Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-cap landscape : final report.
Date: 2022-11-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU Member State, digital technology, economic growth, ecosystem, innovation, job creation, small and medium-sized enterprises

Study to map, measure and portray 
the EU mid-cap landscape 

Final report 

November 2022 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was prepared for the European Commission within Framework Contract No. 575/PP/2016/FC by 

AIT Austrian Institute of Technology - AIT, Vienna, Austria 

ESRI – The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland 

Integral Research, London, United Kingdom 

Authors: Bernhard Dachs (AIT), Iulia Siedschlag (ESRI), Weijie Yan (ESRI), Maria Yoveska (AIT), Fernanda Boeira (Integral 
Research), Sean Ivory (Integral Research) 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Unit A2 – SMEs 
Contact: Krista de Spiegeleer 
E-mail: 

krista.de-spiegeleer@ec.europa.eu

European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study to map, measure and portray 
the EU mid-cap landscape 
Final report

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the 
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-54830-0 

  DOI:  10.2873/546623 

 ET-07-22-712-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of 
licence 
this  document 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any 
changes are indicated. 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought 
directly from the respective rightholders.  

Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 

ABSTRACTS IN ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND GERMAN ............................................................. 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 6 

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 7 

DEFINITIONS OF MID-CAPS .................................................................................... 8 

MID-CAPS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION – EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ................................... 13 

4.1 
An empirical assessment of mid-caps definitions ............................................. 13 
Key features of mid-caps ............................................................................. 19 
4.2 
4.3  Mapping of mid-caps across EU member states .............................................. 21 
4.4  Mapping of mid-caps by industrial ecosystem ................................................. 25 
Foreign ownership in mid-cap firms ............................................................... 31 
4.5 
4.6  Growth patterns of mid-caps ........................................................................ 35 
4.7  Mid-caps in the EU enlargement countries...................................................... 40 
4.8 
Innovation in mid-cap firms ......................................................................... 42 
4.9  Digitalization in mid-cap firms ...................................................................... 47 

5 

CHALLENGES FOR MID-CAP FIRMS......................................................................... 51 

5.1  Challenges for mid-cap firms: a survey of the literature ................................... 51 
Key findings from semi-structured interviews with managers of mid-caps .......... 55 
5.2 
5.3  Challenges for mid-caps: insights from the panel discussions ........................... 72 
5.4 

Summary of mid-cap challenges and policy measures at national and EU 
level to address them .................................................................................. 73 

6 

7 

8 

POLICY MEASURES OF THE MAIN TRADE PARTNERS OF THE EU TO SUPPORT   
MID-CAPS ........................................................................................................... 80 

MAIN RESULTS OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 88 

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 91 

APPENDIX A 

DATA AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .................................................................... 97 

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 124 

B1 

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................... 124 

B2  KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF MID-CAP RESPONDENTS ...................................... 132 

Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Middle-sized enterprises (or mid-caps) lie between small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 
large corporations. We consider mid-caps as those enterprises with 250 or more, but less than 1,500 
employees. 

Mid-caps are an essential part of the European economy. We estimate that small mid-caps (250-499 
employees)  and  large  mid-caps  (500-1,499  employees)  together  account  for  more  than  13%  of 
overall employment in the European business sector, compared to a share of 38% for micro firms, 
around  35%  for  SMEs  (excluding  micro  firms),  and  14%  for  large  companies  with  1,500  or  more 
employees. 

The  share  of  mid-cap  firms  is  particularly  high  in  industrial  ecosystems  that  are  key  to  the 
competitiveness of the European Union: Electronics, Aerospace & Defence, Energy, Energy-intensive 
Industries and Health (see Figure below). 

There are also differences between countries in terms of the share of mid-cap firms. Mid-caps employ 
around 20% of all employees in the business sector of the Nordic countries, in Luxembourg, Germany 
and  Austria,  while  their  share  in  employment  is  10%  or  less  in  Spain,  Portugal,  France,  Poland, 
Greece, or Cyprus.  

Share of mid-caps on total business sector employment in different industrial ecosystems, 
2019 

small mid-caps

large mid-caps

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
e

l

l

a
t
o
t
n
o
e
r
a
h
S

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: ORBIS Europe database, own calculations based on the Ecosystems definition by the European Commission (2021) 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Around  one  quarter  of  all  mid-cap  firms  are  owned  by  foreign  (non-national,  including  Member 
States)  firms,  so  foreign  ownership  is  more  frequent  among  mid-caps  than  among  SMEs  (15%). 
Around half of all foreign-owned mid-cap firms are affiliated to a parent company that resides outside 
the EU. The share of foreign-owned mid-caps is highest in small countries. Family ownership is also 
frequently found among mid-cap firms. 

Most mid-caps are established firms which have already survived the ‘up or out’-stage of early firm 
evolution. They grow faster than the average enterprise in most EU member states. Two thirds of all 
small mid-caps in 2019 were already mid-cap companies three years earlier, and this share is even 
larger for large mid-caps. Around 20% of all small and 14% of all large mid-caps in 2019 were SMEs 
three years earlier, so scaling-up is frequent among mid-cap firms. The Single Market is their home 
market, but most of them are also active on markets outside the EU. 

Innovation and digitalization are important for the growth and the competitiveness of mid-cap firms. 
Their innovation performance is above that of SMEs and slightly below that of large companies. Mid-
caps also employ digital technologies to a higher degree than SMEs. Innovation and new technologies 
can help mid-caps to apply their capabilities in profitable market niches where they can flourish as 
world market leaders (‘Hidden Champions’). 

The growth of mid-cap firms, however, may also be hampered by different factors (see figure below): 
the top three challenges identified by this study are difficulties in finding employees, supply chain 
disruptions, and regulation and administrative burden. These three most important challenges are 
the same for small and large mid-caps. In contrast, the most pressing problems for SMEs identified 
by  a  previous  Eurobarometer  study  are  regulatory  obstacles  and  administrative  burden,  payment 
delays, access to finance, and a lack of skills. 

Main challenges for mid-caps in the European Union 

Difficulties in finding employees

Supply chain disruptions/lack of supplies-raw
materials

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

74%

52%

Regulation and administrative burden

36%

Lack of skills, including management skills

27%

Difficulties with innovation

Becoming more sustainable by reducing
materials, energy and cutting emissions

Payment delays

Other

Access to finance

Difficulties with digitalization

Internationalisation

13%

13%

13%

10%

10%

8%

8%

Access to data

5%

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews.   

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Difficulties in finding employees are felt strongest when firms try to recruit staff with technical skills, 
in particular information technology skills, less for administrative and sales staff. Mid-caps also face 
losses of skilled personnel to competitors, in particular larger companies. Looking at the two sub-
groups, the lack of skilled employees appears to be a major obstacle to growth for 66% of small mid-
caps  and  74%  of  large  mid-caps.  The  lack  of  skilled  personnel  is  also  a  serious  obstacle  for 
digitalization. 

Supply chain disruptions are reported by half of the firms, mainly by manufacturing mid-caps. 79% 
of all mid-caps in manufacturing face this obstacle – more manufacturers suffer from supply chain 
disruptions than from difficulties in finding employees. Outside manufacturing, the share of mid-caps 
facing this challenge is 33%. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a source of heightened difficulties and 
challenges  because  rising  prices  for  energy  and  other  production  inputs  put  companies,  including 
mid-cap firms, under pressure. Mid-caps, unlike large firms, may not be able to pass through price 
increases to their customers. 

The third major challenge reported by mid-cap firms is regulation and administrative burden (36% 
of  all  respondents).  Large  mid-caps  (39%)  report  this  obstacle  more  often  than  small  mid-caps 
(31%). Differences in legislation across countries are felt as the most pressing regulatory burden by 
mid-caps, followed by the requirements from environmental regulation, and trade/customs-related 
requirements and accounting standards. Thus, regulation seems to hamper international expansion 
in particular. 

Additional  challenges  reported  by  mid-caps  in  the  interviews  are  difficulties  with  innovation,  the 
challenge of becoming more sustainable, or access to finance. Panel discussions with mid-cap firms 
reveal that their size often does not allow them to hire specialists in certain areas such as innovation 
funding,  sustainability,  or  digitalization.  Finally,  family-owned  mid-cap  firms  indicate  challenges 
related to succession. 

These challenges are relevant for firms of all sizes, not just mid-caps. Moreover, an elaborated set 
of measures are in place at member states and at EU level to tackle them. Thus, new instruments to 
support  mid-cap  firms  are  not  an  immediate  concern;  rather,  policy  should  monitor  and  evaluate 
how existing initiatives benefit mid-cap firms and adapt these initiatives if necessary. If policy wants 
to consider targeted financial support for mid-cap firms, these measures should focus on scaling-up 
and growing mid-caps. Another field where targeted intervention may be feasible is size-dependent 
regulation.  Finally,  a  wider  application  of  the existing  mid-cap  definition in business  statistics  and 
policy evaluations could enhance our understanding of the role of mid-caps in the economy which is 
a pre-condition for possible policy interventions in the future. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

ABSTRACTS IN ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND GERMAN  

English abstract 

Middle-sized enterprises (or mid-caps) are those enterprises with at least 250, but less than 1,500 
employees. We estimate that they account for more than 13% of overall employment in the European 
business sector, and around 20% of all employees in the Nordic countries, Luxembourg, Germany, 
and Austria, while their share on employment is 10% or less in Spain, Portugal, France, Poland, or 
Greece. Their share is particularly high in industrial ecosystems that are key to the European Union’s 
competitiveness: Electronics, Aerospace & Defence, Energy, Energy-intensive Industries and Health. 

Mid-caps most often are not start-ups, but established firms which have already survived the ‘up or 
out’-phase of early firm evolution. They grow faster than the average enterprise in most EU member 
states.  Their  innovation  performance  is  above  that  of  SMEs  and  slightly  below  that  of  large 
companies. Most of them are also active on markets outside the EU. Family ownership is frequently 
found among mid-cap firms, but a considerable number of them are also subsidiaries of foreign1-
owned multinational companies. 

The growth of mid-cap firms may be hampered by different factors: most pressing are difficulties in 
finding employees, supply chain disruptions, regulation and administrative burden, or obstacles in 
the innovation process. Another challenge is succession in family-owned mid-caps. In addition, rising 
energy  prices  and  other  production  inputs  emerged  as  a  major  challenge  for  mid-caps  in  recent 
months. 

French abstract 

Les  entreprises  de  taille  intermédiaire  (ou  mid-caps)  sont  celles  qui  emploient  au  moins  250 
personnes,  mais  moins  de  1  500.  Nous  estimons  mid-caps  représentent  plus  de  13%  de  l'emploi 
total  du  secteur  privé  en  Europe  et  environ  20%  de  l'emploi  total  dans  les  pays  nordiques,  au 
Luxembourg, en Allemagne et en Autriche, alors qu'elles représentent 10% ou moins de l'emploi en 
Espagne, au Portugal, en France, en Pologne ou en Grèce. Leur part est particulièrement élevée dans 
des  secteurs  essentiels  à  la  compétitivité  de  l'Union  européenne  :  l'électronique,  l'aérospatiale,  la 
production d'énergie, les industries à forte consommation d'énergie et la santé. 

Dans la plupart des cas, les mid-caps ne sont plus des start-ups, mais des entreprises établies qui 
ont  déjà  surmonté  les  premières  phases  de  leur  développement.  Elles  se  développent  plus 
rapidement que l'entreprise moyenne dans la plupart des États membres de l'UE. Leurs performances 
en  matière  d'innovation  sont  supérieures  à  celles  des  PME  et  légèrement  inférieures  à  celles  des 
grandes entreprises. La majorité d'entre elles est également active en dehors de l'UE. Les moyennes 
capitalisations sont souvent détenues par des familles; mais un grand nombre d'entre elles sont des 
filiales de grandes entreprises étrangères2. 

La croissance des mid-caps peut être freinée par différents facteurs, dont les plus importants sont 
les difficultés à trouver des employés qualifiés, les ruptures de la chaîne d'approvisionnement, une 
réglementation excessive, la bureaucratie ou des difficultés dans les processus d'innovation. Un autre 
challenge  pour  les  moyennes  capitalisations  familiales  résulte  de  la  gestion  de  la  succession.  En 
outre, la hausse des prix de l'énergie et d'autres intrants de production est devenue un défi majeur 
pour les moyennes capitalisations au cours des derniers mois. 

1 Non-national, also including Member States. 

2 Non-national, Pays-Membres inclus. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

German abstract 

Mittelgroße Unternehmen (oder Mid-caps) sind Unternehmen mit mindestens 250, aber weniger als 
1.500 Beschäftigten. Wir schätzen, dass mehr als 13% der Gesamtbeschäftigung im europäischen 
Unternehmenssektor  und  etwa  20%  aller  Beschäftigten  in  den  nordischen  Ländern,  Luxemburg, 
Deutschland und Österreich auf sie entfallen, während ihr Anteil an der Beschäftigung in Spanien, 
Portugal,  Frankreich,  Polen  oder  Griechenland  10%  oder  weniger  beträgt.  Besonders  hoch  ist  ihr 
Anteil  in  Bereichen,  die  für  die  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  der  Europäischen  Union  von  zentraler 
Bedeutung sind: Elektronik, Luft- und Raumfahrt, Energieerzeugung, energieintensive Industrien und 
Gesundheit.  

Mid-caps  sind  in  den  meisten  Fällen  keine  Start-ups  mehr,  sondern  etablierte  Unternehmen,  die 
bereits  die  frühen  Phasen  der  Unternehmensentwicklung  überstanden  haben.  Sie  wachsen  in  den 
meisten  EU-Mitgliedstaaten 
Ihre 
Innovationsleistung  liegt  über  der  von  KMUs  aber  leicht  unter  der  von  Großunternehmen.  Die 
Mehrheit von ihnen ist auch auf Märkten außerhalb der EU tätig. Mid-caps befinden sich häufig in 
Familienbesitz,  eine  beträchtliche  Anzahl  von  ihnen  sind  aber  auch  Tochtergesellschaften 
multinationaler3 Unternehmen. 

schneller  als  der  Durchschnitt  der  Unternehmen. 

Das  Wachstum  von  Mid-caps  kann  durch  verschiedene  Faktoren  gebremst  werden:  zu  den 
Wichtigsten  gehören  Schwierigkeiten  bei  der  Suche  nach  qualifizierten  Beschäftigten,  Unter-
brechungen der Lieferketten, überschießende Regulierung und Verwaltung oder Schwierigkeiten im 
Innovationsprozess.  Eine  weitere  Herausforderung  für  Mid-caps  in  Familienbesitz  ist  die  Regelung 
der  Nachfolge.  Darüber  hinaus  haben  sich  die  steigenden  Preise  für  Energie  und  andere 
Produktionsinputs in den letzten Monaten zu einer großen Herausforderung für Mid-caps entwickelt. 

3 Nicht-national, EU Mitgliedstaaten einbegriffen. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  investigates  the  relevance  of  middle-sized  enterprises  (or  mid-caps)  in  the  European 
Union. Mid-caps are those enterprises with at least 250, but less than 1,500 employees. Alternative 
definitions with a higher threshold of 3,000 or 5,000 employees also exist. Thus, mid-caps are larger 
than  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs),  but  still  smaller  than  large  multinational 
corporations. 

One  starting  point  for  the  interest  in  mid-cap  companies  were  evaluations  of  the  SME  definition 
(Sylvest  et  al.  2018,  European  Commission  2021e) which  raised  the  attention  for  companies  that 
have ‘outgrown’ the thresholds of this definition. These studies suggest that there is an important 
part of the enterprise population which are not SMEs but are not large enterprises either. Another, 
more  general  background  for  the  study  is  the  ongoing  research  on  scaling-up  of  SMEs,  and  the 
relationship between firm size, firm age, innovation, and firm growth in general (Cohen 2010, Coad, 
Holm et al. 2018, OECD 2021f). 

The  study  has  several  goals.  A  first  goal  is  to  collect  and  compare  definitions  of  mid-cap  firms. 
Second, we measure the economic relevance of mid-caps for employment, value added, innovation, 
etc. Another aim is to investigate the challenges mid-cap firms are facing. Finally, the study provides 
insights to understand better whether policy could potentially support mid-caps to cope with these 
challenges. 

The report is structured as follows: after a brief sketch of the research design and the methodology 
in  Chapter  2,  Chapter  3  provides  an  overview  of  mid-cap  definitions.  In  Chapter  4,  we  provide  a 
statistical  overview  of  mid-cap  enterprises  in  the  European  Union  based  on  data  from  the  ORBIS 
Europe database and Eurostat. Chapter 5 follows with an analysis of the challenges mid-caps face, 
based on 151 interviews with managers from mid-cap enterprises. Chapter 5, together with Chapter 
4, are the core of the study. The report closes with a review of support measures for mid-caps in the 
main trade partners of the EU and conclusions for policy in Chapters 6 and 7. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

2  RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 

The study follows a range of approaches to shed light on the economic relevance of mid-cap firms. 

Frist, we scan the existing literature, in particular documents from governmental sources, the OECD, 
the  IMF,  and  the  World  Bank,  or  from  research  institutes  that  define  and  discuss  enterprises  of 
different sizes. Moreover, we use different databases for policy measures such as Global Trade Alerts, 
the  EU  anti-subsidy  rules  database  by  the  EU,  the  WTO  database  on  formal  disputes  concerning 
subsidies, and the OECD tracker of policy responses to COVID-19. This literature also provides first 
inputs to identify the challenges mid-caps are facing. 

Second,  the  study  provides  an  empirical  analysis  of  mid-cap  firms  in  the  EU  based  on  the  ORBIS 
Europe database, a large-scale data set provided by Bureau van Dijk. The ORBIS Europe database 
includes  financial  and  balance  sheet  information  for  companies  and  covers  the  whole  enterprise 
population in Europe. Other data sets that are used in the empirical analysis are Eurostat’s Structural 
Business  Statistics  (SBS),  Eurostat’s  Community  Innovation  Survey  (CIS),  and  data  from  the 
European Manufacturing Survey (EMS). The methodological approach of the empirical analysis is to 
characterize and compare mid-cap firms across countries and industrial eco-systems with descriptive 
statistics.  

Third,  we  collect  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  with  151  semi-structured  interviews.  The 
interviews targeted managers of mid-caps across EU27 countries. The interview partners are drawn 
from  a  representative  sample  of  10,108  mid-cap  firms  based  on  the  ORBIS  Europe  data  set.  We 
distinguish  between  small  mid-caps  (250-499  employees)  and  large  mid-caps  (500-1,499 
employees). Questions in the interviews cover ownership, access to finance, employment and skills, 
foreign direct investment (FDI), R&D and innovation activities, digitalisation, regulatory burdens, and 
sustainability. Descriptive statistics based on the data collected with the interviews provide a detailed 
picture of the challenges that mid-cap firms face. In addition, we verify and further discuss the results 
from  the  interviews  in  three  panel  discussions  with  representatives  of  mid-cap  firms,  industrial 
associations, and from academia. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

3  DEFINITIONS OF MID-CAPS 

A  first  aim  of  this  project  is  to  review  definitions  of  mid-caps  with  the  goal  of  suggesting  an 
appropriate  definition  for  the  later  stages  of  the  study.  An  appropriate  definition  would  refer  to 
differences between mid-caps and larger or smaller firms4 based on differences in certain economic 
indicators.  The  focus  will  thus  be  on  definitions  that  use  the  number  of  employees,  turnover,  or 
balance sheet volumes, and less on definitions based on stock market capitalisation. Only a small 
minority of European mid-caps are listed on the stock market, so market capitalisation is available 
only for a few companies. The Commission is currently working on an initiative5 to simplify listing 
requirements in order to make public capital markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate 
access to capital. It will help EU companies, especially smaller ones for whom the process is currently 
cumbersome, raise funds on capital markets and reap the benefits of going public, such as exposure 
to a wider investor base, higher growth, and job creation. 

To identify mid-cap definitions in EU legislation, in documents by international organisations, or in 
national regulations, we performed searches with Google and Google Scholar using keywords such 
as  ‘mid-cap’,  ‘middle-sized  enterprise’,  ‘medium  enterprise’,  ‘medium  firm’,  ‘Mittelstand’,  ‘Mittlere 
Unternehmen”, and variations of these keywords. 

Definitions in the EU 

The SME definition is central to many EU enterprise policies. Its relevance emerges from the idea 
that  policy  should  help  small  and  medium-sized  firms  to  overcome  disadvantages  that  arise  from 
market and systemic failures due to their size. A recent evaluation (European Commission 2021e) 
found that the SME definition remains relevant and fit for its purpose. The SME definition does not 
foresee mid-caps as a separate group of firms. Rather, it distinguishes between medium-sized firms 
(between  50  and  250  employees,  up  to  50  million  EUR  turnover  or  up  to  43  million  EUR  balance 
sheet) and large firms (more than 250 employees or passing both financial thresholds). 

This definition, however, is seen as arbitrary in some cases as it could lead to a different treatment 
of otherwise similar firms. For example, fast-growing, innovative firms that seek external funding for 
scaling-up are often, but not necessarily SMEs (Daunfeldt et al., 2016). There are also certain mid-
caps  which  face  this  challenge.  Thus,  various  funding  schemes  for  risk  finance  and  scaling-up 
approved  by  the  European  Commission  cover  also  firms  other  than  SMEs,  such  as  small  and/or 
innovative  mid-cap  enterprises,  to  address  their  funding  gap.  This  was  possible  because  the  EC 
communication  on  Guidelines  on  State  aid  to  promote  risk  finance  investments  (European 
Commission  2014,  European  Commission  2021c)  allow  support  under  certain  conditions  to  these 
types of companies. The Risk Finance Guidelines define mid-caps as all those enterprises that are 
not an SME and whose number of employees does not exceed 1,500 (European Commission 2021c, 
p. 13). Within that category, the Guidelines further mention small mid-caps and innovative mid-caps. 
Small mid-caps have less than 500 employees and an annual turnover of less than 100 million EUR 
or a balance sheet of less than 86 million EUR. An innovative mid-cap may be defined on the basis 
of different criteria; for example, a mid-cap that spends at least 10% of its total operating cost on 
research and development in at least one of the three years that precede the first investment under 
the risk finance measure is considered innovative. Thus, under the Guidelines, risk finance aid can 
be given to start-ups, SMEs, small mid-caps, and innovative mid-caps, but not to innovative mid-
caps  with  500  or  more  employees  (which  could  though  receive  State  aid  under  a  different  legal 
basis). 

Another example is InnovFin, a joint initiative launched by the European Investment Fund (EIF) as 
part of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group and the European Commission. InnovFin provided 
loans, guarantees and equity funding under Horizon 2020 (H2020). It distinguishes between small 
mid-caps up to 499 employees, and large mid-caps with 500 up to 2,999 employees. A turnover or 
balance  sheet  criterion  have  not  been  applied.  Another  example  of  measures within  H2020  which 

4 Firm, enterprise, and company are used as synonyms throughout the study 

5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13238-Listing-Act-making-public-capital-markets-more-attractive-for-EU-

companies-and-facilitating-access-to-capital-for-SMEs_en 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

also  support  small  mid-caps  in  addition  to  SMEs,  is  the  European  Innovation  Council  (EIC) 
accelerator. 

Outside H2020, mid-caps were eligible for funding from the European Fund for Strategic Investments 
(EFSI), a European instrument to improve access to financing of enterprises, with a particular focus 
on  SMEs  and  small  mid-cap  companies,  but  also  open  to  large  mid-caps  up  to  2,999  employees. 
Horizon  Europe  and  InvestEU  replaced  Horizon  2020  and  EFSI  in  2020  with  new  instruments. 
InvestEU provides investments and risk funding in four policy areas or “windows”. One of these is 
open only for SMEs and small mid-caps, while the other windows support all other types of firms. 
The definition of small mid-caps remains unchanged from EFSI regulation (European Union 2021b).  

The same is true for the European Defence Fund (EDF), an EU initiative to foster this industry and 
promote defence-related R&D. The EDF, among other goals, encourages the participation of SMEs 
and mid-caps in the defence sector. The guidelines on state aid to promote risk finance investments 
(European Union 2021c) are referring to middle capitalisation companies or mid-caps, as enterprises 
that employ a maximum of 3,000 persons. The same thresholds can also be found in Digital Europe, 
a programme that will support digitalization across enterprises in the EU. Horizon Europe is open for 
enterprises  of  all  sizes.  Mid-caps  enjoy  a  special  treatment  in  the  EIC  accelerator  which  supports 
scaling-up of radical innovations through funding and investments and is part of Horizon Europe. 

References to mid-cap firms also appear in various recovery packages of national governments to 
fight  the  economic  consequences  of  COVID-19.  For  example,  on  14  April  2020,  the  European 
Commission announced that it has decided to approve, under the state aid rules, an Italian guarantee 
scheme  to  support  self-employed  workers,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  and  mid-
caps  affected  by  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19.6  This  scheme  is  open  to  self-employed  workers  and 
companies with up to 499 employees. Covid-19 also triggered a lot of additional funding activities by 
the EIB which also target mid-cap firms. The underlying definitions, however, are the same as those 
used in other EIB activities so we have not included it as new mid-cap definitions in the list above. 

Various definitions of mid-caps can also be found at the national level. The French statistical agency 
INSEE (2020) defines an “Entreprise de taille Intermédiaire” or ETI to be a company with between 
250 and 5,000 employees, and a turnover which does not exceed 1.5 billion EUR or a balance sheet 
total  which  does  not  exceed  two  billion  EUR.  This  puts  the  ETI  definition  clearly  above  mid-cap 
definitions  found  in  the  context  of  European  funding  schemes.  A  company  with  fewer  than  250 
employees, but a turnover bigger than 50 million EUR and a balance sheet exceeding 43 million EUR 
is also no longer considered an SME according to the EU SME definition.  

Germany also has a strong tradition of considering mid-caps or “mittelständische Unternehmen” as 
a distinct group of firms that merits attention on its own. The German “Mittelstand”, however, is less 
defined  by  the  number  of  employees,  but  by  shared  values  such  as  independence  from  other 
companies,  independent  long-term  decision-making  and  the  unity  of  ownership  and  management 
(Welter et al., 2015). Mittelstand, according to Welter et al. (2015), is not just an economic, but also 
an emotional category that distinguishes itself from other types of firms by long-term thinking and 
commitment,  owner-managers  instead  of  employed  managers,  and  often  family  ownership.  Thus, 
enterprises  of  very  different  sizes  can  be  Mittelstand,  and  they  are  often  family-owned  firms; 
subsidiaries of multinational firms regardless of their size, however, cannot be Mittelstand. 

The  IfM  Bonn  (2020)  defines  Mittelstand  as  those  firms  where  up  to  two  natural  persons  or  their 
family members hold (directly or indirectly) at least 50% of the shares of the company, and where 
these natural persons belong to the management. However, they also admit that this includes the 
vast majority of all firms up to 500 employees. Röhl (2018) considers large mid-caps as Mittelstand 
firms  with  more  than  250,  but  less  than  3,000  employees.  Another  important  definition  of  the 
Mittelstand is that of the German bank KfW which is influential because of its use for research based 
on the KfW Mittelstandspanel (KfW, 2021). KfW defines Mittelstand as all enterprises with up to a 
turnover of 500 million EUR. Thus, this definition includes SMEs as well as small and large mid-caps. 
There  are  also  some  national  definitions  of  SMEs  in  Europe  that  deviate  from  the  EU  definition  in 
terms of turnover or sub-categories of SMEs, but not in the employee threshold of 250 persons. The 
issue of increasing this threshold to 500 employees has, however, been raised in Germany (Röhl, 

6 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_656 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

2018).  The  differences  between  various  national  SME  definitions  are  discussed  in  detail  in  the 
evaluation  of  the  SME  definition  (European  Commission,  2021b)  and  the  supporting  background 
study (Sylvest et al., 2018). 

Table 3.1: Mid-cap definitions 

Name 

Source 

Lower 
bounds 
(emplo
yment) 

Upper 
bounds 
(emplo
yment) 

Turnover (EUR) 

OR Balance sheet 
(EUR) 

SME definition 

EU 

- 

249 

<50 million EUR 

<43 million EUR 

Mid-caps 

Small mid-caps 

Innovative mid-caps 

Risk finance State Aid 
Finance 
(Risk 
Guidelines) 

State Aid (GBER, Risk 
Finance Guidelines) 

State 
Finance Guidelines) 

Aid 

(Risk 

500 

1,499 

- 

- 

250 

499 

<100 million EUR  <86 million EUR 

500 

1,499 

See * in the notes 

Large mid-caps 

InnovFin, EFSI  

500 

2,999 

- 

- 

Entreprise 
intermédiaire 

de 

taille 

INSEE, FR 

250 

4,999 

<=1.5 billion EUR  <= 2 billion EUR 

Mittlere Unternehmen 

IfM, DE 

 50 

499 

<50 million EUR 

Großer Mittelstand 

Röhl 2018 

250 

2,999 

Mittelstand 

KfW 

< 500 million EUR 

Hidden Champions 

Simon 2012 

9,999 

< 5 billion EUR 

Mid-sized business 

BIS, UK 

> 25 million £ and < 500 million £ 

Middle market 

Little Giants 

Source: own research 

Chamber 

US 
Commerce 

of 

Chinese  Ministry  of 
Commerce 

> 10 million USD and < 1 billion USD 

Notes: The INSEE definition requires that the actual value of turnover or balance sheet exceeds only one of the two thresholds. IfM: employment and 
turnover criteria must be met 

* at least 10% of its total operating cost on research and development in at least one of the three years; has recently been awarded a Seal of Excellence 
quality label by the European Innovation Council in accordance with the Horizon 2020 work programme 2018-2020 ( 43 ) or with Article 2(23) and 
Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/695; or has recently received an investment from the European Innovation Council Fund, such as an investment 
in the context of the Accelerator Programme as referred to in Article 48 of Regulation (EU) 2021/695; and either has participated to any CASSINI ( 44 
) action (CASSINI Business Accelerator or Matchmaking), or has received investment from CASSINI Seed and Growth Funding Facility, or has been 
awarded a CASSINI Prize, meeting the evaluation thresholds set therein, or has been supported by space- related projects funded by Horizon Europe 
which has resulted in the creation of a start-up; see (European Commission 2021c, p. 13). 

A  variation  of  the  Mittelstand  concept  are  ‘Hidden  Champions’.  These  are  mid-caps  from 
manufacturing industries which are among the top 3 in their respective market segment on the global 
market (Simon, 2012). Market segment is defined as a narrow niche in a larger market. In many 
cases these firms are hardly known to the public due to their high degree of specialization. There 
were around 1,800 Hidden Champions in Germany in 2016, which should be around half of the total 
world-wide population. 73% of these firms are SMEs according to the EU definition, while another 
12% are small mid-caps with up to 500 employees (Rammer and Spielkamp, 2019). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Definitions outside the EU 

The  Mittelstand  and  “Hidden  Champions”  concepts  have  also  inspired  the  Chinese  Ministry  of 
Commerce when developing China’s “specialized and sophisticated enterprises” (专精特新) also known 
as “Little Giants” (Brown, 2022). We present this concept and its connection to enterprise policies in 
more  detail  in  Chapter  6.  Little  Giants  are  recruited  among  Chinese  SMEs  and  should  work  on 
technologies listed in the ‘Industrial Four Bases Development Catalogue’ and the ‘Made in China 2025 
Strategy’, and become market leaders in their niches, just like Germany’s “Hidden Champions”. The 
goal is to develop 10,000 Little Giants until 2025, the Ministry will support this goal with 10 billion 
Yuan (1.43 billion EUR).  

While there is no definition of mid-caps, the thresholds for SMEs are much higher in China compared 
to  the  EU  and  vary  by  sector.  A  considerable  number  of  SMEs  would  thus  already  fit  under  the 
definition  of  mid-caps  as  used  in  this  study.  In  manufacturing,  all  firms  with  less  than  1,000 
employees or an operating revenue of less than 400 million Yuan qualify as an SME. Software and 
information  technology  firms  are  SMEs  if  they  have  fewer  than  300  employees  or  less  than  100 
million Yuan operating revenues (Chinese Ministry of Industry 2011). 

In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Department  for  Business,  Innovation  &  Skills  (BIS,  2012)  has  been 
looking at ‘Mid-sized Businesses’ based on turnover. It defines these mid-sized businesses as firms 
with a turnover of 25 million to 500 million £ per year. 25 million £ being the upper bound of the UK 
SME  turnover  definition,  whilst  500  million  £  lies  somewhere  in  the  range  of  the  large  mid-cap 
definition brought forward by various EU initiatives or Röhl (2018). However, a more recent post of 
the UK government (2021b) suggests that mid-sized businesses are defined as those that have a 
turnover of more than 10 million £ and/or more than 20 employees. This would put mid-sized firms 
in the range of SMEs. 

In the United States, there is no legal mid-caps definition according to information provided by the 
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). However, the SBA uses higher thresholds than the EU in 
a sophisticated system of small business size standards to identify SMEs eligible for funding. These 
standards  define  industry-specific  thresholds  based  on  the  number  of  employees  or  turnover.  In 
manufacturing, the SBA applies six size standards which are the upper bounds of small businesses 
(U.S.  Small  Business  Administration,  2019a,  p.  27):  250,  500,  750,  1,000,  1,250,  and  1,500 
employees.  Some  of  these  thresholds  go  well  into  mid-cap  territory  with  thresholds  of  1,500 
employees, and there are very few industries -mostly in utilities- where thresholds of 250 employees 
are applicable (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2019b). This means that several small businesses 
in the US would actually be considered as a mid-cap in Europe. The rationale for this large variety of 
thresholds are differences in the structure and organisation of industries. A bakery of 250 employees 
may be a large firm in this sector, while a steel mill with the same number of employees will only be 
regarded as small. The SBA examines industry structure by four factors – average firm size, degree 
of competition within an industry, start-up costs and entry barriers, and distribution of firms by size. 
These  factors  go  into  the  calculation  of  each  industry-specific  size  standard  (U.S.  Small  Business 
Administration, 2019a). 

There is no definition of mid-caps in Japan, but as in the other examples above, their thresholds for 
SMEs are higher and sector-specific: any manufacturing, construction, or transportation firm whose 
regular workforce does not exceed 300 persons, or whose capital does not exceed 300 million Yen is 
considered  as  an  SME  (Small  and  Medium  Size  Enterprise  Agency,  2019).  In  wholesale  trade  and 
services, the threshold is only 100 persons, in retail trade even 50 persons. This means that mid-
caps in manufacturing, construction and transport are partly covered by the SME definition in Japan, 
but not in service industries. Moreover, there exists a category of firms called ‘chûken kigyô’ which 
seem similar to German Mittelstand companies (Storz, 2008), characterized by independence from 
large conglomerates and possibly traded in the mid-caps segment of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. 

More evidence on national SME definitions is provided by the World Bank which has put together a 
comprehensive database including 240 positions (SME Finance Forum, 2019). The data shows that 
SME thresholds vary from a low of 19 employees to a high of 499 employees. The World Bank itself 
relies on these national definitions and does not have an SME or mid-cap definition of its own (World 
Bank, 2019). However, it uses the term mid-caps in some of its press releases, referring to companies 
that employ between 250 to 3,000 people (World Bank, 2021). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Finally,  there  are  several  definitions  of  mid-cap  firms  based  on  their  stock  market  capitalization. 
These definitions are proposed by industrial associations or banks to monitor business conditions of 
mid-caps and have an informal character. However, as there seem to be less than 5,000 European 
companies listed at EU stock markets, this mid-cap definition would only encompass a tiny fraction 
of all mid-cap companies. An example is the Italian Bank Mediobanca which refers to mid-caps as 
listed companies similar to Mittelstand firms. However, Mediobanca’s coverage includes no more than 
70 companies (Mediobanca 2020).  

In the US the National Center for the Middle Market affiliated to Ohio State University defines middle 
market companies as those with annual revenues between 10 million USD and 1 billion USD (National 
Center  for  the  Middle  Market,  2021).  The  US  Chamber  of  Commerce  regularly  publishes  a  Middle 
Market  Business  Index7.  This  index  also  considers  companies  with  annual  revenues  between  10 
million USD and 1 billion USD, split into small mid-caps (10 - 50 million USD) and large mid-caps 
(50 million USD - 1 billion USD). A similar example would be Japan’s ‘chûken kigyô’ or the French 
ETI, both mentioned above. Based on these thresholds, it seems that the ‘Middle Market’ covers an 
area considerably larger than the mid-cap definitions used in the EU and encompasses a lot of the 
SME  territory.  According  to  the  National  Center  for  the  Middle  Market  (2021),  it  includes  200k 
businesses and a third of private sector GDP and employment in the US. 

To sum up, definitions of mid-cap firms at EU level as a separate group within the business sector 
are often related to risk financing and the ability of mid-cap firms to raise the necessary investments. 
Another  definition  refers  to  companies  with  a  smaller stock  market  capitalization  than  the  largest 
companies; however, only very few of the existing mid-caps in Europe are listed at a stock market. 
The most common size brackets for mid-cap definitions are 250-500 for small mid-caps and 500-
1,499 for large mid-caps. There are some national definitions which deviate from these thresholds. 
Countries outside the EU often include mid-caps under the higher thresholds for their SME definition. 

7 Various issues can be found here: (https://www.uschamber.com/economy/middle-market-business-index) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

4  MID-CAPS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION – EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 

This chapter puts forward and assesses three definitions of mid-caps which are then used for mapping 
mid-caps in the EU. Further, the chapter discusses in more depth their performance by EU member 
state and industrial ecosystem.  

The chapter is organised as follows: Section 4.1 provides empirical evidence based on firm-level data 
across the EU member states and, on that basis, assesses three definitions of mid-caps. Using the 
selected  definitions  of  mid-caps,  Section  4.2  provides  an  analysis  of  mid-caps’  performance 
indicators;  Sections  4.3  and  4.4  continue  the  analysis  by  EU  member  state  and  by  industrial 
ecosystem. Section 4.5 analyses foreign ownership in the mid-caps segment, while Section 4.6 looks 
at the growth performance of mid-caps. Section 4.7 looks at mid-caps in EU enlargement countries. 
Finally, Sections 4.8 and 4.9 focus on innovation and digitalization in mid-cap firms. 

4.1  An empirical assessment of mid-caps definitions 

Finding a suitable definition of mid-caps is challenging. In this section, we assess empirically different 
definitions of mid-caps, and examine how the mapping of mid-caps would differ by each definition. 
To  this  purpose,  we  examine the impact  of  each  definition  on  the  overall  distribution  of  mid-caps 
across all EU27 member states. 

Most  mid-caps  definitions  are  based  on  turnover  or  the  number  of  employees.  This  makes  sense 
because  such  information  is  available  for  the  vast  majority  of  companies.  However,  using  both 
turnover  and  the  number  of  employees  could  cause  difficulty  in  identifying  mid-caps  that  can 
generate  a  large  turnover  with  a  small  staff,  so  employment  and  turnover  are  not  proportional. 
Frequent  examples  can  be  found  in  finance,  wholesale,  or  retail  trade.  This  brings  a  lot  of 
heterogeneity  to  mid-caps  definitions.  Thus,  it  seems  desirable  and  feasible  to  concentrate  on 
measures based on the number of employees, the most widely used data in mid-caps definitions. 
Some of the mid-cap definitions used in relevant studies have been discussed in Chapter 3. 

We consider three working definitions of mid-caps based on the number of employees, and compare 
them  to  two  national  definitions,  Entreprise  de  taille  intermédiaire  used  in  France,  and  Mittlere 
Unternehmen from Germany: 

(1)  Small mid-caps: firms with 250-499 employees; 
(2)  Large mid-caps: firms with 500-1,499 employees;  
(3)  Very large mid-caps: firms with 1,500-2,999 employees; 
(4)  Entreprise de taille intermédiaire: firms with 250-4,999 employees; 
(5)  Mittlere Unternehmen: firms with 50-499 employees. 

To compare the above-mentioned definitions, we consider how the following economic performance 
indicators of  mid-caps  would  change  when  using  each  definition,  and  we  also  compare them  with 
those of micro firms, SMEs, and very large firms with over 3,000 employees:  

(1)  share of number of firms of a firm size group in the total number of all firms;  
(2)  share of employment of a firm size group in the total employment of all firms; 
(3)  share of turnover of a firm size group in the total turnover of all firms. 

Eurostat’s Structural Business Statistics (SBS) data set does not provide statistical information for 
mid-caps in the European Union. Mid-caps are part of the group of large firms, which includes all 
firms with 250 and more employees. Thus, it is not possible to distinguish mid-caps from larger firms 
in  the  Eurostat  data.  As  an  alternative,  our  analysis  uses  the  ORBIS  Europe  database,  which  is  a 
comprehensive firm-level database provided by Bureau van Dijk. It includes financial and balance 
sheet information that covers the whole enterprise population in Europe. However, the quality of the 
ORBIS  Europe  data  is  uneven  across  countries  and  has  some  limitations.  The  filing  requirements 
differ across countries; therefore, the data extracted from the ORBIS Europe database are often not 
representative for all EU member states. To put together a representative micro-data set for the EU 
member states, we follow the guidelines for data extraction and data cleaning provided by Kalemli-
Ozcan et al. (2019).  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

The main criterion for the preparation of the firm-level data from the ORBIS Europe data base to be 
used in the empirical analysis is that firms are still active in June 2022, when the data was retrieved 
from the ORBIS Europe online platform, and that firms report unconsolidated financial statements or 
limited financial statements. Details on the data preparation are discussed in Appendix A.  

To validate the constructed data set extracted from ORBIS Europe, we aggregate the micro data by 
country  and  compare  summary  statistics  of  various  indicators  by  firm  size  distribution  to  the 
aggregated  official  statistics  from  the  Eurostat’s  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS)  data  set. 
Overall, the ORBIS Europe data has a good quality in terms of covering large firms including mid-
caps, although the quality is less satisfactory for SMEs and for micro firms. In terms of the number 
of companies, our results suggest that in general the ORBIS Europe data set has a limited coverage 
of  micro  firms  compared  to  the  SBS  data,  while  the  ORBIS  Europe  and  the  SBS  have  similar 
coverages of SMEs and large firms. Comparing the number of firms in the ORBIS Europe and SBS 
databases, the corresponding average ratios across all countries are 0.32 for micro firms, 0.69 for 
SMEs  and  0.74  for  large  firms.  A  similar  pattern  is  observed  when  comparing  the  number  of 
employees and turnover by firm size group in the two databases. However, despite a good coverage, 
our results are weighted estimations which may deviate from the results published by Eurostat or 
national statistical agencies. More details are provided in Appendix A. 

Because of the variation in coverage, the sampling probability of a company in the ORBIS Europe 
database  differs  by  country  and  by  firm  size  group.  To  ensure  a  better  representativeness  of  the 
ORBIS Europe database relative to the full population of enterprises reported in the SBS database, 
the statistics presented in this chapter are weighted. The weights are calculated as the ratio of the 
total number of firms in each size group (micro firms 0-9 employees, SMEs 10-249 employees, and 
large firms 250+ employees) in a country in the SBS database to that in the ORBIS Europe database 
over the common sectors of these two datasets. To apply the weights to all firms extracted from the 
ORBIS Europe data, some assumptions are made. One assumption is that the sampling probability 
of a firm in the ORBIS Europe database in all sectors is the same in the same size group and the 
same country. A further assumption is that the sampling probability in the ORBIS Europe database 
is identical for firms with more than 250 employees across all sectors in a country, as it is not possible 
to  further  separate  firms  with  250+  employees  in  the  SBS  database  to  construct  more  detailed 
weights. The list of the constructed weights is shown in Table A7 in Appendix A. 

