios  de  Aragón) 
employers’ 
representative 

CEPYME 

(Confederación 
Aragón 
española  de  pequeñas  y  medianas 
empresas) 

Eurofound expert 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

ES  Comunidad 
Valenciana metal 

Case coordinators 

Valencian regional PES 

Delivery partners 

Valencia-CCOO 
trade union 

(Comisiones  Obreras) 

Valencia-UGT 
Trabajadores) trade union 

(Unión  General 

de 

FEMEVAL 
Metalúrgica Valenciana)  

(Federación 

Empresarial 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

FI Broadcom 

Case coordinators 

The Northern Ostrobothnia TE Centre 

Delivery partners 

Union of Professional Engineers in Finland 

The  Centre  for  Economic  Development, 
Transport  and  the  Environment  for  North 
Ostrobothnia 

Employment 

The 
Development Office for Uusimaa 

and 

Economic 

Employment 

The 
Development Office for Pirkanmaa 

and 

Economic 

62 

 
 
The  Centre  for  Economic  Development, 
for 
Transport  and 
Southwest Finland 

the  Environment 

The  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the 
Economy 

Academic  Engineers  and  Architects  in 
Finland  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

Computer 

FI 
programming 

Case coordinators 

The Northern Ostrobothnia TE Centre 

The  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the 
Economy 

Delivery partners 

Union of Professional Engineers in Finland 

The  Centre  for  Economic  Development, 
Transport  and  the  Environment  for  North 
Ostrobothnia 

Employment 

The 
Development Office for Uusimaa 

and 

Economic 

BusinessOulu 

Employment 

The 
Development Office for Pirkanmaa 

and 

Economic 

Employment 

The 
Economic 
Development Office for Southwest Finland 

and 

The  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the 
Economy 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

FI STX Rauma 

Case coordinators 

City of Rauma 

The  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the 
Economy (EGF coordination) 

Delivery partners 

Trade Union Pro 

The  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the 

63 

 
 
Economy 

Employment 

The 
Economic 
Development Office for Satakunta Region 

and 

TK-Eval (evaluators) 

Academic  Engineers  and  Architects  in 
Finland  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

FR GAD 

Case coordinators 

POLE EMPLOI  

Delivery partners 

FO delegate (Force Ouvrière, trade union) 

DIRECCTE 

ALTEDIA (main placement agency) 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

FR Mory-Ducros  Case coordinators 

Delivery partners 

DGEFP,  Mission  Fonds  National  de 
l’Emploi (2 interviewees) 

BPI  Group  (one  of  the  three  contractor 
selected  to  guide  and  assist  the  redundant 
workers) (2 interviewees) 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

FR MoryGlobal 

Case coordinators 

Case coordination unit 

Delivery partners 

DGEFP,  Mission  Fonds  National  de 
l’Emploi (3) 

BPI Group (2 interviewees) 

SFERIC solution (liquidator) 

Sodie  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

FR PSA 

Case coordinators 

PSA  

64 

 
 
Delivery partners 

Sodie 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

IE 
Ireland 

Andersen 

Case coordinators 

EGF Coordination Unit, SOLAS 

Delivery partners 

Department of Social Protection 

Limerick 
Training Board 

and  Clare  Education 

and 

SOLAS 

Optima Training 

Pitman Training 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

5 dismissed workers, 1 NEET 

Lufthansa 

IE 
Technik 

Case coordinators 

EGF Coordination Unit, SOLAS 

Delivery partners 

Department of Social Protection 

City  of  Dublin  Education  and  Training 
Board, SOLAS, CPM Coaching 

Aertrain, Airport Driving School 

iSmart  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

6 dismissed workers, 1 NEET 

IE 
International 

PWAI 

Case coordinators 

EGF Coordination Unit, SOLAS 

Delivery partners 

Department of Social Protection 

City  of  Dublin  Education  and  Training 
Board, SOLAS, CPM Coaching 

Aertrain, Airport Driving School 

iSmart  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

2 dismissed workers 

IT Alitalia 

Case coordinators 

Adecco (3 interviewees) 

65 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Ministero  del  Lavoro  e  delle  Politiche 
Sociali  

Delivery partners 

Regione Lazio — Regional Directorate for 
Labour  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

IT Whirlpool 

Case coordinators 

Con.Solida  

Delivery partners 

Department  of  Labour,  Economy  and 
Development of the Autonomous Province 
of Trento 

Trento University  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

4 beneficiaries 

NL  Gelderland 
and Overijssel 

Case coordinators 

Ministerie 
Werkgelegenheid  

van  Sociale  Zaken 

en 

Delivery partners 

Agentschap SZW (Labour Inspectorate) 

BMC consultancy 

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

- 

SE Volvo Trucks  Case coordinators 

Arbetsförmedlingen (5 interviewees) 

Ministry of Employment  

Delivery partners 

Umeå Kommun 

Antenn 

Startkraft 

University of Gothenburg  

Dismissed  workers 
NEETs 

/ 

6 beneficiaries 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
Lessons from the consultations undertaken 

From  the  consultations  undertaken  for  this  mid-term  evaluation  a  few  lessons  can  be 
identified for future evaluations. 

