Study supporting the evaluation of the COSME programme 2014-2020 : final report.
Date: 2024-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU programme, competitiveness, economic growth, entrepreneurship, financing, innovation, report, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises

[Written by] 
[Month – 20XX] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was prepared for the European Commission within Framework Contract N° 2018/RTD/A2/OP/PP-07001-
2018 - Lot 3 (SARI) by 

CSES - Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services LLP 

CSIL - Centro Studi Industria Leggera SCRL 

Open Evidence SL 

Authors: James Rampton (CSES), Marta Dimauro (CSES), Rocio Salado (CSES), Laura Delponte (CSIL), Giulio 
Consiglio (CSIL), Alessandra Caputo (CSIL), Lucie Lechardoy (Open Evidence SL) 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs  
Directorate Directorate A – Strategy and Economic Analysis 
Unit A2 – SMEs  

E-mail:  GROW-SME-PILLAR@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study supporting the evaluation of 
the COSME Programme  

2014-2020 

Final Report 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
LEGAL NOTICE 

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

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-18650-3 

doi: 10.2873/296030 

ET-02-24-691-3A-N 

Manuscript completed in July 2024 

First edition 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024  

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

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Table of Contents 

Abstract ................................................................................................................. 7 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 9 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................ 32 

1.1.  The Programme ..................................................................................... 32 

1.2.  Study objectives and scope ................................................................... 35 

1.3.  Summary of the methodology ................................................................ 36 

1.4.  Final Report ........................................................................................... 38 

2.  Background to the programme ................................................................. 40 

2.1.  Market failures and key issues for SMEs ............................................... 40 

2.2.  EU policy context ................................................................................... 42 

3.  Analysis of the COSME portfolio .............................................................. 44 

3.1.  Programme-level .................................................................................... 44 

3.2.  SO1: Improve Access to Finance ........................................................... 44 

3.2.1.  Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) ........................................................... 45 
3.2.2.  Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) ......................................................... 53 

3.3.  SO2: Improve access to markets ........................................................... 61 

3.4.  SO3: Improve framework conditions for competitiveness and 

sustainability .......................................................................................... 64 

3.5.  SO4: Promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture ................. 69 

4.  Assessment of key evaluation criteria ..................................................... 71 

4.1.  Relevance .............................................................................................. 71 

4.1.1.  Relevance of the programme ............................................................. 71 
4.1.2.  Relevance to new challenges - the COVID-19 pandemic ................... 81 
4.1.3.  Relevance to new EU policy priorities ................................................ 83 

4.2.  Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 84 

4.2.1.  Programme outputs, results and impacts ........................................... 85 
4.2.2.  SO1: Access to finance ...................................................................... 87 
4.2.3.  SO2: Access to markets ..................................................................... 97 
4.2.4.  SO3: Framework conditions for competitiveness and sustainability . 110 
4.2.5.  SO4: Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture ......................... 115 
4.2.6.  Overall impact on the general objectives of COSME ........................ 121 
4.2.7.  Achievement against indicators ........................................................ 126 
4.2.8.  Contribution to wider EU policy objectives ........................................ 130 

4.3.  Efficiency .............................................................................................. 132 

4.3.1.  Implementation structures and governance ...................................... 133 
4.3.2.  Costs and benefits ............................................................................ 136 
4.3.3.  Proportionality of costs and benefits for beneficiaries ....................... 141 
4.3.4.  Administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries ..................... 143 

5 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.4.  Coherence ........................................................................................... 149 

4.4.1.  Internal coherence ............................................................................ 150 
4.4.2.  External coherence ........................................................................... 152 

4.5.  EU Added Value................................................................................... 156 

4.5.1.  Access to finance ............................................................................. 156 
4.5.2.  Enterprise Europe Network and other business support services .... 158 
4.5.3.  Improve Framework Conditions and Competitiveness ..................... 159 
4.5.4.  EYE and other actions for entrepreneurship ..................................... 160 

5.  Conclusions ............................................................................................. 162 

Annex A: Main findings from the COSME interim evaluation ................... 165 

Annex B: Performance against indicators .................................................. 167 

Annex C: Overview of costs and benefits (main actions) ......................... 172 

Annex D: Intervention Logic ........................................................................ 173 

Annex E: Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................... 174 

Annex F: Performance indicators by specific objective............................ 188 

Annex G: Methodology................................................................................. 192 

Annex H: Synopsis of consultation activities ............................................ 210 

Annex I: Interview questionnaires ............................................................... 222 

Annex J: Public consultation questionnaire .............................................. 229 

Annex K: Targeted consultation questionnaires ....................................... 240 

Annex L: Bibliography.................................................................................. 300 

Annex M: Case studies................................................................................. 308 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Abstract 

The  Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises  (COSME)  (2014  -  2020)  was  the  successor  to  the  Entrepreneurship  and 
Innovation Programme (2007-2013). The general objective of COSME was to strengthen 
the  competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  SMEs,  encourage  entrepreneurial  culture  and 
promote the creation and growth of SMEs. This was pursued through actions aimed at: i) 
improving  SMEs’  access  to  equity  and  debt  financing;  ii)  improving  access  to  markets 
(including  support  and  advice  offered  by  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network  (EEN);  iii) 
improving framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of enterprises, 
particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector; and iv) promoting entrepreneurship and 
entrepreneurial  culture  (including  through  the  Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs  (EYE) 
cross-border exchange programme). The evaluation found that COSME was highly relevant 
to the challenges facing SMEs, generated positive impact against its objectives and offered 
EU added value above and beyond actions supported at national level, including through 
the greater international profile and prestige associated with EU “branding” of the EEN and 
EYE, whilst the efficiency of the programme management was comparable with other EU 
programmes. 

Résumé 

Le programme pour la compétitivité des entreprises et des petites et moyennes entreprises 
(COSME) (2014 - 2020) a succédé au programme pour l'innovation et l'esprit d'entreprise 
(2007-2013). L'objectif général du COSME était de renforcer la compétitivité et la durabilité 
des PME, d'encourager la culture entrepreneuriale et de promouvoir la création de PME et 
leur croissance. Cet objectif a été poursuivi par des actions visant à : i) améliorer l'accès au 
financement pour les PME, sous la forme d'investissements en fonds propres et d'emprunts 
; ii) améliorer l'accès aux marchés (y compris le soutien et les conseils offerts par le réseau 
Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) ; iii) améliorer les conditions-cadres pour la compétitivité 
et  la  durabilité  des  entreprises,  en  particulier  des  PME,  y  compris  dans  le  secteur  du 
tourisme ; et iv) promouvoir l'esprit d'entreprise et la culture entrepreneuriale (y compris par 
le biais  du  programme d'échange transfrontalier Erasmus  pour  les jeunes  entrepreneurs 
(EYE)).  L'évaluation  a  montré  que  COSME  était  très  pertinent  par  rapport  aux  défis 
auxquels sont confrontées les PME, qu'il avait un impact positif par rapport à ses objectifs 
et qu'il offrait une valeur ajoutée européenne supérieure aux actions soutenues au niveau 
national, notamment grâce au profil international et au prestige accrus associés à l'image 
de marque de l'UE pour l'EEN et l'EYE, tandis que l'efficacité de la gestion du programme 
était comparable à celle d'autres programmes de l'UE. 

Kurzfassung 

Das Programm für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Unternehmen und kleinen und mittleren 
Unternehmen  (COSME)  (2014  -  2020)  war  das  Nachfolgeprogramm  des  Programms  für 
unternehmerische Initiative und Innovation (2007-2013). Das allgemeine Ziel von COSME 
bestand  darin,  die  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  und  Nachhaltigkeit  von  KMU  zu  stärken,  den 
Unternehmergeist in KMU zu fördern und die Gründung und das Wachstum von KMU zu 
unterstützen.  Dies  geschah  durch  Maßnahmen,  die  darauf  abzielten,  i)  den  Zugang  von 
KMU zu Eigen- und Fremdkapital zu verbessern, ii) den Zugang zu Märkten zu verbessern 
(einschließlich der vom Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) angebotenen Unterstützung und 
Beratung),  iii)  die  Rahmenbedingungen  für  die  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  und  Nachhaltigkeit 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

das 

von  Unternehmen,  insbesondere  KMU,  inklusive  KMU  in  der  Tourismusbranche,  zu 
verbessern  und  iv)  Unternehmertum  und  Unternehmergeist  zu  fördern  (unter  anderem 
durch 
junge 
grenzüberschreitende  Austauschprogramm  Erasmus 
Unternehmer/innen (EYE)). Die Evaluierung ergab, dass COSME von großer Relevanz für 
die Herausforderungen, mit denen KMU konfrontiert sind, war, positive Auswirkungen im 
Hinblick  auf  seine  Ziele  erzielte  und  einen  EU-Mehrwert  bot,  der  über  die  auf  nationaler 
Ebene geförderten Maßnahmen hinausging, u. a. durch ein gestärktes internationales Profil 
und  das  Prestige,  das  mit  dem  EU-"Branding"  des  EEN  und  des  EYE  verbunden  ist, 
während die Effizienz der Programmverwaltung mit anderen EU-Programmen vergleichbar 
war. 

für 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Executive Summary 

Introduction and background 

This  report  presents  the  findings  for  the  “Study  supporting  the  Final  evaluation  of  the 
Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-Sized 
Enterprises  (COSME)  2014-2020”.  The  objective  of  the  study  was  to  evaluate  the 
relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency and EU added value of the activities funded 
over the life of the programme. It builds on the findings of an interim evaluation covering the 
years  2014-2016.  The  methodology  involved  the  collection  and  analysis  of  primary  and 
secondary data from a range of sources. 

COSME was established by Regulation (EU) No 1287/2013. The programme covered the 
EU Member States (including the UK until 31.12.2020), as well as Albania, Armenia, Bosnia 
and  Herzegovina,  Iceland,  Kosovo,  Moldova,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia, 
Türkiye  and Ukraine.  COSME  built  on the  predecessor  Entrepreneurship and Innovation 
Programme  2007-2013  (EIP)  and  carried  forward  some  EIP  initiatives,  e.g.  Enterprise 
Europe Network, Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs. 

The  general  objective  of  the  programme  was  to  contribute  to  strengthening  the 
competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  the  Union’s  enterprises,  particularly  SMEs  and  to 
encouraging entrepreneurial culture and promoting the creation and growth of SMEs. 

The four specific objectives (SO) of COSME were: 

•  SO1: Improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt financing; 

•  SO2: Improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but also at global level; 

•  SO3: Improve framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of Union 

enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector; 

•  SO4: Promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture 

COSME sought to address market failures and issues facing the 21.2 million SMEs in the 
EU’s non‐financial business sector, including high borrowing costs, difficulties in accessing 
finance, difficulties in accessing customers and international markets, and weaknesses in 
the EU’s entrepreneurial culture. COSME was introduced within a broader context of EU 
policy  support  for  SMEs,  including  the  Commission’s  Europe  2020  Strategy,  the flagship 
initiative "An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era", the Small Business Act for Europe 
(2008), the Horizon 2020 programme and the Digital Agenda for Europe. 

Analysis of the COSME portfolio 

COSME committed EUR 2.4 billion to its objectives: SO1 (66%), SO2 (20%), SO3 (11%), 
SO4 (3%). 

SO1: Improve Access to Finance 

COSME  supported  a  Loan  Guarantee  Facility  (LGF)  and  an  Equity  Facility  for  Growth 
(EFG).  

The LGF financed 163 guarantee contracts with 128 financial intermediaries in 35 countries. 
This resulted in 1,173,780 transactions for a total guarantee amount of EUR 53,872 million 
provided  to  865,387  SMEs.  Of  the  157  active  guarantee  contracts  signed,  92  (59%) 
provided  direct  guarantees,  51  (32%)  counter-guarantees,  9  (6%)  an  SME  Initiative 

9 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Securitisation Instrument, and 5 (3%) on-lending. Italy, France, Spain, and Poland featured 
the  highest  number  of  LGF  final  recipients.  LGF  recipients  represent  on  average  3%  of 
SMEs  in  the  eligible  countries.  Most  (89%)  were  micro-enterprises  (including  50%  sole 
proprietors), whilst small enterprises represented 10% and medium-sized enterprises 1%. 
SMEs were supported in a range of sectors. SMEs mostly used loans to support their day-
to-day operations. 

The  EFG  featured  agreements  between  the  European  Investment  Fund  (EIF)  and  23 
financial intermediaries for EU funding of EUR 324 million of in addition to the EIF’s own 
resources and other private investment. A total of EUR 3,920 million was distributed through 
564  investments  in  521  SMEs  eligible  under  COSME.  The  EFG  initially  started  its 
implementation  by  investing  in  both  expansion  and  growth  stage  and  multistage  funds 
(“core  operations”).  Later,  it  was  modified  to  participate  in  the  Pan-European  Venture 
Capital  Funds-of-Funds  programme  (“VentureEU”),  i.e.  in  multistage funds-of-funds.  The 
cumulative EFG leverage, including its core and VentureEU operations, was approximately 
11, which surpassed the target of between 4 and 6 set in the COSME Regulation. 

The  core  COSME  EFG  provided  risk  capital  investment  to  funds that  in  turn  invested  in 
SMEs  in  their  expansion  and  growth-stage.  The  EIF  committed  EUR  278  million  to  21 
intermediaries in 17 countries. Of these, 14 focused on the expansion and growth stage. 
The  others  were  multi-stage.  The  intermediaries  made  179  investments  in  178  final 
recipients in 23 countries in the form of private debt, private equity or venture capital. Of 
these, 104 were made in COSME EFG-eligible final recipients for a total investment value 
of  EUR  822 million.  The  core  COSME  EFG  achieved a leverage  effect  of  2.95.  The risk 
capital portfolio generally favoured SMEs in countries with low venture capital and private 
equity supply. The EFG was particularly targeted on young, fast-growing, innovative SMEs. 
Medium-sized enterprises accounted for 57% of final recipients, small enterprises 38% and 
micro-enterprises only 5%. The majority of investments were below EUR 10 million in line 
with the average ticket size in the EU market. 

As part of the EFG, VentureEU committed respectively EUR 12 million and EUR 33 million 
to two funds-of-funds based in Luxembourg but operating on a multi-country basis. These 
acted as financial intermediaries and, instead of directly investing in firms, they invested in 
other funds which in turn financed SMEs. The two funds-of-funds supported 45 funds, which 
in turn made 460 eligible investments worth EUR 3,145 million in 418 SMEs in 22 countries. 
VentureEU (as  a  subset  of the  single  EFG  instrument)  achieved  a  leverage  effect  of  69. 
Most investments (65%) were for less than EUR 5 million. 

SO2: Improve access to markets 

Within SO2, COSME provided EU funding of EUR 396.5 million for 13 actions with a total 
cost  of  EUR  694.4  million.  Most  EU  funding  (EUR  367  million)  was  committed  to  the 
Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), whilst the rest was allocated to other business support 
services via grants or public procurement. 

The EEN aims to improve SMEs’ access to markets by providing services such as advice 
and information on EU funding, the internal market and internationalisation beyond the EU 
market. It was set up in 2008 as a pilot under the predecessor EIP and expanded under 
COSME.  Ten  calls  for  projects  to  provide  advisory  services  to  SMEs  led  to  518  distinct 
framework  partnership  agreements  and  specific  grant 
projects  (including  7-year 
agreements for the first 2 years), subsequent calls for 1-2 year specific grant agreements, 
and specific calls, such as for scale-up services. 

Other business support services included the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Helpdesks 
in  China,  Latin  America  and  south-east  Asia,  the  Your  Europe  Business  portal  and  the 
Single Digital Gateway. 

10 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Improve 

SO3: 
sustainability 

framework  conditions 

for  competitiveness  and 

Within  SO3,  COSME  provided  EUR  94.8  million  for  263  projects  within  the  areas  of 
“Internationalisation”,  “Competitiveness”,  “Tourism”,  “Social  Economy”,  “Framework 
conditions”,  “Design  of  consumer  goods”  and  “Fashion”.  The  grants  supported  1,066 
participants in 37 countries, mostly in consortia. 

A  key  focus  was  the  promotion  of  clusters  and  SMEs  internationalisation.  Clusters  Go 
International aimed to intensify cluster and business network collaboration across borders 
and  sector  boundaries  and  support  the  establishment  of  European  Strategic  Cluster 
Partnerships to lead international cluster cooperation in fields of strategic interest towards 
third  countries.  The  European  Cluster  Collaboration  Platform  (ECCP)  is  an  online 
community  helping  cluster  stakeholders  (cluster  organisations,  policymakers  and  other 
related stakeholders from the clusters ecosystem) across the EU to cooperate, connect and 
collaborate  together.  The  European  Cluster  Excellence  Programme  aimed  to  strengthen 
cluster management excellence and facilitate exchanges and strategic partnering between 
clusters  and specialised  eco-systems  across  Europe.  ClusterXchange was  supported  by 
the  ECCP  to  encourage  knowledge  transfer  and  broader  collaboration  in  order  to  better 
integrate and connect the EU industrial eco-systems. 

SO3  initiatives  also  focused  on  the  monitoring  and  follow-up  of  SME  policy  (e.g.,  SME 
Performance Review, SME Assembly, SME Envoys Network), the EU REFIT platform for 
regulatory  burden  reduction,  activities  related  to  industry  modernisation,  initiatives  to 
support  digitalisation  and  boost  skills,  and  activities  to  support  SMEs  in sectors  such  as 
tourism, fashion or construction. 

SO4: Promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture 

Within  SO4,  COSME  implemented  5  actions,  financing  111  projects.  The  total  cost  was 
EUR  78  million,  of  which  EUR  66  million  (85%)  was  financed  by  the  EU.  Grants  were 
awarded to 478 consortia in 38 countries. 

Most EU funding (89%) was allocated to Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE), which 
had  been  established  as  a  pilot  under  the  EIP  (2007-2013)  and  was  expanded  under 
COSME. EYE gives new or aspiring entrepreneurs the chance to learn the skills needed to 
run  a  small  firm  by  enabling  a stay  with  an  experienced  entrepreneur.  COSME  provided 
grants to 360 intermediate organisations in 83 consortia. 

Other actions included European Network for Early Warning and for Support to Enterprises 
and  Second  Starters,  Migrant  Entrepreneurs  best  practice  exchange,  European 
Entrepreneurship  Education  NETwork,  and  Social  Economy  Missions,  as well  as actions 
focussed specifically on female entrepreneurship. 

Relevance 

Objectives and actions were relevant to the challenges faced by SMEs, as documented by 
the  surveys  on  SMEs'  Access  to  Finance,  the  2014  Innobarometer  and  Eurobarometer 
surveys. COSME was relevant to the Small Business Act for Europe (2008), Europe 2020 
strategy,  Single  Market  Strategy  (2015)  and  Start-up  and  Scale-up  Initiative  (2016). 
Relevance was maintained by directing funding to new priorities in line with changing needs 
of SMEs, not least in response to COVID-19. However, COSME lacked a coherent logical 
framework explaining the causal chains between small actions, objectives and the needs of 
SMEs. 

11 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

SO1: the need to access finance to support business growth remained relevant with more 
than one in four SMEs still reporting difficulties in accessing finance by the second quarter 
of  2021.  The  increased  difficulty  in  SMEs  accessing  finance  was  addressed  by  specific 
COVID-19  support  under  the  LGF,  which  financial  intermediaries  reported  to  be  well-
designed. 

SO2:  the  2014  SAFE  survey  found  that  finding  customers  was  the  single  most  pressing 
problem facing SMEs across the EU. Similarly, the 2014 SME Performance Review found 
that SMEs faced barriers relating to market information, locating possible customers, finding 
the right partners and compliance with foreign laws. In this context, SMEs served by the 
EEN reported that the services were pertinent to their needs, particularly the need to find 
information  on  markets,  spot  international  business  opportunities  or  find  customers  and 
business partners outside their home country. 

SO3:  cluster  support  actions  were  relevant  to  the  need  to  address  barriers  to  the 
internationalisation of  SMEs.  The  Clusters Go International  action  was highly  relevant to 
improving  framework  conditions  and  also  to  the  internationalisation  goal  of  COSME  and 
European cluster policy. The survey carried out for this study found that COSME was highly 
relevant  to  meeting  the  requirements  of  cluster  organisations to  develop  joint  strategies. 
Tourism  actions  were  relevant  to  the  knowledge  gap  concerning  sustainable  and  smart 
tourism practices among stakeholders across the EU. 

SO4:  COSME  responded  to  the  finding  of  the  2014  SME  Performance  Review  that  a 
significant proportion of SMEs, stakeholders and policymakers reported “Entrepreneurship” 
as a challenge. 

Effectiveness 

SO1: the financial instruments met or exceeded the targets for SMEs reached and volume 
of  supported  operations  and  had  a  positive  impact  on  SME  competitiveness  and 
sustainability.  The  LGF  facilitated  loans  with  a  leverage  of  1:21  and  with  terms  and 
conditions significantly more favourable than other sources of financing. LGF final recipients 
exhibit  very  high  survival  rates  compared  with  SMEs  in  general.  However,  they  did  not 
significantly grow in terms of employment, turnover and total assets, in part because the 
EUR 150,000 cap on loans did not generally allow firms to undertake sizeable investments. 
The core EFG operations and VentureEU enhanced access to finance, particularly in the 
form of equity products, in countries where supply was less developed. The EFG allowed 
funds to increase the average size of investments to EUR 5 million, i.e. around three times 
the European average. Fund managers confirmed that the EFG helped unlock fundraising 
by  crowding-in  other  private  investors.  However,  the  cap  on  EFG  investment  and  the 
absence  of  a  matchmaking  process  between  funds  and  other  investors  limited  the 
effectiveness.  EFG  final  recipients  exhibited  survival  rates  in  the  years  that  followed  the 
investments  considerably  above  the  EU27  average,  as  well  as  growth  in  employment, 
turnover, and total assets. 

SO2: the EEN served 2.9 million SMEs and achieved high client satisfaction rates. In total, 
664 organisations in 93 EEN consortia located in 48 different countries provided services 
to  SMEs.  The  EEN  also  provided  technical  assistance  and  access  to  on-line  services 
enabling 73 Business Cooperation Centres (BCCs) in 29 third countries to provide SMEs 
with services to access global markets. The EEN exceeded its targets by generating 18,701 
cross-border  partnership  agreements,  achieving  a  client  satisfaction  rate  of  92%,  and 
providing digital services accessed by 21.5 million SMEs. SMEs reported benefits including 
improved  market  share  markets,  increased  turnover  and  entry  to  new  markets.  Other 
business  services  facilitated  by  COSME  reached  a  large  number  of  users  and  had  high 
satisfaction rates. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

SO3:  COSME  supported  392  clusters  in  a  range  of  sectors.  The  large majority  (91%)  of 
cluster organisations reported that Clusters Go International was beneficial both for clusters 
management and for SMEs. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the extent 
to which Clusters Go International increased SME internationalisation and competitiveness. 
The  ECEP  was  successful  in  facilitating  cluster  cooperation  and  in  enhancing  cluster 
management skill. 

SO4:  EYE  achieved  facilitated  7,548  exchanges  involving  15,096  new  and  experienced 
entrepreneurs. Through EYE Global, new entrepreneurs from the EU countries undertook 
exchanges with host entrepreneurs in third countries. The majority of host entrepreneurs 
(73%)  improved  their  skills  and  knowledge  and  most  (74%)  entrepreneurs  were  still  in 
contact with the other entrepreneur. Some tools, networks and initiatives supported female 
entrepreneurship, for example, the WEgate platform. European Social Economy Missions 
created opportunities for social economy actors in different countries to share good practice, 
find solutions to existing challenges and develop inter-regional partnerships. 

Efficiency 

There was a high execution rate of the programme budget in each year. The share of the 
programme  budget  devoted  to  administrative  expenditure  was  relatively  low,  falling  from 
4.6% per annum in 2014-2015 to 3% in subsequent years, a rate comparable with other EU 
programmes and agencies. 

Regular monitoring allowed the programme implementation bodies to identify opportunities 
and  threats  and  reallocate  funds  between  actions,  as  necessary.  The  implementation 
bodies responded to the challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic by monitoring risks 
and  delays,  reallocating  funds  where  there  was  a  risk  of  underspending,  updating 
monitoring guidance, approving extensions to the duration of projects, and moving events 
on-line. 

The data suggest a fall in the “unit costs” of supporting entrepreneurs via the EYE and SMEs 
via EEN during the life of the programme. This reflected a need to build capacity in the early 
years, which then enabled these actions to reach more beneficiaries in the later years. The 
majority of EEN and EYE beneficiaries reported that the benefits exceeded the costs for 
them,  that the  actions  offered  value  for money  and  that  the  EU  funding was sufficient  to 
achieve the intended benefits.  

Across  the  COSME  actions,  the  applicants  and  beneficiaries  tended  to  report  that  the 
administrative costs they incurred were proportionate. Notwithstanding this, the high share 
of ineligible proposals in some actions in the early years represents an unnecessary cost 
for applicants and evaluators of proposals. 

Coherence 

COSME demonstrated adequate internal coherence with efforts made to create synergies, 
leverage  complementarities  and  minimise  overlaps  between  actions.  The  LGF  and  EFG 
were  complementary,  given  that  different  types  of  SMEs  had  different  financing  needs. 
Actions  supporting  SMEs  and  entrepreneurs  complemented  each  other  and  there  are 
numerous instances of collaboration between them, although more could have been done 
to signpost SMEs to the different forms of support available. 

Externally,  there  were  synergies  between  the  LGF  and  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI) SME Window. There was limited overlap between the COSME financial 
instruments and those supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), 
although  some  overlap  may  have  occurred  in  regions  where  ESIF  managing  authorities 
13 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

designed similar guarantee facilities. EEN members and SME beneficiaries report synergies 
between  the  EEN  services  and  business  support  services  offered  by  Member  States, 
although there is scope to better integrate EEN services into the wider support for SMEs. 
There are no significant overlaps between COSME actions and support offered by Horizon 
2020. The cluster actions and tourism actions complement other forms of EU support. There 
is  evidence  of  weak  coherence  between  public  procurement  actions  within  COSME  and 
other EU actions in this field. The EYE was coherent with other policies and strategies at 
EU level and national level. 

European added value 

SO1: the LGF and EFG have filled a gap in financing, provided more favourable financing 
than would otherwise be available and served SMEs that might not otherwise have received 
any financing.  

SO2: the EEN adds value compared with national or regional services through the scale 
and quality of services, their transnational and cross-border nature and the reciprocity in 
sharing  knowledge,  expertise,  and  resources  between  EEN  members.  The  EEN  also 
introduced services that were not otherwise available at or that SMEs would not be able to 
afford to pay for. However, many SMEs were not fully aware that they were receiving an EU 
service. 

SO3: the tourism actions provided a better understanding of the development of the sector 
and a greater contribution to raising its profile than is offered by national actions. Clusters 
actions offered  a more  co-ordinated  and  pan-European approach  to the  relevant  sectors 
than  national  actions.  Social  economy  actions  offered  EU  added  value  through  their 
international scope and vision. Small actions in the thematic area of Framework Conditions 
offered a stronger pan-EU focus on the issues in question. 

SO4: EYE offers transnational mobility possibilities for entrepreneurs that are not otherwise 
available with few, if any, national programmes supporting transnational mobility and none 
operating at the scale and with the international profile of EYE. EYE also provided business 
benefits that would not have been realised in the absence of the programme. 

Conclusions 

•  COSME was highly relevant at the time that it was launched. 

•  COSME maintained its relevance by evolving to meet emerging challenges, changing 

beneficiary needs and new EU policy priorities 

•  COSME  has  generated  impact  against  all  four  specific  objectives  set  out  in  the 

Regulation. 

•  COSME has generated positive impacts against the general objective of strengthening 

the competitiveness and sustainability of SMEs. 

•  COSME  has  generated  positive  impact  against  the  general  objective  of  encouraging 

entrepreneurial culture and promoting the creation and growth of SMEs. 

•  COSME  would  have  benefitted  from  a  unified  and  comprehensive  monitoring  and 

reporting system with clear and measurable indicators for all interventions. 

•  Levels  of  efficiency  in  programme  management  are  comparable  with  other  EU 

programmes and agencies. 

•  The beneficiaries of the EEN and EYE were positive about the proportionality of costs 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

and benefits, as experienced by them. 

•  COSME demonstrated an adequate level of internal and external coherence but there 

is room for improvement.  

•  COSME has offered EU added value above and beyond actions supported at national 

level. 

•  Across COSME, the EU “branding” offers greater international profile and prestige, most 

notably within EYE and the EEN. 

Résumé 

Introduction et contexte 

Ce rapport présente les résultats de « L'étude sur l'évaluation finale du programme pour la 
compétitivité  des  entreprises  et  des  petites  et  moyennes  entreprises  (COSME)  2014-
2020 ».  L'objectif  de  l'étude  était  d'évaluer  la  pertinence,  l'efficacité,  la  cohérence, 
l'efficience  et  la  valeur  ajoutée  européenne  des  activités  financées  pendant  la  durée  du 
programme.  Elle  s'appuie  sur  les  résultats  d'une  évaluation  intermédiaire  couvrant  les 
années  2014-2016.  La  méthodologie  a  impliqué  la  collecte  et  l'analyse  de  données 
primaires et secondaires provenant d'un éventail de sources. 

Le programme COSME a été établi par le règlement (UE)  N° 1287/2013. Le programme 
couvre les États membres de l'UE (y compris le Royaume-Uni jusqu'au 31.12.2020), ainsi 
que  l'Albanie,  l'Arménie,  la  Bosnie-Herzégovine,  l'Islande,  le  Kosovo,  la  Moldavie,  le 
Monténégro, la Macédoine du Nord, la Serbie, la Turquie et l'Ukraine. COSME s'est appuyé 
sur le programme pour l'innovation et l'esprit d'entreprise 2007-2013 (EIP) qui l'a précédé 
et  a  repris  certaines  initiatives  de  l'EIP,  telles  que  le  réseau  Enterprise  Europe  Network 
(EEN) et Erasmus pour les jeunes entrepreneurs (EYE). 

L'objectif  général  du  programme  était  de  contribuer  à  renforcer  la  compétitivité  et  la 
durabilité  des  entreprises  de  l'Union,  en  particulier  des  PME,  d'encourager  la  culture 
entrepreneuriale et de promouvoir la création de PME et leur croissance. 

Les quatre objectifs spécifiques (OS) de COSME étaient les suivants : 

•  OS1 : Améliorer l'accès au financement pour les PME sous la forme d'investissements 

en fonds propres et emprunts ; 

•  OS2  :  Améliorer  l'accès  aux  marchés,  en  particulier  à  l'intérieur  de  l'Union  mais 

également à l'échelle mondiale ; 

•  OS3  :  Améliorer  les  conditions-cadres  pour  la  compétitivité  et  la  durabilité  des 
entreprises de l'Union, en particulier des PME, y compris dans le secteur du tourisme ; 

•  OS4 : Promouvoir l'esprit d'entreprise et la culture entrepreneuriale. 

COSME  visait  à  remédier  aux  défaillances  du  marché  et  aux  problèmes  auxquels  sont 
confrontées les 21,2 millions de PME du secteur des entreprises non financières de l'UE, 
notamment les coûts d'emprunt élevés, les difficultés d'accès au financement, les difficultés 
d'accès  aux  clients  et  aux  marchés  internationaux,  et  les  faiblesses  de  la  culture 
entrepreneuriale de  l'UE.  COSME  a  été  introduit  dans  un  contexte  plus  large de  soutien 
politique de l'UE aux PME, y compris la stratégie Europe 2020 de la Commission, l'initiative 
phare « Une politique industrielle à l'ère de la mondialisation », le Small Business Act pour 
l'Europe (2008), le programme Horizon 2020 et la Stratégie numérique pour l’Europe. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Analyse du portefeuille COSME 

COSME a engagé 2,4 milliards d'euros pour ses objectifs : OS1 (66%), OS2 (20%), OS3 
(11%), OS4 (3%). 

OS1 : Améliorer l'accès au financement 

COSME a soutenu un volet d’aide « garanties de prêts » (LGF) et un autre volet « capital-
risque » pour la croissance (EFG). 

Le LGF a financé 163 contrats de garantie avec 128 intermédiaires financiers dans 35 pays. 
Cela a donné lieu à 1 173 780 transactions pour un montant total de garantie de 53 872 
millions d'euros accordé à 865 387 PME. Sur les 157 contrats de garantie actifs signés, 92 
(59  %)  ont  fourni  des  garanties  directes,  51  (32  %)  des  contre-garanties,  9  (6  %)  un 
instrument de titrisation de l'initiative PME et 5 (3 %) des prêts rétrocédés. L'Italie, la France, 
l'Espagne et la Pologne comptent le plus grand nombre de bénéficiaires finaux de LGF. Les 
bénéficiaires du LGF représentent en moyenne 3 % des PME dans les pays éligibles. La 
plupart (89 %) étaient des micro-entreprises (dont 50 % de propriétaires uniques), tandis 
que les petites entreprises représentaient 10 % et les moyennes entreprises 1 %. Les PME 
ont été soutenues dans un large éventail de secteurs. Les PME ont principalement utilisé 
les prêts pour soutenir leurs opérations quotidiennes. 

