COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the ex post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) 2014-2020
Date: 2021-12-13
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, 13.12.2021  SWD(2021) 381 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the ex post evaluation     of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)    2014-2020 {COM(2021) 788 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

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

Purpose and scope ........................................................................................................... 3 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................... 3 

a.  Description of the intervention ................................................................................ 3 

b.  EGF objectives ........................................................................................................ 5 

c.  Key specifics of the EGF intervention .................................................................... 7 

d.  Baseline and points of comparison .......................................................................... 9 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .............................................................. 16 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................. 20 

a.  Short description of methodology ......................................................................... 20 

b.  Limitations ............................................................................................................. 21 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................ 21 

5.1.  EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................... 22 

a.  Re-integration rates and other effects of the EGF support .................................... 22 

b.  Availability of support for all eligible beneficiaries .............................................. 25 

c.  Use of the EGF by Member States and by beneficiaries ....................................... 28 

d.  Monitoring and reporting ...................................................................................... 32 

e.  Factors contributing to or hindering the achievement of objectives ..................... 33 

f. 

g. 

Involvement of companies and social partners ..................................................... 35 

Information and communication activities ............................................................ 35 

h.  Overall impact of the EGF .................................................................................... 36 

5.2.  EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................ 37 

a.  Efficiency at case level .......................................................................................... 37 

b.  Efficiency at instrument level ................................................................................ 40 

5.3.  COHERENCE ........................................................................................................... 41 

a.  Complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives ...................................... 41 

b.  Complementarity with national measures and instruments ................................... 42 

5.4.  RELEVANCE ........................................................................................................... 43 

a.  Relevance of the scope of the EGF ....................................................................... 43 

b.  Relevance of the intervention criteria of the EGF ................................................. 44 

c.  Relevance of the NEETs clause ............................................................................ 45 

1 

 
 
5.5.  EU ADDED VALUE ................................................................................................ 46 

6.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS-LEARNED ....................................................... 48 

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 48 

LESSONS-LEARNED ...................................................................................................... 52 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 54 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 56 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................... 64 

ANNEX 4: CASE PROFILE DATA BY MEMBER STATE AND BY SECTOR ......... 73 

ANNEX 5: EGF INTERVENTION LOGIC 2014-2020 ................................................ 108 

ANNEX  6:  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  RULES  OF  THE  EGF  BETWEEN 

2007 AND 2020 ...................................................................................................... 109 

2 

 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 The timeline of an EGF case from start to finish ................................................. 7 
Figure 2. Large-scale restructuring events in EU-27, 2007–2020 .................................... 10 
Figure 3. Monthly unemployment rates (% of active population), EU-27, 2007–2020 ... 11 
Figure 4 Number of applications received 2007–2020 (without withdrawn and rejected 
applications) (based on EGF Database) ........................................................................... 13 
Figure 5. Case applications per cause (left) and intervention criterion (right) ................. 17 
Figure 6. Workers and NEETs targeted (left); men and women targeted (right) ............. 17 
Figure 7. Beneficiaries assisted (left); workers and NEETs assisted vs targeted (right) . 18 
Figure 8. Beneficiaries (workers + NEETs) targeted and assisted per Member State ..... 19 
Figure 9. Change in re-integration rates per case (short term vs long term) .................... 23 
Figure 10. Average absorption rate per Member State ..................................................... 38 
Figure 11. Relationship between total EGF amounts spent and number of beneficiaries 
helped, per Member State ................................................................................................. 39 
Figure 12. Breakdown of the 39 responses received by Member State ........................... 59 
Figure 13. NEETs targeted compared to NEETs reached ................................................ 73 
Figure 14. Number of EGF cases per sector (NACE Rev. 2) for all 54 cases in 2014-2020
 ........................................................................................................................................ 107 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Number of applications received 2007–2020 ...................................................... 14 
Table 2. EGF applications received and amount requested by Member State, 2007–2020
 .......................................................................................................................................... 15 
Table 3. Stakeholder consultation strategy: overview ...................................................... 58 
Table 4. Evaluation questions and sub-questions ............................................................. 67 
Table 5. General overview of the 54 applications received between 1 January 2014 and 
31 December 2020 ............................................................................................................ 74 
Table 6. EGF applications sorted by Member States ....................................................... 83 
Table 7. EGF applications sorted by sector ...................................................................... 92 
Table 8. EGF applications, including the breakdown by gender and age of targeted 
workers and helped workers ........................................................................................... 100 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

Beneficiary 

BRG  

DG EMPL 

EGF 

ERM 

ESF 

ESF+ 

ESIFs 

EU 

FAQs 

GDPR 

ISSG 

MFF 

NEET 

PC 

PES 

QFR 

SFC 

SMEs 

SWD 

YEI 

A person benefiting directly from an EGF measure 

Better Regulation Guidelines 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion 

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund 

European Restructuring Monitor (Eurofound) 

European Social Fund  

European Social Fund Plus 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Union 

Frequently asked questions 

General Data Protection Regulation 

Interservice Steering Group 

Multiannual financial framework 

Person not in employment, education or training 

Public consultation 

Public employment services 

EU Quality Framework for anticipation of change and 
restructuring 

System for Fund Management in the European Union 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

Staff working document 

Youth Employment Initiative 

2 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

This staff working document (SWD) presents the results of the ex post evaluation of the 
European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  for  2014–2020.  This  evaluation  was 
carried out in compliance with Article 20(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013, to assess 
whether the EGF reached its objectives during the period 2014–2020.  

Purpose and scope 

The findings of this ex post evaluation can provide lessons for the future implementation 
and  design  of  the  Fund.  The  evaluation  assesses  the  EGF’s  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence,  relevance  and the EU added value.  It  also  examines the extent to  which the 
EGF  interventions  complement  and  are  coherent  with  other  programmes  such  as  the 
European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI)  and  national 
measures.  The  evaluation  covers  all  EGF  cases1  (i.e.  approved  applications)  whose 
applications were received between 2014 and 31 December 2020. Applications received 
in 2020 are included but without analysis as the results will only be available in 2023.  

More information can be found in the evaluation’s roadmap2. 

This  SWD  mainly  builds  on  the  results  of  the  supporting  study  provided  by  external 
experts3  (hereinafter  ‘Ramboll  Management  Consulting,  SEOR  (2020)’).  The  study 
includes  extensive  stakeholder  consultations  (see  Annex  2).  It  also  includes,  where 
appropriate,  additional further evidence from  previous  reports, evaluations4 and general 
experience  in  the  management  of  the  EGF,  including  the  Commission  internal  EGF 
Database  with  all  the  EGF  cases  from  2007  to  2020.  The  fieldwork  for  the  supporting 
study had just started when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. More information about 
the limitations caused by the pandemic are presented in Chapter 4 below.  

The results of this  evaluation  will be sent  to  the  European Parliament, the Council, the 
Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the 
Regions and to the social partners. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

a.  Description of the intervention  

The  EGF  is  a  European  Union  (EU)  instrument,  which  aims  to  tackle  the  employment 

1 The overview of all EGF cases received during 2014–2020 is included in Annex 4. 
2  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2148-Ex-post-evaluation-of-the-

European-Globalisation-Adjustment-Fund-2014-2020-  

3  Study  supporting  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (2014-2020), 
(hereinafter  ‘Ramboll  Management  Consulting,  SEOR  (2020)’),  See  published  study  here: 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ceb95383-a24f-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1).  
4  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  EGF  2007-2013,  (2015),  The  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EGF  2014–2020, 

(2018). 

3 

 
 
                                                           
and social dimensions of structural  change.  The EGF was initially established in 20065, 
with the aim of showing the EU’s solidarity with workers made redundant as a result of 
major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation.  

In  response  to  the  global  economic  and  financial  crisis,  some  clauses  of  the  EGF 
Regulation  were  amended  in  20096.  For  the  2014–20207  programming  period,  the  EGF 
covered redundancies caused not only by globalisation and the continuation of the global 
financial and economic crisis, but also by any new global financial and economic crisis. 
Due to the high youth unemployment rates in many parts of the EU, Member States were 
allowed to include, under certain circumstances, the same number of young people ‘not in 
education,  employment,  or  training’  (NEETs)  as  workers  made  redundant  in  EGF 
applications8. 

The EGF assistance takes the form of a coordinated package of personalised services. The 
EGF co-finances  active labour market  policy measures implemented by  Member States 
with the aim of helping the largest possible number of beneficiaries find sustainable new 
jobs  as  soon  as  possible  within  6  months  after  the  end  of  EGF  assistance.  The  Fund 
supplements  national  labour  market  measures  when  sudden  collective  redundancy 
processes  put  the  public  employment  services  under  extraordinary  pressure.  It  can  also 
provide a more personalised approach to the most vulnerable redundant workers, such as 
disadvantaged beneficiaries, including young and older unemployed people and those at 
risk of poverty, enabling them to update their knowledge and skills, or benefit from other 
suitable measures (e.g. mobility allowances). 

Member  States’  applications  must  comply  with  one  of  the  intervention  criteria  (i.e. 
conditions for EGF support) set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013: 

    at least 500 redundancies over a period of 4 months in an enterprise in a Member State, 

including workers made redundant in its suppliers or downstream producers;  

    at least 500 redundancies over a period of 9 months, particularly in small or medium-
sized enterprises, operating in the same economic sector9 and located in one region or 
two contiguous regions10; 

    in small  labour  markets  or in  exceptional  circumstances,  when duly  substantiated by 
the Member State concerned, an application for a contribution from the EGF may be 
considered  admissible  even  if  the  intervention  criteria  in  points  (a)  or  (b)  are  not 

5 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on 

establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

6 For details see Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 
2009  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1927/2006  on  establishing  the  European  Globalisation 
Adjustment Fund, OJ L 167, 29.6.2009, p. 26, and Annex 6 to this SWD. 

7 Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013. 
8 The  use of  the  derogation under Article 6(2)  was initially permitted until 31 December 2017, provided 
that  at  least  some  of  the  redundancies  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3  occurred  in  NUTS  2  level 
regions eligible under the YEI. The support could be rendered to NEETs under the age of 25 in NUTS 
2-level regions eligible under the YEI or, where Member States so decide, to NEETs under the age of 
30. 

9  Defined  at  NACE  Revision  2  division  level  –  See  Regulation  (EC)  No  1893/2006  of  the  European 

Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006, OJ L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

10 Defined at NUTS 2 division level – See Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and 

of the Council of 26 May 2003, OJ L 154, 21.6.2003, p. 1. 

4 

 
                                                           
entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment and the local 
economy.  This  clause  was  amended  in  201811,  adding  the  possibility  to  cover 
collective  applications  involving  SMEs  located  in  one  region  and  operating  in 
different  economic  sectors,  where  the  applicant  Member  State  demonstrates  that 
SMEs are the main or the only type of business in that region. 

The possibility for Member States to include, under certain circumstances, NEETs in EGF 
applications,  was  introduced  in  2014,  and  extended  until  31 December 2020,  under 
different rules12. 

The  EGF  is  an  emergency  relief  instrument,  outside  the  ceilings  of  the  multiannual 
financial  framework  (MFF).  The  EU  has  provided  the  EGF  with  a  maximum  annual 
ceiling  of up to  EUR 150  million  (2011  prices). The  co-financing  of  each  case  must  be 
approved  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  In  practice,  the  annual  amount 
used is dependent on the number and the requested amounts of the applications received. 
The maximum amount ever used in a given year was EUR 132.1 million (in 2010). 

On 27 May 2020, in  its  communication  The EU budget  powering  the recovery plan  for 
Europe, the European Commission  declared that the  COVID-19 pandemic had resulted 
in  an  economic  crisis,  and  set  out  a  recovery  plan  for  the  economy.  This  included  the 
EGF as an emergency tool to assist people who lost their jobs due to a global financial 
and economic crisis. 

b.  EGF objectives 

The overall aim of the EGF was defined in line with Europe 2020 strategy, to contribute 
to  smart,  inclusive  and  sustainable  economic  growth  and  to  promote  sustainable 
employment in the EU. The EGF aims to express solidarity with and provide support to 
workers  made  redundant  and  self-employed  persons  whose  activity  ceased  due  to 
globalisation or a global financial and economic crisis.  

In  November  2017,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  jointly 
proclaimed  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights.  Among  the  pillar’s  20  principles  and 
rights is a principle  on how to  help  people to  find and change their employment13. The 
EGF puts this principle into practice in the case of major restructuring events. 

The  EGF’s  objective  of  improving  participants’  education/training  and  labour  market 
situation has two dimensions: solidarity and emergency relief. 

Solidarity  relates  to  supporting  the  re-integration  of  redundant  workers  into  the  labour 
market, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable groups of dismissed workers. 

The emergency dimension refers to EU’s intention of providing reactive support in cases 
of unexpected mass redundancies when national administrations would find it extremely 
difficult to cope with the situation by themselves. 

11 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on 

the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, OJ L 193, 30.7.2018. 

12 For details see below the section on Use of the EGF support for NEETs. 
13 See principle 4 (Active support to employment) of the European Pillar of Social Rights. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
Main objectives of the EGF: 

  demonstrate solidarity towards workers made redundant and self-employed persons 

whose activity has ceased 

  offer  assistance  to  workers  made  redundant  so  that  they  can  re-integrate  into  the 
job market, finding high quality employment  as soon as possible  within  6 months 
after the end of EGF assistance. 

Functioning 

EGF assistance is provided mainly through active labour market measures, ranging from 
personalised  guidance  and  training  courses  to  assistance  in  setting  up  a  business.  These 
measures help beneficiaries return to employment as quickly as possible by enabling them 
to update their knowledge and skills or benefit from other suitable support. In many cases, 
the new skills respond to the needs of emerging economic sectors, so that they can help 
the region to maintain and develop its economic activities. 

The  EGF  can  be  mobilised  following  a  request  (‘EGF  application’)  made  by  an  EU 
Member State in  need of assistance further to  an unexpected major restructuring event. 
Applications  are  submitted  by  national  EGF  authorities  to  the  European  Commission. 
Under  Regulation  (EU)  No  1309/2013,  it  is  up  to  the  Member  State  to  decide  on  the 
working arrangements for the implementation of each case.  

The Member State must include in its application to the Commission information such as:  

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

a detailed explanation of the causal link between the redundancies and globalisation 
or the global economic and financial crisis (the Member State is expected to provide 
a reasoned analysis supported by relevant data at the most appropriate geographical 
and sectoral levels);  
a description of the enterprise or enterprises affected; 
a  detailed  categorisation  of  the  targeted  redundant  workers  into  several  groups  by 
gender and age group); 
a description of the redundancies’ expected impact on the local, regional or national 
economy and employment, including statistical and qualitative information; and 
a description of the package of personalised services to be financed, together with 
its planned budget. 

The applications are then assessed by the Commission. For those it accepts, it proposes to 
the  budgetary  authority  (the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council)  that  the  EGF  be 
mobilised.  Once the  budgetary  authority  has  adopted  the decision  to mobilise  the  Fund, 
the Commission pays the contribution to the applicant Member State. 

In principle, cases may be implemented for a maximum period of 24 months from the date 
the application is submitted. However, Member States can start providing eligible services 
to the workers before this happens.  

Once  implementation  is  completed,  the  Member  State  must  submit,  within  6  months,  a 
final  report  on  the  execution  of  the  financial  contribution,  together  with  a  statement 
justifying  the  expenditure.  The  final  report  must  also  include  extensive  qualitative 
information on the type of measures, main outcomes and lessons learned, as well as the 
characteristics of targeted beneficiaries and their employment status.  A long-term  report 

6 

 
 
on the employment status of the beneficiaries is also submitted 18 months after the end of 
the implementation (see Figure 1 below). 

Information about all EGF applications can be found on the EGF website14. 

Figure 1 The timeline of an EGF case from start to finish 

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and 
Inclusion (DG EMPL). 

The overall intervention logic of the EGF is summarised in Annex 5. 

c.  Key specifics of the EGF intervention 

Since January 2007, when the first EGF Regulation15 entered into force, the rules of the 
Fund have been adapted several times in order to respond to the economic situation in the 
EU.  Initially,  in  the  2007–2013  programming  period,  the  EGF  was  operating  under  an 
annual  maximum  ceiling  of  EUR 500 million,  and  was  targeting  large-scale  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%16. 

Based on the experience of the 2007–2013 period, several changes17 were introduced in 
2014–2020  to  improve  the  EGF’s  effectiveness  and  efficiency  and  to  adapt  it  to  the 
economic situation within the EU. The changes included: 

14 https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en 
15 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on 

establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

16  Together  with  temporary  inclusion  of  the  crisis  criterion,  the  co-funding  rate  was  raised  from  50%  to 

65% from 1 May 2009 to 30 December 2011. 

17 The changes were introduced 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 

7 

 
 
                                                           
 
 

the new criterion of any new global financial and economic crisis, besides the 
trade-related globalisation or the global economic and financial crisis; 

  new  categories  of  workers  supported  i.e.  not  only  those  with  indefinite 
employment  contracts,  but  also  workers  with  fixed-term  contracts,  temporary 
agency  workers,  owner-managers  of  micro  enterprises  and  self-employed 
workers; 

  support to NEETs under certain conditions;  
  a  lowered  threshold  of  500  redundancies.  An  even  lower  threshold  was  also 
acceptable  under  certain  conditions  for  small  labour  markets  or  in  exceptional 
circumstances18;  

  a longer implementation period from 12 to 24 months;  
  shortened procedures to mobilise funding; 
  co-financing rate raised to 60% (from 50%).  

The  budget  of  an  EGF  application  can  also  include,  besides  the  co-financing  of  the 
coordinated package of personalised measures, the costs of the preparatory, management, 
information and publicity, control and reporting activities19 . 

The EGF does not cover passive social protection measures such as pensions. Nor does it 
cover  passive  allowances,  i.e.  allowances  that  are  not  conditional  on  the  targeted 
beneficiaries’  active  participation  in  job-search  or  training  activities.  The  co-financing 
cannot replace actions that are the responsibility of enterprises by virtue of national law 
or  collective  agreements  (e.g.  redundancy  pay,  legal  requirements  to  draw  up  a  social 
plan – depending on the national law of the Member State concerned). 

To provide proportional assistance, and in line with the findings of an audit of the 2007–
2013 EGF20, 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  directly 
connected to participation in EGF measures. 

Member  States  can  choose  when  to  start  implementing  EGF  measures:  either  before 
submitting the application to the Commission, as early as when the dismissals occurred, 
or  from  the  date  the  application  is  submitted.  They  can  even  postpone  the  start  of  the 
implementation  by  3  months21.  This  flexibility  enables  Member  States  to  start  helping 
beneficiaries right after the redundancies occur; these measures are also eligible for EGF 
co-financing.  However,  until  the  decision  to  mobilise  the  EGF  is  approved,  Member 
States implement  at  their own risk.  Member States  can also  end implementation  before 
the 24 months have elapsed. 

Auditors’  special  report  No 7  (2013)  on  the  EGF,  and  the  European  Parliament’s  European 
Implementation Assessment of the EGF 2007-2014. 

18    Article  4(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  1309/2013  explains  the  conditions  for  small  labour  markets  and 
exceptional circumstances: ‘when duly substantiated by the Member State concerned, an application for 
a contribution from the EGF may be considered admissible even if the intervention criteria in points (a) 
or (b) of Article 4(2) are not entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment and 
the local economy’. 

19 Article 7(4) of Regulation (EU) 1309/2013. 
20 ECA (2013), p. 28 
21 Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) 1309/2013. 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
The 2021–2027 EGF Regulation22 introduced significant changes, such as:  

  extended scope of eligibility (i.e. in what situations the EGF can provide support) 

to include any unexpected major restructuring;  
  decreased threshold of dismissals from 500 to 200;  
  aligned co-financing rate with European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) (while keeping 

the current 60% as a minimum);  
increase of the maximum annual ceiling up to EUR 186 million (2018 prices);  

 
  common indicators and stricter requirements for reporting; 
  NEETs no longer supported by the EGF.  

The evolution of the main rules of the EGF between 2007 and 2020 is presented in Annex 
6. 

d.  Baseline and points of comparison  

Context 

The  core  drivers  of  globalisation  used  to  be  trade  in  goods  and  capital  flows.  Today, 
stimulated  by  rapid  technological  change,  globalisation  is  increasingly  knowledge-
driven.  Nowadays,  most  products  are  no  longer  made  in  one  single  country  and  global 
cooperation is increasingly essential 23. 

Global trade openness has boosted EU economic growth and competitiveness24, and has 
created job opportunities, but it can also result in significant job losses through business 
restructuring,  offshoring  and  company  closures.  Globalisation  and  rapid  technological 
advance  have  increased  demand  for  skilled  labour  but  reduced  the  number  of  jobs  for 
low-skilled workers, particularly in  the manufacturing industries25, the most  exposed to 
offshoring. Workers made redundant within these industries – especially low-skilled and 
vulnerable workers – have been hit particularly hard and struggle to acquire the necessary 
(new or more) skills to re-join the labour market26. 

Eurofound’s European Restructuring Monitor (ERM)27 is the most comprehensive source 
of data that records all announcements of redundancies in a certain year28. According to 
the  ERM  database,  on  average  about  670  restructuring  events  (of  any  size)29  occurred 

22  Regulation  (EU)  2021/691  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  April  2021on  the 
European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  for  Displaced  Workers  (EGF)  and  repealing  Regulation 
(EU) No 1309/2013   

23 European Commission, Reflection Paper on Globalisation. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-harnessing-globalisation_en  

24 Ibid.  
25 Ibid.  
26 European Parliament, (2019). Globalisation's impact on employment and the EU, 20.8.2019,  
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20190712STO56968/globalisation-s-impact-

on-employment-and-the-eu  

27 European Restructuring Monitor | Eurofound (europa.eu) 
28 Restructuring announcements are recorded in the ERM based on a screening of the main media sources 

in each of the Member States. 

29  In  order  to  be  included  in  the  ERM  database,  an  individual  restructuring  case  must  involve  the 
announced  loss  or  creation  of  at  least  100  jobs,  or  employment  effects  affecting  at  least  10%  of  a 
workforce of more than 250 people. For the purpose of this evaluation, only cases involving job losses 
were considered. 

9 

 
                                                           
within the EU-27 on a yearly basis between 2007 and 2020, increasing from 435 in 2019 
to 770 in 2020 (+77%). The latter is the highest total number since 2012 and can largely 
be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Large-scale restructuring events (involving 500 
or more job losses) have increased since 2018, reaching 172 in 2020 (+68% compared to 
2019) (see Figure 2 below).  

Figure 2. Large-scale restructuring events in EU-27, 2007–2020 

Source: Eurofound, European Restructuring Monitor Database  

Over 2014–2020, manufacturing accounted for the largest share of restructuring events, 
even  though  its  share  fluctuated  over  the  years30.  Manufacturing  is  the  sector  most 
affected by offshoring, accounting for about 83% of all offshoring cases in the EU-27 in 
the  ERM  dataset.  During  2014–2020,  there  were  seven  EGF  cases31  targeting 
redundancies in the manufacturing sectors (see details in Table 5). 

In recent years, the vast majority of larger restructuring cases are no longer triggered by 
trade-related globalisation, but by technological advances, especially automation, which 
is  continuously  increasing  both  in  scope  and  in  rate32.  Technological  advances  such  as 
digitisation or automation are a significant source of growth, but can also lead to adverse 
short-term  effects  on  the  labour  market.  Thus,  investment  in  digital  skills  will  be 
extremely important for industrial competitiveness33.  

According  to  the  OECD,  recent  data  show  that  about  14%  of  jobs  are  at  high  risk  of 
automation. By sector, the risk of automation is higher for manufacturing and agriculture, 
although  jobs  in  a  number  of  service  sectors  such  as  postal  and  courier  services,  land 

30 According to the  ERM, the share decreased from  41% (2002–2007) to 29% (2015–2016) and recently 

increased to 43% (2020). 

31 EGF/2015/007  BE/Hainaut-Namur  Glass,  EGF/2015/012  BE/Hainaut  Machinery,  EGF/2016/002 
SE/Ericsson, EGF/2016/003 EE/Petroleum and chemicals, EGF/2017/007 SE/Ericsson, EGF/2017/008 
DE/Goodyear and EGF/2020/003 DE/GMH Guss. 

32 OECD (2017), The next production revolution: implications for governments and businesses, p. 26. 
33  European  Commission,  DG  CONNECT  (2017),  A  concept  paper  on  digitisation,  employability  and 

inclusiveness – the role of Europe, p. 10. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
transport and food services also face a high risk. Going forward, the risk of automation is 
increasingly  falling  on  low-educated  workers.  The  COVID-19  crisis  is  likely  to 
accelerate  automation  as  companies  reduce  reliance  on  human  labour  and  contact 
between workers, or re-shore some production34.  

During the last decade, the general trend in employment rates has been positive. In 2019, 
73.9% of the EU population aged 20 to 64 were employed, up from 69.2% in 2014. This 
was the highest rate since 2002. However, large differences in employment rate remained 
between Member States and between gender and age groups35.  

Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to lockdowns around Europe, which 
brought a wave of job losses. Poverty and inequality have risen, and the low-skilled and 
vulnerable people are the most affected. It also led to four EGF applications based on the 
COVID crisis being submitted at the end of 2020. 

In  the  first  half  of  2020,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  caused  the  deepest  recession  in  EU 
history.  Annual  GDP  fell  by  6.4%  in  the  EU  in  2020  compared  to  201936.  Monthly 
unemployment  rates  steadily  increased  starting  from  March  2020,  from  an  average  of 
6.6% in March 2020, to 7.3% in December 2020, as shown in Figure 3 below. 

Figure 3. Monthly unemployment rates (% of active population), EU-27, 2007–2020 

)

%

(

s
e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
e
n
U

l

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

1
0
-
7
0
0
2

7
0
-
7
0
0
2

1
0
-
8
0
0
2

7
0
-
8
0
0
2

1
0
-
9
0
0
2

7
0
-
9
0
0
2

1
0
-
0
1
0
2

7
0
-
0
1
0
2

1
0
-
1
1
0
2

7
0
-
1
1
0
2

1
0
-
2
1
0
2

7
0
-
2
1
0
2

1
0
-
3
1
0
2

7
0
-
3
1
0
2

1
0
-
4
1
0
2

6
0
-
4
1
0
2

2
1
-
4
1
0
2

6
0
-
5
1
0
2

2
1
-
5
1
0
2

6
0
-
6
1
0
2

2
1
-
6
1
0
2

6
0
-
7
1
0
2

2
1
-
7
1
0
2

6
0
-
8
1
0
2

2
1
-
8
1
0
2

6
0
-
9
1
0
2

2
1
-
9
1
0
2

6
0
-
0
2
0
2

2
1
-
0
2
0
2

European Union - 27 countries (from 2020)

Source: Eurostat, [ei_lmhr_m]  

On  youth  unemployment,  the  overall  trend  has  been  comparable,  i.e.  a  steady  decrease 
since  2014  and  a  recent  surge  (since  March  2020)  linked  to  the  COVID-19  crisis. 
However, even before the COVID crisis, the youth unemployment rate was above 20% in 
some regions across 10 Member States37. 