1. The OPC does not provide coverage of all Member States, nor does it cover all of the 
Member  States  that  are  included  in  the  29  cases  covered  in  this  evaluation,  despite 
significant effort to achieve this. This result demonstrates that it is difficult to achieve a 
high response rate. A general lack of awareness regarding specific details of EGF may 
have  resulted  in  some  potential  respondents  being  reluctant  to  take  part  in  the 
consultation. 

2. Beneficiary surveys were possible in most Member States. It is therefore encouraging 
that most Member States hold beneficiary email addresses. The more beneficiaries that 
are contactable by email, the richer the data for evaluation has the potential to be. 

3.  Most  Member  States  were  able  to  participate  in  the  evaluation  and  provide  contact 
details for delivery organisations. This was less straightforward in Member States that 
had used external organisations to organise delivery of EGF measures. Participation in 
the  evaluation  should  form  part  of  the  agreement  between  Member  States  and  such 
delivery organisations. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III  Methods 
The  Commission  hired  an  external  consultant  to  provide  an  evaluation  study  for  the 
whole  scope  of  the  evaluation.  This  staff  working  document  is  largely  based  on  the 
study provided. 

Every one of the cases covered by the evaluation study was subject to analysis on the 
basis  of  qualitative 
information  (document  analysis,  open  public  stakeholder 
consultations,  interview  with  stakeholders,  a  sample  of  individual  beneficiaries)  and 
available figures of gross achievements. 

In  the  initial  phase,  the  contractor  conducted  desk  research,  analysing  the  relevant 
regulations in place, previous evaluation reports, other studies on the EGF conducted by 
the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors, as well 
as economic and social analyses on the topic. 

the  desk  research, 

the  contractor  conducted  all  relevant  stakeholder 
Besides 
consultations  and  provided  a  report  on  each  consultation  as  well  as  a  consultation 
synopsis report. 

Depending on the stakeholder group identified, different tools and methods were used to 
conduct the consultation. 

In March 2016, as a first consultation activity, a networking seminar was organised by 
the  Commission,  to  which  relevant  stakeholders  were  invited  and  during  which  the 
planned stakeholder consultations were discussed. 

During the internet-based public open consultation, stakeholders were consulted on the 
evaluation criteria, using an online questionnaire. 

The  contractor  also  conducted  targeted  stakeholder  consultations.  These  consisted  not 
only of interviews with Commission representatives (EGF case handlers), the national 
EGF  contact  persons,  implementers  and  other  delivery  partners,  and  national  labour 
market experts, but also of targeted beneficiary consultations. 

The details of the consultation activities are set out above in Annex II. 

Besides  the  qualitative  data  sourced  from  the  consultations,  the  consultants  used 
quantitative labour market data extracted from Eurostat and quantitative data extracted 
from  Eurofound’s  European  Restructuring  Monitor  (ERM)  to  try  to  establish 
comparators117.  However,  considering  the  special  character  of  EGF  cases,  it  is  hardly 

117 Regarding the analyses of ERM data conducted, it should be noted that the case count and the job loss 
figures  indicated  relate  to  all  job  loss  restructuring  cases  in  the  ERM  database,  including  transnational 
cases.  This  relates  especially  to  the  data  on  p.84f  in  ICF  International  Consulting  (2016),  Mid-term 
evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund - Final Report. Offshoring can be regarded as 
a clear-cut reason for the mobilisation of the EGF. Even though the ERM lists ‘offshoring’ as a potential 
category of restructuring events, less than one in ten restructuring cases in the dataset is categorised as an 
offshoring case. The vast majority of ERM cases are categorised as either bankruptcy, closure or internal 

68 

 
 
                                                            
 
possible to identify truly robust comparators or even to conduct counterfactual analyses. 
For EGF cases, data from the Commission’s EGF case database as well as data provided 
by national authorities were used. 