L'EFG  a  présenté  des  accords  entre  le  Fonds  européen  d'investissement  (FEI)  et  23 
intermédiaires financiers pour un financement de l'UE de 324 millions d'euros, en plus des 
ressources  propres  du  FEI  et  d'autres  investissements  privés.  Un  total  de 3,920 millions 
d'euros a été distribué par le biais de 564 investissements dans 521 PME éligibles au titre 
de COSME. Le FEG a initialement commencé sa mise en œuvre en investissant dans des 
fonds en phase d'expansion et de croissance et dans des fonds multi-phases (« opérations 
de  base »).  Par  la  suite,  il  a  été  modifié  pour  participer  au  programme  paneuropéen  de 
fonds de fonds de capital-risque (« VentureEU »), c'est-à-dire à des fonds de fonds multi-
phases.  Le  ratio  de  levier  cumulé  d'EFG,  y  compris  ses  opérations  principales  et 
VentureEU,  était  d'environ  11,  ce  qui  dépassait  l'objectif  de  4  à  6  fixé  par  le  règlement 
COSME. 

Le principal fonds COSME EFG a fourni du capital-risque à des fonds qui, à leur tour, ont 
investi dans des PME en phase d'expansion et de croissance. Le FEI a engagé 278 millions 
d'euros auprès de 21 intermédiaires dans 17 pays. Quatorze d'entre eux se sont concentrés 
sur les phases d'expansion et de croissance. Les autres étaient des fonds multi-phases. 
Les intermédiaires ont réalisé 179 investissements dans 178 bénéficiaires finaux dans 23 
pays, sous forme de dette privée, de capital-investissement ou de capital-risque. Parmi ces 
investissements,  104  ont  été  réalisés  dans  des  bénéficiaires finaux  éligibles  au  COSME 
EFG, pour une valeur d'investissement totale de 822 millions d'euros. Le core COSME EFG 
a atteint un ratio de levier de 2,95. Le portefeuille de capital-risque a généralement favorisé 
les PME dans les pays où l'offre de capital-risque et de capital-investissement est faible. 
L'EFG était particulièrement axé sur les PME jeunes, innovantes et à croissance rapide. 
Les  entreprises  moyennes  représentaient  57  %  des  bénéficiaires  finaux,  les  petites 
entreprises 38 % et les micro-entreprises seulement 5 %. La majorité des investissements 
étaient inférieurs à 10 millions d'euros, ce qui correspond à la taille moyenne des tickets 
sur le marché de l'UE. 

Dans le cadre de l'EFG, VentureEU a engagé respectivement 12 et 33 millions d'euros dans 
deux  fonds  de  fonds  basés  au  Luxembourg  mais  opérant  sur  une  base multi-pays.  Ces 
fonds ont joué le rôle d'intermédiaires financiers et, au lieu d'investir directement dans des 
entreprises, ils ont investi dans d'autres fonds qui, à leur tour, ont financé des PME. Les 
deux fonds de fonds ont soutenu 45 fonds qui, à leur tour, ont réalisé 460 investissements 
éligibles d'une valeur de 3 145 millions d'euros dans 418 PME de 22 pays. VentureEU (en 

16 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

tant que sous-ensemble de l'instrument unique EFG) a obtenu un ratio de levier de 69. La 
plupart des investissements (65 %) étaient inférieurs à 5 millions d'euros. 

OS2 : Améliorer l'accès aux marchés 

Dans le cadre de OS2, COSME a fourni un financement européen de 396,5 millions d'euros 
pour 13 actions d'un coût total de 694,4 millions d'euros. La plupart des fonds européens 
(367 millions d'euros) ont été engagés dans le réseau Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), 
tandis que le reste a été alloué à d'autres services de soutien aux entreprises par le biais 
de subventions ou de marchés publics. 

L'EEN vise à améliorer l'accès des PME aux marchés en fournissant des services tels que 
des  conseils  et  des  informations  sur  le  financement  de  l'UE,  le  marché  intérieur  et 
l'internationalisation au-delà du marché de l'UE. Il a été mis en place en 2008 en tant que 
projet  pilote  dans  le  cadre  du  PIE  qui  l'a  précédé  et  s'est  développé  dans  le  cadre  de 
COSME.  Dix  appels  à  projets  visant  à  fournir  des  services  de  conseil  aux  PME  ont 
débouché sur 518 projets distincts (y compris des conventions-cadres de partenariat de 7 
ans et des conventions de subvention spécifiques pour les deux premières années), des 
appels ultérieurs pour des conventions de subvention spécifiques d'une durée de 1 à 2 ans, 
et des appels spécifiques, tels que pour des services de mise à l'échelle. 

Parmi  les  autres  services  d'aide  aux  entreprises,  citons  les  Helpdesks  sur  les  droits  de 
propriété intellectuelle (IPR) en Chine, en Amérique latine et en Asie du Sud-Est, le portail 
« Your Europe » et le portail numérique unique. 

OS3  :  Améliorer  les  conditions-cadres  pour  la  compétitivité  et  la 
durabilité 

Dans  le  cadre  de  OS3,  COSME  a  alloué  94,8  millions  d'euros  à  263  projets  dans  les 
domaines de l'internationalisation, de la compétitivité, du tourisme, de l'économie sociale, 
des  conditions-cadres,  de  la  conception  de  biens  de  consommation  et  de  la  mode.  Les 
subventions ont permis de soutenir 1 066 participants dans 37 pays, principalement dans 
le cadre de consortiums. 

La  promotion  de  l'internationalisation  des  clusters  et  des  PME  a  été  au  centre  des 
préoccupations.  Clusters  Go  International  visait  à  intensifier  la  collaboration  entre  les 
clusters et les réseaux d'entreprises au-delà des frontières et des limites sectorielles et à 
soutenir  l'établissement de  partenariats stratégiques  européens pour  les clusters  afin de 
mener  une  coopération  internationale  dans  des  domaines  d'intérêt  stratégique  pour  les 
pays  tiers.  La  plateforme  européenne  de  collaboration  entre  clusters  (ECCP)  est  une 
communauté en ligne qui aide les acteurs des clusters (organisations de clusters, décideurs 
politiques et autres acteurs de l'écosystème des clusters) à travers l'UE à coopérer, à se 
connecter  et  à  collaborer.  Le  programme  européen  d'excellence  des  clusters  visait  à 
renforcer l'excellence de la gestion des clusters et à faciliter les échanges et les partenariats 
stratégiques  entre  les  clusters  et  les  écosystèmes  spécialisés  à  travers  l'Europe. 
ClusterXchange a été soutenu par le ECCP pour encourager le transfert de connaissances 
et  une  collaboration  plus  large  afin  de  mieux  intégrer  et  connecter  les  écosystèmes 
industriels de l'UE. 

Les  initiatives  de  l'OS3  se  sont  également  concentrées  sur  le  contrôle  et  le  suivi  de  la 
politique des PME (par exemple, l'examen des performances des PME, l'assemblée des 
PME, le réseau des représentants des PME), la plateforme REFIT de l'UE pour la réduction 
de la charge réglementaire, les activités liées à la modernisation de l'industrie, les initiatives 
visant à soutenir la numérisation et à renforcer les compétences, et les activités visant à 
soutenir les PME dans des secteurs tels que le tourisme, la mode ou la construction. 

17 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

OS4 : Promouvoir l'esprit d'entreprise et la culture entrepreneuriale 

Dans le cadre du OS4, le COSME a mis en œuvre 5 actions, finançant 111 projets. Le coût 
total était de 78 millions d'euros, dont 66 millions d'euros (85%) ont été financés par l'UE. 
Des subventions ont été accordées à 478 consortiums dans 38 pays. 

La  plupart  des  fonds  de  l'UE  (89  %)  ont  été  alloués  à  l'initiative  Erasmus  pour  jeunes 
entrepreneurs (EYE), qui avait été mise en place en tant que projet pilote dans le cadre du 
PIE (2007-2013) et a été élargie dans le cadre de COSME. L'EYE donne aux nouveaux 
entrepreneurs  ou  aux  entrepreneurs  en  herbe  la  possibilité  d'acquérir  les  compétences 
nécessaires à la gestion d'une petite entreprise en leur permettant de séjourner auprès d'un 
entrepreneur  expérimenté.  COSME  a  accordé  des  subventions  à  360  organisations 
intermédiaires dans 83 consortiums. 

Parmi  les  autres  actions,  citons  le  réseau  European  Network  for  Early  Warning  and  for 
Support  to  Enterprises  and  Second  Starter,  l'échange  de  bonnes  pratiques  entre 
entrepreneurs migrants, le réseau European Entrepreneurship Education NETwork et les 
missions  d'économie  sociale,  ainsi  que  des  actions  axées  spécifiquement  sur  l'esprit 
d'entreprise féminin. 

Pertinence 

Les  objectifs  et  les  actions  étaient  pertinents  par  rapport  aux  défis  auxquels  sont 
confrontées les PME, comme le montrent les enquêtes sur l'accès des PME au financement 
(SAFE), l'Innobaromètre 2014 et les enquêtes de l'Eurobaromètre. COSME était pertinent 
pour le Small Business Act pour l'Europe (2008), la stratégie Europe 2020, la stratégie du 
marché  unique  (2015)  et  l'initiative  "Start-up  and  Scale-up"  (2016).  La  pertinence  a  été 
maintenue en orientant le financement vers de nouvelles priorités en fonction de l'évolution 
des besoins des PME, notamment en réponse à la directive COVID-19. Toutefois, COSME 
ne disposait pas d'un cadre logique cohérent expliquant les chaînes de causalité entre les 
petites actions, les objectifs et les besoins des PME. 

OS1 : la nécessité d'accéder au financement pour soutenir la croissance des entreprises 
est restée d'actualité, plus d'une PME sur quatre faisant toujours état de difficultés d'accès 
au financement au deuxième trimestre 2021. La difficulté accrue pour les PME d'accéder 
au financement a été abordée par le soutien spécifique COVID-19 dans le cadre du LGF, 
que les intermédiaires financiers ont jugé bien conçu. 

OS2 : l'enquête SAFE de 2014 a révélé que la recherche de clients était le problème le plus 
urgent  auquel  les  PME  étaient  confrontées  dans  l'UE.  De  même,  l'examen  des 
performances des PME de 2014 a révélé que les PME étaient confrontées à des obstacles 
liés à l'information sur le marché, à la localisation de clients potentiels, à la recherche des 
bons partenaires et au respect des lois étrangères. Dans ce contexte, les PME desservies 
par  l'EEN  ont  déclaré  que  les  services  répondaient  à  leurs  besoins,  en  particulier  la 
nécessité  de  trouver  des  informations  sur  les  marchés,  de  repérer  les  opportunités 
commerciales internationales ou de trouver des clients et des partenaires commerciaux en 
dehors de leur pays d'origine. 

les  obstacles  à 

OS3  :  les  actions  de  soutien  aux  clusters  étaient  pertinentes  par  rapport  à  la  nécessité 
d'éliminer 
l'internationalisation  des  PME.  L'action  « Clusters  Go 
International » était très pertinente pour améliorer les conditions-cadres et pour atteindre 
l'objectif  d'internationalisation  de  COSME  et  de  la  politique  européenne  des  clusters. 
L'enquête menée  dans  le cadre  de  cette  étude a  révélé  que  COSME  était  très  pertinent 
pour répondre aux besoins des organisations de clusters en matière de développement de 
stratégies communes. Les actions en faveur du tourisme ont permis de combler le manque 

18 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

de connaissances sur les pratiques touristiques durables et intelligentes parmi les acteurs 
de l'UE. 

OS4 : COSME a répondu à la conclusion de l'examen des performances des PME de 2014 
selon  laquelle  une  proportion  importante  de  PME,  de  parties  prenantes  et  de  décideurs 
politiques a déclaré que « l'esprit d'entreprise » constituait un défi. 

Efficacité 

OS1  :  les  instruments  financiers  ont  atteint  ou  dépassé  les  objectifs  fixés  pour  les  PME 
atteintes  et  le  volume  des  opérations  soutenues  et  ont  eu  un  impact  positif  sur  la 
compétitivité et la viabilité des PME. Le LGF a facilité l'octroi de prêts avec un ratio de levier 
de 1:21 et des conditions nettement plus favorables que d'autres sources de financement. 
Les bénéficiaires finaux du LGF affichent des taux de survie très élevés par rapport aux 
PME  en  général.  Toutefois,  ils  n'ont  pas  connu  de  croissance  significative  en  termes 
d'emploi, de chiffre d'affaires et d'actifs totaux, en partie parce que le plafond de 150 000 
euros fixé pour les prêts n'a généralement pas permis aux entreprises d'entreprendre des 
investissements importants. Les opérations de base de l'EFG et VentureEU ont amélioré 
l'accès au financement, en particulier sous la forme de produits de fonds propres, dans les 
pays  où  l'offre  était  moins  développée.  L'EFG  a  permis  aux  fonds  d'augmenter  la  taille 
moyenne  des  investissements  à  5  millions  d'euros,  soit  environ  trois  fois  la  moyenne 
européenne. Les gestionnaires de fonds ont confirmé que l'EFG a contribué à débloquer la 
collecte de fonds en attirant d'autres investisseurs privés. Toutefois, le plafonnement des 
investissements de l'EFG et l'absence d'un processus de mise en relation entre les fonds 
et  les autres investisseurs  en  ont  limité l'efficacité.  Les  bénéficiaires finaux de  l'EFG ont 
affiché,  dans  les années  qui  ont  suivi  les  investissements,  des  taux  de survie  nettement 
supérieurs à la moyenne de l'UE27, ainsi qu'une croissance de l'emploi, du chiffre d'affaires 
et du total des actifs. 

OS2 : l'EEN a servi 2,9 millions de PME et a atteint des taux élevés de satisfaction de la 
clientèle.  Au total,  664  organisations  appartenant  à  93  consortiums  EEN  situés  dans  48 
pays différents ont fourni des services aux PME. L'EEN a également fourni une assistance 
technique  et  un  accès  à  des  services  en  ligne  permettant  à  73  centres  de  coopération 
commerciale (CCC) dans 29 pays tiers de fournir aux PME des services leur permettant 
d'accéder  aux  marchés  mondiaux.  L'EEN  a  dépassé  ses  objectifs  en  générant  18  701 
accords de partenariat transfrontaliers, en atteignant un taux de satisfaction des clients de 
92 % et en fournissant des services numériques auxquels ont accédé 21,5 millions de PME. 
Les  PME  ont  fait  état  d'avantages  tels  que  l'amélioration  de  leur  part  de  marché, 
l'augmentation de leur chiffre d'affaires et l'accès à de nouveaux marchés. D'autres services 
commerciaux  facilités  par  COSME  ont  atteint  un  grand  nombre  d'utilisateurs  et  ont 
enregistré des taux de satisfaction élevés. 

OS3 : COSME a soutenu 392 clusters dans différents secteurs. La grande majorité (91 %) 
des organisations de clusters ont déclaré que Clusters Go International était bénéfique à la 
fois pour la gestion des clusters et pour les PME. Cependant, il n'y a pas suffisamment de 
preuves  pour  déterminer  dans  quelle  mesure  Clusters  Go  International  a  augmenté 
l'internationalisation et la compétitivité des PME. L'ECEP a réussi à faciliter la coopération 
entre les clusters et à améliorer les compétences de gestion des clusters. 

l'intermédiaire  de 

OS4  :  L'EYE  a  facilité  7  548  échanges  impliquant  15  096  nouveaux  entrepreneurs  et 
entrepreneurs  expérimentés.  Par 
l'EYE  Global,  de  nouveaux 
entrepreneurs des pays de l'UE ont entrepris des échanges avec des entrepreneurs hôtes 
dans  des  pays  tiers.  La  majorité  des  entrepreneurs  hôtes  (73  %)  ont  amélioré  leurs 
compétences et leurs connaissances et la plupart (74 %) sont restés en contact avec l'autre 
entrepreneur.  Certains  outils,  réseaux  et  initiatives  ont  soutenu  l'entrepreneuriat  féminin, 
par  exemple  la  plateforme  WEgate.  Les  missions  européennes  d'économie  sociale  ont 
19 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

permis  aux  acteurs  de  l'économie  sociale  de  différents  pays  de  partager  leurs  bonnes 
pratiques, de trouver des solutions aux défis existants et de développer des partenariats 
interrégionaux. 

Efficience 

Le taux d'exécution du budget du programme a été élevé chaque année. La part du budget 
du programme consacrée aux dépenses administratives a été relativement faible, passant 
de 4,6 % par an en 2014-2015 à 3 % les années suivantes, un taux comparable à celui 
d'autres programmes et agences de l'UE. 

Un  suivi  régulier  a permis  aux  organes  de mise en  œuvre du  programme d'identifier  les 
opportunités et les menaces et de réaffecter les fonds entre les actions, le cas échéant. Les 
organes de mise en œuvre ont relevé les défis posés par la pandémie de COVID-19 en 
surveillant les risques et les retards, en réaffectant les fonds lorsqu'il y avait un risque de 
sous-utilisation, en mettant à jour les orientations en matière de suivi, en approuvant des 
prolongations de la durée des projets et en déplaçant les événements en ligne. 

Les données suggèrent une baisse des « coûts unitaires » du soutien aux entrepreneurs 
via l'EYE et aux PME via l'EEN pendant la durée du programme. Cela reflète la nécessité 
de renforcer les capacités au cours des premières années, ce qui a ensuite permis à ces 
actions d'atteindre davantage de bénéficiaires au cours des années suivantes. La majorité 
des bénéficiaires de l'EEN et de l'EYE ont déclaré que les avantages dépassaient les coûts 
pour eux, que les actions offraient un bon rapport qualité-prix et que le financement de l'UE 
était suffisant pour atteindre les avantages escomptés.  

Dans l'ensemble des actions COSME, les demandeurs et les bénéficiaires ont eu tendance 
à  déclarer  que  les  coûts  administratifs  qu'ils  ont  supportés  étaient  proportionnés. 
Néanmoins, la proportion élevée de propositions inéligibles dans certaines actions au cours 
des premières années représente un coût inutile pour les demandeurs et les évaluateurs 
de propositions. 

Cohérence 

Le COSME a fait preuve d'une cohérence interne adéquate grâce aux efforts déployés pour 
créer des synergies, exploiter les complémentarités et minimiser les chevauchements entre 
les actions. Le LGF et l'EFG étaient complémentaires, étant donné que les différents types 
de PME avaient des besoins de financement différents. Les actions de soutien aux PME et 
aux entrepreneurs se sont complétées et il existe de nombreux exemples de collaboration 
entre elles, même si l'on aurait pu faire davantage pour orienter les PME vers les différentes 
formes de soutien disponibles. 

financiers  COSME  et  ceux  soutenus  par 

Sur  le  plan  externe,  il  y  a  eu  des  synergies  entre  le  LGF  et  le  guichet  PME  du  Fonds 
européen  pour  les  investissements  stratégiques  (EFSI).  Le  chevauchement  entre  les 
les  Fonds  structurels  et 
instruments 
d'investissement européens (FESI) a été limité, bien qu'un certain chevauchement ait pu 
se  produire  dans  les  régions  où  les  autorités  de  gestion  des  FESI  ont  conçu  des 
mécanismes de garantie similaires. Les membres de l'EEN et les PME bénéficiaires font 
état  de  synergies  entre  les  services  de  l'EEN  et  les  services  de  soutien  aux  entreprises 
proposés par les États membres, bien qu'il soit possible de mieux intégrer les services de 
l'EEN dans le soutien plus large aux PME. Il n'y a pas de chevauchements significatifs entre 
les actions COSME et le soutien offert par Horizon 2020. Les actions en faveur des clusters 
et  du  tourisme  complètent  d'autres  formes  de  soutien  de  l'UE.  La  cohérence  entre  les 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

actions relatives aux marchés publics dans le cadre de COSME et les autres actions de 
l'UE dans ce domaine est faible. L'EYE était cohérente avec d'autres politiques et stratégies 
au niveau de l'UE et au niveau national. 

Valeur ajoutée européenne 

OS1 : le LGF et l'EFG ont comblé un manque de financement, fourni un financement plus 
favorable que celui qui aurait été disponible autrement et servi des PME qui n'auraient peut-
être pas reçu de financement autrement.  

OS2 : l'EEN apporte une valeur ajoutée par rapport aux services nationaux ou régionaux 
grâce à l'ampleur et à la qualité des services, à leur nature transnationale et transfrontalière 
et à la réciprocité dans le partage des connaissances, de l'expertise et des ressources entre 
les  membres  de  l'EEN.  L'EEN  a  également  introduit  des  services  qui  n'étaient  pas 
disponibles autrement ou que les PME n'auraient pas pu se permettre de payer. Toutefois, 
de  nombreuses  PME  n'étaient  pas  pleinement  conscientes  qu'elles  bénéficiaient  d'un 
service de l'UE. 

OS3 : les actions touristiques ont permis de mieux comprendre l'évolution du secteur et de 
mieux  le  faire  connaître  que  les  actions  nationales.  Les  actions  relatives  aux  grappes 
d'entreprises  ont  offert  une  approche  plus  coordonnée  et  paneuropéenne  des  secteurs 
concernés que les actions nationales. Les actions dans le domaine de l'économie sociale 
ont apporté une valeur ajoutée à l'UE grâce à leur portée et à leur vision internationale. Les 
petites  actions  dans  le  domaine  thématique  des  conditions-cadres  ont  permis  de  mettre 
davantage l'accent sur les questions en question à l'échelle de l'UE. 

OS4 : L'EYE offre aux entrepreneurs des possibilités de mobilité transnationale qui ne sont 
pas  disponibles  autrement.  En  effet,  peu  de  programmes  nationaux,  voire  aucun, 
soutiennent  la mobilité transnationale  et  aucun  ne fonctionne  à l'échelle et  avec  le profil 
international  de  l'EYE.  L'EYE  a  également  apporté  des  avantages  commerciaux  qui 
n'auraient pas été réalisés en l'absence du programme. 

Conclusions 

•  COSME était très pertinent à l'époque où il a été lancé. 

•  Le COSME a conservé sa pertinence en évoluant pour répondre aux défis émergents, 
aux besoins changeants des bénéficiaires et aux nouvelles priorités politiques de l'UE. 

•  COSME a eu un impact sur les quatre objectifs spécifiques définis dans le règlement. 

•  COSME a eu un impact positif sur l'objectif général de renforcement de la compétitivité 

et de la durabilité des PME. 

•  COSME  a  eu  un  impact  positif  sur  l'objectif  général  d'encourager  la  culture 

entrepreneuriale et de promouvoir la création et la croissance des PME. 

•  Le COSME aurait bénéficié d'un système unifié et complet de suivi et de rapport avec 

des indicateurs clairs et mesurables pour toutes les interventions. 

•  L'efficience de la gestion du programme fût comparable à celle des autres programmes 

et agences de l'UE. 

•  Les  bénéficiaires  de  l'EEN  et  de  l'EYE  se  sont  montrés  positifs  quant  à  la 

proportionnalité des coûts et des bénéfices, telle qu'ils l'ont vécue. 

•  Le COSME a fait preuve d'un niveau adéquat de cohérence interne et externe, mais il 
21 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

est possible de l'améliorer.  

•  COSME a offert à l'UE une valeur ajoutée supérieure aux actions soutenues au niveau 

national. 

•  Dans l'ensemble du COSME, l'image de marque de l'UE offre un profil et un prestige 

internationaux plus importants, notamment au sein de l'EYE et de l'EEN. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Zusammenfassung 

Einführung und Hintergrund 

Dieser  Bericht  präsentiert  die  Ergebnisse  der 
"Studie  zur  Unterstützung  der 
Abschlussbewertung des Programms für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Unternehmen und 
kleinen  und  mittleren  Unternehmen  (das  „Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of 
Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-Sized  Enterprises“,  COSME)  2014-2020".  Ziel  der 
Studie war es, die Relevanz, Wirksamkeit, Kohärenz, Effizienz und den EU-Mehrwert der 
im Rahmen des Programms finanzierten Aktivitäten zu bewerten. Die Studie stützt sich auf 
die Ergebnisse einer Zwischenbewertung für die Jahre 2014-2016. Die Methodik umfasste 
die Erhebung und Analyse von Primär- und Sekundärdaten aus einer Reihe von Quellen. 

COSME  wurde  durch  die  Verordnung  (EU)  Nr.  1287/2013  eingerichtet.  Das  Programm 
(einschließlich  des  Vereinigten  Königreichs  bis 
umfasste  die  EU-Mitgliedstaaten 
31.12.2020)  sowie  Albanien,  Armenien,  Bosnien  und  Herzegowina,  Island,  Kosovo, 
Moldawien, Montenegro, Nordmazedonien, Serbien, die Türkei und die Ukraine. COSME 
baute auf dem Vorgängerprogramm für unternehmerische Initiative und Innovation 2007-
2013  („Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation  Programme  (2007-2013)“,  EIP)  auf  und  führte 
einige  EIP-Initiativen  fort,  z.  B.  das  Enterprise  Europe  Network  und  Erasmus  für  junge 
Unternehmer/innen. 

Das  allgemeine  Ziel  des  Programms  bestand  darin,  einen  Beitrag  zur  Stärkung  der 
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und der Nachhaltigkeit der Unternehmen in der Union, insbesondere 
der  KMU,  zu  leisten,  die unternehmerische  Kultur  zu fördern und  die Gründung und das 
Wachstum von KMU zu unterstützen. 

Die Einzelziele („Specific Objectives“, SO) von COSME waren: 

•  SO1: Verbesserung des Zugangs von KMU zu Finanzmitteln in Form von Eigen- und 

Fremdkapital; 

•  SO2: Verbesserung des Zugangs zu den Märkten, insbesondere innerhalb der Union, 

aber auch weltweit; 

•  SO3:  Verbesserung  der  Rahmenbedingungen  für  die  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  und  die 
Nachhaltigkeit  der  Unternehmen  der  Europäischen  Union,  insbesondere  der  KMU, 
einschließlich derjenigen in der Tourismusbranche; 

•  SO4: Förderung der unternehmerischen Initiative und Kultur. 

Mit COSME sollten Marktversagen und Probleme angegangen werden, mit denen die 21,2 
Millionen KMU im nichtfinanziellen Unternehmenssektor der EU konfrontiert sind, darunter 
hohe Kreditkosten, Schwierigkeiten beim Zugang zu Finanzmitteln, Schwierigkeiten beim 
Zugang zu Kunden und internationalen Märkten sowie Schwächen der unternehmerischen 
Kultur in der EU. COSME wurde in einem breiteren Kontext der EU-Politik zur Unterstützung 
von KMU eingeführt, darunter die Europa-2020-Strategie der Kommission, die Leitinitiative 
"Eine  Industriepolitik  für  das  Zeitalter  der  Globalisierung",  der  Small  Business  Act  für 
Europa (2008), das Programm Horizon 2020 und die Digitale Agenda für Europa. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Analyse des COSME-Portfolios 

COSME hat EUR 2,4 Milliarden für seine Ziele gebunden: SO1 (66%), SO2 (20%), SO3 
(11%), SO4 (3%). 

SO1: Verbesserung des Zugangs zu Finanzmitteln 

COSME unterstützte eine Kreditbürgschaftsfazilität („Loan Guarantee Facility”, (LGF) und 
eine Eigenkapitalfazilität für Wachstum („Equity Facility for Growth“, EFG).  

Die LGF finanzierte 163 Garantieverträge mit 128 Finanzintermediären in 35 Ländern. Dies 
führte zu 1.173.780 Transaktionen mit einem Gesamtgarantiebetrag von EUR 53.872 Mio., 
der  865.387  KMU  zur  Verfügung  gestellt  wurde.  Von  den  157  unterzeichneten  aktiven 
Bürgschaftsverträgen wurden 92 (59 %) direkte Bürgschaften, 51 (32 %) Rückbürgschaften, 
9  (6  %)  ein  Verbriefungsinstrument  im  Rahmen  der  KMU-Initiative  und  5  (3  %) 
Weiterverleihungen  gewährt.  Italien,  Frankreich,  Spanien  und  Polen  wiesen  die  höchste 
Anzahl von LGF-Endbegünstigten auf. LGF-Empfänger machen im Durchschnitt 3 % der 
KMU  in  den  förderfähigen  Ländern  aus.  Die  meisten  (89  %)  waren  Kleinstunternehmen 
(davon  50  %  Einzelunternehmer),  während  kleine  Unternehmen  10  %  und  mittlere 
Unternehmen 1 % ausmachten. KMU wurden in einer Reihe von Sektoren unterstützt. KMU 
nutzten die Darlehen hauptsächlich zur Unterstützung ihrer laufenden Geschäfte. 

Die  EFG  umfasste  Vereinbarungen  zwischen  dem  Europäischen  Investitionsfonds  (EIF) 
und 23 Finanzintermediären über EU-Mittel in Höhe von EUR 324 Mio. zusätzlich zu den 
Eigenmitteln  des  EIF  und  anderen  privaten  Investitionen.  Insgesamt  wurden  EUR  3,920 
Mio.  über  564  Investitionen  in  521  unter  COSME  förderfähige  KMU  verteilt.  Die  EFG 
begann 
in  Expansions-  und 
Wachstumsphasen  als  auch  in  mehrstufige  Fonds  ("Kerngeschäfte").  Später  wurde  die 
EFG  so  umgestaltet,  dass  sie  sich  am  gesamteuropäischen  Wagniskapital-Dachfonds-
Programm  ("VentureEU")  beteiligte,  d.  h.  an  mehrstufigen  Dachfonds.  Die  kumulative 
Hebelwirkung der EFG, einschließlich ihrer Kern- und VentureEU-Geschäfte, betrug etwa 
11, was über dem in der COSME-Verordnung festgelegten Zielwert von 4 bis 6 liegt. 

ihre  Umsetzung  zunächst  mit 

Investitionen  sowohl 

Institute 

tätigten  179 

Die COSME EFG stellte Risikokapitalinvestitionen für Fonds bereit, die ihrerseits in KMU in 
der Expansions- und Wachstumsphase investierten. Der EIF vergab EUR 278 Mio. an 21 
zwischengeschaltete  Institute  in  17  Ländern.  Von  diesen  konzentrierten  sich  14  auf  die 
Expansions-  und  Wachstumsphase.  Die  anderen  waren  in  mehreren  Phasen  tätig.  Die 
zwischengeschalteten 
in  Form  von  privatem 
Fremdkapital, privatem Beteiligungskapital oder Risikokapital bei 178 Endbegünstigten in 
23 Ländern. Davon entfielen 104 auf förderungswürdige Endbegünstigte der COSME EFG 
mit einem Gesamtinvestitionswert von EUR 822 Mio. Die COSME-EFG-Kernfinanzierung 
erzielte eine Hebelwirkung von 2,95. Das Risikokapitalportfolio begünstigte im Allgemeinen 
KMU 
in  Ländern  mit  einem  geringen  Angebot  an  Risikokapital  und  privatem 
Beteiligungskapital. Die EFG war besonders auf junge, schnell wachsende, innovative KMU 
ausgerichtet.  Auf  mittlere  Unternehmen  entfielen  57  %  der  Endempfänger,  auf  kleine 
Unternehmen 38 % und auf Kleinstunternehmen nur 5 %. Die Mehrzahl der Investitionen 
lag  unter  EUR  10  Mio.,  was  der  durchschnittlichen  Ticketgröße  auf  dem  EU-Markt 
entspricht. 

Investitionen 

Im Rahmen der EFG hat VentureEU EUR 12 Mio. bzw. EUR 33 Mio. für zwei Dachfonds 
mit  Sitz  in  Luxemburg  bereitgestellt,  die  jedoch  länderübergreifend  tätig  sind.  Diese 
fungierten als Finanzintermediäre und investierten nicht direkt in Unternehmen, sondern in 
andere  Fonds,  die  ihrerseits  KMU  finanzierten.  Die  beiden  Dachfonds  unterstützten  45 
Fonds,  die  ihrerseits  460  förderfähige  Investitionen  in  Höhe  von  EUR  3,145  Mio.  in  418 
KMU  in  22  Ländern  tätigten.  VentureEU  (als  Untergruppe  des  einheitlichen  EFG-
Instruments) erzielte eine Hebelwirkung von 69. Die meisten Investitionen (65 %) beliefen 
sich auf weniger als 5 Mio. EUR. 

24 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

SO2: Verbesserung des Marktzugangs 

Im Rahmen von SO2 stellte COSME EU-Mittel in Höhe von EUR 396,5 Mio. für 13 Aktionen 
mit Gesamtkosten von EUR 694,4 Mio. bereit. Der Großteil der EU-Mittel (EUR 367 Mio.) 
wurde  für  das  Enterprise  Europe  Network  (EEN)  gebunden;  der  Rest  wurde  für  andere 
Unterstützungsdienste  für  Unternehmen  in  Form  von  Zuschüssen  oder  öffentlichen 
Aufträgen bereitgestellt wurde. 

Das  EEN  zielt  darauf  ab,  den  Zugang  von  KMU  zu  Märkten  zu  verbessern,  indem  es 
Dienstleistungen wie Beratung und Informationen über EU-Finanzierung, den Binnenmarkt 
und  die  Internationalisierung  über  den  EU-Markt  hinaus  anbietet.  Es  wurde  2008  als 
Pilotprojekt im Rahmen des Vorgängerprogramms EIP ins Leben gerufen und im Rahmen 
von  COSME  erweitert.  Zehn  Aufforderungen  zur Einreichung  von  Projektvorschlägen  für 
die Bereitstellung von Beratungsdiensten für KMU führten zu 518 verschiedenen Projekten 
(einschließlich Partnerschaftsrahmenvereinbarungen mit einer Laufzeit von sieben Jahren 
und  spezifischen  Finanzhilfevereinbarungen  für  die  ersten  zwei  Jahre),  nachfolgenden 
Aufforderungen  für  spezifische  Finanzhilfevereinbarungen  mit  einer  Laufzeit  von  ein  bis 
zwei Jahren sowie spezifischen Aufforderungen, z. B. für Scale-up-Dienste. 

