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  COM(2021) 788 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the ex post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)      2014-2020 {SWD(2021) 381 final}  
 
 
Background 

The  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  was  set  up  in  2006  to  show  solidarity 
with, and provide support to, workers who were made redundant as a result of major structural 
changes  in  world  trade  patterns  caused  by  globalisation.  The  scope  of  the  initial  EGF 
Regulation1  was  broadened  in  20092  to  include  redundancies  resulting  from  the  global 
financial and economic crisis. The EGF co-finances up to 60%3 of the measures implemented 
by  the  Member  States  to  help  redundant  workers  re-integrate  into  the  job  market.  For  the 
period 2014-2020, the scope was broadened further4 to cover redundancies caused by any new 
global  financial  and  economic  crisis.  It  also  allowed  Member  States  facing  high  youth 
unemployment to include young people ‘not in education, employment, or training’ (NEET) 
in EGF applications under certain conditions5. 

Scope of the ex post evaluation 
In  line  with  Article 20  of  the  EGF  Regulation,  the  Commission  carried  out  an  ex  post 
evaluation to assess whether the EGF achieved its objectives in 2014-2020.  

The  ex  post  evaluation  covers  49  approved  EGF  applications  (i.e.  cases)6  submitted  to  the 
Commission  between  2014  and  May  20207.  The  cases,  concerning  12  Member  States 
(Belgium,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal,  Spain,  and  Sweden),  cover  27  economic  sectors,  with  the  retail  sector  (six  cases), 
motor vehicles sector (five cases) and automotive sector (five cases), accounting for most of 
the applications. Since 2017, the number of EGF applications has fallen thanks to economic 
recovery, which has reduced the data available for analysis. However, six applications were 
submitted at the end of 2020, of which four due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The  effectiveness  –  including  the  impact-,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added 
value of the EGF were evaluated.  

The  ex  post  evaluation  is  presented  as  a  staff  working  document  (SWD).  The  SWD  is 
primarily based on the results of a supporting study provided by independent external experts. 
The  supporting  study  was  discussed  with  members  of  the  Commission’s  Inter-Service 
Steering  Group,  composed  of  all  key  stakeholders  from  different  Commission  departments, 

1 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1 
2 Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 , OJ L 167, 29.6.2009, p. 26 
3Between 2007-2009 and 2012-2013, the EGF co-financing rate was 50% during and it was increased to 60% 
during 2009-2011 and 2014-2020 (See Annex 6 of the accompanying SWD). 
4 Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855–864, (to be referred to hereinafter as ‘the EGF 
Regulation’). 
5  Until  31  December  2017,  the  condition  to  support  NEETs  was  that  some  of  the  redundancies  occurred  in 
NUTS 2 level regions eligible under the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). In 2018, Regulation (EU, Euratom) 
2018/1046, extended the clause until the end of 2020 and changed the conditions. Under the new conditions, the 
link to the YEI was removed and Member States could support NEETs from regions that had at least 20% youth 
unemployment rate. 
6  The  49  EGF  cases  starting  with  EGF/2014/001  and  until  EGF/2020/001  (inclusive)  are  in  Table  6  of  the 
accompanying SWD. 
7  Between  1  January  2014  and  31  December  2020,  Member  States  submitted  59  applications,  of  which,  54 
applications  were  approved,  four  were  subsequently  withdrawn  and  one  was  rejected  by  the  Council.  Of  the 
seven  applications  received  in  2020,  one  application  (EGF/2020/001  ES/  Galicia  ancillary  shipbuilding)  was 
covered by the supporting study and the remaining six could not be covered because they were submitted at the 
end  2020.  Figures  from  the  applications  received  in  2020  are  included.  However,  as  the  results  will  only  be 
available in 2023, they could not be analysed at this stage. 

1 

 
                                                           
and was accepted by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion in December 2020. Further evidence for the SWD was gathered and analysed 
from previous reports and evaluations on EGF, the experience of Commission staff managing 
the EGF, knowledge sharing with relevant EGF stakeholders from all Member States and the 
Commission’s internal EGF database which includes data on all the EGF cases between 2007 
and 2020. The results of this evaluation provide lessons for the implementation and design of 
the EGF.  

This  report  summarises  the  main  results  for  the  EU  institutions  and  bodies  and  social 
partners8.  