Figures  4.1  and  4.2  below  summarize  the  results  of  the  assessment  of  mid-caps  definitions.  The 
figures  show  how  the  definition  of  mid-caps  influences  the  overall  picture  of  the  cohort  of  such 
companies across all EU member states. In general, large firms including mid-caps account for a tiny 
proportion of the total number of enterprises, while they contribute a large share of employment and 
turnover to the economy. 

Most companies are micro firms (with less than 10 employees), namely 93.3% of all firms on the 
basis of the available data for 2019. Of all firms, 6.5% are SMEs (excluding micro firms) and 0.2% 
are large firms including mid-caps. As shown in the left panel of Figure 4.1, of all SMEs (excluding 
micro firms) and large firms, 78.8% are small firms with 10-49 employees, and 18.3% of them are 
medium-sized firms. Large firms only account for 2.9%. If we focus on the group of large firms, small 
mid-caps (250-499) account for 56.7% of all large  firms, large mid-caps (500-1,499) account for 
32.8%, and very large mid-caps (1,500-2,999) make another 6.6%. The remaining 2.0% and 1.8% 
are very large firms with 3,000-4,999 employees and with more than 5,000 employees, respectively.   

The data suggest that the mid-caps category accounts for 0.11% of all firms (equivalent to having 
11 firms per 10k firms) if only small mid-caps are selected, whereas it accounts for 0.17% (equivalent 
to 17.4 firms per 10k firms) if both small mid-caps and large mid-caps (250-1,499) are considered. 
It will take around 0.19% (or 18.7 firms per 10k firms) if all small, large and very large mid-caps 
(250-2,999) are counted. Therefore, using both small and large mid-caps would bring considerably 
more  firms  into  the  mid-caps  category  than  using  only  the  small  mid-caps  group,  while  using  all 
small, large and very large mid-caps (250-2,999) would only expand the category to some limited 
extent. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

We  estimate  that,  in  absolute  terms,  there  are  around  31,000  small  mid-caps  firms  and  another 
18,000 large mid-caps in the European Union. Germany accounts for around 14,000 small and large 
mid-cap firms, France for around 5,000, followed by Italy and Spain with around 4,000 mid-cap firms 
each. Mid-cap firms can be found in all EU member states; Malta, for example, hosts 70 small mid-
caps according to information provided by its National Statistics Office. In addition, there are around 
3,600 very large mid-cap firms in the EU with between 1,500 and 2,999 employees. 

If we compare our mid-caps definitions to the ones covering the Entreprise de taille intermédiaire 
and Mittlere Unternehmen, mid-caps using the French definition would account for 0.19% of all firms 
(19.1 firms per 10k firms), while using the German definition mid-caps would account for 1.33% of 
all firms (132.9 firms per 10k firms).  

Figure 4.1. Share of firms by firm size group 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

In terms of the number of employees reported in 2019, micro firms represent 38.2% of the total 
employment of all firms, and SMEs account for another 34.4% (small firms 16.1% and medium sized 
firms  18.3%)8.  Small  mid-caps  (250-499)  contribute  5.7%  of  employment,  large  mid-caps  (500-
1,499)  contribute  7.6%,  while  very  large  mid-caps  make  another  3.9%.  Firms  with  3,000-4,999 
employees,  and  firms  with  more  than  5,000  employees  provide  the  rest  2.2%  and  7.9%  of 
employment, respectively. These numbers are shown in the left panel of Figure 4.2.  

As  a  result,  the  share  of  employment  provided  by  mid-caps  varies  considerably  by  mid-caps 
definition. Taking the data for 2019 as an example, mid-caps account for 5.7% of employment when 
only small mid-caps are considered, while mid-caps with 250-1,499 employees (small and large mid-
caps) represent 13.3% of all employment. Mid-caps with 250-2,999 employees (small, large, and 
very large mid-caps) provide 17.2% of the employment in all firms. 

Comparing the employment shares of mid-caps using the Entreprise de taille intermédiaire definition 
(250-4,999)  and  the  Mittlere  Unternehmen  definition  (50-499),  respectively,  mid-caps  with  250-
4,999  employees  account  for  19.5%  of  total  employment,  and  mid-caps  with  50-499  employees 
contribute 24.0%, respectively.  

The turnover share shows a similar pattern to the employment share by firm size groups. As shown 
in the right panel of Figure 4.2, in 2019, 32.2% of the total turnover generated by all firms in the EU 
member states is accounted for by micro firms, 33.4% is contributed by SMEs (14.1% from small 
firms, and 19.3% from medium-sized firms). In the large firms’ group, small mid-caps account for 

8 The combined employment figure of micro firms and SMEs in the ORBIS Europe database is 72.6%, while this is 65% in the Eurostat SBS database. 

The discrepancy may reflect different survey methods and different firm coverage across countries.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

7.0% of total turnover, large mid-caps account for 9.7%, and very large mid-caps contribute 4.2%. 
The remaining 13.5% of turnover is generated by firms with 3,000 and more employees, of which, 
7.7% is from firms with 3,000-4,999 employees. Therefore, mid-caps consisting only of small mid-
caps contributed 7.0% of total turnover in 2019, whereas 16.7% of total turnover would be accounted 
by  mid-caps  if  both  small  and  large  mid-caps  are  selected.  However,  only  another  4.4%  of  total 
turnover would be added to the mid-cap group if the definition also includes very large mid-caps. 
Considering the French and German definitions, mid-caps with 250-4,999 employees generate 28.8% 
of turnover, and mid-caps with 50-499 employees generate 26.3%. Although the figures are close, 
the composition of firms may be very different.  

Figure 4.2. Share of employment (left) and share of turnover (right) by firm size group 

7.9%

2.2%

3.9%

5.8%

7.7%

38.2%

4.2%

32.0%

7.6%

5.7%

18.3%

9.9%

7.0%

16.1%

19.4%

14.1%

0-9

10-49

50-249

250-499

0-9

10-49

50-249

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999 3000-4999 5000+

500-1499

1500-2999 3000-4999 5000+

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Different  mid-caps  definitions  have  also  a  considerable  influence  on  the  distribution  of  mid-caps 
across EU member states. Figures 4.4 to 4.6 summarise the statistics of mid-caps by EU member 
state using various definitions. These figures allow us to assess the impact of mid-caps definitions 
on the mapping of mid-caps. Descriptive statistics of SMEs (excluding micros) and very large firms 
are also reported so that they could be compared to those of mid-caps. The corresponding statistics 
are shown in Tables A9 to A11 in Appendix A. 

The pattern of mid-caps by country is complex. In general, the data suggest that selecting both small 
and large mid-caps (firms with 250-1,499 employees) would bring in a significant higher number of 
firms to the mid-cap group compared to using solely small mid-caps (250-499 employees). However, 
including all small, large, and very large mid-caps (250-2,999 employees) would have only a limited 
additional benefit, as it would only append a tiny fraction of firms to the mid-caps group. 

Take Germany as an example. Small mid-caps represent 0.32% of all firms (equivalent to 31.5 firms 
per 10k firms). Small and large mid-caps represent 0.50% (or 49.5 firms per 10k firms). However, 
the count of mid-caps in the broadest sense including all small, large, and very large mid-caps is 
0.53% (or 53.4 firms per 10k firms), which adds only little to the number of mid-caps in the previous 
two  definitions.  This  pattern  repeats  for  other  EU  member  states  as  well.  Detailed information on 
how the number of firms increases with a broader definition of mid-caps is provided in the top panel 
of  Figure  4.3.  As  a  comparison,  the  bottom  panel  of  the  same  figure  plots  the  share  of  SMEs 
(excluding micros) by EU member state, which is much higher than that of large firms.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

If we still take Germany as an example and consider the two definitions used for Entreprise de taille 
intermédiaire (250-4,999) and the Mittlere Unternehmen (50-499), the former definition will include 
54.3 firms per 10k firms in Germany (0.54% of all firms), while the latter definition will include 376.1 
firms per 10k firms (3.76% of all firms). Again, the German definition would bring in a significant 
number of firms into the mid-cap category.  

Figure 4.3. Share of mid-caps and SMEs by EU member state and by mid-caps definition 

DE AT RO FI LV HR DK LT EE EU SE BG CZ FR PL BE SI HU IE CY ES NL PT IT SK EL LU MT

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000-4999

5000+

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

DE AT RO FI LV HR DK EE BG IE LT EU CY ES SI EL HU IT SE BE PT FR CZ PL NL SK LU MT

10-49

50-249

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

Notes: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe database are included in the analysis. Luxembourg and Malta are 
excluded due to limited observations. Ranked by the share of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). SMEs exclude micro firms. 

Another important pattern is that Germany and Austria tend to have a higher share of mid-caps than 
other  countries  as  shown  in  Figure  4.3,  followed  by  Romania  and  Finland.  In  contrast,  Greece, 
Slovakia, Italy, and Poland have a very low share of mid-caps in comparison to other countries. This 
pattern holds regardless of the selected mid-caps definition.  

Furthermore, small mid-caps, large mid-caps and very large mid-caps all show a certain high level 
of importance in terms of their contribution to the employment and turnover shares, although their 
importance varies by country. Figure 4.4 provides a comparison across EU member states. The share 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

of small mid-caps in total employment is highest in Romania, Finland, Sweden, and Latvia followed 
by Austria and Germany, the countries with the largest shares of mid-caps in the total number of 
firms.  Generally,  small  mid-caps  and  large  mid-caps  tend  to  contribute  more  to  employment  and 
turnover than very large mid-caps. Therefore, it might be reasonable to use small mid-caps and large 
mid-caps as being more relevant in defining mid-caps in Europe.  

For example, as shown in Figure 4.4, small mid-caps contribute more than 8% of total employment 
in Romania, Finland, and Sweden in 2019, while they contribute less than 4% in Poland, Cyprus, and 
Greece.  Large  mid-caps  contribute  more  than  11%  of  total  employment  in  Sweden,  Denmark, 
Finland, and Romania, however, they contribute around or less than 5% in Portugal (5.4%), Greece 
(2.5%)  and  Cyprus  (2.0%).  Similarly,  the  importance  of  very  large  mid-caps  in  terms  of  the 
employment  share  also  varies  by  country.  They  contribute  over  6%  of  employment  in  Hungary, 
Romania, and Sweden, whereas they only contribute less than 3% in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, and Greece. No firms in this size category were reported in the ORBIS Europe 
database for Cyprus. Luxembourg and Malta are excluded from the analysis due to limited numbers 
of observations. 

Figure 4.4. Share of total employees by EU member state and by mid-cap definition 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

RO FI SE LV AT DK DE EE HR NL LT SI BG EU BE HU CZ IT ES IE SK PT FR PL CY EL

10-49

50-249

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000-4999

5000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

Notes: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe database are included in the analysis. Luxembourg and Malta are 
excluded due to limited numbers of observations. Ranked by the share of total employment of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). Micro 
firms provide the remaining share of employment.  

If we take the Entreprise de taille intermédiaire definition, the top countries in mid-caps’ employment 
share are Sweden (31.3%), Romania (29.8%), Finland (27.7%) and Denmark (26.1%), followed by 
Germany and Austria (25.2% and 25.0%, respectively). Using this definition, mid-caps account for 
less than 10% of the employment share in Greece and Cyprus. If we take the definition of mid-caps 
used by Mittlere Unternehmen, the top-ranking countries are Germany (31.6%), Austria (30.3%), 
Romania (30.0%) and Denmark (23.1%).  

If  turnover  is  taken  as  the  measure  of  mid-caps’  economic  importance,  small  mid-caps  generate 
around or more than 15% of total turnover in 2019 in the Netherlands (19.2%), Denmark (19.0%), 
and Austria (14.9%). However, they provide less than 5% of the total turnover in Slovakia, France, 
Greece,  and  Cyprus.  Large  mid-caps  generate  more  than  15%  of  turnover  in  the  Netherlands 
(26.4%), Denmark (20.2%) and Germany (19.0%), while they generate less than 5% of the total 
turnover  in  Greece,  and  Cyprus.  Additionally,  very  large  mid-caps  contribute  over  10%  of  the 
turnover in Ireland (11.4%) and Denmark (11.7%), whereas they create less than 3% of the total 
turnover  in  Latvia,  Spain,  Lithuania,  Slovenia,  Greece,  and  Cyprus.  These  statistics  are  shown  in 
Figure 4.5. Again, Luxembourg and Malta are excluded from the analysis due to limited numbers of 
observations. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Considering the Entreprise de taille intermédiaire definition, the top countries in mid-caps’ turnover 
share  are  the  Netherlands  (51.8%),  Denmark  (49.2%),  Germany  (41.0%)  and  Ireland  (40.1%). 
While  mid-caps  using  this  definition  in  Greece  and  Cyprus  only  account  for  less  than  10%  of  the 
turnover share. If we take the Mittlere Unternehmen definition of mid-caps, the top-ranking countries 
are the Netherlands (47.4%), Austria (44.9%), Poland (42.3%) and Denmark (37.7%). Mid-caps in 
Cyprus make less than 5% of turnover share under this definition. 

Figure 4.5. Share of total turnover by EU member state and by mid-cap definition 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

NL DK AT DE SE BE RO IT PL FI HR CZ SI LV EU IE BG ES PT LT EE HU SK FR EL CY

10-49

50-249

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000-4999

5000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: All firms with non-missing employment and turnover information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe database are included in the analysis. Luxembourg 
and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. Ranked by the share of turnover of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). Micro firms 
provide the remaining share of turnover. 

4.2  Key features of mid-caps 

Having examined the impact of mid-caps definitions on the share of mid-caps, in this section, we 
provide detailed analysis of mid-caps’ performance indicators in the EU. The analysis is based on the 
ORBIS Europe database in 2019. This year is chosen because we believe it is more appropriate to 
use pre-pandemic data to represent the general structure of EU mid-caps. Another reason is that the 
last available year in the SBS database is 2019 which is used to construct the weights to ensure data 
representativeness. 

The performance indicators of mid-caps selected for analysis in this section are total assets intensity 
(total  assets  per  employee),  labour  productivity  (turnover  per  employee),  assets-turnover  ratio 
(turnover  over  total  assets),  efficiency  ratio  (cash  flow  over  total  assets)  and  profit  margin  (net 
income  over  turnover).  The  total  assets  to  employment  ratio  is  an  indicator  that  measures  the 
intensity  of  total  assets  of  a  company.  The  other  four  performance  indicators  measure  the 
competitiveness of companies, which is crucially important for the economic growth of EU member 
states.  Labour  productivity  measures  how  much  output  could  be  produced  per  one  unit  of  labour 
input,  which  is  a  key  determinant  of  living  standards  in  the  long  run.  The  assets-turnover  ratio 
measures  a  company’s  efficiency  in  using  its  assets  to  generate  revenue.  The  efficiency  ratio 
measures a firm's ability to use its assets to generate cash flow. Finally, the profit margin measures 
a firm's ability to generate profits. 

We  compare  these  indicators  among  mid-caps  groups  where  we  focus  on  the  three  working 
definitions of mid-caps: small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees), large mid-caps (firms with 
500-1,499  employees)  and  very  large  mid-caps  (firms  with  1,500-2,999  employees).  We  also 
compare these indicators between mid-caps, SMEs (excluding micro firms), and firms with more than 
3,000 employees. Figure 4.6 summarises the key features of mid-caps. Additional figures on mid-
caps’ key features are provided in Appendix A. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

In terms of the performance indicators, the data suggests some interesting patterns. As shown in 
Figure 4.6, mid-caps are more intensive in total assets than SMEs (excluding micros) or firms with 
3,000+ employees. Their labour productivities are higher compared to that of smaller or larger firms, 
perhaps due to their higher capital intensity. However, their assets-turnover ratio and efficiency ratio 
are the lowest among all firm size groups, suggesting that they are less efficient in using assets to 
generate turnover and cash flow compared to smaller or larger firms. No clear pattern is found in 
terms of companies’ profit margins. 

Comparing  the  performance  indicators  between  firm  size  groups  in  detail,  on average,  large  mid-
caps have the highest total assets intensity, 545k EUR per employee in 2019. Small and very large 
mid-caps  follow  with  497k  and  470k  EUR  total  assets  per  employee,  respectively.  Interestingly, 
perhaps due to a large number of employees, firms with 3,000+ employees have the lowest total 
assets to employee ratio (345k EUR), slightly lower than that of SMEs (excluding micros), which is 
356k EUR.  

In terms of labour productivity, small mid-caps are the most productive (342.7k EUR per employee 
in  2019),  and  large  mid-caps  have  the  second  highest  labour  productivity  (339.4k  EUR).  Labour 
productivity of very large mid-caps, SMEs (excluding micros) and firms with 3,000+ employees are 
lower, 301.0k, 282.0k and 249.5k, respectively. The labour productivity pattern matches the total 
assets intensity pattern, as in general, firms that are more intensive in capital tend to have a higher 
labour productivity.  

Figure 4.6. Average performance indicators by size group 

th euro 

600

450

300

150

0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Total assets intensity

497

545

470

356

345

Labour productivity

342.7

339.4

282.0

301.0

249.5

th euro 

400

300

200

100

0

Total assets-turnover ratio

Efficiency ratio

0.79

0.69

0.62

0.64

0.72

0.045

0.036

0.038

0.042

0.053

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used. Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. The ORBIS 
Europe database tend to report slightly higher labour productivity than that in the SBS for SMEs and large firms, perhaps due to sampling bias. SMEs 
exclude micro firms. 

On the other hand, small and large mid-caps tend to be less efficient in using their assets to generate 
turnover and cash flow, compared to SMEs (excluding micros) and firms with 3,000+ employees, as 
shown in the lower panels of Figure 4.6. For example, the assets-turnover ratio (turnover over total 
assets) of large mid-caps in 2019 is 0.62, which is the lowest among all firm size groups. Very large 
mid-caps  have  the  second  to  the  lowest  ratio  (0.64),  followed  by  small  mid-caps  (0.69).  SMEs 
(excluding  micros)  and  firms  with  3,000+  employees  have  higher  ratios  than  mid-caps,  0.79  and 
0.72, respectively. A similar pattern appears if we examine firms’ efficiency ratios. Small mid-caps 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

are the least efficient group to use assets to generate cash flow among all firms. They only generate 
36 EUR of cash flow out of 1,000 EUR of total assets. Large mid-caps generate 38 EUR using the 
same amount of total assets, whereas very large mid-caps make 42 EUR. SMEs (excluding micros) 
and  firms  with  3,000+  employees  are  more  efficient.  The  SMEs  (excluding  micros)  make  45  EUR 
from 1,000 EUR of total assets, and the firms with 3,000+ employees make 53 EUR.  

In terms of profit margins, there is no clear pattern. Small mid-caps tend to have the lowest margin, 
3.5% in 2019. It means that of each 100 EUR of turnover a company makes, its net income is only 
3.5 EUR. The profit margin of very large mid-caps is just marginally higher, 3.8%. Large mid-caps, 
SMEs (excluding micros) and firms with 3,000+ employees have similar profit margins, around 4.2%. 
Numbers are shown in Figure A1 in Appendix A. 

Based on the above discussed performance indicators, mid-caps including small and large mid-caps 
share  some  common  features  in  general,  which  are  different  from  very  large  mid-caps,  SMEs 
(excluding  micros),  and  firms  with  3,000+  employees.  However,  such  distinctions  vary  across 
countries and across industrial ecosystems. In the next parts of this section, we undertake a more 
detailed  analysis  on  mid-caps’  performance  indicators  by  EU27  member  states  and  by  industrial 
ecosystem. 

4.3  Mapping of mid-caps across EU member states 

In  this  sub-section,  we  conduct  an  in-depth  analysis  of  mid-caps’  performance  indicators  by  EU 
member  state.  We  start  our  analysis  by  looking  at  the  foreign  ownership  structure  of  firms  by 
country,  and  we  then  present  a  snapshot  of  mid-caps’  performances  in  2019.  Figures  4.7  –  4.11 
summarize the findings, and the detailed statistics are shown in Tables A12 – A17 in Appendix A.  

As  discussed  in  the  previous  sections,  small  mid-caps  (firms  with  250-499  employees)  and  large 
mid-caps (firms with 500-1,499 employees) share some similarities and might be more appropriate 
to define mid-caps in the EU. Therefore, in this section, our discussion focuses on the cohort of mid-
caps  identified  using  these  two  definitions.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  very  large  mid-caps 
(firms with 1,500-2,999 employees) might also be useful to define mid-caps in some countries to 
produce an inclusive map of mid-caps. Tables reported in Appendix provide a comparison between 
small  mid-caps,  large  mid-caps,  very  large  mid-caps,  SMEs  (excluding  micros),  and  firms  with 
3,000+ employees. 

The indicators included in the analysis are foreign ownership, total assets intensity (total assets per 
employee), labour productivity (turnover per employee), total assets-turnover ratio (turnover over 
total  assets),  efficiency  ratio  (cash  flow  over  total  assets)  and  profit  margin  (net  income  over 
turnover).  The  indicators  are  summarized  by  EU  member  state.  All  statistics  are  weighted  as  in 
previous sections.  

We  analyse  next  mid-caps’  performance  indicators  by  EU  member  state.  Looking  at  total  asset 
intensity (total assets per employee), the data uncover big variations of firms’ total assets intensity 
across EU member states, as shown in Figure 4.7. The total assets per employee averaged over all 
SMEs and large firms (excluding micro firms) in some countries is much higher than that in other 
countries. For instance, the total assets intensity in Cyprus is around 2,000k EUR on average, while 
it is 1,236k EUR in Ireland, 1,197k EUR in Denmark, and 1,139k EUR in the Netherlands. The high 
total assets intensity in these countries reflects their high intensity in foreign direct investment (FDI) 
which is likely to be capital-intensive (see for example Davies et al. 2021). However, total assets 
intensity is lower than 100k in Bulgaria, Latvia, and Romania.  

Comparing mid-caps to the average level in a country, the figure suggests that mid-caps (small and 
large) tend to have a higher total assets intensity than the average level of all firms (SMEs and large 
firms,  excluding  micro  firms)  in  most  EU  member  states.  Only  in  the  Netherlands  and  in  Sweden 
mid-caps  have  a  lower  total  assets  intensity  than  the  average  of  all  firms  with  10+  employees. 
Furthermore, small mid-caps in many countries have significantly a higher total assets intensity than 
large mid-caps, e.g., small mid-caps in Cyprus, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and 
Italy. However, in some other countries, large mid-caps tend to be significantly more intensive in 
total assets for example in Finland, Germany, Ireland, and Lithuania.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

The  next  performance  indicator  of  interest  is  labour  productivity  (measured  by  turnover  per 
employee, see Figure 4.8). Again, the data show a  high variation of labour productivities of firms 
across EU member states. SMEs and large firms (excluding micros) on average have very high labour 
productivities in the Netherlands (833k EUR per employee in 2019), Ireland (597k EUR), Denmark 
(550k  EUR),  and  Belgium  (501k  EUR).  However,  firms  tend  to  have  lower  labour  productivity  on 
average in Latvia, Romania, Lithuania, and Bulgaria, which are close to or lower than 100k EUR per 
employee in 2019. Figure 4.8 summarises the findings. One factor that may explain the high labour 
productivity  in  the  Netherlands,  Ireland,  and  Denmark  is  that  firms  in  these  countries  tend  to  be 
more intensive in total assets as is shown in Figure 4.7.   

Figure 4.7. Total asset intensity of mid-caps by EU member states 

1,000 EUR 
3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

CY DK IE FR BE SI NL IT DE EU SE AT ES EL HR CZ FI PT PL SK HU EE LV RO BG LT

250-499

500-1499

All firms (10+)

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: Ranked by the total asset intensity of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). All firms (10+) category includes all firms with more than 
10 employees (SMEs and large firms, excluding micros). Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. 

Interestingly,  if  we  compare  the  labour  productivity  of  mid-caps  to  the  average  level  of  all  firms 
(SMEs and large firms, excluding micros) in a country, the difference is not so pronounced. In most 
countries, the labour productivity of small mid-caps and large mid-caps tends to be slightly lower but 
close to the average level. The gap between the productivity of small mid-caps and the average level 
is  bigger  in  the  Netherlands  and  Ireland,  whereas  the  gap  between  the  larger  mid-caps  and  the 
average level is big in the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, and Belgium. In contrast, small mid-caps’ 
labour productivity is higher than the average in some other countries, e.g., Austria and Italy, and 
the large mid-caps tend to have higher labour productivity than the average in Germany, Spain, and 
Bulgaria. The high labour productivity of SMEs in Cyprus reflects their high intensity in total assets, 
driven most likely by a high FDI intensity. 

Figure 4.9 presents the assets-turnover ratio. In most countries, the ratio in the case of large mid-
caps is lower than the average level of firms with more than 10 employees, suggesting that they are 
less efficient in using assets to generate turnover. This pattern is consistent with the findings in the 
previous sub-section, where the statistics are averaged across all EU member states. However, large 
mid-caps in the Netherlands, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Croatia have higher assets-
turnover ratios than the average level.  

Combining Figures 4.9-4.11, it is not surprising to find that the high assets-turnover ratio of large 
mid-caps  in  the  Netherlands  is  due  to  their  high  labour  productivity,  whereas  the  relatively  high 
assets-turnover ratio of large mid-caps in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Croatia is most 
likely because of their very low total assets intensities. In contrast, small mid-caps tend to be more 
efficient  than  the  average  level  in  some  countries,  such  as  Finland,  Lithuania,  Slovakia,  and  the 
Netherlands, while they are less efficient than the average in some other countries (e.g., Germany, 
Denmark, and France). The mixed pattern of mid-caps’ assets-turnover ratio suggests the need to 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

assess  mid-caps’  performance  by  EU  member  state  due  to  mid-caps  specific  features  in  different 
countries.  

Figure 4.8. Labour productivity of mid-caps by EU member states 

1,000 EUR 
900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

NL DK IE AT BE IT FR EU DE SE FI ES CY SI EL CZ PT PL SK EE HU HR RO LV LT BG

250-499

500-1499

All firms (10+)

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: Ranked by the asset intensity of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). All firms (10+) category includes all firms with more than 10 
employees (SMEs and large firms, excluding micros). Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. 

Figure 4.9. Assets-turnover ratio of mid-caps by EU member state 

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

SK PL RO AT LT EE FI NL HU LV PT BG ES SE EU BE CZ DE EL IT DK HR FR IE SI CY

250-499

500-1499

All firms (10+)

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: Ranked by the asset turnover of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). All firms (10+) category includes all firms with more than 10 
employees (SMEs and large firms, excluding micros). Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. 

Looking  at  the  efficiency  ratio  of  mid-caps  in  Figure  4.10,  there  are  also  large  variations  across 
countries and between firm size groups. Therefore, it is not easy to find a common pattern across all 
countries. Generally, small mid-caps tend to be less efficient in using assets to generate cash flow 
than the average level of SMEs and large firms (excluding micros). Large mid-caps tend to be more 
efficient  than  the  average  level  in  some  countries,  such  as  Croatia,  Slovenia,  Italy,  and  Greece. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

However, the reasons of their high efficiency ratios are different. For example, in Croatia, the high 
efficiency ratio is driven by large mid-caps in the Cultural and Creative Industries ecosystem.9 While 
in Slovenia, it is mainly driven by large mid-caps in the Agri-food ecosystem. On the other hand, 
large mid-caps are less efficient than the average in many other countries, e.g., Ireland, Denmark, 
and Germany. Also, large mid-caps tend to be more efficient than small mid-caps in many countries. 
The two obvious exceptions are large mid-caps in Finland and the Netherlands, where large mid-caps 
are the least efficient.  

Figure 4.10. Efficiency ratio of mid-caps by EU member states 

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

EE BG PT RO SK ES PL FI SE AT CZ HU IE BE HR EU IT NL SI DE FR EL DK

250-499

500-1499

All firms (10+)

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: Ranked by the efficiency ratio of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). All firms (10+) category includes all firms with more than 10 
employees (SMEs and large firms, excluding micros). Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. No data on the cash flow of 
small mid-caps in Denmark. 

Mid-caps’  profitability  is  another  important  economic  performance  variable  (Figure  4.11).  Profit 
margin is computed as a firm’s net income over its turnover in 2019. Overall, firms with 10 and more 
employees  on  average  have  high  profit  margins  in Cyprus  (18%)  and Ireland  (15%),  followed  by 
firms in the Netherlands (9%) and Sweden (9%).  

The very high profit margins in Cyprus and Ireland could be linked to the low corporate tax rates in 
these two countries which make them attractive to FDI (for a review of international evidence on the 
impact of corporate taxation on attractiveness to FDI, see for example Davies et al. 2021). 

In terms of small mid-caps, their profit margins are higher in Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Sweden, and 
Estonia, while profit margins are lower in France, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, and Greece. Large 
mid-caps in the Netherlands tend to have a very high profit margin (17%), followed by mid-caps in 
Ireland and Sweden, with profit margins around 10%. The high profit margin of large mid-caps in 
the Netherlands is driven by large mid-caps in the Agri-food ecosystem (21% profit margin) and the 
Health ecosystem (49% profit margin). Comparing small mid-caps and large mid-caps, and mid-caps 
and the average level of all SMEs and large firms (excluding micros), the pattern is mixed, as shown 
in Figure 4.11. In general, small mid-caps, large mid-caps and other firms in the same country tend 
to have similar profit margins with few exceptions. 

9 See next section for the definition of ecosystems used in this study. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.11. Profit margin of mid-caps by EU member states 

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

CY IE LV SE ES SI CZ NL EE BG HR PT DK LT BE EU PL AT IT RO FI FR DE SK HU EL

250-499

500-1499

All firms (10+)

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

Note: Ranked by the profit margin of small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). All firms (10+) category includes all firms with more than 10 
employees (SMEs and large firms, excluding micros). Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. 

In summary, perhaps the most striking result from these comparisons is the wide range of values 
for all performance indicators of mid-caps across EU member states. One possible reason could be 
related  to  firms’  ownership  structure.  A  large  body  of  international  evidence  has  established  that 
foreign-owned  firms  are  more  productive  than  domestic  firms,  as  foreign  direct  investment  is 
associated  with  new  technologies  and  managerial  know-how  (see  for  example  reviews  of  this 
international evidence by Bloom et al. 2012 and Schiffbauer et al. 2017). 

4.4  Mapping of mid-caps by industrial ecosystem 

The considerable variation in performance of mid-caps in the same country, as seen in the previous 
sub-section, points to the importance of mid-caps’ sectoral affiliation for economic performance. To 
complete  the  picture,  we  turn  now  to  analysing  the  features  of  mid-caps  in  2019  by  industrial 
ecosystems. 

The ecosystems approach aims to integrate activities that are often considered ancillary to the core 
industry  sector,  such  as  the  supply  of  raw  materials,  research  and  innovation,  the  provision  of 
business services, or the access to distribution networks. Thus, industrial ecosystems highlight the 
interconnected character of diverse economic actors – horizontally and vertically. The concept was 
introduced by the European Commission in the March 2020 Industrial Strategy, and the 14 industrial 
ecosystems were defined in the May 2020 Commission Staff Working Document “Identifying Europe's 
recovery  needs”.  The  Annual  Single  Market  Report  2021  (European  Commission  2021a)  provided 
first analysis of the challenges faced by industrial ecosystems. The ORBIS data includes all relevant 
NACE  2-digit  sectors  for  the  construction  of  the  industrial  ecosystems  proposed  by  the  European 
Commission except one (Accommodation and food service activities) as there is no observation in 
this sector in the ORBIS data.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Fourteen ecosystems are identified and used in this study based on their economic and technological 
relevance: 

E01: Aerospace & Defence 
E02: Agri-food 
E03: Construction 
E04: Cultural and Creative Industries 
E05: Digital 
E06: Electronics 
E07: Energy - Renewables 

E08: Energy-Intensive Industries 
E09: Health 
E10: Mobility - Transport - Automotive 
E11: Proximity, Social Economy and Civil Security 
E12: Retail 
E13: Textile 
E14: Tourism 

The concordance between the defined industrial ecosystems and the NACE Rev.2 sectors is given in 
Table A6 in Appendix A. The share assigned to each NACE Rev.2 sector is also reported in the table, 
representing a sector’s contribution to the corresponding industrial ecosystem. In order to provide a 
higher comparability between the two studies, in this study such shares are identical to those used 
in the aforementioned EC Annual Single Market Report. All statistics are weighted in the same way 
as in the previous sections. 

We start our analysis by examining the share of mid-caps in each industrial ecosystem in 2019. As 
before, we look at the share of mid-caps in the number of enterprise entities, mid-caps’ employment 
share in the total employment of an ecosystem, and finally, mid-caps’ turnover share in the total 
turnover  generated  by  an  ecosystem.  Figures  4.12  and  4.13  summarise  the  findings;  detailed 
statistics are listed in Tables A18 – A20 in Appendix A. 

In general, mid-caps employ a considerable share of the workforce across all ecosystems. In terms 
of the share of mid-caps, Figure 4.13 show that in the ecosystems Electronics (E06), Aerospace & 
Defence (E01), Energy Intensive Industries (E08), Energy-Renewables (E07), and Health (E09) small 
mid-caps tend to have a higher share than in other ecosystems. These ecosystems also tend to have 
larger mid-caps than other ecosystems.  

Figure 4.12. Share of mid-caps in the total number of firms by industrial ecosystem  

1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%

E6

E1

E8

E7

E9

E13

E5

E11

E10

E2

E4

E14

E3

E12

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database  and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  Europe  database  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  
Aerospace  &  Defence  (E01),  Agri-food  (E02),  Construction  (E03),  Cultural  and  Creative  Industries  (E04),  Digital  (E05),  Electronics  (E06),  Energy-
Renewables (E07), Energy Intensive Industries (E08), Health (E09), Mobility-Transport-Automotive (E10), Proximity, Social Economy, and Civil Security 
(E11), Retail (E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). Ranked by the share of small mid-caps. 

For  example,  Electronics  has  a  share  of  0.72%  small  mid-caps  and  0.43%  large  mid-caps, 
respectively, the highest figures across all ecosystems. In comparison, Retail (E12) has only a share 
of 0.06% small and 0.04% large mid-caps (6 and 4 firms per 10k firms). Furthermore, Electronics 
(E06), Aerospace & Defence (E01), and Energy-Renewables (E07) also have higher shares of very 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

large mid-caps and firms with 3,000+ employees. In terms of employment and turnover shares, all 
mid-caps,  either  small,  large,  or  very  large,  show  a  certain  high  level  of  importance  in  several 
ecosystems. Figure 4.13 provides the shares of firms in different size classes on overall employment 
and turnover. The difference to 100% employment is delivered by micro firms. As shown in Figure 
4.13,  small  mid-caps  tend  to  account  for  higher  employment  shares  in  Electronics  (E06),  Energy 
Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Energy  -  Renewables  (E07),  Aerospace  &  Defence  (E01),  and  Health 
(E09), and they also tend to generate a higher turnover share in Energy - Renewables (E07), Energy 
Intensive Industries (E08), Electronics (E06), Digital (E05) and Health (E09). This pattern generally 
also holds if we look at large mid-caps instead of small mid-caps. 

Figure 4.13. Share of total employees and share of total turnover in mid-caps by ecosystem  

Share of total employees 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

E6

E8

E7

E1

E9

E13

E2

E5

E11

E10

E4

E14

E3

E12

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Share of total turnover 

E7

E8

E6

E5

E9

E2

E13

E1

E4

E10

E12

E11

E3

E14

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12),  Textile  (E13),  and  Tourism  (E14).  SMEs  exclude micro  firms.  Micro  firms  provide  the  remaining  share  of employment  and  turnover  of  each 
ecosystem. 

Taking the above statistics together, EU mid-caps form a highly important group in the ecosystems 
Electronics  (E06),  Energy-Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Energy-Renewables  (E07),  Health  (E09), 
Aerospace & Defence (E01) and Digital (E05) in terms of their shares in the number of enterprises, 
employment, and turnover. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

We further analyse performance indicators for mid-caps by industrial ecosystems. For consistency, 
we also examine the following performance indicators by ecosystem: assets intensity (total assets 
per  employee),  labour  productivity  (turnover  per  employee),  assets  turnover  ratio  (turnover  over 
total  assets),  efficiency  ratio  (cash  flow  over  total  asset)  and  profit  margin  (net  income  over 
turnover).  Statistics  are  also  weighted  as  in  previous  sections.  Figures  4.14  –  4.18  plot  these 
performance indicators by firm size group and by ecosystems. The main findings are summarised 
below. 

We start with labour productivity. The variation of labour productivity is much more significant across 
ecosystems  than  within  ecosystems  across  firm  size  groups.  The  Energy-Renewables  ecosystem 
(E07), and Energy Intensive Industries (E08) have the highest labour productivity, followed by firms 
in the Mobility-Transport-Automotive (E10) and Retail (E12). SMEs (excluding micros) in the Energy-
Renewables ecosystem have very high labour productivity (661k EUR per employee in 2019). Small 
mid-caps (503k euro), large mid-caps (569k euro) also have high labour productivity, higher than 
that of firms with 3,000+ employees (323k EUR) but lower than the labour productivity of very large 
mid-caps (595k euro). In some ecosystems, labour productivity is increasing in firms’ size, e.g., E5 
Digital,  E6  Electronics,  E8  Energy  Intensive  Industries  and  E13  Textile.  While  in  some  other 
ecosystems labour productivity is decreasing in firms’ size (E3 Construction, E4 Cultural and Creative 
Industries, E12 Retail and E14 Tourism), which means that SMEs in these ecosystems have higher 
labour productivity than large firms.   

Figure 4.14. Labour productivity of mid-caps by ecosystem 

1,000 EUR 
700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

E01

E02

E03

E04

E05

E06

E07

E08

E09

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

In terms of asset intensity, it is not surprising that the ecosystem E07 Energy-Renewables is the one 
most intensive in assets. This is consistent with previous findings that labour productivity is also the 
highest in this ecosystem, as often, a firm’s labour productivity would be high if it is asset intensive. 
It is also interesting that firms with 3,000+ employees are the most asset intensive group in many 
ecosystems, such as E01, E02, E04, E05, E06, E09 and E10. Large mid-caps also tend to be very 
asset-intensive compared to firms in other size groups. Very large mid-caps, however, tend to be 
less asset intensive than large mid-caps in many ecosystems, except E07 Energy-Renewables and 
E08 Energy Intensive Industries.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

In  the  previous  sub-sections,  we  found  that  mid-caps  tend  to  be  less  efficient  in  using  assets  to 
generate turnover and cash-flow. We found that the pattern of efficiency ratio still broadly holds in 
most  ecosystems  (Figure  4.16).  For  example,  SMEs  (excluding  micros)  and  firms  with  3,000+ 
employees tend to have higher efficiency ratios than mid-caps (small, large, and very large ones) in 
the Energy-Renewables ecosystem. Also, in the Aerospace & Defence (E01) and Electronics (E06) 
ecosystems,  SMEs  (excluding  micros)  are  most  efficient  compared  to  large  firms.  However,  some 
exceptions could also be found, for example in Tourism (E14), where large mid-caps are the most 
efficient to generate cash flow, followed by very large mid-caps and small mid-caps.  

Figure 4.15. Asset intensity of mid-caps by ecosystem 

1,000 EUR 
1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

E01

E02

E03

E04

E05

E06

E07

E08

E09

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

The  pattern  of  assets  turnover  is  more  complex.  Assets  turnover  ratios  are  similar  for  SMEs 
(excluding micros), small mid-caps, large and very large mid-caps in many ecosystems, such as E01, 
E05, E08, E09 and E14. SMEs (excluding micros) and mid-caps in these ecosystems are more efficient 
in  using  assets  to  generate  turnover  than  firms  with  3,000+  employees.  Specifically,  the  SMEs 
(excluding  micros)  in  E10  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  have  the  highest  assets  turnover  ratio 
among all firms, 1.9 EUR of turnover per 1 EUR of total assets.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.16. Asset turnover of mid-caps by ecosystem 

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

E01

E02

E03

E04

E05

E06

E07

E08

E09

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

On the other side, firms with 3,000+ employees in E11 Proximity, Social Economy and Civil 
Security, and E13 Textile are very efficient in generating turnover, while SMEs (excluding micros) 
and other large firms in these two ecosystems are much less efficient. All firms in E12 Retail are 
quite efficient compared to firms in other ecosystems. 

Figure 4.17. Efficiency ratio of mid-caps by ecosystem 

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

E01

E02

E03

E04

E05

E06

E07

E08

E09

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). One firm in E3 with 3,000+ employment is excluded for a better presentation. It has efficiency ratio close to 
50%, which brings the average efficiency ratio of this category to become 34%.  

Profit margin (Figure 4.18) is another important performance indicator, and we close this sub-section 
with it. As shown in Figure 4.18, the pattern is very informative. The most eye-catching columns are 
profit margins of firms with 3,000+ employees in E02 Agri-food, E05 Digital, E09 Health and E13 
Textile, which are close to or above 12%. The profit margins of other firms and in other ecosystems 
are just around 5%. However, firms with 3,000+ employees in E04 Cultural and Creative Industries 
and E06 Electronics have very low profit margins (close to 1%), and their margin is even negative 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

1% in E08 Energy Intensive Industries. In terms of small and large mid-caps, their profit margins 
are  around  4%  and  are  close  to  SMEs  (excluding  micros)  and  very  large  mid-caps  in  most 
ecosystems. Small, large, and very large mid-caps in E09 Health and large mid-caps in E13 Textile 
tend  to have  slightly  higher  profit  margins  (6%).  SMEs (excluding micros) in  E06  Electronics  also 
tend to have a slightly higher margin. This pattern suggests that these firms in some ecosystems are 
very profitable, comparing to the market average.  

Figure 4.18. Profit margin of mid-caps by ecosystem 

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

-2%

E01

E02

E03

E04

E05

E06

E07

E08

E09

E10

E11

E12

E13

E14

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

4.5 

Foreign ownership in mid-cap firms 

Next, we examine foreign ownership by firm size group across EU27 member states. We separate 
foreign ownership by the location of the ultimate owners (parent companies that hold at least 50.1% 
share of a company): ultimate owners in an EU27 member state other than the home country (intra-
EU), and ultimate owners in non-EU27 member states (extra-EU). The data suggests that foreign 
ownership tends to increase with firm size. A significantly lower proportion of SMEs (excluding micro 
firms) is owned by foreign companies compared to large firms. As shown in Figure 4.19, 15.7% of 
SMEs  are  foreign  owned,  of  which  5.3%  by  parent  companies  in  other  EU27  member  states  and 
10.4% by parent companies in countries outside EU27.  

Small,  large,  and  very  large  mid-caps  tend  to  have  a  slightly  higher  share  of  extra-EU  foreign 
ownership than firms with 3,000+ employees, whereas firms with 3,000+ employees have a higher 
share  of  foreign  ultimate  owners  in  other  EU  member  states.  Thus,  the  data  clearly  indicate  the 
foreign  ownership  is  important  in  the  mid-caps  segment,  and  more  important  than  in  the  SMEs 
segment  and  among  the  largest  firms.  Moreover,  being  a  domestically  owned  mid-cap  does  not 
indicate that the company is independent, maybe family-owned; domestically owned firms can also 
be owned by another company. The data provide no further information on the ownership status of 
these  firms.  There  are  ongoing  activities  at  Eurostat  to  collect  this  ownership  information  in  a 
statistical database10. 