Zu  den  weiteren  Unterstützungsdiensten  für  Unternehmen  gehörten  die  Helpdesks  für 
Rechte an geistigem Eigentum („Intellectual Property Rights“, IPR) in China, Lateinamerika 
und Südostasien, das Portal Your Europe Business und das Single Digital Gateway. 

SO3: Verbesserung der Rahmenbedingungen für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit 
und Nachhaltigkeit 

Im Rahmen von SO3 stellte COSME EUR 94,8 Millionen für 263 Projekte in den Bereichen 
"Internationalisierung", 
"Sozialwirtschaft", 
"Rahmenbedingungen",  "Design  von  Konsumgütern"  und  "Mode"  bereit.  Mit  den 
Zuschüssen wurden 1.066 Teilnehmer in 37 Ländern, meist in Konsortien, unterstützt. 

"Wettbewerbsfähigkeit", 

"Tourismus", 

Ein  wichtiger  Schwerpunkt  war  die Förderung  der Internationalisierung von Clustern  und 
KMU.  Clusters  Go  International  zielte  darauf  ab,  die  Zusammenarbeit  von  Clustern  und 
Unternehmensnetzwerken  über  Grenzen  und  Sektoren  hinweg  zu  intensivieren  und  die 
Einrichtung  europäischer  strategischer  Clusterpartnerschaften  zu  unterstützen,  um  die 
internationale Zusammenarbeit von Clustern in Bereichen von strategischem Interesse für 
Drittländer zu leiten. Die European Cluster Collaboration Platform (ECCP) ist eine Online-
Community, 
politischen 
Entscheidungsträgern  und  anderen  Akteuren  aus  dem  Cluster-Ökosystem)  in  der 
gesamten EU hilft, zusammenzuarbeiten, sich zu vernetzen und gemeinsam zu arbeiten. 
Das  Europäische  Cluster-Exzellenz-Programm  zielte  darauf  ab,  die  Exzellenz  des 
Clustermanagements  zu  stärken  und  den  Austausch  und  die  strategische  Partnerschaft 
zwischen  Clustern  und  spezialisierten  Ökosystemen  in  ganz  Europa  zu  erleichtern. 
ClusterXchange wurde vom ECCP unterstützt, um den Wissenstransfer und eine breitere 
Zusammenarbeit zu fördern, um die industriellen Ökosysteme der EU besser zu integrieren 
und zu verbinden. 

(Cluster-Organisationen, 

Cluster-Akteuren 

die 

Die  SO3-Initiativen  konzentrierten  sich  auch  auf  die  Überwachung  und  Weiterverfolgung 
der  KMU-Politik  (z.  B.  KMU-Leistungsüberprüfung,  KMU-Versammlung,  Netzwerk  der 
KMU-Beauftragten),  die  EU  REFIT-Plattform  zur  Verringerung  der  Regulierungslast, 
Aktivitäten  im  Zusammenhang  mit  der  Modernisierung  der  Industrie,  Initiativen  zur 
Förderung der Digitalisierung und zur Verbesserung der Qualifikationen sowie Aktivitäten 
zur Unterstützung von KMU in Sektoren wie Tourismus, Mode oder Bauwesen. 

25 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

SO4:  Förderung  des  Unternehmertums  und  der  unternehmerischen 
Kultur 

Im  Rahmen  von  SO4 führte  COSME  5  Aktionen  durch  und  finanzierte 111  Projekte.  Die 
Gesamtkosten beliefen sich auf EUR 78 Millionen, von denen EUR 66 Millionen (85 %) von 
der  EU  finanziert  wurden.  Die  Zuschüsse  wurden  an  478  Konsortien  in  38  Ländern 
vergeben. 

Der  Großteil  der  EU-Mittel  (89  %)  wurden  für  das  Programm  Erasmus  für  junge 
Unternehmer/innen  (EYE)  bereitgestellt,  das  als  Pilotprojekt  im  Rahmen  der  EIP  (2007-
2013)  eingeführt  und  im  Rahmen  von  COSME  erweitert  wurde.  EYE  bietet  neuen  oder 
angehenden Unternehmern die Möglichkeit, die für die Führung eines Kleinunternehmens 
erforderlichen  Fähigkeiten  durch  einen  Aufenthalt  bei  erfahrenen  Unternehmern  zu 
erlernen.  Im  Rahmen  von  COSME  wurden  Zuschüsse  für  360  zwischengeschaltete 
Organisationen in 83 Konsortien gewährt. 

Zu  den  weiteren  Maßnahmen  gehörten  das  Europäische  Netz  für  Frühwarnung  und 
Unterstützung  von  Unternehmen  und  Zweitgründern,  der  Austausch  bewährter  Praktiken 
für Unternehmer/innen mit Migrationshintergrund, das Europäische Netz für die Erziehung 
zu  unternehmerischem  Denken  und  Handeln  (European  Entrepreneurship  Education 
NETwork) und Missionen der Sozialwirtschaft sowie Maßnahmen, die sich speziell auf das 
weibliche Unternehmertum konzentrieren. 

Relevanz 

Die  Ziele  und  Maßnahmen  waren  relevant  für  die  Herausforderungen,  mit  denen  KMU 
konfrontiert  sind,  wie  die  Erhebungen  über  den  Zugang  von  KMU  zu  Finanzmitteln,  die 
Innobarometer-Umfrage  2014  und  die  Eurobarometer-Umfrage  belegen.  COSME  war 
relevant  für  den  Small  Business  Act  für  Europa  (2008),  die  Strategie  Europa  2020,  die 
Binnenmarktstrategie (2015) und die Start-up- und Scale-up-Initiative (2016). Die Relevanz 
wurde  beibehalten,  indem  die  Finanzierung  auf  neue  Prioritäten  ausgerichtet  wurde,  die 
den  sich  ändernden  Bedürfnissen  der  KMU  entsprachen,  nicht  zuletzt  als  Reaktion  auf 
COVID-19.  Allerdings  fehlte  bei  COSME  ein  kohärenter  logischer  Rahmen,  der  die 
Kausalketten zwischen kleinen Maßnahmen, Zielen und den Bedürfnissen der KMU erklärt. 

SO1:  Die  Notwendigkeit  des  Zugangs  zu  Finanzmitteln  zur  Unterstützung  des 
Unternehmenswachstums  blieb  bestehen,  da  mehr  als  ein  Viertel  der  KMU  im  zweiten 
Quartal 2021 immer noch über Schwierigkeiten beim Zugang zu Finanzmitteln berichtete. 
Die zunehmenden Schwierigkeiten der KMU beim Zugang zu Finanzmitteln wurden durch 
die spezifische  COVID-19-Unterstützung im  Rahmen  der  LGF angegangen,  die von  den 
Finanzintermediären als gut konzipiert bezeichnet wurde. 

SO2: Die SAFE-Umfrage 2014 ergab, dass die größte Herausforderung von KMU in der 
gesamten EU in der Kundenakquise besteht. Auch die KMU-Leistungsbilanz 2014 ergab, 
dass KMU mit Hindernissen konfrontiert sind, die sich auf Marktinformationen, die Suche 
nach  möglichen  Kunden,  die  Suche  nach  den  richtigen  Partnern  und  die  Einhaltung 
ausländischer  Gesetze  beziehen.  In  diesem  Zusammenhang  berichteten  die  vom  EEN 
betreuten KMU, dass die Dienstleistungen ihren Bedürfnissen entsprechen, insbesondere 
dem 
internationale 
Geschäftsmöglichkeiten zu erkunden oder Kunden und Geschäftspartner außerhalb ihres 
Heimatlandes zu akquirieren. 

über  Märkte 

Informationen 

Bedürfnis, 

finden, 

zu 

SO3:  Die  Maßnahmen  zur  Unterstützung  von  Clustern  waren  relevant 
für  die 
Notwendigkeit, Hindernisse für die Internationalisierung von KMU zu beseitigen. Die Aktion 
"Clusters Go International" war für die Verbesserung der Rahmenbedingungen und auch 

26 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

für  das  Internationalisierungsziel  von  COSME  und  der  europäischen  Clusterpolitik  von 
großer Bedeutung. Die für diese Studie durchgeführte Umfrage ergab, dass COSME für die 
Erfüllung der Anforderungen von Clusterorganisationen an die Entwicklung gemeinsamer 
Strategien von großer Bedeutung ist. Die Maßnahmen im Bereich Tourismus waren für die 
Wissenslücke  in  Bezug  auf  nachhaltige  und  intelligente  Tourismuspraktiken  unter  den 
Akteuren in der EU relevant. 

SO4:  COSME  reagierte  auf  die  Feststellung  der  KMU-Leistungsbilanz  2014,  dass  ein 
erheblicher  Anteil  der  KMU,  Interessenvertreter  und  politischen  Entscheidungsträger 
"Unternehmertum" als Herausforderung bezeichnete. 

Effektivität 

SO1: Die Finanzinstrumente erreichten oder übertrafen die Zielvorgaben für die erreichten 
KMU  und  das  Volumen  der  unterstützten  Operationen  und  wirkten  sich  positiv  auf  die 
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit der KMU aus. Die LGF ermöglichte Darlehen mit 
einer  Hebelwirkung  von  1:21  und  zu  deutlich  günstigeren  Bedingungen  als  andere 
Finanzierungsquellen.  Die  LGF-Endbegünstigten  weisen  im  Vergleich  zu  den  KMU  im 
Allgemeinen  eine  sehr  hohe  Überlebensrate  auf.  Allerdings  sind  sie  in  Bezug  auf 
Beschäftigung,  Umsatz  und  Bilanzsumme  nicht  nennenswert  gewachsen,  was  zum  Teil 
darauf  zurückzuführen  ist,  dass  die  Obergrenze  von  EUR  150  000  für  Darlehen  es  den 
Unternehmen im Allgemeinen nicht ermöglichte, größere Investitionen zu tätigen. Die EFG-
Kernoperationen und VentureEU verbesserten den Zugang zu Finanzmitteln, insbesondere 
in Form von Beteiligungsprodukten, in Ländern, in denen das Angebot weniger entwickelt 
war.  Die  EFG  ermöglichte  es  den  Fonds,  den  durchschnittlichen  Investitionsumfang  auf 
EUR  5  Mio.  zu  erhöhen,  d.  h.  auf  das  Dreifache  des  europäischen  Durchschnitts.  Die 
Fondsmanager  bestätigten,  dass  die  EFG  dazu  beitrugen,  die  Mittelbeschaffung  zu 
erleichtern,  indem  sie  andere  private  Investoren  anlockten.  Die  Obergrenze  für  EFG-
Investitionen und das Fehlen eines Matchmaking-Prozesses zwischen Fonds und anderen 
Investoren schränkten die Wirksamkeit jedoch ein. Die EFG-Endbegünstigten wiesen in den 
Jahren  nach  den  Investitionen  Überlebensraten  auf,  die  deutlich  über  dem  EU27-
Durchschnitt 
lagen,  sowie  ein  Wachstum  bei  Beschäftigung,  Umsatz  und 
Gesamtvermögen. 

SO2: Das EEN hat 2,9 Millionen KMU bedient und eine hohe Kundenzufriedenheit erreicht. 
Insgesamt  erbrachten  664  Organisationen  in  93  EEN-Konsortien  in  48  verschiedenen 
Ländern Dienstleistungen für KMU. Das EEN bot außerdem technische Unterstützung und 
Zugang  zu  Online-Diensten,  die  es  73  Business  Cooperation  Centres  (BCCs)  in  29 
Drittländern ermöglichten, KMU mit Dienstleistungen für den Zugang zu globalen Märkten 
zu  versorgen.  Das  EEN  übertraf  seine  Ziele,  indem  es  18  701  grenzüberschreitende 
Partnerschaftsvereinbarungen  abschloss,  eine  Kundenzufriedenheitsrate  von  92  % 
erreichte  und  digitale  Dienstleistungen  bereitstellte,  auf  die  21,5  Millionen  KMU  Zugriff 
hatten. Die KMU berichteten über Vorteile wie verbesserte Marktanteile, höhere Umsätze 
und  den  Zugang 
von  COSME  angebotene 
Unternehmensdienstleistungen erreichten eine große Zahl von Nutzern und wiesen hohe 
Zufriedenheitsraten auf. 

zu  neuen  Märkten.  Andere 

SO3: COSME unterstützte 392 Cluster in einer Reihe von Sektoren. Die große Mehrheit 
(91 %) der Clusterorganisationen berichtete, dass Clusters Go International sowohl für das 
Clustermanagement  als  auch  für  die  KMU  von  Vorteil  war.  Es  liegen  jedoch  keine 
ausreichenden  Belege  dafür  vor, 
International"  die 
Internationalisierung und  Wettbewerbsfähigkeit  von  KMU  verbessert  hat.  Das ECEP  war 
erfolgreich  bei  der  Erleichterung  der  Zusammenarbeit  von  Clustern  und  bei  der 
Verbesserung der Fähigkeiten des Clustermanagements. 

"Clusters  Go 

inwieweit 

27 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

SO4: Das EYE ermöglichte 7.548 Austauschmaßnahmen mit 15.096 neuen und erfahrenen 
Unternehmern. Über das EYE Global nahmen neue Unternehmer aus den EU-Ländern an 
Austauschmaßnahmen  mit  Gastunternehmern 
teil.  Die  meisten 
Gastunternehmer (73 %) verbesserten ihre Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse, und die meisten 
(74  %)  Unternehmerinnen  und  Jungunternehmer  standen  weiterhin  in  Kontakt  mit  dem 
anderen  Unternehmer.  Einige  Instrumente,  Netzwerke  und  Initiativen  unterstützten 
weibliches  Unternehmertum,  z.  B.  die  Plattform  WEgate.  Die  europäischen 
Sozialwirtschaftsmissionen  boten  den  Akteuren  der  Sozialwirtschaft  in  verschiedenen 
Ländern  die  Möglichkeit,  bewährte  Verfahren  auszutauschen,  Lösungen  für  bestehende 
Herausforderungen zu finden und interregionale Partnerschaften aufzubauen. 

in  Drittländern 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Wirkungsgrad 

Die  Ausführungsrate  des  Programmbudgets  war  in  jedem  Jahr  hoch.  Der  Anteil  der 
Verwaltungsausgaben am Programmbudget war relativ gering und sank von 4,6 % pro Jahr 
im Zeitraum 2014-2015 auf 3 % in den Folgejahren, was mit anderen EU-Programmen und 
Agenturen vergleichbar ist. 

Die  regelmäßige  Überwachung  ermöglichte  es  den  für  die  Programmdurchführung 
zuständigen  Stellen,  Chancen  und  Risiken  zu  erkennen  und  erforderlichenfalls  Mittel 
zwischen den einzelnen Maßnahmen umzuschichten. Die Durchführungsstellen reagierten 
auf die Herausforderungen, die sich durch die Coronapandemie ergaben, indem sie Risiken 
und  Verzögerungen  überwachten,  Mittel  umschichteten,  wenn  das  Risiko  einer 
unzureichenden  Mittelverwendung  bestand,  die  Überwachungsleitlinien  aktualisierten, 
Verlängerungen der Projektlaufzeiten genehmigten und Veranstaltungen online hielten. 

Die  Daten  deuten  darauf  hin,  dass  die  "Stückkosten"  für  die  Unterstützung  von 
Unternehmern  über  das  EYE  und  von  KMU  über  das  EEN  während  der  Laufzeit  des 
Programms  gesunken  sind.  Dies  spiegelt  die  Notwendigkeit  wider,  in  den  ersten  Jahren 
Kapazitäten  aufzubauen,  die  es  dann  ermöglichten,  dass  diese  Maßnahmen  in  den 
späteren  Jahren  mehr  Begünstigte  erreichten.  Die  Mehrheit  der  EEN-  und  EYE-
Begünstigten gab an, dass der Nutzen die Kosten für sie überstieg, dass die Maßnahmen 
ein gutes Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis boten und dass die EU-Finanzierung ausreichte, um 
den beabsichtigten Nutzen zu erzielen.  

Bei allen COSME-Aktionen gaben Antragsteller und Begünstigte tendenziell an, dass die 
ihnen entstandenen Verwaltungskosten verhältnismäßig waren.  Ungeachtet dessen stellt 
der hohe Anteil nicht förderfähiger Vorschläge bei einigen Aktionen in den ersten Jahren 
eine unnötige Belastung für Antragsteller und Bewerter von Vorschlägen dar. 

Kohärenz 

COSME  wies  eine  angemessene 
interne  Kohärenz  auf,  wobei  Anstrengungen 
unternommen  wurden,  um  Synergien  zu  schaffen,  Komplementaritäten  zu  nutzen  und 
Überschneidungen  zwischen  Maßnahmen  zu  minimieren.  LGF  und  EFG  waren 
unterschiedliche 
komplementär, 
Finanzierungsbedürfnisse  hatten.  Die  Maßnahmen  zur  Unterstützung  von  KMU  und 
Unternehmern  ergänzten  sich  gegenseitig,  und  es  gibt  zahlreiche  Beispiele  für  die 
Zusammenarbeit zwischen ihnen, auch wenn mehr getan werden könnte, um KMU auf die 
verschiedenen Formen der verfügbaren Unterstützung hinzuweisen. 

verschiedenen  Arten 

von  KMU 

die 

da 

Auf  externer  Ebene  gab  es  Synergien  zwischen  der  LGF  und  dem  KMU-Fenster  des 
Europäischen  Fonds  für  strategische  Investitionen  (EFSI).  Es  gab  nur  begrenzte 
Überschneidungen  zwischen  den  COSME-Finanzierungsinstrumenten  und  den  von  den 
Europäischen Struktur- und Investitionsfonds (ESIF) unterstützten Instrumenten, obwohl es 
in Regionen, in denen die Verwaltungsbehörden der ESIF ähnliche Bürgschaftsfazilitäten 
entwickelt haben, zu Überschneidungen gekommen sein kann. EEN-Mitglieder und KMU-
Begünstigte  berichten  über  Synergien  zwischen  den  EEN-Diensten  und  den  von  den 
Mitgliedstaaten angebotenen Unternehmensförderungsdiensten, obwohl es Spielraum für 
eine bessere Integration der EEN-Dienste in die umfassendere Unterstützung für KMU gibt. 
Es gibt keine nennenswerten Überschneidungen zwischen den COSME-Maßnahmen und 
der Unterstützung durch Horizon 2020. Die Cluster- und Tourismusmaßnahmen ergänzen 
andere  Formen  der  EU-Unterstützung.  Es  gibt  Anzeichen  für  eine  schwache  Kohärenz 
zwischen den Maßnahmen zum öffentlichen Auftragswesen im Rahmen von COSME und 

29 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

anderen EU-Maßnahmen in diesem Bereich. Das EYE war kohärent mit anderen Politiken 
und Strategien auf EU-Ebene und auf nationaler Ebene. 

EU-Mehrwert 

SO1: Die LGF und die EFG haben eine Finanzierungslücke geschlossen, eine günstigere 
Finanzierung bereitgestellt, als sonst verfügbar gewesen wäre, und KMU bedient, die sonst 
möglicherweise keine Finanzierung erhalten hätten.  

SO2: Das EEN bietet im Vergleich zu nationalen oder regionalen Diensten einen Mehrwert 
durch  den  Umfang  und  die  Qualität  der  Dienstleistungen,  ihren  transnationalen  und 
grenzüberschreitenden  Charakter  und  die  Gegenseitigkeit  beim  Austausch  von  Wissen, 
Know-how  und  Ressourcen  zwischen  den  EEN-Mitgliedern.  Das  EEN  bot  auch 
Dienstleistungen an, die sonst nicht verfügbar waren oder die sich die KMU nicht hätten 
leisten können. Viele KMU waren sich jedoch nicht vollständig bewusst, dass sie eine EU-
Dienstleistung in Anspruch nehmen. 

SO3: Die Tourismus-Aktionen ermöglichten ein besseres Verständnis der Entwicklung des 
Sektors und einen größeren Beitrag zur Steigerung seines Bekanntheitsgrades, als dies bei 
nationalen Aktionen der Fall ist. Die Cluster-Aktionen boten einen besser koordinierten und 
paneuropäischen  Ansatz  für  die  betreffenden  Sektoren  als  die  nationalen  Aktionen. 
Sozialwirtschaftliche  Maßnahmen  boten  durch  ihre  internationale  Reichweite  und  Vision 
einen  EU-Mehrwert.  Kleine  Aktionen  im  thematischen  Bereich  der  Rahmenbedingungen 
boten einen stärkeren EU-weiten Fokus auf die betreffenden Themen. 

SO4:  Das  EJE  bietet  transnationale  Mobilitätsmöglichkeiten  für  Unternehmer,  die  sonst 
nicht zur Verfügung stehen, da es, wenn überhaupt, nur wenige nationale Programme zur 
Förderung der transnationalen Mobilität gibt und keines in der Größenordnung und mit dem 
internationalen Profil des EJE arbeitet. Das EJE bot auch geschäftliche Vorteile, die ohne 
das Programm nicht realisiert worden wären. 

Schlussfolgerungen 

•  COSME war zu dem Zeitpunkt, als es ins Leben gerufen wurde, von großer Bedeutung. 

•  COSME  hat  seine  Relevanz  bewahrt,  indem  es  sich  weiterentwickelt  hat,  um  neuen 
Herausforderungen, veränderten Bedürfnissen der Begünstigten und neuen politischen 
Prioritäten der EU gerecht zu werden. 

•  COSME  hat  in  Bezug  auf  alle  vier  in  der  Verordnung  genannten  spezifischen  Ziele 

Wirkung erzielt. 

•  COSME hat im Hinblick auf das allgemeine Ziel der Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit 

und Nachhaltigkeit von KMU positive Wirkungen erzielt. 

•  COSME  hat  sich  positiv  auf  das  allgemeine  Ziel  ausgewirkt,  die  unternehmerische 
Kultur zu fördern und die Gründung und das Wachstum von KMU zu unterstützen. 

•  COSME  hätte  von  einem  einheitlichen  und  umfassenden  Überwachungs-  und 
Berichtssystem mit klaren und messbaren Indikatoren für alle Interventionen profitiert. 

•  Die  Effizienz  der  Programmverwaltung  ist  mit  der  anderer  EU-Programme  und 

Agenturen vergleichbar. 

•  Die  Begünstigten  des  EEN  und  des  EJE  äußerten  sich  positiv  über  die 

Verhältnismäßigkeit von Kosten und Nutzen.  

•  COSME  hat  ein  angemessenes  Maß  an  interner  und  externer  Kohärenz  gezeigt; 

nichtsdestotrotz besteht Raum für Verbesserungen.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  COSME  hat  der  EU  einen  Mehrwert  geboten,  der  über  die  auf  nationaler  Ebene 

unterstützten Maßnahmen hinausgeht. 

• 

In  COSME  bietet  das  "Branding"  der  EU  ein  größeres  internationales  Profil  und 
Prestige, vor allem innerhalb des EYE und des EEN. 

31 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

1. Introduction 

This  report  presents  the findings  of the  “Study supporting the  Final  evaluation  of  the 
Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-Sized 
Enterprises (COSME) 2014-2020”. It forms part of a larger study also involving an ex-post 
evaluation  of  the  Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation  Programme  (2007-13),  which  is  the 
subject of a separate report. The study was carried out by a consortium led by the Centre 
for  Strategy  and  Evaluation  Services  (CSES)  on  behalf  of  the  European  Commission 
Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG 
GROW). 

An interim evaluation of COSME covering the activities funded in the 2014-2016 period was 
undertaken  in  2017.1  The  interim  evaluation  found  a  strong  alignment  of  the  COSME 
programme with the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at the time and 
market failures and a high relevance for citizens in terms of its targets of jobs creation and 
growth. It also confirmed that the programme had made progress towards its objectives and 
expected  outputs.  However,  it  also  found  limited  evidence  of  its  contribution  to  the 
competitiveness,  sustainability  and  growth  of  SMEs.  Synergies  between  actions  of  the 
programme  and  other  EU  interventions  could  have  also  been  improved.  The  main 
conclusions of the interim evaluation are summarised in Annex A. 

This  final  evaluation  has  built  on  the  findings  of  the  interim  evaluation  by  gathering  and 
analysing  primary  and  secondary  data  on  the  activities funded  during 2017-2020  and  by 
drawing conclusions for the entire period 2014-2020. 

1.1. 

The Programme 

The Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized 
enterprises  (COSME)  (2014  -  2020)  was  the  successor  to  the  Entrepreneurship  and 
Innovation Programme (EIP) under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) 
(2007-2013).  COSME  was  established  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1287/2013  (“the  COSME 
Regulation”), which specified a budget of EUR 2.3 billion at 2013 prices.2 In addition to EU 
Member  States,  some  third  countries  participated  in  COSME,  namely  the  enlargement 
countries  (Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Kosovo,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia, 
Serbia  and  Turkey),  neighbourhood  countries  (Armenia,  Moldova  and  Ukraine),  EFTA 
countries (Iceland). The UK continued to participate in COSME until the end of the transition 
period (i.e. 31/12/2020). 

According  to  the  COSME  Regulation,  the  general  objective  of  the  programme  was  to 
contribute  to  strengthening  the  competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  the  Union’s 
enterprises,  particularly SMEs  and  to  encouraging  entrepreneurial  culture and promoting 
the creation and growth of SMEs. The four specific objectives (SO) of COSME were to: 

• 

• 

• 

Improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt financing; 

Improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but also at global level; 

Improve framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of Union 
enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector; 

1 Technopolis (2017): Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme, Final report.  
2  Regulation  (EU)  No  1287/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013 
establishing  a  Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(COSME) (2014 - 2020) 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  Promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture. 

Table 1.1 below lists the actions under each SO. For this evaluation, the actions were also 
grouped  according  to  a  set  of  thematic  areas.  The  actions  in  bold  were  given  greatest 
consideration  by  the  evaluation  after  a  processing  of  mapping  and  prioritisation  (as 
explained in section 1.3 and Annex G). 

Table 1.1: Actions within the COSME programme (2014-2020) 

Thematic areas 

Actions 

SO1 Improving access to finance for SMEs in the form of debt and equity 

Access to finance 

Equity Facility for Growth 
Loan Guarantee Facility including the SME Initiative 

SO2 Improving access to markets for SMEs 

Business support 
networks and 
services 

Public procurement 

Enterprise Europe Network 
EU-Japan centre for industrial cooperation 
International intellectual property (IPR) SME helpdesks 
Your Europe Business portal 
Single digital gateway 
Supporting European SMEs to participate in public procurement outside 
EU 
Co-financing of public procurement of innovation consortia 
Creating links for the facilitation of public procurement of innovation 
Training for SME-friendly policies in central purchasing bodies 

SO3 Improving framework conditions and competitiveness 

Internationalisation 

Competitiveness 

Tourism 

Framework 
conditions 

Clusters Go international 
Clusters Go international in the defence and security sector 
European Cluster Excellence Programme with ClusterXchange scheme 
connecting ecosystems and cities 
E-Skills for competitiveness and innovation 
Strategic alliances for the uptake of advanced technologies by SMEs 
Early Warning Europe Mentor Academy 
Intellectual Property voucher for post-COVID-19 recovery (also known 
as SME fund) 
Development of the European Food Price Indicator 
Enhancing European Tourism Competitiveness and sustainability 
Capital of Smart Tourism 
Innovation uptake and digitalisation in the tourism sector 
SME performance review 
Following and monitoring the Small Business Act including SME Envoys 
Network 
European Enterprise Awards 
Small Business Act including implementation, outreach tools including 
Business Planet 
EU REFIT platform 

SO4 promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture 

Entrepreneurship 

Social Economy* 

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 
European Network of female entrepreneurs and on-line e-platform, 
European Network of mentor for female entrepreneurs 
Support for entrepreneurship policy implementation 
EYE IT Tool 
Promotion of social economy in Europe 
European Social Economy Missions 

Source: author’s elaboration based on the COSME Regulation and programme documentation 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The main actions within COSME are described in the table below. 

Table 1.2: Description of main actions within COSME 

Main actions within the COSME programme 

SO1: Financial Instruments 

The COSME programme supported two financial instruments to improve SMEs’ access to finance: 
the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) that provides guarantees and counter-guarantees to financial 
intermediaries which in turn supported debt financing (e.g. loans, guarantees, leases) for SMEs; 
and the Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) that provides equity support through venture capital 
investments to support the growth and expansion stage development of SMEs. 

SO2: Enterprise Europe Network and other business support services 

The Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) aims to improve SMEs’ access to markets by providing 
integrated  services  such  as  advice  and  information  on  EU  funding,  the  internal  market  and 
internationalisation  beyond  the  EU  market.  COSME  also  co-funded  other  business  support 
services to SMEs including through portals and helpdesks. 

SO3: Clusters actions 

Under  COSME,  a  number  of  actions  promoted  clusters  and  SMEs  internationalisation.  For 
instance, the main objective of Clusters Go International was to intensify cluster and business 
network  collaboration  across  borders  and  sector  boundaries  and  support  the  establishment  of 
European  Strategic  Cluster  Partnerships  to  lead  international  cluster  cooperation  in  fields  of 
strategic  interest  towards  third  countries  beyond  Europe.  The  European  Cluster  Excellence 
Programme  aimed  to improve specialised  and  customised  business  support  by  strengthening 
cluster  management  excellence  and  facilitating  exchanges  and  strategic  partnering  between 
clusters and specialised eco-systems across Europe. 

SO4: Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) 

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs is a cross-border exchange programme which gives new or 
aspiring  entrepreneurs  the  chance  to  learn  from  experienced  entrepreneurs  running  small 
businesses  in  other  COSME  Participating  Countries.  The  exchange  of  experience  takes  place 
during a stay with the experienced entrepreneur, which helps the new entrepreneur acquire the 
skills needed to start and run a small firm. 

Source: author’s elaboration based on the programme documentation 

COSME built on the achievements of the EIP and carried forward some key initiatives. This 
strong  continuity  from  the  EIP  to  COSME  was  acknowledged  by  the  Commission.3 
Improving  access to  finance  for  SMEs  (during  the different  phases  of their  lifecycle)  and 
access  to  markets,  supporting  entrepreneurship  and  better  framework  conditions  for 
enterprises  were  key  objectives  of  both  programmes.  Both  programmes  targeted  micro-
enterprises and SMEs as defined in Recommendation 2003/61/EC of 6 May 2003. COSME 
built  on  EIP  actions  that  had  demonstrated  their  usefulness  and  impact  for  businesses, 
notably  by  continuing  the  financial  instruments,  EEN  and  EYE.  Some  adaptations  were 
made to EEN to take account of issues noted during the EEN impact evaluation covering 
the 2008-2014 period, in particular the putting in place of a new quality and performance 
framework. 

There were also important differences between the EIP and COSME. Whilst the EIP had a 
dedicated  focus  on  entrepreneurship  and  innovation  and  supported  first  application  and 
market replication projects in the field of eco-innovation, the EIP actions for innovation were 
not carried over into COSME, as technological innovation was mainly supported though the 
Horizon  2020  programme  in  2014-2020.  In  contrast  to  the  EIP,  COSME  paid  particular 
attention to tourism, public procurement and social economy. COSME also included actions 

3 EC Proposal COM(2011) 834 final establishing COSME, Context of the Proposal, p.9. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

to promote support measures and tools in a coordinated way towards SMEs (including the 
EU  Open  for  Business  campaigns).  The  number  of  target  groups was  higher  in COSME 
and  efforts  were  made  to  achieve  long term  impacts  and  simplify  the  governance  of  the 
programme.4 

The EIP final evaluation pointed to a need for a clearer structure with fewer objectives and 
more focused activities closely related to the core objectives (in order to use budget wisely 
and  to  facilitate  communication  with  stakeholders),  and  also  to  strengthen  internal 
management  of  the  programme.  This  need  was  partially  addressed  through  the  clearer 
structure of the COSME Regulation in comparison to the CIP and the inclusion of indicators 
in the COSME Regulation that provided a more solid basis for managing the programme. 
However,  further  work  is  still  needed  as  some  indicators  proved  difficult  to  measure  in 
practice. IT tools were put in place in the COSME programme to address reporting burdens 
identified by intermediaries during the EIP. 

COSME was implemented through annual work programmes, drawn up according to the 
Commission's  policy  priorities  in  cooperation  with  relevant  DG  GROW  policy  units 
competent  in  different  areas  (e.g.  access  to  finance  for  SMEs,  clusters,  IPR  support, 
entrepreneurship,  procurement  and  access  to  international  markets).  The  programme 
committee composed of representatives of the Member States was consulted on the draft 
work programmes. 

1.2. 

Study objectives and scope 

This  study  provides  support  and  evidence  for  the  final  evaluation  of  the  COSME 
programme. The evaluation was carried out to meet a requirement under Article 15(4) of 
the  COSME  Regulation  and  also  to  enable  the  Commission  to  identify  strengths  and 
weaknesses,  to  inform  the  design  of  future  support  measures  for  SMEs  under  the  SME 
Pillar of the Single Market programme and Invest EU, and to support the preparations for 
future programmes.  

The study evaluated the relevance, effectiveness (including long-term impacts), efficiency, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  programme  in  accordance  with  the  European 
Commission’s  “Better  Regulation  Guidelines”.5  The  assessment  considers  the  impact 
assessment  to  COSME6,  the  findings  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  programme,  other 
studies and relevant secondary sources. It also draws on the programme’s monitoring data, 
evidence obtained through stakeholder consultations and a counterfactual analysis carried 
out for the financial instruments. 

