COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION EFSI 2.0 EX-POST EVALUATION
Date: 2022-12-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU growth strategy, European Fund for Strategic Investments, economic growth, financing, investment, small and medium-sized enterprises

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.12.2022  SWD(2022) 444 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  EFSI 2.0 EX-POST EVALUATION {SWD(2022) 443 final}  
 
 
As  a  response  to  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  that  reached  Europe  in  2008  and  to  its 
negative  impact  on  the  level  of  investment  and  access  to  finance  in  the  EU,  the  European 
Commission launched in November 2014 the Investment Plan for Europe (IPE), enshrined in 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/1017  on  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI),  the 
European  Investment  Advisory  Hub  (EIAH)  and  the  European  Investment  Project  Portal 
(EIPP)  (the  “EFSI  Regulation”),  to  support  growth  and  job  creation.  This  Staff  Working 
Document  contains  the  European  Commission’s  ex-post  evaluation  report  of  the  EFSI 
Regulation,  as  mandated  by  the  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2396  (the  “EFSI  2.0  Regulation”), 
covering the first and second pillars of the IPE. 

The first pillar of the IPE is represented by the EFSI, which aims at mobilising financing to 
support  at  least  EUR  500  billion  of  additional  investment  in  infrastructure,  innovation,  and 
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by 2020 based on the EFSI 2.0 Regulation. This 
was  accomplished  by  endowing  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  Group  with  an 
increased  risk-bearing  capacity  via  an  EU  budgetary  guarantee  of  EUR  26  billion, 
complemented by the EIB Group’s own contribution of EUR 7.5 billion.  

The  second  pillar  of  the  IPE  helped  to  ensure  that  investment  finance  reaches  the  real 
economy by developing and promoting a robust pipeline of investment projects. It consists of 
the EIAH that provides technical and financial advisory services to project promoters, as well 
as  of  the  EIPP,  that  is  an  online  platform  connecting  EU-based  promoters  and  investors 
worldwide. 

Using  financial,  technical  and  institutional  resources,  the  EFSI  increased  the  risk-bearing 
capacity  of  the  EIB  Group,  allowing  it  to  engage  in  new,  higher-risk  financing  support  for 
various  sectors  and  beneficiary  groups  to  address  market  failures  or  suboptimal  investment 
situations.  Such  financial  products  fund  additional  investment  either  directly  or  indirectly 
through financial intermediaries and special vehicles. These (and other) investments, together 
with  the  EIAH  advisory  and  the  EIPP  investment  facilitation,  will  eventually  produce 
additional  goods  and  services,  generating  higher  growth  and  employment  in  the  EU.  While 
demand  driven,  the  scope  of  the  intervention  encompasses  several  sectors  and  firms  of  all 
sizes across the whole EU, in line with the EU policy priorities that guide EFSI intervention. 

The present evaluation examines the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added 
value and coherence of the intervention. Moreover, the evaluation assesses the additionality of 
the  EFSI.  The  assessment  covers  both  the  Infrastructure  and  Innovation  and  the  SME 
Windows of the EFSI. 

The geographic coverage of the evaluation includes the 27 EU Member States and the United 
Kingdom.  It  also  includes  cross-border  projects  extended  to  one  or  more  third  countries 
falling within the scope of the European Neighbourhood Policy. 

The  evaluation  is  based  –  inter  alia  –  on  an  independent  study  carried  out  by  an  external 
contractor (ICF SA). Primary data was collected from a sample of the portfolio of the EFSI 
financing and investment operations, the EIAH advisory assignments and the EIPP projects; 
secondary data was obtained from existing reports, studies, and relevant literature, as well as 

1 

 
 
consultation  activities.  The  analysis  of  this  data  was  conducted  using  quantitative  and 
qualitative methodologies, including portfolio analysis, contribution analysis, survey analysis, 
cost-efficiency assessment, case studies, and triangulations. 

The main evaluation findings are as follows.  

The EFSI played a crucial role in accelerating and incentivising investment in Europe and by 
doing  so,  contributed  to  reducing  the  investment  gap.  By  31  December  2021,  EUR  99.3 
billion  of  EFSI  financing  had  been  approved  (and  EUR  86.6  billion  signed),  which  are 
expected to mobilise EUR 524.3 billion of private and public investment, thereby exceeding 
the  target  of  unlocking  additional  investment  of at  least  EUR  500  billion.  In  terms  of  sheer 
volume, EFSI mobilised investment accounts for a significant share of the cyclical investment 
gap during this period. Moreover, although some findings indicate that several EFSI financed 
operations could have occurred without the EFSI, such investments would have taken place at 
a reduced scale and at a slower pace. 