Figure 4.20 below compares the importance of foreign ownership in small mid-caps, large mid-caps, 
and  all  firms  with  10  or  more  employees  (SMEs  and  large  firms,  excluding  micros)  for  each  EU 
member state. The figure suggests that companies in some countries are more likely to be foreign-
owned on average than companies in other countries. There is also a significant variation of intra-EU 
and extra-EU foreign ownership across countries and firm size groups. For example, according to the 

10 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/statistical-business-registers/eurogroups-register 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

analysed  data,  70%  of  companies  in  Estonia  are  owned  by  foreign  companies  (12%  by  parent 
companies in other EU member states, and 58% by parent companies outside the EU). 60% of firms 
in  Luxembourg  (25%  intra-EU,  35%  extra-EU),  59%  of  firms  in  Portugal  (6%  intra-EU  and  53% 
extra-EU), and 60% of companies in Ireland are foreign-owned (4% intra-EU and 56% extra-EU). In 
contrast, less than 10% of SMEs and large companies in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, 
and Austria are foreign-owned, where around half of them are owned by parent firms in other EU27 
countries, and the remaining half are owned by parent firms located outside the EU. 

Figure 4.19. Domestic and foreign ownership by size group 

11.9%

12.7%

12.0%

13.7%

13.2%

14.3%

8.4%

15.9%

75.3%

74.2%

72.5%

75.7%

10.4%

5.3%

84.2%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Domestic

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

In addition, in some EU member states a higher share of mid-caps tend to be foreign-owned than 
the  average  of  all  SMEs  and  large  firms  (excluding  micros).  For  instance,  65%  of  small  mid-caps 
(41%  intra-EU,  24%  extra-EU)  and  68%  of  large  mid-caps  (36%  intra-EU,  32%  extra-EU)  are 
foreign-owned in Hungary, while on average only 21% of all SMEs and large companies are owned 
by  foreign  companies  (13%  intra-EU,  8%  extra-EU).  Similar  patterns  are  also  observed  in  many 
other countries, e.g.,  Romania, Belgium, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic. On the other hand, in 
some countries, the share of foreign-owned firms in the mid-caps category is lower than the average 
share among all firms. For example, this pattern is found in Estonia, Portugal, Finland, and Spain. 

Having looked at the share of mid-caps, we examine next foreign ownership by industrial ecosystem. 
Looking  at  the  share  of  foreign-owned  mid-caps  in  Figure  4.21,  again,  there  is  a  considerable 
variation across ecosystems and between firms with different sizes within the same ecosystem. As 
before,  foreign  ownership  is  partitioned  by  intra-EU  (rest  of  EU)  and  extra-EU,  depending  on  the 
location of the ultimate owner. Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), Energy-
Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10)  and  Textile (E13)  tend  to  have  a 
higher  share  of  foreign-owned  companies  compared  to  other  ecosystems.  Health  (E09)  has  the 
lowest share of foreign ownership, less than 10% for all firm size groups. Overall, small mid-caps 
and large mid-caps have a higher share of foreign-owned companies than SMEs (excluding micros), 
and  firms  with  3,000+  employees.  Very  large  mid-caps  tend  to  have the  highest  share  of  foreign 
ownership among all firm size groups. Specifically, the share of foreign-owned very large mid-caps 
in Textile (E13) is 56%. 

If we look at the proportion of intra-EU and extra-EU foreign ownership, firms in Cultural and Creative 
Industries (E4), Digital (E5) and Electronics (E6) tend to have higher shares of extra-EU than intra-
EU  foreign  ownership.  On  the  other  hand,  firms  in  Energy-Renewables  (E07),  Energy-  Intensive 
Industries (E08), and Mobility-Transport-Automotive (E10) are more likely to be owned by parent 
companies located in another EU27 country than in a country outside the EU. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.20. Foreign ownership (intra-EU and extra-EU) of mid-caps by EU member states  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

U
L

K
S

U
H

E
E

Z
C

E
I

O
R

Y
C

L
P

E
B

R
H

T
P

T
L

I
S

L
E

V
L

G
B

I
F

K
D

S
E

E
S

T
A

T
I

L
N

R
F

E
D

U
E

250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)
250-499
500-1499
All firms (10+)

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: Countries are ranked by the share of foreign ownership of 
small mid-caps (firms with 250-499 employees). All firms (10+) 
category includes all firms with more than 10 employees (SMEs 
and  large  firms,  excluding  micros).  Malta  is  excluded  due  to 
limited  observations.  The  darker  colour  in  each  bar  indicates 
intra-EU foreign-ownership, the lighter colour indicates extra-EU 
foreign-ownership.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.21. Foreign ownership of mid-caps by industrial ecosystem 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1
E

2
E

3
E

4
E

5
E

6
E

7
E

8
E

9
E

0
1
E

1
1
E

2
1
E

3
1
E

4
1
E

sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+
sme
250-499
500-1499
1500-2999
3000+

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS 
Europe  database  and  the  EC  Annual  Single 
Market Report 2021.  

Notes: All firms with non-missing employment 
information  in  2019  in  the  ORBIS  Europe 
database  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The 
ecosystems  are  Aerospace  &  Defence  (E01), 
Agri-food  (E02),  Construction  (E03),  Cultural 
and  Creative  Industries  (E04),  Digital  (E05), 
Electronics  (E06),  Energy-Renewables  (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health 
(E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10), 
Proximity,  Social  Economy  and  Civil  Security 
(E11), Retail (E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism 
(E14). 

Intra-EU

Extra-EU

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

4.6  Growth patterns of mid-caps  

Static indicators are very useful to describe the EU mid-caps’ economic performance in recent years. 
In addition, dynamic indicators help to understand how mid-caps will evolve over time and provide 
insights  on  mid-caps’  possible  development  in  the  near  future.  In  this  sub-section,  we  track  the 
growth of mid-caps and analyse the evolution of their employment and turnover over time. To track 
the growth of each firm, we add a few more steps to the extraction procedure of the data from the 
ORBIS  Europe  database.  These  additional  steps  significantly  improve  the  quality  of  the  data  and 
enable  us  to  include  more  firms  in  the  analysis.  Details  of  the  additional  steps  are  described  in 
Appendix A. We discuss mid-caps’ growth by EU member state and by ecosystem. 

The first question we ask is how a mid-cap grows over time. Looking at mid-caps in 2019, how many 
of them were already mid-caps three or five years ago? How many of them scaled-up from SMEs or 
even micro firms during the past three or five years? How many of them shrank from larger firms? 

To answer these questions, we first select small and large mid-caps (firms with 250-499 and with 
500-1,499 employees, respectively) in 2019, defining them as the cohort of mid-caps of interest (the 
extraction procedure is identical to that used in the previous analyses). We then examine in which 
firm size group these mid-caps were found three or five years ago. We also track their employment 
and turnover figures for five years backwards and compute the growth rates of the number of their 
employees and turnover. 

Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23 present the status of mid-caps three years ago in the left panel and four 
years ago in the right panel. Figure 4.22 focuses on small mid-caps, while Figure 4.23 shows the 
historical status of large mid-caps. All results are weighted using weights as described in the previous 
sections. 

The left panel of Figure 4.22 suggests that over two thirds (64.6%) of all small mid-caps in 2019 
were already small mid-caps three years ago. 19.8% of these mid-caps scaled-up from SMEs, and 
3.6% of them shrank from firms with 500+ employees. Interestingly, 0.7% of the small mid-caps 
were just micro firms with 10 or less employees three years ago, thus revealing an impressive growth 
performance. If we look at the right panel, 46.9% of small mid-caps were already small mid-caps 
five years ago, 26% of mid-caps scaled up from SMEs and 4.4% of them shrank from large mid-
caps. 1% of mid-caps scaled up from micro firms during the past five years. All two figures indicate 
that it is virtually impossible to fall back from a very large mid-cap or large firm into the small mid-
cap category. Thus, structural change seems to go only in one direction. If large firms fail, market 
exit is more likely than shrinking. 

If we consider large mid-caps (500-1,499 employees), the cohort of mid-caps group appears more 
stable over time. Figure 4.23 shows in the left panel that 71.9% of large mid-caps were already large 
mid-caps three years ago, 13.8% of them scaled up from small mid-caps, 2.9% scaled up from SMEs, 
and 0.5% of them scaled up from micro firms over the past three years. Around 1.6% of them shrank 
from very large mid-caps (firms with 1,500+ employees). The right panel of the same figure suggests 
that 55.1% of large mid-caps were already in the same size group five years ago, 17.9% of them 
scaled up from small mid-caps, 5% from SMEs and 0.9% scaled up from micro firms. There is also 
1.8% of large mid-caps that shrank from very large mid-caps (1,500 to 3,000 employees) over the 
past 5 years. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure  4.22.  Status  of  mid-caps  three  years  ago  (left)  and  five  years  ago  (right)  (Small 
mid-caps: 250-500 employees in 2019) 

11.2%

0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.6%

19.8%

1.0%

26.0%

21.7%

0.0%

0.0%

4.4%

64.6%

46.9%

Micro

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

Micro

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999 3000+

Missing

1500-2999 3000+

Missing

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

Figure  4.23.  Status  of mid-caps  three  years  ago  (left)  and  five  years  ago  (right)  (Large 
mid-caps: 500-1,500 employees in 2019) 

9.4%

0.5%

2.9%

0.9%

5.0%

0.0%

1.6%

13.8%

19.2%

17.9%

0.0%

1.8%

71.9%

55.1%

Micro

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

Micro

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999 3000+

Missing

1500-2999 3000+

Missing

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

In summary, the above figures indicate that mid-caps are a relatively stable group of firms, as many 
of them are staying in this category for a relatively long time. A certain proportion of mid-caps are 
firms that scaled-up from SMEs over the previous 3 or 5 years, while only a tiny fraction of them 
shrank from larger firms during the analysed period. Thus, moving from being a large firm to being 
mid-cap is not very likely. Scaling up from being a micro-firm to mid-cap is also not very likely. Next, 
we further examine these fast-growing firms –  firms that scaled-up from micro firms to mid-caps 
during the past 3 or 5 years. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Fast-growing firms 

As  shown  in  Figures  4.22 and  4.23, there  are  some  firms  that  scaled up  fast from  micro  firms  to 
become mid-caps in the past 3 or 5 years. We provide some additional information on these firms 
below.  

We identified 483 firms in the data that have grown very fast from micro-firms to either small mid-
caps or large mid-caps within the past 5 years. The data shows that 30% of these firms are in Poland, 
14% are in Italy, 9% of them are in Romania, and 8% are in Spain. Around 6% of these fast-growing 
firms  are  in  Germany  and  5%  in  France.  Looking  at  the  ecosystems  they  are  in,  18%  are  in  E11 
Proximity, Social Economy and Civil Security, followed by 14% in E4 Cultural and Creative Industries. 
There are also around 10% of them in E1 Aerospace & Defence, E3 Construction and E14 Tourism 
each. 

Looking at the data, the number of employees of these fast-growing firms jumped from a single digit 
to over 250 in just one year in many cases, which might be the result of mergers and acquisitions 
(M&As). To verify this, we search the identifier of the fast-growing firms in the Zephyr data base on 
M&As:  we  found  17%  of  them  (or  83  firms)  were  involved  in  M&A  cases  as  either  an  acquiror,  a 
target or a vendor. 

Mid-caps’ growth rates 

Mid-caps’  employment  and  turnover  growth  rates  provide  useful  information.  We  summarize  our 
findings in the following tables and figures. We first present the overall pattern of all mid-caps across 
all  EU  member  states.  We  then  disaggregate  our  analysis  by  EU  member  state  and  then  by 
ecosystem.  In  each  set  of  analysis,  the  top  and  the  bottom  2.5%  of  the  data  are  winsorized  to 
eliminate outliers.   

Since there is a high skewness in the distribution of growth rates, we report median values instead 
of the means. In general, the growth rates of large mid-caps are slightly lower than those of small 
mid-caps. The median annual employment growth rate of mid-caps in EU27 member states over the 
past 5 years is 3% for small mid-caps and 2.7% for large mid-caps. This finding suggests that half 
of the small (or large) mid-caps have employment growth faster than 3% (or 2.7%) and half of them 
have rates lower than this number. 

Next, we examine mid-caps’ growth rates by country. We focus on the figures of small mid-caps, as 
those of large mid-caps are similar. The first column in Table 4.1 lists the median employment growth 
rates of small mid-caps’ in EU member states. The second column in Table 4.1 shows the median of 
small  mid-caps’  turnover  growth  rates.  To  compare  our  figures  to  the  general  growth  rates  of  all 
firms and to micro firms, SMEs, and all large firms, we also present the average annual employment 
growth rate of firms by size group in the last four columns in the same table. As it is not feasible to 
compute the growth rate of SMEs and micro firms in ORBIS Europe database, we use the average 
annual employment growth rate between 2015-2019 reported by the Eurostat SBS data. However, 
the turnover growth is not available in SBS, therefore, the comparison of turnover growth between 
mid-caps and all firms could not be included in this report. 

The employment growth rates vary a lot by EU member state, as seen in the first column in Table 
4.1. Generally, employment growth rates are lower in the Central European member states than in 
the southern parts and eastern parts of the EU. Ireland is an exception. Focusing on small mid-caps, 
mid-caps in Ireland have the highest employment growth, 6.1% annually, followed by mid-caps in 
Spain (5.6%) and Portugal (5.3%).  

Comparing these figures to the general growth rate of all firms, the data suggests that mid-cap grow 
faster than the average for the total firm population in most EU member states. Moreover, both small 
and large mid-caps grow relatively faster than micro firms in most countries between 2015 and 2019, 
and they also growth faster than SMEs in some countries in this period. However, the comparison 
shall be read with caution as figures in the first two columns in Table 4.1 are the medium growth 
rates of small mid-caps, and the next two columns in Table 4.1 are the medium growth rates of large 
mid-caps, while the last four columns in Table 4.1 are the mean growth rate of all firms. Although 
the mean values would be close to medium values when there are many observations, discrepancies 
may  appear.  Additionally,  the  data  coverage  of  the  ORBIS  Europe  and  the  SBS  databases  is  not 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

identical, which may introduce some incomparability of the figures. Nevertheless, Table 4.1 presents 
the general idea that mid-caps tend to grow faster than the general average across all firms. 

Table 4.1. Growth performance of mid-caps by EU member state 

Small mid-caps 

Large mid-caps 

Overall  Micros  SMEs  Large 

Employment  Turnover 

Employment  Turnover 

Employment 

(median) 

(median) 

(median) 

(median) 

(mean) 

EU27 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

3 

2.3 

2 

2.7 

. 

Czech Republic  1.6 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

2.9 

2.6 

2.7 

5.6 

2 

1.7 

4.2 

1.8 

2.5 

6.1 

3.7 

2.4 

2.7 

2.3 

. 

3 

2.4 

5.3 

4.4 

2.9 

3.4 

1.7 

5.2 

3.9 

3.5 

7.2 

8.5 

8.8 

4.2 

3.3 

6.8 

6.8 

4 

3.8 

6.4 

5.2 

6 

7.6 

5.2 

7.9 

3.8 

7.7 

. 

4.8 

7.9 

6.8 

8.6 

2.9 

6 

5.3 

2.7 

1.8 

2.1 

1.6 

. 

0 

2.8 

2.2 

3 

6 

2.6 

1.7 

4.4 

2.6 

2.1 

6.2 

3.3 

2.6 

1.5 

4.5 

. 

4.8 

2.3 

4.3 

4.1 

2.4 

1.9 

1.5 

5 

3.7 

3.7 

6.3 

3.5 

8.6 

4.3 

3.4 

5.3 

6.9 

5.3 

3.4 

5.7 

5.5 

6.1 

7.6 

4.8 

8.7 

4 

9.1 

. 

4.5 

7.9 

5.7 

7.7 

1.8 

3.7 

4.4 

2.4 

1.9 

1.6 

1.3 

6.5 

1.5 

2.6 

1.8 

1.6 

4.1 

1.3 

0.6 

3.8 

2.2 

3.5 

5.7 

1.5 

2.3 

3.5 

0.6 

6.3 

2.8 

3.6 

4.2 

1.3 

2.4 

3.1 

2.7 

0.3 

0.3 

0.5 

1.3 

5.5 

0.7 

1.1 

1.2 

2.4 

1.3 

-1.3 

2.4 

5.3 

-2.9 

15.9 

-0.9 

4.7 

1.2 

5.3 

1.2 

1.4 

2.7 

2.4 

5.1 

1.7 

1.8 

10.6 

2.5 

5.4 

2.3 

0.7 

7.4 

1.7 

-5.0 

-0.7 

8.7 

1.1 

4.0 

3.4 

2.7 

-0.4 

3.4 

1.9 

-0.1 

5.6 

1.9 

2.3 

3.0 

2.0 

12.3 

3.0 

3.5 

2.5 

5.9 

1.8 

0.4 

2.6 

0.6 

6.8 

2.2 

9.2 

4.3 

0.7 

3.1 

4.8 

10.2 

3.3 

4.3 

5.4 

2.4 

7.4 

3.9 

5.0 

. 

1.9 

-2.7 

-0.5 

11.6 

2.2 

3.8 

4.1 

1.2 

3.7 

2.0 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the Eurostat SBS database.  

Notes: Employment and turnover growth rates of mid-caps are the median annual growth rates in a country between 2015-2019, computed from firm 
level data in  the ORBIS Europe database. To eliminate outliers, the top and bottom 2.5% of the data in each country are winsorized. Employment 
growth rates of all firms are the mean values between 2015-2019 reported in the SBS database. 

In terms of annual turnover growth, turnover growth rates of small mid-caps are higher in Eastern 
European  member  states than in the  Central  European  member  states  (see  Table  4.1).  But  small 
mid-caps in Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, also have relatively high turnover growth. Small mid-caps 
in  Czech  Republic  (8.8%)  have  the  highest  growth  rates  followed  by  small  mid-caps  in  Romania 
(8.6%)  and  Cyprus  (8.5%).  Mid-caps  in  Sweden  (2.9%)  and  Denmark  (3.3%)  have  the  lowest 
turnover growths in the past 5 years. This finding is not so surprising as mid-caps in Scandinavian 
countries are already quite advanced in terms of production.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Looking at large mid-caps, figures in Table 4.1 show that large mid-caps in Ireland and Spain have 
the highest annual growth rate of employment during the past 5 years, 6.2% and 6.0% respectively, 
while the employment growth rates for large mid-caps in Slovakia, Luxembourg, and Bulgaria are 
low (around 1.5%). Looking at annual growth rates of turnover, large mid-caps in Latvia (9.1%) and 
Lithuania 8.7%) have the highest growth rates, while the growth rates are lower for large mid-caps 
in Sweden (4.8%), Denmark (3.4%), and France (6.4%). 

The results of a similar analysis on the growth rates of mid-caps by ecosystem are reported in Table 
4.2. The left panel of the table reports the statistics of small mid-caps, and the right panel of the 
table reports statistics of large mid-caps. Similar to the findings in our analysis at country level, mid-
caps’ annual growth rates are quite heterogeneous across ecosystems. Traditional industries such as 
Energy Intensive Industries (E08), Energy-Renewables (E07), and Textile (E13) tend to have lower 
growth. On contrary, growth rates of mid-caps in new and high-tech industries would be higher. Data 
suggests that mid-caps (either small mid-caps or large mid-caps) in the E05 Digital ecosystem have 
both the highest growth of employment and turnover. 

In terms of annual employment growth, small mid-caps in the ecosystem E5 Digital (5.14%) have 
the  highest  rates.  However,  mid-caps  in  the  E08  Energy  Intensive  Industries  (1.43%)  and  E07 
Energy-Renewables (1.67%) have low employment growth rates. On the other side, small mid-caps 
in the ecosystem E05 Digital have the highest annual turnover growth, 7.83% per year, followed by 
mid-caps in the E03 Construction. Small mid-caps in the ecosystems E08 Energy Intensive Industries 
(3.31%),  E13  Textile  (3.33%),  and  E07  Energy-Renewables  (1.67%)  have  low  turnover  growth 
rates. 

Looking  at  large  mid-caps,  they  have  the  highest  employment  growth  rate  in  the  E05  Digital 
ecosystem (5.76%), while those in the E13 Textile ecosystem grow slowest (0.10%). Further, large 
mid-caps  in  the  E05  Digital  (8.47%)  ecosystem  have  the  highest  turnover  annual  growth  rates, 
greater that 8%. While mid-caps in the E07 Energy-Renewables and E13 Textile ecosystems have 
the lowest turnover growth rate, less than 3%. 

Table 4.2. Growth performance of mid-caps by industrial ecosystem 

Small mid-caps 

Ecosystem  Employment  Turnover 

E01 

E02 

E03 

E04 

E05 

E06 

E07 

E08 

E09 

E10 

E11 

E12 

E13 

E14 

3.12 

2.36 

4.11 

4.10 

5.14 

2.71 

1.67 

1.43 

2.71 

3.24 

3.80 

3.17 

1.21 

3.91 

5.98 

4.10 

6.80 

5.99 

7.83 

5.04 

3.73 

3.31 

5.22 

5.58 

5.60 

4.50 

3.33 

5.76 

8.47 

5.83 

6.23 

3.55 

5.37 

  Large mid-caps 
  Employment  Turnover 
  2.87 
  1.57 
  3.85 
  4.60 
  5.76 
  2.17 
  1.34 
  1.27 
  2.15 
  2.91 
  4.29 
  3.64 
  0.10 
  3.89 

4.40 

2.96 

3.21 

5.30 

5.23 

5.67 

4.48 

2.42 

5.83 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes: To eliminate outliers, the top and bottom 2.5% of the data in each ecosystem is winsorized. The ecosystems are: Aerospace & Defence (E01), 
Agri-food  (E02),  Construction  (E03),  Cultural  and  Creative  Industries  (E04),  Digital  (E05),  Electronics  (E06),  Energy-Renewables  (E07),  Energy 
Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy,  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail  (E12), 
Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

4.7  Mid-caps in the EU enlargement countries 

In  this  section,  we  provide  some  information  of  mid-caps  in  the  EU  enlargement  countries.  The 
countries included in the analysis are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North 
Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey. However, the coverage of the ORBIS Europe database appears to be 
poor in a number of EU enlargement countries. For example, in 2019, only around 660 firms in total 
are recorded in Albania in the ORBIS Europe database, 17 in Kosovo, and 46 in Turkey. Therefore, 
we exclude these countries from further analysis.  

To  validate the  quality  of  the  data,  we  also  compare  the  ORBIS  Europe  data to  the  Eurostat  SBS 
data.  The  SBS  data  contains  information  for  three  countries:  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  North 
Macedonia, and Serbia. Comparing the number of firms reported in both datasets, we find that the 
quality  of  the  ORBIS  Europe  data  for  these  countries  is  fairly  good.  Furthermore,  as  before,  we 
construct weights based on the number of companies by firm size category reported in both data. 
Since SBS data does not contain information on Montenegro, we assume its weights to be 1. The 
following statistics are weighted to ensure representativeness. 

Statistics of mid-caps in the EU enlargement countries are reported in Tables 4.3 – 4.6. Table 4.3 
shows  the  share  of  firms  by  size  group  by  country.  Table  4.4  shows  the  employment  share  and 
turnover share of firms by size group and by country. Table 4.5 lists firms’ average labour productivity 
(1,000 of EUR per employee in 2019) by firms’ size and country. Finally, Table 4.6 summarizes the 
share  of  foreign-owned  firms  in these  countries.  As before,  foreign-owned  firms  are  separated  by 
whether  they  are  owned  by  EU  or  non-EU  firms  (intra-EU  and  extra-EU).  In  the  last  row  of  each 
table, the average values of the corresponding statistics in EU27 member states are also listed for 
comparison. 

Looking at the share of firms in EU enlargement countries in Table 4.3, the composition of firms is 
similar to the EU27 average level. Serbia is an exception, as it tends to have a slightly higher share 
of small mid-caps, large  mid-caps, and very large  mid-caps. If  we look at the proportion of firms 
with  3,000+  employees,  the  proportion  of  these  firms  in  Serbia  is  much  higher  than  the  EU27 
average. However, in fact, only 24 firms with 3,000+ employees are reported in ORBIS Europe (5 
are state-owned), which is not so large. Therefore, this pattern is mainly driven by a lower share of 
micro firms in the country, probably because of an under-reporting of micro firms. 

In terms of the employment share and turnover share by firm size group (Table 4.4), the shares in 
EU enlargement countries are similar to the EU27 average, although SMEs and mid-caps in these 
countries tend to account for slightly higher shares. In contrast, micro firms tend to have slightly 
lower shares than the EU27 average level. Especially in Serbia, the employment share and turnover 
share of micro firms are only 13.1% and 11.2%, whereas the EU27 average is 38.2% and 32.0%, 
respectively. Additionally, firms with 3,000+ employees tend to account for lower employment and 
turnover shares in these countries than the EU27 average, except those in Serbia. 

A notable difference in performance indicators of companies in the EU enlargement countries than 
the EU27 average is labour productivity. Companies in the enlargement countries tend to have lower 
labour productivity than the EU27 average. For example, the average labour productivity of small 
mid-caps in these countries are between 60,000-90,000 EUR per employee in 2019 while the EU27 
average is 342,700 EUR per employee. The difference persists in the other size groups as well. Labour 
productivity of companies in all size groups in the EU enlargement countries is around one fifth to 
one third of the EU27 average level. Furthermore, mid-caps in these countries seem to have lower 
labour productivity than SMEs and firms with 3,000+ employees. Table 4.5 presents the numbers. 

Finally, as shown in Table 4.6, companies in all size groups in the EU enlargement countries exhibit 
larger shares of foreign ownership than the EU27 average. For example, the share of foreign-owned 
small and large mid-caps in these countries is close to 40%, while the EU27 average is around 25%. 
More than half of these foreign-owned firms are owned by EU27 firms, comparing to non-EU27 firms. 
In the EU27, the share of intra-EU ownership is 12.7% of all firms, while the share of firms owned 
by  companies  outside  the  EU  is  11.9%.  Some  exceptions  are  micro  firms  and  SMEs  in  North 
Macedonia, and micro firms in Serbia. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Additionally, in Serbia, 10% of small mid-caps, 8% of large mid-caps, 10% of very large mid-caps, 
and 21% of all firms with 3,000+ employees are state-owned, according to the ORBIS Europe data. 
However, the data does not record any state ownership in Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, 
or Montenegro. Furthermore, due to the large number of SMEs and micro firms, it is not feasible to 
compute the proportion of state ownership from the ORBIS Europe data. 

Table 4.3. Share of companies by firm size and by country 

Micro 

SMEs 

250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

(per 100 firms) 

(per 10k firms) 

Bosnia and Herzegovina  92.0 

North Macedonia 

Montenegro 

90.5 

89.8 

7.6 

9.3 

9.9 

23.8 

15.1 

14.3 

Serbia 

EU27 

88.1 

11.2 

36.2 

93.3 

6.5 

11.1 

6.4 

12.0 

8.8 

12.3 

22.6 

2.6 

1.4 

1.3 

6.0 

1.3 

0.9 

0.5 

0.6 

2.9* 

0.8 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database. *Only 24 giant firms are listed in the ORBIS Europe database in Serbia. This high 
figure is driven by the low share of micro firms in the country, probably because of an underreporting of micro firms.  

Table 4.4. Employment and turnover share of mid-caps by firm size by country 

Employment share 

Micro 

SMEs 

250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

Bosnia and Herzegovina  35.1%  33.3%  9.9% 

11.4% 

North Macedonia 

32.5%  41.3%  7.6% 

10.8% 

Montenegro 

25.6%  46.7%  7.0% 

14.1% 

6.6% 

3.8% 

3.8% 

Serbia 

EU27 

13.1%  32.1%  11.1% 

16.1% 

11.2% 

38.2%  34.4%  5.7% 

7.6% 

3.9% 

3.8% 

4.2% 

2.9% 

16.4% 

10.1% 

Turnover share 

Micro 

SMEs 

250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

Bosnia and Herzegovina  35.9%  35.2%  10.6% 

10.3% 

North Macedonia 

24.6%  43.6%  8.3% 

19.6% 

Montenegro 

20.4%  55.3%  7.7% 

8.3% 

Serbia 

EU27 

11.2%  36.0%  13.2% 

17.4% 

32.0%  33.4%  7.0% 

9.9% 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

4.6% 

1.7% 

4.6% 

9.0% 

4.2% 

3.5% 

2.3% 

3.7% 

13.4% 

13.5% 

Table 4.5. Labour productivity (1,000 euro) by firm size by country 

GEO 

Micro  SMEs  250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

Bosnia and Herzegovina  69.1 

71.4 

72.5 

60.6 

North Macedonia 

41.8 

58.4 

60.3 

100.1 

Montenegro 

60.7 

90.2 

83.8 

64.7 

85.2 

90.1 

44.7 

82.0 

47.0 

25.4 

93.2 

61.4 

62.7 

30.6 

98.3 

61.9 

285.2  282.0  342.7 

339.4 

301.0 

249.5 

Serbia 

EU27 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table 4.6. Foreign ownership of mid-caps by firm size by country 

Country 

Location  Micro 

SMEs 

250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Intra-EU  6.4% 

10.8%  21.2% 

25.9% 

40.0% 

North Macedonia 

Intra-EU  0.7% 

4.0% 

14.0% 

25.0% 

Extra-EU  36.5%  22.1%  15.9% 

17.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Extra-EU  0.9% 

4.0% 

12.0% 

17.5% 

80.0% 

Montenegro 

Intra-EU  4.2% 

9.3% 

26.7% 

28.6% 

Extra-EU  11.3%  12.3%  20.0% 

7.1% 

. 

. 

Serbia 

Intra-EU  2.8% 

8.2% 

29.1% 

36.1% 

27.7% 

EU27 

Intra-EU  2.2% 

5.3% 

12.7% 

13.7% 

14.3% 

Extra-EU  2.7% 

4.0% 

9.6% 

10.1% 

19.1% 

Extra-EU  16.8%  10.4%  11.9% 

12.0% 

13.2% 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database. 

0.0% 

20.0% 

50.0% 

0.0% 

. 

. 

33.3% 

29.2% 

15.9% 

8.4% 

4.8 

Innovation in mid-cap firms 

Innovation – the introduction of new products and processes to the market – is generally regarded 
as one of the main drivers for economic growth. As one of many examples, the Industrial Strategy 
for Europe presented by the European Commission in 2020 points out the pivotal role of innovation 
for growth, but also for mastering the twin ecological and digital transitions, and for securing Europe’s 
sovereignty. Moreover, innovation plays a key role in increasing the resilience of firms and industrial 
ecosystems. 

Understanding how mid-caps perform in innovation and what may hamper their innovative activities 
is therefore essential to understand the future prospects of this type of firms. A look in the literature 
shows that discussions on the relationship between innovation and firm size focussed on small and 
large firms while mid-caps as a group of companies between these small and large firms found only 
very little recognition. Joseph A. Schumpeter (1911) on the one hand, stressed the role of the single 
entrepreneur in economic development and its importance in creating and accomplishing innovation. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  recognized  in  his  later  work  (Schumpeter  1942),  the  importance  of  large, 
multidivisional firms for the “routinized” creation of technical novelties, and their financial power for 
large-scale investments. This has led to the hypothesis that two distinct patterns of how innovative 
activity is organized exist - `Schumpeter Mark I' and `Schumpeter Mark II' - associated with specific 
industries and size classes. 

There are several arguments why large firms are disproportionately more innovative (Cohen 2010): 
they may find it easier to secure finance for risky innovation projects; there may be economies of 
scale in innovation, such as benefits from a higher degree of specialization in R&D and innovation 
departments; the returns from innovation are higher when the firm has a larger volume of sales over 
which to spread the fixed costs that come with it; moreover, large, diversified firms may find it easier 
to  spread  the  risk  associated  to  innovation  over  a  larger  turnover.  There  are,  however,  also 
counterarguments  that  may  point  to  the  benefits  of  being  small  for  innovation:  small  firms  may 
benefit  from  the  involvement  of  a  founder  or  manager  who  drives  innovation,  or  from  a  higher 
flexibility to react to market opportunities, while large firms may suffer inefficiencies through slow 
decision-making  and  complicated  internal  processes  which  takes  considerable  time  of  the  firm’s 
scientists and engineers; moreover, we may only observe highly innovative small firms in economic 
statistics because non-innovative small firms go bankrupt quite fast, while non-innovative large firms 
can still sustain on their past success. 

We  test  the  hypothesis  that  innovation  increases  with  firm  size  with  data  from  the  Community 
Innovation Survey (CIS), a large-scale survey of innovation activities of firms in the European Union, 
Iceland, and Norway. The CIS rests on a European-wide harmonized questionnaire and collects data 
on  firms’  innovation  expenditures,  innovation  output  and  other  business-related  information  like 
employment and sales. It applies the definitions and methodology of the Oslo Manual on innovation 
surveys  (OECD  2018)  and  is  conducted  biannually  by  the  national  statistical  offices  or  legalized 
national institutions of the European Union’s member states. The core target population of the CIS 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

2018 includes all firms in the relevant NACE classes with 10 or more employees. So, the data does 
not include micro enterprises. 

Data at firm level is provided as microdata by Eurostat’s Safe Center in Luxembourg. We use data 
from the CIS 2018, which includes around 150k observations for the years 2016-2018. The dataset 
includes observations from 19 countries (BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, 
PT, RO, SE, SK) and is weighted to adjust to the different country and sector size. 

We first look at various forms of innovative activities. The CIS distinguishes between new or improved 
products  and  services,  new  or  improved  processes  including  production,  logistics,  organization, 
communication, and marketing. Moreover, the questionnaire distinguishes between products new to  
the market or products just new to the firm. The first indicator used is all innovators, which measures 
the share of firms with at least one of the innovations listed above. Product innovators include only 
firms with a new product or service, while market novelties indicates that this product or service is 
also new to the market. 

The data presented in the figure below indicate that innovativeness increases mostly with firm size 
which is not surprising given the advantages of large firms discussed above. Mid-caps generally have 
higher shares than SMEs in all three categories, but lag behind large firms. However, the gap narrows 
down when we only look at the largest mid-caps. The share of innovative firms among mid-caps is 
62%  (small  mid-caps)  and  70%  (large  mid-caps).  This  is  very  much  in  line  with  the  results  from 
interviews presented in Chapter 5 which reveal that the share of firms which innovate continuously 
is 63% among the respondents. In contrast, the share of R&D active firms in the interview sample 
is  considerably  larger  than  in  the  CIS  data.  There  is  also  a  clear  hierarchy  between  different  size 
classes  when  it  comes  to  R&D.  The  share  of  R&D  active  firms,  just  like  the  share  of  innovators, 
increases steadily with firm size, and is highest among large firms. 

Figure 4.24: Innovative activities by size classes, 2018 

Source: Own elaboration based on Community Innovation Survey, 2018 

Another way to measure differences in innovation is to look at innovation expenditures, meaning the 
resources  firms  spend  on  innovative  activities.  This  includes  expenditures  for  R&D  performed  in-
house  or  contracted  out, expenditures  for  own  personnel  working  on  innovation,  expenditures  for 
services, materials, supplies purchased from others for innovation, or expenditures for capital goods 
for innovation, including machinery, equipment, software, IPRs, buildings etc. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure  4.25  below  provides  two  indicators,  innovation  input  intensity  (the  share  of  innovative 
expenditures in turnover), and R&D input intensity (the share of R&D expenditures in turnover). The 
results are less conclusive that for the share of innovative firms in each size class: innovation input 
intensity is roughly the same (around 2.5%) for all size classes, so there is only little variation in the 
amount firms spend on innovation as a share of turnover.  

Variation in R&D expenditure intensity is also quite low. We see a maximum value for very large mid-
caps (1,500-3,000 employees). Readers should note that all firms with no innovation activities have 
been set to zero innovation expenditures to correct for the fact that SMEs innovate less frequently 
than mid-caps and larger firms, but then have quite high expenditure intensities. The results would 
look differently if non-innovating firms would have been excluded. 

Figure 4.25: Innovation input and R&D input intensity by size classes, 2018 

Source: Own elaboration based on Community Innovation Survey, 2018 

Innovation intensity can also be measured at the output side, by looking at the share of new and 
considerably improved products in  turnover (Figure 4.26). The higher the turnover share, the more 
the firm benefits from its past innovation activities. Innovation output gives two main conclusions: 
first, the turnover share a company gains from innovation is increasing with firm size and is highest 
for the size class 1,500-2,999, but then decreases again. Second, we find that the share of market 
novelties on turnover is largest among mid-cap firms, and smaller in SMEs and large firms, so mid-
cap firms seem to be quite good in gaining revenue from innovation, even if they are not among the 
most innovative firms when it comes to innovation input and R&D. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.26: Innovation output intensity by size classes, 2018 

Source: Own elaboration based on Community Innovation Survey, 2018 

Finally, the CIS also provides information on public support for innovative firms. In general, the role 
of public funding for firm innovation is small; according to the OECD Main Science and Technology 
Indicators (2021b) most of the funds for business R&D are raised by the firms themselves. Within 
the EU, Hungary and Poland have the highest shares of business R&D funded by the government. 
For the whole EU, this share was 5.25% in 2019 (OECD 2021b). 

The following figure shows the share of firms by size class which made use of three different public 
funding sources for innovation: H2020, other EU innovation funding (including regional funding by 
the ERDF and innovation-related funding by EFSI), and national funding. The latter still accounts for 
the vast majority of R&D and innovation funding in the EU. The data refers to the three years from 
2016 to 2018. 

Figure 4.27: Innovation funding sources by size classes, 2016- 2018 

Source: Own elaboration based on Community Innovation Survey, 2018 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

The likelihood to draw on one of these funding sources increases with firm size, just like innovation 
activities. In all size classes, national funding dominates. From all three sources, H2020 is the one 
which is used least frequently. The share of mid-caps which were active in H2020 is considerably 
below the corresponding share of large firms. The share of large firms that participated in H2020 is 
nearly three times larger than that of mid-caps, and two times larger than that of very large mid-
caps. Horizon 2020 applied the same funding conditions for mid-caps and large companies. 

The interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 (European Commission, 2017a) provides more insights on 
the participation of mid-caps in H2020 (see the Figure 4.28 below). We see that the share of mid-
caps among the participants in  H2020 is five percent which is above their share on the total number 
of  all  enterprises.  However,  the  average  EC  contribution  mid-caps  receive  seems  quite  small 
compared to large firms, and it grows considerably slower for mid-cap categories than for large firms. 
This may point to some difficulties for mid-caps in H2020 which have also been mentioned in the 
panels. Panellists see a clear disadvantage of mid-cap firms compared to large companies which have 
experts who know how to apply for funding and have the resources to organize large consortia for 
project  applications.  However,  the  lack  of  funding  is  not  considered  as  the  main  obstacle  for 
innovation in mid-cap firms, as the interviews of mid-cap firms in Section 5.2 show (see also Figure 
5.14). The main challenge for these firms is to master the technology in the innovation process. The 
lack of funding appears to be of high or medium relevance only for a small proportion of respondents 
(34%). 

Figure 4.28: Companies funded in H2020 by number of employees and grants 

Source: European Commission, Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 – book version, p- 99; n = 6,738 companies 

To sum up, mid-caps are more innovative than SMEs, but less innovative than large firms. The figure 
below summarizes the differences between mid-caps and large firms in innovation by calculating the 
indicator values of mid-caps as a percentage of those for large firms. This gap is largest in funding, 
and smallest in innovation output. Small and large mid-caps seem to be a homogenous group when 
it  comes  to  innovation  and  clearly  distinguish  from  other  size  classes  of  the  enterprise  sector. 
Moreover, mid-caps seem to be proficient in turning innovations and market novelties into turnover: 
the share of turnover from market novelties reaches the level of large firms and is even higher for 
mid-caps with 1,500 to 2,999 employees.  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.29: Innovation gaps between mid-caps and large firms, 2016- 2018 

Source: Own elaboration based on Community Innovation Survey, 2018 

4.9  Digitalisation in mid-cap firms 

Today, many expect a push towards higher productivity and more innovation from a group of new 
digital technologies in manufacturing (OECD 2017, Frank, Dalenogare et al. 2019, Frank, Mendes et 
al. 2019). These technologies include the Internet of Things (or Industrie 4.0 in the German context), 
3D printing, advanced robotics, as well as new IT-enabled management processes such as real-time 
enterprise  resource  planning  and  production  control,  data  analytics,  or  applications  of  artificial 
intelligence.  The  central  idea  behind  many  of  these  technologies  is  the  integration  of  production 
activities  within  the  factory  and  along  the  supply  chain  by  exchanging  data  between  the  various 
stages (Frank, Dalenogare et al. 2019). 

These technologies serve different application areas, but all are regarded as key to future productivity 
increases of European industry. The European Commission (2020b) considers them as ‘Key Enabling 
Technologies’ (KETs) which also includes nanotechnology, biotechnology, or biomedicine. Common 
to all these technologies is that they are strategically important for Europe’s industrial future. 

This section asks how frequently mid-cap firms use these technologies compared to SMEs and larger 
firms, and what differences between different types of mid-cap firms can be observed. So far, the 
empirical  evidence  on  the  diffusion  of  digital  technologies  provided  by  Eurostat  or  the  European 
Investment Bank indicates that the use of digital technologies strictly rises with firm size. Eurostat’s 
survey on the usage of ICT in enterprises11, for example, reports that in 2020 seven percent of the 
small enterprises (10-49 employees) in the EU27 use industrial or service robots, compared to 13% 
in medium-sized enterprises (50-249 employees), and 28% in large enterprises with 250 or more 
employees. The values for 3D printing are 4% (small enterprises), 9% (medium-sized enterprises), 
and  17%  for  large  firms.  The  share  of  firms  which  use  these  technologies  increases  in  the  vast 
majority of member states with firm size, so the relationship between firm size and use seems to be 
solid.  Such  a  relationship  is  also  confirmed  by  Frank,  Dalenogare  et  al.  (2019)  for  a  larger  set  of 
technologies. We may explain it by high fixed cost of investments, a higher ability of larger firms to 
finance these investments, and a broader range of application areas for these technologies in large 
firms compared to their smaller counterparts. 

11 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ISOC_EB_P3D__custom_2281817/default/table?lang=en 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

The 2021 Investment Report by the European Investment Bank (EIB 2021) provides a similar picture: 
usage  of  digital  technologies  increases  with  firm  size.  Less  than  50%  of  the  small  firms  (10-49 
employees) in the EU have adopted at least one of the digital technologies surveyed by EIB, while 
75% of large enterprises (more than 250 employees) have done so. As an explanation, the report 
points  out  that  investment  in  digital  technologies  often  entails  high  fixed  costs  which  makes  the 
adoption of these technologies easier for larger firms that can spread the costs over a larger revenue. 
We may add that large firms may also have more opportunities to find profitable application areas 
for digital technologies than their smaller competitors who may be more specialized. The data from 
both surveys, however, include no information about the propensity of mid-cap firms to adopt digital 
technologies,  so  we  will  provide  information  regarding  mid-caps  from  another  data  source,  the 
European Manufacturing Survey (EMS). EMS is a firm-level survey that targets manufacturing firms 
with 20 or more employees and investigates product, process, service, and organizational innovation 
in  European  manufacturing  firms.  A  harmonized  questionnaire  allows  to  analyse  relationships 
between variables across countries. Data from  the most recent survey (EMS 2018) was collected in 
late Spring 2018 and relates to the year 2017. 