Main conclusions 

Effectiveness of the EGF  

The EGF provides targeted, tailored and individualised support to beneficiaries, putting them 
in a more favourable position than people who did not benefit from EGF support. The EGF 
removes  barriers  to  participation  and  ensures  that  all  beneficiaries  are  treated  equally,  with 
particular attention to vulnerable and/or disadvantaged groups. 

EGF  measures  are  offered  on  top  of  standard  national  measures  and/or  intensify  them.  The 
EGF results are often better in terms of beneficiaries helped and re-integration rates than what 
can be achieved by national support measures alone. No displacement effects were observed 
at case level.  

The possibility to support NEETs was used in 12 of the 49 EGF cases, by five Member States 
(Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal). The general perception was that the EGF is 
not  the  best    tool  to  target  young  people  and  that  other  EU  instruments,  such  as  the  Youth 
Employment Initiative (YEI), are more appropriate. Still, wherever it has been used, the help 
has  largely  been  taken  up  (about  62%)  by  the  young  people  targeted.  In  some  cases,  the 
possibility to support NEETs was considered a key added value of the EGF. 

The EGF allows Member States to experiment with innovative active labour market measures 
that  might  not  be  normally  available  to  workers  who  had  been  made  redundant.  If  the 
innovative measures proved to be successful, then Member States, like Belgium, Finland and 
Italy,9have subsequently incorporated them into their standard assistance. 

The involvement of social partners and companies laying off workers  had a positive impact 
on the effectiveness of EGF cases by contributing to a better design and implementation of the 
measures.  Their  involvement  in  Finland,  Sweden,  Spain,  also  sometimes  guided  the 
beneficiaries to find new jobs as soon as possible. 

8 In line with Article 20 (2) of the EGF Regulation. 
9 In Belgium, examples of such measures include the workshops reflecting on self-confidence and self-esteem, 
the  awareness  and  support  for  entrepreneurship,  and  the  setting  up  of  the  ‘Coup  de  Boost’  project  targeting 
NEETs. Based on the EGF experiences, Finland adapted in 2016 the national ‘change security model’ to make it 
obligatory for employers laying off workers to participate in the implementation of labour market measures. In 
Italy, the EGF served as an opportunity to experiment with measures such as the  ‘re-employment voucher’, and 
reconciliation allowances to balance the private and working life and to facilitate participation in training. These 
measures are not part of the usual national support provided in Italy. 

2 

 
                                                           
The broader use of the EGF is hindered because of the need to demonstrate in an application 
the  link  between  the  redundancies  and  either  ‘globalisation’  or  the  ‘financial  and  economic 
crisis’. This has proved challenging as it is increasingly difficult to identify and demonstrate 
the decisive  factor that triggered  a restructuring  event.  For applications submitted under the 
criteria of small labour markets or exceptional circumstances, it must also be proven that the 
redundancies  have a  ‘significant  impact’ on the economy,  especially on employment  levels. 
According  to  the  exchanges  with  stakeholders  during  the  EGF  contact  persons  meetings 
organised by the Commission, most Member States considered that finding the right evidence 
is an obstacle. 

Delays in starting to implement an EGF case hinders its effectiveness. Among the reasons for 
such  delays  are  the  lengthy  and  complex  decision-making  process  at  EU  level  (on  average 
28.8  weeks  from  the  date  of  application),  the  national  administrative  procedures  in  the 
Member States,  the  case management  at  national/regional  level  and  Member States’ lack of 
experience in using the EGF. In about 15% of the cases, Member States were not willing to 
take the risk of pre-financing the EGF measures with their own public funds while waiting for 
the formal approval  from the EU. When such delays occur, workers may find a new job on 
their own, or lose interest in participating in the EGF measures. 

The limited data collection and monitoring requirements set out in the EGF Regulation are an 
obstacle to carrying out a more thorough analysis of the EGF performance.This limitation has 
been addressed in the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation10 by including a detailed list of indicators to 
be reported on. 

The  visibility  of  the  EGF  is  also  limited,  even  among  its  beneficiaries.  Member  States  are 
responsible  for  providing  information  about  the  EGF,  but  they  consistently  underspend  on 
information  and  communication  activities.  On  the  Commission’s  side,  clear  information  is 
available  on  the  internet,  and  networking  seminars  are  organised  twice  a  year  for  Member 
States to share their experiences. Since 2019, the Commission also started sharing information 
on the EGF via social media (Twitter). That said, there is still scope to improve the visibility 
of the outcomes of specific EGF cases.  

