COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The ex post evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The ex post evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF)
Date: 2024-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European social policy, employment aid, employment policy, gender equality, innovation, labour mobility, microfinance, social change, social economy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.7.2024  SWD(2024) 146 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The ex post evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The ex post evaluation of the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF)                  {COM(2024) 254 final} - {SEC(2024) 184 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1.  Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation .............................................................................. 4 

1.2 Methodological framework and data limitations ........................................................... 5 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? .................................................... 7 

2.1 Programmes’ rationale ................................................................................................... 7 

2.2 Intervention logic ........................................................................................................... 8 

2.3 Points of comparison .................................................................................................... 12 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ......................................... 13 

3.1 EaSI implementation under direct management mode ................................................ 14 

3.2 EaSI and EPMF implementation under the indirect management mode ..................... 22 

3.2.1 EaSI financial instruments ................................................................................... 22 

3.2.2 EPMF financial instruments ................................................................................ 23 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) ............................................................................. 25 

4.1 Effectiveness and efficiency......................................................................................... 25 

4.1.1 Evidence-based EU policies and legislation ........................................................ 25 

4.1.2 Effective information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue ............................. 27 

4.1.3 Testing of social and labour market policy innovations ...................................... 28 

4.1.4 Greater capacity of national and EU organisations ............................................. 32 

4.1.5 Transparent labour market information and advice ............................................. 34 

4.1.6 Effective provision of services for recruitment and placement ........................... 36 

4.1.7 Better access to and availability of microfinance ................................................ 37 

4.1.8 Better access to and availability of social finance ............................................... 38 

4.1.9 Institutional capacity building of microcredit providers ..................................... 40 

4.1.10 General objectives effectiveness ....................................................................... 41 

4.1.11 Horizontal principles ......................................................................................... 46 

4.1.12 Monetary and non-monetary efficiency ............................................................ 48 

4.2 Internal and external coherence .................................................................................... 54 

4.2.1 Internal coherence ................................................................................................ 55 

4.2.2 Coherence with ESF ............................................................................................ 55 

4.2.3 External coherence .............................................................................................. 57 

1 

 
 
4.3 How did the EU intervention make a difference? ........................................................ 59 

4.4 Is the intervention still relevant? .................................................................................. 61 

4.4.1 Limited scale to impact on macro-economic context .......................................... 62 

4.4.2 EaSI still relevant in supporting its general objectives ........................................ 63 

5. What are the conclusions and lessons learned? .............................................................. 70 

5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 70 

5.1.1 Effectiveness and efficiency ................................................................................ 70 

5.1.2 Internal and external coherence ........................................................................... 75 

5.1.3 EU added value .................................................................................................... 77 

5.1.4 Relevance ............................................................................................................. 77 

5.1.5 Geographical coverage and stakeholders’ participation ...................................... 78 

5.2. Lessons learned ........................................................................................................... 80 

5.2.1 Answers to evaluation questions ......................................................................... 80 

5.2.2 Areas for improvements ...................................................................................... 81 

Annex I.   Procedural information ....................................................................................... 85 

Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used ........................................................... 96 

II.1 Intervention logic ......................................................................................................... 96 

II.1.1 The needs of the target groups in an evolving context ....................................... 96 

II.1.2 Inputs and outputs ............................................................................................... 97 

II.1.3 Outcomes and impacts ........................................................................................ 99 

II.1.4 An expected effects approach ........................................................................... 101 

II.2 Methods and tools ...................................................................................................... 105 

II.2.1 External supporting study ................................................................................. 105 

II.2.2 EESC contribution ............................................................................................ 108 

II.3 Financial data robustness ........................................................................................... 109 

II.4 Points of comparison ................................................................................................. 110 

II.5 EaSI Stakeholders Survey methodology ................................................................... 114 

II.6 Evaluation integrated approach ................................................................................. 114 

Annex III. Evaluation matrix.............................................................................................. 117 

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs and of simplification/burden reduction ...... 134 

Annex V. Stakeholders consultations’ synopsis report .................................................... 147 

2 

 
 
V.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 147 

V.2 Methods and tools ..................................................................................................... 147 

V.3 Results of the consultations ....................................................................................... 149 

V.3.1 Online public consultation ................................................................................ 149 

V.3.2 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................... 154 

V.3.3 Targeted survey with EaSI beneficiaries .......................................................... 155 

V.3.4 Targeted survey with financial intermediaries ................................................. 156 

V.3.5 Focus groups with EaSI committee members .................................................. 157 

V.3.6 Focus groups with EU-level NGO networks .................................................... 158 

V.3.7 Focus groups with EIF representatives ............................................................. 159 

V.3.8 Final validation seminar ................................................................................... 160 

V.3.9 EESC consultations .......................................................................................... 161 

Annex VI. Technical annex ................................................................................................. 163 

VI.1 Coordination, planning, monitoring and evaluation ................................................ 163 

VI.1.1 EaSI governance .............................................................................................. 163 

VI.1.2 EPMF governance ........................................................................................... 164 

VI.2 Financial figures ....................................................................................................... 167 

VI.3 EaSI implementation ................................................................................................ 169 

VI.3.1 PROGRESS axis ............................................................................................. 169 

VI.3.2 EURES axis ..................................................................................................... 179 

VI.3.3 Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis .................................................... 184 

VI.4 EPMF implementation ............................................................................................. 188 

VI.5 Other figures and tables ........................................................................................... 192 

Annex VII. General objective “Modernisation and effective application of EU law” ... 195 

Glossary/table of abbreviations .......................................................................................... 201 

3 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  presents  the  results  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
Employment and Social Innovation Programme (EaSI)  including  the final evaluation  of the 
European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  (EPMF).  The  evaluation  is  subject  to  a  Report  to 
the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  and 
the Committee of the Regions.  
1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 
EaSI (2014 - 2020)1 was built on and provided for the continuation of activities carried out by 
three previously existing instruments: the Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity 
(PROGRESS)2, the network of European Employment Services (EURES)3 and the European 
Progress  Microfinance  Facility  (EPMF).  EaSI  was  implemented  by  the  Commission4  in  the 
EU  Member  States,  EFTA/EEA5,  EU  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  alongside 
three axes: 

•  The  PROGRESS  axis  supported  policymaking  and  implementation  by  producing 
policy  evidence,  organising  information  sharing  and  mutual  learning  activities, 
creating better conditions for social policy innovations in particular through calls for 
proposals for social experimentation and helping to build capacity for EU and national 
organisations.  

•  The EURES axis facilitated workers’ free movement in the EU by making recruitment 
information more transparent and accessible (particularly through the EURES Portal), 
and by responding to jobseekers’ and employers’ requests for information, assistance 
and  guidance  (by  providing  jobseekers  placement  services  through  cross-border 
partnerships and targeted mibility schemes).  

•  The  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis6  contributed  to  improve  access  to 
finance  for  vulnerable  people  (i.e.  those  at  risk  of  social  or  financial  exclusion), 
microenterprises  and  social  enterprises  through  providing  funding  and  capacity 
building to financial intermediaries.  

Horizontal  principles  -  such  as  gender  equality,  non-discrimination,  and  combating  poverty 
and social exclusion - were supported in each axis of the programme. 
EPMF (2010 - 2016) - the second programme evaluated - was launched by the Commission 
with  the  aim  of  extending  the  outreach  of  microfinance  to  particular  groups  at-risk  and  to 

1In  the  programming  period  2021  -  2027,  EaSI  became  an  integrated  part  of  a  consolidated  single  fund,  the  European  Social  Fund  Plus 
(ESF+).  Many  of  the  former  stand-alone  programme  EaSI  provisions  were  preserved,  providing  continuity  of  its  objectives,  while 
accentuating their social dimension in the context of supporting the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR). The financial instruments for 
microfinance and social enterprises implemented under the former EaSI were deployed in 2021 – 2027 under the InvestEU Fund, while the 
EURES network coordination office function was transferred to the European Labour Authority (ELA) established in 2019.  
2The EU  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social  Solidarity  (PROGRESS;  2007  -  2013)  financed  three  main  types  of  actions:  analytical 
activities; mutual learning, awareness, and dissemination activities; support for main actors. 
3Launched in 1994, the EURES network is a cooperation network between the European Commission and the Public Employment Services 
of the EEA Member States and other partner organisations.  The EURES network regroups the EU Member States, Norway,  Lichtenstein, 
and Iceland. Switzerland cooperates with the network. EURES network members and partners include Public Employment Services (PES) at 
national and regional level (142), but also other private employment services, social partners, universities, or other organizations that have 
undergone an admission procedure, a total of 23 members and 54 partners (cf. EURES Regulation ex post evaluation, 2021, page 9). 
4The  EaSI  budget  was  managed  mostly  directly  by  DG  EMPL  based  on  calls  for  proposals  and  tenders.  The  financial  instruments 
implemented  under  the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  were  implemented  indirectly  (the  Commission  entrusted  their 
management to the EIF as previously done for EPMF). 
5Iceland participated in all three axes, Norway participated only in PROGRESS and EURES, Lichtenstein did not participate in EaSI  at all, 
and Switzerland participated only in EURES and only at its own expense. All candidate countries were associated in the second semester of 
2015 to EaSI, while the pre-candidate countries (at that time Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina) did not participate in the programme.  
6Also referred as ‘EaSI third axis’ in this Staff Working Document. 

4 

 
 
 
 
micro-enterprises.  Its  goals  were  to  increase  access  to  microcredit  for  those  who  have  lost 
their job or who are at risk of losing their job, and for other disadvantaged people (including 
young people) who want to start or further develop their own microenterprise, including self-
employment. The EPMF, implemented by the European Investment Fund (EIF) through the 
indirect  management  mode7, was  followed  up by  a new generation of financial instruments 
under the EaSI third axis8. In line with the general objectives of the PROGRESS programme9, 
the EPMF was also expected to actively promote equal opportunities for men and women. 
Considering their legal bases requirements and the links between the two programmes10, the 
Commission  carried  out  a  joint  EaSI/EPMF  ex  post  evaluation.  In  terms  of  scope,  this 
evaluation  covers  all  EaSI  and  EPMF  stakeholders  and  activities  carried  out  in  the 
participating countries from their start (January 2014 for EaSI, March 2010 for EPMF) until 
the  end  of  December  202011.  Backward-looking,  the  evaluation  assesses  to  what  extent  the 
respective  activities  and  expected  outcomes  achieved  the  programmes’  objectives.  In  a 
forward  looking  perspective,  the  evaluation  aims  to  confirm  the  choices  made  in  the  ESF+ 
impact  assessment12.  It  also  provides  lessons  learned  for  the  implementation  of  the  2021  - 
2027 follow-up programmes, notably the EaSI strand of the ESF+, as well as for future funds. 
1.2 Methodological framework and data limitations 
This  evaluation  -  supported  by  an  external  study  (hereafter  the  ‘supporting  study’)13  - 
combines  and  triangulates  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  sources  and  methods14.  EIF 
representatives were closely involved in this exercise, providing data and expertise on EPMF 
and  EaSI  third  axis.  The  evaluation  also  uses  the  results  of  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee (EESC) contribution summarised in an EESC information report.  
The evaluation takes stock as well of the EaSI preceding ex ante and ex post evaluations, and 
acknowledges the EaSI mid-term (2017) and EPMF interim (2014) evaluations. Due account 
is taken as well of the results of the EURES Regulation ex post evaluation (2021)15 to inform 

7The EPMF participating countries are limited to the EU Member States according to Article 4 of the Commission Decision 2009/340. 
8See Section 3.2 and Annex II.6. 
9Defined in the Strategic Framework for the implementation of the PROGRESS programme (2007 - 2013). 
10EaSI and EPMF legal bases both display evaluation requirements. The Article 38(1) of the EaSI Regulation 1296/2013 states that the EaSI 
programme ex post evaluation provided for in Article 13(4) of the Regulation shall include the final evaluation provided for in Article 9  of 
the  EPMF  Decision  283/2010.  Two  EaSI  third  axis’  financial  instruments  (Guarantee  Instrument  and  Funded  Instrument)  -  built  on  the 
success of the instruments implemented under the EPMF - combined the benefits of the experience with the EPMF with an enlarged scope 
and support for social enterprises (see Annex II.6). The evaluation framework was therefore conceived to allow complementary analysis and 
results for both instruments, as well as economies of scale in terms of process, letting EPMF final evaluation fertilizing the EaSI ex post 
evaluation  (evaluation  roadmap:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/11969-Employment-and-social-
innovation-programme-2014-20-final-evaluation_en). 
11Under both EPMF instruments, EIF was allowed to sign guarantee agreements with financial intermediaries until 7th April 2016, while the 
end-date of the implementation period was set on 31st December 2020 for the Guarantee Instrument and on 30th April 2020 for the Funded 
Instrument.  Therefore,  the  end-date  of  the  implementation  period  of  the  EPMF  was  considered  by  31st  December  2020  as  for  the  EaSI 
programme, which is the cut-off date considered in this evaluation (see Annex II.6). 
12The  ESF+ impact assessment  found that  the best  way  to  maximise  the  support provided  at  EU  level  and to improve  synergies between 
different instruments is to merge the ESF, Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) and 
EaSI programme into one fund (ESF+) with a single Regulation, but two separate management strands: shared management (covering the 
former  ESF,  YEI  and  FEAD)  and  direct  management  (covering  EaSI).  Link  to  SWD/2018/289  final:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018SC0289. 
13The term ‘evaluation’ refers to the Commission Staff Working Document, while the term 'supporting study' refers to the study carried out 
by external experts to support the evaluation. The supporting study was carried out by  Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR and Tetra 
Tech  (hereinafter  ‘the  Contractor’)  and  was  coordinated by the Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Inclusion  and  Social 
Affairs, with the support of an Inter Services Steering Group (ISSG) including a range of Commission Directorates-General. 
14The overall approach is detailed in Annex II. 
15The  EURES  Regulation  ex  post  evaluation  was  carried  out  according  to  the  EURES  Regulation  (2016/589).  Its  scope  included  four 
clusters  of  activities  implemented:  services  to  jobseekers  and  employers,  the  EURES  Portal,  targeted  mobility  schemes  and  cross-border 
partnerships. Link to SWD(2021) 217 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0217&rid=6). Link 
to Regulation (EU) 2016/589: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.107.01.0001.01.ENG. 

5 

 
 
 
the EURES axis  findings  and of the  INOVA+ study16  on social experimentation  projects  to 
inform the PROGRESS axis findings. 
A  wide  range  of  stakeholders  was  consulted,  including  national  authorities,  programmes’ 
beneficiaries,  private  organisations,  social  enterprises,  financial  intermediaries,  civil  society 
organisations and citizens. Overall, more than 400 stakeholders provided feedback during the 
entire  consultation  process17.  Depending  on  the  identified  stakeholder  group,  dedicated 
methods and tools were used to conduct the consultations: questionnaire-based online public 
targeted  surveys.  They 
consultation,  semi-structured 
complemented  data  and  information  collected  through  other  methods,  such  as  the  desk 
research and case studies.  
Four main data quality challenges were identified and mitigated: 

interviews,  focus  groups  and 

•  Limited EaSI financial data comparability. Identified caveats in the EaSI financial 
data datasets for 2014 - 2017 - due to start-up problems and successive adjustments of 
the DG EMPL application for financial programming and monitoring (FINAP) - were 
mitigated  to  allow  comparability  of  evidence  throughout  the  overall  programme 
implementation18.  

•  Changes  in  method  to  count  visitors  to  the  EURES  Portal.  Changes  in 
methodology  to  count  the  number  of  visitors  to  the  EURES  Portal  affected  the 
comparability  of  this  indicators  across  2014  -  2020  (see  discussion  and  mitigation 
measures  in  Section  4.1.5).  Additionally,  before  the  entering  into  force  of  the 
harmonized EURES Performance Measurement System in 2018, the EURES network 
participating countries used their national monitoring systems for reporting, often on a 
voluntary basis.  Moreover, many  EURES  network members consider data related to 
placements and performance as sensitive. Hence, EURES monitoring information on 
number of CVs, job vacancies  and placements  is not  entirely  comparable across the 
overall implementation period19. 

•  Limited 

•  Incomplete  social  data  for  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  and 
EPMF. The information  on gender,  age, education level  and  employment  status  are 
based  on  data  provided  voluntarily  by  the  EPMF  and  EaSI  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  axis  final  recipients  -  most  of  them  being  natural  persons  -  to  the 
financial  intermediaries.  While  data  available  did  not  permit  to  obtain  a  complete 
picture of the groups monitored, it indicates the general direction of the programmes20.  
stakeholders’ 
participation  in  the  different  consultations  was  relatively  limited21  (107  responses  to 
the open public consultation and 102 responses to the EaSI beneficiaries’ survey). For 
this  reason,  generalisations  were  avoided,  and 
the  public  consultation  and 
beneficiaries  survey  results  were  used  in  conjunction  with  other  methods  and/or  as 
qualitative evidence. To prevent the ‘stakeholders’ fatigue’, all consultation methods 
and activities were designed to be complementary. A final validation seminar allowed 
stakeholders consulted to provide feedbacks on the evaluation findings.  

stakeholders’  participation 

in  consultations.  The 

16https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a3aa5b7-0254-11ed-acce-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search. 
17See the stakeholders’ consultations synopsis report in Annex V. 
18See discussion and mitigation measures in Annex II.3. 
19See discussion and mitigation measures in Sections 4.1.5 and 4.1.10.   
20See discussion and mitigation measures in Section 4.1.10. 
21Attempts to involve EPMF and EaSI stakeholders in interviews and focus groups were even more difficult. The main reasons relate to their 
low availability since 2020 they were either in charge of other tasks or they had changed host organisations. See details in Annex V. 

6 

 
 
 
 
2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

This chapter is organised in three parts. Section 2.1 describes the context and rationale for the 
two  programmes  at  the  time  of  their  preparation,  Section  2.2  depicts  the  intervention  logic 
and Section 2.3 explains the approach to establish the points of comparison. 
2.1 Programmes’ rationale  
In  2010,  the  European  Council  endorsed  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Europe  2020  -  A 
strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth22  (hereafter  ‘EU2020  Strategy’)23.  The 
next  year,  the  Commission  Communication  'A  budget  for  Europe  2020'24  recommended  to 
rationalise and simplify the existing EU funding instruments for more efficiency. In the social 
affairs field, it recommended to complement the European Social Fund (ESF) by instruments 
directly managed by the Commission25. Subsequently, two preparatory documents – the ESF 
impact assessment (2011)26 and the PSCI/EaSI ex ante evaluation27 (2011; hereafter ‘EaSI ex 
ante  evaluation’)  -  discussed  the  different  possible  articulations  between  the  ESF  and  the 
other funds available to the DG EMPL. The option retained in 2011 - both in the ESF impact 
assessment and the EaSI ex ante evaluation - was a new integrated programme merging three 
DG EMPL (in)direct management funds pursuing common objectives28. This new ‘umbrella’ 
fund  was  expected  to  enable  the  Commission  to  bring  efficiency  gains  thanks  to  the 
rationalisation of instruments, and to the streamlining of management rules and procedures. It 
was  also  expected  to  ensure  more  flexibility  in  allocating  resources  to  policy  priorities. 
Against  this  backdrop,  EaSI  was  set  up  in  2014  as  a  programme  to  support  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  policy  priorities  in  social  field  first  under  the  Europe  2020 
strategy29,  and  since  2017  under  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights30.  With  a  budget  of 
EUR  919  469  000  (in  2013  prices),  EaSI  was  intended  to  support  the  modernisation  of 
employment  and  social  policies  (PROGRESS  axis);  to  facilitate  job  mobility  and  access  to 
labour  markets  (EURES  axis);  and  to  increase  access  to  micro-finance  and  social  finance 
(Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis).  
Back in 2008, the impact of the financial crisis revealed an urgent need for enhanced support 
to  vulnerable  groups  in  accessing  employment  and  financial  support.  Subsequently,  the 
Commission  published  the  Communication  ‘A  Shared  Commitment  for  Employment’ 

22https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-
%20EN%20version.pdf. 
23The EU 2020 Strategy committed the EU and the Member States to deliver on: develop a smarter, greener and knowledge-based economy; 
growing fast and sustainably; and creating high-levels of employment and social progress.  
24Link to COM/2011/0500 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A52011DC0500. 
25The Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European 
Social Fund; COM(2011)500 final (Section 5.2, pages 10 - 11). 
26This impact assessment covered five financial instruments: European Social Fund (ESF), European Globalisation Fund (EGF),  European 
Progress  Microfinance  Facility  (EPMF),  EU  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social  Solidarity  (PROGRESS)  and  EURES.  Link  to 
SEC(2011) 1131 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011SC1130&from=EN. 
27The ex ante evaluation (2011) accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a 
European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI) covered three financial instruments: PROGRESS programme (2007-
2013),  EURES  network  and  the  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility.  To  note  that  ‘Programme  for  Social  Change  and  Innovation 
(PSCI)’ 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
EaSI 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011SC1134&from=EN. 
28PROGRESS (2007-2013), EURES network and EPMF. In parallel, the EPMF continued to provide funding under joint management with 
the European Investment Fund (EIF), with a last investment in 2016 without new extra resources. 
29The  relevant  EU  2020  Strategy  targets  (horizon  2020)  for  EaSI  are:  75%  of  the  population  aged  20  -  64  should  be  employed;  and  20 
million less people should be at risk of poverty. 
30The  Commission  proclaimed  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  (EPSR)  in  2017  and  adopted  it  in  2021.  The  EPSR  relevant  targets 
(horizon  2030)  for  EaSI  are:  more  and  better  jobs  (78%  employment);  and  lifting  15  million  people  out  of  poverty.  Link  to  EPSR: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/european-pillar-of-social-
rights.html#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20Commission%20adopted,in%20training%20every%20year%3B%20and. 

programme. 

initial 

Link: 

name 

was 

the 

of 

7 

 
 
 
(2009)31. Same year, the EPMF ex ante evaluation32 underlined the following specific issues: 
Europe lacks the necessary intermediaries, capital and environment to unlock the potential of 
microcredit in the EU; the microfinance situation in Europe worsened by the 2008 financial 
crisis;  some  groups  -  particularly  financially  excluded  people  such  women,  unemployed 
persons, ethnic minorities and immigrants33 - encounter difficulties in accessing finance.  To 
address these needs, the European Commission launched the EPMF in 2010 with the aim of 
increasing access to microcredit of microenterprises and of people who had lost their job or at 
risk  of  losing  their  job,  and  of  other  disadvantaged  groups  (including  women  and  young 
people  who  want  to  start  or  develop  their  own  microenterprise).  Dedicated  financial 
instruments  were  expected  to  achieve  the  EPMF  objectives  by  reducing  risks  and  enabling 
microcredit  providers  to  disburse  more  loans  to  the  final  recipients.  The  EPMF  operated 
under  a  total  financial  input  of  EUR  203  million,  of  which  EUR  103  million  from  the  EU 
budget and EUR 100 million from the European Investment Bank (EIB).  
2.2 Intervention logic 
A combined EaSI/EPMF intervention logic (Figure 1)34 was elaborated for the purpose of this 
evaluation. Below, the major items of the intervention logic are explained with a focus on the 
specific objectives and the related activities implemented (Table 1). The two programmes are 
evaluated  according  to  the  inputs,  outputs,  outcomes  and  impacts  which  they  intended  to 
reach in order to meet the target groups’ needs. These needs were considered in the light of 
the  evolving  policy  and  socio-economic  context  related  employment  and  social  challenges, 
including Brexit, refugee crisis, COVID-19 pandemic and the twin transitions.  
The inputs refer to the expenditure committed to implement the activities and to produce the 
planned  outputs.  The  outputs  (activities)  range  from  analytical  outputs  such  as  studies  and 
databases, to funding the EURES network activities or to providing financial guarantees for 
microcredit providers35.  
The  intervention  logic  is  based  on  the  EaSI  Regulation  ‘expected  effects  approach’36, 
meaning that the achievement of the specific objectives contributes to the achievement of the 
general  objectives,  while  the  achievement  of  the  later  subsequently  contributes  to  the 
achievement of the ultimate outcome. The ultimate goal - defined very broadly by the legal 
basis - refers to the programmes’ contribution to the implementation of the EU 2020 Strategy, 
the European Pillar of Social Rights and of the  UN 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development 
Goals.  While  the  specific  and  general  objectives  were  monitored  during  the  overall 
programme’s  implementation  period,  assessing  the  achievement  of  the  ultimate  goal  falls 
under the mandate of the ex post evaluation. The ultimate goal - defined very broadly by the 
legal  basis  -  refers  to  the  programmes’  contribution  to  the  implementation  of  the  EU  2020 
Strategy,  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  of  the  UN  2030  Agenda  Sustainable 
Development  Goals.  While  the  specific  and  general  objectives  were  monitored  during  the 
overall programme’s implementation period, assessing the achievement of the ultimate goal 
evaluation. 
of 
falls 

mandate 

under 

post 

the 

the 

ex 

31This  communication  committed  both  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  to  tackle  employment/social  bottlenecks  and  to  deliver  on  the 
following  goals:  develop  a  smarter,  greener  and  knowledge-based  economy;  growing  fast  and  sustainably;  and  creating  high-levels  of 
employment and social progress (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0257:FIN:EN:HTML.   
32Link to COM(2009) 333 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52009SC0907. 
33Overview of the Microcredit sector in the European Union 2006-2007 (European Microfinance Network, 2009, page 5). 
34The  intervention  logic builds on  EaSI  Regulation  (2013),  EPMF  Decision  (2010),  PSCI/EaSI  ex ante  evaluation  (2011),  EPMF ex ante 
evaluation  (2009)  and  the  ESF  impact  assessment  (2011).  Based  on  their  similarities  and  continuity,  the  EaSI  third  axis  and  the  EPMF 
elements are integrated in the combined intervention logic. Complementary/detailed information is provided in Annex II.1. 
35A classification of EaSI outputs is provided in the Annex II.1.2. 
36Detailed in Annex II.1.4. 

8 

 
 
 
Figure 1. EaSI/EPMF combined intervention logic 

EXTERNAL FACTORS: general trends (employment rate, gender inequalities, rise of risks of poverty and exclusion, fragmentation of the labour force); 
economic and financial crisis; refugee crisis; Brexit; Covid-19 crisis; twin transitions. 

EU-level programmes (ESF; Erasmus+; Horizon, Interreg, COSME, Solvit, InnovFin) 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

NEEDS 
Lack of adequate 
evidence in policy 
making/coordination 
Fragmentation of 
efforts/resources 
Little mainstreaming 
of good practices; 
Poor use of methods 
of impact evaluation 
of actions/policies 
Labour mobility 
bottlenecks 
Lack of access to 
finance, in particular 
of disadvantaged 
groups. 
TARGET GROUPS 

▪  Multi-level public 

authorities 

▪  Civil society 
organisations, 
foundations, NGOs 
EU-level NGO 
networks and their 
members 

▪ 

▪  Unemployed people, 
and people from 
disadvantaged groups 
(young or old people, 
migrants, women) 
Employers and 
jobseekers 
Trade union and 
employers 
organisations 

▪ 

▪ 

ACTIVITIES  
(outputs) 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 
(immediate outcomes) 

GENERAL OBJECTIVES 
(intermediate outcomes) 

INPUTS 
(EC) 

EaSI 
EUR 919 
million 

EPMF 
EUR 103 
million 

PROGRESS 
▪  Analytical activities 
▪  Mutual-learning and communication  
▪ 
Stakeholders’ capacity-building  
▪ 
Social experimentation projects 

EURES Portal  
Targeted Mobility Schemes 

EURES 
▪ 
▪ 
▪  Cross-border partnerships 
▪  Mutual learning and communication 
▪ 
Training of EURES advisors. 

Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship  
and EPMF 

▪ 
▪ 

Financial support to microfinance 
Financial 
support 
entrepreneurship.  

to 

social 

▪  Microcredit 
building. 
Information and communication. 

providers’ 

▪ 

capacity-

PROGRESS  
1.  Evidence-based EU policies 

and legislation 

2.  Effective and inclusive 

information sharing, mutual 
learning and dialogue 
3.  Better conditions for social 

innovation 

4.  Greater capacity of national 
and EU organizations 

EURES 
5.  Transparent labour market 

information 

6.  Effective services for 

recruitment and placing of 
workers 

Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship and EPMF 
7. 

Increased access to, and 
availability of microfinance 
Improved access to finance 
for social enterprises 

8. 

9.  Stronger institutional capacity 
of microcredit providers 

1.  Strengthen ownership among 

policy-makers at all levels, and 
produce concrete, coordinated 
and innovative actions. 

2.  Support the development of 
adequate, accessible and 
efficient social protection 
systems and labour markets and 
facilitate policy reforms. 

3.  Modernise EU legislation and 
ensure its effective application. 

4.  Promote workers' geographical 

mobility on a fair basis and boost 
employment opportunities. 

5. 

Increase the availability and 
accessibility of microfinance for 
vulnerable groups and micro-
enterprises, and increase access 
to finance for social enterprises. 

ULTIMATE GOALS  
 (effects/impacts) 

•  High level and quality of 

employment. 

•  Adequate and decent social 

protection, reduction of social 
exclusion and poverty and 
improved working conditions. 

• 

• 

Sustainable employments for 
vulnerable groups. 

Establish trust in credit 
markets. 

• 

Social and financial inclusion. 

CONTRIBUTION to: 

▪ 
▪ 

▪ 

Europe 2020 Strategy 
European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights 
Sustainable 
Goals - UN 2030 Agenda 

Development 

▪  Universities, research 

institutes 

▪  Microenterprises and 
social enterprises 
Private enterprises 

▪ 
▪  Not-for-profit 
enterprises 

HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES 
Pay particular attention to vulnerable groups; promote equality between men and 
women; combat discrimination; promote sustainable employment. 

▪  Microcredit providers 

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI and EPMF legal bases and on monitoring reports 

9 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. EaSI nine specific objectives and activities implemented to achieve them 

No. 
1 

Specific objective 
Evidence-based EU policies and legislation 

2 

3 

4 

Effective and inclusive information sharing, 
mutual learning and dialogue 

Better 
innovation 

conditions 

for 

social 

policy 

Greater  capacity  of  national  and  EU 
organisations 

5 

Transparent labour market information 

Explanatory 
supported 

the 
EaSI 
development/dissemination 
of 
comparative  analytical  knowledge  to 
ensure  that  EU  policies  and  legislation 
are based on evidence, and are relevant 
to the needs, challenges and conditions 
in participating countries. 
EaSI  facilitated  information  sharing, 
mutual  learning  and  dialogue  on  EU 
social  and  labour  market  policies  to 
in 
help 
the  participating  countries 
and 
developping 
implement the EU law. 
EaSI  provided  support  to  test  social 
to  build  actors’ 
innovations  and 
implement 
capacity 
social experimentations. 

to  design  and 

policies 

their 

and 

support 

their  capacity 

EaSI  provided  EU  and  national 
organisations  with  financial  support  to 
to  develop, 
increase 
promote 
the 
implementation  of  EU 
instruments, 
policies and EU law. 
EaSI 
labour  market 
transparency for the jobseekers and the 
employers  by  making  available  job 
vacancies,  information  and  advice,  as 
well  as  information  concerning  living 
and working conditions.  
supported 

facilitated 

10 

Activities 
Such  evidence  was  either  contracted  directly  by  the  Commission  (procurement), 
funded through grants notably with international organisations carrying out research 
in  the  relevant  fields  (such  as  OECD  and  ILO),  or  developed  by  networks  of 
independent  experts  (such  as  European  Employment  Policy  Observatory  and 
European  Social  Policy  Network).  Evidence-based  EU  policies  and  legislation 
contributed horizontally to achieving all general objectives.  

Information-sharing  and  mutual-learning  activities  were  being  produced  in  three 
major  ways:  direct  funding  by  the  Commission  (procurement);  events  organised 
during  projects’  implementation;  and  events  organised  by  the  EU-level  NGO 
networks  supported  through  operating  grants.  Information  sharing,  mutual  learning 
and dialogue contributed horizontally to achieving all general objectives. 

EaSI supported the preparation and implementation of social policy experimentation 
as a method for testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to up-scaling 
them. This was done through provision of funding for projects  (action grants). EaSI 
also  provided  funding  for building  up  the  actors’  capacity to  design  and  implement 
social experimentation (methodological guides, events). 
EaSI supported notably EU-level NGO networks (by financing fonctioning costs via 
operating grants)  and other EU as well as national organisations (including national 
administrations) to participate in and influence policy-making and implementation at 
EU and national levels. 

A  central  instrument  to  achieve  this  objective  was  the  maintenance,  hosting, 
translation and help desk of the EURES Job Mobility Portal for the clearance of job 
vacancies and applications. Also, trainings on EURES services to be offered to both 
jobseekers and employers were being organised under EaSI for the EURES advisers. 

6 

Effective 

provision 

of 

services 

for  EaSI 

the  provision  of  Support for EURES services extended to various phases of placement, ranging from 

 
 
 
No. 

Specific objective 

recruitment and placing of workers 

Explanatory 
EURES  services  for  recruitment  and 
placing  of  workers  in  quality  and 
sustainable  employment  through  the 
and 
clearance  of 
applications. 

job  vacancies 

7 

8 

9 

Better  access  to,  and  the  availability  of, 
microfinance 

Better  access 
enterprises 

to 

finance 

for 

social 

Stronger 
microcredit providers 

institutional 

capacity 

of 

funded 

EaSI  and  EPMF  aimed  to  increase 
availability  and  access  to  finance  for 
vulnerable  people  who  wish  develop  a 
business  as well as to  microenterprises 
employing such vulnerable persons.  
EaSI 
at 
increasing the availability and access to 
finance  for  social  enterprises,  and 
supported 
the 
European social investment market.  
EaSI  funded  the  capacity  building  of 
microcredit  providers  by  offering 
technical assistance activities. 

the  development  of 

actions 

aimed 

Activities 
pre-recruitment  preparation  to  post-placement  assistance  with  a  view  to  the 
applicant’s successful integration into the labour market. Two main instruments were 
used  to  deliver  these  services:  cross-border  partnerships  aiming  to  facilitate  labour 
mobility in cross-border regions; and targeted mobility schemes to fill job vacancies 
in a certain sector, occupation, country or a group of countries or for particular groups 
of workers, such as young people, with a propensity to be mobile. 
EaSI provided funding to microcredit providers through financial instruments, such as 
guarantees,  counter-guarantees  and  funded  instruments  (debt  instruments,  equity 
investments or funded risk-sharing instruments). This reduced risks and enabled the 
microcredit providers to lend (more) money to final beneficiaries. 

EaSI  provided  financial  support  to  investors  in  social  enterprises  through  financial 
instruments,  which  may  include  guarantees,  debt  instruments,  equity;  and  quasi-
equity. 

Previous  experience  with  the  EMPF  demonstrated  that  in  order  to  provide  quality 
services  to  final  beneficiaries,  microcredit  providers  need  to  improve  their 
institutional  capacities.  This  in  turn  contributes  to  increasing  access  to  finance  for 
vulnerable  people  and  micro-enterprises  through,  for  instance,  better-qualified  staff 
(loan  officers),  ability  to  hire  new  people,  and  modernised  internal  working 
procedures (e.g. new IT system). 

Source: DG EMPL, based on the EaSI monitoring reports. 

11 

 
 
 
 
In 

and 

into 

axis 

each 

terms 

action. 

the  support 

programme’s 

in  201437  for  most  activities,  excepting  for 

Alongside  the  general  and  specific  objectives,  there  are  cross-cutting  principles    -  i.e. 
paying  attention  to  vulnerable  groups,  promoting  equality  between  men  and  women, 
combating  discrimination  and  promoting  sustainable  employment  -  which  were 
incorporated 
of 
synergies/complementarities, EaSI was first expected - in line with its legal basis - to be 
complementary  with  ESF,  but  its  consistency  with  other  EU  programmes  such  as  the 
Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, Interreg, COSME, InnovFin or Solvit was also explored. 
2.3 Points of comparison  
The  evaluation  used  as  points  of  comparison  the  values  of  the  headline  indicators 
estimated 
to  social 
entrepreneurship  (specific  objective  8)  and  to  build  capacity  of  microcredit  providers 
(specific objective 9). For these new activities initiated under EaSI - as well as for EPMF 
-  there  was  initially  no  data  to  establish  a  point  of  comparison  at  their  starting.  To 
mitigate this caveat, the evaluation used the targets provided in the respective EPMF and 
EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation.  For  the  sake  of  consistency,  the  evaluation  used  the  targets 
available from the respective EPMF and EaSI ex ante evaluations - to be reached by the 
end of the investment period - for all the related objectives (specific objectives 7, 8 and 9, 
and the general objective 5). As regards the general objective 5, the evaluation used the 
target included in the EaSI Performance Measurement System (i.e. ‘50% of beneficiaries 
supported by the EaSI financial instruments to be unemployed or belonging to vulnerable 
groups’).  The  value  of  this  headline  indicator  was  measured  through  monitoring  the 
coverage  of  vulnerable  groups  by  EU-enabled  microcredits  (see  discussion  of  data 
limitations in Section 4.1.10). 
This  ex  post  evaluation  used  the  headline  indicators  included  in  the  EaSI  Performance 
Measurement System as they offered the best capture of the performance throughout the 
programmes’ lifetime38. Data to feed the headline indicators were collected during 2014 - 
2020 through the bi-annual EaSI Stakeholders’ Survey (the methodology is explained in 
Annex  II.5),  the  EURES  publicly  available  sources  (Job  Mobility  Portal,  EURES 
Advisors’ Monthly Reports) and the annual implementation reports submitted by the EIF. 
Given the similarity and continuity between EPMF and the EaSI third axis, the indicators 
used  for  EPMF  were  the  same  as  those  selected  for  the  EaSI  microfinance  related 
objectives. Do note that for  EPMF, its  ex ante  evaluation did  not  provide indicators on 
which to judge the success of the programme, but indicated however a series of targets 
that helped to establish points of comparison. 
For the biggest share of the programme (PROGRESS axis), the headline indicators were 
qualitative  indicators  converted  in  numerical  indicators  (based  on  stakeholders’ 
satisfaction/awareness).  As  already  observed  in  the  EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation  -  the 
PROGRESS  axis  four  specific  objectives  are  not  genuinely  measurable  while  they  are 
specific, accepted, realistic and policy-responsive (for instance, the volume of knowledge 
generated depends  on the needs of policy  development). Given the intangible nature of 

37The  EaSI  Performance  Measurement  System  includes  a  baseline  report  providing  points  of  comparison  against  which  the 
performance of EaSI could be measured at the later stage of its implementation (end-2020). Based on data from the monitoring of the 
previous  programmes  (PROGRESS,  EURES  and  EPMF)  and  a  EaSI  Stakeholders’  Survey  launched  in  2014  (see  Annex  II.5),  the 
EaSI  baseline  report  estimated  the  values  of  the  indicators  established  for  each  specific  and  general  objectives  as  well  as  for  the 
horizontal principles before the start of activities.  
38The EaSI Performance Measurement System includes for each objective one headline indicator and two complementary indicators. 
The  EaSI  baseline  report  was  updated  three  times,  notably  by  removing  some  indicators  revealed  as  not  relevant.  The  headline 
indicators remained unchanged across the overall period. 

12 

 
 
 
the  related  activities  (production  of  analytical  knowledge,  implementation  of  social 
experimentations,  organisation  of  mutual  learning  events  and  stakeholders’  capacity 
building),  they  were  evaluable  only  by  means  of  subjective  variables,  for  instance  the 
satisfaction with or the awareness among stakeholders, as well as the use or the intended 
use of results for policy making. For the remaining parts of the programme (EURES and 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship),  headline  indicators  were  quantitative.  For  the 
specific  objective  5  (‘transparent  labour  market  information  and  advice’)  the  headline 
indicator  used  was  ‘number  of  visits  to  the  EURES  Portal’.  Given  data  robustness 
limitation  faced  by  this  headline  indicator,  one  complementary  indicator  was  used  (see 
discussion in Section 4.1.5).  
Table  31  (Annex  II.4)  presents  the  points  of  comparison  for  each  EaSI  (including  for 
EPMF) specific/general objectives and the horizontal principles.  

3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

This  chapter  presents  the  programmes’  state  of  play  in  monetary/quantitative  terms 
(Table 2) and from countries/beneficiaries’ participation perspective.  

Table 2: Monetary inputs and number of outputs per EaSI specific objective in 2014 - 2020 

Specific objectives 

Types of activities 

Inputs (EUR 
million)  

Outputs (number 
of activities) 

1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

PROGRESS axis (EUR 497 million)  

Evidence-based EU policies 
Effective and inclusive information-sharing, 
mutual learning  
Testing of social and labour market policy 
innovation 
Greater capacity of national/EU 
organisations to promote EU policies 

Analytical activities  
Mutual learning events 

Social innovation projects 

Capacity building activities 

EURES axis (EUR 165.6 million)  

Transparent labour market information 
Provision of services for the recruitment and 
placing of workers 

Labour market information   
placement 
Jobseekers’ 
services 

                     Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis (EUR 243 million)40  

Better access to and availability of 
microfinance 
Better access to finance for social enterprises 

Stronger institutional capacity of microcredit 
providers 

Guarantee Instrument 
• 
• 

Funded Instrument 
Capacity 
Instrument 

Building 

148 
106 

89 

154 

59.4 
106.239 

166,941 

76,142 

4543 

198 
191 

23 

72 

15 
24 

3 

2 

5 

Source: DG EMPL, based on the supporting study, the monitoring report 2019 - 2020 and FINAP/ABAC databases. 
The EU total contribution for 2010 - 202044 for both EPMF instruments (guarantees and 
funded)  -  contributing  to  the  specific  objective  7  -  amounted  to  EUR  103  million  (the 

39Of which EUR 88.2 million for the targeted mobility schemes and EUR 18 million for the cross-border partnerships. 
40This amount represents the sum of EU contribution to each financial instrument (see details in Section 3.2.1 and Table 67 in Annex 
VI.5).  It  also  includes  the  amount  of  EUR  69  million  representing  reflows  from  EPMF  (the  breakdown  of  these  repayments  per 
branch - microfinance and social entrepreneurship - is not available).  
41Of which EUR 91 million from the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, EUR 46,9 million from the EaSI Funded Instrument and EUR 29 
million  from  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  Instrument.  To  note  that  EUR  1  million  was  earmarked  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Business Development Services (BDS) Support pilot which is an additional component embedded in the EaSI Guarantee instrument. 
The  purpose  of  BDS  Support  was  to  partially  offset  the  costs  incurred  by  financial  intermediaries  benefitting  from  an  EaSI 
Microfinance  Guarantee  in  view  of  offering  Business  Development  Services  to  final  recipients  who  qualify  as  refugees  and/or 
migrants. Despite being considered as an ancillary service to the guarantee instrument, the BDS was funded under EaSI PROGRESS. 
42Of which EUR 40 million from the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, EUR 20,1 million from the EaSI Funded Instrument and EUR 16 
million from the EaSI Capacity Building Instrument. 
43Of which EUR 29 million contributed to the financial intermediaries’ capacity building in microfinance field and EUR 16 million in 
social  entrepreneurship  field.  These  amounts  are  already  included  in  the  amounts  of  EUR  165,9  million  (total  support  to  the 
microfinance branch) and EUR 76,1 million (total support to the social entrepreneurship branch). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
initial  contribution  of  EUR  100  million45  plus  an  additional  amount  of  EUR  3  million 
from the European Parliament Preparatory Action - EPPA).  
Below,  Section  3.1  presents  the  inputs,  outputs  and  countries/stakeholders  involvement 
in the EaSI implementation under the direct management mode. Section 3.2 focuses the 
financial instruments implemented indirectly under EaSI and EPMF. 
3.1 EaSI implementation under direct management mode 
The EaSI budget was managed mostly directly by DG EMPL based on calls for proposals 
and  calls  for  tenders.  Table  3  below  shows  the  overall  commitments  per  participating 
country where the beneficiaries  have their legal  address46.  It  is  worth  noticing  that as  a 
rule, the proposals were submitted by consortia and the grants were therefore awarded to 
only one (lead) applicant. Therefore, while showing the direction of the programme, no 
robust  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  this  funding  distribution  given  that  not  all  the 
monetary split between multiple beneficiaries is available. 
Table  3  shows  that  EaSI  financed  activities  in  42  countries,  including  EU  Members 
States, EEA/EFTA,  candidate and pre  candidate  countries, and other third countries.  In 
terms of total commitments, EaSI was most commonly used by beneficiaries in Belgium, 
Luxembourg,  Spain,  Italy,  France,  Germany,  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom  (UK)  and 
Portugal. Considering grants only, the monetary trend is the same, excepting for UK and 
Luxembourg  which  beneffited  to  a  lesser  extent  from  grants.  In  particular  for 
Luxembourg, only a small part of the total committments  was covered by grants, while 
the highest share of the total commitments was related to service’s contracts47. Belgium 
appears  as  being  the  first  user  of  EaSI  funding  in  2014  -  2020  both  in  terms  of  total 
commitments  and  in  terms  of  grants.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  an  important 
amount  (see  Table  4  below48)  was  used  to  support  the  EU-level  NGO  networks 
functioning under the Framework Partnership Agreements for operating grants49, but also 
to  finance  studies  that  were  carried  out  by  organisations  based  in  Brussels  and  events 
(conferences,  seminars,  experts’  meetings)  delivered  by  consultancy  companies  also 
located in Brussels. If most of the EU-Level NGO networks headquarters are located in 
Brussels, they cannot however be considered as Belgian organisations given their scope 
and coverage (EU-level advocacy with membership in several countries). 

44The EPMF Decision did not specify until when the EIF was entitled to sign agreements with third parties, nor until when the loans 
provided would be covered. The overall timeline considered in the present report is then 2010  - 2020 given that 31 December 2020 
was the final date until which the EU financial contribution could be used to implement the EPMF. 
45Article 3 of the EPMF Decision.  
46Table 3 is based on data from the EU FTS (EU Financial Transparency System). The estimated amount per country sums up the total 
amounts received by all the recipients residing in a particular country for which the information is publicly disclosed. Data for some 
recipients  are  unavailable  and  therefore  not  considered  in  the  computation  (https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-
system/analysis.html). 
47Examples  include  the  establishment  and  management  of  a  Social  Policy  Network;  the  management  of  the  technical  assistance, 
including  for  the  development  and  production  of  health  and  safety  at  work  statistics;  translations  for  the  EURES  Portal; 
methodological work for the development of flash estimates, aiming at ‘Nowcasting’ income-based indicators (Eurostat).  
48Tables 4 to Table 7 included in Chapter 3 are based on data from the DEFIS database which was in 2014 - 2020 the DG EMPL tool 
for  the  evaluation  of  the  projects  submitted  by  applicants  to  calls  for  proposals  and  for  the  management  of  the  projects  awarded. 
DEFIS was replaced in the current programming period with the EC corporate application eGrants. 
49The Framework Partnership Agreements under EaSI were long-term cooperation instruments that served as umbrella for recurrent 
grants to EU-level NGO networks active in the employment and social inclusion fields. The specific operating grant agreements were 
then awarded on an annual basis following an invitation to submit a proposal addressed to the framework partners.  

14 

 
 
 
 
No.  Participating country 

Types of activities (grants and procurement) 

Table 3. Countries’ participation in EaSI programme in 2014 - 2020 (EUR million) 

Total commitments 
(EUR million)  

1 
2 
3 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 

Bosnia-Herzegovina 
British Virgin Islands 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10  Denmark 
11 
12 
13 

Estonia 
Finland 
France 

14  Germany 

15  Greece 
16  Hungary 
17 
18 
19 

Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 

20 
Jordan 
21  Kosovo 
Latvia 
22 
Liechtenstein  
23 
Lithuania 
24 
Luxembourg 
25 

26  Malta 
27  Montenegro 

Action grants 
Action grants, IT services, studies, conferences, external meetings, consultancy, evaluation services. 
Action grants, operating grants, IT services, studies, conferences and external meetings, consultancy, evaluation services, 
audit services, communication and publications, supply contracts including ICT equipment, translation and interpretation. 
IT services 
Translation and interpretation 
Action grants, IT services, studies, evaluation services, translation and interpretation 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation. 
Action grants, IT services, studies 
Action grants, IT services, studies 
Action grants, IT services, studies, evaluation services, translation and interpretation, consultancy, administrative services. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation. 
Action  grants,  operating  grants,  IT  services,  studies,  conferences,  external  meetings  and  travel,  consultancy,  evaluation 
services, audit services, communication and publications, translation and interpretation. 
Action and operating grants, IT services, studies, conferences, external meetings/travel, consultancy, evaluation services, 
audit services, communication and publications, supply contracts including ICT equipment, translation/interpretation. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, evaluation services, translation and interpretation, consultancy, evaluation services. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation, consultancy and evaluation services. 
Action grants, IT services, studies.  
Action grants, IT services, studies, supply of ICT equipment. 
Action  grants,  IT  services,  studies,  conferences,  external  meetings  and  travel,  consultancy,  evaluation  services,  audit 
services, communication and publications, translation and interpretation, training services. 
Translation and interpretation 
IT services 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation 
Action grants 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation, evaluation services. 
Action/operating grants, IT services, studies, conferences, external meetings and travel, consultancy, evaluation services, 
communication and publications, translation/interpretation, training, supply contracts, services linked to buildings. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation 
Action grants, IT services 

15 

5.01 
43.70 
312.55 

0.30 
0.09 
50.23 
32.22 
39.96 
21.56 
33.21 
20.48 
26.86 
97.91 

95.54 

43.28 
14.78 
6.91 
49.62 
120.71 

0.03 
0.3 
13.41 
0.60 
13.52 
197.63 

8.86 
4.89 

Total grants 
(EUR million)  
5.01 
21.07 
154.18 

0 
0 
42.37 
24.63 
32.37 
13.08 
21.34 
12.51 
18.32 
78.29 

62.53 

33.80 
5.66 
2.19 
36.65 
81.43 

0 
0 
4.80 
0.60 
3.79 
16.64 

1.19 
4.56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No.  Participating country 

Types of activities (grants and procurement) 

28  Netherlands 

29  North Macedonia 
30  Norway 
Poland 
31 
Portugal 
32 
Romania 
33 
Serbia 
34 
Slovakia 
35 
Slovenia 
36 
Spain 
37 
Sweden 
38 
Switzerland 
39 
40 
Türkiye 
41  United Kingdom 

38  United States 

Action  grants,  operating  grants,  IT  services,  studies,  conferences,  external  meetings  and  travel,  consultancy,  evaluation 
services, communication and publications, translation and interpretation, administrative services. 
Action grants, IT services 
Action grants, IT services 
Action grants, operating grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation, consultancy. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, evaluation services. 
Action grants, IT services, studies, evaluation services, translation and interpretation 
Action grants, studies 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation, evaluation services 
Action grants, IT services, studies, translation and interpretation 
Action grants, IT services, studies, evaluation services, translation and interpretation, consultancy, evaluation services. 
Action grants, studies, conferences, external meetings/travel, communication and publications, translation/interpretation. 
Action grants, IT services 
Action grants, IT services 
Action  grants,  operating  grants,  IT  services,  studies,  conferences,  external  meetings  and  travel,  consultancy,  evaluation 
services, communication and publications, translation and interpretation, administrative services, legal and audit services. 
Action grants, supply of ICT equipment 

TOTAL 

Total commitments 
(EUR million)  

70.78 

4.30 
13.05 
30.82 
67.97 
55.27 
10.09 
25.44 
38.58 
149.55 
36.25 
10.36 
5.68 
73.67 

2.68 
725.94 

Total grants 
(EUR million)  
52.29 

4.00 
8.74 
16.92 
59.42 
45.04 
10.70 
16.66 
30.52 
96.84 
27.37 
9.20 
5.31 
22.56 

1.08 
346.74 

Source: DG EMPL, based on the EU Financial Transparency System (EU FTS) for the total commitments per country and DEFIS database for data on grants (data collected on 20/06/2023) 

Table 4. Total number of EaSI operating grants per country in 2014 - 2020 

No. 

Country 

Applied 

Awarded 

Success rate  

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Belgium 
Spain 
France 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Poland 
UK 

TOTAL 

133 
1 
1 
1 
12 
7 
4 
159 

126 
0 
1 
1 
11 
7 
4 
150 

95% 
- 
100% 
100% 
92% 
100% 
100% 
94% 

Committed 
(EUR million) 

78.94 
- 
0.48 
0.43 
4.19 
1.82 
3.69 
89.55 

Source: DG EMPL, based on DEFIS database for the ratio applied/awarded and on EU FTS for the commitments 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall, 55 calls for proposals were launched under EaSI in 2014  - 2020 in addition to 
calls for tenders. Table 5 indicates that in total, 1074 applications were submitted under 
these  calls  for  proposals,  resulting  in  436  grants  (including  both  action  and  operating 
grants) covering 35 participating  countries.  It  also presents  an overview  of applications 
(“applied”)  and  successful  projects  (“awarded”)  per  main  applicant/main  beneficiairy 
country of residence. Table 5 shows that countries with the higher number of applications 
were  -  in  order  -  Italy,  Belgium,  Turkyie,  Spain  and  Germany.  The  countries  with  the 
higher  number  of  awarded  grants  were  Belgium,  Italy,  Germany,  Spain,  France, 
Netherlands  and  Poland.  Overall,  the  chances  of  being  successful  were  40,60%.  The 
higher  success  rates  were  registered  for  the  latter  countries  but  the  order  is  slightly 
different, i.e. Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy and Poland50.  
Other Member States but also countries from the EFTA/EEA and (pre)candidate groups 
(for  instance  Austria,  Norway,  Sweden,  Ireland,  Estonia,  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Iceland, 
Serbia)  were  also  successful  considering  their  respective  number  of  applications. 
Nevertheless, the 'success rate' indicator cannot be used to properly rank countries given 
that  the  application  process  is  not  centralised  by  the  participating  countries  themselves 
but it is the result of organisations’ decision to compete for an award.  
These  figures  and  results  are  also  influenced  by  the  participation  in  recurrent  calls  for 
EU-level NGO networks operating grants (notably Belgium) and EURES calls for cross-
border  partnerships  and  targeted  mobility  schemes  (notably  Germany).  In  practice,  for 
the  EU-level  NGO  networks  that  signed  the  Framework  Partnership  Agreements,  their 
chances for obtaining an operating grant mainly depended on them submitting an annual 
proposal; therefore, their success rate was close to 100%. Similarly, the EURES calls for 
proposals  are  specific  and  targeted  –  resulting  nearly  in  a  100%  success  rate  of  the 
applications submitted. Moreover, as operating grants are awarded to one entity only (no 
consortia  as  is  the  case  of  most  of  action  grants),  the  weight  of  operating  grants  also 
explains why the number of grants and beneficiaries are very similar for Belgium as well 
as its high succes rate (82,35%).  
Also, these figures are influenced by the fact that - in a context of economic recession - 
applicant consortias from countries most hit by the economic and financial crisis such as 
Italy  and  Spain  sent  an  important  number  of  applications  (notably  in  2014  and  2015).  
Applicants  from  Italy  and  Spain  are  also  well  represented  in  the  calls  for  proposals 
axis51. 
Microfinance/Social 
launched 

Entrepreneurship 

under 

the 

50Some countries showing a high ‘success rate’, for instance Luxembourg,  Austria, Estonia, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia or Sweden - 
are excluded from this ranking as the calculation of their ‘success rates’ are based on a limited number of applied/awarded projects. 
51The  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  was  mainly  implemented  under  the  indirect  management  mode  by  the  European 
Investment Fund, but there was nevertheless one call for proposals for  “Actions to boost the demand and supply side of the finance 
market for social enterprises” that falls in this axis. 

17 

 
 
 
No. 

Participating country 

Applications 

Awarded 

Success rate (%) 

Non-compliant applications 

Table 5. Applications compared with grants awarded under EaSI programme (2014 - 2020) 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Montenegro 
North Macedonia 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Serbia 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Türkiye 
United Kingdom 
TOTAL 
Source: DG EMPL, based on DEFIS database 

5 
8 
187 
11 
8 
4 
51 
7 
2 
42 
85 
5 
49 
16 
24 
13 
8 
196 
14 
1 
3 
11 
0 
1 
30 
7 
46 
27 
22 
21 
14 
13 
8 
104 
31 
1074 

20,00% 
87,50% 
82,35% 
36,36% 
25,00% 
25,00% 
68,63% 
57,14% 
50,00% 
16,67% 
36,47% 
60,00% 
48,98% 
1 
31,25% 
25,00% 
46,15% 
75,00% 
23,47% 
35,71% 
100,00% 
33,33% 
18,18% 
0,00% 
0,00% 
63,33% 
85,71% 
34,78% 
25,93% 
4,55% 
28,57% 
64,29% 
46,15% 
37,50% 
1,92% 
29,03% 
40,60% 

1 
7 
154 
4 
2 
1 
35 
4 
1 
7 
31 
3 
24 
5 
6 
6 
6 
46 
5 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
19 
6 
16 
7 
1 
6 
9 
6 
3 
2 
9 
436 

18 

1 
0 
1 
2 
1 
0 
2 
1 
0 
6 
13 
1 
8 
1 
8 
1 
1 
24 
1 
0 
1 
3 
0 
1 
1 
0 
7 
4 
6 
1 
1 
0 
1 
43 
8 
149 

Non-compliant applications 
(%) 

20,00% 
0,00% 
0,53% 
18,18% 
0% 
0% 
3,92% 
14,29% 
0,00% 
14,29% 
15,29% 
20% 
16,33% 
6,25% 
33,33% 
7,69% 
12,50% 
12,24% 
7,14% 
0% 
33,33% 
27,27% 
0% 
100% 
3,33% 
0,00% 
15,22% 
14,81% 
27,27% 
4,76% 
7,14% 
0% 
12,50% 
41,35% 
25,81% 
13,87% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The success rate is also strongly and negatively influenced by the share of non-compliant 
applications.  The  case  of  Türkiye  -  with  41,35%  of  non-compliant  projects  (Table  5 
above) - illustrates this finding. Up to 2020, Turkish organisations submitted in total 104 
applications under the EaSI calls for proposals (excepting those related to the the cross-
border cooperation, Targeted Mobility Schemes and ‘Your first Eures job’, which were 
not  open  to  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries).  Only  two  applications  were 
successful giving Türkiye a low success rate of (1,92%), while 43 applications were not 
compliant for different reasons (out of scope, insuficient details on the proposed activities 
and their budget). 
Table 6 below presents the participation of organisations as main beneficiary/coordinator 
and co-beneficiary/partner in EaSI grants (including operating grants)52. It also gives an 
overview of EaSI grants’ (co)beneficiaries  by type of organisation  (public, trade union, 
employers’  organisation,  research  institute/university,  profit  and  non-profit  enterprise, 
foundation, NGO).  
The  main  beneficiary  (coordinator)  has  a  preeminent/pro-active  role  in  the  project 
(coordination and distribution of roles/funds; legal responsibility; monitoring; reporting), 
while  the  co-beneficiaries  (co-partners)  have  specific  operational  roles  during  the 
implementation  period  (for  instance,  in  case  of  social  experimentation  projects,  one 
partner provides the methodological expertise). To ensure its tasks throughout the overall 
project’s duration, the coordinator must have appropriate human resources/expertise and 
must  also  be  able  to  find  relevant  partners  for  the  project  and  to  create/maintain  the 
partnership. 
Table  6  shows  that  a    group  of  countries  –  in  particular  Estonia,  Luxembourg,  Malta, 
Montenegro  and  Romania  -  were  never  involved  in  EaSI  grants  as  main  beneficiaries; 
nevertheless,  they  were  involved  as  co-beneficiary.  It  also  indicates  that  governmental 
and public bodies (including ministries, labour offices, local and regional authorities and 
bodies)  were  the  strongest  represented  group  with  41,17%.  The  group  covering  civil 
society  organisations  took  up  to  17,57%.  The  group  covering  universities,  higher 
education  institutes  and  specific  research  organisations  represents  7.09%.  Trade  unions 
and  bodies  owned  by  them  are  grouped  in  “Trade  union  organisations”  (15.26%).  The 
“Employers’  organisations” group  - covering 11.30%  - includes  business  representative 
organisations, chambers of commerce and industry, and similar. Private consultancies as 
well  as  profit  companies  are  gathered  under  “Private  enterprises”  (6.02%)  next  to  the 
“Not-for-profit enterprises” (1.57%).  

52Table 6 presents the total ‘unique’ beneficiaries, meaning that each organisation was included once in the calculation. 

19 

 
 
 
Table 6. Participation in EaSI grants per country and types of (co)beneficiairy (Source: DG EMPL, based on DEFIS database) 
Foundation
/NGO 

Trade union 
organisation 

No. 

Country 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Montenegro 
North Macedonia 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Serbia 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Türkiye  
UK 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
TOTAL 

 Total unique 
beneficiaries 
6 
23 
113 
23 
8 
26 
142 
13 
7 
31 
82 
14 
65 
17 
16 
9 
26 
166 
27 
13 
13 
5 
13 
1 
45 
15 
60 
74 
19 
21 
21 
44 
15 
10 
29 
1212 

Unique main 
beneficiaries 
1 
4 
12 
4 
2 
1 
30 
4 
0 
8 
15 
2 
18 
4 
5 
6 
3 
38 
3 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
8 
6 
14 
6 
0 
4 
8 
6 
3 
2 
4 
224 

Unique co-
beneficiaries 
5 
19 
101 
19 
6 
25 
112 
9 
7 
23 
67 
12 
47 
13 
11 
3 
23 
128 
24 
13 
12 
5 
11 
1 
37 
9 
46 
68 
19 
17 
13 
38 
12 
8 
25 
988 

Public 
low body 
2 
4 
58 
6 
6 
16 
71 
12 
4 
14 
30 
7 
22 
8 
2 
9 
16 
52 
4 
7 
8 
3 
1 
0 
28 
10 
10 
32 
9 
6 
13 
10 
8 
4 
7 
499 

University-
Research  
1 
2 
4 
0 
0 
0 
8 
0 
0 
3 
11 
2 
3 
2 
0 
0 
1 
13 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
5 
9 
2 
1 
1 
7 
0 
2 
5 
86 

3 
10 
15 
2 
0 
5 
24 
1 
0 
4 
19 
3 
14 
1 
3 
0 
1 
37 
7 
1 
1 
1 
3 
0 
8 
2 
14 
6 
5 
5 
2 
6 
4 
3 
3 
213 

20 

Employers’ 
organisations 
0 
4 
12 
4 
0 
5 
8 
0 
1 
2 
7 
0 
18 
0 
1 
0 
7 
10 
6 
5 
0 
0 
4 
0 
1 
0 
6 
21 
1 
1 
1 
3 
3 
0 
6 
137 

Private 
enterprise 
0 
1 
7 
1 
1 
0 
6 
0 
0 
5 
8 
2 
3 
2 
3 
0 
0 
14 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
1 
2 
2 
0 
1 
2 
4 
0 
1 
1 
73 

0 
1 
16 
10 
1 
0 
25 
0 
2 
3 
7 
0 
5 
4 
4 
0 
1 
26 
9 
0 
4 
1 
5 
1 
0 
1 
23 
4 
2 
7 
2 
14 
0 
0 
7 
185 

Not for 
profit  

0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
14 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0   
0 
0 
0 
0 
19 

Success 
rate (%) 
20,00% 
87,50% 
82,35% 
36,36% 
25,00% 
25,00% 
68,63% 
57,14% 
50,00% 
16,67% 
36,47% 
60,00% 
48,98% 
1 
31,25% 
25,00% 
46,15% 
75,00% 
23,47% 
35,71% 
0,00% 
33,33% 
18,18% 
0,00% 
0,00% 
63,33% 
85,71% 
34,78% 
25,93% 
4,55% 
28,57% 
64,29% 
46,15% 
37,50% 
1,92% 
29,03% 
40,60% 

40,60% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finaly,  Table  7  shows  the  (co)beneficiaries  per  country  and  institutional  level.  It 
indicates that 59,81% of (co)beneficiaries operate at national level, 22,44% at local level 
and  16,42%  at  regional  level.  Only  1,3%  (16  beneficiaries)  are  international-level 
organisations  and  more  than  half  of  them  (9)  are  based  in  Belgium  (EU-level  NGO 
networks and consultancies headquarters). 
Table 7 also suggests that countries with the highest success rate, for instance Germany, 
Belgium, Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands or Slovenia present a diversified pool of (co) 
beneficiaries.  Italy  shows  the  most  balanced  composition  in  terms  of  types  of 
beneficiaries, involving by far the largest number of most non-profit organisations. Table 
7  indicates  as  well  that  countries  with  a  strong  implication  of  regional  level  –  like 
Germany,  Belgium,  Italy  and  Spain  –  present  high  success  rates  as  well.  Italy  shows 
again the most balanced multi-level composition, followed by Germany and Belgium. 

No. 

Country 

National 
level 

Regional 
level 

Local 
level 

International 

Total 

Success rate 

Table 7. Participation per institutional level 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Montenegro 
North Macedonia 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Serbia 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Türkiye  
UK 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
TOTAL 

6 
14 
34 
23 
8 
15 
57 
8 
7 
21 
45 
12 
38 
17 
11 
9 
18 
90 
27 
12 
10 
5 
13 
1 
29 
13 
33 
34 
19 
17 
   13 
31 
12 
6 
15 
725 

Source: DG EMPL, based on DEFIS database. 

0 
3 
55 
0 
0 
2 
63 
0 
0 
2 
17 
2 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
30 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
13 
4 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
3 
0 
199 

21 

0 
3 
15 
0 
0 
9 
22 
5 
0 
8 
19 
0 
22 
0 
5 
0 
8 
45 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
16 
2 
15 
36 
0 
4 
7 
13 
0 
1 
14 
272 

0 
3 
9 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
 0 
  0 
                    0 
1 
0 
0 
16 

6 
23 
113 
23 
8 
26 
142 
13 
7 
31 
82 
14 
65 
17 
16 
9 
26 
166 
27 
13 
13 
5 
13 
1 
45 
15 
60 
74 
19 
21 
21 
44 
15 
10 
29 
1212 

20,00% 
87,50% 
82,35% 
36,36% 
25,00% 
25,00% 
68,63% 
57,14% 
50,00% 
16,67% 
36,47% 
60,00% 
1 
48,98% 
31,25% 
25,00% 
46,15% 
75,00% 
23,47% 
35,71% 
0,00% 
33,33% 
18,18% 
0,00% 
0,00% 
63,33% 
85,71% 
34,78% 
25,93% 
4,55% 
28,57% 
64,29% 
46,15% 
37,50% 
1,92% 
29,03% 
40,60% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  evidence  presented  in  this  section  shows  that  -  despite  the  variations  -  all  eligible 
countries  participated  in  the  activities  funded  by  EaSI.  These  variations  have  different 
reasons,  for  instance  the  absence  -  for  some  participating  countries  -  of  specific  needs 
related to the call’s topic, the lack of financial resources (to cover the 20% co-financing 
of  the  total  project  budget)  and/or  of  human  resources  (to  apply,  implement  or  report).  
The lack of knowledge and/or experience with the project design and implementation and 
the  lack  or  insufficient  communication  campaigns  at  national  level  on  the  funding 
opportunities offered by EU programmes also played a role.  
3.2 EaSI and EPMF implementation under the indirect management mode 
Out of the three instruments grouped under the EaSI third axis, the Guarantee Instrument 
and the Capacity Building Investments Window were implemented indirectly by the EIF 
while  the  Funded  Instrument  was  implemented  directly  by  the  Commission53.  Both 
EPMF  financial  instruments  (Guarantee  Instrument  and  Funded  Instrument)  were 
implemented by the EIF through the indirect management mode54.  

3.2.1 EaSI financial instruments 

The EaSI support to microentreprises and social entreprises was delivered through three 
instruments.  
EaSI Guarantee Instrument 
This instrument became operational in 2015 with the end date of implementation set at 1st  
January  2024.  By  this  date,  the  EIF  can  still  sign  guarantee  agreements  with  financial 
intermediaries, while the financial intermediaries can include loans in their portfolio after 
this date at the latest by 31 December 2027. At the end of 2020, the cumulative value of 
guarantee  agreements  signed  under  the  EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument  with  financial 
intermediaries in 31 countries55 amounted to EUR 388 million56 (Table 8). 

EaSI third axis 
strands 

Microfinance  

Social 
entrepreneurship 
Total 

Table 8. Outputs and leverage effect created by EaSI Guarantee Instrument 
Leverage 
effect of the 
total 
investment59 

Contribution 
from the EaSI 
budget (EUR 
million) 

Number 
of final 
recipients 

Volume of 
loans 
disbursed by 
FI57 (EUR 
million) 

Volume of 
operations 
with the 
FI58 (EUR 
million) 

97 271 

3 337 

1 273 

491  

100 608 

1 764 

242 

146 

388 

91 

40 

131 

5.3 

3.4 

4.5 

Leverage 
effect of the 
initial 
investment 
by the EC  
13.9  

12.3  

13.5 

Source: DG EMPL, based on data provided by the EIF on the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, 2020. 

Microloans amounting  to  EUR 1.27 billion were provided to  97 271  final  beneficiaries 
under the EaSI microfinance branch. With guarantees worth a total of EUR 242 million 

53In accordance with Article 216 of the Financial Regulation. 
54Operationally,  there  is  no  difference  between  the  EaSI  Funded  Instrument  and  the  EPMF  Funded  Instrument,  meaning  that  they 
were both implemented by the EIF in the same way. Nevertheless, the EU Financial Regulation in force in 2010 did not contain any 
provisions  on  financial  instruments  (which  were  introduced  only  in  the  later  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation).  The  indirect 
management  mode  was  then  chosen  for  the  EPMF  Funded  Instrument  that  was  implemented  by  the  EIF.  The  2018  Financial 
Regulation,  in  force  when  the  EaSI  Funded  Instrument  was  launched  (2019),  provides  (under  the  Article  216)  that  the  specialized 
investment vehicles fall under direct management. In practice, the EIF implemented the EaSI Funded Instrument, but the Commission 
keept however a direct responsibility on the management of the instrument. More information is provided in Annexes VI.1. 
55These countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Albania, Montenegro, North 
Macedonia, Türkiye and United Kingdom for microfinance; Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, 
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Serbia and the United Kingdom for 
social entrepreneurship (see evaluation supporting study, page 27). 
56Representing only active contracts and including resources from EFSI. 
57‘FI’ is the abbreviation of ‘financial intermediaries’. 
58Including resources from EFSI. 
59Idem. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
signed  from  2014  to  2020,  the  leverage  effect  achieved  in  microfinance  was  5.360. 
Considering only the contribution of EUR 91 million from the EaSI budget, the leverage 
effect  achieved  in  microfinance  was  13.9.  Microentreprises  operating  in  the  area  of 
wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles received most of the 
funding.  
A total of 3 337 social enterprises received funding from EaSI during its implementation 
period (see Table 8 above). The total funding amounted to more than EUR 491 million, 
with an average of EUR 147 135 per social enterprise. With guarantees worth a total of 
EUR  146  million  signed  from  2014  to  2020,  the  leverage  effect  achieved  in  the  EaSI 
social  entrepreneurship  branch  was  3.4.  Considering  only  the  contribution  of  EUR  40 
million from the EaSI budget, the leverage effect achieved in the social entrepreneurship 
branch  was  12.3.  Most  of  the  funding  went  to  social  enterprises  operating  in  human 
health and social work activities.  
EaSI Funded Instrument  
This  instrument  became  operational  in  September  2019  and  its  implementation  period 
runs  until  16  October  2023.  By  this  date,  the  EIF  can  still  provide  loans  to  financial 
intermediaries. The financial intermediaries can include loans in their portfolio after this 
date, but the duration of the loans to final beneficiaries cannot go beyond 31 December 
2031.  A  total  amount  of  EUR  67  million  was  earmarked  by  the  Commission  from  the 
EaSI programme for the implementation of the  EaSI Funded Instrument (in addition to 
the  EUR  133  million  earmarked  from  the  EIB),  thus  conducting  to  a  total  financial 
envelope  of  EUR  200  million.  By  the  end  of  2020,  3  agreements  in  the  microfinance 
sector  were  signed  in  3  countries:  2  of  them  were  with  financial  intermediaries  in 
Romania and 1 with a financial intermediary in Serbia.  
EaSI Capacity Building Investments Window 
Through this instrument launched in December 2016, EIF provided funding to financial 
intermediaries  mainly  through  subordinated  loans.  The  last  agreements  with  financial 
intermediaries  were  signed  in  2021;  the  overall  budged  was  fully  deployed  by  end  of 
2021.  Up  to  the  end  of  2020,  14  capacity  building  contracts  were  signed,  covering  9 
countries, with a budget from EaSI of EUR 45 million. For microfinance, these countries 
are  Belgium,  Romania  (3  intermediaries),  Luxembourg,  Italy,  Spain,  Lithuania, 
Netherlands  and  Serbia;  and  for  social  entrepreneurship,  they  are  Belgium,  France  (2 
intermediaries), Italy and Netherlands. 
Globally, as for the regional distribution, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Belgium 
emerged as most active countries in terms of accessing support from the EaSI third axis 
(see Table 64 in Annex VI.3). 

3.2.2 EPMF financial instruments61 

A  total  financial  envelope  of  EUR  203  million  was  available  for  the  EPMF 
implementation to enhance the capacity of microfinance financial intermediaries (banks 
and  non-bank  institutions)  by  providing  micro-loans  (up  to  EUR  25  000)  to  micro-
borrowers  and  micro-enterprises.  Of  this  amount,  EUR  103  million  came  from  the  EU 
budget, including an amount of EUR 3 million from the European Parliament Preparatory 
Action  (EPPA).  An  additional  amount  of  EUR  100  million  was  made  available  by  the 

60The  leverage  effect  describes  the  effect  of  debt  on  the  return  on  equity.  The  higher  the  leverage,  the  bigger  the  return  on  initial 
investment is. 
61More detailed facts and figures are presented in Annex VI.4. 

23 

 
 
EIB.  Both  financial  instruments  set  up  under  EPMF62  were  implemented  by  the  EIF 
through indirect management mode63.  
Under  both  EPMF  instruments,  EIF  was  allowed  to  sign  guarantee  agreements  with 
financial  intermediaries  until  7th  April  2016,  while  the  end-date  of  the  implementation 
period  was  set  on  31st  December  2020  for  the  Guarantee  Instrument  and  on  30th  April 
2020  for  the  Funded  Instrument.  Table  9  provides  the  state  of  implementation  of  the 
EPMF  as  a  whole  by  31  December  2020.  The  EPMF  totalled  86  agreements  with  63 
financial intermediaries across 22 countries, reaching a loan volume of EUR 516 million. 
In  total,  more  than  60  000  microloans  were  disbursed  to  more  than  55  000  final 
beneficiaries. On average, a microloan had a value of around EUR 8 500.  

Instrument 

No. of 
agreements 

Table 9. Implementation of the EPMF (2010 - 2020) 
No. of 
microloans 

No. of 
intermediaries 

Countries 
covered 

No. of final 
beneficiaries 

Volume of 
microloans 
(EUR 
million) 
236 
279 
516 

Average 
microloan 
(EUR) 
million 
11 240 
7 064 
8 538 

36 
50 
86 

29 
39 
63* 

20 996 
39 439 
60 435 

19 470 
35 940 
55 410 

Guarantee 
Funded 
Total 

18 
14 
22** 
Source: Supporting study, based on the EPMF annual implementation reports and annual impact reports. 
Note: The table includes unique intermediaries/countries. There were 5 intermediaries with both a guarantee and a 
loan agreement. 
Both sectoral and regional of microloans remained similar throughout the duration of the 
EPMF.  Most  of  the  companies  receiving  loans  worked  in  agriculture  and  trade.  Some 
other sectors (such as repair of motor vehicles and personal/household goods; storage and 
communication;  manufacturing;  construction;  transporting  and  storage;  accommodation 
and food services) also received a significant, although much smaller, share of funding. 
As  for  the  regional  distribution,  France,  Romania,  Netherlands  and  Poland  emerged  as 
most active countries in  terms of acquiring microloans. Below, details are provided per 
instrument.  
EPMF Guarantee Instrument 
This  instrument,  which  became  operational  in  2010,  guaranteed  part  of  the  financial 
intermediaries’  portfolio  against  losses.  Its  aim  was  to  provide  additional  security  to 
financial  intermediaries  to  increase  access  to,  and  availability  of  microfinance.  A  total 
financial  envelope  of  EUR  23  million  was  made  available  by  the  Commission  for  its 
implementation2.  By  the  end  of  2020,  a  total  of  36  agreements  had  been  signed  with 
financial  intermediaries,  across  18  countries:  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Denmark,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom.  In  total,  the  EPMF  Guarantee 
Instrument helped 19 470 final beneficiaries to access microfinance.  
EPMF Funded Instrument 
This  instrument, which became operational  at  the end of 2010, was  a joint  initiative of 
the  Commission  and  the  EIB,  which  provided  respectively  an  investment  of  EUR  80 
million  and  of  EUR  100  million,  thus  creating  a  total  financial  envelope  of  EUR  180 
million64.  It  provided  funded  instruments  for  intermediaries  (loans  and  equity 
investments) in the form of a ‘Fonds Commun de Placement’ (FCP) under Luxembourg 
law65. By the end of 2020, a total of 50 agreements (47 had been terminated and 3 were 
still  running  at  that  time)  had  been  signed  with  financial  intermediaries,  across  16 
countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

62They provided the same types of products as later under the EaSI microfinance window (see the previous section). 
63More information on EPMF governance is provided in Annex VI.1.2. 
64 Implementation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (COM(2011) 195 final). 
65 https://www.cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/Brochure_FCP.pdf  

24 

 
 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  United  Kingdom.  The  countries 
that  received  the  largest  commitments  to  financial  intermediaries  were  Romania, 
Bulgaria,  Spain  and  Italy.  In  total,  the  EPMF  Funded  Instrument  helped  35  940  final 
beneficiaries to access microfinance.  

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

This  chapter  is  structured  in  three  parts:  Section  4.1  assesses  the  programmes’ 
performance through their effectiveness and efficiency (Section 4.1.1)66 and their internal 
coherence/external  complementarities  (Section  4.1.2  );  Section  4.2  identifies  their  EU-
added  value;  and  Section  4.3  analyses  their  relevance.  Figure  2  below  illustrates  the 
approach.  

Figure 2: Evaluation nut graph 

Evaluation criteria 

Efficiency and 
effectiveness 

Coherence 

Added value 

Relevance 

1 - Analytical activities 
2 - Mutual learning  
3 - Social innovation 
4 - Capacity building 
5 - Labour market  
6 - Placement services 
7 - Microfinance 
8 - Entrepreneurship 
9 - Microcredit providers 

Internal 
coherence 
between 
activities 

External 
coherence with 
other funds 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Evidence-
based policy 
Capacity of 
stakeholders 
Social 
innovation  
Transnational 
dimension 
Labour 
mobility 
Innovative 
micro- and 
social finance 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Addressing societal 
challenges 
Supporting social 
policies and 
modernising EU 
social law 
Enhancing labour 
mobility 
Strengthening 
accessibility of 
micro- and social 
finance  

General 
objectives 

1 - Ownership of 
EU objectives 
2 - Facilitation of 
policy reforms 
3 - Modernisation 
of EU legislation 
4 - Promotion of 
labour mobility 
5 - Accessibility 
of micro- and 
social finance. 