A unique feature of the EMS dataset is the richness of information on digital production technologies. 
EMS gives detailed information on the implementation of 20 different digital technologies, coded as 
a  binary  variable.  These  variables  are  one  if  the  firm  has  installed  a  certain  technology,  and  zero 
otherwise.  

We utilize this information by grouping together various technologies in technology groups: 

•  Robots (yes/no, includes handling and production robots), 

•  Advanced  robotics  (yes/no,  includes  mobile,  collaborating  and  autonomous  industrial 

robots), 

•  Additive manufacturing (yes/no, additive manufacturing for prototyping, and for production), 

•  Digital  elements  in  products  (yes/no,  interactive  interfaces,  automated  data  exchange, 

sensor technology, identification tags), 

• 

Industrie  4.0  (five  items  cardinal  variable,  includes  software  for  production  planning  and 
scheduling, digital exchange of product/process data with suppliers / customers, near real-
time production control systems, product-lifecycle-management-systems or product/process 
data management, virtual reality or simulation for product design or product development, 
and mobile/wireless devices for programming and controlling). 

The last technology group includes considerably more technologies than the previous groups, so we 
apply a five-scale as suggested by Lerch, Jäger et al. (2017). Here, a higher value of the variable is 
associated with a larger number and more sophisticated technologies in use. Moreover, we calculate 
an index of the breadth of usage of digital production technologies (digital), similar to the information 
sources index by Laursen and Salter (2006). The index sums up the individual technologies employed 
so that the degree of technological sophistication of the firm is described by one single indicator. The 
idea behind this index is that services can emerge from a broad range of technologies, and there 
may  also  be  some  complementarities  between  technologies  that  are  not  accounted  for  when  the 
analysis employs single technologies. 

Overall, the sample used here includes 2,455 firms from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lithuania, 
Slovenia, and Croatia. Due to the size of the sample, it is not possible to publish results for individual 
countries, so we will restrict the analysis to size classes. The firms in the sample are split into five 
size classes: small SMEs (20-49 employees), large SMEs (50-249 employees), small mid-caps (250-
499  employees),  large  mid-caps  (250-1,499  employees),  and  large  firms  (1,500  and  more 
employees). There is another mid-cap category which is mentioned in various documents and also 
considered in the report – firms with between 1,500 and 2,999 employees – however, due to the 
limited number of observations in this size class, we merged them into the group of large firms. 

We first look at the two indices which aggregate several or all digital technologies into one number 
for each firm (Figure 4.30). A higher value indicates that the firm uses more digital technologies. 
These  indices  are  available  for  all  technologies  and  for  Industrie  4.0  in  a  narrower  sense.  Figure 
below shows the share of firms in each size class which use various digital production technologies.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

It is easy to see that that usage of digital technologies very much depends on the size class of the 
firm, and the use of all technologies increases strictly with firm size. Mid-caps, on average, have a 
higher  index  value  than  SMEs  which  means  that  the  average  mid-cap  firm  uses  each  technology 
more often than the average SMEs, but less often than the average large firm with more than 1,500 
employees.  Moreover,  large  mid-caps  with  250-1,499  employees  use  all  technologies  more  often 
than small mid-caps. 

Figure 4.30: Diffusion of digital production technologies by size classes, 2018 

Industrie 4.0 index

total digital index

12

10

e
u
a
v

l

x
e
d
n

I

8

6

4

2

0

10-49

50-249

250-499

500-1499

1500+

Source: Own elaboration based on EMS, 2018 

We also get a very similar picture at the level of individual technologies. Figure 4.31 below shows for 
each size class the share of firms which use robots, advanced robots, or additive manufacturing. In 
ALL technologies, the share of firms which use a particular technology is larger in the next size class 
and lower in the previous size class. The share of SMEs with less than 20-49 employees which use 
robots, for example, is around 20%, and increases to 53% for small mid-caps and 74% for large 
mid-caps. This is a clear indication that the use of these technologies is related to firm size.  

This relationship may be explained by the fixed costs of these technologies which are easier to finance 
if a firm is larger, by a larger number of application areas for these technologies in larger firms, and 
certainly also by indivisibilities like the fact that it is hard in small firms to have an employee who 
specialises  in  one  of  these  production  technologies.  There  are  only  two  technologies  –  advanced 
robotics and additive manufacturing – which are not adopted by the majority of mid-cap companies. 
The share of mid-cap firms which do not use any of these technologies is below five percent so nearly 
all of them use one or the other digital technology. Thus, based on these data, the adoption of digital 
technologies seems very much related to firm size. Larger firms seem to have an advantage over 
smaller firms or are more inclined to adopt these technologies. 

The positive relationship between firm size and digital technologies is quite robust in all presented 
figures. To control for other factors, we run multivariate regression analysis (not reported here). This 
means  that  we  test  the  statistical  significance  of  a  relationship  between  two  variables  and 
simultaneously  hold  the  influence  of  all  other  variables  constant,  which  allows  to  isolate  the 
relationship between two variables from the influences of other variables.  

The regression results confirm the importance of the firm’s size as a highly significant determinant 
of the diffusion of digital technologies, besides sectoral affiliation. A higher share of mid-cap firms 
uses digital technologies compared to SMEs, but mid-caps lag also behind large firms when it comes 
to digitalisation. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 4.31: Use of individual digital production technologies by size classes, 2018 

advanced robotics

additive manufacturing

robots

s
m

r
i
f

l
l

a
f
o
e
r
a
h
S

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

10-49

50-249

250-499

500-1499

1500+

Source: Own elaboration based on EMS, 2018 

EMS data does not include information on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in firms, so we 
added this information from another survey, the German Mannheim Innovation Panel (Rammer et 
al.  2021).  The  data  in  Figure  4.32  below  reveal  a  similar  picture:  the  propensity  to  use  artificial 
intelligence  is  lowest  among  the  smallest  firms  and  increases  with  rising  firm  size.  15.7%  of  all 
German small mid-cap firms use AI, this share increases further in large mid-caps. Most likely, it is 
even higher in large firms, but the survey does not report separate results for firms with 1,500 and 
more employees. So, the diffusion of AI is quite similar to that of other digital technologies. 

Figure 4.32. Adoption of artificial intelligence by size classes, 2019 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

s
m

r
i
f

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

5 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 49

50 to 99

100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

Size classes

1,000 and
more

Source: Own elaboration based on Mannheim Innovation Panel 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

5  CHALLENGES FOR MID-CAP FIRMS 

An  important  goal  of  this  study  is  to  identify  challenges  that  might  hold  back  mid-cap  firms  and 
hamper their growth. In Section 5.1 we discuss some of the challenges that arise for mid-caps, based 
on  our  review  of  academic  and  policy  literature,  as  well  as  on  two  interviews  with  industrial 
associations  and  one  interview  with  a  funding  agency.  Next,  Section  5.2  presents  a  summary  of 
quantitative  and  qualitative  findings,  derived  from  semi-structured  interviews.  Section  5.3 
complements these findings with insights from panel discussions with managers of mid-caps. Finally, 
Section 5.4 summarises the main takeaways from this analysis and existing policies that tackle these 
challenges. 

5.1 

Challenges for mid-cap firms: a survey of the literature 

Economic research has long recognized the importance of firm size for the explanation of enterprise 
behaviour  and  performance:  first,  by  market  power  (oligopoly,  monopoly)  that  may  influence  the 
behaviour  of  firms.  Second,  by  the  existence  of  economies  and  diseconomies  of  scale  and  scope 
which  simply  means  that  some  things  can  be  done  more  efficiently  with  increasing  or  decreasing 
size; labour productivity measured by value added per person employed, for example, is generally 
larger for firms with more than 250 employees than for firms with 50-249 employees (OECD, 2017). 
An example for diseconomies of scale may be bureaucratic slack which seems to increase with firm 
size. 

An important influence for economies of scale are minimum efficient scales and indivisibilities: some 
activities  require  a  certain  volume  to  be  run  efficiently  which  may  make  a  certain  technology  or 
business practice unavailable for firms below a certain size. Moreover, economies of scale can also 
be the result of an increasing division of labour. It is often difficult for mid-caps to employ a person 
full-time  for  a  task  that  requires  specific  skills  like  product  development,  digitalization,  market 
research,  or  international  expansion.  Thus,  they  may  not  be  able  to  reap  the  benefits  from  the 
division of labour due to their smaller size. Mid-caps may circumvent these limitations by buying-in 
these activities as services, but this is not always possible due to transaction costs. 

The discussion of size advantages should not give the impression that mid-caps are inferior to larger 
firms. In fact, the previous section has demonstrated that they perform well and have advantages in 
innovation over SMEs which are related to their larger size. Mid-caps can also benefit from their size 
when  they  specialize  in  a  particular  market  niche.  Simon  (2012)  has  labelled  these  firms  ‘Hidden 
Champions’ because they are often not well-known since they operate in niche markets where they 
are  world-market  leaders  (Simon,  2012).  What  distinguishes  Hidden  Champions  from  other 
Mittelstand  businesses,  according  to  Schenkenmann  (2022),  is  their  niche  strategy.  Hidden 
Champions  are  often  manufacturers  of  machinery,  electronics,  medical  products,  non-metallic 
mineral products or in engineering and R&D services (Rammer and Spielkamp, 2019). 

Rammer and Spielkamp (2019) show that the competitive advantages of Hidden Champions rest on 
technology leadership and customisation. They do not invest more into innovation than other firms, 
but achieve higher innovation success, which is also reflected in the results of Chapter 4.9. According 
to Rammer and Spielkamp (2019), their higher efficiency can be linked to their superior technological 
capabilities and to higher investments in human capital that mobilise the creative potential of their 
employees.  Hidden  Champions  benefit in  particular  from  globalization  because  they  earn the  vast 
majority of their turnover in export markets. Among other characteristics, Simon (2012) considers 
the combination of a narrow market focus with a global orientation customer focus as essential for 
this  strategy.  In  addition,  Kamp  (2018)  demonstrates  that  smart  services  play  an  increasingly 
important role in the business models of Hidden Champions.  

The  example  of  Hidden  Champions  shows  that  mid-caps  can  also  be  in  an  advantagous  position 
compared to large multinationals and SMEs when they are able to leverage their capabilities and find 
profitable market niches where they can flourish as world market leaders. Mid-caps seem to enjoy 
an advantage over large firms here, as large firms may find it diffult to specialize on such narrow 
market niches which may be too small for them. Moreover, Hidden Champions (and also mid-caps) 
may  benefit  from  their  nimbleness  (Schenkenmann,  2022),  from  their  lean  organization  and  flat 
hierarchies which allows quick decision-making. This is a feature mid-caps share with SMEs where 
the founder is often the manager. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Another  perspective  to  look  at  challenges  for  mid-cap  firms  is  by  focussing  on  ownership  and 
governance.  We  already  mentioned  foreign  ownership  Section  4.5.  Another  type  of  ownership 
frequently found among mid-caps is family ownership. According to a recent study (Gottschalk et al., 
2019), 33% of all mid-cap firms with 250 to 499 employees in Germany are family-controlled, and 
29% have an owner who is also manager. The shares for firms with 500 and more employees are 
only slightly lower, numbers for mid-caps with 500-1,499 are not reported. Schenkenmann (2022) 
points out that more than 60% of all Hidden Champions in Germany are family owned.  

Family firms bring their own advantages but also disadvantages (European Commission, 2015). The 
existence of a family management solves the principal-agent problem which can occur when a firm 
is managed by external, hired managers, who have no or very little ownership rights. Additionally, 
the  profit  maximization  goal  of  a  family  member  is  motivated  by  his  or  her  personal  economic 
interest. Consequently, long-term goals and nonfinancial goals such as increasing product quality are 
typical for family managers (Hennart et al., 2019). Family ownership may also provide a degree of 
flexibility  in  taking  decisions  which  is  not  possible  for  firms  with  non-family  ownership.  Another 
important  benefit  of  family  ownership is  the  high  degree  of  embeddedness  of  these firms  in their 
local communities which comes from the personality of the owner/manager. 

Family  ownership,  however,  comes  at  a  price.  Family  firms  often  struggle  to  find  an  appropriate 
governance model that allows them to combine delegation with family ownership. Socio-emotional 
goals have a high importance in a family firm and family firms may maximize socio-emotional wealth 
rather than economic wealth. Socio-emotional wealth means “the utilities family-owners derive from 
the non-economic aspects of the business” (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). These may include esteem 
within  the  family,  pride  in  having  the  family  name  associated  with  the  company,  emotional 
attachment to the firm, and the wish to work together with family members in the company. The 
term suggests that family firms try to maximize these aspects rather than economic goals and may 
try to conform to family norms which may be at odds with monetary benefits, internationalisation, 
innovation, or corporate change. Family firms benefit more than other firms from their reputation as 
this is passed on the next generation. The transmission of the firm to the next family generation is 
one  of  the  reasons  for  family  members  willing  to  maximize  socio-emotional  wealth  including 
reputation in the long run, keep as much control as possible and reserve firm positions for family 
members. However, succession is a challenge for many of these firms. 

The challenges of succession and to find an appropriate governance model come together when firms 
require financing and access to capital. SMEs, in particular small SMEs, are often restricted to 
self-funding because of problems to raise external capital (OECD 2021d). Mid-caps, however, may 
reach the limits of self-funding by the owner or the family and the limits of small-scale bank credit, 
but may still be too small to access the stock market. When they turn to banks for external finance, 
it  is  hard  to  get  funding  because  of  asymmetric  information  (Almeida  and  Campello,  2007).  This 
means that firms who apply for external finance have much better information on the value of their 
(often intangible) assets than the banks, and it is difficult for the firms to communicate the true value 
of their assets to banks. Large, well-known firms do not have this disadvantage. Additionally, the 
willingness to keep control inside the family limits the access to external capital and might stop the 
firm from more financially intensive investments and business models (Hennart et al., 2019). 

Evidence for a limited access to finance of smaller firms comes from various sources. According to 
the EIB investment survey conducted with 12,000 companies across Europe, the probability of being 
rejected for an investment credit is 50% much higher for innovative, young firms in comparison to 
older ones (EIB, 2021). A recent report by the OECD on scaling-up in SMEs (OECD 2021f) shows the 
importance of external funding for fast-growing SMEs – these firms are more indebted than SMEs 
with no growth ambitions and finance their growth episodes by borrowing before scaling up. 

Another area is employment and skills. According to the OECD (2017), a main challenge for mid-
caps is that large firms, on average, pay higher wages, and may also be more attractive employers 
than mid-caps and SMEs. Mid-caps may not be able to offer the same compensation packages as the 
multinationals. It may be difficult for them to hire high-skilled staff, and they have to compete with 
large  firms  for  skilled  and  experienced  people.  This  may  be  a  challenge  when  mid-caps  train 
employees  but  cannot  hold  them  long-term.  To  compensate  for  this  disadvantage,  mid-caps  may 
provide a better work-life balance, more participation in running the businesses, or value attributed 
to  being  part  of  a  project  rooted  in  the  own  local  community.  Moreover,  in  family-owned  firms, 
preferring  family  members  over  external  employees  could  lead  to  a  small  talent  pool  and  missed 
chances for better qualified employees. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

The  ability  to  tie  employees  is  particularly  important  when  it  comes  to  managers.  According  to 
Debellis  et  al.  (2021),  a  family-owned  firm  should  have  highly  skilled  non-family  directors  on  its 
board of directors as these bring outside perspective, are not blind to internalization possibilities and 
have good networks and critical resources in foreign markets. A family-owned firm director normally 
has most of its connections and information inside of the family circle. However, even family-owned 
firms which are willing to have non-family directors are facing difficulties and high competition from 
the large non-family multinationals which employ highly qualified directors by offering them higher 
salaries  and  benefits.  Banalieva  and  Eddleston  (2011)  argue  that  a  non-family  leader  is  mostly 
beneficial when pursuing a global strategy. On the contrary, a family manager is more suitable for 
pursuing a regional strategy with a high home-region focus, as in a regional strategy the social capital 
and reputation will be of high importance. 

Another area where firm size and governance is highly relevant is innovation and R&D (Brouwer 
and  Kleinknecht,  1996;  Cohen,  2010).  Smaller  firms,  on  the  one  hand,  may  be  discouraged from 
being innovative by the high fixed costs needed for R&D, the limited access to external financing, 
and the economic consequences of failed innovation projects. However, small enterprises can also 
be highly innovative when they are the vehicle of an entrepreneur or a group of persons who aim to 
exploit a new technology or a new scientific principle with innovation. Most SMEs, however, do not 
fall into this category. Mid-caps generally have a higher propensity to introduce new products to the 
market than SMEs. However, if we look at innovation expenditures as a percentage of turnover, they 
spend  less  on  innovation  than  innovative  SMEs  or  large  firms.  (Röhl,  2018)  makes  the  point  that 
R&D efforts of mid-caps are substantial, but he also sees that the number of innovating mid-caps is 
declining. Rammer and Schubert (2018) show that a better financial situation and public funding can 
mitigate the trend towards a falling share of innovating and R&D-performing firms. 

Mid-caps are, in some respect, certainly the drivers of digitalisation and the use of Industry 4.0 in 
manufacturing. The share of firms which use robots, 3d printing or cloud service increases with firm 
size. However, they may face some obstacles when it comes to digitalisation; for example, the share 
of firms which have problems in recruiting ICT specialists increases with firm size. This can be seen 
in surveys such as Eurostat’s ICT use in enterprises survey.12 

A higher diffusion rate of certain digital technologies among mid-caps, but also more severe obstacles 
for mid-cap firms can be explained by several factors. First, mid-cap firms are often highly specialized 
businesses with limited resources. There may be problems to finance investments, or to find the right 
solutions for their application field. Some products by software suppliers such as SAP or Salesforce 
are not available or financially viable for mid-caps. Offers from new players or Open Source may help 
here. Second, the involvement of family managers may constrain digitalisation in firms where digital 
technologies  are  outside  their  core  competences.  Family  managers  may  be  less  willing  to  change 
successful  business  models  and  invest  large  amounts  in  new  technologies  (Ceipek  et  al.,  2021). 
Third, just like in the case of innovation, mid-caps may suffer from indivisibilities: pushing forward 
digital transformation may be one of several tasks of an employee or manager; thus, digitalisation 
very much depends on the availability, motivation and the skills of an individual which has to share 
its  capabilities  between  digitalisation  and  other tasks.  This  may  lead to less  specialization in  mid-
caps, may hamper the build-up of competences, and may mean a severe loss of know-how when 
this  person  leaves  the  firm.  Finally,  it  may  also be  that  some  of  the  niches  of  mid-caps  might  be 
endangered by big corporations due to digitalisation. 

Another  aspect  of  digitalisation  are  network  effects  and  increasing  returns  to  scale  (Varian  and 
Shapiro, 1998; Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014). These two factors may give large firms an advantage 
over mid-caps: there seems to be no place for mid-caps in “winner-takes-all” markets like search 
engines, social networks, or other industries that are dominated by network effects and increasing 
returns  to  scale.  Some  authors  like  Brynjolfsson  and  McAfee  (2014)  assume  that  more  and  more 
markets will become winner-takes-all markets. Thus, it will be not only necessary for mid-caps to 
adopt digital technologies, but also think about how to make money from these technologies given 
their effects on markets and business models (Teece, 2018). An answer to this challenge may be the 
concept of ecosystems  

12 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/comprehensive-database 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Legal  and  regulatory  obligations  constitute  the  most  frequent  challenge  SMEs  are  facing, 
according to the Eurobarometer 486, a survey conducted by the European Commission (2020) among 
SMEs. More than half of the firms mention regulations as one of the three most pressing problems 
they face. The share of large firms that mention regulations is even higher. There is also a discussion 
on how legal and regulatory obligations discourage small firms to scale-up and grow (lock-in effect, 
see Sylvest et al., 2018). The argument is that firms that may grow beyond a threshold related to 
public support may be worse off than firms that stay below this threshold, leading to a behaviour 
where  firms  that  could  grow  voluntarily  stay  small.  Such  lock-ins  may  be  related  to  labour  laws, 
taxation, SME targeted state aid support by Member States, etc.  

The  2012  evaluation  of  the  SME  definition  provides  some  literature  suggesting the  existence  of  a 
lock-in  effect.  Röhl  (2018)  presents  other  examples  of  size-dependent  regulations  in  the  German 
labour law and makes the case to reduce administrative burdens for mid-caps. There is also some 
anecdotal  evidence  from  an  interview  with  the  manager/owner  of  a  German  foundry  (BDI,  2018, 
original  text  in  German):  “We  notice  the  effects  of  not  falling  under  the  SME  definition  directly. 
Despite being an R&D performing firm, we don’t get funding by the AIF programme [German national 
R&D  initiative]  since  Germany  has  chosen  to  consider  only  SMEs  eligible  for  the  support.  Most 
companies in our labour-intensive industry do not reach the turnover criterion despite a high material 
input. But due to the high number of employees required for the process of deburring castings, the 
employee criterion is almost always exceeded”.  

However, there is also evidence that points in a different direction. Results from the SME Survey and 
the Flash Eurobarometer 486 (European Commission 2020a) cited in the Staff Working Document 
accompanying the Evaluation of the SME recommendation (European Commission 2021e) suggest 
that  size-dependent  legal  and  regulatory  obligations  and  the  lock-in  effect  may  be  only  a  minor 
obstacle to growth in SMEs. 

Many mid-cap firms are also making serious efforts to internationalise, enter foreign markets or 
foster their position in these markets. Data provided by the (OECD 2021e) indicate that in almost all 
European OECD members more than 80% of all manufacturing firms with more than 50 employees 
are exporting. The share of service mid-caps exporters is considerably lower. The shares for large 
companies with more than 250 employees are only slightly higher, so exports do not seem an area 
where  mid-caps  differ  a  lot  from  larger  firms.  These  differences  may  be  larger  when  it  comes  to 
foreign presence with own subsidiaries abroad. Here, the literature speaks of micro-multinationals 
(Stoian et al., 2018) - small and medium-sized enterprises that engage in foreign markets by own 
affiliates or other entry modes, or are born globals (Øyna and Alon, 2018) – small and medium-sized 
firms that are internationally active from their beginning without prior establishment on the domestic 
market.  

We  have  not  found  data  on  how  many  mid-caps  or  SMEs  are  micro-multinationals  so  far.  The 
interviews conducted for this project (see next section) indicate that around half of all mid-caps have 
production activities outside the home country, and 65% have located marketing and sales activities 
abroad (see Figure 5.16). Foreign direct investment (FDI), however, is less frequent than exporting 
among mid-cap firms. 93% of all mid-cap firms export to other EU countries (Figure B6). FDI, again, 
is  a  question  of  capabilities  and  economies  of  scale.  Managers  must  build  a  network  of  different 
important actors of their industry worldwide, who will give a better understanding of the sector but 
also  of  opportunity  identification  and  future  investment  possibilities.  With  a  capable  world-wide 
network, mid-caps and SMEs will be able to find the most appropriate and promising locations and 
determine  the  best  entry  mode.  Relevant  knowledge  includes  knowledge  of  the  key  markets,  but 
also culture, the foreign country’s legal frameworks and regulations and the rules of conduct which 
cannot  be  easily  written  and  transmitted,  as  they  represent  tacit  cultural  market  knowledge. 
Therefore, SMEs and mid-caps have to target employees and international network partners with a 
very good understanding of the industry and the local foreign market (Stoian et al., 2018). This is, 
however, costly. We may therefore assume that the challenge of internationalisation for mid-caps is 
twofold: first, to finance international expansion, second to gain the relevant knowledge to be able 
to compete in these markets. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

5.2  Key findings from semi-structured interviews with managers of mid-

caps 

This section presents a summary of findings on challenges that mid-caps in the European Union are 
facing  with  respect  to  their  growth  plans  particularly  in  the  areas  of  employment  and  skills, 
innovation,  internationalisation,  digitalisation,  regulatory  burdens,  and  sustainability.  The  findings 
are  based  on  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  collected  with  151  semi-structured  interviews  with 
managers of mid-caps across the EU27 member states. The interviews took place from March to May 
2022. They targeted mid-caps with 250-1,499 employees from a representative sample of 10,108 
mid-caps  drawn  from  the  ORBIS  Europe  database.  In  line  with  the  other  parts  of  the  study,  we 
distinguish  between  small  mid-caps  (250-499  employees)  and  large  mid-caps  (500-1,499 
employees).  

The  interview  questionnaire13,  key  characteristics  of  mid-cap  respondents  and  the  full  set  of  the 
findings are shown in Appendix B.  As shown in Table B1, two-fifths of all mid-cap respondents are 
from  manufacturing  (41%),  52%  from  services,  2%  from  utilities  and  5%  from  the  construction 
sector. 

The results of the interviews reveal that the top three challenges the EU mid-caps are facing are as 
follows (Figure 5.1):  

• 

• 

• 

difficulties in finding employees (74% of all respondents) 

supply chain disruptions and/or the lack of supplies, raw materials (52% of all respondents) 

regulation and administrative burden (36% of all respondents)  

The lack of skills including management skills is a main challenge for 27% of respondents. 13% 
of  respondents  identify  as  main  challenges  difficulties  with  innovation;  becoming  more 
sustainable and payment delays. Only 10% of respondents identify access to finance as a major 
challenge  while  difficulties  with  digitalisation  and  internationalisation  appear  to  be  major 
challenges for 8% of respondents. Access to data is a key challenge for 5% of respondents. 

We  can  compare  these  results  with  the  top  four  challenges  SMEs  are  facing  according  to  the 
Eurobarometer 486 from May 2020. The most severe challenge for SMEs are regulatory obstacles 
or  administrative  burden,  followed  by  payment  delays,  access  to  finance,  and  a  lack  of  skills, 
including  managerial  skills.  Even  if  the  two  surveys  have  been  done  at  different  years,  the 
comparison suggests that mid-caps have less problems with financing their activities, and the 
skills shortage is more severe for mid-cap firms. Regulation is a serious problem for both SMEs 
and mid-caps. 

13 The Interview Questionnaire has included inputs from interviews with two business associations and one funding agency, and from the European 

Commission. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.1: Main challenges for EU mid-caps: All mid-caps respondents  

Difficulties in finding employees

Supply chain disruptions/lack of supplies-raw
materials

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

74%

52%

Regulation and administrative burden

36%

Lack of skills, including management skills

27%

Difficulties with innovation

Becoming more sustainable by reducing
materials, energy and cutting emissions

Payment delays

Other

Access to finance

Difficulties with digitalization

Internationalisation

13%

13%

13%

10%

10%

8%

8%

Access to data

5%

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge for your enterprise? 

Figure 5.2 shows that the top three challenges mentioned above are the same for small and large 
mid-caps  with  a  greater  proportion  of  small  mid-caps  affected  by  difficulties  in  finding  employees 
while  a  greater  proportion  of  large  mid-caps  are  affected  by  supply  chain  disruptions  and  by 
regulation and administrative burdens. With respect to further challenges, relative to large mid-caps, 
a greater proportion of small mid-caps identify challenges relating to becoming more sustainable, 
payment delays as well as other areas not mentioned in the interview questionnaire. Relative to small 
mid-caps,  a  greater  proportion  of  large  mid-caps  identify  challenges  relating  to  the  lack  of  skills, 
including management skills, difficulties relating to innovation, access to finance, as well as access 
to data. Challenges relating to internationalisation and digitalisation appear to affect equally small 
and large mid-caps. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.2: Main challenges for EU mid-caps by size group 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Difficulties in finding employees

Supply chain disruptions/lack of supplies-raw materials

75%
74%

50%

54%

Regulation and administrative burden

Lack of skills, including management skills

31%

39%

23%

30%

Other

5%

17%

Becoming more sustainable by reducing materials, energy
and cutting emissions

Payment delays

Difficulties with innovation

14%

11%

17%

10%

11%

15%

Access to finance

8%

11%

Internationalisation

Difficulties with digitalization

Access to data

0%

8%
8%

8%
8%

8%

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge for your enterprise? 

COVID-19 and the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 

The results suggest that COVID-19 and the measures taken to limit its spread have seriously affected 
mid-caps. Almost 70% of respondents say that the pandemic triggered or worsened the challenges 
mid-caps are facing. (Figure 5.3). 

Moreover,  while  the  interview  questionnaire  was  designed  before  the  start  of  Russia’s  invasion  of 
Ukraine,  a  number  of  mid-cap  respondents  have  also  identified  Russia’s  invasion  of  Ukraine  as  a 
source  of  heightened  difficulties  and  challenges  (interviews  took  place  in  spring  2022).  Three 
respondents  referred  explicitly  to  the  impact of  the war  in  Ukraine  and its  implications  on  energy 
costs  and  one  identifies  political  crises  together  with  health  pandemics  and  their  impact  on 
international travel as a key challenge to the enterprise. Three further respondents identified the war 
in Ukraine in combination with the aftermath of the pandemic as worsening difficulties/challenges for 
mid-caps. The respondents who identified the impact of the war in Ukraine as a key challenge were 
from  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Germany.  In  terms  of  sectoral  affiliations,  the  respondents 
were from manufacturing, construction, and professional, scientific, and technical activities. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure  5.3:  The  role  of  the  pandemic  in  triggering  or  worsening  challenges  faced  by  EU 
mid-caps 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

69%

Small mid-caps

73%

31%

27%

Large mid-caps

66%

34%

Yes

No

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Were any of these challenges triggered/worsened by the pandemic? 

Difficulties in finding employees  

As discussed above, difficulties in finding employees is the top challenge identified by mid-caps (74% 
of all mid-cap respondents).  

As shown in Table 5.1, the top three sectors of the mid-cap respondents who identified difficulties in 
finding employees are manufacturing (40% of respondents), information and communication (27% 
of respondents), and professional, scientific, and technical activities (15% of respondents). Services 
sectors account for 53% of the respondents who identified difficulties to find employees as a major 
challenge. 

Table  5.1:  Sectoral  distribution  of  the  mid-cap  respondents  who  identify  difficulties  in 
finding employees as a major challenge  

Sector 

Manufacturing  

Information and communication 

Professional, scientific, and technical activities  

Transport  

Construction  

Accommodation  

Real estate  

Electricity  

Totals  

Number of mid-caps 

% of all mid-caps 

45 

30 

17 

6 

7 

5 

1 

1 

40% 

27% 

15% 

5% 

6% 

5% 

1% 

1% 

112 

100% 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge for your enterprise? 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

27% of all mid-cap respondents who identified difficulties in finding employees as a top challenge, 
also report the lack of skills including managerial skills as a major challenge. While the overall need 
for labour may be a cyclical phenomenon due to the ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, the 
lack of skills is clearly a structural challenge which hampers long-term firm growth. We discuss next 
these responses since they are likely to relate to difficulties in finding employees.   

Barriers related to employment and skills 

The lack of skilled employees is identified as a major obstacle to growth by 70% of all respondents. 
Looking  across  the  two  groups  of  mid-caps,  the  lack  of  skilled  employees  appears  to  be  a  major 
obstacle to growth for 66% of small mid-caps and 74% of large mid-caps.    

Figure 5.4: Lack of skilled employees is a major obstacle for the growth 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

70%

30%

Small mid-caps

66%

34%

Large mid-caps

74%

26%

Yes

No

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Is the lack of skilled employees a major obstacle for the growth of your enterprise? 

In terms of specific skills (Figure 5.5), recruitment of qualified technical staff appears to be the most 
important  difficulty  (56%  of  all  respondents)  followed  by  recruitment  of  qualified  information  and 
technology (IT) staff (39% of all respondents) and the loss of employees to competitors (27% of all 
respondents).  Recruitment  of  qualified  administrative  and  sales  staff  was  reported  as  highly 
important by 15% of all respondents. The ranking of difficulties related to the aforementioned specific 
skills is fairly similar across small and large mid-caps. It is worth noting that 47% of respondents 
from large mid-caps identify difficulties with recruitment of IT staff as being highly important while 
the corresponding share of respondents from small mid-caps is lower, 28%. This result could reflect 
the  fact  that  large  mid-caps  are  more  likely  than  small  mid-caps  to  use  digital  technologies.  The 
evidence provided in this study supports this view (see Figure 5.14). 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.5: Barriers related to employment and skills 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

A

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

s
p
a
c
-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

Difficulties to recruit qualified technical staff

56%

38%

3%

3%

Difficulties to recruit qualified information technology staff

39%

40%

15%

6%

Difficulties to recruit qualified administrative and sales staff

15%

Loss of skilled employees to competitors

27%

Difficulties to recruit qualified technical staff

55%

48%

37%

Difficulties to recruit qualified information technology staff

28%

41%

Difficulties to recruit qualified administrative and sales staff

19%

Loss of skilled employees to competitors

28%

Difficulties to recruit qualified technical staff

Difficulties to recruit qualified information technology staff

45%

31%

56%

47%

Difficulties to recruit qualified administrative and sales staff

13%

49%

Loss of skilled employees to competitors

26%

41%

28%

25%

41%

22%

28%

28%

37%

9%

11%

2%

3%

9%

8%

13%

5%

2%

39%

10%

3%

28%

22%

10%

10%

High

Medium

Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: How important are the following barriers related to employment and skills? 

Supply chain disruptions 

The  second  most  important  challenge  identified  by  mid-cap  respondents  relates  to  supply  chain 
disruptions (52% of all respondents). Of those who identified supply chain disruption as a challenge, 
41%  are  small  mid-caps  and  59%  are  large  mid-caps.  In  terms  of  the  sectoral  distribution  of 
respondents, as shown in Table 5.2, 62% of mid-cap respondents are from manufacturing, one third 
from services and 8% from construction. If we relate this to the total number of mid-caps in each 
sector,  79%  of  all  mid-caps  in  manufacturing  report  this  obstacle  –  so,  more  manufacturing  mid-
caps  suffer  from  supply  chain  disruptions  than  from  difficulties  in  finding  employees.  In  all  other 
sectors, the share is 33%.  

Table  5.2:  Sectoral  distribution  of  mid-cap  respondents  who  identified  supply  chain 
disruptions as a key challenge area   

Sector  

Manufacturing 

Information and communications 

Professional, scientific, and technical activities  

Construction  

Accommodation and food service activities  

Transport  

Totals  

Number of mid-caps 

% of all mid-caps 

49 

11 

7 

6 

4 

2 

79 

62% 

14% 

9% 

8% 

5% 

2% 

100% 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research. Base: All respondents who identified supply chain disruptions as 
key challenge.  

Q: From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge for your enterprise: Supply chain disruptions/lack of 
supplies, raw materials 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Of all mid-cap respondents who identified supply chain disruptions as a major challenge, the large 
majority sell in local, national, and/or international markets while 5% sell their goods and services 
exclusively in international markets. As shown in Table 5.3, in terms of the export destinations, 92% 
of respondents report that they sell their goods and/or services in other EU member states. Other 
European countries are export markets for 84% of respondents, while 71% of respondents sell their 
goods and/or services in China, India, and other Asian markets. North America is an export market 
for  68%  of  respondents  who  identified  supply  chain  disruptions  as  a  major  challenge.  76%  of 
respondents who identified supply chain disruptions as a major challenge sell their goods and services 
in other markets outside Europe, North America, China, India, and other Asian markets. 

Table 5.3: Export markets for goods and services of mid-caps in the EU having identified 
supply chain disruptions as a major challenge 

Export markets 

European Union  

Other European countries  

North America  

China, India, and other Asian markets 

Other markets outside Europe not mentioned above   

Number of mid-caps 

% of all mid-caps 

73 

66 

54 

56 

60 

92% 

84% 

68% 

71% 

76% 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research. Base: All respondents who identified supply chain disruptions as a 
major challenge.  

Q: From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge for your enterprise: Supply chain disruptions/lack of 
supplies, raw materials; and  

Q: In which geographic markets does your enterprise sell goods and/or services? 

Of seven respondents who explained how the pandemic has triggered/has worsened the challenges 
mid-caps are facing, five identified supply chain disruptions as the main channel (respondents were 
from  Germany,  France,  and  the  Czech  Republic).  All  respondents  were  from  the  manufacturing 
sector.    

Regulatory and administrative burdens 

Regulations and administrative burdens are identified as being the third most important challenge 
that mid-caps in the EU face (36% of all mid-cap respondents). The distribution of the respondents 
by the level at which regulations and administrative burdens are identified as a major challenge, is 
shown in the Table 5.4 below:  

Table  5.4:  Distribution  of  mid-cap  respondents  by  the  level  of  regulations  and 
administrative burdens  

Level  of  regulations  and  administrative 
burdens 
National level only 

Number 
respondents 
7 

of 

mid-cap 

all 

of 

% 
respondents  
13% 

mid-cap 

EU level only 

International level only 

National and EU level 

National and international level 

EU and international level 

National, EU and international level 

TOTAL 

9 

12 

12 

3 

4 

7 

54 

17% 

22% 

22% 

6% 

7% 

13% 

100% 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research. Base: All respondents who identified regulations and administrative 
burdens as a major challenge. 

Q: From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge for your enterprise: Regulations and administrative 
burdens  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

In terms of the level at which those regulatory burdens apply: 22% are at international level, 17% 
at EU level and 13% are at national level.  

Mid-caps are facing a range of legal requirements which appear to hamper their growth plans (Figure 
5.6). The most frequently reported as being highly important is the different legislation in different 
countries (30% of all respondents; 22% of small mid-caps; 37% of large mid-caps). Of those who 
identified different legislation in different countries as being highly important, 24% of respondents 
associate legal requirements with national legislation; 28% of respondents with legislation at the EU 
level; 30% of respondents with international legislation.  

Figure 5.6: Mid-caps’ regulatory burdens  

All mid-caps respondents

Different legislation in different countries

30%

37%

17%

16%

Environmental regulations

Customs/trade related requirements

17%

16%

30%

29%

Accounting standards

13%

31%

27%

32%

37%

Taxation

15%

38%

28%

Employment-related requirements

11%

29%

37%

26%

23%

19%

19%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

High

Medium

Low

Not important

All mid-cap respondents by size group  

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

s
p
a
c
-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

Employment-related requirements
Taxation
Accounting standards
Customs/trade related requirements
Environmental regulations
Different legislation in different countries
Employment-related requirements
Taxation
Accounting standards
Customs/trade related requirements
Environmental regulations
Different legislation in different countries

6%
8%
13%

17%
19%
22%

14%

21%

14%
15%
15%

30%

33%

31%

45%

28%

30%
28%

31%

39%
30%
28%

42%

16%

29%

32%

33%
29%
31%

40%

25%
36%

34%
26%

16%

20%
23%
25%

20%
17%

22%

17%

22%

28%

37%

33%

17%

13%

High Medium Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Some legal requirements (such as reporting) depend on the size of the enterprise. Have you encountered such requirements, and did they hamper 
your enterprise in its activities or pursue its plans to grow? 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

The  next  regulatory  and  administrative  burdens  identified  as  being  challenging  for  mid-caps  are 
environmental regulations (17% of all respondents; 19% of small mid-caps; 15% of large mid-caps) 
and customs/trade related legal requirements (16% of all respondents; 17% of small mid-caps; 15% 
of large mid-caps). Readers should note that the notion of environmental regulation as a ‘burden’ is 
strictly from the perspective of the firm faced with the private costs of regulation and is no judgement 
on the societal need for sustainable transition. 

Among the mid-cap respondents who identify environmental regulations as being highly important 
as a challenge, 40% associate legal requirements with national legislation, 44% with EU legislation 
and  64%  with  international  legislation.  Within  the  group  of  mid-cap  respondents  who  identify 
customs/trade  related  legal  requirements  as  being  highly  challenging,  48%  associate  legal 
requirements  with  national  legislation,  38%  with  EU  legislation  and  71%  with  international 
legislation. 

R&D and innovation activities  

64% of all respondents have been engaged permanently in R&D, 63% in the development of new 
goods  and  services  and  36%  in  the  development  of  new  processes  or  business  models.  The 
proportion of respondents from large mid-caps engaged in R&D is higher (67%) in comparison to 
small mid-caps (61%). 

Figure 5.7: Activities in research, development, and innovation 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

-
d
m

i

l
l

A

s
p
a
c

n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

s
t

s
p
a
c

s
p
a
c

Research and development

Development of new goods or services

Development of new processes or business models

36%

Research and development

Development of new goods or services

Development of new processes or business models

38%

Research and development

Development of new goods or services

64%

63%

61%

59%

67%

66%

49%

47%

Development of new processes or business models

34%

51%

24%

28%

23%

30%

24%

26%

12%

9%

15%

16%

11%

16%

9%

8%

15%

Permanently

Sometimes

No

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Has your company been active in research or the development of new products or processes recently? 

In terms of obstacles to R&D and innovation activities (Figure 5.8), technical problems with the new 
product or process have been identified as being highly important (17%) or medium important (44%) 
by 61% of all respondents active in R&D and innovation.  

The  next  highly  important  obstacles  to  R&D  and  innovation  are  the  lack  of  funding  for  R&D  and 
innovation, including government funding (10%) and the lack of market acceptance for new products 
(10%). Technical problems with a new product or process have been identified as being of high or 
medium importance by a larger proportion of respondents from large mid-caps (63%) compared to 
respondents from small mid-caps (58%). The lack of funding for R&D and innovation appears to be 
of high or medium importance for a smaller proportion of respondents from small mid-caps (36%) 
compared to respondents from large mid-caps (49%). This result might reflect the fact that small 
mid-caps might carry out R&D and innovation projects of a smaller scale in comparison to large mid-
caps. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.8: Obstacles for R&D and innovation activities 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

A

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

s
p
a
c
-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

Lack of funding for R&D and innovation, including…

Lack of market acceptance for new products

Difficulties to co-operate with universities and other firms

Technical problems with the new product or process

Lack of funding for R&D and innovation, including…

Lack of market acceptance for new products

Difficulties to co-operate with universities and other firms

Technical problems with the new product or process

Lack of funding for R&D and innovation, including…

Lack of market acceptance for new products

Difficulties to co-operate with universities and other firms

Technical problems with the new product or process

High

Medium

Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: If you are active in R&D and innovation, how important were the following barriers for these activities? 

Environmental sustainability 

Among the environmental sustainability actions (Figure 5.9), those most frequently undertaken by 
mid-caps appear to be reducing energy consumption (78% of all respondents; 75% of small mid-
caps; 80% of large mid-caps), followed by recycling or reusing materials (77% of all respondents; 
78% of small mid-caps; 76% of large mid-caps). 