The  EFSI  was  particularly  successful  in  crowding  in  private  sector  financing:  in  terms  of 
signatures,  72%  of  the  investment  mobilised  by  EFSI  is  expected  to  come  from  private 
sources. 

The  EU  guarantee  enabled  the  EIB  Group  to  take  more  risk.  While  examples  of  operations 
which could  have been  delivered without  the EFSI  can be found, the EIB Group would not 
have been able to finance the entire EFSI portfolio on its balance sheet in absence of the EU 
guarantee  without  adversely  affecting  its  credit  rating,  capital  consumption  and  financial 
sustainability. 

Thanks to the EFSI, the EIB Group was able to address a range of market failures and sub-
optimal  investment  situations  across  EU  geographies  and  thematic  areas.  At  a  geographic 
level, the distribution of EFSI financing was well aligned with country-level investment gaps. 
In terms of thematic focus, EFSI financing was well targeted to areas where the private sector 
is  less  likely  to  invest  on  its  own.  About  1.5  million  businesses  across  Europe  will  benefit 
from EFSI financing. 

As a result, the macro-economic impact of EFSI is expected to be significant. EIB simulations 
find that by 2025 the investments supported by EFSI are expected to help the creation of 2.1 
million jobs and generate an increase of EU GDP by 2.4% compared to the baseline scenario. 

The EFSI had a clear and demonstrable EU added value, related for example to the financing 
of multi-country operations, the fostering of international cooperation, as well as the piloting 
and scaling-up of thematic products. 

An  instrument  such  as  the  EFSI  was  relevant  at  its  launch  and  remains  relevant  going 
forward,  as  Europe  faces  the  need  of  massive  investments  to  meet  its  policy  objectives, 
address societal needs and achieve its climate ambitions, including the necessity to accelerate 
green transition and reduce dependence on Russia’s energy. 

2 

 
 
The  EIAH  functioned  effectively  as  an  entry  point  for  advisory  services.  When  the  EIAH 
received  requests,  it  systematically  assessed  whether  these  could  be  covered  by  the  EIAH 
services  directly  or  by  other  existing  programmes  and  signposted  beneficiaries  to  the  most 
appropriate support. 

The  EIAH  has  started  generating  a  pipeline  of  viable  projects.  Over  time,  the  EIAH 
contributed actively to investment generation in general and to the EFSI pipeline in particular, 
notably through the provision of project-specific advisory assignments as well as through the 
last-mile advisory support. 

For the accomplishment of its mandate, the EIAH managed to reconcile different and to some 
extent conflicting priorities. On the one hand, it remained demand driven; on the other hand, it 
undertook awareness-raising activities to stimulate high-quality demand for and improve take-
up  of  its  services.  Moreover,  the  EIAH  covered  adequately  all  countries  and  sectors,  either 
directly or through a network of external partners. 

The  EIAH’s  support  delivered  EU  added  value,  by  providing  investors  with  advice  on  EU 
regulatory requirements, facilitating the sharing of best practice across Member States (while 
still  taking  into  account  the  local  context  when  providing  practical  support),  ensuring 
credibility of the outputs through the EIAH / EIB / EU seal of approval, and offering a high 
level of expertise. 

The EIPP contributed to improving the visibility of published investment projects. Given its 
mandate and budget, the EIPP often surpassed expectations in terms of its role by proactively 
animating  the  platform,  supporting  projects  in  achieving  financing,  delivering  events,  and 
developing partnerships to insert itself in the investor community. However, it is important to 
note  that  there  were  relatively  few  expectations  or  concrete  targets  set  for  the  EIPP, 
particularly regarding its ability to generate investments. 

The EU added value of the EIPP was somewhat limited but improved over time thanks to the 
EIPP proactivity and partnerships. In practice, the EIPP faced challenges in embedding itself 
within  the  investor  ecosystem,  which  hampered  at  the  beginning  its  ability  to  make  fast 
progress in generating meaningful contacts.  

Based  on  the  implementation  of  the  EFSI,  the  EIAH  and  the  EIPP,  some  key  lessons  were 
already identified and taken over for the InvestEU programme, the new EU-level investment 
support programme for the current Multiannual  Financial Framework period (2021-2027) to 
maximise  its  impact.  Examples  include  the  flexibility  of  EFSI’s  response  to  a  changing 
environment  (such  as  the  Covid-19  pandemic),  the  simplification  of  the  existing  financial 
instruments’ architecture, the shift to a more policy-driven focus on geographical and sectoral 
needs,  and  introduction  of  open  architecture,  i.e.  granting  the  direct  access  to  the  EU 
guarantee to implementing partners beyond the EIB Group. 

3