As only a very few case results were available, the consultants were not able to perform 
the  planned  econometric  analyses.  The  sample  found  was  too  small  and  would  have 
rendered the results meaningless. 

Therefore,  the  reliability  of  the  results  presented  was  ensured  by  triangulation,  using 
various  methods  of  qualitative  research,  combined  with  a  very  limited  base  of 
quantitative analyses. 

More details are set out in Annex I to the contractor’s report. 

restructuring  events  without  further  examining  the  causes  of  the  events.  Companies  would  usually  not 
publish the exact reasons of their restructuring events. A detailed EGF-relevant comparison is therefore 
not possible. 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                              
ANNEX IV  Case profile data by country and by sector 

According to Article  20(3)  of the  EGF Regulation, evaluations ‘shall include the figures 
showing  the  number  of  applications  and  shall  cover  the  performance  of  the  EGF  by 
country  and  by  sector,  so  as  to  assess  whether  the  EGF  is  reaching  its  targeted 
recipients’. 

Due  to  the  small  number  of  cases  covered  by  the  Regulation,  in-depth  analyses  per 
Member State or per industrial sector were not possible. 

The most important general data on cases covered by the mid-term evaluation are given 
below, starting with an overview on cases supporting NEETs. 

For the completeness of the exercise and for information purposes, overview tables on 
cases  are  presented.  These  are  sorted  by  Member  State  and  subsequently  per  sector, 
(please  also  see  Annex  IV  to  the  contractor’s  report  for  a  descriptive  analysis  of  the 
tables). 

Cases covering NEETs 

The following table offers a comparison between the number of NEETs targeted by the 
respective cases offering support them, and the actual number of NEETs supported. 

Figure: Total number of NEETs assisted (planned versus actual), by case 

70 

 
 
 
 
EGF/201
4/011 

EGF/201
4/012 

EGF/201
5/003 

Case profiles by Member State 

 Cases by intervention criterion 

EGF 
case 
number  Case name 

Member 
State 

Sector 

Application 
date 

Interventio
n criteria 

Globalisatio
n / Crisis 

Caterpillar 

BE 

Machinery and 
equipment 

2014-07 

A 

Globalisation 

ArcelorMittal 

BE 

Basic metals 

2014-07 

Ford Genk 

BE 

Automotive 

2015-03 

EGF/201
5/007 

Hainaut-Namur 
Glass 

BE 

Manufacture of 
glass 

2015-08 

a 

a 

b 

Globalisation 

Globalisation 

Globalisation 

EGF/201
5/012 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

BE 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

2015-12 

b 

Globalisation 

EGF/201
4/014 

EGF/201
5/002 

EGF/201
4/001 

EGF/201
4/009 

EGF/201
4/013 

Aleo Solar 

DE 

Solar modules  2014-07 

Adam Opel 

DE 

Automotive 

2015-02 

Nutriart 

EL 

Bakery 
products 

2014-02 

Sprider Stores 

EL 

Retail trade 

2014-06 

Odyssefs Fokas  EL 

Retail trade 

2014-07 

EGF/201
4/015 

Attica Publishing 
Services 

EL 

EGF/201
4/018 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

EGF/201
5/011 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

EL 

EL 

Publishing 

2014-09 

Broadcasting  

2014-09 

Retail trade 

2015-11 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

b 

b 

a 

Globalisation 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Aragon 

ES 

Food and 
beverage 
service 
activities 

2014-02 

b 

Crisis 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

ES 

Metalworking 
industry 

2014-03 

b 

Crisis 

STX Rauma 

FI 

Shipbuilding 

2014-05 

Broadcom 

EGF/201
5/005 

Computer 
programming 

FI 

FI 

Wholesale 
trade 

2015-01 

Computer 
programming 

2015-06 

EGF/201
5/010 

MoryGlobal 

FR 

Road transport  2015-11 

a 

a 

b 

a 

Globalisation 

Globalisation 

Globalisation 

Crisis 

71 

EGF/201
4/003 

EGF/201
4/004 

EGF/201
4/008 

EGF/201
5/001 

 
 
 
 