Source: DG EMPL 

4.1 Effectiveness and efficiency  

General 
objectives 

Effectiveness/efficiency 

Coherence 

Added value 

Relevance 

Evaluation criteria 

4.1.1 Evidence-based EU policies and legislation 

In 2014 - 2020, a total input of EUR 148 million was allocated to the implementation of 
activities to develop analytical knowledge, resulting in 198 analytical outputs67. The share 
of  stakeholders  acknowledging  that  EU  social  policy  and  legislation  are  based  on 
evidence was 83% in 2020, representing an increase by 12 percentage points compared 
with its value in 2014 (Table 10).  
These  outputs  were  widely  used  by  stakeholders  at  both  national  and  EU-level  when 
working on the implementation and enforcement of the EU legislation68 as well as when 

66An overview of costs/benefits and of the programmes’ potential for savings is included in Annex IV. 
67Some  preeminent  examples  are  provided  in  this  section  selected  among  the  wide  range  of  analytical  outputs  produced.  Detailed 
examples of analytical outputs are available in the EaSI monitoring reports and in the evaluation supporting study.  
68For  instance  the  EU  law  on  occupational  safety  and  health  (OSH)  and  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive,  EU  Council 
recommendations  on  the  integration  of  the  long-term  unemployed  (LTU)  into  the  labour  market;  the  Youth  Guarantee;  Youth 
Employment Initiative, European Skills Agenda, the Quality Framework for Traineeships, the European Framework for Quality and 
Effective Apprenticeships, the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, Council Recommendation on access to 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
providing  inputs  for  the  European  Semester  and  Country  Specific  Recommendations 
(CSRs)69.  Notable  examples  include  the  multilingual  classification  of  the  European 
Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO); support to the work of the 
Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD);  the  collection  of 
statistics  through  the  EU  Labour  Force  Survey  (LFS);  funding  the  Mutual  Information 
System  on  Social  Protection  (MISSOC)  database;  as  well  as  a  range  of  databases  and 
studies in the field of working conditions, and health and safety at work.  
The  EaSI  analytical  outputs  were  also  used  for  the  development  of  other  DG  EMPL 
deliverables such as the Annual Growth Survey, the annual reviews of Employment and 
Social  Developments  in  Europe  (ESDE),  the  Labour  Market  Developments  in  Europe 
reports  and  the  Joint  Employment  reports.  The  consultations  (notably  online  public 
consultation,  focus  groups  and  interviews)70  conducted  in  the  framework  of  this 
evaluation corroborates the usefulness of the analytical knowledge produced under EaSI. 
To assess the efficiency of the analytical activities, the evaluation compares the monetary 
inputs committed alongside the corresponding share of stakeholders who agreed that EU 
employment and social policy and legislation were based on evidence (Table 10).  

Table 10. Monetary inputs for analytical activities compared with share of stakeholders who agreed that EU 
employment and social policy, and legislation are based on evidence (2014 - 2020) 

Years/items 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 

Monetary input (EUR million) 

Indicator (%) 

30 
22 
14 
14 
17 
22 
29 

Ratio (input/indicator) 
0.422 
0.282 
0.179 
0.189 
0.229 
0.265 
0.469 

71% 
78% 
78% 
74% 
74% 
83% 
83% 

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI monitoring reports and the supporting study. 
A total budget of EUR 148 million was spent to implement analytical activities while an 
amount of EUR 156 million was planned71. The difference is due to the cancellation of a 
number of studies and events in the start-up year 2014 or converted in online format due 
to COVID-19 disruption in 2019 - 202072. While admitting that the relationship between 
the  two  variables  is  likely  not  to  be  completely  linear,  it  however  represents  a  good 
indication  (except  for  the  two  first  two  start-up  years)  that  a  higher  monetary  input 
corresponds to a higher share of stakeholders considering that these outputs were helpful 
for policymaking.   
The EaSI  ex ante  evaluation73  estimated that  25% of the EaSI PROGRESS axis  budget 
should be dedicated to the development of new knowledge (ideas, concepts, approaches, 
models).  The  total  input  for  analytical  activities  in  2014  -  2020  represents  29%  of  the 

social protection for workers and the self-employed, Recommendation on ‘Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage 
and other family policies’, European Disability Strategy (see EaSI monitoring report 2019-2020, page 30). 
69Notably  conferences,  peer  reviews,  and  meetings  of  the  Social  Protection  Committee  (SPC).  Concrete  examples  include:  the 
conference “Labour economics after the crisis: what theoretical lessons to draw from policy experience?”; the peer review “Innovative 
practices with marginalised families at risk of having their children taken into care” (11 - 12 December 2014; Italy); the peer review 
“The political adequacy of quantitative impact assessment in the social field by means of micro-simulation models” (4 - 5 December 
2014; Austria). 
70In  the  online  public  consultation  related  to  this  evaluation,  36  respondents  out  of  72  agreed  that  policy  making  at  EU-level  was 
based on sound evidence provided through the analytical activities funded by EaSI. Former EaSI Committee members highlighted the 
usefulness of analytical outputs, noting that the data they produced was crucial for policy development in their respective Member 
States. Evidence collected within DG EMPL suggests that databases and statistics were useful for Member State  policymaking and 
describing many of these outputs as ‘a standard in the field’. It also shows that the implementation of the analytical activities under 
the direct management mode ensured that priority setting was top-down and policy-driven, thus enabling EaSI to swiftly adapt to new 
policy priorities. More details are available in the technical annexes of the supporting study. 
71See Figure 20 and Figure 21 in Annex VI.3.1. 
72As explained in the EaSI monitoring reports and the supporting study. 
73This document did not describe the method used to establish how this estimate; an overestimation might be possible (EaSI ex ante 
evaluation (page 38). 

26 

 
 
PROGRESS  axis  consumed  budget  of  EUR  505  million.  The  supporting  study74 
estimated  that  around  EUR  50  million  was  spent  under  this  objective  on  support 
activities  not  directly  generating  entirely  new  knowledge  (e.g.  IT  supporting  projects, 
events,  conferences,  promotional  material,  audits,  translations  or  capacity  building 
activities).  Considering  common  methodologies,  data  and  statistics,  databases, 
evaluations  and  impact  assessments,  networks  of  experts,  reports,  studies  and  working 
groups, these outputs made up to EUR 91 million (representing 18% of the PROGRESS 
budget) targeting the development of new knowledge.  
However,  the  quantitative  evidence  presented  above  (notably  the  linear  correlation 
between the inputs and the stakeholders’ satisfaction) and the findings in relation to the 
effectiveness  allow  to  conclude  that  EaSI  was  efficient  in  achieving  this  specific 
objective. 

4.1.2 Effective information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue 

In monetary terms, a total input of EUR 109 million was allocated to the implementation 
of this objective in  2014  - 2020.  In quantitative terms,  a total  of  191  outputs  related to 
information sharing and mutual learning were produced with this funding. The value of 
the  indicator  measuring  the  progress  in  achieving  this  objective  decreased  by  13 
percentage points from 89% participants declaring that they used or intended to use the 
information acquired in 2014 (the point of comparison) to 76% in 2020 (see Table 11 on 
the  next  page).  Moreover,  the  majority  of  respondents  to  the  survey  carried  out  by  the 
EESC stated that there was no regular and structured dialogue on the implementation of 
the EaSI programme75. 
Despite  the  downward  trend,  there  is  evidence,  although  mainly  qualitative,  that  these 
outputs were used to support information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue between 
stakeholders.  The  desk  research  of  the  EaSI  monitoring  reports  shows  that  the 
stakeholders  who  participated  in  EaSI-funded  events  used  the  information  gained  in 
several  ways,  for  instance  to  get  information  on  strategic  documents,  legislation  and 
advocacy material (national public authorities, EU-level  NGO networks); on the design 
and  implementation  of  programmes/projects  (projects’  beneficiaries/implementers);  or 
for  research  and  teaching  purposes  (researchers,  academia).  It  also  results  from  this 
overview  that  the  preparation  of  country-specific  recommendations  (CSR)  in  the 
framework of the European Semester benefitted from the work done within peer reviews, 
thematic workshops and other activities of the PES Network. Similarly, meetings of the 
Senior  Labour  Inspectors  Committee  (SLIC)  were  used  for  policy  and  legislative 
development in the field of health and safety  at  work.  Activities such as peer reviews, 
mutual 
the 
implementation  of  EU  initiatives  such  as  the  Youth  Guarantee.  The  EaSI  monitoring 
reports  also  offer  evidence  that  EaSI  events  contributed  -  via  the  expertise  and 
information  exchanged  -  to  facilitate  intra-EU  mobility;  for  instance  the  seminars 
organised and the reports published by the PES Network and EAfA76.  
These  findings  are  corroborated  by  the  consultations  conducted  whitin  this  evaluation. 
For  instance,  the  respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation  considered  information-

learning  workshops  or  conferences  also  contributed 

to  support 

74Supporting study (page 33). 
75A share of 60% of respondents stated that there was no structured consultation on the EaSI programme and only 21% stated that 
they were consulted regularly. It should be noted, however, that there was some disparity in the organisations consulted by the EESC 
during the country visits and through the survey. This is because in some countries, national-level organisations with a cross-cutting 
approach to the use and objectives of EaSI were consulted. Elsewhere, particularly in France, Lithuania, and Austria, those consulted 
were mostly direct beneficiaries of EaSI with direct knowledge of the programme. 
76Alliance Européenne pour l’Apprentissage. 

27 

 
 
sharing and mutual learning activities as one of the most useful EaSI activities77; notably 
the European (Online) Job Days organised within the EURES network  were mentioned 
as being particularly useful both for jobseekers and employers. The focus groups with the 
EaSI committee members and the EU-level NGO networks show as well that EaSI events 
had  a  multiplier  effect,  the  participants  largely  sharing  the  information  acquired  with 
other  stakeholders  within  their  organisations  or  in  other  institutions.  While  the  EaSI 
Committee members78 acknowledged that the information acquired during the events was 
useful  for  policymaking,  they  were  also  concerned  with  the  limited  visibility  of  EaSI, 
expecting  that  this  aspect  will  improve  through  the  implementation  of  the  National 
Contact Points established in the participating countries under the ESF+/EaSI strand.  
Quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  presented  above  allow  to  conclude  that  EaSI 
support was moderately effective in facilitating knowledge sharing, mutual learning and 
dialogue among  stakeholders.  In addition  to  the  downward trend in  the  declared  use of 
the information acquired for policy making, the evaluation reveals concerns about limited 
awareness  and  visibility  of  the  programme  (notably  in  relation  to  the  funding 
opportunities  and  results).  The  somewhat  downward  trend  is  even  more  marked  in  the 
two last years of implementation, this being explained by the cancellation of face-to-face 
events and/or their conversion to online format in the pandemic context.  
To  assess  efficiency  of  the  knowledge  sharing,  mutual  learning  and  dialogue  activities, 
the  evaluation  compares  the  inputs  committed  alongside  the  share  of  stakeholders  who 
declared that they used or intended to use the information acquired during the events for 
policy making or advocacy. 

Table 11. Monetary inputs for information sharing and mutual learning activities compared with share of 
stakeholders who declared the (intended) use of the information acquired through these activities (2014 - 2020) 
Ratio (input/indicator value) 
Years/items  Monetary input (EUR million) 
0.101 
0.211 
0.259 
0.220 
0.162 
0.118 
0.197 

Indicator value (%) 
89% 
85% 
85% 
86% 
86% 
76% 
76% 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 

9 
18 
22 
19 
14 
9 
15 

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI monitoring reports and the supporting study. 
The cost-effectiveness ratio (Table 11) - showing a negative relationship between the two 
variables  -  suggests  that  an  increased  spending  did  not  generate  necessarly  increased 
favorable  returns.  Notably,  a  significant  decrease  in  stakeholders’  satisfaction  can  be 
observed in 2019 - 2020 (impacted by Covid-19), despite the fact that committed inputs 
were  in  line  with  the  planned  budget.  Drawing  on  the  quantitative  evidence  presented 
above and on the findings in relation to the effectiveness,  the evaluation concludes that 
the  efficiency  of  EaSI  events  related  to  information  sharing  and  mutual  learning  was 
moderate.  Evidence  from  the  case  study  on  ‘EaSI  flexibility  to  adjust’79  confirms  that  - 
despite  the  fact  that  the Commission  managed  to  cancel  and/or  to  convert  a  number  of 
planed mutual learning events in digital format – the pandemic context left less scope for 
genuine mutual learning and knowledge sharing, impacting the stakeholders’ satisfaction. 

4.1.3 Testing of social and labour market policy innovations 

Achieving  this  specific  objective  implied  developing  social  innovations  (new  products, 
services,  models,  instruments  and  resources)  and  testing  them  at  small  scale  (social 

77A total of 34 respondents agreed that EaSI had been successful in facilitating information-sharing, mutual learning, and dialogue; 
only 3 respondents disagreed and 35 did not know (technical annexes of the supporting study).   
78A former EaSI Committee member from a candidate country equally mentioned that the involvement of candidate countries in EaSI 
events had been lacking during 2014 - 2020 but that this seemingly had already improved in the current programming period. 
79Available in the evaluation supporting study annexes. 

28 

 
 
experimentation)80.  EaSI  has  not  foreseen  in  its  legal  basis  a  specific  objective  and 
instruments  for upscaling/transfer  of the  social experimentations  on a larger scale since 
this was defined as a ESF potential activity81  
In monetary terms, a total input of EUR 89 million was allocated to the implementation 
of  this  objective  in  2014  -  2020,  resulting  in  23  outputs.  Among  them,  the  7  calls  for 
proposals  on  social  experimentation  resulted  in  44  projects  amountig  to  EUR  57,7 
million. The remainder of the funding was used for dissemination and capacity building 
activities,  for  instance  to  develop  a  practical  guide  on  designing  and  implementing 
initiatives to develop social finance instruments and markets; awareness-raising activities 
on  work-life  balance,  active  inclusion  and  social  innovation;  or  direct  grants  to  the 
Council of Europe to build up capacity at the local level for the integration of Roma82. 
The  value  of  the  indicator  selected  to  measure  the  progress  in  achieving  this  objective 
increased  by  1  point  between  201783  (73%)  and  2020  (74%).  Qualitative  evidence84 
shows  that  most  social  experimentation  projects  were  effective  in  achieving  their  short 
and  medium-term  objectives, 
the 
beneficiaries’  needs,  test  social  innovations  at  small  scale,  raising  awareness  about  the 
social  experimentation  and  social  innovation  concepts,  and  facilitated  networking 
between social innovators and policymakers. The INOVA+ study85 estimates that 90% of 
the  finished  social  experimentation  projects  successfully  achieved  their  short  and 
medium-term  goals.  Qualitative  and  quantitative  evidence  presented  above86  as  well  as 
the information  collected through the online public consultation87, interviews and focus 
groups88 corroborate the short and medium-term effectiveness of the EaSI-funded social 
experimentation  projects.  Additional  secondary  analysis89  also  indicates  that  most 
projects  were  targeted  at  disadvantaged  groups  (for  instance  homeless,  unemployed, 
asylum seekers, people at risk of poverty or in situation of social exclusion). Moreover, a 
series of projects tested measures in relation to the principles of non-discrimination and 
of gender equality.  
As  regards  their  long-term  policy  impacts,  the  INOVA+  study  estimates  that  40% 
projects  struggle  to  mainstream/upscale  the    social  innovations,  but  only  3  projects 
finished their embedding process as of late 202190. Desk research carried out during the 
evaluation  supporting  study  corroborates  the  fact  that  the  limited  scaling  up  of  social 
experimentation  projects  was  one  of  the  flaws  of  the  EaSI  programme.  The  reasons  of 
this  limited  policy  mainstreaming  of  the  funded  social  experimentations  -  already 

innovative  solutions  relevant 

i.e.  develop 

to 

9 

of 

to  Regulation 

(EC)  No 1081/2006: 

80Social innovations were defined in the EaSI Regulation as innovations that are social both as to their ends and their means and in 
particular  those  which  relate  to  the  development  and  implementation  of  new  ideas  (on  products,  services  and  models)  that 
simultaneously  meet  social  needs  and  create  new  social  relationships  or  collaborations,  thereby  benefiting  society  and  boosting  its 
capacity  to  act.  Social  innovations  are  tested  through  project-based  social  experimentations  on  a  small  scale,  which  allows 
policymakers and other relevant actors to gather evidence on their feasibility. 
81Article 
the  ESF  Regulation.  Link 
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1304. 
82EaSI Performance Monitoring Report 2019 - 2020, pages 36 to 44. 
83This headline indicator was introduced in 2017, therefore data is not available for the previous years. 
84The EaSI ex post evaluation supporting study desk research and the case study on social innovation included in the annexes of the 
supporting study. 
85This study consists in an in-depth evaluation of the EaSI social experimentation projects carried by the consortium INOVA+ at the 
request of DG EMPL. Hereafter referred to as INOVA+ study, this document was published in 2022.  
86Additional examples of social experimentation projects are presented in Annex VI.3.1. 
87The social experimentation activities emerged from the online public consultation as being the most successful category of actions 
implemented through the PROGRESS axis (39 respondents agreed that EaSI was successful in this respect and only 4 disagreed).  
88The EC officials interviewed emphasised the positive engagement between stakeholders involved in social experimentation projects, 
while the EaSI Committee members who took part in the focus group highlighted the importance of this funding in covering a gap in 
available national funding for this type of projects (see details in the technical annexes of the supporting study). 
89Analysis of ‘Reports on projects and organisation’ (EaSI monitoring), but also of individual project reports and websites. 
90The INOVA+ study (p. 39) highlights however that the long-term policy impacts of the EaSI programme’s investments into social 
innovation are unclear because the embedding process takes time and because many projects are still ongoing. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

29 

 
 
identified  in  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  and  in  the  ESF+  impact  assessment  -  were 
confirmed by the INOVA+ study and the evaluation supporting study91. While there was 
a provision for scaling up to take place via the ESF (Article 9 of the ESF Regulation), in 
practice, the ESF Managing Authorities had limited awareness of the outputs of the EaSI 
programme92. Other factors include the lack of financial and human resources; the lack of 
knowledge  among  project  implementers  on  how  to  inform  the  policy  makers  and  to 
promote the scaling up once the project’s lifecycle ends; absence of robust evidence on 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  projects;  and  the  lack  of  commitment/interest  at  the 
policymakers’ level. It also appears that the lack of a reliable presentation of the projects’ 
quantitative/qualitative  impacts  and  appropriate  dissemination  campaigns  at  national 
level  decreased  the  chances  of  the  projects  to  receive  additional  funding.  This 
shortcoming  has  been  consistently  brought  up  in  discussions  during  the  events  funded 
under  EaSI  in  2014  -  202093.  The  EESC  report  found  as  well  that  local  and  national 
public authorities fail to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of EaSI-funded projects, 
even though the Commission has published evaluation reports.  
The above allows to conclude that the contribution of social experimentation projects to 
policy change or the modernisation of EU law was limited.  
To assess the efficiency of the social experimentation activities, the evaluation compares 
first  the  inputs  to  the  share  of  stakeholders  who  declared  that  the  Commission  was  an 
effective source of guidance and support for social policy innovations (Table 12). A total 
budget of EUR 89 million was spent to implement activities foreseen under this specific 
objective  while  an  amount  of  EUR  88  million  was  planned.  The  budget  spent  to  fund 
social innovation represents around 18% of the overall EaSI PROGRESS axis consumed 
budget of EUR 505 million. This percentage is within the targed of 15 - 20% which was 
the range originally defined in the legal basis94.  

Table 12. Monetary inputs for social experimentation compared with the share of stakeholders who see the 
Commission as an effective source of guidance and support for social policy innovations (2014 - 2020) 

91They show that despite the popularity of the EaSI social experimentation calls for proposals among stakeholders/social innovation 
implementers, the upscaling of their results and subsequently their  use for policymaking remain limited. INOVA+ study shows that 
despite the fact that the interest for this methodology is growing across EU Member States - being seen as a rigorous way to measure 
the impact of policy interventions before implementing them - with a few exceptions (e.g. France, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden), 
there are  many  factors  that  are  currently hindering the  development  and mainstreaming  of  the  social policy innovations in  the EU, 
mainly the lack of skills, resources, incentives or enabling cultures.  
92Notably interviews within DG EMPL and the case study on ‘Past and future synergies’ (see the supporting study annexes) and the 
INOVA+  study  findings.  While  aacknowledging  that  the  long-term  policy  impacts  of  EaSI  investments  into  social  innovation  are 
unclear because the embedding process takes time and many projects are still ongoing, the identified/analysed projects with potential 
for scaling up (see Table 51 in Annex VI.3.1) as well as the reasons of their limited scaling up. 
93At the 2021  EaSI  conference,  for  example, it  was  felt  that  the dissemination  of  results of  social  experimentation projects  and the 
replication, mainstreaming and/or scaling up of successful practices should be strengthened. Examples of how this could be done were 
the establishment of joint project databases, and more opportunities for networking between existing/prospective project partners and 
other stakeholders (e.g. through cooperative platforms and events). One respondent to the online survey launched within the EESC 
evaluation also  mentioned the difficulty  to  finance  the  continuity  or  follow-up of  EaSI  projects  once  they have  demonstrated their 
effectiveness. The respondent provided a concrete example, explaining that in France it was difficult to integrate the pursuit of the 
innovative projects into the ESF programme actions.  
94The Article 14(2) of the EaSI Regulation set initially a target of 15 - 20% of the PROGRESS axis budget to be allocated to social 
experimentation.  This  provision  was  removed  with  the  Omnibus  Regulation  amendment  (2018)  and  replaced  with  a  clause  that 
required a ‘significant share’ to be allocated to social innovation. 

30 

 
 
Years/ 
items 

Indicator value (%) 

Monetary input 
(EUR million) 
11 
13 
14 
- 
24 
15 
12 

Cost per project 
(EUR million) 
1.51 
1.73 
0.92 
- 
0.62 
1.49 
1.15 

Ratio (inputs/indicator 
value) 
- 
- 
- 
- 
0.328 
0.202 
0.162 

- 
- 
- 
- 
73% 
74% 
74% 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI monitoring reports and the supporting study. 
Note: There were no calls for proposals on social experimentation launched in 2017. The values for 2018 include both 
calls for proposals published this year.  
However,  the  inverse  correlation  between  the  inputs  and  the  values  registered  for  the 
headline indicator (established in 2018 and covering therefore only 2018 - 2020 period)95 
does not allow to draw a robust finding, therefore, the evaluation also analyses the trends 
in  costs  per  social  experimentation.  Figure  3  below  shows  that  the  average  cost  per 
project  fluctuated  over  the  years,  therefore  no  clear  trend  can  be  observed  in  this 
indicator.  The  average  cost  per  project  was  EUR  1.3  million  (EUR  57.7  million  total 
budget  consumed  divided  by  44  projects),  which  is  largely  above  the  average  cost  per 
project funded under the PROGRESS programme (EUR 450 000)96, but still lower than 
the average cost of EUR 2 million estimated in the EaSI ex ante evaluation97 as being the 
average critical mass to ensure the expected impacts. 

Figure 3. Cost per social experimentation project, 2014 - 2020 

Source: Supporting study based on data provided by DG EMPL.  
Note: There were no calls for proposal for social innovation in 2017. The values for 2018 include both calls for 
proposals launched this year. 
From  a  qualitative  perspective,  the  desk  research  shows  that  calls’  topics  were  well 
connected  to  the  Commission  policy  priorities/contextual  challenges.  Specifically,  the 
2014  and  2015  calls  focused  on  integrated  delivery  of  social  services,  the  2016  call 
reacted  to  the  challenges  of  the  European  migration  crisis  balance  strategies,  while  the 

95Do note that the related headline indicator was introduced in 2017, therefore data is not available for the previous years. 
96Between  2009  and  2013,  under  the  PROGRESS  programme,  around  EUR  20  million  were  allocated  to  carry  out  social 
experimentations resulting in 45 projects (the average cost per project funded was around EUR 450 000). 
97The EaSI ex ante evaluation (p. 60) estimated an average cost of USD 2 - 3 million per social experimentation project, based on an 
assessment of costs of such experiments in the United States. This estimate was based on a study from 1999, at which time USD 1 
was  equal  to  EUR  1.0046  (exchange  rate  as  at  30  December  1999;  source:  European  Central  Bank  data),  therefore  this  cost  was 
extrapolated  to  EUR  at  a  1:1  ratio  for  simplicity.  While  it  does  not  explain  why  the  estimated  price  was  effectuated  in  USD,  the 
evaluation support study assumes that this was due to a lack of evidence related to the social experimentation topic at that time at EU 
level. However, this estimate - extracted from a 1999 study which could not have foreseen possible costs in 2014 - 2020, therefore it 
cannot be considered as an appropriate/unique point of comparison for the ex post evaluation. 

31 

 
 
 
2018 - 2020 calls were designed in in accordance with the key priorities of the European 
Pillar of Social Rights98.  
All  these  quantitative  and  qualitative  elements  allow  to  conclude  that  the  social 
experimentation activities were moderately efficient. 

4.1.4 Greater capacity of national and EU organisations 

the 

implementation  of 

‘Youth  Guarantee’;  or 

In monetary terms, a total input of EUR 154 million was allocated to the implementation 
of  this  objective  in  2014  -  2020.  In  quantitative  terms,  a  total  of  96  outputs  related  to 
capacity building were produced. The largest share of the capacity building budget was 
allocated to fund the operational costs of key EU-level NGO networks (around EUR 90 
million).  A total of  23 recurrent  network-funding activities were  supported each year99. 
The remainder of the budget was used to support national administrations, social partners 
and civil society organisations capacity-building through calls for proposals on targeted 
topics,  notably  related  to  administrative  coordination  for  the  implementation  of  the 
‘Posting of Workers’ Directive; awareness raising, dissemination and outreach activities 
on 
the  Upskilling  Pathways 
Recommendation.  Other  support  actions  were  related  to  the  capacity  building  of 
microcredit providers under the EaSI Technical Assistance for microfinance and the EaSI 
Technical  Assistance  for  social  enterprise  finance  (analysed  in  Section  4.1.9,  being 
related to the specific objective 9). 
In  2020,  89%  of  stakeholders  reported  that  their  participation  in  EaSI-funded  capacity 
building  activities  improved  their  competence  to  further  develop,  promote  and  support 
the  implementation  of  EU  employment  and  social  policy  and  legislation.  This  value  
increased  by  1  percentage  point  compared  to  the  value  estimated  for  2014  (88%). 
Consultations carried out during this ex post evaluation (with EU-level  NGO networks, 
former  EaSI  Committee  members100,  online  public  consultation101  and  interviews  inside 
DG  EMPL102)  and  additional  qualitative  evidence103  corroborate  the  findings  above.  In 
particular,  the  networks  declared  that  the  EaSI  programme  boosted  their  capacity  to 
participate  in  and  influence  decision-making/policy  implementation;  however,  they 
believe that increased effort would have been needed to help operationalising EU policies 
at  national  level104.  The  case  study  ‘EaSI  contribution  to  policy  change’  provides 
additional  insights  into  the  way  EaSI  supported  the  capacity  building  of  this  specific 
target group. It shows notably that operational funding support over a long period (2014 - 
2020)  has  allowed  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  sufficient  time  to  become  visible  as  a 
source  of  expertise  for  national  policymakers  and  EU  institutions  by  developping 
evidence/comparative analysis that filled gaps at EU and national level. Additionally, the 
case  study  on  ‘EaSI  flexibility  to  adapt’  shows  that  all  funded  networks  successfully 
managed to pivot their activities online when necessary. The networks used the pandemic 

98The 2018 call focused on access to social protection and national reform support, the 2019 topic was the long-term care and the 2020 
focused on interventions targeting vulnerable situation. 
99See Section 3.1 and Annex VI.3.1 for more details. 
100One former EaSI Committee member who participated in the focus group highlighted notably that the EaSI-funded actions related 
to administrative cooperation on posting of workers created connections between different ministries representatives. 
101Thirty-six (36) respondents to the public consultation out of 72 agreed that their capacity to develop and promote EU instruments 
increased through EaSI support to stakeholders’ capacity building. 
102They acknowledged a better understanding - observed among stakeholders - of policies related to social enterprise finance, notably 
through the support of EU-level NGO networks in this sector (see more details in the supporting study ‘Technical annexes’). 
103There  are  indeed  many  examples  of  these  networks  having  contributed  to  policy  change/innovation  at  EU  level,  as  reported  in 
reports on projects and organisations funded by EaSI, notably in volume XII. The case study on ‘EaSI contribution to policymaking’ 
provides as well an overview of the examples. Annex VI.3.1 compiles relevant qualitative evidence on how the evidence produced by 
EaSI-supported EU-level NGO networks contributed to the development of specific policy outputs. 
104The EU-level NGO networks’ representatives who took part in the focus group believed that EaSI funding had helped increasing 
their visibility and, in many cases, enabled them to grow their memberships. They also declared that  EaSI funding had enabled them 
to have a greater impact on policies, especially at EU level. A few EU-level NGO networks’ representatives indicated however that 
their work was mostly devoted to engaging with EU issues, often at the expense of effort devoted to national. 

32 

 
 
as an opportunity to shine a spotlight on their focal issues and target groups, notably on 
the  need  to  improve  their  digital  skills.  Quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  presented 
above  allow  to  conclude  that  EaSI  was  effective  in  increasing  stakeholders’  capacity, 
notably of EU-level NGO networks that became visible both at national and EU level and 
increased their capacity to influence the policy debate.  
To assess  the efficiency  of the EaSI capacity-building  actions,  the evaluation  compares 
the annual  monetary inputs to  the declared effectiveness  of capacity-building  activities. 
Table 13 shows that the stakeholders opinions remained constant despite the fluctuations 
in amounts committed each year. One conclusion could be that EaSI offered an effective 
capacity-building support to the targeted stakeholders, matching their needs. This finding 
was confirmed by the EU-level NGO networks that took part in the focus group. They all 
agreed that the financial support from EaSI had enabled them to fulfil their goals105. The 
EaSI  stable  source  of  funding  allowed  them  to  expand  their  networks  and  to  better 
support their national members (through mutual learning and knowledge exchange), and 
ultimately  to  have  a  larger  impact  on  the  policy  landscape.  There  was  a  unanimous 
agreement among the participants  to this focus group that they would not have been able 
to do this without financial support from EaSI (which also signifies high EU added value, 
see Section 4.2).  

Table 13. Monetary inputs for capacity building compared with the share of stakeholders declaring an 
improved capacity to develop and promote EU social policies. 

Years/items 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 

Monetary input (EUR 
million) 
16 
19 
20 
18 
30 
29 
22 

Indicator value 
(%) 
88% 
84% 
84% 
88% 
88% 
88% 
89% 

Ratio  
(inputs/indicator) 
0.181 
0.226 
0.238 
0.205 
0.340 
0.329 
0.247 

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI monitoring reports and EaSI Stakeholder Surveys (2014 - 2020) 
The  focus  group  with  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  also  flagged  that  there  were  some 
inefficiencies  related  to  the  support  provided.  The  main  drawback  highlighted  was  the 
need to reapply every year (see discussion in Section 3.1) which generated a feeling of 
uncertainty among networks’ representatives as it could potentially limit the continuity of 
their work. The networks also noted some delays in the Commission response to yearly 
grant  applications  which  resulted  in  the  need  to  rearrange  or  postpone  some  foreseen 
activities. The reporting requirements were also considered by the networks consulted as 
being an administrative burden. The EESC report findings suggest as well that, overall, 
the  administrative  procedures  for  accessing  EaSI  resources  appear  complex  and 
bureaucratic  to  the  stakeholders  and  only  those  familiar  with  the  way  European 
mechanisms  work  can  readily  access  them.  Additionally,  the  networks  requested  an 
amendment to reduce the co-financing rate (20% in 2014 - 2020) because they struggled 
to  reach  the  necessary  cash  flow  during  the  pandemic.  While  it  was  not  possible  to 
implement  this  measure  for  the  2019  -  2020  period  -  taking  stock  of  the  pandemic 
challenges  -  the  Commission  foreseen  an  EU  contribution  of  90%  for  the  2021  -  2027 
selected operating grants. Stakeholders consulted in the EESC evaluation also  highlight 
the lack of a structured information on the opportunities offered by the EaSI programme, 
which  in  some  countries  are  familiar  only  to  European  experts  and  practitioners.  They 

105Seven (7) out of 10 networks participating in the focus group agreed to a large extent and 3 out of 10 to a certain extent. Similar 
results emerged from the online public consultation, where there was however a disagreement among networks as to whether the EaSI 
budget was sufficient: seven (7) believed it was too low, three (3) considered that it was sufficient, while 12 did not know (see the 
supporting study technical annexes). 

33 

 
 
believe  that  public  authorities  do  not  coordinate/promote  sufficiently  the  ways  of 
accessing  financial  resources,  including  as  regards  the  capacity  building  through  the 
technical assistance for microfinance and social entrepreneurship provided by EaSI. 
Findings related to the effectiveness of the capacity-building activities corroborated with 
the evidence presented above  suggest  that the EaSI  funding was  effective. By  covering 
the  networks’  operational  costs  and  enabling  them  to  hire  more  staff,  it  creates  a 
multiplier  effect,  allowing  them  to  expand  their  membership  and  to  implement  more 
ambitious work programmes. However, taking into account the weaknesses revealed by 
the evaluation (funding allocation based on reccurent/annual calls for proposals, delays in 
providing the results of the calls and heavy administrative tasks in application/reporting 
phases), the evaluation concludes that EaSI support to build national and EU stakeholders 
capacity was moderately efficient. 

4.1.5 Transparent labour market information and advice106 

In monetary terms, a total input of EUR 59,4 million was allocated to the implementation 
of  this  objective  in  2014  –  2020.  In  quantitative  terms,  a  total  of  18  outputs  related  to 
ensuring transparency of the labour market were produced with this funding. The value 
of the headline indicator decreased by 23% from 509 544 visits107 in 2014 (the point of 
comparison)  to  393  750  visits  in  2020  (Table  14).  This  downward  trend  could  be 
explained by the positive trajectory of the employment rates in EU since 2013 leading to 
a  declining  number  of  jobseekers.  It  was  also  affected  by  the  pandemic  disruption  in 
2019  -  2020108  with  border  closures,  and  therefore  with  very  limited  mobility 
opportunities  that  reduced  interest  and  subsequently  the  number  of  visits  to  the  Portal. 
Additionally,  changes  in  the  methodology  to  compute  the  number  of  visitors  affected 
values’s comparability across 2014 and 2020.  

Table 14. Monthly visits to EURES Portal, 2014–- 2020 

Year 

2014 
509 544 
2 251 748 
4.42 

2015 
1 162 007 
5 176 040 
4.45 

2016 
502 635 
4 208 096 
8.37 

2020 
393 750 
Monthly visits 
8 065 930 
Maintenance costs (EUR) 
20.48 
Costs per visit (EUR) 
Source:  DG  EMPL,  based  on  EaSI  updated baseline  report  (2021)  for  2015  - 2018, EaSI  monitoring  report  2019  - 
2020 for 2019 - 2020 and the evaluation supporting study/FINAP database for the Portal’s maintenance costs. 
While the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of jobeekers and employers in 2019 
-2020, this tendency was reversed by end-2020 (see Table 15) with 1 189 798 jobseekers 
registered on the EURES Portal (representing more than 6 times the value in 2015) and 
15 738 employers registered (representing 2,6 times the value in 2015).  

2018 
567 308 
6 613 584 
11.66 

2019 
434 638 
6 742 802 
15.51 

2017 
454 450 
3 720 214 
8.19 

2015 

Table 15. Number of jobseekers and employers registered on EURES Portal in 2015–- 2020 
2017 

2020 
Indicator 
1 189 798 
Jobseekers 
Employers 
15 738 
Source: DG EMPL based EaSI updated baseline report (2021) for the 2015 - 2016 data and EaSI monitoring report 
2019 - 2020 for the 2017 - 2020 data. 

250 000  
6 800 

295 836  
10 388 

190 000 
6 000 

293 169 
13 231 

566 045 
15 263 

2016 

2018 

2019 

106The EaSI ex ante evaluation pointed to limited transparency of job vacancies and limited support to match CVs with job offers. 
107Data on the number of visitors to the EURES Job Mobility Portal was collected by the European  Coordination Office and made 
publicly available in the EU Single Market Scoreboard reports. This headline indicator reflects the number of visits to the Portal by 
jobseekers and employers. Changes in the number of visits allow measuring the demand for information on labour mobility. Datasets 
are  however  not  completely  comparable  across  the  overall  EaSI  implementation  period  given  that  the  new  visitor  tracking  system 
installed in 2014 - 2015 experienced technical problems. Moreover, a change in 2017 in the web instrument and servers may also have 
led  to  distortions  in  the  data.  Given  the  data  robustness  limitation  faced  by  this  indicator,  the  evaluation  uses  a  complementary 
indicator reflecting the demand of jobs, i.e. the number of jobseekers and the number of employers registered on the EURES Portal.   
108Employment rate in the EU has been on a continuous positive trajectory since 2013, but it dropped down in 2020 notably due to the 
COVID-19  pandemic  (see  discussion  in  Section  4.4.1).  This  trend  is  also  confirmed  by  the  2019  and  2020  annual  editions  of 
Employment  and  Social  Developments  in  Europe  (ESDE)  (see  http://publications.europa.eu/publication/catalogue_number/KE-BD-
19-001-EN-N and http://publications.europa.eu/publication/catalogue_number/KE-BD-20-001-EN-N). 

34 

 
 
These numbers  only  catch a part of the EURES users;  in order to  use EURES services 
there is no need to register on the Portal, basic EURES services are freely available for 
self-service.  In  addition,  until  2019, not  many  participanting  countries were completely 
familiar with the provisions of the EURES Regulation (2016)109 related to the publication 
of  CVs  and  job  vacancies.  It  was  only  at  the  end  of  2019110  that  national  authorities 
started  substantially  transferring  CVs  and  job  vacancies  to  the  EURES  Portal,  which 
explains the important increase of jobseekers registered on the Portal. 
Additionally - as a support measure - a specific call for proposals was launched in 2019 
to  support  Member  States,  EURES  members  and  other  partners  to  establish  mapping 
tables allowing for matching job vacancies and CVs in the EURES Portal, and to increase 
the  usage/dissemination  of  the  European  Classification  of  Skills,  Competences, 
Qualifications  and  Occupations  (ESCO).  By  end-2020,  a  total  of  20  countries111  posted 
their  available  vacancies  on  the  Portal.  The  occupations  most  often  selected  by  the 
jobseekers were waiter, language teacher, hotel receptionist and administrative assistant. 
Only half of stakeholders consulted whitin the online public consultation believe that the 
EURES  Portal  increased  the  quantity  of  available  employment  opportunities112,  while 
those  consulted  within  the  EURES  Regulation  ex  post  evaluation  point  additionally  to 
some shortcomings, notably that the job vacancies and CVs were occasionally out-dated 
or  incomplete  (due  to  lack  of  mandatory  fields  in  the  Portal  and/or  to  incomplete 
information provided by jobseekers or employers). Quantitative and qualitative evidence 
presented  above  allow  to  conclude  that  the  EURES  Portal  was  moderately  effective  in 
improving the transparency of information on job vacancies given notably the downward 
trend in the visitors’ number as well the shortcomings highlighted by the users.  
To assess  the efficiency  of this  activity, the evaluation  draws on  the findings  related to 
the effectiveness and considers the changes in costs over time compared to the number of 
visitors  to  the  Portal.  When  looking  at  the  costs  associated  with  the  maintenance  and 
operation of the EURES Portal (see Table 14 on the previous page), it results that the cost 
per visit increased over time from EUR 4.42 EUR in 2014 to EUR 20.48 in 2020. Over 
the  same  period,  the  number  of  unique  visitors  to  the  Portal  decreased.  These  findings 
suggest  a  decrease  in  efficiency  of  the  EURES  Portal  over  time.  Evidence  from  the 
stakeholders’  consultations  also  confirmed  that  improvements  are  needed,  notably 
through a fully automatic matching function between vacancies and applications.  
Quantitative and qualitative aspects above allow to conclude that the EaSI support to the  
EURES  Portal  was  moderately  effective.  While  the  EURES  Portal  contributed  to 
increase  the  jobseekers,  employers  and  comuting  workers  access  to  job  vacancies  and 
CVs,  its  effectiveness  -  undermined  by  shortcomings  indicated  above  -  is  expected  to 
further  increase  once  the  fully  automated  matching  will  be  available113  and  all  national 
vacancies will be posted on the Portal. 

109https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.107.01.0001.01.ENG. 
110A  case  study  carried  out  within  the  EURES  Regulation  ex  post  evaluation  shows  that  some  national  coordinators  experienced 
delays in the of CVs and vacancies on the single coordinated channel to the EURES Portal launched in 2018 due to privacy and data 
protection issues or to the impact of COVID-19 on the national priorities of PES. 
111Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands, 
Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Sweden (Source: Single Market Scoreboard). 
112Thirty-six (36) respondents think that EaSI was effective in making information on labour market available and transparent, while 
31 were unable to answer and only 4 people disagreed.  
113EURES  participating  countries  were  due  to  complete  the  mapping  of  their  national  classifications  systems  to  the  ESCO 
classification by 7 August 2021 according to Article 19(3) of the EURES Regulation EURES Regulation ex post evaluation, page 37). 

35 

 
 
4.1.6 Effective provision of services for recruitment and placement114 

Both  cross-border  partnerships  and  mobility  schemes115  had  the  objective  of  filling  job 
vacancies  in  a  certain  sector,  occupation,  country,  group  of  countries  or  for  specific 
groups of workers (such as young people, with a propensity to be mobile), where a clear 
economic need has been identified. In monetary terms, EUR 106.2 million were allocated 
to the implementation of this objective in 2014 - 2020, of which EUR 88.2 million for the 
mobility schemes and EUR 18 million for the cross-border partnerships. In quantitative 
terms,  a  total  of  24  outputs  related  to  the  provision  of  services  for  recruitment  and 
placement were produced with this funding.  
From  its  point  of  comparison  of  947  480  in  2014,  the  number  of  individual  personal 
contacts of EURES advisers with jobseekers, job changers and employers made via the 
cross-border  partnerships  and  the  EURES  mobility  schemes  (the  headline  indicator) 
increased  to  3.5  million  in  2020,  and  even  more  significantly  between  2017  and  2020 
(Figure 4). This is due partially to the fact that reporting on the number of contacts via 
the EaSI performance monitoring system became mandatory after 2016 when the EURES 
Regulation116 entered into force.  

Figure 4. Total number of contacts of EURES advisers with jobseekers, job changers and employers. 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

3,5

3,5

2,55

1,2

0,95

0,87

1,26

4

3

2

1

0

2012

2014

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 (page 88), based on EURES Advisors monthly reports; EURES 
Performance Measurement System and Single Market Scoreboard. 
Results from the consultations point to a stakeholders’ satisfaction with the EaSI support 
through  these  activities117.  However,  the  EURES  Regulation  ex  post  evaluation 
concludes  that  EURES  is  not  visible  enough  among  labour  market  participants,  which 
reduces its effectiveness. 
Evidence  presented  above  allows  to  conclude  that  -  despite  the  increasing  number  of 
contacts between EURES advisers and the users - the services provided via the targeted 
mobility schemes and cross-border partnerships were moderately effective given notably 
their lack of visibility among employers.  

114The EaSI ex ante evaluation found that EURES needed to focus more on tangible outcomes and results in terms of outgoing and 
incoming placements and recruitment, for example by helping young people and employers to fill open bottleneck vacancies, in light 
of imbalances of EU labour markets which affected certain groups (e.g. young persons) more than others. It also identified a need to 
promote  partnerships  between  and  among  services  (public,  private  and  third  sector  employment  services),  education  and  training 
providers, NGOs, and welfare institutions. 
115Three main EURES target mobility schemes (Your First EURES Job, Reactivate, and Targeted Mobility Scheme) aim at reaching 
specific groups of jobseekers (aged 18 - 35 years or 35 and older) and at helping companies to fill vacancies in sectors with skills 
needs.  In  addition,  information,  placement,  and  recruitment  services  tailored  to  frontier  workers  and  employers  in  cross-border 
regions were implemented within the EURES cross-border partnerships. See complementary information in Annex VI.3.2. 
116https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2016.107.01.0001.01.ENG. 
117In the online public consultation, almost all respondents familiar with the EURES axis thought that EaSI had successfully supported 
the provision of EURES services for the recruitment and placement of workers. Nineteen (19) strongly agreed, 15 agreed and only 3 
disagreed.  Similarly,  in  the  focus  group  with  former  EaSI  Committee  members,  the  member  having  experience  with  the  EURES 
targeted mobility schemes estimated that 3 000 workers from his country found a job abroad due to the financial support provided by 
EaSI. 

36 

 
 
 
To  evaluate  the  efficiency  with  which  this  objective  was  achieved,  the  evaluation 
considers  the  cost  per  placement  facilitated  by  the  targeted  mobility  schemes  (focusing 
on the ‘Your first EURES job’ specifically) and compared it to the expectation. The EaSI 
ex  ante  evaluation  estimated  indeed  that  the  cost  per  placement  of  targeted  mobility 
schemes would be of approximately EUR 1 800.  
Do note that no similar estimate was outlined for the cross-border partnerships in the ex 
ante evaluation; the conclusion on the efficiency of the related outcome should thus be 
considered as partial. Table 16 below indicates that the cost per placement stayed roughly 
constant  over  time,  with  an  average  cost  per  placement  of  EUR  2  150  over  the  period 
2015  -  2018,  exceeding  the  target  of  EUR  1  800  estimated  by  the  EaSI  ex  ante 
evaluation.  This  result  reflects  slight  inefficiencies  in  the  schemes’  implementation, 
unless it had been underestimated in the ex ante evaluation.  

Table 16. Cost per placement ‘Your first EURES Job’ 

Items/years 

2015 - 2016 

2015 - 2017 

2015 - 2018 

5 463 939 
2 487 
2 197 

Cost (EUR) 
Number of placements  
Cost per placement (EUR) 
Source: Contractor based on ‘Your first EURES Job’ monitoring reports 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018.  
Note: The figures provided in columns represent cumulated values. 
The  findings  related  to  the  effectiveness  and  the  evidence  presented  above  allow  to 
conclude that the EaSI support to this specific objective was moderately efficient, being 
undermined  notably  by  the  lack  of  visibility  of  the  placements  services  among  the 
employers  and  by  the  cost  per  placement  (above  those  estimated  in  the  EaSI  ex  ante 
evaluation). 

 11 749 750 
5 465 
2 150 

8 756 355 
4 261 
2 055 

2015 
1 701 000 
810 
 2 100 

4.1.7 Better access to and availability of microfinance118   

To  measure  the  effectiveness  of  EaSI  and  EPMF  in  achieving  this  objective,  the 
evaluation  considers  the  budget  committed,  the  number  and  the  volume  of  microloans 
provided to the final beneficiaries, and the leverage effect created through the financial 
instruments119.  
In 2014 - 2020, a total amount of EUR 166,9 million was allocated from the EaSI budget 
to  improve  the  access  and  availability  of  microfinance  for  vulnerable  groups,  of  which 
EUR 91 million from the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, EUR 46,9 million from the EaSI 
Funded Instrument and EUR 29 million from the EaSI Capacity Building Instrument (see 
Table  2  in  Chapter  3).  The  EU  total  contribution  for  2010  -  2020  for  the  EPMF 
Guarantee Instrument and the EPMF Funded Instrument was EUR 103 million.  
The  number  of  microloans  provided  by  the  financial  intermediaries  to  the  final 
beneficiaries under EPMF was 60 435 in 2020 (Table 9 in Section 3.2.2). The EPMF ex 
ante evaluation estimated that the new programme will generate approximatively 45 000 
microloans  over  its  overall  implementation  period  (the  point  of  comparison);  therefore, 
this  target  was  exceeded  by  end  of  2020.  Accordingly,  the  volume  of  microloans 
provided through EPMF was EUR 516 million in 2020, exceeding the target of EUR 500 
million fixed in its ex ante evaluation.  
For  EaSI,  the  number  of  microloans  provided  was  97  271  in  2020  (Table  8  in  Section 
3.2.1). This value significantly exceeded the target of 50 000 microloans estimated by the 

118The EaSI ex ante evaluation pointed to a lack of access to finance as one of the major obstacles to the business creation. Therefore, 
building  on  the  positive  experience  of  the  predecessor  programme  EPMF,  EaSI  sought  to  increase  access  to  and  availability  of 
microfinance, notably for vulnerable persons. 
119The leverage effect represents the value of the microcredits disbursed for each EUR invested by the Commission, being calculated 
only with data from the Guarantee Instrument. The EaSI Funded Instrument was launched at the end of the 2019 and the uptake was 
slow in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore there were no significant data at the cut-off date of the evaluation. As regards 
the  Capacity  Building  Instrument,  it  didn’t  have  a  leverage  effect  as  the  loans  provided  to  the  financial  intermediaries  could  not 
finance their portfolio. 

37 

 
 
EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation  to  be  reached  by  the  end  of  the  programme,  especially 
considering that the EaSI financial instruments implementation period is still ongoing120. 
By  the  end  of  2020,  the  volume  of  microloans  provided  through  EaSI  was  EUR  1.3 
billion,  largely  exceeding  the  target  of  EUR  500  million  estimated  in  the  EaSI  ex  ante 
evaluation.  Moreover,  the  average  microloan  provided  under  EaSI  was  EUR 13 090 
compared  to  the  average  microloan  of  8  800  EUR  under  EPMF.  Feedbacks  from 
stakeholders’ consultations also suggest that the support provided under EaSI and EPMF 
helped  the  financial  intermediaries  to  reach  out  much  more  final  beneficiaries  than 
planned121.  
Evidence  presented  above  -  notably  the  significant  number  and  volume  of  microloans 
disbursed to the final beneficiaries compared to the targets fixed in the respective ex ante 
evaluations - allow to conclude that EPMF and EaSI effectiveness was high. 
To  evaluate  the  efficiency  of  the  EaSI  support,  the  evaluation  draws  on  the  findings 
related  to  effectiveness  of  the  financial  instruments  and  considers  the  leverage  effects 
created compared to the expectations in the respective ex ante evaluations. The amount 
of  EUR  103  million  -  representing  the  EC  contribution  to  EPMF  -  generated  a  total  of 
EUR  516  million  in  microcredits,  giving  a  leverage  effect  of  5122  (Table  9  in  Section 
3.2.2), thus reaching the maximum target set out in the EPMF ex ante evaluation), which 
indicates a high cost-effectiveness of EPMF. Similarly, the total investment of EUR 91 
million by the Commission in the EaSI Guarantee Instrument leveraged a total of EUR 
1.3  billion  in  microcredits,  thus  giving  a  leverage  effect  of  13.9  (Table  8  in  Section 
3.2.1). This is more than two times the leverage effect of 5 that was expected in the EaSI 
ex  ante  evaluation  to  be  reached  and  it  is  likely  to  continue  to  grow  given  that  the 
implementation  period  of  the  EaSI  financial  instruments  is  still  ongoing.  There  was  an 
increase in the number of countries covered as well, reaching a total of 27 by end of 2020 
under EaSI123, compared to 16 in 2013 through the EPMF124.  
Quantitative  evidence  provided  above  on  the  leverrage  effects  created  indicates  a  high 
cost-effectiveness  of  EaSI  and  EPMF  instruments  in  facilitating  a  better  access  and 
availability of microfinance at EU level.  

4.1.8 Better access to and availability of social finance   

To  measure  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme  in  achieving  this  objective,  the 
evaluation  considers  the  number  of  social  enterprises  financed  and  the  volume  of  the 
support provided under EaSI.  
A total amount of EUR 76,1 million was provided to enhance the access to finance for 
social enterprises, of which EUR 40 million from the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, EUR 
20,1  million  from  the  EaSI  Funded  Instrument  and  EUR  16  million  from  the  EaSI 
Capacity  Building  Instrument.  The  number  of  social  enterprises  financed  increased 
significantly over time, from 63 in 2016 to 3 337 at the end of 2020, while the amount of 
funding  provided  to  final  beneficiaries  in  2020  was  EUR  491  million,  with  a  single 
average  support  of  EUR  147  135  per  social  enterprise  (see  Table  8  in  Section  3.2.1). 

120See Annex II.5 and Annex VI.3.3. 
121For instance, all 37 respondents to the survey targeted at EaSI and EPMF financial intermediaries believed that the two programmes 
contributed to increase the lending to final beneficiaries.  From interviews within DG EMPL it results that these interventions were 
able  to  support  many  more  beneficiaries  than  initially  planned  and  that  there  was  much  more  demand  than  foreseen  initially  (see 
details in the supporting study technical annexes). 
122The leverage effect is calculated by dividing the volume of funding leveraged (EUR 516 million) by the investments made by the 
Commission (EUR 103 million).  
123Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  Albania,  Montenegro,  North 
Macedonia, Türkiye, and the United Kingdom (see Section 3.1 and Annex VI.3.3). 
124Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Lithuania,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom. Under EPMF, the total number of countries covered by the end of 2020 was 22. 

38 

 
 
Thus,  the  EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation  target  of  900  social  enterprises  corresponding  to  a 
volume  of  EUR  270  million  was  largely  exceeded.  Most  of  the  funding  went  to  social 
enterprises operating in the area of human health and social work activities.  
Regarding  the  geographical  distribution,  Figure  5  below  shows  that  among  the  17 
countries that benefitted from this new instrument, France, Italy and Spain were the main 
beneficiaries.  

Figure 5. Final recipients having received financing by 2020 under the EaSI Social Entrepreneurship Window 

Source: EIF semi-annual operational report 2020 
Evidence  from  the  case  study  on  ‘EaSI  social  entrepreneurship’125  shows  that  the  EaSI 
support  to  social  enterprises  was  perceived  by  stakeholders  as  being  effective.  For 
instance, financial intermediaries interviewed and/or who took part in the targeted survey 
quoted among the main effects an improvement of their institutional capacity, as well as 
a  wider  outreach  to  more  vulnerable  and  hard-to-reach  groups,  and  reduced  levels  of 
risks  for  the  financial  intermediairies.  The  social  enterprises  representatives  consulted 
whitin this case study confirmed that EaSI support facilitated their access to finance and 
subsequently  to  hire  more  staff  (particularly  from  vulnerable  groups)  and  ultimately  to 
develop  their  business.  At  the  same  time,  some  EaSI  Committee  members  who 
participated  in  the  focus  group  indicated  that  their  countries  could  not  use  the  social 
entrepreneurship support to its full potential because this area was not mature enough in 
their country. 
Quantitative  evidence  presented  above  allows  to  conclude  that  the  EaSI  programme 
contribution  in  increasing  access  to  and  availability  of  social  enterprise  finance  was 
highly effective. Indeed, the EaSI new support in this field grew constantly over time and 
the results largely exceeded the targets estimated in the EaSI ex ante evaluation both in 
terms  of  number  of  enterprises  supported  and  volume  of  loans.  While  the  number  of 
enterprises  supported  under  this  new  EaSI  activity  and  the  corresponding  volume  are 
relatively  limited  compared  to  the  EaSI  microfinance  branch,  it  does  signal  a 
constant/high grow over time. Qualitative evidence corroborates this finding, allowing to 
conclude additionally that - while participating countries were not able to benefit equally 
from the EaSI support - it however sparked the development of social economy markets 
in countries where they were previously underdeveloped.  
To assess the efficiency with which this objective was achieved, the evaluation considers 
the leverage effect created. Compared to the total EaSI investment of EUR 40 million in 
the  social  entrepreneurship  branch,  a  total  volume  of  EUR  491  million  was  leveraged 

125Available in the evaluation supporting study technical annexes. 

39 

 
 
under EaSI (see Table 8 in Section 3.2.1). This means that the leverage effect created by 
the EaSI support to social entrepreneurship was 12.3. Financial intermediaries consulted 
as part of the case study on ‘Social entrepreneurship’ pointed out that the administrative 
burden  associated  with  the  EaSI  support  to  social  entrepreneurship  was  minimal  (and 
lower  than  in  other  European  programmes,  for  instance  the  ESF),  being  significantly 
outweighed by the benefits126. The leverage effect of 12.3 - which is much higher than the 
targeted leverage effect of 3 expected for social enterprise finance at the time of the EaSI 
ex  ante  evaluation  -  signals  that  EaSI  was  highly  efficient  in  supporting  in  the  social 
entrepreneurship.  This  leverage  effect  should  continue  to  increase  as  loans  are  still 
disbursed (see Annex II.5).  

4.1.9 Institutional capacity building of microcredit providers127 

The support was provided to microcredit and social enterprises financial intermediairies 
through  the  Capacity  Building  Investment  Window  -  which  is  the  EaSI  third  financial 
instrument. EaSI also provided technical assistance to microenterprises and social finance 
under the PROGRESS axis. 
A total amount of EUR 45 million was allocated under EaSI to reinforce the microcredit 
providers  capacity,  of  which  EUR  29  million  in  the  microfinance  field  and  EUR  16 
million  in  social  entrepreneurship  sector.  The  target  indicated  in  the  EaSI  ex  ante 
evaluation  was  50  microcredit  providers  to  be  supported  by  the  end  of  the  investment 
period. Up to the end of 2020, 14 investments were signed with financial intermediaries 
under the EaSI Capacity Building Investments Window128.  
In  addition,  39  microcredit  providers  benefitted  from  tailored  Technical  Assistance  for 
microfinance  and  49  providers  received  assistance  to  implement  the  European  Code  of 
Good  Conduct  for  Microcredit  Provision129.  As  a pre-condition  for  benefitting  from  the 
EaSI  Microfinance  Guarantee  and  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  in  the  area  of 
microfinance,  non-bank  microcredit  providers  have  to  sign  up  to  the  above  mentioned 
Code and the banks have to endorse it130.  
The adhesion to the Code became a central element for microcredit providers to acquire 
recognition  and  attract  more  support  from  the  private  and  public  sector.  By  the  end  of 
2020, 52 microfinance institutions from 19 countries (16 Member States and 3 candidate 
countries) had been awarded certificates of compliance with the Code. In parallel, under 
the  EaSI  Technical  Assistance  for  social  enterprise  finance,  an  important  number  of 
workshops,  webinars, peer-to-peer trainings and  study visits were organised to  enhance 
the financial intermediaries’ capacity.  

126While  this  is  based  on  a  small  sample  of  financial  intermediaries  and  should  be  taken  only  as  an  indication,  it  corroborates  the 
efficiency of this instrument. 
127Experience with the predecessor instruments (EPMF and JASMINE) showed that the capacity of microfinance institutions needs to 
be further strengthened to improve the quality of services provided to final recipients. This, in turn, contributes to increasing access to 
finance  for  vulnerable  people  and  micro-enterprises  through,  for  instance,  better-qualified  staff  (loan  officers),  ability  to  hire  new 
people, and modernised internal working procedures (e.g. new IT system).  
128Financial  intermediaries  interviewed  for  the  case  study  on  ‘Social  entrepreneurship’  explained  that  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building 
Investments  Window  enabled  them  to  set  up  new  digital  information  systems,  as  well  as  approaches  to  assess  the  impact  of 
investments.  One  microcredit  provider  mentioned  that  the  support  received  allowed  to  develop  an  investment  programme  and  to 
improve the range of products proposed. New opportunities for small companies to set up a business, diversification of the existing 
portfolio, higher capacity and higher financing opportunities were also reported by the financial intermediaries consulted.  
129This ‘Code’ sets out good practice guidelines for microcredit providers and is expected to better enable sector organisations face the 
challenges  of  accessing  long-term  finance,  maintaining  and  raising  the  quality  of  services  and  moving  towards  sustainability.  The 
objective of the ‘Code’ is to detail a set of common standards for microcredit providers in the areas of customer and investor relations, 
governance, risk management, reporting standards and management information system.  
130Non-bank microcredit providers signing a guarantee agreement with the EIF have to comply with the Code after a grace period of 
18 months (36 months in the case of greenfield microfinance institutions). Greenfield microfinance institutions are designed to expand 
access  to  financial  services  for  the  low-income  market  in  underdeveloped  economies,  and  often  specifically  targeting  small  scale 
entrepreneurs, the business model is backed by foreign-owned holding companies or networks that provide initial capital, expertise, 
common branding, and standard policies and operating procedures. 

40 

 
 
The quantitative evidence presented above allows to conclude that the EaSI programme 
was  effective  in  building  microcredit  providers  capacity  as  the  expected  target  of  50 
microcredit  providers  was  largely  exceeded  (more  than  100  microcredit  providers 
benefitted from EU support in different ways).  
Qualitatively, feedbacks from the stakeholders - captured within this evaluation, but also 
during  the  EaSI  support  provision,  as  suggested  by  the  reported  increased  capacity  of 
financial  intermediaries131  -  corroborate  the  finding  above.  In  absence  of  additional 
quantitative  data,  it  was  not  possible  to  measure  directly  the  efficiency  of  the  support 
delivered  to  the  microcredit  providers.  Nevertheless,  quantitative  and  qualitative 
evidence  in  relation  to  the  effectiveness  and  data  presented  in  Sections  4.1.7  and  4.1.8 
(upward  trends  in  number  and  volume  of  loans  provided  as  well  as  higher  leverage 
effects  than  expected),  allow  to  conclude  that  EaSI  was  highly  efficient  in  building 
capacity of microcredit providers. 

4.1.10 General objectives effectiveness 

The  EaSI  Regulation  design  is  based  on  necessary  links  between  the  nine  specific 
objectives and five general objectives132.  
Stronger ownership of EU objectives 
The  first  general  objective  of  EaSI  was  to  strengthen  the  ownership  of  EU  objectives 
among  policymakers  at  all  levels  and  to  produce  concrete,  coordinated  and  innovative 
actions  in  close  collaboration  with  policymakers  as  well  as  other  stakeholders,  such  as 
civil  society  organisations  and  social  partners.  Improved  shared  understanding  and 
stronger  ownership  implied  the  timely  collection  and  analysis  of  relevant  and  accurate 
evidence (Section 4.1.1), the organisation of peer reviews, mutual learning activities and 
other  information-sharing  events  (Section  4.1.2),  as  well  as  enhanced  capacities  of 
national  and  EU  organisations  to  advocate  for  common  actions  and  to  support  policy 
implementation (Section 4.1.4).  
The  sections  mentioned  above  demonstrate  that  the  programme  was  effective  in 
producing high-quality comparative analytical knowledge and in building up the capacity 
of  national  and  EU  organisations,  but  moderately  effective  in  enabling  information-
sharing,  mutual  learning  and  dialogue.  These  findings  -  corroborated  by  the  increase 
(from 63% in 2014 to 79% in 2020) of the value of the headline indicator for the specific 
objective  1  (share  of  stakeholders  who  feel  familiar  with  the  main  issues  in  the  policy 
fields) - allow to conclude that the first general objective was effectively achieved.  
The  EESC  evaluation  corroborates  this  finding,  with  a  majority  of  respondents  (61%) 
believing that EaSI has strengthened the objectives and coordination of action at national 
and EU level in the areas of employment, social affairs and inclusion. In particular, 83% 
of  employers'  organisations  consider  that  EaSI  has  achieved  the  objectives  outlined 
above,  67%  of  representatives  of  associations  of  various  interests  consider  the 
programme results to be positive; however, fewer workers' organisations see it as having 
a positive impact (only 42%). Nevertheless, this effectiveness is hindered by the limited 
programme’s  visibility  among  stakeholders,  and  by  the  decreasing  satisfaction  of 
stakeholders  with  information-sharing  and  mutual  learning  events  (mainly  due  to  the 
2019 - 2020 pandemic context).   

131The  external  contractor  implementing  EaSI  technical  assistance  for  microfinance  and  for  social  enterprise  finance  measured 
participant satisfaction. The participants’ reported satisfaction rates  running from 73% to 94% (for the activities under the  technical 
assistance for microfinance) while the participants’ reported satisfaction rate runs from 62% up to 100% (for the activities under the 
technical assistance for social entrepreneurship). Source: supporting study (page 58), based on  Annex 4 of the “Frankfurt School of 
Finance & Management annual activity and monitoring report (2021; not public)”. 
132This implies that the activities implemented in relation to the specific objectives were expected to contribute to the achievement of 
the general objectives and ultimately of the global objectives (see Annex II.1.4). 

41 

 
 
Facilitation  of  policy  reforms,  convergence  and  capacities  for  social  innovation  and 
mutual learning 
The  second  general  objective  of  the  programme  was  to  support  the  development  of 
adequate,  accessible  and  efficient  social  protection  systems  and  labour  markets,  and 
facilitate policy reform in the target fields. To this end, EaSI supported activities that test 
social  and  employment  policy  innovations  on  the  ground  before  the  possible 
dissemination  and/or  scaling-up  of  the  most  successful,  including  via  the  ESF  (Section 
4.1.3).  
Moreover,  it  was  important  that  the  relevant  knowledge  and  expertise  gained  through 
social policy experimentation activities were available and easily accessible, so that the 
participating  countries  could  apply  the  new  policy  interventions  that  proved  to  be  the 
most  effective  as  widely  as  possible.  This  was  mainly  being  achieved  through 
information sharing and mutual learning, but also via dissemination of the relevant policy 
evidence supported by EaSI (Section 4.1.2). Achievement of this goal also depended on 
the capacities of the main actors to carry out social experimentations in order to develop 
innovative policy solutions (Section 4.1.4).  
The  sections  mentioned  above  show  that  EaSI  was  effective  in  building  stakeholders’ 
capacities,  but  less  effective  in  communicating  and  distributing  the  information  to  the 
stakeholders.  It  also  results  that  the  EaSI-funded  social  experimentation  activities  were 
effective in a short-term perspective, while their long-term effectiveness was hindered by 
the limited scaling-up of the projects and their use for the policymaking. 
A proportion of 62% of stakeholders declared in 2020 that they used or intended to use 
social  policy  innovations  developed  at  the  EU  level  for  policymaking  (the  headline 
indicator related to the second general objective). This value is equal to the comparison 
value of 62% registered in 2014. Qualitative evidence on the perceived efficiency of the 
EaSI-funded social experimentations was also considered in the evaluation.  
Evidence from the  INOVA+ study allows  indeed  to  establish a correlation between the 
scope of individual calls and the stakeholders’ perception of relevance. It appears that the 
perception  of  the  social  experimentations’  relevance  for  the  policymaking  was 
particularly high for the 2018 call focusing on the access to social protection and support 
to  national  reforms,  which  was  largely  dominated  by  public  organisations  as  main 
applicants.  
By contrast, under the broader 2014 and 2015 calls, as well as the 2016 call, the level of 
relevance for policymaking varied by project. It largely depended on whether the project 
provided  adequate  solutions  to  their  specific  needs;  for  example,  in  the  2014  call,  a 
project undertook an important effort to conduct the first pan-European needs’ survey of 
people with rare diseases.  
However, when asked to provide specific examples of social policy innovation developed 
at the EU level, the respondents to the EaSI Stakeholder Survey covering the 2019 - 2020 
period were not able to indicate such examples, even after they stated that they already 
used them (or intend to use them in the future). 
Additionally,  the  EESC  report  shows  that  a  share  of  54%  of  respondents  to  the  survey 
consider  that  information  and  communication  on  the  opportunities  offered  by  EaSI 
(including  related  to  social  innovation  and  social  experimentation)  was  poor,  21% 
consider information and communication systems to be adequate, 18% consider them to 
be good, and only 3% consider them to be very good. 
Evidence  from  Sections  4.1.1,  4.1.3  and  4.1.4  corroborated  to  the  elements  presented 
above allow to  conclude that the programme was  moderately effective in  achieving the 
second general objective, due notably to issues in the communicating and fructifying the 
results of the social experimentations by up scaling them. 

42 

 
Modernisation and effective application of EU law 
The third EaSI general objective was to ensure that Union law on matters relating to the 
target fields is effectively applied, and, where necessary, contributes to modernising the 
Union  law.  This  implied  improving  stakeholders’  administrative  capacity,  a  systematic 
discussion  between  public  authorities  across  the  EU,  supporting  networks  of  public 
authorities and NGOs, identifying and spreading of best practices, and offerying training 
programmes  for  public  administrations.  These  types  of  actions  were  funded  by  EaSI 
under  four  specific  objectives  related  to  producing  evidence  (Section  4.1.1),  sharing 
information (Section 4.1.2), testing social innovations at small scale (Section 4.1.3) and 
improving  stakeholders’  capacity  (Section  4.1.4).  As  already  indicated  above,  the 
programme was effective in building stakeholders’ capacity and in generating evidence, 
but  less  effective  in  promoting  social  experimentations’  upscaling  and  communicating 
information on the programme’s results.  
These  findings  are completed by qualitative information showing that  a range  of EaSI-
supported  outputs  were  instrumental  in  contributing  to  the  improvement  and  better 
application  of  EU  law133.  Evidence  from  Sections  4.1.1  to  4.1.4  corroborated  with  the 
information  presented  above  (and  detailed  in  Annex  VII)  allows  to  conclude  that  EaSI 
was  effective  in  achieving  this  general  objective;  nevertheless,  it  was  hindered  by  the 
insuficient communication of the programme’s results to the stakeholders. 
High quality and inclusive EU labour markets that are open and accessible to all 
The fourth EaSI general objective was to promote a high level of quality and sustainable 
employment throughout Europe. Free movement of workers is one of the four freedoms 
established in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in order to 
enable workers from Member States with a high level of unemployment to move to other 
states where there is a demand for jobs. However, individuals face a number of hurdles to 
free  movement.  These  can  range  from  legal  and  administrative  obstacles,  housing 
availability and costs, employment of spouses and partners, and portability of pensions to 
linguistic  barriers,  issues  on  transparency  of  job  vacancies,  or  lack  of  support  from  the 
Public Employment Services for matching CVs with job offers. 
This  EaSI  general  objective  benefitted  from  the  EURES  activities  aiming  at,  first,  to 
ensure transparent labour market information (Section 4.1.5) and, second, providing job-
matching  services  to  employers  and  jobseekers  (Section  4.1.6).  Evidence  provided  in 
Section  4.1.5  indicates  that  the  EURES  Portal  was  effective  in  increasing  the 
employment  opportunities.  Despite  the  downward  trend  in  monthly  visits  to  the  Portal 
(due to the pandemic context but also to the way the number of visits was counted across 
the  overall  period),  both  the  number  of  jobseekers  and  the  number  of  employers 
registered  on  the  Portal  increased  continously.  Moreover,  an  upward  trend  can  also  be 
observed  in  the  number  of  national  vacancies  shared  on  the  EURES  Portal  by  the 
participating  countries.  Additionally,  the  number  of  contacts  between  jobseekers  and 
EURES  advisers  registered  a  substantial  upward  trend  in  2014  -  2020,  indicating  the 
effectiveness of services for recruitment and placement (Section 4.1.6).  
However, Table 17 below shows that compared to the substantial increase of the number 
of  contacts,  the  number  of  placements  (the  headline  indicator  measuring  progress  in 
achieving the forth general objective)134 increased very slightly. Compared to the number 
of contacts,  the share of  placements  resulted  decreased by 2.3  percentage points  across 
the overall period.  

133Annex VII details the EaSI contribution in 2014 - 2020 to the modernisation of EU law. 
134Data on placements facilitated through the EURES Portal was only reported in aggregate, including those facilitated by the EURES 
Portal and those facilitated through personal contacts with EURES advisers staff. 

43 

 
 
Table 17. Number and share of placements facilitated by the EURES network 

Item 

2014 

2020 

31 056 
947 480 
3,3% 

36 154 
Total number of placements 
3 500 000 
Total number of contacts with jobseekers 
Share of placements resulting from all contacts 
1% 
Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI baseline report (updated 2018) and EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 (data from 
EURES Performance Measurement System). 
In  conclusion,  EaSI  was  moderately  effective  in  achieving  this  general  objective  given 
the large decrease of the share of placements resulting from all contacts between EURES 
network  advisers  and  jobseekers  despite  the  effectiveness  suggested  by  quantitative 
indicators  analysed  in  sections  4.1.5  and  4.1.6.  The  slight  increase  of  the  number  of 
placements  resulted  from  all  contacts  is  due  partially  to  the  fact  that  reporting  on  the 
number of contacts via the EaSI performance monitoring system became mandatory after 
2016 when the EURES Regulation entered into force. It is to be also noted that EURES 
activities  were  strongly  impacted  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  measures,  notably  the 
closure of borders, lockdowns and restricted travel.  
Increased access to finance for vulnerable persons, micro- and social enterprises 
The fifth general objective related to improving access to finance for vulnerable groups 
and micro/social enterprises. Boosting jobs, growth and investment remained among the 
main priorities of the European Commission in 2014 - 2020. Entrepreneurship and self-
employment  are  powerful  tools  in  increasing  the  number  of  jobs;  access  to  finance, 
however, remained one of the major problems faced by business starters across Europe, 
in particular those managed by vulnerable groups. 
Both EaSI and EPMF aimed to increase access to finance for vulnerable persons as well 
as  micro-  and  social  enterprises  through  provision  of  support  to  microcredit  providers 
(Section  4.1.7)  and  investors  in  social  enterprises  (Section  4.1.8)  in  the  form  of 
guarantees,  funded  instruments,  equity,  quasi-equity  as  well  as  support  for  capacity 
building of microcredit intermediaries (Section 4.1.9). Achievement of the fifth general 
objective  was  also  supported  by  activities  funded  under  the  PROGRESS  axis,  namely, 
policy  evidence  produced  in  the  areas  of  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship 
(Section 4.1.1), information sharing and mutual learning activities in the latter thematic 
areas  (Section  4.1.2)  as  well  as  support  for  the  main  actors  operating  in  the  field,  i.e. 
European  Microfinance  Network,  European  Venture  Philanthropy  Association  and  the 
Microfinance Centre and the technical assistance in the fields of microfinance and social 
entrepreneurship (Section 4.1.4). 
From  the  quantitative  evidence  analysed  in  Section  4.1.7  (number  and  volume  of 
microloans  provided,  and  leverage  effect  achived)  it  results  that  both  EPMF  and  EaSI 
were  highly  effective  in  making  available  microfinance.  EaSI  was  highly  effective  as 
well in the social entrepreneurship field, as shown by the upward trends in the number of 
entreprises supported, the volume of microloans and the leverage effect created (Section 
4.1.8).  Finally,  the  number  of  microcredit  providers  benefitting  from  capacity  building 
exceeded  the  target  fixed  in  the  EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation,  indicating  that  EaSI  was  also 
largely effective in building the capacities of this target group (Section 4.1.9).  
The  evaluation  considers  as  well  as  the  headline  indicator  (related  to  the  fifth  general 
objective)  measuring  the  proportion  of  beneficiaries  who  have  created  or  developed  a 
business  with  EaSI support  being  unemployed or belonging to  vulnerable groups.  Such 
groups  include  women,  unemployed  people,  those  with  no  or  only  primary  education, 
young and older people. The target indicated in the EaSI monitoring reports and the DG 
EMPL Annual Management Plan was that 50% of beneficiaries that developed a business 
with EU microfinance support should be unemployed or belonging to vulnerable groups. 

44 

 
 
This  target  was  to  be  reached  by  the  end  of  2020.  The  groups  mentionned  above  were 
monitored during the EaSI implementation  period in  order to  show the direction of the 
headline indicator (which was not directly measured). There is no similar target  for the 
support  provided  under  EPMF.  Experience  with  the  implementation  of  EPMF  provides 
however a point of comparison – nevertheless incomplete, as not all groups were equally 
monitored  between  2012  and  2020  -  for  the  implementation  of  microfinance  activities 
under EaSI.  
Table  18  below  shows  the  proportion  of  persons  belonging  to  different  groups  among 
EPMF beneficiaries in 2012 compared with the situation in 2015 (when  EaSI began its 
operational phase in this field) and the situation in 2020 (under EaSI). Some individuals 
were potentially counted in different groups (for instance a women can be included also 
in the young people category and in the unemployed category). 
Table 18. Vulnerable groups supported by the EaSI Microfinance Window (comparison between 2015 and 2020) 
No. 
1  Women 
2 
3 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Unemployed or inactive 135 
Long-term unemployed 
No or only primary education 
People aged 55 years and above 
People younger than 25 years 
Disabled 
Non-EU country as country as origin 

2012 (EPMF) 
39.27% 
31.89% 
- 
7.28% 
9.74% 
5.22% 
- 
- 

2015 (EaSI) 
36.50% 
58.00% 
28.1% (2018) 
18.90% 
10.30% 
6.00% 
1% (2016) 
11.9% (2018) 

2020 (EaSI) 
29.80% 
12.30% 
19.50% 
17.20% 
22.40% 
5.80% 
1.00% 
22.1% 

Groups monitored 

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI baseline report (updated 2018) and EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020. 
Note: The sum does not equate to 100% as there are some individuals which fall under several categories.  
Table 18 shows that in 2015 - 2020, the values of the indicators significantly shifted for 
two  of  the  monitored  groups,  i.e.  women  (it  went  down  from  36.5%  to  29,9%)  and 
unemployed  (it  went  down  from  58%  to  12.3%),  while  the  proportion  of  people  older 
than 55 doubled during the observed period of time. More than a third of the supported 
persons  in  2015  were  women;  nevertheless,  this  proportion  decreased  in  2020  by  6.7 
percentage points  and by almost  percentage 10  points  compared to  the  value registered 
under EPMF. Similarly, the proportion of long-term unemployed people decreased by 8.6 
percentage points between 2018 and 2020. A significant increase in support for persons 
from  non-EU  countries  can  be  observed,  while  there  is  no  change  in  the  proportion  of 
disabled people receiving support between 2016 and 2020. Microfinance being a means 
of  providing  financial  services  to  the  vulnerable  groups  based  on  market-driven  and 
commercial  approaches,  these  shifts  in  terms  of  end-recipients  reflects  the  changing 
context (i.e. decreasing unemployment rate136, demographic changes, influx of migrants, 
pandemic context) and thus the changing needs.  
Data  such  as  age,  gender,  employment  status  or  education  level  is  collected  only  for 
natural  persons  applying  for  EU  microfinance  funding.  This  results  in  an  incomplete 
picture since many applicants are legal persons (enterprises) and therefore the social data 
of their representatives were not collected. Similarly, for legal persons, only data on their 
employees is being collected and not that of the owner or legal representative. Therefore, 
these impact data - collected on a voluntary basis - are not fully representative.  
Sections 4.1.7 to 4.1.9 show that both EPMF and EaSI were higly effective in increasing 
the  availability  of  finance  for  microenterprises  and  social  enterprises,  as  well  as  the 
capacity  of  microfinance  providers.  Evidence  provided  above  indicates  however  a 
downward trend mainly in the support provided to women and enemployed, paired with 

135The definition of ‘unemployed or inactive’ encompasses final recipients that have been unemployed for less than a year. 
136See also discussion in Section 4.1.5 and Section 4.4.1. 

45 

 
 
an  upward  trend  in  the  support  to  seniors  and  people  from  third  countries  (due  to  the 
refugees’ crisis and increased flux of migrants).  EU general trends presented in Section 
4.4.2  shows  as  well  that  women  were  (and  still  are)  less  likely  than  men  to  be  self-
employed or to start a business. 
Given data limitations explained above and the fact that individuals monitored could fall 
under several categories, it is not possible to conclude mathematically on the reaching (or 
not)  of  the  target  fixed137.  In  conclusion,  EPMF  and  EaSI  were  -  despite  the  high 
effectiveness  suggested  by  quantitative  indicators  (Sections  4.1.7  to  4.19)  -  moderately 
effective  in  increasing  the  availability  of  microfinance  and  social  enterprises.  This 
finding takes into account the uncertainty in the evidence of whether the 50% target was 
reached, due to data limitations and potential overlaps. It also considers that a downward 
trend was observed in the support to women and unemployed paired with upward trends 
in the support to senior and people coming from third countries.  

4.1.11 Horizontal principles  

This section looks at how successful were the programme in achieving mainstreaming of 
its horizontal principles138. The case study ‘EaSI horizontal objectives’139 underscores that 
all  EaSI  Annual  Work  Programmes  duly  considered  them  when  describing  their  socio-
economic  context  and  trends.  It  also  indicates  that  stakeholders  considers  that  these 
horizontal principles were well addressed in their projects140. The analysis of reports on 
projects  and  organisations  funded  by  EaSI  carried  out  whitin  the  evaluation  supporting 
study  shows  furthermore  (Figure  6)  that  most  attention  was  paid  to  issues  related  to 
vulnerable groups, followed by gender equality, and the fight against poverty and social 
exclusion while less attention was paid to disability and accessibility matters.  

Figure 6. Extent to which horizontal objectives are addressed in a sample of projects in 2015 - 2020141 by axis 

Source: Supporting study, based on the analysis of EaSI reports on projects and organisations (2014 - 2020). 