34 OECD (2021), What happened to jobs at high risk of automation? 
 35File:Employment rate age group 20 to 64, EU-28, 2002-2018 (%).png - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)  
36 Eurostat, table namq_10_gdp and table namq_10_a10_e. 
37 Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden. Overall youth 
unemployment rates in 2019 exceeded 20% only in Greece (35.2%), Spain (32.5%), Italy (29.2%) and 
Sweden (20.1%) Eurostat, [lfst_r_lfu3rt]. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Baseline 

Employment policies are a shared competence between the EU and the Member States38. 
The EU aims to contribute to a high level of employment by supporting and, if necessary, 
complementing Member State action39.  

In line with  the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality40, funding from  the EU is 
granted when objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone, and 
where  the  EU  intervention  can  bring  added  value.  The  EU’s  main  solidarity  response 
consists  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIFs)41  and  the  EGF.  The 
Cohesion Fund aims to support economic and social cohesion within the EU, while the 
European Social Fund (ESF) is the main instrument in the area of employment. The latter 
has a long-term anticipative multiannual strategic approach. This is not adapted to react 
rapidly in case of sudden major redundancies. 

The  EGF  was  set  up  to  enable  the  EU  to  react  to  such  unforeseen  large-scale 
restructuring events. The restructuring challenges presented above are the responsibility 
of  the  national  public  employment  services  (PES).  However,  when  unexpected  large-
scale restructuring events occur, with a significant impact on the regional labour market, 
the PES might have difficulties offering targeted measures with clear exit strategies to a 
large number of redundancies only through national programmes.  

At the request of a Member State, the EGF can co-finance active labour market measures 
aimed  at  bringing  the  dismissed  workers  back  into  stable  employment42.  The  EGF 
intervention supplements national labour market measures for redundant workers.  It also 
creates European added value by increasing the number, variety and intensity of services 
offered to redundant workers, and for a longer time than would be possible without EGF 
funding43. 

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

The second EGF Regulation, covering 2014–2020, entered into effect on 1 January 2014. 
Applications submitted under the first Regulation continued to be implemented and were 

38 Articles 2 to 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
39 Articles 145 and 147 TFEU. 
40 Article 5 of the Treaties (2002) C 325/01.  
41 The ESIFs include five different funds: two structural funds [the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF)] and the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1303). 

42  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. 

43 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0192&from=EN  

12 

 
                                                           
wound  up  under  the  rules  of  the  first  Regulation.  Those  cases  are  not  covered  by  this 
evaluation. 

From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020, 59 applications were submitted by Member 
States.  Of  these,  54  applications  were  approved,  4  were  later  withdrawn  and  1  was 
rejected by the Council. These 54 approved applications requested EUR 173.4 million 
to support a total of 58 267 targeted people, of which 4 099 were NEETs. See Annex 4 
for  the  overview  of  all  2014–2020  EGF  applications  received  (without  withdrawn  and 
rejected applications). 

In a 2019 report by the Directorate-General Joint Research Centre44, the RHOMOLO-IO 
modelling framework45 was applied to the EGF in order to illustrate how the application 
of  a  standard  input-output  model46  can  generate  a  variety  of  results  of  interest  for  both 
researchers and policy makers. The key idea behind this model lies in the representation 
of sectoral interdependence. The RHOMOLO-IO simulations were performed on 23 EGF 
cases  from  2014–2015.  The  results  suggest  that  besides  the  direct  effect  of  re-
employment,  EGF impacts have  positive indirect  effects,  as each additional job  created 
influences other sectors positively.  

Trends can be observed from looking at the number of applications received from 2007 
and  2020  (Figure  4  and  Table  1  below).  The  crisis  criterion  was  on  a  downward  trend 
after  2014,  when  the  EU  was  on  a  path  of  economic  growth  and  decreasing 
unemployment.  This  lasted  until  2020  when  the  COVID-19  crisis  started,  resulting  in 
many jobs lost and a new wave of EGF applications under the crisis criterion. The trade-
related  globalisation  criterion  went  through  a  similar  trend,  although  it  was  used  to  a 
larger extent as the effects of globalisation are continuously affecting the labour force. 

Figure  4  Number  of  applications  received  2007–2020  (without  withdrawn  and  rejected 
applications) (based on EGF Database) 

44  JRC  (Joint  Research  Centre)  Technical  Report,  The  RHOMOLO-IO  modelling  framework:  a  flexible 

Input-Output tool for policy analysis (2019), 

45  RHOMOLO  is  the  spatial  computable  general  equilibrium  model  of  the  European  Commission.  For 

details, see https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/rhomolo.  

46 See page 6 of the JRC Technical Report mentioned in footnote 45. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table  1  Number  of  applications  received  2007–2020  (without  withdrawn  and  rejected 
applications) 

Source: EGF Database 

14 

20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Total Crisis-related00222317001131220485Trade-related85565912785810281Total852729229121811610306166% of total5%3%16%17%13%5%7%11%7%4%6%2%0%4%100% 
 
 
 
Table 2. EGF applications received and amount requested by Member State, 2007–2020 
(without withdrawn and rejected applications)  

Member 
States47 which 
have applied 
for EGF 
funding 

Belgium 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Finland 

Sweden 

Total 

Number of 
applications 

EGF contribution 
(EUR) 

Number of 
targeted 
beneficiaries 

Average amount 
requested per 
beneficiary 
(EUR) 

14 

1 

10 

11 

2 

10 

9 

24 

9 

14 

5 

1 

19 

6 

5 

6 

2 

1 

11 

6 

166 

42 940 897 

18 615 

323 820 

63 680 782 

56 134 386 

5 605 838 

67 720 204 

43 267 750 

51 556 535 

99 655 342 

63 885 181 

2 861 619 

681 207 

460 

6 234 

15 639 

5 860 

11 209 

8 074 

15 735 

19 444 

14 396 

3 013 

675 

35 186 039 

10 359 

27 998 090 

2 575 712 

13 287 994 

6 513 830 

2 247 940 

38 377 138 

27 502 116 

1 952 

1 806 

5 827 

2 416 

2 554 

13 161 

5 868 

652 002 420 

163 297 

2 307 

704 

10 215 

3 589 

957 

6 042 

5 359 

3 277 

5 125 

4 438 

950 

1 009 

3 397 

14 343 

1 426 

2 280 

2 696 

880 

2 916 

4 687 

3 993 

Source: EGF Database  

47 Member States are listed based on the EU protocol order according to the Roman alphabetical order of 

their geographical names in the original language(s). 

15 

 
                                                           
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation  

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  EGF  implementation.  It  includes  figures  on  EGF 
applications  and  covers  the  Fund’s  performance  by  country  and  by  economic  sector 
defined  at  NACE Revision 2 division  level.  The profile of people targeted by the EGF 
(by sex, age and status of dismissed worker or NEET) is also reported. 

Since the EGF became operational in 2007, the number of applications has been highly 
cyclical, responding with a delay to economic developments48. 

The supporting study covered all EGF applications submitted between January 2014 and 
May  2020,  of  which  one  was  rejected  by  the  Council  (still  during  the  timeframe 
observed).  There  were  also  four  withdrawn  applications  (of  which  one  was  later  re-
submitted),  not  included  in  the  total  mentioned  above.  The  background  of  three  of  the 
withdrawn  applications  had  been  analysed  and  the  findings  have  been  included  in  the 
supporting study’s results. The reasons for the withdrawal of the three cases49 were: (i) 
the need to gather more statistical data and references and re-submit the application; and 
(ii)  the  fact  that  a  direct  link  between  the  redundancies  and  the  global  financial  and 
economic  crisis  could  not  be  demonstrated.  The  fourth  withdrawn  application50  is  not 
covered as it was withdrawn in 2021. 

The  cases  for  which  applications  were  submitted  in  2014  had  already  been  evaluated 
during  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014–2020  EGF51.  The  supporting  study  for  the 
ex post evaluation also took into consideration the findings from these cases. 

In what follows, only the 49 approved applications (i.e. EGF cases)52 are considered, 
because the withdrawn and rejected applications did not receive any EGF funding. At the 
end of 2020, six EGF applications were received, of which one was later withdrawn. The 
five  approved  applications  are  partially  covered  in  the  overview  of  2014–2020  EGF 
applications (Annex 4), as they had been approved by the budgetary authority when this 
staff working document was drafted. 

Breakdown of EGF cases by event type and intervention criterion  

In the majority of the 49 EGF cases (61%), redundancies were caused by major changes 
in  world  trade  patterns  due  to  globalisation,  while  the  effects  of  economic  or  financial 
crises  were  the  cause  in  39%  of  cases.  Most  of  the  cases  concerned  redundancies  in  a 
single company (and its downstream suppliers) (criterion a), followed by ‘sectoral’ cases 
involving  several  companies  operating  in  the  same  sector  (criterion  b).  Exceptional 
circumstances or small labour markets (criterion c) constituted the smallest share of EGF 
cases (see Figure 5 below). 

48 OECD (2013), Back to work: Re-employment, earnings and skill use after job displacement, p. 13. 
49  EGF_2015_008  GR/Supermarket  Larissa,  EGF_2016_006  FI/Helsinki-Uusimaa  Education  and 

EGF_2016_007 NL/Gelderland-Overijssel social work. 

50 EGF/2020/003 ES/ Cataluña automotive. 
51 The mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, (2018) – Final Report, ICF. 
52 The 49 EGF cases from EGF/2014/001 to EGF/2020/001 (inclusive) are listed in Table 5. 

16 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 5. Case applications per cause (left) and intervention criterion (right) 

Source: Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 11 

Breakdown of EGF cases per Member State  

In terms of geographical reach, these 49 EGF cases covered 12 Member States: Belgium 
(6), Estonia (1), Finland (7), France (5), Germany (3), Greece (8), Ireland (3), Italy (3), 
the Netherlands  (3), Portugal  (1), Spain  (6)  and  Sweden (3).  These  Member States  had 
benefited  from  the EGF  during the 2007–2013 programming period as  well, except  for 
Estonia, which applied for the first time during 2014–2020.  

The total number of people targeted was highest in Belgium (9 925), followed by France 
(9 620)  and  Greece  (7 432).  Only  12  EGF  cases  (from  five  Member  States  –  Belgium, 
Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal) used the possibility to support NEETs through the 
EGF, targeting 4 099 NEETs in total.  

Breakdown of people targeted through EGF cases  

Across  all  49  cases,  49 562  people  (workers  and  NEETs)  were  targeted  via  EGF 
measures. Of the 45 463 targeted workers, 70% were men and 30% women. The numbers 
differ  significantly  across  cases,  with  a  high  number  of  female  beneficiaries  in  cases 
assisting  workers  dismissed  in  traditionally  ‘female-dominated’  sectors  such  as  retail 
trade  and  the  wearing  apparel  sector,  and  men  beneficiaries  in  traditionally  ‘male-
dominated’ sectors such as transport and manufacturing (see Figure 6 below). 

Figure 6. Workers and NEETs targeted (left); men and women targeted (right) 

Source: Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 12 

17 

 
           
 
        
 
As  for  age  groups,  the  45 463  workers  targeted  belonged  to  the  following  age  groups: 
15–24 (2.6%), 25–54 (72%), 55–64 (24%), and above 64 years old (1.4%).  

Breakdown of cases per sector  

The most common sectors were retail trade (6 cases) and automotive (5 cases). Computer 
programming  and  the  manufacture  of  computers,  electronic  and  optical  products  were 
each  the  subject  of  three  EGF  cases.  The  cases  in  the  automotive  sector  targeted  the 
largest  number  of  beneficiaries,  10 299  people  in  total.  The  smallest  number  of  people 
targeted in a single case was 276 persons in the jewellery sector.  

Completed EGF cases53  

Of  the  49  EGF  cases  outlined  above,  48  had  ended  by  December  2020  and  46  had 
submitted their final report before the supporting study was sent to the Commission. The 
analysis  of  the  results  will  only  be based  on  these  46  final  reports.  Across  these  46 
cases,  39 596  people  were  assisted  in  total  –  37 072  workers  and  2 524  NEETs.  This 
means that 82% of targeted workers and 62% of targeted NEETs were helped by the EGF 
(see Figure 7 below). 

Figure 7. Beneficiaries assisted (left); workers and NEETs assisted vs targeted (right)  

Source: Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 46 

As  for  the  distribution  across  Member  States,  the  largest  numbers  of  beneficiaries 
assisted  were  in  France,  Belgium  and  Finland,  while  the  smallest  numbers  were  in 
Estonia  and Sweden.  The  rates of beneficiaries helped54 ranged from 33%  (Sweden) to 
101% (Finland), as presented in Figure 8 below.  

53 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 16. 
54  Rate  of  beneficiaries  helped  is  defined  as  the  ratio  of  persons  assisted  over  the  number  of  persons 
targeted. 

18 

 
    
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 8. Beneficiaries (workers + NEETs) targeted and assisted per Member State 

Source: Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 16 

Across the 46 cases, about EUR 89 million in EGF funds were spent in total, compared 
to about EUR 151 million allocated. This gave an overall absorption rate of 59%. The 
average  absorption  rates  for  individual  Member  States  ranged  from  29%  (Estonia)  to 
90% (Finland). 

In 2020, 7 applications were submitted by 6 Member States (2 by Spain,  and 1 each by 
Belgium,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands).  Apart  from  one  application 
from Spain submitted in May 2020, the remaining 6 applications were not covered by the 
supporting  study  because  they  were  submitted  in  November  and  December  2020.  Six 
applications have been approved and one was withdrawn. Of the approved applications, 2 
were  submitted  under  the  trade-related  globalisation  criterion  and  4  under  the  new 
economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The total EGF contribution requested for the 6 applications received in 2020 (without the 
withdrawn one) was almost EUR 18.1 million, targeting 9 205 workers. 

An overview of all EGF applications submitted between 2014–2020, together with case 
profile data by Member State and by sector, can be found in Annex 4. 

During  the  2014–2020  period,  to  promote  exchanges  of  best  practice  and  provide 
information about the latest EGF developments, the Commission organised twice-yearly 
EGF contact persons’ meetings55 and networking seminars (aimed at EGF implementers). 
Until end-2019, the meetings took place in Member States implementing EGF cases. As 
of  March  2020,  meetings  took  place  online  because  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The 
EGF  meetings  and  seminars  received  positive  feedback  from  stakeholders  (about  60 
participants on average).  

55  Contact  persons  are  nominated  by  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  responsible  for  the  EGF.  The 

authority of each Member State decides who will represent it. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
4.  METHOD 

a.  Short description of methodology 

One  supporting  study  was  contracted  out.  The  evaluation  questions  derived  from  the 
Better Regulation evaluation criteria were broken down into a number of sub-questions 
and  agreed  with  the  Interservice  Steering  Group.  An  appropriate  mix  of  evaluation 
methods was applied, including different kinds of stakeholder consultations according to 
a predefined stakeholder consultation strategy. The research methods included: 

-  Desk research: 

o  Analysis  for  each  EGF  case  of  all  the  data  available  in  the  SFC2014 

(System for Fund Management in the European Union) database;  

o  In-depth  analysis  of  the  biennial  report,  the  frequently  asked  questions, 
reports from the EGF contact persons meetings and networking seminars, 
EGF press releases, etc.; 

o  The Commission internal EGF Database; 
o  Data and literature review of existing data and literature was carried out 
at  two  levels:  EU  level  and  case  level.  The  EU-level  review  covered 
legislative  documents,  previous  evaluations  of  the  EGF,  studies  and  the 
proposal for the EGF 2021–2027. The case-level review was carried out 
by  national  experts  in  the  12  Member  States  that  received  EGF  co-
financing  during  the  2014–2020  period,  and  covered  all  relevant  case 
information56; 

o  The Commission’s additional desk research. 

-  Consultation activities: 

o  Online  EGF  networking  seminar  was  organised  by  the  Directorate-
General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion in March 2020, as a 
first  consultation  activity.  Relevant  stakeholders  were  invited  and  the 
planned stakeholder consultations were discussed. 

o  Targeted online surveys: 

  The 16  Member States57 that did  not  apply for EGF co-financing 
during  the  2014–2020  period  were  interviewed  to  uncover  the 
reasons  why  they  did  not  apply  and  to  gather  their  views  on  the 
appropriateness  of  the  application  process  and  the  Fund’s  overall 
relevance. 

  EGF  beneficiaries  were  interviewed  to  gain  a  perspective  on  the 
experience and impact of the EGF support, and to gather views on 
how  the  EGF  compares  to  other  forms  of  support  for  redundant 
workers (and NEETs). 

o  Public  consultation:  assisting  the  Commission  in  developing  the 
questionnaire,  and  analysing  the  results  of  the  public  consultation.  The 
results of the 12-week public consultation can be found in Annex 2. 

56  Case  applications,  final  reports  and  employment  status  reports;  the  Commission’s  proposals  and 
decisions  by  the  Budgetary  Authority;  and  any  additional  documents  like  audits  and  evaluations  of 
specific cases. 

57 Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK.   

20 

 
                                                           
o  In-depth  interviews  conducted  at  EU  level  and  at  case  level  with  desk 
officers, managing authorities and other stakeholders, in particular for the 
case studies58.    

o  Online  focus  groups  /  (group)  interviews  with  EGF  beneficiaries  to 
uncover whether and to what extent the EGF has had a (lasting) impact on 
individual  beneficiaries,  from  the  perspective  of  those  who  actually 
received the support. 

-  Case  studies:  addressing  the  research  questions,  based  on  desk  research, 
interviews,  targeted  survey  and  focus  groups.  The  case  studies  reports  were  not 
published. 

-  Counterfactual  impact  evaluation  (CIE)  to  analyse  how  fast  a  person  who 
receives EGF-funded support finds a new job compared to a person who did not 
receive EGF support.  

The  Commission  based  this  evaluation  mainly  on  the  results  of  the  supporting  study,  
complementing  it  where  appropriate  with  additional  evidence  from  previous  reports, 
evaluations, general experience in the management of the EGF and other sources such as 
the Commission’s internal EGF Database.   

Further details on the methodology are explained in Annex 3. 

b.  Limitations  

The  findings  and  conclusions  are  reasonably  robust,  as  they  are  based  on  sufficient 
combination  (‘triangulation’)  of  sources  and  tools,  such  as  the  data  reported  by  the 
monitoring  systems,  the  stakeholder  consultation  and  case  studies.  However,  the 
evaluation also faced several limitations. Firstly, the timing of the EGF ex post evaluation 
did  not  allow  for  analysis  of  EGF  cases  from  2020.  Secondly,  there  were  limited 
comparators  with  the  2007–2013  programming  period,  and  sectoral  analysis  was  not 
possible  because  of  the  overall  small  number  of  EGF  applications.  There  were  also 
difficulties  in  reaching  EGF  beneficiaries  and  identifying  whether  survey  respondents 
actually benefited from  EGF measures. On top of that, there were  limited replies to the 
public consultation, inconclusive results  from  the counterfactual impact  evaluation, and 
delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

These  limitations  were  overcome  during  the  study  by  collecting  data  from  different 
sources  such  as  surveys,  in-depth  interviews  and  a  public  consultation.  These  data 
sources  provided  opinions  and  perceptions  of  various  stakeholders,  which  in  some 
instances may be the only available source of evidence. 

More details about the limitations are explained in Annex 3. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The evaluation questions that guided the evaluation process were set out in the terms of 
reference for the supporting study (see in Annex 3). 

58 A total of eight interviews were conducted at EU level, with European Commission staff (3), (former) 
Members of the European Parliament (2), a social partner (1), and Member States that did not apply 
for EGF support during the 2014–2020 period (2). At national and case level at least four interviews 
were conducted per case, together with two overarching country-specific interviews. 

21 

 
                                                           
5.1.  EFFECTIVENESS  

The  effectiveness  criterion  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  EGF  objectives  have  been 
met at both instrument and case level. It also analyses the impact of the Fund as a whole. 
This was done in particular by analysing: (a) the extent to which the EGF manages to ensure 
sustainable  re-integration  of  redundant  workers;  (b)  the  availability  of  support  for  all  eligible 
beneficiaries;  (c)  the  use  of  the  EGF;  (d)  monitoring  and  reporting;  (e)  factors  helping  or 
hindering the achievement of objectives; (f) involvement of companies and social partners; and 
(g) information and communication activities. It also includes lessons learned from the EGF 
implementation and the Fund’s overall impact. 

a.  Re-integration rates and other effects of the EGF support 

Re-integration rates 

In all EGF cases, the main aim was to bring workers made redundant back into work as 
quickly as possible. Based on the available case data received by the Commission for 46 
final reports59 (out of 49 cases), the EGF has generally been effective in terms of the re-
integration rates achieved, with an average re-integration rate of around 60%. The re-
integration rate for worker beneficiaries varied between 33% and 88%60. This is higher 
than in the 2007–2013 programming period, and higher than the target of 50% set in the 
impact assessment for the 2014–2020 EGF61. However, this apparent improvement needs 
to  be  viewed  with  caution  as  the  implementation  period  for  cases  was  much  longer 
during 2014–2020 (24 months or longer if the implementation started early) than  in the 
previous programming period (12 months).  

For  NEETs  beneficiaries,  in  total  19%62  of  those  helped  by  the  EGF  were  employed, 
self-employed  or  returned  to  education  by  the  time  of  submission  of  the  final  reports. 
One of the reasons for this result was given by  some Member States, which underlined 
that NEETs were more difficult to engage and activate than dismissed workers63. 

Overall, in the longer term (i.e. 18 months after the end of the implementation period64), 
the total rate of re-integration across all cases was 60%65, practically the same as for the 
short-term  results  (6  months  after  the  end  of  the  implementation  period).  However, 
results  improved  in  most  Member  States  in  the  long  term,  with  only  three  countries 
experiencing a decrease in the re-integration rate compared to the short term (see Figure 
9 below). 

59 Member States report on the re-integration rate in the final report of a case, due 6 months after the end of 

the implementation period. 

60 Commission internal EGF Database. 
61 Commission Staff Working Paper – Impact Assessment SEC(2011) 1130 final, p.33 
62 NEETs were targeted in 12 cases. However, data cover only 11 cases with available final reports at the 
time  of  drafting  of  the  study  by  the  external  evaluators,  Ramboll  Management  Consulting,  SEOR 
(2020), p. 43-44. 
63 EGF final reports. 
64 Member States report on the re-integration rate also in a case’s employment status report, due 18 months 

after the end of the implementation period. 

65 EGF employment status reports. 

22 

 
                                                           
Figure 9. Change in re-integration rates per case (short term vs long term)66 

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

Comunidad Valenciana metal

Comunidad Valenciana Automotive

Castilla y León mining of coal

103

160
197

364

161

198
161
161

337
342

102

210
250
250

2536

823

1294

132

229

76
97
139

203

338
361

108
102
105
137

79

98

152
170

STX Rauma

Broadcom

391
343
345
364

1102

1158

1403
1403

1208

1668

1518

1713

1380

1491

Computer programming

Microsoft

Nokia Network Systems

Microsoft

GAD

PSA

Mory-Ducros

MoryGlobal

Andersen Ireland

Lufthansa Technik

PWA International

Whirlpool

Alitalia

Almaviva

Gelderland and Overijssel

Drenthe Overijssel Retail

Volvo Trucks

Ericsson

185
185

583
594

832

776

472
407

167
173

263
300

97
97

122
122

318
340

563

718

412
461

644

555

412
412

E
B

E
D

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

E
I

T
I

L
N

E
S

Total beneficiaries reintegrated (short term)

Total beneficiaries reintegrated (long term)

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

Source: Commission internal EGF Database 

66 This graph includes all 2014–2020 EGF cases for which both the final report and the employment status 
report were available when the supporting study was sent to the Commission. It thus covers 37 (out of 
49) cases.  

23 

 
 
                                                           
According  to  the  results  of  the  online  EGF  beneficiary  survey67  carried  out  by  the 
external  evaluators,  42%  of  beneficiaries  indicated  that  the  EGF  helped  them  find  a 
permanent job, and 28% said it helped them find a temporary job, amounting to  a total 
re-integration rate of 70%68. Also 42% of beneficiaries replied that it would have been 
much more difficult to find a job without the EGF. There is a certain degree of bias about 
the  results,  as  half  of  the  beneficiaries  were  from  higher-educated  ICT  professionals, 
mostly from Finnish cases.  They are not necessarily representative of the experience of 
all  beneficiaries  across  all  EGF  cases  and  countries.  A  higher  response  rate  from  all 
Member  States  with  EGF  cases  and  among  more  vulnerable  beneficiary  groups  would 
probably have delivered different results. 

During  the  public  consultation69,  carried  out  via  the  EU’s  Have  Your  Say70  website, 
nearly all respondents indicated that the actions supported by the EGF helped redundant 
workers to find employment. A majority of respondents positively assessed the way the 
EGF  catered  to  the  needs  of  beneficiaries,  through  more  targeted  and  personalised 
measures than via national policy instruments.  However, only 15 of the 39 respondents 
were aware of the EGF. 

A counterfactual impact evaluation (CIE) was carried out by the external evaluators for 
two  EGF  cases71  in  order  to  measure  the  EGF’s  impact  on  the  re-integration  rates  of 
beneficiaries compared to those who did not receive EGF support. The CIE compared the 
re-integration results of the treatment group (EGF beneficiaries) for two cases against a 
control group (a sample of similar size, consisting of persons with a similar background 
in  terms  of age,  gender,  educational  background). The short-term  results  for both  cases 
were generally inconclusive. In the long term, however, in one of the two cases, from the 
Netherlands,  among  those  still  without  work  after  12  months,  those  receiving  EGF 
support  ended  up  finding  jobs  1.8  times  faster  than  those  who  did  not  receive  this 
support.  This  indicated  that  the  EGF  has  been  successful  in  providing  assistance  to 
people experiencing longer-term unemployment, thus to those who need it most, and 
also that the EGF adds value over and above what can be done at national level alone. 

It is unclear whether the EGF had significant impacts on beneficiaries compared to what 
could  have  been  achieved  through  alternative  labour  market  measures  at  national  or 
regional  level.  Although  limited  quantitative  evidence  is  available,  there  are  many 
examples72 in which the EGF results exceed those achieved through mainstream national 
labour market measures. 