Overall,  the  EGF  is  effective  and  has  successfully  met  its  objective  of  showing  solidarity 
with, and helping people who had been made redundant because of large-scale restructuring 
events,  to  find  new  jobs.  The  average  re-integration  rate  of  workers  who  had  been  made 
redundant into the job market improved compared to the previous funding period (from 49% 
to  60%).  However,  the  results  are  case  specific  and  depend  on  several  factors,  such  as  the 
economic  and  labour  market  situation  in  the  region.  It  is  difficult  to  compare  re-integration 
rates  over  cases  and  to  find  suitable  indicators  to  compare  similar  measures.  To  improve 
performance  measurement,  it  is  recommended  that  Member  States  develop  case-specific 
targets in the future. 

Beyond  re-integration  into  the  labour  market,  the  EGF  has  produced  long-lasting  positive 
effects  on  beneficiaries’  general  employability,  such  as  new  skills  and  qualifications, 
increasing  their  confidence  and  teaching  them  how  to  use  social  networks.  Member  States 
should carry out a qualitative assessment of the results, for example, by periodically surveying 
EGF beneficiaries about their experience. 

10 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   

3 

 
                                                           
Efficiency of the EGF  

Overall, EGF cases tend to use up part of the resources allocated to them (the absorption rate). 
Absorption rates improved compared to the previous period, from an average of 55% to 59%, 
with  major  differences  between  cases.  Part  of  the  reason  for  a  low  absorption  rate  is  that 
Member States often do not know the background and the specific needs of the target group 
when  estimating  the  total  budget  at  the  application  stage.  Budgetary  flexibility  during 
implementation is important to allow for reallocations in response to the specific needs of the 
beneficiaries.  

Reallocation of funds was possible during the 2014-2020 period, and Member States used it 
when implementing about 30% of cases for reallocations below 20% of the planned budget. 
For reallocations above 20%, Member States must inform the Commission. This has occurred 
only in about 10% of cases. 

There are no clear trends in terms of resources spent compared to the number of beneficiaries 
helped  or  who  have  returned  to  work.  Costs  are  largely  dependent  on  national  and  regional 
specificities, as well as the nature of the measures offered, and the beneficiaries’ background. 
However,  80%  of  the  EGF  cases  were  more  cost-efficient11  than  expected  and  the  actual 
amount  spent  per  beneficiary  assisted  was  lower  than  planned.  In  68%  of  cases,  the  cost-
effectiveness12 of the EGF improved over time13. 

The  lengthy  decision-making  process  at  EU  level14  causes  delays  in  implementation. 
However, procedures at national/regional level are a more significant source of inefficiency. 
The  duration  of  the  application  procedure  averages  around  200  days  for  2014-2020,  down 
from  about  300  days  in  the  previous  programming  period.  Considerable  delays  were  also 
caused  by  a  longer  approval  by  the  budgetary  authority15,  which  in  most  cases16  took  an 
average  of  nine  weeks,  instead  of  the  six  provided  for  in  the  EGF  Regulation.  A  faster 
procedure  at  EU  level,  and  a  simplified  application  process  requiring  less  evidence  and 
statistics  to  demonstrate  the  link  between  the  redundancies  and  globalisation  or  the  crisis 
criterion, would help improve the efficiency of the fund. 

Coherence of the EGF  

At  case  level,  no  overlaps  with  other  EU  or  national  funding  were  identified.  The  EGF 
complements  other  EU  funds  such  as  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF).  The  ESF  offers  an 
anticipatory,  pre-programmed  support  for  promoting  employment,  while  the  EGF  offers 
reactive support, in response to a high number of unexpected job losses. The EGF adds value 
in this regard, because it is mobilised  on a needs basis, when Member States  need financial 
support  to  help  workers  who  had  been  made  redundant.  However,  there  is  scope  for  better 
aligning  the  EGF  and  the  ESF,  as  some  Member  States  choose  to  fund  EGF-type  measures 
with ESF, because of the higher co-financing rate of the ESF. This is in particular the case for 
support to young people, as both the EGF and the YEI support NEETs in regions with high 
levels of youth unemployment.  

11 Costs compared to the number of beneficiaries helped. 
12 Costs compared to the number of beneficiaries re-integrated. 
13 18 months after the end of the implementation of EGF measures.  
14 The EGF is an emergency relief instrument, outside the ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 
and the co-financing of each EGF case must be approved by the European Parliament and the Council. 
15 The budgetary authority is made up of the European Parliament and the Council. 
16 The six-week deadline was met in only 10 of the 49 cases. 