137A percentage of 50% of beneficiaries that developed a business with EU microfinance support should be unemployed or belonging 
to vulnerable groups. 
138In pursuing these objectives, in all its axes and actions, EaSI also aimed to take into account the horizontal principles defined in 
Article 4(2) of the EaSI Regulation: pay particular attention to vulnerable groups, such as young people; promote equality between 
women  and  men;  combat  discrimination  based  on  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability  or  sexual  orientation; 
promote  a  high  level  of  quality  and  sustainable  employment,  guarantee  adequate  and  decent  social  protection,  combat  long-term 
unemployment  and  fight  against  poverty  and  social  exclusion.  Similar  horizontal  principles  are  incorporated  in  EPMF  general 
objectives defined in Article 2 of the EPMF Decision.  
139Included in the supporting study annexes. 
140A  few  quotations  are  presented  here  to  illustrate  this  finding.  For  instance,  the  representative  of  the  EURES  cross-border 
partnership in the border regions of Belgium, Germany and Netherlands said the following: “These issues are of course part  of our 
‘normal work” (Final Activity Report, 2015, p. 10). Similarly, a beneficiaries’ survey respondent (carried out whitin the  evaluation 
supporting  study  research)  commented  that:  “Combating  social  exclusion  and  discrimination  along  with  gender  equality  and  equal 
opportunities is a core business of trade unions, so it is just about applying our mainstream values and policies to any action.”  
141These are the 76 projects covered in Volumes X and XII of the reports on projects and organisations funded by EaSI (PPMI), 2019 

46 

 
 
 
Evidence collected through the survey with the EaSI beneficiaries and the online public 
consultation  shows  similar  results142.  Moreover,  the  EaSI  Stakeholders’  Survey  results 
confirm that the ‘disability and accessibility’ matters were the least mainstreamed across 
EaSI activities (Table 19). It however indicates an important progression for all items in 
stakeholders’  opinion  compared  with  2014  (the  point  of  comparison),  mainly  on 
‘disability  and  accessibility’  matters  (24  percentage  points)  and  ‘combating  long-term 
unemployment’ (14 percentage points).  
However,  most  respondents  to  the  EESC  survey  consider  the  EaSI  programme  to  be 
moderately  effective  in  adressing  its  horizontal  principles;  one  third  of  respondents 
believe that EaSI was very effective in paying attention to the most vulnerable sections of 
society;  36%  considered  its  promotion  of  gender  equality  to  be  moderately  effective; 
30%  considered  EaSI  to  be  not  at  all  effective  in  tackling  discrimination;  and  33% 
considered  it  to  be  not  at  all  effective  in  addressing  either  poverty  or  long-term 
unemployment. 

Table 19. Share of stakeholders stating that EaSI contributed to the horizontal principles mainstreaming 

Principle 

2020 
80% 
79% 
77% 
71% 
73% 
67% 
71% 
71% 

2014 
79% 
78% 
76% 
65% 
62% 
60% 
57% 
47% 

Increase 
1 
1 
1 
6 
11 
7 
14 
24 

Paying attention to vulnerable groups 
Promoting equality between women and men 
Combating discrimination 
Promoting high-quality and sustainable work 
Guaranteeing adequate social protection 
Fighting aginst poverty and social exclusion 
Combating long-term unemployment 
Considering disability and accessibility matters 

No. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI baseline report (2014) and EaSI monitoring report (2019 - 2020). 
Note: The sum does not equate to 100% as there are several activities which fall under several categories.  
The  evaluation  assessed  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  EaSI  horizontal  principles  by 
comparing  the  total  cost  of  actions  related  to  each  horizontal  objective  and  to  the 
stakeholders’  opinion.  Thus,  Figure  7143  below  suggests  that  the  horizontal  principles 
related  to  ‘disability  and  accessibility’,  ‘equality  between  women  and  men’  and  ‘non-
discrimination’ were the most cost-effective, while the ‘fight against poverty and social 
exclusion’  appears  to  have  been  the  least  cost-effective,  with  less  than  70%  of 
stakeholders indicating moderate or high integration and a cost of over EUR 450 million. 
It  is  followed  by  issues  related  to  ‘vulnerable  people’,  ‘combating  unemployment’  and 
‘ensuring sustainable employment’.  
Evidence presented above allows to conclude that EaSI  was effective in  mainstreaming 
the  horizontal  principles,  values  for  2020  showing  notably  an  upward  trend  for  all  of 
them compared to 2014. Emphasis was placed on the cross-cutting issues more directly 
aligned  with  the  EaSI  objectives  such  as  ‘paying  attention  to  vulnerable  groups’; 
‘guaranteeing  adequate  and  decent  social  protection’;  and  ‘promoting  a  high  level  of 
quality  and sustainable employment’. Different  sources  of evidence  corroborated above 
also indicate however that ‘disability and accessibility’ matters were addressed to a more 
limited extent through EaSI-funded actions,  but  their integration improved significantly 
between 2014 and 2020. At the same time, they are also among the most cost-effective 
actions,  together  with  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  and  of  the  actions  against 
discriminations. 

142See Figure 27 and Figure 28 in Annex VI.5. 
143In Figure 7, the blue bars represent the share of stakeholders that indicated moderate or high integration of the relevant objective 
(left  axis),  and  the  green  squares  refer  to  the  total  costs  (right  axis).  Do  note  that  one  action  can  be  aimed  at  multiple  horizontal 
objectives, therefore actions can be counted multiple times and costs can be biased upwards.  

47 

 
 
 
Figure 7. Cost-effectiveness of the horizontal objectives

Source: Supporting study, based on data from the EaSI monitoring reports. 

Similar  horizontal  principles  were  incorporated  in  the  EPMF  general  objectives.  From 
the  online  public  consultation,  it  emerged  that  the  EPMF  programme  had  broadened 
existing  action  at  EU  level  by  supporting  people  that  would  not  have  received  support 
otherwise144,  while  EaSI  microfinance  branch  continued  and  expanded  this  support 
(Section 4.1.7). Indeed microfinance traditionally targets social groups that are at risk of 
financial exclusion, including long-term unemployed, but also women, youth, migrants, 
disabled persons and seniors.  

4.1.12 Monetary and non-monetary efficiency 

This section examines the programmes’ efficiency in monetary and non-monetary terms, 
by analysing first the budgetary execution, and focusing then on the administrative and 
governance costs.  
Budgetary execution 
Table 20 presents an overview of the total commitments145 made over the whole period of 
the programme per axis146. Table 20. EaSI total commitments per axis in 2014 - 2020 (EUR) 

EURES 
PROGRESS 
21 439 000.00 
65 278 249.91 
23 024 481.86 
71 836 540.60 
22 865 150.32 
71 500 435.22 
25 128 868.00 
65 315 596.64 
30 459 785.85 
71 415 291.66 
33 755 332.72 
80 728 270.45 
79 172 352.10 
23 001 378.12 
505 246 736.58  179 673 996.87 

Year 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
Total 
Share per axis 
20 % 
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020147 
When looking at each axis separately, the highest share of funding was dedicated to the 
PROGRESS  axis  which  consumed  56%  of  the  budget.  It  can  be  observed  that  the 
commitments  made  to  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  came  to  almost  22%, 

EaSI administrative 
3 549 908.34 
3 537 533.76 
3 621 471.00 
3 454 699.44 
2 504 071.00 
1 510 040.88 
1 805 425.00 
19 983 149.42 
2 % 

Overall 
118 767 358.25 
129 826 126.22 
125 731 126.86 
137 396 548.08 
131 735 411.51 
136 837 370.05 
118 234 084.22 
898 528 025.19 
100 % 

MF/SE 
28 500 200.00 
31 427 570.00 
27 744 070.32 
43 497 384.00 
27 356 263.00 
20 843 726.00 
14 254 929.00 
193 624 142.32 
22 % 

56 % 

144Twenty-three (23) respondents to the online public consultation out of 52 agreed with this statement that the while 24 respondents 
out of 52 admitted that the EPMF increased access and availability of microfinance for vulnerable groups. 
145The budget foreseen for the implementation of EaSI (EUR 919 million) was divided following minimum shares allocated to each of 
the three axes: 55% to PROGRESS, 18% to EURES and 18% to Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship (Regulation 2018/1046). The 
Regulation  2018/1046  (hereafter  ‘The  Omnibus  Regulation’)  softened  the  allocation  foreseen  in  the  EaSI  original  legal  basis  and 
stated that they should be treated as indicative and not binding. Table 39 (Annex VI.2) compares the allocations originally defined 
with those defined by the Omnibus Regulation. 
146Tables  40  -  46  included  in  Annex  VI.2  show  the  financial  implementation  of  the  programme  in  terms  of  planned  and  actual 
commitments per axis for each year.  
147https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8501&furtherPubs=yes  

48 

 
 
 
while around 20% of the total budget was disbursed to the EURES axis. In addition, 2% 
were  allocated  to  finance  the  operational  expenditure  to  support  the  implementation  of 
the  programme.Table  21  below  compares  each  axis’  planned/implemented  monetary 
inputs  and  shows  corresponding  performance  (execution  rate,  share  actual/planned 
commitments compared with the minimum thresholds148). The actual commitments over 
the whole period of the programme amount to EUR 898 million, which represents 98% 
of the planned commitments (execution rate). The execution rate stayed high throughout 
the duration of the programme, varying from 96% to 99% over the years149. Compared to 
the two other axes, PROGRESS axis did not commit all the plannned funding (execution 
rate  98,1%),  which  resulted  in  unused  funding  that  was  returned  to  the  EU  budget 
(around EUR 10 million). This was notably due to the cancellation of a number of studies 
or  events  that  became  ‘unnecessary’  in  the  light  of  socio-economic  developments;  for 
instance events cancelled or converted in online format due to COVID-19 pandemic. 

Table 21. Overview of monetary inputs per EaSI axis (2014 - 2020) 

Axis 

Planned  
commitments 
(EUR) 

 Actual 
commitments 
(implemented) 
(EUR) 

Execution rate 
(implemented/ 
planned) 

Share of actual 
commitments in the 
total commitments  

Minimum 
budget shares 
targeted150 

55% 
18% 
18% 
2% 
- 

98,1% 
99,5% 
99,9% 
75,4% 
98,1% 

56,23% 
19,99% 
21,54% 
2% 
99,76% 

505 246 736,58 
179 673 996,87  
193 624 142,32  
19 983 149,42 
898 528 025,19 

515 026 509,00 
180 544 938,00  
193 798 278,00  
26 497 494,00  
915 867 219,00 

PROGRESS 
EURES 
MF/SE 
Support EaSI 
Total 
Source: DG EMPL, based on the EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 
To cope with this type of situation and to facilitate budgetary flexibility, the EaSI legal 
basis foresaw the possibility to adjust the available funds across the axes depending on 
‘specific’ needs (Article 33)151. Confirming the EaSI mid-term evaluation finding in this 
respect,  the  evidence  collected  (desk  research,  stakeholders’  feedbacks)  during  the 
current evaluation indicates that there was no significant need for reallocation across the 
axes.  Some  stakeholders  raised  however  the  need  for  more  funding  to  allow  social 
experimentations  to  achieve  wider  impacts  via  their  upscaling/transferring  to  other 
contexts,  to  facilitate  the  social  enterprises  growth  as  well  as  to  adress  the  emerging 
social, environmental and digital challenges152.  
Evidence  presented  in  Sections  4.1.1  to  4.1.9  corroborated  with  those  presented  above 
indicates that aside a larger demand than foreseen for the EaSI microfinance branch (see 
Section  3.2.1),  the  budgets  planned  for  the  remaining  programme’s  activities  were 
appropriate.  Indeed,  the  high  uptake  of  the  EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument  under  the  third 
axis put pressure on its budget and resulted in a full utilisation of the EaSI microfinance 
branch budget by 2016. In response to this strong demand, the total financial envelope of 

148An overview of the planned budget and the actual commitments per axis for each year in 2014 - 2020 is included in Annex VI.2 
(Tables 40 - 46). 
149Financial  data provided  in these tables  must be  interpreted  considering that  2014  was  the  first year of implementation  and  some 
activities planned under the EaSI third axis were postponed to subsequent years (after the signature of the agreement with the EIF). 
150As amended by the Omnibus Regulation.  
151Based  mainly  on  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  findings  related  to  this  issue,  the  Omnibus  Regulation  (2018)  introduced 
amendments  to  the  EaSI  Regulation  to  make  the  budget  even  more  flexible  (see  Section  3.2).  A  consequence  was  that  Article  33 
became obsolete, and so was deleted from the legal basis. Evidence collected within the current evaluation confirm that in practice the 
flexibility clause (Article 33) was underexploited. DG EMPL officials involved in the EaSI programme implementation explained that 
while re-allocation of funds was in theory possible through specific amendments to the budget, this rarely happened  given the huge 
administrative burden generated. 
152Fifty-six (56) respondents out of 97 do not know if the EaSI budget was sufficient to achieve its objectives, 20 considered that it 
was insufficient, 19 thought that it was sufficient and even 2 respondents felt that it was too high. Some of them commented that EaSI 
should have funded more projects given the large number of grant applications received for the calls of proposals. Other respondents 
pointed to the wide gap between the supply of financial products to microfinance providers and the (growing) market needs, notably 
to support the growth of social enterprises. Furthermore, other respondents believed that there was a need for more funding to truly 
mitigate  the  social,  environmental,  and  digital  challenges  across  Europe.  Finally,  some  respondents  indicated  that  the  support 
allocated to social innovation was too low to achieve their expected impact.  

49 

 
 
in 

the  prevention  and 

timely  detection  of  frauds/malfunctioning 

EUR 193 million allocated from EaSI was toped-up with a European Fund for Strategic 
Investments  (EFSI)153  guarantee  amounting  to  EUR  300  million  to  the  EaSI  Guarantee 
Instrument  in  the  second  implementation  period.  The  EaSI  third  axis  budget  was  also 
topped up with an additional contribution from repayments from the EPMF154 amounting 
to EUR 69 million. 
The evaluation also examines how the EU anti-fraud system and internal/external audit155 
allowed 
the 
implementation of EaSI and EPMF. Information collected indicates that the mechanisms 
established  at  the  level  of  the  financial  and  audit  units  were  effective  in  managing  the 
risks of fraud/malfunction under EaSI156. Similarly, no evidence of fraud was identified in 
relation to EPMF, participants to the focus group with the EIF representatives confirming 
that  any  fraudulent  activity  was  registered  under  the  EPMF.  They  also  indicated  that 
checks  were  consistently  carried  out  to  ensure  compliance  with  contractual  obligations 
and noted improvements in the implementation scrutiny moving from EPMF to EaSI. 
Evidence  provided  above  suggests  that  funding  was  apropriately  allocated  among  the 
three axes and met the stakeholders’ needs,  notably as regards the high  demand for the 
EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument  products  detected  in  the  first  implementation  period. 
Nevertless,  more  funding  would  be  needed  notably  in  the  social  innovation  field,  to 
support the social enterprises development as well as to adress the social, environmental 
and digital challenges. 
EaSI administrative costs 
This  section  focuses  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  EaSI  administrative  costs.  They 
included  costs  incurred  with  the  EaSI  Committee  organisation,  EaSI  performance 
monitoring and evaluation, as well as with services required for the administration of the 
programme, such as the development or maintainance of IT applications as well as other 
outsourced  services  (technical  assistance,  audit,  translations,  meetings  of  experts, 
the  planned  and  actual 
information/communication  activities).  Table  22  shows 
administrative costs for the whole period 2014 - 2020 .  

Table 22. Planned and actual commitments for EaSI administrative costs in 2014 - 2020 

Year/costs 
(EUR) 

Planned 
(EUR) 

Actual 
(EUR) 

Share in the total 
commitments 

Execution 
rate 

2014  
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 

3 914 000,00 
4 426 420,00 
4 857 074,00 
4 000 000,00 
3 400 000,00 
3 400 000,00 
2 500 000,00 

3 549 908,34 
3 537 533,76 
3 621 471,00 
3 454 699,44 
2 504 071,00 
1 510 040,88 
1 805 425,00 

3% 
3% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
1% 
2% 

96% 
80% 
75% 
86% 
74% 
44% 
72% 

Estimated 
administrative 
expenses (EUR)157 
4 400 000 
4 600 000 
5 000 000 
5 000 000 
5 200 000 
5 200 000 
5 000 000 

153https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/investment-plan/strategic-investments-fund/ 
154As per Article 30(4) of the EaSI Regulation. 
155From  the  review  of  the  DG  EMPL  annual  activity  reports  for  2014  –  2020  (effectuated  by  the  supporting  study  contractor),  it 
results  that  there  was  a  common  audit  strategy  used  by  DG  EMPL,  DG  REGIO  and  DG  MARE.  This  common  strategy  was 
accompanied  by  a  single  audit  plan  including  joint  audit  missions.  Common  IT  tools  have  also  been  developed:  MAPAR,  which 
allows auditors to manage their audit missions from the preparation to the final report; and ARACHNE, a risk scoring tool to be used 
by  both  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  identify  the  riskiest  projects,  and  to  strengthen  fraud  prevention  and  detection. 
Following the adoption of the new Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy in 2019, DG EMPL also reviewed its procedures and issued a 
new manual of procedures regarding relations with OLAF and the fight against fraud. 
156A review of DG EMPL annual reports 2014 - 2020 (effectuated by the supporting study contractor) showed as well that fraud or 
malfunctioning cases were rare for most EMPL programmes, and none related to EaSI activities were identified. A review of OLAF 
annual reports for the period 2014 - 2020 also did not provide evidence of any EaSI-related fraud. OLAF does not list all cases but 
highlights those that are illustrative of a particular type of fraud that tends to be common. EaSI programme was not mentioned in any 
of these OLAF reports. 
157As referred in the Proposal for PSCI/EaSI (2011). 

50 

 
 
2% 

75,4% 

34 600 000 

19 983 149,42  

26 497 494,00  

Total 
Source: DG EMPL, based on the EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 and the Proposal for PSCI/EaSI (2011). 
The budget spent for administrative support was relatively constant every year, and even 
decreased  towards  the  end  of  the  programme  period,  following  in  particular  the 
decreasing  trend  in  budgets  devoted  to  the  development  of  DG  EMPL  internal  IT 
applications  (DEFIS  for  evaluation  and  FINAP  for  programming,  both  arriving  at  their 
‘maturity’ in 2018). The decrease observed in 2018  - 2020 can be explained mainly by 
the IT investment typical decreasing lifecycle158, but also by the COVID-19 effects (for 
instance  meetings  being  cancelled  and/or  re-organised  online  with  less  costs).  The  fact 
that  DG  EMPL  anticipated  the  use  of  corporate  applications  for  projects’  management 
(eGrants)  and    programming  (MAPP159)    in  the  next  programming  period  also  explains 
why new developments were stopped by the end of the implementation period. 
Figure 8. Costs of control for direct and indirect management incurred by DG EMPL as a share of total funds 
managed through direct and indirect management (not only EaSI) 

Source: Supporting study, based on DG EMPL Annual Activity Reports 2014-2020 (aggregate for direct and indirect 
management for DG EMPL as a whole)  
The EaSI administrative costs incurred were also largely inferior to what was estimated 
to be spent at the time of the Proposal for PSCI/EaSI160 under the ‘administrative costs’ 
heading (see the last column of the Table 22 above). While this estimate could indicate a 
high  degree  of  cost-effectiveness  of  EaSI  administrative  costs,  it  should  however  be 
considered  with  caution  given  that  no  calculation  methodology  was  provided  in  the 
proposal document. When comparing the trend in the EaSI administrative costs with the 
trend  in  the  DG  EMPL  overall  costs  of  control161  (including  both  direct  and  indirect 
management), it can be observed that both followed the same trajectory. While they were 
high  in  2014  (associated  with  the  start  of  the  new  financial/programming  period),  they 
followed a slightly downward trend over the 2014 - 2020 period (see Figure 8 above).    
The evidence presented above allows to conclude that the budget devoted to EaSI general 
administration was efficiently planned and spent, pursuing a decreasing trend (similar to 
the DG EMPL administrative costs downward trend) and being lower than the estimated 
costs before the programme’s starting.  
Programmes’ governance 
This  section  places  the  focus  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  activities  related  to  the 
programme governance stricto sensu, namely the planning and organisation of the EaSI 

158Also,  it  should  be  considered  that  less  investment  was  made  in  DEFIS  (the  DG  EMPL  tool  for  submission  and  evaluation  of 
proposals)  development  in  the  perspective  of  its  replacement  in  the  current  programming  period  with  the  corporate  application 
eGrants. FINAP, still functional, will be also replaced in the coming years with a Commission corporate application (MAPP). 
159Corporate MAPP (Multi-Annual Programming and Planning). 
160The  initial  name  of  the  programme  -  ‘Programme  for  Social  Change  and  Innovation  (PSCI’)  -  was  renamed  ‘Programme  for 
Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)’ in 2014. 
161Costs  of  control  include  financial  management;  budget  and  accounting;  external  audit;  coordination  (e.g.,  strategic  planning  and 
programming,  internal  control);  anti-fraud;  programme  management;  and  Information  and  Communication  Technology  (ICT).  The 
estimates  are  calculated  based  on  the  time  dedicated  by  staff  members  to  the  functions/activities  which  is  translated  into  costs  by 
using  the  annual  average  cost  of  staff,  complemented  with  the  external  costs  incurred  by  the  Commission  for  the  same 
functions/activities (e.g., outsourced audit, ICT, etc.). 

51 

 
  
 
Committee  meetings,  and  the  EaSI  monitoring  and  evaluation  activities,  both  from  a 
monetary  and  a  non-monetary  perspective.  In  monetary  terms,  Table  23  shows  the 
evolution  in  the  related  costs  over  the  2014  -  2020  period.  EaSI  Committee  meetings 
costed on average EUR 59 888 per year. When considering the average cost per meeting, 
costs reduced significantly after 2016, as shown in the table below, signalling improved 
efficiency162. At the same time, the costs in 2019 and 2020 were drastically reduced, since 
meetings took place online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  
EaSI  benefitted  from  a  performance  measurement  framework,  with  regular  monitoring 
and  evaluation  of  programme  implementation.  It  involved  a  set  of  42  performance 
indicators (one headline and two complementary for each of the nine specific objective, 
five  general  objectives  and  the  horizontal  principles),  a  methodology  for  gathering 
information  (based  on  a  bi-annual  EaSI  Stakeholders’  Survey  and  specific  monitoring 
systems  for  the  EURES  and  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axes)  and  a 
methodology for analysing information about EaSI-funded projects and organisations.  
A baseline report was drafted in 2014; the values of the performance indicators estimated 
in  2014  -  based  on  data  from  the  monitoring  of  the  three  previous  programmes 
(PROGRESS,  EURES  and  EPMF)  -  were  considered  as  the  baseline  for  EaSI.  Three 
updates of the baseline situation were effectuated in 2016, 2018 and 2021. 

Table 23. Allocation and evolution in EaSI programme management costs in 2014 - 2020 (EUR) 
2016 

Costs (EUR) 

2018 

2014 

2015 

2017 

2019 

2020 

EaSI 
meetings163 
(average 
meeting) 

Committee 

cost 

per 

99 452 
(33 151) 

76 775 
(38 388) 

81 018 
(40 509) 

56 542 
(14 136) 

419 215 

47 113 
(15 704) 

22 206 
(7 402) 

36 109 
(18 055) 

monitoring 

EaSI 
contracts 
(average 
deliverable) 

EaSI 
contracts 

cost 

per 

361 000 
(60 166) 

376 000 
(62 666) 

715 500 
(51 071) 

evaluation 

489 483 (mid-term) 

- 

541 862 (ex post) 
2 876 070 

TOTAL (EUR) 
Source: DG EMPL, based on FINAP and ABAC data  
The  EaSI  monitoring  costs  were  adapted  over  time  to  the  extension  in  the  number  of 
deliverables  and  their  scope.  Over  the  2014  -  2020  period,  there  were  three  successive 
monitoring contracts. Each of the two first contracts (signed in 2013 and 2015) covered 6 
deliverables  (1  baseline  report,  1  monitoring  report  and  4  reports  on  projects  and 
organisations).  The  last  contract  (2017)  covered  2  performance  monitoring  reports,  2 
updates of the baseline report as well as 10 reports on projects and organisations164. When 
considering the cost per deliverable, they decreasead from EUR 60 166 to EUR 51 071 
per deliverable, indicating the cost-effectiveness of the spending.  
Mid-term  and  ex  post  evaluations  were  also  required  under  the  EaSI  Regulation.  Each 
evaluation costed around EUR 500 000. The ex post evaluation was more costly because 
of  its  extended  scope  compared  to  the  mid-term  evaluation,  including  the  EPMF  and 

162The evaluation supporting study shows (based on desk research and cost analysis) that there is no clear trend or correlation between 
the annual costs of meetings and the number of meetings held, nor between the costs of meetings and the number of participants that 
attended the meetings.  
163The amounts corresponding to the EaSI Committee meeting organization were calculated by the contractor  based on the titles of 
activities reported in the FINAP database. 
164Overall, the tasks covered by these contracts included the baseline report (2014) and its three updates, the monitoring reports, as 
well as the reports on projects and organisations funded under EaSI. Four EaSI monitoring reports were published up to 2020: a first 
report covered 2014 and three other reports covered 2015 - 2016, 2017 - 2018 and 2019 - 2020. Eighteen (18) reports on projects and 
organisations (named ‘good practices reports’ in 2014 - 2015) were published in total. They consists in a systematic presentation of all 
projects and organisations (operating grants) funded under EaSI. 

52 

 
 
 
 
covering  a  longer  timespan.  However,  there  was  no  clear  pattern  over  time  in  the 
programme’s evaluation related costs, given that the evaluations were punctual exercices.   
The non-monetary inputs (staff) involved in the management of the programme remained 
relatively stable throughout the implementation period, with a low of 2.75 FTE (full-time 
equivalent) in 2015 to a constant high of 3.3 FTE in 2016 - 2020 as shown in Table 24 
below. While the FTEs remained pratically constant during the overall period, they were 
substantially  lower  than  what  was  originally  foreseen.  The  PSCI/EaSI  proposal  indeed 
estimated 120 FTE per year to be engaged in the programme. However, it is unclear in 
the proposal document on what and how this estimate was based on, as it appears to be 
disproportionally large. One hypothesis could be that this number did not only envisage 
the FTE involved in managing the programme, but also the supporting FTEs (for instance 
the  DG  EMPL  policy  units  involved  in  the  implementation  of  EaSI  thematic  activities 
and  related  calls  for  proposals,  and/or  EaSI  monitoring  and  evaluation  support  staff, 
and/or EaSI financial management support staff).  
Moreover,  the  EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation  does  not  provide  an  estimation  of  the  human 
resources  needed  for  the  programme’s  management.  It  only  indicates  that  the  new 
programme  should  focus  on  large  projects  in  order  to  reach  critical  mass  and  reduce 
administrative burden. Also, it highlighted the necessity of a joint management with the 
EIF  as  the  Commission  would  not  have  the  specific  expertise  and  the  resources  to 
manage the EaSI third axis instruments on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, given the lack 
of  methodological  information  on  the  FTEs  estimates  calculation  in  the  EaSI  proposal 
and in the EaSI ex ante evaluation, no robust conclusions on the efficiency of EaSI non-
monetary inputs could be made.  

Table 24. Evolution in FTE (full-time equivalent) for EaSI programme management in 2014-2020  

Full-time equivalent 

2014 
2 
1 
0 
3 

2015 
1.25 
1 
0.5 
2.75 

2016 
1.75 
1 
0.5 
3.25 

2017 
1.8 
1 
0.5 
3.3 

2018 
1.8 
1 
0.5 
3.3 

2019 
1.8 
1 
0.5 
3.3 

2020 
1.8 
1 
0.5 
3.3 

Administrators 
Assistants 
Deputy head of unit / team leader 
Total FTE 
Source: Supporting study, based on data provided by DG EMPL. 
From  the  evidence  collected  during  the  supporting  study  it  emerged  that  the  merger  of 
the  three  EaSI  predecessor  programmes  streamlined  their  financial  and  administrative 
management165.  With  the  three  axes  under  one  common  legal  base,  the  Commission 
developed  indeed  one  annual  work  programme  rather  than  three  separate  ones.  This 
produced efficiency gains by limiting the time  and resources necessary for drafting and 
adopting  the  work  programmes,  including  consultations  with  the  EaSI  Committee 
representing the Member States.  
In terms of non-monetary inputs assigned to the EPMF, the programme was managed by 
one  FTE  (administrator)  during  the  whole  implementation  period.  The  staff  effort  was 
lower than what was foreseen in the EPMF ex ante evaluation, which estimated one AD 
post  and  two  external  staff166.  Evidence  presented  above  suggests  that  EaSI  and  EPMF 
were efficiently managed with resources (financial/human) below those estimated in the 
respective ex ante evaluation.  
Monitoring and evaluation 
This  section  focuses  on  the  programmes’  monitoring  and  evaluation  (complementary 
information  is  provided  in  Annex  VI.1).  The  design  and  implementation  of  EaSI  and 

165It also results from the interviews inside DG EMPL (supporting study technical annexes) that the 2021 - 2027 set-up, with the EaSI 
strand being part of ESF+, will probably not reduce administrative burden related to the programming, as the two ESF+ strands will 
be implemented independently, requiring separate work plans, while the financial management workload will remain similar. 
166No additional reliable information related to this topic was available at the time of the evaluation. 

53 

 
 
EPMF  were  complex  due  to  the  diverse  range  of  aspects  they  cover.  Both  EaSI  and 
EPMF were monitored under legal frameworks including agreements with the EIF for the 
EaSI  third  axis  and  EPMF,  as  well  different  complementary  data  collection  and 
monitoring  systems  (DG  EMPL  contracts  for  monitoring  and  evaluation,  EURES 
network specific monitoring and evaluation frameworks, EIF monitoring reports for the 
EaSI  third  axis  implementation).  This  required  the  use  of  different  skills  and 
methodologies  according  to  each  of  the  aspects  to  be  monitored  and  evaluated.  Hence, 
this involved multidisciplinary teams within DG EMPL for the programmes coordination 
and  implementation,  as  well  as  within  contractors’  teams  carrying  out  respectively 
monitoring and evaluation. 
DG  EMPL  and  the  monitoring  contractor  set  up  formats,  procedures  and  systems  for 
regular  information  collection  which  can  monitor  and  evaluate  the  development  of 
programmes’  activities  and  the  increase  in  the  efficiency  of  service  provision  to  users. 
These  included  indicators  and  mechanisms  for  data  collection  (EaSI  Stakeholders’ 
Survey, additional specific information reported by the units in charge with the EURES 
axis  and  EaSI  third  axis  implementation)  and  measuring  the  progress  in  achieving 
specific and general objectives.  
Evaluating and measuring impacts on (different) groups stakeholders required a baseline 
from the very beginning of the programme including an analysis of the situation of the  
programme’s  target  areas.  The  initial  creation  of  this  baseline  involved  the  use  of 
different  methods  (EaSI  Stakeholders’  Survey  and  desk  research  of  previous’ 
programmes available data sources), owing to which the level of information obtained on 
the  EaSI  baseline  situation  varied  from  one  specific  objective  to  another  and  from  one 
axis to another (see discussion in Section 2.3). The creation of a sample of stakeholders 
potentially  benefitting  from  the  programme  proven  challenging  (see  details  on  the 
methodological  approach  and  on  how  the  representativity  was  ensured  in  Annex  II.5).  
This database was necessary to carry out the EaSI Stakeholders’ Survey, which was the 
main  instrument  to  collect  data  on  indicators,  in  particular  for  the  PROGRESS  axis. 
Finally, it is worth noticing that the impact of some EaSI activities – notably related to 
the  capacity  building,  social  experimentation  and  the  labour  market  transparency  - 
require time to take effect.  
4.2 Internal and external coherence  

General 
objectives 

Effectiveness/efficiency 

Coherence 

Added value 

Relevance 

Evaluation criteria 

This  section  is  structured  in  three  parts:  the  first  one  analyses  the  EaSI  internal 
coherence167 (between its three axes); the second one focuses on the complementary with 
ESF;  and  the  third  part  identifies  external  coherence/complementarity168  with  other  EU 
programmes. 

167As  for  the  internal  coherence,  the  programme  should  “pursue  a  coherent  approach  to  promoting  quality  and  sustainable 
employment,  as  well  as  to  combating  and  preventing  social  exclusion  and  poverty,  while  taking  into  account  the  need  to  respect 
equality  between  women  and  men.  The  implementation  of  EaSI  should  be  rationalised  and  simplified,  notably  through  the 
establishment of a  set of  common provisions including,  inter  alia,  general  objectives  and monitoring  and evaluation arrangements” 
(EaSI Regulation, Recital 10). 
168As for the external coherence, the EaSI Regulation (Recital 11) states that “funding priority should be given to the development of 
structures with a clear multiplier effect which will benefit further activities and initiatives. Appropriate measures should also be put in 
place to avoid any possibility of overlap or double-financing with other funds or programmes, in particular the ESF”. 

54 

 
 
 
4.2.1 Internal coherence 

The  merging  of  the  three  programmes  preceding  EaSI  was  expected  to  increase 
complementarity and the budgetary flexibility (see discussion in Section 2.1)169. From a 
governance perspective, the new ‘umbrella’ programme allowed for a joint coordination 
involving  the  DG  EMPL  programming  unit,    group  of  EaSI  coordinators  from  the 
operational units and the EaSI Committee (see Annex VI.1). Only one work programme 
was  issued  annually  encompassing  the  three  axes,  instead  of  three  as  previously.  This 
centralised governance saved time and effort in  terms  of the programme’s coordination 
(as argued in Section 4.1.12). 
The EaSI mid-term evaluation also found that - building on the existing links between the 
three  predecessors  -  the  support  provided  under  EaSI  was  more  effective  than  those 
provided  separately  before  2014.  The  case  study  on  ‘EaSI  past  and  future  synergies’170 
identified  additional  examples  of  synergies  between  the  axes  during  the  second  part  of 
the  implementation  period.  A  wide  range  of  activities171  funded  under  the  PROGRESS 
axis  were  relevant  to  the  EURES  and  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axes, 
thereby shedding light on EaSI internal coherence design and purpose172. Other examples 
of PROGRESS activities relevant to the two other axes are the 2019 call for proposals for 
actions to  boost the development  of  finance markets  for social  enterprises (relevant  for 
the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis)  and  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  – 
the  overall 
occupational  strand 
implementation  period,  the  PROGRESS  axis  also  funded  the  Technical  Assistance  for 
capacity  building  of  microfinance  and  social  enterprise  microcredit  providers  (Section 
4.1.4 and Sections 4.1.7 to 4.1.9) and organised two EaSI Conferences (2019 and 2021) 
which encompassed all three axes. 
Evidence collected during the supporting study reveals as well obvious links between the 
different categories of activities and gains of efficiency at the governance level, while the 
budgetary  flexibility  clause  foreseen  in  the  original  legal  basis  was  not  a  useful  tool in 
practice (as discussed in Section 4.1.12). Feedbacks from the online public consultation 
also  indicate  an  improved  complementarity  between  the  EaSI  axes173,  respondents 
highlighting practical benefits stemming from the merger, such as rationalisation of rules 
and  procedures,  and  more  transnational  exchange  of  knowledge  and  cross-sectoral 
cooperation.  

the  EURES  axis).  Throughout 

(relevant 

for 

4.2.2 Coherence with ESF 

EaSI and ESF had similar objectives (aiming to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy) 
but were different in their approach to achieving those. This implied different priorities 

169While the issue of budgetary flexibility was discussed in Section 4.1.12, this section focuses on the complementarity in relation to 
the implemented actions. 
170Included in the supporting study technical annexes. 
171Annex 2.1 of the case study on ‘EaSI past and future synergies’ (supporting study technical annexes) provides a detailed overview 
of such cross-cutting actions, including events. 
172Many analytical activities funded under the PROGRESS axis were relevant to the two other axes. For instance, the studies related 
to  cross-border  mobility  such  as  Mapping  and  Analysing  Bottleneck  Vacancies  in  EU  Labour  Markets,  Overview  report:  Free 
movement of workers and transitional arrangements: lessons from the 2004 and 2007 enlargements; Inferring (labour) mobility and 
migration in the EU from big data and social media data; and An Ad Hoc Statistical Analysis on Short Term Mobility – Economic 
Value of Posting of Workers, contributed to the implementation of the EURES axis actions. Other analytical outputs were relevant for 
the implementation of the EaSI third axis, for instance: A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe; A recipe book for 
social finance: a practical guide on designing and implementing initiatives to develop social finance instruments and markets; Policy 
brief  on  scaling  the  impact  of  social  enterprises;  Policy  Brief  on  Social  Impact  Measurement  for  Social  Enterprises  -  Policies  for 
Social Entrepreneurship. 
173Twenty-one  (21)  respondents  (out of  71)  thought  that  the  merging ensured more consistency. To note  that  more  than half of the 
respondents did not have an opinion related to the effects of the merger in 2014, most probably due to their limited familiarity with 
the predecessor programmes (see more information in the supporting study technical annexes). 

55 

 
 
(more  Member  State  centric  for  ESF,  more  EU-level  for  EaSI)174,  as  well  as  different 
implementation  rules,  timescales  and  planning  approaches.  This  makes  the  instruments 
complementary  as  they  worked  towards  the  same  goals  in  different  ways.  One  main 
complementarity between the two programmes was related to the scaling up under ESF 
of  the  social  experimentations  implemented  under  EaSI.  Section  4.1.3  shows  that  the 
limited scaling up of EaSI projects emerged as one of the least successful outcome of the 
EaSI programme, even if it was not a provision included in the EaSI Regulation.  
This negative finding was however moderated by the positive results of the EaSI social 
experimentations  (Section  4.1.3)  featuring  progress  under  EaSI  compared  to  its 
predecessor  PROGRESS  (2007  -  2013)  where  no  link  with  the  ESF  was  developed 
despite  the  potential  of  the  funded  projects175.  Section  4.1.3  shows  as  well  that  despite 
the  limited  possibility  to  generalise  the  experiences  at  different  levels/populations,  the 
funded projects in 2014 - 2020 present interesting approaches for innovation in the field 
of social policy, targeting disadvantaged groups and putting the emphasis on the need for 
cooperation  between  different  types  of  organisations.  One  key  reason  for  the  limited 
scaling  up  through  ESF  -  as  corroborated  by  the  analysis  of  the  EaSI  Committee 
meetings  operational  conclusions176    and  also  identified  within  other  evaluations  (EaSI 
mid-term  evaluation177;  ESF+  impact  assessment178)  -  was  the  lack  of  dedicated 
mechanisms  to  facilitate  effective  links  between  EaSI  and  ESF.  Different  legal  bases, 
different  coordination  units  and  the  specific  scale/nature  of  respective  programmes 
implied  the  participation  of  a  range  of  diverse  actors  within  the  Commission  and  at 
national  level,  and  hindered  the  coordination  at  strategic  and  operational  level179.  A 
further  explanation  for  the  limited  scaling  up,  which  is  rather  (multi)level  context-
dependent and (multi)stakeholders-dependent, was the inherent demand-driven nature of 
social innovation. The EaSI calls have been designed and managed by the Commission 
services, whilst the ESF calls were launched by the Managing Authorities in the Member 
States. Therefore, it was an inherent mismatch between the supply and demand for social 
innovation, which resulted in limited use of the ESF in upscaling the results of projects 
carried out under EaSI.   
Another way in which EaSI and ESF were expected to be complementary was in relation 
to the EaSI third axis activities, considering that ESF provided likewise support through 
financial instruments, including microcredits and funding for social entrepreneurship. For 
instance, a financial intermediary interviewed explained that in Poland, ESF funds were 
used  to  set  up  a  new  financial  instrument  within  the  Polish  National  Fund  for  Social 
Entrepreneurship. Therefore, beneficiaries had the possibility to combine this fund with 
the  EaSI  financial  instruments.  While  this  kind  of  synergies  were  rare,  they  signify  an 
improvement compared to the period before EaSI, when potential synergies between the 

174While the ESF was implemented through shared management (i.e., Member States have the primary responsibility for setting up a 
management and control system while the Commission plays a supervisory role), EaSI was implemented through direct and indirect 
management, meaning the Commission bears the responsibility. 
175Synthesis report of the support study: Ex-post evaluation of the Programme for employment and social solidarity – Progress 2007- 
2013 and recommendations for the successor programmes to PROGRESS 2014-2020, page 13.  
176Based on operational conclusions from EaSI Committee meetings 2, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (internal documents). 
177https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019SC0182&qid=1646639704549 
178https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018SC0289&qid=1646641000664. 
179For instance, only one joint meeting between the ESF Technical Working Group and the EaSI Committee took place in November 
2018,  where  the  potential  synergies  between  the  programmes  were  discussed  (14th  meeting  of  the  EaSI  Programme  Committee: 
Operational  conclusions).  One  former  EaSI  Committee  member  explained  that  a  similar  disconnection  existed  at  national  level,  as 
most often there is no coordination between the members of the ESF Technical Working Group and the national officials nominated 
in the EaSI Committee. This lack of awareness/coordination between the members of the two governance structures was also pointed 
out by some project beneficiaries179. This finding was also corroborated by one DG EMPL official consulted who highlighted that the 
complexity of the ESF management system combined with the lack of a specific dedicated budget discouraged potential candidates 
from applying  directly  for  follow-up  funding under  ESF.  At both  Member  State  and Commission level,  interviewees expected that 
this gap would be covered within the ESF+. 

56 

 
 
EPMF180 and the ESF were underexploited. Evidence collected during the EPMF interim 
evaluation  shows  that  there  was  little  evidence  of  ESF  managing  authorities  using  the 
ESF option designed to cover all or part of the interest rate on loans in order to alleviate 
the  burden  on  the  borrowers.  Based  on  the  EPMF  interim  evaluation,  an  European 
Parliament  in-depth  analysis  (page  36)  estimated  that  only  20%  of  EPMF  financial 
intermediaries reported cooperation with entities supported by ESF. 
The  respondents  to  the  survey  carried  out  by  the  EESC  pointed  out  a  potential  risk  of 
overlap between the projects funded under EaSI and those funded through the ESF and 
suggested to create a tool permitting to obtain an overview of different programmes and 
the  opportunities  offered  at  EU  level.  The  same  respondents  also  highlight  that 
complementarity  should  be  ensured  in  particular  with  the  ESF,  but  also  with  the 
European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  as  part  of  a  national 
strategy rather than a piecemeal approach. 

4.2.3 External coherence 

Evidence  from  desk  research  and  stakeholder  consultations  provides  insights  on  how 
EaSI  was  coherent  with  other  specific  EU-level  programmes/instruments.  Evidence 
collected  indicates  that  EaSI  complemented  actions  not  only  under  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF),  particularly  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF), 
but  also  other  EU  funds  such  as  Erasmus+,  Horizon  2020,  COSME181,  InnovFin  and 
EURAXESS182. For example, the project ‘SHARE wave 6 Croatia’ was financed by the 
PROGRESS axis  and its project  team  has secured funding for the next  cycle under the 
Horizon  2020  programme.  Other  PROGRESS  projects  complemented  EU-level 
initiatives  launched  by  other  DGs;  for  instance,  the  INNOVCare  EaSI-funded  project 
built on the project partners’ experience in expert groups on rare diseases organised by 
DG SANTE. 
EURES axis  supported cross-border connections in  a transnational  framework, whereas 
the ESF supports purely national activities, under national rules, so the two complement 
each other. They did not overlap, because ESF actions focused on supporting individual 
workers  at  national  level  (by  providing  information  and  services,  active  labour  market 
measures) while EaSI supported the functioning of the European job search network as a 
whole and transparency of all EU labour markets. It did this through a common training 
programme  for  staff  of  EURES  network  member  organisations  and  by  developing  a 
common Job Mobility Portal. Moreover, while other EU programmes such as Erasmus+ 
and EURAXESS encouraged labour mobility, EaSI’s EURES axis was the only one with 
a  focus  purely  on  cross-border  mobility.  Moreover,  EURES  axis  supported  projects 
addressed to specific target groups, like workers in cross-border regions, or to youth (for 
instance  the  ‘Your  first  EURES  job’  instrument).  In  this  way,  EaSI-funded  services 
complemented  the  more  general  information,  assistance  and  guidance  that  each 
individual  country  provided  to  workers  interested  in  mobility.  In  this  area,  a  good 
example of upscaling a project started under EaSI and making it ‘national’ was Spain’s 
decision to take on project activities first financed by ‘Your first EURES job’ and to run 
them under a national programme cofunded by the ESF. 

180Article  3  of  the  EPMF  Decision  specified  that  while  EPMF  shall  provide  support  to  the  targeted  beneficiaries  through  specific 
financial products and actions (guarantees and risk-sharing instruments; equity instruments; debt instruments; support measures such 
as communication, monitoring, evaluation, audit), ESF should provide mentoring and training programmes to those beneficiaries. 
181COSME (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/cosme/) was an EU fund for small/medium-sized enterprises managed by DG GROW. 
182EURAXESS  -  Researchers  in  Motion  was  a  pan-European  initiative  delivering  information  and  support  services  to  professional 
researchers.  Backed  by  the  European  Union  and  its  Member  States,  it  supports  researcher  mobility  and  career  development,  while 
enhancing scientific collaboration between Europe and the world (https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/). 

57 

 
 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  was  most  complementary  with  COSME  and 
InnovFin; however, the EaSI support was the only one that focused solely on supporting 
financially  microenterprises  and  social  enterprises.  COSME,  for  instance,  promoted 
entrepreneurship and seeks to improve the business environment for SMEs; but COSME 
and EaSI differ both in terms of their target groups, and in the type and size of the funds. 
Another example is the InnovFin programme (EU Finance for Innovators)183 that offered 
early-stage  equity  investment  to  microenterprises,  SMEs  and  social  enterprises  and 
therefore complemented the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis. InnovFin aimed 
to  support  investment  in  enterprises  of  any  size  (from  microenterprises  and  small 
businesses  to  large  businesses)  with  a  focus  on  research  and  innovation  investments 
across  the  entire  value  chain  of  research  and  innovation.  To  be  eligible,  businesses 
therefore  needed  to  operate  in  the  sectors  listed  under  Horizon  2020.  Given  this 
restriction,  InnovFin  and  the  EaSI  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  do  not 
overlaped, but complemented each other. 
In  terms  of  complementarities  with  Horizon  2020,  the  evaluation  indicates  that  despite 
the similarities in some of the objectives and target groups of the two instruments, their 
focus was sufficiently different to ensure there was no unnecessary duplication (EaSI was 
focused  on  social  experimentation  and  projects’  implementation;  Horizon  2020  on 
innovation  and  knowledge  generation).  The  evaluation  found  as  well  that  there  were 
some similarities between Erasmus+ and EaSI in terms of objectives (notably related to 
skills building) and target audience (notably youth), but the instruments were sufficiently 
different  to  avoid  unnecessary  duplication,  and  can  rather  be  considered  to  be 
complementary. For example, while both instruments encouraged cross-border mobility, 
Erasmus+ did so primarily for students and from the perspective of temporary mobility 
for  linguistic  training,  while  the  EURES  axis  focused  on  labour  mobility  for  workers. 
Another example is the synergy between EURES and Europass. They were (and continue 
to  be)  connected,  for  instance  users  from  Europass  were  able  to  publish  their  CVs  on 
EURES  and  vice  versa;  Europass  users  were  allowed  to  receive  a  list  of  possibly 
interesting  job  vacancies  in  their  Europass  account.  As  regards  Interreg,  the  evaluation 
indicates  that  it  offered  opportunities  for  regional  and  local  public  authorities  across 
Europe  to  share  ideas  and  experience  on  public  policy.  In  that  sense,  it  was  similar  to 
EaSI  mutual  learning,  awareness  and  dissemination  activities.  They  can  be  considered 
however complementary due to their different geographical scope and priorities.  
Evidence collected during the evaluation inside DG EMPL and other DGs (JUST, RTD, 
EAC,  REGIO)  indicates  that  coordinated  work  between  services  ensured  there  was  no 
unnecessary  overlap  or  duplication  of  funding.  Notably  with  regards  to  calls  for 
proposals  for  actions  grants  touching  on  topics  of  relevance  to  other  DGs,  there  was 
coordination/consultations  inter-DGs  to  avoid  duplication.  As  regards  operating  grants, 
internal  control  procedures,  including  audit,  are  in  place  to  ensure  that  an  organisation 
does not receive an operating grant from more than one DG, as that would lead to double 
funding,  for  instance  from  EaSI  and  the  ‘Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values 
programme’  (CERV).  However,  stakeholders  consulted  by  the  ESSC  consider  that 
having several EU programmes (for instance EaSI, ESF, Interreg, Erasmus+) with similar 
objectives  and  target  groups  can  be  confusing  for  national-level  applicants  to  EU-level 
support.  These  stakeholders  suggested  therefore  to  design  and  rationalise  the  EU-level 
programmes  in  order  to  cover  all  target  audiences’  needs,  instead  of  providing 
fragmented support. 

183InnovFin (EU Finance for Innovators) was a joint initiative launched by the  European Investment Bank Group (EIB and EIF) in 
cooperation with the European Commission under Horizon 2020 (http://www.eib.org/products/blending/innovfin/index.htm). 

58 

 
 
4.3 How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

Evaluation criteria 

General 
objectives 

Effectiveness / Efficiency 

Coherence 

Added value 

Relevance 

This  section  focuses  on  the  EU  added  value  resulting  from  the  EaSI  and  EPMF 
programmes  beyond  the  value  that  would  have  been  created  by  participating  countries 
individually.  Supported  in  particular  by  the  evidence  provided  in  Chapter  3  and  in 
Section  4.1,  the  narrative  explains  how  and  to  whom  the  EU  programmes  made  a 
difference at different levels (individual, local, national, cross-border, EU-level). 
The EaSI ex ante evaluation formulated a number of expectations related to the EU value 
added. EaSI was originally seen as an instrument uniquely placed to provide a European 
platform for policy exchange and mutual learning processes between the Member States, 
also including the EEA and candidate countries. It was therefore expected to add value to 
national programmes by providing a European reference or benchmark through gathering 
and  comparing  evidence,  developing  statistical  tools,  methods  (including  the  social 
experimentation)  and  common  indicators  to  allow  for  a  comprehensive  picture  of  the 
socio-economic situation at European level.  
It  was  also  considered  that  developing  the  capacity  of  key  European  level  civil-society 
networks  to  support  and  impact  the  European  Union  social  policies  could  best  be 
achieved  at  EU  level  than  at  other  levels.  Moreover,  in  the  area  of  free  movement  of 
workers,  a  widely  connected  system  such  as  the  EURES  network  (and  Portal)  was 
expected to facilitate fair intra-EU labour mobility. Similarly, it was also considered that 
a better allocation of microcredit (notably to vulnerable groups) could be best achieved at 
the EU level in cooperation with the European Investment Fund. Finally, it was expected 
that  an  EU  level  instrument  facilitating  access  to  finance  for  social  enterprise(s)  would 
have  a  multiplier  effect  by  paving  the  way  for  a  dynamic  social  entrepreneurship 
ecosystem in the programme’s participating countries.  
EaSI  provided  additionality  by  funding  social  experimentation  projects,  meaning  that 
most projects could not have been funded through national sources or other EU funding 
sources184. As argued in the Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2, despite the limited scaling up 
of  the  innovative  approaches  developed  under  EaSI185,  the  EU  added-value  of  the 
programme  in  this  field  was  high.  Some  project  promoters  acknowledged  that  national 
funding could have been available, but highlighted that the scope of the projects would 
have been more limited and transnational cooperation would not have taken place186.  
The  evaluation  revealed  equally  a  high  EU  added  value  of  mutual  learning,  awareness 
and dissemination activities as well of multi-country/comparative databases, studies and 
statistics.  The  analytical  knowledge  generated  was  largely  used  for  policymaking,  as 
argued in Section 4.1.1  and Section 4.1.2. Moreover, the same results would  likely  not 
exist in  the absence of  EU level  funding/coordination due to  the high  cost  implications 
for  Member  States  to  collect  data.  These  findings  were  also  illustrated  by  the  EESC 
evaluation;  for  instance,  one  French  stakeholder  interviewed  indicated  that  there  was  a 
systemic difference between EaSI and other EU funds as the richness and specificity of 

184This was especially true in countries where funding for the application of social experimentation methods was not a priority on the 
political agenda or where the ESF tended not to fund such activities, for instance in France or Spain (see section on the results from 
beneficiaries’ survey included in the Technical Annexes of the supporting study). 
185The specific objective was to test social innovations at small scale, while upscaling was not formulated as a specific objective in the 
Regulation. The social experimentation was considered as a method to test innovative  approaches to policy intervention on a small 
population to evaluate its efficacy before deciding whether it should be scaled up or not. 
186Examples include Acceleration of labour market integration of immigrants through mapping of skills and trainings (ALMIT) and 
Regional Integration Accelerators (RIAC), projects based on the exchange of good practices in the field of migration.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EaSI  lies  notably  on  its  ability  to  bring  together  institutional  decision-makers  and 
stakeholders.  
EaSI  also  added  value  to  the  institutional  capacity  of  EU-level  NGO  networks  that 
otherwise - as argued in Section 4.1.4 - would likely not have been able to implement the 
same  activities  (in  terms  of  number,  scope  and  impact).  According  to  the  networks 
consulted, while other sources of funding were available at EU level, they were primarily 
project-based  rather  than  covering  operating  costs  as  EaSI  did;  therefore,  other  sources 
would not  have  met their needs  for sustainable  financial support necessary to  carry out 
policy-shaping work. They also indicated that before EaSI, their work was dependent on 
volatile  and  non-systematic  funding  which  significantly  hindered  their  ability  to 
influence the national and/or EU agendas.  
Likewise for facilitating the labour mobility objective, the supporting study desk research 
and  consultations187  show  that  there  were  no  other  comparable  sources  of  funding  that 
could  equally support  the activities implemented through EaSI (see also  Section 4.1.5). 
Although  other  EU  instruments  (for  instance  Interreg  or  ESF)  supported  cooperation 
across  borders  and/or  measures  to  promote  mobility  when  programmed  by  individual 
Member States, EaSI created cross-border partnerships at EU level bringing added-value 
to  vulnerable  jobseekers  in  particular  (Section  4.1.6).  These  cross-border  partnerships 
supported  workers  at  each  stage  of  their  career  and  answered  any  questions  they  may 
have  had  about  the  practicalities  of  working  abroad/across  the  border.  They  monitored 
the  flows  of  workers  across  the  borders  and  the  development  of  the  job  market,  and 
identified  obstacles  that  may  hamper  the  free  movement  of  workers.  While  private 
recruitment  or  head-hunter  companies  might  help  promote  labour  mobility  for  highly 
skilled  workers,  EURES  support  was  open  to  everyone,  including  the  low  skilled 
workers188. 
EaSI (and EPMF initially) also demonstrated EU added value in the field of micro- and 
social  finance  (see  Sections  4.1.7  to  4.1.9).  Consulted  financial  intermediaries189 
confirmed  that  EaSI  clearly  contributed  to  consolidate  their  investments  and  portfolio. 
The  dedicated  financial  instruments  reinforced  the  microfinance  and  social  investment 
markets  notably  in  countries  where  these  traditions  already  existed.  This  finding  was 
corroborated  by  the  case  study  on  ‘Social  entrepreneurship’  and  by  stakeholders’ 
feedbacks. However, as resulting from the focus group with the former EaSI Committee 
members, some countries were not ready to implement the EaSI third axis instruments.   
Back to EPMF, its objective was to address both the effects of the 2008 financial crisis 
and  the  structural  problems  disadvantaged  groups  were  facing  when  setting-up  or 
developing a business.  As formulated in  the  EPMF  ex ante  evaluation, it  was  expected 
that  EPMF  would  add  value  notably  by  offering  targeted  support  to  individuals  and 
enterprises whose credit risk rating represents an obstacle to get funding for the creation 
of economic activity. As argued in Section 4.1.7, the EPMF provided significant support 
in terms of number and volume, while other comparable funding opportunities were not 
accessible  for  these  target  groups  when  the  initiative  was  launched.  The  EPMF  added 
value was also widely recognised by the stakeholders consulted190, notably in the EPMF 

187See Section 4.2 of the supporting study and its technical annexes. 
188See the analysis of interviews in the supporting study technical annexes. 
189A  majority  of  21  out  of  37  EaSI-funded  financial  intermediaries  that  responded  to  the  targeted  survey  reported  that  their 
microfinance  portfolio  would have  looked different in  the absence  of  the  EaSI  financial instruments.  Most  financial intermediaries 
who  answered  the  targeted  survey  acknowledged  that  they  would  not  know  where  to  access  guarantee  coverage  (30  out  of  37 
respondents)  or  similar  debt  financing  (26  out  of  37  respondents)  without  the  support  provided  under  EaSI.  In  the  online  public 
consultation, 82 out of 107  respondents  ‘agreed’  or  ‘strongly  agreed’  that  EU  support  was  required to provide  better  access to and 
availability of microfinance; 93 that it was required to improve support for social entrepreneurship. 
190For instance, in the survey targeted at financial intermediaries, 7 out of the 14 respondents who received EPMF guarantees reported 
that their microfinance portfolio would have looked different (in terms of financial volume), given that they would not have been able 

60 

 
 
 
Central and Eastern Europe participating countries that did not traditionally have a strong 
microfinance sector191.  
The  aspects  highlighted  above  allow  to  conclude  that  EPMF  and  EaSI  brought  added-
value  to  the  level  of  EU  citizens  as  well  as  by  contributing  to  policymaking  and 
modernisation  of  legislation  at  EU/national  levels  on  topics  such  as  work-life  balance, 
long-term care and pension schemes. They did it directly through contributing to labour 
mobility  or  creating  conditions  for  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship.  For 
instance, the support provided to social enterprises had potentially a multiplier effect as 
they  provided  jobs  for  vulnerable  persons  (e.g.  people  with  disabilities)  who  would 
otherwise likely not have had the same opportunities192.  
Evidence presented  above and findings  from  sections  4.1.1 to  4.1.12 allow to conclude 
that  EaSI  and  EPMF  provided  added-value  compared  to  what  would  possibly  be 
achieved by their participating countries at national, regional and local levels193. Indeed, 
EaSI  was  the  sole  EU-level  programme  in  the  social  field  that  was  open  to  a  range  of 
participating  countries  and  stakeholders,  producing  in  a  coherent  way  many  relevant 
outputs  and  results.  In  a  forward-looking  perspective,  the  implications  for  the  social 
policy  field  -  should  the  EaSI  types  of  activities  be  discontinued  -  would  be  clearly 
negative;  notably,  employment  opportunities  and  jobseekers’  intra-EU  mobility  would 
decrease,  as  well  as  the  availability  of  microfinance  for  individuals  and  enterprises,  of 
comparative  analytical  knowledge  for  evidence-based  policy-making  as  well  as  the 
opportunities for social experimentation and mutual learning at EU level.  
4.4 Is the intervention still relevant? 

General 
objectives 

Effectiveness / Efficiency 

Coherence 

Added value 

Relevance 

Evaluation criteria 

This section looks at how well the initial general objectives of the programmes reflected 
and  still  reflect  the  current  and  future  needs.  The  programmes’  relevance  is  first 
examined  in  the  light  of  global  trends  perspectives,  including  the  main  exceptional 
challenges encountered during the implementation period.  
After an overview of contextual factors (Section 4.4.1), the relevance’s analysis (Section 
4.4.2)  was  structured  in  three  main  building  blocks  alongside  the  programmes’ 
contribution to policy change, social innovation and reforms (general objectives 1, 2 and 
3);  to  employment  and  labour  mobility  (general  objective  4);  and  to  access  to 
microfinance and social finance (general objective 5).  

to  take  the  same  risks  in  the  absence  of  the  EPMF  guarantee.  The  financial  intermediaries  who  expressed  this  opinion  were  from 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Romania, Spain, and Netherlands.  
191This  finding  was  underlined  by  interviewees  inside  the  EC  and  the  EIF,  and  was  consistent  with  results  from  the  online  public 
consultation  (21  respondents  out  of  52  who  were  familiar  with  the  programme  noted  that  EPMF  supported  existing  actions  at 
national/regional level aiming at increasing access to and availability of microfinance for vulnerable groups). 
192For  example  the  financial  intermediary  LaNef,  was  able  to  provide  social  enterprise  financing  to  Drôle  de  Pain,  a  Montpellier 
bakery  that  offers  work  placements  to  vulnerable  people  –  ex-convicts,  substance  abusers,  or  unemployed  people  with  mental  and 
physical disabilities (which make up around half of the enterprise’s workforce). Beyond just providing these vulnerable groups with a 
job, the project supported them by building up professional skills so that they improve their employability when the placement is over, 
as  well  as  building  basic  life-skills,  like  professional  behaviour,  self-confidence  or  communication  (Source:  EIF,  social  impact  of 
social enterprises). Other telling stories are included in the EaSI reports on projects and organisations. 
193These  findings  were  corroborated  by  the  results  of  the  stakeholders’  consultations.  Notably  the  online  public  consultation, 
interviews  inside  the  EC,  the  focus  groups  with  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  and  the  EaSI  Committee  members.  For  instance,  70 
online  public consultation  respondents  out of the 94  observed positive changes that  they believed  would not have  happened  in  the 
absence of EaSI and its capacity to combine and broaden existing actions in terms of scope and supported stakeholders.  

61 

 
 
 
4.4.1 Limited scale to impact on macro-economic context 

This  section  explores  how  the  socio-economic  context  of  programmes  influenced  the 
delivery  and  the  achievement  of  the  five  general  objectives.  Despite  generally  positive 
trends,  the  target  employment  rates  of  75%  by  2020  (EU  2020  Strategy)  and  78%  by 
2030  (European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  EPSR)  were  not  reached.  Inequalities  in 
employment  rates  of  young,  older,  migrant  workers  and  disabled  workers  also  persist. 
Figure  9  shows  that  the  total  employment  rate  in  the  EU  has  been  on  a  continuous 
positive  trajectory  since  2013,  all  along  the  EaSI  main  implementation  period  (2014  - 
2019),  but  it  dropped  down  in  2020  notably  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Similar 
trends were observed in the employment rates of young and older workers as well as non-
EU workers. 

 Figure 9. Employment rates by age and citizenship, 2010 - 2020 

Source: Supporting study, based on Eurostat Employment rates by sex, age and citizenship (%) [LFSA_ERGAN] (data 
extracted on 11/05/2022) 
Moreover, the employment rate gap of people with disabilities widened during the 2014 -
2020 period, from 22.7 percentage points below the employment rate of people without 
disability in 2014 to 24.4 percentage points below the employment rate of people without 
disability  in  2020194.  Gender  inequalities  persist  as  well:  male  employment  rate  was  11 
percentage points higher than female employment rate in 2020195. The risk of poverty was 
also higher on average for women than for men in 2020 (22.9 % compared to 20.9 %)196.  
Overall,  the  percentage  of  the  EU27  population  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion 
shows  a  downward  trend  in  2010  -  2020197  with  an  upward  trend  in  2020  due  to  the 
COVID-19 pandemic which affected mostly the vulnerable groups. In 2020, there were 
96.5 million people in the EU at risk of poverty or social exclusion, marking a reduction 
of 10 million  compared to  2008198.  Despite this downward trend, the EU  2020 Strategy 
target of a reduction of 20 million people at risk of poverty by 2020 and the EPSR target 
of lifting 15 million people out of poverty (horizon 2030) were not achieved.  
Evidence presented in Chapter 3 and Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.12 shows how EaSI and EPMF 
contributed – by achieving their specific and general objectives – to their ultimate goal, 
which is to reduce the unemployment and social exclusion. However, given their limited 
scale  in  terms  of  budget  and  volume  of  activities,  the  programmes’  influence  on  these 
global  trends  is  not  realistically  measurable.  Additionally,  evidence  collected  from  the 
online  public  consultation  reflects  the  stakeholders’  perceptions  on  how  the  different 

194Eurostat, Disability employment gap by level of activity limitation and sex [TEPSR_SP200] (last accessed 11/05/2022).  
195There was still a significant gender pay gap as well: in 2020, the gender pay gap in the EU stood at 13%, meaning that women earn 
on average 13% less per hour than men. Ranges across the EU27 countries were significant: from a low of 0.7% in Luxembourg to a 
high of 22.3% in Latvia (Eurostat website: Gender statistics, ‘Labour market’ section; last accessed 11/05/2022). 
196From 23.9% in 2013 to 21.9% in 2020 ( Eurostat website: Living conditions in Europe - poverty and social exclusion (last accessed 
12/05/2022). 
197Eurostat data, Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex - EU2020 strategy [ILC_PEPS01].  
198Eurostat data, Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex - EU2020 strategy [ILC_PEPS01].  

62 

 
 
 
activities contributed to improve the vulnerable groups’ situation199. These findings were 
also  corroborated  by  other  stakeholders’  consultations,  notably  those  carried  within  the 
EESC  evaluation  that  captured  in  particular  the  projects’  beneficiaries,  national 
authorities and civil society views200.  
During 2014 - 2020, Europe was also faced with numerous contextual challenges that are 
increasingly  global  in  nature,  and  of  immediate  and  continued  importance:  migration, 
Covid-19  pandemic  and  climate  change.  Information  provided  in  Chapter  3  and  the 
analysis  presented  in  Section  4.1  show  how  EaSI  responded  successfully  to  these 
challenges  in  terms  of  evidence-based  policy  and  financial  support  to  different  target 
groups.  
Stakeholders  consulted  through  the  online  public  consultation  agreed  that  EaSI 
successfully adapted to changes in the social, economic and political context201. A high 
number  of  respondents  (45)  illustrated  their  views  with  additional  comments;  among 
them, better responding to challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and more rapid 
and  flexible  financial  support  for  EU-level  NGO  networks  were  recurring  themes202. 
Also, for some of these stakeholders, EaSI should have better supported experimentation 
of new pathways to the integration of migrants, particularly women and children, as well 
as  to  the  creation  of  new  businesses.  Suggestions  were  also  made  for  EaSI  to  better 
support networking and capacity building of organizations working on health and social 
services in rural areas.  
Trends  and  qualitative  evidence  above  -  supported  by  the  analysis  included  in  the 
preceding  sections  -  allow  to  conclude  that  over  the  implementation  period,  EaSI  and 
EPMF were continuously relevant in addressing the stakeholders’ needs and continues to 
be considering the remaining challenges ahead. 

4.4.2 EaSI still relevant in supporting its general objectives  

The  focus  of  the  following  three  buildings-blocks203  was  put  on  the  higher-level 
programme’s results under the relevance criterion. 

199Perceptions  of  80  out  of  97  respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation  confirm  that  EaSI  was  relevant  in  paying  attention  to 
vulnerable  groups;  71  respondents  considered  it  relevant  to  promote  equality  between  women  and  men;  and  74  considered  the 
programme  relevant  in  combating  discrimination.  Overall,  79  out  of  97  respondents  confirmed  the  EaSI  relevance  pursuing  in 
promoting  its  general  objectives.  These  results  include  respondents  who  answered  “moderately  relevant”  and  “very  relevant”,  and 
exclude those who answered “not at all relevant”, “slightly relevant” and “do not know”. 
200For  instance,  Austrian  stakeholders consulted by EESC indicated  that  some  EaSI  topics  –  for  instance  youth,  employment,  anti-
discrimination,  policies  for  people  with  disabilities  –  were  highly  relevant.  The  French  stakeholders  also  indicated  that  EaSI  was 
relevant  in  addressing  vulnerable  groups,  promoting  gender  equality,  combating  discrimination,  and  combating  poverty  and  social 
exclusion.  The  Hungarian  stakeholders  interviewed  noted  that  a  number  of  projects  implemented  in  their  country  paid  particular 
attention to vulnerable groups, such as young and older people, contributing to the overarching objectives of the EaSI programme. 
The stakeholders consulted in Austria also agreed that the EaSI implementation in their country had been highly relevant on the issues 
of gender equality, combating poverty and fighting social exclusion. Two examples were mentioned in this regard by the stakeholders 
consulted by the EESC: the EURES project led by the Grand Est region, which offered cross-border employment opportunities and 
supported companies in their recruitment difficulties. The project was aimed in particular at jobseekers, people seeking cross-border 
mobility and students; it was also inclusive (including in particular persons with disabilities). Another project titled "A roof on your 
head:  a  job  in  your  pocket!"  carried  out  by  Lyon  Metropolis  targeted  young  people  with  social  and  economic  vulnerabilities 
(marginalisation, homelessness or complex family situations) and not using social assistance. The project also addresses age-related 
discrimination in access to minimum resources (access to a minimum income for young people aged 18 - 25). 
201An overwhelming majority of respondents (83 out of 97) agreed that EaSI was sufficiently flexible to respond to the general social, 
economic  and  political context  in the  EU  in 2014  - 2020.  Similarly, they agreed  (61  out of 97)  that  EaSI  was  flexible enough the 
respond to the needs emerging from COVID-19. Around half of respondents agreed that EaSI had been flexible enough to respond to 
the challenges steaming from the digital transition (52 out of 97) and green transition (44 out of 97) as well. Over half of respondents 
did not know whether EaSI was sufficiently flexible to respond to Brexit (60 out of 97) or to the refugee crisis (50 out of 97). 
202The respondents believed that more support to EU-level NGO networks would have been welcome, particularly for those networks 
whose members were severely impacted by the pandemic Some respondents thought that more attention should have been directed to 
the social economy organisations in the emergency response packages. As an illustration,  RREUSE, EU-level network representing 
social enterprises active in the repairing and recycling sector, reported that they received lower membership fees income during the 
pandemic, and had therefore to licence staff. 
203The five general objectives were clustered in there building blocks (similar as for the analysis included in Section 4.1.10) alongside 
the  programmes’  contribution  to  policy  change,  social  innovation  and  reforms  (general  objectives  1,  2  and  3);  to  employment  and 
labour mobility (general objective 4); and to access to microfinance and social finance (general objective 5). 

63 

 
 
Supporting social policies and modernising EU social law 
The  global  trends  presented  in  the  Section  4.4.1  point  to  the  relevance  of  the  EaSI 
programme  in  contributing  to  its  objectives  in  the  areas  of  social  protection,  policy 
reform and the modernisation of EU law. Contextually speaking, there has been also an 
increasing trend in the fragmentation of the labour force in the EU throughout the 2014 -
2020 period, with  an increase in  forms  of work and employment which differ from  the 
standard employment relationship of permanent, full-time, socially secure employment204. 
Notably the proportion of part-time and temporary employment remained high, despite a 
slight  decrease  between  2014  (12,4%  of  the  EU27  working-age  population)  and  2020 
(11,1%)205.  These  trends  became  even  more  relevant  in  the  post  COVID-19  pandemic 
world,  where  working  from  home  and  flexible  working  hours  have  become  more 
common206.  
Moreover, there has been a growing trend in ageing populations across the EU. The old-
age-dependency ratio increased from 28.3 in 2014 to 32.0 in 2020207. With the increase in 
the  share  of  the  population  aged  65  and  over,  came  a  reduction  in  the  percentage  of 
available  workforce  and  an  increasing  financial  pressure  on  social  protection  systems. 
Meanwhile,  there  has  also  been  an  increased  challenge  to  combine  work  and  caring 
responsibilities.  In  2018,  more  than  11  million  persons  in  the  EU-27  had  care 
responsibilities  for  incapacitated  relatives  aged  15  years  and  more208,  but  only  4.2% 
interrupted work or reduced working time  (in their overall employment history) to take 
care  of  ill,  elderly  or  disabled  relatives209.  Economic  and  demographic  changes  have 
continuously impacted the funding of healthcare, social services and pensions, and entail 
challenges for the financial sustainability of social protection provisions210.  
The relevance of the EaSI  objectives was  estimated as to  the extent  they  addressed the 
new  priorities.  Notable  examples  include  the  calls  for  proposals  related  to  social 
innovation  covering  topics  linked  to  emerging  policy  priorities211  and  the  call  for 
proposals ‘Strengthening the role of social partners in mitigating the economic and social 
impact of the COVID-19 crisis’. Overall, the stakeholders consulted considered that the 
Commission introduced appropriate flexibility in the implementation of actions affected 
by the pandemic. When  it was feasible, events  were converted in  online format;  it  also 
accepted  for  grantees  when  it  was  justified  to  submit  expenses  for  events  that  were 
cancelled due to force majeure212. Another example of adaptation to the context is the call 
for  proposals  ‘Fast  track  integration  into  the  labour  market  for  third  country  nationals 

204Complementing  the  standard  form  of  employment  is  the  growth  of part-time  work,  fixed-term  contracts, temporary  agency 
work, homeworking,  self-employment, casual  work,  seasonal  work  and  other  ‘non-standard’  forms of  employment  (EUROFOUND 
website, Fragmentation of the labour force; last accessed 05/01/2023). 
205Eurostat data, Part-time employment and temporary contracts - annual data [LFSI_PT_A] (last accessed 05/01/2023). 
206Eurostat,  Employment  –  Annual  statistics  ‘Remote  work:  disparities  by  country  and  level  of  education’  section  (last  accessed 
12/05/2022). 
207The ratio between the number of persons aged 65 and over (age when they are generally economically inactive) and the number of 
persons  aged  between  15  and  64.  The  value  is  expressed  per  100  persons  of  working  age  (15-64).  Source:  Eurostat,  Old-age-
dependency ratio [TPS00198] (last accessed 15/02/2022) 
208Last available Eurostat data, Population by care responsibilities and labour status [LFSO_18CRESLS] (last accessed 12/05/2022).  
209 Eurostat website, Reconciliation of work and family life - statistics (last accessed 12/05/2022). 
210EPRS briefing, The future of work: Trends, challenges and potential initiatives, page 2. 
211Namely: integrated delivery of social services (2014 and 2015); integration into the labour market for vulnerable groups including 
refugees  (2015  and  2016);  innovative  work-life  balance  strategies  (2018);  access  to  social  protection  and  national  reform  support 
(2018); long-term care (2019); and integrated interventions aimed at people in vulnerable positions (2020). Section 4.1.3 and the case 
study on “EaSI social innovation” (included in the supporting study technical annexes)  provides- more details on the adaptation of 
these calls’ topics to current trends and challenges. 
212The majority of the EaSI beneficiaries consulted through the targeted survey (36 out  of the 52) agreed that the Commission took 
sufficient actions to  mitigate  the  effects  of the  pandemic.  Those  who  disagreed  (7 out  of 52  respondents)  were  almost all  (5  of  7) 
representatives  from  EU-level  networks  benefitting  from  operating  grants,  as  they  considered  the  EU  contribution  too  low.  This 
sentiment  was  also  echoed  by  EU  level  networks  that  participated  in  the  focus  group.  They  however  appreciated  the  Commission 
decision to increase the maximum co-financing rate from 80% to 90% in the call for proposals for 2022-2025 Framework Partnership 
Agreement (see the case study on ‘EaSI flexibility to adapt’ and the results of the survey targeted at EaSI grant beneficiaries). 

64 

 
 
targeting  exclusively  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  their  family  members’  launched  in 
coordination with DG HOME to cope with the refugee crisis. This call was adapted from 
a call foreseen in the 2017 EaSI Annual Work Programme to support job integration for 
those distant  from  the labour market.  Case study research  on ‘EaSI  flexibility to  adapt’ 
uncovered  many  other  activities  (studies,  events,  capacity  building  activities)  related  to 
the integration of refugees, both before and after the refugee crisis. 
As evidenced by the focus of the calls for proposals and other actions, EaSI programme’s 
funding  priorities  were  encompassed  by  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  the  European 
Pillar  of  Social  Rights  (EPSR).  The  supporting  study’s  mapping  of  the  EU  level 
priorities,  of  the  EaSI  Annual  Work  Programmes  and  of  the  EaSI  calls  for  proposals’ 
technical specifications put forward that most actions were developed in response to the 
EU  priorities  as  well  as  to  address  emerging  stakeholders’  needs.  Notably,  strong 
linkages  were  identified  between  the  social  experimentation  calls  (see  Table  50  in  the 
Annex  VI.3.1)  and  the  EU  priorities.  Indeed,  the  Europe  2020  Strategy213    steered  the 
topical direction of these calls published between 2014 - 2017 (with the exception of the 
2016  call  targeting  exclusively  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  their  family  members), 
while  the  2018  call  for  proposals  had  a  clear  link  to  the  Work-Life  Balance  legislative 
initiative as  part of the  EPSR. The focus of the  2019 call was on  addressing  the EPSR 
principle  of  promoting  access  to  social  protection  and  developing  adequate  social 
protection systems, while the 2020 call focussed on addressing Principle 14 of the EPSR, 
linked  to  minimum  income.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  EaSI  was  implemented  mostly 
through direct management (based on calls for proposals and tenders) enabled to link its 
activities with the EU policy agenda in a swift manner. As EaSI was implemented on a 
yearly basis using annual work programmes (which can be amended when a need arises), 
allowed  it  to  adapt  to  changes  in  EU  policy  priorities  as  well  as  to  unforeseen  social-
economic challenges (including the refugee crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic).   
EaSI programme also sought to influence policy reform and in turn modernise EU law in 
the relevant fields214. As shown notably in the Sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.4 and Section 4.1.10, 
EaSI  contributions  to  policymaking  and  modernisation  of  legislation  at  EU/national 
levels  are related to  topics such as work-life balance, long-term care, pension schemes, 
labour  mobility,  microfinance  and  social  economy.  They  were  made  by  funding 
comparative  knowledge  and  by  supporting  the  capacity-building,  networking  and 
cooperation  of  EU-level  NGO  networks,  national  administrations  and  specialist 
stakeholders  (for  instance  Public  Employment  Services  and  microcredit  providers). 
Nevertleless, despite the innovative approaches promoted - as a result of the challenges 
encountered  in  scaling  up/transfer  of  social  innovations  -    the  contribution  of  social 
experimentation  projects  to  policy  change  or  the  modernisation  of  EU  law  appears  as 
being limited (Section 4.1.3). 
The  trends  and  evidence  presented  above  as  well  as  in  the  preceding  sections  allow  to 
conclude that over the implementation period, EaSI demonstrated its flexibility to adapt 
to exceptional challenges, and contributed to supporting social policies and modernising 
EU law. This was enabled both by its broad thematic scope, but also by its management 

213The  Europe  2020  strategy    mainstreamed  as  well  the  2008  active  inclusion  strategy  (see  the  SWD  on  the  Commission 
Recommendation on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market, 2017), also confirmed by the Principle 14 of the 
European Pillar of Social Rights stating that people should have the right to effective access to adequate minimum income support 
and enabling goods and services, which should be combined with incentives to (re)integrate into the labour market. 
214The effective implementation and potential modernisation of Union law requires sharing of existing sources (such as available good 
practices) through mutual learning processes such as periodic monitoring, evaluation, and peer review, as assessed in the EaSI ex ante 
evaluation.  The  evaluation  underlying  hypothesis  was  therefore  that  a  wider  availability  of  mutual  learning,  awareness  and 
dissemination activities that are considered useful by stakeholders should increase the knowledge and hence ownership of EU policies 
among stakeholders, facilitate policy making, and contribute to the implementation and modernisation of EU and national legislation.   

65 

 
 
mode  involving  planning  the  actions  on  a  yearly  basis  through  the  adoption  of  annual 
work programmes materialised in calls for proposals and calls for tenders. 
Enhancing labour mobility 
Before  the  start  of  the  EaSI  programme  in  2014,  the  proportion  of  EU-27  residents 
considering  working  in  another  EU  country  decreased  from  28%  in  2011  to  25%  in 
2013215. Since then, labour mobility has steadily increased by an average of 4% annually 
in 2014 - 2018 (see Figure 10 below). The growth slowed down after 2018 and stopped 
after 2020, most probably due to Brexit216 and the COVID-19 pandemic related mobility 
constraints217.   

Figure 10. Labour mobility of EU27 citizens  

Source: Eurostat data on EU/EFTA citizens of working age who usually reside in another EU/EFTA country by citizenship, age and 
sex [LFST_LMBPCITG]. Note: The graph reflects the number of EU27 citizens of working age (15-64) who usually reside in another 
EU/EFTA country 
The general trends above, those described in section 4.4.1 and the analysis presented in 
Sections  4.1.5  and  4.1.6  allow  to  conclude  that  the  EURES  Portal,  and  the  support 
provided by EURES advisers to  jobseekers and employers remained relevant in 2014 - 
2020.  This  is  particularly  true  for  the  ‘Your  first  EURES  Job’  scheme  given  the  high 
youth unemployment rates218. The expansion of the EaSI targeted mobility schemes after 
2018,  considering  not  only  youth  but  also  people  above  35  years,  was  also  relevant  in 
light of labour market shortages throughout the EU. Germany was a frequent user of the 
cross-border  partnership  scheme,  which  might  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  it  shares 
borders with nine other countries, which is the largest number of shared borders among 
all EU Member States. Italy was a frequent user of the EURES axis as well, which might 
be explained by the high rates of youth unemployment which required targeted mobility 
schemes aimed at youth (YfEJ).   
The  case  study  research  on  ‘EaSI  flexibility  to  adapt’  shows  that  the  EURES  activities 
were  particularly  impacted  by  the  pandemic219  due  to  reduced  demand  for  workers  in 
certain sectors, cancellation of job fairs, counselling days and seminars due to restrictions 
to  public  gatherings,  and  cancelled  placements  due  to  cross-border  and  cross-region 
travel  restrictions. The Commission took steps to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on 
these actions (for instance organising or supporting online rather than in-person events). 
Since  certain  events  (for  instance  the  European  Online  Job  Days)  were  already  taking 
place online before (on average between 2016 and 2019, 27 job days per year, online and 

215DG  EMPL  (2014),  EU  Employment  and  Social  Situation:  Recent  trends  in  the  geographical  mobility  of  workers  in  the  EU. 
Quarterly review. Supplement June 2014.  
216European Commission (2021), Annual report on intra-EU labour mobility 2020, page 13.  
217Note that according to the Commission’s there was also a large decrease in 2019-2020 due to large decreases of stocks of movers in 
the UK due to Brexit. However, this is not reflected in the Figure 10 above which includes EU27 citizens only.  
218Youth unemployment rates reduced over time but remained at a high level (25.2% in 2013, 17.6% in 2020), with some countries 
continuing to experience youth unemployment rates of over 25% in 2020 (for instance Greece, Spain and Italy). Based on Eurostat, 
Unemployment by sex and age – annual data [UNE_RT_A], considering only age group 15 - 24. 
219Given  the  scale/scope  of  the  Brexit  unforeseen  changes/effects,  no  mitigation  actions  were  possible  to  be  taken  under  EaSI  to 
reduce the effect on stocks of mobile workers across the EU. 