67  1 347  completed  answers  were  received  from  EGF  beneficiaries,  but  only  950  passed  the  validation 
criteria for replies and have been  covered by the analysis of the survey results, i.e. only 3.5% of the 
total beneficiaries assisted. 

68 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 44. 
69  The  39  responses  considered  in  the  analysis  came  from  16  EU  countries  and  1  from  the  USA. 
Respondents  identified  themselves  as:  public  authorities  (16),  or  as  EU  citizens  (16);  other  groups 
being:  NGOs  (1),  academic/research  organisations  (1),  trade  unions  (1),  non-EU  citizens  (1)  and 
‘other’ respondents (3)  

        (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2148-Ex-post-evaluation-of-

the-European-Globalisation-Adjustment-Fund-2014-2020-/public-consultation). 
70 European Globalisation Adjustment Fund – final evaluation (2014-20) (europa.eu) 
71 One in the Netherlands (EGF/2016/005 NL/Drenthe Overijssel retail) and one in Ireland (EGF/2014/016 

IE/Lufthansa Technik). 

72 EGF case studies.  

24 

 
                                                           
As mentioned above, a new method used to compare outcomes, the CIE, provided some 
useful  insights  about  the  long-term  effects  of  EGF  intervention.  Several  stakeholders 
interviewed indicated that comparing re-integration outcomes with suitable comparators 
proved  to  be  challenging  in  the  absence  of  baseline  indicators  such  as  case-specific 
targets like quantitative re-employment objectives included in EGF applications. Such a 
comparison  must take into  account  the skills  of the targeted workers  and the economic 
situation  in  order  to  make  sense.  However,  in  most  cases  detailed  knowledge  about 
participants is available only when people actually register for EGF measures, not when 
preparing the application. 

Other effects of the EGF support 

Further  evidence  was  gathered  from  the  online  EGF  beneficiary  survey,  which  showed 
that  beyond  the  re-integration  rates,  the  EGF  has  broader  impacts  on  beneficiaries’ 
general employability, such as  new skills (77% of respondents), self-confidence gained 
(62%), increased motivation, reduced stress and new networks of contacts (59%). These 
less  tangible,  unexpected  results  of  the  EGF  support  are  difficult  to  measure, 
considering  the  lack  of  medium-  to  long-term  monitoring.  The  effectiveness  of  EGF 
support is measured only through the re-integration rates and there is no requirement for 
quantitative re-integration objectives in an EGF application. 

Among the EGF beneficiaries who responded to the survey, the views on EGF benefits 
were overwhelmingly positive. 

b.  Availability of support for all eligible beneficiaries 

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  EGF  is  to  concentrate  on  the  most  vulnerable  groups, 
especially disadvantaged, older and young unemployed persons by offering measures to 
stimulate them to remain in or return to the labour market.  

Examples  of  good  practice  were  found  in  German  and  Finnish  EGF  cases73,  with 
measures tailored to disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. In Germany74, these measures 
included group formats fostering voluntary work and social exchange; young trainees of 
the dismissing company could continue their apprenticeships in other companies, while 
in Finland75 specific coaching was offered to persons with a partial disability to work. 

In  the  EGF  application,  Member  States  are  required  to  include  information  about  any 
specific category of measure for vulnerable groups or people with a longstanding health 
problem or disability, or members of a recognised minority. Such information is usually 
collected  when  the  redundant  workers/NEETs  sign  up  for  EGF  measures  and  the 
information about the profiles or backgrounds becomes known.  

The  EGF  applications  provide  insight  only  about  the  targeted  beneficiaries’  age  group 
and gender, and whether or not they are EU citizens. Across all 49 cases, the majority of 
targeted  workers  are  male  (70%  of  all  targeted  workers)  and  in  the  25–54  age  group 
(74%).  This  result  is  explainable  because  in  most  EGF  cases  dismissed  workers  came 
from predominantly male-dominated industries (e.g. motor vehicles). In most EGF cases, 

73 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 38. 
74 EGF/2017/008 DE/Goodyear and EGF/2015/002 DE/Adam Opel.  
75 EGF/2016/008 FI/Nokia Network Systems. 

25 

 
                                                           
information about the gender of the dismissed workers is not available. However, where 
such  data  are  available,  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  percentage  of  men  and 
women targeted and those dismissed.  

The  results  for  NEETs  were  generally  positive.  Although  targeted  only  in  a  small 
number of EGF cases (12 out of 49), in those cases the young people targeted took up to 
a large degree the help offered (about 62%), which provided them assistance they would 
not have received through national mainstream services. However, the key challenge in 
supporting  NEETs  was  engaging  and  activating  them,  as  they  are  more  difficult  to 
identify and connect with and because their needs are different from those of redundant 
workers76. 

Based  on  the  information  available,  the  EGF  is  flexible  enough  to  provide  tailored 
support to different groups; in some cases, specific support was included for vulnerable 
groups. However, the lack of data collection at the application stage and adequate points 
of  comparison  for  measuring  achievements  makes  it  difficult  to  assess  and  draw  firm 
conclusions about the EGF’s effectiveness in offering support to all eligible beneficiaries. 

Extent to which support corresponds to needs and profiles of beneficiaries  

There is widespread agreement across all stakeholder groups that the EGF is adequately 
tailored  to  the  specific  needs  of  the  relevant  target  groups.  EGF  assistance  also 
removed barriers to participation in measures by offering various types of allowance such 
as  job  search,  training,  and  returning  to  study  allowances  (see  below  Use  of  EGF  by 
Member  States).  In  the  public  consultation,  the  majority  of  respondents  (12  out  of  16) 
positively  assessed  the  way  EGF  catered  to  beneficiaries’  needs,  highlighting  that  it 
altered the type of support normally available for redundant workers by Member States. 
According to the EGF beneficiaries’ survey, 69% of respondents agreed that the support 
they  received  had  been  tailored  to  their  needs.  Only  18%  disagreed,  while  others  were 
unable to provide a response.  

Findings  from  the  case  studies  show  that  different  practices  are  used  to  match  the 
beneficiaries’  needs  and  profiles  with  the  support  offered.  In  some  cases  (Belgium, 
Finland, Ireland), the needs of beneficiaries are identified by sending a targeted survey to 
each  worker  prior  to  designing  the  EGF  measures.  In  other  cases  (e.g.  France,  Italy, 
Spain, Germany) a profiling and needs assessment is carried out via individual interviews 
at the start of the EGF implementation. 

Interviews at EU level also pointed to an improvement over time in this respect, stating 
that  EGF  measures  increasingly  took  into  account  the  socio-economic  context, 
therefore  addressing  workers’  needs  in  a  holistic  way,  for  example  by  providing 
additional support for childcare and benefits during the retraining process (in Spain).  

There  is  substantial  variance  in  the  rates  of  beneficiaries  helped  and  absorption  rates 
across cases, even when taking into account the profiles and needs of beneficiaries (and 
in most cases also the needs of the labour market and local companies).  

76  European  Commission  (2019),  Report  from  The  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 

Council on the activities of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2017 and 2018. 

26 

 
                                                           
The  EGF  Regulation77  allows  for  a  certain  degree  of  flexibility  to  reallocate  funds 
between  measures  based  on  needs  that  may  emerge  during  the  implementation 
period,  provided  that  the  total  EGF  budget  is  not  exceeded78.  Budgetary  flexibility  is 
important  and  Member  States  used  it  for  minor  reallocations  (of  less  than  20%  of  the 
planned  budget)  during  the  implementation  of  about  30%  of  cases.  For  reallocations 
above 20% of the planned budget, Member States must inform the Commission. These, 
however, have occurred only in about 10% of cases. 

Processes for decision-making and implementation of the EGF 

In principle, cases may be implemented for a maximum period of 24 months from the date 
of submission of the application.  

Findings  show  that  considerable  delays  in  the  start  of  EGF  implementation  were 
experienced in 15 out of 46 cases. The time between a Member State’s submission of an 
EGF application and the budgetary authority’s approval ranged between 20 weeks79 and 
36 weeks80 during 2014–2020. These delays were to some extent due to the lengthy and 
complex  application  procedure  at  EU  level,  but  also  to  the  legal  constraints  and  to  the 
way the case was managed at national/regional level. 

In  practice,  Member  States  often  wait  to  receive  formal  approval  from  the  budgetary 
authority  before  they  start  implementing  the  proposed  measures.  This  is  because  they 
lack the financial capacity or the willingness to take the risk of starting implementation 
before the EGF co-financing is secured. This can lead to significant delays and therefore 
a shorter implementation period81.  

Reasons for delays in the start of implementation are largely country- and case-specific. 
Considerable delays were seen for example in Greece (410 days on average) and in Spain 
(415 days)82. 

The EGF was designed as an emergency response instrument. However, its mobilisation 
is  not  as  quick  as  it  should  be,  hindering  its  effectiveness.  Despite  this,  the  delays  in 
mobilisation  of  the  EGF  do  not  mean  that  the  EGF  fails  to  target  all  the  people  who 
would in principle need support after losing their job. Targeting all redundant workers is 
the  regular  task  of  the  public  employment  service  or  other  national  authorities.  As  the 
EGF  aims  specifically  to  target  those  who  need  it  the  most,  i.e.  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. 

Member  States  are  responsible  for 
the  application  period  and 
implementation  of  the  EGF  measures.  In  some  cases,  when  Member  States  provide 
sufficient information in the application sent to the Commission, the approval procedures 
can be sped up.  

length  of 

the 

77 See Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013. 
78 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 39. 
79 EGF/2014/014 GR/Odyssefs Fokas. 
80 EGF/2017/009 FR/Air France. 
81 Of 46 cases, 24 started when intended, 7 cases started before the application date, and the remaining 15 

started later than envisaged. 

82 Commission EGF Database. 

27 

 
                                                           
c.  Use of the EGF by Member States and by beneficiaries  

Overall, not all the funding available under the EGF is used. Between 2014 and 202083, 
49  applications  were  approved,  with  a 
total  EGF  contribution  granted  of 
EUR 157.3 million, compared to the EUR 150 million annual ceiling (in 2011 prices). 

Being an emergency relief instrument, the EGF is not expected to fully spend its ceiling. 
Moreover,  it  needs  a  comfortable  safety  margin  in  order  to  be  prepared  for  worst-case 
scenarios  of  mass  redundancies.  During  times  of  stability  and  economic  growth,  it  is 
expected that far less than the ceiling is used. As with all emergency relief instruments, it 
is not possible to accurately estimate the amount of assistance needed in a given year. 

However, it is important to consider the reasons why some Member States did not apply 
for the EGF  support and  whether there  could  have been more possible cases. Evidence 
collected in the context of this evaluation confirmed previously identified barriers and 
identified a few other issues.  

  Many Member States did not experience  great job losses due to globalisation or 
the financial and economic crisis, or had limited institutional capacity or limited 
experience  in  applying  for  or  implementing  EGF  cases84.  This  was  the  case 
particularly  in  central  and  eastern  Europe  and  was  largely  confirmed  by  EGF 
contact persons in Member States that did not apply during 2014-2020. Especially 
Member  States  with  limited  experience  applying  for  EGF  support  have 
difficulties in demonstrating the link between redundancies and globalisation or a 
crisis,  or  in  demonstrating,  under  the  criteria  of  small  labour  markets  or 
exceptional circumstances, that the redundancies have a significant impact on the 
local or regional labour market. 

  The other issues identified were a degree of overlap between the EGF and other 
EU  instruments  (such  as  the  European  Social  Fund),  or  with  national  measures. 
Despite design differences between the EGF and the ESF, Member States with a 
higher ESF co-financing rate in  less developed regions85 were more reluctant to 
apply for EGF. The majority of countries that did apply for EGF co-financing had 
an  ESF  co-financing  rate  of  60%  or  less,  thus  making  EGF  support  more 
attractive.  

  The  timing  of  the  redundancies.  Many  major  redundancies  happen  over  a 
timeframe longer than what is set out in the EGF Regulation (4 or 9 months) and 
very often they  occur in waves86.  In order to target most redundancies, Member 
States might need to submit several applications, depending on the timing of the 
dismissals. 

83 The 49 cases analysed by the external experts include EGF applications received between 2014 and 2020 
and  approved  by  December  2020. The  remaining  five  EGF  applications  received  at  the end  of  2020 
(without the withdrawn one) are not included in this analysis. 

84  See  the  literature  on  the  subject  Lucian  Cernat  &  Federica  Mustilli  (2018):  Trade  and Labour  Market 
Adjustments:  What  Role  for  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund?,  European  Commission 
(2017), Report on the 19th meeting of the Contact Persons of the European Globalisation Adjustment 
Fund (EGF), Claeys and Sapir (2018): The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Easing the pain 
from trade?. 

85 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. 

86 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p.26. 

28 

 
                                                           
Identifying  how  many  other  restructuring  events  might  have  been  eligible  for  EGF  is 
challenging  because  of  the  limited  data  sources  available.  The  European  Restructuring 
Monitor remains the most comprehensive source of data for recorded announcements of 
redundancies. However, the timeframe of the redundancies is not always indicated. 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. 

Use of EGF by Member States  

As  detailed  in  Chapter  3,  12  Member  States  applied  for  and  received  EGF  support, 
covering a total of 49 cases87. In 46 of those cases, the final report was submitted before 
the supporting study was sent to the Commission. 

The  specific  labour  market  measures  and  allowances  offered  to  both  redundant 
workers  and  NEETs  differ  considerably  in  scope  and  volume.  The  measures  and 
allowances most commonly offered and taken up are set out below 88. 

  Job search assistance and case management – this is quite broad, as it includes 
general  information  services  to  workers/NEETs,  career  guidance,  advisory 
services, mentoring and outplacement assistance. These measures were offered in 
48  out  of  49  cases,  targeting  in  total  68 021  workers  and  NEETs,  for  a  total 
budget of EUR 69.3 million. The results from 46 final reports showed that these 
measures  were  provided  to  about  50 917  beneficiaries,  for  a  total  amount  of 
about EUR 49.3 million. 

  Training  and  retraining  –  this  was  offered  in  45  cases  and  helped  73%  of 
beneficiaries.  This  measure  ranges  from  vocational  training  to  full  university 
degrees and to language courses, etc. A total of 25 800 workers and NEETs were 
targeted by this measure, for a total budget of EUR  80.7 million. This measure 
was  provided  to  16 595  beneficiaries,  for  a  total  amount  of  about  EUR  44 
million. 

  Promotion of entrepreneurship – this was offered in 35 cases and helped 48% 
of beneficiaries on average. This measure includes guidance and advice for self-
employment  through  workshops,  individual  assistance  in  the  creation  of 
companies,  tutoring  meetings  and  mentoring  activities.  In  total,  5 235  workers 
and NEETs were targeted, for a total planned budget of about EUR 32.6 million. 
This  measure  was  provided  to  2 460  beneficiaries,  for  a  total  amount  spent  of 
about EUR 26.2 million. 

  Less  commonly used measures are sheltered and supported employment and 
rehabilitation, and direct job creation. These measures targeted 1 068 workers 
and NEETs for the  first  measure, and  200  for the latter, with  spending  at  EUR 
5.5  million  and  EUR  3  million  respectively.  The  first  measure  was  offered  in 
three EGF cases and helped 275 beneficiaries (of 1 068 targeted), for about EUR 
1.4 million spent. The direct job creation measure was offered in one case, where 
it helped 9 beneficiaries (of 200 targeted). In most cases, this relatively low rate 
was  due  to  people  finding  a  job  without  support,  or  a  lack  of  interest  to 

87 The supporting study did not cover the six EGF applications submitted at the end of 2020. 
88 EGF case studies. 

29 

 
                                                           
participate  due  to  low  willingness  for  change.  ‘Other’  measures  included 
cooperation activities89 like an enterprise survey and company visits. 

  Allowances  offered  were  mainly  job  search  allowances,  training  allowances, 
subsistence  allowances  and  mobility  allowances.  Job  search  allowances  were 
targeted at 14 691 persons across 25 cases, training allowances at 11 822 persons 
across  21  cases,  mobility  allowances  at  2 954  persons  across  23  cases,  and 
subsistence  allowances  at  5 306  persons  across  seven  cases.  Employers’ 
recruitment incentives, consisting of pay subsidies to encourage local companies 
to hire EGF beneficiaries, were used in 12 cases. Other allowances offered (in six 
cases)  include  allowances  to  return  to  studies,  careers  allowances  and  an 
allowance to access internet in one’s home. As for beneficiaries helped, training 
allowances  had  the  highest  average  rate  (65%),  followed  by  job  search 
allowances  (64%),  subsistence  allowances  (63%)  and  mobility  allowances 
(33%)90. The main reason for the low take-up of mobility allowances is the low 
willingness for mobility among beneficiaries. 

The EGF is complementing regular measures by increasing the level of aid, as confirmed 
by  the  stakeholder  consultations.  In  many  cases,  EGF  assistance  removed  barriers  to 
participation  in  regular  (or  EGF)  measures  as  assistance  was  offered  for  travel, 
accommodation,  childcare  or  course  material  facilities.  This  was  also  confirmed  by  the 
evidence collected for the supporting study. 

Use of the EGF for beneficiaries 

Case  research,  including  beneficiary  surveys,  identified  considerable  differences  across 
EGF cases and Member States in the rate of beneficiaries helped (defined as the ratio of 
persons assisted over the number of persons targeted). The differences are mostly due to 
case-specific or country-specific factors. The take-up of EGF measures by beneficiaries 
is  largely  dependent  on  personal  and  contextual  circumstances,  although  the  way  in 
which the measures are designed and implemented also play a role. Among the reasons 
that led to fewer people participating in the measures offered are: 

o  strong  national/local  support  systems  that  reduce  the  need  for  additional  EGF 

support;  

o  generous  compensation  and  training  opportunities  offered  by  the  dismissing 

company;  

o  delays in the start of implementation of EGF measures (so that beneficiaries had 
already  found  employment  –  this  also  implies,  however,  that  EGF  assistance 
might not have been needed); 

o  finding  a  job  sooner  than  expected;  highly-skilled  people  did  not  require  much 

support;  

o  strong labour markets enabling quick re-integration without EGF support;  
o  personal  reasons  for  beneficiaries  not  wanting  to  take  part  (e.g.  poor  public 

transportation possibilities, caring for family members, etc.); 

89 EGF/2014/008 FI/STX Rauma and EGF/2015/001 FI/Broadcom. 
90 The total amounts spent for each type of allowance were: EUR 11.3 million for training 
allowances,  EUR  6.3  million  for  job  search  allowances,  about  EUR  9  million  for 
subsistence allowances and EUR 0.4 million for mobility allowances. 

30 

 
                                                           
o 

lack  of  knowledge  that  measures  actually  exist  (implying  that  the  national 
authorities  were  not  able  to  identify  possible  beneficiaries,  and/or  did  not  put 
enough effort into guidance measures); and 

o  measures  not  being  regarded  as  useful  (implying  that  the  package  of  measures 

was designed without closely involving the beneficiaries). 

In total, across the 46 EGF cases analysed, 37 072 workers and 2 524 NEETs have been 
assisted (i.e. 39 596 beneficiaries in total). The rate of beneficiaries helped ranged from a 
low of 9% to a high of 113%91.  

As explained above, the results of the beneficiary surveys indicated that the EGF support 
was perceived as very effective by most respondents and that the support they received 
was tailored to  their needs.  Dissatisfaction rates are case-specific, and also vary widely 
within countries. Most of the reported dissatisfaction stems from the fact  that measures 
offered  turned  out  not  to  be  of  the  expected  quality.  However,  in  a  few  instances,  a 
mismatch between measures offered and beneficiaries’ needs hindered participation92. 

Little information is available on the specific characteristics of the beneficiaries targeted 
beyond  gender  and  age  group.  Out  of  49 562  persons  targeted  (workers  and  NEETs), 
31 797  were  men.  This  had  been  addressed  in  a  study  for  the  European  Parliament’s 
Committee  on  Women’s  Rights  and  Gender  Equality93.  As  mentioned  in  the  mid-term 
evaluation of the 2014–2020 EGF, the figures reflect the gender segregation of jobs, and 
the fact  that  industries prone to  larger restructuring because of  globalisation, especially 
manufacturing,  are  predominantly  male  industries.  However,  this  is  case-dependent. 
There  are  also  cases  from  the  retail  sector  with  a  far  larger  number  of  female  workers 
made redundant than men. 

Use of the EGF support for NEETs  

During  2014–2020,  NEETs  were  targeted  in  only  12  out  of  the  49  cases94,  by  5 
countries95, accounting for 8.4% of all persons targeted through the EGF (4 099 NEETs 
out  of  49 562  persons  targeted).  The  conditions  for  supporting  NEETs  under  the  EGF 
were  different  during  2014–2017  and  2018–2020.  In  2018,  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom) 
2018/1046 revised the NEETs clause and extended it until 31 December 2020. 

During  2014–2017,  19  Member  States  could  potentially  qualify  for  assistance  targeted 
towards NEETs96. To include NEETs in an EGF case, at least some of the redundancies 
must have happened in  a region  eligible under the Youth  Employment  Initiative (YEI). 

91  9%  (EGF/2017/007  SE/Ericsson  2)  and  113%  (EGF/2015/005  FI/Computer  programming  and 
EGF/2016/001  FI/Microsoft  1).  Reach  rates  of  more  than  100%  can  be  attributed  to  additional  workers 
being  made  redundant  after  the  application  deadline.  Such  people  can  (under  certain  conditions)  still  be 
included for support if this can be achieved within the agreed budget. Source: Final reports of EGF cases.  
92 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p.30. 
93 European Parliament (2016), Assessment of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund from a gender 

equality perspective, p. 13 and 34. 

94 NEETs were also targeted in the EGF/2019/001 BE/Carrefour Belgium application, but because it was 

rejected by the Council it has been omitted from the numbers here. 

95 Belgium targeted in total 700 NEETs, Greece 2 098, Ireland 446, Portugal 730 and Spain 125. 
96 For the EGF Regulation, these are Member States with regions where youth unemployment rates were 
above 25% in 2012. However, in some Member States, the situation has improved over time: based on 
2015 figures, only 15 Member States fell into this category.  

31 

 
                                                           
The  possibility  has  been  used  by  Belgium,  Greece,  Ireland  and  Spain.  However,  these 
countries  included  NEETs  in  only  a  few  of  their  EGF  applications.  Spain  could  have 
included  NEETs  in  all  applications,  but  preferred  not  to  do  so,  as  its  co-financing  rate 
under the YEI was far more favourable (at 93%) than the EGF co-financing rate. 

During 2018–2020,  the inclusion of NEETs in  an EGF case became possible if at  least 
some of the redundancies happened in a region with at least 20% youth unemployment. 
Only 2 Member States included NEETs in their applications under the new conditions: 1 
application was submitted by Portugal97 in 2018 and 1 by Belgium in 2019 (which was 
rejected by the Council).  

In 2014–2020, the rate of NEETs helped ranged from 39%98 to 100%99. Average rates of 
NEETs  helped  were  particularly  high  in  Ireland  (91%)  and  Greece  (85%),  whereas 
Belgium  struggled  to  engage  with  this  target  group  (47%).  Findings  showed  that  the 
existence  of  the  YEI  alongside  the  EGF  created  a  degree  of  ‘competition’  and 
information  retention  between  operators;  this  meant  that  time  was  required  to  establish 
trust and participation so that young people could be adequately targeted and involved in 
the EGF projects100. 

The limited use of EGF support for NEETs can be partly explained by the perception that 
the  EGF  is  not  the  best  avenue  to  target  these  young  people  and  that  other  EU 
instruments (such as the YEI) are better suited for this type of support. However, in those 
cases where EGF support to NEETs was used, it was considered a key added value of the 
EGF  (this  was  the  case  in  Ireland).  Also,  in  Belgium,  the  EGF  allowed  for 
experimentation with new types of support for this target group by extending the classic 
national support system to NEETs101. 

See Annex 4 for figures per case on the NEETs targeted and assisted. 

d.  Monitoring and reporting 

Under  the  EGF  Regulation,  Member  States  include  in  the  application  the  number  of 
persons  targeted,  broken  down  by  gender  and  age  group.  Member  States  send  to  the 
Commission  a  final  report  6  months  after  the  end  of  the  personalised  measures, 
indicating the case’s outcome, including the beneficiaries’ employment status. Reporting 
about the beneficiaries is limited to their number, broken down by gender and age, and to 
the categories of workers. The Commission implementing decisions also require Member 
States  to  deliver  data  on  the  employment  status  of  beneficiaries  a  year  after  the  final 
report. 

97 The final report for EGF/2018/002 PT/Norte Centro Lisboa wearing apparel was not available when the 

final evaluation study was drafted, so its results were not included in the evaluation study. 

98 EGF/2015/002 BE/Hainaut Machinery. 
99  In  the  case  of  Spain  (EGF/2017/001  ES/Castilla  y  León  mining  of  coal),  the  initial  number  of  NEETs 
targeted was 125. However, the interest was higher than expected, so the number was adjusted to the 
maximum  possible  –  198.  All  198  NEETs  were  reached,  resulting  in  a  158%  rate  of  beneficiaries 
helped, which is reported here as 100% considering the target was changed.  

100 This was reported in all three EGF cases in Wallonia since 2015  – EGF/2015/007 BE/Hainaut-Namur 

Glass, EGF/2015/012 BE/Hainaut Machinery and EGF/2017/010 BE/Caterpillar.  

101 Case studies of Belgian EGF cases. 

32 

 
                                                           
The effectiveness of the EGF support is measured only through the re-integration rates. 
There is no requirement for quantitative re-integration objectives in an EGF application, 
which  makes  it  difficult  to  measure  and  monitor  the  effectiveness  of  EGF  support, 
because  there  is  no  baseline  against  which  results  can  be  compared.  This  was  also 
pointed out in the mid-term evaluation of the 2014–2020 EGF102. 

According  to  interviewees  at  EU  level,  progress  on  case-specific  objectives  is  poorly 
monitored  by  Member  States103.  The  findings  from  the  case  studies  show  that  in  many 
cases there are no specific systems to keep track of the results beyond the end date of the 
EGF measures. Among the reasons for this are privacy concerns (e.g. Sweden) or most 
often  because  only  the  minimum  information  is  collected  for  the  employment  status 
report, as mentioned above. Beyond the challenges related to privacy, there seems to be 
little burden associated with monitoring the results. Only Germany and France reported a 
burden in this context, while Belgium suggested that more monitoring should take place, 
including more qualitative results such as beneficiaries’ satisfaction, improved skills and 
self-confidence. 