EGF 
case 
number  Case name 

Member 
State 

Sector 

Application 
date 

Interventio
n criteria 

EGF/201
4/005 

EGF/201
4/006 

EGF/201
4/017 

GAD 

PSA 

FR 

FR 

Slaughterhouse  2014-04 

Automotive 

2014-04 

Mory-Ducros 

FR 

Road transport  2014-10 

EGF/201
4/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

EGF/201
4/016 

Lufthansa 
Technik  

EGF/201
5/006 

PWA 
International 

EGF/201
4/010 

EGF/201
5/004 

Whirlpool 

Alitalia 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IT 

IT 

Jewellery 

2014-05 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

Domestic 
appliances 

2014-09 

2015-06 

2014-06 

Air transport 

2015-03 

EGF/201
4/002 

Gelderland and 
Overijssel 

NL 

Construction of 
buildings 

2014-02 

EGF/201
5/009 

Volvo Trucks 

SE 

Automotive 

2015-09 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

a 

a 

a 

c 

c 

c 

a 

a 

b 

a 

Globalisatio
n / Crisis 

Crisis 

Globalisation 

Crisis 

Globalisation 

Globalisation 

Globalisation 

Crisis 

Globalisation 

Crisis 

Globalisation 

72 

 
 
 
 
BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

DE 

DE 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

ES 

ES 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IT 

IT 

NL 

SE 

Financial profile of cases 

MS 

Case name 

Caterpillar 

ArcelorMittal 

Ford Genk 

Total 
budget (€) 

National 
contribution 
(€)  

Requested 
EGF 
contribution 
(€) 

Average EGF 
amount 
/worker 
(€) 

2 038 090 

815 236 

1 222 854 

1 941 

2 652 478 

1 060 991 

1 591 486 

1 749 

10 447 608  4 179 043 

6 268 564 

1 393 

Hainaut-Namur Glass 

1 389 147 

555 659 

833 488 

1 638 

Hainaut Machinery 

1 825 907 

730 363 

1 095 544 

1 390 

Aleo Solar 

Adam Opel 

Nutriart 

Sprider Stores 

Odyssefs Fokas 

1 824 601 

729 840 

1 094 760 

2 300 

11 597 706  4 639 082 

6 958 623 

2 585 

10 160 000  4 064 000 

6 096 000 

6 018 

12 151 500  4 860 600 

7 290 900 

5 561 

10 740 000  4 296 000 

6 444 000 

5 858 

Attica Publishing Services 

6 244 500 

2 497 800 

3 746 700 

5 314 

Attica Broadcasting 

8 410 000 

3 364 000 

5 046 000 

5 438 

Supermarket Larissa 

10 780 000  4 312 000 

6 468 000 

5 880 

Aragon 

1 600 000 

640 000 

960 000 

3 429 

Comunidad Valenciana metal 

1 698 640 

679 456 

1 019 184 

3 397 

STX Rauma 

Broadcom 

2 378 000 

951 200 

1 426 800 

2 525 

2 275 000 

910 000 

1 365 000 

2 730 

Computer programming 

4 372 000 

1 748 800 

2 623 200 

2 186 

GAD 

PSA 

Mory-Ducros 

MoryGlobal 

1 530 000 

612 000 

918 000 

1 208 

21 174 342  8 469 737 

12 704 605 

5 390 

10 087 000  4 034 800 

6 052 200 

2 408 

8 578 000 

3 431 200 

5 146 800 

2 414 

Andersen Ireland 

2 502 000 

1 000 800 

1 501 200 

5 439 

Lufthansa Technik  

4 151 264 

1 660 506 

2 490 758 

5 535 

PWA International 

737 156 

294 863 

442 293 

2 047 

Whirlpool 

Alitalia 

3 150 000 

1 260 000 

1 890 000 

3 109 

2 358 080 

943 232 

1 414 848 

7 689 

Gelderland and Overijssel 

2 709 635 

1 083 854 

1 625 781 

3 423 

Volvo Trucks 

Total 

7 573 000 

3 029 200 

4 725 600 

9 450 

146 272 654  66 854 262 

100 463 188  109 444 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Breakdown of target population by gender 

Member 
State 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

DE 

DE 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

ES 

ES 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IT 

IT 

NL 

SE 

Case name 

Caterpillar 

ArcelorMittal 

Ford Genk 

Hainaut-Namur Glass 

Hainaut Machinery 

Aleo Solar 

Adam Opel 

Nutriart 

Sprider Stores 

Odyssefs Fokas 

Attica Publishing Services 

Attica Broadcasting 

Supermarket Larissa 

Aragon 

1 030 

1 285 

5 111 

409 

488 

657 

508 

761 

600 

705 

928 

557 

904 

Comunidad Valenciana metal  633 

STX Rauma 

Broadcom 

634 

568 

Computer programming 

1 603 

GAD 

PSA 

Mory-Ducros 

MoryGlobal 

Andersen Ireland 

Lufthansa Technik  

PWA International 

Whirlpool 

Alitalia 

Gelderland and Overijssel 

Volvo Trucks 

760 

6 120 

2 721 

2 132 

171 

424 

108 

608 

1 249 

562 

647 

Workers 
dismissed 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Workers 
targeted 