4 

 
                                                           
The  EGF  is  coherent  with  national  policies  and  offers  sufficient  flexibility  to  complement 
and/or  add  to  the  Member  States’  labour  market  measures  at  national,  regional  and/or  local 
level. However, Member States should better coordinate the EGF with the recommendations 
set out in the EU Quality framework for anticipation of change and restructuring (QFR)17. 

Relevance of the EGF  

The  scope  of  the  EGF  was  relevant  during  the  2014-2020  period,  while  at  the  same  time  it 
would benefit from  broadening  of  the scope  in  light  of new challenges facing  the European 
labour  market  (like  automation,  digitisation,  transition  to  low-carbon  economy),  and  in  line 
with the EU’s strategic and long-term priorities.  

The limited use of the NEETs clause, in 12 out of 49 cases, and the nature of the EGF as an 
emergency  fund  to  help  people  after  losing  their  job,  rather  than  addressing  structural 
unemployment  issues,  make  it  less  relevant  to  provide  support  to  young  people.  Several 
stakeholders questioned whether the EGF was the right tool to provide assistance to NEETs. 
There are other mechanisms at EU level, namely the ESF and its YEI, that are better placed to 
provide supporting measures for this specific group.  

Overall, the EGF is relevant and remains an important tool in helping and showing solidarity 
with people affected by restructuring events due to globalisation and crisis-related challenges. 
At the same time, stakeholders from most Member States indicated that an adjustment to the 
scope of the fund, to account for any cause of job losses, requiring less evidence to support an 
application  and  lowering  the  threshold  of  workers  who  had  been  made  redundant,  would 
improve the mobilisation of the EGF and its relevance. 

EU added value of the EGF 

The  EGF  adds  value  beyond  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  alone.  The  EGF 
creates  ‘volume  effects’,  by  increasing  the  financial  support  available  to  beneficiaries  and 
helping more people find jobs than would be possible only with national and other EU funds. 
It also provides more intensive and targeted support than national measures, striving to leave 
no one behind.  

In  terms  of  ‘scope  effects’,  the  EGF  supports  all  groups  of  beneficiaries,  while  national 
measures  often  target  people  furthest  from  the  labour  market.  It  enables  Member  States  to 
offer  support  they  cannot  normally  provide,  such  as  training  courses  for  smaller  groups  of 
participants, or financial incentives to start a business18.  

The EGF also creates ‘role effects’, as experimentation with innovative measures and lessons-
learned from implementation have been or will be incorporated into the regular measures  at 
national or regional level (see Box 1).  

17 COM(2013)882 final. 
18 Based on the 2014-2020 EGF case studies. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Box 1. Example of ‘role effect’ from the EGF case study in Estonia 

The  EGF  experience  showed  that  workers  who  had  been  made  redundant  were  more 
interested in acquiring a formal education through EGF measures than in the standard national 
measures.  Based  on  this  experience,  the  possibility  to  enrol  in  formal  education  was 
mainstreamed at national level and made available to everyone who is either unemployed or 
employed but in need of updating their education level or acquiring professional training. The 
EGF also provided improved access to language training in the region, including at different 
skill  levels.  This  experience  was  used  to  design  better  access  to  language  training  as  a 
measure to prevent unemployment. 

‘Process  effects’  are  created  because  the  EGF  strengthens  partnerships  between  public  and 
private stakeholders that continue to exist beyond the EGF project (see Box 2). 

Box 2. Example of ‘process effect’ from the EGF case study in Finland 

In  the  EGF  case  regarding  the  Broadcom  redundancies,  an  innovative  way  to  approach  the 
tender process was developed and carried out. The innovative aspect of the tender was that the 
content  of  the  training  courses  for  experts  in  the  ICT  sector  was  not  provided  in  the  tender 
documents,  but  was  developed  by  the  training  providers.  This  approach  produced  some 
completely new kinds of training courses. 

The  findings  and  conclusions  are  considered  reasonably  robust,  even  if  the  results  of  the 
public consultation and the beneficiary survey have to be taken with caution19. 

Lessons-learned 

The  stakeholder  consultations  conducted  before  and  during  the  evaluation,  i.e.  before  and 
during the COVID-19 pandemic,  showed  that the EGF would benefit from  a  broader  scope 
adapted  to  other  major  challenges  facing  the  European  labour  market  (like  automation, 
digitisation, transition to low-carbon economy). This broadened scope was included the 2021-
2027 EGF Regulation. 