In terms of scope, study focuses on the COSME actions implemented in the period 2014-
2020.  

As described in the summary of the methodology (section 1.3) and Annex G (Methodology), 
due to the wide range of interventions, a mapping and prioritisation of actions to be covered 
in  the  evaluation  was  agreed  with  the  Commission.  The  actions  thus  prioritised  are 
highlighted in bold in Table 1.1 (above) and described in Table 1.2 above. 

4 For further information, see European Parliament (2012) Briefing note ‘Differences and Similarities Between 
CIP and COSME’. 
5 European Commission, 2023, Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox, 
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-
regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en.  
6 The Impact Assessment (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011SC1452&rid=1) concluded that the best overall option was a modest 
budgetary expansion for all of the identified objectives/components. It also referred to findings from the final 
evaluation of EIP on monitoring and evaluation, noting the good progress made, but also highlighting a need 
to make further improvements to data gathering and presentation, and to indicators. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The Terms of Reference for this study set out a number of evaluation questions as listed 
in the table below. Annex E contains the evaluation matrix including the list of evaluation 
questions, the key  performance  indicators  and  descriptors  used  for  this assessment  and 
the sources of information. 

Table 1.3: Questions covered by the evaluation 

Evaluation Questions 

Relevance 
1 

2 

To what extent were COSME's initial objectives relevant and pertinent to the needs, 
problems and issues they were designed to address? 
To what extent were COSME’s objectives and measures relevant to the needs and 
problems faced by SMEs throughout their implementation period? How did the programme 
adapt to new needs, priorities, problems? 

Effectiveness  
3  How  effective  was  COSME  in  achieving  its  general  and  specific  objectives,  in  terms  of 
outputs, results and long-term impact of its measures? Who were the main beneficiaries of 
COSME? In particular, what types of enterprise benefitted? 

4  How was COSME implemented over the Programme period? 

5 

To what extent and how has the Programme contributed to broader EU policy priorities and 
objectives? 

Efficiency  
6 

To what extent were the effects (benefits) of COSME achieved at a reasonable cost (including 
the administrative and reporting burden on participants, beneficiaries and stakeholders)?  

7  How efficient was the implementation structure and governance of the programme? 

8  Were the costs (direct and indirect) generated by the programme proportionate to the 

benefits generated? 

Coherence 
9 
10  Are there overlaps or complementarities between the measure and any other EU action 

To what extent has the internal coherence of the four specific objectives been maximised? 

which have similar objectives? 

EU Added Value 
11  How did COSME and its measures deliver added value, compared to what could be 

achieved on merely national, regional and/or local level? 

12  To what extent do the issues addressed by the Programme and its measures continue to 

require action at EU level?  

1.3. 

Summary of the methodology 

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, this evaluation has drawn on a diverse and 
appropriate  range  of  methods  of  sources,  which  have  been  triangulated,  as  necessary. 
More specifically, the evaluation has involved the following steps:  

•  Development and application of an evaluation framework featuring an intervention 
logic for the COSME programme, as well as evaluation questions and associated 
indicators linked to data sources (see the intervention logic and evaluation matrix in 
Annexes D and E, respectively); 

•  Mapping and prioritisation of actions to be covered in the evaluation based on the 
scale  of  EU  funding  and,  second,  the  expected  level  of  impacts  on  SME 
beneficiaries,  also  including  a  number  of  actions  that  were  less  successful  or  for 
which issues were encountered; 

•  Review  of  monitoring  data  and  literature  review  covering  policy  and  programme 
documentation, previous evaluations, other studies, relevant websites, etc. (see the 
bibliography in Annex L); 

36 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  Public consultation allowing input from any stakeholder, business or citizen; 

•  6  targeted  surveys  of  COSME  beneficiaries,  intermediaries  and  other  selected 
stakeholders allowing more probing, complex and technical questions to be asked 
than was possible within the public consultation. These targeted surveys attracted 
responses from 1,746 stakeholders (see Annex G); 

•  72 interviews of stakeholders, intermediaries and beneficiaries, which enabled the 
collection  of  detailed  insights  into  the  results  and  impacts  of  the  programme, 
including the experiences of individual intermediaries and beneficiaries; 

•  Statistical  analysis  of  the  portfolio  of  activities  and  actions  supported  through  the 
COSME  programme,  which  allowed  quantitative  assessment  of  expenditure  and 
operations,  as  well  as  the  profile  and  geographic  and  sectoral  spread  of 
intermediaries and beneficiaries; 

•  Counterfactual  econometric  analysis  of  the  COSME  financial  support  using  Orbis 

firm data; 

•  Case  studies  focusing  on  specific  actions  supported  through  the  COSME 

programme; 

•  Reporting based on analysis of all data and triangulation of research findings from 

different sources. 

The main challenges and mitigating actions in relation to the methodology are presented in 
point 1.10 of Annex G (Methodology) and points related to the counterfactual analysis are 
further elaborated under Task 7 in Annex G. Key elements of this are summarised below. 

The  evaluation  faced  several  challenges,  notably  the  wide  range  and  complexity  of 
interventions (mitigated by mapping and prioritising of actions), the different levels of detail 
available  in  monitoring  data,  a  slow  initial  response  to  targeted  consultations  (reflecting 
stakeholder fatigue and the fact that some of the consultations overlapped with the summer, 
which was mitigated by further promotion of the surveys, extensions to survey deadlines 
and additional interviews).  

Overall,  after  taking  the  mitigating  actions,  the  consultations  provided  the  necessary 
evidence  (e.g.  on  the  needs  addressed,  activities  undertaken,  and  the  characteristics, 
opinions  and  experiences  of  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries).  Moreover,  some  of  the 
consultees  were  organisations  representing  stakeholders  across  the  EU.  However,  the 
usefulness  of  the  different  consultation  exercises  varied.  Five  of  the  six  targeted 
consultations  attracted  a  good  response:  EEN  member  organisations  (109),  host 
entrepreneurs  and  new  entrepreneurs  participating  in  Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs 
(1,200), Providers and beneficiaries of other COSME co-funded services (110). There was 
a  modest  response  to  the  targeted  consultation  of  SME  clients  served  by  the  EEN  (67), 
which  reflected  the  challenge  in  reaching  this  population  (i.e.  relying  on  EEN  member 
organisations to forward the invitation to their clients, the time elapsed since some SMEs 
were  served  by  the  EEN  and  those  clients  perhaps  feeling  somewhat  remote  from  the 
COSME  programme).  The  72  interviews  provided  valuable  qualitative  evidence  to 
complement  the  quantitative  data  from  the  analysis  of  the  programme  portfolio  and  the 
targeted consultations. Least useful were the call for evidence, which attracted only three 
responses in the form of position papers, and the public consultation, which attracted 24 
responses; given the open nature of these exercises, the low response rate and the self-
selecting nature of respondents, the responses cannot be seen as representative of any 
particular population.  

Another challenge was the lack of final beneficiary data for specific objectives SO2-4 (only 
data on intermediate organisations was available), which was addressed by data gathering 
on impacts and experiences in both targeted surveys and interviews. 

37 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The  methodological  approach  for  the  counterfactual  analysis  for  the  LGF  faced  the 
challenge  of  constructing  a  large  enough  sample  for  the  control  group  in  the  limited 
timeframe for the study, due to the large number of SMEs supported by the LGF (865,387 
distinct SMEs). To address this, the counterfactual scenario used an approach based on 
Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods, which has been widely used in peer-
reviewed  academic  works.7  This  new  approach  entailed  setting  up  a  pool  of  not-yet 
supported companies (e.g. companies that received funding only from 2019 and onwards 
were used as a control group for companies supported in 2018 to measure the effects in 
the year the guarantee was received). It should also be noted that the representativeness 
of the sample size is not fully satisfied at the geographical level. Most notably, Italian SMEs 
are well represented in the final sample, but SMEs from countries such as Spain and France 
are not. Moreover, the positive trends observed amongst medium-sized enterprises are not 
reflected  in  the  overall  net  causal  impact  because,  among  other  factors,  their  share  of 
equals only 1% of the overall sample of final recipients. 

The  results  of  the  counterfactual  analysis  for  the  LGF  (good  impact  on  the  number  of 
employees  and  survival  rates  over  time,  but  a  non-significant  effect  on  the  turnover, 
personnel costs and total assets compared to businesses that had not yet received LGF 
support) only partly align with existing studies on LGF’s predecessors (e.g., under the CIP 
and the Multi-Annual Programme for Companies (MAP)). Previous studies demonstrated 
that  EU  guaranteed  loans  impacted  positively  on  SME  growth  in  terms  of  employment, 
sales, and profits.8 

However,  due  to  the  alternative  approach  followed  for  this  counterfactual  analysis,  the 
results cannot be directly compared with previous research on financial instruments. One 
possible explanation for these different results is that the control group of businesses that 
had “not yet benefited” from LGF support were better prepared than the businesses used 
as a control group for previous studies (that did not subsequently benefit from any funding 
from financial instruments at all). For example, the control group for this study could have 
been in the process of improving their business plans in preparation for seeking additional 
finance in future. 

Additional  checks  requested  by  the  Commission  were  carried  out  using  the  “log  linear 
specification”  to  track  the  relative  causal  effect  of  the  loans  and  the  breakdown  of 
businesses  that  had  benefited,  and  provided  the  Commission  with the  requested  results 
and data and the Commission confirmed its assessment of the robustness of the approach. 

1.4. 

Final Report  

This Final Report on the final evaluation of the COSME programme is structured as follows: 

•  Section 2: Background to the Programme: this section examines the context for 
the COSME Programme in terms of the market failures and key issues for SMEs 
and the wider EU policy context.  

•  Section 3: Analysis of the COSME Portfolio: this section contains an analysis of 
the COSME portfolio building on data on supported operations and grants from the 
databases  of  the  European  Investment  Fund  (EIF)  and  the  European  Innovation 
Council  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  Executive  Agency  (EISMEA), 

7 For example, see: Callaway, B. and Sant’Anna, P. (2021), Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods. 
Journal of Econometrics, Volume 225, Issue 2, 2021, Pages 200-230. 
8 See for example, Brault, J., and Signore, S. (2019). The real effects of EU loan guarantee schemes for SMEs: 
A  pan-European  assessment.  EIF  Working  Paper  2019/56,  EIF  Research  &  Market  Analysis.  June  2019. 
http://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/EIF_Working_Paper_2019_56.htm 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

which  is  the  successor  to  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium-sized 
Enterprises (EASME).9  

•  Section  4:  Assessment  of  key  evaluation  criteria:  this  section  addresses  key 
evaluation  questions  structured  around  the  evaluation  criteria  of  relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. It provides the research 
results combining the COSME monitoring data, with findings from the documentary 
review and feedback from targeted consultations and interviews. 

•  Section  5:  Conclusions:  this  section  summarises  the  main  conclusions  of  the 

study. 

The report is supported by a number of annexes: Main findings from the interim evaluation 
of COSME (Annex A), Overview of performance against indicators(Annex B), Overview of 
the  main  costs  and  benefits  of  the  main  COSME  actions  (Annex  C),  Intervention  logic 
(Annex D), Evaluation matrix (Annex E), List of performance indicators (Annex F), Summary 
of 
the  methodology  (Annex  G),  Synopsis  of  consultation  activities  (Annex  H), 
Questionnaires  for  the  interviews  (Annex  I),  public  consultation  (Annex  J)  and  targeted 
consultations (Annex K), Bibliography (Annex L) and Case studies (Annex M). 

9 As of 1 April 2021, EASME ceased its operations and a new agency, EISMEA, was established. Throughout 
this report, the current name (EISMEA) is used, although the agency was known as EASME during the 
COSME implementation period. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

2. Background to the programme 

This section provides background information on the COSME programme and the situation, 
needs and EU policy priorities at the time when the programme was launched.  

2.1.  Market failures and key issues for SMEs 

SMEs  are  defined  as  businesses  which  employ  less  than  250 staff  and have  an  annual 
turnover  of  less  than  EUR  50  million  and/or  a  balance  sheet  totalling  less  than  EUR  43 
million.10  Across  the  EU28,  there  were  21.2  million  SMEs  in  the  non‐financial  business 
sector in 2013.11 SMEs accounted for 99.8% of all enterprises operating in 2013 in the non‐
financial  business  sector  and  represented  57.9%  of  total  value  added  generated  by  this 
sector.12 

In the years after the financial crisis and immediately preceding the COSME programme 
(i.e. 2008-2013), SMEs faced various challenges but were striving to regain growth. 
The GDP growth rate in the EU-28 was weak, with only a 0.8% increase in 2013 compared 
to 2012.13 The value added generated by SMEs increased overall by 1.1% in 2013, but this 
had slowed compared to the two previous years, when it was 1.5% (2012) and 4.2% (2011) 
respectively.14 SME employment also fell by 0.5% in 2013 in the EU-28 following a decline 
in  2012.  There  were  some  variations  between  micro-enterprises  and  other  SMEs.  While 
micro-enterprises performed  better than other  SMEs  in  terms  of  value  added  (+1.5% for 
micro-enterprises), they did less well in terms of number of enterprises and employment. In 
2013,  the  total  number  of  micro-enterprises  decreased  by  0.9%  while  the  reduction  was 
less sharp for other SMEs (-0.4%). This could be due to enterprises either transitioning from 
being  micro-enterprises  to  being  SMEs  (indicating  positive  development)  or  exiting  the 
market.  Employment  in  micro-enterprises  also  dropped  by  1%  compared  to  other  SMEs 
where it remained more stable. 15  

Different surveys shed light on key issues faced by SMEs at that time, including the annual 
Surveys  on  SMEs’  Access to Finance  (SAFE)  2009-2013  which  covered  all  EU Member 
States  and  the  2014  Innobarometer.16  The  2013  SAFE  survey  of  SMEs  in  the  euro  area 
identified the main challenges that SMEs faced.17 The most pressing issue for SMEs was 
access  to  customers,  particularly  those  in  the  construction  and  manufacturing  sectors. 
The next most important issue was access to finance, which was more salient for micro-
enterprises and medium-sized enterprises, the availability of skilled staff and experienced 
managers,  and  as  a  last  preoccupation  managing  the  competition  and  supply  side 
pressures. The 2014 Innobarometer found that access to funding for R&D was the main 
obstacle to the commercialisation of innovative goods or services. 

An  important  obstacle  to  SME  access  to  credit  is  the  high  borrowing  costs.  European 
Central Bank (ECB) data indicates that borrowing costs for corporations generally decrease 
with larger loan sizes, suggesting that SMEs face comparatively higher interest rates. The 
table  below  reports  data  on  borrowing  costs  at  the  time  COSME  was  launched.  Credit 
spreads  on  corporate  loans  are  similarly  affirmed  at  the  national  level,  with  variations 

10 Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium‐sized 
enterprises, Official Journal of the European Union L124/36, 20 May 2003. 
11 2014 SME Performance Review Annual Report. 
12 European Commission, 2014. Annual report on European SMEs 2013/2014. A partial and fragile recovery. 
13 2014 SME Performance Review Annual Report. 
14 European Commission, 2014. Annual report on European SMEs 2013/2014. Also for subsequent data. 
15 Ibid. 
16 European Commission. 2014. Lack of funding prevents companies from capitalising on their innovations.  
17 The 2013 SMEs’ Access to Finance survey results are available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/7864/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

influenced by factors such as economic conditions, industry, creditworthiness, and lender 
policies. For instance, in 2014, SMEs in Czechia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy and Spain were 
paying  a  minimum  of  1.5%  more  than  larger  corporations  for  their  loans,  as  per  OECD 
Scoreboard data on Financing SMEs.18 

Table 2.1: Cost of borrowing by loan size (2014) 

Loan size (EUR 
million) 

< 0.25 million 
0.25 million – 1 million 
 > 1 million 

Source: European Central Bank 

2014-01 

Cost of borrowing (%) 
2014-09 

2014-05 

2015-01 

4.48 
3.03 
2.30 

4.39 
2.97 
2.19 

3.92 
2.61 
1.94 

3.64 
2.36 
1.77 

An  important  part  of  the  rationale  for  COSME  was  the  need  to  address  systemic 
market  failures.  A  market  failure  can  be  defined  as  “the  inability  of  a  system  of  private 
markets to provide certain goods or services either at all or at the most desirable or ‘optimal’ 
level.” 19 Market failures can occur, for instance, when private companies cannot or will not 
provide business support services or financial support to SMEs because they cannot make 
a commercial return on such services or address the risk of investment even where there 
is  demand  or  a  need  for  such  a  service  or  financial  support.  The  situation  in  which  the 
market is not able to supply a sufficient amount of external financing to SMEs due to lack 
of  sufficient  information  is  referred  to  as  ‘SME  Financing  gap’.20  Due  to  asymmetric 
information, private financial institutions are often reluctant to invest in or to lend to SMEs 
and this leads to credit rationing. 

Figure 2.1: Most pressing problems facing SMEs in the EU28 in 
2013 

Source: European Commission/ECB – SAFE Wave 9 

18 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/financing-smes-and-entrepreneurs-2022_e9073a0f-en  
19 European Commission (2002); A Study of Business Support Services and Market Failure, p.4 
20 eif_working_paper_2022_84.pdf  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Access to finance was a long-standing issue for SMEs. According to the 2014 SAFE 
survey21, 27% of SMEs did not feel confident talking with banks, equity investors and venture 
capital enterprises about their financing needs. Whilst this figure fell slightly, it remained at 
19%-22%  in  2015-2020.  The  proportion  of  enterprises  having  confidence  decreased  as 
company size decreased; in 2020, 28% of micro-enterprises lacked confidence, compared 
to  20%  of  firms  with  10-49  employees,  13%  with  50-249  employees  and  9%  with  250+ 
employees. The situation in 2014 was affected by the post-financial crisis context in which 
access  to  finance  for  SMEs  had  deteriorated  despite  the  low  interest  rate  regime  and 
quantitative easing implemented by the ECB since 2010. A collateral crunch followed the 
credit crunch leading to a tightening of credit standards for SMEs. Additionally, SMEs faced 
high administrative costs compared to the size of loans provided by financial institutions, 
and  information  asymmetries  between  the  potential  providers  and  beneficiaries  of 
financing.22 

The most pressing issue was survival during and recovery from the economic and 
financial crisis. Public support was key to addressing the structural market failures and 
weaknesses in SME financing that had been identified and to mitigate cyclical issues. SMEs 
were also showing signs of slow recovery in 2013. Comparing numbers between 2008 and 
2013 provides us with interesting insights. At the Union level, the value generated by SMEs 
increased by 1% in 2013 compared to 2008. There were 354,308 more SMEs in the EU-28 
in  2013  compared  to  the  figure  reported  in  2008  with  a  net  increase  of  EUR  44,313.75 
million in value added.23 However, in the same year employment was noted to be 2.6% lower 
than  the  recorded  level  in  2008  and  1,962,808  jobs  were  lost.24  This  could  indicate  an 
increase  in  productivity  –  which  is  a  positive  development-  but  equally  it  could  indicate 
issues with employment capacity of SMEs. Overall, in 2013, SMEs were at a critical juncture 
and  while  they  were  showing  signs  of  improvements  and  slow  recovery,  further  public 
support was needed to yield sustainable growth. 

2.2. 

EU policy context 

In the years before the launch of the COSME programme, the EU put a strong emphasis 
on enhancing the competitiveness of the Union economy, supporting enterprises and job 
creation  and on the role of  SMEs.  A  number  of strategies and initiatives  shaped the  EU 
policy context. The Impact Assessment to COSME set out clearly the problems that SMEs 
faced, including the loss of competitiveness and lack of ability to adopt more sustainable 
processes and products to enable easier growth (through easier access to finance). This 
evaluation has been framed in the context of these identified problems and the consultation 
has been designed to address the questions on whether COSME has effectively resolved 
all the problems faced by SMEs identified therein. 

Problems faced by SMEs  

The problems faced by SMEs as recognised in the Impact Assessment to COSME and 
requiring action included: 

•  Problematic access to finance 

•  Low levels of entrepreneurial firm creation and poor performance 

•  Weak entrepreneurial spirit 

21 Survey on the access to finance of enterprises in the euro area (europa.eu) 
22 COSME Interim evaluation. 
23 European Commission, 2014. Annual report on European SMEs 2013/2014. A partial and fragile economy. 
24 Ibid. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  A business environment not conducive to start-up and growth 

• 

Issues preventing industry specialisation and sectoral competitiveness 

•  Limited internationalisation. 

Source:  European  Commission,  2011.  Commission  SWD 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011SC1452&rid=1. Page 7 

Impact  Assessment.  https://eur-

The Commission’s  Europe  2020  Strategy  published  in 2010  set  a  guiding  framework  in 
this  period.25  This  strategy  outlined  five  ambitious  objectives  related  to  climate,  energy, 
employment,  innovation,  education,  and  social  inclusion,  all  to  be  achieved  by  2020. 
Promoting SMEs‘ competitiveness was a key component to achieve these goals.  

"An  Industrial  Policy  for  the  Globalisation  Era",  one  of  the  flagship  initiatives  of  the 
Europe 2020 Strategy, emphasised the importance of combining innovation, diversification, 
and sustainability, with a focus on promoting the creation and growth of SMEs.26 In 2010, 
the  Commission  outlined  11  actions  to  support this  flagship initiative,  which included  the 
establishment  of  a  comprehensive EU  industrial policy, reducing the  transaction costs  of 
doing  business  in  Europe,  fostering  business  clusters,  improving  access  to  finance  for 
higher-risk SMEs, promoting internationalisation of SMEs, and implementing the COSME 
programme. 

to 

for  EU  SME  policy,  emphasising  access 

The Small Business Act for Europe (SBA) 27, adopted in 2008, provided a comprehensive 
framework 
finance,  markets,  and 
entrepreneurship.  The  aftermath  of  the  2008  global  financial  crisis  highlighted  the 
importance  of  facilitating  access  to  finance  for  SMEs,  which  was  addressed  through 
COSME by offering loan guarantees and equity instruments. Three of the principles listed 
by the SBA were of specific relevance for the COSME programme: to facilitate SME access 
to  finance,  to  help  SMEs  benefitting  more  from  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  Single 
Market; to promote the upgrading of skills in SMEs and all forms of innovation. The SBA 
introduced the “Think Small First” principle aimed at ensuring that SMEs voices are heard 
that their interests are taken on board by policy makers and that the business environment 
is favourable to the development of SMEs. 

Finally, the COSME programme was launched alongside initiatives such as Horizon 2020,28 
which reinforced the EU's commitment to fostering innovation, and the Digital Agenda for 
Europe,29  which  emphasised  the  importance  for  SMEs  to  reap  the  benefits  of  digital 
technologies and their impact on competitiveness. 

25 COM(2010) 2020 final. Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 
26 COM(2010) 614 final. An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era Putting Competitiveness and 
Sustainability at Centre Stage. 
27 COM(2008) 394 final. A “Small Business Act” for Europe. 
28 European Commission, 2020. Horizon2020 in brief. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/horizon2020/items/15081/  
29 COM(2010) 245 final/2. A Digital Agenda for Europe. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

3. Analysis of the COSME portfolio 

This  section  presents  the  analysis  of  the  COSME  portfolio  of  operations  and  actions 
supported  by  the  programme  drawing  on  data  provided  by  the  EIF,  the  European 
Commission and EISMEA. 

3.1. 

Programme-level 

The  Regulation  specified  a  total  financial  envelope  of  EUR  2.3  billion  at  current  (i.e. 
2013) prices. According to the Regulation, at least 60% of the financial envelope was to be 
allocated  to  SO1.  The  Regulation  also  set  indicative  targets  for  the  percentage  of  the 
financial envelope to be allocated to the other specific objectives: 21.5% to SO2, 11% to 
SO3  and  2.5%  to  SO4.  The  table  below  provides  a  summary  of  the  actual  budget 
committed.  Further  details  on  the  budget  allocations  by  objective  are  provided  in  the 
following sub-sections. 

Table 3.1: Budget commitment by specific objective 

SO1 

SO2 

SO3 

SO4 

Total 

Budget committed (EUR million) 

1,587 

482 

256 

78 

2, 403 

Budget committed (%) 

66.0% 

20.1% 

10.7% 

3.2% 

100.0% 

Source: European Commission (ABAC for SO1 and COSME Monitoring Data 2014-2020 for SO2-4)30 

3.2. 

SO1: Improve Access to Finance 

COSME supported two financial instruments building on the 2007-2013 EIP equity and loan 
guarantee schemes (the GIF and the SMEG):  

•  Loan  Guarantee  Facility  (LGF)  -  Guarantees  provided  to  eligible  financial 
intermediaries who in turn provide debt financing (e.g. loans, guarantees, leases) to 
SMEs mainly for an amount up to EUR 150,000. The LGF provides guarantees and 
counter-guarantees to chosen financial intermediaries (e.g., guarantee institutions, 
banks, leasing firms, and so on) in order to assist them in providing debt finance to 
higher risk SMEs. 

•  Equity  Facility  for  Growth  (EFG)  -  equity  support  through  venture  capital 
investments to support the growth and expansion stage development of SMEs. The 
EFG invests in selected financial intermediaries providing long-term equity and/or 
quasi-equity  to  SMEs  in  their  expansion  and  growth  stage,  in  particular  those 
operating across borders. 

Overall, EUR 1,587 billion were committed to SO1 for the programming period 2014-2020. 
However, during the programme’s implementation, the COSME LGF budget envelope was 
reinforced with several top-ups by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) SME 
Window. These top-ups total nearly EUR 1.5 billion for 2014-2020.31 Section 4 of this report 

30 The final implementation as per the Commission’s accounting system offers a higher figure than the work 
programmes in respect of SO1, i.e. EUR 1,587 million, as Article 4 of each working programme provided for 
flexibility, which was ultimately used by the Commission to commit more based on the high market demand and 
availability of budget. 
31 The top-ups stem from another EU initiative, i.e. EFSI, and are an additional guarantee on top of the LGF 
commitments. This additional guarantee comes as both commitments and payments. The LGF commitments 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

provides information on the implications of these top-ups for the programme. 

3.2.1. 

Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) 

Between  2014  and  2022,  the  LGF  signed  a  total  of  163  guarantee  contracts  with  128 
financial  intermediaries,32  which  resulted  in  1,173,780  transactions  for  a  total  guarantee 
amount of EUR 53,872 million provided to 865,387 final recipients, i.e. SMEs.33 As shown 
in the Figure below, the number of transactions (and the total amount guaranteed) steadily 
increased until 2020, when it peaked (significantly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic) 
and then started decreasing from 2021 onwards, as agreements with intermediaries signed 
earlier in the programming period started to expire and the 2014-2020 budget available for 
the signature of new transactions (with intermediaries) had increasingly been used up. In 
addition, the peak in 2020 is also explained by the substantial increase in the LGF capacity 
thanks to the EFSI top-up. 

Figure 3.1: Evolution of the number of LGF transactions and total 
guarantee amount 

Source: Own elaborations on EIF monitoring data 

3.2.1.1.  LGF financial intermediaries 

The  163  guarantee  agreements  were  signed  by  financial  intermediaries  located  in  35 
countries. Since some of the agreements have been terminated, the following analyses are 
based only on the 157 active ones. As shown in the figure below, the countries with  the 
highest  number  of  active  guarantee  agreements  are  Italy,34  France,35  Bulgaria,36  and 

almost doubled thanks to that guarantee. This allowed for signatures of much more agreements with financial 
intermediaries that provided much more financial support to riskier SMEs. Payment wise, however, the EFSI 
top-up  guarantee  will  be  called  (in  cash  terms)  only  when  the  LGF  commitments  (as  payments)  are  fully 
exhausted, i.e. the top-ups act as a second loss piece. 
32 Out of the 114 financial intermediaries that signed a guarantee contract under COSME, 26 had also signed 
agreements in the predecessor programme SMEG. 
33 The figures provided are based on own calculations combining EIF monitoring data and the COSME LGF 
Quarterly Report as of 31 December 2022 
34 28 active agreements (18%) signed by 20 distinct financial intermediaries (16%). 
35 15 active agreements (10%) signed by 7 financial intermediaries (6%). 
36 11 active agreements (7%) signed by 9 financial intermediaries (7%). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Romania.37  The  only  COSME  Participating  Country  where  no  agreement  was  signed  is 
Cyprus.  Among  eastern  neighbouring  countries,  Armenia,  Moldova  and  Ukraine  did  not 
participate  in  the  COSME  financial  instruments,  even  though  they  had  signed  an 
International  Agreement  under  the  COSME  programme,  whereas,  in  Malta  and  North 
Macedonia,  the  signed  guarantee  agreement  did  not  generate  any  financing  as  of 
December 2022. In a few cases (4 in Italy, and 1 each in Germany, Malta, Spain and the 
Republic  of  North  Macedonia),  the  financial  intermediaries  were  not  able  to  generate  a 
portfolio of loans. The total guarantee cap amount and corresponding maximum portfolio of 
loans of these agreements amounted to EUR 12.7 million and EUR 264.5 million. 

Figure 3.2: Number of LGF operations signed and financial 
intermediaries 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data 

The  distribution  of  the  LGF  agreements  by  geographical  location  and  types  of  financial 
intermediaries was driven by many country-specific factors and the demand-driven nature 
of  the  programme.  Amongst  the  contextual  factors,  interviews  with the  EIF  and financial 
intermediaries have highlighted the importance of the programme’s profile within countries, 
the  suitability  of  COSME  eligibility  conditions,  implementation  framework  and  monitoring 
requirements  with  the  intermediaries’  business  models  and  operations  and  their  internal 
capacity. In nearly all countries covered by the LGF, national guarantee schemes for SMEs 
were  already  in  place.  Financial  intermediaries  may  have  found  it  easier  to  access  the 
national  programme  than  COSME  or  simply  preferred  to  partner  with  the  national 
programme for strategic considerations. In Italy, the large number of agreements was driven 
by several national and regional institutions providing guarantees. Perhaps reflecting this, 
only  two  commercial  entities  in  Italy  signed  a  financing  agreement  directly  with  the  EIF. 
Evidence  from  the  interview  programme  and  public  consultation  suggests  that  linguistic 
barriers  hampered  participation  in  some  instances.  COSME  financing  agreements  and 
monitoring  reports  were  exclusively  available  in  English,  demanding  advanced  language 
proficiency. 

37 9 active agreements (6%) signed by 8 financial intermediaries (6%). 

46 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Concerning the type of financial intermediaries that signed agreements, two considerations 
emerge.  The  role  of  National  Promotional  Banks  (NPBs)  and  guarantee  institutions  has 
been  instrumental  in  facilitating  participation  in  the  programme  in  certain  countries.  This 
holds true not only for countries that exclusively participated through their NPBs but also for 
Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy and Poland. 

Regarding  the  involvement  of  leasing  companies  in  the  LGF,  their  participation  in  some 
cases (e.g., France, Netherlands) was influenced by the specific characteristics of national 
guarantee programmes. These programmes either do not consider these intermediaries as 
eligible for financing, or the terms at which these programmes are offered do not align well 
with the business model of leasing companies. 

Figure 3.3: Distribution of financial intermediaries (with active 
agreements) by type and country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data 

In terms of the type of support provided, out of the 157 active guarantee contracts signed, 
92 (59%) aimed to provide direct guarantees, 51 (32%) counter guarantees, 9 (6%) an SME 
Initiative Securitisation Instrument, and 5 (3%) on-lending.  

Although  commercial  banks  signed  the  largest  number  of  guarantee  contracts,  the 
guarantee  institutions  and  promotional  banks  generated  a  significantly  higher  number  of 
transactions. By providing counter-guarantees through sub-intermediaries, the guarantee 
institutions  and  promotional  banks  reached  almost  twice  as  many  final  recipients  as 
commercial banks (56% of the LGF final recipients received support through counter-guarantees). 
There are several reasons for the higher results of the counter-guarantees. On one hand, 
on average, counter-guarantees ensure a higher leverage of the budget committed to an 
individual  transaction  (calculated  as  total  supported  lending  to  SMEs,  divided  by  the 
COSME LGF budget committed). This is achieved thanks to the additional guarantee layers, 
with  each  additional  layer  mobilising  additional  resources  alongside  the  COSME  LGF 
resources. On the other hand, although a higher number of contracts were signed under 
the direct-guarantee structure, the reverse is true for the amount of EU budget allocated to 
these  agreements  (ca.  57%  of  the  budget  went  to  agreements  signed  with  counter-
guarantee  and  on-lending  structures.  The  two  factors  (additional  budget  with  a  higher 
leverage)  reinforce  one  another  and  result  in  the  high  volumes  and  numbers  of  SMEs 
mentioned above.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

3.2.1.2.  LGF Final Beneficiaries 

The LGF supported 865,387 distinct SMEs (i.e. final recipients) as of 31 December 2022. 
The  countries  with  the  highest  number  of  final  recipients  are  Italy,  France,  Spain,  and 
Poland.  The  geographical  distribution  of  supported  SMEs  is  mainly  determined  by  the 
number of agreements signed in each country and the size (maximum portfolio volume) of 
these agreements. In addition to this there were other factors at play, such as the average 
size of loans the EIF agreed with the financial intermediaries in the different countries. As 
shown in the figure below, the larger the maximum portfolio volume signed, the larger the 
number of SMEs supported in each country. There are some exceptions, e.g., in Turkey, 
the  number  of  SMEs  supported  is  much  larger  than  in  Bulgaria,  even  though  Bulgarian 
financial  intermediaries  signed  for  a  larger  portfolio  volume  overall.  This  is  due  to  the 
average loan amount, which varies across countries (see Figure). 