(total) 

607 

871 

23 

39 

630 

910 

3 956 

544 

4 500 

3 122 

2 583 

401 

460 

262 

337 

112 

65 

391 

521 

194 

97 

258 

496 

442 

660 

487 

1 896 

2 137 

1 740 

36 

220 

98  

422 

129 

440 

387 

8 

28 

214 

109 

171 

649 

535 

314 

407 

363 

183 

42 

69 

58 

540 

273 

461 

376 

392 

102 

30 

10  

186 

55 

35 

113 

409 

488 

476 

2 692 

508 

761 

600 

705 

928 

557 

280 

300 

565 

500 

1 200 

760 

2 357 

2 137 

2 513 

138 

250 

108 

608 

184 

475 

500 

Total 
Source: ICF analysis of EGF database 

36 005 

20 705 

6 329 

27 039 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cases by Member State — Breakdown of target population by age  

Age 15-
24 
targeted 

Age 25-
54 
targeted 

Age 55-
64 
targeted 

Age >64 

targeted 

Case name 

Caterpillar 

ArcelorMittal 

Ford Genk 

Hainaut-Namur Glass 

Hainaut Machinery 

Aleo Solar 

Adam Opel 

Nutriart 

Sprider Stores 

Odyssefs Fokas 

Attica Publishing Services 

Attica Broadcasting 

Supermarket Larissa 

Aragon 

7 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

6 % 

1 % 

2 % 

0 % 

5 % 

1 % 

2 % 

1 % 

0 % 

9 % 

Comunidad Valenciana metal 

3 % 

STX Rauma 

Broadcom 

Computer programming 

GAD 

PSA 

Mory-Ducros 

MoryGlobal 

Andersen Ireland 

Lufthansa Technik  

PWA International 

Whirlpool 

Alitalia 

Gelderland and Overijssel 

1 % 

0 % 

2 % 

1 % 

0 % 

1 % 

0 % 

1 % 

5 % 

2 % 

5 % 

0 % 

3 % 

75 % 

18 % 

92 % 

5 % 

72 % 

28 % 

76 % 

24 % 

58 % 

36 % 

79 % 

21 % 

72 % 

26 % 

92 % 

95 % 

92 % 

8 % 

1 % 

7 % 

87 % 

10 % 

96 % 

95 % 

83 % 

92 % 

2 % 

5 % 

8 % 

5 % 

57 % 

41 % 

98 % 

2 % 

84 % 

13 % 

82 % 

18 % 

41 % 

59 % 

82 % 

17 % 

81 % 

19 % 

91 % 

8 % 

67 % 

28 % 

81 % 

16 % 

85 % 

10 % 

97 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

75 % 

22 % 

0 % 

Member 
State  

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

DE 

DE 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

ES 

ES 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IT 

IT 

NL 

SE 

Volvo Trucks 

11 % 

75 % 

12 % 

2 % 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Comparison of application approval dates with reference period end date 

Case 
reference  

 Case name 

Submission 
date 

End of 
reference 
period 
date 

Months 
between end 
of reference 
period and 
submission 
of application 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

16/07/2013  16/11/2013 

EGF/2014/002 

Gelderland 
and Overijssel 

01/03/2013  01/12/2013 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

01/03/2013  01/12/2013 

EGF/2014/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

01/04/2013  31/12/2013 

EGF/2014/005  GAD 

29/11/2013  28/03/2014 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

01/10/2013  31/01/2014 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

21/10/2013  21/02/2014 

EGF/2014/008  STX Rauma 

07/11/2013  07/03/2014 

EGF/2014/009  Sprider Stores 

17/11/2013  17/03/2014 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

10/12/2013  31/03/2014 

EGF/2014/011  Caterpillar 

01/01/2014  01/05/2014 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal 

01/01/2014  01/05/2014 

EGF/2014/013 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

03/02/2014  03/06/2014 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

07/03/2014  07/07/2014 

EGF/2014/015 

EGF/2014/016 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

Lufthansa 
Technik 

12/09/2013  12/06/2014 

01/03/2014  30/06/2014 

4 

9 

9 

8 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

9 

3 

76 

 
 
EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros 

13/03/2014  12/07/2014 

EGF/2014/018 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

12/09/2013  12/06/2014 

EGF/2015/001  Broadcom 

11/08/2014  11/12/2014 

EGF/2015/002  Adam Opel 

14/08/2014  15/12/2014 

EGF/2015/003  Ford Genk 

01/09/2014  31/12/2014 

EGF/2015/004  Alitalia 

31/08/2014  30/12/2014 

EGF/2015/005 

EGF/2015/006 

EGF/2015/007 

Computer 
programming 

PWA 
International 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

30/07/2014  30/04/2015 

19/12/2014  19/04/2015 

31/08/2014  31/05/2015 

EGF/2015/009  Volvo Trucks 

24/02/2015  24/06/2015 

EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

27/04/2015  27/08/2015 

EGF/2015/011 

EGF/2015/012 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

03/05/2015  03/09/2015 

25/12/2014  25/09/2015 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

3 

9 

4 

4 

3 

3 

9 

4 

9 

4 

4 

4 

9 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
Case profiles by sectors 

Cases by Member State and intervention criterion 

Case name 

Membe
r State 

Applicatio
n date 

Interventio
n criteria 

Sector 

Air transport 

Aircraft maintenance 

Aircraft maintenance 

Automotive 

Automotive 

Automotive 

Automotive 

Bakery products 

Basic metals 

Broadcasting  

Computer programming 

Construction of buildings 

Domestic appliances 

Food and beverage service 
activities 

Jewellery 

Machinery and equipment 

Manufacture of glass 

Manufacture of machinery 
and equipment 

Metalworking industry 

Publishing 

Retail trade 

Retail trade 

EGF case 
number 

EGF/2015/0
04 

EGF/2014/0
16 

EGF/2015/0
06 

EGF/2015/0
03 

EGF/2015/0
02 

EGF/2014/0
06 

EGF/2015/0
09 

EGF/2014/0
01 

EGF/2014/0
12 

EGF/2014/0
18 

EGF/2015/0
05 

EGF/2014/0
02 

EGF/2014/0
10 

EGF/2014/0
03 

EGF/2014/0
07 

EGF/2014/0
11 

EGF/2015/0
07 

EGF/2015/0
12 

EGF/2014/0
04 

EGF/2014/0
15 

EGF/2014/0
09 

a 

c 

c 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

b 

b 

b 

a 

b 

c 

a 

b 

b 

Alitalia 

Lufthansa 
Technik  

PWA 
International 

IT 

IE 

IE 

2015-03 

2014-09 

2015-06 

Ford Genk 

BE 

2015-03 

Adam Opel 

DE 

2015-02 

PSA 

FR 

2014-04 

Volvo Trucks 

SE 

2015-09 

Nutriart 

EL 

2014-02 

ArcelorMittal 

BE 

2014-07 

EL 

FI 

NL 

IT 

ES 

IE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

2014-09 

2015-06 

2014-02 

2014-06 

2014-02 

2014-05 

2014-07 

2015-08 

2015-12 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

Computer 
programming 

Gelderland 
and Overijssel 

Whirlpool 

Aragon 

Andersen 
Ireland 

Caterpillar 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

Globalisatio
n / Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

ES 

2014-03 

b 

Crisis 

EL 

2014-09 

b 

Crisis 

Sprider Stores 

EL 

2014-06 

EGF/2014/0

Odyssefs 

EL 

2014-07 

a 

a 

Crisis 

Crisis 

78 

 
 
 
Retail trade 

Road transport 

Road transport 

Shipbuilding 

Slaughterhouse 

Solar modules 

Wholesale trade 

13 

Fokas 

EGF/2015/0
11 

EGF/2015/0
10 

EGF/2014/0
17 

EGF/2014/0
08 

EGF/2014/0
05 

EGF/2014/0
14 

EGF/2015/0
01 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

EL 

2015-11 

MoryGlobal 

FR 

2015-11 

Mory-Ducros 

FR 

2014-10 

STX Rauma 

FI 

2014-05 

GAD 

Aleo Solar 

FR 

DE 

2014-04 

2014-07 

Broadcom 

FI 

2015-01 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Crisis 

Globalisatio
n 

Globalisatio
n 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

79 

 
 
 
 
Financial profile of cases 

Sector 

EGF case 
number 

Case name 

Member 
State 

Total 
budget (€) 

National 
contribution 
(€)  

Requested 
EGF 
contribution 
(€) 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
/worker 

(€) 