The 2021–2027 EGF Regulation includes specific common indicators and a beneficiary 
survey to monitor implementation and measure impact. The final report to be submitted 
by Member States  will include not only re-employment rates, but  also  some qualitative 
information,  such  as  the  qualifications  gained  at  the  end  of  the  operations.  This  should 
improve the monitoring of EGF effectiveness in the future. The Commission’s proposal 
to  set  case-specific  targets  and  to  include  reporting  by  type  of  employment  was  not 
included in the final agreement of Parliament and the Council on the EGF Regulation for 
the 2021–2027 period. 

e.  Factors contributing to or hindering the achievement of objectives 

The  external  experts  performed  a  thorough  qualitative  analysis  of  the  information 
available  to  identify  which  factors  help  or  hinder  the  achievement  of  EGF  cases’ 
objectives. This analysis was primarily based on the case reports and on interviews with 
case stakeholders. It confirmed the factors already identified in the mid-term evaluation 
and the Commission’s biennial reports, and added additional factors.  

The success factors104 contributing to the effectiveness of the EGF are:  

  The Member State’s past experience in EGF implementation and the institutional 
capacity to adopt a coordinated approach with all relevant stakeholders seems to 
be  an  important  success  factor.  The  success  of  EGF  cases  also  benefits  from 
building  on  existing  partnerships  and  delivery  structures  for  employment  and 
social policies, together with a solid social dialogue.  

  Tailored  measures  to  the  individual  needs  of  beneficiaries.  The  EGF  allows  for 
intensive,  individualised  support,  usually  much  more  than  national  or  regional 
measures. Member States can experiment via the EGF with innovative measures 
and,  if  proven  successful,  they  integrate  them  into  the  regular  measures  of 
national or local authorities or of the dismissing enterprise.  

102 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p.42. 
103 Final reports of EGF cases. 
104 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 49. 

33 

 
                                                           
  Availability  of  support  services  in  close  proximity  to  the  target  group.  For 
example, in Spain and Belgium EGF offices and reconversion units were set up in 
locations close to the target groups. 

  Provision of support by a small group of implementers. In Sweden, the case was 
managed by a small group of PES staff with a better understanding of the needs 
of  the  target  group.  In  Spain,  a  relationship  was  established  between  the  case 
counsellors  and  the  beneficiaries,  who  established  a  joint  WhatsApp  group  and 
remain in contact today. 

  Background of workers and willingness to actively participate in EGF measures. 
Workers with  higher levels  of education or with  more versatile and transferable 
skills are likely to find new employment faster than the lower skilled. 

All  these  success  factors  reinforce  the  idea  that  personalised,  individualised  support 
services  are  highly  beneficial  for  finding  a  quality  job.  However,  success  factors  are 
largely  case-specific,  and  there  are  factors  that  cannot  be  controlled,  such  as  the 
economic  situation  in  the  country/region,  the  supply  and  demand  for  labour  and  the 
unemployment rate. 

Factors hindering the effectiveness of the EGF are: 

 

Issues related to the profiles of beneficiaries, e.g. age, low levels of education or 
limited  knowledge  of  the  local  language.  Age  is  a  commonly  reported  factor 
hindering  the  reach  of  the  EGF.  Older  people  face  greater  challenges  than 
younger  people.  Redundant  workers  close  to  retirement  age  tend  to  be  less 
inclined to  participate in EGF measures. This  is  the case  when they  are  eligible 
for early retirement or for generous unemployment benefits to bridge the gap until 
retirement, or when their job loss had a considerable impact on their mental state 
and their self-confidence in being able to secure a new job. 

  Difficulties  in  reaching  and  activating  redundant  workers  and  NEETs.  In  many 
Member States, privacy issues have made it difficult to reach the specific people 
who are going to be dismissed, as in some cases (mainly sectoral) enterprises do 
not  disclose  the  information  about  these  workers.  Also,  NEETs  were  often 
difficult to reach and engage with, and they did not always consider the measures 
made available to them relevant and interesting. 

  Workers’  low  willingness  for  mobility  and  change.  Depending  on  the  case 
specifics,  reasons  for  this  included  proximity  to  the  work  place  and  home, 
scepticism about the EGF project, reluctance to switch career paths, and workers’ 
rigid  expectations  regarding  their  potential  new  job.  Member  States  partially 
mitigated  these  challenges  with  workshops  focusing  on  willingness  for  change 
and mobility and also with travel grants. 

  Problems  and  delays  with  designing  and  implementing  EGF  measures.  These 
included delays in the selection of implementing partners and in procurement of 
training courses; submission of an application long after the reference period for 
redundancies;  long  and  complicated  national  procedures;  weak  institutional 

34 

 
 
capabilities  and  design  of  policy  instruments;  limited  cooperation  between 
stakeholders  and  capacity  to  implement  innovative  measures  of  interest  to 
beneficiaries. 

f.  Involvement of companies and social partners 

As already identified in the mid-term evaluation of the 2014–2020 EGF, notable success 
factors for EGF cases included the development of effective partnerships and appropriate 
delivery mechanisms, strong cooperation between the delivery partners, including social 
partners,  and  a  coordinated  approach105.  This  was  largely  confirmed  by  the  supporting 
study through case research.  

The degree of involvement of social partners and companies in the design and provision 
of  coherent  support  packages  varies  across  Member  States  and  cases,  as  it  is  largely 
based  on  their  regular  support  systems.  Some  examples  from  case  studies  showed  that 
either  social  partners  are  involved  early  on  in  the  restructuring  negotiations,  with  the 
public  employment  service  coming  in  as  a  secondary  actor,  or  companies  laying  off 
workers  are  required  by  law  to  be  involved  in  implementing  active  labour  market 
measures, which they contribute to both financially and with personnel. 

Generally, it is clear that the involvement of former employers boosts the effectiveness of 
EGF cases. In Finland, it was found that when companies are involved in implementing 
EGF  measures,  it  helps  with  the  provision  of  information  and  measures  for  guiding 
beneficiaries back into the labour market as soon as possible. 

The involvement of social partners is also generally very well received. However, some 
issues were encountered relating to the involvement of companies and social partners106. 

g.  Information and communication activities 

The EGF Regulation requires Member States to provide information on and publicise the 
funded  actions,  highlight  the  role  of  the  EU,  and  ensure  that  the  EGF  contribution  is 
visible.  It  also  requires  the  Commission  to  maintain  and  regularly  update  an  internet 
website,  provide  information  on  the  EGF,  and  provide  guidance  on  the  submission  of 
applications, as well as information on all applications. 

At  Member  State  level,  for  successful  communication  on  the  EGF  cases,  all  relevant 
stakeholders at national, regional and/or local level need to be aware of the opportunities 
available from the EGF. Findings showed, however, that in some Member States there is 
higher  awareness  of  the  EGF  if  social  partners  participated  in  delivering  some  of  the 
measures. In other Member States, not all relevant stakeholders are aware of the EGF and 
its potential benefits. 

The  survey  of  13  Member  States  who  did  not  apply  during  2014–2020  found  that  the 
general  level  of  knowledge  about  the  EGF  is  low107.  As  reported  in  the  public 
consultation,  workers’  organisations  in  Germany,  Finland,  Belgium  and  Spain  were 

105 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, page 23.  
106 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 55. 
107  Across  the  13  Member  States  that  replied,  it  was  indicated  that  these  stakeholders  were  aware  of  the 
EGF  only  ‘to  a  limited  extent’  or  ‘not  at  all’  in  7  cases  relating  to  NEETs  and  9  cases  relating  to 
workers made redundant, self-employed persons or workers threatened with redundancy.  

35 

 
                                                           
generally aware of the EGF, but  workers were not. The same results emerged  from the 
survey  to  EGF  beneficiaries.  The  main  objective  of  the  communication  activities  is  to 
inform  participants  about  the  EU  intervention.  This  is  usually  done  during  or  after 
implementation  because  in  the  initial  stages  (i.e.  before  formal  approval  from  the 
budgetary  authority),  the  measures  are  implemented  using  national  funds  and  there  is 
little visibility of the EGF. 

The  Member  States  are  responsible  for  providing  information  about  the  EGF  and 
choosing the best suited communication actions. However, this is not done to the same 
degree  in  all  cases.  While  many  of  the  Member  States  have  created  dedicated  EGF 
websites to provide information about every EGF project and the workers are informed 
about  the  role  of  the  EU  in  the  support  they  receive,  the  findings  show  that  Member 
States were consistently underspending the budget planned for information and publicity 
activities.  In  some  cases  the  information  and  publicity  costs  were  absorbed  by  the 
Member States outside of the EGF framework, or costs were simply lower than expected. 

The involvement of social partners and companies  in the design and implementation of 
EGF  measures  was  helpful  in  reaching  (potential)  beneficiaries,  as  their  contact  details 
are otherwise not known. For example, in Finland an online portal was established by the 
dismissing  company  (Microsoft)  to  communicate  information  about  recruitment  events 
and  vacancies.  In  Sweden,  a  contact  centre  was  established  at  the  Volvo  Trucks  plant 
where the majority of the target group had previously been working. 

Little  feedback  was  collected  from  beneficiaries  on  the  usefulness  and  effectiveness  of 
communication activities, although evidence of the lack of awareness shows that there is 
room for improvement. 

At  EU  level,  the  EGF  website108  is  constantly  updated  with  information  about  EGF 
applications, EGF publications (the biennial report, the frequently asked questions, press 
releases,  etc.),  events  and  news.  Twice  a  year,  the  Commission  organises  EGF  contact 
persons  meetings  and  EGF  networking  seminars,  to  discuss  issues  of  common  interest. 
Views  on  their  usefulness  and  effectiveness,  however,  are  mixed.  The  majority  of 
Member States consulted were of the opinion felt that the EGF networking seminars had 
been useful, as they allowed for knowledge sharing, and cross-fertilisation of new ideas 
and experiences, but are not used to their full potential.  Recently, the Commission also 
started  sharing  information  via  social  media  (Twitter).  Nevertheless,  there  is  always 
scope to do more in this respect.  

h.  Overall impact of the EGF 

Overall, it is difficult to draw robust conclusions about the impact of the EGF, especially 
at case level where implementation and results depend heavily on the specificities of the 
labour  market  and  the  target  group,  and  because  the  results  are  not  monitored  and 
reported on in an accurate and comparable way. Nevertheless, evidence indicated a clear 
positive  impact.  The  results  of  the  CIE  also  pointed  to  the  EGF  having  a  positive 
influence on beneficiaries’ likelihood to find a job, especially in the long term (after 12 
or more months of unemployment). 

108https://ec.europa.eu/egf  

36 

 
                                                           
The  EGF  has  been  successful  in  providing  targeted  emergency  support  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  dismissed  workers,  while  ensuring  enough  flexibility  for  the  support  to  be 
integrated into Member States’ national systems, including through highly individualised 
and  tailored  support  measures.  A  significant  number  of  beneficiaries  have  been  re-
integrated into the labour market, and even those who were not  have likely gained new 
skills,  qualifications  or  social  networks.  On  top  of  this,  the  lessons  learned  from  the 
design and implementation have been used to improve support to workers in the future. 
The Fund has shown solidarity towards workers and NEETs alike, and supported them in 
finding sustainable employment. 

In the Member States, the use of the EGF has improved overall awareness about the Fund 
among authorities at national, regional and local level (depending on who is involved). In 
Member States with previous experience and delivery mechanisms, the EGF serves as a 
tool to test innovative measures, which could later be mainstreamed in employment and 
social policies.  

Several  lessons  have  been  learned  from  the  implementation.  At  Member  State  level, 
lessons were learned about the application process, design, early start and accessibility of 
the measures. At EU level, lessons were learned about the design of the Fund, the need 
for more or different data collection, about how more flexibility is needed in adapting the 
funded  measures  and  about  the  need  to  improve  communication  activities  (see  lessons 
learned in Chapter 6).  

5.2.  EFFICIENCY 

The  efficiency  criterion  analyses  to  what  extent  the  costs  associated  with  the 
implementation of the Fund were justified considering the results (defined as the rate of 
re-integration  of  beneficiaries).  It  also  analyses  if  there  are  any  inefficiencies  or 
unnecessary burdens at case or instrument level that should be addressed to improve the 
Fund’s  efficiency in the  future.  The analysis  was made  at  both  case  and  Member State 
level. 

a.  Efficiency at case level 

According  to  the  stakeholder  consultations,  the  amounts  available  for  the  measures  are 
considered to be sufficient. Most respondents to the public consultation believed that the 
same results could not have been achieved with  less resources or in a shorter period of 
time.  

The average absorption rate of the 46 EGF cases was 59%, with the lowest observed 
rate  being  approximately  2%109  and  the  highest  100%110.  The  absorption  rate  varies 
significantly between Member States (see Figure 10 below), sectors, cases and different 

109  The  absorption  rate  in  this  case  (EGF/2015/004 IT/Alitalia)  was  1.66%. This  is  a  clear  outlier,  as  the 
second lowest absorption rate was 20.21%. The absorption rate was this low because out of the 1 200 
dismissed workers, only 184 signed up to take part in the active labour market measures offered by the 
EGF. However, almost half of them (90 out of 184) were directly re-employed by Alitalia SAI Spa and 
did  not  benefit  from  EGF  funding.  Many  others  found  a  new  job  on  their  own  because  they  were 
highly  skilled,  and  benefited  from  special  short-term  work  schemes  that  were  quite  generous,  which 
limited workers’ interest in participating in the measures offered with the help of the EGF.  

110 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 59. 

37 

 
                                                           
measures and activities. It is very case-specific and not necessarily indicative of good or 
bad case implementation.  

Reasons for discrepancies include: 

  an overestimation of budgets by Member States and the inclusion of high safety 
margins  due  to  insufficient  information  on  the  profiles  and  needs  of  potential 
beneficiaries during the planning stages; 

  an overestimation of interested beneficiaries or unforeseen changes (e.g. workers 
finding  a  new  job  on  their  own,  especially  when  there  are  delays  in 
implementation); and  

  more available funding at Member State level than initially expected, resulting in 

less EGF co-financing being used. 

Figure 10. Average absorption rate per Member State111  

For each Member State, the number of EGF applications received is in brackets 

Source: EGF Database 

The  cost-efficiency  of  the  EGF  considers  the  degree  to  which  the  costs  incurred  are 
proportionate  to  the  results  (i.e.  the  number  of  beneficiaries  helped).  No  concrete 
conclusions could be drawn on the degree to which the results per beneficiary were cost-
efficient.  This  is  because  the  resources  spent  per  case,  and  the  number  of  beneficiaries 
helped  as  a  result,  differed  considerably  by  case,  sector  and  Member  State.  Comparing 
results across cases is irrelevant because of the specificities of each case. 

111 The graph only takes into account the 46 cases which have been completed and for which a final report 
was  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  end-November  2020.  For  that  reason,  Portugal  has  been 
excluded, because no final report had been submitted by that time.  

38 

 
 
                                                           
In  the  majority  of  the  46  cases,  the  actual  cost  per  worker  was  lower  than  initially 
planned. From the comparison of the absorption rate of EGF funds (the percentage of the 
spending of the assistance granted) and the rate of beneficiaries assisted, it was clear that 
the large  majority of cases were more cost-efficient than initially planned. In other 
words, in 80% of EGF cases, each euro of EGF funds helped more people than planned 
in the initial budget. In addition to the current average re-employment rate of 65% there 
is  empirical  evidence  from  the  RHOMOLO-IO  simulations112  performed  on  23  EGF 
cases from 2014–2015, which suggests that the Fund has positive indirect effects, as each 
additional  job  created  influences  other  sectors  positively.  The  findings  were  that  the 
dimension of these indirect impacts varies across case studies, ranging from a minimum 
of 20% up to 50% of the total jobs generated.  

At  Member  State  level,  after  comparing  the  total  EGF  amount  granted  per  Member 
State against the number of beneficiaries assisted, it was found that the general trend is 
that  more  beneficiaries  were  assisted  in  countries  that  received  more  EGF  funding.  A 
higher number of beneficiaries requires more financial resources (see Figure 11).  

Figure 11. Relationship between total EGF amounts spent and number of beneficiaries 
helped, per Member State113 

t
n
e
p
s

t
n
u
o
m
a
F
G
E

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M
R
U
E

8574

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

9419

7075

3651

4011

492

1124

881

2215

1400

754

10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0

d
e
t
s
s
s
a

i

i

s
e
i
r
a
c
i
f
e
n
e
B

BE

DE

EE

EL

FR
FI
ES
Member State

IE

IT

NL

SE

EGF amount spent

Beneficiaries assisted

Source: EGF Database 

The analysis of the EGF final  reports and the case studies shows that  a higher cost  per 
beneficiary is influenced by the cost of the measures and by the number of participants. 
Variations in cost-efficiency result from a range of factors. These include the scale of the 
layoffs, the labour market situation, the targeted beneficiaries’ individual circumstances 
and skills, alternative measures already provided by the Member State, the services’ cost, 
the  number  of  beneficiaries  helped  and  how  easy  or  difficult  it  was  for  them  to  be  re-

112  JRC  (Joint  Research  Centre)  Technical  Report,  The  RHOMOLO-IO  modelling  framework:  a  flexible 

Input-Output tool for policy analysis (2019) 

113 The number of beneficiaries helped in this graph is based on the results presented in the final reports (6 
months after the end of the implementation period). It thus covers the 43 cases for which a final report 
was submitted to the Commission before 10 July 2020.  

39 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
employed after participation in EGF measures. This was also noted by the Commission 
in its 2017 and 2019 biennial reports on the EGF. 

At  sectoral  level,  no  analysis  is  possible.  However,  average  cost  per  beneficiary  at 
sectoral level varies considerably, with the clear outliers being air transport  (an average 
cost  of  EUR 4 833  per  beneficiary114)  and  call  centres  (average  cost  of  EUR 571  per 
beneficiary115).  

Cost-effectiveness looks at the relationship between costs and results, i.e. the number of 
beneficiaries  re-integrated.  In  some  cases,  cost  savings  resulted  from  networks  and 
processes already established from previous EGF cases.  

Case research did not reveal any correlation between the level of absorption and the re-
employment  rate.  This  re-confirms  similar  findings  from  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
2007–2013 EGF116.  

As  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014–2020  EGF  pointed  out,  the  case  studies  also 
showed that many of the implementation costs (i.e. managing and monitoring costs) are 
fixed,  independently  of  the  size  of  the  case.  The  reporting  of  such  expenditure  as  a 
percentage  of  the  total  of  the  overall  EGF  assistance  granted  is  frequently  seen  as  not 
giving a fair picture. This is because smaller cases that incur more or less the same costs 
as larger ones inevitably look ‘inefficient’  as the percentage of implementing costs  is a 
higher part of the total. 

Evidence  suggests  that  there  is  room  for  efficiency  gains.  The  main  inefficiencies  are 
related  to  processes  or  procedures  at  national  and/or  regional  level,  which  lengthen  the 
timeframe. Some examples of inefficiencies are issues with the procurement of training 
courses or partnerships established with delays. 

As  a  general  rule,  EGF  assistance  is  more  costly  than  regular  measures.  However, 
according  to  the  final  reports  and  employment  status  reports  for  the  EGF  cases,  EGF 
assistance  leads  to  higher  re-employment  rates.  An  educated  judgement  as  to  whether 
additional costs are justified or not would also require further study of the societal costs 
of lower re-employment rates. This was also confirmed by the mid-term evaluation of the 
2014–2020 EGF117. 

b.  Efficiency at instrument level 

Most stakeholders interviewed and most respondents to the public consultation indicated 
that the decision-making process is still considered lengthy and complex. Despite this, 
efficiency  improves  the  more  applications  a  Member  State  submits,  thanks  to  lessons 
learned.  There  is  little  scope  to  reduce  the  length  and  complexity  of  the  application 
process, as approval by the budgetary authority is required. The Regulation covering the 

114 Of the two cases in this sector, one barely spent any of the allocated funds (only 1.6%), at an average 
cost  of  EUR  127.37  per  beneficiary,  while  the  other  spent  almost  all  of  the  allocated  resources 
(99.5%),  at  an  average  cost  of  EUR  5 299.51  per  beneficiary.  Therefore,  we  cannot  speak  of  a 
correlation between the cost per beneficiary helped and the sector.  

115 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 64. 
116  EGF  ex-post  evaluation  2007-2013  (2015),  p.  83.  The  rates  of  expenditure  per  beneficiary  and  the 

outcomes achieved were compared with previous EGF cases implemented in the same Member State. 

117 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p. 33. 

40 

 
                                                           
2014–2020  period  imposed  time  limits:  20  weeks  for  the  Commission  to  process  the 
applications and 6 weeks for the budgetary authority to approve. 

On average, across the 49 EGF cases approved during the 2014–2020 period, the process 
from the Member State’s application until approval by the budgetary authority took 202 
days  (29  weeks).  The  shortest  application  period  was  141  days  (20  weeks)  and  the 
longest 254 days (36 weeks)118. Approval by the budgetary authority took an average of 
63 days (nine weeks) for the entire process. The six-week deadline was met in only 10 
of the 49 cases119. 

This  shows  that  further  efforts  are  needed  to  shorten  the  length  of  procedures.  This 
finding  already  included  in  the  EGF  mid-term  evaluation,  was  incorporated  into  the 
2021-2027  EGF  Regulation,  with  shorter  deadlines  for  the  Commission  and  Member 
States and without the need for Member States to demonstrate in applications the cause 
of  the  redundancies.  However,  the  proposal  to  simplify  the  interinstitutional  decision-
making  process  on  the  mobilisation  of  the  EGF  was  not  accepted  by  the  budgetary 
authority. 

Based  on  the  Commission’s  experience  in  dealing  with  EGF  applications,  the  most 
promising avenue to increase efficiency is to remove the documentation requirements on 
the  analysis  of  globalisation  or  crisis  criteria.  Member  States  could  save  significant 
resources  (time  and  money)  when  filing  an  application,  and  the  Commission’s  time  to 
analyse  an  application  would  also  be  reduced.  This  simplification  is  included  in  the 
2021–2027 EGF Regulation. 

The publication by the Commission in May 2017 of the EGF frequently asked questions 
(FAQs)120 proved useful for Member States121. The FAQs contain answers that serve as 
assistance and guidance during all the stages of an EGF case. 

5.3.  COHERENCE  

The  coherence  criterion  looks  at  how  well  the  EGF  intervention  works  together  with 
other EU policies and initiatives (particularly the ESF) and with national instruments that 
have  similar  aims.  This  is  done  in  particular  by  analysing  complementarity  at  both 
instrument and case level, overlaps or duplication, and measures taken to avoid this or to 
ensure complementarity. 

a.  Complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives 

Most  stakeholders  agree  that  EGF  complements  the  ESF  in  the  area  of  employment 
policies by offering a reactive one-off support following specific restructuring events, in 
a more tailored, flexible and intensive manner than the ESF. 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.  The  EGF  is 

118 For this case, translation of the  application  was needed (see Article 8(2) of the EGF Regulation), and 
this  took  4  weeks.  However,  this  cannot  be  considered  a  delay.  Only  the  extra  3  weeks  for  the 
budgetary authority to approve (9 weeks instead of normally 6) can be considered a delay. 

119 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 67. 
120 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22041&langId=en  
121 For the avoidance of doubt, it should be stressed that a guidance document obviously cannot replace a 

legally binding act, thus the two are not interchangeable. 

41 

 
                                                           
mobilised  on  a  needs  basis,  when  Member  States  require  financial  support  to  help 
dismissed  workers,  thus  adding  value.  However,  there  is  scope  to  better  align  the  EGF 
and the ESF, as some Member States choose to fund EGF-type measures using the ESF 
because of the higher co-financing rate. 

In  the  public  consultation,  nearly  all  respondents  indicated  that  the  EGF  was  strongly 
coherent with other support measures available at the EU level. However, in the survey 
aimed  at  Member  States  that  did  not  apply  for  EGF  co-financing  during  2014–2020, 
more  than  half  (8/13)  indicated  that  they  did  not  apply  because  the  ESF  was  more 
favourable, easier and faster to mobilise in their country. 

An  extensive  study  was  published  in  2018  on  the  coherence,  complementarity  and 
coordination  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIFs)  and  between 
various  other  instruments  such  as  the  EGF.  According  to  this  study,  the  EGF 
complements the ESF in its objective to improve employment opportunities, strengthen 
social inclusion and promote education, skills and life-long learning122. 

The conditions to support the NEETs are similar via the EGF and the YEI, indicating a 
need for greater coherence between the programmes. The EGF does not require a link to 
be  established  between  the  NEETs  and  the  redundancies,  beyond  at  least  some  of  the 
redundancies  being  in  the  same  region,  thus  creating  a  degree  of  overlap  –  almost  all 
NEETs  who  can  be  targeted  through  the  EGF  can  also  be  targeted  through  the  YEI. 
Given that the YEI specifically targets NEETs, and the limited use of the EGF for this 
purpose during 2014–2020, the YEI is the most appropriate tool for this type of support.  

The  Finnish  authorities pointed  out  some  synergies  with  EURES123  (the European  job 
mobility  portal,  part  of  the  EU  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social  Innovation)  to 
improve international labour mobility for EGF cases. In Finland, the unemployment rate 
of  immigrants  is  much  higher  also  among  highly  educated  professionals,  and  the  work 
done  with  the  EURES  network  of  PES  offices  helped  laid-off  persons  of  other 
nationalities  avoid  social  exclusion.  The  measures  included  helping  some  of  the 
redundant workers find a job in other Member States. Measures promoting international 
labour mobility had been offered to a limited extent in other cases, but they have not been 
taken up due to limited labour mobility. 

b.  Complementarity with national measures and instruments 

In  general,  the EGF is  flexible enough to  adapt  to  the  national  contexts, although there 
are  considerable  differences  between  national  support  frameworks  for  the  unemployed. 
Also,  the  EGF  supports,  complements  and  adds  to  measures  or  activities  funded  by 
national instruments. The EGF is well integrated into existing delivery models or models 
established  for  the  EGF  and  operating  within  the  mainstream  frameworks124.  All  16 
national authorities that responded to the public consultation and the mid-term evaluation 
of the 2014-2020 EGF confirmed this conclusion. 

122 Study on the coordination and harmonisation of ESI Funds and other EU instruments - Regional Policy 

- European Commission (europa.eu), p.88. 
123 https://ec.europa.eu/eures/public/homepage. 
124 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p. 31.  

42 

 
                                                           
In Member States with EGF cases during 2014-2020, no inconsistencies were observed. 
On the contrary, the EGF was widely considered as complementary to national support 
structures.  In  many  cases,  the  EGF  adds  to  what  can  normally  be  implemented  in  a 
Member State (e.g. through more intensive support because more funds are available, or 
by  making  it  possible  for  beneficiaries  to  choose  from  a  tailor-made  array  of  training 
courses that is broader than those usually offered at national level). 