In  terms of  obstacles  preventing  mid-caps  to  become  more  sustainable  (Figure  5.17),  the  lack  of 
consumer demand is the most frequently reported (32% of all respondents; 20% of small mid-caps; 
23% of large mid-caps), followed by the lack of profitability (28% of all respondents; 25% of small 
mid-caps; 11% of large mid-caps).  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.9: Environmental sustainability actions 

All mid-cap respondents 

Reducing energy consumption

Recycling or reusing materials

Reducing materials consumption of or impact on natural
resources (eg saving water or switching to sustainable…
Replacing energy-intensive equipment by more energy-
efficient equipment

Switching to sustainable energy

Developing more sustainable products

Reducing emissions with other means, for example filter
systems

78%

77%

71%

64%

53%

48%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

All mid-cap respondents by size group 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Recycling or reusing materials

Reducing materials consumption of or impact on natural
resources (eg saving water or switching to sustainable…

Reducing energy consumption

Switching to sustainable energy

Replacing energy-intensive equipment by more energy-
efficient equipment

Reducing emissions with other means, for example filter
systems

Developing more sustainable products

78%

76%

70%
71%

75%

80%

72%

52%

54%

53%

53%

52%

44%

44%

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: In terms of environmental sustainability, which of the following actions, if any, is your enterprise actively taking? 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.10: Obstacles to environmental sustainability actions 

All mid-cap respondents

Lack of consumer demand

It would not be profitable

32%

28%

Lack of skills for sustainability, including managerial skills

22%

Lack of financial resources

It is not compatible with our current business model

17%

17%

Lack of willingness among the management

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Mid-cap respondents by size group 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Lack of willingness among the management

13%

9%

It is not compatible with our current business model

Lack of skills for sustainability, including managerial skills

16%

18%

31%

33%

25%

33%

Lack of financial resources

Lack of consumer demand

It would not be profitable

20%

23%

25%

11%

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Which of the following, if any, are currently preventing your enterprise from becoming more sustainable? 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Access to external finance 

More than half of the respondents report that internal resources are enough to fund planned growth 
(58% of all respondents). 34% of respondents are looking for external financing from banks and/or 
investors and only 8% are looking for public funding and/or state aid to finance their growth plans. 
The proportion of the respondents who say they have enough internal finance for their growth plans 
is greater for large mid-caps (60%) relative to small mid-caps (55%).   

Figure 5.11: Mid-caps counting on additional external financing for their growth plans 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

Small mid-caps

58%

55%

34%

8%

36%

9%

Large mid-caps

60%

33%

7%

No, we have enough internal reserves

Yes, we will be looking for external financing/bank loan/investors

Yes, we will be looking for public funding/state aid

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: If you intend to grow, will you be counting on additional external financing for this? 

Close to two thirds of all respondents (57%) are certain to obtain external funding if needed with a 
larger proportion of respondents from large mid-caps (60%) compared to respondents from small 
mid-caps (53%). 

Figure 5.12: Mid-caps’ ability to obtain external financing 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

57%

38%

5%

Small mid-caps

53%

42%

5%

Large mid-caps

60%

34%

5%

Yes, definitely

Yes, probably

No, probably not

No, definitely not

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Would your enterprise be able to obtain external financing in case of need? 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure 5.13: Obstacles for accessing external funding 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

s
p
a
c

s
p
a
c

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

A

-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

Lack of credit from banks

5%

17%

25%

Lack of external equity finance

4%

15%

21%

Difficulties in obtaining government grants or subsidies

7%

17%

16%

Lack of credit from banks

5%

17%

27%

Lack of external equity finance

6%

14%

Difficulties in obtaining government grants or subsidies

3%

20%

Lack of credit from banks

5%

17%

23%

16%

23%

Lack of external equity finance

2%

15%

18%

Difficulties in obtaining government grants or subsidies

10%

14%

16%

54%

61%

60%

52%

56%

61%

55%

64%

60%

High

Medium

Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: If you were looking for external funding in the past, how important were the following barriers? 

For  just  over  half  of  all  respondents  (54%),  obtaining  credit  from  banks  does  not  appear  to  be a 
major obstacle for accessing external funding. Only 5% of respondents identify obtaining credit from 
banks as being highly important when looking for this type of external financing in the past. External 
equity financing was not important as a barrier to external funding for 61% of all respondents and 
highly important for 4% of all respondents. Government grants and state aid was not important as 
a financing constraint for 60% of all respondents and highly important for only 7% of all respondents. 
Obtaining external equity financing was a highly important barrier for access to finance for a greater 
proportion  of  small  mid-caps  (6%)  relative  to  large  mid-caps  (2%)  while  difficulties  in  obtaining 
government grants or subsidies was highly important as an obstacle for access to external finance 
for a greater proportion of large mid-caps (10%) compared to small mid-caps (3%). 

Digital technologies 

Among advanced digital technologies (Figure 5.14), the most frequent usage appears to be Big Data 
Analytics  (61%  of  all  respondents)  followed  by  Internet  of  Things  (51%  of  all  respondents)  and 
Robots (36% of all respondents). 

Figure 5.14: Use of digital technologies 

All mid-caps respondents 

Big Data Analytics

Internet of Things

Robots

Artificial Intelligence

3D Printing

61%

51%

36%

36%

32%

Other digital tools or technologies

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

All mid-cap respondents by size group 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Artificial Intelligence

27%

Big Data Analytics

Internet of Things

Robots

3D Printing

43%

45%

45%

55%

72%

38%

34%

31%
32%

Other digital tools or technologies

8%

6%

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Does your enterprise use any of the following digital technologies? 

Among obstacles to the adoption and use of digital technologies (Figure 5.15), the most important 
appears to be the difficulty to recruit skilled staff for developing or implementing these technologies 
(32% of all respondents; 27% of small mid-caps; 36% of large mid-caps), followed by the difficulty 
to integrate these technologies into existing processes (21% of all respondents; 17% of small mid-
caps; 24% of large mid-caps) and IT security issues (18% of all respondents; 13% of small mid-
caps; 22% of large mid-caps). 

Figure 5.15: Obstacles in the adoption and use of digital technologies 

All mid-caps respondents

Difficult to recruit skilled staff for developing or
implementing these technologies

Difficult to integrate these technologies into our
existing processes

32%

37%

15%

16%

21%

35%

24%

20%

IT security issues are blocking digitalisation

18%

31%

26%

25%

Uncertainty about future digital standards makes
investments difficult

7%

30%

34%

29%

Difficult to finance the associated investments

5%

19%

30%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

High

Medium

Low

Not important

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

All mid-cap respondents by size group

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

s
p
a
c
-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

Difficult to finance the associated investments

Difficult to recruit skilled staff for developing or…

Difficult to integrate these technologies into our…

Uncertainty about future digital standards makes…

IT security issues are blocking digitalisation

Difficult to finance the associated investments

Difficult to recruit skilled staff for developing or…

Difficult to integrate these technologies into our…

Uncertainty about future digital standards makes…

IT security issues are blocking digitalisation

High

Medium

Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Has your enterprise experienced any of the obstacles listed below in the adoption and use of these digital technologies? 

Foreign direct investment  

Marketing and sales (65% of all respondents; 61% of small mid-caps; 68% of large mid-caps) and 
after sales maintenance (56% of all respondents; 50% of small mid-caps; 61% of large mid-caps) 
appear to be the most frequent activities of mid-caps carried out by their affiliates abroad. R&D and 
innovation activities are the least frequent activities carried out by mid-caps affiliates abroad (40% 
of all respondents; 31% of small mid-caps; 46% of large mid-caps).    

Figure 5.16: Mid-caps’ activities outside the home country  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Production

Marketing, sales

After-sales, maintenance

R&D, innovation

52%

44%

57%

65%

61%

68%

56%

50%

61%

40%

31%

46%

All mid-caps respondents

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Does your company have own affiliates outside your home country carrying out one of the following activities? 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

In terms of obstacles to FDI inside the EU (Figure 5.17), among mid-caps with affiliates abroad, the 
most important appear to be the loss of flexibility with long supply chains (22% of all respondents; 
13% of small mid-caps; 29% of large mid-caps) and market access (13% of all respondents; 13% 
of small mid-caps; 13% of large mid-caps).  The most frequent obstacles to mid-caps FDI outside 
the EU (Figure 5.18) are market access (21% of all respondents; 24% of small mid-caps; 19% of 
large mid-caps) and loss of flexibility with long supply chains (13% of all respondents; 12% of small 
mid-caps; 21% of large mid-caps). 

Figure 5.17: Barriers to mid-caps’ FDI inside the EU 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

s
p
a
c

s
p
a
c

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

A

-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

Obstacles for market access
Quality problems with foreign production
Too high costs of foreign presence
Loss of flexibility with long supply chains
Obstacles for market access
Quality problems with foreign production
Too high costs of foreign presence
Loss of flexibility with long supply chains
Obstacles for market access
Quality problems with foreign production
Too high costs of foreign presence
Loss of flexibility with long supply chains

High

Medium

Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q:  If  you  are  active  abroad  with  own  affiliates  inside EU,  how important  were the  following  barriers  for these  activities?  Base:  All  enterprises with 
affiliates inside the EU.  

Figure 5.18: Barriers to mid-caps’ FDI outside the EU 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

s
p
a
c
-
d
m

i

l
l

A

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

-
d
m

i

l
l

a
m
S

i

-
d
m
e
g
r
a
L

s
p
a
c

s
p
a
c

Obstacles for market access

Quality problems with foreign production

Too high costs of foreign presence

Loss of flexibility with long supply chains

Obstacles for market access

Quality problems with foreign production

Too high costs of foreign presence

Loss of flexibility with long supply chains

Obstacles for market access

Quality problems with foreign production

Too high costs of foreign presence

Loss of flexibility with long supply chains

High

Medium

Low

Not important

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: If you are active abroad with own affiliates outside the EU, how important were the following barriers for these activities? Base: All enterprises with 
affiliates outside the EU. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

5.3 

Challenges for mid-caps: insights from the panel discussions 

The project team organized three panel discussions on challenges for mid-cap firms, on June 2nd, 
June 9th, 2022, and July 7th, 2022. The aim of these panels was to validate the findings on challenges 
collected in interviews and gain additional insights into the challenges mid-cap firms are facing from 
people who deal with these on a day-by-day basis. 

We  invited  representatives  of  mid-cap  firms,  of  industrial  associations,  policy,  funding  agencies 
dealing  with  mid-cap  firms,  as  well  as  experts  from  academia  that  have  contributed  to  the  topic. 
Representatives of mid-cap firms were identified from the pool of interviewees described in Section 
5.2; the selection of experts from academia was based on the literature review in Section 5.1, while 
industry  representatives  were  identified  with  the  help  of  the  European  Commission.  In  total,  30 
persons took part in the three panels. This is hardly enough to get statistically representative results, 
but sufficient to receive confirmation on the validity of the interview results and add ‘flavour’ to the 
interview results in the form of examples. 

A first main finding from the panels is that the participants confirmed that the challenges identified 
in  this  chapter  are  indeed  the  main  challenges  mid-cap  firms  are  facing.  Unanimously,  a  lack  of 
skilled personnel was identified as the main challenge by the participants in all three panels. Other 
challenges  discussed  in  the  panels  were  regulation  and  administrative  burden,  innovation,  and 
sustainability. With respect to the skills shortage, the participants pointed out that mid-caps are not 
able to offer career path models with a jump every 3-5 years, which are possible in large companies. 
Moreover, mid-cap firms may suffer from a lack of visibility and a lack of communication which makes 
them less attractive to potential employees than large companies. 

The participants also identified challenges not covered by the interviews: first, rising energy prices 
and  inflation  are  matters  of  concern  for  the  panel  participants.  These  concerns  were  raised  in  all 
three panels. Participants see many mid-cap firms currently trapped between powerful suppliers and 
powerful customers with little room to adjust their prices or compensate rising prices for energy and 
other  inputs  in  another  way.  The  data  presented  in  Chapter  4  shows  that  many  mid-caps  are 
operating  in  energy-intensive  sectors.  Participants  of  one  panel  considered  the  development  of  a 
strong brand which helps to gain a strong market position and allows to increase prices as the only 
solution to escape rising input prices. Mid-caps which produce ‘faceless’ products with no brand will 
find it more difficult to raise prices. 

Second,  participants  in  two  of  the  three  panels  see  challenges  from  structural  deficits  in  mid-cap 
firms:  mid-caps  are  ‘caught  in  the  middle’,  as  one  participant  pointed  out,  and  combine  the 
disadvantages of both large and small firms: On the one hand, mid-caps do not have the flexibility 
of start-ups anymore and may be too big to develop certain disruptive ideas besides the ‘day-to-day’ 
activities. On the other hand, the management of a mid-cap must deal with everything - qualifications 
of  staff,  digitalisation,  innovation,  regulation,  so  people  are  overburdened,  and  cannot  specialize 
because  the  firm  is  too  small,  and  a  few  people  have  to  solve  everything.  A  large  company,  in 
contrast, can hire specialists for all these issues; such a degree of specialization is often not possible 
in mid-cap firms. Thus, an economic interpretation of ‘caught in the middle’ are indivisibilities and 
minimum efficient scales. 

Another advantage of large firms is that they can employ specialized staff for R&D and innovation in 
dedicated  departments,  while  innovation  in  mid-cap  firms  is  often  one  of  several  activities  of  an 
employee or manager. This challenge also relates to innovation funding, where the panellists saw a 
clear  disadvantage  of  mid-cap  firms  compared  to  large  companies  which  have  experts  who  know 
how  to  apply  for  funding  and  have  the  resources  to  organize  consortia  for  project  applications  in 
Horizon Europe. 

Fourth,  the  panellists  also  gave  some  more  nuanced  impressions  on  the  challenge  of  regulation 
burden which seems to be a structural challenge. It seems that the level of regulation as such is only 
one  part  of  the  problem;  changes  in  regulation  which  require  reactions  by  mid-caps  add  to  the 
challenge.  Moreover,  regulation  does  not  stop  at  the  borders  of  the  EU.  Another  aspect  are 
differences in regulation between the Single Market and non-European countries which make it more 
difficult  to  operate  in  foreign  markets.  Regulatory  burdens  grow  when  mid-cap  firms  expand 
internationally. The participants in the third panel even considered red tape and regulatory burdens 
as the main challenge for mid-cap firms. They mentioned the administrative burden of applying for 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

innovation funding in Horizon Europe and national funding. One participant even stated that this is 
the reason why he does not apply for funding and have all innovation self-financed. 

It  was  also  pointed  out  in  two  panels  that  many  of  the  challenges  mid-cap  firms  are  facing  are 
regional or local which is a result of the strong embeddedness and linkages to the local communities 
many of these firms have. Mid-caps, for example, are often the main employers in rural areas where 
large  companies  do  not  exist.  This  means  that  policies  towards  mid-caps  should  also  mainly  take 
place at the regional or local level. Moreover, this points to the importance of regional development 
instruments such as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the promotion and support 
mid-cap companies. 

Finally, participants in two panels found that succession and cultural change is missing from the list 
of challenges; this is an area where many family-owned mid-cap firms fail. Succession is also closely 
related to disruptive innovation in mid-cap firms because the transfer of ownership to a new owner 
provides opportunities to do things differently. Past success can be an obstacle for radical change in 
many mid-cap firms, in particular when they are family-owned. 

The panellists see a lot of positive developments at the policy level towards mid-caps. The recent 
Risk Finance Guidelines are seen as a game changer, as well as the EU recommendation on business 
transfer which paved the way for changes in legislation at member states level favourable for family-
owned  mid-caps.  A  policy  area  which  was  mentioned  in  all  three  panels  is  regulation  and 
administrative simplification: a more predictive regulatory framework that gives mid-caps more time 
for  implementation,  and  more  proportionality  between  the  administrative  effort  and  the  potential 
effects would be appreciated. One participant suggested a mid-caps filter, similar to the SME filter 
already implemented at EU level. According to this participant, a pre-condition for such a mid-caps 
filter would be the recognition of mid-caps as a separate category of enterprises, just like SMEs. This 
would also pave the way for special funding instruments for mid-caps. 

Finally,  participants  in  two  panels  observed  that  mid-caps  in  China,  the  US  or  Canada  are  better 
supported financially by their governments than EU competitors. Thus, additional efforts of the EU 
to ‘level the playing field’ would be appreciated. 

5.4 

Summary of mid-cap challenges and policy measures at national and 
EU level to address them 

The main takeaways from the semi-structured interviews and panel discussions are as follows:  

The  top  three  challenges  reported  by  mid-caps  in  the  EU  are:  (i)  difficulties  in  finding 
employees (74% of all respondents); (ii) supply chain disruptions and/or the lack of supplies, raw 
materials  (52%  of  all  respondents);  (iii)  regulation  and  administrative  burdens  (36%  of  all 
respondents). The top three challenges mentioned above are the same for small and large mid-caps. 
A greater proportion of small mid-caps report being affected by difficulties in finding employees while 
a  greater  proportion  of  large  mid-caps  say  they  are  affected  by  supply  chain  disruptions  and  by 
regulation and administrative burdens.  

Difficulties in finding employees is the top challenge identified by mid-caps  (nearly three 
quarters of all mid-cap respondents). The top three sectors of the mid-cap respondents who identified 
difficulties  in  finding  employees  are  manufacturing,  information  and  communication,  and 
professional, scientific, and technical activities.  

The lack of skilled employees is identified as a major obstacle to growth by 70% of all respondents. 
It appears to be a major obstacle to growth for a greater proportion of larger mid-caps than for small 
mid-caps. In terms of specific skills, recruitment of qualified technical staff appears to be the most 
important difficulty followed by recruitment of qualified information and technology (IT) staff and the 
loss of employees to competitors. The ranking of difficulties related to the above-mentioned specific 
skills is fairly similar across small and large mid-caps. It is worth noting that a greater proportion of 
respondents from large mid-caps identify difficulties with the recruitment of IT staff as being highly 
important compared to respondents from small mid-caps. This result could reflect the fact that large 
mid-caps are more likely than small mid-cap to use digital technologies.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Supply  chain  disruptions  and/or  lack  of  supplies  and  raw  materials.  The  second  most 
important challenge identified by mid-cap respondents relates to supply chain disruptions (52% of 
all respondents). A greater proportion of large mid-caps reported supply chain disruptions as being 
a major challenge compared with small mid-caps. This reflects the fact that larger mid-caps are likely 
to be more exposed to supply chain disruptions given their involvement in long international supply 
chains. Such difficulties have been identified mostly in the manufacturing sector with the services 
sector and other sectors less affected.  

Legal  and  regulatory  burdens  and  obligations  have  been  identified  as  the  third  most 
important  challenge  for  mid-caps  in  the  EU.  Among  the  legal  requirements  which  appear  to 
hamper  their  growth  plans,  the  most  frequently  reported  as  being  highly  important  is  legislation 
differences  across  countries.  One  third of  respondents  associate  this difficulty  with  regulation  and 
administrative  burdens  at  the  international  level,  while  nearly  a  quarter  of  mid-cap  respondents 
associate this challenge with regulation and administrative burdens at national level. 28% of mid-
cap  respondents  associate  difficulties  arising  from  different  legislation  with  regulation  and 
administrative burdens at the EU level. The next most frequent challenges for mid-caps are related 
to environmental regulation and customs/trade-related legal requirements.  

Obstacles to R&D and innovation. Among all respondents active in R&D and innovation, technical 
problems with the new product or process have been identified as being highly important. The next 
highly important obstacles to R&D and innovation are the lack of funding for R&D and innovation, 
including  government  funding  and  the  lack  of  market  acceptance  for  new  products.  Technical 
problems with a new product or process have been identified as being of high importance by a larger 
proportion of respondents from large mid-caps compared to respondents from small mid-caps. The 
lack of funding for R&D and innovation appears to be of high importance for a smaller proportion of 
respondents from small mid-caps compared to respondents from large mid-caps. These results can 
be explained by the higher propensity of larger mid-cap to invest in R&D and innovation.  

Obstacles  to  sustainability.  In  terms  of  obstacles  preventing  mid-caps  to  become  more 
sustainable, the lack of consumer demand is the most frequently reported, followed by the lack of 
profitability. 

Access to finance. More than half of the respondents report that internal resources are enough to 
fund  their growth  plans.  More  than  one  third of  all  respondents  are  looking  for  external  financing 
from banks and/or investors and only 8% are looking for public funding and/or state aid to finance 
their growth plans. The proportion of the respondents who say they have enough internal finance for 
their growth plans is greater for large mid-caps relative to small mid-caps.   

Obstacles to digitalisation. Among obstacles to the adoption and use of digital technologies, the 
most important appear to be the difficulty to recruit skilled staff for developing or implementing these 
technologies followed by the difficulty to integrate these technologies into existing processes and IT 
security issues.   

Obstacles to FDI. In terms of obstacles to FDI inside the EU, among mid-caps with affiliates abroad, 
the most important appear to be the loss of flexibility with long supply chains and market access. 
Most frequent obstacles to mid-caps FDI outside the EU are market access and loss of flexibility with 
long supply chains.   

There are also some differences between large and small mid-caps. Relative to large mid-caps, a 
greater  proportion  of  small  mid-caps  identify  challenges  relating  to  becoming  more 
sustainable,  payment  delays  as  well  as  other  areas  not  mentioned  in  the  interview 
questionnaire.  Relative  to  small  mid-caps,  a  greater  proportion  of  large  mid-caps  identify 
challenges relating to the lack of skills, including management skills, difficulties relating 
to  innovation,  access  to  finance,  as  well  as  access  to  data.  Challenges  relating  to 
internationalisation and digitalisation appear to affect equally small and large mid-caps. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered or worsened the challenges a large proportion of mid-
caps are facing. While the interview questionnaire was designed before the start of Russia’s invasion 
of Ukraine, a number of mid-cap respondents have identified the impact of Russia’s invasion of 
Ukraine as a source of heightened difficulties and challenges. Some of these difficulties are 
associated  with  higher  energy  costs  and  disrupted  international  travel.  The  respondents  who 
identified the impact of the war in Ukraine as a key challenge were from Austria, the Czech Republic 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

and  Germany.  In  terms  of  sectoral  affiliations,  the  respondents  were  from  manufacturing, 
construction, and professional, scientific, and technical activities.      

What can policy do to help mid-cap firms overcome these challenges?  

Many of these challenges are relevant for all types of firms, not just mid-caps. Thus, in most cases 
there are no policies that only benefit mid-cap firms and leave other types of firms out. An example 
is  the  challenge  to  find  skilled  personnel:  if  policy  fosters  education  and  training,  this  will  benefit 
SMEs, mid-caps, and large companies alike. An exception is the access to finance, where the Risk 
Finance Guidelines consider small and innovative mid-caps as eligible as SMEs, therefore allowing 
targeted measures for this category of undertakings (defined as specific categories). 

Legal framework for State aid 

Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in principle prohibits the 
granting  of  State  aid,  unless  it  is  exceptionally  approved  by  the  Commission  as  being  compatible 
with the internal market. Article 107 TFEU also lays down in more detail the provisions on the basis 
of  which  such  aid  can  be  declared  compatible  by  the  Commission  following  a  notification  by  the 
Member State of a planned State aid measure. As such, the Treaty lays down a general obligation 
by  Member  States  to  notify  any  planned  State  aid  measures  to  the  European  Commission  before 
implementing them (‘standstill obligation’). State aid can thus be available for companies of all sizes, 
at the discretion of the Member States. 

Block Exemption Regulations, such as the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER, Commission 
Regulation  651/2014),  constitute  an  important  exception  from  this  standstill  obligation.  These 
regulations lay down ex ante compatibility conditions for cases for which competition distortions are 
limited,  on  the  basis  of  which  Member  States  can  directly,  and  without  a  prior  notification  of  the 
planned measure to the Commission, implement State aid measures. The GBER covers a wide range 
of State aid measures, including aid for the economic development of regions where the standard of 
living  is  abnormally  low,  aid  to  SMEs,  aid  for  access  to  finance  for  SMEs,  aid  for  research, 
development and innovation, for training, and for different investments related to energy efficiency 
and environmental goals.  

The  vast  majority  of  EU  State  aid  measures  (more  than  95%  of  new  measures)  are  today  block 
exempted under the GBER and can be implemented by Member States directly and on the basis of 
clear  criteria.  This  increases  legal  certainty  and  decreases  the  administrative  burden.  The 
Commission has revised the GBER several times in recent years. In particular, an amendment was 
adopted in 2021 to align the GBER with the new Multiannual Financial Framework and to facilitate 
the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. This amendment, for example, extended 
the scope of the GBER to block exempt State aid via the InvestEU fund. InvestEU supports SMEs, 
small mid-caps, and larger companies in the following policy areas: broadband; energy generation 
and  infrastructure;  social,  educational,  cultural,  and  natural  heritage  infrastructure  and  activities; 
transport  and  transport  infrastructure;  other  infrastructures  than  transport;  environmental 
protection,  including  climate  protection;  research,  development,  innovation  and  digitalization. 
Further  new  provisions  introduced  in  this  amendment  cover  aid  for  research,  development  and 
innovation  projects,  European  Territorial  Cooperation  projects,  energy  efficiency  measures,  clean 
mobility, and broadband investments. 

In addition, the Commission is currently amending the GBER to align it with State aid Guidelines that 
were recently revised in light of the Green Deal and the digital transition. This covers the areas of 
regional  aid;  climate,  environmental  and  energy  aid;  research,  development  and  innovation;  risk 
finance aid and aid for broadband. This amendment of the GBER is planned for adoption at the end 
of 2022.  

Difficulties in finding employees 

The most pressing challenge for mid-cap firms is to find employees, in particular difficulties to recruit 
qualified technical staff and information technology staff. Thus, the challenge of finding employees 
is also an obstacle for other activities, for example innovation or digitalisation. One third of all mid-
caps consider difficulties to recruit skilled staff for implementing digitalisation as a highly relevant 
obstacle for their digitalisation activities. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Labour markets are mostly national or regional, so the EU Member States or regions are in charge 
of education policies, and the European Commission has a co-ordinating and supporting role. At the 
level of EU Member States, a large number of measures exist towards training and skills, which are 
monitored and compared on annual basis by various reports including the Education and Training 
Monitor 2021 (European Commission 2021b). Member States have agreed on that at least 47% of 
adults aged 25-64 should participate in learning by 2025 and at least 60% of adults should participate 
in  learning  by  2030.  COVID-19,  however,  has  interrupted  already-slow  progress  in  adult  learning 
across the EU, according to the Education and Training Monitor 2021. 

An example of EU policies is the 2030 Policy Programme “Path to the Digital Decade” where the EU 
proposes,  among  other  measures,  at  least  20  million  employed  information  and  communications 
technology  (ICT)  specialists  in  the  European  Union  by  2030  (European  Commission  2021d).  This 
means additional efforts by the member states in an area where mid-caps suffer particularly from 
labour shortage. This goal is part of a larger set of targets that will be laid out in the digital decade 
strategic roadmaps in which the Member States outline policies.  

In order to ease skills shortages, the EU may focus on lifelong learning and re-training of adults to 
complement national policies. The Education and Training Monitor 2021 published by the European 
Commission has identified adult learning as a potential gap in national policies. In addition, the EC 
could focus on facilitating immigration within the EU. However, firms in all Member States suffer from 
personnel shortage, so more intra-EU migration may only have a limited benefit and may even have 
adverse effects for disadvantaged regions in the EU. The EU also supports student and staff mobility 
and cooperation in the education and training via ERASMUS+. In addition, the GBER block exempts 
training  aid,  so  Member  States  have  the  freedom  to  introduce  new  measures  to  support  training 
activities directly without the need of a prior notification to the Commission if the conditions set out 
in the GBER are fulfilled. 

A major push for more digital skills can also be expected from the Recovery and Resilience Facility 
(RRF), an instrument worth 723.8 billion EUR initiated by the European Commission (2021a) to help 
the Member States to emerge stronger and more resilient from the COVID-19 crisis. In the countries 
where the RRF plans have been approved so far more than 26% of the national RRF budgets have 
been  allocated  to  digital  transition14  which  also  includes  the  development  of  digital  skills.  The 
Education  and  Training  Monitor  2021  published  by  the  European  Commission  estimates  that 
education and skill-related reforms and investments are expected to make up about 13 % of total 
RRF expenditure. Thus, also mid-cap firms will benefit from increased efforts by the Member States 
financed via the RRF to improve the skills base. 

Moreover, education and training were also one of the eleven priorities for Cohesion Policy in 2014-
2020, so skills development is also in the focus of EU Cohesion Policy. Support is organized through 
the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 

Supply chain disruptions 

Supply shortages and supply chain disruptions have become a major challenge since the outbreak of 
COVID-19 for many firms including mid-caps. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated shortages 
in  some  industries;  an  often-cited  example  is  the  supply  of  wire  harness  from  the  Ukraine  to  the 
European automotive industry.15 

The  European  Commission  has  taken  steps  to  identify  strategic  dependencies  of  the  EU  economy 
with  the  goal  of  reducing  them  and  to  increase  Europe’s  capacities  in  these  fields  (European 
Commission 2021g). Examples are the Supply Chain Task Force set up by DG GROW and the Supply 
Chains Network of Member States Ministers. This is, however, a long-term process. As short-term 
remedies,  firms  already  have  increased  stockpiling  and  diversified  their  supply  chains.  Some 
countries  have  also  taken  measures  such  as  export  restrictions  for  medical  goods,  but  these  are 

14 https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en, accessed May 19, 2022 

15 https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/motor/keine-kabelbaeume-aus-der-ukraine-welche-auswege-gibt-es-17913677.html 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

exceptions only relevant for a very small share of overall supply chains. Aside from that, it seems 
that there is very little to do to in the short term to relax supply chain disruptions of firms. 

Over the long term, the EC suggests to diversify the sourcing of supplies. Moreover, Europe has to 
build or rebuild some of the strategic capacities currently missing. To increase efficiency and avoid 
duplication,  solutions  at  the  European  level,  where  they  are  possible,  should  go  together  with 
diversification of external sources of supplies. A European approach should also be favoured for the 
recent gas supply disruptions and price increases. This may include new international partnerships 
with supplier countries to increase supply chain security and the availability of diversified sourcing 
options. 

In the long term, bringing back production from outside the EU to locations in the Member States, 
also  known  as  backshoring,  may  also  be  a  remedy  for  supply  chain  disruptions.  This,  however, 
requires substantial investments by firms, which might be supported by national governments and 
the EU. So far, such financial support for backshoring – to our best knowledge – does not exist in 
the  European  Union.  However,  firms  may  use  other  forms  of  national  investment  support,  or 
investment support as part of the EU Cohesion policy. An example for national investment support 
is Austria’s Investitionprämie (investment premium). The Investitionsprämie grants to companies of 
all sizes a non-repayable subsidy of seven percent for investments and doubles this subsidy to 14% 
for investments in sustainability, digitalisation, and life sciences. The most recent budget forecast by 
the Austrian Ministry of Finance estimates that the final volume of the Investitionsprämie may be 
around 5.7 billion EUR (BMF 2021, p. 121). Another concern relating to backshoring is the loss of 
market  diversification  in  terms  of  suppliers  and  increased  exposure  and  vulnerability  to  domestic 
shocks. 

Regulation and administrative burden 

Regulation  and  administrative  burden  may  increase  with  firm  size,  so  this  is  a  challenge  which  is 
more  specific  to  mid-caps.  Size-dependent  regulation  may  lead  to  a  situation  where  regulation 
discourages small firms to scale-up and grow (lock-in effect, Sylvest, Yding Sørensen et al. 2018). 
Röhl (2018) presents examples of size-dependent regulations in the German labour law and makes 
the case to reduce administrative burden for mid-caps. There is also some anecdotal evidence from 
interviews and panellists about this phenomenon, but still very little systematic firm-level empirical 
evidence of the effects regulation has on SME growth (Mallet and Wapshott 2018). Regulation tends 
to be reported as a barrier to firm-level growth although rarely is it identified as a principal hurdle. 
Results  from  the  SME  Survey  and  the  Flash  Eurobarometer  486  (European  Commission  2020a) 
suggest that size-dependent regulation and the lock-in effect may be only a minor obstacle to growth 
in SMEs. 

There are also long-term activities of the European Commission to reduce administrative burden in 
the  Member  States,  like  the  White  Paper  on  European  Governance,  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission on better governance for the Single Market, or the Communication from the Commission 
on the European Interoperability Framework. An example of such activities at Member States level 
are various acts to reduce bureaucracy put forward by the German government which are also part 
of Germany’s SME strategy. We may also add the challenge of payment delays here, as these delays 
are related to governments. 

Challenges from regulation and administrative burden can also arise outside the Single Market. Mid-
cap firms frequently operate outside the European Union – two thirds of all mid-caps interviewed are 
exporting in countries outside the EU. Moreover, 21% of all mid-caps see barriers for market access 
a highly relevant for their investment activities outside the European Union. In these markets, mid-
caps are faced with a number of regulations that differ from those in the Single Market. An example 
mentioned  in  the  panels  is  product  admission,  which  is  frequently  seen  as  a  serious  obstacle  for 
market  access.  In  fact,  discrimination  against  foreign  competitors  has  increased  since  the  Global 
Financial Crisis of 2008/09 (Evenett 2019). One feature of the development in recent years, according 
to  Evenett  (2019),  has  been  the  growth  of  localization  measures,  rules  requiring  the  use  of  local 
labour, parts, components, or data storage facilities. 

There  are  of  course  a  lot  of  ongoing  activities  in  the  EU  and  at  Member  State  level  towards 
administrative simplification, so it is difficult to generalize if there exists a gap or not. Given the high 
levels of agreement that regulation is a challenge, it seems that more could be done in this area. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Moreover, there are also ongoing activities at the global level to reduce differences in regulation in 
the form of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. As Evenett (2019) indicates, however, the 
trend seems to go in the opposite direction, towards more discrimination against foreign competitors 
in international trade. Thus, it seems that there is a gap in existing policies here, and less regulation 
could benefit the growth of mid-caps. 

Difficulties with innovation 

The  majority  of  mid-cap  firms  are  permanently  engaged  in  R&D  activities  so  difficulties  with 
innovation  are  highly  relevant  for  this  group  of  firms.  Technical  problems  with  new  products  and 
processes are most frequent, followed by a lack of funding.  

There is an elaborated support system for R&D and innovation in place at the EU and Member State 
level to help firms in in R&D and innovation. Activities at EU level focus around Horizon Europe, while 
the  Member  States  have  established  thousands  of  different  measures,  mostly  bottom  up  and 
supplemented by tax credits for R&D. We found no specific measures for mid-caps (with the exception 
of  risk  financing  for  innovation  and  digitalisation under  InvestEU  –  SME  window  -  that  specifically 
address small mid-caps and SMEs provided by the EIF through financial intermediaries), but most of 
the funding and support schemes are open for them as well. This is the case for all EU funding (with 
the exception of measures targeted towards SMEs). 

The  vast  majority  of  support  for  innovation  and  R&D  in  the  European  Union  comes  from  national 
sources. From scanning the literature, we did not found measures that would address mid-caps. The 
OECD  STI  policy  compass  database16,  for  example,  lists  1,873  R&D  and  innovation  measures 
targeted  at  firms  of  any  size,  743  for  SMEs,  208  for  micro  enterprises,  and  71  for  multinational 
enterprises. If restrictions related to firm size exist in national R&D and innovation funding, they are 
likely to include mid-caps as well as large firms. So mid-caps are eligible for the majority of measures. 
Mid-caps are also eligible for in the tax credit schemes for R&D the majority of Member States has 
set up in recent years (Appelt, Galindo-Rueda et al. 2019). There is no country that would exclude 
mid-caps, however in some countries SMEs get a favourable treatment. 

Despite  this  non-discrimination  in  access  to  innovation  funding,  the  data  show  that  mid-caps  less 
frequently apply for national or EU funding for innovation than larger firms (see Section 4.6). Results 
from  interviews  and  the  panels  provide  some  explanation: the  considerably  lower  participation  of 
mid-caps  compared  to  large  companies  is  the  result  of  the  lack  of  resources  to  monitor  funding 
opportunities, to apply for funding and to administer the projects. Mid-cap firms often cannot afford 
to employ specialists for funding or the management of funded projects so they have less information 
on  funding  opportunities  and  often  can  only  join  a  project  consortium  as  a  partner,  not  as  co-
ordinator. This may be less attractive for many mid-cap firms and may explain the low participation 
rate of mid-caps compared to large firms in the European Framework programmes. 

Sustainability 

The  biggest  push  towards  sustainability  in  the  next  years  at  EU  level  can  be  expected  from  the 
Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) where the EU has earmarked around 270 billion EUR for the 
Green Transition. These funds are allocated to the Member States according to plans submitted to 
the European Commission. The national RRF plans17 are deeply rooted in the national environmental 
policies, so they are a good illustration of national efforts towards climate change and sustainability.  

The regulation that established the RRF (European Union 2021a) makes no reference to mid-caps, 
however, some Member States have rules in place that prefer mid-caps or SMEs in some areas of 
funding. Croatia will use parts of its RRF funding to support mid-caps in the green transition. Bulgaria 
will  support  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  and  mid-capitalisation  companies  in  modernising 
their technology and in their transition to green, circular, and digital-oriented business practices with 
RRF funds. Poland suggested similar funding schemes where SMEs and mid-caps are supported from 
the RRF to innovate and produce low-emission mobility and alternative energy solutions. Moreover, 

16 https://stip.oecd.org/stip/interactive-dashboards;selectedAggregation=policyInstrumentList, accessed June 5, 2022 

17 https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en#national-recovery-and-resilience-plans 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Poland will also set up a dedicated investment fund which will provide equity or debt support for such 
solutions, focusing on SMEs and mid-caps. 

A second database used in the survey of mid-cap policies towards sustainability is the database on 
Policy Instruments for the Environment18 (PINE) provided by the OECD which gathers quantitative 
and qualitative information on six types of policy instruments in more than 120 countries. PINE allows 
to search for keywords and types of beneficiaries. A number of measures are related to SMEs, but 
none to mid-caps, so they are eligible for funding only when all types for firms are eligible. 

Access to finance 

According to the interviews of Chapter 4, difficulties to access external finance do not seem to be the 
prime  challenge  mid-cap  firms  face.  This  may  be  due  to  additional  financial  support  by  public 
authorities to fight the economic consequences of COVID-19, or more caution in scaling-up and a 
lack of investment opportunities due to the crisis. Nevertheless, access to finance is a serious issue 
for  many  mid-cap  firms  when it  comes  to  substantial  expansion investments,  the  development of 
radical,  new  innovations  and  business  models,  or  investments  in  sustainability.  Such  upscaling 
activities  are  important  for  the  further  growth of  mid-caps;  mature  firms  that  have  existed  for  at 
least six years, and not young enterprises, make up three-quarters of those enterprises that scale-
up employment (OECD 2021f, p. 63). 

Access to finance is the area where measures that target mid-caps are most frequent. We used the 
Trade Alert database, a database of 18,137 corporate subsidies, subsidy awards and subsidy policy 
changes  undertaken  by  public  bodies  in  China,  the  European  Union,  and  the  United  States  from 
November 2008 to October 2021. The database lists 333 subsidies that mention mid-caps, almost 
all of them related to transactions where the EIB provides funds to European banks with the goal to 
finance  SMEs  and  mid-caps,  so  these  are  all  state  loans  or  loan  guarantees.  They  include,  for 
example,  Venture  Debt,  a  programme  by  the  EIB  to  address  the  funding  needs  of  fast-growing 
innovative companies. Another programme in this area is InvestEU, a financing scheme that aims to 
mobilise  public  and  private  investment  through  an  EU  budget  guarantee  of  26.2 billion  EUR.  Mid-
caps are eligible in three of the four policy areas (in the SME window, small mid-caps are eligible) of 
InvestEU. 

Most of the measures target mid-caps and SMEs; only 54 out of the 333 refer to mid-caps alone. A 
third of these measures have been introduced after March 2020, during COVID-19 pandemic. There 
is only one reference to mid-caps outside the EU, a modification of the UK venture capital scheme to 
include mid-caps. However, this is from 2015, so we may also consider it EU-related. These results 
can be compared with a similar search for SMEs, which yields considerably more funding schemes, 
including ones from China and the US. 

To sum up, the main challenges for mid-cap firms are all long-standing problems for enterprises of 
all sizes in the EU, and there exists an elaborated support system at EU and national level to help 
firms to cope with these challenges. The exception is supply chain disruptions. Moreover, three of 
the challenges – skills, R&D and innovation, and finance – relate to areas which are exceptions of 
the state aid rules as laid out in the General Block Exemption Regulation, so Member States are free 
to increase their support in these areas. The question why these challenges still exist despite public 
support is beyond the scope of this study and points to the limits of any economic policy. 

18 https://pinedatabase.oecd.org/ 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

6  POLICY  MEASURES  OF  THE  MAIN  TRADE  PARTNERS  OF  THE  EU  TO  SUPPORT 

MID-CAPS 

This chapter investigates how mid-cap firms are supported in the main trade partners of the EU. We 
cover the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Japan, and Switzerland. The rules for subsidies 
in these countries differ from the regulations for state aid19 in the European Union, which may cause 
distortions and an uneven playing field for EU firms (European Commission 2020c). 

Comparisons across countries 

A  general  difficulty  of  such  comparisons  is  the  multitude  of  public  support  for  enterprises.  This 
support  includes  not  only  direct  subsidies,  state  grants  and  loans,  but  also  state  guarantees, 
preferential  interest  rates,  tax  credits,  the  provision  of  goods  or  services  on  preferential  terms, 
reduction or exemption from charges or taxes, preferred public procurement, consultancy services 
or even state ownership. On the one hand, this makes comparisons across countries difficult, because 
data on these other forms of support is not available in many cases, and different types of support 
are  not  directly  comparable.  On  the  other  hand,  many  of  these  other  types  of  support  are  not 
compatible with EU competition law, so countries which use those types of support do not contribute 
to a level playing field with regards to competition. Evenett and Fritz (2021) report that such types 
of support are frequently used by the Chinese government. 

Comparisons  across  countries  are  also  difficult  because  comprehensive  data  on  state  aid  in  EU 
member states and subsidies that cover all relevant countries in sufficient detail are not available. 
Thus, data on the amount of support for mid-cap firms that would allow comparisons is not available, 
either.  A  joint  paper  by  the  International  Monetary  Fund,  the  OECD,  The  World  Bank,  and  World 
Trade  Organization  (IMF,  OECD,  World  Bank  and  WTO,  2022)  finds  that  information  on  subsidies 
overall remains scarce. The paper finds that collectively, China, the EU, and the United States account 
for  over  half  of  the  number  of  global  subsidy  measures,  and  subsidies  seemed  to  become  more 
common since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/09. Moreover, subsidies are provided by national 
governments as well as sub-national entities, for example, by U.S. states or Chinese provinces (IMF, 
OECD, World Bank and WTO, 2022). The joint study by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, 
The World Bank, and World Trade Organization finds that at the sectoral level, the highest frequencies 
of subsidies are to be found in the transport equipment sector, in special-purpose machinery, the 
generation of electricity, steam and gas, electrical machinery & apparatus, basic chemicals and in 
pharmaceuticals. Some of these, in particular chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and electrical machinery, 
are  sectors  in  which  mid-caps  appear  frequently  according  to  the  analysis  in  Chapter  4.3  of  this 
report. 

As  noted  above,  data  on  subsidies  is  only  available  at  a  very  aggregated  level.  The  European 
Commission  publishes detailed data  on  state  aid  (see  for  example European Commission,  2021f), 
while the OECD provides data on the size of subsidies as a percentage of GDP for various EU member 
states and non-Member States (see figure below). From those data, it seems that EU member states 
often  have  higher  levels  of  subsidies  than  non-EU  members.  However,  these  data  also  include 
agricultural subsidies which may be the reason for the high value for Switzerland because agricultural 
subsidies  constitute  a  large  part  of  overall  subsidies  in  Switzerland  according  to  the  Global  Trade 
Alert Report. 