66 

 
 
 
in person), 21 job days (20 online and one hybrid) could still be organised during 2020220 
showing  that  the  Commission  and  the  EURES  network  members  were  prepared  to 
organise  this  type  of  events  without  disruption.  The  EURES  Regulation  ex  post 
evaluation  corroborates  this  finding,  highlighting  that  COVID-19  disruption  provided 
proof of EURES activities adaptability to change. 
The trends and evidence presented above and in the preceding sections allow to conclude 
that EaSI objective of facilitating voluntary geographical mobility was relevant221 at the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  programme  and  remained  so  during  the  implementation 
phase, becoming even more relevant in the context of unexpected developments related 
with Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Strengthening accessibility of micro- and social finance 
This  section  focuses  on  the  relevance  of  EPMF  and  EaSI  third  axis  objectives.  EPMF 
was introduced in 2010 just after the global financial crisis, in a context of scarce credit 
supply, especially for disadvantaged groups  (Section 2.1). The analysis of the women’s 
entrepreneurship drivers showed that they were (and still are) 40% less likely than men to 
be  self-employed222;  more  likely  than  men  to  have  started  their  business  out  of 
necessity223; and less likely to be active in starting a business224. In light of these general 
trends, the EPMF horizontal objective (and later of EaSI) to promote equal opportunities 
between men and women remained highly relevant in 2010 - 2020 as well.  
Since  2010,  the  steady  growth  in  the  use  of  financial  instruments  for  microfinance 
(Section 3.2.1, Section 3.2.2 and Section 4.1.7) demonstrated the continuous relevance of 
this  type  of  support  throughout  the  overall  EPMF  and  EaSI  respective  implementation 
periods. This finding was corroborated by a study on microfinance at EU-level (2020)225 
showing  that  the  support  provided  to  final  beneficiaries  by  smaller  and/or  non-bank 
lenders remains limited. This financing gap coexisting with a strong demand potential of 
this  target  group  (i.e.  the  small  microcredit  providers)  was  covered  by  the  EPMF, 
complemented since 2014 by the EaSI Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis226.  
As  concerns  the  EaSI  social  entrepreneurship  branch,  the  volume  and  the  number  of 
loans  allocated  to  social  enterprises  (Section  3.2.1  and  4.1.8)  provided  evidence  of  an 
increase  in  the  access  to  and  availability  of  social  finance.  By  supporting  social 
enterprises  that  in  turn  provide  jobs  to  vulnerable  groups,  EaSI  sought  to  contribute  to 
reducing  unemployment  rate  in  the  EU.  Notably  in  the  light  of  high  youth  and  female 
unemployment  rates  throughout  2014  -  2020  (see  Section  4.4.1),  this  objective  also 
remained  relevant  throughout  the  overall  implementation  period.  This  finding  was 
corroborated by evidence collected from different sources within the supporting study227.  

220Based on a review of past European (Online) Job Days.  
221This finding was corroborated by stakeholders who participated in the online public consultation: 47 out of 97 respondents found 
this objective relevant. This was, however, one of the lowest scores when compared to the stakeholders’ appreciation related to the 
other objectives of EaSI (see more information in the supporting study technical annexes).  
222OECD/European Commission, 2021. The Missing Entrepreneurs. Policies for inclusive entrepreneurship and self-employment  
223Idem. 
224 OECD/European Commission, 2016. Policy brief on women’s entrepreneurship. 
225Microfinance in the European Union: Market analysis and recommendations for delivery options in 2021-2027. 
226Available evidence indicate (survey targeted at financial intermediaries, Section 3.2 and Section 4.1.7) that the products provided 
under  the  Guarantee  Instrument  (both  under  EPMF  and  EaSI)  were  more  suited  to  the  needs  of  stakeholders  than  those  provided 
under  the  Funding  Instrument.  The  increased  budget  for  guarantees,  from  approximately  EUR  20  million  under  EPMF  to 
approximately EUR 400 million under EaSI, show the relevance of this financial instrument.  
227The  review of EIF  case  study  reports  (Best  at home, Bici-t, Ecce homo, Impact  Hub,  Video  Instan and  Yumeko)  concludes  that 
EaSI  met  the  needs  of  the  social  entrepreneurs  (see  examples  in  the  case  study  ‘Social  entrepreneurship’).  Interviewed  financial 
intermediaries corroborated this finding by agreeing that EaSI provided access to funding that was otherwise difficult to find in their 
countries (for instance in Denmark and Poland). EIF representatives also explained that due to the EaSI Guarantee Window entailing 
lower costs than the traditional banking system, loans were more sustainable; therefore, the absence of such a system would have a 
significant impact on (vulnerable) groups across the EU. Finally, in the online public consultation, 57 out of 97 respondents confirmed 
that the objective of increasing access/availability of microfinance and of social enterprise finance as relevant. 

67 

 
 
Improving  the  microcredit  providers  capacity  building  (Section  4.1.9)  was  a  clearly 
identified need when the  EaSI programme was established  as  evidenced in the EaSI  ex 
ante  evaluation  and  confirmed  in  the  EPMF  mid-term  evaluation.  The  financial 
intermediaries  consulted  during  the  supporting  study  process  believe  that  EPMF  and 
EaSI  met  their  needs228.  Nevertheless,  the  same  study  on  microfinance  quoted  above229 
found  that  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  Investments  Window  was  innovative  but  not 
sufficiently tailored to the needs and characteristics of individual financial intermediaries.  
In response to the refugee crisis, EaSI launched the Business Development Services Pilot 
for refugees and migrants as part of the EaSI Guarantee Instrument. The aim was to offer 
mentoring,  coaching  and training  to refugees who were facing  many additional hurdles 
(for  example  related  to  language  or  lack  of  knowledge  about  administrative  steps)  in 
setting  up  a  business.  Its  objective  was  thus  to  further  strengthen  the  provision  of 
business  development  services  to  refugees  and  migrants,  and  therefore  to  contribute  to 
their  financial  and  social  inclusion230.  Other  capacity-building  activities,  such  as  a 
Workshop on Refugee and Migrant Finance and Support in Europe (2019) and a peer-to-
peer  visit  to  MicroStart  with  focus  on  refugee  clients  (2019)  were  also  implemented 
through the EaSI programme231. 
To cope with the COVID-19 pandemic - which particularly affected (vulnerable) micro-
borrowers,  micro-enterprises  and  social  enterprises  -  EaSI  launched  in  2020  support 
measures under the EaSI Guarantee Instrument. This scheme allowed specific terms and 
conditions  for  guarantees  and  counter-guarantees  to  incentivise  financial  intermediaries 
to continue providing financing232. The high demand for this scheme, which prompted its 
extension in early 2021233, indicates the relevance of this instrument to the target groups. 
Related  events  were  also  organised,  for  instance  the  workshop  on  the  EU  response  to 
COVID-19  and  on  the  future  of  the  EaSI  programme  in  2021  -  2027  as  part  of  the 
European Microfinance Network’s Annual Conference 2020.  
The EaSI programme also addressed the topic of the twin green and digital transitions234 
notably  through  its  actions  related  to  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship.  With 
sustainability  and  climate  change  high  on  the  EU  policy  agenda,  financial  institutions 
targeting  microfinance  may  need  additional  financial  and  technical  support  to  develop 
new products  and services tailored to  the needs of micro-enterprises  interested in  using 
more energy efficient technologies235. The EU committed to further investing in this area, 
as visible in the Commission initiatives such as the Social Economy Action Plan and the 
associated  Transition  Pathway.  Under  EaSI,  more  than  seven  events  related  to 
digitalisation and microfinance/social finance took place in 2019 - 2020236; in particular, a 
four-part technical assistance webinar series on green finance at microfinance institutions 

228See survey targeted at the financial intermediaries in the ‘Technical Annexes’ of the supporting study. 
229Microfinance in the European Union: Market analysis and recommendations for delivery options in 2021-2027, page 11. 
230MFC website, EaSI programme: EU launches EUR 1 million BDS Pilot to support financial and social inclusion of migrants and 
refugees (last accessed 11/05/2022).  
231The case study on ‘EaSI flexibility to adapt’ provides additional details (see the technical annexes of the supporting study).  
232The improved conditions included: increased (counter)guarantee rates; possibility to increase cap rates; reduction of risk retention; 
adapted fixed recovery rates; longer timeframe for guarantee coverage and for coverage of accrued interest; possibility to waive the 
commitment fee; possible extension of the availability period of ongoing agreements; and increased maximum loan amounts. Source: 
EIF, presentation on the EaSI GFI COVID-19 support measures, page 4. 
233EIF website, EaSI Guarantee Instrument (last accessed 11/05/2022).  
234The European Commission 2019 - 2024 flagship priorities include the European Green Deal and a Europe fit for the digital age. 
Together, these are referred to as a twin transition.  
235Microfinance in the European Union: Market analysis and recommendations for delivery options in 2021 - 2027, page 5. 
236EaSI  Technical  Assistance  Microfinance  workshop  exploring  digitalisation  strategies  for  microfinance  institutions,  2019;  EaSI 
Technical  Assistance  webinar  on  how  to  use  digital  financial  solutions  to  enhance  financial  inclusion,  2019;  EaSI  Technical 
Assistance webinar on free IT tools for non-profit, 2019; EaSI Technical Assistance Webinar on Risk Management in a Digital Era, 
2019;  EaSI  Technical  Assistance  Webinar  on  Digital  Capabilities  for  MFIs,  2020;  EaSI  Technical  Assistance  Webinar  on  Digital 
Payments and Open Banking for Albanian MFIs, 2020; EaSI Technical Assistance webinar on leading a team in the digital era, 2020. 

68 

 
 
was  organised  in  2019.  Nevertheless,  the  rise  in  financial  technology  (Fintech),  digital 
transformation  and  crowdfunding  platforms,  which  impact  the  regular  banking  and 
microfinance  sectors  alike,  will  require  additional  measures,  especially  in  countries 
where the use of digital financial services is low237 and for vulnerable people who are the 
least likely to benefit from the digitalization of financial services. 
The  trends  and  evidence  presented  above  as  well  as  in  the  preceding  sections  allow  to 
conclude that the introduction of EPMF was timely and relevant for its stakeholders. By 
providing  support  to  financial  intermediaries,  it  permitted  them  to  improve  the 
accessibility  of  microfinance  to  the  final  beneficiaries.  Building  on  the  EPMF  success, 
EaSI  continued  to  provide  support  to  microfinance  sector,  by  extending  this  scope  to 
encompass  the  social  entrepreneurship  market.  The  high  demand  for  support  and  high 
leverage  effects  of  the  EPMF/EaSI  contribution  in  the  microfinance  and  social 
entrepreneurship fields (see Sections 4.1.7 to 4.1.9) indicates the EaSI relevance in these 
fields as well as the programme’s ability to act fast in response to market needs.  
While  their  respective  scales  did  not  allow  to  influence  reallistically  on  the  EU  2020 
Strategy and the EPSR targets (see Section 4.4.1), the EPMF and EaSI objectives were 
aligned with  these EU policy frameworks and remained relevant  throughout the 2014 - 
2020 period (as argued in Section 4.4.2). Indeed, by the end of the programming period, 
despite initial positive evolutions in the area of employment and social inclusion, the EU 
2020 Strategy and the EPSR targets were not fully met, while the COVID-19 pandemic 
had translated into additional labour market and social inclusion strain. Additionally, the 
current  economic  and  social  context  dominated  by  the  consequences  of  the  Russian 
Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine, make the EaSI objectives still relevant 
to  the  2021  -  2027  period.  As  regards  EPMF,  it  was  introduced  as  a  response  to  the 
economic  crisis  of  2008,  which  resulted  in  a  simultaneous  increase  in  unemployment 
levels and decrease in the lending capacity of financial intermediaries. The introduction 
of the EPMF was timely and appropriate, enabling an improvement in the accessibility of 
microfinancing to entrepreneurs, including from disadvantaged groups, as well as to the 
small businesses. 
The  evaluation  also  considers  the  key  issues  related  to  the  social  inclusion  and  the 
principle of “leaving no one behind” as mandated by the  UN 2030 Agenda through the 
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The findings emerged from Sections 4.1.1 to 
4.1.12 - examined  in  the light  of macro forces influencing  the general  context (Section 
4.4.1)  show  that  the  programmes’  general  objectives  and  their  operationalisation  in 
specific objectives corresponded to their initial rationale, i.e. to adress the target groups 
needs.  The  evaluation  shows  that  the  programmes’  were  particularly  appropriate  to 
adress  the  SDG  1  (‘end  poverty  in  all  its  forms  everywhere’)  and  SDG2  (‘reduce 
inequalities within and between countries’), being also sensitive to the economic, social, 
environmental and policy context in  which the activities took  place. When applying an 
“equity  lens”,  the  evaluation  shows  progress  in  the  integration  of  all  EaSI  and  EPMF 
horizontal  principles  (Section  4.1.11).  However,  the  support  through  the  financial 
instruments  presents  a  downward  trend  in  support  provided  to  women-led  enterprises, 
which  is  a  more  mitigated  aspect  of  the  ‘gender  equality’  principle  integration  in  line 
with the SDG 5 (‘achieve gender equality and empower women and girls’).  

237Idem. 

69 

 
 
 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1 Conclusions 
This ex post evaluation encountered some methodological and empirical challenges and 
limitations in collecting and analysing data to draw conclusions (discussed in Section 2.1 
and  Annex  II).  The  main  limitation  is  the  use  of  indicators  based  on  stakeholders’ 
satisfaction to measure the performance of activities implemented under the PROGRESS 
axis  in  2014  - 2020.  Given the intangible nature  of the related  activities (production of 
analytical knowledge, implementation of social experimentations, organisation of mutual 
learning events and stakeholders’ capacity building), the performance of these activities 
was  evaluated  by  means  of  subjective  variables  both  in  2007  -  2013  (PROGRESS 
programme) and 2014 – 2020 (PROGRESS axis of EaSI). Although these indicators did 
not  provide  the  same  quality  of  information  as  quantitative  indicators  used  for  the 
EURES  and  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axes,  they  offered  nevertheless  a 
standardized  measures  that  allowed  for  comparisons  over  time.  Moreover,  despite  the 
variations in the response rate to the Stakeholder Survey in 2014 - 2020 (between 10% - 
17%),  in  absolute  terms,  the  number  of  respondents  was  enough  large  to  offer  a  good 
representativeness of views238.  
Additionally,  the  ex  post  evaluation  combined  and  triangulated  several  data  collection 
methodologies,  data  sources  and  comparison  across  different  sources  and/or  data  sets 
(Section 1.2) to enhance the overall understanding of the situation addressed by a specific 
indicator  or  set  of  indicators.  The  PROGRESS’s  axis  headline  indicators  were  used  to 
calculate  cost–effectiveness  ratios  allowing  to  identify  good  value  for  money  to  be 
identified.  Although  these  cost–effectiveness  ratios  are  informative  in  assessing 
incremental value for money in an ex post evaluation context, applying this methodology 
to  support  the  decision-making  is  not  realistic  given  the  uncertainty  in  measuring  both 
the costs and the effectiveness. However, these cost-effectiveness ratios indicate whether 
expensive is one activity, while offering a greater effectiveness and a good value. 

5.1.1 Effectiveness and efficiency 

The  evidence  collected  on  the  specific  objectives  shows  that  the  production  of  the 
analytical evidence (Section 4.1.1) to support policy and legislation was a cost-effective 
activity,  despite  the  fact  that  the  budget  spent  to  develop  entirely  new  knowledge  was 
below  the  ex  ante  evaluation  estimate239.  The  information  sharing  and  mutual  learning 
activities were moderately  effective, being  undermined by the insuficient dissemination 
of  EaSI  funding  opportunities  and  results,  and  by  the  cancellation  or  conversion  into 
online  format  of  most  events  planned  to  be  organised  in  2019  -  2020,  in  a  pandemic 
context (Section 4.1.2).  
The  efficiency  of  the  social  experimentation  activities  was  also  hindered  by  their 
unexploited  scalability  potential 
(Section  4.1.3).  On  a  positive  side,  social 
experimentation  have  been  applied to  a large spectrum of social interventions  targeting 

238For larger populations, such as a population of 10 000, a comparatively small minimum ratio of 10 percent (1 000) of individuals is 
required to ensure representativeness of the sample In 2014 (covering 2014 period), 10 737 invitations were sent to participate in the 
Stakeholder Survey. In total, 1662 responses were received. The response rate of the 2014 EaSI Stakeholder Survey was around 17%. 
In  2017  (covering the implementation period 2015  - 2016),  the  survey  was disseminated  to 7 195  stakeholders  and  received 1 038 
responses. The response rate of the EaSI Stakeholder Survey was around 14%238. In 2019 (covering the implementation period 2017 - 
2018), the survey was disseminated to 15 374 stakeholders and received 2 325 responses. The response rate was around 15%. In 2021 
(covering the implementation period 2019 - 2020), the survey was disseminated to 9 073 stakeholders and received 885 replies. The 
response rate was around 10%.  
239The EaSI ex ante evaluation estimated that 25% of the total programme’s budget should be allocated to the development of new 
ideas, concepts, approaches or models. This estimation may be affected however by an overestimation in the EaSI ex ante evaluation 
(see discussion in Section 4.1.1).  

70 

 
 
 
the  most  in-need  groups,  such  as  through  welfare-to-work  programmes,  provision  of 
health  services,  education,  access  to  public  utilities,  active  retirement,  or  integration  of 
refugees.  They  also  created  new  collaborations  between  the  public,  private  and  civil 
society sectors stakeholders. The evaluation confirmed the key role of public authorities 
in  initiating  and  implementing  social  experimentations  due  to  their  strong  institutional 
and  territorial  anchoring.  On  a  negative  side,  the  mainstreaming/embedding  of  social 
experimentation  results  in  policy  making  was  limited  by  the  lack  of  appropriate 
dissemination  channels  and  incentive  mechanisms  linking  EaSI  and  ESF  together  and 
with the national stakeholders/policymakers.  
EaSI  was  also  efficient  in  boosting  the  stakeholders’  capacity  to  participate  in  policy 
making  (Section  4.1.4).  The  support  offered  to  the  EU-level  NGO  networks  allowed 
them to secure their long-term sustainability and to become critical sources of expertise 
both for national policymakers and EU institutions. The main inefficiency pointed out by 
the evaluation  was  related to  the need  for  the  EU-level  NGO networks  to reapply  each 
year  to  recurrent  calls  for  proposals240  which  translated  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  and 
generated administrative burden (both on applicants’ side and the Commission services’ 
side). 
EaSI  was  moderately  efficient  with  the  support  of  EURES  axis  in  facilitating  the 
matchmaking  between  available  vacancies  at  EU-level  and  jobseekers  needs,  and 
contributing  to  the labour  market  transparency  (Section  4.1.5).  The  evaluation  revealed 
indeed the growing utility and awareness of the EURES Portal as a EU-wide job search 
tool both for jobseekers and employers. Despite the downward trend in the monthly visits 
to the Portal241 and the upward trend in costs per visit (due to successive investments to 
develop  the  tool’s  fonctionalities),  the  number  of  jobseekers/employers  registered  and 
vacancies posted increased. Some shortcomings hindered however the Portal functioning, 
notably the fact that still not all available national vacancies were published on the Portal 
by  end-2020  and  the  technical  problems  affecting  its  automatic  matching  function.  As 
regards the cross-border partnerships and the targeted mobility schemes, they facilitated a 
constantly increasing number of contacts between the EURES advisers on one hand, and 
jobseekers  and  employers  on  the  other  hand  (Section  4.1.6).  However,  the  evaluation 
shows that these services were not enough visible among employers and that the cost per 
placement exceeded the cost estimated in the EaSI ex ante evaluation242 .  
Section  4.1.7  shows  that  the  number  and  volume  of  microloans  provided  generated 
higher  leverage  effects  than  expected  both  under  EPMF  and  EaSI,  indicating  the 
microfinance  branch  high  cost-effectiveness.  An  additional  effect  consists  in  the 
coverage  upward  trend  of  the  EaSI  microfinance  support  both  from  geographical  and 
beneficiaries’ perspective.  Indeed, the number of countries  covered  as  well the average 
microloan increased  under EaSI  compared to  EPMF.  The funding provided  under EaSI 
social entrepreneurship  branch also presents a high cost-effectiveness with a significant 
increase  in  number  of  enterprises  supported  and  a  leverage  effect  higher  than  expected 
for  this  new  activity  (Section  4.1.8).  In  order  to  boost  the  absorption  capacity  of  the 
support  provided  under  the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis,  EaSI  also 
provided  training  and  mentoring  services  to  microcredit  providers.  From  a  quantitative 
perspective,  the  support  provided  exceeded  the  target  fixed,  while  qualitatively,  the 

240As  discussed  in  Section  4.1.4,  this  type  of  procedure  for  selecting  operating  grants  is  defined  in  the  Financial  Regulation,  and 
therefore cannot be modified. 
241Phenomenon due first to the upward trend in the EU-level employment rate and then to the Covid-19 disruption, but also explained 
by changes in the visits counting methodology see discussion in Section 4.1.5). 
242As other EaSI ex ante evaluation estimates, this estimated cost may be also affected by an overestimation in the (see discussion in 
Section 4.1.6). 

71 

 
 
increased  capacity  of  the  microcredit  providers  was  one  of  the  EaSI  key  achievements 
(Section 4.1.9) indicating thus a high cost-effectiveness of the programme’s support. 
The  EaSI  Regulation  was  based  on  an  “expected  effect  approach”,  meaning  that  the 
achievement of the nine specific objectives summarised above were expected to lead to 
the achievement of the five general objectives.  
The  first  three  general  objectives  of  the  EaSI  programme  (Figure  11)  were  closely 
interlinked.  They  referred  to  the  production  of  concrete,  coordinated  and  innovative 
actions  at  EU  and  Member  State  levels;  the  facilitation  of  policy  reform  for  the 
development  of  adequate  accessible  and  efficient  social  protection  systems  and  labour 
markets;  and  the  effective  implementation,  modernisation  of  EU  law  in  the  field  of 
employment  and  social  inclusion.  Sections  4.1.1  to  4.1.4  show  how  the  activities 
implemented under the  respective specific objectives  contributed to  the  achievement  of 
the first three general objectives. Additionally, the quantitative headline indicators used 
to  measure  the  progress  in  the  achievement  of  the  two  first  general  objectives  (Section 
4.1.10)  show  an  upward  trend  (‘stronger  ownership’)  respectively  a  stable  value 
(‘facilitation  of  policy  reforms'),  while  the  qualitative  indicator  related  to  the 
‘modernisation and application of EU law’ show that EaSI was instrumental in achieving 
this objective. All these elements allow to conclude that the first three general objectives 
were  successfully  achieved,  hindered  nevertheless  by  inefficiencies  registered  in  the 
communication  and  dissemination,  as  well  as  in  the  information-sharing  and  mutual 
learning, and social experimentation domains.  

Figure 11. Snapshot of the intervention logic related to the first three EaSI general objectives. 

Source: Supporting study, based on the EaSI Regulation. 
The fourth general objective of the EaSI programme (Figure 12) was to promote workers' 
voluntary geographical  mobility  on a fair basis and boost employment opportunities by 
developing high-quality, inclusive EU labour markets that are open and accessible to all, 
while  respecting  workers'  rights,  including  freedom  of  movement.  Sections  4.1.5  and 
4.1.6 show how the EURES Portal activity and the EURES advisers’ contacts generated 
together an increased number of placements at EU-level. However, as shown in Section 
4.1.10, the efficiency of these activities is mitigated by the decrease in the ratio between 
number  of  contacts  and  number  of  placements  resulted.  These  elements  allow  to 
conclude  that  the  fourth  objective  was  moderately  successfully  achieved,  due  to 
shortcomings  in  the  EURES  Portal  fonctionning  (notably  related  to  the  automatic 
matching  function and the posting  of nationnaly  available vacancies, and  to  the limited 
visibility of the placement services to the employers). 

72 

 
 
Figure 12. Snapshot of the intervention logic related to the fourth EaSI general objective. 

Source: Supporting study, based on the EaSI Regulation. 

The  fifth  general  objective  of  the  EaSI  programme  (Figure  13)  was  to  promote 
employment  and  social  inclusion  by  increasing  the  availability  and  accessibility  of 
microfinance for vulnerable people who wish to start up a microenterprise as well as for 
existing microenterprises, and by increasing access to finance for social enterprises.  

Figure 13. Snapshot of the intervention logic related to the fifth EaSI general objective/EPMF objective.  

Source: Supporting study, based on the EaSI Regulation. 

the  support  from  only  microfinance 

It  sought  to  do  this  by  providing  support  to  financial  intermediaries  in  the  form  of 
guarantees and counter-guarantees (EaSI Guarantee Instrument), senior and subordinated 
loans (EaSI Funded Instrument), as well as capacity building activities (through the EaSI 
Capacity  Building  Investments  Window  as  well  as  the  EaSI  Technical  Assistance  for 
microfinance and social enterprise finance). The EaSI objectives related to microfinance 
were  closely  aligned  with  those  of  the  EPMF.  The  key  differences  were  that  EaSI 
expanded 
to  social 
entrepreneurship and to the microcredit providers capacity building.  
Sections  4.1.7  to  4.1.9  show  how  the  related  specific  objectives  contributed  to  the 
achievement  of  the  fifth  general  objective  (upward  trends  registered  in  all  quantitative 
indicators). An additional headline indicator (dedicated to the fifth general objective) was 
used  to  measure  how  these  activities  contributed  to  an  improved  access  to  finance  of 
disavantaged groups. Data collected suggests that the support to some categories (mainly 
women  and  unemployed  people)  decreased  over  the  time,  while  support  to  seniors  and 
people coming from third countries increased (Section 4.1.10). All these elements allow 
to conclude that the fifth general objective was moderately successfully achieved: EPMF 

include  support 

to 

73 

 
 
 
 
learning/communication  events  or  of 

and EaSI traditionnaly targeted groups in disadvantaged position, however, a downward 
trend in support provided to women and unemployed was observed243. 
Section 4.1.11 shows un upward trend in the mainstreaming of all  horizontal principles 
across programmes’ activities between 2014 and 2020. A particular emphasis was placed 
on those directly aligned with the EaSI objectives such as paying attention to vulnerable 
groups; guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection; and promoting a high level 
of quality and sustainable employment. The evaluation indicates that for some groups of 
stakeholders (EaSI grants’ beneficiaries, notably EU-level NGO networks, but also EaSI 
third axis and EPMF beneficiaries), these horizontal issues were the intrinsic motivation 
of  their  activities  and  they  had  been  addressed  through  their  implementation.  The 
evaluation  findings  reveals  as  well  that  disability  and  accessibility  matters  were 
addressed to a more limited extent through EaSI-funded actions, but their mainstreaming 
improved significantly between 2014 and 2020.  
From  an  economic  efficiency  perspective,  the  analysis  shows  that  sufficient  resources 
were  allocated  between  the  activities  targeting  different  groups  in  need  and  that  this 
spending was justified by the effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes (as shown 
in  Sections  4.1.1  to  4.1.12).  It  was  however  difficult  to  quantitatively  assess  the 
efficiency of some outputs, notably the analytical knowledge generated, the results of the 
capacity  building,  of  mutual 
the  social 
experimentation. To mitigate the lack of purely quantitative indicators for these actions, 
the analysis of efficiency was infused with an understanding of how the activities fitted 
with  the  needs  of  the  target  groups.  Section  4.1.12  indicates  that  the  beneficiaries 
considered  the  EaSI  budget  as  sufficient  to  achieve  the  intended  results,  but  additional 
funding would be necessary to allow the upscaling and/or transferring in other contexts 
of  proven  social  experimentations  to  achieve  wider  impacts,  to  facilitate  the  social 
enterprises growth as well as to address the social, environmental, and digital challenges. 
There  was  also  a  consensus  among  beneficiaries  that  the  project-related  administrative 
efforts  were  justified  considering  the  benefits  that  were  brought  from  the  actions. 
However, evidence indicates that the administrative burden in the application phase and 
the  reporting  requirements  were  too  burdensome  for  small  organisations  and  for  the 
operating grants beneficiaries (EU-level NGO networks).  
The budgetary execution analysis indicates that the conversion of the inputs into results 
was made the most cost-efficient way possible (Section 4.1.12). While PROGRESS axis 
did not commit EUR 10 million (the total amount planned being EUR 515 million), this 
is  explained  by  the  need  to  adjust  spending  to  the  evolving  policy  priorities  and  new 
(contextual) challenges244.  
The evaluation also points out that one of the effects of defining indicative shares in EaSI 
Regulation  for  each  axis  was  that  budgets  cannot  be  easily  moved  to  an  axis  in  more 
demand to ensure faster deployment of funds when needed. The evaluation indicates that 
the flexibility clause foreseen in the legal basis permitting to adjust funding among axes 
was  in  practice  unnecessary/inefficient  given  the  important  (potential)  administrative 
burden generated to operate these changes (Section 4.1.12).  

243To note however that uncertainty in the evidence of whether the 50% target was reached.  As discussed in Section 4.1.10, available 
social data (related to gender, age, education level and employment status) is not complete, being provided by the end-beneficiaries on 
voluntary  basis  and  considered  as  sensitive  by  the  financial  intermediaries.  Additionally,  some  people  were  counted  in  several 
categories. Therefore, these data do not provide an accurate picture of support provided per group and do not allow to conclude on the 
reaching  of  the  target  indicated  in  the  EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation  (50%  of  people  receiving  EaSI  microfinance  to  be  unemployed  or 
belonging from vulnerable groups). 
244The  difference  observed  in  the  PROGRESS  axis  absorption  rate  corresponds  to  cancelled  studies  in  line  with  political  priorities 
and/or to cancellation/online conversion of events due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

74 

 
 
While  the  financial  means  available  were  sufficient  to  implement  PROGRESS  and 
EURES activities, the budget for Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship was too low. The 
high uptake of the EaSI Guarantee Instrument put pressure on this budget and resulted in 
a full utilisation of the EaSI microfinance branch budget already by end-2016. This high 
demand was remedied by enabling a frontloading of the EaSI budget earmarked for 2017 
-  2020  and  by  means  of  guarantee  amounting  to  EUR  100  million  provided  under  the 
European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI245). This led to an increase in the overall 
volume of actions for the EaSI Guarantee Instrument and allowed EIF to meet the strong 
market  demand  and  to  implement  additional  operations  resulting  in  a  high  leverage 
effect246.  
In terms of governance efficiency, Section 4.1.12 indicates that the overall administrative 
costs  (including  expenses  related  with  the  monitoring,  evaluation,  coordination  and 
committee  meetings,  IT  development,  audit,  communication)  were  constant  and 
appropriately  planned  across  the  entire  period.  When  isolating  and  analysing  the 
governance  (monetary  and  non-monetary)  costs,  it  results  that  they  were  substantially 
lower than expected before initiating the programme. This may indicate a high efficiency 
level, however no robust conclusion could be made given the insufficient information on 
the ex ante methodological approach used for the estimations. 
In terms of lessons learned in monitoring and evaluation, the evaluation shows that given 
the complex architecture of EaSI, multidisciplinary teams  were necessary to  coordinate 
and implement the programme, as well as for its monitoring and evaluation. The baseline 
values (points of comparison) established at the EaSI start allowed to evaluate ex post the 
progress  both  at  the  specific  and  general  objectives  level.  Appropriate/complementary 
data sources and data collection methods (EaSI Stakeholders Survey, EURES monitoring 
system  and  the  EIF  reports)  permitted  to  collect  data  on  the  indicators.  Given  the  time 
necessary to take effect, some impacts were nevertheless difficult to assess, for instance 
of  the  social  experimentation  projects,  of  the  capacity  building  activities  as  well  of  the 
labour  market  information.  The  EaSI  Stakeholders  Survey  –  carried  out  bi-annually  – 
was  the  main  instrument  to  collect  data  on  indicators,  mainly  for  the  PROGRESS  axis 
specific objectives with qualitative indicators converted in numerical indicators (based on 
the  stakeholders’  opinions).  For  the  survey’s  purpose,  creating  in  2014  a  sample  of 
representative stakeholders that will potentially benefit from EaSI was a challenging task 
for the monitoring contractor and the EaSI coordination/implementation teams.  

5.1.2 Internal and external coherence  

Through building on the past success of each predecessor programme (see Section 2.1), 
the  objective  of  EaSI  was  to  achieve  improved  coordination  between  activities,  greater 
policy coherence, and more effective delivery and management of activities.  
Evidence provided in Section 4.2 indicates that the merging operated in 2014 generated 
synergies  between  the  three  EaSI  axes.  Notably  the  activities  funded  under  the 
PROGRESS axis beneffited to the two other axes, for instance the analytical knowledge, 
the  calls  for  proposals  in  areas  of  working  conditions  and  employment,  the  support  to 
EU-level networks operating in labour, microfinance and social entrepreneurship fields, 
the  mutual 
(both  among  EURES  and  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship actors), the training of EURES advisers and the technical assistance for 
microcredit  providers.  Moreover,  as  argued  in  Sections  4.1  and  4.2,  activities  such 

learning  activities 

245EFSI is an initiative launched jointly by the EIB Group and the European Commission to help overcome the investment gap in the 
EU by mobilizing private financing for strategic investments. 
246During the 2015 - 2020 period, a total of 154 operations were signed under the two financial instruments as well as 14 microcredit 
providers capacity building contracts see Section 3.2). 

75 

 
 
that 

to  4.1.9  show 

to  all.  Sections  4.1.7 

analytical  knowledge,  mutual  learning/events  and  capacity  building  funded  under  the 
PROGRESS axis were transversal and contributed to all programmes’ general objectives, 
including  those  related  to  EURES  and  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship.  Sections 
4.1.5  to  4.1.6  shows  additionally  that  -  in  terms  of  scope  -  EURES  provides 
information/guidance and recruitment/placement services for employers and jobseekers, 
working thus towards EaSI’s ultimate goal of high quality, inclusive EU labour markets 
accessible 
the  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  axis  provided  loans  to  vulnerable  groups  and  social  enterprises, 
addressing  thus  market  gaps  and  developping  the  microfinance  and  social  finance 
markets. These elements allow to conclude that both EaSI axes supported employment by 
using different instruments in a coherent and complementary way.  
The  somewhat  rigid  structure  organised  by  axis  (PROGRESS,  EURES  and 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship)  hindered  the  move  of  budgets  from  one  axis  to 
another  when  needed.  Nevertheless,  the  rationalisation  of  instruments,  rules  and 
procedures  under  one  fund  saved  resources  for  programming  and  implementation, 
generating ultimately simplification and efficiency gains (Section 4.1.12).  
Regarding the complementarities with other EU programmes, the evaluation shows that 
EaSI  was  most  strongly  consistent  with  the  ESF  (Section  4.2).  They  had  similar 
objectives but varied significantly in their approach to achieving them, i.e. through using 
direct  management  mode  for  one  and  shared  management  for  other.  Nevertheless,  the 
EaSI mid-term evaluation, then the ESF+ impact assessment and now the EaSI  ex post 
evaluation  indicate  a  lack  of  synergies  between  the  two  funds,  mostly  related  to  the 
scaling up of the social innovations tested at small scale under EaSI. The reasons of this 
bottleneck point to an insufficient dissemination of EaSI results at national level notably 
among  the  ESF  Managing  Authorities  and  to  the  lack  of  concrete  incentives  and 
mechanisms to facilitate transition of results from the direct management mode into the 
shared management mode247.  
By filling the gap in the corresponding microfinance markets  through specific financial 
instruments,  EaSI  and  EPMF  were  complementary  with  ESF  and  national  funding.  By 
mitigating  the  risk  for  microfinance  intermediaries,  they  facilitated  the  creation  of  new 
business  and  new  employments  in  microenterprises  and/or  for  disadvantaged  people. 
New  complementarities  identified  between  the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship 
axis  and  ESF248  indicate  an  improvement  compared  to  the  predecessor  programming 
period  when 
the  potential  complementarities  between  EPMF  and  ESF  were 
underexploited (Section 4.2). 
As regards complementarities with other EU-level funds, the evaluation shows (Section 
4.2)  that  despite  similarities  in  terms  of  objectives  and  target  groups,  their  focus  was 
sufficiently  different,  thus  avoinding  overlaps.  PROGRESS  axis  and  other  EU 
programmes (such as the Erasmus+ or Horizon 2020) complemented each other in terms 
of  specific  objectives,  activities  and  beneficiaries.  Complementarities  in  terms  of 
objectives  (skills’  building,  online  portals)  between  EURES  axis  and  programmes  such 
Erasmus+  or  EURAXESS  were  also  found,  given  that  the  target  groups  are  quite 
different  (youth  for  Erasmus+,  jobseekers  for  EURES,  researchers  for  EURAXESS). 
EURES  axis  was  also  complementary  with  Interreg,  given  their  similar  types  of 
their  geographical  scope  and  priorities. 
activities,  but  different  as 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  also  appears  to  be  consistent  with  other 

regards 

247Creating conditions for more synergies was one of the reasons of merging ESF and EaSI under the banner of ESF+ in 2021 - 2027. 
248Based on the EPMF interim evaluation supporting study (2014), a European Parliament in-depth analysis (page 16) of the findings 
estimated that only 20% of EPMF financial intermediaries reported cooperation with entities supported by the ESF. 

76 

 
 
microfinance  instruments  at  EU  level.  They  supported  either  SMEs  (like  the  COSME 
financial  guarantee)  or  companies  up  to  large  caps  (InnovFin),  where  EaSI  supported 
only  microenterprises  or  social  enterprises.  They  also  offered  larger  financing  amounts 
(InnovFin  and  COSME)  and  greater  variety  in  terms  of  financial  products  (like  the 
InnovFin  programme),  but  targeting  only  specific  groups  of  beneficiaries  in  certain 
countries,  while  the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  was  open  to  all  EaSI 
participating countries. 
However, despite the complementarities between EaSI and other EU instruments, further 
coherence is hampered by the variety of intervention logic and rules governing the funds. 
The co-existence of different  rulebooks (Financial  Regulation  for financial instruments, 
Common  Provisions  Regulations  for  structural  funds)  makes  it  challenging  for  the 
stakeholders  to  fully  exploit  the  complementarities  between  different  funds.  The 
evaluation  also  reveals  a  stakeholders’  consensus  on  the  importance  of  maintaining  of 
different  types  of  support  at  EU  level,  while  more  coordination  between  EU-level 
programmes targeting the same groups would be necessary. 

5.1.3 EU added value 

The  evaluation  indicates  that  EaSI  achieved  impacts  that  would  not  have  happened 
otherwise (Sections 4.1.1 - 4.1.12; Section 4.3). It results that EaSI was the most suitable 
vehicle  for  EU-wide  deliverables  such  as  comparative  databases,  studies  and  mutual 
learning activities that are not always top priorities at other governance levels. It would 
be also  unlikely that national schemes would be able to support  social  experimentation 
across different participating countries and EU-level NGO networks as the PROGRESS 
axis  did.  Moreover,  there  are  no  other  EU  resources  available  which  are  specifically 
designed  for  cross-border  partnerships,  although  the  Interreg  programme  supported 
employment  policies  in  cross-border  regions  if  programmed  by  the  Member  States 
concerned.  Nor  are  there  EU  resources  specifically  designed  for  supporting  the 
modernisation  and  strengthening  of  online  services  (EURES  Portal)  provided  under 
EURES,  although  the  ESF  supported  capacity  building  of  the  national  Public 
Employment  Services  if  programmed  by  the  individual  Member  States.  Regarding  the 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis, the support for the social investment market 
would most likely slow down without funding from EaSI, leading to less social business 
across the EU and fewer employment opportunities in these sectors. The objectives of the 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  went  even  beyond  disbursing  loans  to 
vulnerable  groups,  addressing  market  gaps/failures  and  developing  market-based 
instruments,  while  supporting  the  ecosystem  for  social  finance  markets  in  the  EaSI 
participating countries. 
The  evaluation  shows  as  well  that  EaSI  actions  stimulated  the  cooperation  among 
different  institutions  and  stakeholders  from  public,  private,  and  civil  society  sectors, 
which  otherwise  would  have  scarce  incentives  to  work  together.  This  facilitated  the 
mutual learning and ultimately a better alignment with the target groups’ needs. In terms 
of governance, merging the three predecessor instruments249 into one also contributed to 
enhanced  interaction  among  stakeholders  from  different  countries  and  to  the  cross-
sectoral exchange of knowledge which would not happen.  

5.1.4 Relevance 

The  global  trends  depicted  in  Section  4.4.1  point  to  a  continuous  relevance  of  the  two 
interventions’  objectives  and  horizontal  principles.  The  financial  power  of  the  two 

249EaSI (2014 - 2020) was built on and provided for the continuation of activities carried out by three previously existing instruments 
(Section 1.1): the Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS), the network of European Employment Services 
(EURES) and the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF). 

77 

 
 
programmes did not allow to influence these global trends, but evidence collected shows 
that  they  had  positive  impact  on  the  quality  of  life  of  people  involved,  particularly  of 
vulnerable  people  (Section  4.4.2).  The  programme’s  objectives  are  also  still  pertinent 
considering the recent political events likely to impact the EU in the coming years.  
In the period 2021 - 2027, EaSI became an integrated part of a consolidated single fund, 
the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). Many of the former stand-alone programme EaSI 
provisions were preserved, providing continuity of its objectives, while accentuating their 
social dimension in the context of supporting the European Pillar of Social Rights. The 
financial  instruments  for  microfinance  and  social  enterprises  implemented  under  the 
former  EaSI  were  deployed  under  the  InvestEU  Fund,  while  the  EURES  network 
coordination  office  function  was  transferred  to  the  European  Labour  Authority  (ELA) 
established  in  2019.  In  this  context,  the  PROGRESS  and  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  types  of  activities  could  focus  even  more  on  gender  issues  and 
unemployment,  while  the  former  EURES  axis  types  of  activities  could  targed  specific 
economic needs (as is the case with the ‘Your first EURES job’ targeting youth and the 
cross-border partnerships targeting comuters). The topics of mutual learning activities  - 
e.g. labour market integration measures for young people, asylum seekers, refugees and 
long-term unemployed people, skills needs  related to the twin transitions - followed the 
priorities  set  in  the  EU  2020  Strategy  and  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights.  They 
were  also  supported  by  other  EaSI-funded  analytical  activities,  in  particular  the 
Employment  and  Social  Development  Report  and  the  Labour  Force  Survey.  The 
analytical activities under the current ESF+/EaSI strand could prioritise the dissemination 
of  good  practices  from  different  countries,  while  the  social  experimentations’  results 
could be made more visible among the key actors (ESF Managing Authorities, national 
public authorities). Equally, maintaining the support provided to the EU-level networks 
appears to be key in aligning the policy agendas across different levels of governance in 
the participating countries.  

5.1.5 Geographical coverage and stakeholders’ participation 

Overall,  despite  the  limited  scale  and  financial  power  of  the  two  programmes,  the 
evaluation  presents  evidence  that  EaSI  and  EPMF  were  effective  and  efficient  in 
reaching  relevant  stakeholders.  Quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  demonstrating  the 
effectiveness  of  each  objective  (Section  4.1)  show  how  they  contributed  to  meet  the 
expectations  formulated  before  their  launching  (Section  2.1).  The  most  notable 
shortcomings  were  registered  for  the  information-sharing  and  mutual  learning  related 
objective (mainly due to the difficulty  in  organising  events  in  a pandemic context) and 
for  the  social  experimentation  expected  upscaling  (hindered  by  the  difficult  transition 
between  the  direct  management  and  the  shared  management  funds).  The  insuficient 
communication of EaSI financing opportunities and results to the stakeholders emerged 
as a transversal issue hampering the programme’s performance.  
However, offering a range of activities allowed EaSI to meet the needs of diverse groups 
of  stakeholders250.  For 
instance,  EaSI  provided  policymakers  with  comparative 
knowledge  including  those  resulting  from  social  experimentation  activities;  supported 
EU-level  NGO  networks  with  funding  securing  their  sustainability,  advocacy  activities 
and  their  role  as  interface  with  grassroots  organizations;  facilitated  the  matchmaking 

250EaSI provided a rich set of tools and services corresponding to the (evolving/emerging) needs of different recipients. For instance, 
the European Online Job Days, organized by the EURES national coordination offices, is a service that has been  running for years, 
but  its  relevance  clearly  appeared  only  during  and  after  the  COVID  disruption,  being  for  months  one  of  the  few  public  or  private 
services that continued to support the European job mobility. 

78 

 
 
 
to 

thus 

jobseekers/employers  needs,  contributing 

between  vacancies  and 
their 
geographical/occupational  mobility;  and  supported  financial  intermediaries  to  reach 
persons  with  difficulties  in  accessing  finance.  It  also  provided  training  and  advisory 
services  to  microcredit  providers,  contributing  to  develop  the  microfinance/social 
entrepreneurship markets in the participating countries. 
In  terms  of  total  committments  (including  grants,  procurements  for  studies,  events  and 
other  services  such  as  evaluation,  audit,  IT  services, 
translation/interpretation, 
communication,  training),  EaSI  provided  support  to  42  countries,  with  Belgium  and 
Luxembourg  appearing  as  being  the  first  EaSI  beneficiaries.  Organisations  from  35 
countries  received  grants  under  EaSI  calls  for  proposals  (notably  Italy,  Germany, 
Belgium and Spain). Germany and Belgium present as well the higher success rate, this 
being  due  mainly  to  the  regular  participation  of  organisations  established  in  these 
countries  in  recurrent  calls  for  proposals  for  cross-border  partnerships  respectively  to 
support  EU-level  NGO  networks  (Chapter  3).  A  group  of  countries  (Estonia, 
Luxembourg,  Malta  and  Romania)  were  never  involved  in  EaSI  grants  as  main 
beneficiary,  nevertheless,  they  were  involved  as  co-beneficiary.  Overall,  the  EaSI  calls 
for  proposals  success  rate  was  40,60%,  this  being  also  influenced  partially  by  the  non-
compliant applications (almost 14%).  
In terms of stakeholders’ involvement in the EaSI grants, the public bodies appear to be 
the  projects’  key  drivers  (notably  in  Germany,  Belgium  and  Italy),  followed  by 
foundations/NGOs,  the  trade  union  organisations  and  the  employers  organisations 
(Chapter  3).  The  least  involved  were  the  universities/research  institutes  and  enterprises 
(both private and not-for-profit). The only country where all types of stakeholders were 
involved  in  projects  was  Italy.  Moreover,  stakeholders  operating  at  national  level  were 
the  most  involved  in  the  EaSI  implementation  (notably  in  Italy,  Germany  and  Spain), 
followed by the local-level and regional-level stakeholders. The least involved were the 
stakeholders operating at international level, most of them being established in Belgium 
where  most  of  EU-level  networks  benefiting  from  operating  grants  (consuming  a 
substantial share of EaSI budget) are established (see Chapter 3). 
Overall,  evidence  provided  in  Chapter  3  and  in  Section  4.1  indicate  that  all  eligible 
countries  participated  in  the  programme.  However,  the  evaluation  shows  differences  as 
regards countries’ participation both within each of the EaSI axes as well as across them. 
It  is  nevertheless  important  to  note  that  the  EaSI  objective  was  not  to  ensure  an  equal 
distribution of funding across participating countries given that this was not stipulated as 
such in the legal basis (EaSI Regulation does not contain any allocation key). EaSI was 
mostly  implemented  on  the  basis  of  calls  for  proposals  and  to  a  lesser  extent  through 
calls for tenders. These calls were open to all EaSI participating countries and different 
groups of stakeholders were targeted depending on the specific call design. Selection and 
award criteria applied along a dedicated evaluation process according to the EU Financial 
Regulation  and  projects/contracts  were  granted  based  on  the  quality  of  the  proposals. 
Other  different  reasons  explains  this  inequal  participation  in  the  EaSI  implementation, 
among them being notably the absence of specific needs related to the call’s topic in the 
country;  the  lack  of  monetary  resources  (to  cover  the  co-financing  of  20%)  and/or  of 
human  resources  (to  apply,  implement  and  report);  the  lack  of  knowledge/experience 
(with  project  design  preparation  complying  with  award  criteria);  and  lack/insufficient 
communication campaigns at national level on EU funding opportunities.  

79 

 
 
 
5.2. Lessons learned  

5.2.1 Answers to evaluation questions 

the 

The 

notably 

evaluation 

underscored 

To what extent was the EU intervention successful and why? 
Overall,  the  activities  implemented  helped  increase  awareness  and  ownership  of  EU 
policy  inputs  into  social  inclusion  and  poverty  reduction  (benefiting  to  EU-level  and 
national  policy  makers  but  also  to  individual  citizens).  They  facilitated  notably  policy 
change through comparative perspectives and capacity building, helping stakeholders (in 
particular  EU-level  NGO  networks  and  national  administrations)  to  formulate  and 
implement socioeconomic policies in the participating countries. They also improved the 
perceptions and use of cross-border potential for employment (both from jobseekers and 
employers perspective) and allowed to  test  rapidly innovative approaches (beneficial  to 
policymakers,  notably  to  the  national  authorities).  Despite  their  small  scale/budget, 
EPMF and EaSI also contributed to social and economic inclusion through the support to 
social enterprises and specific categories of social entrepreneurs.. 
A number of shortcomings undermined however the EaSI programme’s effectiveness and 
insufficient 
efficiency. 
communication/dissemination  of  results  and  of  mutual  learning  opportunities,  the 
unexploited  scalability  of  social  experimentations,  the  incomplete  posting  of  national 
vacancies  on  the  EURES  Portal,  the  insufficient  visibility  of  the  EURES  placement 
services to the employers as well as the fact that  women and unemployed still encounter 
barriers  in  accessing  microfinance.  Moreover,  disability  and  accessibility  matters  were 
mainstreamed to a more limited extent through the EaSI-funded actions compared to the 
other horizontal principles.  
In  terms  of  economic  efficiency,  the  financial  means  available  were  sufficient  to 
implement  the  two  first  axes’  activities  while  the  demand  for  the  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  was  higher  than  expected,  but  this  was  successfully  topped-up  using  
European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) guarantee. The economic efficiency was 
however slowed down by  administrative burden in  the projects’ application, award and 
implementation stages, in particular for small structures and the EU-level NGO networks, 
disposing from limited financial and human resources.  
In terms of internal coherence, most PROGRESS axis activities benefitted to the overall 
programme, while the two remaining axes worked towards increasing employment using 
different instruments. Regarding consistency with other EU programmes, EaSI was most 
strongly consistent with the ESF. However, this complementarity was undermined by the 
lack of incentives to enable the social experimentation tested under EaSI to be scaled up 
or  multiplied  with  ESF  funding.  EaSI  is  also  complementary  with  Erasmus+,  Horizon 
2020, EURAXESS, Interreg, COSME and InnovFin programmes.  However, the variety 
of  intervention  logics  and  of  rules  governing  the  funds  hampered  the  complementarity 
with  ESF  but  also  the  potential  new  complementarities  with  other  EU-level  funds,  for 
instance  with  the  EU  rural  development  programmes  (EARDF).  The  evaluation 
highlights the utility of a easy-to-use tool permitting to stakeholders to have an overview 
of all programmes and opportunities available at EU level. 
How target groups benefitted from the EU intervention? 
Evidence  shows  –  considering  the  limitations  related  to  data  analysed  –  that  not  all 
countries benefitted equally from the programme (Chapter 3). One main lesson resulting 
from  the  geographical  repartition  of  EaSI  funding  could  be  that  EaSI  was  more 
performant  in  countries  with  experience/knowledge  in  project  design  and  management, 
and less performant in other countries (in particular small countries, more recent Member 
States  and  candidate  countries/potential  candidates).  While  the  calls  for  proposals  were 
open to all eligible countries - applicants from countries with more experience/know-how 

80 

 
and 

given 

projects 

creating 

partnerships 

implementing 

in  applying  to  EU  funding  (due  to  the  proximity  to  the  EU  institutions  and/or  more 
intensive/pro-active  dissemination  of  information  about  EU  funding  opportunities) 
submitted proportionally more high quality proposals. Therefore, they had more chances 
to  be  granted  under  the  direct  management  mode  (based  on  the  calls  for  proposals’ 
quality  criteria).  Another  major  finding  points  to  the  key  role  of  public  authorities  in 
their 
initiating, 
institutional/territorial embedding, their role in policymaking and their financial power. 
How did the EU intervention make a difference? 
The added value of EaSI comes mostly from its transnational dimension: in 2014 - 2020, 
there was any equivalent in the programme’s participating countries in terms of scale and 
scope. The evaluation indicates that through EaSI, more relevant projects were supported 
than  would  have  been  possible  through  only  national  funding.  The  implications  in  the 
employment and social inclusion field — should the EaSI programme be discontinued — 
would  be  negative.  For  instance,  both  employment  opportunities  and  jobseekers’  intra-
EU mobility would decrease, as well as the cooperation and mutual learning between the 
stakeholders,  the  availability  of  comparative  analytical  knowledge  across  participating 
countries, the funding to test social innovations, and the access to finance for vulnerable 
groups and social enterprises. 
Is the intervention still relevant? 
The  evaluation  demonstrates  that  there  is  a  clear  and  continuous  need  for  all  types  of 
actions  assessed,  in  the  light  of  their  continuation  in  the  current  programming  period 
(EaSI  strand  of  ESF+,  InvestEU  and  ELA)  and  of  their  contribution  to  the 
implementation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  its  Action  Plan:  analytical 
activities  to  support  policy  making  and  evidence,  capacity  building  to  enhance 
stakeholders’ participation/impact  on policies, instruments to  facilitate the geographical 
and occupational mobility, and instruments to improve access to finance, in particular of 
vulnerable groups.  

5.2.2 Areas for improvements 

The  elements  presented  in  Section  5.1  allow  to  conclude  on  one  hand  that  EaSI  was 
moderately  successful,  being  affected  by  a  number  weaknesses  in  specific  fields,  by 
disparities in the countries’ participation to the programme and by unexploited synergies 
with  other  EU-level  programmes.  On  the  other  hand,  EaSI  generated  EU  added  value 
through  its  transnationality,  remaining  relevant  in  the  current  economic  and  political 
context. 
Lessons already capitalised 
Below  is  explained  how  ESF+  -  building  notably  on  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation 
conclusions - integrated in its architecture lessons learned confirmed by the EaSI ex post 
evaluation. 

• 

In terms of communication/dissemination, the EaSI strand funding opportunities and 
results  are  promoted  since  2021  via  the  Funding  and  Tenders  Portal.  This  Portal 
offers  a real  one-stop-shop, not  only  for finding opportunities  but  also  for the daily 
projects’  interactions  with  the  EU251.  It  provides  a  unique  entry  point  for  a  fully 
electronic  management  of  centrally  managed  grants  and  procurement  contracts.  All 

251The projects are promoted at the Projects & Results section, while the eGrants system – accessible via the same Portal – became the 
single  gateway  for  all  exchanges  (submission,  evaluation,  implementation  and  reporting)  between  applicants  and  the  Commission. 
Additional information and statistics on proposals, success rates, funded projects and participants is available on the  Portal as well. 
Furthermore, the Portal also hosts a ‘News & events’ section with news about the EaSI strand. Here the Commission informs about 
EaSI events, including those organised in Member States and participating countries and publishes articles informing about the strand. 

81 

 
 
centrally managed EU programmes are covered, providing easy access to funding and 
tender opportunities based on keywords and full-text search. Procurement section will 
be  implemented  further  in  view  of  a  fully  integration  of  the  procurement  service 
(paperless  handling as  for grants).  Additionally,  the National  Contact  Points for the 
EaSI  strand  promote  the  EaSI  strand  opportunities  and  results  in  the  participating 
countries’  languages.  A  structured  stakeholders’  consultation252  is  also  organised 
before the adoption of each EaSI strand annual work programme.  

In terms of social innovation upscaling, the ESF+ Regulation incentives the Member 
States  to  take  advantage  of  a  new  integrated  approach  to  test  and  upscale  social 
innovation.  Under  this  approach,  the  EaSI  strand  continues  to  test  new  policy 
approaches at a small-scale through social experimentation and to serve as a basis for 
social  innovation  upscaling,  mainstreaming  and/or  replication  activities  under  the 
ESF+  shared  management  strand  or  other  sources  of  funding.  These  legal 
provisions253  were  paired  with  new  means  to  support  the  social  innovation,  notably 
the  transnational  cooperation254  funding  the  Social  Innovation  Competence  Centres 
and  the  National  Contacts  Points255.  The  digital  and  green  transitions  goals  are  also 
increasingly  mainstreamed  in  the  EaSI  strand  actions;  for  instance,  a  call  for 
proposals  aiming  to  test  social  innovation  approaches  to  foster  green  and  digital 
transition in schools, training centres, at work and in local communities was already 
launched in 2022. 
In terms of synergies, they are also enhanced vis-à-vis other funds. The ESF+ seeks 
in  particular  to  ensure  complementarities  with  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund  (ERDF),  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF),  Erasmus+,  the 
European Solidarity Corps, the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMIF), as well as with 
Horizon  Europe  and  the  Digital  Europe  Programme.  One  example  of  synergy 
between the ESF+ and  Erasmus+ consists in  the joint  financing  of the  EUROPASS 
system,  which  is  a  notable  example  of  cooperation  between  the  ESF+  and 
Erasmus+256. 
In terms of budgetary flexibility, the ex post evaluation confirmed the EaSI mid-term 
evaluation  finding  that  the  flexibility  clause  foreseen  to  adjust  funding  among  the 
three axes (Article 33 of the EaSI Regulation) was in practice an inefficient provision 
given  the  important  potential  administrative  burden  generated  to  operate  these 
changes.  Based  on  the  EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  findings,  the  Omnibus  Regulation 
(2018)  introduced  amendments  to  the  EaSI  Regulation  to  make  the  budget  more 
flexible.  A  consequence  was  that  Article  33  became  obsolete  and  was  therefore 
deleted from the EaSI legal basis. In the period 2021 - 2027, the three compartments 

• 

• 

• 

252This yearly strategic dialogue exercise has two parts: on one hand the EU level civil society organisations are consulted through an 
online dialogue meeting; and on the other hand, the EU level social partners are consulted in an email exchange. 
253While the ESF Regulation included a provision (Article 9) for the promotion of social innovation, the  ESF+ Regulation requires 
Member  States  to  dedicate  at  least  one  priority  to  support  social  innovation  and  social  experimentation  and/or  scaling  up  of 
innovations  tested  on  a  small  scale  under  the  EaSI  strand  and  other  Union  programmes.  The  maximum  co-financing  rate  for  such 
priorities may be increased to 95% for a maximum of 5% of the national resources under the ESF+ strand under shared management.  
254As  per  the  Article  15  of  the  ESF+  Regulation,  Member  States  may  support  transnational  cooperation  actions  under  any  of  the 
specific  objectives  of  the  programme.  A  financial  envelope  of  EUR  175  million  (in  2018  prices)  was  allocated  for  transnational 
cooperation, with a view to accelerating the transfer, and facilitating the scaling up, of ‘innovative solutions’. Therefore, six consortia 
were  selected  to  set  up  Social  Innovation  Competence  Centres  and  drive  social  innovation  locally,  regionally,  nationally,  and 
transnationally.  Covering  25  countries  and  mobilising  148  organisations,  they  are  currently  helping  managing  authorities  to 
programme  and  implement  social  innovation  actions,  as  well  as  to  support  organisations  on  the  ground  with  capacity  building, 
knowledge transfer and networking measures. 
255A complementary support initiative consists in the  National Contact Points (NCPs) financed under the direct management strand. 
While the focus of the Competence Centres is on the social innovation, the NCPs inform about all EaSI strand activities, including 
financing opportunities, application requirements and projects’ results. 
256The ESF+ and Erasmus+ are active in similar fields, notably helping people gain new skills, upskilling to answer the needs of the 
industrial sectors, improving digital competences, as well as the quality of education and training. 

82 

 
 
• 

• 

of  the  former  EaSI  Programme  (PROGRESS,  EURES  and  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship)  were  abolished  together  with  simplification  and  flexibility  of 
financing. 
In terms of governance, the ESF+ operates both under shared and direct management 
modes  and  relies  on  a  new  simpler  governance  structure.  The  ESF+  Committee  is 
supported  by  two  specialised  technical  working  groups,  one  for  the  shared 
management and one for the EaSI strand. This governance design allows for stronger 
synergies in  both  programming  and implementation  phases,  while better connecting 
diverse types of activities and beneficiaries. As per the resources allocation, the EaSI 
strand focuses increasingly now on balancing competing needs and priorities, while 
the  previous  boundaries  (indicative  shares  allocation)  between  axes  have  been 
completely removed. 
In  terms  of  programme’s  performance  measurement,  the  evaluation  shows  that 
simplification  and  rationalisation  of  the  programme’s  monitoring/evaluation  system 
are necessary to reduce administrative burden on the EC services and stakeholders257. 
In  2021  -  2027,  EaSI  became  a  strand  of  the  ESF+,  building  on  the  former  EaSI 
programme’s  objectives,  maintaining  thus  the  focus  on  evidence-based  policy-
making  and  social  experimentation,  networking  and  capacity-building  activities, 
support  to  job  occupational/geographical  mobility,  and  on  the  non-financial 
instrument  activities  to  develop  the  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship 
ecosystems. For the EaSI strand, Article 32 of the ESF+ Regulation (monitoring and 
reporting) establishes that “proportionate reporting requirements shall be imposed on 
recipients  of  Union  funds  and,  where  relevant,  Member  States”.  The  ESF+ 
Regulation  (based  on  the  EaSI  programme  mid-term  evaluation  findings  that  were 
confirmed by the ex post evaluation) identifies 5 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
to report on the progress of the EaSI strand towards the achievement of the specific 
objectives  set  out  in  Article  4(1)  and  the  operational  objectives  set  out  in  Article 
25258.  These 
feasible. 
Additionally,  they  have  a  proven  record  of  performance  during  the  former  EaSI 
programme.  Data  collected  using  complementary  qualitative  and  quantitative 
methods,  such  as  interviews,  focus  groups,  and  surveys  are  foreseen  in  the  new 
monitoring/evaluation  system  to  provide  a  good  understanding  of  stakeholder’s 
perceptions  and interactions.  To effectively  review the linkages  between  policy and 
programme implementation, data triangulation methods are used to pull together the 
range of data available, including quantitative and qualitative information. 

indicators  are  easily  understandable,  practical,  and 

257Based  on  the  experience  with  the  EaSI  performance  measurement  system  –  with  a  total  of  42  headline  and  complementary 
indicators  –  a  simplified  system  with  a  limited  number  of  quantitative  indicators  was  established  to  measure  the  EaSI  strand 
performance in 2021 - 2027.  
258The  5  indicators  defined  in  Annex  IV  of  the  ESF+  Regulation  are  the  following:  KPI  1:  number  of  analytical  activities;  KPI  2: 
number of information sharing and mutual learning activities; KPI 3: number of social experimentation activities; KPI 4: number of 
capacity building and networking activities; KPI 5:  number of job placements under targeted mobility schemes. They cover 8 (up to 
10) operational objectives of the EaSI strand (Article 25). In order to ensure that the performance reporting system effectively reports 
on  all  the  operational  objectives  established  by  the  regulation,  two  new  Primary  Performance  Indicators  (PPI)  linked  to  the  two 
remaining operational objectives were included in addition to the 5 KPIs: PPI 6  – number of “development of the market ecosystem 
around  microfinance  to  microenterprises”  activities;  and  PPI  7  –  Number  of  “development  social  enterprises  and  emergence  of  a 
social investment market” activities. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
Lessons to inform future policy 
The conclusions formulated in Section 5.1 bring out several areas for improvements to be 
addressed under the EaSI strand but also  - when appropriate - under ELA (the business 
owner  of  the  EURES  Portal  since  2019)  and  the  InvestEU  (bringing  together  the 
multitude of earlier EU financial instruments, including those implemented under EaSI). 

• 

• 

Improving the EaSI strand visibility by increasing the frequency and adapting the 
timing  of  publishing  the  information  on  opportunities  for  financing;  by 
disseminating  more  results,  country-specific  examples  and  good  practices;  by 
creating projects’ online databases; by ensuring that the information reach a wide 
audience in terms of geographical coverage and types of stakeholders; by making 
websites’  content  more  user-friendly  and  accessible  for  the  general  public, 
including by providing multi-languages information.  
Improving  stakeholders’  knowledge  in  project  design  and  management,  in 
particular  in  small  countries,  more  recent  Member  States  and  candidate 
countries/potential candidates.  

•  Ensuring  more  visibility  of  the  social  experimentations’  results  (notably  among 
the  ESF+  shared  management  Managing  Authorities)  and  of  the  EURES  Portal 
(notably among employers).  

•  Exploring  new  ways/incentives  to  increase  the  share  of  social  experimentations 
upscaled, the share national vacancies published on the EURES Portal, and access 
of women and unemployed people to the financial instruments’ market. 
Improving the connection between the EURES Portal and the Europass Portal by 
proposing one account to access all applications through an unique EU log-in for 
both  EURES  and  Europass;  by  facilitating  the  navigation  between  EURES  and 
Europass; and by removing the overlapping functionalities259.   

• 

•  Exploring  ways  to  reduce  the  action  grants  and  operating  grants’  administrative 

burden both on the applicants’ side and the Commission’s services side. 

• 

•  Enhancing synergies with EU-level funds targeting similar groups, notably those 
implemented  by  DG  EAC,  DG  GROW  and  DG  RTD  and  additional  synergies 
with other funds, for instance those targeting rural population (EAFRD). 
Improving  the  mainstreaming  of  horizontal  principles  across  the  EaSI  strand 
activities notably those related to disability and accessibility matters.  
Improving the mainstreaming of the the digital and green transitions goals across 
the  EaSI  strand  activities.  Contributing  to  improve  the  use  of  digital  financial 
services,  in  particular  by  vulnerable  people  who  are  the  least  likely  to  benefit 
from the digitalization of financial services (including in rural areas). 

• 

•  Providing  additional  funding  to  allow  proven  social  experimentations  to  be  up-
scaled and/or transffered to other actors or contexts thus creating a wider impact, 
to  facilitate  the  social  enterprises  growth  as  well  as  to  adress  new  social, 
environmental and digital challenges. 

•  Ensuring  an  appropriate  evaluation  timeframe  and  scope,  notably  for  activities 
such those related to the capacity building, social experimentation and the labour 
market transparency that require time to take effect. 

259DG EMPL and ELA are currently discussing the details of these technical improvements. 

84 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

in 

included 

Lead DG, DECIDE Planning/CWP 
This  evaluation  was 
the  Commission’s  Agenda  Planning  System 
(PLAN/2019/5817)  and  carried out  in compliance with the Articles 13(4) and 38(1) of the 
EaSI Regulation 1296/2013260 (amended by the Regulation 2018/1046261) and Article 9 of the 
EPMF Decision 283/2010262. In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines263 and the Inter-
institutional  Agreement  on  Better  Law-Making264,  it  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  two 
programmes were effective, efficient and coherent, provided EU added value and remained 
relevant to tackle present needs. 
The evaluation was  carried out  by the Directorate-General  for Employment,  Social Affairs 
and  Inclusion  (DG  EMPL)  following  the  Article  13  (4)  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1296/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013  on  a 
European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation ("EaSI") and amending 
the  Decision  No  283/2010/EU  establishing  a  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  for 
employment and social inclusion and Article 9 (1) of the Decision No 283/2010/EU  of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010 establishing a European Progress 
Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion. 

Organisation and timing 
DG  EMPL  prepared  the  evaluation  roadmap,  the  stakeholder  consultation  strategy  and  the 
technical specifications for the supporting study contract. The documents were submitted for 
feedback and approval to the dedicated Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG).  
The ISSG was established in September 2019 following the invitation sent on 2 April 2019 
to  the  following  DGs:  BUDG,  GROW,  JUST,  HOME,  EAC,  SANTE,  RTD,  REGIO, 
ECFIN,  ESTAT,  JRC,  the  Secretariat-General  and  the  Legal  Service.  The  group  met  six 
times (see below ‘Evidence, sources and quality’). 
DG  EMPL  conducted  the  external  support  study  with  external  experts  between  31  March 
2021 - 31 July 2022. The ISSG was consulted on the external study report (interim, final and 
synopsis  reports)  during  the  dedicated  meetings  and  through  a  dedicated  on-line 
collaborative  space.  The  relevant  evaluation  documents  (evaluation  roadmap,  open  public 
consultation) were published on EUROPA ‘Have your Say’ dedicated page for stakeholders’ 
feedback/consultation  respectively  between  8  October  and  5  November  2019  for  the 
roadmap, and between 5 October and 28 December 2021 for public consultation.  
DG  EMPL  concluded  the  evaluation  in  2023  with  issuing  a  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document and a stakeholders consultations’ synopsis report. 

Exceptions to the Better Regulation Guidelines 
The Commission’s  Better Regulation  Guidelines  were followed to  carry out  the evaluation 
without deviations.   

260https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1296 
261https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1046 (the ‘The Omnibus Regulation’). 
262https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:087:0001:0005:EN:PDF 
263https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-
toolbox_en  
264https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016Q0512%2801%29 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Evidence, sources and quality 
Table  25  below  summarises  the  successive  steps  of  the  evaluation.  An  external  study  was 
carried out by Ramboll, Seor and Tetra Tech with a contract duration of 16 months (31 March 
2021  -  31  July  2022).  The  study  applied  a  mix  of  evaluation  methods  including  desk 
research,  online  public  consultation,  surveys,  workshops,  case  studies  and  interviews  with 
stakeholders, EU officials and EIF representatives.  
The  ISSG  concluded that  the study was conducted in  line with  the technical  specifications 
and  the  agreed  inception  report,  with  adaptations  for  (online)  meetings,  interviews  and 
workshops  due  to  the  COVID-19  disruption.  It  used  relevant  qualitative  and  quantitative 
sources and methods, although data to support efficiency analysis had some specific caveats 
(discussed  in  Section  1.3  and  Annex  II).  The  analysis  and  conclusions  are  sound,  and  the 
methodological framework and its limitations are clearly outlined.  

Table 25. Evaluation timeline 

Steps/tasks 

Timing 

Preparation (August 2019 - March 2021) 

Political  validation by  inclusion in  the  Annual Management  Plan,  draft  the 
evaluation roadmap and the consultation strategy 
Set  up  the  inter-service  steering  group  (ISSG),  roadmap  publication  and 
draft the supporting study technical specifications (ToR) 
ISSG meeting to discuss the ToR and the consultation strategy  

August 2019 - September 2019 

September 2019 

25 June 2020 

Tendering procedure 

September 2020 - March 2021 

Evaluation supporting study (April 2021 - July 2022) 

Signature of the contract  

Kick-off meeting  

Inception meeting  

Online public consultation 

Interim meeting 

Final validation seminar  

31 March 2021 

12 April 2021  

21 May 2021  

4 October 2021 - 28 December 2021 

7 June 2022 

5 July 2022  

Finalisation of the supporting study 

August 2022 – October 2022 

Staff Working Document (September 2022 - November 2023) 

Draft SWD and Synopsis report 

ISSG meeting on SWD 

Submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

RSB negative opinion received 

September - December 2022 

10 January 2023 

3 April 2023 

24 May 2023 

26 May 2023 

Incorporate RSB recommendations into a revised SWD  

June - September 2023 

Resubmission of the revised SWD to the RSB 

RSB positive opinion received 
Prepare and launch the Inter-Services Consultation package 

Revision and presentation to College of final SWD 

13 October 2023  

22 December 2023 

January 2024 

February 2024 

Transmission  of  the  Commission  Report  accompanied  by  the  SWD  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  Council  and  publication  (Inter-Institutional 
Database, Europa etc.) 
Source: DG EMPL 
The EESC has drawn up a complementary evaluation report assessing the implementation of 
EaSI  and  EPMF  based  on  research  and  consultations  carried  out  between  December  2021 
and  June  2022  in  five  selected  EU  Member  States  (Austria,  France,  Hungary,  Italy  and 
Lithuania). Its results are considered in the current evaluation Staff Working Document. 

March 2024 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

The  Inter-Services  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  involved  in  all  key  steps  of  the  evaluation 
after the publication of the roadmap. Invitations and documents were circulated in advance 
of  the  meetings;  ISSG  members  were  be  given  at  least  two  weeks  to  provide  written 
comments on (draft) supporting study and Staff Working Document. Five ISSG meetings265 
took place along the evaluation timeline.  

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB)  
The evaluation was scrutinized by the RSB on 24/05/2023, which issued a negative opinion. 
The reworked report was scrutinized again by the RSB, which issued a positive opinion on 
22/12/2023.  In  the  revised  version  of  the  report,  the  background,  methodological, 
implementation  and  results  sections  have  been  rewritten  in  a  more  concise  way,  while  the 
descriptive material and details were included in annexes. Consequently, the report has been 
reworked throughout to ensure coherence between information provided in different sections 
and/or  in  annexes.  The  RSB  recommendations  were  addressed  as  follows  (Table  26  and 
Table 27): 

Table 26. The RSB’s main findings and DG EMPL modifications 

Boards’ findings 

Modifications 

No. 

1. 

The evidence base underpinning the 
analysis  is  insufficient.  The  report 
relies  mostly  on  value  judgements 
from stakeholders but it is not clear 
how 
these  can  be  considered 
representative. 

RSB first opinion 
The evidence base underpinning the analysis  – notably to inform 
the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  each  specific  objective 
(Section  4.1.1)  -  was  systematically  reinforced  with  available 
quantitative  and  monetary  data  which  completed  data  from  the 
performance  measurement  (changes  in  indicators  over  the  time 
and comparison with targets).  
During  the  evaluation  process,  a  total  of  412  stakeholders  were 
consulted using methods such as interviews, questionnaire-based 
survey,  focus  groups  an  an  open  public  consultation.  The  open 
public  consultation,  and  the  surveys  targeting  EaSI  beneficiaries 
and financial intermediairies allowed reaching a wide spectrum of 
respondents,  without,  however,  ensuring  full  representativeness 
given the low number of replies (see Annex V).  
Combining  written  consultation 
tools  with  more  direct 
interactions  with  stakeholders  ensured  nevertheless  a  partial 
representativeness  of  consultation  outcomes.  The  pertinence  of 
opinions  collected  was  systematically/explicitely  indicated  and 
assessed  across 
to 
corroborate  or  to  illustrate  findings  resulted  from  other  research 
analysis  of  quantitative 
and 
(desk 
methods 
data/indicators). 
The  SWD  clarifies  in  Section  2.3  and  Annex  II.4  the  use  of  the 
indicators  and  of  the  points  of  comparison.  The  evaluation  uses 
the  headline  indicators  included  in  the  EaSI  Performance 
Measurement System for all the specific and general objectives as 
well as for the horizontal principles. This choice is based on the 
fact  that  they  remained  unchanged  while  some  complementary 
indicators were removed  following the three updates of the EaSI 
baseline  report  elaborated  in  2014.  Thus,  the  headline  indicators 
allow  comparability  and  an  optimal  capture  of  performance 

the  overall  revised  SWD  when  used 

research 

2. 

The  analysis  does  not  sufficiently 
explain  nor  consistently  use  the 
target  indicators.  It  does  not  assess 
the  adequacy  and  suitability  of  the 
monitoring  system 
in  place  for 
informing the evaluation. 

265The  ISSG  members  provided  oral  and  written  comments  on  all  the  deliverables  specified  in  Table  25  and  attended  all  the  meetings 
organised  within  the  contract  for  the  supporting  study  (the  minutes  of  these  meetings  can  be  provided  upon  request).  Several  ISSG 
members (DG EMPL officials from units involved in the EaSI and EPMF implementation) attended the final validation seminar together 
with the external stakeholders involved in consultations. The support document discussed was the (draft) final supporting study. 

87 

 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Modifications 
throughout  the  programme’s  lifetime.  The  points  of  comparison 
used are therefore based on the situation estimated in 2014 (EaSI 
baseline  report),  excepting  for  the  specific  objectives  related  to 
EPMF and EASI third axis, where targets from the respective  ex 
ante  evaluation  were  used  (see  discussion/clarification  in  the 
revised Section 2.3 and Table 31 included in Annex II.4).  
Additional analysis of the monitoring system was included in the 
revised SWD (Section 4.1.12) and related findings were reflected 
in the conclusions and lessons learnt (Chapter 5).  
The Chapter 5 (conclusions and lessons learned) was restructured 
and  reinforced.  Section  5.1  presents  -  relying  on  the  evidence 
gathered 
the 
programme’s performance (including the criteria of effectiveness, 
efficiency  and  coherence/complementarity),  value  added  and 
relevance. Section 5.2 formulates answers to the main evaluation 
questions266 (Section 5.2.1) and areas for improvements (Section 
5.2.2).  The  areas  for  improvements  are  separated  in  two 
categories: lessons already capitalised in the ESF+ and lessons to 
inform  future  policy  (improving  the  ESF+,  InvestEU  and  ELA 
implementation and/or  to  be used  in  the preparation of  the  post-
2027 funds).  
RSB second opinion 
The section 5.2.2  has been adapted to discuss the weaknesses of 
the EaSI programme monitoring system  

the  conclusions  alongside 

the  SWD 

in 

- 

The  section  5.1  has  been  adapted  to  discuss  the  data  limitations 
when drawing conclusions.  Section 5.2.2 was updated to reflect 
additional lessons learned and areas for improvements. Anenx IV 
was adapted to better reflect the analysis provided in the report. 

No. 

Boards’ findings 

3. 

1.  

2. 

report  does  not 

The 
appropriate  “lessons 
inform future policy. 

identify 
to 

learned” 

The report does not critically assess 
the  adequacy  and  suitability  of  the 
existing monitoring system.  

when 

The  report  does  not  sufficiently 
recognise  the  constraints  and  data 
limitations 
drawing 
conclusions.  On  a  number  of 
concrete  areas  lessons  learned  and 
suggestions  for  improvements  are 
missing.  Some  conclusions  on 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  and 
qualitative  assessment  of  costs  and 
benefits  do  not  fully  reflect  the 
underpinning analysis.  

Source: DG EMPL 

Table 27. The RSB’s recommendations and DG EMPL modifications 

No. 
1. 

Board’s recommendations 
The  report  should  provide  an  appropriate 
evidence  base  underpinning  analysis  by 
avoiding  exclusively  or  mostly  relying  on 
the  value  judgements  of  stakeholders.  The 
evidence  base  should  be  supported  by 
measurable and tangible results, and claims 
and  views,  to  the  extent  they  are  used  as 
evidence  base,  should  be  reflected  in  such 

Modifications 
Additionally  to  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  indicators 
on  outcomes  reflecting  the  changes  connected  to  the 
interventions,  the  analysis  (notably  Section  4.1  related  to 
the  programmes’  effectiveness  and  efficiency)  was 
reinforced  with  quantitative/measurable  evidence  (e.g. 
monetary inputs and number of outputs) by (re)considering 
data,  tables  and  figures  initially  included  in  annexes.  The 
quantitative  output  indicators  describing  the  number  of 

266‘To what extent was the intervention successful and why?’; ‘How the target groups benefitted from the intervention?’; ‘How did the EU 
intervention made a difference?’ and ‘Is the intervention still relevant?’ 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

No. 