Figure 3.4: Distribution of LGF final recipients and maximum 
portfolio volume signed by country 

Source: Own elaboration based on COSME LGF Quarterly Report 
as of 31 December 2022 

The COSME final recipients represent on average roughly 3% of the total number of 
SMEs active in the eligible countries.38 As shown in the figure below, this share is higher 
in  some  countries:  in  Spain  and  France  (6%),  in  Italy,  Finland,  and  Serbia  (5%),  and  in 
Poland  (4%).  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  maximum  portfolio  volume  the  EIF  agreed  with 
financial  intermediaries,  the  number  of  active  financial  intermediaries  and  their  existing 
portfolios. 

38 The total number of SMEs active in each country was retrieved from SSBA Country Fact Sheets 
(https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/smes/sme-strategy/sme-performance-review_en). The data in 
the Fact Sheets come from national and Eurostat databases. 
48 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.5 LGF final recipients as a percentage of all SMEs in 
each country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data and SBA 
country factsheets 

There were significant differences in the average ticket size across countries, as seen 
in Figure . With 66 operations, Iceland had the highest average LGF loan size of the entire 
portfolio. In contrast, in Italy, France and Spain, a larger number of SMEs were supported 
with relatively smaller loan amounts. On average, based on monitoring data provided by the 
EIF, evidence shows that the principal amount is positively correlated with the size and the 
economic  performance  of  the  enterprise  (measured  in  terms  of  employment  and  total 
assets).  The  larger  the  number  of  employees  and  the  total  assets  at  the  time  of  the 
investment, the larger the principal amount. 

The relationship between the average size of final recipient transaction (i.e., average ticket 
size)  and  the  GDP  per  capita  across  Member  States  highlights  that  there  are  strong 
differences across countries. On the one hand, in France and the UK, where the GDP per 
capita is more than EUR 30,000, the average size of final recipients’ transaction was less 
than EUR 25,000. On the other hand, in Albania and Bulgaria where the GDP per capita is 
respectively EUR 4,700 and EUR 8,900, the average ticket size was EUR 102,000 and EUR 
119,000. Although the average size of the loans can be partly linked to the macroeconomic 
conditions  of  different  countries,  the  relationship  is  on  average  weak:  the  Pearson 
correlation coefficient between the average size of the ticket and the 2014 GDP per capita 
is 0.34, with a p-value of 0.054. The figures presented above underline that this is not the 
main driver.  This  heterogeneity  of ticket  sizes  is  mainly  driven  by the  different  strategies 
implemented  by  the  intermediary  banks,  which  in  some  cases  mainly  lend  to  micro-
enterprises, while in others also targeted other SMEs with larger loans. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.6: GDP per capita and average loan size by country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data and 
Eurostat 

SMEs mostly used loans to support their day-to-day operations. A total of 55.1% of the 
total amount financed was used for “working capital” purposes.39 This is followed by “tangible 
investment” and “mixed-purpose” loans, accounting respectively for 19.5% and 18.7% of 
the total amount financed. Intangible investment only accounts for 2.8% of the total, while 
investments for “business transfer” purposes accounted for 3.6%. 

As far as the size of final recipients is concerned, most firms reached by the programme 
are micro-enterprises, i.e., they have fewer than ten employees. These firms represent 
89% of the final recipients reached by the LGF programme. Small (10-50 employees) and 
medium (50-250 employees) enterprises account for 10% and 1% of the number of SMEs 
financed,  respectively.  Overall,  50%  of  the  firms  financed  under  the  LGF  are  sole 
proprietors. This is not unexpected given that the LGF set a EUR 150,000 loan threshold 
above which intermediaries had to apply a special procedure to verify the company eligibility 
for financing under the LGF. The financial intermediaries interviewed confirmed that, to play 
safe and avoid additional administrative burdens, they kept the individual loan size under 
the EUR 150,000 threshold. Moreover, some financial intermediaries with large portfolios, 
as in Germany and Spain, specifically served micro-enterprises, individual businesses and 
start-ups. 

39 Working capital includes revolving credit (both credit lines and overdrafts line of credit), term working capital 
loans, including bridge finance loans, purchase of receivables and invoice discounting. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.7: Financed SMEs by size at the time of investment 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data 

The  predominance  of  micro-enterprises  characterises  all  countries  supported  by 
COSME LGF. The share of micro-enterprises supported by COSME LGF is above 95% in 
countries such as Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany, while it is less than 50% 
in  Albania,  Bosnia  and Herzegovina  and  Lithuania.  In  Slovenia  and  Luxembourg,  micro-
enterprises represent a relatively low share of the SMEs financed, potentially explaining the 
high average amount of the loans disbursed in these countries. Among the countries with a 
high share of micro-enterprises financed, France (94%) and Spain (95%) strongly influence 
the statistics due to their weight in terms of total number of final recipients. In these two 
countries,  respectively,  169,214  (72%)  and  99,137  (57%)  of  the  final  recipients  are  sole 
proprietors.  It  is  also  important  to  underline  that  the  average  share  of  micro-enterprises 
within SMEs supported by the LGF across all countries is 75%. This figure is lower than the 
average share of micro-enterprises  within SMEs  (93%)  across  countries  as per  Eurostat 
Structural Business Statistics (SBS).40 

40 The Structural business statistics only cover NACE sectors B to N and S95 and only a limited number of 
countries, namely: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden. Therefore, when 
comparing with portfolio data, only sectors and countries for which the corresponding SBS data were available 
were included in the analysis. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.8 Distribution of final recipients by size at the time of 
investment and country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data 

COSME  LGF  supported  SMEs  operating  in  various  sectors  of  the  economy.  The 
analysis of the population of firms by NACE sector shows that a quarter of final recipients 
operated in sector G, “Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles” 
(see  Figure  ),  in  almost  all  countries  supported  by  the  programme.  The  second  most 
common  sector  was  sector  C  “Manufacturing”,  followed  by  sector  F  “Construction”.  In 
Denmark,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Iceland and  Ireland, the  large  majority  of  supported 
SMEs were active in sector A, “Agriculture, forestry and fishing”. In Slovenia, 38% of the 
final recipients are active in sector C, “Manufacturing”. Finally, in Sweden, the largest single 
group of SMEs (19%), receiving financing guaranteed by the LGF, were active in sector M, 
“Professional, scientific and technical activities”. 

The sector distribution reflects the sectors where SMEs, and in particular micro-enterprises, 
are  mostly  active.  In  some  countries,  it  was  also  driven  by  the  strategic  choices  of  the 
financial intermediaries (e.g. a focus on agriculture by the NPBs in Denmark and Ireland) or 
the  composition  of  the  client  base  of  a  commercial  intermediary.  Overall,  the  sectoral 
distribution  is  in  line  with  the  sectoral  distribution  across  SMEs  as  per  Eurostat  SBS. 
Considering only the sectors and countries covered by the SBS data, the main differences 
arise in sector G (which represent 30%41 of the total beneficiaries in portfolio data and 25% 
of  the  total  SMEs  as  per  SBS  data),  C  (16%  in portfolio  data  and  9%  in  SBS  data)  and 
sector M (8% in portfolio data and 20% in SBS data). 

41 The share was computed only across the sectors and countries for which the corresponding Structural 
business statistics data were available. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.9: Number of final recipients by Sector (NACE level 1) 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data 

3.2.2.  Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) 

The EIF signed EFG agreements with 23 financial intermediaries and committed an 
overall amount of about EUR 324 million from the EU budget in their funds in addition to 
EIF own resources alongside with other private resources investing in these funds.42 

The  core  COSME  EFG  provided  risk  capital  investment  to  funds that  in  turn  invested  in 
SMEs in their expansion and growth-stage, with a view to support growth and employment. 
In doing so, the EFG aims to contribute to the tackling of persistent market gaps which exist 
in the area of risk capital for SMEs. In this respect, EIF has committed EUR 278 million into 
21 intermediaries. The additional two operations (bringing the total number to 23) have been 
signed  under  the  Pan  European  Venture  Capital  Funds-of-Funds  (VentureEU)  initiative, 
launched in 2016 by the Commission. 

The EFG initially started its implementation by investing in both expansion and growth stage 
and  multistage  funds.  Later,  it  was  modified  so  to  participate  also  in  the  Pan-European 
Venture  Capital  Funds-of-Funds  programme  (VentureEU),  i.e.  in  multistage  funds-of-
funds.43 Therefore, we present the EFG as two subsets (core operations and VentureEU), 
although  the  assessment  of  the  evaluation  criteria,  including  the  COSME  Regulation 
objectives and targets, are valid for the EFG as a single instrument in line with the COSME 
Regulation. For example, while the EFG leverage of 11 has surpassed the legal target of 
between 4 and 6 in the COSME Regulation, it would not be necessarily the case for EFG 

42 Source: EIF database extract (June 2023). Note that the number of unique beneficiaries has been 
computed across the whole portfolio based on the Company Name of the final recipient.  
43 European Commission, 2018, Press Release, ‘VentureEU: €2.1 billion to boost venture capital investment in 
Europe's innovative start-ups’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_2763  
53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

subsets regardless of their grouping, e.g. even grouped by another criterion such as single 
and multistage funds. 

The analyses below focus on the core COSME EFG, while a distinct section is dedicated to 
the Pan European VC funds-of-funds initiative. 

3.2.2.1.  Core EFG theoretical leverage  

Under the core COSME EFG, 179 investments were made in 178 distinct final recipients, 
with either private debt, private equity or venture capital. Of these investments, 104 were 
made in COSME EFG eligible final recipients (each in a distinct company).44 It should be 
noted that none of these investments targeted the same company. In what follows, only the 
subset  of  EFG-related  investments  (i.e.,  excluding  non  COSME  eligible  recipients)  is 
analysed. 

Overall,  core  COSME  EFG  operations  supported  an  overall  investment  of  EUR  822 
million in SMEs. It has to be noted however, that some funds are still in the investment 
period,  therefore  additional  investments  are  expected.  The  figure  below  highlights  that  a 
considerable amount started to be invested in 2016. After a slight decline in activity between 
2018 and 2020, the investments increased again to peak in 2022. 

Figure 3.10: Investments in core EFG COSME eligible final 
recipients (EUR million) 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

The core COSME EFG operations (as subset of the single EFG instrument) would not 
have reached a leverage effect between 4 and 6, if it would have  been intended as 
such by the COSME Regulation. In fact, while the targeted leverage effect for the signed 
operations  was  between  4  and  6  as  per  the  COSME  Regulation  for  the  entire  EFG,  the 
leverage effect for the core operations of the programme was only 2.95. Moreover, the EFG 
commitment in relation to the intermediaries (i.e., the share of the fund covered by the EFG 
over the total size of the fund) on average represented 13% of the total size of the fund (with 
the limit being 25%). 

44 To be determined as COSME EFG eligible a final recipient must be: a) an SME immediately before or after 
the time of first investment; b) established and operating in a Participating Country at the time of first 
investment; c) in its Expansion and Growth Stage at the time of first investment; d) not an excluded final 
recipient (i.e. undertaking illegal activities, unwilling to acknowledge the EU support, undertaking doing genetic 
research activity, not allowing the Commission to carry out controls and audits, committing fraud, etc.). 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

3.2.2.2.  Core EFG Funds 

The 21 selected funds are located in 17 countries. Typically, operations within one country 
are  provided  by  a  single  fund,  as  shown  in  Figure  .  However,  multiple  funds  signed 
operations  in  Bulgaria,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  Portugal.  Out  of  the  21  funds 
participating in the programme, the majority (14 out of 21) focused on the expansion and 
growth stage only, while the remainder were multi-stage (as also co-invested by InnovFin): 
six funds offered venture capital, while only one fund provided private debt. 

Figure 3.11: Number of core EFG funds by legal country and type 
of support provided 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

3.2.2.3.  Core EFG COSME eligible final beneficiaries 

COSME  EFG  eligible  final  recipients’  headquarters  were  located  in  23  different 
countries.  The  countries  with  the  highest  number  of  EFG  final  recipients’  headquarters 
were Germany (14, 13%), France (11, 11%), and Finland (10, 10%). These are followed by 
the Netherlands (8, 7%), Greece (7, 6%) and Ireland (7, 6%). In 15 countries, fewer than 
five  SMEs  received  investment.  This  distribution  is  not  surprising  when compared  to  the 
overall distribution of EIB group’s equity operations in the period 2010-2021. For the EIB 
group’s operations in general, funding was concentrated in a few countries notably the UK, 
France, Germany and Sweden. 

However, when these investment flows were considered in relative terms, i.e., relative to 
the size of the equity markets in the respective country, it emerges that the EIF provided 
significant support to companies in Member States with less mature and underserved equity 
markets. The risk capital portfolio has generally over-favoured firms in countries and regions 
characterised  with  low  venture  capital  and  private  equity  supply  and  under-favoured  the 
more  developed  ones.  In  countries  such  as  Greece  and  Cyprus  EIB  group  equity 
investments have been multiplied by a factor of around 8 over the period 2010-2021.45 

Given that COSME data showed a similar trend, it can be inferred that the EFG enhanced 
access  to  finance,  particularly  in  the  form  of  equity  products,  in  countries  where 
supply was less developed.  

45 EIB Group. 2022. Evaluation of EIB Group equity and quasi-equity support for small businesses and mid-
caps. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.12: Investments in EFG COSME eligible final recipients 
by legal country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

In general, the total amount invested in each country is correlated with the number of 
final recipients. The top five countries in terms of the number of final recipients (Germany, 
France, Finland the Netherlands and Greece) are also the top five countries in terms of the 
total amount invested. 

The majority of investments made in EFG final recipients were below EUR 10 million. 
In particular 47% of the firms received between EUR 5 and EUR 10 million, while 34% of 
the beneficiaries received less than EUR 5 million. This is in line with the average ticket size 
in the EU market. Evidence from interviews with the EFG backed investors/ Fund managers 
reported that depending on the investment round (e.g., seed, series A, Series B)46 or the 
investee  life-cycle,  the ticket  size  varies between EUR  1  to  EUR  8  million.  To  put this  in 
context,  the  2019  report  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  on  centrally-managed  EU 
interventions for venture capital shows that EU-backed venture capital funds have invested, 
on  average,  EUR  1.4  and  EUR  2.6  million  per  SME  in  the  seed  and  start-up  stages 
respectively, while the average investment in the growth and buy-out stages per SME were 
EUR 4.9 and EUR 7.2 million, respectively.47 

46 Typically, seed funding is usually between $500,000 and $2 million; series A rounds raise between $2 
million and $15 million, and Series B can range between $7 million and $10 million. 
47 ECA. 2019. Centrally managed EU interventions for venture capital: in need of more direction, Special 
report. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.13: Distribution of core EFG eligible final recipients by 
invested amount (EUR million) 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data 

The majority of investments made under the EFG were directed to medium enterprises (i.e., 
50-250 employees), which accounted for 57% of the final recipients. Small enterprises (i.e., 
10-50  employees)  represented  38%  of  the  SMEs  financed,  while  micro-enterprises  (i.e., 
fewer than 10 employees) made up only 5% of the COSME eligible final recipients. 

Figure 3.14: Distribution of core EFG COSME eligible final 
recipients by size 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

Most EFG final recipients operate in the “Computer and Consumer Electronics” or in the 
“Business and industrial products” sectors. Differently from investments supported by the 
LGF, EFG targeted the subset of SMEs which are often young fast-growing innovative 
firms.  They  show  a  risk  profile  and  business  model  related  to  innovation,  making  these 
firms often unable to obtain financing from the traditional system of financial intermediation. 
In  exchange  for  the  higher  risk,  these  instruments  offer  higher  expected  returns  to 
investors– usually beyond the profit-generating capabilities of traditional SMEs. Such firms 
also tend to rely heavily on intangible assets that often cannot be used as collateral to obtain 
loans. This also explains why COSME actions related to intellectual property  rights have 
absorbed a relatively large amount of total EU contribution under the SO2 “Improve Access 
to Markets” (see below). 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.15: Number of EFG final recipients by sector of activity 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

3.2.2.4.  VentureEU 

In 2016, the  Commission launched  the  Pan  European Venture  Capital  Fund(s)-of-Funds 
programme (“VentureEU”).48  Under  the  programme,  two  operations were signed  with the 
participation of the EFG resources. The targeted funds-of-funds in this case act as financial 
intermediaries and, instead of directly investing in firms, they invest in other funds which in 
turn finance the final beneficiaries of the programme. 

The EFG committed respectively EUR 12 and 33 million to two funds-of-funds (Aurora and 
Lombard)  both  of  which  are  based  in  Luxembourg  but  operate  on  a  multi-country  basis. 
These  investments  corresponded  to  14%  and  12%  respectively  of  the  size  of  the 
intermediary. Together the two funds-of-funds supported a total of 45 funds. These funds in 
turn made 673 investments into 612 distinct companies. Not all the investments targeted 
companies  were  EFG-eligible  under  the  rules  of  the  programme.  In  fact,  only  460 
investments into 418 distinct companies were deemed EFG-eligible, e.g. where investments 
were not focused on SMEs in the expansion and growth stage. In addition, it is important to 
underline that under VentureEU, the eligibility criteria are wider than under the core EFG. 
There  is  a special  type of  COSME  EFG  eligible  final  recipients, known as  COSME  EFG 
eligible  EU  target  investees.  While  COSME  EFG  eligible  final  recipients  (i.e.,  those 
deemed  eligible  under  the  core  EFG)  are  established  and  operating  in  a  COSME 
Participating  Country  and  received  investments  directly  via  an  EFG  supported  fund,  the 
COSME EFG eligible EU target investees are established or operating in the EU and 
received  investments  indirectly  via  an  EFG  supported  fund-of-funds  (that  invested  in 
another fund).  The following  analyses  focus  only  on  the  COSME  EFG eligible EU  target 
investees (i.e., the non-COSME eligible final recipients are not included in the figure and 
statistics provided). 

Due to the EFG, the Pan European Venture Capital Fund(s)-of-Funds supported an overall 
investment of EUR 3,145 million in the targeted firms. It has to be noted however, that 
some funds are still in the investment period, therefore additional investments are expected. 
The  Figure  highlights  the  ramp  up  in  the  invested  amount  starting  in  2018  and  the 

48 See: https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/paneuropean_venture_capital_fund_of_funds/index.htm 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

considerable peak in 2021. Note that the investments prior to 2016 relate to funds which 
were active prior to the support from the funds-of-funds. 

Figure 3.16: Total amount invested in EFG eligible EU target 
investees by year, million EUR 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

The  VentureEU  (as  a  subset  of  the  EFG  instrument)  would  have  far  exceeded  a 
leverage of between 4 and 6, if this had been intended solely for VentureEU in the 
COSME Regulation. In fact, while the targeted leverage effect for the signed operations 
was  between  4  and  6  as  per  the  COSME  Regulation,  the  leverage  effect  obtained  only 
through the funds-of-funds operations was 69.3.49 

As far as the COSME EFG-eligible EU target investees are concerned, their headquarters 
are based in 22 distinct countries. As underlined above the eligibility criteria also include 
companies whose legal country is not in a COSME Participating Country, as long as it is 
operating in the EU. The country where the largest number of beneficiaries were reached 
are Germany (with 29% of the total), United Kingdom (17%) and France (16%). These are 
followed by the United States (11%) and the Netherlands (7%). 

Generally, the invested amount is proportional to the number of firms reached. The top five 
countries in terms of the number of final recipients are also the top five countries in terms 
of the total amount invested. 

49 Ratio of the total invested amount by the intermediaries over the total EFG commitment. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.17: Number of EFG-eligible EU target investees and total 
invested by legal country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

As shown by the figure below, on average the amount invested in the companies is smaller 
in comparison to the core COSME EFG operations. Most of the firms received investments 
worth less than EUR 5 million (65%). In particular 191 investments (42%) amounted to less 
than EUR 1 million. This figure is particularly surprising considering that among the eligible 
final recipients benefitting from the core COSME EFG operations only 2 investments (2%) 
were worth less than EUR 1 million. This can be explained by the size of the companies 
receiving the investments, as explained in the next paragraph. 

Figure 3.18: Distribution of COSME EFG eligible EU target 
investees by financed amount 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

In  contrast  to  the  core  EFG  operations,  the  majority  of  investments  made  by  the  Pan 
European Venture Capital Fund(s)-of-Funds were directed to small enterprises (i.e., 10-50 
employees),  which  accounted  for  35%  (155  firms)  of  the  eligible  final  recipients.  Micro-
enterprises and medium-sized enterprises accounted respectively for 28% (115 firms) and 
19% (91 firms) of the eligible final recipients. In light of this, the smaller average investment 
size registered in the context of the funds-of-funds is better understood: under the core EFG 
only 5% of the firms (i.e., 5 companies) were micro-enterprises. Finally, for 64 companies 
(13%) the headcount was not available while in 23 cases (5%) the final recipients counted 
more  than  249  employees,  therefore  falling  into  the  mid-cap  category.  However,  it  is 
possible that the headcount might have grown since the time of first investment, therefore 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

bringing some enterprises, which must have been SMEs at the time of the investment, into 
a higher size category. 

As far as the sector of activity is concerned, the sector with the largest number of active 
firms  is  computer  and  consumer  electronics  (accounting  for  37%  of  the  firms  for  which 
information is available). The same was also the case for the core COSME EFG eligible 
beneficiaries. The second most common sector is life sciences (16%) followed by financial 
services  (12%).  Note  that  these  two  sectors  only  accounted  for  9%  and  2%  of  the  core 
COSME EFG eligible beneficiaries, respectively. 

Figure 3.19: Number of COSME EFG eligible EU target investees 
by sector of activity 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF database extract 

3.3. 

SO2: Improve access to markets  

Under Specific Objective 2 (SO2), “Improving Access to markets”, COSME implemented 13 
actions, through 27 project calls. While the total cost of the funded projects has amounted 
to EUR 694.4 million, the corresponding EU contribution amounted to EUR 396.5 million. 
Therefore, the EU contribution represented 57% of the projects’ total costs under the overall 
specific  objective.  The  remaining  costs  were  sustained  by  participants  in  these  projects 
using other sources, including own resources. 

With  the  aim  of  providing  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  actions,  these  have  been 
grouped by thematic focus. Two thematic areas have been identified under SO2, namely 
“Business  support  networks  and  services”  and  “Public  Procurement”.  The  figure  below 
provides  an  overview of  the  number  of  actions, project calls  and projects  in the  different 
thematic areas. In line with the different objectives and targets of these two thematic areas, 
a relatively large share of the EU budget allocated to this SO was spent on actions related 
to “Business support networks and services”. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.20: Share of actions, project calls and project numbers by 
thematic area 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

The Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) is one of the main instruments of COSME to help 
SMEs  with  access  to  international  markets.  The  EEN  was  initially  set  up  in  2008  and 
operated as a pilot under the EIP (2007-2013). COSME provided follow-up funding to EEN 
during 2014-2020, building on the success of the network during the CIP and EIP. As shown 
in the table below, EEN is the largest action in terms of calls, number of projects, costs and 
amount. Ten calls for projects to provide advisory services to SMEs were launched, relating 
to a total of 518 distinct projects with total costs amounting to EUR 663.3 million. These 
included  the  initial  EEN  call  in  2014  (for  the  conclusion  of  7-year  framework  partnership 
agreements and specific grant agreements for the first 2 years), subsequent calls for 1-2 
year specific grant agreements, and a number of specific EEN calls (notably for the EEN 
scale-up  services).  The  EU  contribution  for  EEN  projects  accounted  for  55%  of  the  total 
costs, i.e. EUR 367.3 million.  

Of  the  other  actions  under  the  “Business  support  networks  and  services”  thematic  area, 
those related to intellectual property rights absorbed the largest amount of EU funding. As 
shown in the table below, the actions “International Intellectual Property SME helpdesks” 
and “IP Pre-Diagnostic and Improving Access to Patent Protection for Innovative EU SMEs.” 
received  EU  funding  of  EUR  9.19  million  and  EUR  4.08  million,  respectively  from  the 
COSME programme.  

Other  measures  under  Objective  2  included  actions  to  improve  SME  access  to  public 
procurement such as the co-financing of public procurement of innovation (PPI) consortia, 
actions  to  support  internationalisation  such  as  the  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (IPR) 
Helpdesks  in  China,  Latin  America  and  south-east  Asia,  and  initiatives  to  improve  SME 
access  to  information,  such  as  the  Your  Europe  Business  portal  and  the  Single  Digital 
Gateway. These actions were designed to support different types of project in response to 
market needs. Consequently, in some cases, actions such as the “Co-financing of public 
procurement of innovation consortia” have co-financed relatively large amounts in a limited 
number  of  projects,  while  in  others,  actions  such  as  “Supporting  European  SMEs  to 
participate  in  public  procurement  outside  EU”  have  funded  a  slightly  higher  number  of 
projects and provided relatively smaller grants. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Table 3.2: Details of SO2 actions by thematic area 

Actions 

No. calls  Total costs 

€ 

EU grant 
€ 

No. 
projects 

No. 
beneficiaries 

Business support networks and services 

Enterprise Europe Network 

10 

663,345,624 367,277,676 

518 

664 

Awareness-raising  for  entrepreneurs 
on the Points of Single Contact 

EU SME Centre in China 

Information  Platform  on  Parcel 
Delivery Services to reduce barriers to 
e-commerce 

International intellectual property SME 
helpdesks 

IP  Pre-Diagnostic  and 
Access 
Innovative EU SMEs. 

to  Patent  Protection 

Improving 
for 

SME Internationalisation 

Public procurement 

Co-financing of public procurement of 
innovation consortia 

Creating  links  for  the  facilitation  of 
public procurement of innovation 

Facilitating  access  to  regulations  on 
light remotely piloted aircraft systems 

Improving  SMEs  Access  to  Cross-
Border Public Procurement 

Supporting  European  SMEs 
participate 
outside EU 

to 
in  public  procurement 

Training  for  SME-friendly  policies  in 
central purchasing bodies 
Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0.061  

46,350 

1,333,253 

1,199,925 

526,718 

360,000 

10,209,423  9,188,481 

4,548,231 

4,084,186 

356,537 

264,568 

5,017,792 

7,172,257 

2,380,299 

2,099,835 

1,147,680 

1,032,912 

1,250,439 

937,220 

2,967,996 

2,225,993 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

4 

3 

1 

4 

6 

2 

3 

5 

15 

2 

1 

26 

13 

8 

22 

18 

4 

1,388,424 

1,249,577 

4 

2 

Considering smaller actions, under SO2 (thus excluding the EEN), COSME supported 155 
distinct  organisations  with  grants.  More  than  half  of  the  organisations  benefitting  were 
located  in  five  countries,  namely  Spain  (13%),  France  (10%),  Italy  (10%),  the  United 
Kingdom (9%) and Belgium (9%). 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.21: SO2: Number of participants by country (excluding 
EEN) 

Source: Own elaboration based on data from EISMEA 

The geographical distribution of EU grants was well aligned with the distribution of 
participants by country. Most of the EU contribution was granted to participants based in 
Spain,  the  United  Kingdom,  and  France.  Concerning  the  different  countries  involved  in 
international projects, it is interesting to note that in most of the cases the participants were 
from  multiple  EU  countries.  Five  projects  involved  organisations  located  in  non-COSME 
participating countries, namely in Brazil, China, Chile, Mexico, Thailand and Vietnam. These 
third  country  organisations 
the 
funding 
internationalisation of EU enterprises to their countries. 

received  EU 

for  activities 

to  support 

Figure 3.22: Total COSME funding by participants’ country 
(excluding EEN) 

Source: Own elaboration based on data from EISMEA 

3.4.  SO3: 

Improve 

framework 

conditions 

for 

competitiveness and sustainability 

According to Article 11 of the COSME Regulation, the programme was to support actions 
to improve the  framework  conditions for the competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  SMEs. 
Such actions could include enhancing national or regional policies, reducing administrative 
and  regulatory  burdens,  measuring  the  impact  of  EU  law  on  SMEs,  developing 
competitiveness strategies, coordinating actions taken by Member States and supporting 
sectors with significant growth potential, such as tourism. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

To  this  end,  COSME  supported  21  actions  through  30  project  calls  and  financed  263 
projects. The total cost of these projects amounted to EUR 127.5 million, of which EUR 94.8 
million (74%) was financed by the EU contribution. The remaining costs were met by the 
project participants. 

The actions funded under this specific objective were grouped into seven thematic areas, 
“Internationalisation”,  “Competitiveness”,  “Tourism”,  “Social  Economy”,  “Framework 
conditions”, “Design of consumer goods” and “Fashion”. As shown in the table below, most 
of the EU contribution went into projects funded by actions related to Tourism (EUR 28.8 
million),  Internationalisation  (EUR  26.6 million),  and  Competitiveness  (EUR  25.8  million). 
Coherently with the fund distributions, these three thematic areas were also those under 
which a high number of calls were launched, and projects funded. Among the actions under 
the “Tourism” thematic area, there is a mix of actions that were funded with small grants 
given  to many  projects, e.g., “Enhance tourism quality,  sustainability,  accessibility,  skills, 
information  and  innovation”,  and  larger  grants  funding  actions  in  a  limited  number  of 
projects,  e.g.,  “Boosting  sustainable tourism  development  and  capacity  of  tourism  SMEs 
through transnational cooperation and knowledge transfer”. 

Table 3.3: SO3 - Actions, calls, projects, total cost, and EU contribution by thematic 
area 

Thematic Area 

No. 
Actions 

No. 
Calls 

No. 
Projects 

No. 
Participants 

Total 
costs € 
million 

EU 
contribution € 
million 

Competitiveness 

Design 
consumer goods 

of 

Fashion 

Framework 
conditions 

Internationalisation 

Social economy 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

9 

2 

1 

2 

5 

1 

58 

10 

4 

3 

78 

7 

Tourism 

10 

10 

103 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

257 

27 

25 

27 

283 

10 

546 

32.2 

16.5 

4.5 

1.6 

33.1 

0.5 

39.2 

25.8 

8.2 

3.4 

1.4 

26.6 

0.4 

28.8 

The “Internationalisation” thematic area, which is the second in terms of EU contributions, 
includes a single action, the Clusters Go International action. This action is among the most 
significant under SO3, having funded 72% of the total number of projects and accounted 
for nearly 26% of the project costs. Through five calls, 78 projects were funded. 

The Clusters Go International action aimed to foster internationalisation. It was based on 
25  European  Strategic  Cluster  Partnerships  (ESCPs)  representing  more  than  17,000 
European  SMEs  and  145  cluster  organisations  in  23  different  European  countries.  The 
Interim  Evaluation  of  the  COSME  Programme  found  that  the  Clusters  Go  International 
action  was  successful  in  enlisting  a  significant  number  of  clusters,  some  of  which 
participated voluntarily, demonstrating the high level of interest in this initiative among the 
EU cluster community. More details on the first generation of 15 co-funded and 10 voluntary 
European Strategic Cluster Partnerships for Going International (ESCP-4i) show that these 
involved  about 150  cluster  organisations across 23  European  countries.  Each  ESCP-4i 
developed a series of joint actions for their members (i.e. business missions, cooperation 

65 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

agreements,  gateway  services,  export  consortia,  etc.)  to  help  strengthening  European 
SMEs’ access to specific third markets.50 

The European Cluster Collaboration Platform (ECCP) is an online community helping 
cluster  stakeholders  (cluster  organisations,  policymakers  and  other  related  stakeholders 
from the clusters ecosystem) across the EU to cooperate, connect and collaborate together. 
It  plays  the  role  of  an  important  collaboration  platform  for  industrial  clusters.  The  ECCP 
continues and builds on the work of the European Observatory for Clusters and Industrial 
Change (OECIC) and the European Resource Efficiency Knowledge Centre (EREK). The 
strategic goal of the ECCP is to improve the productivity, innovation, internationalisation, 
and resource efficiency of European SMEs in order to increase their competitiveness and 
sustainability. To this end, a focus on cluster governance was developed under COSME via 
the  European  Cluster  Excellence  Programme  which  maximised  the  effectiveness  and 
impact of existing European clusters.  

Linked to the above, the ClusterXchange is a specific programme supported by the ECCP, 
that  supports  and  encourages  knowledge  transfer  and  broader  collaboration  in  order  to 
better 
the 
ClusterXchange  initiative  also  encourages  cross-border  collaboration,  peer  learning, 
networking, and innovation adoption among its participants across a wide range of industrial 
clusters. 

industrial  eco-systems.  Additionally, 

integrate  and  connect 

the  EU 

SO3  also  included  initiatives  focused  on  the  monitoring  and  follow-up  of  SME  policy 
(e.g., SME Performance Review, SME Assembly, SME Envoys Network), the EU REFIT 
platform  for  regulatory  burden  reduction,  activities related  to  industry  modernisation  (key 
enabling  technologies,  advanced  manufacturing),  initiatives  to  support  digitalisation  and 
boost skills, and activities to support SMEs in specific sectors such as tourism, fashion or 
construction.  

As regards the project participants, SO3 provided grants to 1,066 participants51 based in 37 
countries, including both EU countries and associate countries. Overall, a relatively large 
share  of  participants  was  located  in  Italy  (17%),  Spain  (16%),  and  France  (9%)  while  a 
minority of participants (45) were located in an associate country (namely, Albania, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, and 
Turkey). 