China is missing in the OECD data, and data for the country is not available from the International 
Monetary Fund20, either. However, the Global Trade Alert Report (Evenett and Fritz 2021), the most 
comprehensive  collection  of  subsidies,  provides  information  on  China  that  allows  to  compare  the 
country with the EU and the US. From the data, it seems that China has less subsidies that affect 
trade in agricultural goods than the EU, but more subsidies in trade of manufactured goods than the 
EU and the US: “such is China’s extensive resort to subsidies, that by 2020 we estimate that 38.5% 
of  world  goods  exports  were  in  markets  where  either  import-competing  Chinese  firms  received 
subsidies  or  Chinese  exporters  received  greater  inducements  to  export.  The  corresponding 

19 The term state aid only exists in EU legislation, so we will refer to subsidies when we talk about public financial support for enterprises in countries 

outside the EU. 

20 https://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=60991457 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

percentages for the EU and the USA are 24.4% and 13.4%, respectively” (Evenett and Fritz 2021, p 
37). Moreover, office, accounting & computing machinery is the sector in China with the second most 
subsidy  awards  recorded  by  the  Global  Trade  Alert  Report,  followed  by  electrical  machinery. 
According to the analysis in Chapter 4.3 of this report, these are sectors where mid-cap firms are 
strong.  Thus,  subsidies  for  manufactured  goods  in  sectors  where  mid-caps  have  a  high  share  on 
overall firms should be substantially larger in China than in the EU and the US. 

Figure 6.1: Government subsidies as a percentage of GDP, 2019 

Source: OECD, Government expenditures by function (COFOG)21, includes central and local governments 

Another factor which contributes to the difficulties in comparing subsidies is state ownership which 
is much more relevant in China than in other OECD countries. For the example of R&D subsidies, 
Boeing  and  Peters  (2021)  found  that  government  funding  of  business  R&D  expenditures  in  China 
accounted for only 3.7% on average between 2011 and 2020, considerably below OECD average. 
However, this doubles to 7.1% once R&D funding through state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is added, 
and further increases when the authors consider self-raised R&D funds by semi-SOEs. This example 
demonstrates the possible pitfalls of international comparisons. 

In addition, there is also evidence that the Chinese government influences the allocation as well as 
the  prices  of  various  production  factors  including  energy  and  raw  materials,  in  a  “very  significant 
manner”  (European  Commission  2017b,  p.  3).  Such  interventions  may  be  of  a  considerable 
advantage for Chinese mid-caps – China has a programme in place to support “Little Giants” – but 
are difficult to quantify and to sum up with direct subsidies. 

Nevertheless, these data give some indirect evidence that mid-cap firms receive subsidies. We will 
present some more evidence below, although there is little information available on measures that 
directly target mid-cap firms. We searched various databases for such evidence, including the Global 
Trade Alert Report database22, the EU anti-subsidy rules database23 of all subsidies investigated by 
the EU, the WTO database on formal disputes concerning subsidies24, or the OECD tracker of policy 
responses to COVID-1925. Nearly all hits for the terms “mid-caps” or “mid-sized” are related to EIB 

21 https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11 

22 https://www.globaltradealert.org/ 

23 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/2e3865ad-3886-4131-92bb-a71754fffec6/library/0b8b5cb5-af24-40b9-9385-125ee7b9d61e/details 

24 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm 

25 https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/policy-responses 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

funding of mid-cap firms. This lets us assume that the term mid-caps is only used in the EU in the 
context of public support for enterprises. 

United States of America 

Mid-cap firms accounted for around 13% of total employment in the United States in 2017 according 
to the US Business Census. This is around the same share as mid-cap firms have in total employment 
in the European Union. 

There  is  no official  mid-caps  definition  in  the  United  States,  so  no  specifically  dedicated  mid-caps 
support  neither.  However,  the  definition  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (size  standards) 
brought forward by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) also includes firms with more than 
250 employees as described in Chapter 3. Some of these thresholds go well into mid-cap territory 
with  thresholds  of  1,500  employees,  and  there  are  very  few  industries,  mostly  in  utilities,  with 
thresholds of 250 employees. SBA supports small businesses in numerous ways including through 
loans,  contracting  programs,  counselling,  and  other  funding  opportunities  and  grant  programs.  It 
was, however, not possible to get data that would quantify their support for mid-caps from the SBA. 

As a result, mid-caps are also eligible for SME funding in some sectors in the US, which may give 
them an advantage over EU competitors of the same size. These include various forms of guarantees, 
loans,  export  loans  and  advise,  procurement  assistance,  counselling  and  training,  and  disaster 
relieve. Moreover, the SBA was also involved in various funding activities in response to the COVID19 
pandemic. This has increased its portfolio of outstanding guaranteed loans considerably to 713 billion 
USD  in  2021  according  to  SBA’s  financial  report  (U.S.  Small  Business  Administration  2022).  As  a 
comparison,  InvestEU  plans  to  mobilise  some  372  billion  EUR  of  public  and  private  investment 
through  an  EU  budget  guarantee.  Even  if  the  two  organisations  are  not  fully  comparable,  the 
difference in size is obvious. 

SBA’s programmes were already considerably larger than their EU counterparts in the past (Dilger 
2016). The COSME Loan Guarantee Facility had a planned volume between 14 and 21 billion EUR 
over seven years, and the goal of the InnovFin SME Guarantee program was to provide 24 billion 
EUR of debt and equity financing to innovative SMEs and small mid-caps by 2020. In comparison, 
the SBA’s loan guaranty programs provide between 20 and 25 billion USD in loan guarantees to small 
businesses  each  year.  COSME’s  goal  with  the  Equity  Facility  for  Growth  program  was  to  provide 
between 2.6 and 4 billion EUR in venture capital financing to SMEs over seven years (2014-2020). 
The  SBA’s  Small  Business  Investment  Company  program  provides  that  amount  of  venture  capital 
financing to small businesses each year. In addition, support for business R&D via direct government 
funding and tax support is higher in the US than in the EU (OECD 2022). Moreover, mid-caps in the 
US  are  of  course  also  eligible  for  general  support  measures  that  address  enterprises  of  all  size. 
Particularly  relevant  for  mid-caps  may  be  venture  capital  and  entrepreneurship  support  that 
addresses  fast-growing  firms  of  all  sizes.  The  OECD  (2021a)  provides  some  examples  for  these 
policies. 

The  sources  cited  in  Section  6.1,  including  Figure  6.1,  suggest  that  the  United  States  provide 
considerably less subsidies to enterprises than the EU or China. However, the considerably higher 
thresholds in the US SME definition and larger available funding volumes for SMEs suggest that mid-
caps – as a distinct group of firms – may enjoy more public support in the US than companies of 
comparable size in the EU. Empirical evidence that would allow a test of this assumption, however, 
is not available. 

People’s Republic of China 

There is no definition of mid-caps in China. However, firms that are considered as mid-caps in the 
EU may fall into the Chinese SME category, as the thresholds for SMEs in China are higher in many 
sectors  compared  to  those  in  the  EU.  Therefore,  we  focus  on  large  medium-sized  companies  in 
analysing China’s subsidies policies. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

SME definitions vary by sector in China. According to the legal document issued by the Ministry of 
Industry  and  Information  Technology  of  the  People's  Republic  of  China26,  a  medium-sized  firm  in 
industrial  sectors  has  between  300  and  1,000  employees  and  with  annual  turnover  between  20 
million  and  400  million  Yuan  (roughly,  2.8  million  to  57  million  EUR).  Industrial  sectors  in  China 
include mining, manufacturing, and energy (the production and supply of electricity, gas, and water). 
However, the threshold of medium-sized company in software and information technology services 
is  lower,  which  consists  of  firms  with  100-300  employees  and  with  annual  turnover  between  10 
million and 100 million Yuan (1.4 million to 14 million EUR).  

To support the development of SMEs, the “Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion 
of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises”27 (SMEs promotion law, thereafter), was issued in 2002. It 
came into force in 2003 and was revised in 2017.  28 According to the SMEs promotion law, China 
regards the development of SMEs as a long-term development strategy, and will provide a mix29 of 
supports, including fiscal and tax support, financial support, innovation support, market development 
support,  and  special  supports  for  start-ups.  Based  on  the  law,  a  number  of  policies  were 
implemented. Among them, the most relevant and important one that relates to the promotion of 
large medium-sized firms (which could be considered as mid-caps in the EU definition) are the 12th, 
13th,  and  14th  “Five-Year  Plan  for  Promoting  the  Development  of  Small  and  Medium-Sized 
Enterprises” (12th, 13th and 14th Five-Year Plan, thereafter). The 12th Five-Year Plan highlights the 
state’s objectives between 2011-2015. The 13th Five-Year Plan is for 2016-2020 and the 14th Five-
Year Plan is for 2021-2025. 

The 12th Five-Year Plan introduced the term “specialized and sophisticated enterprises”30. The term 
refers to the SMEs that focus on specific market and their main business, that are specialized in an 
industry, that are sophisticated in production and management, that are distinguishable from other 
companies, and that are innovative. Many of them are upper-stream firms in the production chain 
and are not well known to consumers. The term is similar to the concept of “Hidden Champions”  31 
introduced by Hermann Simon (2012). The 12th Five-Year Plan states that the government regards 
the “specialized and sophisticated enterprises” stage as the main stage in the SMEs’ development 
path. The government will provide special support to help SMEs to grow into the “specialized and 
sophisticated enterprises” stage, such as helping them to optimise the allocation of resources and 
facilitating the construction of industrial clusters. This idea has been re-emphasized in the 13th and 
14th Five-Year Plans. 

Additionally,  during  the  13th  Five-Year  Plan  period  (2016-2020),  two  important  policies  were 
implemented  to  promote  “specialized  and  sophisticated”  SMEs.32  In  line  with  the  “Made  in  China 
2025”  plan,  in  2016,  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Information  Technology  published  “The 
implementation  plan  of  the  special  action  plan  for  the  promotion  of  the  champion  enterprises  in 
individual fields in the manufacturing industry”33 (the Implementation Plan, thereafter). It aims to 
select 200 champion enterprises in individual fields in the manufacturing industry by 2025, and the 
government  will  help  them  to  achieve  a  global  leading  position.  Additionally,  the  Implementation 
Plan  states  that  the  government  will  also  select  600  companies  with  the  potential  to  scale-up  as 
Champions, and the government will provide support for their growth. However, little data is available 
on how these special supports are implemented and exercised, at least, to the public. In addition, it 

26 Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China (2011). http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-07/04/content_1898747.htm 

27 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (2002). 

http://www.scio.gov.cn/ztk/xwfb/2013/gxbjxlscxqdfzzldfmqkfbh/xgzc/Document/1347429/1347429.htm 

28 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. 2017 revision. 

http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/jiguanzx/201904/20190402851412.shtml 

29 The original Chinese world means “basket”, which is a widely used term in describing Chinese policies 

30 The 12th Five-Year Plan for Promoting the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (2011). http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2011-

09/23/content_1955213.htm 

31 Dong Jinmei (2021). 新发展格局构建下的隐形冠军培育路径. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/wsdwhfz/202111/t20211129_1305672.html?code=&state=123 

32 The 13th Five-Year Plan for Promoting the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (2016). 

http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/bh/201610/20161001542549.shtml 

33 The implementation plan of the special action plan for the promotion of the champion enterprises in individual fields in the manufacturing industry 

(2016). https://www.miit.gov.cn/zwgk/zcwj/wjfb/zh/art/2020/art_f514aa7e7a954ba6bad6bfb5e345b6d4.html 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

is unclear whether the implementation would be carried out by the central government, or whether 
the local government would have the right to adjust their actions according to local specific features. 

In 2018, another concept of large and successful SMEs, “Little Giants”, is introduced in a “Note from 
the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in the cultivation of specialized and sophisticated 
little  giant  companies”.34  “Little  Giants”  refers  to  outstanding  companies  in  the  “specialized  and 
sophisticated enterprises” category. They should have annual turnover between 100 and 400 million 
Yuan and have an annual turnover growth rate greater than 10%. They should also focus on their 
main business, should be innovative, and should have delicacy management. Although the document 
states that selected firms would benefit from several supports, details are not given.   

More details on the support for “Little Giants” are provided in the “Note from the Ministry of Finance 
and  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Information  Technology  regarding  Supporting  the  High-quality 
Development of Technologically Advanced Small and Medium-sized Enterprises” (thereafter, Note), 
issued in 2021. Specifically, the Note states that the central government finance will arrange over 
10 billion Yuan (1.43 billion EUR) between 2021-2025 as grants or subsidies to local governments 
(mainly governments at the province and municipality level) to support the development of national 
level “Little Giant” companies. The funding will also be used to facilitate the growth of around 10,000 
SMEs, and to help them grow into “Little Giants”. However, it is unclear whether the 10 billion Yuan 
grants will be used directly as awards or subsidies to SMEs or will be used to improve the assistance 
policies and the public service system of the local governments, through which they provide better 
services to SMEs. 

The most recent updates about the policies on mid-caps and SMEs in China is the 14th Five-Year 
Plan35.  It  re-emphasises  the  importance  of  “specialized  and  sophisticated  enterprises”  and  “Little 
Giants” and points out the need to have a “classified cultivation” of SMEs based on their development 
stages, features, and special needs. Following that, the “Interim measures for the administration of 
the “gradient cultivation” of high-quality Small and Medium-sized Enterprises”36 (Interim Measures, 
thereafter)  has  been  approved  this  year,  2022.  The  Interim  Measures  require  governments  at  all 
levels to select high-quality SMEs, “specialized and sophisticated enterprises”, and “Little Giants” on 
their own, and provide customized supports. The goal is to select and cultivate one million innovative 
SMEs, 100,000 “specialized and sophisticated enterprises”, and 10,000 “Little Giants” during 2021-
2025, the years covered by the 14th Five-Year Plan. The customized support will include, but will not 
be limited to, direct and indirect finance and tax support, technology and training support, human 
resources recruitment support, provision of industrial land and buildings, and reduction of regulatory 
burden. 

There is little data on the total aid that the government provided to mid-caps and SMEs in China. 
Nevertheless,  in  the  14th  Five-Year  Plan,  some  statistics  about  the  support  on  “specialized  and 
sophisticated  enterprises”  and  the  “Little  Giants”  are  revealed.  Until  the  end  of  2020,  1,832 
companies were selected as “Little Giants”, and more than 30,000 companies were selected into the 
“specialized and sophisticated enterprises” category (at the province level). Further, the document 
states  that  between  2016-2020,  the  Special  Funds  for  the  Development  of  SMEs  in  the  central 
government  finance  spent  36.2  billion  Yuan  (5.2  billion  EUR)  to  support  the  growth  of  SMEs. 
Additionally,  the  central  government  also  spent  46.7  (6.7  billion  EUR)  billion  Yuan  on  the  Special 
Funds for the Development of Inclusive Finance, which benefits SMEs mostly. Moreover, 70% of the 
government procurement is from SMEs, which is considered as an indirect support to SMEs. In 2020, 
the total government procurement in China was 3,697 billion Yuan (526.8 billion EUR), accounting 
for 3.6% of GDP.37 Therefore, the indirect support to SMEs from government procurement in China 
was more than 368.8 billion EUR in 2020. 

34 工业和信息化部办公厅关于开展专精特新“小巨人”企业培育工作的通知 (2018). http://zxqyj.sz.gov.cn/attachment/0/368/368411/4524575.pdf 

35 The 14th Five-Year Plan for Promoting the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (2021). 

http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-12/17/5661655/files/b3a2c31e3ed44c7f8a120d1e9a8d4d53.pdf 

36 Interim measures for the administration of the gradient cultivation of high-quality Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (2022). 

http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-06/02/5693548/files/b688da806d224e828076e99a2cbb9151.pdf 

37 Ministry of Finance (September 2021). http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-09/04/content_5635396.htm 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Finally, one should note that other direct and indirect support at the provincial level is not counted 
in the above figures.38 Additionally, financial support through tax reduction, special loans, and special 
funds for specific industries, such as high-tech companies39, are also not included in the figure.  

United Kingdom 

Small mid-caps with between 250 and 499 employees account for five percent of all businesses in 
the private sector in the UK according to business population estimates for the UK and regions 2021 
by the UK government. This is a bit below the value for the EU (5.7%). A share for large mid-caps 
is not available. 

Until leaving the European Union in January 2020, state aid to enterprises in the United Kingdom 
was subject to the regulations of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU), the General Block Exemption Regulation and other legal documents. The UK also applied the 
EU definition of SMEs - any enterprise that has fewer than 250 employees and a turnover of less 
than 50 million EUR or a balance sheet total less than 43 million EUR. 

After  Brexit,  the  UK  announced  to  replace  EU  state  aid  laws  by  the  rules  of  the  World  Trade 
Organisation on subsidies and other international commitments40. The SME definition, however, is 
still in place in the UK41, and funding for enterprises still follows the thresholds laid out in the SME 
definition.  SME  and  entrepreneurship  policies  are  part  of  the  UK  Industrial  Strategy.  The  UK 
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy provides a comprehensive list of financial and 
other support for business which can be searched according to size classes.42 The list provides 164 
measures in total, 32 of them are open for businesses of all sizes, and three of them extend support 
for  SMEs  to  business  with  250  to  500  employees:  Innovate  UK  EDGE,  a  programme  which  gives 
advice  for  businesses  looking  to  commercialise  new  ideas  and  succeed  in  international  markets; 
Productivity  Through  Innovation,  a  programme  that  spurs  co-operation  with  three  regional 
universities, and a Regional Growth Loan Scheme for the East of England. 

This indicates that the support for mid-caps should not differ considerably from that in the EU. Until 
2019  data  for  the  UK  were  part  of  the  annual  State  aid  Scoreboard  published  by  the  European 
Commission (2021f), so we have a good idea of the size of public support for businesses at this time. 
With a share of 0.51% of GDP at current prices, the United Kingdom ranks in the lowest third of all 
EU countries ranked by the size of state aid. We may assume that this has not changed substantially 
in the two years since Brexit, and support for mid-caps may remain well below EU average. However, 
support for business R&D via direct government funding and tax support is considerably higher in 
the  UK  compared  to  the  EU  (OECD  2022).  The  UK  Industrial  Strategy  (UK  Government  2021a) 
published in 2021 after Brexit makes references to SMEs support to increase venture capital funding, 
management capabilities, strengthen digitalisation and innovation, or SMEs internationalisation, but 
makes no reference to mid-caps or medium-sized firms outside the SME definition. 

Japan 

Similar  to  the  US  or  China,  Japan  has  adopted  a  different  SME  definition  than  the  EU.  In 
manufacturing, construction, and transportation, any firm whose regular workforce does not exceed 
300  persons,  or  whose  capital  or  total  amount  of  investment  does  not  exceed  300  million  Yen  is 
considered  an  SME  (Small  and  Medium  Size  Enterprise  Agency,  2019).  In  wholesale  trade  and 
services,  the  threshold  is  only  100  persons,  in  retail  trade  even  50.  This  means  that  mid-caps  in 
manufacturing, construction and transport are partly covered by the Japanese SME definition, but 

38 Notice by the General Office of the State Council of Further Intensifying Efforts to Assist Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Alleviating 

Difficulties (2021). http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2021-11/22/content_5652485.htm 

39 Notice of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of 
Commerce on Issuing the Interim Measures for the Administration of the Special Fund for Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises 
(2014). https://www.miit.gov.cn/datainfo/fgk/gytxyxxhlycsfg/zxqy/art/2020/art_fbafe601f183466f9ed7e36e4645ad14.html 

40 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-plans-for-new-approach-to-subsidy-control 

41 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fcdo-small-to-medium-sized-enterprise-sme-action-plan/small-to-medium-sized-enterprise-sme-action-

plan, accessed June 3rd, 2022 

42 https://www.gov.uk/business-finance-support? 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

not in services industries. Thus, manufacturing mid-caps between 250 and 300 employees are eligible 
for SMEs support. 

We searched available information on the web on subsidies for businesses in Japan, including the 
Small and Medium Size Enterprise Agency, the OECD, the EU-Japan Center for Industrial Corporation, 
the IMF, and the World Bank. There is no mid-cap definition in the Japanese system of state subsidies 
for enterprises. We could not retrieve information on the size of governmental support for mid-caps 
in Japan. However, from the existing data, we uncover two facts: first, Japan historically provides 
relatively few subsidies to industry, ranking below the levels of the EU but above that of the US (WTO 
2006). Second, the proportion of SMEs receiving financial and non-financial governmental support 
since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was highest in Japan among all OECD countries according 
to the OECD (OECD 2021d) which indicates that more public support may also be available for mid-
caps due to the pandemic. Support for business R&D via direct government funding and tax support 
is lower in Japan compared to the EU (OECD 2022). However, we found no measures that mention 
mid-caps for Japan in policy databases like the OECD tracker of policy responses.43 Altogether, there 
is  no  indication  that  Japanese  mid-cap  firms  would  enjoy  specific  advantages  compared  to  their 
counterparts EU. 

Switzerland 

Small mid-caps with between 250 and 499 employees account for 7.2 percent of all employment in 
Switzerland according to the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, which is above the corresponding share 
in the EU (5.7%). Another 6.7% are in firms with 500 to 999 employees, so the mid-cap segment in 
Switzerland seems substantial. 

Switzerland  has  adopted  the  employment  threshold  for  SMEs  of  250  employees  of  the  European 
Union but does not follow the legal framework for  state aid of the EU or the GBER. Subsidies are 
provided by the Federal as well as at the provincial (Kanton) level which makes it difficult to get an 
overview. For example, the OECD (2019) reports that there are 87 different measures at the Kanton 
level for financing firms and start-ups. There seems to be no mid-caps definition related to public 
funding of enterprises in Switzerland. 

Government subsidies as a percentage of GDP are higher in Switzerland than in other countries, but 
government support for enterprises seems to be at the level of OECD average if we take SME support 
as a benchmark (OECD 2021c). The Swiss Federal government provides a full spectrum of support 
measures from financing to innovation support, support for digitalisation, regional support, start-up 
support etc. In addition, the Kantone are active in various areas of enterprise support. To ease the 
economic consequences of COVID-19, a loan programme was introduced which aims to bridge firms’ 
liquidity shortfalls that have resulted from the pandemic. This programme aims at all firms with a 
turnover of below 500 million Swiss Francs (around 500 million EUR), so it is also relevant for mid-
caps. According to Fuhrer et al. (2021) 20% of all firms in the country were participating, resulting 
in a total volume of 2.4% of GDP. 

Support for business R&D and innovation is provided by Innosuisse at the federal level, however, 
direct government funding and tax support is much lower in Switzerland than in the OECD or the EU 
(OECD 2022). Support for R&D mainly goes to universities. The Swiss Parliament approved a plan to 
invest 28.1 billion Swiss Francs in education, research, and innovation over the next four years.44 
Switzerland is not (yet) associated to Horizon Europe which means that Swiss partners are not funded 
by the EU; however, the Swiss government provides substitute funding for participation. 

To sum up, the thresholds for SMEs in the US, China and in Japan are higher than in the EU, exceeding 
them by a wide margin in some industries. Companies that are considered (small) mid-caps in the 
EU  are  thus  eligible  for  SMEs  support  in  these  countries.  Moreover,  the  financial  means  for  SMEs 
support are higher in the US than in the EU. China has even installed the ‘Little Giants’ category in 
China to support “Hidden Champions”, many of them mid-cap firms. Thus, it seems likely that overall 
support for mid-caps in the US and China is more generous than in the EU. This is also confirmed by 

43 https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/policy-responses 

44 https://www.parlament.ch/de/services/news/Seiten/2020/20201215080736598194158159038_bsd039.aspx 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

anecdotal evidence collected in the panels. Data that would allow a precise estimation of the gap, 
however,  does  not  exist.  More  and  better  data  on  subsidies  for  firms  of  different  sizes  would  be 
needed to confirm that there is indeed a gap between the support within the EU compared to that in 
the main trade partners, and to estimate its dimension. In order to create a level playing field for 
mid-cap firms – if there is indeed a gap in support – the EU should help to improve the evidence 
base.  This  would  allow  for  a  clearer  assessment  of  the  potential  need  to  push  for  a  reduction  of 
subsidies in these countries. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

7  MAIN RESULTS OF THE STUDY 

Empirical results 

There are around 25 million enterprises of different sizes in the European economy. Most of them 
are micro enterprises with fewer than 10 employees, or small  and medium-sized enterprises with 
less than 250 employees. On the other side of the spectrum, we find a number of large enterprises 
with thousands of employees and global presence. 

Middle-sized enterprises (or mid-caps) lie between these two groups. We consider mid-caps as those 
enterprises with 250 or more, but less than 1,500 employees. This definition is laid down in the EU 
Risk Finance Guidelines. There are also alternative definitions which include larger firms; these firms, 
however,  are  more  like  large  corporations  in  a  number  of  aspects,  so  the  threshold  of  1,500 
employees fits the purpose. 

Mid-caps are certainly not the most frequent type of enterprises in Europe. However, they are an 
essential part of the European economy. We estimate that small mid-caps (250-499 employees) and 
large mid-caps (500-1,499 employees) together account for more than 13% of overall employment 
in  the  European  business  sector.  The  share  of  mid-cap  firms  is  particularly  high  in  industrial 
ecosystems that are key to the European Union’s competitiveness: Electronics, Aerospace & Defence, 
Energy,  Energy-intensive  Industries,  and  Health.  There  are  also  differences  between  countries  in 
terms of the economic importance of mid-caps measured as their share in total employment. Mid-
caps  employ  around  20%  of  all  employees  in  the  Nordic  countries,  Luxembourg,  Germany,  and 
Austria, while their share in employment is 10% or less in Spain, Portugal, France, Poland, Greece, 
or Cyprus. 

Firm-level data reveal that mid-caps are often established firms which have already survived the ‘up 
or out’-stage of early firm evolution. They perform better than SMEs in many indicators and reveal 
higher  employment  growth  rates  than  the  total  enterprise  population  in  the  vast  majority  of  EU 
member states. The Single Market is their home market, but the majority of them are also active on 
markets outside the EU. Ownership structures are heterogenous: on the one hand, family ownership 
is  frequently  found  among  mid-cap  firms;  on  the  other  hand,  around  a  quarter  of  them  are 
subsidiaries  of  foreign-owned45  multinational  companies  –  half  of  these  are  affiliated  to  a  parent 
company that resides outside the EU. All these findings suggest that mid-caps constitute a separate 
group within the business sector. 

Mid-caps can benefit from their size when they specialize in a particular market niche. Such firms 
are often called ‘Hidden Champions’ because they are mostly unknown to a wider public since they 
operate in niche markets where they are world-market leaders. The example of Hidden Champions 
shows that mid-caps can be in an advantageous position compared to large multinationals and SMEs 
when they are able to leverage their capabilities and find profitable market niches where they can 
flourish.  Mid-caps  seem  to  enjoy  an  advantage  over  large  firms  here,  as  large  firms  may  find  it 
difficult to specialize on narrow market niches which may be too small to yield reasonable turnover. 

Results from the interviews provided in this study indicate that the growth of mid-cap firms in the 
European Union appears to be hampered by different cyclical and structural obstacles: difficulties in 
finding employees, supply chain disruptions, regulation and administrative burden, difficulties with 
innovation,  the  challenge  of  becoming  more  sustainable,  or  access  to  finance.  Another  challenge 
mentioned  in  panel  discussions  with  mid-caps  firms  is  succession  in  family-owned  mid-caps.  In 
addition, panel discussions also revealed that rising prices for energy and other inputs for production 
emerged as a major challenge for mid-caps in energy-intensive industries in recent months. Most of 
these challenges are not specific to mid-cap firms, but rather generic challenges that can negatively 
affect the growth of firms of all sizes. 

45 Non-national, including Member States. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Strengthening education and vocational training to overcome the main challenges mid-cap firms 
face, in particular in technical areas, is key. Statements by representatives of mid-cap companies 
suggest that mid-caps are often not able to offer career paths similar to those in large corporations 
which  makes  them  less  attractive.  EU  member  states  are  funding  large  education  and  training 
programmes, so the EU is best positioned to complement these activities by tackling issues related 
to enabling mobility of people between member states.  

The  European  Commission  has  also  proposed  measures  to  tackle  supply  chain  disruptions 
including  a  diversification  of  sourcing,  and  the  development  of  new  capacities  in  strategic  areas. 
These activities could be further intensified if the disruptions turn out to be long-term. Furthermore, 
given network externalities and information asymmetries firms face, developing and deploying risk 
assessment tools to understand vulnerabilities and exposure to risks will help firms to become more 
resilient to supply chains shocks. 

Another  major  challenge  for  mid-caps  is  regulation  and  administrative  burden.  Beyond  the 
benefits of reducing regulation, a more predictable regulatory framework that gives mid-caps more 
time  to  adapt  to  changes  in  regulation  would  also  help  these  firms.  Regulation  also  becomes  an 
obstacle  for  mid-caps  when  they  expand  into  markets  outside  the  EU  and  have  to  deal  with 
differences  in  regulation  between  the  Single  Market  and  host  markets  abroad.  According  to  the 
interviews with managers of mid-caps conducted for this study, the majority of mid-cap firms are 
active in markets outside Europe. There is some indication that mid-cap firms receive higher financial 
support in China and the US, but the empirical evidence is less robust here. 

Innovation and digitalisation are important for mid-cap firms, and their innovation performance 
is above that of SMEs. However, there are also some challenges related to innovation: on the one 
hand, several mid-cap firms, occupied with their day-to-day-business, seem to be too small to have 
the financial means, market power, and capabilities of large firms to maintain these activities in the 
long-term. On the other hand, after surviving the ‘up or out’-phase, mid-caps may have lost some 
advantages of SMEs such as a high degree of flexibility or the ability to focus on small market niches. 

The participation of mid-caps in the European RTD Framework programmes, such as Horizon Europe, 
remains below their potential: the share of innovative mid-caps is considerably higher than the share 
of mid-caps that participate in the FWPs. This may be due to lacking the capacities to co-ordinate a 
project within the RTD FWP, and too little benefits mid-caps derive from participating as one among 
many project partners. This may indicate a lot of underused potential for research collaboration in 
Europe, given that mid-caps are well-represented in high-technology sectors. 

Overall conclusions and suggestions 

This  study  contributes  to  policy  by  presenting  a  detailed  overview  of  European  mid-caps  in  the 
European Union. From the empirical evidence we conclude that mid-caps should be considered as a 
segment  of  the  business  sector  that  clearly  distinguish  themselves  from  SMEs  and  large  firms  in 
terms of performance, innovation, growth paths over time, but also the challenges they face. 

The  challenges  mid-cap  firms  are  facing  are  relevant  for  firms  of  all  sizes,  not  just  mid-caps. 
Moreover, they are not new (with the exception of supply chain disruptions), and an elaborated set 
of measures are in place at member states and at EU level to tackle almost all of these challenges. 
In four fields (innovation, sustainability, digitalisation, finance) the European Commission has kicked-
off  major  new  instruments  recently:  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  Horizon  Europe,  and 
InvestEU. These initiatives will have a major positive impact on mid-cap firms, even if they are not 
designated  as  mid-cap  support  activities.  For  example,  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  helps 
firms to manage the ‘twin’ – digital and climate – transition, which is also a major challenge for mid-
cap firms but will also support training and the development of digital skills. 

From this perspective, new instruments to support mid-cap firms are not an immediate concern; 
rather,  policy  should  carefully  monitor  and  evaluate  how  existing  initiatives  benefit  mid-cap  firms 
and adapt these initiatives if necessary. New support measures should only be initiated if the current 
initiatives do not reveal positive effects on mid-cap firms. This conclusion is also supported by the 
finding that mid-caps perform better than SMEs in many indicators. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

If policy wants to consider targeted financial support for mid-cap firms, these measures should focus 
on specific situations, for example when capacities for substantial improvements and for scaling-up 
are not available in mid-cap firms. This may be the case during particular growth periods, when mid-
caps  pursue  activities  that  go  beyond  their  day-to-day-business  and  may  require  financial  and 
organizational capacities they do not have but need to mobilize. Mature firms that have existed for 
at least six years make up three-quarters of firms that scale-up (OECD 2021f, p. 63). 

Another example where targeted intervention may be feasible is regulation; when mid-caps grow, 
they also have to deal with new regulatory obligations. For example, there may be size-dependent 
regulation in labour law once firms grow out of the SME into the mid-caps category. Another example 
is internationalisation; when mid-caps enter foreign markets, they face regulatory obligations that 
may  differ  from  regulations  in  the  EU.  Thus,  it  would  help  firms  in  their  growth  process  if  ‘hard’ 
thresholds in firm size are softened. 

Finally, a wider application of the existing mid-cap definition – for instance the one in use in the Risk 
Finance  Guidelines,  would  help  streamline  the  approach  towards  these  companies  throughout  the 
different policy areas. Furthermore, the development of a broader (statistical) knowledge base would 
enhance  our  understanding  of  mid-caps  and  the  role  they  play  in  the  economy,  which  is  a  pre-
condition for possible policy interventions in the future. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

8  REFERENCES 

Appelt, S., F. Galindo-Rueda and A. C. González Cabral (2019). Measuring R&D tax support. Paris, 
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2019/06. 

Almeida,  H.,  Campello,  M.  (2007).  Financial  Constraints,  Asset  Tangibility,  and  Corporate 
Investment. The Review of Financial Studies 20, 1429-1460. 10.1093/rfs/hhm019 

Banalieva, E.R.,  Eddleston, K.A. (2011). Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The 
role  of  family  vs  non-family  leaders.  Journal  of  International  Business  Studies  42,  1060-1072. 
10.1057/jibs.2011.28 

BDI (2018). Reform der europäischen KMU-Definition: ein Praxisblick. Interview mit Gerd Röders, 
geschäftsführender Gesellschafter der G.A. Röders GmbH. Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie 
e.V, Berlin. https://bdi.eu/artikel/news/reform-der-europaeischen-kmu-definition-ein-praxisblick/ 

BIS  (2012).  Mid-sized  businesses.  UK  Department  for  Business,  Innovation  &  Skills,  London. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/mid-sized-businesses  

BMF (2021). Strategiebericht 2022 bis 2025. Wien, Bundesministerium für Finanzen. 

Boeing, P. and B. Peters (2021). A New China Shock? The Untold Story of China’s R&D Subsidies. 
Mannheim, ZEWExpert Brief Nr. 10, November 2021. 

Bloom, N., C. Genakos, R. Sadun and J. Van Reenen (2012). Management practices across firms and 
countries.  Academy  of  Management  Perspectives,  Vol.  26,  No.  1,  pp.  12-33, 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0077. 

Brown,  A.  (2022).  China  relies on  “little  giants”  and  foreign partners  to plug stubborn technology 
gaps. Berlin, MERCIS short analysis. https://merics.org/en/short-analysis/china-relies-little-giants-
and-foreign-partners-plug-stubborn-technology-gaps 

Brouwer,  E.,  Kleinknecht,  A.  (1996).  Firm  Size,  Small  Business  Presence  and  Sales  of  Innovative 
Products: A Micro-econometric Analysis. Small Business Economics 8, 189-201.  

Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a 
time of brilliant technologies. Norton Publishers, New York, London. 

Chinese Ministry of Industry (2011). Provisions on the Classification Standards for Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises [关于印发中小企业划型标准规定的通知工信部联企业〔2011〕]. Peking. 

Ceipek, R., Hautz, J., De Massis, A., Matzler, K., Ardito, L. (2021). Digital Transformation Through 
Exploratory and Exploitative Internet of Things Innovations: The Impact of Family Management and 
Technological  Diversification*.  Journal  of  Product  Innovation  Management  38,  142-165. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12551 

Coad,  A.,  J.  R.  Holm,  J.  Krafft  and  F.  Quatraro  (2018).  Firm  age  and  performance.  Journal  of 
Evolutionary Economics 28(1): 1-11. 

Cohen, W.M. (2010). Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance, in: Hall, 
B.A., Rosenberg, N. (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 129-
213. 

Daunfeldt, S.-O., Elert, N., Johansson, D. (2016). Are high-growth firms overrepresented in high-
tech industries? Industrial and Corporate Change 25, 1-21. 10.1093/icc/dtv035. 

Davies,  R.B.,  I.  Siedschlag  and  Z.  Studnicka  (2021).  The  impact  of  taxes  on  the  extensive  and 
intensive  margins  of  FDI’,  International  Tax  and  Public  Finance,  Vol.  28,  No.  2,  pp.  434-464, 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-020-09640-3. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Debellis,  F.,  De  Massis,  A.,  Messeni  Petruzzelli,  A.,  Frattini,  F.,  Del  Giudice,  M.  (2021).  Strategic 
agility  and  international  joint  ventures:  The  willingness-ability  paradox  of  family  firms.  Journal  of 
International Management 27, 100739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100739 

Dilger, R. J. (2016). The European Union’s Small Business Act: A Different Approach. Washington, 
DC, Congressional Research Service. 

EIB (2021). European Investment Bank Investment Report 2020/2021: Building a smart and green 
Europe in the COVID-19 era. Luxembourg.  

European  Commission  (2014).  Guidelines  on  State  aid  to  promote  risk  finance  investments. 
Communication  from  the  Commission.  Brussels,  2014/C  19/04.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52014XC0122%2804%29 

European  Commission  (2015).  Overview  of  family-business-relevant  issues:  research,  networks, 
policy measures and existing studies. Final report of the expert group. Brussels, DG Enterprise and 
Industry. 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/10389/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native 

European  Commission  (2017a).  Interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020.  Commission  staff  working 
document, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/fad8c173-7e42-11e7-b5c6-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-77918455 

Brussels. 

version. 

book 

European Commission (2017b). Commission staff working document on significant distortions in the 
economy of the People's Republic Of China for the purposes of trade defence investigations. Brussels, 
SWD(2017) 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-
register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)483&lang=en 

final/2. 

483 

European Commission (2020a). Flash Eurobarometer 486: SMEs, scale-ups and entrepreneurship. 
Brussels. https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2244_486_eng?locale=en 

European  Commission  (2020b).  A  New  Industrial  Strategy  for  Europe.  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, COM(2020) 102 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0102 

European  Commission  (2020c).  White  Paper  on  levelling  the  playing  field  as  regards  foreign 
subsidies. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
253 
COM(2020) 
Brussels, 
content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2020:253:FIN 

final. 

European  Commission  (2021a).  Annual  Single  Market  Report  2021  accompanying 
the 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Updating the 2020 New Industrial 
Strategy: Building a stronger Single Market for Europe's recovery. Brussels, COM(2021) 351 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0351 

European 
Training 
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2021/en/ 

Commission 

Education 

(2021b). 

and 

Monitor 

2021. 

European  Commission  (2021c).  Guidelines  on  State  aid  to  promote  risk  finance  investments. 
Communication from the Commission. Brussels, C/2021/C 508/01. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52014XC0122%2804%29 

European Commission (2021d). Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 
establishing the 2030 Policy Programme “Path to the Digital Decade”. Brussels, COM(2021) 574 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0574 

European  Commission  (2021e).  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  Evaluation  of  the 
Recommendation  of  6  May  2003  concerning  the  definition  of  micro,  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises 
final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2021)280&lang=en 

(2003/361/EC). 

{SWD(2021) 

Brussels, 

280 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

European  Commission  (2021f).  State  aid  Scoreboard  2020.  Brussels,  European  Commission,  DG 
Competition. 
https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-
06/state_aid_scoreboard_note_2020.pdf 

European  Commission  (2021g).  Strategic  dependencies  and  capacities.  Staff  Working  Document 
accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Updating the 2020 
New  Industrial  Strategy:  Building  a  stronger  Single  Market  for  Europe's  recovery.  Brussels, 
SWD(2021) 351 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2021:352:FIN 

European Union (2021a). Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 12 February 2021 establishing establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Official Journal of 
the 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
L 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0241 

(26.3.2021): 

European 

107/130. 

Union, 

European Union (2021b). Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 24 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017. 
Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  (26.3.2021):  L  107/130.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0523 

European Union (2021c). Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 29 April 2021 establishing the European Defence Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1092. 
(2.  5.  2021):  L  170/149.  https://eur-
Official 
lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/697/oj 

the  European  Union, 

Journal  of 

Evenett, S. J. (2019). "Protectionism, state discrimination, and international business since the onset 
of the Global Financial Crisis." Journal of International Business Policy 2(1): 9-36. 

Evenett, S. J. and J. Fritz (2021). Subsidies and Market Access Towards an Inventory of Corporate 
Subsidies by China, the European Union and the United States. The 28th Global Trade Alert Report. 
London, CEPR Press. 

Fuhrer, L. M., Ramelet, M.-A., & Tenhofen, J. (2021). Firms’ participation in the Swiss COVID-19 loan 
programme. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 157(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41937-
021-00070-4. 

Frank, A. G., L. S. Dalenogare and N. F. Ayala (2019). "Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation 
patterns in manufacturing companies." International Journal of Production Economics 210: 15-26. 

Frank,  A.  G.,  G.  H.  S.  Mendes,  N.  F.  Ayala  and  A.  Ghezzi  (2019).  "Servitization  and  Industry  4.0 
convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: A business model innovation perspective." 
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141: 341-351. 

Gómez-Mejía,  L.R.,  Haynes,  K.T.,  Núñez-Nickel,  M.,  Jacobson,  K.J.L.,  Moyano-Fuentes,  J.  (2007). 
Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive 
Oil Mills. Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 106-137. 10.2189/asqu.52.1.106 

Gottschalk, S., A. Hauer, M. Lubczyk and D. Keese (2019). Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der 
Mannheim. 
Familienunternehmen. 
https://www.familienunternehmen.de/media/public/pdf/publikationen-studien/studien/Die-
volkswirtschaftliche-Bedeutung-der-Familienunternehmen-2019_Stiftung_Familienunternehmen.pdf 

Hennart,  J.-F.,  Majocchi,  A.,  Forlani,  E.  (2019).  The  myth  of  the  stay-at-home  family  firm:  How 
family-managed  SMEs  can  overcome  their  internationalization  limitations.  Journal  of  International 
Business Studies 50, 758-782. 10.1057/s41267-017-0091-y 

IfM 
bonn.org/definitionen/mittelstandsdefinition-des-ifm-bonn 

Mittelstandsdefinition 

(2020). 

Bonn 

des 

IfM 

Bonn. 

https://www.ifm-

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

IMF,  OECD,  World  Bank  and  WTO  (2022).  Subsidies,  Trade,  and  International  Cooperation. 
Washington,  DC,  International  Monetary  Fund,  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development, The World Bank, and World Trade Organization. 

INSEE  (2020).  Intermediate-sized  enterprises  /  ETI.  French  National  Institute  of  Statistics  and 
Economic Studies. https://www.insee.fr/en/metadonnees/definition/c2034 

Kamp,  Bart  (2019).  Expanding  International  Business  Via  Smart  Services:  Insights  From  ‘Hidden 
Champions’  in  the  Machine  Tool  Industry.  In  van  Tulder,  R.,  A.  Verbeke,  and  L.  Piscitello  (edts). 
International  Business  in  the  Information  and  Digital  Age  (Progress  in  International  Business 
Research, Vol. 13), Emerald Publishing, London, 273-272. 

(2021).  KfW-Mittelstandspanel 

KfW 
https://www.kfw.de/PDF/Download-Center/Konzernthemen/Research/PDF-Dokumente-KfW-
Mittelstandspanel/KfW-Mittelstandspanel-2021.pdf 

2021.  Kreditanstalt 

für  Wiederaufbau,  Berlin. 

Laursen,  K.  and  A.  Salter  (2006).  "Open  for  Innovation:  The  Role  of  Openness  in  Explaining 
Innovation Performance among UK Manufacturing Firms." Strategic Management Journal 27: 131-
150. 