In  some  cases  the  EGF  is  coordinated  with  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the  EU 
Quality  Framework  for  anticipation  of  change  and  restructuring  (QFR)125,  which  is  the 
EU  policy  instrument  setting  a  framework  of  best  practice  for  anticipating  and  dealing 
with corporate restructuring. However, this is not indicated in the EGF applications (see 
lessons learned in Chapter 6). 

In some cases126, the EGF  intervention  was  part of  a wider policy framework aimed at 
minimising the consequences of mass redundancies in a region. The EGF addressed the 
short-term  employment  consequences  of  the  restructuring  event  and  was  implemented 
alongside a wider and longer-term economic growth plan for the area or region. This not 
only ensured  coherence  between the activities implemented by  other  regional  and local 
stakeholders, but also amplified the sustainability of the EGF’s results. 

5.4.  RELEVANCE 

The evaluation of relevance covers three core aspects: the continued appropriateness and 
usefulness of the scope of the EGF; its intervention criteria; and the extent to which the 
inclusion of NEETs in EGF cases met Member States’ needs. 

a.  Relevance of the scope of the EGF 

The scope of the EGF relates to the causes that trigger redundancy events. By the end of 
2020,  the  EGF  could  only  be  mobilised  if  the  redundancies  had  been  caused  by  either 
trade-related  globalisation  or  a  global  financial  and  economic  crisis.  During  the  2014–
May 2020 period, there were 30 EGF cases (61%) relating to globalisation, and 19 (39%) 
linked to a global financial and economic crisis. 

The number of EGF applications has always been cyclical and correlated with the general 
trend  in  employment  and  the  economic  realities  in  Member  States.  Between  2018  and 
2020,  only  11  EGF  applications127  were  submitted,  as  European  economies  had 
recovered  from  the  2008  crisis,  there  were  less  large-scale  restructuring  events,  and 
Member States were better equipped to deal with major restructuring events.  

Since  March  2020,  the  COVID-19  crisis  caused  a  surge  in  job  losses;  this  is  likely  to 
continue to cause business closures and job losses across Europe in 2021. At the end of 
2020, four EGF applications had been received as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.  

Different  stakeholders,  at  EU  level  and  in  the  Member  States,  pointed  out  that  linking 
the  need  for  EGF  funds  to  the  impact  of  globalisation  has  proven  challenging  for 

125 COM(2013)882 final 
126 For example EGF/2015/003 BE/Ford Genk and EGF/2017/001 ES/Castilla y León mining of coal.  
127  Of  which  one  rejected  in  2019  (EGF/2019/001  BE/Carrefour)  and  one  withdrawn  in  2021 

(EGF/2020/006 ES/Cataluña). 

43 

 
 
                                                           
several applicant Member States. This has led in many cases to several revisions of the 
same application, resulting in efficiency losses in terms of time spent and staff involved 
in the application process. Further evidence is the fact that in 2019 one EGF application 
(EGF/2019/001  BE/Carrefour)  was  rejected  because  the  Council  perceived  the  link  to 
major structural changes in trade patterns due to globalisation to be too weak. 

A  few  Member  States  indicated  through  the  public  consultation  and  the  online  survey 
that  the  scope  should  be  expanded  to  include  layoffs  resulting  from  more  general 
restructuring events stemming from automation and digitisation. In the set-up for 2014–
2020, the EGF excluded redundancies generated by intra-EU trade and offshoring within 
the  EU,  and  did  not  account  for  job  losses  driven  by  digitisation  and  automation  that 
were not linked to globalisation or a global financial and economic crisis128.  

Globalisation  has  changed  dramatically  since  the  first  design  of  the  EGF.  While 
globalisation, automation and offshoring were traditional causes for job losses, in recent 
years  other  trends  are  putting  a  strain  on  virtually  all  economic  sectors.  This  includes 
demographic ageing, the shift towards a low-carbon economy, a decrease in the need for 
low-skilled labour and an increasing need for digital skills resulting from a general trend 
towards digitalisation.  

The 2021–2027 EGF Regulation includes such recent trends by extending the scope to 
any  large-scale  restructuring  event  such  as  intra-EU  nearshoring,  digitalisation, 
transition  to  low-carbon  economy, etc., thus  striving to  leave no one behind. Decisions 
for  EGF  co-financing  will  be  based  on the  expected  impact  of  the  redundancies,  rather 
than their cause. This results in more flexibility for Member States to target the needs of 
dismissed  workers.  Based  on  the  evidence  collected,  this  would  fulfil  the  needs  of 
stakeholders  who  raised  concerns  that  the  scope  of  the  EGF  was  no  longer  fully 
appropriate and that it should be expanded. 

b.  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. In case of redundancies in a particular economic sector, 
the emphasis is on allowing applications combining redundancies in SMEs operating in 
the  same  sector.  Among  the  49  cases  covered  by  this  evaluation,  27  concerned 
redundancies  in  a  single  enterprise,  13  were  sectoral  applications,  and  9  used  the 
derogation clause.  

The  threshold  had  been  lowered  from  1 000  redundancies  in  the  2007–2013  period  to 
500129  in  2014–2020.  Among  the  49  cases  covered  by  this  evaluation,  21  concerned 
restructuring events involving less than 1 000 redundancies, which means that the lower 
threshold definitely triggered more applications. 

As  underlined  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  EGF  and  re-confirmed  by 
most Member States, the thresholds for redundancies were  considered too high and 
acted as barriers for applying for EGF funding. Among the countries that did apply 

128  Lucian  Cernat  & Federica  Mustilli (2018):  Trade and Labour  Market Adjustments: What Role for the 

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund? p. 80.  

129 The 500 dismissals threshold was first introduced for a limited period during 2009–2011 by Regulation 

(EU) 546/2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. 

44 

 
                                                           
for EGF in 2014–2020, only Ireland was consistently unable to meet the threshold of 500 
dismissals. Nevertheless, even in Germany, a country where large-scale redundancies are 
most common, authorities suggested that lowering the threshold for redundancies should 
be considered as it is too limiting.  

Several Member States and stakeholders indicated that the EGF’s accessibility would be 
improved  by  adapting  the  dismissal  period  to  avoid  the  exclusion  of  workers  falling 
outside the four or nine-month reference period. 

Finally,  from  the  interviews  with  national  authorities  some  argued  that  the  Fund’s 
relevance was hindered by the requirement for EGF cases involving multiple companies 
(‘sectoral’ cases) to be limited to the same sector. Large companies have developed the 
capacity  to  mitigate  globalisation  changes,  whereas  SMEs  are  still  heavily  affected  by 
globalisation and the consequent restructuring, which warrants a more flexible approach 
to restructuring events involving more than one company. 

In  the  2021–2027  EGF  Regulation,  these  three  aspects  have  been  addressed.  The 
threshold for dismissals has been reduced to 200 workers and self-employed persons, the 
reference period for a single company remains the same (4 months) and that for a sector 
has  been  reduced  to  6  months.  A  provision  was  added  to  make  restructuring  events 
involving  at  least  200  displaced  persons  in  the  same  or  different  economic  sectors  and 
located in the same region eligible for EGF support. 

c.  Relevance of the NEETs clause 

Youth unemployment in the EU had been steadily decreasing until the recent COVID-19 
crisis. Since 2019, in several regions of the EU130 youth unemployment rates have been 
above 20%131.  

During  the  2014–2020  period,  the  EGF  was  barely  used  to  support  NEETs,  with  only 
five Member States132 including support to NEETs in their EGF cases. The existence 
of other EU instruments supporting NEETs suggests that the EGF might not be the most 
appropriate instrument for this purpose. 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  show  mixed  opinions.  One  third  of  respondents 
(6/16)  are  in  favour  of  the  support  for  NEETs.  Three  of  the  six  respondents  in  favour 
came from Member States which used this derogation. Another third of respondents were 
against the inclusion of NEETs, arguing that NEETs constituted a different type of target 
group,  requiring  a  specific  and  separate  set  of  measures,  and  pointing  out  that  other 
specific instruments for youth support already exist. 

130  In  2019,  youth  unemployment  over  20%  was  measured  in  some  regions  across  10  Member  States  – 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden. Until 2018, 
similar rates were experienced in Cyprus and Croatia as well. 

131 20% youth unemployment is the minimum threshold to include NEETs in EGF cases since 2018. 
132 Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. 

45 

 
                                                           
Among  the  Member  States  who  had  EGF  cases  and  high  youth  unemployment,  some 
(Italy,  France)  did  not  include  NEETs  in  their  EGF  cases  because  the  group  was 
supported through the YEI or via other national instruments133.  

The 2021–2027 EGF Regulation acknowledges that other instruments  are more suitable 
for providing assistance to NEETs, notably the ESF+. 

5.5.  EU ADDED VALUE 

The  EGF  provides  added  value  when  compared  to  what  Member  States  could  have 
achieved  alone  through  national  measures  targeted  at  helping  workers  made  redundant. 
Although several stakeholders consider that some measures can also be funded through 
the ESF and that NEETs can be supported through the YEI, the EGF provides EU added 
value.  

The results of the public consultation highlight that some 69% of respondents felt that the 
EGF represents an added value134. The majority (85%) of respondents to the beneficiary 
survey  evaluated  the  EGF  favourably  in  comparison  with  other  sources  of  support  at 
national/regional level, citing in particular the volume and scope of the EGF support, and 
it being more tailored to the specific needs of beneficiaries.  

The  volume  effects  are  defined  as  effects  that  show  how  the  EGF  has  added  volume 
compared  to  the  national  measures  in  place.  Based  on  the  case  research  and  on  the 
consultations,  the  majority  of  those  involved  in  the  delivery  of  the  EGF  confirm  it  has 
added  volume  effects  to  the  delivery  of  services.  Four  ways  in  which  the  EGF  adds  to 
volume have been identified and set out below:  

  The EGF enabled Member States to help more people than would be the case if 

they had to rely only on national funds. 

  The  EGF  resources  also  enabled  Member  States  to  devote  more  time  and 
financial  resources  to  better  assessing  the  beneficiaries’  needs  and  thus  to 
provide  more  tailored  support.  In  some  countries  with  higher  GDP  per  capita 
rates and lower ESF allocations, the EGF added financial support on top of the 
fixed allocations provided to Member States from the ESF.  

  The additional EGF resources resulted in more intensive, targeted support than 
national  measures  did.  The  EGF  increased  not  only  the  overall  number  of 
services, but also their variety.  

  The EGF makes it possible in some cases to add to existing active labour market 
measures  already  available  in  the  Member  States  by  extending  the  duration  of 
the specialised services or the volume of support. Some national measures target 
only those who have been unemployed for a long time (e.g. 6 months to a year). 

133  In  France,  YEI  is  channelled  through  national  or  local-level  instruments  targeting  young  people,  like 
Garantie Jeune or the Accompagnement Intensif des Jeunes. Spain could have included NEETs in all 
applications,  but  preferred  to  use  this  option  in  only  one  case  due  to  that  case’s  specificity  (remote 
area) 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  the  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. 

134 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 140. 

46 

 
                                                           
Scope  effects  arise  when  more  people  are  targeted  or  there  is  an  expansion  of  the 
measures offered compared to what would have been the case without the EGF support. 
The  EGF  has  considerable  scope  effects,  although  this  also  varied  considerably  across 
Member States depending on national support systems. 

Firstly, in almost  all Member States135, the EGF allowed Member States to  experiment 
with  innovative  active  labour  market  measures  that  might  not  be  normally  available  to 
redundant  workers.  The  flexibility  of  the  EGF  allowed  for  greater  personalisation  of 
solutions  for  workers  by  taking  into  account  their  specific  needs  and  aspirations;  this 
aspect  of  the  EGF  was  considered  to  contribute  substantially  to  the  success  of  the 
national  measures,  thus  raising  their  effectiveness136.  At  instrument  level,  the  EGF 
provided  more  targeted  and  individualised  support  to  beneficiaries  compared  to  what 
could  be  achieved  by  the  ESF,  which  usually  provides  more  horizontal  and  structural 
support. 

Secondly,  the  EGF  provides  a  scope  effect,  making  it  possible  to  provide  support  to 
different groups of beneficiaries. Usually, the national PES support targets those furthest 
from  the labour market,  e.g.  the long-term unemployed or  people  with  particularly low 
levels of skills and education. In contrast, the EGF allows support to be given all groups 
of people, from high-skilled workers to workers who are very difficult to place on the job 
market,  need  additional  support  or  are  lacking  essential  skills.  Nevertheless,  this  scope 
effect is linked to the degree that the dismissing companies are involved in the design and 
implementation  of  the  measures  and  in  providing  financial  support  to  the  redundant 
workers. The scope effect in terms of support to NEETs was considered as a key added 
value of the EGF in Ireland and Belgium. 

Role effects relate to the extent to which innovative ideas tested and lessons learned from 
the implementation were incorporated into the regular package of provisions. These are 
more likely to become visible in the long term, so limited examples have been identified. 
In  some  countries  innovations  from  the  EGF  have  been  (or  will  be  in  the  future) 
mainstreamed  at  national  level.  In  Belgium,  for  instance,  over  time  several 
innovations137  have  been  ‘tested’  in  EGF  cases,  to  be  mainstreamed  into  regional  or 
national measures if successful. The EGF experiences have affected the national support 
services  more  broadly  in  Finland,  where  the  national  ‘change  security  model’  was 
adapted in 2016 to make it obligatory for employers laying off workers to participate in 
the implementation of labour market measures. In Spain, EGF cases have been used as a 
reference point in the design of other jobseeker-placement projects and local employment 
initiatives. 

Process  effects  relate  to  the  general  improvement  of  delivery  processes  thanks  to 
experiences  during  EGF  implementation.  Overall,  this  is  the  least  common  EU  added 
value effect of the EGF, although examples of process effects exist in Finland, Belgium, 
Germany,  Spain,  Italy  and  Sweden.  The  EGF  fosters  cooperation  between  public-  and 
private-sector stakeholders in the design and delivery of the measures in a way that other 
EU  instruments  do  not.  A  process  effect  in  terms  of  the  procedures  employed  is  less 

135 In Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. 
136 EGF case studies. 
137 Examples include the workshops reflecting on self-confidence and self-esteem, awareness and support 

for entrepreneurship, and the setting-up of the Coup de Boost project targeting NEETs. 

47 

 
                                                           
common.  From  the  case  research,  the  lessons  from  the  EGF  had  only  been  applied  to 
other EGF cases, but they may feed into policy discussions on future changes that would 
mainstream tested processes into regional or national provisions. 

In terms of cross-region and cross-border effects, the evidence collected does not show 
any such effects.  

Very few respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that the EGF helped them find 
a temporary job (11/441 respondents) or permanent job (10/441 respondents) outside of 
their  original  country  of  residence.  As  the  implementation  of  the  Fund  is  left  to 
individual  Member  States,  there  is  limited  cross-border  coordination  between  Member 
States  within  the  context  of  the  EGF,  which  might  be  a  limiting  factor  in  producing 
cross-border  effects138.  Due  to  limited  number  of  applications,  further  analysis  on  the 
cross-border effects was not possible. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS-LEARNED 

CONCLUSIONS 

The overarching conclusions set out below are underpinned by evidence collected from 
the  supporting  study  and  from  additional  reports  and  studies.  The  conclusions  also 
provide lessons for the Fund’s implementation and design. The findings and conclusions 
are considered reasonably robust, even if the results of the public consultation and of the 
beneficiary survey have to be taken with caution139. 

On  the  effectiveness  of  the  EGF,  the  Fund  has  successfully  met  its  objective  of 
solidarity  towards  workers  made  redundant  and  self-employed  persons  whose  activity 
ceased  due  to  restructuring  events,  while  supporting  them  in  re-entering  the  labour 
market. However, there are significant differences between cases and Member States. In 
this process, the EU strives to leave no one behind, and has also shown solidarity towards 
different  groups,  especially  vulnerable  ones,  sometimes  even  improving  their  sense  of 
belonging  to  the  EU140,  or  their  feeling  of  being  listened  to  at  EU  level.  Beyond 
re-integration  into  the  labour  market,  the  EGF  has  produced  long-lasting  effects  on 
beneficiaries’ general employability, such as new skills and qualifications, increased self-
esteem  and  new  social  networks  from  participating  in  EGF  measures.  Beneficiaries’ 
participation  in  a  personalised  orientation  process  made  them  feel  more  proactive, 
encouraged them to develop their personal and social skills and had a positive effect on 
their families. Even though this is not the key objective of  the Fund, it is likely to help 
them find sustainable employment in the future. 

138 Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p. 81. 
139  Limited  replies  (39)  were  received  during  the  public  consultation.  Of  these  39  replies,  only  15 
respondents  were  aware  of  the  EGF.  The  public  consultation  alone  cannot  be  considered  as 
representative.  Regarding  the  beneficiary  survey,  only  950  replies  were  covered  by  the  analysis,  i.e. 
only 3.5% of the total beneficiaries assisted. There is a certain degree of bias about the results, as half 
of them were from higher-educated ICT professionals, mostly from Finnish cases. Thus, they are not 
necessarily representative of the experience of all beneficiaries across all EGF cases and countries. 
140  For  example,  the  EGF  case  (EGF/2017/010  BE/Caterpillar  2  received  rapid  advice  from  former 
Commissioner Marianne Thyssen who, before the Belgian State took a position, recommended that the 
EGF be asked to intervene. 

48 

 
                                                           
Overall,  the  average  re-integration  rate  of  redundant  workers  into  the  job  market 
improved compared to the previous  programming period (from 49% to 60%). This rate 
depends on case specificities, but also on external factors and personal reasons. A more 
qualitative approach to evaluating effectiveness is necessary. For reporting purposes, the 
2021–2027  EGF  Regulation  introduced  a  beneficiary  survey  to  be  carried  out  for  each 
EGF case.  

On  top  of  the  positive  results  for  the  re-integration  of  beneficiaries,  evidence  from  the 
RHOMOLO  simulations  suggests  that  the  EGF  has  positive  indirect  effects,  as  each 
additional  job  created  influences  other  sectors  in  a  positive  way.  The  scale  of  these 
indirect impacts varies across EGF case studies, ranging from a minimum of 20% up to 
50% of the total jobs generated141. 

There are several reasons influencing beneficiaries’ take-up of EGF measures. These are: 
(i) external factors such as the labour market situation; (ii) an early and intensive general 
information  package;  (iii)  an  early  start  to  personalised  measures;  and  (iv)  continuous 
adjustment of measures in response to current developments. 

The EGF supports all eligible beneficiaries in a more tailored and intensive manner 
than national measures and other EU instruments do. The EGF measures respond to 
beneficiaries’  individual  needs  and  wishes,  and  ensure  that  all  beneficiaries  are  treated 
equally.  It  helps  to  remove  barriers  of  participation  and  enables  tailored  support  to  be 
provided to vulnerable and/or disadvantaged groups, e.g. by making available allowances 
for  childcare  or  elderly  care.  The  flexibility  of  the  Fund  in  terms  of  the  types  of 
measures is highly appreciated. 

EGF measures are always offered on top of regular national measures and/or intensify 
them. The help offered would otherwise not have been available. This is a clear sign of 
the complementarity and additionality of EGF measures.  

At application stage, it is difficult for Member States to identify the needs and wishes of 
potential  beneficiaries.  Sufficient  budgetary  flexibility  is  needed  to  adapt  the  allocation 
of funds during the implementation of an EGF case in order to address needs effectively. 
Although  reallocations  of  funds  were  possible  during  the  2014–2020  period  and  often 
communicated  via  the  FAQs  and  EGF  contact  persons  meetings,  there  seems  to  have 
been a lack of knowledge in some countries about this possibility. 

The  assessment  showed  that  the  application  process  and  implementation  of  EGF  cases 
tend to improve over time as Member States become more knowledgeable and aware of 
the  EGF’s  process  and  potential.  However,  sometimes  finding  the  right  evidence  to 
justify a case142 is a major challenge and prevents Member States from applying.   

A  positive  effect  of  the  use  of  EGF  assistance  is  that  it  fosters  the  development  of  a 
general  delivery  mechanism  of  restructuring  assistance  in  Member  States  with  little 

141  RHOMOLO  simulation  performed  in  2019  on  23  EGF  cases  from  2014–2015  by  the  Joint  Research 

Centre. 

142 This is because an application for EGF support to redundant workers must be justified by showing that 
redundancies  occurred  as  a  consequence  of  ‘globalisation’  or  the  ‘global  financial  and  economic 
crisis’.  In  small  labour  markets  or  in  exceptional  circumstances,  it  must  be  proved  that  the 
redundancies have a ‘significant impact’ on the economy, especially on employment levels. 

49 

 
                                                           
experience in dealing with mass redundancies. In Member States that can already build 
on  a  wealth  of  experience  and  delivery  mechanisms,  the  EGF  serves  as  a  tool  to  test 
innovative  measures,  which  could  later  be  mainstreamed  in  employment  and  social 
policies. In half of the cases, Member States expressed a positive opinion on the guidance 
received from the European Commission during the application phase. 

ESF  co-financing  rates  higher  than  the  EGF  co-financing  rate  of  60%  have  been  a 
factor discouraging EGF applications. 

More data collection and monitoring requirements are needed to evaluate the EGF’s 
performance. EGF results are measured only in relation to re-integration rates. However, 
the effects of the Fund go far beyond this, helping beneficiaries acquire new skills, gain 
qualifications,  build  up  self-confidence  and  establish  social  networks,  which  improve 
their overall employability.  

Other factors influencing the effectiveness of EGF cases are: (i) the level of involvement 
of  social  partners  and  companies  laying  off  workers  in  the  measures’  design  and 
implementation; (ii) the degree to which sufficient information on the possibilities of the 
Fund is available to workers and NEETs; and (iii) how far national procedures allow for 
smooth  implementation.  EGF  cases  sometimes  start  with  a  delay  or  planned  measures 
cannot be implemented due to administrative issues.  

The Commission promoting the use of EGF was considered an asset for the beneficiaries 
in several cases143. In some Member States, there is higher awareness of the EGF if social 
partners participated in  delivering some of the  measures, while in  other Member States 
not  all  relevant  stakeholders,  including  beneficiaries,  are  aware  of  the  EGF  and  its 
potential  benefits.  There  is  scope  to  improve  communication  and  awareness  about  the 
EGF  among  workers  and  their  representative  organisations  at  EU  and  Member  State 
level.  

Analysis of the efficiency of the assistance has shown progress in the absorption rates 
(i.e.  use  of  the  allocated  resources)  of  EGF  co-financing,  which  improved  on  the 
previous period, from an average of 55%144 to 59%. In general, EGF cases tend to make 
partial use of resources allocated. Although some trends have been found across Member 
States, discrepancies are largely case-specific. The main reasons for a lower absorption 
rate are a better-than-expected labour market situation and eligible beneficiaries finding 
new  jobs  by  themselves  when  there  are  delays  in  the  start  of  EGF  measures.  Other 
reasons for lower absorption rates are Member States tending to overestimate budgets to 
reduce the risk of overspending, and the many unknowns at the time of application (e.g. 
the needs and interests of workers/NEETs, level of participation in EGF measures). Thus, 
the absorption rate of an EGF case is not necessarily an indicator for success. 

The efficiency of the EGF is hindered by the long decision-making process at EU level, 
in spite of the substantial shortening of the timing and stricter deadlines for Commission 
and  Member  States  compared  to  the  previous  programming  period.  Having  such  a 
lengthy process not only causes delays in implementation that hinder the effectiveness of 
EGF cases, but also acts as a barrier for certain Member States wanting to apply for EGF 
to  project 
support.  The  decision-making  process  at  EU 

level  causes  delays 

143 See footnote 174. 
144 Ex-post evaluation of the EGF 2007-2013 (August 2015), p. 39. 

50 

 
                                                           
implementation,  but  procedures  at  national/regional  level  are  a  more  significant 
hindering factor to efficiency. 

80%  of  the  EGF  cases  were  more  cost-efficient  (costs  compared  to  the  number  of 
beneficiaries helped) than expected, with the actual amount spent per beneficiary assisted 
lower than planned. In the long term, the EGF’s cost-effectiveness (costs compared to the 
number of beneficiaries re-integrated) improved in 68% of cases compared to the short-
term results145

 . 

On coherence, strong complementarities were found between the EGF and the European 
Social Fund (ESF), as they have different scopes and objectives, and complementarity is 
ensured  through  coordination  between  the  Funds  at  national  level.  There  is  scope  to 
better  align  the  EGF  and  the  ESF,  as  some  Member  States  choose  to  fund  EGF-type 
measures using the ESF because of the higher co-financing rate. This is particularly the 
case for support to young people, as both the EGF and the Youth Employment Initiative 
support NEETs in regions with high levels of youth unemployment, thus indicating that 
coherence  could  be  improved.  At  case  level,  no  overlaps  with  other  EU  or  national 
funding could be identified. 

The  EGF  is  coherent  with  national,  regional  and/or  local  policies  and  offers  sufficient 
flexibility to complement and/or add to the labour market measures provided by Member 
States at national level. The Member States’ use of the EGF could be better coordinated 
with  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the  EU  Quality  Framework  for  anticipation  of 
change and restructuring (QFR). 

There  was  a  high  degree  of  relevance  of  EGF  funding  during  the  2014–2020  period. 
Evidence  also  showed  that  the  scope  was  relevant.  At  the  same  time,  it  would  benefit 
from  expansion  to  other  major  labour  market  challenges  (like  automation,  digitisation 
and  the  transition  to  a  low-carbon  economy),  in  line  with  the  EU’s  strategic  and  long-
term priorities.  

The  intervention  criteria  of  the  EGF  were  found  to  be  relevant  and  useful.  Several 
Member  States  indicated  that  smaller  labour  markets  would  benefit  from  lowering  the 
minimum threshold for redundancies. 

Supporting NEETs through the EGF was  appreciated but used to a limited degree. 
Particularly  those  stakeholders  with  experience  in  the  delivery  of  EGF  measures 
questioned  whether  the  EGF  was  the  right  channel  to  deliver  assistance  to  NEETs. 
Although supporting NEETs through the EGF was appreciated in the 11 out of 49 cases 
that made use of it, the view prevails that other instruments, like the YEI, might be better 
placed for this type of support. 

The EGF has been successful and generated considerable EU added value during 2014–
2020.  This  is  particularly  true  in  terms  of  its  volume,  scope,  role  and  process  effects, 
though  they  differ  per  Member  State  and  are  largely  dependent  on  national  support 
structures.  The  added  value  is  significant  for  volume  effects,  meaning  that  EGF 
assistance  not  only  increases  the  number  and  variety  of  services  offered,  but  also  their 
level of intensity, striving to leave no one behind. 