2. 

in 

of 

on 

particular, 

Board’s recommendations 
results  on  the  ground.  In  this  regard,  the 
report  should  consider  what  data  and 
figures  currently  contained  in  the  annexes 
and/or  in  the  supporting  study  should 
substantiate  further  the  analytical  part  of 
the  report  and  provide  support  to  the 
conclusions, 
the 
performance  of  the  measures.  Overall,  in 
discussing 
the 
implementation 
programmes,  the  report  should  go  further 
than listing activities and inputs and assess 
outcomes  and  impacts.  It  should  explain 
why  it  may  be  difficult  or  not  possible  in 
some cases to identify 
and  measure  the  specific  contribution  of 
the programmes to the general objectives. 
The  report  should  explain  why  EaSI 
proved  to  be  unevenly  applied  across 
Member  States.  It  should  analyse  in  detail 
the reasons behind the uneven participation 
across  and  within  countries,  what  the 
consequences were in terms of making the 
intervention 
and 
efficient  across  Member  States,  and 
whether  there  was  an  evolution  following 
the implementation of corrective measures, 
like  the  National  Contact  Points  (NCP) 
It 
network  and 
should  thoroughly  explore  whether  EaSI 
was equally beneficial for all recipients and 
if all its features are equally useful. Rather 
than  relying  primarily  on  stakeholder 
feedback, the report should present clearly 
EaSI’s  identified  outcomes  and  impacts 
and how these can be used as a measure of 
success across the EU. 

improved  promotion. 

effective, 

relevant 

to 

the 

text 

related 

involvement 

in 
(descriptive) 

funding  and 
the 

Modifications 
tasks 
also 
achieved  or  outputs  produced  were 
complemented  with  evidence  on  the  quality  of  outputs, 
using  for  instance  the  stakeholders’  views  collected 
through  different  consultations  (see  also  the  comment  to 
the  first  RSB  finding  in  Table  26  above).  Quantitative 
evidence base was also reinforced by comparing input and 
outcome  data  for  different  participating  countries  and 
stakeholders’  groups  (see  revised  Chapter  3),  providing 
thus  information  on  how  benefits  were  distributed  and 
highlighting  areas  for  improvement  (see  also  reply  to  the 
next  RSB  comment).  Section  5  (conclusions  and  lessons 
learnt) was revised in order to reflect the findings resulted 
from this reinforced combined evidence base. Finnaly, the 
descriptive information initially contained in the main part 
the 
(notable  Chapter  3 
of 
implementation state of play) was included in Annex VI. 
Chapter 3 (state of play) was restructured and refocused on 
the  geographical 
the 
repartition  of 
programme’s 
stakeholders’ 
implementation.  The 
complementary 
information  was  included  in  the  Annex  VI  while  figures 
and tables included initially in this annex where sent back 
in  Chapter  3  (mostly  related with  the  EaSI  third  axis  and 
EPMF) and/or in Sections 4.1.7 to 4.1.9. 
Thus, the revised Section 3.1 provides the state of play for 
the  direct  management  part  (calls  for  proposals  and  calls 
for tenders) while Section 3.2 presents the state of play for 
instruments 
indirect  management  part  (financial 
the 
implemented  under  EaSI  and  EPMF).  The 
tables 
presenting  the  state  of  play  in  monetary  and  quantitative 
terms  per  country  and  type  of  stakeholder  are  completely 
new;  they  were  established  based  on  data  from  the  EU 
FTS  (EU  Financial  Transparency  System)  and  the  DG 
EMPL  DEFIS  database267.  Reasons 
the  unequal 
participation  of  countries  and  stakeholders  to  the  EaSI 
programme are provided in Chapter 3, while lessons learnt 
are reflected in Section 5.  
Section 5 also indicates which findings (anticipated in the 
EaSI  mid-term  evaluation  and 
impact 
assessment)  were  already  addressed  in  the  new  ESF+ 
umbrella  programme  (gathering  together  the  former  ESF 
and  EaSI  activities  in  the  current  programming  period). 
Among  them,  the  EaSI  ex  post  evaluation  confirmed  the 
insufficient  communication  of  EaSI  opportunities  and 
dissemination  of  its  results.  To  address  this  shortcoming, 
the  EaSI  strand  facilitated  the  establishment  of  National 
Contact  Points  (NCP)  in  the  participating  countries.  The 
main  NCPs  role  is  to  inform  the  stakeholders  on  EaSI 
strand  financing  opportunities  during  the  submission 
process  in  the  national  language.  A  number  of  15  NCPs 
were established following a call for proposals launched in 
2021  (duration  24  months)  and  4  additional  NCPs 
following  the  second  call  for  proposals  launched  in  2022 

the  ESF+ 

to 

267DEFIS was the DG EMPL application used in 2014 - 2020 to evaluate the projects submitted under the calls for proposals and to monitor 
them after their awarding. 

89 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

No. 

Board’s recommendations 

3 

The  report  should  explain  how  it  has 
concluded  on  the   effectiveness  of  EPMF 
based on the number of micro loans, while 
only  30%  of  beneficiaries  are  female  and 
the 
cannot  provide  data 
to  be 
objective  of  50%  beneficiaries 
unemployed. If the information is not fully 
available the report should explain why. 

to  evaluate 

output 

4.  While  the  report  considers  only  the  input, 
the 
stakeholders’ 
and 
satisfaction  with  the  services  provided 
the  achievement  of 
when  assessing 
Specific  Objective  5  (transparent  labour 

the 

as 

as 

for 

well 

proposals 

Modifications 
(duration 12 months). All 19 NCPs will be financed under 
the  EaSI  strand  until  2025;  after  this  date  they  could 
decide  to  stop  their  activity  or  to  continue  their  activity 
supported  by  national  funding.  Nevertheless,  the  NCPs 
calls 
other 
(see  Section  5.2.2.1)  were 
improvements/measures 
launched under the EaSI strand of the ESF+, therefore the 
assessment  of  their  activity  is  part  of  the  ESF+  mid-
term/ex post evaluation. 
The  fifth  EaSI  general  objective  -  which  was  reinforced 
with additional quantitative data and analysis (see Section 
4.1.10) - was to achieve an ‘increased access to finance for 
vulnerable  persons,  micro-  and  social  enterprises’.  The 
headline indicator measuring the progress in achieving this 
EaSI  general  objective  was  the  ‘proportion  of  final 
recipients that have created or further developed a business 
with  EU  microfinance  support  that  are  unemployed  or 
belong to vulnerable groups’ (see Table 31 in Annex II.4). 
The  target  from  the  DG  EMPL  Management  Plan  and 
considered  in  the  EaSI  monitoring  reports  was  50%  by 
2020.  There  was  no  similar  quantitative  target  related  to 
the EPMF.  
To conclude on the effectiveness of this general objective, 
the  evaluation  draws  on  the  findings  resulting  from 
Sections 4.1.7 to 4.1.9 (specific objectives 7, 8 and 9) and 
on the changes over time in the shares of groups monitored 
(see  revised  Section  4.1.10).  The  analysis  of  changes  in 
monitored  vulnerable  groups  shows  a  significant  increase 
in support for persons from non-EU countries. An increase 
in  the  category  of  people  aged  55  years  and  above  is 
noticed  as  well.  The  support for  women  and  unemployed 
or inactive  is decreasing, while persons aged less than 25 
years  and  disabled  people  received  a  somewhat  equal 
amount of financing.  
In  conclusion,  EPMF  and  EaSI  were  -  despite  the  high 
effectiveness 
indicators 
in 
(Sections  4.1.7 
increasing  the  availability  of  microfinance  and  social 
enterprises. This finding considers that a downward  trend 
was  observed  in  the  support  to  women  and  unemployed 
paired  with  upward  trends  in  the  support  to  senior  and 
people  coming  from  third  countries  (see  discussion  in 
Section  4.1.10,  page  47).  This  conclusion  also  takes  into 
account  the  uncertainty  in  the  evidence  of  whether  the 
50%  target  was  reached,  due  to  data  limitations  and 
potential overlaps268.  
To  assess  the  achievement  of  the  specific  objective  5  
(transparent  labour  market  information  and  advice),  the 
evaluation  considers  first  the  input,  the  output  and  the 
number  of  visitors  to  the  EURES  Portal  (which  is  the 
the  EaSI  Performance 
headline 

to  4.19)  -  moderately  effective 

suggested  by  quantitative 

indicator 

from 

268The  target  indicated  in  the  EaSI  monitoring  reports  and  the  DG  EMPL  Annual  Management  Plan  was  that  50%  of  beneficiaries  that 
developed  a  business  with  EU  microfinance  support  should  be  unemployed  or  belonging  to  vulnerable  groups.  Given  data  limitations 
explained in Section 4.1.10 (not all social data available and some individuals potentially counted in several categories), it is not possible to 
conclude mathematically on the reaching (or not) of the target fixed. 

90 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

No. 

it 

Board’s recommendations 
should 

information), 

market 
also 
evaluate the impact based on the number of 
additional  recruitments.  While  the  report 
shows a decreasing trend of the number of 
monthly  visitors  to  the  EURES  Portal  it 
should explain why it could be “a positive 
sign  of  improved  employment  rates  and 
labour conditions”. 

5. 

The  report  should  explain  how  specific 
targets  were  set  and  present  all  of  them  if 
some are missing. It should provide clarity 
on  which  targets  are  used  where  and  how 
in  analysing  effectiveness  and  efficiency. 
There should be a thorough explanation of 
whether  and  how  indicators  based  on  a 
small  number  of  stakeholders’  opinions 
can be considered representative. 

Modifications 

Measurement System for this specific objective).  
The  number  of  placements  is  the  headline  indicator 
associated with the fourth general objective (“high quality 
and  inclusive  EU  labour  markets  that  are  open  and 
accessible to all) and was analysed in Section 4.1.10. This 
general  objective  benefitted  both  from  actions  aiming  at 
ensuring  transparent  labour  market  information  (Section 
4.1.5) and from the provision of job-matching services to 
employers  and  jobseekers  (Section  4.1.6).  While  the 
specific  objective  5  was  moderately  effective, 
the 
evaluation  shows  the  EaSI  effectiveness  in  achieving  the 
specific objective 6 (upward trend in the headline indicator 
‘number  of  contacts  between  EURES  advisers  and 
jobseekers/employers).  EaSI  Performance  Measurement 
System  reported  data  on  the  number  of  placements 
facilitated only in aggregate, including those facilitated by 
the  EURES  Portal  and  those  facilitated  through  personal 
contacts  of  jobseekers/employers  with  EURES  advisers 
staff.  The  increase  in  this  headline  indicator  corroborated 
with  the  findings  resulting  from  Sections  4.1.5  and  4.1.6 
allow to conclude that EaSI was effective in achieving the 
fourth general objective (see revised Section 4.1.10).  
The revised report clarified how the points of comparison 
were  established  and  double-checked  their  consistent 
application across the overall effectiveness and efficiency 
analysis  (Section  4.1).  The  evaluation  used  as  points  of 
comparison the values of the headline indicators estimated 
in  2014  for  most  activities,  excepting  for  the  support  to 
social entrepreneurship (specific objective 8) and to build 
capacity  building  of  microcredit  providers  (specific 
objective 9). For these new activities initiated under EaSI - 
as  well  as  for  EPMF  -  there  was  initially  no  data  to 
establish  a  point  of  comparison  at  their  starting.  To 
mitigate this caveat, instead using the value ‘0’ as point of 
comparison, the evaluation used the targets provided in the 
respective  EPMF  and  EaSI  ex  ante  evaluation  for  the 
specific objective 7 as well. This was possible because the 
these  targets  were  associated  with  the  headline  indicators 
for the support provided to microfinance (EPMF and EaSI) 
and social entrepreneurship (only EaSI) established in the 
EaSI Performance Measurement System.  
Do note that for the support to microfinance, an alternative 
was  to  compare  the  values  through  EaSI  (2020)  with  the 
values  through  EPMF  (2014).  Nevertheless,  for  sake  of 
consistency, the evaluation used the available targets from 
the  respective  ex  ante  evaluation  for  all  three  specific 
objectives 
social 
entrepreneurship.  
As  regards  the  fifth  general  objective,  the  evaluation 
provides  the  target  included  in  the  EaSI  Performance 
Measurement System (i.e. 50% of beneficiaries supported 
by  the  EaSI  financial  instruments  to  be  unemployed  or 
belonging  to  vulnerable  groups).  However,  the  value  of 
this  headline  indicator  was  not  measured  directly,  but 
through  monitoring  the  coverage  of  vulnerable  groups  by 
EU-enabled  microcredits  (see  discussion  of  findings  and 
data limitations in point 3 above and Section 4.1.10).  

to  microfinance 

related 

and 

91 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

No. 

Board’s recommendations 

6. 

7. 

8. 

The  report  should  assess  more  thoroughly 
the  suitability  of  the  existing  monitoring 
for 
and 
system 
improvement. 

identify 

areas 

the 

and 

changes 

Conclusions  should  present  adequate  and 
relevant  ‘lessons  learned’  to  inform  the 
next programming period, also referring to 
already 
improvements 
implemented  for  the  current  programming 
period.  It  should  be  based  on  the  main 
issues  identified  in  the  report  and  all 
lessons  learned  should  be  discussed  and 
substantiated  in  the  analysis  section.  The 
report should recognise the constraints and 
limitations  it  faced  in  gathering  evidence, 
and the fact that such constraints may bring 
caveats and nuances in the analysis. 
The  report  should  better  discuss 
the 
coherence  of  EaSI  with  other  EU 
as  Horizon2020, 
programmes 
social 
for 
European 
innovation, etc). It should explain whether 
synergies were sought or emerged and how 

Social 

(such 

Fund 

Modifications 
Data to feed the headline indicators were collected in 2014 
-  2020  during  the  monitoring  process  through  the  EaSI 
Stakeholders’  Survey,  the  EURES  public  sources  (Job 
Mobility Portal, EURES Advisors Reports) and the reports 
submitted  by  the  EIF.  The  EaSI  Stakeholders’  Survey  - 
disseminated  in  2014,  2017,  2019  and  2021  -  notably 
collected  data  to  feed  the  PROGRESS  axis  related 
indicators.  Given  that  the  entire  population  affected  by 
EaSI  was not known, a non-probability sampling strategy 
was used. This means that units were intentionally selected 
to represent particular aspects of groups within the general 
sampled  population.  In  the  case  of  EaSI,  the  survey 
gathered  the  opinions  of  a  representative  sample  of 
different  types  of  stakeholders  at  EU  and  national  level, 
including:  1)  policy  and  decision-makers;  2)  civil  society 
organisations,  including  social  partner  organisations;  and 
3) other relevant participants and stakeholders involved in 
the programme design and implementation.  
Each of the three groups constituted a separate stratum, i.e. 
a  separate  group  or  sub-group  of  the  population  from 
which  it  was  attempted  to  receive  a  sufficient  number  of 
survey  responses.  The  survey  was  continued  until  a 
sufficient  number  of  responses  were  received  in  each 
stratum. More details on the EaSI Stakeholder Survey are 
provided in Annex II.5. 
Section 4.1.12 (analysing the monetary and non-monetary 
efficiency)  was  updated  by  including  a  complementary 
the  EaSI  Performance 
sub-section 
Measurement System. Additional information are provided 
in  Annex  II.5  (EaSI  Stakeholders’  Survey  methodology) 
and  Annex  V.1  (coordination,  planning,  monitoring  and 
evaluation).  Specific  information  on  the  performance 
measurement indicators included in the EaSI Performance 
Measurement  System  is  provided  in  Section  2.3  that 
discusses  the  indicators  and  the  points  of  comparison. 
Lessons learned from the use of this monitoring system are 
included in Section 5 (conclusions and lessons learned). 
Section  5  -  reinforced  with  findings  from  the  comparison 
of  input  and  outcome  data  for  different  participating 
countries  and  stakeholders’  groups  -  is  structured  in  two 
parts:  conclusions  (providing  key  findings  around  the 
evaluation  criteria)  and  lessons  learned.  The  part  on 
lessons learned was also restructured in two parts: the first 
one is dedicated to improvements already implemented in 
the  current  programming  period  and  the  second  one 
presents 
further  addressed. 
Evidence’s  constraints  and  limits  (introduced  in  Section 
1.2  and  discussed  when  appropriate  in  Chapter  3  and 
Chapter 4) are also reminded in the conclusions. 

focusing 

learned 

lessons 

to  be 

on 

Section 4.1.2 was reinforced with additional evidence and 
restructured in three parts: internal coherence (between the 
three  axes);  coherence  with  ESF;  and  external  coherence 
(with  other  EU-level  funds,  notably  Erasmus+,  Horizon 
2020, Interreg, EURAXESS, COSME, InnovFin). Section 
4.1.2  also  explains  how  risks  of  overlap/duplication  were 

92 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

9. 

1. 

2. 

3 

No. 

Board’s recommendations 

the risk of overlap was addressed. 

Annex IV (Overview of costs and benefits) 
should  be  revised.  Costs  and  benefits 
should  be  reported  separately,  specific 
benefits  should  be  encoded;  narrative 
statements  on  degrees  of  performance 
should  be  kept  to  a  minimum  and  the 
general  lack  of  quantification  should  be 
clearly explained and justified. 

EURES 

Modifications 
managed  by  different  European  Commission  DGs.  The 
conclusions (Section 5) are updated accordingly. 
Annex  IV  was  revised  and  restructured.  It  presents 
separately  cost  and  benefits  by  specific  groups  of 
stakeholders, and identifies the potential for simplification 
and  burden  reduction  for  each  axis.  The  three  tables 
(PROGRESS, 
and  Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship)  encode  specific  costs  and  benefits 
related  to  the  activities  implemented  under  each  axis 
providing 
and 
quantification  when  possible.  Given  the  nature  of  the 
activities (see discussion in Section 2.3) the quantification 
and  Microfinance/Social 
was 
Entrepreneurship  axes 
for  PROGRESS  axis. 
than 
However,  it  was possible  to quantify  some  costs  incurred 
by  PROGRESS  axis  stakeholders  as  well  –  for  instance, 
costs  in  relation  to  grants  agreements  signed  with  the  EC 
(consortiums’  20%  contribution 
total 
budget).  

for  EURES 

the  project 

statements 

systematic 

qualitative 

easier 

to 

RSB second opinion 

indicators.  However, 

The  report  acknowledges  the  weaknesses 
in 
the  performance  measurement  of 
PROGRESS  axis  and  the  necessity  for 
the 
quantitative 
analysis  should  go  further  in  explaining 
what  quantification  and  further  indicators 
are  needed  to  assess  the  impact  of  the 
measures  on  the  ground.  It  should  analyse 
to what extent the specific objectives of the 
PROGRESS  axis  are  SMART  enough  to 
serve as a base for an improved monitoring 
system  to  analyse  the  effectiveness,  the 
efficiency  and  the  coherence.  It  should 
explain how the proposed simplification in 
the  ESF+  addresses  the  need  for  more 
suitable  indicators  for  informing  future 
evaluation. 
In  assessing  efficiency,  the  report  should 
better  explain  how  indicators  based  on  a 
small  number  of  stakeholders’  opinions, 
draw 
are 
conclusions.  It  should  clarify  the  design 
and  parameters  of  the  ‘cost-effectiveness’ 
ratio  for  the  PROGRESS  axis  and  explain 
to  what  extent  such  ratio  is  informative  in 
concluding  on  performance  over  time.  It 
should clarify the maximum and minimum 
levels of such a ratio. 

sufficiently 

reliable 

to 

to 

the  evaluation 
In  general,  answers 
questions should be balanced and linked to 
preceding  analysis,  taking  into  account  all 
available evidence, in particular:  

• 

the  conclusion  on  EPMF  and  EaSI’s 
effect  on  economic  growth  and 
seem 
does 
employment, 

not 

in 

The  report  highlights  in  Section  5.1  that  the  main 
weaknesses 
the  EaSI  programme  performance 
measurement was related to the indicators used in 2014  – 
2020  to  monitor  the  PROGRESS  axis.  The  Section  5.2.2 
was  reviewed  to  reflect  how  the  lessons  from  the 
monitoring  of  the  former  EaSI  programme  were  already 
capitalised  in  the  EaSI  strand/ESF+  design.  The  EaSI 
strand  monitoring  system  is  now  based  on  5  Key 
Performance Indicators (KPIs) to report on the progress of 
the  strand.  They  are  completed  with  data  collected  using 
complementary  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods  to 
provide a good understanding of stakeholder’s perceptions 
and interactions. 

the  variations 

in  the  response  rate 

The  Section  5.1  acknowledges  that  one  of  the  main 
weaknesses  in  the  EaSI  programme  performance  was  the 
the  use  of  headline  indicators  based  on  stakeholders’ 
satisfaction  to  measure  the  performance  of  activities 
implemented under the PROGRESS axis. They were used 
in  the  evaluation  to  calculate  cost–effectiveness  ratios 
allowing to identify good value for money to be identified. 
the 
Despite 
Stakeholder Survey in 2014 - 2020 (between 10% - 17%), 
in absolute terms, the number of respondents was enough 
large to offer a good representativeness of views. 
Section  5.2.1  was  ammended  to  clarify  that  despite  their 
small  scale/budget,  EPMF  and  EaSI  contributed  to  social 
and  economic  inclusion  through  the  support  to  social 
enterprises and specific categories of social entrepreneurs. 
Sections 4.1.10 and 5.1.1 were ammended to better reflect 
the  limitations  of  evidence  and  alternative  interpretation 
when 
related  effectiveness  of 
microfinance  related  activities  and  in  achieving  the 

formulating 

findings 

to 

93 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

No. 

4. 

Board’s recommendations 
by 

the 

preceding 

substantiated 
analysis;  

• 

• 

the  conclusion 
that  EPMF  was 
“highly”  effective  in  increasing  the 
availability of microfinance (including 
for  women  and  the  unemployed)  does 
not seem to account for the uncertainty 
in  the  evidence  of  whether  the  50% 
target  was 
to  data 
limitations  and  potential  overlaps;  it 
should  also  address 
the  evidence 
pointing to potential decrease in access 
over time for these two categories;  

reached,  due 

inclusive  EU 

the  conclusion  on  the  effectiveness  of 
the  general  objective  on  ‘high  quality 
and 
labour  markets’ 
needs  to  address  the  evidence,  which 
could  equally  lend  itself  to  alternative 
readings  of  the  data,  such  as  large 
decreases  of  the  share  of  placements 
resulting from all contacts.  

are 

followed 

The report should ensure that all identified 
weaknesses 
by 
corresponding lessons learned, and equally 
that  all  lessons  learned  follow  logically 
from  the  preceding  analysis.  In  particular, 
although the report:  

up 

• 

• 

• 

the 

that 

inefficient  given 

flexibility 
indicates 
adjust 
to 
permitting 
clause, 
in 
funding  among  axes  was 
the 
practice 
important 
(potential) 
administrative  burden  generated 
to  operate  these  changes,  there  is 
no  discussion 
lessons 
the 
learned on this finding;  

in 

an 

highlights the utility of an easy-to-
use  tool  allowing  stakeholders  to 
have 
all 
programmes  and  opportunities 
available  at  EU  level,  this  is  not 
reflected in the lessons learned;  

overview 

of 

evidence 
that 
the 
concludes 
presented 
the 
that 
indicates 
budgets planned for the remaining 
programme’s 
activities  were 
appropriate,  it  still  suggests  as  an 
area 
the 
provision  of  additional  funding 
for 
to 
social  experimentation 
achieve their expected impacts. 

improvement 

for 

Modifications 
objective ‘high quality and inclusive EU labour markets’.  

The  report  was  adapted  (Section  5.1.1)  to  clarify  the 
lessons learned related to the flexibility clause (Article 33 
of  the  initial  EaSI  Regulation)  and  to highlight  the utility 
of the Funding and Tenders Portal. It also clarifies that the 
former EaSI programme funding was sufficient to achieve 
its objectives, while additional funding would be necessary 
for  new/future  activities  (for  instance  to  allow  proven 
social experimentations to be up-scaled and/or transffered 
to  other  actors  or  contexts,  to  facilitate  the  social 
enterprises  growth  as  well  as  to  adress  new  social, 
environmental and digital challenges). 

94 

 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Modifications 
Annex IV was reviewed to align qualitative judgements to 
reflect the evidence and previous analysis, notably in cases  
where effectiveness was found to be “high” or “moderate”. 

No. 
5. 

Board’s recommendations 

The  parameters 
for  some  qualitative 
judgements  accompanying  or  substituting 
quantification  in  Annex  IV  (Overview  of 
costs  and  benefits)  are  not  explained,  and 
sometimes  do  not  appear  in  line  with  the 
analysis  and  the  answers  to  the  evaluation 
questions  in  the  report.  They  should  be 
reassessed  to  ensure  that  they  reflect  the 
and  previous 
evidence 
underpinning 
cases  where 
example 
analysis 
effectiveness was found to be “moderate”). 
In particular:  

(for 

• 

• 

the  analysis 
is  unclear  whether 
qualifying  the  magnitude  of  benefits 
for  certain  areas  of  the  intervention  is 
based only on outputs such as number 
of 
analytical  documents,  mutual 
learning events etc. and whether is the 
parameter  to  justify  the  qualitative 
assessment of the benefit as “high”; 

the  efficiency  due 

the  qualitative  assessment  of  EPMF’s 
burden  reduction  achievement  needs 
to  address  findings  in  the  report  on 
impacts  on 
to 
administrative  burden  in  the  projects’ 
and 
application, 
implementation  stages  in  cases  of 
using the EFSI guarantee, in particular 
for  small  organisations  and  some  EU-
level NGO networks.  

award, 

Source: DG EMPL 

95 

 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

This  annex  provides  an  overview  -  complementary  to  Section  1.2  -  of  the  methodology 
adopted to carry out this ex post evaluation. It details data collection methods and tools used, 
as well as the limitations to the reliability of information used to develop findings.  
II.1 Intervention logic 
The evaluation design relies on a combined intervention logic (see Figure 1 in Section 2.2) 
that  ensured  that  the  two  programmes  were  evaluated  according  to  the  outputs,  outcomes, 
results  and  impacts  which  they  intended  to  reach,  as  well  as  the  transparency  and  the 
rigorousness  of  the  evaluation  design.  The  main  elements  of  the  intervention  logic  are 
identified alongside the three following building blocks: 

II.1.1 The needs of the target groups in an evolving context 

indicators; 

The  main  needs  identified  in  the  EaSI  programme’s  preparatory  work  (i.e.  EaSI  ex  ante 
evaluation  and  ESF  impact  assessment  in  Section  2.1)  pinpointed  to  insufficiency  of  EU-
wide  definitions  of/and  comparable 
lack  of  data  for  evidence-based 
policymaking;  lack of  coordination at  EU level  due to fragmentation  of  related  efforts  and 
resources.  The  EaSI/PSCI  ex  ante  analysis  also  highlighted  the  need  for  robust  impact 
evaluation  methodologies  to  better  exploit  projects  results’  potential  in  policy  making, 
notably for replication of the tested interventions (social experimentations). Aside, the needs 
for  enhanced  voluntary  labour  mobility,  and  for  support  to  microfinance  and  social 
entrepreneurship across Europe were also identified.  
The  target  groups269  identified  for  the  PROGRESS  axis  (but  not  exclusively,  given  that 
PROGRESS’ activities benefitted to the remaining axes) include: 

•  public authorities and public bodies; 
•  social partners; 
•  EU-level NGO networks; 
•  civil society organisations/foundations; 
•  universities/research institutes; 
•  not-for-profit enterprises; 
•  private enterprises. 

The target groups identified for the EURES axis activities include: 

•  employers;  
• 

jobseekers270. 

The target groups identified for Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis/EPMF are: 

•  microcredit  providers  (private  or  public  banks,  non-bank  microfinance  institutions 

and not-for-profit microcredit providers); 
final beneficiaries (micro-enterprises, vulnerable people, social enterprises). 

• 

269The target groups include persons, groups and organisations who need the support, services and information identified above. The term 
stakeholders - used often in this document - have a wider scope, including other groups involved directly or indirectly in the interventions’ 
governance  or  implementation  or  having  an  interest  in  the  interventions  (see  Annex  V  for  more  information  on  the  stakeholders’ 
consultation). 
270This category includes in particular the young people as being more at risk of long-term unemployment, and more subject to mobility 
than other age categories.  

96 

 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

The  second  category  includes  micro-enterprises  and  people  wanting  to  become  self-
employers or to develop their own business and facing difficulties in accessing bank loans, 
in  particular  unemployed  people  or  people  from  disadvantaged  groups271.  It  also  includes 
social enterprises that needed better access to funding for development and consolidation of 
their activities in order to achieve their social impact were also targeted. In order to reach out 
to  the  final  beneficiaries,  the  EaSI  and  EPMF  programmes  incentivised  microcredit 
providers  (private  or  public  banks,  non-bank  microfinance  institutions  and  not-for-profit 
microcredit  providers)  to  provide  microloans  to  persons  and  micro-enterprises  by  covering 
part of their risks and by providing them with liquidity as well as with institutional capacity 
building.  
EPMF had similar targets groups as the EaSI microfinance branch given that it was designed 
to address the lack of access to finance, especially for disadvantaged groups such as women, 
unemployed,  young  people  or  migrants  having  difficulties  securing  traditional  bank  loans, 
identified  as  being  one  of  the  main  obstacles  preventing  individuals  to  start  their  own 
business (see Section 2.1.2). 
The EaSI and EPMF target  groups’ needs were  considered in  the light  of the 2010 -  2020 
evolving  policy  and  socio-economic  context  related  employment  and  social  challenges, 
including  Brexit,  refugee  crisis,  COVID-19  pandemic,  and  the  twin  green  and  digital 
transitions.  
In  terms  of  EU  policy  context,  EaSI  was  first  expected  to  contribute  to  Europe  2020  -  A 
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth that  steered the EaSI management and 
topical  direction  (annual  programming,  funding,  monitoring  system),  implementation 
(activities and events) and results (performance and evaluation), notably in the 2014 - 2017 
period.  As  of  2018,  the  implementation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  (EPSR) 
became the overall political priority underpinning the EaSI activities for the years to come. 
The  adoption  of  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDG)  2030  Agenda  in  2015 
provided a new framework for the international development. Therefore, the impacts of the 
two  programmes  were  also  considered  in  the  light  of  the  potential  linkages  between  their 
objectives and the relevant Sustainable Development Goals.  
In terms of coherence/complementarities with other EU-level programmes, EaSI was first 
expected to be complementary with ESF, but consistency with other EU programmes such as 
the  Erasmus+,  Horizon  2020,  Interreg,  EURAXESS,  COSME  and  InnovFin  was  also 
considered when assessing EaSI impacts. 

II.1.2 Inputs and outputs 

The  inputs272  covered  the  resources  that  were  mobilised  for  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes. The budget allocated to the EaSI programme was EUR 919 million. A  global 
financial envelope of EUR 203 million was available for the implementation  of the EPMF 
(EUR  103  million  from  the  EU  budget  and  EUR  100  million  from  the  EIB).  These  inputs 
were converted into outputs using different procedures for delivering financial support (see 
details in Annex VI.1).  
EaSI was implemented on the basis of annual work programmes. It was coordinated by the 
DG EMPL’s ‘Budget and planning cycle’ unit, assisted by the DG EMPL EaSI coordinators 

271The  EPMF  Decision  (Article  2)  defined  them  more  explicitly  as  being  “persons  who  want  to  start  or  develop  further  their  own 
microenterprise; who have lost or at risk of losing their job; have difficulties re-entering the labour market; are facing the threat of social 
exclusion; are vulnerable persons in a disadvantaged position with regard to access to the conventional credit market”. 
272See Section 3 complemented with Annex VI. 

97 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

(composed by representatives from the operational units implementing the programme) and 
the  EaSI  Committee  (composed  by  Member  States  representatives).  The  EPMF  was 
monitored via annual implementation reports issued under the global mandate entrusted by 
the Commission to the EIF. 
The  outputs  included  the  activities273  (Table  1  in  Section  2.2.  and  Table  28  below) 
inputs  allocated.  They  covered  analytical  activities;  social 
implemented  with 
experimentation; mutual learning, awareness and dissemination activities; capacity building 
activities;  information,  counselling,  placement  and  recruitment  services  for  cross-border 
workers; development of a multilingual digital platform for job vacancies and applications; 
financial instruments and grants to support microfinance and social enterprises ecosystems.  
Table 28. Classification of outputs by types of EaSI-funded activities  

the 

Type of activities 

Policy evidence / analytical 
activities 

Mutual learning, awareness and 
dissemination activities 

Support for main actors 

Outputs 

indicators  and 

Data and statistics 
Common  methodologies,  classifications,  micro-simulations, 
benchmarks 
Surveys, studies, analyses and reports, including through the funding of networks 
of experts and development of expertise in thematic sections 
Qualitative  and  quantitative  evaluations  and  impact  assessments  carried  out  by 
both public and private bodies 
Monitoring and assessment of the transposition and application of Union law 
Preparation and implementation of social policy experimentation as a method for 
testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to up-scaling them 
Dissemination of the results of analytical activities 
Exchanges  and  dissemination  of  good  practice,  innovative  approaches  and 
experience, peer reviews, benchmarking, and mutual learning at European level 
Council Presidency events, conferences, and seminars 
Training of legal and policy practitioners 
Drafting and publication of guides, reports and educational material and measures 
relating  to  information,  communication  and  media  coverage  of  initiatives 
supported by the Programme 
Information and communication activities 
Development  and  maintenance  of 
disseminate information on union policy and legislation and on the labour market 
Covering  operating  costs  of  key  Union-level  networks,  the  activities  of  which 
relate to and contribute to the objectives of the Progress axis 
Capacity  building  of  national  administrations  and  specialist  services  responsible 
for  promoting  geographical  mobility  designated  by  the  Member  States  and 
microcredit providers 
Organisation of working groups of national officials to monitor the implementation 
of Union law 
Networking  and  cooperation  among  specialist  bodies  and  other  relevant 
stakeholders,  national,  regional, and  local  authorities  and  employment  services  at 
European level 
Funding of European-level observatories, including on key thematic sections 

information  systems 

to  exchange  and 

Exchange of personnel between national administrations 

EURES – cross-border 
partnerships 
EURES – counselling, placement, 
and recruitment services 
EURES – platform for job 
vacancies 
EURES – targeted mobility 
schemes 
EURES – mutual learning and 

Development  and  the  activities  of  EURES  cross-border  partnerships  when 
requested by services territorially responsible for border regions (action grants) 
Provision  of  information,  counselling,  placement,  and  recruitment  services  for 
cross-border workers 
Development of the multilingual digital platform for the clearance of job vacancies 
and applications 
Development of targeted mobility schemes, following calls for proposals, to fill job 
vacancies where labour market shortcomings have been identified 
Mutual learning among EURES actors and training of EURES advisors, including 

273The types of actions are defined in Article 16 (PROGRESS), Article 21 (EURES) and Article 27 (Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship) 
of the EaSI Regulation. 

98 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Type of activities 

training 
EURES – information and 
communication activities 

MF/SE – support to microfinance 
intermediaries 
MF/SE – support to social 
enterprises 
MF/SE – institutional capacity 
building 

Outputs 

EURES cross-border partnerships advisors 
Information and communication activities to raise awareness of the benefits of 
geographical and occupational mobility in general and of the activities and services 
provided by EURES 
Guarantees, counter-guarantees and funded instruments (debt and equity) 

Guarantees, counter-guarantees, grants, funded instruments (debt and equity) 

Building institutional capacity of microfinance intermediaries and investors in 
social enterprises 

Source: Rapport updating the EaSI baseline situation (2016), page 13. 

As  regards  EPMF274,  the  types  of  eligible  actions  were  guarantees  and  risk-sharing 
instruments; equity instruments; debt instruments; support measures, such as communication 
activities,  monitoring,  control,  audit  and  evaluation.  Two  out  of  the  the  three  financial 
instruments  implemented  under  the  EaSI  third  axis  built  on  the  EPMF  instruments 
experience; for this reason the EPMF types of actions were merged with those of the EaSI 
Microfinance branch in the intervention logic. 

II.1.3 Outcomes and impacts 

The EaSI Regulation defined nine specific objectives contributing to the achievement of the 
five general objectives (see Figure 1 and Table 1 in Section 2.2 and Figure 14 below). The 
EaSI  Regulation  design  is  based  on  necessary  links  between  the  specific  objectives  and 
general objectives (see Section 4.1.10 and Table 29 below). In other words, it was expected 
that  the  activities  implemented  to  achieve  the  specific  objectives  will  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  the  general  objectives  (results)  and  ultimately  of  the  global  objectives 
(impacts). 
In pursuing these objectives, in all its axes and actions, EaSI also aimed to take into account 
the following horizontal principles275: pay particular attention to vulnerable groups, such as 
young people; promote equality between women and men; combat discrimination based on 
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation; promote a high 
level  of  quality  and  sustainable  employment,  guarantee  adequate  and  decent  social 
protection, combat long-term unemployment and fight against poverty and social exclusion. 
Similar horizontal principles are incorporated in EPMF general objectives.  
The EaSI third  axis  and  EPMF specific and general  objectives  (defined in Article 2 of the 
EPMF Decision) were quasi  identical  and  for this reason merged in  the intervention logic. 
The EaSI third axis was indeed intended as a continuation of EPMF (Microfinance branch), 
although it widened its scope to support the development of the social investment market and 
facilitate access to finance for social enterprises (Social Entrepreneurship branch). 
The  (expected)  outcomes  and  impacts  of  both  programmes  (see  Figure  1  in  Section  2.2) 
responded  to  the  initial  needs  (Section  2.1  and  Annex  II.1.1)  and  mobilised  resources  for 
delivering the (expected) outputs, contributing to achieve the specific, general and/or global 
objectives of the two funds. These aspects of the evaluation are further developed in Sections 
3  and  4.  The  outcomes  -  including  the  positive/negative  and  expected/unexpected  ones  - 
reflect  the  results  of  the  programmes  for  the  target  groups  concerned,  while  the  impacts 
describe  the  programmes’  ultimate  expected  effects  on  society  and  individuals.  The 

274Defined in Article 4 of the EPMF Decision.  
275The general objectives are defined in Article 4(1) and the horizontal principles are defined in Article 4(2). The specific objectives are 
defined in Article 15 (PROGRESS), Article 20 (EURES) and Article 26 (Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship).  

99 

 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

combined  EaSI/EPMF  impacts  look  at  the  higher-level  (intended  or  unintended)  effects 
expected  alongside  the  programmes’  global  objectives  (as  per  Article  1  of  the  EaSI 
Regulation  and  Article  2  of  the  EPMF  Decision),  respectively  “promote  a  high  level  of 
quality  and  sustainable  employment,  guarantee  adequate  and  decent  social  protection, 
combat social exclusion and poverty,  and improve working  conditions (EaSI) and increase 
access  to,  and  availability  of,  microfinance  to  microenterprises  and  to  particular  at-risk 
groups (EPMF)”. 

Figure 14: EaSI specific and general objectives 
Nine EaSI specific objectives 

PROGRESS axis

EURES axis

MF/SE axis

• Transparent labour market 
information

• Effective provision of 

services for recruitment and 
placing of workers

• Better access to, and 

availability of, microfinance

• Better access to finance for 

social enterprises

• Stronger institutional capacity 

of microcredit providers

• Evidence-based EU policies 

and legislation

• Effective and inclusive 

information sharing, mutual 
learning and dialogue

• Testing of social and labour 

market policy innovations

• Greater capacities of national 

and EU organisations to 
develop, promote and support 
the implementation of EU 
policies

Five EaSI general objectives 

Stronger ownership of EU 
objectives

Facilitation of policy 
reforms

Modernisation and 
effective application of 
EU law

Improved conditions for 
voluntary geographic 
mobility whilst enforcing 
workers' rights

Increased access to 
finance for vulnerable 
persons, micro- and social 
enterprises

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

II.1.4 An expected effects approach 

Table  29  below  maps  the  links  between  objectives  and  the  related  performance 
expectations/hypotheses. This  causal  chain  was reflected in  the the  analytical  part (Section 
4), which was structured alongside the specific objectives. Section 5 presents the conclusions 
and the lessons learned by (re)focusing on the general and global objectives. 
General objective 1: stronger ownership of EU objectives 
In  order  to  produce  concrete,  coordinated  and  innovative  actions  and  to  implement  them, 
policy-makers  at  all  levels  should  agree  on  common  EU  objectives  in  the  social  and 
employment  fields,  and  be  willing  to  take  action  to  implement  them.  Ownership  of 
objectives  implies  not  only  a  good  (shared)  understanding  of  those  objectives,  but  also 
readiness to act in order to achieve them.  
Improved  shared  understanding  and  stronger  ownership  requires  timely  collection  and 
analysis  of  relevant/accurate  evidence  and  policy  advice  capable  of  withstanding  detailed 
scrutiny and rallying EU-wide support (specific objective 1). It also requires organisation of 
peer  reviews,  mutual  learning  activities  and  other  types  of  events  (specific  objective  2), 
responding to the needs and expectations of EU/national policy-makers and stakeholders. It 
is also important that the process in which EU objectives are defined is inclusive, i.e. social 
partners,  civil  society  organisations  and  all  other  relevant  public  and  private  bodies  are 
involved.  Such  organisations  must  also  possess  a  capacity  to  transmit  the  views  of  the 
societal groups that they represent (specific objective 4). 
General  objective  2:  facilitation  of  policy  reforms,  convergence  and  capacities  for  social 
innovation and mutual learning 
Innovative  actions  are  needed  in  order  to  provide  solutions  for  challenges  that  the  EU  is 
facing.  High  unemployment  rates,  increasingly  fragmented  labour  markets,  shrinking 
workforce and increasing pressure on social protection systems as well as the increase in the 
number  of  people  living  in  poverty  and  social  exclusion  are  problems  which  need  tailor-
made policy answers. It was expected that improved capacities of the participating countries 
to  implement  social  innovations  (specific  objective  3)  would  contribute  to  developing 
adequate social protection systems and labour markets, and to facilitating policy reforms. 
Moreover,  it  is  important  that  the  relevant  knowledge  and  expertise  gained  through  social 
policy experimentation activities are available and easily accessible, so that the participating 
countries  can  apply  the  new  policy  interventions,  which  prove  to  be  the  most  effective,  as 
widely as possible. This was mainly being achieved through information sharing and mutual 
learning,  but  also  via  dissemination  of  the  relevant  policy  evidence  supported  by  EaSI 
(specific objective 2). Achievement of this goal also depended on the capacities of the main 
actors to carry out social experimentations in order to develop innovative solutions (specific 
objective 4). 
General objective 3: modernisation and effective application of EU law 
EaSI  supported  monitoring,  effective  application  and  enforcement  of  EU  legislation  in  the 
fields  of  employment,  social  protection  and  social  inclusion  and,  especially,  working 
conditions (labour law and health and safety at work). While the primary aim of EaSI in this 
regard was to ensure that the EU law is effectively applied, actions funded by the programme 
also  sought  to  improve  its  quality.  This  implied necessary  improvements  in  specific  areas, 
such  as  guaranteeing  administrative  capacity,  screening  domestic  rules  and  procedures,  a 
systematic  discussion  between  relevant  authorities  across  the  EU,  ex  post  evaluations  and 
accountability  of  national  administrations  towards  their  counterpart  authorities  in  other 
participating countries, supporting networks of public authorities and NGOs and assessment 

101 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

of their performance identification, spread of best practices, as well as extension of training 
programmes  for  public  administrations.  A  number  of  these  outputs  were  funded  by  EaSI 
under  the  first  three  immediate  outcomes  related  to  producing  evidence  (specific  objective 
1),  sharing  information  (specific  objective  2)  and  improving  capacity  of  EU  organisations 
(specific objective 4). 
General  objective  4:  high  quality  and  inclusive  EU  labour  markets  that  are  open  and 
accessible to all 
Free  movement  of  workers  is  one  of  the  four  freedoms  established  in  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). One of the ideas behind Articles 45 and 46 of 
TFEU  was  to  enable  workers  from  Member  States  with  a  high  level  of  unemployment  to 
move  to  other  states  where  there  is  a  demand  for  jobs,  i.e.  geographical  labour  mobility 
should  contribute  to  promoting  a  high  level  of  quality  and  sustainable  employment 
throughout  Europe.  However,  geographical  labour  mobility  in  Europe  is  limited  due  to  a 
number  of  obstacles.  Aside  from  uncertainty  over  the  advantages  of  being  mobile, 
individuals face a number of other hurdles to free movement. These can consist in legal and 
administrative obstacles, housing costs and availability, employment of partners, portability 
of  pensions,  linguistic  barriers,  issues  related  to  the  transparency  of  job  vacancies,  and 
missing support from the employment services for matching CVs with job offers. 
EURES  axis  outputs  such  as  European  Job  Mobility  Portal  (specific  objective  5),  cross-
border partnerships, targeted mobility schemes and a network of EURES advisers  (specific 
objective 6) supported the EaSI’s third general objective. This objective was also supported 
supported  by  actions  funded  under  PROGRESS  such  as  production  of  evidence  (specific 
objective 1) and information sharing and mutual learning (specific objective 2).  projects and 
organisations all contribute to this intermediate outcome. 
General objective 5: increased access to finance for vulnerable persons, micro- and social 
enterprises 
A significant share of new jobs in the EU is created by newly established firms and micro-
enterprises. Access to finance remains one of the most important problems faced by business 
starters  across  Europe,  in  particular  those  established  by  vulnerable  groups  of  people.  In 
order to contribute to these objectives, EaSI and EPMF aimed to increase access to finance 
for vulnerable persons as well as micro- and social enterprises through provision of support 
to  microcredit  providers  (specific  objective  7)  and  investors  in  social  enterprises  (specific 
objective 8) in the form of guarantees, funded instruments, equity, quasi-equity as well as of 
support for capacity building of microcredit intermediaries (specific objective 9). 
The achievement of this goal was also supported by activities funded under the PROGRESS 
axis,  namely,  policy  evidence  produced  in  the  areas  of  microfinance  and  social 
entrepreneurship (specific objective 1), information sharing and mutual learning activities in 
the  latter  thematic  areas  (specific  objective  2)  as  well  as  support  for  the  main  actors 
operating in the field (specific objective 4). 

102 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Table 29. Specific objectives contribution to the achievement of the general objectives 

Nine specific 
objectives 

Four 
horizontal 
principles 

Five general objectives   

Specific objectives 
contribution to general 
objectives 

Specific  objective  1: 
evidence  based  EU 
policy and legislation 

Specific  objective  2: 
effective  and  inclusive 
sharing, 
information 
mutual 
learning  and 
dialogue 

Specific  objective  3:  
testing 
and 
labour  market  policy 
innovations 

social 

capacity 
and 

Specific  objective  4: 
of 
greater 
EU 
national 
organisations 
to 
develop,  promote  and 
support 
the 
implementation  of  EU 
policies 

Specific  objective  5: 
labour 
transparent 
market information 

Specific  objective  6: 
effective  provision  of 
services for recruitment 
and placing of workers 

Specific objective 7276: 
better  access  to,  and 
availability 
of 
microfinance  

Specific  objective  8: 
Better access to finance 
for social enterprises 

Specific  objective  9: 

t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
e

e
l
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

e
t
o
m
o
r
p
;
n
o
i
t
a
n
i
m
i
r
c
s
i
d
t
a
b
m
o
c

;
n
e
m
o
w
d
n
a
n
e
m
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
y
t
i
l
a
u
q
e

e
t
o
m
o
r
p
;
s
p
u
o
r
g
e
l
b
a
r
e
n
l
u
v
o
t
n
o
i
t
n
e
t
t
a
r
a
l
u
c
i
t
r
a
p
y
a
P

in 

Stronger ownership of EU objectives  
•  Member  States’  policy  choices  and 
the  national 
priorities  as  defined 
strategic  and  other  official  documents 
(especially  as  a  part  of  the  European 
Semester)  duly  take  into  account  EU 
objectives. 
Stakeholders  are  aware  of 
the  EU 
priorities  in  the  field  of  employment  and 
social  affairs  and  relevance  of  the  EU 
actions  in  addressing  the  socio-economic 
policy 
challenges/advancing 
areas. 

selected 

• 

and 

•  Horizontal issues, such as gender equality, 
non-discrimination 
inclusion  of 
vulnerable groups, are regularly taken into 
account  when  designing  policies  in  the 
field  of  employment  and  social  affairs 
both on EU and Member States levels. 
Facilitation  of  policy  reforms,  convergence 
and  capacities  for  social  innovation  and 
mutual learning  

• 

• 

Learning among the EU Member States is 
enhanced. 

EaSI-funded policy innovations contribute 
to facilitation of policy reforms. 

Modernisation  and  effective  application  of 
EU law 
• 

Legal  proposals  and  the  new  legislation 
are  of  high  quality,  i.e.  implementation 
and  interpretation  of  rules  are  clear  for 
public authorities, citizens and businesses, 
legislation  responds  to,  inter  alia,  the 
emergence of new risks for human health 
the  workplace,  and 
and 
unnecessary  administrative  burden 
is 
reduced; 
EU  law  in  the  areas  of  a)  labour  law  and 
b)  health  and  safety  at  work  is  correctly 

safety 

in 

• 

objective 

The  achievement  of 
this 
general  objective  depended 
mainly  on  the  availability  of 
comparable  policy  evidence 
(specific 
1) 
effective information sharing, 
mutual  learning  and dialogue 
(specific  objective  3)  as  well 
the  capacities  of 
as  on 
national 
EU 
organisations  to  advocate  for 
to 
common 
actions 
policy 
support 
implementation 
(specific 
objective 4). 

and 

and 

for 

out 

social 

sharing 

The  achievement  of 
this 
general  objective  depended 
mainly  on  creating  better 
social 
conditions 
(specific 
innovations 
the 
objective  3)  and  on 
to 
stakeholders’  capacities 
policy 
carry 
experimentations 
(specific 
objective 
4).  Moreover, 
relevant  knowledge/expertise 
gained  through  social  policy 
experimentation 
activities 
should be available and easily 
accessible.  This  will  be 
through 
mainly 
achieved 
and 
information 
mutual 
(specific 
learning 
objective  2),  but  also  via 
dissemination  of  the  relevant 
policy 
(specific 
evidence 
objective 1). 
this 
The  achievement  of 
implies 
general  objective 
in 
improvements 
capacity, 
administrative 
screening  domestic  rules  and 
procedures (specific objective 
1),  a  systematic  dialogue 
between  relevant  authorities 
and 
the 
across 
dissemination 
good 
practices  (specific  objective 
2)  and  supporting  networks 
of  public  authorities  and 

EU 
of 

276This specific objective is common to EaSI and EPMF and considered as such across the evaluation. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Nine specific 
objectives 

Four 
horizontal 
principles 

build 
the 
up 
institutional capacity of 
the 
microcredit 
providers 

Five general objectives   

• 

law 

into 

national 

transposed 
and 
effectively applied by the Member States; 
The  European  Commission  acts  as  an 
effective and efficient guardian of the EU 
its 
law, 
transposition  and  implementation  in  all 
Member States. 
High  quality  and 
markets open and accessible to all 

inclusive  EU 

monitoring 

effectively 

labour 

•  Adequate information, advice and services 
are  available  for  workers  and  employers 
wishing  to  benefit  from  the  principle  of 
the free movement of workers; 

• 

EU citizens are aware of their rights (such 
as  how  they  can  benefit  from  EU  social 
security  coordination  rules  while  moving 
within Europe), which are being defended 
and promoted. 

Increased  access  to  finance  for  vulnerable 
persons, micro- and social enterprises 

•  Beneficiaries  who  are  unemployed  or 
belong to the vulnerable groups are being 
reached by programme-supported funding 
mechanisms; 

•  Unemployed  and  otherwise  socially  and 
economically  vulnerable  persons  are  able 
to  create  or 
their 
businesses  as  a  result  of  the  Programme 
support; 

further  develop 

• 

Impact of the EU microfinance and social 
entrepreneurship  support  is  sustainable, 
i.e. 
are 
economically active for unlimited duration 
after receiving the EU support; 

enterprises 

supported 

the 

•  Access to finance for social enterprises is 

increasing. 

Specific objectives 
contribution to general 
objectives 
NGOs (specific objective 4).  

EU 

Producing 

this 
The  achievement  of 
general  objective 
implied 
ensuring  that  job  vacancies, 
applications, 
and 
corresponding 
information 
and  advice,    are  transparent 
for  the  potential  applicants 
and  the  employers  (specific 
objective  5)  and  supporting 
the  provision  of  services  for 
the  recruitment  and  placing 
of workers (specific objective 
6). 
relevant 
evidence  (specific  objective 
1),  organising 
information 
sharing  and  mutual  learning 
activities  (2)  and  building 
capacity  of  the  key  national 
and 
organisations 
working in the field of labour 
mobility  (specific  objective 
4) also contributed. 
This  general  objective  was 
expected 
to  be  achieved 
through  provision  of  support 
to  microcredit  providers  and 
investors in social enterprises 
in  the  form  of  guarantees, 
funded  instruments,  equity, 
quasi-equity 
(specific 
objective  8)  as  well  as 
support  for  capacity  building 
Its 
(specific  objective  9). 
achievement 
also 
supported by policy evidence 
the  areas  of 
in 
produced 
social 
microfinance 
entrepreneurship 
(specific 
objective 
information 
sharing  and  mutual  learning 
activities  (specific  objective 
2)  as  well  as  support  for  the 
main  actors  operating  in  the 
field (specific objective 3). 

was 

and 

1), 

Source: DG EMPL, based on the EaSI and EPMF legal bases, EaSI and EPMF ex ante evaluations, and EaSI monitoring 
reports. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

II.2 Methods and tools 
This  Staff  Working  Document  builds  on  data  collected  and  findings  obtained  during  the 
study  carried  out  by  external  experts  (Ramboll,  Seor  and  Tetra  Tech)  combined  with 
additional evidence gathered from programme monitoring reports, evaluations, studies,  and 
from 
the  EaSI 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  was  -  as  regards  its  financial  instruments 
implemented  under  the  EaSI  Microfinance  branch  -  grouped  with  that  of  its  predecessor 
EPMF (see Section 2.2 and Annex II.1). The evaluation of the EURES axis made use of the 
results of the EURES Regulation ex post evaluation, while the evaluation of the PROGRESS 
axis made use of the INOVA+ study on social experimentation projects. 

this  evaluation.  The  evaluation  of 

the  EESC  contribution 

to 

II.2.1 External supporting study 

The  external  supporting  study  provided  an  evidence-based  assessment  of  the  relevance, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  EaSI  and  EPMF.  A  combined 
intervention  logic  was  designed  for  the  purpose  of  the  joint  evaluation  of  the  two 
programmes  (see  Section  2.2  and  Annex  II.1).  The  findings  of  the  supporting  study  were 
structured along  the type of actions/activities funded within the three EaSI  axes (including 
the EPMF, linked to the EaSI specific objective 7). Figure 15 below presents an overview of 
the study’s tasks sequencing.  

Figure 15. Overview of study tasks 

             Source: Evaluation supporting study. 

The following sections provide an overview of the methods used in the supporting study. 

105 

 
 
 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

Study desk-based research (secondary data collection)  
A wide range of documents have been collected and reviewed to provide an understanding of 
the  existing  literature  on  EaSI  and  EPMF.  They  came  from  internal  and  external  sources 
such  as  existing  evaluations,  monitoring  reports,  related  websites,  regulations  and 
communications from the EU, studies and brochures.  
This variety of documents helped building an overall framework to understand the different 
dimensions of EaSI and EPMF ranging from the technical procedures to the policy aspects. 
The desks research made it possible to draw a global snapshot of the evaluation tasks and to 
build  hypotheses,  which  were  addressed  in  more  depth  during  the  evaluative  work.  A 
comprehensive documentation mapping is available in the Annex 7 to the supporting study. 
Study fieldwork activities (primary data collection) 
This  task  comprised  the  stakeholder  consultations  activities  conducted  for  the  evaluation. 
Despite challenges experienced during the data collection (see Section 1.2), a broad range of 
stakeholders were ultimately reached through the various consultation activities, covering a 
wide  geographical  scope,  showing  views  of  all  stakeholder  groups  directly  affected  by  the 
programme  and/or  having  an  interest  in  (see  Annex  V).  The  consultation  activities  are 
summarised  below  and  analysed  in  the  stakeholders’  consultation  synopsis  report  (Annex 
V). Detailed results are available in the technical annexes of the supporting study.  
Online public consultation  
The online public consultation sought to gather general insights on the performance of EaSI 
and EPMF as well as specific insights from the beneficiaries and stakeholders familiar with 
them.  It  was  launched  on  5th  October  2021  and  remained  open  until  28th  December  2021. 
The questionnaire - including closed and open questions - was published by the Commission 
on  EUROPA  ‘Have  your  say’  dedicated  consultation  page.  A  total  of  107  responses  were 
received. The factual summary report can be consulted here. 
Survey of the EaSI beneficiaries 
The scope of the survey, albeit limited, enabled the study team to gather additional insights. 
It  reached  beneficiaries  in  23  EU  Member  States  and  5  third  countries.  To  avoid  survey 
fatigue, the survey did not cover all the evaluation criteria as the online public consultation 
included both general and targeted questions. The questionnaire - including open and closed 
questions  -  was  sent  out  to  275  grant  beneficiaries  (many  of  them  were  beneficiaries  of 
several  EaSI  grants)  on  19  September  2021  and  remained  open  until  19  October  2021.  A 
total of 102 grant beneficiaries provided responses. In the analysis, only completed responses 
(90 in total) were taken into consideration.   
Online survey of financial intermediaries  
The  online  survey  to  financial  intermediaries  beneficiaries  of  EPMF  and  of  EaSI  was 
launched  on  19  August  2021  and  remained  open  until  27  September  2021.  Among  the 
microfinance intermediaries contacted by the EIF, 58 agreed to be surveyed. In the analysis, 
only completed responses (99 in total) were taken into consideration.   
Semi-structured interviews  
The  interviews  were  carried  out  between  April  2021  and  January  2022  totalling  46 
interviews including with Commission officials and with external stakeholders. A total of 14 
interviews were conducted by the study team with European Commission officials (11 in DG 
EMPL  and  3  in  other  DGs);  they  included  4  exploratory  interviews  conducted  during  the 
study’s  inception  stage  (April  -  May  2021).  A  number  of  32  interviews  were  carried  out  - 

106 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

mainly  in  the  framework  of  the  case  studies  -  with  stakeholders  such  as  representative  of 
EU-level NGO networks, EaSI Committee, EIF, EESC and programmes’ beneficiaries.  
Focus groups with the EU-level NGO networks 
This  focus  group  took  place  on  9  December  2021and  brought  together  10  participants.  It 
consisted of two parts: one covering general questions about the networks’ satisfaction with 
EaSI, making use of a live audience polling tool; and one covering more detailed questions 
discussed in two breakout groups. Participants received a list of topics before the meeting.  
Focus group with former EaSI Committee members 
This  focus  group  took  place  on  the  8th  March  2021  with  a  dual  purpose  of  gathering 
data/filling gaps and validating the suporting study preliminary findings. It brought together 
three  former  EaSI  Committee  members  representing  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Spain,  and  one 
observer representing Montenegro.  
Focus group with EIF officials  
This  focus  group  took  place  on  10  March  2021.  Its  purpose  was  to  gain  a  deeper 
understanding of issues raised during the interviews with the EIF officials, to fill identified 
gaps  and  to  check  the  preliminary  findings.  Five  (5)  EIF  officials  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  EPMF  and  the  EaSI  third  axis  participated:  a  policy  officer,  an  audit 
coordination officer, a senior member of the Microfinace team, and the director of the EPMF 
Financial Inclusion and Coordination team. 
Final validation seminar  
The contractor hold a seminar on 5 July 2022 in order to discuss and validate the findings of 
the  supporting  study  with  stakeholders  involved  in  the  consultations.  Twelve  (12) 
stakeholders representatives attended this event: 7 EU-level NGO networks, 3 from other EU 
bodies  (EIF,  EESC  and  EIB)  and  2  EaSI  beneficiaries  (RIAC,  a  social  experimentation 
project;  and    EURES-TriRegio  DE-PT-CZ,  a  cross-border  partnership).  The  European 
Commission  and  Ramboll  team’s  representatives  organised,  participated,  and  animated  the 
discussions, but they are not included in this number. 
Case studies  
The  evaluation’s  eight  (8)  thematic  case  studies  explored  and  provided  additional  in-depth 
qualitative  and  quantitative  evidence  illustrating  EaSI  and  EPMF  topical  issues.  Table  30 
below provides an overview of the case studies’ themes and rationale. 

Table 30. Overview of the thematic case studies 

No. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

Theme 

EaSI contribution to policy 
development 
EaSI past and future synergies and 
complementarities 
Integration of EaSI horizontal 
objectives 
EaSI adaptability to new challenges 
and policy priorities 
EPMF quantitative effects 
EPMF qualitative effects 

EaSI social entrepreneurship 

EaSI social experimentation 

Rationale 
To  understand  to  what  extent  and  how  EaSI  supported  evidence-based 
policymaking and impacted policy change at Member State and EU level.  
To uncover to what extent the ‘merging’ of three former programmes under 
the EaSI ‘umbrella’ in 2014 led to enhanced synergies.  
To  analyse  how  the  horizontal  principles  were  mainstreamed  in  the 
programme’s activities. 
To  assess  to  what  extent  EaSI  was  able  to  adapt  to  challenges  and  policy 
priorities.  
To look at the quantitative effects of the EPMF on its end beneficiaries. 
To  investigate  how  the  increased  access  and  availability  of  microfinance 
(through the EPMF) impacted end-beneficiaries.  
To  understand  the  effectiveness  of  EaSI  in  improving  access  to  financing 
for social enterprises.  
To  explore  how  effectively  EaSI  created  the  conditions  for  social 
innovation and its upscale. 

Source: DG EMPL, based on the evaluation supporting study. 

107 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

These  case  studies  relied  on  a  combination  of  desk-based  analysis  and  consultations  with 
stakeholders  (summarised  above  and  detailed  in  Annex  V).  The  EaSI  grants  beneficiaries’ 
survey  helped  to  identify  relevant  projects  to  be  included  in  the  case  studies  and  gathered 
data  on  specific  topics  (for  instance  on  ‘EaSI  flexiblity  to  adapt’  and  ‘Integration  of  EaSI 
horizontal objectives’ in the actions implemented).  

II.2.2 EESC contribution 

A  complementary  source  of  information  was  the  EESC  information  report.  The  main 
findings  are  summarised  in  Annex  V.  Given  that  the  EESC  proposal  to  contribute  to  the 
current  ex  post  evaluation  came  during  the  interim  phase  of  the  supporting  study,  the 
Commission and the EESC evaluation teams agreed to focus on gaps identified at that stage. 
Therefore,  the  EESC  report  reflects  in  particular  the  views  of  the  stakeholders  on  the 
coherence, effectiveness  and inclusiveness  of the EaSI programme, especially compared to 
other  EU  and  national  initiatives/programmes.  The  EESC’s  contribution  is  based  on 
consultations  with  civil  society  organisations  representing  employers,  workers  and 
associations of various interests, as well as public authorities in five selected EU countries 
(Austria, France, Hungary, Italy and Lithuania). The views of civil society organisations and 
of public authorities were collected through two channels: five virtual fact-finding ‘visits’ in 
the selected countries and a targeted (to civil society organisations) online questionnaire. 

Virtual fact-finding meetings 

The virtual fact-finding meetings included semi-structured interviews with local civil society 
organisations  and  representatives  of  public  authorities,  generally  following  the  thematic 
structure of the questionnaire. They took place via the Interactio online platform. The sample 
of Member States was  selected by the  EESC  study group based on criteria adopted by the 
EESC evaluation team on 22 January 2019. The European Commission was also consulted 
in  written.  The  countries  were  selected  based  on:  ‘political  spread’  (for  instance  high/low 
level  of  implementation,  application  success  rates,  most/least  affected  by  the  legislative 
proposal/programme,  etc.);  and  ‘geographical  spread’  (by  considering  five  geographical 
groups  and  choosing  one  Member  State  from  each  group).  The  countries  selected  are: 
Hungary  (9  March  2022),  Lithuania  (18  March  2022),  Italy  (21  March  2022),  France  (25 
March  2022)  and  Austria  (30  March  2022).  During  the  fact-finding  ‘visits’,  the  EESC 
consulted in total 53 representatives of civil society organisations and public authorities. 

Online questionnaire 

The aim of the  EESC  questionnaire  was to  complement the information  obtained from  the 
fact-finding  meetings.  The  dedicated  questionnaire  elaborated  29  questions  using  a 
combination  of  question  formats  (filter  questions,  closed  single/multiple  choice  and  open-
ended  questions,  grids).  The  European  Commission  was  also  consulted  in  written.  The 
survey was available on the EU Survey portal from 9 March to 4 April 2022 to organisations 
in the 5 Member States selected for the fact-finding meetings. It was open to not only for the 
stakeholders participating in the virtual meetings, but also to other organisations. A total of 
33  contributions  were  collected,  including  6  representatives  of  the  business  sector,  12 
representatives  of  workers'  organisations  and  15  representatives  of  various  interests’ 
stakeholders.  Regarding  the  origin  of  the  respondents,  12%  originated  from  Austria,  15% 
from  France,  40% from  Italy,  21% from Lithuania and  12% from  Hungary. Regarding the 
types  of  organisations,  18%  of  responses  came  from  business  sector  representatives,  36% 
from workers’ organisations and 46% from associations of various interests.  

108 

 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

II.3 Financial data robustness  
The  key  challenges  related  to  data  robustness  are  presented  in  Section  1.2  of  this  Staff 
Working  Document.  Annex  II.3  provides  a  complementary  methodological  discussion  on 
financial data limitations and explains the mitigation measures undertaken.  
The main source for  financial data  was the  FINAP  system, the tool used by DG EMPL to 
program/monitor  the  activities  implemented  under  direct  and  indirect  management  modes. 
This  tool  includes  detailed  breakdowns  of  indicative  amounts  allocated  to  given  activities, 
considering one call for proposal as a single action, even if it resulted in the award of several 
action grants, which made it difficult to compare costs at the level of individual activities and 
outputs. Moreover, a lack of consistent/comparable data spanning the full evaluation period 
(2014 - 2020) hindered an accurate analysis at individual activities/outputs level. 
When comparing the FINAP data to data from the Commission’s Accrual-based Accounting 
(ABAC) system, they perfectly match for the years 2018 - 2020, but some differences were 
observed  for  the  years  2014  -  2017.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  FINAP  system  was 
launched  in  2015  and  continuously  developed/adjusted  by  end  of  2017  when  it  was 
considered  as  stabilised.  Due  to  start-up  problems/successive  adjustments,  data  were  not 
properly  reported  in  the  system  for  the  2014  -  2017  period.  Moreover,  the  FINAP  system 
does not allow any changes to previous years, and tracking down every activity and making 
manual  changes  is  not  feasible  a  posteriori.  Consequently,  data  for  2014  to  2017  is  less 
granular than data for 2018 - 2020. However, the supporting study evaluation team observed 
that for this period - for most years/axes - the differences were small and not likely to have a 
major impact on the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis.  
To mitigate these data gaps, datasets from ABAC were used as basis for the total available 
and implemented amounts per axis. However, in the ABAC system, financial data (planned 
and  executed)  are  reported  at  the  level  of  the  EaSI  programme’s  axes,  and  no  detailed 
breakdown  per  (type  of)  activity  exists.  Given  the  need  to  report  at  the  specific  objective 
level  (related  to  the  cost-effectiveness  analysis),  the  following  approach  was  used  in  the 
supporting study to mitigate the issues explained above.  
All  the  amounts  per  axis  from  the  FINAP  dataset  were  adjusted  to  the  corresponding 
amounts from the ABAC dataset. For example, if there was a total indicative amount of EUR 
2 million for an activity in the FINAP data in 2014, and EUR 2.5 million in the ABAC data, 
all the underlying actions in the FINAP data were proportionally adjusted based on the ratio 
2.5/2.  Same  implementation  ratios  (i.e.  implemented  amount/indicative  amount)  were  used 
for each axis and for each year. The above method was susceptible to cause a caveat to the 
cost-effectiveness results. It was therefore assumed that the differences between FINAP and 
ABAC data were equally divided over all the actions.  
Another  caveat  was  that  the  categories  defined  in  the  FINAP  system  are  conceived  to  be 
used  for  financial  programming  and  monitoring.  In  practice,  the  FINAP  activities  are 
categorised  by  type  of  output,  for  instance  studies,  surveys,  communication.  Nevertheless, 
under one FINAP category, different types of outputs could be classified. For example, one 
FINAP category funds a study report, but there could be some communication outputs under 
this same FINAP activity, while the type of output only states 'study report’. Furthermore, as 
in  the  example  provided  above,  for  most  activities  there  is  a  clear  type  of  output  (for 
instance,  when  financing  a  study  report,  the  main  output  type  is  a  ‘study  report’)  and  it  is 
likely  that  the  biggest  share  of  the  funding  is  allocated  towards  this  type  of  output.  To 

109 

 
 
Ex post evaluation of EaSI and final evaluation of EPMF 

mitigate this caveat, the supporting study used the approach explained above - based on the 
main type of output - in order to directly link costs to outputs and results.  
Based  on  the  methodological  approach  and  mitigation  measures  explained  above,  Table  2 
included  in  Chapter  3  presents  the  number  of  activities  (outputs)  and  the  corresponding 
spending linked to each specific objective.  

II.4 Points of comparison 
The points of comparison presented in Table 31 were established based on the EaSI baseline 
report  (2014)  and  its  successive  updates,  excepting  for  EPMF  and  objectives  the 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis,  which  were  based  on  the  respective  ex  ante 
evaluations. Detailed explanations are included in Section 2.3. 

110 

 
 
 
 
 EaSI ex post evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation  

Objectives 

Table 31. Objectives, indicators and points of comparison 

Indicators 

Specific objectives 

Points of comparison 

Evidence-based  EU  policies 
and legislation  

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Share  of  stakeholders  aknowledging  that  EU  employment  and  social  policy  and 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  71% (2014) 

legislation is based on evidence. 

No. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

inclusive 
and 
Effective 
information  sharing,  mutual 
learning and dialogue 

Testing  of  social  and  labour 
market policy innovations 

4.  Greater  capacity  of  national 
and  EU  organisations 
to 
develop, 
and 
support  the  implementation 
of EU policies. 
Transparent  labour  market 
information 

promote 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Effective provision of services 
for  recruitment  and  placing 
of workers 

access 
Better 
availability of, microfinance 

to, 

and 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Share  of  stakeholders  declaring  that  they  have  used  (or  intend  to  use)  the 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  89% (2014) 

information acquired during EaSI-funded events. 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Share  of  EU  and  national  stakeholders  who  see  the  Commission  as  an  effective 
source of guidance and support for social and labour market policy innovations. 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  62% (2014) 

Performance measurement headline indicator: 
•  Share of stakeholders  declaring  an  improved capacity  to  develop and  promote EU 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  88% (2014) 

social policies. 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Number  of  visitors  to  the  EURES  Portal  (performance  measurement  headline 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  509 544 visits (2014) 

indicator. 

Performance measurement complementary indicators: 
•  Number of jobseekers and employers registered on the EURES Portal 

•  190  000  jobseekers  and  6 

000 employers (2015) 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Number  of  individual  personal  contacts  of  EURES  advisers  with  jobseekers,  job 
changers  and  employers  made  via  cross-border  partnerships  and  targeted  mobility 
schemes. 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Total number and volume of microloans provided, and the leverage effect created. 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  947  480  personal  contacts 

(2014) 

ex  ante 

EPMF  and  EaSI 
evaluations: 
•  EaSI:  50  000  microloans 
provided  and  a  volume  of 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EaSI ex post evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation  

No. 

Objectives 

Indicators 

8. 

Better  access  to  finance  for 
social enterprises  

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Total number of social enterprises supported and the volume of funding provided. 

Points of comparison 
EUR 
million 
500 
corersponding  to  a  leverage 
effect  of  5  times  the  EU 
contribution.  

•  EPMF:  45  000  microloans 
provided  and  a  volume  of 
million 
500 
EUR 
corersponding  to  a  leverage 
effect  of  5  times  the  EU 
contribution.  

EaSI ex ante evaluation: 
•  900 

social 

enterprises 
supported  and  a  volume  of 
EUR 
million, 
corresponding  to  a  leverage 
of 
the  EU 
3 
contribution.  

times 

270 

9. 

1. 

Build  up 
institutional 
the 
capacity  of  the  microcredit 
providers 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Total  number  of  microcredit  providers  supported  through  funding  for  capacity 

EaSI ex ante evaluation: 
•  A number of 50 microcredit 

building. 

General objectives 

providers supported. 

Stronger  ownership  of  EU 
objectives 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Share  of  stakeholders  who  feel  familiar  with  the  main  issues  in  the  policy  fields 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  63% (2014) 

2 

Facilitation of policy reforms  Performance measurement complementary indicator  

covered by EaSI. 

3.  Modernisation  and  effective 

application of EU law 

•  Share of national, regional and local policymakers and civil society representatives 
who  declare  that  they  have  used  (or  intend)  outputs  produced  by  EaSI  analytical 
activities for policymaking or advocacy. 
Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Examples of how EaSI-funded outputs contributed to the improvement of review of 

the EU legislation. 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  79% (2014) 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  EaSI outputs continued being 
instrumental in contributing 
to 
improvement  and 
better application of EU law. 

the 

112 

 
 
 
No. 
4. 

5. 

1. 

 EaSI ex post evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation  

Objectives 

Indicators 

voluntary 
and 

Improved 
geographic  mobility 
employment opportunities 
Increased  access  to  finance 
for 
persons, 
micro- and social enterprises 

vulnerable 

attention 

to 
Paying 
vulnerable 
groups; 
promoting  equality  between 
men  and  women;  combating 
and 
discrimination 
promoting 
sustainable 
employment. 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Number of placements resulting from contacts of EURES advisers with jobseekers. 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Proportion  of  beneficiaries  that  have  created  or  further  developed  a  business  with 
EU microfinance support that are unemployed or belonging to vulnerable groups. 

Horizontal objectives277 

Performance measurement headline indicator:  
•  Share of stakeholders stating that the EU contribution to the integration of the 

horizontal issues into their respective policy area is moderate or high. 

Points of comparison 

EaSI baseline report: 

31 056 placements (2014). 

baseline 

EaSI 
Management Plan: 
•  50% by end-2020 

report/EMPL 

EaSI baseline report: 
•  Particular 

attention 

to 
(79%), 
vulnerable  groups 
equality between women and 
men 
anti-
(78%), 
discrimination (76%), high-
quality  and  sustainable  work 
(65%), 
social 
adequate 
protection  (62%),  poverty 
prevention 
reduction 
and 
long-term 
(60%), 
unemployment  (57%)  and 
disability  and  accessibility 
matters (47%) (2014). 

Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI ex ante evaluation, EPMF ex ante evaluation and EaSI baseline reports/updates.

277Referred  as  ‘horizontal  principles’  in  this  Staff  Working  Document  (the  terminology  used  in  the  Article  4  of  the  EaSI  Regulation).  The  EaSI  preparatory  documents  (EaSI/PSCI  ex  ante  evaluation  and  the  ESF  impact 
assessment) as well the current evaluation supporting study used the term ‘horizontal objectives’. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 EaSI ex post evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation  

II.5 EaSI Stakeholders Survey methodology 
The  EaSI  Stakeholder  Survey  was  the  web-based  survey  conducted  bi-annually  by  the 
contractor carrying out the EaSI monitoring in 2014 - 2020. One survey was deployed in 
2014 in order to establish the baseline situation, followed by three surveys covering 2015 - 
2016, 2017 - 2018 and 2019 - 2020.  
The survey was available in English, French and German. The survey aimed to provide a 
representative  picture  of  the  opinions  of  stakeholders  benefitting  from  the  programme 
implementation (i.e., it aimed to target a wide variety of persons involved in one or another 
way  in  the  EU  policy  process  in  the  area  of  employment  and  social  affairs).  Separate 
questions were developed for each axis.  
Given  that  the  entire  population  affected  by  EaSI  was  not  known,  a  non-probability 
sampling strategy was used. This means that units were intentionally selected to represent 
particular aspects of groups within the general sampled population. In the case of EaSI, the 
survey gathered the opinions of a representative sample of different types of stakeholders 
at  EU  and  national  level,  including:  1)  policy  and  decision-makers;  2)  civil  society 
organisations, including social partner organisations; and 3) other relevant participants and 
stakeholders involved in the programme design and implementation.  
Each of the three groups constituted a separate stratum, i.e. a separate group or sub-group 
of  the  population  from  which  it  was  attempted  to  receive  a  sufficient  number  of  survey 
responses. The survey was continued until a sufficient number of responses were received 
in each stratum. Additionally, to ensure that the respondents are selected so as to cover the 
whole range of subgroups, selections were based on two key principles: 

•  The  first  principle  relied  on  a  careful  mixing  and  matching  of  respondents  in  the 
different  groups,  making  sure  that  each  subgroup  is  represented  by  the  minimum 
number of respondents (about 20-30 respondents).  

•  The second principle ensured that the overall distribution of answers across the two 
selection criteria remained similar to that of the previous EaSI Stakeholder Survey. 
In  2014  (covering  2014  period),  10  737  invitations  were  sent  to  participate  in  the 
Stakeholder Survey. In total, 1662 responses were received. The response rate of the 2014 
EaSI  Stakeholder  Survey  was  around  17%.  In  2017  (covering  the  implementation  period 
2015  -  2016),  the  survey  was  disseminated  to  7  195  stakeholders  and  received  1  038 
responses. The response rate of the EaSI Stakeholder Survey was around 14%278. In 2019 
(covering the implementation period 2017 - 2018), the survey was disseminated to 15 374 
stakeholders  and  received  2  325  responses.  The  response  rate  was  around  15%.  In  2021 
(covering the implementation period 2019 - 2020), the survey was disseminated to 9 073 
stakeholders and received 885 replies. The response rate was around 10%.  
II.6 Evaluation integrated approach 
This annex explains the design of the EaSI ex post evaluation that includes the EPMF final 
evaluation.  
Background information  
EaSI was launched in January 2014 and ended on 31 December 2020 (the evaluation cut-
off  date).  Its  budget  was  managed  mostly  directly  by  DG  EMPL  based  on  calls  for 
proposals and tenders. Out of the three instruments grouped under the EaSI third axis, the 
Guarantee Instrument and  the Capacity Building Investments  Window were implemented 
indirectly  (the  Commission  entrusted  their  management  to  the  EIF)  while  the  Funded 

278Response rate = [responses received/(invitations sent - bounced e-mails – unsubscribed emails)]*100 

114 

 
 
 EaSI ex post evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation  

Instrument was implemented directly by the Commission in accordance with Article 216 of 
the Financial Regulation. 
The EaSI Guarantee Instrument and the EaSI Funded Instrument implemented under the 
EaSI third axis  were built on the success of the financial instruments implemented under 
the  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  (EPMF),  and  combined  the  benefits  of  the 
experience  with  EPMF  with  an  enlarged  geographical  scope  and  a  dedicated  support  for 
social  enterprises.  The  EaSI  instruments  mentioned  above  and  those  implemented  under 
EPMF ran in parallel until 2016. 

•  The  EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument  became  operational  in  2015  with  the  end  date  of 
implementation  set  at  1st    January  2024.  By  this  date,  the  EIF  can  sign  guarantee 
agreements with financial intermediaries. The financial intermediaries can include 
loans in their portfolio after this date until at the latest 31 December 2027.  

•  The  EaSI  Funded  Instrument279  became  operational  in  September  2019  and  its 
implementation  period  runs  until  16  October  2023.  By  this  date,  the  EIF  can 
provide loans to financial intermediaries. The financial intermediaries can include 
loans  in  their  portfolio  after  this  date  but  the  duration  of  the  loans  to  final 
beneficiaries cannot go beyond 31 December 2031.  