50 ECCP (2024): ESCP-4i First generation achievements, available at: https://clustercollaboration.eu/eu-cluster-
partnerships/escp-4i/first-generation/achievements 
51 This number refers to unique and distinct participants (i.e. participants in more than one thematic area are 
only counted once).  

66 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 3.23: Number of project participants by legal country of the 
participant 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

Interestingly,  the  involvement  of  organisations  from  the  countries  displayed  above  is 
somehow  heterogeneous  across  actions.  In  many  countries,  the  largest  share  of 
organisations that received  a  grant  were  involved  in a  Tourism-related  project,  e.g., Italy 
and  Spain.  In  Czechia,  Denmark,  France,  Poland  and  Sweden,  however,  most 
organisations were involved in projects related to internationalisation. 

Figure 3.24: Share of participants by thematic area of the project 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

As with grants under SO2, a vast majority of projects were implemented by consortia 
including a range of organisations. Only 15% (39) of projects were managed by a single 
entity and these were mainly funded under two tourism-related actions, namely “Diversifying 
the  EU  tourism  and  products”  and  “Support  to  European  Destinations  of  Excellence 
(EDEN)”.  When  projects  were  implemented  through  consortia,  their  participants  were 
mostly  located  in  multiple  countries,  usually  in  Europe.  Actually,  only  45  projects  were 
implemented by project participants all located in the same country. The only actions that 
did not fund any international projects are “Statistics for Family Business” under the Social 
Economy thematic area, and “Diversifying the EU tourism and products” and “Support to 
European Destinations of Excellence (EDEN)” under the Tourism area. 

Finally, concerning the amounts granted, the distribution across countries is proportional to 
the number of participants benefitting from the action. As a matter of fact, relatively large 
grant amounts were provided in Spain, Italy and France. 

Figure 3.25: Projects’ total cost and amount granted by 
participants’ legal country, m EUR 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

Figure 3.26: EU contribution by thematic area of the project and 
legal country of the participant 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

68 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

3.5.  SO4:  Promote  entrepreneurship  and  entrepreneurial 

culture 

According to Article 12 of the COSME Regulation, the fourth objective of the programme 
was  to  improve  framework  conditions  affecting  the  development  of  entrepreneurship, 
including by reducing obstacles to the setting-up of enterprises. Particular attention was to 
be  paid  to  potential,  new,  young,  and  female  entrepreneurs  and  actions  could  include 
mobility programmes, as well as support for education, training and skills. The Regulation 
provided an indicative target of 2.5% for the percentage of the total budget that should be 
devoted to such actions. 

Under  SO4,  COSME  implemented  5  actions,  through  12  project  calls,  financing  111 
projects.  While  the  total  cost  of  these  projects  amounted  to  EUR  78  million,  the 
corresponding  EU  contribution  amounted  to  EUR  66.1  million.  The  EU  contribution 
consequently represented about 85% of the total project costs. The remaining costs were 
sustained by projects participants notably by using own resources. 

The actions funded under this specific objective all relate to entrepreneurship and include 
the following: “Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs”, “European Network for Early Warning 
and for Support to Enterprises and Second Starters”, “Migrant Entrepreneurs best practice 
exchange”,  “European  Entrepreneurship  Education  NETwork”,  and  “Social  Economy 
Missions”.  As  shown  in  Table  3.4  below,  the  action  that  funded  the  largest  number  of 
projects is “Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs” (EYE). Through this action EUR 58.5 million 
in  EU  contributions  was  granted  to  360  intermediate  organisations,  participating  in  83 
distinct consortia, with the aim of promoting and organising exchanges between new and 
experienced entrepreneurs. The total costs of these projects amounted to EUR 68.6 million. 
The remaining actions funded a very limited number of projects. 

SO4 provided grants to 478 organisations  in 38 countries. The countries with the largest 
number of participants are Italy (12.7% of the total), Spain (12.5%), Belgium (6.5%), France 
(5.3%), Portugal (4.8%) and the United Kingdom (4.8%). All projects that received a grant 
under SO4 were implemented by consortia with 3 to 17 distinct partners. Moreover, all the 
consortia included organisations that were located in different countries. 

Table 3.4: SO4 - Projects, total cost, and EU contribution by action 

Action 

No. 
Calls 

No. 
Projects 

No. 
beneficiaries 

Total costs 
(EUR 
million) 

EU 
contribution 
(EUR million) 

Erasmus for Young 
Entrepreneurs 

European 
Entrepreneurship 
Education NETwork 

Migrants Entrepreneurs 
best practice exchange 

European Network for 
Early Warning and for 
Support to Enterprises and 
Second Starters 

Social Economy Missions 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

8352 

360 

68.6 

58.5 

1 

4 

1 

22 

17 

32 

92 

4 

0.5 

1.6 

4.8 

2.4 

0.3 

1.5 

3.6 

2.1 

52 The number of projects and beneficiaries refers to the number of Intermediary organisations projects and the 
number of participating organisations. Further figures on EYE are given in Table 4.12 below.  

69 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

As shown in the table above, the majority of the funding was allocated to the Erasmus for 
Young Entrepreneurs (EYE), which fosters the emergence of new  entrepreneurs in the 
EU and in third countries participating in the programme. The EYE had been established as 
a pilot project under the EIP (2007-2013) and was expanded during 2014-2020 with support 
from COSME. This cross-border programme remains important for supporting exchange of 
management  and  entrepreneurial  experience,  and 
internationalisation  of 
European  businesses,  and  as  such  as  an  important  policy  intervention  for  supporting 
entrepreneurship. 

fostering 

Support for female entrepreneurs included a project aimed at “Empowering women and 
girls 
through  digital  and  entrepreneurial  competences  with  ESTEAM  Fests  and 
Communities”.53 The project aims to address the finding that only 38% of women reported 
that they had the skills and knowledge to start a business, compared with more than half of 
men.54  Starting  in  January  2022,  this  3-year  project  is  organising  11  “ESTEAM  Fests” 
(ESTEAM  stands  for  Entrepreneurship,  Science,  Technology,  Engineering,  Arts  and 
Mathematics) in 19 EU Member States with the aim to boost women and girls’ competences, 
inspire  them,  and  give  them  the  chance  to  connect  with  like-minded  peers.  It  has  also 
launched ESTEAM online communities to allow women and girls to learn and connect with 
their peers online. At the time of writing, more than 2,400 girls and women had participated 
in online and in-person activities. 

53 See: https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/esteam-fests-and-communities-girls-and-women_en#about-the-project 
54  OECD/European  Commission 
Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/71b7a9bb-en. 

(2021),  The  Missing  Entrepreneurs  2021:  Policies 

for 

Inclusive 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4. Assessment of key evaluation criteria 

This section presents the results of the assessment of the COSME programme and its main 
actions. The assessment drew on the review of monitoring data provided by DG GROW, 
EISMEA and the EIF, past evaluations including the Interim Evaluation of COSME, other 
secondary  sources  and  feedback  obtained  through  the  public  consultation,  targeted 
consultations and the interviews performed for this study, and the counterfactual analysis 
for the financial instruments. 

4.1.  Relevance 

This section assesses the relevance of the COSME programme to the market failures and 
the  needs  faced  by  SMEs  and  other  targeted  stakeholders.  It  also  explores  how  the 
programme  responded  to  new  EU  policy  priorities  and  emerging  challenges  during  its 
implementation period, notably those arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Relevance Questions 

•  To what extent were COSME's initial objectives relevant and pertinent to the needs, 

problems and issues they were designed to address? 

•  To what extent were COSME’s objectives and measures relevant to the needs and 
problems  faced  by  SMEs  throughout  their  implementation  period?  How  did  the 
programme adapt to new needs, priorities, problems? 

•  How did COSME adapt to deal with major new challenges affecting businesses, in 

particular the Covid-19 crisis? 

•  How far was COSME sufficiently flexible in adapting to evolving policy priorities in the 
2014-2020  period  e.g.  the  digital  and  green  transition  was  introduced  as  a  priority 
during the Von Der Leyen presidency? (this question is part of EQ5.2.2) 

This  section  answers  these  evaluation  questions,  first  at  a  programme  level  and  then, 
focusing  on  the  objectives  of  the  main  actions.  The  assessment  draws  on  previous 
evaluations,  including  the  interim  evaluation  of  COSME,  and  EIP  ex  post  evaluation 
conducted in parallel with the present evaluation, as well as contextual data, for instance 
provided by the SME Performance reviews for the years of the programme, the Survey on 
the  Access  to  Finance  of  Enterprises  (SAFE)  and  data  from  the  2014-2020  Annual 
Monitoring Reports. 

4.1.1.  Relevance of the programme 

4.1.1.1.  Programme-level 

The ex post evaluation of the EIP (2007-13) – the predecessor to COSME – found that the 
programme was relevant to the needs of enterprises and addressed such needs in a direct 
and practical way. Support was offered through a range of actions including loan guarantee 
and  equity  finance  instruments,  support  for  innovation  (including  eco-innovation)  in 
enterprises, and support for SME policy-making. The EIP also enabled new initiatives to be 
piloted, notably the Enterprise Europe Network and the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 
programme.  Steps  were  also  taken  to  maintain  the  relevance  of  the  EIP  during  the 
implementation period, such as refining actions supported by the programme. 

COSME  maintained  the  relevance  offered  by  the  EIP,  particularly  in  respect  of 
entrepreneurship but shifted its focus from innovation towards competitiveness and 
sustainability.  From  this  perspective,  there  was  a  paradigm  shift  between  the  two 

71 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

programmes. A major element of the EIP was its focus on the promotion of innovation as a 
way  of  driving  the  Union  growth.  In  contrast,  the  general  objectives  of  COSME  were 
“strengthening the competitiveness and sustainability of the Union's enterprises, particularly 
SMEs” and “encouraging entrepreneurial culture and promoting the creation and growth of 
SMEs”.  Given  these  objectives,  COSME  was  the  first  EU  programme  fully  dedicated  to 
supporting SMEs of all kinds, as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.55 

The objectives and actions of COSME were relevant to the key issues and challenges 
faced by SMEs at that time. In this way, it built on the relevance of the EIP, which was 
found  by  the  ex  post  evaluation  to  have  been  relevant  to  challenges  facing  SMEs,  for 
example, as highlighted by the SME Performance Reviews. Similarly, COSME was relevant 
to the  needs  of  SMEs  as  documented  in EU  surveys  and  consultations (e.g.  surveys  on 
SMEs' Access to Finance (SAFE) conducted from 2009 to 2013, the 2014 Innobarometer,56 
as  well  as  the  results  of  the  Eurobarometer  surveys  carried  out  in  2009  and  2012,  also 
recalled  in  the  COSME  Regulation).  As  explained  below,  evidence  from  the  literature 
highlights the need for action to address market failures hampering access to finance and 
leading  to  less  favourable  financing  conditions  (section  4.1.1.2),  address  barriers  to 
internationalisation, such as accessing market information, locating possible customers and 
finding  the  right  partners57 (section  4.1.1.3),  overcome  challenging  framework  conditions 
(section 4.1.1.4) and the need for a stronger entrepreneurial culture and dedicated support 
to entrepreneurship (section 0). 

The  COSME  programme  and  its  objectives  and  actions  were  relevant  to  other  EU 
initiatives and strategies in this field. These include the 2008 "Think Small First - A "Small 
Business  Act  for  Europe"  (SBA)  strategy,58  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  a  smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth, the Single Market Strategy (2015)59 and the Start-up and 
Scale-up Initiative (2016).60 The “Think Small First” principle set forth in the SBA was at the 
core of COSME. It also supported a systematic application of the SME test at Union and 
Member State level.61  

A  significant  issue  analysed  in  the  COSME  interim  evaluation  was  whether  the  support 
given to SMEs was sufficiently targeted and whether COSME supported only dynamic fast-
growing  enterprises  or  enterprises  at  different  growth  maturity  stages  and  groups  with 
various  disadvantages.  Based  on  the  evidence  analysed,  this  evaluation  did  not  find 
evidence that the programme had a specific orientation towards fast-growing enterprises. 
These  accounted  for  a  very  limited  percentage  of  the  programme’s  beneficiaries  (see 
Section 3). Furthermore, given that the programme was demand-driven and implemented 
through intermediary bodies, there was a limited possibility to target specific types of SMEs 
or  entrepreneurs  belonging  to  socially  disadvantaged  or  vulnerable  groups.  The  limited 
availability of data on final recipients – except for the main actions - makes it difficult to verify 
the extent of the involvement of specific enterprises and groups, and thus the contribution 
of COSME to social cohesion. 

The  relevance  of  COSME  was  maintained  throughout  the  life  of  the  programme 
through  the  implementation  of  new  policy  priorities  and  directing  funding  to  new 
priority areas in response to changing needs of SMEs. This flexibility was identified as 
a  strength  by  the  interim  evaluation  of  COSME  and  represents  a  continuation  of  the 
approach identified in the ex post evaluation of the EIP, whereby actions were refined in 

55 Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized 
enterprises (2003/361/EC). 
56 ”Most pressing problems facing SMEs in the EU28 in 2013 ” EC/ECB – SAFE Wave 9 
57 European Commission (2010), Opportunities for the Internationalisation of SMEs. 
58 Communication (COM(2008) 394 final) — ‘Think small first’ — A ‘small business act’ for Europe. 
59 Communication (COM(2015) 550 final) —Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and 
business 
60 Communication COM(2016) 733 final —Europe's next leaders: the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative. 
61 Article 11 of the COSME Regulation and indicator G.1 under SO3 To improve framework conditions. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

light  of  changing  circumstances.  Changes  in  budget  allocation  were  made  during  the 
implementation  of  COSME  to  accommodate  evolving  needs.  Evidence  of  flexibility  was 
detected  across  feedback  provided by stakeholders  benefitting  from  public  procurement, 
social economy missions and tourism actions.62 The programme also responded to new EU 
policy priorities during its implementation. The work programmes and specific actions took 
into  account  the  revamped  interest  in  sustainability  issues  and  the  digital  and  green 
transition, the EU digital agenda, female entrepreneurship and other priorities (see Section 
4.1.2). All programming documents took into account recent policy initiatives that provided 
the  context  and  direction of the  programme.  The quality  of the  descriptions  of  actions  in 
annual work programmes improved in the latter years of the programme. Nevertheless, a 
small number of smaller actions did not have a clear link to overall programme objectives. 
As  indicated  in  the  effectiveness  section,  it  is  not  possible  to  single  out  the  actual 
contribution  the  programme  made  towards  these  broader  goals.  However,  overall,  a 
stronger  orientation  towards  societal  issues  and  sustainability  can  be  found  in  the  later 
years of the programme. 

The  study  found  that  a  weakness  of  the  programme  lies  in  the  lack  of  a  coherent 
logical framework that clearly explains the causal chains between smaller actions and the 
main objectives and with the issues and needs of the SMEs and entrepreneurs.63 Having a 
clear intervention logic in place would allow to support actions that are directly relevant to 
the core objectives of the programme, the needs of SMEs and the market failures that have 
to be addressed, while disregarding those that are not in line with these issues64 or allowing 
the adjustments needed to be made that can preserve their relevance over time. 

4.1.1.2. 

Improving Access to Finance  

The first specific objective of the COSME programme, as set out in Article 4.1 of the COSME 
Regulation was “to improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt”. The 
evidence suggests that this objective was relevant both at the outset of the programme and 
throughout the years of its implementation. In this way, COSME builds on the relevance of 
the  EIP,  which was  found  by the  ex  post  evaluation  to be  relevant  in addressing market 
failures around SMEs’ access to finance. 

The need to access finance to support business growth remained relevant to SMEs 
throughout  2014-2020.  According  to  the  Commission’s  2014  Survey  on  the  Access  to 
Finance  of  Enterprises (SAFE),  59%  of  SMEs  in  EU-28  expected  their  firm’s turnover to 
grow over the next 2-3 years. This figure remained broadly constant (at 58%-65%) during 
2014-2019, falling only slightly to 50% in 2020. To finance this growth, more than half of all 
SMEs (51%) required additional financing of more than 100,000 EUR, whilst another 26% 
required 25,000 EUR or more. During 2014-2020, 48-50% of SMEs continued to require 
additional  financing  of  more  than  100,000  EUR,  whilst  another  24-26%  required  25,000 
EUR or more.  

There is high heterogeneity across the EU concerning SME access to finance. Access 
is perceived as a significant obstacle mainly in Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece while only 
to  a  smaller  extent  in  Finland  and  Sweden  (see  Figure  4.1).  By  comparing  the  second 
semester  of  2021  to  the  same  semester  in  2014,  Figure  4.2  shows  that,  despite  the 
worsened  conditions  induced  by  the  pandemic,  issues  with  SMEs’  access  to  finance 
decreased in almost all EU Member States, especially in Croatia (-25%)65, Cyprus (-33%), 
Finland (-29%), Netherlands (-34%), and Slovenia (-31%). Conversely, SMEs reported that 

62 Feedback collected from interviews on the topic. 
63 Based on the analysis of COSME programming documents and project fiches for the year 2020. 
64  The  project  fiche  should  define  in  section  1  ‘description  of  implemented  measure’  how  the  measures  will 
contribute to the programme objectives, and the EU policy priorities. This would facilitate an ex-post evaluation 
of its performance.  
65 The percentage is computed as the change (between 2014 and 2021) in the average answers to the 
question “How pressing it is the problem of access to finance on a 1 to 10 scale?”. 

73 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

finance  conditions  had  deteriorated  in  Bulgaria  (+17%),  Czechia  (+15%),  Malta  (+12%), 
Portugal (+8%) and Romania (+21%). It is important to consider that this trend could also 
simultaneously  be  explained  by  SMEs  having  experienced  a  shift  in  impelling  priorities 
during the COVID-19 pandemic or by additional national support provided to SMEs at the 
same time.66 

Figure 4.1: Severity of the problem of access to finance 
on a 1-10 scale (2021) 

Figure 4.2: Change in SMEs difficulty in access to 
finance 

Source: Own elaboration on EC SAFE data 

Source: Own elaboration on EC SAFE data 

Table 4.1: Top and bottom four countries for SMEs’ access to finance 

How pressing is the problem of access to finance? (Scale of 1-10 ) 

Rank 

Value 2014 

Value 2019 

Value 2021 

Difference: 2021-
2014 

1st 

Sweden: 3.66 

Finland: 2.93 

Sweden: 2.84 

Cyprus: -2.42 

2nd 

Czechia: 3.67 

Denmark: 3.49 

Finland: 2.96 

Slovenia: -1.90 

3rd 

4th 

Denmark: 3.77 

Netherlands: 3.54 

Netherlands: 3.11 

Netherlands: -1.62 

UK: 4.04 

Sweden: 3.54 

Denmark: 3.48 

Croatia: -1.25 

25th 

Italy: 5.60 

Portugal: 5.10 

Malta: 5.24 

Czechia: +0.53 

26th 

Slovenia: 6.16 

Bulgaria: 5.31 

Portugal: 5.30 

Malta: + 0.55 

27th  Greece: 6.97 

Romania: 5.43 

Bulgaria: 5.45 

Bulgaria: +0.77 

28th  Cyprus: 7.24 

Greece: 5.93 

Romania: 6.00 

Romania: + 1.04 

Source: Own elaboration based on annual Surveys on the Access to Finance of Enterprises 

Overall, during this period, SMEs would have liked to access bank loans and perceived that 
insufficient collateral or guarantees as well as high interest rates or prices hindered them 
from getting this form of external financing. Specifically, insufficient collateral or guarantee 
was perceived to be problematic especially in Spain, Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania while 

66 This is also suggested by SAFE data when considering the answers to the question “What is currently the 
most important problem your firm is facing?”: in the years 2020 and 2021, at the EU level, the answer “other”, 
was chosen by respectively 18% and 14% of respondents, while between 2017 and 2019 it had remained at 
8%. At the same time, the share of respondents answering “access to finance” to the same question, after a 
local peak in 2020, in 2021 had returned to the pre-pandemic levels (7%), probably also due to the large 
availability of national support related to the pandemic. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

high  interest  rates  were  more  of  an  issue  among  SMEs  in  Romania,  Cyprus,  Croatia, 
Portugal, and Greece.67 

In  the  second  quarter  of  2021,  more  than  one  in  four  SMEs  was  still  reporting 
difficulties in accessing finance, but the share of SMEs perceiving access to finance 
as a highly important issue decreased over time (see Figure ), pointing out that financing 
conditions  had  slightly  improved  (SAFE  data  also  show  an  improvement  in  access  to 
finance conditions for SMEs in the period covered by the COSME, and also during COVID 
the provision of public support has been significant and quickly delivered). Unsurprisingly, 
SME access to finance issues worsened at the beginning of the COVID crisis, but improved 
again in 2021 reaching pre-crisis levels thanks to the rapid deployment of public support 
measures. 

Figure 4.3: Share of EU SMEs ranking access to finance as a 
highly important issue 

Note: 7 or more on a scale of 10. EU countries included are 
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain. 

Source: Own elaboration based on European Commission SAFE 
data 

The provision of guarantees has proven to be a relevant tool in tackling the primary 
obstacle to SMEs' access to finance, which is the lack of sufficient collateral. Data 
from  the  ECB  reveals  that  since  the  financial  crisis,  credit  standards  have  significantly 
tightened.  Among  the  financial  institutions  surveyed  by  the  ECB,  more  than  half  of  the 
respondents  (20  out  of  39)  affirmed  that  prevailing  market  conditions  compelled  their 
institutions  to  impose  more  stringent  requirements  on  borrowers.  These  requirements 
encompassed  higher  collateral  demands,  elevated  interest  rates,  and  shorter  loan 
maturities.  Another  15  respondents  indicated  that  market  conditions  prompted  them  to 
intensify  their  risk  assessment  criteria  for  SME  borrowers.68  All  financial  institutions 
interviewed  for  this  study  (20)  confirmed  that  the  primary  reason  for  rejecting  SME  loan 
applications is the insufficiency of collateral. By diminishing or entirely removing collateral 
prerequisites through its guarantees, the LGF has effectively addressed the most pressing 
barriers to SMEs' access to finance. 

The EFG intervention tackled a strong market failure in the equity market and it was 
highly relevant to SME needs. Young, fast-growing, innovative SMEs rely on equity-type 

67 Summary of the EIF biannual European Small Business Finance Outlook from 2014 to 2020. 
68 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/ecb.blssurvey2023q1~22c176b442.e
n.html  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

financing more than SMEs in traditional sectors. As these instruments are often not supplied 
sufficiently  from  private  sources  due  to  market  failures  and  externalities,69  support  with 
public  sector  involvement  is  often  warranted.  For  more  mature  firms  in  the  mid-market, 
equity  investments  can  also  play  an  important  role  in  unlocking  growth  potential  beyond 
innovation, such as regional or international expansion, mergers, and transfer of ownership 
as reported by fund managers interviewed and in the literature. In these cases, the support 
by  the  public  actors  is  often  justified  by  industrial  strategy  considerations,  and  market 
developments, for instance to fill-in the gap with the US and UK or to balance the situation 
within the EU by helping some EU areas catch-up the more developed ones.70 Almost all 
the interviews conducted with the fund managers (6 out of 7) indicate that the COSME EFG 
scope, nature and volume of allocated resources were in principle pertinent and tailored to 
the  needs  of  the  different  types  of  funds  that  were  backed,  and  consequently  the  SMEs 
supported. 

4.1.1.3. 

Improving Access to Markets  

The second specific objective of the COSME programme, as set out in Article 4.1 of the 
COSME Regulation was “to improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but 
also  at  global  level”.  The  evidence  suggests  that  this  objective  was  relevant  both  at  the 
outset  of  the  programme  and  throughout  the  years  of  its  implementation.  In  this  way, 
COSME built on the relevance of the EIP, and notably the findings of the ex post evaluation, 
which  highlighted  the  relevance  of  the  programme and notably the  EEN, EYE  and  other 
actions, in addressing the challenges faced by SMEs in accessing international markets. 

Finding customers was the single most pressing problem facing SMEs of all class 
sizes across the EU-28 at the outset of the programme in 2014. According to the 2014 
SAFE survey, 52% of SMEs considered this to be a “pressing problem” including 20% of 
SMEs reporting this as the most pressing issue in 2014. Finding customers was cited more 
often than any other problem, such as costs of production or labour, availability of skilled 
staff  or  experienced  managers,  competition  and  regulation.  This  remained  a  key  issue 
throughout 2015-2019, and was reported again as the most pressing problem experienced 
by EU27 SMEs in 2020.71 

SMEs  face  particular  obstacles  in  accessing  international  markets.  As  noted  in  the 
2014  SME  Performance  Review,  there  were  many  internal  and  external  barriers  that 
impeded the internationalisation of SMEs.72 These related to market information, locating 
possible customers, finding the right partners, compliance with foreign laws (e.g. contract 
law, customs rules, technical regulations and standards, managing technology transfer and 
protecting intellectual or industrial property rights). The SME Performance Review went on 
to note that SMEs were usually less well equipped with in-house expertise and financial or 
human  resources  than  larger  enterprises.  Based  on  a  meta-analysis  of  the  academic 
literature,  the  Review  noted  a  generally  positive  relationship  between  firm  size  and  the 
degree of internationalisation.  

There was a need to increase the awareness of SMEs regarding public support for 
internationalisation.  As  reported  by  the  2014  SME  Performance  review,  only  16%  of 
SMEs  were  aware  of  public  support  programmes  for  internationalisation,  whether  for 
innovation or growth, or about how to access relevant information. Moreover, only a small 
number  of  SMEs  accessed  such  support.  Increasing  awareness  among  SMEs  of  the 
support  available and  providing  a roadmap for  a  ‘client  journey’  so  that SMEs  can  know 
what support is available at different stages of their development remained relevant during 
the  second  half  of  the  programme.  This  can  also  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  EEN 
services  evolved  after  the  interim  evaluation.  The  EEN  and  the  Commission  worked 

69 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
70 Invest Europe Private Equity Activity Reports, several years. 
71 SAFE Report 2020, p. 9. 
72 SME Performance Review 2014, final report, p. 60. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

together  on  a  medium-term  strategy  for  revamping  EEN's  services  and  service  delivery 
models to ensure that it could meet SME's changing needs. A central feature of this new 
approach was a focus on clients' needs and a medium-term client journey focusing on more 
in-depth services to support SME competitiveness and internationalisation. 

The  EEN  services  were  relevant  to  addressing  specific  SMEs  needs  and  market 
failures.  In  particular,  the  EEN  advisory  services  were  designed  to  address  information 
asymmetries that SMEs face when trying to develop their competitiveness, or address the 
lack of  know-how  on management  processes,  customer  needs  and  how to enter  foreign 
markets. The EEN business cooperation services addressed the network failures of SMEs 
by  helping  them  find  cooperation  partners.  As  mentioned  above,  over  the  course  of  the 
programme,  the  EEN  services  evolved  to  become  more  and  more  customised  and 
customer-centric.73 Although less immediately relevant for SMEs, the EEN’s SME feedback 
service74  contributes  to  ensuring  that  policy  making  is  aligned  with  stakeholder  needs, 
including new needs.75 

According to the survey of EEN members conducted for the present evaluation study, the 
main barriers to internationalisation faced by EEN’s SME clients during the COSME 
period were: finding customers and business partners outside their home country (64/78, 
82%);  dealing  with  paperwork  and  procedures  (62/78,  79%);  dealing  with  local  business 
processes including national/regional/local regulations (62/78, 79%); spotting international 
business opportunities (62/78, 79%); and dealing with paperwork and procedures (62/78, 
79%). This is partly consistent with the responses from SMEs to the targeted survey for this 
study who reported that before benefitting from EEN services, the main barriers they faced 
for  doing  business  in  other  countries  were:  spotting  international  business  opportunities 
(23/36), getting information on markets (21/36), getting finance (19/36), access to personal 
with  skills  in  international  markets  (18/36),  and  finding  customers  and  business  partners 
outside their home country (17/36). 

The  EEN  services  were  pertinent  to  the  needs  of  SMEs  during  the  COSME  period 
according to 96% (45/78) of EEN members responding to the survey undertaken for this 
evaluation. A majority of SME client respondents (33/36, 92%) agreed that the EEN services 
were  very  relevant  or  fairly  relevant  to  their  business.  According  to  the  EEN  member 
respondents, the EEN services during the COSME period particularly addressed particularly 
(to  a  great  extent  or  some  extent)  the  needs  for:  finding  information  on  markets  (71/78, 
91%); finding customers and business partners outside their home country (70/78, 90%); 
and  spotting  international  business  opportunities  (69/78,  88%).  According  to  the  SME 
clients, the EEN services helped them (to a great extent or some extent) in overcoming the 
barriers  linked  to:  spotting  international  business  opportunities  (30/36,  83%),  getting 
information on markets (28/36, 78%); finding customers and business partners outside their 
home  country  (26/36,  72%);  and  getting  access  to  personnel  with  skills  in  international 
markets (23/36, 64%). The most useful services were the business cooperation services 
(25/36, 69% considering it ‘very useful’), followed by the information services (23/36, 64%) 
and the advisory services (22/36, 61%).76 The interviews with EEN members conducted 
for  the  present  study  confirmed  that  the  EEN  services  addressed  the  needs  of  SMEs 
(providing  them  with  information,  advice  and  solutions  that  were  well-adapted  to  their 
needs),  that  EEN  services  have  evolved  towards  a  deeper  and  more  comprehensive 
support  to  SMEs’  growth,  innovation  and  internationalisation,  and  that  this  evolution  had 
followed SMEs’ evolving needs on the ground. 

73 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report. 
74 EEN’s SME Feedback service gathers targeted feedback from SMEs on their experiences with specific EU 
legislation or measures and on options for possible future measures. 
75 Feedback collected from interviews for this study. 
76 N= 34. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

During  the  COSME  period,  the  EEN  continued  to  provide  information  services, 
advisory  services  and  business  cooperation  services.  In  2014,  specific  Innovation 
Management  Support  services  were  piloted,  which  became  part  of  EEN’s  services  from 
2015  under  separate  grant  agreements  funded  by  the  Horizon  2020  programme.  EEN 
scale-up advisors were put in place in 2017 to help young innovative SMEs develop their 
activities  outside  their  home  country.  Building  on  the  good  results  obtained  by  the  EEN 
scale-up advisory services in their first 2 years, this became a core EEN service in 2019. 
According to interviews with EISMEA and EEN members, the EEN also further improved 
the quality, efficiency and relevance of its services for European SMEs. The provision of 
advice on digital transformation and on how to adopt more sustainable business practices 
and energy savings management are examples of areas that were not initially envisaged. 
Overall,  under  the  COSME  period,  EEN  shifted  towards  providing  more  customised 
services  for  SMEs,  while  online  services  expanded  and  improved.  The  majority  of 
stakeholders consulted for this study indicated that the EEN objectives and services meet 
the current needs of SMEs. 

4.1.1.4. 

Improving Framework Conditions and Competitiveness 

The  third  specific  objective  of  the  COSME  programme,  as  set  out  in  Article  4.1  of  the 
COSME  Regulation  was  “to  improve  framework  conditions  for  the  competitiveness  and 
sustainability of Union enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector”. The 
evidence suggests that this objective was relevant both at the outset of the programme and 
throughout the years of its implementation. 

At  the  outset  of  the  programme,  SMEs  faced  particularly  challenging  framework 
conditions. Whilst SMEs were in some ways more resilient than large enterprises during 
the downturn that followed the 2008 crisis, their recovery was much slower and remained 
slow  during  2011-2014.  As  well  as  access  to  finance  and  access to  markets  (discussed 
above),  the  2014  SAFE  survey  highlighted  challenges  around  compliance  with 
regulation,  availability  of  skilled  and  experienced  managers,  competition  and  the 
level  of  labour  costs  and  production  costs  as  pressing  problems  for  many  SMEs. 
Considering the challenging context, there was a need for specific measures to improve the 
SME business environment and ensure that SMEs were able to reap the full benefits of the 
wider growth that was expected in the first years of the programme. 

Under this specific objective, COSME supported different actions including clusters 
actions. Clusters bring together businesses, institutions and other economic actors located 
in the same geographic area. They help enterprises achieve higher levels of productivity 
and  innovation  mainly  by  facilitating  the  exchange  of  good  practices,  knowledge  and 
information  within  networks.  There  are  around  3,000  specialised  clusters  in  Europe, 
accounting for 54 million jobs.77 Within COSME, the Clusters International Programme for 
SMEs  had  three  objectives,  namely  to:  i)  intensify  cluster  and  business  network 
collaboration across borders and possibly also across sectoral boundaries; ii) promote the 
pan-European  Strategic  Cluster  Partnerships  to  go  international  and  lead  international 
cluster  cooperation  in  areas  of  strategic  interest  towards  third  countries beyond  Europe; 
and  iii)  better  support  SMEs  in  global  competition.  The  programme  supported  various 
actions for boosting capacities and international cooperation and networking of clusters with 
a  view  to  supporting  SME  internationalisation  and  competitiveness  and  linking  SMEs  to 
global value chains. These remain highly-relevant, as SMEs must often internationalise to 
grow.  Support  for  clusters  has  been  part  of  the  EU’s  economic  development  arsenal  for 
almost  two  decades 
innovation  and 
competitiveness. 

in  view  of  their  potential 

to  contribute 

to 

77 According to data from the European Cluster Collaboration Platform 
(https://clustercollaboration.eu/content/how-joining-cluster-provides-vital-support-eu-smes).  