145  Long-term  is  18  months  after  the  end  of  the  implementation  of  EGF  measures,  while  short-term  is  6 

months after the end of the measures. 

51 

 
                                                           
As the EGF is largely complementary to other EU instruments (notably the ESF), it adds 
value  compared  to  their  scopes  and  target  groups.  It  achieves  this  by  offering  an 
additional source of financial support on a case-by-case basis and more targeted, tailored, 
and individualised support to the very specific and narrow target groups it seeks to assist. 

LESSONS-LEARNED 

On effectiveness, there are several key lessons learned from the implementation both at 
Member State and at EU level, which would improve the EGF. 

At Member State level: 

o  Faster application process for Member States with  previous experience in EGF 
cases.  Those  that  have  applied  before  for  the  EGF  are  more  familiar  with  the 
application  process  and  will  prepare  applications  that  are  more  complete  in  the 
future, leading to efficiency gains. This holds true even for Member States with 
little experience applying for EGF support. The use of EGF assistance also fosters 
development  of  a  general  delivery  mechanism  of  restructuring  assistance  in 
Member States with little experience in dealing with mass redundancies.  

o  Early start of national procedures to ensure early intervention. This includes, for 

instance, procurement of training courses as quickly as possible.  

o  Design  of  the  labour  market  measures.  Many  Member  States  acknowledged  the 

importance of tailored support based on beneficiaries’ needs.  

o  Importance  of  physical  proximity  and  easily  accessible  support  to  beneficiaries. 
In many cases, the EGF support has positively influenced the way active labour 
market measures are managed at national level and the partnerships that feed into 
them.  

At EU level, the key lessons learned were:  

o  The EGF would benefit from an extended scope adapted to all major challenges 
facing  the  European  labour  market  (like  automation,  digitisation,  transition  to 
low-carbon economy). 

o  As  an  emergency  response  instrument,  the  mobilisation  of  the  Fund  should  be 
sped up by simplifying and shortening the application process, with less evidence 
required.  This  simplified  process  was  included  the  2021–2027  EGF  Regulation 
and should improve the effectiveness of the EGF. 

o  The success of EGF measures should be measured not only through re-integration 
rates,  but  also  through  more  qualitative  data  like  new  skills  and  qualifications, 
social  networks  and  self-confidence  gained  as  a  result  of  participation  in  EGF 
measures.  

o  The  effectiveness  of  the  Fund  should  be  evaluated  more  systematically  at  case 
level, especially regarding the category of workers benefiting from the measures 
(professional and educational background), their employment status and the type 
of employment found. If Member States were to develop case-specific targets, the 
measuring and monitoring of the EGF’s effectiveness would improve. However, 

52 

 
some  delivery  partners  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  monitoring  and  reporting 
requirements were already too burdensome. 

o  Some  budgetary  flexibility  is  needed  for  Member  States  to  reallocate  the  EGF 
funds  based  on  needs  that  emerge  during  implementation,  granted  that  those 
changes are duly justified. This reallocation of funds was already possible during 
the  2014–2020  period,  and  used  often  for  smaller  amounts,  although  some 
countries seem to have been unaware of this. 

o  It is important to maintain the flexibility of the EGF and the degree to which the 
EGF  measures  can  be  tailored  to  individual  beneficiaries’  needs,  backgrounds 
and interests. The flexibility to complement and/or add to the measures provided 
by Member States at national, regional and/or local level will ensure that the EGF 
continues to provide EU added value. 

In general, the EGF could be better coordinated with the recommendations set out in the 
EU  Quality  Framework  for  anticipation  of  change  and  restructuring.  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.  In the 2021–2027 EGF Regulation, a requirement 
was  introduced  for  Member  States  to  indicate  how  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the 
EU QFR were taken into account. 

Another lesson learned for both Member States and at EU level is the need to improve 
communication  activities.  This  can  be  achieved  by  explaining  what  measures  and 
activities  can  be  supported  by  the  EGF  and  how,  through  communication  adapted  to 
different  stakeholders  (beneficiaries,  companies  and  training  providers)  in  addition  to 
national  EGF  operators.  The  Member  States  should  actively  communicate  and  spread 
awareness about the EGF, especially among beneficiaries, as this is not done to the same 
degree in all countries. At EU level, the biannual networking seminars organised by the 
Commission  could  be  improved  with  a  more  bottom-up  approach,  allowing  for  more 
experience  sharing.  As  regards  external  communication,  in  the  future  more  emphasis 
should  be  put  on  increasing  the  visibility  of  good  practices,  not  only  among  Member 
States, but also for the wider public. 

As  underlined  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014–2020  EGF,  another  lesson 
re-confirmed  by  this  evaluation  was  on  organisational  learning  and  the  timing  of  the 
evaluation. Case implementation should be finalised, as this ensures ample evidence can 
be collected, analysed and that the final results achieved are evaluated. The  2021–2027 
EGF  Regulation  addressed  the  issue  of  the  evaluation’s  timing,  in  order  to  allow 
sufficient time for implementation of the EGF cases to be finalised.  

The 2021–2027 EGF Regulation addressed many issues (e.g. the extended scope, simpler 
and  faster  application  procedures,  more  data  collection  including  a  beneficiary  survey, 
the co-financing rate, more communication requirements), based on lessons learned from 
the implementation of the EGF. 

53 

 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

This  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social 
Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL)  and included in the Commission’s  Agenda Planning 
System (PLAN/2019/5352). DG EMPL drafted the evaluation roadmap, the stakeholder 
consultation strategy and the terms of reference (for the contract with external  experts), 
and presented them to  the  Interservice Steering  Group (ISSG)  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. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An  ISSG  was  created  in  May  2019.  The  invitation  launched  on  29 April  2019  was 
addressed to the following DGs: BUDG, COMP, GROW, TRADE, REGIO, ECFIN, the 
Secretariat-General and the Legal Service.  

The timing of the evaluation was as follows: 

27 May 2019 –  
24 June 2019 
18 July 2019 – 
27 August 2019 

27 September 2019 

19 December 2019 

9 January 2020 

17 February 2020 

17 March 2020 

25 June 2020 

10 June 2020 –  
16 September 2020 

13 November 2020 

14 January 2021 
July 2021 

Publication of the roadmap and feedback period 

Two  rounds  of  consultation  of  ISSG  via  one  meeting  and 
one written procedure 
Request  for  services  for  the  external  study  supporting  the 
evaluation 
Signature of the contract for the supporting study  with the 
consortium led by Ramboll Consulting Management  
1st  meeting  of  the  ISSG:  kick-off  meeting  for  the 
supporting study 
2nd  meeting  of  the  ISSG:  draft  inception  report  of  the 
supporting study 
Stakeholder  consultation  event: EGF  Networking Seminar, 
discussion of planned further consultations 
3rd  meeting  of  the  ISSG:  draft  interim  report  of  the 
supporting study 

Public consultation 

4th meeting of the ISSG: draft final report of the supporting 
study 
Revised final report of the study 
Written consultation on the draft staff working document 

54 

 
 
3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

N/A 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD  (IF APPLICABLE) 

N/A 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The main instruments used were: 

• 

• 

An EU-wide public consultation, which was carried out and analysed with the 
assistance of the external team of experts. 
A  supporting  study  carried  out  by  an  external  team  of  experts,  through 
contract VC/2019/0815146, through DG EMPL Multiple Framework Contract 
VT/2016-027  for  the  provision  of  services  related  to  the  implementation  of 
the Better Regulation Guidelines. The supporting study included background 
reseach  and  other  methods  and  tools  such  as  desk  research,  public 
consultations,  case  studies,  interviews  with  stakeholders  and  focus  groups 
(see Annex 2 for more details).  

The  Interservice  Steering  Group  assessed  the  quality  of  the  final  report  of  the  external 
contractors to be of very good quality. 

The  conclusions  and  findings  of  the  evaluation  are  considered  as  robust,  within  the 
limitations and the mitigating measures described in Section 4 and Annex 3 to this staff 
working document. 

146  The link to the final report is: Study supporting the ex post evaluation of the European Globalisation 

Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 

55 

 
 
                                                           
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

According to the Better Regulation Guidelines, part or all of the consultation work can be 
conducted  by  an  external  contractor.  After  approval  by  the  Commission’s  Interservice 
Steering  Group  (ISSG),  DG  EMPL  tasked  the  contractor  with  conducting  the 
consultations in close cooperation with the Commission departments, to produce 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 
ISSG  beforehand.  Like  all  other  deliverables,  the  reports  were  also  subject  to  scrutiny 
and  approval  by  the  ISSG.  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 used the contractor’s report and the results of other specific consultations147 
to double check the validity of data. All reports on the specific consultations are annexed 
to  the  contractor’s  report.  They  contain  the  results  of  the  activities,  including  all 
responses to the online questionnaires, etc. 

SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1.  Overview of consultation strategy  

To ensure that the general public interest of the Union – as opposed to special interests of 
stakeholder  groups  –  is  well  reflected  in  this  evaluation,  and  in  the  future  design  and 
implementation of the EGF, the Commission regards it as a duty to conduct stakeholder 
consultations and consult the various stakeholders as widely as possible. 

The aim of these stakeholder consultations related to the EGF ex post evaluation was to 
deliver a high quality and credible assessment by allowing interested parties to  provide 
feedback and suggestions  on the relevance, effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence, impact 
and EU added value of the EGF supported actions. This  also  ensured transparency  and 
accountability. 

2.  Roadmap 
The evaluation roadmap was published on the Commission’s Have your Say148 portal and 
made  available  for  public  feedback  between  27 May 2019  and  24 June 2019.  Five 
contributions (two from Italy and one each from Belgium, Germany and Denmark) were 
received and the findings were taken into account in the conclusions of this evaluation. 

3.  Stakeholder categories 

The EGF stakeholders at all levels  were  consulted through a variety of means, ranging 
from  a  public  consultation  to  online  surveys  and  targeted  interviews.  Table  3  below 
presents an overview of the stakeholders reached through each consultation tool/method. 

147  Outcome  of  discussions  which  took  place  during  the  regular  EGF  contact  persons’  meetings  and 
networking  seminars,  including  the  extraordinary  EGF  contact  persons’  meeting  in  January  2018, 
which was fully dedicated to the post-2020 EGF Regulation. 

148  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2148-European-Globalisation-

Adjustment-Fund-final-evaluation-2014-20-_en 

56 

 
 
                                                           
1)  Workers’  organisations/redundant  workers:  Workers’  organisations  and 
workers  themselves  can  be  directly  affected.  The  EGF’s  beneficiaries  are 
redundant  workers  (the  most important  stakeholders on  an individual basis) and 
the  organisations  representing  them.  Depending  on  the  Member  State,  some  of 
these organisations might also be involved in implementing EGF measures. The 
interest  of  the  individual  redundant  worker  is  very  high,  but  that  person’s 
influence rather low. The interest of the organisations representing the workers is 
also  very  high,  but  their  level  of  influence  depends  among  other  things  on  the 
Member  State  in  which  they  operate  and  the  level  of  involvement  assigned  to 
them in the implementation of EGF measures. 

2)  NEETs:  Under Article 6 of Regulation (EU)  No  1309/2013,  young people who 
were  ‘not  in  education,  employment,  or  training’  are  eligible  for  EGF  support 
under  certain  circumstances.  The  interest  of  NEETs  is  therefore  very  high,  but 
their influence as individuals is rather low.  

3)  Citizens/general  public:  The  general  public  constitutes  the  largest  stakeholder 
group. On the one hand, the general public has an interest in how public funds are 
spent.  On  the  other,  even  if  the  general  public  is  not  directly  affected  by  EGF 
measures,  they  are  indirectly  affected  by  any  active  labour  market  policy 
measure. Due to the more indirect relationship and the fact that the EGF is one of 
many active labour market policy instruments, this group’s interest is often low. 
The same can be said for its influence, which is also quite low.  

4)  Industry/business:  Even  though  the  EGF  does  not  provide  any  support  to 
industry or businesses, they  would have  a  general  interest  because of the EGF's 
nature  as  an  active  labour  market  policy  instrument.  However,  there  might  be 
very  high  interest  among  some  organisations  representing  local  business  in  an 
area  affected  by  mass  redundancies  that  fall  under  the  EGF  provisions,  and 
among organisations representing the interest of an industry strongly affected by 
globalisation  or  by  the  previous  global  financial  and  economic  crisis.  Their 
influence on the EGF measures is, however, usually low.  

5)  NGOs: NGOs that are not workers’ organisations and do not represent industries 
or  businesses  might  still  have  an  interest  in  the  EGF.  This  group  can  include 
special  interest  organisations  with  a  focus  on  environmental  or  gender  issues. 
Their  interest  would  generally  be  rather  low,  except  regarding  the  particular 
causes they represent. Their general influence on the EGF is also rather low. 

6)  Private-sector bodies and professionals: Private-sector bodies are in most cases 
involved in implementing EGF measures and so both their interest and influence 
are  high.  They  may  be  training  bodies,  universities,  consultancies,  advisers  and 
various experts such as medical professionals, psychologists, lawyers, engineers, 
business and financial advisers, etc. 

7)  Public  authorities:  Politicians  and  national  governments  have,  by  definition,  a 
major influence on EGF measures. Each EGF case needs to be approved by the 
national  managing  authority,  usually  a  senior  civil  servant  or  even  a  minister, 
before  being  submitted  to  the  Commission.  The  Commission  proposal  is  then 
presented to the European Parliament and the Council. Due to the limited scope 
of  the  EGF,  the  overall  interest  of  Member  State  public  authorities  is  not 
considerable. The national EGF managing authorities, i.e. the contact persons of 
the EGF, have by definition a very high interest. They also have a high influence, 
as  they  are responsible for designing  EGF measures in  their respective Member 

57 

 
States,  and  are  in  permanent  contact  with  the  Commission.  Local  authorities  in 
areas affected by EGF cases have a rather high interest in the EGF. Even though 
they are often involved in implementing EGF measures, they usually do not have 
a major influence on their design. Their level of influence also varies depending 
on the Member State.  

8)  Research:  Researchers  representing  academia  or  think  tanks  could  have  an 
interest in the EGF and, if they do, their findings might have an influence. These 
would usually be individual researchers, however, so that it would not make sense 
to consult ‘researchers’ as a group. 

Table 3. Stakeholder consultation strategy: overview 
Stakeholders 

Surveys  EU-level 
targeted 
interviews 

EU-level stakeholders  

X 

EGF contact  persons in  Member 
States 
EGF beneficiaries  

X 

X 

Public  authorities:  local/regional 
level 
Industry/businesses  

Workers’ organisations 

Private-sector 
professionals 
NGOs 

bodies 

and 

Citizens/general public 
Research 

4.  Consultation methods and tools  

4.1. Public consultation 

National-/case-
level 
targeted 
interviews  and 
focus groups149 

Public 
consultation 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

The aim of the public consultation was to ensure transparency in the evaluation process 
by  involving  the  general  public  in  a  way  that  is  complementary  to  the  targeted 
consultation activities. 

The  public  consultation  was  open  for  feedback  between  10 June 2020150  and 
16 September 2020.  The  following  dissemination  strategies  were  used  to  advertise  the 
launch of the public consultation on the EU Survey Portal: publication on DG EMPL’s 

149  The  results  from  national-level  interviews  are  not  included  in  this  report,  but  in  separate  unpublished 

case study reports.  

150  The  delays  between  the  questionnaire’s  finalisation  and  its  launch  were  caused  by:  (i)  the  need  to 
translate  the  questionnaire  into  all  official  EU  languages;  and  (ii)  the  initial  reluctance  of  the 
Secretariat-General to run the public consultation during the summer period.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
website151,  dissemination  and  reminders 
snowballing with the support of EGF contact persons.  

through  social  media  accounts152  and 

The  public  consultation  received  39  responses.  Responses  came  from  17  different 
countries,  of  which  15  in  Europe.  There  was  an  unbalanced  geographical  distribution, 
with  7  countries  (Malta,  Romania,  Spain,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy  and  Belgium) 
responsible  for  around  66%  of  responses  received  (see  Figure  12  below).  Most 
respondents  identified  themselves  either  as  representatives  of  a  public  authority  or  as 
(EU) citizens.  

Figure 12. Breakdown of the 39 responses received by Member State 

Source:  Summary  report  of  the  public  consultation  on  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
EGF153 

Most  members  of  the  public  participating  in  the  public  consultation  were  female, 
employed  and  in  the  35-44  age  group.  Younger  age  groups  were  considerably  less 
represented.  The  majority  of  the  respondents  also  indicated  that  they  belonged  to  a 
large154 or medium-sized155 company at the national or local level.  

4.2. Targeted online surveys  with EGF beneficiaries  and Member States that 

did not apply for co-financing 

Two online surveys were run: one to gain insight into the experiences and impact of the 
EGF support provided to beneficiaries, and one to understand why certain countries did 
not apply for co-financing. The first online survey was aimed at EGF beneficiaries (end 
users),  and  the  second  at  EGF  contact  persons  in  countries  that  did  not  apply  for  EGF 
funding in the 2014–2020 period.  

151 https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=326&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9731  
152  DG  EMPL’s 

twitter  account:  https://twitter.com/EU_Social/status/1280518635195424769  and 

https://twitter.com/EU_Social/status/1298172732350312448  

153 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2148-Ex-post-evaluation-of-

the-European-Globalisation-Adjustment-Fund-2014-2020-/public-consultation_en 

154 250 or more employees. 
155 50 to 249 employees. 

59 

 
 
 
                                                           
Key results of the EGF beneficiary survey 
The survey specifically aimed to gain a perspective on the experience and impact of the 
support from those it intends to help (EGF beneficiaries), and to gather views on how the 
EGF compares to other forms of support for redundant workers (and NEETs).  

Some 1 306 completed responses  to  the survey  were received, along  with  351 partially 
completed results (i.e. people who started filling it out but did not get through the whole 
survey). Based on methodological considerations, 922 responses were considered in our 
analysis156.  The  responses  received  are  geographically  imbalanced,  with  half  of  the 
responses received from  Finland, followed by Spain and Germany. No eligible answers 
were  received  from  Estonia  or  Sweden  despite  support  from  EGF  contact  persons  and 
reminders sent. This introduced a certain degree of bias, meaning that the results are not 
necessarily representative of the experience of all beneficiaries across all EGF cases and 
countries.  

The majority of beneficiaries indicated that they  had lost their job in  2016  and  were in 
the  45–54  age  group  when  they  received  help  in  (re-)entering  the  job  market.  Only  a 
small number of respondents were between 15 and 24, hinting at a low representation of 
NEETs  among  EGF  beneficiaries.  The  gender  distribution  was  quite  imbalanced  in 
favour of male respondents, who made up more than half of the respondents.  

Respondents who indicated that they were aware of having benefited from EGF measures 
were asked to indicate when this support started. The average length of EGF support  is 
around  8  months.  The  majority  benefited  from  the  EGF  for  6-12  months,  followed  by 
those who benefited for longer than 12 months. A smaller group benefited for 3-6 months 
or less than 3 months. 

4.3. Member State-level interviews and focus groups 

The  fieldwork  involved:  (i)  semi-structured  interviews  or  focus  groups  in  all  Member 
States  with  cases;  and  (ii)  case  studies  in  12  Member  States,  covering  31  EGF  cases. 
About four interviews were carried out per case, and there were two overarching country-
specific interviews.  

These  interviews  targeted  EGF  managing  authorities,  case  coordinators,  delivery 
partners,  social  partners  and  former  employers.  The  interviews  and  case  studies  were 
used as the main source of information to answer the evaluation questions and feed into 
case study reports. 

4.4. EU-level interviews  

The purpose of the EU-level interviews was to add more in-depth qualitative evidence to 
data  already  gathered  on  the  design  and  implementation  of  the  EGF,  and  fill  data  gaps 
emerging from other consultation tools.  

156 Considering the risk of ‘false positives’, i.e. the survey reaching persons it was not intended for (persons 
who  did  not  receive  EGF  support),  the  survey  questionnaire  contained  a  significant  number  of 
profiling  questions  aiming  to  exclude  such  persons  from  the  analysis.  As  a  result,  the  analysis 
presented in this appendix covers 922 respondents that (i) completed the questionnaire and (ii) passed 
the profiling questions that filtered out people that likely were not part of our target group. 

60 

 
                                                           
Eight  semi-structured  EU  interviews  were  conducted  with  European  Commission  staff 
(three),  (former)  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  (two),  a  social  partner,  and 
Member States (two) that did not apply for EGF support during the 2014–2020 period.  

5.  Results of consultation activities 

5.1. Effectiveness 

The EGF had been effective and had achieved its key objectives157. The objective of 
the EGF is clear, and almost all respondents believe it is appropriate. Nevertheless, 
there  was  room  for  improvement  in  the  way  the  Fund  was  designed,  managed  and 
implemented.  Respondents  also  indicated  that  there  are  both  barriers  and  encouraging 
factors that determine the extent to which Member States apply for EGF support. Overall, 
Member States still did not use the EGF to its full potential, with several reasons for this 
identified. Those  reasons included:  (i)  countries  might  not  satisfy the EGF intervention 
criteria,  (the  minimum  threshold  of  500  dismissed  workers  was  too  high);  (ii)  the  co-
financing rate of EGF is for many countries lower than that available under the ESF; and 
(iii) there is still lack of awareness of the EGF and the funding possibilities it offers.  

Interviewees  agreed  that  the  EGF  had  proven  to  be  a  useful  tool  in  supporting 
dismissed  workers.  Most  respondents  also  indicated  that  the  EGF  was  more 
effective than national policies in supporting redundant workers. Additionally, EGF 
measures increasingly took into account the socio-economic context in which dismissed 
workers lived, therefore addressing their needs in a holistic way.  

Furthermore,  it  appeared  that  the  EGF  results  in  high  re-employment  rates.  On 
average, around 60% of dismissed workers were said to be re-employed after receiving 
EGF support, which indeed is reflected in the data. According to one interviewee, these 
rates appear higher than those achieved by the ESF. EGF measures also usually result in 
the  creation  of  a  social  network  around  the  dismissed  workers,  which  is  an  unintended 
yet positive effect of the Fund.   

Ultimately,  Member  States  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  the  short-term  emergency 
relief provided by the EGF turns into sustainable, long-term effects. However, progress 
on case-specific objectives was said to be poorly monitored by Member States. This 
was because there was no structured process to follow up on EGF effects. Member States 
were  only  obliged  to  report  on  the  number  of  people  initially  targeted  and  those  who 
received EGF support.  

Furthermore,  because  of  the  time  lag  between  the  application  and  the  implementation 
period,  the  EGF  might  have  failed  to  target  all  people  who  would  in  principle  need 
support.  At  the  same  time,  the  time  lag  between  implementation  and  application  also 
ensured that only the people that would not find re-employment or training without the 
EGF were targeted by it.  

Finally, the decision-making process at the EU level to finance/implement a case was 
considered  lengthy.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  also  highlighted  that  the  quality  of 

157  To  show  solidarity  with  workers  who  had  lost  their  jobs  in  large-scale  redundancies  resulting  from 

changes in global trade patterns. 

61 

 
 
                                                           
applications received affected the length of the decision-making process – a well-written 
application fully meeting all the criteria would be processed faster than a poorly written 
one. It appeared that Member States had developed and improved their understanding of 
EGF over time, resulting in better applications and better implementation of cases.   

5.2. Efficiency  

The Fund has been efficient in the use of resources. In fact, most respondents believed 
that the same results could not have been achieved with fewer resources. The majority of 
stakeholders also indicated that the same results could probably not have been achieved 
in a shorter period of time. Member States often overestimate costs, and hence returned 
unused  funds.  This  suggests  that  the  EGF  funding  was  adequate  to  cover  the  expenses 
incurred by Member States.  

The  decision-making  process  is  considered  to  be  lengthy  and  would  benefit  from 
simplification.  Linking  the  need  for  EGF  funds  to  the  impacts  of  globalisation  had 
proven  particularly  challenging  for  applicant  Member  States.  This  resulted  in  some 
applications going through several iterations, which would need to be revised on multiple 
occasions by the different stakeholders involved. In turn, this resulted in efficiency losses 
in terms of time spent and staff involved in the application process.  

However, a few stakeholders believed that the application process and requirements were 
not  excessively  complicated,  although  it  involved  a  learning  process  on  the  part  of  the 
applicant  authorities.  Once  the  learning  process  was  complete,  subsequent  applications 
would require fewer resources, both in terms of staff and financial resources. In fact, it 
appears  that  the  Fund’s  efficiency  and  how  it  is  managed  at  EU  level  greatly 
improved over time.  

5.3. Relevance 

Among the 15 respondents who were aware of the EGF, the results concerning relevance 
were mixed. Most respondents indicated that the scope of the EGF is no longer entirely 
appropriate  and  useful,  and  that  it  should  be  made  more  flexible  and  broadened  to 
consider emerging needs.  

There is  no unanimity  as  to  whether the EGF intervention criteria are still relevant  and 
useful – respondents were almost equally split on this aspect. Those who do not regard 
the criteria as still relevant specified that the threshold of 500 redundancies is no longer 
realistic, and that lowering it to 250 would result in increased use of the Fund. 

However,  not  all  stakeholders  agreed  that  NEETs  should  be  targeted  by  the  EGF. 
Two main reasons were provided to justify this statement: 

  The  EGF  was  not  seen  as  the  most  appropriate  fund  for  NEETs.  Other 
instruments  –  primarily  the  YEI  –  are  more  specialised  to  provide  tailored 
support.  

  NEETs  as  a  target  group  are  very  different  from  workers  made  redundant. 
Therefore,  the  connection  between  support  to  dismissed  workers  and  NEETs  is 
somewhat ‘artificial’ and not justified.    

Most  stakeholders  believed  that  the  EGF  intervention  criteria  would  benefit  from 
revision: further lowering the threshold of dismissed workers and lowering the dismissal 
period  within  which  workers  are  eligible  for  EGF  support  would  make  the  EGF  more 

62 

 
accessible  to  smaller  countries.  This  in  turn  would  make  it  more  flexible  to  adapt  to 
diverse needs. The other stakeholders believed the EGF was sufficiently flexible as it was 
mobilised based on needs.  

5.4. Coherence 

Most  interviewees  identified  strong  complementarity  between  the  EGF  and  the 
European  Social  Fund,  and  also  between  the  EGF  and  other  support  measures 
available at national level. The EGF and ESF allowed for the implementation of largely 
comparable measures. The EGF is a tailored, specific fund to target the needs of a very 
narrow group. This is not the case for the ESF, which is broader in its objectives and the 
people it targets.  