•  Through the  EaSI Capacity Building  Investments Window  launched in December 
through 
to  financial 
2016,  EIF  provided 
subordinated loans. The last agreements with financial intermediaries were signed 
in 2021; the overall budged was fully deployed by end of 2021. 

intermediaries  mainly 

funding 

The EPMF was launched by the Commission in 2010 under the PROGRESS programme 
(2007  -  2013)  as  a  demand  driven  instrument.  Both  financial  instruments  set  up  under 
EPMF  (Guarantee  Instrument  and  Funded  Instrument)  were  implemented  by  the  EIF 
through  indirect  management  mode.  They  were  followed  up  by  a  new  generation  of 
financial instruments under the third axis of the EaSI programme (see above). 
Under both EPMF instruments, EIF could sign guarantee agreements and provide loans to 
financial  intermediaries  until  7th  April  2016,  while  the  end-date  of  the  implementation 
period was set on 31st December 2020 for the Guarantee Instrument and on 30th April 2020 
for  the  Funded  Instrument280.  By  these  dates,  all  guarantee  agreements  with  financial 
intermediaries  should  have  been  terminated  and  all  loans  provided  to  financial 
intermediaries  should  have  been  reimbursed.  In  practice,  the  guarantee  coverage  of  the 
loans  and  therefore  the  implementation  of  the  EPMF  guarantee  was  extended  until  31st 
December 2020 (see Annex VI.4). Therefore, the end-date of the implementation period of 
the  EPMF  as  a  whole  was  considered  by  31st  December  2020,  which  is  the  cut-off  date 
considered in this evaluation. 
Ex post evaluation approach 
EaSI  and  EPMF  legal  bases  both  display  evaluation  requirements,  while  the  first  refers 
explicitly  to  the  latter,  their  respective  deadlines  almost  run  in  parallel.  EaSI  evaluation 
requirement defined in 2013 takes precedence over EPMF’s one defined in 2010. 
EaSI Regulation 1296/2013 

279Operationally, there is no difference between the EaSI Funded Instrument and the EPMF Funded Instrument, meaning that they were 
both  implemented  by  the  EIF  in  the  same  way.  Nevertheless,  the  EU  Financial  Regulation  in  force  in  2010  did  not  contain  any 
provisions  on  financial  instruments  (which  were  introduced  only  in  the  later  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation).  The  indirect 
management mode was then chosen for the EPMF Funded Instrument that was implemented by the EIF. The 2018 Financial Regulation, 
in force when the EaSI Funded Instrument was launched (2019), provided (under Article 216) that the specialized investment vehicles 
fall under direct management. In practice, the EIF still implements the EaSI Funded Instrument but the Commission keeps however a 
direct responsibility on the management of the instrument.  
280The EPMF Funded Instrument was liquidated only in December 2022. The liquidation was delayed since one financial intermediary - 
receiving three loans under this instrument - went into voluntary liquidation and could not timely reimburse the loans. The liquidation of 
the EPMF Funded Instrument was finalised; only the three loans were no longer in the portfolio of the fund.  

115 

 
 
 EaSI ex post evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation  

•  Article 13(4): The Commission shall evaluate ex post the impact and the European 

Union added value of the programme by 31 December 2022. 

•  Article  38(1):  The  final  evaluation  provided  for  in  Article  13(4)  of  the  EaSI 
Regulation  shall  include  the  final  evaluation  provided  for  in  Article  9  of  the 
Decision 283/2010.  

EPMF Decision 283/2010 

•  Article  9(1):  The  Commission  shall  carry  out  interim  and  final  evaluations  at  its 
own initiative and in close cooperation with the international financial institutions 
referred  to  in  Article  5(2).  The  interim  evaluation  shall  be  completed  four  years 
after the start of the Facility and the final evaluation at the latest one year after the 
end of the mandate(s) given to the international financial institutions referred to in 
Article 5(2). The final evaluation shall, in particular, examine the extent to which 
the Facility as a whole has achieved its objectives. 

Based on the two legal bases provisions for evaluation, and consideration of economies of 
scale, a joint evaluation of EaSI and EPMF was agreed upfront in 2019 between the units 
involved. One entry in DECIDE (PLAN/2019/5817) and a joint roadmap for EaSI ex post 
evaluation  including  the  EPMF  final  evaluation  was  published  for  the  stakeholders’ 
feedback  between  8  October  -  5  November  2019. One  entry  was  created  in  the 
Interinstitutional  Database  of  EU  Studies  for  the  study  supporting  the  EaSI  ex  post 
evaluation including the EPMF final evaluation (March 2021 - July 2022). The supporting 
study and the Staff Working Document were built to allow optimal analysis and results for 
both  programmes’  evaluations  as  well  as  economies  of  scale  in  terms  of  process,  EPMF 
final evaluation nourishing the EaSI ex post evaluation. 

116 

 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX  

The evaluation design relied on an evaluation matrix (see Table 32 below) build along the five Better Regulation Guidelines’ evaluation criteria that 
guided the evaluation process. Based on the programmes’ intervention logic and the supporting study technical specifications, the matrix features the 
key research questions, operationalised in sub-questions, indicators and related judgement criteria. The data sources are included in the table. 

Evaluation questions 

Operationalised questions 

Indicators/descriptors 

Norms/judgement 
criteria 

Data sources / 
analytical approach 

Table 32. Evaluation matrix 

for 

1.  To  what  degree  was 
the  EaSI  programme 
relevant 
its 
different  stakeholders, 
citizens? 
including 
to  what 
How  and 
extent 
the 
different  stakeholders 
affected 
positively 
and/or  negatively  by 
the intervention? 

were 

the  EaSI 

2.  How  was 
programme 
instrumental 
supporting 
2020  Agenda, 
European  Pillar 
Social  Rights, 

to 
the  EU 
the 
of 
the 

the  EaSI 

the  key  stakeholders  of 

Who  are 
programme’s axes?  
To  what  extent  did  EaSI  effectively  target  and 
reach relevant stakeholder groups? Were there any 
gaps? What explains these gaps?  
What  were 
the  different  needs  of  different 
stakeholder  groups?  Are  there  any  noteworthy 
differences  in  the  needs  of  different  stakeholder 
groups? 
To  what  extent  did  the  programme  address  these 
needs?  Was  the  design  of  the  EaSI  programme 
appropriate to meet all stakeholder groups’ needs?  
To  what  extent  was  each  stakeholder  group 
affected  (positively  or  negatively)  by  the  EaSI 
programme?  What  factors  account  for 
these 
differences (if any)? 

How  and  to  what  extent  did  the  EaSI  programme 
support (operationalised the objectives of): 
• 

the Europe 2020 Agenda/ the European Pillar 
of Social Rights? 
the  Political  Guidelines  of  the  Commission 
and 
the  main  EU  governance  processes 
(European  Semester,  and  the  coordination  in 

• 

EaSI 
Relevance 

Stakeholder mapping  
Commission  approaches  to  targeting  different  stakeholder 
groups  
Assessment of thematic coverage of EaSI-funded activities  
Evidence  /  examples  of  EaSI  actions  targeting  /  reaching 
different stakeholder groups  
Assessment  of  gaps  /  imbalances  in  the  stakeholder  groups 
targeted and reached by EaSI actions  
Stakeholder views on the appropriateness of EaSI to meet needs 
of different stakeholder groups  
Assessment  of  degree  to  which  stakeholders  participated  in 
EaSI and were impacted by EaSI, per axis 
Stakeholder views on negative and positive impacts  
Identified reasons accounting for differences  

The overall majority of 
stakeholders,  as  well 
of 
as 
a  majority 
stakeholders 
from 
given  categories  agree 
that  their  needs  were 
sufficiently  addressed 
by 
EaSI 
the 
programme  

Evidence / examples of synergies/contradictions between EaSI 
and  the  EU  2020  Agenda,  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  Political 
Guidelines, governance processes  
Evidence  /  examples  of  EaSI  actions  that  went  beyond  the 
objectives  of  the  EU  2020  Agenda,  Pillar  of  Social  Rights, 
Political Guidelines, governance processes 
Best  practice  examples  of  EaSI  actions  supporting 

the 

The overall majority of 
stakeholders consulted, 
as well as a majority of 
stakeholders 
from 
given categories, are of 
the  opinion  that  the 
programme 
EaSI 

117 

reports 

on 
and 

performance 

Relevant 
legislative 
and policy documents 
Stakeholder mapping  
Preparatory 
desk 
research  
EaSI 
monitoring reports  
EaSI 
projects 
organisations  
Interviews at EU level  
Public consultation 
Results 
from 
evaluation  questions 
on progress relative to 
the 
and 
baseline 
effectiveness  (impact 
on stakeholders, reach 
of EaSI actions)  
Relevant 
legislative/policy 
documents 
European  Pillar  of 
Social  Rights  Action 
Plans 
Interviews at EU level  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

the social protection and social inclusion)? 
Are  there  key  best  practice  examples  of  ways  in 
which the EaSI programme supported these?  

To  what  extent  were  the  general  objectives 
identified  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  EaSI  Regulation 
relevant throughout the 2014-2020 period? 
Were the general objectives complete? Were there 
any gaps not covered by EaSI?  
What lessons can be learned that can be taken into 
account for the next programming period?  

Political  Guidelines  of 
the  Commission 
as 
well  as  the  main  EU 
governance  processes 
(European  Semester, 
and the coordination in 
the  social  protection 
and social inclusion)? 

3.  To  what  extent  have 
general, 
the 
EaSI 
horizontal  and  specific 
been 
objectives 
instrumental 
and 
continue to be relevant 
the 
addressing 
in 
general/permanent  and 
emerging 
needs 
(related to the evolving 
context, 
including 
challenges  such  as  the 
refugee  crisis,  Brexit, 
COVID-19 crisis)? 

To  what  extent  were  the  horizontal  objectives 
identified  in  Article  4(2)  of  the  EaSI  Regulation 
relevant throughout the 2014-2020 period? 
Were  the  horizontal  objectives  complete?  Were 
any gaps not covered by EaSI? 
What lessons can be learned that can be taken into 
account for the next programming period?  

implementation of the EU 2020 Agenda, Pillar of Social Rights, 
Political Guidelines, governance processes 
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  EaSI  actions 
supported the implementation of the EU 2020 Agenda, Pillar of 
Social Rights, Political Guidelines, governance processes  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  appropriateness  and  sufficiency  of 
synergies  

Evidence  /  examples  of  alignment/non-alignment  between 
general objectives and the needs of stakeholders  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  general 
objectives meet their needs 
Evidence / examples of new needs that emerged that were not 
covered by the general objectives  
Stakeholder views on the degree to which the EaSI programme 
managed to adapt to emerging needs  
Evidence  /  examples  of  lessons  learned  from  the  2014-2020 
period that may be relevant for the future  
Stakeholder  suggestions  to  improve  the  relevance  of  the  EaSI 
programme’s general objectives  

Thematic coverage of EaSI actions  
Trends in relevant indicators such as gender pay gap, long term 
unemployment, social exclusion   
Evidence  /  examples  of  alignment/non-alignment  between 
horizontal objectives and the needs of stakeholders  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  horizontal 
objectives met their needs 
Evidence / examples of new needs that emerged that were not 
covered by the horizontal objectives 
Stakeholder views on the degree to which the EaSI programme 
managed to adapt to emerging needs  
Evidence  /  examples  of  lessons  learned  from  the  2014-2020 
period that may be relevant for the future  
Stakeholder  suggestions  to  improve  the  relevance  of  the  EaSI 
programme’s horizontal objectives  

118 

adequately 
the 
related 
initiatives/objectives  

supported 
EU 

Focus group  

The  general  objectives 
were  judged  relevant 
and  appropriate  by  a 
majority 
of 
stakeholders, including 
from 
different 
stakeholder categories 
The  general  objectives 
continue to be relevant 
and 
appropriate 
according to a majority 
stakeholders, 
of 
including 
from 
different 
stakeholder 
categories 

horizontal 
The 
were 
objectives 
relevant 
and 
appropriate  in  light  of 
stakeholders’ 
needs 
and 
political 
priorities  

EU 

to 

on 

performance 

report 
updated 

Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 
Baseline 
(2014), 
baseline reports  
EaSI 
monitoring reports  
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Focus group  
Case studies     
from 
Results 
the 
questions 
in 
progress  made 
relation 
the 
baseline, effectiveness 
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 
Relevant 
from 
national 
offices  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Focus groups 
Case study   
Results 
questions 
progress  made 
relation 

statistics 
Eurostat, 
statistics 

from 
the 
in 
the 

performance 

on 

to 

 
  
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

To  what  extent  were  the  specific  objectives  of 
each  of  the  EaSI  programme’s  axes  relevant 
throughout the 2014-2020 period? 
What lessons can be learned that can be taken into 
account for the next programming period?  

Evidence  /  examples  of  alignment/non-alignment  between 
specific  objectives  of  each  axis  and  the  needs  of  relevant 
stakeholders  
Evidence of new needs that emerged that were not covered by 
the specific objectives of each axis  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  specific 
objectives met their needs 
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  each  EaSI  axis 
was sufficiently flexible to adapt to emerging needs  
Evidence  /  examples  of  lessons  learned  from  the  2014-2020 
period that may be relevant for the future  
Stakeholder  suggestions  to  improve  the  relevance  of  the  EaSI 
programme in relation to each axis  

Was  the  EaSI  programme  sufficiently  flexible  to 
respond  to  changing  needs  and  corresponding 
policy priorities in a timely manner throughout its 
duration?  
How  and  to  what  extent  has  the  EaSI  programme 
responded  to  new  emerging  needs  such  as  the 
refugee crisis, Brexit and the COVID-19 crisis?  
Did any new needs arise that were not sufficiently 
addressed by the EaSI programme? Why? 
What  lessons  were  learned  that  can  be  taken  into 
account for the next programming period?  

Assessment  of  the  decision  making  criteria,  process,  evidence 
and stakeholders consulted for responding to emerging needs 
Evidence/examples  of  changes/  decisions  made  (or  not)  to 
funding  priorities  based  on  emerging  needs, 
including 
timeliness of these decisions 
Financial allocations requested and granted and timeframes for 
grant  decisions  made  as  part  of  the  EaSI  Guarantee  Financial 
Instrument to address COVID-19 
Assessment  of  appropriateness  of  redistribution  of  financial 
the  Omnibus 
allocations  between  EaSI  axes 
Regulation  
Stakeholder views on the flexibility of the EaSI programme to 
respond to emerging needs 
Evidence  /  examples  of  EaSI  response  to  emerging  needs  and 

following 

The specific objectives 
of 
the  PROGRESS 
axis  were  relevant  and 
appropriate  in  light  of 
stakeholder  needs  and 
EU political priorities  
The specific objectives 
of 
the  EURES  axis 
and 
relevant 
were 
appropriate  in  light  of 
stakeholder  needs  and 
EU political priorities 
The specific objectives 
the  MF/SE  axis 
of 
were 
and 
relevant 
appropriate  in  light  of 
stakeholder  needs  and 
EU political priorities 

The  EaSI  programme 
responded  flexibly  to 
changing 
policy 
priorities  
needs  were 
New 
sufficiently  addressed 
by 
EaSI 
the 
programme,  and  in  a 
timely manner  

reports 

performance 
reports 
on 
and 

baseline, effectiveness 
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 
Ex  post  evaluation  of 
EURES  
EaSI 
monitoring 
EaSI 
projects 
organisations 
Academic 
studies, 
research  and  reports 
on  employment/social 
policies in the EU  
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Focus groups  
Case studies  
from 
Results 
the 
questions 
in 
progress  made 
relation 
the 
baseline/ effectiveness 
Relevant 
legislative/ 
policy documents281 
EIF  /  EC  data  on  the 
number  of  requests  / 
for 
allocations 
in 
financial  support 
the  context  of 
the 
COVID-19 crisis  
Academic 
studies, 
research  and  reports 
on  employment/social 
policies in the EU  
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 

on 

to 

281Including notably the amendments to the financial allocation to each EaSI axis made by the Omnibus Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018).  

119 

 
 
 
 
4.  To  what  extent  have 
the  specific  objectives 
of 
the  PROGRESS 
axis  set  out  in  Article 
EaSI 
15 
Regulation 
been 
achieved? 

the 

of 

EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

towards  meeting 

What  have  been  the  quantitative  and  qualitative 
effects  and  benefits  of  the  EaSI  intervention  that 
contribute 
specific 
PROGRESS axis objectives?  
To  what  extent  can  the  identified  effects  and 
benefits  be  linked  to  and  be  credited  to  the  EaSI 
intervention and the actions funded under this axis? 
Were  there  any  gaps  in  terms  of  achievements 
compared to the objectives? What caused these?  

the 

timeframes for responding to these needs 
Assessment  and  stakeholder  views  of  appropriateness  and 
timeliness of the EaSI response to emerging issues  
Identified new needs that were not sufficiently addressed by the 
EaSI programme  
Identified  factors  causing  new  needs  not  to  be  addressed  by 
EaSI (if any)  
Stakeholder  views  on  new  needs  that  arose  but  were  not 
sufficiently addressed by EaSI and reasons why 
Evidence  /  examples  of  lessons  learned  from  the  2014-2020 
period that may be relevant for the future  
Stakeholder  suggestions  to  improve  the  relevance  of  the  EaSI 
programme  

Effectiveness 

Degree of achievement of KPIs for PROGRESS axis (based on 
monitoring reports)  
Actions  implemented  under  the  PROGRESS  axis,  per  year 
compared to annual work programmes  
Financial commitments/allocation to the PROGRESS axis, per 
year  
Share  of  PROGRESS  commitments  per  specific  objective, 
horizontal objective  
Number  of  organisations  that  were  provided  financial  support 
to increase their capacity  
Evidence / examples of innovations in social and labour market 
policy contributed to by PROGRESS 
Stakeholders  satisfaction  with  and  declared  use  of  knowledge 
generated by the programme 
Share  of  policy  initiatives  launched  by  DG  EMPL  which  are 
informed by the knowledge generated by the programme 
The declared (intended/actual) use of acquired information for 
policymaking/advocacy  by  the  involved  participants  but  also 
other decision-makers and stakeholders 
Stakeholder views on the effects and benefits of these actions  
Documentary  evidence  of  links  between  the  inputs/activities 
under this axis and the achievement of the results  
Evidence/examples of external influencing factors  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  results  can  be 
attributed to the actions under the PROGRESS axis 

120 

Public consultation 
Interviews at EU level  
Focus groups 
SWOT analysis  
from 
Results 
the 
questions 
in 
progress  made 
relation 
the 
baseline, effectiveness 

on 

to 

reports 

on 
and 

performance 

report 
updated 

Administrative data  
Baseline 
(2014), 
baseline reports  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
EaSI 
projects 
organisations 
EaSI 
evaluation  
Annual 
programmes 
2020 
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Focus groups 
Case studies 

work 
2014-

mid-term 

to 

under 

There  has  been  an 
improvement 
compared 
the 
baseline  situation,  that 
can  be  linked  to  EaSI 
funding 
the 
PROGRESS axis, e.g.:  
Capacity has increased  
Innovations  in  social 
and 
labour  market 
policies  have  been 
introduced 
with 
plausible  contributions 
by PROGRESS 
Stakeholders 
are 
satisfied  and  make  use 
of 
knowledge 
generated as a result of 
PROGRESS  
DG 
has 
EMPL 
launched  new  policy 
initiatives as a result of 
PROGRESS  
Member  States  have 
launched  new  policy 
initiatives as a result of 

 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

Evidence / examples of hindering factors and constraints  
Stakeholder  views  on  possible  gaps  and  constraints  hindering 
achievement of objectives 

PROGRESS actions  

5.  To  what  extent  have 
the  specific  objectives 
of  the  EURES  axis  set 
out in Article 20 of the 
EaSI  Regulation  been 
achieved? 

What  have  been  the  quantitative  and  qualitative 
effects  and  benefits  of  the  EaSI  intervention 
towards  meeting  the  objectives  of  the  EURES 
axis? 
To  what  extent  can  the  identified  effects  and 
benefits  be  linked  to  and  be  credited  to  the  EaSI 
intervention and the actions funded under this axis? 
Were  there  any  gaps  in  terms  of  achievements 
compared to the objectives? What caused these?  

6.  To  what  extent  have 
the  specific  objectives 
of  the  MF/SE  axis  set 
out in Article 26 of the 
EaSI  Regulation  been 
achieved? 

What  have  been  the  quantitative  and  qualitative 
effects  and  benefits  of  the  EaSI  intervention 
towards meeting the objectives? 
To  what  extent  can  the  identified  effects  and 
benefits  be  linked  to  and  be  credited  to  the  EaSI 
intervention and the actions funded under this axis? 
Were  there  any  gaps  in  terms  of  achievements 
compared to the objectives? What caused these?  

the  EURES  axis,  per  year 

Actions 
implemented  under 
compared to annual work programmes  
Degree  of  achievement  of  KPIs  for  EURES  axis  (based  on 
monitoring reports)  
Number  of  job  vacancies  and  CVs  on  EURES  Job  Mobility 
Portal 
Number  of  recruitment/  placements  and  job  offers  made 
through the EURES Job Mobility Portal 
Number of transnational placements facilitated by EURES  
Documentary  evidence  of  links  between  the  inputs  and 
different  types  of  activities  funded  under  this  axis  and  the 
achievement  of  the  results  (to  understand  which  types  of 
activities produced results) 
Evidence/examples of external influencing factors  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  EURES  has 
contributed to the observed results  
Evidence / examples of hindering factors and constraints 
Stakeholder  views  on  possible  gaps  and  constraints  hindering 
achievement of objectives 
Degree  of  achievement  of  KPIs  for  MF/SE  axis  (based  on 
monitoring reports)  
Number of microloans provided with EU support  
Volume of microloans provided (€)  
Profile  of 
employment status…) 
Number of micro-credit providers supported through funding to 
receive capacity building support 
Number of social enterprises that have been supported through 
EaSI  
Volume of investment provided to social enterprises 
Documentary  evidence  of  links  between  the  inputs/activities 
under this axis and the achievement of the results  
Evidence/examples of external influencing factors  
Stakeholder views on the degree to which the MF/SE axis has 
contributed to the observed results  
Evidence / examples of hindering factors and constraints 

(age,  gender,  minority, 

final  beneficiaries 

121 

to 

under 

There  has  been  an 
improvement 
compared 
the 
baseline  situation,  that 
can  be  linked  to  EaSI 
funding 
the 
EURES axis, e.g.:  
The 
of 
number 
vacancies and CVs has 
grown  
The 
(transnational) 
placements 
grown  

number 

have 

of 

report 
updated 

Baseline 
(2014), 
baseline reports   
Ex  post  Evaluation  of 
EURES  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Annual 
programmes 
2020 
Focus group  

work 
2014-

performance 

to 

There  has  been  an 
improvement 
compared 
the 
baseline  situation,  that 
can  be  linked  to  EaSI 
the 
under 
funding 
MF/SE axis, e.g.: 
An  increasing  number 
of  microloans  were 
provided  with  EU 
support  
An  increasing  number 
of  social  enterprises 
have  been  supported 
through EaSI  
An  increasing  number 
microfinance 
of 
have 
providers 

of 

(see  Q4 

report 
updated 

Results  from  the  final 
the 
evaluation 
EPMF 
in 
EPMF EQM) 
Baseline 
(2014), 
baseline reports   
Administrative  data/ 
annual 
implementation 
reports  submitted  by 
the EIF  
EaSI 
monitoring reports  
Annual 
programmes 
2020 
Interviews at EU level  

work 
2014-

performance 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

7.  To  what  extent  have 
the  general  objectives 
set  out  in  Article  4(1) 
of the EaSI Regulation 
been achieved? 

To  what  extent  did  each  of  the  three  axes  of  the 
EaSI  programme  contribute  to  the  achievement  of 
the programme’s general objectives? 
To  what  extent  did  the  EaSI  mechanism/umbrella 
enable  the  three  axes  to  achieve  their  objectives? 
What  difference  did  it  make  that  the  three  axes 
were under one ‘umbrella’?  
To  what  extent  can  the  observed  effects  be 
attributed to the EaSI programme?  
What external influencing factors played a role (if 
any)? 

8.  To  what  extent  have 
the 
horizontal 
objectives  set  out  in 
the 
Article  4(2)  of 
EaSI  Regulation  been 
achieved? 

What  evidence  is  there  of  the  EaSI  programme 
having  contributed  to  its  horizontal  objectives 
(gender  equality,  non-discrimination,  vulnerable 
groups and youth)? 
How  did  each  EaSI  axes  operationalise  these 
horizontal objectives?  

9.  What  has  been 
the 
the  EaSI 
impact  of 
programme  in  relation 
to  its  intended  impact 
as stated in Article 1 of 

What has been the programme’s contribution to the 
Europe  2020  agenda  and  the  European  Pillar  of 
Social Rights?  
To  what  extent  has  the  programme  promoted  a 
high level of quality and sustainable employment? 

Stakeholder  views  on  possible  gaps  and  constraints  hindering 
achievement of objectives 

Evidence/examples of the interplay/ cooperation between the 3 
different axes and the results this achieved 
Evidence/examples  that  the  programme  as  a  whole  has 
delivered the expected quality and quantity of outcomes in line 
with the general objectives  
Evidence/examples  of  added  value  of  EaSI  umbrella 
mechanism and the contribution this made to each of the axes 
in achieving their objectives 
Stakeholder views that the EaSI mechanism has enabled 3 axes 
to together produce results that are greater than the sum of their 
parts  
Stakeholder  views  that  the  EaSI  programme  delivered  the 
expected  quality  and  quantity  of  outcomes  in  line  with  the 
general objectives 
Causal links between the inputs/activities and impacts showing 
the degree to which the observed effects can be attributed to the 
programme as a whole 
Identification of external influencing factors and their role  
Stakeholder views on the extent to which results can reasonably 
be attributed to the EaSI programme 
Extent  to  which  each  of  the  EaSI  axes  takes  horizontal  issues 
sufficiently  into  account  in  the  design  of  EaSI  activities, 
targeting/reaching of different groups of people, and outputs  
Extent  to  which  the  outcomes/benefits  achieved  likely  to 
benefit  vulnerable  groups,  young  people,  promote  gender 
equality etc.  
Stakeholders’ views that the EaSI programme has delivered the 
expected  quality  and  quantity  of  outcomes  in  line  with  the 
horizontal objectives  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  contribution  of  each  EaSI  axis  to 
these objectives 
Statistics  (for  illustrative  purposes,  as  causal  links  will  be 
difficult to establish) on:  
quality of employment  
sustainability of employment  
social protection 

122 

Public consultation  

from 

the 
Results 
preceding  axis-based 
questions 
SWOT analysis  

increased  capacity,  as 
measured by receipt of 
training 
from  EaSI 
Technical Assistance  
The  general  objectives 
have  been  achieved  or 
considerable  progress 
has been made towards 
their achievement  
The  observed  effects 
can 
reasonably 
attributed  to  the  EaSI 
programme 

be 

activities 

There  is  no  evidence 
of 
going 
against  the  principles 
horizontal 
of 
objectives  

the 

from 

Results 
the 
preceding  axis-based 
questions 
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Case study 3  
SWOT analysis  

The overall majority of 
stakeholders,  as  well 
of 
as 
a  majority 
stakeholders 
from 
given  categories  agree 

from  Q1, 

Evidence 
Q3 
Evidence 
preceding 
on effectiveness  

from 
all 
questions 

 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

the EaSI Regulation?  

allow 

10.  Did  the  EU  anti-fraud 
and 
system 
internal/external  audit 
activities 
the 
prevention  and  timely 
detection 
of 
frauds/malfunctioning 
in  EaSI  programme 
implementation? 
11.  To  what  extent  have 
been 
stakeholders 
involved  effectively  in 
the 
programme’s 
implementation? 

adequate 

To  what  extent  has  the  programme  contributed  to 
guaranteeing 
social 
protection?  
To  what  extent  has  the  programme  contributed  to 
combating social exclusion and improving working 
conditions? 

decent 

and 

How  effectively  has  the  risk  of  fraud  been 
managed?  What  processes  were  put  in  place  to 
mitigate, monitor, manage fraud?  
Have any instances of fraud been detected?  
If  so,  how  were  instances  of  potential  or  actual 
fraud  dealt  with?  Was 
this  effective  and 
appropriate? 

the 

implementation  of 

Which  target groups  of  the  programme  have  been 
the  EaSI 
in 
involved 
programme? 
Has  there  been  sufficient  involvement  of different 
groups  of  stakeholders  in  the  implementation  of 
the EaSI programme? If not, why not? 
To  what  extent  did  the  programme  use  tailored 
methods 
and 
to 
stakeholders? 
What  were  the  most  effective  methods  to  involve 
different target groups and stakeholders? 

different 

groups 

target 

social inclusion  
working conditions  
Evidence/examples  of  the  EaSI  programme’s  contribution  to 
the  Europe  2020  agenda  and  the  European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights? 
Evidence/examples of policies, measures, practices, knowledge, 
capacities and awareness contributed to by EaSI that are likely 
to positively influence quality of employment 
Evidence/examples of policies, measures, practices, knowledge, 
capacities and awareness contributed to by EaSI that are likely 
to positively influence adequate and decent social protection in 
member states 
Evidence  of  policies,  policy  innovations,  changes  in  practice 
etc. contributed to by EaSI that are likely to contribute to social 
inclusion and improving working conditions 
Stakeholder views  on  the  contribution of  the EaSI programme 
and its axes 
Number of potential fraud cases notified and dismissed  
Process  put  in  place  as  a  result  of  audit  requirements  to 
monitor, mitigate and manage potential cases of fraud  
Evidence / examples of measures put in place to detect, prevent 
and deal with instances of fraud 

that 
EaSI 
the 
programme has made a 
positive 
contribution 
(actual  impact  will  be 
difficult to measure)  

Eurostat statistics  
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level 
Case studies  

All  potential 
fraud 
cases  notified  have 
been 
or 
dealt  with  in  a  timely 
manner  

dismissed 

Reports  from  OLAF 
on anti-fraud 
Internal  audit  activity 
reports 
Interviews at EU level  
Stakeholder mapping  
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level 

Identification  of  the  types  of  stakeholders  involved  in  EaSI 
implementation  under  PROGRESS,  EURES,  MF/SE  axis  and 
their roles / interests in the programme as compared to who was 
supposed to be involved 
Evidence of the level and effects of stakeholders’ involvement 
Stakeholder views on the sufficiency of their involvement 
Evidence of consideration of the needs of different groups and 
tailoring targeting/methods based on these 
Degree  to  which  effective  methods  were  employed  at  each 
implementation stage/in each axes 
Stakeholder views on the most effective methods 

Efficiency 

Judgement 
of 
sufficiency  based  on 
views  expressed  by 
different  groups  and 
comparison  to  targets 
set for the involvement 
different 
of 
stakeholders 

12.  What are the costs (and 
resulting 

benefits) 

What  are  the  costs  resulting  from  the  EaSI 
programme activities overall and per EaSI axis?  

Annual  amount  (€)  and  share  (%)  of  operational  expenditure 
allocated, committed and disbursed by: 

N/A 
– 
question  

descriptive 

EaSI 
monitoring reports 

performance 

123 

 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

from 
EaSI 
the 
programme activities? 

How  do  these  costs  compare  to  the  previous 
programming period?  

What  benefits  resulted  from  the  EaSI  programme 
activities overall and per EaSI axis?  
How  do  these  benefits  compare  to  the  previous 
programming period?  

How  do  these  benefits  compare  to  the  costs 
incurred?  Are  the  costs  proportionate  to  these 
benefits? 

enabled 

13.  To  what  extent  have 
the  available  financial 
means 
the 
programme  to  fulfil  its 
(general, 
specific, 
horizontal)  objectives 
efficiently? 

inefficiencies  been 

To what extent have the available financial means 
enabled EaSI to fulfil its objectives? 
Have  any 
that 
hindered  the  PROGRESS  /  EURES  /  MF/SE  axis 
in fulfilling its objectives? 
that 
Have  any 
hindered the achievement of the EaSI programme’s 
general and horizontal objectives? 

inefficiencies  been 

identified 

identified 

14.  Is  there  scope  for  a 
more  efficient  use  of 
human/financial/techni
the 
cal  resources 

in 

How  efficient  (cost  effective)  was  the  governance 
of the EaSI programme at axis level? 
How  efficient  (cost  effective)  was  the  governance 
of the EaSI programme at programme level? 

Axis  
Thematic section  
specific objectives 
type of activities 
Trends in costs over time  
Costs borne by other stakeholders  
Evidence of increases / decreases in costs over time 
Stakeholder  views  on  the  appropriateness  of  changes  in  costs 
over time  

following 

Outputs and outcomes (as defined by EaSI KPIs) produced per 
EaSI axis 
Trends in outputs and outcomes generated over time  
Relationship between outputs and outcomes  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  benefits  generated  by  the  EaSI 
programme and its axes  
Assessment  of  appropriateness  of  costs  given  the  benefits 
attained, per axis and for the programme as a whole 
Stakeholder views on the appropriateness of the costs given the 
benefits attained, per axis and for the programme as a whole  
Assessment  of  appropriateness  of  redistribution  of  financial 
allocations  between  EaSI  axes 
the  Omnibus 
Regulation  
Evidence  and  EU-level  stakeholder  perceptions  showing  that 
the  budget  allocation  for  PROGRESS/  EURES/  MF/SE  axes 
has been appropriate for achieving the programme’s objectives 
under given axes 
EU-level  stakeholder  views  on  the  appropriateness  of  the 
PROGRESS/  EURES/  MF/SE  budget  split  by  thematic  areas 
for achieving the programme’s objectives under given axes 
Examples and stakeholder perceptions on inefficiencies at axis 
level 
Examples  and  stakeholder  perceptions  on  inefficiencies  at 
programme level 
Costs of managing the EaSI programme, incl. per axis and per 
year  
Administrative  and  management  costs  as  a  %  of  total 
programme budget 

124 

work 
2014-

Annual 
programmes 
2020 
Previous  evaluations 
PROGRESS, 
of 
EURES,  EPMF  when 
not  managed  under 
the EaSI umbrella  
ABAC 
Commission 
reporting on costs  
Mapping of progress 
Results  from  Q5,  Q6, 
Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10  
Previous  evaluations 
of 
PROGRESS, 
EURES, EPMF  

/ 
internal 

data 

N/A 
– 
question  

descriptive 

of 
allocation 
The 
resources  has  been 
proportionate 
the 
to 
benefits accrued  

resources 
The 
were 
allocated 
sufficient 
and 
appropriate  to  achieve 
the intended outcomes  
unnecessary 
No 
inefficiencies 
have 
been identified 

Cost-effectiveness 
analysis  

performance 
reports 
project 

EaSI 
monitoring 
and 
documentation  
Results  from  Q5,  Q6, 
Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10  
Interviews at EU level  
Cost-effectiveness 
analysis  

The administrative and 
structure 
governance 
operates 
efficiently 
and  has  been  cost-

internal 

Commission 
reporting on costs 
Previous  evaluations 
the  PROGRESS, 
of 

 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

implementation 
EaSI? 

of 

any 

factors 

What 
particular 
influenced 
discrepancies  and  how  are  these  linked  to  the 
intervention? 
To  what  extent  has  the  administrative  burden 
increased/ decreased/ remained stable compared to 
when  the  PROGRESS,  EURES  and  Progress 
Microfinance were not under the EaSI umbrella? 

Administrative  and  management  costs  as  a  %  of  total  axis 
budget 
Evidence / examples of any inefficiencies encountered  
Evidence  /  examples  of  discrepancies  and  their  link  to  the 
programme  
Stakeholder  views  on  discrepancies  and  their  link  to  the 
programme 
Administrative  burden  associated  with  the  implementation  of 
the programmes in the previous programming period  
Evidence  of  cost  savings  compared  to  the  baseline  resulting 
from merging the three axes under one umbrella programme 

effective  
The  governance  of  the 
PROGRESS  axis  has 
been cost-effective  
The  governance  of  the 
EURES  axis  has  been 
cost-effective 
The  governance  of  the 
MF/SE  axis  has  been 
cost-effective 

EURES and EPMF  
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI  
Public consultation   
Interviews at EU level 

15.  To what extent was the 
programme 
EaSI 
internally 
coherent 
(degree 
of 
complementarity of the 
3 axes)? 

16.  To what extent was the 
programme 
EaSI 
coherent 
externally 
with other EU policies/ 
actions/ 
funding/instruments 
and 
bodies 
actions/ funding? 

international 
policies/ 

Are  there  any  inconsistencies  or  contradictions 
between  the  three  EaSI  axes?  If  so,  what  caused 
these?  
To what extent did the 3 axes build synergies and 
work  together  (joint  work  planning,  scanning  of 
opportunities,  mutual  learning,  budgeting,  using 
information  and  knowledge  from  each  of  the  axes 
to inform/ develop work plans or activities)? 
Are  there  any  lessons  to  be  learned  to  improve 
internal  complementarity  in  the  future  (to  the 
extent relevant considering the next MFF)? 
To  what  extent  was  EaSI  coherent  with  and 
complementary  to  other  funding  instruments  such 
as  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(ESIF),  in  particular  the  European  Social  Fund 
(ESF), in compliance with Article 7(2) of the EaSI 
Regulation?  
To what extent were there synergies with ESF, and 
were  these  sufficiently  exploited,  for  instance 
through upscaling of effective practices from EaSI 
by ESF? 
Is  EaSI  coherent  and  complementary  with  other 
EU programmes than the ESF282?  

Coherence 

Evidence / examples of overlaps or contradictions between the 
axes  
Evidence/examples  of  complementarity/reinforcement/working 
together  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  programme  is 
internally coherent  
Evidence of lessons learned  
Stakeholder views on lessons learned for coherence 

Identified overlaps between the EaSI programme and the ESF  
Stakeholder views on the degree to which EaSI is coherent with 
and complementary to ESIF and ESF/ has synergies with ESF  
Stakeholder views on inconsistencies or misalignment between 
EaSI and the ESF  
Evidence / examples of synergies having been created between 
EaSI and ESF  
Evidence / examples of upscaling through the ESF 
Identified overlaps between the EaSI programme and other EU 
programmes 
Stakeholder views on the degree to which EaSI is coherent with 
and complementary to other EU programmes  
Stakeholder views on inconsistencies or misalignment between 

are 

The EaSI programme’s 
internally 
axes 
coherent,  there  are  no 
inconsistencies 
or 
contradictions 

Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  

There  is  no  evidence 
of unnecessary overlap 
between  EaSI 
and 
other  EU programmes, 
in particular the ESF  
There  is  evidence  of 
synergies  having  been 
created  between  EaSI 
and ESF  

Relevant 
legislative/policy 
documents  
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Case studies 

282 For instance Horizon 2020, CERV, COSME, Erasmus. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

17.  To what extent was the 
EaSI 
programme 
coherent  with  related 
policy  measures  in  the 
participating countries? 

of 

18.  What  was  the  added 
EaSI 
value 
compared 
to  what 
could  and/or  is  likely 
to  have  been  achieved 
at  Member  States’ 
levels/EU  level  in  its 
absence? 

19.  What  would  be 

the 
most 
likely 
consequences  of  not 
the  EaSI 
continuing 
programme 
types  of 
activities  as  foreseen 

Is  EaSI  coherent  with  relevant  policy  measures  in 
participating countries, in compliance with Article 
7(4) of the EaSI Regulation?  
Does  it  add  to  or  complement  relevant  policy 
measures  in  participating  countries?  Does  it  fill 
gaps?  
Is 
misalignment?  
What mechanisms are in place to ensure coherence 
and  complementarity?  How  are 
the  national, 
regional and local authorities involved? 

there  any  evidence  of 

inconsistencies  or 

Has  the  EaSI  programme  added  to,  or  supported, 
existing actions or policy areas (per axis)? (volume 
effect)  
Has  the  EaSI  programme  broadened  existing 
actions  by  supporting  groups  that  would  not  have 
received  support  otherwise  (per  axis)?  (scope 
effects)  
Have lessons learnt from the implementation of the 
EaSI  programme  been  applied  elsewhere  (per 
axis)? (role effects)  
Has  the  EaSI  programme  changed  operational 
processes, including in relation to other national or 
European  sources  of  funding  (per  axis)?  (process 
effects) 
To  what  extent  has  the  EaSI  programme  as  an 
umbrella programme produced EU added value?  
Is  there  evidence  suggesting  that  the  specific 
outcomes  of  EaSI  at  overall  and  axis  level  could 
not have been achieved to the same degree without 
EU intervention? 
What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of 
stopping  the  existing  EaSI  programme's  activities 
within each of its axes? 

EaSI and other EU programmes  
Active  collaboration  and  partnership  between  government 
institutions of the EU and Member States 
Evidence / examples of inconsistencies or misalignment  
Stakeholder views on any incoherence or misalignments  
Evidence  /  examples  of  mechanisms  in  place  to  ensure 
coherence and complementarity 
Stakeholder views on mechanisms in place 

EU added value 

Extent  to  which  the  programme’s  activities  would  not  have 
taken  place  /  would have  taken place  with  a  reduced  scope  in 
the absence of the EaSI programme 
Evidence  /  examples  of  volume,  scope,  role  and/or  process 
effects of the EaSI programme (per axis) 
Stakeholder views on the feasibility of alternative programmes 
/ forms of funding in the absence of the EaSI programme  

National,  regional  and 
local  authorities  have 
been actively involved  
The overall majority of 
stakeholders 
relevant 
believe 
is 
there 
evidence  of  coherence 
and complementarity  
Mechanisms 
place 
to 
coherence 
complementarity  

in 
ensure 
and 

are 

The  EaSI  had  added 
value  over  and  above 
what 
be 
achieved  by  Member 
its 
States  alone 
absence  

could 

in 

performance 

Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI 
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level   
Case studies  

Results 
from 
preceding  evaluation 
questions  
Public consultation  
Interviews at EU level  
Focus group  
Case studies  

of 
Majority 
believe 
stakeholders 
(parts 
discontinuing 
of) 
the  programme 
would  have  negative 
consequences  

Results 
from 
preceding  evaluation 
questions  
Interviews at EU level  
Focus group  
Case studies  

126 

 
 
  
under 
the  ESF+,  as 
well  as  within  ELA 
and InvestEU?  

20.  To  what  degree  was 
the  EPMF  relevant  for 
its 
different 
stakeholders?  

EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

EPMF 
Relevance 

Who are the key stakeholders of the EPMF? 
To what extent was the EPMF relevant to address 
the needs of:  
- persons who have lost or are at risk of losing their 
job;  
-  persons  who  have  difficulties  entering  or  re-
entering the labour market;  
- people facing threat of social exclusion;  
- people who are vulnerable and disadvantaged 
-  micro-enterprises,  especially 
economy ? 

the  social 

in 

Stakeholder mapping  
Assessment of degree to which stakeholders’ needs were fully 
addressed by the EPMF.  
Identified 
stakeholder groups 

for  differences  between 

reasons  accounting 

descriptive 

N/A 
– 
question  
The EPMF was relevant 
to  address  the  needs  of 
as 
target 
expressed 
by 
stakeholders. 

groups, 

21.  To  what  extent  were 
the  objectives  of  the 
EPMF 
in 
relation to the needs of 
its stakeholders?  

relevant 

To  what  extent  have  the  EPMF  and  its  objectives 
been  relevant  for  its  different  stakeholders  and  in 
addressing the societal and related policy needs? 
To  what  extent  do  the  EPMF  and  its  objectives 
continue to be relevant within the EaSI MF/SE axis 
delivery? 

Evidence  /  examples  of  alignment  between  objectives  and  the 
needs of stakeholders  
Evidence of new needs that emerged that were not covered by 
the objectives  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  general 
objectives meet their needs 
Evidence / examples of alignment between EPMF and EaSI as 
a whole  

The  objectives  were 
relevant and appropriate 
to meet needs  
The  EPMF  objectives 
are  reflected,  at  least  to 
a  partial  extent,  in  the 
EaSI MF/SE axis. 

at  EU 

legislative 
policy 

Relevant 
and 
documents 
Stakeholder mapping  
Preparatory 
desk 
research  
Interviews 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries  
Public consultation  
Case studies 
Results from Q2 
Interim  evaluation  of 
EPMF  
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI  
Interviews 
level 
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries 
Public consultation 
Case studies  
SWOT analysis  

at  EU 

22.  To  what  extent  have 
the  objectives  set  out 

To what extent has EPMF increased access to and 
availability of microfinance for: 

Number of microloans provided with EU support  
Volume of microloans provided (EUR)  

The  majority  of  all 
borrowers belong to one 

Administrative  data/ 
annual 

Effectiveness 

127 

 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

in  the  EPMF  Decision 
been achieved? 

- persons who have lost or are at risk of losing their 
job;  
-  persons  who  have  difficulties  entering  or  re-
entering the labour market;  
- people facing threat of social exclusion;  
- people who are vulnerable and disadvantaged 

(age,  gender,  minority, 

final  beneficiaries 

Profile  of 
employment status…) 
Ratio of borrowers with immigrant background 
Ratio of disabled borrowers 
Ratio of borrowers belonging to minority groups 

To what extent have Union resources been used to 
increase access to and availability of microfinance 
for  micro-enterprises,  especially  in  the  social 
economy?  

Ratio 
disadvantaged/vulnerable groups  

of  microenterprises 

employing  members 

of 

Linkage between EPMF and increased access to microfinance 

To  what  extent  has  the  EPMF  promoted  equal 
opportunities for women and men?  

Number  of  microloans  provided  with  EU  support  to  women  / 
men  
Share of microloans provided to women / men  
final  beneficiaries 
Profile  of 
employment status…) 
Ratio of female borrowers to number of female applications  

(age,  gender,  minority, 

Ratio of male borrowers to number of male applications  
Evidence 
opportunities  

/  examples  of 

initiatives 

to  promote  equal 

of 
the 
groups 

stated 

target 

Majority 
of  micro-
enterprises  financed  are 
in the social economy  
of  micro-
Majority 
enterprises 
financed 
employ  persons  in  the 
target group  

The  EPMF  provides 
equal  opportunities  for 
women and men  
There is no evidence of 
equality 
a 
lack  of 
between  male 
and 
female 
borrower 
profiles  

To  what  extent  has  the  EPMF  guarantee  window 
been  useful  for  its  stakeholders  and  in  addressing 
the societal and related policy needs? 

Evidence  /  examples  of  alignment  between  the  guarantee 
window and the needs of stakeholders  
Evidence of new needs that emerged that were not covered by 

The  guarantee  window 
was 
and 
relevant 
to  meet 
appropriate 

128 

at  EU 

performance 

implementation 
reports  submitted  by 
the EIF  
Performance 
Monitoring  Reports, 
2014-2020  
Mapping of progress  
Public consultation 
Interviews 
level  
Focus groups  
Case studies  
Administrative 
data/annual 
implementation 
reports  submitted  by 
the EIF  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Public consultation  
Interviews 
level 
Focus group   
Case studies  
Administrative  data/ 
annual 
implementation 
reports  submitted  by 
the EIF  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Public consultation 
Interviews 
level  
Focus groups  
Case studies  
Results from Q2 
Interim  evaluation  of 
EPMF  

performance 

at  EU 

at  EU 

 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

To what extent have the EPMF funded instruments 
been  useful  for  its  different  stakeholders  and  in 
addressing the societal and related policy needs? 

What  have  been  the  quantitative  and  qualitative 
impacts  of  increasing  access  to  and  availability  of 
microfinance for target groups?  

the guarantee window  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  guarantee 
window met their needs 
Evidence  /  examples  of  alignment  between  the  EPMF  funded 
instruments and the needs of stakeholders  
Evidence of new needs that emerged that were not covered by 
the EPMF funded instruments  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  EPMF  funded 
instruments met their needs 
Multiplier effects (€ generated by € invested)  
Number of new companies created as a result of the microloans  
Number of jobs created as a result of microloans enabled  
Evidence/examples  of  qualitative  impacts  of  EPMF  on  target 
groups  
Increased trust in the credit markets 

needs 
The  funded  instruments 
were 
and 
relevant 
appropriate 
to  meet 
needs 

Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries 
Public consultation 
Case studies  
SWOT analysis   

–  Descriptive 

N/A 
question 

Did  any  unexpected  results  emerge  following  the 
implementation of the EPMF? Which ones?  

Evidence/examples of unintended effects  

–  Descriptive 

N/A 
question 

To  what  extent  can  the  identified  effects  and 
benefits be linked to and be credited to the EPMF? 

Causal links between the inputs/activities and impacts showing 
the degree to which the observed effects can be attributed to the 
EPMF  
Identification of external influencing factors and their role  
Stakeholder views on the extent to which results can reasonably 

The  observed  effects 
can 
reasonably 
attributed to the EPMF  

be 

129 

at  EU 

performance 

Administrative  data/ 
annual 
implementation 
reports  submitted  by 
the EIF  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Mapping of progress  
Public consultation  
Interviews 
level  
Case studies 
Administrative  data/ 
annual 
implementation 
reports  submitted  by 
the EIF  
EaSI 
monitoring reports 
Mapping of progress  
Public consultation  
Interviews 
level  
Focus group  
Case studies  
Interviews 
level  
Focus group  
Case studies  

performance 

at  EU 

at  EU 

 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

What  have  been  the  possible  constraints  and  gaps 
that  have  hindered 
the 
objectives? 

the  achievement  of 

be attributed to the EPMF  
Evidence / examples of hindering factors and constraints 
Stakeholder  views  on  possible  gaps  and  constraints  hindering 
achievement of objectives 

N/A 
– 
question  

descriptive 

Have any instances of fraud been detected?  
If so, how were they dealt with? Was this effective 
and appropriate? 

Number of potential fraud cases notified  
Number of potential fraud cases notified and dismissed  
Evidence  /  examples  of  measures  put  in  place  to  detect  and 
prevent fraud  

All potential fraud cases 
notified 
been 
dismissed 

have 

at  EU 

Interviews 
level  
Focus group 
Case studies  
Reports  from  OLAF 
on anti-fraud 
Internal audit activity 
reports 
Interviews 
level 

at  EU 

sufficient 

there  been 

involvement  of 

Which  stakeholders  have  been  involved  in  its 
implementation? 
Has 
stakeholders in the implementation of the EPMF? 
there  been  sufficient  collaboration  and 
Has 
effective communication between the stakeholders 
responsible for the EPMF implementation? 
To  what  extent  have  financial 
intermediaries 
cooperated  with  organisations  representing  the 
final beneficiaries of microcredit, and in particular 
those  who  provide  mentoring  and 
training 
programmes to final beneficiaries? 

in 

of 

EPMF 

involved 

stakeholders 

Identification 
implementation  
Evidence of the level and effects of stakeholders’ involvement 
Evidence of the level and effects of stakeholders’ collaboration 
and communication 
Evidence of the level and effects of stakeholders’ collaboration 
and  communication  with  organisations  representing  the  final 
beneficiaries of microcredit. 

descriptive 

N/A 
– 
question  
Judgement 
of 
sufficiency  based  on 
expressed  by 
views 
relevant 
stakeholder 
groups 

Stakeholder mapping  
Public consultation  
Interviews 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries 

at  EU 

allow 

23.  Did  the  EU  anti-fraud 
system 
and 
internal/external  audit 
the 
activities 
prevention  and  timely 
detection 
of 
frauds/malfunctioning 
in 
implementation? 
24.  To  what  extent  have 
stakeholders 
been 
involved  effectively  in 
the 
programme’s 
implementation? 

EPMF 

25.  What are the costs (and 
resulting 
benefits) 
from 
EPMF 
the 
activities  and  are  they 
proportionate 
considering 
benefits?  

the 

What  are  the  costs  resulting  from  the  EPMF 
activities for its different stakeholders?  
- Implementing bodies 
- Financial intermediaries 
- End beneficiaries  

Efficiency 

Costs of managing the EPMF, per year (Commission, EIF) 
Administrative and management costs as a % of total budget 
Annual amount (€) and share (%) of expenditure allocated and 
committed  

– 
N/A 
question  

descriptive 

What  are  the  benefits  resulting  from  the  EPMF 
activities for the different stakeholders?  

Increased trust in financial providers 
Number of microloans provided  

N/A 
– 
question  

descriptive 

130 

planning 

EPMF  monitoring 
reports  
EPMF 
documents  
EIF  internal  data  on 
costs  
Interim  evaluation  of 
the EPMF  
Interviews 
level  
Results 
questions 

from 
on 

at  EU 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

- Implementing bodies  
- Financial intermediaries 
- End beneficiaries 

Volume (€) of microloans provided  
Number of microcredit providers supported (by country) 
Number of final beneficiaries  

Are the costs proportionate to the benefits for each 
stakeholder group? 
- Implementing bodies  
- Financial intermediaries 
- End beneficiaries 

Assessment  of  appropriateness  of  costs  given  the  benefits 
attained,  per  instrument  (guarantees,  funded  instruments)  and 
for the programme as a whole 
Stakeholder views on the appropriateness of the costs given the 
benefits attained, per axis and for the programme as a whole  

allocation 

The 
resources 
proportionate 
benefits accrued 

has 

to 

of 
been 
the 

26.  To  what  extent  have 
the  available  financial 
means  enabled  EPMF 
to  fulfil  its  objectives 
efficiently? 

To what extent have the available financial means 
enabled the EPMF to fulfil its objectives? 

Evidence and stakeholder perceptions showing that the budget 
allocation has been proportionate for achieving the objectives  
Stakeholder views on the appropriateness of the budget  

The  resources  allocated 
and 
sufficient 
were 
appropriate  to  achieve 
the intended outcomes  

To  what  extent  was  the  distribution  of  financial 
means  across  the  different  EPMF  instruments 
reasonable?  

Evidence and stakeholder perceptions showing that the budget 
distribution has been proportionate for achieving the objectives  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  appropriateness  of  the  budget 
distribution 

The  resources  allocated 
appropriately 
were 
distributed 
to  achieve 
the intended outcomes 

Have  any 
hindered the EPMF’s fulfilment of its objectives? 

inefficiencies  been 

identified 

that 

Evidence 
inefficiencies  

and 

stakeholder 

perceptions 

on 

identified 

The  implementation  of 
the 
the  EPMF  and 
achievement 
its 
of 
objectives  were  not 
by 
hindered 
inefficiencies 

131 

at  EU 

at  EU 

effectiveness  
Interviews 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries   
Public consultation  
Interviews 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries   
Cost-effectiveness 
analysis 
EIF  data  on  costs 
with 
associated 
implementing EPMF  
Interviews 
at  EU 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries  
Focus group  
Cost-effectiveness 
analysis   
EIF  data  on  costs 
associated 
with 
implementing EPMF  
Interviews 
at  EU 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries   
Focus group  
Cost-effectiveness 
analysis  
Interviews 
level  
Survey  to  financial 
intermediaries  
Focus group  
Cost-effectiveness 
analysis  

at  EU 

 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

How efficient was the governance of the EPMF? 

Evidence / examples of any inefficiencies encountered  
Stakeholder views on inefficiencies encountered  

The  administrative  and 
governance 
structure 
operates efficiently  
The  governance  of  the 
EPMF  has  been  cost-
effective  

Commission  data  on 
costs  associated  with 
governance of EPMF  
EIF  data  on  costs 
with 
associated 
implementing EPMF  
Interviews 
at  EU 
level  
Focus group  

To  what  extent  was  the  EPMF  coherent  with  and 
complementary to the ESIF, in particular the ESF, 
ERDF, EAFRD?  

Evidence / examples of overlaps between the EPMF and ESIF / 
ESF  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  EPMF  was 
coherent with and complementary to ESIF and ESF  

There is no evidence of 
unnecessary 
overlap 
between  the  EPMF  and 
ESIF / ESF  

Coherence 

27.  Is  there  scope  for  a 
more  efficient  use  of 
human/financial/techni
cal  resources 
the 
implementation  of  the 
EPMF? 

in 

28.  To what extent was the 
coherent 
EPMF 
externally, 
notably 
with  other  EU  policies 
/  actions  /  funding  / 
instruments  (ESIF  and 
in  particular  the  ESF) 
and  complementary  to 
at 
other 
European  and  national 
level? 

initiatives 

there  any  evidence  of 

Is 
misalignment  with 
(Jasmine,  CIP  financial 
Horizon 2020)? Which ones? 

other  EU 

incoherence  or 
programmes 
instruments,  Jeremie, 

Evidence / examples of inconsistencies or misalignment  
Stakeholder views on any incoherence of misalignments 

there  any  evidence  of 

incoherence  or 
Is 
misalignment  with  initiatives  at  national  level? 
Which ones? 

Evidence / examples of inconsistencies or misalignment  
Stakeholder views on any incoherence of misalignments 

of 

29.  What  was  the  added 
EPMF 
value 
compared 
to  what 
could  and/or  is  likely 
to  have  been  achieved 
at  Member 
States 
levels in its absence? 

Has  the  EPMF  added  to,  or  supported,  existing 
actions or policy areas? (volume effect)  
Has  the  EPMF  broadened  existing  actions  by 
supporting  groups  that  would  not  have  received 
support otherwise? (scope effects)  
Have lessons learnt from the implementation of the 
EPMF been applied elsewhere? (role effects)  
Has  the  EPMF  changed  operational  processes, 
including in relation to other national or European 
sources of funding? (process effects)  

EU added value 

Evidence  /  examples  of  volume,  scope,  role  and/or  process 
effects of the EPMF  
Stakeholder  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the  EPMF  has  had 
EU added value  
Evidence  /  examples  of  activities  that  would  not  have  taken 
place  /  would  have  taken  place  with  a  reduced  scope  in  the 
absence of the EPMF 
Stakeholder views on the feasibility of alternative programmes 
/ forms of funding in the absence of the EPMF  

132 

There is no evidence of 
overlap 
unnecessary 
between  the  EPMF  and 
other EU programmes  

There is no evidence of 
unnecessary 
overlap 
between  the  EPMF  and 
national initiatives  

The  EPMF  had  EU 
added value  

at  EU 

Interim  evaluation  of 
EPMF  
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI  
Interviews 
level  
Interim  evaluation  of 
EPMF  
Mid-term  evaluation 
of EaSI  
Interviews 
level  
Interim  evaluation  of 
EPMF  
Interviews 
level  

at  EU 

at  EU 

Results 
from 
preceding  evaluation 
questions  
Interviews 
level  
Focus groups 
Case studies  

at  EU 

 
 
 
EaSI ex post evaluation of including the EPMF final evaluation 

Is  there  evidence  suggesting  that  the  specific 
outcomes  of  the  EPMF  could  not  have  been 
achieved 
the  same  degree  without  EU 
to 
intervention? 

The  EPMF  had  added 
value  over  and  above 
what  could  be  achieved 
otherwise  

Results 
from 
preceding  evaluation 
questions  
Interviews 
level   
Focus groups 
Case studies  

at  EU 

133 

 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND OF SIMPLIFICATION/BURDEN REDUCTION 

This  annex  presents  the  costs  and  benefits  by  specific  groups  of  stakeholders  and  identifies  the 
potential  for  simplification  and  burden  reduction  for  each  axis:  PROGRESS  (Table  33),  EURES 
(Table 34) and  Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship (Table 35). 

The information is broken down per axis, given that different groups of stakeholders were targeted 
under each axis: 

PROGRESS axis: 

•  public sector (public authorities and public bodies) 
•  civil  society  (social  partners,  EU-level  NGO  networks,  foundations,  other  civil  society 

organisations) 

•  businesses (private enterprises; not-for-profit enterprises; social enterprises) 
•  universities/research institutes 

EURES axis: 

•  employers 
• 
jobseekers 

Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis and EPMF: 

•  microcredit providers (private or public banks, non-bank microfinance institutions and not-

for-profit microcredit providers) 
final beneficiaries (micro-enterprises, vulnerable people, social enterprises) 

• 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost: 

EU support to 
evidence-based 
EU policies and 
legislation  

Cost:  

EU support to 
information-
sharing, mutual 
learning and 
dialogue  

Cost:  

EU support to 
testing social 
policy 
innovations 

Target groups 

Public sector (public authorities and 
bodies) 

Civil society (EU-level NGO 
networks/foundations/social partners, 
other organisations) 

Businesses (private/not-for-profit) 

Universities/research institutes 

Table 32. PROGRESS axis costs, benefits and potential for savings/burden reduction 

Costs/benefits/burden 
reduction 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

No costs  

N/A 

No costs  

N/A 

No costs 

N/A  

No costs  

N/A 

Policy. 
Recurring. 
Compliance 
cost. 
Expected. 

N/A 

Policy. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

No costs  
. 

N/A 

No costs 

N/A 

No costs 

N/A 

No costs 

N/A 

Policy. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

 N/A 

Moderate 
Costs in 
relation to 
grants 
agreements 
with the EC 
(consortium’s 
20% 
contribution to 
the project 
budget). 

N/A 

Moderate 
Costs in 
relation to 
grants 
agreements 
with the EC 
(consortium’s 
20% 
contribution to 
the project 
budget). 

135 

N/A 

Moderate 
Costs in 
relation to 
grants 
agreements 
with the EC 
(consortium’s 
20% 
contribution to 
the project 
budget). 

Moderate 
Costs in 
relation to 
grants 
agreements 
with the EC 
(consortium’s 
20% 
contribution to 
the project 
budget). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Public sector (public authorities and 
bodies) 

Civil society (EU-level NGO 
networks/foundations/social partners, 
other organisations) 

Businesses (private/not-for-profit) 

Universities/research institutes 

Costs/benefits/burden 
reduction 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

N/A 

No costs 

 N/A 

Cost:  

EU support to 
building capacity 
of national and 
EU organisations 

Economic. 
Recurring. 
Compliance 
cost. 
Expected. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Moderate 
Costs in 
relation to 
EU-level 
networks 
operating 
grants 
agreements 
(20% 
contribution to 
the project 
budget). 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

N/A 

No costs 

N/A 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

No costs 

Unknown 
outputs.  

N/A 

N/A 

Unknown 

Moderate 
Civil society 
stakeholders used the 
analytical outputs to 
inform the policy debate 
and to influence the 
policymaking. 

Unknown 

Moderate 
Universities/research 
institutes used the 
analytical outputs tin 
academic, research and 
consultancy work. 

Policy. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

Benefit:  

Increased 
availability of 
comparative 
analytical 
knowledge 

Moderate 
Policymakers used the 
analytical outputs to 
inform policymaking at 
national and EU level. 
These outputs also 
contributed to support 
the implementation of 
the EU legislation, 
enforcement of the EU 
legislation as well as to 
the European Semester 
process ad country-
specific 
recommendations.  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Public sector (public authorities and 
bodies) 

Civil society (EU-level NGO 
networks/foundations/social partners, 
other organisations) 

Businesses (private/not-for-profit) 

Universities/research institutes 

Costs/benefits/burden 
reduction 

Qualitative 

Economic. 
Recurring. 
Cost-
saving. 
Expected. 

Benefit:  

Increased 
opportunities for 
information-
sharing, mutual 
learning, and 
dialogue. 

Moderate 
Policymakers used the 
events and mutual 
learning opportunities to 
get information on 
strategic documents, 
legislation, and advocacy 
material. 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Unknown 

Policy. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

Low 
Limited use of the social 
experimentation results 
by policymakers to 
inform policymaking. 

Unknown 

Benefit:  

Increased 
opportunities for 
testing social 
innovations 
through social 
experimentation. 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Unknown 

N/A 

N/A 

Unknown  

N/A 

N/A 

Moderate 
Civil society actors, 
including the EU-level 
NGO networks, 
used the events and 
mutual learning 
opportunities to get 
information on strategic 
documents, legislation, 
and advocacy material. 

Low 
Limited use of the 
social experimentation 
results by civil society 
actors to inform 
policymaking. 

Moderate 
Universities/research 
institutes used the 
events and mutual 
learning opportunities 
to get information on 
strategic documents, 
legislation, and 
advocacy material when 
relevant for academic 
and consultancy work.  

Unknown 
Potential use of the 
social experimentation 
results by universities 
and research institutes 
in academic/research 
works. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Unknown 

Unknown  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Public sector (public authorities and 
bodies) 

Civil society (EU-level NGO 
networks/foundations/social partners, 
other organisations) 

Businesses (private/not-for-profit) 

Universities/research institutes 

Costs/benefits/burden 
reduction 

Qualitative 

Benefit:  

Greater capacity 
of national and 
EU organisations 

Policy. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

Moderate 
Improved 
competences/capacity to 
develop, promote and 
support the 
implementation of EU 
employment and social 
policy and legislation.  

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Unknown  

Recurrent  Moderate 

Unknown 

It  will  potentially  enable 
stakeholders/consortia  to 
properly 
timely 
and 
develop  projects,  submit 
them, implement them if 
granted 
and  measure 
their effectiveness. 

Potential 
saving/burden 
reduction: 

Reducing 
administrative 
burden in 
application, 
implementation 
and reporting 
phase. 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Moderate 
Larger impact of EU-
level NGO networks on 
the development of 
EU/national policies 
and legislation (the 
operating grants notably 
allowed them to hire 
more staff and to 
expand their 
membership and ensure 
thus their durability).  

Moderate 
It will potentially enable 
stakeholders/consortia 
to  properly  and  timely 
develop projects, submit 
them,  implement  them 
if  granted  and  measure 
their effectiveness. 

Unknown  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Unknown 

potentially 

Moderate 
It  will 
enable 
stakeholders/consortia 
to  properly  and  timely 
projects, 
develop 
them, 
submit 
implement 
if 
granted  and  measure 
their effectiveness. 

them 

Unknown 

Unknown 

potentially 

Moderate 
It  will 
enable 
stakeholders/consortia 
to  properly  and  timely 
develop 
projects, 
submit them, implement 
if  granted  and 
them 
their 
measure 
effectiveness. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Public sector (public authorities and 
bodies) 

Civil society (EU-level NGO 
networks/foundations/social partners, 
other organisations) 

Businesses (private/not-for-profit) 

Universities/research institutes 

Costs/benefits/burden 
reduction 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Potential 
saving/burden 
reduction: 

Reducing 
operating grants 
calls for 
proposals283  
frequency. 

One-off 

N/A 

N/A 

Moderate 
Continuity and stability 
of the EU-level NGO 
networks work. 
Representatives as it 
could potentially limit 
the continuity of their 
work.  

Unknown 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Source: DG EMPL, based on Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.9 and 4.1.10 of the EaSI ex post evaluation Staff Working Document. 

283The calls for proposals for operating grants should be organised on a recurrent basis according to the EU Financial Regulation. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Jobseekers  

Employers  

Public authorities and bodies 

Table 35. EURES axis costs, benefits and potential for savings/burden reduction 

Costs and benefits/Types 

Qualitative 

Cost: 

Posting of national 
job vacancies on the 
EURES Portal 

N/A 

Economic. 
Recurring. 
Compliance 
cost. 
Changes in 
employment. 
Expected. 

Qualitative 

N/A 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

No costs  
No cost in relation 
to the transfer of 
job vacancies from 
national databases 
to the EURES 
portal for the 
jobseekers. 

Cost:  

Inefficiencies in the 
EURES Portal 
functioning (e.g.  
correct matching of 
job vacancies and 
CVs, job vacancies 
out-dated or 
incomplete) 

Unknown 

Economic. 
Recurring. 
Not 
expected. 

Medium 
The automatic matching 
function is not sufficiently 
performant to provide the 
desired matches, which 
results in jobseekers having 
to spend additional time to 
check the results. 

Medium 
The automatic matching 
function is not sufficiently 
performant to provide the 
desired matches, which results 
in employers having to spend 
additional time to check the 
results. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

No costs 
No cost in relation 
to the transfer of 
job vacancies 
from national 
databases to the 
EURES portal for 
the jobseekers. 

Unknown 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary  

Medium 
The ratio of job vacancies 
posted on the EURES Portal as 
a proportion of all job 
vacancies available in the 
participating countries 
increased from 48% in 2017 to 
50% in 2920. 

Unknown 

Medium 
The costs incurred in 
relation to the transfer of job 
vacancies to the EURES 
Portal depended on the 
existing infrastructure in 
each EURES country (for 
some countries there is any 
cost and for other there is a 
need to adapt the 
infrastructure).  

Medium 
Due to the insufficient 
performance of the 
automated matching, 
EURES staff in the 
participating countries must 
match manually several job 
vacancies with relevant CVs 
and vice versa. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Jobseekers  

Employers  

Public authorities and bodies 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

N/A 

Costs and benefits/Types 

Qualitative 

Cost:  

EURES reporting 
and monitoring 
system 

Economic. 
One off and 
recurring. 
Compliance 
cost. 
Expected. 

Low 
The jobseekers are asked 
several questions regarding 
their profile when 
interacting with EURES, for 
instance: level of skills and 
qualifications, work 
experience, sector of 
activity, motivation to find a 
job in another country and 
expected remuneration.  

Quantitative / 
monetary  

N/A 

Qualitative 

Low 
The employers are asked 
several questions regarding 
their profile when interacting 
with EURES. Questions asked 
typically refer to employers’ 
financial and operational 
capacity, the positions they 
seek to fill, competences 
required to fill these positions 
and proposed remuneration.  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary  

Medium 
Most stakeholders consulted 
believe that reporting on EaSI 
activities is proportional to the 
benefices achieved.  

Medium 
The costs incurred in 
relation to the development 
of a monitoring system 
depended on the already 
existing infrastructure in 
each EURES country. For 
some countries, there is any 
cost and for other there is a 
need to adapt the 
infrastructure). 

Benefit: 

Increased number 
of jobseekers and 
employers 
registered on the 
EURES Portal. 

Social. 
Recurring. 
Changes in 
employment. 
Expected. 

Medium 
A greater number 
jobseekers and employers 
registered on the EURES 
Portal increases the 
possibility of successful 
matching. 

The number of 
jobseekers 
registered on the 
EURES Portal 
increased from 
190 000 in 2015 to 
almost 1,2 million 
in 2020. 

Medium 
A greater number jobseekers 
and employers available on the 
EURES Portal increases the 
possibility of successful 
matching. 

N/A 

The number of 
employers 
registered on the 
EURES Portal 
increased from 6 
000 in 2015 to 
almost 16 000 in 
2020. 

Medium  
Greater possibility for 
matching relevant job 
vacancies and CVs, which 
leads to increased placement 
at national level through 
EURES and higher 
customer satisfaction with 
placement services. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Jobseekers  

Employers  

Public authorities and bodies 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary  

Costs and benefits/Types 

Qualitative 

Benefit:  

Placements achieved 
with the support of 
EURES  

Social. 
Recurring. 
Changes in 
employment. 
Expected. 

High 
Better integration in the 
labour market. 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

The number of 
placements 
increased from 31 
056 in 2014 to 36 
154 in 2020.   

Qualitative 

High 
Diversification of skills and 
competences in enterprises, 
improvement of productivity. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

The number of 
placements 
increased from 31 
056 in 2014 to 36 
154 in 2020.   

Medium 
Increased customer 
satisfaction with multiplier 
effect on attracting future 
users. Nevertheless, the 
contacts became more 
costly over the time. 

Saving:  

Recurring. 

General cost-saving 
generated by 
EURES activities as 
opposed to the 
national level 

Low 
Savings could be invested in 
activities benefitting to 
jobseekers. 

N/A 

Low 
Savings could be invested in 
activities benefitting to 
employers. 

N/A 

High  
Savings can be devoted to 
further national employment 
support or to other policy 
objectives. 

Source: DG EMPL, based on Sections 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.10 and 4.3 of the EaSI ex post evaluation Staff Working Document and on the EURES Regulation ex post evaluation Staff Working Document. 

142 

Medium 
The number of placements 
increased from 31 056 in 2014 
to 36 154 in 2020.   
Upward trend in number of 
placements is paired with a 
downward trend (by 2.3 
percentage points) in the share 
of placements resulting from 
contacts with 
jobseekers/employers in 2014 – 
2020. 

High  
There were no other 
comparable sources of funding 
that could equally facilitate the 
transparent labour market 
information/advice and services 
for recruitment and placement 
at EU level.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 34. Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis and EPMF costs, benefits and potential for savings/burden reduction 

Target groups 

Microcredit providers  

Vulnerable groups 

Micro-enterprises/Social enterprises 

Costs and benefits 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Cost: 

EU support to 
access to and 
availability of 
microfinance  

N/A 

Social. 
Economic. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

Cost:  

EU support to 
social 
entrepreneurship 

N/A 

Social. 
Economic. 
Recurring. 
Expected. 

Cost:  

EU support to 
capacity building 
of microcredit 
providers 

N/A 

Economic. 
Recurring. 
Compliance 
cost. 
Expected. 

N/A 

No costs  
No costs in relation to 
signing agreements 
between the EIF and the 
microcredit providers. 

N/A 

No costs  
No costs in relation to 
signing agreements 
between the EIF and the 
microcredit providers. 

N/A  

N/A 

No costs 
No costs in relation to 
signing contracts 
between the 
microcredit providers 
and people receiving 
loans in the 
microfinance field. 

No costs 
No costs in relation to 
signing contracts 
between the 
microcredit providers 
and people receiving 
loans in the social 
entrepreneurship field. 

No costs 
No costs in relation 
to signing contracts 
between the 
microcredit 
providers and 
micro-enterprises 
receiving loans. 

No costs 
No costs in relation 
to signing contracts 
between the 
microcredit 
providers and 
social entreprises 
receiving loans. 

 N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A  

No costs  
No costs in relation to 
signing agreements 
between the EIF and the 
microcredit providers. 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Microcredit providers  

Vulnerable groups 

Micro-enterprises/Social enterprises 

Costs and benefits 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Benefit:  

Increased access to 
and availability of 
microfinance 

Social. 
Economic. 
Recurring. 
Changes in 
employment. 
Expected. 

High 
A greater number of 
agreements signed between 
EIF and the microcredit 
providers increased the 
possibility for the microcredit 
providers to support micro-
enterprises and vulnerable 
people. 

High 
Greater possibility for 
micro-enterprises to 
develop their activity and 
to create jobs. 

High 
The total number of 
operations signed with 
microcredit providers in 
the microfinance branch 
was 111.  
The EaSI total volume 
of loans in the 
microfinance branch 
resulted in a leverage 
effect of 13.9 while the 
EU contribution to 
EPMF gave a leverage 
effect of 5.   

Medium 
A greater number of microloans 
provided by the microcredit 
providers to vulnerable people 
increased their possibility to 
launch or to develop a business. 
The proportion of women 
supported decreased by 6.7 
percentage points between 2012 
(EPMF) and 2020 (EaSI). 
Similarly, the proportion of 
unemployed decreased by 8.6 
percentage points during the same 
period. The proportion of seniors 
supported doubled during the 
same period, while a significant 
increase can be observed in 2018 - 
2020 for people coming from non-
EU countries. 

High 
The 
of 
number 
microloans  provided 
grew  from  0  (2010) 
when  EPMF  was 
launched  to  60  435 
(2020).  
For EaSI, the number 
of microloans 
increased from 31 895 
(2014) to 97 271 
(2020).  
The EaSI total volume 
of microcredits 
resulted in a leverage 
effect of 13.9 while 
the EU contribution to 
EPMF gave a 
leverage effect of 5.   

High 
The  number  of 
microloans 
grew 
provided 
from 
(2010) 
0 
when  EPMF  was 
launched to 60 435 
(2020).  
For EaSI, the 
number of 
microloans 
increased from 31 
895 (2014) to 97 
271 (2020).  
The EaSI total 
volume of 
microcredits 
resulted in a 
leverage effect of 
13.9 while the EU 
contribution to 
EPMF gave a 
leverage effect of 
5.   

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Microcredit providers  

Vulnerable groups 

Micro-enterprises/Social enterprises 

Costs and benefits 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Benefit: 

Increased access 
and availability of 
social finance  

Social. 
Economic. 
Recurring. 
Changes in 
employment. 
Expected. 

High 
A greater number of 
agreements signed between 
EIF and the microcredit 
providers increased the 
possibility for the microcredit 
providers to support social 
enterprises. 

High 
The total number of 
operations signed with 
microcredit providers in 
the social 
entrepreneurship branch 
was 40, fewer than in 
the microfinance branch, 
given the novelty of this 
support.  
The EaSI total volume 
of loans social 
entrepreneurship branch 
resulted in a leverage 
effect of 12.3 (less than 
in the microfinance 
branch). 

Unknown 

High 
Diversification of skills and 
competences, job creation, 
improvement of services provided 
by the enterprises supported to 
vulnerable groups (most of them 
operating in human health and 
social work activities). 

Medium 
Increased customer 
satisfaction with multiplier 
effect on attracting future 
users. Nevertheless, the 
contacts became more 
costly over the time. 

High 
The number of 
social enterprises 
supported 
increased from 63 
(2016) to 3 337 
(2020). 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Target groups 

Microcredit providers  

Vulnerable groups 

Micro-enterprises/Social enterprises 

Costs and benefits 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Benefit:  

Increased capacity 
of microcredit 
providers 

Economic. 
Recurring. 
Changes in 
employment. 
Expected. 

High 
Qualitative improvement in 
the institutional capacity of 
the microcredit providers 
(both in the microfinance and 
social entrepreneurship fields) 
allowing them to acquire 
recognition, to support more 
enterprises and vulnerable 
groups, and to attract more 
support from the private and 
public sectors. 

Unknown 

High 
More than 100 
microcredit providers 
benefitted from the EU 
support in different 
ways by end-2020 
(compared with 0 in 
2014, given that this was 
a completely new 
activity under EaSI).  

High 
Improved capacity of the 
microcredit providers (both in the 
microfinance and social 
entrepreneurship fields) allowing 
them to acquire to support more 
micro-enterprises, social 
enterprises, and vulnerable groups 
to launch or develop a business. 

High  
Improved capacity of the 
microcredit providers (both 
in the microfinance and 
social entrepreneurship 
fields) allowing them to 
acquire to support more 
micro-enterprises, social 
enterprises, and vulnerable 
groups to launch or 
develop a business. 

Recurring. 

Burden reduction: 
Reducing 
bureaucratic and 
administrative 
burden. 

Unknown 

High 
Minimizing administrative 
obstacles and 
systematic reduction of 
administrative burden 
potentially allowed 
microcredit providers to 
support more enterprises and 
vulnerable groups. 

Unknown 

High 
Minimizing administrative 
obstacles and 
systematic reduction of 
administrative burden potentially 
allowed vulnerable groups to 
access more easily loans and 
develop their business. 

Moderate 
Minimizing administrative 
obstacles and 
systematic reduction of 
administrative burden 
potentially allowed 
enterprises to access more 
easily loans and develop 
their activity. 

Source: DG EMPL, based on Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.9 and 4.1.10 of the EaSI ex post evaluation Staff Working Document. 

146 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

High  
The number of 
microloans 
provided by EaSI 
microcredit 
providers to micro-
enterprises and 
vulnerable people 
increased from 31 
895 (2014) to 97 
271 (2020). 
The number of 
social enterprises 
supported 
increased from 63 
(2016) to 3 337 
(2020). 

Unknown 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS’ SYNOPSIS REPORT 

V.1 Objectives 
This synopsis report presents the stakeholder consultation activities performed within the  ex 
post  evaluation  of  the  European  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  (EaSI) 
including the final evaluation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF). The 
objective  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  was  to  collect  quantitative  and  qualitative  data, 
experiences and views about EaSI and EPMF effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance 
and EU added value – the five evaluation criteria under scrutiny. 
The  evaluation  roadmap  was  published  for  stakeholders’  feedback  on  the  ‘Have  your  say’ 
web portal, and open between 8 October 2019 and 5 November 2019. Four (4) contributions 
were received. They were overall positive on the EaSI programme objectives and activities in 
matching  beneficiaries’  needs,  meanwhile  underlining 
the  remaining  societal  and 
geographical imbalances and inequalities despite the Europe 2020 Strategy ambitions. 
Suggestions  notably  included  creating  conditions  for  better  access  to  and  more  visibility  of 
funding  opportunities  at  national  level.  Commission  direct  management  implementation 
mode was seen as generally satisfactory. All four contributions preached for continuity of the 
programme. No comments were provided on the EPMF programme specifically. 
The consultation strategy further identified the appropriate methods and tools by category of 
stakeholders  to  be  consulted.  The  stakeholders  targeted  by  the  consultation  activities  were 
individuals and organisations that had 1) an interest in or received services provided by EaSI 
and  EPMF;  2)  expertise  in  the  topics  dealt  by  EaSI  and  EPMF;  3)  run  or  been  involved  in 
running EaSI and EPMF activities. 
The dedicated consultation activities were implemented by Ramboll Management Consulting, 
SEOR  and  Tetra  Tech  (‘the  Contractor’)  for  DG  Employment  when  conducting  the  study 
supporting the ex post evaluation of EaSI including the final evaluation of the EPMF. A final 
verification and validation seminar was organised by DG EMPL and the Contractor on 5 July 
2022  to  discuss  the  study’s  findings  with  the  stakeholders  involved  in  the  consultations. 
Additional  consultation  activities  of  civil  society  organisations,  social  partners,  and  public 
authorities in five selected EU countries (Austria, France, Hungary, Italy and Lithuania) were 
carried  out  by  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  and  drawn  up  in  an 
EESC information report.  
All consultation activities, including the evaluation supporting study validation seminar and 
the EESC’s consultations, are documented in this synopsis report. A detailed analysis of each 
consultation activity was also included in the Technical Annexes of the supporting study.   
V.2 Methods and tools 
In  line  with  the  consultation  strategy,  various  consultation  methods  and  tools  were  used  in 
order to ensure that views of relevant stakeholders groups on EaSI and EPMF are adequately 
captured.  Table  36  below  shows  the  main  stakeholders  groups  targeted  through  all  the 
consultation activities and the main reasons for consulting them.  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 36. Types of stakeholders consulted. 