A simplified and shorter application process, with less evidence required, would improve the 
EGF’s effectiveness. This was included in the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation. 

The flexibility of the EGF in terms of measures offered, and the degree to which the measures 
can  be  tailored  to  individual  beneficiaries’  needs,  backgrounds  and  interests  are  one  of  the 
important  success  factors.  The  flexibility  to  complement  and/or  add  to  the  Member  States’ 
measures  at  national,  regional  and/or  local  level,  ensures  that  the  EGF  provides  EU  added 
value. 

Improving monitoring and reporting, and future evaluation of the EGF’s impact (at Member 
State and EU level) requires more detailed monitoring data collected in a systematic manner, 

19 Only 39 replies were received during the public consultation. Of those, only 15 respondents were aware of the 
EGF. The public consultation alone cannot be considered as representative. On 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. 
Therefore, they are not necessarily representative of the experience of all beneficiaries across all EGF cases and 
Member States. 

6 

 
                                                           
especially  on  the  category  of  workers  benefiting  from  the  measures  (professional  and 
educational  background),  their  employment  status  and  the  type  of  employment  found.  The 
success of EGF measures should be measured not only through re-integration rates, but also 
through more qualitative means, like new skills and qualifications, social networks and self-
confidence  gained  as  a  result  of  participating  in  the  EGF  measures.  The  2021-2027  EGF 
Regulation has also included a beneficiary survey to be carried out after each EGF case. 

A certain degree of budgetary flexibility is needed for Member States to reallocate EGF funds 
based  on  needs  that  emerge  during  implementation,  so  long  as  those  changes  are  justified. 
Reallocation  of  funds  was  already  possible  during  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  and 
Member States  often made use of it. This  flexibility  was  maintained  in  the  2021-2027 EGF 
Regulation and should be better communicated to Member States.  

There  is  scope  to  better  align  the  co-financing  rates  of  the  EGF  and  the  ESF  to  ensure  the 
coherence of the funding. This issue was addressed in the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation. 

As  underlined  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  EGF  and  confirmed  by  this 
evaluation, an important lesson-learned by Member States was on organisational learning. To 
evaluate  the  results  achieved,  the  implementation  of  the  cases  should  be  finalised  to  ensure 
enough evidence can be collected and analysed. The 2021-2027 EGF Regulation adressed the 
issue  of  the  timing  of  the  evaluation  to  allow  sufficient  time  to  fully  implement  the  EGF 
cases. 

An  improved  communication,  both  general  and  targeted,  at  Member  State  and  EU  level, 
would improve the visibility of the outcomes of specific EGF cases. This issue was addressed 
by the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation. 

2021-2027 EGF Regulation  

The 2021-2027 EGF Regulation20 has taken into account the findings of previous evaluations 
and assessments, which were confirmed by this evaluation. It has also addressed most of the 
stakeholders’ recommendations in all Member States. 

The most significant changes introduced in the 2021-2027 EGF are:  

  broadening the scope of eligibility to any unexpected major restructuring; 
  decreasing the threshold of dismissals from 500 to 200;  
  aligning the co-financing rate with the ESF+ (while maintaining 60% as the minimum 

threshold); 
increasing the maximum annual ceiling up to EUR 186 million (2018 prices).  

 

Simpler  and  faster  application  procedures  requiring  less  supporting  evidence  from  Member 
States and with shorter deadlines both for Member States and for the Commission were  also 
introduced.  Further  requirements  on  communication  and  publicity  were  also  introduced. 
NEETs will no longer be supported by the EGF.  

The  2021-2027  EGF  Regulation  includes  specific  common  indicators  and  a  beneficiary 
survey to monitor implementation and measure impact for each EGF case. The final report to 

20 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   

7 

 
                                                           
be  submitted  by  Member  States  will  include  not  only  re-employment  rates,  but  also  some 
qualitative  information,  such  as  the  qualifications  gained  by  the  end  of  the  implementation 
period.  This  should  improve  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  EGF’s  effectiveness.  The 
Commission’s  proposal  for  setting  case-specific  targets  and  reporting  on  the  type  of 
employment found were not included in the final agreement between the European Parliament 
and the Council.  

The Commission proposed a faster procedure at  EU level,  which would have simplified the 
formal approval by the European Parliament and the Council. However, it was not included in 
the  final  agreement  on  the  2021-2027  EGF  Regulation,  so  the  current  formal  approval 
procedure is maintained. 

8