Views  on  the  EGF’s  coherence  with  other  EU  policies  were  limited  and  could  not  be 
generalised.  

5.5. EU added value  

All interviewed stakeholders at EU level thought the EGF had added value compared 
to  what  could  have  been  achieved  by  the  Member  States  themselves.  Three  key 
findings on the EGF’s added value emerged:  

  The  EGF  was  seen  as  a  complementary  resource  to  national  measures.  In  the 
absence  of  the  EGF,  some  Member  States  would  have  had  very  limited/no 
resources to address the needs of dismissed workers.  

  The EGF provided rapid relief for emergency circumstances. 
  The EGF demonstrated EU solidarity towards dismissed workers. 

The  EGF  has  also  favoured  a  learning  process  and  provided  lessons  that  have  been 
applied in other circumstances or improved implementation processes at national level. 

63 

 
 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

In  2019,  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  Commission  published  the 
roadmap158 for this evaluation and organised a four-week online consultation. At the end 
of 2019, the Commission contracted out the supporting study159 for the evaluation. The 
evaluation questions included in this study derived from the Better Regulation evaluation 
criteria  were  broken  down  into  a  number  of  sub-questions  and  agreed  with  the 
Interservice  Steering  Group160.  The  Commission’s  stakeholder  consultation  strategy  for 
this evaluation was also agreed with the ISSG and run by the external experts. 

In line with the EGF Regulation, this evaluation is largely based on the supporting study 
carried out by external experts. The approach it took was as follows:  

  collect and analyse the relevant evidence; 
  provide answers to all evaluation questions; 
  present evidence-based conclusions. 

The  evaluation  was  based  on  the  overarching  evaluation  questions  for  each  criterion; 
each overarching question was further detailed in sub-questions, as presented in Table 4 
below.  The  evaluation  work  and  the  supporting  study  were  structured  around  the 
conclusions reached on each of the questions. 

The Commission based this evaluation mainly on the results of the supporting study and 
complemented  it,  where  appropriate,  with  additional  evidence  from  previous  reports, 
evaluations and general experience in the management of the EGF.   

Methodology and data sources  

The  supporting  study  is  based  on  a  complex  methodology  aimed  at  collecting  robust 
evidence  and  providing  well-informed  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions.  The  main 
methods and data sources were mentioned in Chapter 4 of this staff working document. 
These methods and data sources are described in more detail below. 

OVERALL  ASSESSMENT  OF  STRENGTHS  AND  WEAKNESSES  OF  THE 
METHODOLOGY AND DATA  

The  various  sources  mentioned  above  were  triangulated  and,  where  the  evidence  was 
insufficient  or  inconclusive,  the  sources  were  combined:  these  were  data-based, 
documentary  and  perception-based  sources,  as  well  as  quantitative  and  qualitative 
techniques, depending on the nature of the evaluation  question and the strengths  of the 
relevant data and approaches. 

158  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2148-Ex-post-evaluation-of-

the-European-Globalisation-Adjustment-Fund-2014-2020-  

159  The  final  report:  Study  supporting  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment 

Fund (2014-2020) - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 

160  Under  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  an  ISSG  involving  representatives  of  all  key  stakeholders 
within the Commission departments needs to be established  and consulted during all key steps of the 
evaluation process. 

64 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  main  weaknesses  and  challenges  mentioned  in  Chapter  4  of  this  staff  working 
document are:  

  Timing of the ex post evaluation. The figures in the supporting study are based 
on  the  situation  at  the  end  of  November 2020,  when  it  was  sent  to  the 
Commission.  The  2020  applications  could  not  be  evaluated  and  included  in  the 
study161  because  their  results  will  only  be  available  in  2023  (24  months  for 
implementation).  For  earlier  cases,  there  may  be  small  differences  in  figures  as 
the data were extracted from the electronic data exchange platform (SFC2014) at 
different  times,  while  data  may  be  corrected  during  the  examination  and 
acceptance of the final report.  

  Limited suitable comparators for data from 2007–2013 remained an issue. A 
comparison with data from the 2007–2013 period is of limited use162 because of 
several  changes  in  the  EGF’s  design163  (see  Table  6  below)  and  the  evolving 
economic context. This  evaluation  partially  overcome this  issue  by  using a new 
method  of  comparison  through  a  counterfactual  impact  evaluation  for  two  EGF 
cases from 2014–2020. 

  The  relatively  small  number  of  EGF  applications  received  during  the  period 
covered  by  the  evaluation  (49  cases  from  27  economic  sectors)  made  it 
impossible to conduct sectoral analyses. To overcome this, based on the internal 
Commission  EGF  Database,  overview  tables  on  case  profile  data  sorted  by 
country and by sector were created; these can be found in Annex 4164.  

  The basic reporting requirements requested by the EGF Regulation165. In their 
final report, Member States have to state the type of action and main outcomes, 
the  characteristics166  of  the  targeted  beneficiaries  and  their  employment  status. 
Data on beneficiaries are broken down by gender and by age groups. There are no 
common indicators to measure outputs and results. Similarly, no targets are set at 
the  time  of  the  application.  Therefore  performance  cannot  be  assessed  against 
planned outcomes. Overall, the available data are limited and do not allow for 
further  statistical  analyses  of  the  categories  of  beneficiaries,  or  a  further 
breakdown of beneficiaries based on type of dismissing enterprise167. This  issue 
was already identified by the European Court of Auditors during the audit of the 

161 In total 46 final reports were analysed out of 54 EGF cases during the 2014–2020. 
162  Please  see  the  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  EGF  2007-2013,  (2015)  and  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 

EGF 2014-2020, (2018). 

163 The ex post evaluation of the 2007–2013 EGF had also considered the identification of comparators as a 

major challenge (See p. 90).  

164 Under 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’. 

165 See Article 18 of the EGF Regulation. 
166 Besides gender and age groups, if available, Member States also include in an EGF case’s final report 
information  about  the  beneficiaries’  nationality,  whether  they  have  a  long-lasting  health  problem  or 
disability,  whether  they  are  part  of  a  minority  group,  and  their  professional  (ISCO)  and  educational 
levels (ISCED-2011). 

167 For example the principal enterprise, or suppliers or downstream producers; or especially in the case of 

sectoral applications, also SMEs or the self-employed. 

65 

 
                                                           
2007–2013 EGF168, in the course of the mid-term and ex post evaluations of the 
2007–2013 EGF169 and in the mid-term evaluation of the 2014–2020 EGF170. 

  The  significant  differences  across  cases,  Member  States  and  economic  sectors 
made  it  difficult  to  formulate  reliable  conclusions  on  the  EGF’s  cost-efficiency 
and cost-effectiveness.  

  Reaching  EGF  beneficiaries  was  difficult,  despite  all  efforts  by  the  external 
evaluators, the Commission and the national EGF  contact persons. Beneficiaries 
could not be reached in all Member States; reasons for this included General Data 
Protection Regulation (GDPR)171 constraints, or because a long time had elapsed 
since beneficiaries participated in EGF measures. 

  Difficulty  identifying  whether  survey  respondents  actually  participated  in 
EGF measures.  It is possible that persons who responded to the survey did not 
actually receive EGF support, or that they did but were not aware that the support 
provided was co-financed by the EGF. 

  Public  consultation  alone  cannot  be  considered  as  representative,  so  some 
mitigation  measures  have  been  applied,  notably  triangulation  with  other  data 
sources. 

  Counterfactual  impact  evaluation:  this  was  a  new  method  used  for  two  EGF 
cases, one from the Netherlands and one from Ireland. Although the results were 
inconclusive  because  of  data  limitations,  they  provided  relevant  information 
about the effect of a single EGF intervention but not about the EGF as such.  

  The COVID-19 pandemic caused considerable delays in data collection as travel 
was banned and the case studies had to be carried out via other electronic means. 
It  also  had  an  impact  on  the  implementation  of  measures  in  one  EGF  case  and 
very likely also on its longer-term results. 

To  overcome  these  limitations  the  study  has  collected  data  from  a  variation  of  data 
sources  such  as  surveys,  in-depth  interviews  and  a  public  consultation.  These  data 
sources  provided  opinions  and  perceptions  of  different  stakeholders,  which  in  some 
instances may be the only available source of evidence. 

Under the Better Regulation Guidelines, the public consultation is an important tool for 
collecting stakeholder input and views on EU policy initiatives. It cannot provide a fully 
representative view of EU public opinion, but it does offer a channel for those who care 
about  a  given  issue  to  voice  their  opinion.  A  clear  distinction  was  made  between 
respondents  who  were  well-informed  about  the  EGF  and  others.  Although  a  limited 

168  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. 

169  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EGF  2007-2013 (2011), p.  52  and  EGF  ex-post  evaluation  2007-2013, p. 

121. 

170The mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, (2018) – Final Report, ICF, p. 16 
171  Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement 
of  such  data,  and  repealing  Directive  95/46/EC  (General  Data  Protection  Regulation)  (OJ  L  119, 
4.5.2016, p. 1). 

66 

 
                                                           
number  of  responses  were  received,  the  analysis  of  the  responses  was  fed  into  the 
findings of the evaluation and triangulated with other sources of evidence.  

The  reliability  and  validity  of  the  results  presented  in  this  study  were  ensured  by 
triangulation,  using  various  methods  combining  qualitative  and  quantitative  data 
collection and analytical methods.  

In  conclusion,  while  acknowledging  that  there  are  some  data  gaps  and  methodical 
limitations,  the  evaluation  presents  well-informed,  evidence-based  and  reliable  answers 
to the evaluation questions (see Table 4 below).  

Table 4. Evaluation questions and sub-questions 

Questions and sub-questions 

Section in staff 
working 
document 

Data and info sources 

Effectiveness (EQ1): The aim of the EGF is to demonstrate solidarity towards workers 
made redundant and to ensure for each EGF case that the largest possible number of 
beneficiaries find sustainable employment as soon as possible.  

As an instrument, how effective was the EGF in achieving these aims? 
At the level of cases, how effective was the EGF in achieving these aims? 

5.1.c 

  Literature and data 

1.1: To what extent is the support 
provided by the EGF used by 
Member States? 

review 

  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation  
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review  

  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding  

  Targeted interviews  
  Literature and data 

review  

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups  

  Online survey of 

beneficiaries – profiling 
questions  

1.2: To what extent is the support 
provided by the EGF used by 
beneficiaries? 

1.3: To what extent was the co-
financing rate appropriate?  

5.1.c 

5.1.c 

1.4: To what extent have Member 
States offered EGF support to all 
eligible beneficiaries? 

5.1.b 

67 

 
Section in staff 
working 
document 

Data and info sources 

5.1.b 

  Literature and data 

Questions and sub-questions 

1.5: At case level, did the support 
offered and the way it is being 
offered correspond to the needs of 
the beneficiaries and their specific 
profiles?  

review  

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups  
  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding  

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries  

  Public consultation  
  Literature and data 

review  

  Targeted interviews  
  Literature and data 

review  

  Targeted interviews  
  Literature and data 

review  

  Targeted interviews  
  Literature and data 

review  

  Targeted interviews  
  Literature and data 

review  

  Targeted interviews  
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Counterfactual impact 

evaluation 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Literature and data 

review 

1.6: What were the factors that 
helped or hindered the achievement 
of EGF cases’ objectives?  
1.7: At the level of cases, to what 
extent have the challenges identified 
been tackled?  
1.8: To what extent were case-
specific objectives/aims established?  

1.9: To what extent were case-
specific objectives monitored?  

1.10: Were the national monitoring 
systems timely and effective?  

1.11: How reliable was the data 
collected and was it sufficient?  

1.12: To what extent have Member 
States made use of the possibility of 
the EGF support to NEETs? 
1.13: At instrument level, did EU or 
national procedures in place ensure a 
swift and resource saving decision-
making process and thus a quick 
implementation?  

5.1.e 

5.1.e 

5.1.d 

5.1.d 

5.1.d 

5.1.d 

5.1.c 

5.1.e 

1.14: How effective was the EGF 

5.1.a 

68 

 
Questions and sub-questions 

Section in staff 
working 
document 

Data and info sources 

support for beneficiaries?  

1.15: How and to what extent has the 
EGF support had a short-term and 
medium-term impact on individual 
participants?  

5.1.a 

5.1.a 

5.1.a 

1.16: Were there any unexpected or 
unintended effects linked to the 
implementation of EGF measures? 

1.17: How do the impacts observed 
compare with those achieved by: 
(a) individuals who did not receive 
EGF support (the control group 
when available); 
(b) similar re-employment projects at 
national or regional level? 

1.18: To the extent of available 
evidence, what are the long-term 
effects generated by the EGF cases? 

5.1.a 

1.19: What lessons have been drawn 
or could be drawn from EGF 
implementation, both by the 
Commission as well as by national, 
regional and local authorities?  

1.20. To what extent have social 
partners contributed to the design 
and provision of coherent support 
packages? 

1.21. To what extent have companies 
contributed to the design and 
provision of coherent support 
packages? 
1.22. To what extent have Member 
States incentivised local companies 
to employ dismissed workers?  

5.1.h 

5.1.f 

5.1.f 

n/a 

69 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Counterfactual impact 

evaluation 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Public consultation 
  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

 
Section in staff 
working 
document 

Data and info sources 

5.1.i 

  Literature and data 

Questions and sub-questions 

1.23: What was the overall impact of 
EGF? (based on results of previous 
questions) 
 
  Case level  

Instrument level 

1.24: To what extent have the 
information and communication 
activities of  

the Commission  

 
  Member States 

5.1.g 

review  

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Literature and data 

review 

proven useful and reached the 
dismissed workers and EU citizens? 
Efficiency (EQ2): To what extent were the results of the EGF per beneficiary cost-
efficient? Are there significant differences in EGF cost-efficiency between and within 
Member States and per economic sector defined at NACE Revision 2 division level? If 
so, what is causing them? And how do these differences relate to the EGF support as a 
whole? 
2.1: To what extent were the results 
of the EGF per beneficiary cost-
efficient?  

  Literature and data 

review 

5.2.a 

5.2.a 

5.2.a 

5.2.a 

2.2: At case level, to what extent 
could the same results have been 
achieved with fewer resources and/or 
in a shorter period of time?  
2.3: At case level, to what extent are 
the costs incurred justified, given the 
benefits which have been achieved? 
2.4: What is the overall and case-by-
case absorption rate of the funding 
support from the EGF to Member 
States? 
2.5: At instrument level, to what 
extent were the procedures related to 
the application and allocation of 
EGF funding efficient? 

5.2.b 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Targeted interviews 

Coherence (EQ3): How coherent is the EGF intervention with other European Union 
programmes and national instruments? 
3.1: How coherent is the EGF 

  Literature and data 

5.3.a 

70 

 
Questions and sub-questions 

Section in staff 
working 
document 

Data and info sources 

intervention with other European 
Union programmes?  
3.2: How coherent is the EGF 
intervention with other national 
instruments?  
3.3: At instrument and case level, to 
what extent have Member States 
ensured the complementarity of EGF 
support with other European Union 
instruments, such as the European 
Social Fund, the Youth Employment 
Initiative, or national instruments in 
Member States?  
3.4: If applicable, are there any 
lessons learned for ensuring 
complementarity? 
3.5: At case level, to what extent 
have there been overlaps between 
EGF support and other interventions 
in the Member States? 

5.3.b 

5.3.a 

5.3.b 

5.3.a 

5.3.a 

3.6: At case level, to what extent 
have there been synergies between 
EGF support and other interventions 
in the Member States? 
Relevance (EQ4): How relevant is the EGF? 
5.4.a 
4.1: To what extent was the scope of 
the EGF as defined in Regulation 
(EU) No 1309/2013 appropriate and 
useful for its aims? 

4.2: To what extent were the 
intervention criteria of the EGF as 
defined in Regulation (EU) No 
1309/2013 appropriate and useful for 
its aims?  

5.4.b 

71 

review 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 

  Targeted interviews 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 
  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 
Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 
  Online survey of EGF 
contact persons in 

 
Questions and sub-questions 

Section in staff 
working 
document 

Data and info sources 

4.3: To what extent did the EGF 
support to NEETs reflect the needs 
of Member States? 

5.4.c 

Member States which did 
not apply for EGF 
funding 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 
  Public consultation 

EU added value (EQ5): What is the EU added value of the EGF intervention?  
5.1: At case level, what is the EU 
  Literature and data 
added value of the EGF 
intervention? 

review 

5.5 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

5.2: At instrument level, what is the 
EU added value of the EGF 
intervention? 

5.5 

5.5 

5.3: To what extent does the aid 
offered by the EGF replace or 
complement measures or allowances 
which the Member State would 
provide in the absence of EGF 
funding? 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Public consultation 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews 
  Public consultation 

5.4: Were there any cross-region 
and/or cross-border effects of the 
EGF cases implemented? 

5.5 

  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 
  Literature and data 

review 

  Targeted interviews / 
online focus groups 

  Online survey of 
beneficiaries 

  Counterfactual impact 

evaluation 

5.5: At case level, what has been the 
EU added value of EGF measures 
targeted at NEETs? 

5.5 

72 

 
Annex 4: Case profile data by Member State and by sector 

Under Article 20(3) of the EGF Regulation, evaluations must include the figures showing the 
number of applications and cover the performance of the EGF by country and by sector, to 
assess whether the EGF is reaching its targeted recipients. The tables in this annex provide an 
overview of the 2014–2020 EGF cases. There are 54 cases in total, of which the results are 
available  for  46  cases.  Due  to  the  small  number  of  cases,  profound  analyses  per  Member 
State or per industrial sector were not possible.  

The most important general data on cases covered by this evaluation are given below.  

For completeness of the exercise and for information purposes, we present overview tables on 
cases,  sorted  by  Member  State  and  subsequently  per  sector.  The  final  table  in  this  annex 
presents  workers  targeted  in  EGF  cases,  including  the  breakdown  by  gender  and  age  of 
targeted workers.  

The  figure  below  offers  a  comparison  between  the  number  of  NEETs  targeted  by  the 
respective cases offering support to NEETs, and the actual number of NEETs supported. 

Figure 13. NEETs targeted compared to NEETs reached172 

Source: Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), p.36 

172  This  graph  is  based  on  11  out  of  the  12  cases  that  targeted  NEETs.  The  excluded  case  is  EGF/2018/002 
PT/Norte Centro Lisboa  wearing apparel,  as no final report  was available  when the  supporting study  was 
sent to the Commission. 

73 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 5. General overview of the 54 applications received between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2020 (without withdrawn173 and rejected174 cases)  

Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

EL 

Bakery 
products 

EGF/2014/002 

Gelderland 
and 
Overijssel 

NL 

Construction 
of buildings 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

ES 

Food and 
beverage 
services 

EGF/2014/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

ES 

Manufacture 
of fabricated 
metal products 

a 

b 

b 

b 

Crisis 

6 096 000 

1 536 355 

508 

249 

6 170 

Crisis 

1 625 781 

1 167 559 

475 

467 

2 500 

Crisis 

960 000 

804 140 

280 

274 

2 935 

Crisis 

1 019 184 

321 877 

300 

174 

1 850 

173  The  four  applications  withdrawn  were:  EGF/2015/008  EL/Supermarket  Larissa,  EGF/2016/006  FI/Helsinki-Uusimaa  Education,  EGF/2016/007  NL/Gelderland-Overijssel  Social 

Work and EGF/2020/006 ES/Cataluña  automotive. 

174 The only case rejected during 2014–2020 was EGF/2019/001 BE/Carrefour Belgium. 

74 

 
 
                                                           
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2014/005  GAD 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

FR 

FR 

IE 

EGF/2014/008  STX Rauma 

FI 

Slaughterhouse 

Automotive 

Jewellery 

Building of 
ships and boats 

EGF/2014/009 

Sprider 
Stores 

EL 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

IT 

EGF/2014/011   Caterpillar 

BE 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal  BE 

Domestic 
appliances 

Manufacture 
of machinery 
and equipment 

Manufacture 
of basic metals 

a 

a 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Crisis 

918 000 

442 749 

760 

559 

792 

Globalisation 

12 704 605 

12 464 172 

2 357 

2 357 

5 288 

Globalisation 

1 501 200 

1 089 699 

138 

138 

7 896 

Globalisation 

1 426 800 

1 311 961 

565 

589 

2 227 

Crisis 

7 290 900 

2 482 743 

761 

517 

4 802 

Crisis 

1 890 000 

1 572 723 

608 

608 

2 587 

Globalisation 

1 222 854 

829 415 

630 

501 

1 656 

Globalisation 

1 591 486 

1 443 884 

910 

780 

1 851 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

75 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2014/013 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

EL 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

DE 

Solar modules 

EGF/2014/015 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

EL 

Publishing 

a 

a 

b 

EGF/2014/016  

Lufthansa 
Technik  

IE 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros  FR 

Land transport 

EGF/2014/018  

Attica 
Broadcasting 

EL 

Broadcasting  

EGF/2015/001   Broadcom 

FI 

EGF/2015/002   Adam Opel 

EGF/2015/003  Ford Genk 

DE 

BE 

Wholesale 
trade 

Automotive 

Automotive 

a 

b 

a 

a 

a 

76 

Crisis 

6 444 000 

2 293 466 

600 

379 

6 051 

Globalisation 

1 094 760 

533 480 

476 

408 

1 308 

Crisis 

3 746 700 

816 310 

705 

205 

3 982 

Globalisation 

2 490 758 

1 790 014 

250 

253 

7 075 

Crisis 

6 052 200 

4 393 239 

2 513 

2 513 

1 748 

Crisis 

5 046 000 

1 214 929 

928 

349 

3 481 

Globalisation 

1 365 000 

876 467 

500 

374 

2 343 

Crisis 

6 958 623 

3 811 240 

2 692 

2 621 

1 454 

Globalisation 

6 268 564 

4 753 175 

4 500 

4 500 

1 056 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2015/004   Alitalia 

EGF/2015/005  

Computer 
programming 

EGF/2015/006 

PWA 
International 

IT 

FI 

IE 

EGF/2015/007 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

BE 

Air transport 

Computer 
programming 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

Manufacture 
of glass 

EGF/2015/009 

Volvo 
Trucks 

SE 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

FR 

Land transport 

EGF/2015/011 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

EL 

Retail trade 

a 

b 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

b 

a 

a 

a 

77 

Globalisation 

1 414 848 

23 436 

184 

184 

127 

Globalisation 

2 623 200 

2 008 001 

1 200 

1 356 

1 481 

Globalisation 

442 293 

442 293 

108 

86 

5 143 

Globalisation 

1 095 544 

814 869 

412 

342 

2 383 

Globalisation 

1 793 710 

1 120 124 

500 

450 

2 489 

Crisis 

5 146 800 

409 3159 

2 132 

2 132 

1 920 

Crisis 

6 468 000 

2 045 939 

557 

497 

4 117 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2015/012 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

BE 

EGF/2016/001  Microsoft 

FI 

EGF/2016/002   Ericsson 

SE 

Manufacture 
of machinery 
and equipment 

Computer 
programming 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical 
products 

b 

a 

a 

Globalisation 

1 824 041 

726 183 

488 

355 

2 046 

Globalisation 

5 364 000 

4 559 861 

1 441 

1 629 

2 799 

Globalisation 

3 957 918 

933 939 

918 

224 

4 169 

EGF/2016/003  

EGF/2016/004 

EGF/2016/005 

petroleum 
and 
chemicals 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
Automotive 

Drenthe 
Overijssel 
Retail 

EE 

Chemicals 

ES 

Automotive 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

1 131 358 

821 523 

800 

492 

1 670 

Globalisation 

856 800 

173 161 

250 

134 

1 292 

NL 

Retail trade 

b 

Crisis 

1 818 750 

853 871 

800 

754 

1 132 

78 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2016/008 

EGF/2017/001 

Nokia 
Network 
Systems 

Castilla y 
León mining 
of coal 

FI 

ES 

EGF/2017/002  Microsoft 

FI 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical 
products 

a 

Globalisation 

2 641 800 

2 641 800 

821 

777 

3 400 

Mining of coal 
and lignite 

c (Labour 
market) 

Globalisation 

1 002 264 

631 186 

339 

198 

3 188 

Computer 
programming 

a 

Globalisation 

3 520 080 

2 937 160 

1 000 

883 

3 326 

EGF/2017/003  Attica retail 

EL 

Retail trade 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Crisis 

2 949 150 

602 708 

725 

217 

2 777 

EGF/2017/004  Almaviva 

EGF/2017/005  Retail 

EGF/2017/006  

Galicia 
wearing 
apparel 

IT 

FI 

ES 

Call centre 

Retail trade 

a 

b 

Crisis 

3 347 370 

812 669 

1 610 

Globalisation 

2 499 360 

1 581 287 

1 500 

1 423 

1 467 

571 

1 078 

Apparel 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

720 000 

306 818 

303 

146 

2 101 

79 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2017/007   Ericsson 

SE 

EGF/2017/008   Goodyear 

DE 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical 
products 

Rubber and 
plastic 
products 

EGF/2017/009   Air France 

FR 

Air transport 

EGF/2017/010   Caterpillar 

BE 

NL 

EGF/2018/001 

EGF/2018/002 

Financial 
service 
activities 

Norte Centro 
Lisboa 
wearing 
apparel 

Manufacture 
of machinery 
and equipment 

Financial 
service 
activities 

PT 

Apparel 

Globalisation 

2 130 400 

290 092 

900 

80 

3 626 

Globalisation 

2 165 231 

1 171 002 

646 

622 

1 883 

Globalisation 

9 894 483 

9 846 483 

1 858 

1 858 

5 300 

Globalisation 

4 621 616 

4 068 634 

2 285 

1 772 

2 296 

Crisis 

1 192 500 

486 410 

450 

179 

2 717 

Globalisation 

4 655 883 

N/A 

730 

N/A 

N/A 

a 

a 

a 

a 

b 

b 

80 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2018/003 

EGF/2020/001 

EGF/2020/002 

Attica 
Publishing 
Activities 

Galicia 
shipbuilding 
ancillary 
sectors  

Estonia 
Tourism 

EL 

Publishing 

b 

Crisis 

2 308 500 

N/A 

550 

N/A 

N/A 

ES  

Building of 
ships and boats 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

EE 

Tourism  

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation  

2 054 400 

N/A 

500 

N/A 

N/A 

Crisis 

4 474 480 

N/A 

5 060 

N/A 

N/A 

EGF/2020/003  GMH Guss 

DE 

Manufacture 
of basic metals 

EGF/2020/004  KLM 

NL 

Air transport 

a 

a 

Globalisation 

1 081 706 

Crisis 

5 019 218 

N/A 

N/A 

476 

N/A 

N/A 

1 201 

N/A 

N/A 

81 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Sector 
(NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2020/005  Swissport 