78 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

to  address 

the  needs  of 
COSME  cluster  support  actions  are  relevant 
internationalisation strategies. These strategies should enhance SMEs’ access to third 
countries  and  lead  to  long-term  cooperation  agendas  with  strategic  partners  in  these 
countries.  In  particular,  the  Clusters  Go  International  action  was  highly  relevant  to 
improving framework conditions and also to the internationalisation goal of COSME 
and  European  cluster  policy.  The  survey  carried  out  for  this  study  found  that  the 
programme  was,  overall,  highly  relevant  to  meeting  the  requirements  of  cluster 
organisations  to  develop  joint  strategies.  Clusters  actions  addressed  key  issues  and 
obstacles  faced  in  setting  up  collaborative  cluster  organisations  to  support  SME 
internationalisation. These were: lack of finance (30%), lack of personnel (30%), challenges 
in  setting  up  joint  investments  (26%),  lack  of  awareness  of  the  potential  benefits  of  joint 
activities  (22%),  and  lack  of  support  from  regional  authorities  (29%).78  The  survey  also 
found  that  these  same  issues  are  still  highly  relevant  at  present,  with  respectively  23%, 
14%,18%  and  23%  of  the  respondents  strongly  agreeing  that  these  obstacles  are  still 
relevant today.79 

Tourism  actions  were  also  relevant  to  this  objective.  Overall,  feedback  from  the 
interviews conducted for this study indicated that there was a significant gap in awareness 
and  knowledge  concerning  sustainable  and  smart  tourism  practices  among  crucial 
stakeholders  across  the  EU,  coupled  with  a  notably  low  rate  of  implementation  of 
sustainable  tourism  initiatives  among  SMEs.80  Some  of  the  actions  supported  by  the 
programme  were  perceived  as  particularly  relevant  to  the  needs  of  SMEs  in the  tourism 
sector. For instance, one action81 provided insights on the impacts of the transition pathway 
for  tourism  on  the  topic  of  resilience,  digitalisation  and  sustainability.  Another  action 
supported the organisation of events to debate with Member States, regions, industry, trade 
unions, academics, other stakeholders and experts the main challenges and key priorities 
for the competitiveness and sustainability of the tourism sector in view of the recovery of 
EU tourism and the long-term transition towards green, digital and resilient tourism.82 Finally, 
the  Eurobarometer  Tourism  202083  looked  specifically  into  the  impacts  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemics on travel. It showed that COVID-19 was expected to have long-term impacts on 
EU  citizens’  travelling  behaviour,  and  also  demonstrated  the  growing  importance  of 
sustainable tourist offers for the recovery of tourism. 

COSME also supported a set of actions aiming to improve the framework conditions 
for  SMEs  which  were  perceived  to  be  relevant  to  this  objective  by  the  beneficiaries  as 
indicated in the COSME interim evaluation. Here we summarise the main ones. The SME 
performance  review  provides  valuable  insights  into  the  state  of  SMEs  across  the  EU, 
offering data-driven assessments of their performance and challenges. The SME Envoys 
Network  is  an  SME  policy  advisory  group  that  promotes  SME-friendly  regulation  and 
policymaking  in  all  EU  Member  States.  It  facilitates  communication  between  SMEs  and 
policymakers  and  cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  on  SME-related  topics.  The 
European  Enterprise  Awards  recognise  outstanding  SME  achievements,  promoting 
innovation  and  entrepreneurship.  The  EU  REFIT  platform  focuses  on  regulatory  fitness, 
reducing administrative burdens, and improving the business environment. All these actions 
were  deemed  relevant  by  stakeholders  consulted  for  this  study  as  they  contributed  to  a 
more business friendly environment. 

78  Percentages  of  the  respondents  who  strongly  agreed  that  the  mentioned  factors  constituted  important 
obstacles to the cooperation among clusters in Europe at the time when you participated in the programme. 
Total number of participants in cluster actions who responded this specific survey question=23. 
79 Total number of participants in cluster actions who responded this specific survey question=23. 
80 Feedback collected from interviews on the topic. 
81 GRO/SME/20/C/081: Support to the stakeholder consultation process for preparing transition pathway for 
tourism. 
82 GRO/SME/20/C/083: Organisation of a number of tourism meetings and events & Technical Assistance. 
83 Eurobarometer Tourism 2020 (GRO/SME/20/F/116). 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.1.1.5.  Promoting Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial culture 

The  fourth  specific  objective  of  the  COSME  programme,  as  set  out  in  Article  4.1  of  the 
COSME  Regulation  was  “to  promote  entrepreneurship  and  entrepreneurial  culture”.  The 
study  found  that  this  objective  was  relevant  both  at  the  outset  of  the  programme  and 
throughout the years of its implementation. In this way, COSME builds on the relevance of 
the  EIP,  which  was  found  by  the  ex  post  evaluation  to  be  relevant  in  supporting 
entrepreneurship, for example, through the relevance of EYE to the needs of entrepreneurs. 

As indicated by various EU policy documents and consultations carried out at the time of 
the programme, there was a need for a stronger entrepreneurial culture in the EU and 
dedicated support to entrepreneurship. The 2014 SME Performance Review found that 
reported 
a  significant  proportion  of  SMEs,  stakeholders  and  policymakers 
“Entrepreneurship” as a challenge.84 According to the SBA, attention should be paid to all 
situations  that  entrepreneurs  face,  including  start-up,  growth,  transfer  and  bankruptcy 
(second  chance).  Promotion  of  entrepreneurship  education,  as  well  as  coherence  and 
consistency enhancing measures such as benchmarking and exchanges of good practices 
provide  a high  Union  added  value.  COSME  aimed  to address this  need  by supporting  a 
number  of  entrepreneurship  actions  targeting  potential,  young,  new  and 
female 
entrepreneurs. The EYE was the main action under SO4. 

The  EYE  was  relevant  to  the  EU  policy  goals  of  fostering  entrepreneurship  as  it 
supported capability-building among new entrepreneurs. The EYE was designed as a 
mobility  scheme  to  allow  potential  or  new  entrepreneurs  to  spend  a  period  of  time 
collaborating with their experienced counterparts in another COSME-participating country. 
The 2017 interim evaluation of COSME, based on the analysis of the programme portfolio, 
assessed that the EYE is “highly relevant to the needs of respective target groups, with no 
major gaps identified”.85  

Overall, in the survey of EYE entrepreneurs conducted for this study, a significant majority 
of respondents confirmed that the programme addressed their needs. Overall, nearly 
80% (650/814) of the participants considered that EYE had addressed their needs to some 
or a great extent. In particular, 73% (591/814) and 77% (625/814) of HE and NE indicated that 
the  EYE  addressed  “obstacles  to  setting  up  businesses”  and  “a  lack  of  entrepreneurial 
culture  and  weak  entrepreneurial  spirit”  to  some  or  a  great  extent,  respectively. 
Furthermore,  67%  (544/814)  of  HE  and  NE  agreed  that  it  addressed  “low  levels  of 
entrepreneurial firm creation” and 67% (543/814) that it helped “new businesses struggling 
to survive and grow”. The survey also revealed that the EYE programme was relevant to 
SO1, and, by supporting the expansion of the entrepreneur’s business contacts’ network, 
increased their credibility and opportunity to access finance. The study has highlighted 
the relevance of EYE to entrepreneurship policy. Some additional conclusions on the 
relevance  of  the  programme  can  be  drawn  from  the  analysis  of  the  motivations  for  the 
involvement of hosts and new entrepreneurs in the EYE programme. A great majority of 
more  experienced  entrepreneurs 
that  supporting  young  and  aspiring 
entrepreneurs  was  a  very  important  or  a  somewhat  important  motivation  for  them  (97%, 
227/233). The next most popular motivations for participating in EYE as a host entrepreneur 
included  seeking  new  ideas  or  a  fresh  perspective  (90%,  210/233 of  the  surveyed hosts 
identified with this statement at least to some extent), finding a potential partner in business 
(74%,  173/233),  gaining  a  new  staff  member  (73%,  169/233),  or  learning  about  foreign 
markets  and  countries  (67%,  157/233).  The  least  important  motivation  for  the  surveyed 
stakeholders proved to be achieving gains in one’s business’ publicity, as only 38% (88/233) 
of the respondents found it to be applicable to their situation. 

reported 

84 2014: A partial and fragile recovery - Annual report on European SMEs. 
85 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme., p. 32. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.1.2.  Relevance to new challenges - the COVID-19 pandemic 

One of the main challenges that emerged in the final stages of the implementation of 
COSME was the COVID-19 pandemic which had wide-ranging impacts on the EU market 
and particularly on SMEs. While some SMEs could temporarily suspend operations, most 
had to continue fulfilling contracts and covering costs despite reduced activity. The SME 
Annual  Report  of  2021 revealed  insights from  9 EU  Member  States  on  the  impact  of  the 
crisis in 2020.86 The most common disruption reported by SMEs (39%) was an increase in 
late payments compared to the previous year. Supply chain disruptions causing shortages 
of  materials,  goods,  and  services  were  reported  by  36%  of  SMEs.  Other  challenges 
included increased prices (26%), difficulties in importing (24%), finding alternative suppliers 
(19%), and exporting (17%). 

During the pandemic, the relevance of COSME’s financial instruments increased, as 
longer term market failures limiting SMEs’ access to finance, which had seen a decrease before 
COVID-19, worsened during the pandemic. It became more difficult for SMEs to obtain financing 
without a guarantee at a time of high liquidity needs, and more important from a firm survival 
perspective to obtain loan finance at preferential rates. The adaptability of the programme 
was  amply  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  the  EIF  and  Commission  launched  specific 
COVID-19 support under the COSME Loan Guarantee Facility (COSME LGF) supported 
by EFSI immediately after the outbreak of the pandemic. Interest rates on EU guarantee-
backed loans were made more preferential, intermediaries had an extension of the existing 
COSME  guarantee  agreements  and  there  was  additional  top-up  funding  made  available 
through EFSI to expand the scale of intervention. Interviews with financial intermediaries 
indicate  that  the  instruments  launched  when  COVID  struck,  such  as  the  extension  of 
existing guarantees with improved features, were well-received. The EIF response was also 
judged to be fast and appropriate to the SME need for finance in that peculiar period. 

As  reported  in  the  2019  COSME  Monitoring  Report,  many  projects  planned  in  the  2019 
work  programme  were  disrupted,  especially  those  requiring  face-to-face  interaction.  To 
adapt, many projects shifted to online events, and timelines were extended to reach 
targets.  However,  the  crisis  also  presented  opportunities  to  refocus  measures  to  assist 
enterprises in responding to the challenges they faced and strengthening their resilience for 
the future. Below we report on a few examples. 

In  the  2020  COSME  Monitoring  Report,  examples  were  provided  of  how  particular 
components of COSME were adapted to reflect the changing needs of SMEs (and also in 
the  case  of  the  COSME  financial  instruments).  For  instance,  an  EFSI  top-up  supported 
transactions related to the digitalisation pilot launched in 2019, before COVID-19, to enable 
financial intermediaries to provide broader and more comprehensive debt support to SMEs 
for  digital  transformation  in  line  with  EU  policy.  In  addition,  the  pilot  allows  the  Financial 
Intermediary  to  enter  into  a  (Counter-)  Guarantee  Agreement  dedicated  to  the  digital 
transformation of SMEs.87 

Given the COVID-19 crisis, the EEN swiftly adapted to changing needs, helping SMEs 
to  address  supply  chain  disruptions,  find  new  partners,  boost  their  resilience  and  switch 
production to critical items like personal protective equipment. Feedback from consultations 
conducted  for  this  study  indicates  that  the  EEN  services  also  supported  enterprises  in 
implementing disruptive innovations and managing changes resulting from the crisis, while 
providing advice on overcoming emerging barriers and accessing finance. Throughout the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the EEN demonstrated its ability to adapt its services to help SMEs 
deal  with  new  challenges  and  opportunities.  The  2020  COSME  Monitoring  Report  noted 

86https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/849659ce-dadf-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1.  
87 https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/guarantees/single_eu_debt_instrument/cosme-loan-facility-
growth/call/annex-v-digitalisation-pilot-term-sheet.pdf.  

81 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

that  “the  network  has  become  increasingly  active  in  helping  SMEs  to  tackle  value  chain 
disruptions and boost their resilience”. This supports the point made earlier in this section 
that the adaptation of support services was crucial to helping SMEs to adapt to unexpected 
challenges,  such  as  supply  chain  bottlenecks,  necessitating  urgent  diversification  of  the 
supplier base.  

EEN members provided advice on new topics to help SMEs to manage their way through 
COVID,  for  instance,  on  digital  transformation,  SME  internationalisation,  supply  chain 
diversification,  etc.88  According  to  interviews  conducted  for  this  study,  the  relevance  of 
advice  provided  through  the  EEN  on  the  diversification  of  supply  chains  from  an  SME 
perspective was heightened during the second half of the COSME programme due to the 
COVID pandemic, when considerable supply chain bottlenecks hampering the availability 
of components and parts needed for final production impacted on SMEs in many sectors. 
Extended lockdowns in China meant that many SMEs had to seek alternative suppliers both 
elsewhere in Asia and through nearshore outsourcing.  

The action “GRO-SME-20-C-17 - SME Fund on the intellectual property voucher for post-
COVID-19 recovery and green and digital transitions” aimed to support SMEs in their path 
towards economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and aimed to be relevant to the 
need to adjust in the face of the pandemic,89 since it had a negative effect on their ability 
and willingness to apply for IP rights, both at national and EU level. EU SMEs continue to 
be the backbone of innovation and a lack of recovery from this critical situation would have 
risked weakening their competitive position.  

The 2020 SME Performance Review, funded by the 2019 budget, was refocused to assess 
the pandemic’s impact on EU SMEs in 2020 and their expected performance in 2021.90 This 
review  provided crucial  data  to  support the  implementation  of  Europe’s Recovery  plan.91 
This  helped  the  SME  Performance  Review  annual  exercise  to  remain  relevant  to  users, 
Commission policy makers, the SME Envoys and national Ministries, which would not have 
been possible without a flexible approach.  

The EYE projects that started in early 2020 were also impacted by the Covid-19 crisis, 
but  contract  extensions  and  adjustments,  such  as  using  remote  instead  of  physical 
exchanges,  helped  to  get  them  back  on  track.  In  2020,  the  Commission  launched  a 
preparatory  action  “EYE  Global”  to  extend  EYE  to  other  countries  including  Canada, 
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the US, following a successful pilot project.92 In the 
interviews  carried  out  for  this  evaluation,  EYE  Global  was  assessed  to  be  a  step  that 
responded to the European firms’ needs to build connections with businesses located in the 
US, South Korea, and other countries that are progressive in terms of their start-up support 
culture.  

Similarly, many Clusters Go International projects faced drastic challenges with travel 
restrictions,  but  they  found  alternative  means  of  cooperating  among  participants  to 
overcome obstacles and at least to an extent resume their activities. Increased use of on-
line communications media could to an extent compensate but could not fully replace the 
value of face-to-face meetings. One unforeseen positive impact of the pandemic on third 
generation Clusters Go International projects was that “online missions/events” with cluster 
organisations and SMEs were identified as a good way to launch projects, especially strand 

88 EEN grants monitoring fiche.  
89 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report. 
90 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/smes/sme-strategy/sme-performance-review_en  
91https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/recovery-plan-
europe_en#:~:text=NextGenerationEU%20is%20a%20more%20than,the%20current%20and%20forthcoming
%20challenges  
92 This was not funded by the COSME programme, but the findings are relevant to the design of future EYE 
actions. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

2.93  According  to  interviewees,  the  online  meetings  could  help  in  the  future  to  avoid 
mismatches of clusters or SMEs during face-to-face meetings as participants already met 
virtually beforehand.94 This could save a good deal of time and money involved in making 
fruitless international journeys. 

Overall, despite the initial disruption caused by the pandemic, the COSME programme and 
its projects made efforts to adapt and continue supporting SMEs in their recovery and 
growth.95 

4.1.3.  Relevance to new EU policy priorities  

The  EU's  policy  priorities  in  the  area  of  competitiveness  and  support  for  SMEs  and 
entrepreneurship evolved during the implementation of the COSME programme. Key policy 
changes during this period are outlined by thematic area below. We also summarise how 
the programme took into account these developments overall. More specific information on 
actions is provided in previous sections. 

During the implementation of the programme, more emphasis was put on innovation and 
digitalisation. The EU's Single Digital Gateway (SDG) simplifies access to information and 
digital services for citizens and businesses across Member States. Although the Regulation 
establishing the SDG was adopted in November 2018, its phased implementation aimed to 
provide  full  functionality  over  time,  streamlining  online  administrative  procedures.96  The 
Digital Europe Programme (DEP), launched in 2018, bolstered the EU's digital capabilities, 
focusing  on  areas  such  as  high-performance  computing,  artificial  intelligence  (AI),  and 
cybersecurity.  Additionally,  the  EU  introduced  strategies  and  initiatives,  such  as  the 
European AI Strategy and the Data Strategy, to promote responsible AI development and 
data-driven innovation. COSME aimed to be complementary to Horizon 2020 interventions 
fostering research and innovation and other initiatives in the digitalisation area. The main 
COSME actions introduced services to make it easier for enterprises to operate in the digital 
landscape  within  the  EU  through,  for  instance,  financial  services  and  EEN  services.  As 
mentioned  earlier,  the  SDG  provides  citizens  and  businesses  with  simplified  access  to 
information and digital services on the single market. The COSME programme supported 
part  of  the  costs  of  the  SDG,  notably  in  relation  to  information  services  for  SMEs  and 
contributed to IT development costs.97 

the  setup  and  early-stage  development  of  enterprises 

Other EU initiatives supported start-ups creation and development. For instance, the 
2018  Digital  Europe  Programme  aimed  to  foster  digital  transformation,  particularly 
leveraging AI and cybersecurity, while the 2020 SME Strategy promoted start-ups, access 
to  finance,  skills  development,  and  reducing  regulatory  burdens  in  the  EU.  COSME 
supported 
its 
implementation  for  instance,  by  helping  young  entrepreneurs  build  their  client  bases, 
develop their skills and learn how to effectively manage their enterprises, and by providing 
tailored advice on how to access markets within and outside the EU through the EEN. The 
programme  also  supported  actions  to  help  simplify  administrative  procedures  and 
harmonise rules, thus helping to create a more favourable environment for new business 
ventures. The 2020 SME Strategy was taken into account in the implementation of COSME 

throughout 

93 There are two strands of projects within ESCP-4i: strand 1 is to develop the joint internationalisation 
strategies and roadmaps, strand 2 is to develop specific activities that support co-operation with partners in 
third countries. 
94 Prognos et. al. 2021. p.71. 
95 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 
96 Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to 
procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services, 
97 The Your Europe Business was integrated into the Single Digital Gateway, and the Single Digital Gateway 
was subsequently made available under the Your Europe label. 

83 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

actions  funded  under  2020  budget  (inter  alia  EEN  services),  and  in  the  successor 
programme (SME pillar of the Single Market Programme). 

In the period 2014-2020, particular attention was devoted to sustainability and the green 
and digital transition. A key achievement in the first year of Von der Leyen's presidency 
was the approval in late 2019 of the European Green Deal, which became a central policy 
framework aiming to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050. COSME aligns with the Green 
Deal  and  the  EU's  environmental  goals.  The  programme  funded  initiatives  to  help 
enterprises and clusters develop green and sustainable products, sharing knowledge and 
information  and  ensuring  that  SMEs  are  in  sync  with  the  EU's  ambitious  environmental 
objectives.98  Part  of 
to  SMEs  which  made 
financial  support  was  allocated 
environmentally friendly investments.  

the 

Consequently, it can be said that COSME has maintained strong relevance in relation 
to  new  policy  developments.  COSME  aligned  with  the  key  priorities  set  forth  in  EU 
strategies  at  the  beginning  of  the  programme  (see  background  section  the  policy 
framework) and developed to respond to more recent ones such as the European Green 
Deal of 2019, as they emerged. It is confirmed that the flexibility inherent in the COSME 
programme has enabled it to promptly respond to emerging EU priorities and shifts in key 
strategies. 

4.2.  Effectiveness 

Effectiveness Questions 

•  How effective was COSME in achieving its general and specific objectives, in terms of outputs, 
results and long-term impact of its measures? Who were the main beneficiaries of COSME? 
•  Which factors drove or hindered progress and why, and how did these factors vary across the 

different actions in the Programme? 

•  What  measures  were  taken  to  foster  the  longer-term  continuity  and  impact  of  actions  that 
generated  positive  changes  or  impacts  for  SMEs  and  stakeholders?  Could  any  further 
measures be taken to this scope? 

This section assesses the extent to which the COSME programme achieved its general 
and specific objectives. It analyses the main outputs and results achieved both overall 
and at the sub-programme level, the contribution of COSME to wider EU policy objectives 
for the 2014-2020 period and the anticipated impacts of the programme. 

Our  findings  show  that  COSME  reached  a  large  number  of  SMEs  in  proportion  to  the 
relatively small scale of the programme in terms of EU budget (EUR 2.4 billion). More than 
2.9  million  SMEs  benefited  from  the  financial  instruments  and/or  the  in-depth  services 
provided  under  this  programme,  and  21  million  SMEs  benefited  from  COSME’s  digital 
services. 99 

As explained in Section 2, given the broad scope and diversity of interventions supported 
by COSME, the assessment focused on a number of selected actions. These include 
COSME’s main actions (financial instruments, EEN and other business support services, 
and EYE) that account for a large share of the total COSME budget committed and some 
thematic  actions  (e.g.,  supporting  clusters,  tourism  and  the  social  economy)  that  were 

98 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report. 
99 As a comparison, the evaluation study for the Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2014-2020 
financed by the ERDF indicates that approximately 160 000 SMEs were supported under the Competitiveness 
of SMEs objective of the ERDF in the period up to 2020 which had a total budget of around EUR 38.6 billion, of 
which  EUR  26.5  billion  came  from  the  ERDF).  These  figures  are  based  on  ESIF  2014-2020  categorisation 
ERDF-ESF-CF 
variable 
“Planned_Total_Amount_(Notional)” and “EU_amount_planned” and the year 2023 (forthcoming update). 

implemented 

considering 

planned 

2023, 

end 

the 

as 

vs 

of 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

deemed particularly important by stakeholders given the high expected impacts on SMEs. 
The  following  sections  present  an  in-depth  assessment  of  these  actions  and  their 
contribution to COSME’s objectives. Other smaller actions were analysed, including through 
case studies and informed the overall assessment at the programme level. The case studies 
focus  on  successful  actions  but  also  specific  actions  which  experienced  implementation 
challenges  or  where  performance  issues  were  reported.  The  assessment  drew  on  the 
results of the portfolio analysis, the evidence obtained through the targeted consultations, 
the  monitoring  data  and  other  secondary  sources  such  as  past  evaluations  and  other 
relevant studies. 

4.2.1.  Programme outputs, results and impacts 

Overall, COSME was effective and made significant progress towards its general and 
specific objectives. The programme supported a wide range of actions and interventions 
which  contributed  to  addressing  market  failures  and  structural  issues  affecting  the 
competitiveness of the Union economy and the capacity of enterprises, especially SMEs to 
grow, innovate and compete with their counterparts on a global scale. COSME built on the 
positive  achievements  of  its  predecessor  programme,  the  EIP,  and  strengthened  key 
initiatives that specifically targeted different enterprises. 

including  new  and 

COSME  reached  a  large  number  of  SMEs,  especially  microenterprises  and 
entrepreneurs 
female  entrepreneurs,  business  support 
organisations,  intermediary  organisations  and  other  stakeholders  across  the  EU  and 
beyond.  The  portfolio  analysis  presented  in  Section  3  also  shows  the  broad  reach  of 
COSME in terms of number, type, geographical and sectoral distribution of its beneficiaries. 
Feedback from the targeted consultations conducted for this study also confirms the positive 
assessment of COSME performance – details are presented below. Unsurprisingly, there 
are  a  larger  number  of  beneficiaries  in  the  largest  Member  States,  i.e.  Italy,  France  and 
Spain where financial instruments have been of particular benefit to SMEs. The impacts of 
some  actions  can  be  explained  also  by  differences  in  regional  financial  ecosystems  and 
banking structures, where the countries with historically developed financial markets can 
benefit  the  most.  In  addition,  regions  with  stronger  international  trade  links  or  strategic 
positions have benefited further from ENN support to internationalisation. Entrepreneurial 
culture  also  varies  across  Europe  so  regions  with  robust  entrepreneurial  ecosystems, 
supportive networks, and educational institutions may witness stronger impacts. Countries 
such as France and Germany tend to perform well in entrepreneurial environment and have 
benefited from the EYE programme, in addition to countries such as Italy and Spain.  

The main COSME actions receiving most of the funding were particularly successful 
in  achieving  the  expected  results  and  often  exceeded  their  original  performance 
targets (as illustrated in the following sections). To summarise: 

•  The financial instruments (LGF and EFG) facilitated access to finance for a large 
number of SMEs including micro-enterprises which struggled to demonstrate their 
creditworthiness. According to the results of the counterfactual analysis conducted 
for this study and reported in the dedicated section on financial support below, the 
LGF helped SMEs to survive in a challenging macro-economic context affected by 
the aftermath of the global financial crisis. The EFG had a good impact on survival 
rates,  employment  and  economic  performance  in  general.  It  also  contributed  to 
strengthening the internal market for venture capital (Section 4.2.2).  

•  The  EEN  helped  nearly  2.9  million  SMEs  obtain  crucial  advisory  services, 
information to operate in new markets and support in finding partners. Evidence from 
the targeted surveys indicates that EEN services helped SMEs to survive, maintain 
and/or increase their workforce, expand into new markets, and maintain or sustain 
their turnover. The EEN services were particularly appreciated by beneficiary SMEs 
( Section 4.2.3.1). 

85 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  The Clusters actions have also delivered some good results and impacts, but final 
reporting  data  has  not  yet  been  received  for  all  projects.  The  cluster  actions 
promoted  the  international  cooperation  of  SMEs,  their  innovation  capacity  and 
excellence  and  the  development  of  products  and  services.  The  programme 
supported 130 initiatives that promoted clusters worth EUR 51 million of its budget 
(Section 4.2.4). 

•  EYE exchanges, as illustrated throughout this report in relation to the project’s KPIs, 
promoted  entrepreneurship  and  an  entrepreneurial  culture,  and  the  creation, 
development,  and  growth  of  SMEs.  The  targeted  surveys  confirmed  the  positive 
impact  of  EYE  on  boosting  skills  of  both  new  and  host  entrepreneurs  (Section 
4.2.5.1). 

These key actions have positively contributed to achieving the objectives of COSME 
and addressing the market failures identified at its design stage. However, given the 
deep-seated nature of market failures, there remains a need for these types of interventions 
to  continue  to  support  SMEs’  competitiveness,  growth  and  performance  and  provide  an 
SME-friendly  business  environment  and  a  stronger  entrepreneurial  culture  in  successor 
programmes to COSME. 

Smaller actions had more limited resources but were nonetheless effective. Some of 
these actions supported SMEs in key sectors of the Union economy – for instance in the 
field  of  tourism  –  and  others  contributed  to  improving  the  framework  conditions  for  the 
competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  the  enterprises  in  the  EU.  As  indicated  in  the 
consultations, a factor which contributed to the successful implementation of many smaller 
actions was the fact that they tackled specific issues or SMEs’ specific needs – as explained 
in the section on Relevance. Their strong coherence with other initiatives of the programme 
was also mentioned (see section 4.4). In addition, participants mentioned that these small 
actions also assisted in the achievement of longer-term impacts. Nevertheless, a number 
of smaller actions were less aligned with the overall goals of the programme. 

This fragmentation of smaller actions which lacked a strong thematic link to other 
COSME  initiatives  and  its  overarching  objectives  was  one  of  the  weaknesses  of 
COSME. For instance, there were a number of studies supported by COSME which did not 
have a strong thematic consistency with the programme (e.g. Study on development of a 
European  Food  Price Indicator  along  the  value  chain)100,  and  some  pilot  actions  did  not 
foresee any follow up and were therefore perceived as a “one-off” by stakeholders. There 
were also other small actions which did not receive many project applications due to the 
very limited budget offered (e.g. EDEN European Excellence Destination initiative). In most 
cases, although these smaller actions delivered the planned outputs (in terms of studies, 
events, trainings and other products) as shown in the monitoring data, but it is not clear to 
what extent and how these have contributed to the COSME’s main objectives. 

A key strength of COSME lies in the use of intermediaries for the implementation of the 
programme. COSME provided support to intermediary bodies and entities with established 
relations  and knowledge  of the community  targeted  by the  different  initiatives.  Feedback 
from interviews conducted with EU officials, EISMEA and intermediaries also the suggests 
that  the  close  collaboration  with  intermediaries  maximised  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme  and  the  potential  to  achieve  the  desired  impacts.  However,  the  use  of 
intermediaries also made it more difficult to achieve visibility for the actions among the final 
beneficiaries receiving support (based on feedback from beneficiaries interviewed for this 
study). With the exception of the main actions (access to finance, EEN, EYE), there are no 
granular  monitoring  data  on  the  number  and  type  of  final  beneficiaries  of  COSME 
interventions, their geographical and sectoral distribution and other characteristics. The lack 

100 As indicated in the 2019 COSME Monitoring Report, under-performance issues were identified in relation 
to this study and thus, the price paid for this assignment by the contracting authority was reduced. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

of this data poses limitations on the assessment of the performance of these actions and 
outcomes achieved as explained in the methodology (Annex C). Other success factors for 
the  effectiveness  of  specific  actions  as  well  as  factors  which  might  have  negatively 
influenced their performance are reported in the following sections. 

The  following  sub-sections  provide  an  in-depth  assessment  of  the  COSME  actions  by 
objective. 

4.2.2.  SO1: Access to finance  

This  section  presents  the  study  findings  on  the  effectiveness  of  COSME  financial 
instruments combining the results of the portfolio analysis with evidence gathered from desk 
research, targeted consultations and interviews. The findings should be seen in the context 
of  the  performance  of  the  financial  instruments  operated  by  the  EIP  during  2007-13. 
According  to  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  EIP,  SMEs  benefiting  from  EIP  financial 
instruments were more competitive than they would otherwise have been in terms of higher 
sales, higher employment, lower costs and better survival rates. 

Overall, EUR 1.6 billion were committed to the COSME financial instruments for the 
2014-2020  programming  period.  This  is  slightly  above  the  target  set  in  the  COSME 
Regulation (at least 60% of the total COSME budget).101 Having a larger chunk of the budget 
allocated to finance meant that substantial support was available to SMEs and this could in 
turn translate into longer-term effects in terms of enhancing the viability of the enterprises 
created and improving their survival rates.102  

COSME financial instruments met or exceeded their original targets both in terms of 
number  of  SMEs  reached  and  volume  of  supported  operations,  as  shown  by  the 
portfolio  analysis.  This  achievement  builds  on  the  positive  performance  of  the  financial 
instruments operated by COSME’s predecessor in 2007-13 (the EIP), which was found by 
the ex post evaluation to have exceeded its targets in terms of the number of beneficiaries 
supported and the volume of the investments made. 

Table 4.2: Achievements of the COSME financial instruments against targets 

Indicator 

Target 

Achieved as of 31 
December 2022 

EFG 
Number  of  VC-backed  firms 
(final recipients) 
Overall volume invested 
Leverage ratio 
Additionality  

LGF 
SMEs receiving guaranteed 
loans (final recipients) 
Overall financing volume 
Leverage ratio 
Additionality 

Between 360 and 540 

Between EUR 2.6 and EUR 4 billion 
1:4 - 1:6103 
More than 62% of the final recipients consider that 
financial  support  received  could  not  have  been 
obtained by other means 

220,000- 330,000 

EUR 14.3-21.5 billion 
1:20 – 1:30 
More than 64% of the final recipients consider that 
financial  support  received  could  not  have  been 
obtained by other means 

521 

EUR 3.9 billion 
1:11104 
Not available 

873,751 

EUR 54 billion 
1:21 
84% 

101 2020 COSME Monitoring Report. 
102 2018 COSME Monitoring Report.  
103 EUR 1 from the Union budget will result in EUR 20-30 in financing and EUR 4-6 in equity investments over 
the lifetime of the COSME programme. 
104 Calculated as total volume invested, divided by the COSME EFG budget committed. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Source: Own elaboration based on EIF monitoring data and target data (Annex to the COSME regulation and Commission 
implementing decision COSME WP 2020)105 

4.2.2.1.  Reach of the LGF 

COSME  LGF  supported  865,387  distinct  SMEs,  1,173,780  transactions  for  a  total 
financing  amount  made  available  to  SMEs  of  c.  EUR  68bn,  out  of  which  as  of  31 
December 2022 EUR 53,872 million had been provided to those distinct SMEs.  The 
financial  intermediaries  involved  in  LGF transactions  were  mainly  commercial  banks  and 
guarantee institutions, covering the EU and COSME associated countries. (see Section 3).  

During the implementation of the programme and due to continuous high market demand, 
the available COSME LGF budget envelope was increased with several top-ups from the 
European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments’  (EFSI)  SME  Window.  All  top-ups  total 
nearly  EUR  1.5  billion  for  2014-2020.  This  meant  that  the  accelerated  roll-out  of  EU-
guaranteed financing of higher-risk SME transactions could continue throughout the whole 
implementation period. The EFSI top-up supported transactions under the digitalisation pilot 
launched  in  2019  to  enable  financial  intermediaries  to  provide  broader  and  more 
comprehensive debt support to SMEs for digital transformation. This top-up also supported 
a response to the COVID-19 virus outbreak and its economic impact in 2020 and beyond. 