Type of stakeholder 

Citizens and organisations 

EaSI committee members 

Public sector representative (ministries, multi-
level public authorities) 

Programme beneficiaries284  

EU officials  

EIF officials 

Social partners 

Civil society organisations 

Source: DG EMPL 

Interest 
To  provide  feedback  on  the  support  received,  whether  they 
corresponded to their needs and how they could be improved. 
Insights  into  EaSI  governance  and  activities  as  well  as  on  their 
coherence with the national policies. 
Insights on how the programmes contributed to the areas related to 
employment  and  social  inclusion  at  national  level,  but  also  on  the 
coherence of the programmes with national initiatives/programmes. 
Feedback of their experience with EaSI and EPMF, notably on how 
they responded to their needs and on how they could be improved. 

Background  on  the  EaSI  and  EPMF  activities  and  on  specific 
decisions taken during the programmes’ implementation. 

Background on the EaSI third axis and EPMF activities and insights 
on the programmes’ implementation. 

Feedback on how to improve the involvement of the social partners 
in future actions. 

Insights  on  the  civil  society  inclusion  in  the  planning  and 
implementation of the two programmes. 

Depending  on  the  identified  stakeholder  group,  dedicated  methods  and  tools  were  used  to 
conduct  the  consultation.  One  main  method  was  the  questionnaire-based  online  public 
consultation.  All  citizens  and  organisations  from  Member  States  and  other  participating 
countries were  invited  to contribute to  this consultation:  public authorities, EaSI committee 
members,  policy  committees’  members,  social  partners,  private  organisations,  social 
enterprises,  financial  intermediaries,  EaSI  beneficiaries  (organisations  involved  and  final 
beneficiaries), academia and individual citizens.  
Additional  consultation  methods  foreseen  in  the  consultation  strategy  included  semi-
structured  interviews,  focus  groups  and  targeted  surveys  with  key  stakeholders  (EaSI 
committee  members,  EaSI  programme’s  beneficiaries,  public  authorities,  Commission 
officials). Within the evaluation process, these targeted consultations complemented data and 
information collected through the public online consultation and other methods, such as the 
secondary data analysis and case studies.  
Aside,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  ran  dedicated  consultations.  The 
members of the EESC  evaluation  team  collected the views of  civil  society  organisations as 
well  as  of  public  authorities  through  two  channels:  five  virtual  fact-finding  visits  in  the 
selected  countries  and  a  targeted  online  questionnaire  (targeting  the  civil  society 
organisations). Additionally, secondary data collection on the EESC's past work on the topic 
was  also  analysed.  The  EESC  final  report  was  shared  with  the  European  Commission  as  a 
contribution  to  its  own  evaluation  exercise.  It  was  also  shared  with  the  stakeholders 
consulted. 

284Projects’ implementers, EU-level NGO networks, projects’ target groups/final beneficiaries, EURES network members, micro- and social 
finance providers. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
V.3 Results of the consultations 
Overall,  412  stakeholders  representing  public,  private  and  civil  society  sectors  provided 
feedback  during  the  entire  consultation  process.  Table  37  below  presents  the  type  of 
consultation activity, their timeframe as well as the number of respondents. 

Table 37. Consultation activities, timeframe and number of respondents 

Stakeholder consultation activity 

Timeframe 

Respondents 

Online public consultation 
Semi-structured interviews 
EaSI beneficiaries survey 
Financial intermediaries survey 
Focus group with EaSI committee  
Focus group with EU-level ONG networks 
Focus group with the EIF officials 
EESC fact-findings visits 
EESC online survey 
Final validation seminar 
Total 
Source: DG EMPL  

October - December 2021 
April 2021 - March 2022 
19 September - 19 October 2021 
19 August - 19 September 2021 
8 March 2021 
9 December 2021 
10 March 2021 
9 March - 30 March 2022 
9 March - 4 April 2022 
5 July 2022  

107 
46 
102 
39 
4 
10 
6 
53 
33 
12285 
412 

While the public consultation was advertised through the EaSI dedicated website, DG EMPL 
website  and  social  media,  direct  mailing  and  meetings,  the  participants  to  the  interviews, 
focus groups and targeted surveys were contacted via mailing, telephone and/or meetings. 
The outcomes of all consultation activities are presented in the next sections, differentiating 
the views of categories of stakeholders consulted to the extent possible.  

V.3.1 Online public consultation 

The  online  public  consultation  ran  between  5  October  2021  and  28  December  2021  on  the 
‘Have  your  say’  dedicated  consultation  page.  Its  purpose  was  to  give  a  large  number  of 
stakeholders a say in the assessment of the EaSI and EPMF programmes. The questionnaire 
comprised  closed  and  open  questions  and  provided  background  information  for  those 
unfamiliar  with  the  programmes.  Respondents  were  overall  more  familiar  with  EaSI  than 
with EPMF. 
In total 107 responses were received from 28 countries286. This includes 23 countries out of 
the 27 EU Member States (Belgium, Italy, Spain, Latvia, France, Greece, Romania, Poland, 
Lithuania,  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Czech  Republic,  Sweden,  Slovakia,  Netherlands,  Croatia, 
Luxembourg, Ireland, Hungary, Finland, Estonia, Cyprus, Austria) and five non-EU countries 
(Albania, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and Türkiye). The countries most represented among 
respondents were Belgium (17%), Italy (12%) and Spain (10%).  
The largest number of responses came from public authorities (39) and NGOs (23), followed 
(3), 
by  EU  citizens 
academic/research  institutions  (3)  and  business  associations  (1).  There  were  11  responses 
from individuals who did not indicate the capacity in which they chose to reply, by selecting 

(14),  company/business  organisations 

trade  unions 

(13), 

285ISSG members from DG EMPL and of the contractor team participated and animated the seminar but they are not included in this result.  
286The list of countries is presented from largest number of responses received to the smallest number. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
“other”.  Cross  tabulation  with  other  responses  indicates  that  the  respondents  who  indicated 
“other” work in public and private sector organisations.  
The  majority  of  organisations  that  responded  operate  at  the  national  level  (21  respondents) 
followed by the local level (13) and the regional level (11). Three (3) respondents represented 
organisations  working  at  the  international  level.  As  for  the  size  of  these  organisations  that 
respondents belong to, nearly half (39 out of 93) represented large organisations, followed by 
small  organisations  (21  respondents),  medium  (17)  and  micro-enterprises  (16).  The  EaSI 
stakeholders involved in EaSI activities287 were from all the 27 Member States as well as from 
14 non-EU countries (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, 
Kosovo288,  Liechtenstein,  Montenegro,  Norway,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia,  Switzerland, 
Türkiye and the United-Kingdom). Most of the actions took place in Belgium, Spain, Italy, 
Germany and France. Among those who had been involved directly or indirectly in the EaSI 
programme activities (71 respondents), the largest number of respondents had been involved 
in PROGRESS (35), followed by Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship (25) and EURES 
(21).  It  must  be  noted  that  11  respondents  were  involved  in  multiple  axes289.  Most  of 
respondents  were  involved  as  ‘beneficiaries  of  funding’,  followed  by  ‘applicants  to  EaSI 
calls’  and  ‘stakeholders  who  attended  an  EaSI  event’.  Eighteen  (18)  respondents  were 
involved in another capacity, for instance as consultant for EURES, as an associated partner 
or as a member of the EURES Spain Network. 
The  respondents  were  also  asked  whether  different  stakeholders  had  been  sufficiently 
involved  in  the  EaSI  activities.  Sixty  (60)  out  of  97  respondents  agreed  that  the  “EU 
institutions” had been sufficiently involved, followed by “Public Employment Services” (58), 
“national 
“social 
enterprise/social company” (50). These findings indicate that EaSI has been actively involved 
with most of its key audiences (see an overview in the Figure 16 below).  
A  small  number  of  respondents  to  the  questionnaire  (9  respondents)  had  been  involved 
directly or indirectly in the EPMF activities290. They were involved in activities implemented 
in  39  countries  of  which  11  were  outside  the  EU.  Among  these  countries,  Poland,  Spain, 
Romania,  Italy,  France  and  Belgium  are  the  most  represented.  Five  (5)  respondents  were 
involved as financial intermediaries (e.g. microfinance institution, commercial bank) and the 
remaining four (4) selected ‘other’ (e.g. representative of the microfinance sector; EU level 
network).  No  respondents  were  involved  as  a  final  beneficiary  (e.g.  micro  enterprise,  self-
employed). The respondents who were not involved in EPMF answered that the programme 
was ‘not relevant to them or that they had no needs that the EPMF could fill’ (24 out of 43), 
followed by nine (9 out of 43) who did ‘not know what the programme was’.  

authority/government  body/ministry” 

“NGO” 

(55), 

(56), 

and 

287While  the  list  EaSI  eligible  countries  includes  EU  Member  States,  EFTA/EEA,  EU  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates, 
responses to the question on the involvement in EaSI activities were received from stakeholders from other third countries as well. This was 
related  to  the  fact  that  the  question  on  involvement  in  EaSI  was  formulated  in  a  large  sense  (including  for  instance  also  participants  in 
different  events):  “Were  you  involved  in  the  EaSI  programme?  Involvement  refers  to  direct  involvement  (receiving  funding)  or  indirect 
involvement  (i.e.  applicants  to  calls,  participation  in  events  or  capacity  building  stakeholder  supporting  the  participation  of  other 
stakeholders in the EaSI programme)”. 
288This  designation  is  without  prejudice  to  positions  on  status  and  is  in  line  with  UNSCR  1244  and  the  ICJ  Opinion  on  the  Kosovo 
Declaration of Independence. 
289Number  of  respondents  involved  in  multiple  axes:  four  (4)  in  PROGRESS  and  EURES;  three  (3)  in  all  three  axis  and  four  (4)  in 
PROGRESS and Microfinance /Social Entrepreneurship. 
290While the list EPMF eligible countries includes EU Member States, responses to the question on the involvement in EaSI activities were 
received from stakeholders from other third countries as well. This was related to the fact that the question on involvement in EaSI was 
formulated  in  a  large  sense  (including  for  instance  also  participants  in  different  events):  “Were  you  involved  in  the  EaSI  programme? 
Involvement  refers  to  direct  involvement  (receiving  funding)  or  indirect  involvement  (i.e.  applicants  to  calls,  participation  in  events  or 
capacity building stakeholder supporting the participation of other stakeholders in the EaSI programme)”. 

150 

 
 
 
 
Figure 16. Given the target groups and EaSI objectives, do you think the stakeholders listed below have 
been sufficiently involved in EaSI? (n=97)  

Source: Contractor, based on the results of the online public consultation 

Eighty-seven  (87)  out  of  97  respondents291  -  including  all  NGOs  and  public  authority 
respondents  except  one  -  found  that  EaSI  was  a  relevant  programme  to  produce  concrete, 
coordinated and innovative actions. Seventy-one (71) respondents confirmed EaSI relevance 
to  its  objective  of  supporting  the  development  of  adequate,  accessible,  and  efficient  social 
protection  systems  and  labour  markets,  and  66  confirmed  EaSI  relevance  to  promote 
employment and social inclusion. The majority of those who expressed a view (25 out of 26) 
either  ‘strongly  agreed’  or  ‘agreed’  that  EPMF  had  increased  access  to  microfinance  for 
micro-enterprises  and people at  risk of losing their jobs  as well as  actively promoted equal 
opportunities. Nevertheless, when respondents were asked if they had heard about results or 
impact of the EPMF, half (26 out of 52) responded ‘do not know’, 17 (33 %) hadn’t heard 
and nine (17%) recalled having heard about the results.  
The  respondents  found  that  EaSI  was  most  effective  at  strengthening  ownership  among 
policy  makers  (60  respondents)  and  promoting  employment  and  social  inclusion  by 
increasing accessibility to microfinance (60 respondents), as well as at developing adequate, 
accessible,  and  efficient  social  protection  systems  and  labour  markets  (58  respondents). 
Seventy (70) out of 97 respondents confirmed that EaSI had generated positive changes that 
would not have occurred in the absence of its interventions. Sixty-nine (69) respondents gave 
specific  examples  related  to:  policy  experimentation;  research  activities  and  innovation; 
scaling  up  of  best  practices  at  national  and  regional  levels;  increased  access  to  finance  and 
increased  capacity  building  opportunities  in  the  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship 

291Whilst there was a total of 107 respondents to the survey, these respondents were not obliged to answer each question. There were 97 
responses to this question. 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
sectors; and specific benefits for target groups of beneficiaries (e.g. support to disadvantaged 
people in the labour market).  
Out  of  97  respondents292,  56  did  not  know  about  the  sufficiency  of  the  EaSI  budget,  19 
considered the budget to be sufficient to achieve the intended results, while 20 believed that it 
was  too  low.  Some  respondents  felt  EaSI  should  fund  more  projects  in  order  to  have  more 
impact  on  Europe’s  social,  environmental  and  digital  challenges.  They  indicated  that  there 
were still substantial growth opportunities and needs in the market, notably to support social 
enterprises.  Project  beneficiaries293  were  asked  about  the  sufficiency  of  budgets  for  their 
EaSI-funded  projects.  Forty-one  (41)  out  of  52  respondent  project  beneficiaries  agreed  that 
budgets were sufficient to achieve their intended results.  
Financial intermediaries specifically (6 respondents) were asked how they benefitted from the 
EPMF. Five (5) out of 6 respondents felt the support provided by the EPMF contributed most 
to  ‘increasing  their  lending  activities’  (of  which  4  respondents  strongly  agreed),  ‘meeting 
unserved  demand’,  ‘reaching  out  to  groups  who could  not  normally  be  served’,  ‘mitigating 
credit  risks’  and  ‘providing  improved  financing  terms  at  affordable  pricing.  Views  were 
mixed about whether the EPMF had helped respondents to ‘extend the financing terms’ and 
‘re-establish borrowers’ trust in credit institution’ with two (2) disagreeing, two (2) agreeing 
or strongly agreeing and two (2) not having an opinion. 
In terms of internal coherence, 22 respondents out of 71 (31%) considered the merger of the 
three predecessor programmes had improved the consistency, complementarity and flexibility 
of  the  three  EaSI  axes  resulting  in  higher  efficiency,  synergies  and  coordination  between 
policy  instruments,  projects,  microfinance  and  social  experiments  while  nine  (9)  disagreed 
and 40 did not know. With respect to external coherence and complementarity with other EU 
programmes,  EaSI  was  viewed  by  a  large  majority  (64  out  of  97  respondents,  or  66%)  as 
most complementary to ESF, and to a lesser extent to Erasmus (27), ERDF (25) and Horizon 
2020  (24).  Seventy  (70)  out  of  97  respondents  agreed  that  EaSI  had  complemented  the 
actions of national programmes. Furthermore, 45 out of 97 respondents (46%) did not think 
the  EaSI  objectives  had  overlapped  with  objectives  of  national  instruments.  Forty  (40) 
respondents  out  of  97  disagreed,  while  49  had  no  opinion  on  whether  nationally-funded 
initiatives were more efficient than EaSI.  
Sixty-seven  (67)  respondents  explained  their  responses  (as  above)  on  EaSI  coherence  with 
national initiatives. In their opinion, EaSI offered more flexibility and funding to experiment 
new policies and methods, notably by using a transnational/EU-level approach. Additionally, 
four  (4)  respondents  found  that  EaSI  covered  gaps  in  national  actions.  For  instance  in 
Belgium, no national programmes financed social financing transaction costs like MF/SE axis 
did  or  actions  similar  to  the  Targeted  Mobility  Scheme  proposed  under  EURES  axis.  Only 
two respondents identified overlaps saying that EaSI targeted many of the main policy areas 
of national initiatives.  
Eighty (80) respondents out of 97 agreed that EaSI had added value to or supported existing 
actions or policy areas  at  EU level,  notably by broadening  existing  actions at  EU level  and 
supporting  groups  that  would  not  have  otherwise  received  support  (74).  Forty-eight  (48) 
respondents agreed that EaSI had added value by producing lessons learned that were applied 
elsewhere  at  EU  level,  and  40  respondents  agreed  that  EaSI  had  added  value  by  changing 

292This group included, but was not limited to, respondents who were project beneficiaries.  
293This question was addressed to the 52 project beneficiaries that participated in this online public consultation. Respondents were asked 
about the budget received for the project that they were involved in.  

152 

 
 
 
 
to 

the  fact 

operational  processes.  Seventy-five  (75)  respondents  agreed  that  EaSI  had  added  value  to 
existing actions at the national or regional level.  
On the EPMF added value, 23 respondents out of 52 agreed that the ‘EPMF programme had 
broadened  existing  action  at  EU  level  by  supporting  groups  that  would  not  have  received 
support  otherwise’  and  24  respondents  out  of  52  admitted  that  ‘the  EPMF  had  added  to 
existing action at EU level to increase access and availability of microfinance for vulnerable 
groups’.  The  remaining  had  no  opinion  (29  and  28  respondents  respectively).  When  asked 
about  the  EPMF  added  value  at  the  Member  State/regional  level,  four  (4)  respondents 
disagreed 
that  ‘EPMF  programme  had  broadened  existing  action  at 
national/regional level by supporting groups that would not have received support otherwise’ 
and two (2) respondents disagreed to the fact that ‘the EPMF had added to existing action at 
national/regional  level  to  increase  access  and  availability  of  microfinance  for  vulnerable 
groups’.  
Lastly, 38 of the 52 respondents (73%) did not know whether, in the absence of the EPMF, 
similar  debt  financing  instruments  could  be  found  elsewhere,  while  the  remaining  replies 
were almost split between ‘yes’ (8) and ‘no’ (6). Five (5) respondents provided further detail 
on the added value of the EPMF debt financing. They noted the importance of debt financing 
instruments for microfinance institutions and for EPMF beneficiaries who cannot access bank 
financing  (for  instance  in  Lithuania).  Respondents  who  selected  ‘yes’  to  the  question 
explained similar schemes exist in countries like the Czech Republic and France as well as at 
EU level (e.g. ESF, InvestEU programme). 
Finally, respondents were given the opportunity to provide further free comments. In total, 18 
responses  were  given  (5  from  NGOs,  5  from  public  authority  and  6  from  business 
organisations.  The  remainder  of  responses  came  from  trade  unions  or  other  types  of 
stakeholders). One third (6) of these respondents commented on communication and planning 
(especially  funding  planning)  of  EaSI  and  related  projects  (these  respondents  were  from 
public authorities, business organisations and an NGO). They believe that the communication 
on  EaSI  opportunities  should  be  improved,  with  greater  communication  on  upcoming  EaSI 
calls  and  opportunities  for  potential  beneficiaries.  Two  (2)  of  these  respondents  suggested 
greater  standardisation  of  communication  methods  and  platforms  across  the  EU.  Another 
respondent  raised  the  need  for  greater  integration  between  funding  sources  for  different 
categories  of  beneficiaries,  such  as  different  vulnerable  groups.  Respondents  requested 
simplifying  the  administrative  burden  for  operators,  anticipating  that  the  new  Funding  & 
Tenders  portal  (the  new  Single  Electronic  Data  Interchange  Area  introduced  in  2021)  will 
add bureaucratic burden.  
Five  (5)  out  of  18  of  respondents  who  provided  free  comments  (all  NGOs),  made 
observations  related  to  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  of  EaSI,  highlighting  its 
benefits and making suggestions to improve EaSI contribution to supporting the microfinance 
sector.  Among  them,  the  need  for  more  capacity-building  activities,  information-sharing 
events  and  funding  for  financial  products  were  specifically  mentioned.  Three  (3)  other 
respondents highlighted the growing importance of microfinance in the mainstream economy 
and  recommended  that  the  EU  continue  to  support  this  sector,  also  through  the  Social 
Economy  Action  Plan.  They  made  additional  specific  suggestions,  such  as  to  increase  the 
maximum  amount  of  the  guarantee  for  a  single  credit  from  EUR  500  000  to  1  million;  to 
support  the  creation  of  a  social  economy  taxonomy  at  EU-level;  to  ensure  a  consistent 
communication to improve the visibility and recognition of social economy organisations.  

153 

 
 
 
Five  (5)  other  respondents  out  of  18  who  provided  free  comments  highlighted  that  EaSI 
should continue to focus on promoting social innovation and experimentation in the field of 
social  inclusion  and  on  supporting  public  authorities  in  this  task  (responses  were  from 
stakeholders  involved  in  business  organisations,  NGOs  and  the  public  sector).  They  made 
specific suggestions related to  the knowledge sharing between EaSI and ESF; ensuring that 
calls  for  proposals  set  requirements  to  plan  projects’  sustainability  and  further  policy  scale 
up; ensuring that projects are managed by partnerships that can have policy impacts. Giving 
more  flexibility  for  original  projects  (‘out  of  the  box’)  to  further  experimentation  was  also 
suggested by one responded. Nevertheless, one other respondent pointed out that in addition 
to  supporting  social experimentation,  structural  support  to  upscaling of successful  results is 
also needed.  
The remaining  three respondents  (out of 18) provided ideas for specific improvements. For 
instance,  one  NGO  representative  suggested  the  creation  of  a  database  for  social  assistance 
users; another respondent from a public authority highlighted the need for more information 
on  EaSI  results  in  order  to  be  able  to  make  assessments;  and  lastly  one  respondent  from  a 
trade union  hoped that the partial  reallocation of EURES activities into ELA will allow for 
more efficient management. 

V.3.2 Semi-structured interviews 

This  consultation  activity  was  carried out  between  April 2021 and  March  2022 totalling 46 
interviews including in-depth interviews and case studies interviews both with Commission 
officials and external stakeholders.  
A total of 14 interviews were conducted with the Commission officials (11 inside DG EMPL 
and  3  in  other  DGs),  of  which  4  exploratory  interviews  in  the  inception  stage  of  the 
supporting  study.  These  interviews  supported  the  refinement  of  the  study  methodology, 
notably the evaluation matrix (see Annex III) and the intervention logic (see Section 2.2 and 
Annex  II.2),  and  provided  in-depth  information  on  the  programmes’  coordination  and 
implementation  on  the  ground.  A  total  of  32  interviews  were  carried  out  with  external 
stakeholders,  notably  with  EaSI  beneficiaries  (operational  and  action  grants),  financial 
intermediaries, former EaSI Committee members, EIB, EIF, EESC and SPC (Table 38).  

Table 38. Interviews with external stakeholders 

Interviewee type 

Social Protection Committee 
European Investment Bank 
(SPC) 
European Investment Fund 
(EIB) 
European Economic and Social 
(EIF) 
European Centre for Social 
Committee 
Financial intermediairies 
Finance (ECSF) 
Former EaSI Committee 
EU-level NGO294 networks  
members 
EaSI beneficiaries 

TOTAL 

In-depth interviews 
1 
1 
1 
1 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
4 

Case study interviews 
- 
- 
- 
- 
1 
8 
2 
16 
1 
28 

Total 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
8 
2 
16 
1 
32 

Source: DG EMPL 
Interviews  were  backward-looking  and  forward-looking.  They  intended  to  further  explore 
and qualify data gathered through the desk research as well as evolutions since the mid-term 
evaluation,  and  to  identify  specific  challenges  and  opportunities  for  the  current  ESF+  and 

294Non-governmental organisations. 

154 

 
 
 
 
InvestEU programmes. The evidence collected through the interviews covered all evaluation 
criteria and the majority of the evaluation questions. 
There was an overall consensus among the stakeholders interviewed that the EaSI programme 
met the needs of stakeholders although its level of relevance differed across the three axes. In 
the  case  of  EPMF,  interviewees  acknowledged  its  relevance  which  was  primarily  seen 
through the increase in number and volume of microloans provided to the final beneficiaries. 
In  terms  of  effectiveness,  there  was  a  general  agreement  that  both  EaSI  and  EPMF  had 
achieved  their  intended  specific  objectives.  In  the  case  of  the  PROGRESS  axis,  this  was 
mainly  seen  through  improved  knowledge  sharing  and  dissemination  of  good  practices 
among/between  Member  States,  and  increased  evidence-based  policymaking.  The  EURES 
Portal, the promotion of social innovation and the roll out of new financial instruments under 
the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  of  EaSI  were  among  the  key  achievements 
perceived by the interviewees.  
In  terms  of  efficiency,  while  little  substantial  evidence  could  be  collected,  two  (2) 
interviewees  noted  that  merging  the  three  previous  programmes  into  the  EaSI  umbrella 
brought about reduced costs. In terms of inefficiencies, three (3) interviewees noted the lack 
of  synergies  between  EaSI  and  ESF,  mainly  as  regards  the  upscaling  of  social 
experimentations implemented under EaSI within the ESF framework. 
No  major  gaps  or  inconsistencies  were  uncovered  with  regards  to  the  EaSI  programme’s 
coherence  with  other  comparable  policies  or  funding  instruments.  Regarding  the  external 
coherence of the EPMF, one interviewee considered it was generally complementary to other 
EU policies and instruments. 
One of the added values of the EaSI programme was the wide range of topics covered by the 
programme in the social field. Both for EaSI and EPMF, interviewees were of the view that 
without the support from the two programmes, achieving similar outcomes would have been 
challenging or not possible at Member States level. 

V.3.3 Targeted survey with EaSI beneficiaries 

The targeted survey ran between 19 September 2021 and 19 October 2021. It was distributed 
to  280 EaSI grant  beneficiaries across the EU  and third countries that received EaSI grants 
(actions grants and operating grants) over the period 2014 - 2020. A total of 102 responses 
were received, with variations in the number of responses per question as respondents were 
able to skip questions not relevant to them.  
The  purpose  of  the  survey  targeting  EaSI  beneficiaries  was  to  gather  specific  information 
notably to feed the case studies. More specifically, this survey enabled to gather an overview 
on the actions taken by EaSI beneficiaries to address horizontal issues as well as their views 
on the mitigation actions taken by the Commission to address exceptional circumstances such 
as  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19  and  Brexit.  The  Figure  17  below  presents  the  types  of 
organisations  that  were  represented  in  the  survey,  with  the  largest  group  being  NGOs/ 
networks/ platforms (25)295.  

295For the four (4) respondents that answered “other”, it was specified they represented respectively an “Incubator / Accelerator of start-ups”, 
“not-for-profit  European  partnership  of  public  health  authorities”,  “training  centre-public  body”  and  a  “university-associated  to  Tech 
Transfer/incubator”. 

155 

 
 
 
 
Figure 17. Types of organisations represented in the survey with EaSI beneficiaries (n = 102) 

 Source: Supporting study, based on the results of the survey with EaSI beneficiaries 

COVID-19  was  found  to  have  the  greatest  impact  on  respondents  although  the  majority  of 
respondents acknowledged that the Commission took sufficient actions to mitigate its effects. 
Respondents  were  of  the  view  that  their  EaSI-funded  actions  considered  the  aspects  of 
digitalisation and the (green) sustainable economy to some extent only.   
In  relation  to  the  horizontal  issues  covered,  the  majority  of  activities  focused  on  fighting 
poverty  and  social  exclusion  (63  out  of  97)  followed  by  activities  to  support  vulnerable 
groups (60 out of 97). The activities carried out mostly targeted women (45 out of 97), young 
people  (44  out  of  97)  and  the  long  term  unemployed  (41  out  of  97).  Organising  events, 
advocacy  and  social  media  campaigns  focusing  on  horizontal  issues  were  the  main  type  of 
activity  implemented  by  EaSI  beneficiaries  to  address  horizontal  issues  (44  out  of  96) 
followed by producing awareness raising (43 out of 96). 
According  to  the  majority  of  respondents  to  the  related  question  (18  out  of  26),  exchanges 
with the programme manager in the European Commission was perceived to be very useful.  

V.3.4 Targeted survey with financial intermediaries 

This consultation activity ran likewise between 19 August 2021 and 19 September 2021. The 
survey targeting financial intermediaries aimed at gathering their experience and views of the 
EPMF and its successor, Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis of EaSI.  
The survey was distributed to 58 financial intermediaries across 24 countries in Europe296, of 
which  39  completed  it  and  6  only  partially297.  Most  of  the  respondents  were  EaSI 
beneficiaries  (29), followed by beneficiaries of  both  EaSI and EPMF (13) and three  EPMF 
beneficiaries only. 

296Albania (1), Austria (1), Belgium (4), Bulgaria (3), Czech Republic (3), Denmark (1), Estonia (1), France (3), Germany (2), Greece (4), 
Hungary  (2),  Ireland  (3),  Italy  (6),  Latvia  (2),  Luxembourg  (1),  Montenegro  (1),  Netherlands  (1),  Poland  (1),  Portugal  (3), Romania  (8), 
Serbia (1), Slovakia (2), Spain (5), Sweden (1) 
297In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, the survey data was assessed for any entries that may be incomplete, contain 
duplicates, or contain errors. Thus, only completed responses (39) were considered in the analysis of the remaining sections of the survey. 
The 6 partial responses were taken into account in the analysis of the profiling questions but not included in the rest of the survey.  

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18. Types of organisations represented in the survey with the financial intermediaries 

 Source: Evaluation supporting study, based on the results of the survey with the financial intermediaries. 

Figure  18  above  shows  that  the  main  type  of  respondents  were  non-bank  microfinance 
institutions (18), followed by other banks (11), other types of institutions298 (7), cooperative 
banks  (6)  and  saving  banks  (3).  The  largest  group  of  respondents  were  from  Romania  (7) 
followed by Bulgaria (3), Greece (3), Italy (3) and Belgium (3). The survey results show that 
the guarantees provided by EPMF were relevant to a great extent, while seven (7) out of 14 
respondents  who  were  able  to  answer  did  not  know  whether  loans  were  relevant  for  their 
needs. In relation to the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis under EaSI, seven (7) out 
of  11  of  respondents  reported  that  the  financial  instruments  proposed  under  EaSI  were 
relevant to the institution’s needs to a great extent. 
All respondents (14 out of 14) reported that EPMF was effective in helping their institution to 
meet  demands  for  microfinance,  which  they  did  not  have  the  capacity  to  meet  before 
receiving funding from EPMF. Concerning MF/SE, out of all the options presented, seven (7) 
out  of  12  respondents  reported  that  the  programme  helped  them  to  lower  collateralisation 
requirements299  to  a  great  extent.  Respondents  also  reported  that  the  MF/SE  axis  had 
supported  microenterprises  in  the  start-up  phase.  Ten  (10)  out  of  the  14  respondents  who 
were  able  to  answer  in  relation  to  the  EPMF  reported  that  the  collaboration  and 
communication between their organisation and the EIF was sufficient and effective to a great 
extent. Five (5) out of 10 respondents reported that their microcredit portfolio developed as 
intended in terms of financial volume to certain extent and four (4) to a great extent.  
According to 23 out of 37 respondents, the conditions for credits were positively affected by 
the  support  provided  by  the  EaSI  programme’s  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis. 
18 out of 36 respondents reported that the microcredit portfolio developed as intended in the 
Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis guarantee agreement. Half of the respondents (11 
out  of  21  in  the  case  of  EaSI  and  4  out  of  8  in  the  case  of  EPMF)  reported  that  the  costs 
incurred had been proportionate to the benefits generated to a great extent.  

V.3.5 Focus groups with EaSI committee members 

The  focus  group  with  former  EaSI  Committee  members  took  place  on  8  March  2021.  The 
main  aim  of  this  focus  group  was  to  gather  feedback  in  relation  to  the  experiences  and 
satisfaction  the  former  EaSI  committee  members  had  with  the  EaSI  programme.  It  brought 

298The respondents did not provide additional details regarding the type of institution they belong to. 
299Collateralization is the use of an asset as collateral to secure a loan. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender may seize and sell the 
asset to offset their loss (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collateralization.asp).  

157 

 
 
 
 
together  three  former  EaSI  Committee  members  representing  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Spain, 
and one observer representing Montenegro.  
Overall,  all  the  consulted  members  were  satisfied  with  their  involvement  in  the 
implementation of the EaSI programme. They acknowledged that the Commission listened to 
their feedbacks and that the Committee meetings were productive. Participants also reported 
that  the  EaSI  Committee  members’  views  were  considered  and  taken  on  board  by  the 
Commission when setting up the annual programme. 
They highlighted  that  all the actions funded under EaSI  were mostly  relevant,  although the 
PROGRESS axis was perceived to be the most relevant axis. However, participants did not 
see  the  rationale  behind  bringing  together  the  three  axes  of  the  programme  under  one 
umbrella  programme.  In  their  view,  the  axes  should  be  managed  separately  as  they  have 
different priorities and financial allocations. 
Concerns were raised in relation to the feasibility of making use of all the possibilities offered 
by the programme. For instance, the Lithuanian representative mentioned that his country did 
not  have the  appropriate ecosystem  to  implement  the Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship 
axis and to make use of the opportunities to implement social experimentations. Meanwhile 
EaSI  programme  contributed  to  kick  start  discussions  on  aspects  such  as  social  innovation 
role in policy making. 
Another  participant  to  the  focus  group  (Montenegro’s  representative)  indicated  that  the 
Montenegrin  organisations  could  not  participate  in  the  EURES  axis  given  the  status  of  a 
candidate country. The same participant explained that Montenegro was not very active in the 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  as  there  was  not  much  awareness  on  how  to 
participate  and  how  to  use  available  resources.  However,  the  participant  believed  that  the 
situation changed in the current period as there are more workshops, information sessions and 
events where candidate countries are invited. 
The  support  provided  under  the  current  programming  period  (2021-2027)  to  establish 
National  Contact  Points  was  very positively  perceived  by all participants. According to  the 
participants, this initiative can contribute to strengthened ownership among policy makers in 
ESF+/EaSI strand participating countries to produce innovative actions in their countries. 

V.3.6 Focus groups with EU-level NGO networks  

The  focus  group  with  EU-level  NGO  networks  took  place  on  9  December  2021.  The  main 
objective of this focus group was to gain insights into the views of EU-level NGO networks 
and their experience as EaSI programme’s operating grants beneficiaries.  
Representatives of 10 networks participated to this focus group: Microfinance Centre (MFC), 
Platform  for  International  Cooperation  on  Undocumented  Migrants  (PICUM),  European 
Network  for  Social  Integration  Enterprises  (ENSIE),  European  Food  Banks  Federation 
(FEBA),  EUROCITIES,  European  Venture  Philanthropy  Association 
(EVPA), 
EURODIACONIA, COFACE Families Europe, EUROCHILD and SOLIDAR. 
Overall,  participants  reported  that  the  access  to  EaSI  funds  has  improved  the  framework 
under which they operate. Due to the stable funding provided by the programme - enabling 
them  to  cover  the  operational  costs  -  the  networks  can  have  a  bigger  impact  by  better 
structuring,  consolidating  and  deepening  their  work  as  they  have  a  longer  timeframe  to 
deliver. Ultimately, thi stable source of financing has boosted their capacity to participate in 
and  influence  decision-making/policy  implementation  to  a  greater  extent.  Notably,  the 
networks’ representatives mentioned that the programme had helped them to consolidate their 
position:  while  for  the  first  ten  years  the  focus  was  on  building  the  agendas,  now  the 

158 

 
 
 
networks  can  focus  on  implementing  them.  Two  (2)  respondents  also  mentioned  that  EaSI 
funding  had  allowed  them  to  move  their  office  to  Brussels  and  offer  full-time  contracts  to 
their employees.  
The EaSI funding has also contributed to build EU-level networks capacities at national level 
and  to  increase  their  visibility,  which  has  allowed  them  to  expand  their  membership.  They 
reported  that  access  to  the  EaSI  programme  has  enabled  them  to  provide  better  support  to 
their  members.  For  instance,  one  participant  mentioned  that  the  EaSI  programme  enabled 
networks to better support their members by providing them with more information (e.g. how 
to access European funding), and offering them more opportunities for mutual learning and 
knowledge exchange.  
All  respondents  reported  that  the  EaSI  programme  met  the  EU-level  networks  needs  and 
emphasised  the  need  to  continue  to  implement  this  type  of  activity.  Nevertheless,  the  main 
drawback associated with the EaSI funding was related to the fact that the networks needed to 
reapply  for  funding  every  year  which  generates  a  state  of  uncertainty  (as  it  can  potentially 
impact the planning and/or continuity of their work).  
V.3.7 Focus groups with EIF representatives  

The  focus  group  with  EIF  representatives  took  place  on  10  March  2021.  This  focus  group 
was  used  to  validate  study  findings  to  date  and  to  fill  identified  information  gaps.  Five  (5) 
EIF  representatives  took  part  in  the  focus  group:  a  policy  officer,  an  audit  coordination 
officer,  a  senior  member  of  the  Microfinance  team,  a  senior  investment  manager  in  the 
Inclusive Finance team, and the director of the EPMF Financial Inclusion and Coordination 
team.  
In relation to the EPMF’s key achievements, all of the representatives agreed that the EPMF 
had  increased  availability  of  microfinance  to  target  groups,  supported  self-employed  and 
social  entrepreneurs.  EPMF  was  also  perceived  to  have  increased  the  visibility  of  the 
European microfinance market among the stakeholders.  
Participants noted the positive impact of the support provided to social enterprises under EaSI 
(a third of the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship  portfolio was earmarked to the benefit 
of social enterprises), while EPMF identified this market need in this regard.  
Participants also acknowledged that EaSI ‘changed the game’ by expanding the geographical 
scope to non-EU participating countries where emerged a high demand for microfinance from 
the market. As further concerns the geographical distribution of the EPMF, a participant also 
explained that the budget allocated to the Guarantee Instrument was limited and insufficient 
to serve all the countries under EPMF. By contrast, the EIF was able to reach more than 30 
countries under EaSI thanks to the increased budget and the extended geographical scope.  
Participants  also  discussed  the  impact  on  the  survival  rate  and  the  revenues  of  companies 
which received microcredit. An example from the Netherlands was provided, where for start-
up  companies  there  was  a  positive  effect  on  revenue,  while  already  existing  companies 
experienced less such an effect. Thus, the EPMF was seen to be more effective for start-ups 
than for already existing companies.  
An issue related to the different legal frameworks existing in the countries covered by EPMF 
was also raised. The effectiveness of the EPMF was judged by participants to be dependent 
on the regulatory context in which it operated.  
Participants were of the view that the governance of both EPMF and EaSI worked well; they 
highlighted the different governance measures in place between the guarantees and the loans. 
For  the  guarantee,  the  governance  was  handled  bilaterally  between  the  EIF  and  the 

159 

 
 
 
Commission.  For  the  loans,  the  EIF  cooperated  with  both  the  Commission  and  the  EIB.  
However, one participant noted that, under EPMF, the governance structure was not flexible 
enough  to  allow  changes  during  the  implementation.  For  example,  when  changes  were 
proposed in relation to the parameters in risk limits, this was not possible. Participants were 
not  aware  of  any  fraudulent  activity  being  uncovered  under  the  EPMF.  Checks  were 
consistently carried out to ensure compliance to contractual obligations. It was further noted 
that there were improvements in the level of scrutiny from EPMF to EaSI.  

V.3.8 Final validation seminar 

DG  EMPL  and  the  Contractor  arranged  a  final  verification  and  validation  seminar  on  the 
study  findings  on  5  July  2022.  The  main  objective  was  for  the  Contractor  team  to  present 
study  findings  and  to  discuss  them  with  the  stakeholders  consulted.  Twelve  (12) 
stakeholders’  representatives  attended  this  seminar:  7  EU-level  NGO  networks  (PICUM, 
FEANTSA,  RREUSE,  EUROCHILD,  ENSIE,  EVPA  and  MFC),  3  other  EU  and 
international  institutions/bodies  (European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  European 
Investment Fund, European Investment Bank) and 2 beneficiaries (RIAC, EURES-TriRegio 
Deutschland).  Representatives  of  the  European  Commission  and  Contractor’s  evaluation 
team participated and animated the seminar.  
Participants agreed that the diversified and stable support provided by the EaSI programme 
enabled them to plan and support the core activities of their organisations. Thus, the operating 
grants  provided  by  the  programme  were  seen  as  one  of  the  programme’s  key  strengths,  as 
also resulted from the supporting study findings.  
The EU-level networks also appreciated the close contact with DG EMPL which gave them 
the opportunity to engage with and influence the EU policy agenda. One key element was the 
added value of EaSI in terms of knowledge sharing and the transnational  component of the 
cooperation established among beneficiaries. One of the participants mentioned that the EaSI 
programme  provided  a  platform  to  give  visibility  and  recognition  to  certain  topics.  The 
participants also highlighted the funding of social experimentation projects as one of the key 
strengths of the programme.  
There  was  consensus  among  participants  that  another  key  added  value  of  the  programme 
derived from the fact that EaSI provides funding for activities which are not funded by other 
programmes  and/or  at  other  levels.  Notably,  a  participant  working  in  the  field  of 
microfinance  mentioned  that  EaSI  was  a  good  tool  to  respond  to  certain  market  needs  (for 
instance the provision of microfinance) usually not covered at national level and/or by similar 
programmes;  this  ultimately  lead  to  boosting  the  microfinance  capacities  and  the  social 
enterprise  business  model  in  Europe.  The  microfinance  and  social  entrepreneurship 
components of the programme were perceived as an added value of the programme as EaSI 
brought these elements to the forefront and strengthened the microfinance market in Europe. 
Participants  meanwhile  pointed  out  a  lack  of  awareness  regarding  the  EaSI  programme  at 
national level (as a potential area of improvement), noting that this leads to a suboptimal use 
of  the  programme.  The  need  to  measure  the  impact  and  to  assess  the  quality  of  the  work 
performed  under  EaSI  as  well  as  the  reporting  system  was  also  mentioned  as  areas  where 
improvement  could  be  envisaged.  According  to  the  participants,  the  reporting  is  very 
quantitative, while reporting in qualitative terms should be also considered.  
Participants  saw  a  need  to  raise  more  awareness  around  the  EaSI  strand  and  the  funding 
possibilities it has to offer at national level and to involve more local actors. In  that respect 
the role of EaSI National Contact Points  (NCPs) foreseen in the current  funding period can 

160 

 
 
 
help.  There  was  hawever  a  general  consensus  among  participants  that  in  the  2021  -  2027 
programming period they have not yet observed changes and that it is too early to judge. Last 
but  not  least,  participants  reported  that  inequalities  are  still  there  and  EaSI  by  itself  is  not 
enough  to  address  those.  They  suggested  that  the  EaSI  strand  needs  to  align  with 
complementary policies at national level with similar objectives.  

V.3.9 EESC consultations 

The  members  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  evaluation  team 
collected the views of civil society organisations and social partners as well as of the public 
authorities  on  the  coherence,  effectiveness  and  inclusiveness  of  the  EaSI  programme, 
especially  compared  to  other  EU  and  national  initiatives/programmes.  Two  channels  were 
used: virtual fact-finding visits in five selected countries and a targeted online questionnaire. 
Contributions were summarised in an information report. 
Stakeholders were invited to present their views on the  effectiveness of the EaSI programme 
as well as on its perception at the national and regional level; on EaSI coherence with other 
EU-level initiatives and with other national initiatives/programmes; and on the opportunities 
for  synergies  and  complementarity  of  EaSI  and  EPMF  with  EU  and  national  funds,  in 
particular with the ESF co-financed actions.  
The fact-finding meetings 
The virtual fact-finding meetings took place between 9 March 2022 and 30 March 2022. The 
semi-structured  interviews  were  conducted  via  the  Interactio  online  platform.  The  EU 
Member  States  selected  for  these  five  virtual  fact-finding  visits  were:  Hungary  (9  March 
2022),  Lithuania  (18  March  2022),  Italy  (21  March  2022),  France  (25  March  2022)  and 
Austria  (30  March  2022).  The  countries  were  selected  based  on  two  criteria:  1)  political 
spread  e.g.  high/low  level  of  implementation,  application  success  rates,  most/least  affected 
by the legislative proposal/programme, etc. and 2) geographical spread i.e. by setting up five 
groups of Member States and choosing one from each group. During these five fact-finding 
virtual  visits,  the  EESC  delegation  consulted  in  total  53  representatives  of  civil  society 
organisations and public authorities. 
The online survey  
The questionnaire consultation300 conducted on the EU Survey online portal was open from 9 
March 2022 to 4 April 2022. 
The  aim  of  the  questionnaire,  using  a  combination  of  question  formats  (filter  questions, 
closed and open-ended questions, a grid), was to complement the information obtained from 
the  fact-finding  meetings.  Composed  of  29  questions,  the  questionnaire  was  sent  to 
organisations in the Member States selected for the fact-finding meetings (not only to those 
participating in the virtual meetings, but also to other relevant organisations). 
A total  of 33 contributions  were collected, including  from  6 representatives of the business 
sector  (18%),  12  representatives  of  workers'  organisations  (36%)  and  15  representatives  of 
various  interest  stakeholders  (45%).  Regarding  the  origin  of  the  respondents,  12%  of  the 
respondents came from Austria, 15% from France, 40% from Italy, 21% from Lithuania and 
12% from Hungary301. 

300The methodological approach is explained in the Technical Annex of the EESC information report. 
301For an overview of EaSI implementation in each of the five selected Member States, see the Technical Annex of the EESC information 
report (Section 2.1, pages 4 - 7). 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
Main findings of the EESC consultations 
The analysis summarised below encompasses views of the 53 civil society organisations and 
public  authorities  consulted  during  the  five  country  visits  and  the  33  responses  collected 
through the online survey. Further detail by country and category of respondent is available 
in the EESC information report. 
With respect to effectiveness, the majority of respondents felt that the EaSI programme has 
strengthened the objectives and coordination of action at national and EU level in the areas of 
employment,  social  affairs  and  inclusion.  In  particular,  the  employers'  organisations 
considered  that  EaSI  has  achieved  the  objectives  outlined  above,  the  representatives  of 
associations  of  various  interests  considered  the  programme  to  be  positive,  while  fewer 
workers' organisations saw it as having a positive impact. 
Overall, the respondents considered the PROGRESS axis as the best known and most widely 
used, followed by the EURES axis, while few respondents felt that the Microfinance/Social 
Entrepreneurship  axis  lied  at  the  heart  of  their  country's  actions.  Even  though  respondents 
believed  the  EaSI  projects  to  be  of  high  quality  and  relevance,  they  considered  the  lack  of 
awareness  and knowledge on the different  axes of the EaSI programme as one of the main 
shortcoming.  Organizations  stressed  that  the  programme  was  mainly  known  only  by  the 
project  implementers  and  the  information  did  not  reach  the  final  beneficiaries  and  citizens. 
They recommended that promotion and information should be improved in view of the new 
programming  period.  Several  respondents  strongly  advised  to  increase  the  involvement  of 
social partners in all the phases of the programme notably in the implementation phase of the 
activities. Another shortcoming identified by the respondents was the administrative process 
to  receive  EaSI  funding,  which  they  consider  very  bureaucratic.  In  terms  of  relevance,  the 
majority  of  respondents  emphasised  the  importance  of  working  in  synergy  and  ensuring 
consistency  and  complementarity  with  other  EU  programmes  and  funds,  and  in  particular 
with the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)  - with which a degree of overlap was underlined 
- and Erasmus+ as part of a national strategy rather than a piecemeal approach.  
With  regard  to  employers'  organisations,  half  said  they  had  not  been  consulted  during  the 
EaSI  implementation.  The  vast  majority  of  workers'  organisations  said  they  had  not  been 
consulted and half of the organisations representing various interests said as well they had not 
been  consulted  during  the  EaSI  implementation.  Some  organisations  underlined  the 
importance to set up a national contact point for the EaSI programme involving civil society 
organisations  on  a  regular  basis  notably  with  respect  to  provision  of  information  on  and 
opportunities  of  the  EU  programme.  In  particular,  the  vast  majority  thought  a  change  in 
communication and information systems was necessary to ensure that the final beneficiaries 
are sufficiently informed.  
It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  there  was  some  disparity  in  the  organisations  consulted 
during the country visits and through the survey. This is because in some countries, national-
level  organisations  with  a  cross-cutting  approach  to  the  use  and  objectives  of  the  EaSI 
programme  were  consulted.  Elsewhere,  particularly  in  France,  Lithuania  and  Austria,  those 
consulted were mostly direct beneficiaries of the EaSI programme with direct knowledge of 
the  programme  and  the  means  of  accessing  and  using  resources.  These  findings  should  be 
however  used  in  combination  with  the  other  evaluation’s  findings  given  that  the  data 
collected by the survey and country visits are not sufficiently comparable and uniform to give 
a complete picture of the programme's effectiveness and coherence as well as of its inclusion 
of civil society organisations.  

162 

 
 
 
ANNEX VI. TECHNICAL ANNEX 

information 

(governance  of 

includes  detailed 

This  annex 
two  programmes, 
implementation, examples of projects, financial information, results of the EaSI Stakeholders’ 
Surveys carried out in 2014 - 2020, results of stakeholders’ consultations carried out during 
this  evaluation)  complementing  the  information  provided  in  Chapter  3  and  supporting  the 
findings presented in Chapter 4. 
VI.1 Coordination, planning, monitoring and evaluation 
This section presents information related to the governance of the two programmes. 

the 

VI.1.1 EaSI governance 

EaSI  was  coordinated  by  DG  EMPL  ‘Budget  and  planning  cycle’  unit,  responsible  for 
formulating  the  programme’s  scope,  annual  work  programmes  and  funding,  and  for 
monitoring and evaluating. The unit was assisted by a network of EaSI coordinators from the 
operational  units  implementing  the  programme  activities  and  by  the  EaSI  Committee 
(established  in  line  with  Article  36  of  the  EaSI  Regulation).  The  EaSI  Committee  was 
composed of a chair from the Commission (the head of unit ‘Budget and planning cycle’) and 
representatives from all EU Member States. In most cases, members of the EaSI Committee 
were  delegates  from  the  ministries  in  charge  of  labour  and  social  affairs  in  their  respective 
country.  Other  countries  eligible  under  EaSI  (EEA  countries,  candidate  countries  and 
potential candidates) were represented in the EaSI Committee as observers. 
The Committee meetings took place twice or three times per year; in total 19 meetings were 
held  in  2014 - 2020. Their main purpose was to discuss and to  agree upon the EaSI annual 
work programmes, the  EaSI Committee  role  being to  give an opinion on  the Commission’s 
proposals  in  accordance  with  the  examination  procedure  provided  for  in  Article  32  of  the 
EaSI Regulation. Another Committee’s role was to give an opinion on the draft implementing 
acts  to  be adopted by the Commission,  in accordance with  the advisory  procedure provided 
for in Article 35 (for instance criteria for evaluating the programme or  the arrangements for 
disseminating  the  programme’s  results).  Other  issues  were  presented  to  the  Committee  for 
information, on the chair's initiative or at the request of a Committee member. Therefore, the 
meetings  were  also  used  to  discuss  practical  matters  related  to  the  implementation  of  the 
programme  and  its  monitoring/evaluation,  including  the  impact  of  exceptional  challenges 
such as the COVID-19 pandemic. 
In terms of procedures, the Commission adopted implementing acts laying down annual work 
programmes  (AWP)  describing  the  actions  to  be  financed,  the  procedures  for  selecting  the 
actions  to  be  supported,  their  geographic  coverage,  the  target  audiences  and  the  indicative 
implementation time frame. As regards the financial instruments implemented under the EaSI 
third  axis  –  in  continuity  with  the  Article  5  of  the  EPMF  Decision  –  the  Commission 
concluded  agreements  for  their  implementation  with  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB) 
and the European Investment Fund (EIF). 
The EaSI planned budget was implemented based on the annual Financing Decisions which 
are the legal acts adopted by the European Commission to authorise DG EMPL to spend from 
the  EU  budget.  The  Commission  adopted  Financing  Decisions in  accordance  with  the 
budgetary  planning  forecast  at  the  end  of  each  year.  The  Financing  Decision  constituted  a 
budgetary envelope for EaSI, which was the basis for the funding of each individual action; 
this means that no agreement may be concluded without the prior adoption of the Financing 
Decision.  The  Financing  Decisions  were  elaborated  on  the  basis  of  the  annual  work 

163 

 
 
programmes issued by DG EMPL and that drew up the strategic objectives for the delivery of 
EaSI  activities.  The  EaSI  Committee  members  had  a  binding  vote  under  the  examination 
procedure,  meaning  that  the  Commission  cannot  adopt  the  EaSI  annual  work  programmes 
without their approval.  
EaSI implementation was supplemented with a  performance measurement system, including 
regular monitoring and evaluation of programme implementation (Article 38). A contractor302 
was  selected  to  assist  the  Commission  in  monitoring  the  EaSI  programme  (establishing  the 
EaSI  performance  measure  system,  including  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  performance 
indicators, and the baseline situation). The baseline situation was described for the first time 
in a baseline report drafted shortly after the launch of the EaSI Programme in 2014.  
The updated baseline situation was presented in  three subsequent reports in 2016, 2019 and 
2021.  To  monitor  the  EaSI  performance,  the  contractor  regularly  collected  information  on 
inputs, outputs and outcomes. As regards the financial inputs, data on planned commitments 
(extracted  from  the  EaSI  annual  work-programmes)  and  actual  commitments  (implemented 
commitments) was regularly collected and analysed. Another contractor provided support for 
the EaSI mid-term evaluation carried out according to Article 38 of the EaSI Regulation prior 
to the current ex post evaluation303. 
The coordination of the two ESF+ strands is now assisted by two different technical working 
groups  (one  for  direct  management  and  one  for  the  shared  management);  nevertheless 
synergies  are  currently  facilitated  between  them.  Aside  regular  separate  meetings,  joint 
meetings are taking place that should enhance awareness, coordination and cross-fertilisation 
between the two strands.  

VI.1.2 EPMF governance 

The  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  and  its  two  financial  instruments  (Guarantee 
Instrument and Funded Instrument) were implemented under the indirect management mode 
by the Commission that entrusted budget and tasks to the EIF. 
Guarantee Instrument 
Regarding the guarantee facility product, the Commission empowered and mandated the EIF 
to provide EU Guarantees (EPMF Guarantee Instrument or EPMF Guarantee Facility) in its 
own  name  but  on  behalf  of  and  at  the  risk  of  the  Commission,  under  a  Fiduciary  and 
Management  Agreement  (FMA)  signed  on  1st  July  2010.  The  guarantee  facility  was 
implemented  via  direct  guarantees  and  counter-guarantees.  EPMF  Guarantees  provided  risk 
coverage  in  the  form  of  capped  guarantees  to  selected  financial  intermediaries  which 
developed  a  portfolio  of  loans  targeting  eligible  final  recipients  (vulnerable  persons  and 
micro-enterprises).  
From a technical point of view, the EIF was instructed to provide guarantees backed by the 
EU budget to financial intermediaries to cover a portion of expected losses of a portfolio of 
newly generated loans to self-employed and micro enterprises with a higher risk profile. The 
EIF  was  responsible  for  identifying,  investigating,  evaluating,  and  selecting  the  financial 
intermediaries  (FI)  by  applying  selection  criteria  and  processes  set  out  in  Annex  1  of  the 
Fiduciary and Management Agreement. 

302The contractor (PPMI) was selected under the DG EMPL framework contract for monitoring and evaluation. 
303The contractors for the mid-term evaluation (ICF) and for the ex post evaluation (Ramboll) were selected under the DG EMPL framework 
contract for monitoring and evaluation. 

164 

 
 
 
A total financial envelope of EUR 23 million was made available by the Commission for its 
implementation. 

165 

 
 
 
 
Funded Instrument 
Regarding the funded instruments products, a so called “EPMF Fonds Commun de Placement 
–  Fonds  d’Investissement  Spécialisé  (EPMF  FCP-FIS)”  was  established  as  a  Dedicated 
Investment Vehicle (DIV) in the form of a Fund, which was a co-ownership of securities and 
other  eligible  assets.  The  EU  Microfinance  Platform  (the  “Fund”)  was  structured  as  a 
Luxembourg  “Fonds  Commun  de  Placement  –  Fonds  d’Investissement  Spécialisé”  (FCP  - 
FIS) governed by the law of 13 February 2007 relating to specialised investment funds (the 
“2007 Law”) and launched on 22 November 2010.  
The  FCP-FIS  was  managed  by  a  Management  Company  -  the  European  Investment  Fund 
(EIF) - which was invested with the broadest powers to administer and manage the Fund and 
the sub-fund(s) in  accordance with the Management Regulations and Luxembourg laws and 
regulations  and,  in  the  exclusive  interest  of  the  Unit-holders,  to  exercise  all  of  the  rights 
attaching directly or indirectly to the assets of the Fund. The EIF had the exclusive authority 
with  regard  to  any  decisions  in  respect  of  the  Fund  or  any  sub-funds,  and  acted  with  the 
diligence of a professional management company and in good faith in the exclusive interests 
of the Unit-holders. 
The  two  founding  investors  of  the  Fund  were  the  European  Commission  and  the  European 
Investment  Bank  (EIB)  for  a  total  investment  of  EUR  180  million  out  of  which  EUR  80 
million of EU contribution (first loss piece) and EUR 100 million from the EIB (second loss 
piece). The EIF, in its role as the management company, evaluated,  selected, and concluded 
the  relevant  loan  agreements  with  the  selected  financial  intermediaries.  On  their  part,  the 
selected financial intermediaries on-lent the received financing by developing loan portfolios 
aiming at specific target groups (self-employed persons, microenterprises). 
EPMF  had  a  comprehensive  performance  system,  with  regular  monitoring  (submission  of 
annual  and  semi-annual  implementation  reports,  annual  impact  evaluation  report  and 
evaluation304 of programme implementation. The implementation reports were issued annually 
by  EIF  as  referred  to  in  Article  8  of  the  EPMF  Decision.  Data  reported  on  yearly  basis 
included: number of agreements with financial intermediaries, number and volume of loans, 
break-down of the final  recipients  by gender, age group, education, belonging to  vulnerable 
groups; sectors of activity covered. According to Article 9 of the EPMF Decision, an EPMF 
interim  evaluation  was  carried  out  after  4  years  after  the  start  of  the  Facility  and  the  final 
evaluation - as current in this EaSI/EPMF joint evaluation - at the latest one year after the end 
of EPMF practical implementation. 
The implementation of EPMF was followed by the EPMF Investors’ Committee composed by 
members  of  the  European  Commission  and  the  EIB,  which  alternated  as  chair  every  two 
years.  The  Committee  convened  twice  a  year  until  2016  while  from  2017  the  meeting  was 
held once a year.  

304The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Progress  Micro-Finance  Facility  (http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7760) 
covering  the  period  from  its  inception  till  end  of  June  2013-  assessed  progress  made  in  the  implementation,  effectiveness,  impact, 
sustainability, efficiency and complementarity of Progress Microfinance. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
VI.2 Financial figures 
This  annex  complements  the  information  provided  in  Chapter  3  and  supports  the  analysis 
presented  in  Chapter  4.  Table  39  below  compares  the  original  EaSI  Regulation  (2013) 
provisions as regards the budget allocation per axis and those established by the OMNIBUS 
Regulation (2018). 

Table 39. The minimum indicative percentages by EaSI axis and thematic section 

EaSI Regulation 

OMNIBUS 

Axes/thematic sections 
PROGRESS 

a. employment, fight against youth unemployment 
b. social protection, social inclusion, prevention of poverty 
c. working conditions   
Social policy experimentation (15-20%) 

EURES (minimum 18%) 

a. transparency of job vacancies and applications  
b. targeted mobility schemes 
c. cross-border partnerships  

Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship (minimum 21%) 

a. microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises 
b. social entrepreneurship  
Source: DG EMPL, based on EaSI Regulation and OMNIBUS Regulation 

61% 
20% 
50% 
10% 
15-20% 
18% 
32% 
30% 
18% 
21% 
45% 
45% 

55 % 
20% 
45% 
7% 
A significant share 
18% 
15% 
15% 
18% 
18% 
35% 
35% 

Figure 19. Percentage share of funding per axis over years (2014 - 2020) 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

PROGRESS

EURES

Microfinance/Social
Entrepreneurship

55%

18%

24%

EaSI administrative

3%

55%

18%

24%

3%

57%

18%

22%

3%

48%

18%

32%

3%

54%

23%

21%

2%

59%

25%

15%

1%

67%

19%

12%

2%

Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Overall
share
2014-
2020

56%

20%

22%

2%

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Planned  

Axis 
PROGRESS  
EURES  
MF/SE  
EaSI administrative 
Total 
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Table 40: Planned and actual commitments per EaSI axis in 2014 
Actual  
65 278 249,91  
21 439 000,00  
28 500 200,00  
3 549 908,34 
118 767 358,25 

Share actual/total   
55% 
18% 
24% 
3% 

69 934 941,00  
21 439 000,00  
28 500 200,00  
3 914 000,00  
123 788 141,00  

Axis 
PROGRESS  
EURES 
MF/SE 
EaSI administrative 
Total 
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Planned 
commitments 

Table 41: Planned and actual commitments per EaSI axis in 2015 
Actual  
71 836 540,60  
23 024 481,86  
31 427 570,00  
3 537 533,76  
129 826 126,22  

Share actual/total   
55% 
18% 
24% 
3% 

72 554 890,00  
23 090 525,00  
31 479 000,00  
4 426 420,00  
131 550 835,00  

Planned  

Axis 
PROGRESS (>55%) 
EURES (>18%) 
MF/SE (>18%) 
EaSI administrative 
Total 
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Table 42: Planned and actual commitmes per EaSI axis in 2016 
Actual  
 71 500 435,22 
 22 865 150,32 
 27 744 070,32 
 3 621 471,00 
125 731 126,86 

74 281 165,00 
22 900 000,00 
 27 849 770,00 
4 857 074,00 
129 888 009,00 

Share actual/total 

57% 
18% 
22% 
3% 

Axis 
PROGRESS (>55%) 
EURES (>18%) 
MF/SE (>18%) 
EaSI administrative 
Total 
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Table 43: Planned and actual commitmes per EaSI axis in 2017 
Actual commitments 
  65 315 596,64  
  25 128 868,00  
  43 497 384,00  
  3 454 699,44  
 137 396 548,08 

Planned 
commitments 
 65 610 397,00  
 €25 128 906,00  
 €43 509 266,00  
  4 000 000,00  
138 248 569,00 

Share actual/total 

48% 
18% 
32% 
3% 

Planned  

Axis 
PROGRESS (>55%) 
EURES (>18%) 
MF/SE (>18%) 
EaSI administrative 
Total 
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Table 44: Planned and actual commitments per EaSI axis in 2018 
Actual  
Share actual/total 
71 415 291,66  
30 459 785,85  
27 356 263,00  
2 504 071,00  
131 735 411,51  

72 137 318,00  
31 207 002,00  
27 361 387,00  
3 400 000,00  
134 105 707,00  

54% 
23% 
21% 
2% 

Axis 

PROGRESS (>55%) 
EURES (>18%) 
MF/SE (>18%) 
EaSI administrative 
Grand total  
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Planned 

Table 45: Planned and actual commitments per EaSI axis in 2019 
Actual 
  80 728 270,45  
  33 755 332,72  
  20 843 726,00  
  1 510 040,88  
  136 837 370,05  

 80 750 408,00  
 33 761 331,00  
 20 843 726,00  
 3 400 000,00  
 138 755 465,00  

Share actual/total  

59% 
25% 
15% 
1% 

Axis 

PROGRESS (>55%) 
EURES (>18%) 
MF/SE (>18%) 
EaSI administrative 
Grand total  
Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 

Table 46: Planned and actual per EaSI axis in 2020 
Actual  
Planned  
  79 172 352,10  
 79 777 390,00  
  23 001 378,12  
 23 018 174,00  
  14 254 929,00  
  14 254 929,00  
  1 805 425,00  
 2 500 000,00  
  118 234 084,22  
  119 550 493,00  

Share actual/total  

67% 
19% 
12% 
2% 

168 

Execution rate 

91% 
100% 
100% 
91% 
96% 

Execution rate 

99% 
100% 
100% 
80% 
99% 

Execution rate 

96% 
100% 
100% 
75% 
97% 

Execution rate 

100% 
100% 
100% 
86% 
99% 

Execution rate 

99% 
98% 
100% 
74% 
98% 

Execution rate 
100% 
100% 
100% 
44% 
99% 

Execution rate 

99% 
100% 
100% 
72% 
99% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VI.3 EaSI implementation  

VI.3.1 PROGRESS axis 

The PROGRESS axis funded four types of activities supporting the achievement of the first 
four specific objectives. The budget committed each year for each type of action is presented 
in the Figure 20, while the Figure 21 presents the planned budget per group of activities. The 
remaining amount (up to EUR 505 million total committed in 2014 - 2020) was committed to 
transversal activities.  

Figure 20. Committed budget per specific objective under the PROGRESS axis 

Source: Contractor based on FINAP and ABAC data (supporting study, page 279) 

Figure 21. Planned budget per specific objective - PROGRESS axis 

Source: Contractor based on FINAP and ABAC data (supporting study, page 279) 

Bellow, each category is detailed and illustrated with examples. 
Analytical knowledge and comparative information activities.  
This category included exchanges and dissemination of good practice, innovative approaches 
and experience, peer reviews, benchmarking, mutual learning at EU level; Council Presidency 
events,  conferences  and  seminars;  training  of  legal  and  policy  practitioners;  guides,  reports 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and  educational  material  and  measures  relating  to  information,  communication  and  media 
coverage  of  initiatives  supported  by  EaSI;  information  and  communication  activities; 
development  and  maintenance  of  information  systems.  In  2014  -  2020,  an  amount  of  EUR 
148 million  was committed to  these  activities. Among  the most preeminent  are: the Labour 
Force Survey as source of information about the situation and trends in the EU labour market; 
the Classification of European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO); 
the  Tax-benefit  microsimulation  model  for  the  European  Union  (EUROMOD);  the  Mutual 
Information System on Social Protection (MISSOC); and the European System of Integrated 
Social  Protection  Statistics  (ESSPROS).  It  also  supported  the  set-up  of  the  Electronic 
Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) and contributed to the Annual Employment 
and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) reports.  
Information sharing, mutual learning and dialogue activities 
They  included  exchanges  and  dissemination  of  good  practice,  innovative  approaches,  and 
experiences;  peer  reviews  and  mutual  learning  activities  at  EU  level;  Council  Presidency 
events,  conferences  and  seminars;  training  of  legal  and  policy  practitioners;  guides,  reports 
and  educational  material;  information  and  communication  activities.  In  2014  -  2020,  an 
amount of EUR 106 million was committed to these activities.  
Notable examples of events  are peer reviews of the Mutual  Learning Programme which are 
key instruments of the Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC); events organised by the 
Public  Employment  Service  Network,  the  European  Alliance  for  apprenticeship  (EAfA); 
funding for events related to the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI); 
thematic  seminars  and  review  workshops  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Platform 
Tackling  Undeclared  Work;  and  support  for  the  meetings  of  the  Senior  Labour  Inspectors 
Committee (SLIC). 
Social experimentation 
These  activities  are  included  in  the  EaSI  Regulation  in  the  analytical  activities  category; 
however,  given  their  pre-eminence  among  the  EaSI  activities,  they  were  considered  and 
analysed separately in this evaluation. In 2014 - 2020, a total of EUR 89 million was allocated 
to the implementation of the activities related with social experimentation. The largest share 
was  allocated  to  the  social  experimentation  projects  (EUR  57,7  million).  Forthy-four  (44) 
projects were funded through 7 calls for proposals. The topics of the calls for proposals were 
aligned  to  the  European  Commission’s  policy  priorities,  i.e.  integrated  delivery  of  social 
services (2014); integration of people into the labour market (2015); integration in the labour 
market of asylum seekers, refugees and their family (2016); work life balance (2018), access 
to  social  protection  and  national  reform  support  (2018);  long-term  care  (2019),  testing 
innovative approaches in implementing minimum income schemes (2020).  
The  remainder  of  the  funding  was  committed  to  dissemination  and  capacity  building 
activities,  including  direct  grants  to  the  Council  of  Europe  to  build  up  capacity  at  the  local 
level for the integration of Roma; a practical guide on designing and implementing initiatives 
to develop social finance instruments and markets as part of the study that reviewed results of 
a  series  of  pilot  projects  across  Europe  on  social  innovation  through  social  business  and 
young  entrepreneurship;  and  awareness-raising  activities  on  work-life  balance,  active 
inclusion and social innovation.  
Stakeholders’ capacity-building activities 
They  included  actions  to  develop,  promote  and  support  EU  instruments  and  policies.  A 
budget of EUR 154 million was committed to this type of activities40. Around EUR 90 million 

170 

 
 
was  committed  to  operating  grants  for  EU-level  NGO  networks  and  a  total  of  23  recurrent 
networks were supported.  
The remaining funding was committed for capacity building of national administrations and 
specialist services responsible for promoting geographical mobility; organisation of working 
groups  of  national  officials  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  Union  law;  networking  and 
cooperation  among  relevant  stakeholders  at  EU 
level;  funding  of  European-level 
observatories;  exchange  of  personnel  between  national  administrations;  and  support  to 
financial  intermediaries,  both  in  the  microfinance  and  in  the  social  enterprise  finance 
segments.  
This  type  of  support  was  done  through  the  EaSI  Technical  Assistance  for  microfinance 
implemented by two service providers (MFR and a consortium led by the Frankfurt School); 
and the EaSI Technical Assistance for social enterprise finance implemented by a consortium 
led by the European Centre for Social Finance at the Munich Business School assisted by a 
network  of  25  experts.  Different  types  of  support  were  delivered  to  the  financial 
intermediaries,  for 
instance  workshops  and  seminars  on  microfinance  and  social 
entrepreneurship  topics;  tailored  training;  promotion  of  best  practices;  as  well  as  advice 
related to the ‘European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision’ through trainings 
and evaluation of its implementation by microcredit providers. 
Additional  examples  of  the  PROGRESS  axis  funded  activities  are  presented  in  the  tables 
below. 

Table 47. EaSI PROGRESS axis calls for proposals, 2014 - 2020 

Reference  

Call title 

VP/2014/006 

VP/2014/007 

VP/2014/008 

VP/2014/009 

VP/2014/012 

VP/2014/014 

VP/2015/005 

VP/2015/007 

VP/2015/009 

VP/2015/010 

VP/2015/011 

VP/2016/006 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Call for proposals for support for social 
protection reforms 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Posting of workers: enhancing administrative 
cooperation and access to information 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Call for proposals for social policy innovations 
supporting reforms in social services 

Call open to EU-level NGOs networks having signed a Framework 
Partnership Agreement for 2014-2017 and being active in the 
promotion of social inclusion and poverty reduction or active in 
the promotion of microfinance and social enterprises 
EaSI-PROGRESS: European Sector Skills Councils 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Promoting the contribution of private savings 
to pension adequacy 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Information sharing and outreach activities to 
young people about Youth Guarantee offers 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Posting of workers: enhancing administrative 
cooperation and access to information 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Mobility for Employees 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Call for Proposals for Operating Grants Open 
to EU-Level NGO Networks Having Signed a Framework 
Partnership Agreement for 2014-2017 and Being Active in the 
Area of Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction or Microfinance 
and Social Enterprise Finance 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Call for proposals for social policy innovations 
supporting reforms in social services 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Posting of workers: enhancing administrative 
cooperation and access to information 

171 

Type of activity 

Action grants – Analytical 
activities 
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Operating grants – Support 
activities  

Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Mutual 
learning, awareness, 
dissemination activities  
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Analytical 
activities 
Operating grants – Support 
activities  

Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Action grants – Support 
activities   

 
 
Reference  

VP/2016/007 

VP/2016/008 

VP/2016/012 

VP/2016/015 

VP/2017/003 

VP/2017/005 

VP/2017/011 

VP/2017/015 

VP/2018/003 

VP/2018/005 

VP/2018/008 

VP/2018/011 

VP/2018/012 

VP/2018/016 

VP/2019/003 

VP/2019/005 

VP/2019/008 

VP/2019/012 

VP/2019/013 

VP/2019/015 

VP/2019/017 

VP/2020/003 

Call title 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Actions to boost the demand and supply side of 
the finance market for social enterprises 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Information sharing and outreach activities to 
young people about the Youth Guarantee 

Call for proposals for operating grants open to EU-level NGO 
networks having signed a framework partnership agreement for 
2014-2017 and being active in social inclusion and poverty 
reduction or microfinance and social enterprise finance 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Fast track integration into the labour market for 
third country nationals targeting exclusively asylum seekers, 
refugees and their family members 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Posting of workers: enhancing administrative 
cooperation and access to information 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Activities in the field of undeclared work 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Awareness-raising activities on “Upskilling 
Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults” 

Establishment of 4-years framework partnership agreements to 
support EU-level networks active in the areas of social inclusion 
and poverty reduction or microfinance and social enterprise 
finance & Operating grants for 2018 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Call for proposals on social innovation and 
national reforms - Access to Social Protection and National 
Reform Support 
EaSI-PROGRESS - Innovative work-life balance strategies to 
facilitate reconciliation of professional and caring responsibilities 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Support for the deployment of skills 
assessments in the implementation of “Upskilling Pathways” 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Posting of workers: enhancing administrative 
cooperation and access to information 
EaSI-PROGRESS: In the field of undeclared work 

Operating grants to support EU level networks having signed a 
framework partnership agreement for 2018-2021 and being active 
in the areas of social inclusion and poverty reduction, or 
microfinance and social enterprise finance – 2019 work 
programme 
Call for proposals on social innovation and national reforms - 
Long-term care 

EaSI-PROGRESS: Supporting the development of tailored 
learning provision in the implementation of "Upskilling Pathways” 
EaSI-PROGRESS: Posting of workers: enhancing administrative 
cooperation and access to information 
Call for proposals for the SLIC campaign 2020-2022 

Operating grants 2020 to EU level networks having signed a 
framework partnership agreement for the period 2018-2021 and 
being active in the areas of social inclusion and poverty reduction, 
or microfinance and social enterprise finance 
Actions to boost the development of finance markets for social 
enterprises 
Incubators for inclusive and social entrepreneurship 

Establishing and testing integrated interventions aimed at 
supporting people in (the most) vulnerable situations 

Type of activity 

Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Mutual 
learning, awareness, 
dissemination activities  
Operating grants – Support 
activities  

Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Action grants – Mutual 
learning, awareness, 
dissemination activities  
Framework contract agreement 
for operating grants  

Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Analytical 
activities 
Operating grants – Support 
activities  

Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 
experimentation) 
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Action grants – Support 
activities   
Operating grants – Support 
activities  

Action grants – Support 
activities  
Action grants – Support 
activities 
Action grants – Analytical 
activities (social 

172 

 
 
 
Reference  

Call title 

VP/2020/005 

VP/2020/007 

Operating grants 2021 to EU level networks having signed a 
framework partnership agreement for the period 2018-2021 and 
being active in the areas of social inclusion and poverty reduction, 
or microfinance and social enterprise finance 
Posting of workers: enhancing administrative cooperation and 
access to information and collection of evidence basis 

Source: Supporting study, based on DEFIS database and EaSI monitoring reports. 

Type of activity 

experimentation) 

Operating grants – Support 
activities  

Action grants – Support 
activities   

Table 48. Examples of the use of information acquired during EaSI-funded events (national level) 
Examples of how stakeholders used the information acquired for policymaking 
Participants to the workshop on ‘Delivering longer working lives and higher retirement ages’ (12 - 13 November 2014, 
Brussels) reported the results of the event to the Ministers of Labour. To the best of his knowledge, the information will be 
considered during the preparation of the new pension reform. 

Participants  to  the  conference  ‘Moving  beyond  GDP  in  European  economic  governance’  (10  October  2014,  Brussels) 
claimed that they have promoted the use of non-GDP-based indicators among the relevant national actors. 

Participants to the EaSI conference on the ‘Social Policy Innovation’ (19 - 20 May 2014, Brussels) indicated that they have 
advocated  for  creating  a  playground  for  children  with  disabilities  who  also  cannot  afford  to  pay  for  any  other  similar 
activities. Many others claimed to have used the information received during an event to either design operations to be co-
funded  by  ESF  or  to  prepare  the  application  for  the  EaSI  social  policy  experimentation  project.  Some  of  the  respondents 
claimed that they have already submitted applications for projects to be co-funded by EaSI. 

Participants  to  the  expert  conference  “Employment  and  Social  Developments  in  Europe  Review  2013”  (18  February 
2014, Brussels) write a national report on the social situation in Slovenia. 

Participants to the conference “Occupational safety and health (OSH) – OSH policy in the future” (16 - 17 June 2014, 
Athens) claimed that the event was very useful for their day-to-day work.  

Participants  to  the  Eurocarers  annual  meeting  (2  -  3  September  2015,  Gothenburg)  stated  that  the  information  gained 
through this event was useful for development of the new National Careers Strategy in the UK. 

Participants to the MISSOC network meeting (15 - 16 October 2015, Luxembourg) declared that the discussions during the 
event have helped to improve the website of the Bulgarian Ministry of Labour and Social Policy website. Furthermore, the 
information regarding the organisation of the social protection of people with disabilities contributed to improve the ongoing 
reform of the invalidity pensions in Bulgaria. 

Participants to the peer review on “Approaches to integrate long-term unemployment persons” (13 - 14 October 2016, 
Berlin) claimed that all the materials and recommendations on the  integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour 
market were integrated into the National Employment Action plan for 2017 in Serbia. 

Participants to the conference of the ‘ASEM Labour and Employment Ministers’ (3 - 4 December 2015, Sofia) stated that 
the  conference  was  a  good  start  towards  strengthening  the  further  commitment  of  Bulgaria  to  the  ASEM  dialogue  and 
cooperation  in  the  labour  and  employment  area.  The  information  and  experience  gained  during  the  event  also  helped  in 
organising future events in this area of ASEM dialogue and cooperation. 

Examples of mutual learning activities organised by PES Network (2015 and 2016): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Insights provided the Spanish PES with examples to encourage their regional PES to develop a common and 
coherent customer satisfaction measurement system. 
The Greek PES will introduce changes to their online registration tool, based on discussions with the UK PES 
on customer satisfaction measurement. 
The Lithuanian PES has integrated performance management in their strategic planning. They were inspired to 
introduce a new incentives scheme, and review how local and central PES can better work together to achieve 
common targets. 
For  the  Portuguese  PES,  useful  insights  about  customer  satisfaction  measurement  included  deepening  their 
knowledge of useful methodologies, statistical models, treatment of data and how to disseminate results both 
internally and externally. 

Participants  to  the  12th  European  Research  Conference  on  Homelessness  ‘Changing  Profiles  of  Homelessness: 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples of how stakeholders used the information acquired for policymaking 
Implications  for  Services’  (Barcelona,  22  September  2017)  indicated  that  the  research  shared  at  the  event  informs  their 
advocacy  efforts  in  their  countries,  such  as  using  and  collecting  data  on  homelessness,  developing  Housing  First projects, 
including  targeted  measures  at  youth.  Other  participants  found  the  information  gained  through  this  event  useful  for  the 
development of the Portuguese National Strategy to Fight Homelessness and evaluation of the Housing First programme in 
Spain.  

Participants  to  the  country  exchange  visit  on  “Approaches  to  Suicide  Prevention  and  Mental  Health  Promotion  in 
Stockholm and in the European Union” (Stockholm, 30-31 October 2017) used the knowledge acquired during the event 
to prepare the Mental Health Plan in Slovenia. 

Participants  to  the  EURES  Coordination  Group  (Brussels,  14  June  2017,  and  22-23  February  2018)  noted  that  the 
information helps their institutions to better enforce the EURES Regulation in the national context. 

Participants to the ‘International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Commission’ meeting (2017) noted 
that the knowledge gained during the event significantly facilitated the development of guidelines for limiting health hazards 
of non-ionizing radiation exposure. 

Participants  to  the  Mutual  Assistance  Project  event  (MAP)  on  ‘Improving  the  Performance  of  The  Slovak  National 
Labour Inspectorate in Tackling Undeclared Work’ (24-26 September 2018) stated that the knowledge acquired during 
the event triggered cooperation of the National Labour Inspectorate and the Social Insurance Agency on tackling undeclared 
work. 