BE 

Warehousing, 
support 
activities for 
transportation, 
Services to 
buildings & 
landscape 
activities 

EGF/2020/007  Finnair 

FI 

Air transport 

a 

a 

Crisis 

3 719 224 

N/A 

1 468 

N/A 

N/A 

Crisis 

1 752 360 

N/A 

500 

N/A 

N/A 

Totals 2014-2020 

173 400 703 

89 942 205 

54 168 

37 072 

2 426 

Source: EGF Database 

82 

 
 
 
Table 6. EGF applications sorted by Member States (without withdrawn or rejected applications) 

Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

BE 

EGF/2014/011   Caterpillar 

BE 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture of 
basic metals 

BE 

EGF/2015/003  Ford Genk 

Automotive 

BE 

EGF/2015/007 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

Manufacture of 
glass 

BE 

EGF/2015/012 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

BE 

EGF/2017/010   Caterpillar 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Globalisation 

1 222 854 

829 415 

630 

501 

1 656 

Globalisation 

1 591 486 

1 443 884 

910 

780 

1 851 

Globalisation 

6 268 564 

4 753 175 

4 500 

4 500 

1 056 

Globalisation 

1 095 544 

814 869 

412 

342 

2 383 

Globalisation 

1 824 041 

726 183 

488 

355 

2 046 

Globalisation 

4 621 616 

4 068 634 

2 285 

1 772 

2 296 

a 

a 

a 

b 

b 

a 

83 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

BE 

EGF/2020/005  Swissport 

Warehousing, 
support 
activities for 
transportation, 
Services to 
buildings & 
landscape 
activities 

DE 

DE 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

Solar modules 

EGF/2015/002   Adam Opel 

Automotive 

DE 

EGF/2017/008   Goodyear 

DE 

EGF/2020/003  GMH Guss 

Rubber and 
plastic products 

Manufacture of 
basic metals 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Crisis 

3 719 224 

N/A 

1 468 

N/A 

N/A 

Globalisation 

1 094 760 

533 480 

476 

408 

1 308 

Crisis 

6 958 623 

3 811 240 

2 692 

2 621 

1 454 

Globalisation 

2 165 231 

1 171 002 

646 

622 

1 883 

Globalisation 

1 081 706 

N/A 

476 

N/A 

N/A 

EE 

EGF/2016/003   petroleum 

Chemicals 

and 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

1 131 358 

821 523 

800 

492 

1 670 

84 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EE 

EGF/2020/002 

chemicals 

Estonia 
Tourism 

EL 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

EL 

EGF/2014/009 

EL 

EGF/2014/013 

EL 

EGF/2014/015 

Sprider 
Stores 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

Tourism  

Bakery 
products 

Retail trade 

Retail trade 

Publishing 

EL 

EGF/2014/018  

Attica 
Broadcasting 

Broadcasting  

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Crisis 

4 474 480 

N/A 

5 060 

N/A 

N/A 

Crisis 

6 096 000 

1 536 355 

508 

249 

6 170 

Crisis 

7 290 900 

2 482 743 

761 

517 

4 802 

Crisis 

6 444 000 

2 293 466 

600 

379 

6 051 

Crisis 

3 746 700 

816 310 

705 

205 

3 982 

Crisis 

5 046 000 

1 214 929 

928 

349 

3 481 

a 

a 

a 

b 

b 

85 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EL 

EGF/2015/011 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

Retail trade 

a 

Crisis 

6 468 000 

2 045 939 

557 

497 

4 117 

EL 

EGF/2017/003  Attica retail 

Retail trade 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Crisis 

2 949 150 

602 708 

725 

217 

2 777 

EL 

EGF/2018/003 

Attica 
Publishing 
Activities 

ES 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

Publishing 

Food and 
beverage 
services 

ES 

EGF/2014/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

Manufacture of 
fabricated metal 
products 

b 

b 

b 

ES 

EGF/2016/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
Automotive 

Automotive 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

86 

Crisis 

2 308 500 

N/A 

550 

N/A 

N/A 

Crisis 

960 000 

804 140 

280 

274 

2 935 

Crisis 

1 019 184 

321 877 

300 

174 

1 850 

Globalisation 

856 800 

173 161 

250 

134 

1 292 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

ES 

EGF/2017/001 

ES 

EGF/2017/006  

ES  

EGF/2020/001 

Castilla y 
León mining 
of coal 

Galicia 
wearing 
apparel 

Galicia 
shipbuilding 
ancillary 
sectors  

Mining of coal 
and lignite 

c (Labour 
market) 

Apparel 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

1 002 264 

631 186 

339 

198 

3 188 

Globalisation 

720 000 

306 818 

303 

146 

2 101 

Building of 
ships and boats 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation  

2 054 400 

N/A 

500 

N/A 

N/A 

FI 

FI 

FI 

EGF/2014/008  STX Rauma 

Building of 
ships and boats 

EGF/2015/001   Broadcom 

Wholesale trade 

EGF/2015/005  

Computer 
programming 

Computer 
programming 

a 

a 

b 

Globalisation 

1 426 800 

1 311 961 

565 

589 

2 227 

Globalisation 

1 365 000 

876 467 

500 

374 

2 343 

Globalisation 

2 623 200 

2 008 001 

1 200 

1 356 

1 481 

87 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

FI 

EGF/2016/001  Microsoft 

Computer 
programming 

FI 

EGF/2016/008 

Nokia 
Network 
Systems 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

EGF/2017/002  Microsoft 

Computer 
programming 

EGF/2017/005  Retail 

Retail trade 

EGF/2020/007  Finnair 

Air transport 

EGF/2014/005  GAD 

Slaughterhouse 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

Automotive 

EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros  Land transport 

EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

Land transport 

a 

a 

a 

b 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Globalisation 

5 364 000 

4 559 861 

1 441 

1 629 

2 799 

Globalisation 

2 641 800 

2 641 800 

821 

777 

3 400 

Globalisation 

3 520 080 

2 937 160 

1 000 

883 

3 326 

Globalisation 

2 499 360 

1 581 287 

1 500 

1 467 

1 078 

Crisis 

1 752 360 

N/A 

Crisis 

918 000 

442 749 

500 

760 

N/A 

N/A 

559 

792 

Globalisation 

12 704 605 

12 464 172 

2 357 

2 357 

5 288 

Crisis 

6 052 200 

4 393 239 

2 513 

2 513 

1 748 

Crisis 

5 146 800 

409 3159 

2 132 

2 132 

1 920 

88 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

FR 

EGF/2017/009   Air France 

Air transport 

a 

Globalisation 

9 894 483 

9 846 483 

1 858 

1 858 

5 300 

IE 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

Jewellery 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

1 501 200 

1 089 699 

138 

138 

7 896 

IE 

EGF/2014/016  

Lufthansa 
Technik  

IE 

EGF/2015/006 

PWA 
International 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

Domestic 
appliances 

IT 

IT 

IT 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

EGF/2015/004   Alitalia 

Air transport 

EGF/2017/004  Almaviva 

Call centre 

Globalisation 

2 490 758 

1 790 014 

250 

253 

7 075 

Globalisation 

442 293 

442 293 

108 

86 

5 143 

Crisis 

1 890 000 

1 572 723 

608 

608 

2 587 

Globalisation 

1 414 848 

23 436 

184 

184 

Crisis 

3 347 370 

812 669 

1 610 

1 423 

127 

571 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

a 

a 

a 

89 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

NL 

EGF/2014/002 

NL 

EGF/2016/005 

NL 

EGF/2018/001 

Gelderland 
and 
Overijssel 

Drenthe 
Overijssel 
Retail 

Financial 
service 
activities 

Construction of 
buildings 

Retail trade 

Financial 
service 
activities 

NL 

EGF/2020/004  KLM 

Air transport 

PT 

EGF/2018/002 

SE 

EGF/2015/009 

Norte Centro 
Lisboa 
wearing 
apparel 

Volvo 
Trucks 

Apparel 

Automotive 

Crisis 

1 625 781 

1 167 559 

475 

467 

2 500 

Crisis 

1 818 750 

853 871 

800 

754 

1 132 

Crisis 

1 192 500 

486 410 

450 

179 

2 717 

Crisis 

5 019 218 

N/A 

1 201 

N/A 

N/A 

Globalisation 

4 655 883 

N/A 

730 

N/A 

N/A 

Globalisation 

1 793 710 

1 120 124 

500 

450 

2 489 

b 

b 

b 

a 

b 

a 

90 

 
Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

SE 

EGF/2016/002   Ericsson 

SE 

EGF/2017/007   Ericsson 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

a 

a 

Source: EGF Database 

Globalisation 

3 957 918 

933 939 

918 

224 

4 169 

Globalisation 

2 130 400 

290 092 

900 

80 

3 626 

91 

 
 
 
 
Table 7. EGF applications sorted by sector (without withdrawn or rejected applications) 

Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Air transport 

EGF/2020/007  Finnair 

Air transport 

EGF/2017/009   Air France 

Air transport 

EGF/2015/004   Alitalia 

Air transport 

EGF/2020/004  KLM 

Apparel 

EGF/2017/006  

Apparel 

EGF/2018/002 

Galicia 
wearing 
apparel 

Norte Centro 
Lisboa 
wearing 
apparel 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/003  Ford Genk 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/002   Adam Opel 

Automotive 

EGF/2016/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
Automotive 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

ES 

PT 

BE 

DE 

ES 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Crisis 

1 752 360 

N/A 

500 

N/A 

N/A 

Globalisation 

9 894 483 

9 846 483 

1 858 

1 858 

5 300 

Globalisation 

1 414 848 

23 436 

Crisis 

5 019 218 

N/A 

184 

1 201 

184 

N/A 

127 

N/A 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

720 000 

306 818 

303 

146 

2 101 

Globalisation 

4 655 883 

N/A 

730 

N/A 

N/A 

Globalisation 

6 268 564 

4 753 175 

4 500 

Crisis 

6 958 623 

3 811 240 

2 692 

4 500 

2 621 

1 056 

1 454 

Globalisation 

856 800 

173 161 

250 

134 

1 292 

b 

a 

a 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

92 

 
Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

5 288 

2 489 

Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Automotive 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

FR 

Automotive 

EGF/2015/009  Volvo Trucks   SE 

Bakery 
products 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

Broadcasting   EGF/2014/018  

Building of 
ships and boats 

EGF/2020/001 

Attica 
Broadcasting 

Galicia 
shipbuilding 
ancillary 
sectors  

Building of 
ships and boats 

EGF/2014/008  STX Rauma 

Call centre 

EGF/2017/004  Almaviva 

Chemicals 

EGF/2016/003  

Computer 
programming 

EGF/2015/005  

petroleum and 
chemicals 

Computer 
programming 

EL 

EL 

ES  

FI 

IT 

EE 

FI 

a 

a 

a 

b 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

a 

a 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

12 704 605 

12 464 172 

2 357 

2 357 

Globalisation 

1 793 710 

1 120 124 

500 

450 

Crisis 

6 096 000 

1 536 355 

508 

249 

6 170 

Crisis 

5 046 000 

1 214 929 

928 

349 

3 481 

Globalisation  

2 054 400 

N/A 

500 

N/A 

N/A 

Globalisation 

1 426 800 

1 311 961 

565 

589 

2 227 

Crisis 

3 347 370 

812 669 

1 610 

1 423 

571 

Globalisation 

1 131 358 

821 523 

800 

492 

1 670 

b 

Globalisation 

2 623 200 

2 008 001 

1 200 

1 356 

1 481 

93 

 
Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Computer 
programming 

Computer 
programming 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

Construction of 
buildings 

Domestic 
appliances 

EGF/2016/001  Microsoft 

EGF/2017/002  Microsoft 

EGF/2016/008 

Nokia 
Network 
Systems 

FI 

FI 

FI 

EGF/2016/002   Ericsson 

SE 

EGF/2017/007   Ericsson 

SE 

EGF/2014/002 

Gelderland 
and Overijssel 

NL 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

IT 

Globalisation 

5 364 000 

4 559 861 

1 441 

1 629 

2 799 

Globalisation 

3 520 080 

2 937 160 

1 000 

883 

3 326 

Globalisation 

2 641 800 

2 641 800 

821 

777 

3 400 

Globalisation 

3 957 918 

933 939 

918 

224 

4 169 

Globalisation 

2 130 400 

290 092 

900 

80 

3 626 

Crisis 

1 625 781 

1 167 559 

475 

467 

2 500 

Crisis 

1 890 000 

1 572 723 

608 

608 

2 587 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

b 

a 

94 

 
Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Financial 
service 
activities 

Food and 
beverage 
services 

EGF/2018/001 

Financial 
service 
activities 

NL 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

ES 

Jewellery 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

Land transport  EGF/2014/017  Mory-Ducros 

Land transport  EGF/2015/010  MoryGlobal 

IE 

FR 

FR 

Manufacture of 
basic metals 

Manufacture of 
basic metals 

Manufacture of 
fabricated 
metal products 

EGF/2014/012  ArcelorMittal  BE 

EGF/2020/003  GMH Guss 

DE 

EGF/2014/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

ES 

b 

b 

Crisis 

1 192 500 

486 410 

450 

179 

2 717 

Crisis 

960 000 

804 140 

280 

274 

2 935 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

1 501 200 

1 089 699 

138 

138 

7 896 

Crisis 

Crisis 

6 052 200 

4 393 239 

2 513 

5 146 800 

409 3159 

2 132 

2 513 

2 132 

1 748 

1 920 

Globalisation 

1 591 486 

1 443 884 

910 

780 

1 851 

Globalisation 

1 081 707 

N/A 

476 

N/A 

N/A 

Crisis 

1 019 184 

321 877 

300 

174 

1 850 

a 

a 

a 

a 

b 

95 

 
Manufacture of 
glass 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Mining of coal 
and lignite 

Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

EGF/2015/007 

Hainaut-
Namur Glass 

BE 

EGF/2014/011   Caterpillar 

BE 

EGF/2015/012 

Hainaut 
Machinery 

BE 

EGF/2017/010   Caterpillar 

BE 

b 

a 

b 

a 

Globalisation 

1 095 544 

814 869 

412 

342 

2 383 

Globalisation 

1 222 854 

829 415 

630 

501 

1 656 

Globalisation 

1 824 041 

726 183 

488 

355 

2 046 

Globalisation 

4 621 616 

4 068 634 

2 285 

1 772 

2 296 

EGF/2017/001 

Publishing 

EGF/2014/015 

Castilla y 
León mining 
of coal 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

ES 

EL 

c (Labour 
market) 

Globalisation 

1 002 264 

631 186 

339 

198 

3 188 

b 

Crisis 

3 746 700 

816 310 

705 

205 

3 982 

96 

 
Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Publishing 

EGF/2018/003 

Attica 
Publishing 
Activities 

EL 

b 

Crisis 

2 308 500 

N/A 

550 

N/A 

N/A 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

EGF/2014/016  

Lufthansa 
Technik  

IE 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

2 490 758 

1 790 014 

250 

253 

7 075 

EGF/2015/006 

PWA 
International 

IE 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

442 293 

442 293 

108 

86 

5 143 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/009  Sprider Stores  EL 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/013 

Retail trade 

EGF/2015/011  

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

Supermarket 
Larissa 

EL 

EL 

Retail trade 

EGF/2017/003  Attica retail 

EL 

a 

a 

a 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

97 

Crisis 

7 290 900 

2 482 743 

761 

517 

4 802 

Crisis 

6 444 000 

2 293 466 

600 

379 

6 051 

Crisis 

6 468 000 

2 045 939 

557 

497 

4 117 

Crisis 

2 949 150 

602 708 

725 

217 

2 777 

 
Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Retail trade 

EGF/2017/005  Retail 

Retail trade 

EGF/2016/005 

Drenthe 
Overijssel 
Retail 

Rubber and 
plastic products 

EGF/2017/008   Goodyear 

Slaughterhouse  EGF/2014/005  GAD 

Solar modules  EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar 

Tourism  

EGF/2020/002 

Estonia 
Tourism 

FI 

NL 

DE 

FR 

DE 

EE 

b 

b 

a 

a 

a 

c (Exceptional 
Circumstances) 

Globalisation 

2 499 360 

1 581 287 

1 500 

1 467 

1 078 

Crisis 

1 818 750 

853 871 

800 

754 

1 132 

Globalisation 

2 165 231 

1 171 002 

646 

622 

1 883 

Crisis 

918 000 

Globalisation 

1 094 760 

442 749 

533 480 

760 

476 

559 

408 

792 

1 308 

Crisis 

4 474 480 

N/A 

5 060 

N/A 

N/A 

Warehousing, 
support 
activities for 
transportation, 
Services to 
buildings & 
landscape 
activities 

EGF/2020/005  Swissport 

BE 

a 

Crisis 

3 719 224 

N/A 

1 468 

N/A 

N/A 

98 

 
Sector (NACE)  Case ref.  

Case name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion 

Globalisation 
/crisis 

EGF 
amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Wholesale 
trade 

EGF/2015/001   Broadcom 

FI 

a 

Globalisation 

1 365 000 

876 467 

500 

374 

2 343 

Source: EGF Database 

99 

 
 
Table 8. EGF applications, including the breakdown by gender and age of targeted workers and helped workers (without withdrawn or rejected 
applications) 

Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

EGF/2014/001  Nutriart 

EL 

Bakery products 

508 

337 

171 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

475 

440 

35 

1 

15 

466 

41 

356 

104 

280 

97 

183 

26 

232 

22 

Construction of 
buildings 

Food and beverage 
services 

Manufacture of 
fabricated metal 
products 

EGF/2014/002 

Gelderland 
and 
Overijssel 

NL 

EGF/2014/003  Aragon 

ES 

EGF/2014/004 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
metal 

EGF/2014/005  GAD 

EGF/2014/006  PSA 

EGF/2014/007 

Andersen 
Ireland 

ES 

FR 

FR 

IE 

EGF/2014/008  STX Rauma  FI 

300 

258 

42 

Slaughterhouse 

760 

487 

Automotive 

2 357 

1 896 

Jewellery 

138 

36 

273 

461 

102 

Building of ships 
and boats 

565 

496 

69 

9 

6 

2 

1 

7 

276 

15 

620 

968 

126 

133 

1 387 

11 

322 

234 

EGF/2014/009 

Sprider 
Stores 

EL 

Retail trade 

761 

112 

649 

37 

720 

4 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

249 

467 

274 

174 

559 

2 357 

138 

589 

517 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

EGF/2014/010  Whirlpool 

IT 

EGF/2014/011   Caterpillar 

BE 

EGF/2014/012 

EGF/2014/013 

ArcelorMitt
al 

Odyssefs 
Fokas 

BE 

EL 

Domestic 
appliances 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Manufacture of 
basic metals 

Retail trade 

EGF/2014/014  Aleo Solar  DE 

Solar modules 

608 

422 

186 

32 

514 

62 

630 

607 

23 

42 

475 

113 

910 

871 

39 

25 

840 

600 

476 

65 

262 

535 

214 

6 

3 

554 

374 

45 

39 

98 

71 

EGF/2014/015 

Attica 
Publishing 
Services 

EL 

Publishing 

705 

391 

314 

12 

616 

EGF/2014/016  

Lufthansa 
Technik  

IE 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

250 

220 

30 

12 

167 

70 

EGF/2014/017 

Mory-
Ducros 

FR 

Land transport 

2 513 

2 137 

376 

18 

2 054 

436 

101 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

6 

1 

5 

608 

501 

780 

379 

408 

205 

253 

2 513 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

EGF/2014/018  

Attica 
Broadcastin
g 

EL 

Broadcasting  

928 

521 

407 

EGF/2015/001   Broadcom 

FI 

Wholesale trade 

EGF/2015/002   Adam Opel  DE 

EGF/2015/003  Ford Genk 

BE 

EGF/2015/004   Alitalia 

EGF/2015/005  

EGF/2015/006 

EGF/2015/007 

EGF/2015/009 

Computer 
programmin
g 

PWA 
Internationa
l 

Hainaut-
Namur 
Glass 

/Volvo 
Trucks  

IT 

FI 

IE 

BE 

SE 

Automotive 

Automotive 

Air transport 

Computer 
programming 

Repair and 
maintenance of 
aircraft and 
spacecraft 

Manufacture of 
glass 

500 

2 692 

4 500 

184 

442 

2 583 

3 956 

129 

58 

109 

544 

55 

1 200 

660 

540 

108 

98 

10 

412 

403 

9 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

12 

1 

60 

19 

0 

24 

2 

0 

892 

22 

489 

1 926 

3 239 

178 

10 

706 

1 240 

6 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

349 

374 

2 621 

4 500 

184 

1 008 

156 

12 

1 356 

88 

17 

315 

97 

1 

0 

9 

86 

342 

450 

Automotive 

500 

387 

113 

55 

375 

61 

102 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

EGF/2015/010 
FR/ 

EGF/2015/011 

EGF/2015/012 

Supermarke
t Larissa  

Hainaut 
Machinery 

EL 

BE 

EGF/2016/001  Microsoft 

FI 

EGF/2016/002   Ericsson 

SE 

MoryGlobal  FR 

Land transport 

2 132 

1 740 

392 

Retail trade 

557 

194 

363 

2 

0 

1 721 

408 

529 

28 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

Computer 
programming 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

488 

460 

28 

29 

284 

175 

1 441 

864 

577 

918 

643 

275 

0 

0 

1 296 

144 

22 

589 

307 

224 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 132 

497 

355 

1 629 

EGF/2016/003  

EGF/2016/004 

petroleum 
and 
chemicals 

Comunidad 
Valenciana 
Automotive 

EE 

Chemicals 

800 

565 

235 

31 

427 

334 

ES 

Automotive 

250 

241 

9 

0 

192 

58 

8 

0 

492 

134 

103 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

EGF/2016/005 

EGF/2016/008 

EGF/2017/001 

Drenthe 
Overijssel 
Retail 

Nokia 
Network 
Systems 

Castilla y 
León 
mining of 
coal 

EGF/2017/002  Microsoft 

FI 

EGF/2017/003  Attica retail  EL 

EGF/2017/004  Almaviva 

EGF/2017/005  Retail 

EGF/2017/006  

Galicia 
wearing 
apparel 

IT 

FI 

ES 

NL 

Retail trade 

800 

570 

230 

492 

243 

64 

FI 

ES 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

821 

608 

213 

Mining of coal and 
lignite 

339 

328 

11 

Computer 
programming 

Retail trade 

Call centre 

Retail trade 

1 000 

725 

1 610 

1 500 

740 

408 

334 

355 

260 

317 

1 276 

1 145 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

103 

644 

167 

332 

7 

950 

107 

1 375 

1 129 

50 

438 

223 

263 

1 

4 

0 

0 

180 

12 

5 

754 

777 

198 

883 

217 

1 423 

1 467 

Apparel 

303 

50 

253 

2 

230 

71 

0 

146 

104 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

EGF/2017/007   Ericsson 

SE 

EGF/2017/008   Goodyear 

DE 

Computers, 
electronic and 
optical products 

Rubber and plastic 
products 

646 

641 

5 

EGF/2017/009   Air France 

FR 

Air transport 

1 858 

974 

884 

EGF/2017/010   Caterpillar 

BE 

Manufacture of 
machinery and 
equipment 

2 285 

2 113 

172 

15 

0 

2 

461 

661 

168 

1 196 

2 022 

263 

5 

2 

1 

0 

80 

622 

1 858 

1 772 

900 

600 

300 

1 

622 

272 

EGF/2018/001 

EGF/2018/002 

EGF/2018/003 

Financial 
service 
activities 

Norte 
Centro 
Lisboa 
wearing 
apparel 

Attica 
Publishing 
Activities 

NL 

Financial service 
activities 

450 

183 

267 

38 

291 

104 

17 

179 

PT 

Apparel 

730 

83 

647 

12 

568 

150 

0 

N/A 

EL 

Publishing 

550 

320 

230 

3 

466 

80 

1 

N/A 

105 

 
Case ref.  

Case name 

Membe
r State   

Sector (NACE) 

Workers 
targeted 

Men 
targeted 

Women 
targeted 

Targeted 
age 
group 
15-24 

Targeted 
age 
group 
25-54 

Targeted 
age 
group 
55-64 

Targeted 
age 
group 
>64 

Worker
s helped 

ES  

Building of ships 
and boats 

500 

470 

30 

17 

36 

391 

56 

N/A 

EGF/2020/001 

EGF/2020/002 

Galicia 
shipbuilding 
ancillary 
sectors  

Estonia 
Tourism 

EE 

Tourism  

5 060 

1 970 

3 090 

700 

3 330 

1 030 

EGF/2020/003  GMH Guss  DE 

Manufacture of 
basic metals 

476 

EGF/2020/004  KLM 

NL 

Air Transport 

1 201 

455 

933 

21 

268 

7 

35 

293 

789 

175 

353 

EGF/2020/005  Swissport 

BE 

Warehousing, 
support activities 
for transportation, 
Services to 
buildings & 
landscape activities 

1 468 

1 086 

382 

83 

1 185 

199 

EGF/2020/007  Finnair 

FI 

Air Transport 

500 

280 

220 

19 

340 

141 

0 

1 

24 

1 

0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Total workers targeted and helped 

54 168 

36 521 

17 647 

2 024 

38 733 

12 741 

670 

37 072 

Source: EGF Database 

106 

 
 
 
Figure 14. Number of EGF cases per sector (NACE Rev. 2) for all 54 cases in 2014-2020175 

175 Four applications belong to more than one activity sector and have therefore been counted several times 

107 

 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 5: EGF intervention logic 2014-2020 

Source: based on Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), Study supporting the ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, Final Report, p. 93. 

108 

 
Annex 6: The evolution of the rules of the EGF between 2007 and 2020 

Source: DG EMPL, based on Commission staff working document on the mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014–2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p.14 

109 

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)Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom)2018/1046Applicability period2007-20092009-20112012-20132014-20202018-2020Co-fundingrate (max.)50% co-financing rate65% co-financing rate until 31 December 201150% co-financing rate60% co-financing rate60% co-financing rateScopeglobalisation globalisation or financialand economic crises(crisis derogation).globalisation No crisis derogation.globalisation or financialand economic crisesBroadened scope permanently reintroducing the crisis criterion, a higher co-funding rate as well as eligible actions for youth and the self-employed, and investment support in business start-ups and employee take overs (max. €15000).Same provisions.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.Same provisionSame provisions500+ 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.same provisionor9 months, particularly in SMEs, all operating in the same economic sector. New possibility to cover collective applications involving SMEs located in one region, operating in different economic sectors, when SMEs are the main or only type of business in that region.Same provisionFunding period12-month period24-month period24-month period24-month period24-month period