Air transport 

EGF/2015/004  Alitalia 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

EGF/2014/016 

EGF/2015/006 

Lufthansa 
Technik  

PWA 
International 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/003 

Ford Genk 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/002  Adam Opel 

Automotive 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

IT 

IE 

IE 

BE 

DE 

FR 

2 358 080 

943 232 

1 414 848 

7 689 

4 151 264 

1 660 506 

2 490 758 

5 535 

737 156 

294 863 

442 293 

2 047 

10 447 608 

4 179 043 

6 268 564 

1 393 

11 597 706 

4 639 082 

6 958 623 

2 585 

21 174 342 

8 469 737 

12 704 605 

5 390 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/009  Volvo Trucks 

SE 

7 573 000 

3 029 200 

4 725 600 

9 450 

Bakery 
products 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

EL 

10 160 000 

4 064 000 

6 096 000 

6 018 

Basic metals 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal  BE 

2 652 478 

1 060 991 

1 591 486 

1 749 

Broadcasting  

EGF/2014/018 

Computer 
programming 

Construction of 
buildings 

EGF/2015/005 

EGF/2014/002 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

Computer 
programming 

Gelderland 
and 
Overijssel 

EL 

FI 

NL 

8 410 000 

3 364 000 

5 046 000 

5 438 

4 372 000 

1 748 800 

2 623 200 

2 186 

2 709 635 

1 083 854 

1 625 781 

3 423 

Domestic 
appliances 

Food and 
beverage 
service 
activities 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

IT 

3 150 000 

1 260 000 

1 890 000 

3 109 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

ES 

1 600 000 

640 000 

960 000 

3 429 

Jewellery 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

IE 

2 502 000 

1 000 800 

1 501 200 

5 439 

EGF/2014/011  Caterpillar 

BE 

2 038 090 

815 236 

1 222 854 

1 941 

Machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture 
of glass 

Manufacture 
of machinery 
and equipment 

Metalworking 
industry 

EGF/2015/007 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

EGF/2015/012 

EGF/2014/004 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

Sprider 
Stores 

Publishing 

EGF/2014/015 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/009 

BE 

BE 

ES 

EL 

EL 

1 389 147 

555 659 

833 488 

1 638 

1 825 907 

730 363 

1 095 544 

1 390 

1 698 640 

679 456 

1 019 184 

3 397 

6 244 500 

2 497 800 

3 746 700 

5 314 

12 151 500 

4 860 600 

7 290 900 

5 561 

80 

 
 
Retail trade 

EGF/2014/013 

Retail trade 

EGF/2015/011 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

EL 

EL 

10 740 000 

4 296 000 

6 444 000 

5 858 

10 780 000 

4 312 000 

6 468 000 

5 880 

Road transport 

EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

FR 

8 578 000 

3 431 200 

5 146 800 

2 414 

Road transport 

EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros 

FR 

10 087 000 

4 034 800 

6 052 200 

2 408 

Shipbuilding 

EGF/2014/008 

STX Rauma 

Slaughterhouse  EGF/2014/005  GAD 

Solar modules 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

FI 

FR 

DE 

2 378 000 

951 200 

1 426 800 

2 525 

1 530 000 

612 000 

918 000 

1 208 

1 824 601 

729 840 

1 094 760 

2 300 

Wholesale 
trade 

EGF/2015/001  Broadcom 

FI 

2 275 000 

910 000 

1 365 000 

2 730 

Total 

  146 272 654 

66 854 262 

100 463 188 

109 444 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Breakdown of target population by gender 

Sector 

EGF case 
number 

Case name 

Member 
State 

Workers 
dismissed 

men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Workers 
targeted 
(total)           

Air transport 

EGF/2015/004  Alitalia 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

EGF/2014/016 

Lufthansa 
Technik  

Aircraft 
maintenance 

EGF/2015/006 

PWA 
International 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/003 

Ford Genk 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/002  Adam Opel 

Automotive 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/009  Volvo Trucks 

Bakery 
products 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

IT 

IE 

IE 

BE 

DE 

FR 

SE 

EL 

Basic metals 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal  BE 

Broadcasting  

EGF/2014/018 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

EL 

1 249 

424 

129 

220 

55 

30 

108 

98  

10  

5 111 

3 122 

6 120 

647 

508 

1 285 

928 

3 956 

2 583 

1 896 

387 

337 

871 

521 

544 

109 

461 

113 

171 

39 

407 

184 

250 

108 

4 500 

2 692 

2 357 

500 

508 

910 

928 

Computer 
programming 

EGF/2015/005 

Computer 
programming 

FI 

1 603 

660 

540 

1 200 

Construction of 
buildings 

EGF/2014/002 

Gelderland 
and 
Overijssel 

NL 

562 

440 

35 

475 

Domestic 
appliances 

Food and 
beverage 
service 
activities 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