Participants to the final seminar of the project SIPA - FESTI'JOB (19 June 2019) used information obtained during the 
event  ‘in  the  construction  of  a  European  project  with  a  consortium  of  actors  on  the  identification  of  NEET  audiences  and 
their remobilisation to create online courses (Massive Open Online Course - MOOC) for employment professionals’. 

Participants to the seminar “Developing a European campaign for Declared Work” (12 June 2019) indicated that they 
used information obtained during the event for the preparation of an information campaign for declared work at the national 
level. 

Participants to the Prezenční Listina – Homelab Národní Workshop (Olomouc, 28 May 2019) shared that they used the 
arguments  presented  at the  workshop in dialogue  with  the Polish  ministries  concerning  the  development of  a  social  rental 
agency in Poland. 

Participants to the meeting of the “Acceleration of Labour Market integration of Immigrants through mapping of skills 
and Training (ALMIT)” project (Belgrade, Serbia, 19 March 2019) indicated that the information shared during the event 
helped them develop and provide better learning courses for refugees. 

Participants  to  the  staff  exchange  visit  between  Bulgaria  and  Estonia  (11-12  June  2019)  indicated  that  they  used 
information acquired during the visit to develop a strategy for tackling the envelope wages in Bulgaria and to reduce the tax-
insurance gap from the underreported remuneration. 

Participants  to  the  project  ALMIT:  National  Advisory  Group  (NAG)  meeting  (11  June 2020), indicated  that  during  the 
event within the ALMIT project many experts shared their opinions,  knowledge, and experience regarding migrant issues. 
The participants will use the information acquired for policymaking, resolving potential problems. 

Participants  to  the  training  meeting  within  the  project  “Fast-track  Action  Boost  (FAB)  for  integration  in  the  labour 
market of migrants and asylum seeker” (Belgrade, Serbia, 30 December 2020) already used the information by improving 
services for beneficiaries with granted international protection.  

Participants  to  the  event  “Work-Life  Balance  under  the  project  Master  Parenting  in  Work  and  Life”  (Brussels, 
Belgium,  21-22 February 2020) indicated  that  the  information  acquired  will be used  to  better  orient the  reconciliation  and 
territorial welfare policies and by proposing adjustments to the labour policy measures.  

Participants  to  the  final  conference  (23  November  2020)  of  the  project  “Regional  Integration  Accelerators  (RIAC)” 
indicated that the information will help them to create a supportive network and enhance the employment opportunities for 
youth as well as design learning programmes that fit the market employability measures, especially in the technology sector. 

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI monitoring reports 2014 (p. 31-32), 2015 - 2016 (p. 36-37), 2017 - 2018 (p. 32-34), 
2019 - 2020 (p. 39-40) 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 49. Examples of the use of information acquired during EaSI-funded events (EU level) 
Policy 

Events 
•  Conference “Labour economics after the crisis: what theoretical lessons to draw 

Country-specific 
Recommendations 2014/2015 in 
the framework of the European 
Semester  
Country-specific 
Recommendations 2014/2015 in 
the framework of the European 
Semester and the implementation 
of the Social Investment package 

Implementation of the Social 
Investment Package 

Implementation of the Youth 
Employment Package of 2012 / 
Implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee 

Policy and legislation 
development in the area of 
working conditions  

Policy and legislation 
development in the area of health 
and safety at work 

from policy experience?”  
Peer Reviews in the framework of the Mutual Learning Programme 

• 
•  Activities of the PES network. 
• 

 Peer Review in Italy: Innovative practices with marginalised families at risk of 
having their children taken into care, 11-12 December 2014;  
Peer Review in Austria: The political adequacy of quantitative impact assessment 
in the social field by means of micro-simulation models, 4-5 December 2014;  
Peer Review in Slovenia: Long-term care – the problem of sustainable financing, 
18-19 November 2014;  
Peer  Review  in  Belgium:  Health  System  Performance  Assessment,  19-20  May 
2014;  
Peer  Review  in  Spain:  Harnessing  ICT  for  social  action,  a  digital  volunteering 
programme, 25 March 2014;  
Peer  Review  in  Belgium:  The  Belgian  Platform  against  Poverty  and  Social 
Exclusion EU 2020, 14-15 January 2014;  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•  Conference  “The  Europe  2020  Poverty  Target:  Lessons  learned  and  the  way 

forward”, Brussels (Belgium), 9 October 2014;  

•  Workshop  on  delivering  longer  working  lives  and  higher  retirement  ages, 

Brussels (Belgium), 12-13 November 2014;  

•  Regular  meetings  of  the  Expert  Group  on  Social  Investment  for  Growth  and 

Cohesion;  

•  Meetings of the Social Protection Committee, its sub-groups and ad-hoc working 

• 

groups. 
Peer  Review  in  Poland:  The  Active  Ageing  Index  and  its  extension  to  the 
regional level, 15-16 October 2014; 

•  Conference on Social Policy Innovation, Brussels (Belgium), 19-20 May 2014; 
• 

Fourth Annual Convention of the European Platform against Poverty and Social 
Exclusion, Brussels (Belgium), 20-21 November 2014; 

• 

•  Regular  high-level  meetings  of  EU  policy  officials  with  Member  States, 
stakeholders, international organisations, MEPs on private sector engagement in 
EU 2020 initiatives. 
Learning  Exchange  on  Cooperation  at  Local  Level  in  the  Fight  Against  Youth 
Unemployment, Dordrecht (Netherlands), 28 October 2014; 
• 
Peer Review on Youth Guarantee, Helsinki (Finland), 18-19 September 2014; 
•  Conference “Youth Guarantee: Making It Happen”, Brussels (Belgium), 8 April 

• 

2014. 
European  Labour  Law  Network,  7th  Annual  Legal  Seminar  “New  Forms  of 
Employment  and  EU  Law”,  The  Hague  (The  Netherlands),  27-28  November 
2014;  

•  Meeting of working group in the field of labour law;  
• 
•  Meeting  of  TREND  (Expert  Group  on  the  Transposition  of  the  Enforcement 

3 meetings of Committee of experts on posting of workers;  

Directive of the Posting of Workers Directive);  

•  Meetings of Directors Generals for Industrial Relations;  
•  Conference on Working Conditions, Brussels (Belgium), 28 April 2014. 
• 

66th Meeting of Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC) and Thematic day, 
Athens (Greece), 26-27 May 2014;  
67th Meeting of Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC) and Thematic day, 
Rome (Italy), 13 November 2014;  
Presidency  conference  “Occupational  safety  and health  (OSH)  – OSH  policy  in 
the future”, Athens (Greece), 16-17 June 2014. 

• 

• 

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI monitoring reports 2014, 2015 - 2016, 2017 – 2018, 2019 - 2020  

Table 50. Social experimentation calls under the EaSI programme (2014 - 2020)  

Call reference 

Topic 

VP/2014/008 

Integrated delivery of social services 

Number of 
projects 

7 

Allocated 
budget (EUR) 
 10 489 387.51 

175 

 
 
 
 
Call reference 

Topic 

Number of 
projects 

VP/2015/011  

VP/2016/015 

VP/2018/005  

Integrated  social  services  for  the  integration  in  the  labour 
market 
Fast-track  integration  into  the  labour  market  for  third-country 
nationals, targeting exclusively asylum seekers and refugees  
Innovative work-life balance strategies 

VP/2018/003  

Access to social protection and national reform support 

VP/2019/003  

Social innovation and national reforms – long-term care 

VP/2020/003 

Establishing  and  testing  integrated  interventions  aimed  at 
supporting people in vulnerable situations 

Total 
Source: DG EMPL, based on DEFIS database305 

Allocated 
budget (EUR) 
 10 528 298.70 

9 177 891.35 

4 270 675.87 

4 751 940.29 

8 870 942.05 

9 604 717.00 

8 

5 

4 

4 

7 

9 

44  

57 693 852.77 

Table 51. Examples of upscaling/transfer of EaSI-funded social experimentation projects. 

Examples of upscaling 
EQW&L:  EQW&L  used  ESF  for  upscaling;  the  project 
team is organising the same activities and using the toolkit to 
facilitate access to the labour market of unemployed persons 
and methodology of the project to help all the PES in Italy.  

ESTI@: The city of Athens was able to win ESF funding for 
scaling  the  model  of  integrated  and  comprehensive  service 
provision to reintegrate beneficiaries into society by guiding 
them into employment and into sustainable housing up. The 
project  team  are  certain  that  mainstreaming  the  ESTI@ 
model  would  not  have  been  possible  without  the  additional 
EUR 6 million in ESF funding.   
Upscaling through other funding sources  

RESISOR  (REgional  SIngle  SOcial  Record):  successful  in 
transitioning 
to  embedding  and 
subsequently  expanding  its  social  innovation  by  integrating 
new services into it. 

from  mainstreaming 

Examples of transfer 
SIPA:  the  project  shared  its  results  and  tools  with  NGOs, 
social partners and other stakeholders in Spain, Belgium and 
Italy.  This  gave  birth  to  another  ERASMUS+  project, 
’RESOLUTION’  with  Spanish,  Belgian,  Hungarian,  French 
and  Italian  partners,  to  create  a  new  common  methodology 
and a toolkit for involved professionals, while turning all the 
tools  and  lessons  from  SIPA  into  teaching  material  via 
tutorials and massive online open courses on ‘the new forms 
of remobilisation’. 

FAB:  The  developed  ‘Transfer  &  Adaptation  Plan’  (TAP) 
methodology  was  simultaneously  implemented  by  city 
administrations across six countries, which was a key step to 
establishing  cross-border  and  transnational  cooperation  and 
ensuring  the  project  outputs’  uptake  in  some  of  the 
participating countries. 

FIER:  the  project  team  established  a  partnership  with  the 
German region of Baden-Württemberg. Together, they have 
managed  in  cooperation  with  the  local  social  partners  to 
further  develop  fast-track  training  concepts,  curricula  and 
company  networks,  with  positive  results.  The  regional 
government 
financially 
supported  the  continuation  of  the  activities  and  FIER 
modules are now embedded in regular training programmes. 
Source: Supporting study, based on INOVA+ study, notably box 13 (p. 61) and box 14 (p. 63).   

of  Baden-Württemberg 

has 

Table 50. Examples306 of social experimentations’ results being used for national policymaking 
Examples of how the social EaSI social experimentations were used for policymaking 
The  EaSI-funded  project  ‘ERSISI’  (2016-2019)  aimed  to  design  and  test  a  new  care/activation  model  for  unemployed, 
vulnerable  populations  based  on  coordinated  intervention  of  social  and  employment  services  in  Spain.  ERSISI 

305Before  the  launching  of  the  eGrants  system  (2021),  DG  EMPL  used  an  internal  application  named  DEFIS  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
applications to the calls for proposals and the monitoring of the projects funded. 
306Other  examples  of  EaSI-funded  projects  were  included  in  the  brochure  Social  Innovation:  inspirational  practices  supporting  people 
throughout their lives presenting 27 examples of social innovation initiatives across the European Union, one from each Member State. It 
highlights the diversity and success of social innovations in Europe, showcasing initiatives that facilitate transitions, integrate disadvantaged 
groups,  redesign  business  models,  empower  people,  build  partnerships  and  deliver  public  policies,  in  new  and  creative  ways.  Innovators 
include NGOs, social enterprises, local, regional and national authorities, social partners and the private sector, often working in partnership. 
Its goal is to inform Member States, organisations and other actors about existing good practices on social innovation, facilitating learning 
exchange and transnational cooperation, particularly in the context of the future European Social Fund Plus. 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples of how the social EaSI social experimentations were used for policymaking 
experimentation  has  led  to  a  greater  adaptation  of  the  public  service  to  reality,  based  on  a  comprehensive  socio-labour 
assessment  of  each  individual  situation.  The  project  advanced  further  in  improving  coordination  between  social  and 
employment services, allowing to develop more complete and inclusive socio-labour inclusion and job integration itineraries. 
The  project  concluded  with  a  report  on  the  Transferability  of  the  components  of  the implemented  project.  As  a  result,  the 
Social Rights Department of the Government of Navarra in Spain has committed to up-scale some elements of the ERSISI in 
their own strategies. Moreover, the SIDIS application, developed during the project, is ready to be used in all social service 
offices and is interoperable with the application of the employment agencies.  

Between  2015  and  2019,  the  EaSI-funded  project  ‘Regional  Single  Social  Record’  aimed  to  unify  existing  systems  that 
contain various types of personal social records and establishing a single channel of communication in the Spanish region of 
Andalusia. The project resulted in the creation of a one-stop-shop system for social records  – the Electronic Single Social 
Record  of  Andalusia  (ESSR).  As  a  result  of  this  project,  the  White  Book307  of  the  ESSR  was  undertaken  by  Regional 
Ministry of Equality and Social Policies and Agency for Social Services and Dependency of Agency for Social Services and 
Dependency of Andalusia. The policy document outlines the future of the ESSR in Andalusia, following the setting up, the 
background and baseline of the ESSR. 

The  EaSI-funded  project  ‘Employment  enhancement  and  Social  services  integration  in  Athens  Municipality  (ESTI@)’ 
(2016-2019) aimed to assist Greek citizens in achieving re-integration/re-inclusion in society through social innovation and 
examine the existent landscape. The Municipality of Athens utilised the conclusions derived from the project and designed 
three  new  Single-Entry  Points  that  adopt the  model  and integrated  approach  of  the  ESTI@  project.  The  Municipality  also 
carried out an ‘Impact Study of ESTI@ project in the Municipality of Athens and sustainability Guide of the Patissia SEP’. 
The results of the study improved ways of addressing vulnerable populations and enriched the overall Municipal social policy 
and strategy. 

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI monitoring reports 2017-2018 (p. 74 - 76), 2019 - 2020 (p. 91).  

Table 52. The EU level networks that received EaSI-PROGRESS operating grants. 
Name of organisation 

Caritas Europa  

Confederation of family organisations (COFACE 
Families)  
Euclid Network 
Eurocarers  

EUROCHILD  

EUROCITIES  

European Federation for Diaconia (Eurodiaconia)  

EuroHealthNet  

European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)  

European Associations of Service Providers for Persons 
with Disabilities (EASPD) 
European Federation of National organisations working 
with the homelessness (FEANTSA)  
European Food Banks Association (FEBA) 

Family 

Policy area 

Informal care 

Fighting poverty and social exclusion 

Period of 
funding 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2018 - 2021  Social entrepreneurship 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2018 - 2021  Fighting hunger and food waste throughout 

Improving the quality of life of children and 
young people 
Reinforcing the role of local and municipal 
governments 
Poverty and social exclusion, social and 
health care services  
Health and health equity 

Fighting against poverty and social 
exclusion 
Promoting equal opportunities for people 
with disabilities 
Tackling homelessness and its effects 

European Microfinance Network (EMN)  

European Network of Social Integration Enterprise 
(ENSIE)  

2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 

Europe 
Microfinance 

Work integration social enterprises 

307Junta de Andalucía (see White Book: Electronic Single Social Record of Andalusia).  

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name of organisation 

European Platform for Rehabilitation (EPR)  

Period of 
funding 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 

European Social Network (ESN)  

European Venture Philanthropy Association (EVPA)   

Fundacja Microfinance Centre (MFC)  

Platform of International Cooperation on 
Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)  
Re-use and Recycling European Union Social 
Enterprises (RREUSE)  
Solidar 

Ergo Network  

European Confederation of Workers’ Cooperatives, 
Social Cooperatives and Social and Participative 
Enterprises (CECOP)  
Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI monitoring reports. 

Policy area 

Providing rehabilitation services to people 
with disabilities and other disadvantaged 
groups 
Local public social services 

Social investment and venture philanthropy 

2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2018 - 2021  Representing social enterprises active in re-

Promoting respect for the human rights of 
undocumented migrants within Europe 

Microfinance 

use, repair and recycling  
Social policy, international cooperation, 
education, migration 
Roma inclusion 

2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2013 - 2017 
2018 - 2021 
2018 - 2021  Democracy and solidarity to the workplace, 

sustainable economic growth and social 
cohesion 

178 

 
 
 
 
VI.3.2 EURES axis  

The  activities  supporting  the  achievement  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  specific  objectives  were 
funded under the EURES axis. Two types of actions were funded:  

•  activities  to  induce  transparency  of  job  vacancies  and  applications  (the  multilingual 
EURES  European  Job  Mobility  Portal;  information  and  communication  activities  to 
raise awareness of the benefits of geographical and occupational mobility; and mutual 
learning among EURES actors and training of EURES advisers); and  

•  activities to facilitate the recruitment and placing of workers in employment (through 

targeted mobility schemes and cross-border partnerships).  

Figure 22 below shows  how the funds committed to implement each type of activity evolved 
in 2014 - 2020. 

Figure 22. Annual and overall shares of funding per thematic section of the EURES axis 

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Transparency of job vacancies (>
15%)

Development of services (>15%)

Cross-border partnerships (>18%)

43%

55%

0%

33%

48%

19%

27%

54%

16%

29%

26%

1%

33%

56%

11%

32%

42%

24%

34%

62%

0%

Overall
share
2014-
2020

33%

49%

10%

Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 (p. 11) 
Note: With any remainder allocated to one or more of the thematic sections referred to above or to a combination of them 
(cross-cutting issues). 
EURES Portal 
It  aimed  to  contribute  to  transparent  information  on  job  vacancies  and  applications  and 
support EURES’s main stakeholders. An overall share of 33% of the total financial envelope 
committed  under  the  EURES  axis  (Figure  22)  representing  around  EUR  60  million  was 
allocated to the activities related to the EURES Portal.  
Over  the  implementation  period,  the  number  of  unique  visitors  to  the  Portal  decreased 
substantially (see discussion on Section 4.1.5). The Single Market Scoreboard report (2020) 
noted that at the end of 2020, around 50% of all vacancies in 20 countries were published on 
the EURES Portal, notably for:  Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Croatia, 
Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Sweden.  
Targeted mobility schemes 
The targeted mobility schemes were actions that aimed to help EU nationals that need tailored 
assistance  to  find  a  job,  traineeship  or  apprenticeship  opportunity  in  another  EU  country 
(Norway or Iceland), and to support employers to find qualified workers. An overall share of 
49%  of  the  total  financial  envelope  committed  under  the  EURES  axis  (Figure  22) 
representing around EUR 88 million was committed to this category of actions.4F Drawing on 

179 

 
 
 
experience  from  the  implementation  of  Your  First  EURES  Job  Preparatory  Action308,  the 
Targeted Mobility Schemes (TMS) provided tailored services to mobile workers. The support 
was provided in the form of targeted allowances, along with language courses, recognition of 
qualifications,  travel  and  subsistence  expenses.  The  TMS  were  implemented  through  grants 
awarded following calls for proposals; during 2014 - 2020, there were 6 calls for proposals, 
resulting in the award of 14 grants covering 26 countries. The main countries that benefitted 
from  targeted  mobility  schemes  as  either  a  coordinator  or  co-beneficiary  were  Spain  (12), 
Portugal (9), Ireland (8) and Italy (7). Seven (7) countries did not participate at all (Austria, 
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, and Poland).  
Cross-border partnerships 
310 working together 
The cross-border partnerships involved EURES members41 F
across borders to support the mobility of workers and employers311. An overall share of 10% 
of  the  total  financial  envelope  committed  under  the  EURES  axis  (see  Figure  21  above) 
representing  around  EUR  18  million  was  allocated  to  this  category.  In  2014  -  2020,  an 
average  of  11  recurrent  cross-border  partnerships  per  year  involving  20  countries  received 
EaSI  funding.  Countries  which  benefitted  the  most  from  cross-border  partnerships  were 
Germany (25) and Belgium (21). Ten (10) Member States were not involved in cross-border 
partnerships  at  all  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, and Romania).  

309 and partners42F

Additional examples on the EURES axis funded activities are presented in the tables below. 
Table 53. EaSI EURES axis calls for proposal, 2014-2020 

Call reference 

Call title  

VP/2020/ 009 

EaSI - EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme  

VP/2019/006 

VP/2019/009 

VP/2019/010 

VP/2018/007 

VP/2018/009 

VP/2017/006 

VP/2016/005 

VP/2016/009 

EaSI-EURES: Cross-border partnerships and support to cooperation on 
intra-EU mobility for EEA countries and social partners 
EaSI EURES: Targeted Mobility Scheme 

EaSI-EURES: Support to national classification inventories and 
innovative national online services for mobile workers 
EaSI-EURES – Cross-border partnerships and support to cooperation on 
intra-EU mobility for EEA countries and social partners 
EaSI–EURES: Targeted mobility scheme "Your first EURES job" 

EaSI–EURES: Cross-border partnerships and support to cooperation on 
intra-EU mobility for EEA countries and social partners 
EaSI-EURES: Cross-border partnerships and support to cooperation on 
intra-EU mobility for EEA countries and social partners 
EaSI–EURES: Targeted mobility scheme "Your first EURES job" 

Type of activities 

Targeted mobility scheme  

Cross-border partnership   

Targeted mobility scheme 

Cross-border partnership 

Targeted mobility scheme 

Cross-border partnership  

Cross-border partnership  

Targeted mobility scheme  

VP/2015/006 

EaSI-EURES: Targeted Mobility Scheme - Your first EURES job 

Targeted mobility scheme  

VP/2015/008 

VP/2014/011 

EaSI-EURES: Cross-border partnerships and support to cooperation on 
intra-EU mobility for EEA countries 
EaSI-EURES: Cross-border partnership and support to cooperation on 
intra-EU mobility for social partners and EEA countries 

Cross-border partnership 

Cross-border partnership 

308Between 2011 and 2013, Your First EURES Job Preparatory Action facilitated nearly 4 300 placements and achieved around 90 % of its 
overall placement goal. 
309Public  employment  services  from  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Liechtenstein,  Luxembourg,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. 
310Partners usually include social partners (trade unions and employers’ organisations) as well as organisations such as universities, business 
associations, trade unions and chambers of commerce4. 
311Organisations that are not part of the EURES network can also participate if they are relevant within the regional job mobility market. 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
Call reference 

Call title  

Type of activities 

VP/2014/013 

EaSI-EURES: Your first EURES job - Targeted mobility scheme 

Targeted mobility scheme 

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI calls for proposal. 

Call reference 

VP/2014/013 

VP/2015/006 

VP/2016/009 

VP/2018/009 

VP/2019/009 

VP/2020/009 

Table 54. EaSI EURES axis funded targeted mobility schemes, 2014-2020 
Grant reference 

Title of grant 

VS/2014/0582 
VS/2014/0584 
VS/2015/0251 
VS/2016/0200 
VS/2016/0380 
VS/2016/0381 
VS/2016/0383 
VS/2018/0450 
VS/2018/0470 
VS/2018/0473 
VS/2019/0435 
VS/2019/0438 
VS/2020/0512 
VS/2020/0520 

Your first EURES job - Targeted Mobility Scheme (YfEj 4.0) 
Targeted Mobility Scheme - Your first EURES job (TMS-YfEj) 
Your first EURES - a Tool for Mobility 
Your first EURES job Germany 
"Your first EURES job" - YfEj TMS 5.0 
Targeted Mobility Scheme - Your first EURES job 
Your first EURES job - a tool for mobility - second step 
Targeted Mobility Scheme - Your first EURES job 
Your first EURES job Germany 
TMS Your first EURES job - YfEj 6.0 
Targeted Mobility Scheme 
Targeted Mobility Schemes Germany 2019 
Targeted Mobility Schemes Germany 2020 
EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme (EURES TMS) 

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI calls for proposal and awarded grants. 

Table 55. Beneficiary countries of EURES targeted mobility schemes, 2014 - 2020 

Country 

Number of actions coordinated 

Number of actions involved in 
as co-beneficiary 

Total 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Source: Supporting study, based on overviews of grants awarded.  

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
4 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 

0 
2 
3 
5 
6 
1 
4 
2 
4 
3 
2 
4 
0 
8 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
9 
6 
2 
4 
12 
0 
2 

0 
2 
3 
5 
6 
1 
4 
2 
4 
5 
6 
4 
0 
8 
7 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
9 
6 
2 
4 
12 
4 
2 

Table 56. EaSI-EURES funded cross-border partnerships, 2014 - 2020 

Call reference 

VP/2014/011 

Contract 
reference 
VS/2015/0062 

Euradria 2015 

Project title  

181 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Call reference 

VP/2015/008 

VP/2016/005 

VP/2017/006 

VP/2018/007 

Contract 
reference 
VS/2015/0065 
VS/2015/0066 
VS/2015/0068 
VS/2015/0072 
VS/2015/0073 
VS/2015/0082 
VS/2015/0084 
VS/2015/0095 
VS/2015/0096 
VS/2015/0101 
VS/2015/0111 
VS/2015/0188 
VS/2015/0266 
VS/2015/0268 
VS/2015/0269 
VS/2015/0271 
VS/2015/0272 
VS/2015/0277 
VS/2015/0278 
VS/2015/0279 
VS/2015/0281 
VS/2015/0283 
VS/2015/0284 
VS/2015/0285 
VS/2015/0287 
VS/2015/0314 
VS/2016/0310 
VS/2016/0311 
VS/2016/0312 
VS/2016/0315 
VS/2016/0317 
VS/2016/0318 
VS/2016/0319 
VS/2016/0320 
VS/2016/0321 
VS/2016/0323 
VS/2016/0325 
VS/2016/0326 
VS/2016/0327 
VS/2017/0388 
VS/2017/0390 
VS/2017/0392 
VS/2017/0394 
VS/2017/0395 
VS/2017/0396 
VS/2017/0398 
VS/2017/0400 
VS/2017/0416 
VS/2017/0417 
VS/2017/0438 
VS/2018/0435 
VS/2018/0436 
VS/2018/0437 
VS/2018/0438 
VS/2018/0439 
VS/2018/0440 

Project title  

EURES Crossborder Galicia-North Portugal annual plan 2015 
EURES-T Bayern-Tschechien, Arbeitsplan 2015 
EURES Cross border Øresund 2014-2015 
EURES-T Oberrhein-Rhin Supérieur 2015 
ETUC Coordination in the EURES Network 
Activity plan Eures Scheldemond 2015 
EURES in Grenzregionen Rhein-Waal (ERW), euregio-rhein-maas-nord (ermn), 
Euregio Maas-Rhein (EMR) 2015 
EURES-TriRegio 2015 
EURES Cross Border Partnership Ireland/Northern Ireland January 2015 - 
December 2015 
EURES Grande Région 2015 
Tätigkeitsplan der grenzüberschreitenden österreich-ungarischen EURES-T 
Pannonia Partnerschaft für 2015 
Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA countries 
EURES-TriRegio 2016 
EURES-T Pannonia Cross-Border Partnership's Activity Plan for 2016 
Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA countries 
EURES activity plan 2016 - Iceland 
EURADRIA 2016 
EURES Grande Région 2016 
EURES Cross border Øresund 2016 
EURES Crossborder Galicia-North Portugal annual plan 2016 
EURES in den Grenzregionen Rhein-Waal, rhein-maas-nord, Maas-Rhein 2016 
Ireland/Northern Ireland EURES Cross Border Partnership 2016 
EURES-T Bayern-Tschechien; Arbeitsplan 2016 
Activity plan Eures Scheldemond 2016 
EURES-T Beskydy Activity Plan 2016 
EURES-T Oberrhein-Rhin Supérieur 2016 
EURES-T Oberrhein - Rhin Supérieur 2017 
EURES-t Grande Région 2017 
EURES-TriRegio 2017 
Ireland/Northern Ireland Cross Border Partnership 2017 
EURES in den Grenzregionen Belgien, Deutschland, Niederlande 
EURES Crossborder Partnership Andalucía-Algarve 
EaSI - Eures Crossborder partnership Scheldemond 2017 
EURES Crossborder Galicia-North Portugal annual plan 2017 
EURADRIA 2017 
Crossborder Cooperation Extremadura-Alentejo.Project: "La Raya sin frontera" "A 
Raia sem fronteira" 
ETUC Coordination in the EURES Network 
Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA countries 
EURES activity plan 2017 - Icleand 
Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA countries 
EURES activity plan 2018 - Iceland 
EURES Crossborder Galicia-North Portugal annual plan 2018 
EaSI - Eures cross border partnership Scheldemond 2018 
EURES-TriRegio 2018 
EURES Ireland/Northern Ireland Cross Border Partnership 2018 
EURES-T Oberrhein-Rhin Supérieur 2018 
EURES Cross border Øresund 2018 
EURES in den Grenzregionen Belgien, Deutschland, Niederlande 
EURES Cross-border Andalucía-Algarve 
EURES Cross-border Extremadura-Alentejo Partnership 2018 
EURES Cross-border Alentejo-Extremadura Partnership 2019 
EaSI-EURES cross-border partnership Scheldemond 2019 
Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA countries 
ETUC Coordination in the EURES Network 
EURES activity plan 2019 
EURES Transfrontalier Grande Région 2018-2019 

182 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Call reference 

VP/2019/006 

Contract 
reference 
VS/2018/0442 
VS/2018/0443 
VS/2018/0448 
VS/2018/0454 
VS/2018/0457 
VS/2018/0468 
VS/2018/0469 
VS/2018/0478 
VS/2019/0398 
VS/2019/0399 
VS/2019/0402 
VS/2019/0414 
VS/2019/0419 
VS/2019/0420 
VS/2019/0422 
VS/2019/0427 
VS/2019/0428 
VS/2019/0433 
VS/2019/0437 

Project title  

EURES-TriRegio 2019 
EURES Cross Border Partnership Ireland - N Ireland 2019 
EURES Crossborder Galicia-North Portugal annual plan 2019 
EURES in den Grenzregionen Belgien, Deutschland, Niederlande 
Cross-border Øresund 2019 
EURADRIA 2019 
EURES Cross-border Andalucía-Algarve 
EURES-T Oberrhein-Rhin Supérieur 2019 
EURADRIA 2020/2021 
Support to cooperation on intra-EU mobility in the EEA countries 
ETUC Coordination in the EURES Network 2020-21 
EURES-TriRegio 2020 -2021 
EaSI-EURES cross-border partnership Scheldemond 2020 & 2021 
EURES-T Oberrhein-Rhin Supérieur 2020-21 
EURES-t Grande Region 2020-2021 
EURES Grenzregionen Belgien, Deutschland, Niederlande 2020-2021 
EURES activity plan 2020-2021 
EURES Cross Border Partnership Ireland - N Ireland 2020 
EURES Crossborder Galicia-North Portugal Activity Plan 2020-2021 

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI calls for proposals and awarded grants 

Table 57. Beneficiary countries of EURES cross-border partnerships, 2014 - 2020 

Country 

Number of actions coordinated 

Number of actions involved in 
as co-beneficiary 

Total 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Norway 
Iceland 
Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI calls for proposals and awarded grants. 

0 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
0 
7 
18 
0 
2 
3 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
9 
0 
3 
6 
5 

183 

2 
17 
0 
1 
0 
9 
0 
0 
0 
4 
7 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
6 
9 
0 
1 
5 
3 
4 
3 
0 
0 

2 
21 
0 
1 
0 
9 
4 
0 
0 
11 
25 
0 
2 
6 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
12 
7 
12 
0 
1 
5 
12 
4 
6 
6 
5 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
VI.3.3 Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis 

The activities supporting the achievement of the seventh, eighth and nineth specific objectives 
were funded under its: 

•  microfinance  branch:  EaSI  supported  microcredit  providers  through  financial 
products,  such  as  guarantees,  counter-guarantees  and  loans,  thereby  providing  them 
with partial credit risk protection for newly originated loans to eligible final recipients 
and with liquidity; 

•  social  entrepreneurship  branch:  EaSI  supported  investors  in  social  enterprises 
through  various  financial  products,  that  included  guarantees  (predominantly),  debt 
instruments, quasi-equity instruments.  

Figure  23  below  shows  how  the  shares  committed  for  the  two  thematic  branches 
(microfinance and social entrepreneurship) evolved in 2014 - 2020. 

Figure 23. Annual and overall shares of funding per thematic section of the EaSI third axis 

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

% per
thematic
section

Microfinance(>35%)

Social Entrepreneurship (>35%)

0%

0%

76%

24%

50%

50%

53%

47%

35%

65%

47%

53%

75%

25%

48%

38%

Source: EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 (page 12) 
Note: With any remainder allocated to one or more of the thematic sections referred to above or to a combination of them 
(cross-cutting issues). 
The total financial envelope of EUR 193 million allocated from EaSI to the implementation of 
the  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  was  topped  up  with  EUR  300  million  from 
European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI)  and  with  an  additional  contribution  from 
repayments  from  the  EPMF  as  per  Article  30(4)  of  the  EaSI  Regulation  (the  amount  of 
reflows  was  about  EUR  69  million).  The  support  under  the  EaSI  third  axis  (both  to 
microfinance and social finance) was delivered through three financial instruments: 
EaSI Guarantee Instrument 
The  EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument  became  operational  in  2015  with  the  end  date  of 
implementation set at 1st January 2024. By this date, the EIF can sign guarantee agreements 
with financial intermediaries. The financial intermediaries can include loans in their portfolio 
after this date until at the latest 31 December 2027. 
The EaSI contribution to Guarantee Instrument amounted to EUR 131 million, out of which 
EUR 91 million were allocated to the microfinance branch and EUR 40 million to the social 
entrepreneurship  branch.  From  the  overall  financial  envelope  of  EUR  91  million,  EUR  1 
million was earmarked for the implementation of the Business Development Services Support 
pilot (BDS) which was an additional component embedded in the EaSI Guarantee Instrument. 
The  purpose  of  BDS  Support  was  to  partially  offset  the  costs  incurred  by  Financial 
Intermediaries benefitting from an EaSI Microfinance Guarantee in view of offering Business 
Development  Services  to  final  recipients  who  qualify  as  Refugees  and/or  Migrants.  Despite 
being  considered  as  an  ancillary  service  to  the  guarantee  instrument,  the  BDS  was  funded 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
under  EaSI  PROGRESS.  Guarantee  Instrument  was  topped  up  by  the  EFSI  resources  and 
repayments from EPMF (see above). At the end of 2020, the cumulative value of guarantee 
agreements signed with financial intermediaries amounted to EUR 388 million312.  
The EIF offered through the EaSI Guarantee Instrument guarantees and counter-guarantees to 
financial intermediaries, thereby providing them with a partial credit risk protection for newly 
originated  loans  to  eligible  beneficiaries.  Financial  intermediaries  were  selected  after  an 
application under a call for expression of interest followed by a due diligence process. Once 
selected by the EIF, these partners act as financial intermediaries and start originating loans to 
eligible beneficiaries within the agreed availability period.  
The  due  diligence  process  assesses  whether  applicants  comply  with  relevant  rules  and 
regulations  (in  relation  to  tax  compliance,  transparency  and  integrity,  absence  of  links  to 
illegal  activities  such  as  money  laundering,  financing  of  terrorism,  tax  crimes  and/or  tax 
avoidance).  Table  58  below  summarises  the  types  of  products  offered  under  the  Guarantee 
Instrument and the related target groups (microcredit providers and the end-beneficiaries). 

Table 58. Products and beneficiaries of the EaSI Guarantee Instrument 

Items 

Products 
offered  
Eligible 
beneficiaries 
(microcredit 
providers) 

End-
beneficiaries 
(target groups) 

financial 

countries, 

authorised 

Microfinance 
Portfolios  of  loans  and  certain  other  debt  financing 
products up to EUR 25 000. 
Public  and  private  bodies  established  on  a  national, 
regional  or  local  level  in  one  or  several  EaSI 
participating 
to  provide 
microcredit  for  persons  and  micro-enterprises,  for 
example 
institutions,  microfinance 
institutions/microcredit providers, leasing companies, 
guarantee  schemes,  guarantee  institutions  or  other 
institutions  authorised 
to  provide  microfinance 
loans/guarantees  or  risk-sharing  structures  according 
to the applicable legislation. 
Micro-borrowers:  vulnerable  persons  who  have  lost 
or are at risk of losing their job, or have difficulty in 
entering  or  re-entering  the  labour  market,  or  are  at 
risk of social exclusion, or are socially excluded, and 
are in a disadvantaged position with regard to access 
to  the  conventional  credit  market  and  who  wish  to 
start up or develop their own micro- enterprises. 
Micro-enterprises:  micro-enterprises  in  both  start-up 
and  development  phase,  especially  micro-enterprises 
that  employ  persons  as  referred  to  in  the  above-
mentionsend  it  back  to  youed  definition  of  micro-
borrowers. 

Social Entrepreneurship 

institutions, 
institutions, 

guarantee 
foundations, 

loans  and  certain  other  debt 

Portfolios  of 
financing products up to EUR 500 000. 
Public  and  private  bodies  established  on  a 
national, regional or local level in one or several 
EaSI  participating  countries,  authorised 
to 
provide  financing  for  social  enterprises,  e.g. 
schemes, 
financial 
family 
guarantee 
funds  or  other 
offices,  social 
provide 
institutions 
loans/guarantees  or 
structures 
according to the applicable legislation. 
Social  enterprises:  enterprises  with  either  an 
annual  turnover  not  exceeding  EUR  30  million 
or 
an 
annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 30 
million,  which  are  not  themselves  a  collective 
investment undertaking. 

risk-sharing 

investment 

authorised 

duly 

to 

Source: Supporting study, based on the EIF website, EaSI Guarantee Instrument.  

Table 59. EaSI Guarantee Instrument financial implementation (in EUR)  

Items 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total EU contribution  

59 799 200 

9 000 000 

13 423 472 

27 502 400 

0 

21 274 928 

Total fees and management costs  
Total amount of operations313 

Microfinance 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Total guarantees called 

2 310 758 

4 023 790 

2 001 409 

1 468 697 

1 569 031 

1 763 108 

27 181 627 

32 230 623 

45 698 619 

73 649 988 

91 631 201 

120 486 087 

23 644 027 

26 707 462 

25 350 506 

53 625 988 

44 522 515 

70 716 473 

3 537 600 

5 523 161 

20 348 113 

20 024 000 

47 108 686 

49 769 614 

552 551 

3 341 952 

8 276 226 

10 402 230 

13 400 292 

312This amount includes both the EaSI budget and the EFSI top-up. 
313The total includes also amount for terminated contracts. 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Items 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Microfinance 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Total recoveries and claw-backs 

Microfinance 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Net guarantees called 

Microfinance 

552 551 

3 303 522 

7 658 841 

9 051 285 

12 010 796 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 430 

20 777 

20 777 

- 

617 385 

1 350 944 

1 389 496 

22 446 

22 446 

0 

1 835 

1 835 

0 

279 017 

279 017 

0 

552 551 

3 321 175 

8 253 780 

10 400 395 

13 121 275 

552 551 

3 282 745 

7 636 396 

9 049 451 

11 731 779 

Social Entrepreneurship 
Source: Supporting study, based on data provided by the EIF on the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, 2015 - 2020  
The  majority  of  the  operations  signed  were  for  microfinance  (111  operations),  covering  a 
cumulative  total  amount  of  EUR  242  million;  fewer  operations  were  signed  for  social 
entrepreneurship (40 operations), covering a total cumulative amount of EUR 146 million. 

1 389 496 

1 350 944 

617 385 

38 430 

0 

Table 60. EaSI Guarantee Instrument implementation  
2016 
Items 

2015 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total number of operations signed 

11 

29 

22 

38 

• 
• 
• 
• 

of which active contracts 
of which terminated contracts 
of which for Microfinance (active contracts) 
of which for Social Entrepreneurship (active contracts) 

Total number of financial intermediaries who signed  operations  

• 
• 

of which for Microfinance 
of which for Social Entrepreneurship 

10 
1 

10 
10 
1 

23 
6 

27 
23 
6 

16 
6 

16 
11 
5 

26 
12 

23 
18 
11 

19 
19 
1 
9 
10 

9 
5 
6 

31 
30 
1 
26 
5 

25 
22 
4 

• 
• 

2 
2 
0 

1 
1 
0 

2 
1 
1 

3 
3 
3 

17 
17 
3 

Number of participating countries covered314 
of which for Microfinance 
of which for Social Entrepreneurship  

5 
2 
10 
Source: Supporting study, based on data provided by the EIF on the EaSI Guarantee Instrument, 2015 - 2020 
Note: The sum of microfinance intermediaries and social entrepreneurship intermediaries does not equate to the total 
number of financial intermediaries as there are several financial intermediaries which fall under both categories.  
EaSI Funded Instrument  
The EaSI Funded Instrument became operational in September 2019 and its implementation 
period  runs  until  16  October  2023.  By  this  date,  the  EIF  can  provide  loans  to  financial 
intermediaries. The financial intermediaries can include loans in their portfolio after this date 
but the duration of the loans to final beneficiaries cannot go beyond 31 December 2031. 
First  under  EPMF  and  later  under  EaSI,  the  EIF  provided  under  this  type  of  financial 
instrument senior and subordinated loans to eligible financial intermediaries to increase their 
capacity to provide financing to micro-enterprises and social enterprises, as well as mobilising 
their own resources to grow their microfinance or social entrepreneurship portfolios.  
Under the EaSI Funded Instrument, the EIF issued senior loans, subordinated loans (financing 
subordinated  to  senior  creditors),  risk-sharing  loans  (senior  loans  combined  with  risk 
participation in the microcredit portfolio) and equity participation (direct or indirect equity in 
the form of investments in ordinary or preferred shares). 
A total amount of EUR 67 million (EUR 46,9 million for microfinance and EUR 21,1 million 
for social entrepreneurship) was earmarked by the Commission from the EaSI programme for 
its implementation (in addition to the EUR 133 million from the EIB Group), thus conducting 

314Where eligible final recipients received financing. 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  a total  financial envelope of EUR 200 million. By the end of 2020, three (3)  agreements 
were  signed.  Two  of  them  were  with  financial  intermediaries  in  Romania  and  one  with  a 
financial intermediary in Serbia. All three were in the microfinance sector. 
EaSI Capacity Building Investments Window 
Through the EaSI Capacity Building Investments Window launched in December 2016 with a 
budget from EaSI of EUR 45 million (EUR 29 million for microfinance and EUR 16 million 
for social entrepreneurship), EIF provided funding to financial intermediaries mainly through 
subordinated loans315.  

Table 61. Products and beneficiaries of the EaSI Capacity Building Window 

Items 
Products  

Investments that can be used for: 

Capacity Building Window 

• 

• 

• 

Supporting organisational development and expansion, including branch expansion, scaling up 
or developing IT infrastructure (e.g. mobile banking), or investments in human resources such as 
recruitment and training of staff; 
Strengthening  operational  and  institutional  capabilities,  including,  but  not  limited  to, 
investments  in  working  capital  and  in  improving  the  strategic/governance  capabilities  of  the 
financial  intermediary  in  order  to  maintain  a  balanced  business,  financial  sustainability  and 
social performance focus; 
Seed financing support of newly created intermediaries with a strong social focus. 

Eligible 
beneficiaries  

Entities such as banks, non-bank financial institutions/organisations, established on a national, regional or 
local level in one or several EaSI participating countries, operating in the microfinance or social enterprise 
finance market, including greenfield financial intermediaries in need of seed financing/risk capital. 

Source: Supporting study, based on data provided by the EIF  
The  last  agreements  with  financial  intermediaries  were  signed  in  2021;  the  overall  budged 
was  fully  deployed  by  end  of  2021.  The  objective  of  this  instrument  was  to  build  up  the 
institutional  capacity  of  financial  intermediaries  that  had  not  yet  reached  sustainability  or 
needed  risk  capital  to  sustain  their  growth  and  development.  Up  to  the  end  of  2020,  14 
capacity  building  contracts  were  signed,  covering  9  countries,  with  a  budget  from  EaSI  of 
EUR  45  million.  For  the  microfinance  branch,  these  countries  were  Belgium,  Romania  (3 
intermediaries), Luxembourg, Italy, Spain, Lithuania, Netherlands and Serbia. For the social 
entrepreneurship branch, the countries covered were Belgium, France (2 intermediaries), Italy 
and Netherlands316. 

Table 62. Financial implementation of the EaSI Capacity Building Investment Window (EUR)  

Items 

Total EU contribution  
Total fees and exceptional expenses  
Total amount of operations signed 

•  Microfinance  
• 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Total amount committed 

•  Microfinance  
• 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Total disbursed amount 

•  Microfinance 
• 

Social Entrepreneurship 

2016 
12 725 384 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2017 
10 000 000 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2018 

- 
100 000  
3 107 000  
2 485 600  
621 400  
5 000 000  
4 000 000  
1 000 000  
776 750  
621 400  
155 350  

2019 
3 274 616  
426 250  
18 205 504  
  10 005 504  
    8 200 000  
  18 205 504  
  10 005 504  
    8 200 000  
  15 425 540  
  10 026 980  
    5 398 560  

2020 

19 000 000  
642 260 
8 863 740  
8 863 740  
- 
8 885 311  
8 880 997  
4 314  
6 345 414  
3 789 244  
2 556 170  

315The  subordinated  loan  (also known as  a  subordinated  debts) is  an  unsecured  loan or bond  that  ranks below  other,  more  senior loans  or 
securities  with  respect  to  claims  on  assets  or  earnings.  Subordinated  debentures  are  thus  also  known  as  junior  securities.  In  the  case  of 
borrower  default,  creditors  who  own  subordinated  debt  will  not  be  paid  out  until  after  senior  bondholders  are  paid  in  full  (see  more 
information here). 
316EaSI monitoring report (page 103). 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
Source: Supporting study, based on data provided by the EIF  

Table 63. Investments signed under the EaSI Capacity Building Investment Window  

Number of EaSI Capacity Building Investments signed 

Items 

•  Microfinance  
• 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Number of financial intermediaries who signed investments  

•  Microfinance 
• 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Number of additional participating countries  

•  Microfinance  
• 

Social Entrepreneurship 

Source: Supporting study, based on data provided by the EIF 

2016 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2017 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2018 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 

2019 
10 
6 
4 
10 
6 
4 
9 
5 
4 

2020 
3 
3 
0 
3 
3 
0 
2 
2 
0 

Total 
15 
10 
5 
14 
10 
5 
13 
8 
5 

2018 

Table 64. Geographical distribution of funding in the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis 
2019 
France (39.3 %) 
Italy (22.6 %) 
Spain (21.0 %) 
Belgium (4.4 %) 
Netherlands (2.7 %) 
Poland (2.6 %) 
Austria (2.1 %) 
Slovakia (1.7 %) 
Denmark (1.1 %) 
Czech Republic (0.7 %) 
Hungary (0.7 %) 
Serbia (0.5 %) 
United Kingdom (0.3 %) 
Croatia (0.1 %) 
Slovenia (0.1 %) 

France (46.1 %) 
Spain (20.8 %) 
Italy (14.8 %) 
Poland (5.2 %) 
Austria (3.4 %) 
Netherlands (2.4 %) 
Belgium (2.4 %) 
Slovakia (1.9 %) 
Hungary (0.7 %) 
Serbia (0.6 %) 
Denmark (0.5 %) 
United Kingdom (0.5 %) 
Czech Republic (0.3 %) 
Slovenia (0.2 %) 
Romania (0.1 %) 
Croatia (0.1 %) 
Source: EaSI monitoring report (page 102), based on annual reports for the EaSI Financial Instruments  

2020 
France (37.3 %) 
Italy (23.3 %) 
Spain (22.5 %) 
Netherlands (4.3 %) 
Belgium (3.9 %) 
Poland (2.0 %) 
Austria (1.5 %) 
Denmark (1.3 %) 
Slovakia (1.2 %) 
Hungary (0.9 %) 
Czech Republic (0.7 %) 
Serbia (0.4 %) 
Finland (0.3 %) 
United Kingdom (0.2 %) 
Croatia (0.2 %) 
Slovenia (0.1 %) 

VI.4 EPMF implementation 
The  European  Progress  Microfinance  Facility  (EPMF)  provided  resources  for  increasing 
access to and availability of microfinance to persons socio-economically at risk or vulnerable 
and  to  micro-enterprises.  EPMF  was  launched  to  increase  the  availability  of  microcredit 
(loans below EUR 25 000) for setting up or developing a micro-enterprise. It had a particular 
focus on, but is not restricted to, groups with limited access to the conventional credit market, 
for instance female entrepreneurs, young entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs belonging to a minority 
group, entrepreneurs with a disability or sole traders. 
The EPMF did not directly finance entrepreneurs, but enabled selected microcredit providers 
in the EU to increase lending, by issuing guarantees, thereby sharing the providers' potential 
risk of loss. In addition, the European Commission provided support for building the capacity 
the  social 
of  selected  financial 
entrepreneurship space. The microcredit providers may be private or public banks, non-bank 
microfinance  institutions  and  not-for-profit  microcredit  providers.  The  list  of  EPMF 
participating  countries  was  limited  to  the  EU  Member  States  according  to  Article  4  of  the 

the  microfinance  and 

intermediaries,  both 

in 

in 

188 

 
 
 
 
Commission  Decision  2009/340317:  “The  Facility  shall  be  open  to  public  and  private  bodies 
established  in  the  Member  States  which  provide  microfinance  to  persons  and  micro-
enterprises in the Member States.” 
The Decision No 283/2010 states that the financial contribution period is until 2013, but does 
not describe until when the EIF is entitled to sign agreements with third parties or until when 
the  loans  under  the  EPFM  guarantee  are  covered.  The  implementation  period  of  the  EPMF 
Guarantee Instrument is defined in the Fiduciary and Management agreement (FMA) signed 
between the EC and the EIF. The implementation period of the Fonds Commun de Placement 
(FCP) instruments is defined in the Management Regulations. 

•  Under the EPMF Guarantee Instrument, the EIF could sign guarantee agreements with 
financial  intermediaries  until  the  end  of  the  Project  Signing  Period  (7  April  2016) 
defined  in  the  Fiduciary  and  Management  Agreement  (FMA,  pages  6  -  7).  The 
implementation period end-date of the EPMF Guarantee Instrument is set until the end 
of its term (31 December 2020), which is also defined in FMA (Article 17, page 18). 
In conclusion, the guarantee coverage of the loans and therefore the implementation of 
the EPMF Guarantee Instrument extended until 31 December 2020.  

•  The Fonds Commun de Placement (FCP) - which is the EPMF subfund – is reffered in 
this  Staff  Working  Document  as  the  ‘EPMF  Funded  Instrument’.  It  can  invest  in 
financial intermediaries until the end of the Investment Period (7 April 2016) which is 
defined in page 48 of the Management Regulations. The implementation period end-
date of the EPMF FCP subfund is set until the end of its term (30 April 2020) which is 
defined in the Management Regulations (Article 2.1.3, page 59). 

Based  on  the  above,  the  end-date  of  the  implementation  period  of  the  EPMF  as  a  whole 
(including the EPMF Guarantee Instrument strand and the EPMF FCP subfund strand) is 31 
December  2020.  The  EU  total  contribution  for  2010  -  2020318  for  both  EPMF  strands 
(guarantees  and  funded  instruments)  –  amounted  to  EUR  103  million.  This  contribution  - 
initially amounting to EUR 100 million319 - was increased to EUR 103 million by including an 
additional  amount  of  EUR  3  million  from  the  EPPA  (European  Parliament  Preparatory 
Action).  
The EPMF totalled 86 agreements with 63 unique financial intermediaries across 22 European 
countries, reaching a loan volume of EUR 516 million. On average, a microloan had a value 
of around EUR 8 500. The value of the microloans disbursed under the Guarantee Instrument 
was on average higher than the value of the loans disbursed under the Funded Instrument. In 
total, more than 60 000 microloans were disbursed to more than 55 000 final beneficiaries.  
Below, more details are provided on the EPMF Guarantee Instrument and the EPMF Funded 
Instrument, both  implemented through indirect management by the EIF: 
EPMF Guarantee Instrument  

for 

Programme 

317Decision  COM(2009)  340  amending  Decision  No  1672/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a 
https://eur-
Community 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0340:FIN:EN:PDF. 
318The  EPMF  Decision  did  not  specify  until  when  the  EIF  was  entitled  to  sign  agreements  with  third  parties,  nor  until  when  the  loans 
provided would be covered. The overall timeline considered in the present report is then 2010 - 2020 given that 31 December 2020 was the 
final date until which the EU financial contribution could be used to implement the EPMF. 
319Article 3 of the EPMF Decision.  

(PROGRESS, 

Employment 

Solidarity 

2013): 

Social 

2007 

and 

- 

189 

 
 
 
The  aim  of  the  EPMF  Guarantee  Instrument  was  to  provide  additional  security  to  financial 
intermediaries  to  increase  access  to,  and  availability  of  microfinance.  A  total  financial 
envelope of EUR 25 million was made available by the Commission for its implementation320.  
Under this Instrument, the EIF could issue guarantees to microcredit providers to cover their 
portfolio  losses;  and  counter-guarantees  to  guarantee  institutions,  which  in  turn  issue 
guarantees to cover the microloan portfolios of microcredit providers.  
The EPMF Guarantee Instrument became operational in 2010. By the end of 2020, a total of 
36 agreements had been signed with financial intermediaries (Figure 24), across 18 countries: 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom.  In  total, 
this helped 19 470 final beneficiaries access microfinance.  

Figure 24. Agreements and microcredits under the EPMF Guarantee Instrument 

Source: Supporting study, based on EIF Annual Implementation Reports 2010 - 2020. 

Table 65 below presents the number of final beneficiaries and employees of micro-enterprises 
which were supported by the EPMF guarantee instrument.  

Item/year 
Number of final beneficiaries  

2012 
2 836 

2013 
6 748 

2014 
14 448 

2015 
18 490 

2016 
19 713 

2017 
19 749 

2018 
19 756 

2019 
19 756 

2020 
19 740 

Table 65. Beneficiaries of the EPMF Guarantee Instrument 

Number of employees of 
micro-enterprises supported 
Source: Contractor based on EIF Annual Implementation Reports 2010 - 2020   

5 390  

3 677 

13 250   33 222   37 038   37 220   37 219   37 217 

37 187 

EPMF Funded Instrument  
A  financial  envelope  of  EUR  80  million  was  made  available  by  the  Commission  for  the 
implementation  of  the  EPMF  Funded  Instrument.  An  additional  investment  of  EUR  100 

320European Commission (2011). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Implementation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility — 2010. Brussels, 11.4.2011 
COM (2011) 195 final. 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
million was made by the EIB, thus creating a total financial envelope of EUR 180 million321. 
Under  this  instrument,  the  EIF  issued  senior  loans,  subordinated  loans  (financing 
subordinated  to  senior  creditors),  risk-sharing  loans  (senior  loans  combined  with  risk 
participation in the microcredit portfolio) and equity participation (direct or indirect equity in 
the form of investments in ordinary or preferred shares).  
The  EPMF  Funded  Instrument  became  operational  end-2010.  By  end-2020,  a  total  of  50 
agreements  (47  had  been  terminated  and  3  were  still  running  at  that  time)  had  been  signed 
with  financial  intermediaries  (Figure  25),  across  16  countries:  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus, 
Estonia,  France,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom. The countries that received the largest commitments to 
financial intermediaries were Romania, Bulgaria and Italy. In total, this helped 35 940 final 
beneficiaries access microfinance.  

Figure 25. Agreements and their cumulative value under the EPMF Funded Instrument  

Source: Supporting study, based on the EIF Annual Implementation Reports 2010 - 2020 

Table  66  below  presents  the  number  of  financial  intermediaries  and  employees  of  micro-
enterprises which were supported by the EPMF Funded Instrument.  

Number/year 

Table 66. Beneficiaries of the EPMF Funded Instrument 
2012 
3 253 

2017 
35 352 

2014 
16 025 

2016 
32 428 

2015 
24 841 

2013 
5 942 

2018 
35 919 

2019 
35 940 

2020 
35 940 

Number of final 
beneficiaries 
Number of employees of 
micro-enterprises  
Source: Contractor based on EIF Annual Implementation Reports 2010 - 2020. 

17 704 

56 860 

41 111 

8 275 

5 544 

65 247 

67 205 

67 288 

67 288 

321European Commission (2011). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Implementation of the European Progress Microfinance Facility — 2010. Brussels, 11.4.2011 
COM (2011) 195 final 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VI.5 Other figures and tables  

Figure 26. Share of stakeholders stating that the EU contribution to the integration of the following horizontal 
objectives into their respective policy area  

Source: Supporting study, based on EaSI monitoring report 2019 - 2020 (page 126). 

Figure 27. Extent to which the EaSI activities focused on ‘horizontal issues’ (n=106) 

Source: Supporting study, based on results from online survey targeted at EaSI grant beneficiaries (see Annex V). 
Note: There were 94 responses, but some respondents had been involved in projects in more than one axis. 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28. Online public consultation results related to EaSI horizontal objectives. 

Source: Supporting study, based on results from online public consultation results. 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 67. EaSI Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship financial overview 2014 - 2020 (EUR) 

Guarantee 
microfinance (MF) 

Guarantee social 
entrepreneurship 
(SE) 

Capacity  
Building 

Equity Pilot  
project 

Call on 
transaction cost 
support for social 
enterprises 

Funded 
Instrument 

EaSI contribution 

Reflows from EPMF 

     18 816 464,00   

       9 583 736,00  

                             -    

                             -                                 -                                 -    

            28 500 200,00  

                                 -     

     27 225 136,00  

       4 173 864,00  

                             -    

                             -                                 -                                 -    

            31 427 570,48  

                                 -   

       9 000 000,00  

                             -    

     12 725 384,00   

       6 000 000,00  

                             -                                 -    

            27 744 070,32  

                                 -    

     13 227 178,00  

       9 740 000,00  

     10 000 000,00 

       7 500 000,00  

       3 000 000,00                                 -    

            43 453 918,13   

                  21 716,00  

           456 294,00   

     16 502 400,00  

                             -    

                             -             3 109 699,54  

       9 153 649,46  

            27 323 876,00  

            2 401 756,00  

                             -    

                              -              3 274 616,00   

           341 362,80  

     38 846 350,54  

            20 811 339,00  

          21 335 385,85  

     21 274 928,00  

     19 000 000,00   

     19 000 000,00  

            14 235 000,00  

          45 072 659,17  

Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

      90 000 000,00    

      40 000 000,00           45 000 000,00    

      13 500 000,00              6 451 062,34           67 000 000,00    

           193 495 973,93    

           68 831 517,02    

out of 
which 

MF 

     90 000 000,00   

     29 000 000,00  

     46 900 000,00  

SE 
Source: DG EMPL 

     40 000 000,00  

     16 000 000,00   

     13 500 000,00  

       6 451 062,34  

     20 100 000,00  

63% 

37% 

194 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANNEX VII. GENERAL OBJECTIVE “MODERNISATION  AND  EFFECTIVE  APPLICATION  OF 

EU LAW” 

Based  on  the  EaSI  monitoring  reports,  this  annex  details  how  EaSI-supported  outputs 
were instrumental each year in contributing to improvement and better application of EU 
law in the social and employment field (the headline indicator for this general objective). 
2014 
Various studies and data-gathering exercises were funded by the programme in the area 
of health and safety at work. For example, a ‘Non-binding guide to good practice on the 
minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks 
arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)’ was finished in November 2014. It 
helped the relevant national actors to implement the provisions of Directive 2013/35/EU 
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the 
risks  arising  from  physical  agents  (electromagnetic  fields)  (20th  individual  Directive 
within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(1)  of  Directive  89/391/EEC)  and  repealing  Directive 
2004/40/EC. An EaSI-supported ad-hoc module of the Labour Force Survey on accidents 
at work and work-related health problems was also instrumental in this regard. 
Furthermore,  EaSI-supported  networking  activities  helped  the  relevant  stakeholders  to 
exchange views ad discuss relevant issues in the area of health and safety at work as well 
as more general issues in the area of working conditions. As examples, the 66th and 67th 
meetings  of the Senior  Labour  Inspectors Committee (SLIC)  and Thematic Days could 
be  mentioned.  They  were  organised  as  Council  Presidency  activities.  The  first  event 
focused on workers’ involvement in the management of Occupational Safety and Health 
(OHS) in small enterprises (SEs) by highlighting what works and its implications for the 
strategies and practices of labour inspection. The second meeting discussed non-standard 
work and its effect on occupational safety and health. 
EaSI-supported activities were also instrumental in contributing to the improvement and 
application  of  EU  labour  law.  First,  the  contribution  of  the  European  Labour  Law 
Network (ELLN) was major in this regard. Its 7th Annual Legal Seminar discussed new 
forms of employment and their impact on the EU labour law. The discussions focused on 
the need and feasibility of legislating on new forms  of employment at EU level.  While 
some participants warned against lumping together all new forms of employment, others 
offered  the  view  that  a  higher  degree  of  regulation  may  only  lead  to  more  advanced 
attempts  of  evasion.  Some  participants  advocated  undertaking  further  empirical  as  well 
as  legal  studies  to  develop  a  clearer  picture  of  new  forms  of  employment  and  their 
pervasiveness  in  the  Member  States.  Legal  uncertainties  regarding  identifying  an 
employment  relationship  were  mentioned  as  constituting  a  major  problem  in  many 
national  systems.  In  2014,  ELLN  also  developed  quarterly  and  ad-hoc  flash  reports  on 
labour law in the Member States. 
In addition to ELLN activities, EaSI also provided financial support to the organisation 
of  meetings  of  working  groups  and  experts’  groups  in  the  field  of  labour  law. 
Furthermore, a Social Europe Guide on labour law and working conditions was issued in 
February 2014. The key objective of the guide was to provide an exhaustive overview of 
EU labour law and initiatives taken in the area of working conditions. It also explained 
the rationale for EU involvement in this area. 
2015 - 2016 

195 

 
 
 
Various studies and data-gathering exercises were funded by the programme in the area 
of  health  and  safety  at  work  (including  occupational  diseases)  in  order  to  improve  and 
implement existing directives, and, more generally, to prevent occupational diseases and 
new or emerging risks. For example, by supporting the IARC the EaSI programme has 
continued  to  provide  authoritative,  up-to-date  evaluations  of  environmental  and 
occupational  exposures  that  may  present  carcinogenic  hazards  to  human  beings.  This 
activity  supported  the  Commission  in  collecting  up-to-date  scientific  information  on 
occupational  carcinogens  and  will  underpin  further  amending  of  Directive  2004/37/EC 
on carcinogens. 
A  study  produced  a  contribution  to  the  international  Commission  on  Non-Ionizing 
Radiation  Protection  supports  Directive  2013/35/EU  on  Electromagnetic  Fields. 
Moreover,  a  non-binding  guide  to  good  practice  for  implementing  this  directive, 
including  a  practical  guide,  case  studies  and  a  guide  for  SMEs,  helps  employers  and 
national labour inspectors to implement its provisions in practice. This guide is available 
in all EU languages and has reportedly been very useful at the local level. 
Furthermore, EaSI-supported networking  activities have helped relevant  stakeholders to 
exchange  views  and  discuss  the  issues  of  health  and  safety  at  work  as  well  as  more 
general issues in the area of working conditions. As examples, biannual SLIC meetings 
and  thematic  day  conferences  could  be  mentioned.  They  were  organised  as  Council 
Presidency activities. 
EaSI-supported activities were also instrumental in contributing to the improvement and 
application  of  EU  labour  law.  Flash  reports  on  labour  law  and  country  reports  by  the 
European centre of expertise in the field of labour law, employment and LMP (ECE) has 
provided the Commission with relevant information regarding the application of EU law 
in the Member States. On the practical side, the 8th Annual Legal Seminar “Digitalisation 
and  Labour  Law”  organised  by  the  European  Labour  Law  Network  in  the  Hague  in 
November  2015  explored  what  impact  digitalisation  will  have  on  regulating  working 
conditions, information, consultation and the mobility of EU workers/services. An expert 
seminar  in  December  2016  highlighted  current  challenges  and  possible  solutions  in  the 
application of EU legislation on collective redundancies and restructuring. 
EaSI  also  funded  two  studies:  a  study  to  prepare  the  REFIT  evaluation  of  the  Written 
Statement Directive (Directive 91/533/EEC) and a study to prepare the evaluation of the 
Recast  Directive  on  European  Works  Councils  (Directive  2009/38/EC).  Both  studies 
helped  the  Commission  to  map  the  transpositions  rules  and  assess  the  concrete 
application of the specific directives. 
EaSI also contributes to the EU’s effort to reduce undeclared work and contribute to the 
fair posting of workers within the EU. To this end, the European Platform on Undeclared 
Work was launched in May 2016 and its first plenary meeting took place in Brussels in 
October  2016.  The  platform  aims  to  enhance  cooperation  between  Member  States, 
improve their capacity to  tackle undeclared work, and increase public awareness  of the 
issue. 
A study “Posting of Workers Directive - Current Situation and Challenges” published in 
June  2016  provided  an  overview  of  the  directive,  focusing  on  the  current  situation  and 
major  patterns  regarding  the  posting  of  workers  in  the  EU,  major  problems  and 
challenges  and  how  these  patterns  have  translated  political,  as  well  as  jurisdictive, 
debates and proposals to improve the regulation of this specific form of employment and 
service  provision.  With  the  Commission’s  view  on  the  proposal  published  on 

196 

 
 
8 March 2016, to revise the directive, the study aimed to provide the EMPL Committee 
with an assessment of the proposal considering both the key challenges addressed and the 
previous resolutions and requests made by the European Parliament. 
Finally,  by  launching  annual  calls  for  proposals  in  the  field  of  posting  of  workers,  the 
EaSI programme has funded the development of transnational initiatives to enhance the 
implementation,  application  and  enforcement  of  Directive  96/71/EC  concerning  the 
posting  of  workers  in  the  framework  of  provision  of  services  in  practice  and  its 
Enforcement  Directive  2014/67/EU.  The  proper 
functioning  of  administrative 
cooperation  among  Member  States  and  improved  access  to  information  on  applicable 
terms  and  conditions  of  employment  in  a  transparent  and  accessible  manner,  are 
essential. In the monitoring period, eight projects in the field of posting of workers were 
completed  (funded  by  the  predecessor  PROGRESS  programme).  Their  descriptions  are 
available in monitoring reports on projects funded by the EaSI programme (four projects 
in volume III, two projects in volume IV, and two projects in volume VI)322. 
“Rights  without  borders  -  RIDE”  was  a  project  implemented  by  the  Italian  General 
Confederation of Work and its partners from Romania, Belgium, Hungary and Slovenia 
in the period 2013-2015. As a result, 75 trade unionists from partner countries received 
training on issues related to transnational posting of workers and control procedures. The 
project allowed data on the issues of social dumping and unfair competition in the four 
Member  States  involved  to  be  updated.  An  operating  manual  for  control  and  reference 
for  each  Member  State  involved  was  published  on  a  newly  created  multilingual  web 
platform. It included information on standards, contracts and procedures of the respective 
countries. Finally, a research report was presented during the project’s final  conference 
and made available on the websites of the project’s partners. 
2017 
EaSI  funded  a  study  to  support  the  impact  assessment  on  the  review  of  the  Written 
Statement Directive. This study was the key evidence base to inform the Commission’s 
Proposal for a Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, which is a 
direct  follow-up  to  the  proclamation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights.  The  new 
Directive will aim to  set new  rights  for all workers, particularly  addressing insufficient 
protection for workers in more precarious jobs, while limiting burdens on employers and 
maintaining  labour  market  adaptability.  The  EaSI-funded  study  was  instrumental  in 
carrying out an in-depth comparison of all possible policy options and selecting the most 
effective and efficient one. 
The  EaSI  programme  funded  as  well  as  a  study  to  gather  the  information  necessary  to 
further amend Directive 2004/37/EC, which has informed the related impact assessment. 
The study was the major analytical report that supported the Commission’s Proposal to 
amend  Directive  2004/37/EC  on  the  protection  of  workers  from  the  risks  related  to 
exposure  to  carcinogens  or  mutagens  at  work.  The  amendment  of  the  Directive  will 
improve  workers’  health  protection  by  reducing  occupational  exposure  to  five 
carcinogenic chemical agents, provide more clarity for workers, employers and enforcers, 
and contribute to a level playing field for economic operators.  
The EaSI programme continued funding the plenary meetings and thematic days of the 
Senior  Labour  Inspectors  Committee  (SLIC).  The  SLIC  committee  has  a  mandate  to 
provide its opinion to the Commission on all problems relating to the enforcement by the 

322The reports are available online on: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1081&langId=en&furtherPubs=yes 

197 

 
 
 
Member States  of the EU law on health and safety  at  work.  The following topics were 
discussed during Presidency meeting of the SLIC committee in 2017 - 2018: new forms 
of  work  and  occupational  safety  and  health;  safeguarding  the  occupational  health  and 
safety  of  labour  inspectors;  fine-tuning  interventions  through  better  targeting  of  labour 
inspection; carcinogenic substances – old and new challenges.  
The European Commission continued to fund the meetings of the Committee of Experts 
on  Posting  of  Workers.  This  group  of  experts,  inter  alia,  supports  and  assists  Member 
States  in  identifying  and  exchanging  experience  and  good  practice,  promotes  the 
exchange  of  relevant  information,  examines  any  questions  and  difficulties  which  might 
arise  in  the  practical  application  of  the  posting  of  workers  legislation,  as  well  as  its 
enforcement in practice. 
An  EaSI-funded  Peer  Review  meeting  on  the  transposition,  implementation  and 
enforcement of EU occupational  safety  and health (OSH) legislation was hosted by the 
Danish Working Environment Authority and the Danish Ministry of Employment On 19-
20  June  2018.  The  event  was  attended  by  Austria,  Cyprus,  Germany,  Ireland,  Malta, 
Slovenia  and  Sweden  as  well  as  representatives  from  the  European  Commission,  the 
Senior Labour  Inspectors' Committee (SLIC) and the social partners. The host country, 
Denmark, presented its model of ‘orchestration’ where different actors operate in a fully 
integrated  system  to  ensure  the  most  effective  cooperation  at  all  levels.  The  Danish 
Implementation Committee and Implementation Council presented their working method 
in  guaranteeing  that  EU  OSH  legislation  is  effectively  transposed  and  implemented, 
considering  the  national  context  and  avoiding  unnecessary  administrative  burdens. 
Participants  in  the  Peer  review  discussed  their  OSH  governance  systems  and  presented 
different  practices  in  transposing,  implementing  and  enforcing  (EU)  OSH  legislation. 
The  discussion  also  focused  on  sharing  examples  and  good  practices  on  different 
enforcement  practices  and  the  use  of  new  data-driven  models  underpinning  inspection 
strategies.  The  EU  OSH  legislation  consists  of  a  Framework  Directive  and  almost  30 
related directives, which together guarantee minimum safety and health requirements for 
workplaces 
importance  of  enforcement  and  efficient 
transposition  and  implementation  of  OSH  legislation  at  the  national  level  was  also 
stressed in the 2017 OSH Communication and by the results of the ex post evaluation of 
the EU Framework Directive and 23 related directives. 
The EaSI programme continued to fund the European centre of expertise in the field of 
labour  law,  employment  and  labour  market  policies  (ECE).  Among  other  matters 
considered,  the  ECE  centre  provides  the  Commission  with  a  stable  and  continuous 
capacity in legal analysis, in the form of a network of labour law experts. In 2017-2018, 
the network of labour law experts has continued to produce flash reports on labour law as 
a regular evidence base for the Commission and other players in the area. Furthermore, 
the 2017 Annual Conference of ECE was devoted to labour law issues and called ‘The 
Personal  Scope  of  Labour  Law  in  Times  of  Atypical  Employment  and  Digitalisation’. 
The conference took place on 28 April 2017 in Frankfurt, Germany 
The EaSI programme has also continued to fund projects through calls for proposals in 
the  area  of  ‘Posting  of  workers:  enhancing  administrative  cooperation  and  access  to 
information’. These projects were funded with the view to enhancing the implementation, 
application  and  enforcement  of  Directive  96/71/EC  on  the  posting  of  workers.  The 
projects are expected to promote the exchange of information, best practices and training 
among the officials of competent public authorities and relevant social partners, as well 

throughout  Europe.  The 

198 

 
 
as to increase the accessibility and transparency of relevant information. They addressed 
the following issues: 
•  Strengthening 

transnational  administrative  cooperation  between  national 

• 

• 

competent bodies and social partners. 
Increasing  the  accessibility  and  transparency  of  relevant  information  to  support 
posted workers in need. 
Improving  knowledge  and  building  the  capacity  of  employees,  employers  and 
trade  unions,  on  issues  related  to  posting  of  workers  and  the  legal  frameworks, 
European directives. 

•  Contributing  to  the  development  of  posted  workers’  directives  (96/71/EC  and 

2014/67/EU) and their correct application. 

All  projects  completed  in  2017-2018  were  presented  in  separate  biannual  reports  on 
EaSI-funded Projects and Organisations. 
2018 - 2020  
EaSI  funded  the  project  ‘Posting  of  workers  in  Eastern  Europe  (EEPOW)’,  which 
proactively  addressed  the  issue  of  posting  of  workers  at  its  pre-accession  stage  by 
assisting  Eastern  European  countries,  especially  the  four  candidate  countries  Albania, 
Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia, in implementing the Directive on the Posting 
of  Workers  (96/71/EC)  before  it  actually  comes  into  force.  EEPOW  increased  the 
awareness for needs and gaps in the directive. As a result of this project the participating 
Member States have addressed the issues of protection of workers, access to information, 
equal pay enforcement, and occupational safety and health in various ways by combining 
EU and national legislation.  
EaSI  also  funded  the  project  ‘TIDE  POWER  -  Trade  unions  In  DEfence  of  POsted 
WorKERs’,  which  contributed  towards  improving  the  protection  of  workers'  rights  and 
full  implementation  of  the  Directive  96/71/EC  on  the  posting  of  workers  in  the 
framework  of  a  transnational  provision  of  services;  and  of  the  Directive  2014/67/EU 
giving  the  trade  unions:  a  role  of  legality  defender  through  tasks  such  as  the  correct 
information of workers; the monitoring of employment conditions; and the engagement 
of proceedings aiming at enforcing the obligations under the above-mentioned directive. 
The  project  collected  good  practices  at  European  level  on  the  protection  and 
representation of posted workers. The practices were shared with trade union officials in 
charge  of  assisting  posted  workers.  Trade  unionists  highlighted  how  the  international 
federation tools of European trade unions are very active in lobbying with the European 
Commission and the European Parliament.  
The  project  ‘TRANSposition  –  reconciliation  between  the  freedom  to  provide  [EB1] 
services  in  the  EU  and  the  social  rights  of  posted  workers  in  transport  sector’  (2018-
2019)  aimed  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Posting  of 
Workers Directive and its Enforcement Directive. The project worked towards including 
social partners and workers in the transport sector in the discussion on the revision of the 
EU  Posting  of  Workers  Directive.  The  project  resulted  in  data  being  collected  on 
stakeholder attitudes towards the revision of Enforcement Directive 2014/67/EU. For the 
time being,  it is  planned to  use the data towards the revision of Enforcement Directive 
2014/67/EU. 
the 
In  2019  EaSI  funded 
implementation  of  the  European  Association  of  Services  Providers  for  Persons  with 
Disabilities  (EASPD)  strategy  ‘2018-2021  Comit!  Delivering  the  support  services  of 

the  action  ‘(Re)connect:  EU4you’  which  supports 

199 

 
 
Tomorrow’.  The  activities  implemented  under  the  action  grant  aim  to  reduce  the  gap 
between  the  European  and  the  grassroots  level  by  building  better  communication  tools 
and  developing  a  stronger  performing  support  services  sector.  With  financial  support 
from the EaSI Programme, the EASPD directly contributed to the implementation of the 
European Disability Strategy, prepared a global report on the European Semester and the 
European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  ‘Disability  Support  Services  in  the  EU:  A  Reality 
Check’. 
EaSI funded the action ‘Roma included in  Social Europe 2019,  which was  coordinated 
by the European Roma Grassroots Organisations Network (ERGO). The work carried out 
by  ERGO  fed  directly  into  the  development  of  the  Post  2020  EU  Roma  Strategic 
Framework. The organisation also provided evidence-based input to the EU institutions 
and  the  Member  States  on  the  implementation  of  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies 
(NRIS). Case studies were produced covering different aspects of NRIS implementation, 
particularly  in  education,  funding,  employment  and  poverty.  ERGO  also  provided 
evidence-based input and recommendations to the EU institutions and the Member States 
for the adoption of the Post 2020 EU Roma Strategic Framework. 

200 

 
 
 
 
Glossary/table of abbreviations 

Term or acronym 

Meaning 

ABAC 
BCP 
BRG 
CEA 
CIE 
CIP 
C-MISE 
COSME 
CSO 
CSR 
DG 
DG EMPL 
DG JUST 
EAfA 
EaSI 

ECSF 

EEA 
EEPO 
EES 
EESC 
EESSI 
EIB 
EIF 
ELA 
EMN 
ENSIE 
EP 
EPMF 
EPMF FCP-FIS 
EPPA 
EPSCO 
EPSR 
ERSISI 
Erasmus 
ERDF 
ESDE 
ESCO 
ESF 
ESF+ 
ESIF 
ESMA 
ESSR 
ETUC 
EU 

Accrual-based Accounting 
Banco Comercial Portugues 
Better Regulation Guidelines 
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 
Counterfactual Impact Evaluation 
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) 
City Initiative on Migrants with Irregular Status in Europe 
Programme for competitiveness of  small and medium-sized enterprises 
Civil Society Organisation  
Country-specific recommendation 
Directorate-General 
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
European Alliance for Apprenticeship 

Employment and Social Innovation Programme 

European Centre for Social Finance 
European Economic Area 
European Employment Policy Observatory 
European Employment Strategy 
European Economic and Social Committee 
Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information 
European Investment Bank 
European Investment Fund 
European Labour Authority 
European Microfinance Network  
European Network for Social Integration Enterprises 
European Parliament 
The European Progress Microfinance Facility  
EPMF Fonds Commun de Placement – Fonds d’Investissement Spécialisé  
European Parliament Preparatory Action 
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council configuration 
European Pillar for Social Rights 
Enhancing the Right to Social Inclusion through Service Integration 
European Union  Programme for education, training, youth and sport 
European Regional Development Fund  
Employment and Social Developments in Europe 
European Classification of Skills, Competencies, Qualifications and Occupations  
European Social Fund 
European Social Fund Plus 
European Structural and Investment Funds 
European Securities and Markets Authority 
Electronic Single Social Record of Andalusia 
European Trade Union Confederation 
European Union 

201 

 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning 

EUR 
EURES 
EURES 
EVPA 
EQM 
FCP - FIS 
FEAD 
FEANTSA 
FEBA 
FIER 
FINAP 
FMA  
FTE 
GDP 
GDPR  
Horizon 2020 
ISSG 
IPA 
JASMINE  
JEREMIE 
JRC 
LFS 
MFC 
MF/SE 
MAPP 
MISSOC 
MOOC 
MoveS 
NEET 
NCP 
NGO 
OECD 
OLAF 
OMC 
OPC 
OSH  
PES 
PICUM 
PMF 
PROGRESS 
PROGRESS 
PSCI 
RESISOR 
SIP 
SLIC 
SME 
SPC 

Euro 
EURES axis of EaSI 
EURES network 
European Venture Philanthropy Association 
Evaluation Questions Matrix 
Fonds Commun de Placement - Fonds d’Investissement Spécialisé 
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 
European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless 
European Food Banks Federation 
Fast track integration in European Regions, an EaSI-funded project  
Financial application used by DG EMPL  
Fiduciary and Management Agreement  
Full-time equivalent 
Gross Domestic Product 
General Data Protection Regulation  
The EU's research and innovation funding programme from 2014-2020 
Inter-Services Steering Group 
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 
Joint Action to Support Microfinance Institutions 
Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises 
Joint Research Centre  
Labour Force Survey 
Microfinance Centre 
Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis of EaSI 
Multi-Annual Programming and Planning 
Mutual Information System on Social Protection 
Massive Open Online Course  
Free Movement of Workers and Social Security Coordination network 
Not in Education, Employment or Training 
National Contact Point  
Non-governmental organisation 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
European Anti-Fraud Office 
Open Method of Coordination 
Online Public Consultation  
Occupational Safety and Health  
Public Employment Services 
Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants 
Performance Monitoring Framework  
Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (2007 - 2013) 
PROGRESS axis of EaSI (2014 - 2020)  
Programme for Social Change and Innovation  
Regional Single Social Record project 
Social Investment Package 
Senior Labour Inspectors Committee 
Small and medium-sized enterprises 
Social Protection Committee 

202 

 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning 

SWOT 
TMS 
USD  
YfEJ 

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis 
EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme 
United States Dollar  
Your first EURES Job 

203