Lerch, C., A. Jäger and S. Maloca (2017). Wie digital ist Deutschlands Industrie wirklich? Karlsruhe, 
Mitteilungen aus der ISI-Erhebung Modernisierung der Produktion Nr. 71. 

Mallet, O. and R. Wapshott (2018). Understanding the firm-level effects of regulation on the growth 
of small and medium-sized enterprises. London, UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial 
Strategy. 

Mediobanca (2020). Italian Mid Caps. Milano, Mediobanca Securities. 

National  Center  for  the  Middle  Market  (2021).  National  Center  for  the  Middle  Market  Info  Sheet. 
https://www.middlemarketcenter.org/Media/2021%20General%20Info%20Sheet.pdf 

OECD (2017). Small, Medium, Strong. Trends in SME Performance and Business Conditions. Paris. 
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264275683-en 

OECD (2017). Enabling the Next Production Revolution: the Future of Manufacturing and Services 
Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

OECD (2018). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 4rd 
Edition. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

OECD (2019). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development. 

OECD  (2021a).  International  Compendium  of  Entrepreneurship  Policies.  Paris,  Organisation  for 
Economic Co-operation and Development. 

OECD  (2021b).  Main  Science  and  Technology  Indicators,  edition  2021/2.  Paris,  Organisation  for 
Development. 
Economic 
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MSTI_PUB 

Co-operation 

and 

OECD  (2021c).  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Outlook  2021:  Times  of  Crisis  and 
Opportunity. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

OECD (2021d). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2021. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development. 

OECD  (2021e).  Trade  by size  classes,  ISIC  Rev.  4. Paris,  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation 
and Development. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

OECD  (2021f).  Understanding  Firm  Growth.  Helping  SMEs  to  scale  up.  Paris,  Organisation  for 
Economic Co-operation and Development. 

OECD.  (2022).  "OECD  R&D  Tax  Incentives  Database."  from  https://www.oecd.org/sti/rd-tax-
stats.htm. 

Øyna,  S.,  Alon,  I.  (2018).  A  Review  of  Born  globals.  International  Studies  of  Management  & 
Organization 48, 157-180. 10.1080/00208825.2018.1443737 

Rammer, C., Schubert, T., (2018. Concentration on the few: mechanisms behind a falling share of 
innovative 
379-389. 
Germany. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.002 

Research 

Policy 

firms 

47, 

in 

Rammer,  C.,  G.  P.  Fernández  and  D.  Czarnitzki  (2021).  Artificial  Intelligence  and  Industrial 
Innovation: Evidence From Firm-Level Data. Mannheim, ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 21-036. 

Rammer,  C.,  Spielkamp,  A.  (2019).  The  Distinct  Features  of  Hidden  Champions  in  Germany:  A 
Dynamic Capabilities View. ZEW Discussion Papers No. 19-012, Mannheim.  

Röhl, K.-H. (2018). Mid Caps: der große Mittelstand. Köln, IW-Policy Paper No. 4/2018. 

Schenkenhofer, J. (2020). Hidden champions: A review of the literature and future research avenues. 
Management Review Quarterly, 72, 417–482. 

Schiffbauer, M., I. Siedschlag and F. Ruane (2017). Do foreign mergers and acquisitions boost firm 
productivity?, 
1124-1140, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.04.003. 

International  Business  Review,  Vol. 

26,  No. 

pp. 

6, 

Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin, Dunckner & Humbolt. 

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, Routledge. 

Simon, H. (2012). Hidden Champions - Aufbruch nach Globalia. Die Erfolgsstrategien unbekannter 
Weltmarktführer. Campus, Frankfurt. 

Small  and  Medium  Size  Enterprise  Agency  (2019).  "2019  White  Paper  on  Small  and  Medium 
Enterprises 
from 
https://www.chusho.meti.go.jp/pamflet/hakusyo/2019/PDF/2019hakusyosummary_eng.pdf. 

Japan." 

in 

SME  Finance  Forum  (2019).  MSME  Economic  Indicators  Database.  World  Bank,  Washington  DC. 
https://www.smefinanceforum.org/sites/default/files/2019%20MSME-EI%20Database.xlsx 

Stoian, M.-C., Dimitratos, P., Plakoyiannaki, E. (2018). SME internationalization beyond exporting: 
A knowledge-based perspective across managers and advisers. Journal of World Business 53, 768-
779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.06.001 

Storz, C. (2008). "Innovation, Institutions and Entrepreneurs: The Case of ‘Cool Japan’." Asia Pacific 
Business Review 14(3): 401-424. 

Sylvest, J., Yding Sørensen, S., Rzepecka, J., Mobilio, L., Kilic, L.,  Goubet, M. (2018). Supporting 
study for the evaluation of the ‘SME Definition’ Final Evaluation Report. Brussels.  

Teece,  D.J.  (2018).  Profiting  from  innovation  in  the  digital  economy:  Enabling  technologies, 
standards,  and  licensing  models  in  the  wireless  world.  Research  Policy  47,  1367-1387. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015 

U.S.  Small  Business  Administration  (2019a).  SBA’s  Size  Standards  Methodology.  Washington  DC, 
Office of Size Standards, U.S. Small Business Administration,.  

U.S.  Small  Business  Administration  (2019b).  Table  of  Small  Business  Size  Standards  Matched  to 
North American Industry Classification System Codes. Washington DC, Office of Size Standards, U.S. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Small 
08/SBA%20Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20Aug%2019%2C%202019_Rev.pdf 

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2019-

Administration. 

Business 

U.S.  Small  Business  Administration  (2022).  Agency  Financial  Report  Fiscal  Year  2021.  U.S.  Small 
Business Administration,, Washington DC. 

UK  Government  (2021a).  Build  Back  Better:  our  plan  for  growth  presented  to  Parliament  by  the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer. London. 

UK Government (2021b). Supporting mid-sized business: maintaining and growing UK plc. London. 

Varian, H., Shapiro, C. (1998). Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard 
Business Press, Harvard, Mass. 

Welter, F., May-Strobl, E., Holz, M., Pahnke, A., Schlepphorst, S., Wolter, H.-J. (2015). Mittelstand 
zwischen Fakten und Gefühl. IfM-Materialien Nr. 234, Bonn.  

World Bank (2019). World Bank Group Support for Small and Medium Enterprises. A Synthesis of 
Evaluative  Findings.  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development  /  The  World  Bank, 
Washington.  

World Bank (2021). World Bank Supports Croatia’s Firms Hit by COVID-19 Pandemic. International 
Bank 
Bank,  Washington. 
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/06/11/world-bank-supports-croatia-s-
firms-hit-by-covid-19-pandemic 

and  Development 

Reconstruction 

The  World 

for 

/ 

WTO (2006). World Trade Report 2006. Exploring the links between subsidies, trade and the WTO. 
Geneva. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

APPENDIX A  

DATA AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS  

In this Appendix, we first provide more details on the preparation of the ORBIS Europe database and 
the comparison between the ORBIS Europe and the SBS data. We then list the weights that used in 
the analysis, which are used to restore the representativeness of the ORBIS Europe data. Next, we 
introduce the concordance between the defined ecosystems and NACE Rev.2 sectors. We last provide 
additional statistics as discussed in the main content.  

Data preparation 

The extraction of the ORBIS Europe data 

In Section 4.1 and 4.2, the criteria for the preparation of the firm-level data from the ORBIS Europe 
data to be used in the empirical analysis were as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

firms that are still active (in April 2022, when the data was retrieved from the ORBIS Europe 
online platform);  

firms that are registered in the EU27 member states;  

firms with unconsolidated financial statements and with limited financial statements;  

firms with employment information available in 2019;  

to  compute  turnover  and  labour  productivity,  only  firms  that  have  turnover  information 
available in 2019 were included. 

In Section 4.3, in addition to the rules listed above, a few additional rules are applied to clean the 
data further and to ensure a better representativeness of the extracted firm-level information. The 
selection procedure of the cohort of mid-caps in 2019 follows the same rule as that used in Section 
4.1 but with few additional steps. We first select all active EU27 firms with unconsolidated or limited 
financial statements. Firms are dropped if they do not have employment or financial data available 
after 2017 (1.46% of all firms). Firms’ last available data is used in the analysis if their last available 
data is in 2018 (3.08%). If firms have data for the last available year in 2020 (58.74%) and 2021 
(0.13%), their 2019 data is used, unless such data is missing. If their 2019 data is missing, 2020 
data will be used. If their 2020 data is also missing, data in 2021 will be used. We then selected 
firms with 250-499 employees (definition 1) or 250-1,499 employees (definition 2) in 2019 as the 
cohort of our analysis objectives. These additional steps can significantly improve the quality of our 
data and can enable us to include more firms in the analysis. 

Comparing the ORBIS Europe and SBS databases 

To validate the constructed data set extracted from ORBIS Europe, we aggregate the micro-data by 
country and compare summary statistics of various indicators by firm size distribution to aggregated 
official statistics from the Eurostat’s Structural Business Statistics (SBS) data set. To this purpose, 
for each EU country, two levels of aggregation are used: (1) at country level; and (2) at country-
sector level, where a sector is defined by the 2-digit NACE Rev.2 classification. In addition, at each 
level, the comparison is conducted by three firm size groups based on their number of employees in 
2019:  micro  firms  (0-9  employees),  SMEs  (10-249  employees),  and  large  firms  (more  than  250 
employees).  

The economic indicators used in the multi-dimension comparison between the ORBIS and the SBS 
data are the following:  

• 

• 

• 

sector coverage (NACE Rev.2 2-digit classifications),  

number of firms,   

aggregated turnover,   

97 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

• 

• 

aggregated employment,  

aggregated average labour productivity.  

Overall, using the above indicators and the SBS as a benchmark, we found that the ORBIS data has 
a high-quality coverage for large firms. However, the SMEs and micro forms are less covered in the 
ORBIS Europe database.    

The  sectoral  coverage  in  the  ORBIS  Europe  database  is  wider  than  in  the  SBS:  while  the  ORBIS 
Europe database is broken down by 88 sectors, there are only 68 sectors in the SBS data. The full 
list of sectors included in the two data sets is reported in Table A6. Therefore, the comparison of 
other indicators will be limited to the common sectors in both data sets.  

We discuss below our main findings. Table A1 reports the average ORBIS Europe to SBS ratio of the 
above-mentioned indicators across EU27 member states. The full set of comparisons are shown in 
Tables A2-A5. To conduct the comparison at the country level, we aggregate the indicators (number 
of companies, aggregated turnover, aggregated employment) of a country by firm size group in each 
data set and we calculate the ratios as the aggregated indicators in the ORBIS Europe to those in 
the SBS. To conduct the country-sector level comparison, we first calculate the aggregated indicators 
for each country-sector-size category for both data sets, and we compute the ORBIS to SBS ratios. 
We then summarize the ratios by country and firm size group. The computation of labour productivity 
ratio is slightly different. Labour productivity is not constructed at firm level but rather is computed 
by using aggregated turnover divided by aggregated number of employees in each country-size or 
country-sector-size  category.  Therefore,  it  is  the  aggregated  average  labour  productivity  of  a 
category. We then compute the ORBIS Europe to SBS ratios of labour productivity, and we summarize 
the ratios by country and size group.   

In terms of the number of companies, our results suggest that in general the ORBIS Europe data set 
has a limited coverage of micro firms compared to the SBS data, while the ORBIS Europe and the 
SBS have similar coverages of SMEs and large firms. At country level, the average ORBIS Europe to 
SBS ratio of number of companies is 0.32 for micro firms, 0.69 for SMEs and 0.74 for large firms. At 
country-sector level, the average ORBIS Europe to SBS ratio is 0.43 for micro firms, 0.90 for SMEs 
and 0.85 for large firms. 

However, the coverage of the ORBIS Europe data varies by country. For example, the ORBIS Europe 
data set has a very high coverage in Bulgaria and Romania (the ratios are close to or greater than 1 
for all size groups), while its coverage is very low for Luxembourg and Malta (the ratios are close to 
0 for all size groups). In some countries, the coverage of large firms and SMEs in the ORBIS data is 
high, while that of micro firms is much lower. For example, the ORBIS Europe to SBS ratio is very 
high  for  SMEs  and  large  firms  in  Belgium,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Portugal,  and 
Slovakia, while that ratio is much lower for micro firms in these countries. A similar pattern appears 
if the comparison is conducted at the country-sector level.  

The ORBIS Europe to SBS ratio of the number of employees and turnover by firm size group show a 
similar  pattern  as  that  of  the  number  of  companies.  As  shown  in  Table  A1,  generally,  the  ORBIS 
Europe to SBS ratios of both indicators have higher values for SMEs and large firms than that for 
micro firms at both country level and country-sector level. Notably, the ratios are higher for SMEs 
than for large firms, and sometimes the ratios are greater than 1 at country-sector level. It suggests 
that, in comparison to the SBS data, the ORBIS Europe tends to report higher values of number of 
employees and turnover for SMEs in some sectors. However, it is not possible to identify whether 
the discrepancy results from that some firms report higher numbers to the ORBIS Europe than to 
the SBS or it is because different firms are selected in the ORBIS Europe and the SBS. 

Labour productivities of micro firms implied by the two data sets are quite different, whereas those 
of SMEs and large firms are comparable. At country level, the average labour productivity of micro 
firms computed with the ORBIS Europe data is 8.68 times larger than that computed with the SBS 
data. It suggests a significant selection bias of micro firms in the ORBIS Europe data where successful 
micro  firms  are  more  likely  to  be  included  than  their  less  successful  (in  terms  of  productivity) 
counterparts. On the contrary, labour productivity in the ORBIS is only 1.71 times larger than that 
in the SBS for SMEs, and the ratio is only 1.23 for large firms. These ratios indicate that the selection 
bias of the ORBIS Europe data is much reduced for SMEs and large firms if the total population of 
firms are those included in the SBS data.   

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Overall, the ORBIS Europe data has good quality in terms of covering of large firms. However, the 
quality of the ORBIS Europe data is less satisfactory for SMEs and for micro firms.  

Table A1. A comparison between the ORBIS Europe and the SBS data sets  

Country 

Country-sector 

Number of enterprises 

Number of enterprises 

Overall  Micro  SME  Large  Overall  Micro  SME  Large 

Mean 

0.32 

0.69  0.74  Mean 

0.43 

0.90  0.85 

SE 

0.06 

0.06  0.05 

SE 

0.01 

0.02  0.02 

Employees 

Employees 

Overall  Micro  SME  Large  Overall  Micro  SME  Large 

Mean 

0.44 

0.75  0.72  Mean 

0.56 

1.11  0.76 

SE 

0.06 

0.06  0.06 

SE 

0.01 

0.03  0.02 

Turnover 

Turnover 

Overall  Micro  SME  Large  Overall  Micro  SME  Large 

Mean 

0.49 

0.81  0.77  Mean 

0.65 

1.45  0.82 

SE 

0.07 

0.06  0.08 

SE 

0.02 

0.11  0.03 

Productivity 

Productivity 

Overall  Micro  SME  Large  Overall  Micro  SME  Large 

Mean 

8.68 

1.71  1.23  Mean 

7.54 

2.04  1.17 

SE 

4.94 

0.20  0.11 

SE 

3.49 

0.24  0.02 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe and the Eurostat’s SBS data.  

Note: SE reports the standard error of t-test that the corresponding rate equals to 1. The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used.    

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A2. ORBIS Europe and SBS comparison: Ratio of number of enterprises 

Overall 

Mean 

SE 

Micro  SME 

Large 

  Overall 

0.32 

0.69  0.74 

0.06 

0.06  0.05 

  Mean 

  SE 

Micro 

0.43 

0.01 

SME 

0.90 

0.02 

Large 

0.85 

0.02 

By EU member state 

  By Eu member state   Mean  SE 

Mean  SE 

Mean  SE 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

0.23 

0.60  0.82 

0.15 

0.88  0.94 

0.96 

1.25  1.16 

0.01 

0.07  0.28 

0.07 

0.51  0.72 

0.25 

0.57  0.75 

0.43 

0.66  0.60 

0.64 

0.88  0.69 

0.02 

0.32  0.62 

0.15 

0.72  0.75 

0.41 

0.63  0.72 

0.02 

0.34  0.73 

0.40 

0.91  0.89 

0.27 

0.97  1.00 

0.14 

0.77  1.02 

0.51 

0.78  0.76 

0.30 

0.99  0.98 

0.00 

0.01  0.02 

0.62 

0.93  0.83 

0.00 

. 

. 

0.23 

0.85  0.51 

0.37 

0.45  0.89 

0.24 

0.92  0.90 

1.17 

0.92  0.92 

0.60 

0.86  0.61 

0.31 

0.88  0.86 

0.13 

0.97  1.04 

  AT 

  BE 

  BG 

  CY 

  CZ 

  DE 

  DK 

  EE 

  EL 

  ES 

  FI 

  FR 

  HR 

  HU 

IE 

IT 

  LT 

  LU 

  LV 

  MT 

  NL 

  PL 

  PT 

  RO 

  SE 

  SI 

  SK 

0.33 

0.05  0.75 

0.06  0.92 

0.10 

0.25 

0.02  1.19 

0.09  0.93 

0.05 

0.95 

0.01  1.50 

0.10  1.11 

0.04 

0.01 

0.00  0.12 

0.02  0.28 

0.22 

0.08 

0.01  0.56 

0.03  1.09 

0.16 

0.40 

0.04  0.90 

0.09  0.71 

0.03 

0.50 

0.03  0.76 

0.03  0.67 

0.04 

0.69 

0.03  1.31 

0.41  0.81 

0.08 

0.04 

0.01  0.88 

0.17  0.61 

0.08 

0.28 

0.02  0.92 

0.06  0.71 

0.03 

0.49 

0.02  0.65 

0.01  0.83 

0.06 

0.03 

0.00  0.58 

0.07  0.80 

0.05 

0.47 

0.03  1.02 

0.04  0.95 

0.07 

0.35 

0.02  1.01 

0.03  0.93 

0.04 

0.20 

0.03  1.37 

0.22  0.65 

0.08 

0.64 

0.06  0.91 

0.03  0.78 

0.04 

0.52 

0.04  1.01 

0.02  0.95 

0.06 

0.01 

0.00  0.05 

0.01  0.70 

0.30 

0.72 

0.03  1.08 

0.11  0.86 

0.05 

0.02 

0.01 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0.25 

0.01  0.86 

0.03  0.77 

0.18 

0.42 

0.01  0.60 

0.04  0.95 

0.06 

0.37 

0.02  0.90 

0.01  0.94 

0.04 

1.27 

0.03  0.93 

0.01  0.90 

0.03 

0.61 

0.04  0.97 

0.03  0.69 

0.04 

0.35 

0.02  0.90 

0.01  0.94 

0.06 

0.17 

0.01  1.14 

0.06  0.83 

0.03 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe and the Eurostat’s SBS data.  

Note: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. SE reports the standard error of 
t-test that the corresponding rate equals to 1. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A3. ORBIS Europe and SBS comparison: Ratio of total number of employees 

Overall 

Mean 

SE 

Micro  SME 

Large 

  Overall 

0.44 

0.75 

0.72 

0.06 

0.06 

0.06 

  Mean 

  SE 

Micro 

0.56 

0.01 

SME 

1.11 

0.03 

Large 

0.76 

0.02 

By EU member state 

  By EU member state   Mean  SE 

Mean  SE 

Mean  SE 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

0.27 

0.80 

0.93 

0.29 

0.92 

0.80 

1.22 

1.21 

1.15 

0.02 

0.13 

0.35 

0.19 

0.60 

0.79 

0.26 

0.71 

0.76 

0.51 

0.67 

0.52 

0.77 

1.10 

1.01 

0.05 

0.43 

0.49 

0.27 

0.78 

0.68 

0.56 

0.68 

0.68 

0.07 

0.52 

0.50 

0.52 

0.95 

0.76 

0.46 

1.02 

0.85 

0.29 

0.81 

1.25 

0.53 

0.84 

0.61 

0.63 

1.11 

1.19 

0.00 

0.03 

0.03 

0.84 

0.91 

0.73 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.31 

0.66 

0.30 

1.03 

0.65 

0.73 

0.46 

0.94 

0.98 

0.78 

0.93 

0.89 

0.79 

0.82 

0.55 

0.50 

1.04 

0.96 

0.25 

1.02 

1.08 

  AT 

  BE 

  BG 

  CY 

  CZ 

  DE 

  DK 

  EE 

  EL 

  ES 

  FI 

  FR 

  HR 

  HU 

IE 

IT 

  LT 

  LU 

  LV 

  MT 

  NL 

  PL 

  PT 

  RO 

  SE 

  SI 

  SK 

0.38 

0.06 

0.96 

0.06 

0.75 

0.07 

0.47 

0.04 

1.17 

0.10 

0.81 

0.05 

1.20 

0.03 

1.63 

0.28 

1.08 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

0.18 

0.03 

0.12 

0.07 

0.21 

0.01 

0.80 

0.10 

0.92 

0.09 

0.41 

0.03 

1.08 

0.16 

0.85 

0.15 

0.57 

0.02 

0.81 

0.04 

0.53 

0.04 

0.77 

0.02 

1.58 

0.20 

0.82 

0.11 

0.10 

0.02 

1.01 

0.14 

0.54 

0.09 

0.48 

0.03 

0.88 

0.03 

0.63 

0.03 

0.59 

0.02 

0.92 

0.12 

0.64 

0.06 

0.09 

0.01 

0.73 

0.05 

0.51 

0.04 

0.64 

0.05 

1.20 

0.20 

0.83 

0.07 

0.53 

0.02 

1.25 

0.12 

0.93 

0.10 

0.49 

0.08 

2.16 

0.44 

0.87 

0.15 

0.80 

0.13 

1.04 

0.10 

0.70 

0.06 

0.68 

0.03 

1.65 

0.24 

0.91 

0.08 

0.01 

0.00 

0.11 

0.05 

0.09 

. 

0.93 

0.03 

1.29 

0.31 

0.81 

0.05 

0.00 

0.00 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0.38 

0.02 

0.75 

0.04 

0.46 

0.08 

1.04 

0.03 

0.78 

0.04 

0.83 

0.09 

0.56 

0.02 

0.94 

0.02 

0.91 

0.03 

0.80 

0.01 

0.95 

0.01 

0.87 

0.03 

0.83 

0.02 

1.26 

0.13 

0.60 

0.08 

0.52 

0.02 

1.60 

0.19 

0.77 

0.04 

0.27 

0.01 

1.49 

0.21 

0.78 

0.05 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe and the Eurostat’s SBS data.  

Note: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. SE reports the standard error of 
t-test that the corresponding rate equals to 1.    

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A4. ORBIS Europe and SBS comparison: Ratio of total turnover 

Overall 

Mean 

SE 

Micro  SME 

Large 

  Overall 

0.49 

0.81  0.77 

0.07 

0.06  0.08 

  Mean 

  SE 

Micro 

0.65 

0.02 

SME 

1.45 

0.11 

Large 

0.82 

0.03 

By EU member state 

  By EU member state  Mean  SE 

Mean  SE 

Mean  SE 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

0.24 

0.72  1.07 

0.15 

0.95  0.89 

0.89 

1.08  1.06 

0.28 

0.48  0.36 

0.24 

0.67  0.81 

0.27 

0.55  0.41 

0.14 

0.35  0.75 

0.73 

1.09  0.94 

0.20 

0.78  0.44 

0.52 

0.98  0.76 

0.70 

0.84  0.64 

0.13 

0.80  0.57 

0.76 

1.08  0.93 

0.78 

1.20  0.90 

0.26 

0.75  2.15 

0.90 

0.91  0.61 

0.81 

1.08  1.12 

0.01 

0.05  0.06 

0.94 

1.07  0.83 

. 

. 

. 

0.06 

0.35  0.32 

0.17 

0.79  0.70 

0.75 

0.98  0.96 

0.98 

1.01  0.90 

1.00 

1.09  0.68 

0.74 

1.19  0.98 

0.49 

1.06  0.97 

  AT 

  BE 

  BG 

  CY 

  CZ 

  DE 

  DK 

  EE 

  EL 

  ES 

  FI 

  FR 

  HR 

  HU 

IE 

IT 

  LT 

  LU 

  LV 

  MT 

  NL 

  PL 

  PT 

  RO 

  SE 

  SI 

  SK 

0.23 

0.04  0.70 

0.08  0.73 

0.08 

0.23 

0.05  1.70 

0.39  0.87 

0.06 

0.92 

0.03  1.44 

0.11  1.10 

0.10 

0.20 

0.08  0.29 

0.06  0.20 

0.14 

0.31 

0.08  1.07 

0.27  1.29 

0.28 

0.75 

0.27  0.93 

0.25  0.52 

0.07 

0.12 

0.03  0.36 

0.04  0.59 

0.04 

0.83 

0.04  1.66 

0.24  0.83 

0.09 

0.20 

0.02  1.57 

0.30  0.58 

0.07 

0.75 

0.05  1.36 

0.30  0.68 

0.03 

0.82 

0.14  1.02 

0.10  0.78 

0.11 

0.37 

0.13  1.08 

0.10  0.56 

0.05 

0.81 

0.03  1.49 

0.30  0.83 

0.08 

0.84 

0.04  1.49 

0.17  0.96 

0.10 

0.47 

0.22  2.14 

0.59  2.12 

0.71 

1.04 

0.08  1.26 

0.15  0.65 

0.05 

0.75 

0.03  1.84 

0.35  0.85 

0.09 

0.03 

0.01  0.09 

0.04  0.21 

. 

1.09 

0.07  2.93 

0.69  0.68 

0.10 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0.23 

0.13  3.41 

2.40  0.35 

0.08 

0.28 

0.04  0.93 

0.05  0.80 

0.07 

0.76 

0.05  1.01 

0.02  1.04 

0.09 

1.05 

0.06  1.04 

0.04  1.00 

0.09 

1.57 

0.24  1.70 

0.27  0.72 

0.10 

0.75 

0.02  1.71 

0.20  0.85 

0.05 

0.46 

0.02  2.16 

0.47  0.83 

0.05 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe and the Eurostat’s SBS data.  

Notes: All firms with non-missing employment and turnover information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. SE reports the 
standard error of t-test that the corresponding rate equals to 1. The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used.    

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A5. ORBIS Europe and SBS comparison: Ratio of average labour productivity 

Overall 

Mean 

SE 

Micro 

SME 

Large 

8.68 

1.71  1.23 

  Overall 

  Mean 

4.94 

0.20  0.11 

  SE 

Micro 

7.54 

3.49 

SME 

2.04 

0.24 

Large 

1.17 

0.02 

By EU member state 

  By EU member state  Mean 

SE 

Mean 

SE 

Mean  SE 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

4.75 

2.10  1.24 

4.81 

1.71  1.15 

0.75 

0.91  0.97 

20.64 

3.63  1.01 

1.76 

1.23  1.03 

3.48 

1.98  0.98 

7.89 

2.36  1.50 

0.96 

1.01  0.95 

3.94 

1.82  0.90 

1.91 

1.26  1.12 

1.42 

1.29  0.95 

2.64 

1.73  1.16 

1.45 

1.14  1.23 

1.69 

1.18  1.06 

9.77 

2.36  1.83 

1.79 

1.09  1.02 

1.55 

1.02  0.97 

15.89 

2.97  3.62 

1.17 

1.17  1.13 

. 

134.96  5.49  1.97 

3.46 

1.30  0.96 

1.66 

1.05  0.98 

1.26 

1.09  1.01 

1.30 

1.34  1.24 

1.50 

1.14  1.01 

2.04 

1.05  0.92 

  AT 

  BE 

  BG 

  CY 

  CZ 

  DE 

  DK 

  EE 

  EL 

  ES 

  FI 

  FR 

  HR 

  HU 

IE 

IT 

  LT 

  LU 

  LV 

  MT 

  NL 

  PL 

  PT 

  RO 

  SE 

  SI 

  SK 

3.77 

0.89 

1.75 

0.18 

1.04 

0.05 

5.00 

1.52 

1.98 

0.31 

1.22 

0.08 

0.84 

0.05 

1.04 

0.04 

1.02 

0.04 

2.42 

0.45 

1.79 

0.28 

1.50 

0.22 

1.81 

0.11 

1.23 

0.07 

1.24 

0.10 

6.92 

2.38 

2.00 

0.46 

1.16 

0.10 

4.61 

2.32 

1.86 

0.13 

1.21 

0.06 

1.09 

0.06 

1.05 

0.03 

1.10 

0.05 

2.19 

0.20 

1.49 

0.10 

1.19 

0.09 

1.54 

0.07 

1.44 

0.22 

1.12 

0.06 

1.81 

0.40 

1.24 

0.07 

1.18 

0.07 

2.41 

0.32 

1.60 

0.08 

1.09 

0.03 

1.44 

0.07 

1.47 

0.25 

1.08 

0.04 

1.69 

0.15 

1.16 

0.05 

1.19 

0.11 

3.22 

0.89 

2.65 

0.46 

2.58 

0.74 

1.90 

0.28 

1.20 

0.09 

1.11 

0.10 

1.27 

0.06 

1.05 

0.04 

0.97 

0.04 

5.93 

. 

2.24 

0.88 

2.28 

. 

1.36 

0.14 

3.10 

0.84 

1.08 

0.15 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

262.36  166.52  14.75  5.65 

1.37 

0.16 

3.17 

0.27 

1.29 

0.04 

1.00 

0.04 

1.24 

0.06 

1.10 

0.02 

1.12 

0.06 

1.30 

0.12 

1.09 

0.03 

1.21 

0.09 

2.14 

0.48 

1.29 

0.06 

1.19 

0.05 

1.42 

0.08 

1.20 

0.08 

1.11 

0.04 

1.85 

0.16 

1.35 

0.18 

1.12 

0.06 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe and the Eurostat’s SBS data.  

Notes: All firms with non-missing employment and turnover information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. SE reports the 
standard error of t-test that the corresponding rate equals to 1. The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used.    

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A6. Sector coverage comparison between the ORBIS Europe and the SBS 

ORBIS Europe  

01. Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities 

02. Forestry and logging 

03. Fishing and aquaculture 

05. Mining of coal and lignite 

06. Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas 

07. Mining of metal ores 

08. Other mining and quarrying 

09. Mining support service activities 

10. Manufacture of food products 

11. Manufacture of beverages 

12. Manufacture of tobacco products 

13. Manufacture of textiles 

14. Manufacture of wearing apparel 

15. Manufacture of leather and related products 

16. Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture 

of articles of straw and plaiting materials 

17. Manufacture of paper and paper products 

18. Printing and reproduction of recorded media 

19. Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products 

20. Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 

21. Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations 

22. Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 

23. Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products 

24. Manufacture of basic metals 

25. Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 

26. Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 

27. Manufacture of electrical equipment 

28. Manufacture of machinery and equipment nec 

29. Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 

30. Manufacture of other transport equipment 

31. Manufacture of furniture 

32. Other manufacturing 

33. Repair and installation of machinery and equipment 

35. Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 

36. Water collection, treatment and supply 

37. Sewerage 

38. Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery 

39. Remediation activities and other waste management services 

41. Construction of buildings 

42. Civil engineering 

43. Specialised construction activities 

45. Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 

104 

SBS 

. 

. 

. 

 B05  

 B06  

 B07  

 B08  

 B09  

 C10  

 C11  

 C12  

 C13  

 C14  

 C15  

 C16  

 C17  

 C18  

 C19  

 C20  

 C21  

 C22  

 C23  

 C24  

 C25  

 C26  

 C27  

 C28  

 C29  

 C30  

 C31  

 C32  

 C33  

 D35  

 E36  

 E37  

 E38  

 E39  

 F41  

 F42  

 F43  

 G45  

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

46. Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 

47. Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles 

49. Land transport and transport via pipelines 

50. Water transport 

51. Air transport 

52. Warehousing and support activities for transportation 

53. Postal and courier activities 

55. Accommodation 

56. Food and beverage service activities 

58. Publishing activities 

59.  Motion  picture,  video  and  television  programme  production,  sound  recording  and 

music publishing activities 

60. Programming and broadcasting activities 

61. Telecommunications 

62. Computer programming, consultancy and related activities 

63. Information service activities 

64. Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding 

65. Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security 

66. Activities auxiliary to financial services and insurance activities 

68. Real estate activities 

69. Legal and accounting activities 

70. Activities of head offices; management consultancy activities 

71. Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis 

72. Scientific research and development 

73. Advertising and market research 

74. Other professional, scientific and technical activities 

75. Veterinary activities 

77. Rental and leasing activities 

78. Employment activities 

79. Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and related activities 

80. Security and investigation activities 

81. Services to buildings and landscape activities 

82. Office administrative, office support and other business support activities 

84. Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 

85. Education 

86. Human health activities 

87. Residential care activities 

88. Social work activities without accommodation 

90. Creative, arts and entertainment activities 

91. Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities 

92. Gambling and betting activities 

93. Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities 

94. Activities of membership organisations 

95. Repair of computers and personal and household goods 

96. Other personal service activities 

105 

 G46  

 G47  

 H49  

 H50  

 H51  

 H52  

 H53  

 I55  

 I56  

 J58  

 J59  

 J60  

 J61  

 J62  

 J63  

. 

. 

. 

 L68  

 M69  

 M70  

 M71  

 M72  

 M73  

 M74  

 M75  

 N77  

 N78  

 N79  

 N80  

 N81  

 N82  

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

 S95  

. 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

97. Activities of households as employers of domestic personnel 

98.  Undifferentiated  goods-  and  services-producing  activities  of  private  households  for 

own use 

99. Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies 

Source: Own elaboration based on ORBIS and Eurostat’s SBS data. 

. 

. 

. 

The weights used to ensure the representativeness of the ORBIS Europe data 

Table A7. Weights computed by country and firm size group 

EU member state   Micro 

SMEs  Large 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

4.37 

6.64 

1.05 

1.67 

1.22 

1.14 

1.06 

0.80 

0.86 

147.19 

13.59  3.56 

14.64 

1.95 

1.39 

4.04 

2.35 

1.56 

1.74 

1.32 

1.52 

1.68 

1.14 

1.44 

56.06 

3.16 

1.61 

6.47 

2.47 

1.39 

1.34 

1.58 

1.39 

46.98 

2.90 

1.37 

2.52 

3.71 

6.92 

1.98 

3.31 

1.10 

1.13 

1.04 

1.00 

1.30 

0.98 

1.28 

1.31 

1.01 

1.02 

415.96 

85.12  49.00 

1.60 

1.08 

1.21 

6958.94 

. 

. 

4.26 

2.68 

4.11 

0.85 

1.65 

3.22 

7.42 

1.17 

1.96 

2.24 

1.12 

1.09 

1.11 

1.09 

1.09 

1.17 

1.64 

1.13 

1.16 

1.03 

0.96 

Source: Own elaboration based on ORBIS Europe and Eurostat’s SBS data.  

Notes: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. 

The concordance between the defined ecosystem and Nace Rev.2 sectors is given in the following 
table.  This  table  also  reports  the  share  of  each  Nace  Rev.2  sector,  which  represents  a  sector’s 
contribution to the corresponding ecosystem.  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A8. Industrial Ecosystems and NACE Rev.2 sectors 

Code 

Nace 
Rev.2 

Description 

Ecosystem 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Aerospace & Defence 

Agri-food 

Agri-food 

Agri-food 

Agri-food 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

Construction 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E1 

E2 

E2 

E2 

E2 

E3 

E3 

E3 

E3 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

C25 

C26 

C27 

C30 

C33 

H51 

H52 

J61 

N80 

A 

C10 

C11 

C12 

C31 

F 

M71 

N81 

C18 

C32 

G47 

J58 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

E4 

J59 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

E4 

J60 

J62 

J63 

M71 

M73 

M74 

M75 

N77 

P85 

Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 

Cultural 
Industries 

Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 

Cultural 
Industries 

Cultural 
Industries 

Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except 
machinery and equipment  
Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical 
products  

Manufacture of electrical equipment  

Manufacture of other transport equipment  

installation  of  machinery  and 

Repair  and 
equipment  

Air transport  

Warehousing 
transportation  

and 

support 

activities 

for 

Telecommunications  

Security and investigation activities  

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 

Manufacture of food products 

Manufacture of beverages 

Manufacture of tobacco products 

Manufacture of furniture 

Construction 

Architectural 
technical testing and analysis  

and 

engineering 

activities; 

Services to buildings and landscape activities 

Printing and reproduction of recorded media 

Other manufacturing 

Retail  trade,  except  of  motor  vehicles  and 
motorcycles 

Publishing activities 

Motion picture, video and television programme 
production, 
recording  and  music 
sound 
publishing activities 

Programming and broadcasting activities 

Computer programming, consultancy and related 
activities; 
Computer programming, consultancy and related 
activities; 
Architectural 
technical testing and analysis 

engineering 

activities; 

and 

Advertising and market research 

Other  professional,  scientific  and 
activities and veterinary activities 
Other  professional,  scientific  and 
activities and veterinary activities 

technical 

technical 

Rental and leasing activities 

Education 

Share 

0.03 

0.44 

0.23 

0.68 

0.09 

0.09 

0.18 

0.07 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0.08 

0.01 

1 

1 

1 

0.004 

0.004 

0.15 

1 

0.64 

0.64 

0.000
6 

0.1 

and 

Creative 

E4 

R90 

and 

Creative 

E4 

R91 

Creative,  arts  and  entertainment  activities; 
libraries,  archives,  museums  and  other  cultural 
activities; gambling and betting activities 
Creative,  arts  and  entertainment  activities; 
libraries,  archives,  museums  and  other  cultural 
activities; gambling and betting activities 

0.8 

0.8 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Cultural 
Industries 

Cultural 
Industries 
Cultural 
Industries 

Digital 

Digital 

Digital 

Digital 

Digital 

Electronics 

Electronics 

and 

Creative 

E4 

R92 

and 

Creative 

and 

Creative 

E4 

E4 

E5 

E5 

E5 

E5 

E5 

E6 

E6 

E7 

E7 

S94 

S95 

C26 

J58 

J62 

J63 

S95 

C26 

C28 

C27 

D35 

Energy - Renewables 

Energy - Renewables 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

C16 

Creative,  arts  and  entertainment  activities; 
libraries,  archives,  museums  and  other  cultural 
activities; gambling and betting activities 

Activities of membership organisations 

Repair of computers and personal and household 
goods 
Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical 
products  
Publishing 
Telecommunications  
Computer programming, consultancy and related 
activities  

activities 

Digital 

J61 

1 

Information service activities  

0.8 

0.02 

0.26 

0.22 

0.97 

1 

1 

Repair of computers and personal and household 
goods  
Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical 
products 

0.48 

1 

Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.  0.1 

Manufacture of electrical equipment  

Electricity,  gas,  steam  and  air  conditioning 
supply  
Manufacture  of  wood  and  of  products  of  wood 
and  cork,  except  furniture;  manufacture  of 
articles of straw and plaiting materials 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

C17 

Manufacture of paper and paper products 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

C19 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

C20 

C22 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

C23 

Manufacture  of  coke  and  refined  petroleum 
products 

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products  1 

Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 

Manufacture  of  other  non-metallic  mineral 
products 

Energy Intensive Industries  E8 

C24 

Manufacture of basic metals 

Health 

Health 

Health 

Health 

Health 

E9 

E9 

E9 

E9 

E9 

C21 

C32 

Q86 

Q87 

Q88 

Manufacture  of  basic  pharmaceutical  products 
and pharmaceutical preparations 

Other manufacturing 

Human health activities 

Residential  care  activities  and  social  work 
activities without accommodation 
Residential  care  activities  and  social  work 
activities without accommodation 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-  Transport 

-  Transport 

-  Transport 

-  Transport 

-  Transport 

Mobility 
Automotive 
Mobility 
Automotive 
Mobility 
Automotive 
Mobility 
Automotive 
Mobility 
Automotive 
Mobility 
Automotive 
Mobility 
Automotive 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 

-  Transport 

-  Transport 

- 

- 

E10 

C27 

Manufacture of electrical equipment 

0.03 

E10 

C29 

Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-
trailers 

1 

E10 

C30 

Manufacture of other transport equipment 

0.32 

E10 

G45 

Wholesale  and  retail  trade  and  repair  of  motor 
vehicles and motorcycles 

1 

E10 

H49 

Land transport and transport via pipelines 

E10 

H50 

Water transport 

E10 

H52 

E11 

G47 

E11 

E11 

I 

L 

and 

Warehousing 
transportation 
Retail  trade,  except  of  motor  vehicles  and 
motorcycles 

activities 

support 

for 

Accommodation and food service activities 

Real estate activities 

0.52 

0.78 

0.39 

0.16 

0.14 

0.08 

E11 

N81 

Services to buildings and landscape activities 

0.28 

108 

0.38 

0.29 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 
Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 

E11 

N82 

E11 

Q87 

E11 

Q88 

E11 

S95 

Office  administrative,  office  support  and  other 
business support activities 
Residential  care  activities  and  social  work 
activities without accommodation 
Residential  care  activities  and  social  work 
activities without accommodation 
Repair of computers and personal and household 
goods 

E11 

S96 

Other personal service activities 

Proximity,  Social  Economy 
and Civil Security 

E11 

T 

Retail 

Retail 

Retail 

Textile 

Textile 

Textile 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

Tourism 

E12 

G46 

E12 

G47 

E12 

E13 

E13 

E13 

E14 

E14 

E14 

E14 

H53 

C13 

C14 

C15 

H49 

H50 

H51 

I 

E14 

N79 

E14 

N82 

E14 

R90 

Tourism 

E14 

R91 

Tourism 

Tourism 

E14 

R92 

E14 

R93 

of 

as 

households 

Activities 
employers; 
undifferentiated  goods-  and  services-producing 
activities of households for own use 
Wholesale  trade,  except  of  motor  vehicles  and 
motorcycles 
Retail  trade,  except  of  motor  vehicles  and 
motorcycles 

Postal and courier activities 

Manufacture of textiles 

Manufacture of wearing apparel 

Manufacture of leather and related products 

Land transport and transport via pipelines 

Water transport 

Air transport 

Accommodation and food service activities 

tour  operator  and  other 

Travel  agency, 
reservation service and related activities 
Office  administrative,  office  support  and  other 
business support activities 
Creative,  arts  and  entertainment  activities; 
libraries,  archives,  museums  and  other  cultural 
activities; gambling and betting activities 
Creative,  arts  and  entertainment  activities; 
libraries,  archives,  museums  and  other  cultural 
activities; gambling and betting activities 
Creative,  arts  and  entertainment  activities; 
libraries,  archives,  museums  and  other  cultural 
activities; gambling and betting activities 
Sports activities and amusement and recreation 
activities 

0.11 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0.45 

0.22 

0.91 

1 

1 

1 

0.66 

0.66 

0.66 

1 

Source: Own elaboration based on EC Annual Single Market Report 2021. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Assessing Mid-Caps definitions by EU member states 

Table A9. The share of enterprise entities by country and by firm size group 

EU member state   Micro  SMEs  250-499  250-1,499  250-2,999  3,000+ 

(per 100) 

(per 10k) 

(per 1 Million) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

87.3 

12.3 

23.9 

95.1 

4.7 

92.4 

7.4 

92.9 

7.0 

95.0 

4.9 

9.1 

9.6 

8.2 

9.1 

83.2 

16.2 

31.4 

91.9 

7.9 

12.3 

92.0 

7.8 

11.3 

94.4 

5.6 

94.1 

5.7 

4.5 

7.8 

91.3 

8.4 

15.2 

94.6 

5.2 

9.2 

92.0 

7.8 

12.9 

94.6 

5.2 

92.8 

7.0 

95.0 

4.9 

8.5 

8.4 

5.7 

93.1 

6.7 

11.5 

36.9 

14.3 

15.9 

10.9 

14.5 

49.4 

20.4 

16.0 

6.6 

12.3 

24.5 

14.5 

20.1 

14.6 

14.0 

8.4 

17.4 

39.4 

15.3 

17.1 

10.9 

15.5 

53.3 

21.9 

17.4 

6.8 

13.1 

25.8 

15.5 

21.2 

16.5 

15.3 

9.0 

18.4 

17.2 

7.5 

4.4 

5.5 

4.7 

19.8 

3.9 

1.5 

1.1 

7.4 

8.3 

6.9 

5.7 

6.2 

7.4 

2.9 

3.4 

80.2 

18.2 

68.0 

129.2 

142.8 

136.0 

91.5 

8.3 

14.1 

19.4 

20.3 

4.6 

100.0 

96.8 

3.1 

95.1 

4.7 

95.4 

4.5 

6.6 

9.1 

6.0 

89.9 

9.8 

16.9 

95.1 

4.7 

10.8 

94.5 

5.4 

96.9 

3.0 

8.9 

5.5 

10.3 

14.5 

9.1 

26.3 

17.4 

14.8 

8.7 

11.1 

15.6 

9.8 

28.3 

18.7 

15.4 

9.2 

3.6 

4.4 

4.8 

11.6 

13.7 

3.6 

3.3 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS database.  