IT 

608 

422 

186 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

ES 

904 

97 

183 

608 

280 

Jewellery 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

IE 

171 

36 

102 

138 

Machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture 
of glass 

Manufacture 
of machinery 
and equipment 

Metalworking 
industry 

EGF/2014/011  Caterpillar 

BE 

1 030 

607 

23 

630 

EGF/2015/007 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

EGF/2015/012 

EGF/2014/004 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

BE 

BE 

ES 

409 

401 

8 

409 

488 

460 

28 

488 

633 

258 

42 

300 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Publishing 

EGF/2014/015 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/009 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/013 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

Sprider 
Stores 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

Retail trade 

EGF/2015/011 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

Road transport 

EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

Road transport 

EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros 

Shipbuilding 

EGF/2014/008 

STX Rauma 

Slaughterhouse  EGF/2014/005  GAD 

Solar modules 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

EL 

EL 

EL 

EL 

FR 

FR 

FI 

FR 

DE 

Wholesale 
trade 

EGF/2015/001  Broadcom 

FI 

705 

391 

314 

705 

761 

112 

649 

600 

65 

535 

557 

194 

2 132 

2 721 

634 

760 

657 

568 

1 740 

2 137 

496 

487 

262 

442 

363 

392 

376 

69 

273 

214 

58 

761 

600 

557 

2132 

2513 

565 

760 

476 

500 

Total 

36 005 

20 705 

6 329 

27 039 

Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Breakdown of target population by age 

Sector 

EGF case 
number 

Case name 

Member 
State 

Age 15-
24 

Age 25-
54 

Age 55-
64 

Age >64 

targeted 

targeted 

targeted 

targeted 

Air transport 

EGF/2015/004  Alitalia 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

Aircraft 
maintenance 

EGF/2014/016 

EGF/2015/006 

Lufthansa 
Technik  

PWA 
International 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/003 

Ford Genk 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/002  Adam Opel 

Automotive 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/009  Volvo Trucks 

Bakery 
products 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

IT 

IE 

IE 

BE 

DE 

FR 

SE 

EL 

Basic metals 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal  BE 

Broadcasting  

EGF/2014/018 

Computer 
programming 

Construction of 
buildings 

EGF/2015/005 

EGF/2014/002 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

Computer 
programming 

Gelderland 
and 
Overijssel 

EL 

FI 

NL 

0 % 

5 % 

2 % 

0 % 

2 % 

0 % 

11 % 

0 % 

3 % 

1 % 

97 % 

3 % 

67 % 

28 % 

81 % 

16 % 

72 % 

72 % 

41 % 

75 % 

92 % 

92 % 

96 % 

28 % 

26 % 

59 % 

12 % 

8 % 

5 % 

2 % 

2 % 

84 % 

13 % 

0 % 

0 % 

1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

2 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

1 % 

3 % 

75 % 

22 % 

0 % 

Domestic 
appliances 

Food and 
beverage 
service 
activities 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

IT 

5 % 

85 % 

10 % 

0 % 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

ES 

9 % 

83 % 

8 % 

0 % 

Jewellery 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

IE 

1 % 

91 % 

8 % 

EGF/2014/011  Caterpillar 

BE 

7 % 

75 % 

18 % 

EGF/2015/007 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

0 % 

76 % 

24 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

Machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture 
of glass 

Manufacture 
of machinery 
and equipment 

Metalworking 
industry 

EGF/2015/012 

EGF/2014/004 

Publishing 

EGF/2014/015 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/009 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/013 

BE 

BE 

ES 

EL 

EL 

EL 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

Sprider 
Stores 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

6 % 

58 % 

36 % 

0 % 

3 % 

92 % 

5 % 

0 % 

2 % 

87 % 

10 % 

1 % 

5 % 

95 % 

1 % 

92 % 

1 % 

7 % 

0 % 

0 % 

84 

 
 
Retail trade 

EGF/2015/011 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

Road transport 

EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

Road transport 

EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros 

Shipbuilding 

EGF/2014/008 

STX Rauma 

Slaughterhouse  EGF/2014/005  GAD 

Solar modules 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

Wholesale 
trade 
Source: ICF on the basis of EGF database 

EGF/2015/001  Broadcom 

EL 

FR 

FR 

FI 

FR 

DE 

FI 

0 % 

0 % 

1 % 

1 % 

1 % 

1 % 

0 % 

95 % 

81 % 

82 % 

57 % 

82 % 

79 % 

98 % 

5 % 

19 % 

17 % 

41 % 

18 % 

21 % 

2 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

85