Note: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS data are included in the analysis. 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A10. The share of total employees by country and by firm size group 

EU member state   Micro  SMEs  250-499  250-1,499  250-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

22.0 

42.2 

7.7 

17.4 

22.3 

13.5 

46.3 

27.8 

5.5 

12.9 

16.8 

35.0 

41.6 

5.8 

14.7 

19.1 

49.7 

40.6 

3.1 

5.1 

5.1 

47.2 

32.3 

5.0 

12.1 

15.3 

9.2 

4.2 

4.6 

5.2 

15.1 

43.0 

7.5 

17.6 

23.1 

18.9 

25.3 

45.8 

7.6 

19.4 

24.8 

36.1 

44.2 

7.2 

13.7 

18.7 

63.9 

29.3 

2.3 

4.8 

5.7 

47.5 

29.3 

4.5 

10.6 

13.4 

28.1 

41.8 

8.1 

19.5 

23.8 

45.8 

31.6 

4.3 

10.1 

13.0 

37.2 

37.7 

7.0 

16.0 

19.8 

43.8 

29.1 

5.2 

14.0 

20.9 

43.6 

33.9 

4.5 

11.4 

15.2 

45.5 

35.9 

5.0 

10.8 

13.5 

41.2 

38.6 

6.3 

13.8 

17.1 

4.1 

1.0 

1.1 

9.8 

6.4 

9.6 

5.3 

6.2 

7.3 

5.1 

3.1 

7.9 

35.6 

8.7 

26.9 

36.0 

20.5 

36.7 

42.1 

7.7 

14.2 

17.4 

3.8 

100.0 

45.5 

29.0 

6.6 

15.0 

19.8 

57.6 

26.6 

3.9 

52.7 

28.5 

4.3 

9.3 

9.5 

12.0 

12.6 

5.7 

3.8 

6.2 

17.4 

45.7 

8.6 

19.6 

26.0 

11.0 

21.8 

32.1 

8.3 

20.2 

26.3 

19.8 

45.2 

34.2 

6.0 

15.3 

17.6 

57.0 

25.7 

4.3 

10.4 

12.7 

3.0 

4.7 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: All firms with non-missing employment information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A11. The share of total turnover by country and by firm size group 

EU member state   Micro  SMEs  250-499  250-1,499  250-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

12.6 

42.9 

14.9 

27.2 

32.6 

11.8 

26.3 

38.9 

9.7 

19.7 

26.8 

23.2 

46.4 

6.6 

20.7 

26.5 

84.7 

14.5 

0.5 

0.7 

0.7 

36.4 

32.6 

8.1 

18.0 

22.8 

8.0 

3.9 

0.1 

8.1 

13.2 

35.6 

11.0 

30.1 

38.4 

12.8 

7.4 

30.2 

19.0 

37.5 

48.6 

13.9 

36.5 

45.3 

6.0 

13.0 

17.3 

69.8 

25.3 

2.3 

3.8 

4.4 

41.8 

31.3 

6.2 

15.1 

17.5 

21.0 

43.2 

8.6 

22.6 

26.9 

1.0 

0.4 

9.4 

8.9 

44.8 

30.4 

4.6 

11.4 

14.6 

10.2 

30.3 

41.5 

8.4 

19.6 

24.2 

38.7 

33.0 

5.2 

14.7 

20.6 

4.0 

7.6 

32.5 

25.3 

7.0 

20.8 

32.3 

10.0 

33.0 

40.7 

9.1 

17.5 

20.9 

37.8 

40.3 

6.0 

16.5 

18.9 

5.4 

3.0 

8.1 

35.7 

1.3 

5.1 

7.3 

48.8 

30.0 

51.5 

7.1 

12.2 

14.7 

3.9 

100.0 

9.4 

36.9 

19.2 

45.5 

49.8 

8.6 

55.3 

9.1 

19.8 

26.2 

46.2 

33.1 

6.1 

11.9 

15.6 

3.8 

9.8 

5.2 

13.5 

44.6 

9.6 

21.8 

28.4 

13.5 

17.7 

34.5 

10.0 

22.5 

29.7 

18.1 

39.0 

38.8 

7.8 

17.0 

18.1 

53.5 

22.9 

4.8 

11.7 

15.3 

4.1 

8.3 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Note: All firms with non-missing employment and turnover information in 2019 in ORBIS Europe data are included in the analysis. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Key features of mid-caps 

Figure A1. Profit margin by size group 

4.2%

4.2%

3.5%

4.3%

3.8%

4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used. Luxembourg and Malta are excluded due to limited observations. 

Figure A2. Cash flow (1,000 EUR) per employee 

16.2

17.7

20.5

19.7

18.4

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used.   

Figure A3. Net income (1,000 EUR) per employee 

Net income/emp (th euro)

14.1

11.7

11.9

11.4

10.6

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

SMEs

250-499

500-1499

1500-2999

3000+

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used.   

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Descriptive statistics of mid-caps by EU member state  

Table A12a. The share of foreign-owned mid-caps in all mid-caps by EU member state and 
by size group (domestic) 

Domestic 

EU member state    Micro  SMEs  250-499  500-1499  500-2999  3000+  All 

0.85 

0.93 

0.76 

0.55 

0.67 

0.33 

0.88 

0.76 

0.67 

0.70 

0.74 

0.65 

0.86 

0.43 

0.28 

0.32 

0.75 

0.87 

0.48 

0.58 

0.30 

0.91 

0.71 

0.00 

0.67 

0.78 

0.83 

0.91 

0.88 

0.30 

0.54 

0.67 

1.00 

0.90 

0.40 

0.84 

0.50 

0.67 

0.37 

0.67 

0.57 

0.20 

0.73 

0.93 

0.34 

0.76 

0.37 

0.85 

0.17 

0.43 

0.76 

0.80 

0.95 

0.70 

0.92 

0.94 

0.96 

0.09 

0.81 

0.47 

0.67 

0.73 

0.56 

0.93 

0.23 

0.99 

0.85 

0.54 

0.91 

0.88 

0.97 

0.21 

0.88 

0.93 

0.22 

0.48 

0.81 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

0.93 

0.90 

0.78 

0.81 

0.76 

0.55 

0.95 

0.92 

0.71 

0.70 

0.75 

0.50 

0.93 

0.87 

0.47 

0.94 

0.94 

0.91 

0.97 

0.87 

0.72 

0.07 

0.29 

0.36 

0.81 

0.78 

0.65 

0.45 

0.67 

0.74 

0.68 

0.61 

0.72 

0.71 

0.84 

0.85 

0.56 

0.58 

0.58 

0.95 

0.82 

0.36 

0.21 

0.41 

0.48 

1.00 

0.94 

0.78 

0.86 

0.84 

0.61 

0.61 

0.41 

0.33 

0.92 

0.84 

0.67 

0.87 

0.92 

0.84 

0.98 

0.76 

0.55 

0.20 

0.41 

0.59 

0.89 

0.79 

0.49 

0.94 

0.89 

0.74 

0.20 

0.57 

0.62 

0.48 

0.55 

0.36 

EU27 

0.81 

0.84 

0.75 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

0.81 

0.52 

0.64 

0.33 

0.37 

0.91 

0.69 

0.43 

0.58 

0.76 

0.73 

0.87 

0.53 

0.32 

0.37 

0.76 

0.67 

0.50 

0.59 

0.88 

0.52 

0.62 

0.37 

0.78 

0.59 

0.30 

0.74 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A12b. The share of foreign-owned mid-caps in all mid-caps by EU member state  and 
by size group (intra-EU foreign ownership) 

Foreign, Intra-EU 

EU member state   Micro  SMEs  250-499  500-1499  500-2999  3000+  All 

0.15 

0.05 

0.17 

0.24 

0.15 

0.39 

0.03 

0.17 

0.33 

0.20 

0.12 

0.27 

0.09 

0.43 

0.32 

0.12 

0.16 

0.00 

0.30 

0.17 

0.53 

0.04 

0.29 

1.00 

0.33 

0.17 

0.11 

0.04 

0.13 

0.52 

0.15 

0.28 

0.00 

0.00 

0.60 

0.06 

0.24 

0.25 

0.39 

0.25 

0.14 

0.44 

0.14 

0.04 

0.39 

0.20 

0.37 

0.09 

0.50 

0.43 

0.16 

0.08 

0.01 

0.12 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.02 

0.06 

0.02 

0.02 

0.05 

0.03 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

0.08 

0.25 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.04 

0.04 

0.02 

0.05 

0.02 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

0.04 

0.06 

0.13 

0.08 

0.13 

0.24 

0.01 

0.04 

0.16 

0.12 

0.11 

0.13 

0.04 

0.09 

0.34 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

0.02 

0.07 

0.13 

0.02 

0.11 

0.48 

0.06 

0.08 

0.21 

0.02 

0.05 

0.11 

0.02 

0.07 

0.15 

0.05 

0.05 

0.06 

0.02 

0.09 

0.27 

0.03 

0.11 

0.41 

0.02 

0.03 

0.11 

0.00 

0.03 

0.10 

0.07 

0.10 

0.24 

0.25 

0.23 

0.33 

0.04 

0.10 

0.24 

0.02 

0.03 

0.06 

0.01 

0.15 

0.28 

0.01 

0.06 

0.18 

0.03 

0.09 

0.30 

0.03 

0.05 

0.12 

0.01 

0.07 

0.24 

0.05 

0.19 

0.41 

EU27 

0.02 

0.05 

0.13 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

0.10 

0.29 

0.17 

0.33 

0.33 

0.04 

0.21 

0.32 

0.20 

0.12 

0.15 

0.07 

0.40 

0.36 

0.11 

0.11 

0.18 

0.50 

0.24 

0.05 

0.28 

0.23 

0.38 

0.13 

0.30 

0.41 

0.14 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A12c. The share of foreign-owned mid-caps in all mid-caps by EU member state and 
by size group (extra-EU foreign ownership) 

Foreign, extra-EU 

EU member state  Micro  SMEs  250-499  500-1499  500-2999  3000+  All 

0.00 

0.02 

0.07 

0.22 

0.17 

0.28 

0.09 

0.07 

0.00 

0.10 

0.14 

0.08 

0.06 

0.14 

0.40 

0.56 

0.10 

0.13 

0.21 

0.25 

0.17 

0.05 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.05 

0.06 

0.05 

0.00 

0.17 

0.31 

0.06 

0.00 

0.10 

0.00 

0.10 

0.25 

0.09 

0.24 

0.07 

0.29 

0.36 

0.13 

0.04 

0.28 

0.04 

0.26 

0.06 

0.33 

0.14 

0.08 

0.12 

0.04 

0.18 

0.03 

0.03 

0.02 

0.89 

0.13 

0.51 

0.30 

0.23 

0.41 

0.03 

0.76 

0.00 

0.07 

0.21 

0.05 

0.10 

0.02 

0.78 

0.08 

0.04 

0.76 

0.46 

0.16 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

0.02 

0.04 

0.09 

0.12 

0.11 

0.21 

0.03 

0.04 

0.13 

0.18 

0.14 

0.38 

0.03 

0.04 

0.19 

0.03 

0.03 

0.05 

0.02 

0.06 

0.16 

0.91 

0.59 

0.15 

0.13 

0.13 

0.15 

0.53 

0.28 

0.16 

0.30 

0.32 

0.14 

0.24 

0.11 

0.09 

0.42 

0.33 

0.15 

0.02 

0.07 

0.24 

0.77 

0.56 

0.41 

0.00 

0.04 

0.11 

0.07 

0.06 

0.14 

0.14 

0.35 

0.33 

0.05 

0.06 

0.09 

0.11 

0.04 

0.10 

0.01 

0.09 

0.17 

0.79 

0.54 

0.23 

0.07 

0.12 

0.20 

0.03 

0.06 

0.14 

0.78 

0.36 

0.14 

0.47 

0.26 

0.23 

EU27 

0.17 

0.10 

0.12 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

0.08 

0.20 

0.19 

0.33 

0.30 

0.06 

0.10 

0.25 

0.23 

0.12 

0.12 

0.07 

0.07 

0.32 

0.51 

0.12 

0.15 

0.00 

0.17 

0.07 

0.20 

0.15 

0.26 

0.09 

0.11 

0.29 

0.12 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A13. Total assets intensity (total assets per employee, 1,000 EUR) 

EU member state   SMEs  250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

350 

380 

721 

759 

66 

69 

272 

510 

84 

2277 

3047 

1048 

176 

284 

233 

532 

144 

847 

1020 

1549 

1300 

134 

102 

223 

331 

271 

363 

173 

191 

358 

494 

244 

1492 

628 

905 

117 

284 

112 

105 

911 

116 

168 

274 

1955 

113 

182 

322 

521 

66 

253 

193 

180 

872 

253 

87 

927 

1446 

1727 

1363 

374 

683 

76 

61 

464 

381 

423 

52 

272 

493 

99 

117 

177 

565 

890 

69 

74 

181 

425 

473 

138 

102 

795 

435 

47 

77 

73 

52 

119 

34 

1138 

700 

121 

111 

161 

164 

65 

72 

722 

434 

176 

715 

116 

107 

488 

112 

215 

93 

410 

249 

193 

2154 

130 

90 

99 

244 

64 

355 

198 

120 

88 

147 

344 

159 

178 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe dataset.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EUR exchange rate 0.8931 is used. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A14. Labour productivity (turnover per employee, 1,000 EUR) 

EU member state   SMEs 

250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 
MT 
NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

534.6 

513.7 

314.6 

644.0 

505.9 

388.1 

66.4 

64.6 

92.0 

581.8 

262.3 

197.3 

123.1 

186.4 

158.0 

310.7 

335.0 

394.2 

649.7 

632.7 

358.7 

147.3 

121.1 

155.3 

178.5 

204.3 

123.1 

212.6 

271.2 

293.0 

289.9 

290.2 

334.6 

361.4 

358.1 

403.3 

103.2 

113.1 

116.2 

127.4 

114.0 

120.6 

558.3 

535.7 

640.2 

248.6 

398.4 

310.4 

92.5 

73.9 

110.0 

278.1 

547.9 

85.7 

177.7 

342.9 

479.8 

123.0 

152.2 

165.0 

273.0 

372.2 

112.7 

97.1 

952.6 

273.1 

55.1 

211.0 

287.8 

55.4 

27.7 

178.1 

187.5 

760.3 

137.5 

85.3 

190.8 

373.0 

358.5 

71.9 

138.2 

456.5 

226.2 

78.0 

102.9 

77.1 

66.4 

66.3 

86.4 

1775.8  807.4 

689.7 

150.5 

158.4 

135.2 

133.6 

162.0 

128.6 

86.7 

98.8 

99.0 

275.2 

301.6 

257.6 

190.8 

219.1 

165.6 

157.2 

155.7 

157.2 

216.0 

158.7 

135.6 

91.2 

284.0 

80.1 

247.3 

176.7 

172.6 

96.6 

108.9 

222.5 

229.5 

269.4 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EU exchange rate 0.8931 is used. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A15. Assets-turnover ratio (turnover to total asset ratio) 

EU member state   SMEs  250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

1.53 

1.35 

0.89 

0.67 

1.01 

0.94 

0.26 

0.09 

0.70 

0.66 

1.33 

0.63 

0.64 

0.41 

1.10 

1.19 

0.80 

0.62 

0.78 

0.75 

0.59 

1.19 

0.58 

0.40 

0.88 

0.40 

1.14 

1.09 

0.60 

0.37 

0.66 

0.58 

1.22 

1.21 

1.15 

0.76 

1.09 

0.19 

1.10 

0.47 

0.28 

0.90 

0.65 

0.82 

0.22 

0.44 

1.00 

0.72 

0.37 

0.67 

0.29 

1.01 

0.28 

0.76 

0.98 

1.07 

0.92 

1.86 

0.60 

0.86 

1.52 

0.43 

0.45 

1.12 

0.70 

0.65 

1.05 

0.78 

0.58 

0.56 

0.24 

1.01 

0.33 

0.85 

1.99 

1.16 

1.05 

0.88 

0.76 

0.52 

1.35 

0.57 

0.52 

1.67 

1.34 

1.06 

1.28 

0.56 

2.53 

1.56 

1.15 

1.25 

1.43 

0.83 

0.99 

1.34 

1.37 

0.38 

0.70 

1.09 

0.31 

1.35 

1.46 

1.41 

1.21 

0.60 

1.06 

0.63 

0.66 

0.81 

0.10 

1.22 

1.51 

0.92 

1.16 

1.25 

0.70 

0.89 

1.44 

1.10 

0.74 

0.65 

1.44 

1.52 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EU exchange rate 0.8931 is used. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A16. Efficiency ratio (100 times cash flow to total asset ratio) 

EU member state  SMEs 

250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

11.00 

6.41 

4.32 

4.32 

10.38 

8.51 

142.12  4.07 

8.34 

5.93 

8.36 

2.30 

13.44 

8.30 

11.56 

4.64 

1.72 

5.82 

7.87 

3.63 

7.13 

3.04 

1.93 

7.78 

4.30 

9.25 

5.26 

6.15 

4.95 

3.90 

3.22 

-44.37 

-1.16 

1.46 

4.17 

3.08 

7.59 

7.38 

6.35 

8.36 

11.53 

8.28 

2.64 

7.07 

8.48 

2.50 

7.59 

8.14 

9.09 

5.97 

9.87 

9.20 

2.42 

5.32 

8.88 

6.79 

4.34 

1.28 

2.34 

9.90 

9.16 

6.81 

6.13 

1.17 

7.71 

6.82 

8.58 

8.19 

8.62 

6.85 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EU exchange rate 0.8931 is used. 

4.47 

6.59 

9.92 

12.12 

1.64 

9.14 

9.91 

2.13 

2.75 

5.32 

14.56 

31.52 

5.08 

0.76 

5.82 

3.29 

5.30 

6.03 

10.84 

11.93 

9.53 

2.26 

5.12 

11.15 

3.08 

27.40 

17.08 

17.97 

10.96 

4.90 

2.91 

8.12 

14.69 

6.38 

6.31 

0.15 

7.00 

6.34 

8.24 

14.07 

7.43 

4.43 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A17. Profit margin (net income to turnover ratio) 

EU member state   SMEs  250-499  500-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

4.7% 

3.0% 

3.0% 

3.8% 

6.3% 

4.6% 

5.0% 

2.8% 

4.9% 

20.2%  11.2% 

6.2% 

6.6% 

5.6% 

3.6% 

2.3% 

4.6% 

4.1% 

4.8% 

4.7% 

4.6% 

1.2% 

5.7% 

3.5% 

4.9% 

6.6% 

1.3% 

5.9% 

1.2% 

6.2% 

2.7% 

2.2% 

-1.9% 

2.5% 

13.9% 

4.8% 

7.1% 

4.5% 

2.8% 

3.6% 

2.7% 

3.9% 

4.6% 

5.3% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

3.0% 

3.1% 

4.7% 

7.1% 

10.9%  10.4% 

9.8% 

2.7% 

2.8% 

2.6% 

4.0% 

4.8% 

6.0% 

6.7% 

9.7% 

4.7% 

8.2% 

7.2% 

3.2% 

3.4% 

3.5% 

1.8% 

6.6% 

6.7% 

15.7% 

5.3% 

1.5% 

2.7% 

-0.7% 

4.4% 

5.1% 

-4.2% 

1.6% 

1.0% 

4.1% 

46.8% 

3.2% 

3.2% 

4.4% 

9.0% 

5.8% 

3.3% 

3.1% 

6.1% 

4.7% 

17.2% 

3.7% 

3.0% 

4.3% 

4.2% 

5.3% 

2.8% 

6.8% 

8.2% 

4.2% 

6.1% 

2.3% 

2.1% 

3.5% 

3.4% 

4.3% 

9.6% 

5.3% 

3.5% 

8.0% 

2.5% 

0.8% 

2.6% 

8.7% 

0.5% 

1.7% 

0.6% 

1.1% 

-7.7% 

2.0% 

14.2% 

1.9% 

4.3% 

Source: Own calculations based on the ORBIS Europe database.  

Notes: The 2019 average USD to EU exchange rate 0.8931 is used. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Descriptive statistics of mid-caps by ecosystems 

Table A18. The share of firms by ecosystem and by firm size group 

Ecosystem  Micro  SMEs  250-499  250-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

(per 100) 

(per 10k) 

E1 

E2 

E3 

E4 

E5 

E6 

E7 

E8 

E9 

E10 

E11 

E12 

E13 

E14 

83.6 

15.4 

93.7 

93.2 

94.8 

92.7 

6.1 

6.7 

5.1 

7.1 

77.3 

21.4 

87.9 

11.2 

82.1 

17.1 

90.9 

92.3 

94.0 

94.4 

8.5 

7.4 

5.7 

5.5 

86.2 

13.5 

93.1 

6.7 

55.8 

11.5 

6.6 

7.1 

13.2 

72.1 

43.3 

49.3 

31.6 

12.9 

12.9 

6.2 

21.5 

6.8 

36.0 

5.4 

3.6 

3.4 

6.6 

42.8 

28.4 

26.6 

23.0 

7.2 

7.8 

3.7 

8.9 

3.6 

8.6 

0.9 

0.7 

0.6 

1.7 

10.0 

6.9 

3.7 

4.8 

1.7 

1.6 

0.8 

0.9 

0.7 

5.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.3 

0.7 

4.4 

4.2 

1.5 

2.2 

1.1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  Europe  database  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are: 
Aerospace  &  Defence  (E01),  Agri-food  (E02),  Construction  (E03),  Cultural  and  Creative  Industries  (E04),  Digital  (E05),  Electronics  (E06),  Energy-
Renewables (E07), Energy Intensive Industries (E08), Health (E09), Mobility-Transport-Automotive (E10), Proximity, Social Economy and Civil Security 
(E11), Retail (E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

Table A19. The share of total employees by ecosystem and by firm size group 

Ecosystem  Micro  SMEs  250-499  250-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

E1 

E2 

E3 

E4 

E5 

E6 

E7 

E8 

E9 

E10 

E11 

E12 

E13 

E14 

13.7%  34.8%  9.2% 

14.3% 

8.5% 

19.5% 

41.6%  38.5%  6.7% 

7.0% 

49.6%  34.9%  3.9% 

4.9% 

48.6%  34.4%  4.7% 

5.2% 

37.6%  37.5%  6.5% 

7.6% 

3.0% 

2.5% 

2.4% 

4.9% 

12.0%  41.9%  10.5% 

15.2% 

8.6% 

15.7%  34.0%  9.7% 

14.7% 

9.0% 

19.1%  48.3%  10.3% 

12.6% 

4.6% 

21.2%  32.7%  8.8% 

15.1% 

7.7% 

37.4%  32.0%  5.3% 

6.9% 

36.0%  31.9%  6.2% 

8.7% 

48.3%  28.8%  3.6% 

5.0% 

29.6%  51.5%  7.5% 

7.1% 

48.8%  35.4%  4.0% 

4.9% 

4.4% 

4.4% 

2.7% 

1.8% 

2.4% 

3.2% 

4.1% 

4.7% 

5.9% 

11.7% 

16.9% 

5.1% 

14.5% 

14.1% 

12.7% 

11.7% 

2.5% 

4.6% 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table A20. The share of total turnover by ecosystem and by firm size group 

Ecosystem  Micro  SMEs  250-499  250-1,499  1,500-2,999  3,000+ 

E1 

E2 

E3 

E4 

E5 

E6 

E7 

E8 

E9 

E10 

E11 

E12 

E13 

E14 

13.9%  25.5%  7.9% 

13.6% 

7.3% 

31.7% 

26.9%  43.9%  9.8% 

12.3% 

4.5% 

47.5%  35.9%  5.2% 

5.7% 

41.6%  37.5%  7.4% 

7.6% 

23.7%  35.0%  10.2% 

9.4% 

2.4% 

3.2% 

9.8% 

7.2% 

30.8%  12.7% 

22.3% 

10.2% 

13.7%  37.3%  13.4% 

16.9% 

9.8% 

11.9%  38.8%  13.0% 

18.0% 

9.0% 

17.6%  26.0%  9.9% 

22.4% 

8.3% 

20.2%  37.0%  6.9% 

7.2% 

45.0%  26.8%  5.6% 

8.2% 

44.7%  32.5%  6.4% 

8.2% 

5.7% 

4.3% 

2.3% 

21.6%  50.2%  8.5% 

12.8% 

2.2% 

46.9%  33.5%  5.1% 

6.7% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

3.4% 

2.6% 

11.9% 

16.8% 

8.9% 

9.2% 

15.7% 

23.0% 

10.3% 

5.8% 

4.7% 

5.2% 

Source: Own elaboration based on the ORBIS Europe database and the EC Annual Single Market Report 2021.  

Notes:  All  firms  with  non-missing  employment  information  in  2019  in  ORBIS  data  are  included  in  the  analysis.  The  ecosystems  are:  Aerospace  & 
Defence (E01), Agri-food (E02), Construction (E03), Cultural and Creative Industries (E04), Digital (E05), Electronics (E06), Energy-Renewables (E07), 
Energy  Intensive  Industries  (E08),  Health  (E09),  Mobility-Transport-Automotive  (E10),  Proximity,  Social  Economy  and  Civil  Security  (E11),  Retail 
(E12), Textile (E13), and Tourism (E14). 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

APPENDIX B  

B1 

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE  

Introduction 

S1:  Do  you  feel  knowledgeable  to  provide  us  with  some  insights  on  access  to  finance,  innovation, 
internationalisation or sustainability in your enterprise? 

Yes 

No (End interview) 

General information about the enterprise 

1.  How many employees does your enterprise have? 

Less than 250 employees (terminate) 
250 - 499 employees 
500 - 999 employees 
1,000 - 1,499 employees 
1,500 or more employees (terminate) 

2.  What is the sector your enterprise is operating in? [PN: see list in sheet Sector Quotas in 

sample file] 

Hierarchical drop-down menu for the interviewer where he/she can choose the appropriate Nace 2-digit 

2.b. What industry best describes your company 

3. 

Is  your  enterprise  part  of  an  enterprise  group?  (two  or  more  legally  defined  enterprises  under 
common ownership, in the home country or abroad. The head office is also part of the group.)  

Yes     YES – Go to Q3A  

No    NO – Go to Q4 

3.A. Is your enterprise the Head Office? 

Yes     YES – Go to Q4  

No    NO – Go to Q3B 

3.B. In which country is the Head Office located? (OE) _____________              

Go to Q4 

4.  Who owns your enterprise? (multiple possibilities) 

 
It is owned by the founders of the enterprise 
 
It is owned by a number of non-related private shareholders 
It is owned by investors such as venture capital or institutional investors    

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

It is a family-owned business 

 

4.a. What is the main advantage of this form of ownership for your company?  

4.b. What is the main disadvantage of this form of ownership for your company 

5.  Thinking about the next few years, how much does your enterprise plan to grow on average 

per year, if at all, in terms of: 

(read out – one answer per line) 

No  plan  to 
grow 
 

Grow 
less  than 
10% 
 

Grow 
between 
10 
20% 
 

and 

 

 

 

Grow by 
more 
than 20% 

not 

Do 
know 

 

 

 

 

Number  of  full-time  equivalent 
employees 
Turnover 

6. 

In which geographic markets does your enterprise sell goods and/or services? 

A. Local / or national 

B. European Union  
C. Other European countries 

D. North America 

E. China, India, other Asian markets  

F. Other markets outside Europe not mentioned above  

es 

 

 

 

 

 

No 

 

 

 

 

 

7.  [PN: if Q6=Yes to at least 1 option from B-F; PN: force answer > 0%] What is the share of your turnover 

received from exports? 

....% 
8. 

 [PN: force min 1, max 3] From the following list, please indicate the three key areas which pose the biggest challenge 
for your enterprise 

Access to finance 
Payment delays 
Lack of skills, including management skills 

 
 
 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Difficulties in finding employees 
Difficulties with innovation 
Regulation and administrative burden 
Supply chain disruptions/lack of supplies-raw materials 

Internationalisation 
Difficulties with digitalization 
Access to data 
Becoming more sustainable by reducing materials, energy and cutting 
emissions 
Other – please specify (OE) 

    

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

9.  8.a. Were any of these challenges triggered/worsened by the pandemic? 

es 

 

No 
 

8.b. Please explain [PN: add DK] 

Financing and access to capital 

10.  If you intend to grow, will you be counting on additional external financing for this? [PN: single 

select] 

No, we have enough internal reserves 
Yes, we will be looking for external financing/bank loan/investors 
Yes, we will be looking for public funding/state aid 

 
 
 

11.  Would your enterprise be able to obtain external financing in case of need? [PN: single select] 

Yes, definitely 
Yes, probably 
No, probably not 
No, definitely not 

    
 
 
 

12.  If  you  were  looking  for  external  funding  in  the  past,  how  important  were  the  following 

barriers? 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Lack of credit from banks 
Lack of external equity finance, for example venture capital 
Difficulties in obtaining government grants or subsidies 

Degree of importance 

Mediu
m 
 
 
 

High 
 
 
 

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   
   
   

Employment and skills 

13.  Is the lack of skilled employees a major obstacle for the growth of your enterprise? 

es 

 

No 
 

14.  How important are the following barriers related to employment and skills? 

Difficulties to recruit qualified technical staff 
Difficulties to recruit qualified information technology staff 
Difficulties to recruit qualified administrative and sales staff 
Loss of skilled employees to competitors 
Other please specify (OE) 

Degree of importance 

Mediu
m 
High 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   
   
   
   
   

R&D and Innovation  

15.  Has  your  company  been  active  in  research  or  the  development  of  new  products  or 

processes recently? 

Permanent
ly 
 
Research and development 
 
Development of new goods or services  
Development of new processes or business models   

Sometime
s 
 
 
 

No 
 
 
 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

  Three no, go to 18 

16.  If you are active in R&D or innovation, do you spend 10% or more of your total operating 

cost on R&D? 

      Yes 

     No 

 

 

17.  If you are active in R&D or innovation, who is doing these activities in your enterprise? 

This is the task of the R&D or innovation department  
This is the task of production or marketing department 
This is the task of the management 
Not fixed, depends on the topic 
Other/external partners 

      Yes 

     No 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

18.  If you are active in R&D and innovation, how important were the following barriers for these 

activities? 

Lack of funding for R&D and innovation, including governmental funding 
Lack of market acceptance for new products  
Difficulties to co-operate with universities and other firms 
Technical problems with the new product or process 
 Go to question 19 

Degree of importance 

Mediu
m 
High 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   
   
   
   

19.  [PN: Skip if yes to any in Q14] If you were NOT active in R&D and innovation, what are the 

reasons? 

No need for new products or adaptations 

128 

Degree of importance 

Mediu
High 
m 
      

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

No market for new goods or services  
Difficulties to raise funding for R&D and innovation 
Other, please specify 
Internationalisation 

 
 
 

 
 
 

   
   
   

20.  Does your company have own affiliates outside your home country carrying out one of the 

following activities? 

Production 

Marketing, sales 

After-sales, maintenance 

R&D, innovation 

  Four times No, go to question 22 

Yes 

No 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21.  In how many countries is your enterprise present with own affiliates (excluding the home 

country)? [PN: sum > 0] 

Inside EU 
Outside EU 

22.  A. [PN: inside EU >0] If you are active abroad with own affiliates inside EU, how important 

were the following barriers for these activities? 

Obstacles for market access 
Quality problems with foreign production 
Too high costs of foreign presence 
Loss of flexibility with long supply chains 

Other, please specify 

Degree of importance 

Mediu
m 
High 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   
   
   
   

21.  B. [PN: outside EU >0] If you are active abroad with own affiliates outside EU, how important 

were the following barriers for these activities? 

Degree of importance 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Obstacles for market access 
Quality problems with foreign production 
Too high costs of foreign presence 
Loss of flexibility with long supply chains 

Other, please specify 

 Go to question 23 

Mediu
High 
m 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   
   
   
   

22.  [PN: Skip if yes to any in Q19] If you are NOT active abroad with own affiliates, what are the 

reasons? 

Degree of importance 

Mediu
High 
m 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 

Not 
important 

Lo
w 
   
   
   
   

Foreign presence is too expensive 
Too little market potential for our products 
We are happy with exporting 
Too complicated 

Other: please specify (OE) 

Digitalisation 

23.  Does your enterprise use any of the following digital technologies? 

Artificial Intelligence  

Big Data Analytics 

Internet of Things 

Robots 

3D Printing 

Other  digital  tools  or  technologies  please  specify 
(OE) 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

24.  Has your enterprise experienced any of the obstacles listed below in the adoption and use 

of these digital technologies?  

Severeness of obstacle 

We found it difficult to finance the associated investments   
We found it difficult to recruit skilled staff for developing or implementing 
these technologies 
We  found  it  difficult  to  integrate  these  technologies  into  our  existing 
processes 
Uncertainty about future digital standards makes investments difficult   
 
IT security issues are blocking digitalisation 
Other, please specify (OE) Only show scale options if data entered in 
OE box 

 

Mediu
m 
High 
      
 
 

Not 
experienc
Lo
ed 
w 
   
   

 

 
 

   

   
   

Regulatory burden 

25.  Some legal requirements (such as reporting) depend on the size of the enterprise.  

Have you encountered such requirements, and did they hamper your enterprise in 
its activities or pursue its plans to grow?  

Not 
important 

Degree of impact 
Lo
Mediu
w 
High 
m 
   
      
   
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 

 

 

   

Employment-related requirements 
Taxation  
Accounting standards 
Customs/trade related requirements 
Environmental regulations 
Different legislation in different countries 

Other, please specify (OE). Only show scale options if data entered in 
OE box 

25.a. Are these mainly requirements at: [PN: multi select] 

National level 
EU level 
International level 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Sustainability 

26.   In terms of environmental sustainability, which of the following actions, if any, is your enterprise actively taking? 

Recycling or reusing materials 
Reducing materials consumption of or impact on natural resources (eg 
saving water or switching to sustainable resources) 
Reducing energy consumption 
Switching to sustainable energy 
Replacing  energy-intensive  equipment  by  more  energy-efficient 
equipment 
Reducing emissions with other means, for example filter systems 
Developing more sustainable products 
Other, please specify 

    
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

27. Which of the following, if any, are currently preventing your enterprise from becoming 

more sustainable? 

Lack of willingness among the management 
Lack of consumer demand 
It is not compatible with our current business model 
It would not be profitable 
Lack of skills for sustainability, including managerial skills 
Lack of financial resources 
Other, please specify 

    
 
 
 
 
 
 

28.  We  plan  a  half-day  online  workshop  to  present  the  results  and  discuss  their  implications  with 

enterprise representatives. Would you be interested to take part in such a workshop? 

Yes 

Please enter your email address  

No 

B2  KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF MID-CAP RESPONDENTS 

This  Appendix  summarises  the  key  characteristics  of  mid-cap  respondents  with  respect  to  their 
distribution by sector and by EU member state, size, ownership, growth plans and engagement in 
exporting.    

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table  B1  shows  the  distribution  of  all  mid-cap  respondents  by  sector.  Two-fifths  of  all  mid-cap 
respondents  are  from  the  manufacturing  sector  (41%),  52%  from  the  services  sector,  2%  from 
utilities and 5% from construction.  

Table B1: The distribution of mid-cap respondents by sector 

Sector 

C Manufacturing  

D Electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply 

Number  of  mid-
cap respondents  

62 

2 

E Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities  2 

F Construction  

H Transportation and storage 

 I Accommodation and food service activities 

J Information and communication 

L Real estate activities 

M Professional, scientific, and technical activities 

8 

9 

6 

36 

3 

23 

% of all  
mid-cap 
respondents 
41% 

1% 

1% 

5% 

6% 

4% 

24% 

2% 

15% 

TOTALS 

151 

100% 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research. 

Of all 151 respondents, 42% are small mid-caps (250-499 employees) and 58% are large mid-caps 
(500-1,499 employees). The distribution of the respondents by sector and mid-cap size is shown in 
Table B2 and Figure B1 below.  

Table B2: The distribution of the mid-cap respondents by sector and group size  

Sector  

C Manufacturing  

Number of small 
mid-cap 
respondents  
29 

Number 
of 
large  mid-cap 
respondents 
33 

D Electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply 

1 

E Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities  2 

F Construction  

H Transportation and storage 

 I Accommodation and food service activities 

J Information and communication 

L Real estate activities 

M Professional, scientific, and technical activities 

TOTALS 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q1: How many employees does your enterprise have? 

3 

4 

3 

14 

2 

6 

64 

1 

0 

5 

5 

3 

22 

1 

17 

87 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure  B1:  The  distribution  of  the  respondents  by  sector  and  mid-caps  size 

All sectors
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Water supply, sewerage, waste management and…

Construction
Transportation and storage
Accommodation and food service activities
Information and communication
Real estate activities
Professional, scientific and technical activities

42%

47%
50%

38%

44%

50%

39%

100%

58%

53%
50%

63%

56%

50%

61%

67%

33%

26%

74%

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: What is the sector your enterprise is operating in? 

As shown in Figure B2, three quarters of respondents are from mid-caps that are part of an enterprise 
group (76%) with a higher proportion of small mid-caps (81%) being part of an enterprise group in 
comparison to large mid-caps (72%). 

Figure B2: The proportion of mid-caps being part of an enterprise group 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

Small mid-caps

76%

81%

24%

19%

Large mid-caps

72%

28%

Yes

No

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Is your enterprise part of an enterprise group? (two or more legally defined enterprises under common ownership, in the home country or abroad. 
The head office is also part of the group.) 

Table  B3  shows  the  distribution  of  mid-cap  respondents  by  EU  member  state.  Respondents  from 
large EU member states (Germany, France, Italy, Spain) account for 41% of all respondents while 
51% of all respondents are from the other 23 EU member states.    

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Table B3: The distribution of mid-cap respondents by EU member state 

EU member state  Number of mid-cap respondents  % of all mid-cap respondents  

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Croatia 

2 

1 

4 

3 

1 

Czech Republic 

12 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Total 

1 

2 

7 

11 

37 

3 

7 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

20 

13 

1 

1 

2 

12 

1 

1% 

1% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

8% 

1% 

1% 

5% 

7% 

25% 

2% 

5% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

13% 

9% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

8% 

1% 

151 

100% 

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

The ownership type varies across the respondent mid-caps: ownership belongs to the founders of 
the company in the case of 31% of all mid-cap respondents (30% of small mid-caps; 32% of large 
mid-caps);  ownership  by  a  number  of  non-related  private  stakeholders  in  the  case  of  32%  of  all 
respondents  (27%  small  mid-caps;  36%  of  large  mid-caps);  ownership  by  venture  capital  or 
institutional investors in the case of 38% of all respondents (36% of small mid-caps; 39% of large 
mid-caps); family-owned mid-caps in the case of 25% of all respondents (30% of small mid-caps; 
22% of large mid-caps). 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure B3: The ownership of mid-caps respondents 

38%

31%

32%

25%

36%

30%

30%

27%

39%

36%

32%

22%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

All mid-caps respondents

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

It is owned by the founders of the company

It is owned by a number of non-related private shareholders

It is owned by investors such as venture capital or institutional investors

It is a family-owned business

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Who owns your company? 

A large proportion of mid-caps have growth ambitions in terms of employment for the next few years 
(Figure B4) ranging from less than 10% (36 % of all respondents; 42% of small mid-caps; 31% of 
large mid-caps), between 10% and 20% (23% of all respondents; 16% of small mid-caps; 29% of 
large mid-caps), to more than 20% (18% of all respondents; 17% of small mid-caps; 18% of large 
mid-caps). 

Figure B4: Growth plans of mid-caps in terms of employment 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

15%

36%

23%

18%

8%

Small mid-caps

13%

42%

16%

17%

13%

Large mid-caps

17%

31%

29%

18%

5%

No plan to grow

Grow less than 10%

Grow between 10 and 20% Grow by more than 20%

Do not know

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Thinking about the next few years, how much does your enterprise plan to grow on average per year, if at all, in terms of the number of full-time 
equivalent employees? 

Looking at growth in terms of turnover (Figure B5), a quarter of all respondents plan to grow less 
than 10% (19% of small mid-caps; 30% of large mid-caps). The proportion of mid-caps planning to 
expand in particular between 10% and 20% (38% of all respondents; 44% of small mid-caps; 34% 
of large mid-caps) and over 20% (25% of all respondents; 25% of small mid-caps; 24% of large 
mid-caps)  is  larger  in  comparison  to  employment  growth  plans  suggesting  that  growth  would  be 
driven by productivity gains. 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-caps landscape 

Figure B5: Growth plans of mid-caps in terms of turnover 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All mid-caps respondents

4%

25%

38%

25%

8%

Small mid-caps

3%

19%

44%

25%

9%

Large mid-caps

5%

30%

34%

24%

7%

No plan to grow

Grow less than 10%

Grow between 10 and 20% Grow by more than 20%

Do not know

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: Thinking about the next few years, how much does your enterprise plan to grow on average per year, if at all, in terms of turnover? 

Exporting  is  a  key  feature  of  mid-caps.  Over  93%  of  all  respondents  report  selling  goods  and/or 
services within EU (94% of small mid-caps; 93% of large mid-caps). Exports to other destinations 
are also very frequent: other European countries (81% of all respondents), North America (65% of 
all respondents), China, India, other Asian markets (69% of all respondents), other markets outside 
Europe (72% of all respondents). 

Figure B6: Mid-caps’ local/national sales and exporting destinations 

Local / or national

120%

European Union

Other European
countries

North America

China, India, other
Asian markets

100%

94%

93%

81%

92%

92%

83%

72%

69%

65%

69%

70%

63%

80%

60%

40%

20%

95%

93%

79%

74%

69%

67%

Other markets outside
Europe not mentioned
above

0%

All mid-caps respondents

Small mid-caps

Large mid-caps

Source: Own elaboration based on 151 interviews conducted by Integral Research.   

Q: In which geographic markets does your enterprise sell goods and/or services? 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. 
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
7
-
2
2
-
7
1
2
-
E
N
N

-

ISBN 978-92-76-54830-0