The LGF offered financial intermediaries and SMEs a product that went above and 
beyond  what  was  available  from  alternative  sources  of  finance.  According  to  the 
interviewed financial intermediaries (20), the LGF addressed market failures (leading to a 
lack of finance for SMEs) in a more effective way than other national public programmes 
and offered advantages not provided by commercial products. Through the LGF, financial 
intermediaries were able to offer their SME clients loans at terms and conditions significantly 
more favourable than those offered by other sources of debt financing. Participants in the 
survey of financial intermediaries declared that their lending activity to SMEs would have 
been  considerably  different  without  the  LGF  guarantee.  About  67%  (26/39)  of  survey 
respondents indicated that SME loans would have had higher collateral requirements, or 
higher costs (51%; 20/39), or the volume of lending would have been reduced (59%; 23/39). 
Financial intermediaries interviewed also confirmed that without the LGF they would have 
reduced their lending to SMEs, since most of them would not have had sufficient collateral 
to back their loan. These changes would have significantly increased the barriers to finance.  

For SMEs that benefited from COSME LGF, there were few comparable alternatives 
available. Respondents to the SME survey conducted for this study, were asked to report 
what would have happened to their business or investment project if they had not received 
the EU-guaranteed COSME financing support. Only 13% (13/83) of respondents reported 
that they would have been able to secure financing from alternative sources at similar terms 
and conditions and without having to downsize their investment. The others that would have 
obtained the same amount elsewhere but with different terms and conditions indicated that 
they would have opted for loans that had either higher interest rate (61%; 19/31) or worse 
collateral  requirements  (55%;  17/31).106  The  consultation also  asked  SMEs to  share  their 
opinions on the processes, terms and conditions of the EU-guaranteed financing compared 
to offers available on the market when they applied for the support. A majority stated that, 
compared to offers that were available on the market at the same time, the LGF guarantee 
was  either  much  more  favourable  or  favourable  in  relation  to  the  overall  terms  and 
conditions (71%; 65/92) as well as the interest rate they had to pay on the borrowing (61%; 
56/92),  the  collateral/security  requirements  (65%;  60/92),  the  speed  of  processing  the 
application (51%; 47/92) and the repayment period (50%, 45/92).  

105 European Commission. 2020. Commission implementing decision COSME WP 2020, 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43487. 
106 The question allowed multiple choices. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.2.2.2. 

Impacts on LGF final recipients’ economic performance 

COSME  LGF  had  a  positive  impact  on  enhancing  SMEs'  access  to  finance. 
Contributions  to  the  targeted  consultation  emphasise  that  this  is  perhaps  the  most 
significant  advantage  of  COSME:  its  ability  to  bridge  the  gap  for  businesses  that  would 
otherwise struggle secure financing or, if they did, would face less favourable terms, such 
as  higher  interest  rates  and  stringent  collateral  requirements.  A  substantial  majority  of 
financial institution respondents (82%; 32/39) reported that their primary motive for seeking 
COSME  loan  guarantees  was  to  extend  lending  opportunities  to  viable  SMEs  with 
insufficient collateral. 

COSME LGF played a role in expanding access to finance for specific segments of 
the SME market, particularly those experiencing higher loan rejection rates, such as 
sole proprietorships, microenterprises, and start-ups (see section 3.1.1.2). However, it 
is worth noting that this outcome was not universal. It depended on the market strategies 
and  deliberate  choices  made  by  financial  intermediaries.  For  instance,  it  was  more 
pronounced when financial intermediaries had a dedicated focus on these sectors, such as 
commercial  banks  providing  microcredit  and  small 
leasing  companies 
predominantly  serving  microenterprises.  In  some  cases,  national  promotional  banks  and 
guarantee institutions also played a significant role in shaping these outcomes by focusing 
explicitly on start-ups. 

loans,  or 

LGF  final  recipients  exhibit  very  high  survival  rates  in  the  years  that  followed  the 
loans. Based on Orbis data, on average only 0.68% of companies were liquidated one year 
after having received the loan, while the share increases up to 6% after five years. This is 
even more surprising if compared with the EU27 average survival rates in 2020 that ranged 
between  85.7%  after  one  year  and  58.4%  after  four  years107  (i.e.  14.3%  and  41.6% 
respectively  did  not  survive).  This  analysis  could  not  establish  a  causal  link  between 
company  performance  and  the  support  received,  which  is  instead  captured  by  the 
counterfactual analysis. Surprisingly, the share of active businesses after the intervention 
is broadly uniform over all the years of investment: SMEs that received loans after the 
Covid  pandemic  exhibit  the  same  survival  rates  as  those  that  received  the  loan 
before. 

Table 4.3: Share of active firms by year of first LGF financing and years after 
investment 

Cohort 

t+1 

t+2 

t+3 

t+4 

t+5 

t+6 

t+7 

t+8 

t+9 

2014 

98.9% 

98.9% 

98.9% 

97.8% 

94.4% 

92.2% 

88.9% 

86.7% 

86.7% 

2015 

99.1% 

97.7% 

96.0% 

94.3% 

93.1% 

91.9% 

90.5% 

89.8% 

2016 

99.1% 

97.6% 

95.9% 

94.4% 

93.1% 

91.6% 

90.7% 

2017 

99.2% 

97.9% 

96.6% 

95.4% 

93.9% 

93.0% 

2018 

99.3% 

98.4% 

97.2% 

95.5% 

94.6% 

2019 

99.7% 

99.0% 

97.5% 

96.4% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

107 Data are drawn from Eurostat - Business demography by size class and NACE Rev. 2 activity (2004-2020) 
89 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Cohort 

t+1 

t+2 

t+3 

t+4 

t+5 

t+6 

t+7 

t+8 

t+9 

2020 

99.5% 

98.6% 

97.7% 

2021 

99.4% 

98.9% 

2022 

99.7% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total 

99.4% 

98.3% 

97.0% 

95.4% 

93.9% 

92.3% 

90.6% 

89.7% 

86.7% 

Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

The analysis was also narrowed to SMEs that received a LGF guaranteed loan between 
2014 and 2020 and observed the evolution in the share of active enterprises up to three 
years after having received the loan across countries and company size. The share of active 
enterprises amongst small enterprises is lower compared to micro-enterprises which were 
expected to be more vulnerable to shocks. 

Figure 4.4: Share of active LGF final recipients by size and years 
after investment (loans disbursed 2014-2020) 

Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

Across countries, the share of active enterprises is quite homogeneous. A few exceptions 
are  Croatia,  Denmark,  Finland,  Kosovo,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden  and  the 
United  Kingdom  where  the  share  of  active  enterprises  each  year  after  the  loan  is 
significantly  below  the  average.  As  an  illustrative  example,  while  on  average  95.7%  of 
enterprises that received the loan between 2014 and 2020 were still active after three years, 
the share among Danish companies drops to 75.6%. 

Despite  the  positive  results  in  terms  of  survival  rates,  the  trends  analysis  shows  that 
beneficiary  enterprises  have  not  significantly  grown  in  terms  of  employment, 
turnover  and  total  assets.  This  is  especially  the  case  for  micro-enterprises  and  small 
enterprises. As shown in the graphs below, the average number of employees as well as 
the  average  cost  of  personnel  among  micro-enterprises  and  small  enterprises  remains 
relatively  stable  overtime.  Despite  the  limited  increase  in  the  absolute  number  of 
employees, it is worth noting that the growth rates between one year before having received 
the guaranteed loan and three years after is more significant. On the one hand, the average 
growth rates in the number of employees equals 20% for micro-enterprises, and so do the 
growth rates in the cost of personnel. On the other hand, the average growth rates in the 
number of employees equals 11% for small enterprises and 19% when the cost of personnel 
is  concerned.  In  contrast,  medium-sized  enterprises  have  experienced  on  average  an 
increase in their number of employees (and so their average costs of personnel) both in 
absolute and relative terms. As far as the turnover and the total assets are concerned, all 
SMEs  have  shown  positive  trends,  even  though  medium-sized  enterprises  have 
experienced larger growth rates. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Considering the wider macro-economic context and the significant challenges SMEs faced 
in the aftermath of the financial crisis and during the COVID-19 pandemic, these results are 
nonetheless positive. 

Figure 4.5: Evolution in LGF final recipients’ employment before 
and after the loan, by size 

Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

Since the trends analysis does not allow to draw any causal conclusion on the observed 
patterns, a counterfactual analysis was conducted as part of this study to estimate the net 
causal  impact  of  the  LGF  intervention  on  SMEs’  economic  performance  (number  of 
employees, cost of personnel, turnover, total assets).108 The analysis has revealed that the 
LGF support led to an increase in the number of employees but it did not lead to an increase 
in turnover, and total assets as compared to not-yet-treated companies (see Figure below). 
These results only partly align with existing studies on the predecessor of LGF (e.g., CIP 
and  MAP).109  Previous  studies  indeed  found  a  positive  impact  of  EU  guarantee  loans  on 
SME  growth  in terms  of employment,  sales,  and profits,  even though the results  are  not 
always consistent across countries and schemes. The results obtained in the present study 

108 Details on the counterfactual analysis are provided in the methodological annex. 
109 Brault, J., Signore, S., & Note, S. P. (2020). Credit Guarantees in the COVID-19 crisis–relevance and 
economic impact. SUERF Policy Note, 176. https://www.suerf.org/policynotes/14869/credit-guarantees-in-the-
covid-19-crisis-relevance-and-economic-impact  

91 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

are to be considered with caution because of a series of limitations to the overall analysis. 
For  example,  the  representativeness  of  the  sample  size  is  not  fully  satisfied  at  the 
geographical level. While Italian companies are well represented in the final sample, SMEs 
from other key countries, such as Spain and France, are not. Another potential issue is that, 
due to data limitations, we carried out the analysis exploiting a sub-sample of companies 
that  received  the  LGF  guaranteed  loan  between  2015  and  2020,  while  the  intervention 
spanned from 2014 until 2022. Moreover, the positive trends observed amongst medium-
sized enterprises are not fully reflected in the overall net causal impact because, among 
other factors, the share of medium-sized enterprises equals only 1% of the overall sample 
of final recipients. 

Number of employees 

Cost of personnel 

Turnover 

Total assets 

Figure 4.6: Evolution of the Average Treatment on Treated on economic 
performance before and after the intervention (average 2015 – 2020) 
Note: In the figures above, the dot points equal the estimates of the 
ATT in the pre-treatment and post-treatment period, while the bars 
represent the confidence intervals at 95%.110 
Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

110 ATT refers to the effect of the treatment for those who actually received treatment (in this case, the impact 
of LGF finance on final recipients). 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The financial intermediaries interviewed for this study reported that, in many instances, the 
LGF guaranteed loans were used to support the day-to-day operations of companies. The 
loans backed by the LGF were useful to SMEs, but the size of the loans, which were 
capped at EUR 150,000, did not allow firms to undertake sizeable investments. 28% 
(44/155)  of  SME  survey  respondents  reported  that  they  were  seeking  finance  to  meet 
working  capital  needs,111  while  only  15%  (24/155)  did  so  for  capital  expenditure  such  as 
purchasing and installing new equipment or machinery. About 10% (16/144) of respondents 
were seeking finance for financing a start-up or a new product or service while fewer used 
the loan to invest in digital technologies and tools (5%; 7/144), or to finance an entry into a 
new market (3%; 4/144). According to the same survey the loans obtained allowed SME 
respondents to expand their business in existing markets (78%; 72/92), survive in difficult 
times  (65%;  60/92),  develop  a  new  technology  or  process  (51%;47/92),  develop  a  new 
product or service (54%; 50/92), enter new markets (59%; 54/92). However, 74% (68/92) 
of  SME  respondents  indicated  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  EU-guaranteed  support,  their 
business  would  still  have  achieved  the  same  results,  albeit  on  a  smaller  scale  in  some 
instances. A large majority of respondents (84%) also believed that their business would 
still be operating even if it had not obtained the LGF backed loan. 

This data underscores the utility of LGF-backed loans in supporting SMEs but suggests that 
they may not have played a disruptive or catalytic role in promoting substantial growth for 
these businesses. The LGF support was primarily directed towards securing working capital 
or  acquiring/leasing  small-scale  equipment.  These 
investments  were  vital  for 
maintaining the enterprises’ operational continuity, by providing access to finance 
to SMEs facing difficulties due to their higher risk profiles. However, on average, they 
did not foster business expansion. 

Within  the  partner  financial  intermediaries,  COSME  LGF  has  contributed  to  the 
expansion of SME lending and the enhancement of credit terms and conditions. The 
financial intermediaries interviewed for this study emphasised that the LGF allowed them to 
offer loans to riskier SMEs on more favourable terms than they typically would have offered. 
Since the LGF guarantee was provided at no cost, financial institutions had greater flexibility 
to pass on financial benefits to their SME clients. This translated into lower interest rates 
compared to similar client profiles and longer loan maturities. 

4.2.2.3.  Reach of the EFG  

Overall,  combining  the  core  EFG  operations  with  the  Pan  European  VC  funds-of-
funds initiative, evidence shows that EFG enhanced access to finance, particularly 
in the form of equity products, in countries where supply was less developed. The 
EIF signed EFG agreements with 23 financial intermediaries, mainly with growth/expansion 
stage funds. The COSME EFG backed funds financed 853 investments in COSME EFG 
eligible and non-COSME EFG eligible firms (SMEs), reaching a total investment volume of 
EUR  5,540  million  in  these  SMEs.  Not  all  the  final  recipients  supported  COSME  EFG-
eligible firms. 

A total of EUR 3,920 million was distributed through 564 investments in 521 SMEs 
eligible under COSME. There was geographic concentration of equity investments, as the 
majority of the investment (53%) went to enterprises located in Germany, France and the 
United  Kingdom.112  This  is  to  be  expected  considering  that  PE/VC  activity  is  often 
concentrated in geographical hubs and the availability of VC has a positive effect on the 
demand for external equity (i.e. firms are more likely to seek external equity when the local 
availability of VC is high).113 It is important to note that the uptake of the EFG coincided with 

111 According to the LGF monitoring system, this share is higher and set at 55.1% of the total amount 
financed. 
112 COSME EFG Quarterly Report – 2022 Q4. 
113 EIF. 2016. The European venture capital landscape: an EIF perspective Volume I: The impact of EIF on 
the VC ecosystem. 

93 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

the development of the European equity market. Private equity and venture capital markets 
have grown rapidly in the EU starting from 2010/2011, with the total equity amount invested 
in European companies experiencing a steep increase in 2019 and continuing to grow in 
2020 and 2021.114 

Early evidence suggested that COSME support allowed funds to increase the average 
size of their investments. The average ticket size under EFG backed funds is around EUR 
5  million,  which  is  about  three  times  the  average  European  risk  capital  ticket.  This 
demonstrates  that  COSME  has  contributed  to  increasing  the  average  volume  of 
investments made by European PE/VC funds, addressing a structural weakness identified 
by the InvestEU impact assessment115 and in numerous studies, such as the feasibility study 
to  examine  the  potential  for  Venture  Capital  Fund-of-Funds.116  Moreover,  it  is  worth 
mentioning that despite its initially slow adoption, the EFG surpassed its intended leverage 
effect (see 3.1.2). 

Interviewed  fund  managers  confirmed  that  the  EIF  involvement  helped  unlock 
fundraising by crowding-in other private investors even if it still remains challenging 
for a first-time team. According to them, the signalling role of EIF, encouraging investment 
in specific sectors was particularly important in the last two years, which were characterised 
by geopolitical uncertainty and restrictive economic measures such as increasing interest 
rates,  and  a  squeeze  of  the  public  budget  after  the  massive  intervention  to  address  the 
Covid-19 effects on the economy. It contributed to sustaining the level of capital allocation 
with the effect of achieving the outputs documented above. 

In contrast, the cap imposed on EFG investment is perceived by interviewees to have been 
a  barrier  to  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  this  instrument.  Yet,  fund  managers  also 
complain about the absence of a matchmaking process between funds and other investors 
in  addition  to  EIF.  Sharing  a  list  of  investors  making  similar  investments  in  Europe  and 
putting in contact, e.g., LPs and VCs would enlarge the outreach of the instrument. 

4.2.2.4. 

Impacts on EFG eligible final recipients 

COSME  EFG  had  a  positive  impact  on  enhancing  SMEs'  access  to  finance  and 
stimulating the creation of a VC/PE market. Interviewed investees stated that they used 
the equity investment received to develop new products they probably would not be able to 
develop otherwise. 

EFG  final  recipients  exhibit  very  high  survival  rates  in  the  years  that  followed  the 
investments.117 EFG final recipients exhibit very high survival rates in the years that followed 
the investments. Out of those found in Orbis, for all years of the intervention except 2018 
and  2019,  none  of  EFG  related  final  recipients  were  liquidated  one  year  after  having 
received the investment, while the share increases to only 3.4% after five years. The results 
are  even  more  positive  if  compared  with  the  EU27  average  survival  rates  in  2020  that 
ranged between 85.7% after one year and 58.4% after four years. This analysis could not 
establish  a  causal  link  between  company  performance  and  the  support  received,  which 
instead  could  only  be  captured  by  the  counterfactual  analysis.  The  share  of  active 
businesses two years after the intervention is 100% for the investment years 2014-2017, 
but this falls by 4% to 96% for intervention year 2018, and ranges between 97.8-98.8 % for 
2029-2021. These rates remain nevertheless good when compared with the EU27 average 
survival rates referred to above. 

114 Kraemer-Eis, H., Botsari, A., Gvetadze, S., Lang, F. and Torfs, W. 2021. The European Small Business 
Finance Outlook 2022. 
115 SWD(2018) 314 final. 
116 Assessing the potential for EU investment in venture capital and other risk capital fund of funds, Final 
report, available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8557bb3e-e10a-11e5-8a50-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  
117 These results might be overestimating the survival rates due to the lag in reporting company defaults in the 
Orbis database. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Table 4.4: EFG survival rates by year of investment and period after the intervention 

Cohort 

t+1 

t+2 

t+3 

t+4 

t+5 

t+6 

t+7 

2014 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2015 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

2016 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

2017 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

2018 

96.0% 

96.0% 

96.0% 

96.0% 

96.0% 

2019 

98.1% 

98.1% 

96.3% 

94.4% 

2020 

100.0% 

97.8% 

94.4% 

2021 

100.0% 

98.8% 

2022 

100.0% 

Sample 
size 

1 

6 

9 

17 

25 

54 

90 

167 

94 

Total 

99.4% 

98.4% 

96.0% 

96.4% 

96.6% 

97.0% 

93.8% 

463 

Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

The survival rates differ somewhat across countries. While in the United Kingdom 95.5% of 
the 67 supported companies were still active after two years from the intervention, the share 
lowers  to  77.70%  for  the  130  final  recipients  in  Germany,  and  to  25%  in  Slovenia  and 
Slovakia. 

The LGF performed very well overall on survival rates by size class. Survival rates of SMEs 
one year after the intervention were consistently good for micro, small and medium-sized 
businesses.  Micro  enterprises  had  higher  survival  rates  than  small  or  medium-sized 
businesses  two  years  after  the  intervention.  The  table  also  displays  data  on  mid-caps 
(based on size category information from Orbis), but it should be noted that at the time that 
LGF support was provided all final recipients were SMEs). 

Table 4.5: EFG survival rates by company size and period after the intervention 

Size 

t+1 

t+2 

Sample 

Micro 

97.2% 

97.2% 

72 

Small 

97.9% 

95.9% 

146 

Medium 

97.0% 

96.0% 

100 

Mid-cap  100.0%  100.0% 

16 

Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

EFG final recipients have experienced significant positive trends in their economic 
performance,  as  well  as  high  survival  rates.  As  shown  in the  table  below, regardless  of 
their size at the time of investment, SMEs have grown in terms of employment, turnover, 
and total assets. On average, they have almost doubled the number of employees from the 
year before to the year after the intervention. The EFG instruments have indeed targeted 
the equity needs of young and fast-growing enterprises. Whilst this is positive, a causal link 
could not yet be formally established for the full set of SME beneficiaries as most received 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

support from 2021 and the methodology for the counterfactual analysis requires data from 
2-3 years after the intervention.118 Most equity investments were provided after 2021. It was 
therefore  not  possible  to  document  their  performance  in  the  three  years  after  the 
investment.  Nevertheless,  previous  studies  on  similar  schemes  supported  by  EU 
institutions, showed a positive causal relationship between the provision of equity support 
and the economic performance of SMEs (e.g., employment, turnover, assets).119 Therefore, 
it  can  be  assumed  that  the  positive  impacts  observed  through  the  descriptive  statistics 
would hold also in a counterfactual scenario if the analysis is replicated in the future once 
all expected impacts have materialised. In line with this positive expectation, the average 
ratio of job creation at the end of 2019 was 1.44.120 

Table 4.6: EFG Evolution in key performance indicators before and after the 
intervention 

Size class 

t-1 

t 

t+1 

Delta121 year after 
year before 

Sample size 

Number of employees 

Micro 

Small 

Medium 

4 

19 

76 

Turnover (TH EUR) 

5 

27 

106 

8 

39 

139 

Micro 

Small 

2,012 

4,173 

2,955 

3,730 

3,444 

6,874 

Medium 

17,714 

21,342 

27,082 

Total assets (TH EUR) 

Micro 

Small 

2,102 

5,792 

27,976 

8,948 

14,631 

16,406 

Medium 

17,045 

32,081 

43,017 

Source: Own elaboration based on Orbis data 

4 

20 

62 

1,432 

2,701 

9,368 

25,874 

7,458 

25,972 

20 

42 

34 

6 

17 

23 

19 

38 

36 

The expected positive impacts on the economic performance of EFG-backed companies 
were further confirmed by interviewed funds. As an illustrative example, one fund declared 
to have successfully divested itself from nine different companies with performance in terms 
of turnover ranging between 2x and 3x as compared to other firms in the targeted industry. 
Among  the  companies  supported  by  the  interviewee  the  number  of  jobs  created  was 
between 500 and 1,000. Despite these positive outcomes, the interviewee acknowledged 
that a high-risk component permeates these investments which can result in a portfolio with 
a relatively high number of companies filing for bankruptcy. 

118 A necessary condition for a counterfactual analysis of this type is access to robust data for both the treated 
(beneficiary SMEs) and not-yet treated (control groups) entities for at least the two years before and after the 
treatment. In addition, it should be noted that it generally takes several months after the end of the relevant 
financial year for company data to be entered in Orbis. 
119 EIF (2021), The European venture capital landscape: an EIF perspective Volume VI: The impact of VC on 
the exit and innovation outcomes of EIF-backed start-ups. EIF (2019), The economic impact of VC 
investments supported by the EIF. EIBG (2022), Evaluation of EIB Group Equity and quasi-equity support for 
SMEs and midcaps. Final report. 
120 Average job creation is the ratio of employees in 2019 (regardless of the year of investment) to employees 
at the time of the investment. Source: Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019 Ares(2020)6566925. 
121 Difference between the variable in time t+1 (year after the intervention) and t-1 (year before the 
intervention). 

96 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.2.3.  SO2: Access to markets 

4.2.3.1.  Enterprise Europe Network 

Since 2008, the EEN has supported 2.9 million SMEs by providing different services 
(including advisory services, partnering services and brokerage events, information on EU 
grants and funding opportunities, and on Intellectual property rights) thus supporting their 
innovation  and  growth  both  within  the  EU  Single  Market  and  globally.  The  EEN  has 
performed well, and consistently achieved high SME client satisfaction rates. The targeted 
consultation for this study and previous consultations also provide evidence of the positive 
impacts of EEN services on SMEs’ performance. 

The services offered by the EEN evolved over time. In 2014, the EEN introduced tailored 
innovation support for enterprises. In 2017, the EEN launched targeted scale-up services. 
By  the  end  of  the  programme,  different  services  had  been  introduced  to  support  SMEs 
through  digitalisation,  sustainability  (extending  earlier  services  that  focused  more  on 
green/climate aspects of sustainability) and to help boost their resilience. The table below 
shows  the  evolution  in  terms  of  the  number  of  calls,  contracts,  and  amount  funded  over 
time. As shown in Table 4.7 most funding was granted as a result of the calls launched in 
2014, 2016, and 2020. The cyclicality in the number of projects (and therefore in the funding) 
is determined by the length of the specific partnership agreements under EEN’s Framework 
Partnership agreement. 

Table 4.7: Details of EEN calls 

Call Year 

No. 
Calls 

Total Costs 
(EUR) 

EU (EUR) 

No. of 
contracts 

No. benefitting 
organisations 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2020 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

178,417,151.9 

97,804,863 

6,154,598.8 

2,912,171 

187,357,828.9 

103,598,787 

1,763,751.3 

1,025,533 

96,742,152.4 

53,872,308 

192,910,141.1 

108,064,011 

174 

10 

147 

3 

92 

92 

TOTAL 

10 

663,345,624.4 

367,277,676 

518 

Source: Own elaborations based on data from EISMEA 

602 

46 

544 

20 

529 

516 

664 

In total,  664  organisations located in  48  countries  participated in 93 EEN  consortia 
providing advisory and support services to SMEs. These consortia were designated in 
response to calls for proposals for 7-year Framework Partnership Agreements published in 
2014 and 2015122 and remained consistent throughout the programme. In the framework of 
these 7-Year FPAs, each consortium signed a separate grant agreement for each 1-2 year 
work programme period 123 resulting in a total of 518 grant agreements over the 7 years. In 
total, the grant agreements provided EU funding of EUR 367.3 million towards total costs 
of EUR 663.3 million, with the consortia supplying the balance from others sources (e.g. 
national or regional funding). As required by the calls, the 93 EEN consortia were regional 
or national consortia with demonstrated capacities and experience to cooperate with EEN 
members in other countries.  

122 The main call for FPAs was published in 2014, and the 2015 and 2017 calls were for associated countries 
that joined the programme meanwhile. 
123 2015-16; 2017-18, 2019; and 2020-21 

97 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

All regions across Member States and participating countries (typically at NUTS1 level124) 
were served by a national or regional EEN consortium. In some countries, the number of 
organisations participating  in  EEN  projects  was  higher,  either  because  of the  size of  the 
country, or because of the number of relevant organisations with the necessary operational 
capacities  in  the  regional  /  national  business  and  innovation  support  ecosystem.  For 
instance,  many  EEN  organisations  were  located  in  Italy  (11.6%),  Germany  (10.7%)  and 
Spain (9.8%). 

Figure 4.7: EEN: Number of organisations participating in consortia by 
country125 

Source: Own elaboration based on data from EISMEA 

The representation of the EEN around the world is crucial to provide SMEs with the services 
to access  global  markets.  Business  Cooperation  Centres (BCCs)  were  set  up to provide 
this support in response for a call for expressions of interest published in 2015. The BCCs 
are  mainly  located  in  countries  where  the  EU  has  an  interest  in  supporting  economic 
cooperation. They do not receive any financial support from the EU but rather from national 
authorities  elsewhere  including  in  third  countries.  They  do  receive  non-financial  support 
from the EU, in the form for instance of technical assistance and access to online services. 
At the end of 2020, there were 73 BCCs in 29 third countries.126 

Looking at the EU contribution for EEN projects across participating countries, the allocated 
budget  varied  and  was  based  on  a  number  of  consideration  including  the  size  of  the 
population, GDP and cost of living in the respective country. The EEN project budget did 
not depend on the number of consortia and/or organisations participating in the EEN.  

124  NUTS  2021  classification:  Statistical  regions  in  the  European  Union  and  partner  countries  —  NUTS  and 
statistical regions 2021. 
125 This denotes the country where EEN consortia are based. Each EEN consortium provides EEN services in 
their own region / country. The European dimension of EEN comes from the cooperation between EEN members 
in different countries for dealing with cross-border enquiries and partnership requests 
126 Special Report No 07/2022: SME internationalisation instruments. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 4.8: EEN: total costs and EU contribution by country, EUR 
million 

Source: Own elaboration based on data from EISMEA 

The  EEN  reached  and  often  exceeded  its  targets  over  the  COSME  implementation 
period.  The  COSME  Regulation  set  specific  targets  and  indicators  in  relation  to  EEN 
performance.127 The original targets and main outputs and results achieved by the EEN are 
summarised in the table below. 

Table 4.8: KPIs set in the COSME Regulation for the EEN and its main achievements 

Long term target (2020) 

Achievements (2020) 

EEN KPIs as per the Regulation 
Number of cross-border partnership 
agreements signed128 
Recognition of the EEN amongst the 
SME population 

18,701 

(2015)129 
8% 
measured since 2015) 

(NB:  not 

agreements 

Partnership 
signed: 2,500/year 
Increase  in  the  recognition 
of  EEN  amongst  the  SME 
population compared to the 
baseline  
Client  satisfaction  rate  > 
82% 

92%130 

Client  satisfaction  rate  (%  SMEs 
stating  satisfaction,  added-value  of 
specific service provided by EEN) 
Number of SMEs receiving support 
services 
Number  of  SMEs  using  digital 
services 
electronic 
(including 
information  services)  provided  by 
EEN 
* In the EEN 2020 Final activity report, the Commission noted that the aggregated high-level targets had 
been achieved, but did not provide further information on the EEN’s recognition among SMEs.133 

1,957,822 
(COSME countries)131 
21.5 million132  

2.3 million per year  

500,000 per year 

Source: Author’s elaboration based on EISMEA data 

127 Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1287/2013. 
128 Partnership Agreements are signed between organisations to make the cooperation official following a 
successful matching in the EEN matchmaking database. 
129 2015 Eurobarometer included a question on SME awareness of EEN. 
130 Data from the EEN 2021 client satisfaction survey. 
131 Data on the EEN provided by EISMEA. The methodology for measuring the number of SMEs receiving 
support services was changed as of year 2015 to help Network partners focus on intensive, high value-added 
services while reducing the administrative burden, a sub-indicator used in the calculation of the target (the 
number of clients receiving information services). Network partners keep providing information services to 
large numbers of SME clients, but no longer need to record them. If the old methodology had been continued, 
the reported figures would have been approximately twice as high (i.e. approximately 3,800,000 and hence 
above the overall target of 3,500,000). 
132 Data on the EEN provided by EISMEA. 
133 Special Report No 07/2022: SME internationalisation instruments 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The bi-annual results, as the EEN grants run for two years (with the exception of 2019) were 
as follows. 

•  2015-2016:  563,506  SMEs134  were  supported  by  the  EEN135  (including  more  than 
254,000 receiving information services, more than 51,000 benefiting from advisory 
services,136  and  around  50,000  receiving  business  cooperation  services137).  EEN 
business cooperation services contributed to stimulating cross-border cooperation 
between  businesses  with  5,019  partnership  agreements  signed.138  Moreover,  7.8 
million  SMEs  were  reached  by  digital  information  services.139  The  2017  interim 
evaluation  survey  results  suggest  that  the  information  and  advisory  services  are 
effective in providing knowledge, learning and skills to the client SMEs.140  

•  2017-2018:  the  EEN  supported  534,244  SMEs.  Some  5,700  international 
partnership agreements were signed and advisory services helped around 4,000141 
SME clients improve their competitiveness and innovation at European level. Digital 
services reached 16.8 million SMEs.142 

•  2019: the EEN supported 277,896 SMEs.143 A total of 2,945 international partnership 
agreements  were  signed,  39,732  SMEs  received  advisory  services,  4,775  SMEs 
received innovation support service packages, and 8.6 million SMEs were reached 
by EEN digital services.144  

•  2020-2021:  the  EEN  supported  582,176  SMEs,  including  providing  advisory 
services to over 40,000 SMEs per year. In two years, client SMEs agreed more than 
5,000  international  partnership  agreements  (of  which  2,492  in  2020  and  2,592  in 
2021), while the EEN advisory support services supported around 7,000 clients to 
improve  their  competitiveness  and  innovation  at  a  European  level.145  It  was  also 
reported that the EEN’s digital services reached more than 20 million SMEs over 
2020-2021.146  In  2020,  the  EEN  provided  valuable  support  to  SMEs  during  the 
COVID-19  crisis,  moving  its  events  and  activities  online.  About  a  quarter  of  EEN 
consortia  started  providing  new  services  such  as  advice  on  supply  chain 
management  and  relocation.  A  number  of  new  services  and  collaborations  are 
expected to last beyond the pandemic period.147 In 2020, a significant part of some 
EEN  members’  advisory  support  was  also  dedicated  to  helping  clients  overcome 
Brexit-related matters.148  

Throughout  its  operational  period  under  the  EIP  and  COSME  programmes  (2008-
2021), more than 4.2 million SMEs benefited from EEN services, including more than 
2.6  million  SMEs  who  received  information  services,  more  than  570,000  who  received 
advisory services, more than 360,000 SMEs that participated in brokerage events and more 
than 25,000 SMEs that benefited from tailored innovation support packages. 149 

134 But according to the interim evaluation of the COSME programme, probably only around 210,000 individual 
SMEs if double counting is avoided, taking into account the trends from the 2008-2014 period. 
135 Technopolis (2017). Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
136 COSME monitoring report 2016. 
137 Technopolis (2017). Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
138 Technopolis (2017). Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
139 COSME monitoring report 2016. 
140 Technopolis (2017). Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
141 The 4,000 cases refer to EIMC/KAM services. These are more resource intensive one-to-one capacity 
building services entailing 4-10 days’ work. 
142 COSME Monitoring Report 2017. 
143 Figures provided by EISMEA. 
144 COSME monitoring fiche EEN grants 2020. 
145 COSME monitoring fiche EEN grants 2020. 
146 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report. 
147 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 
148 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 
149 COSME monitoring fiche EEN grants 2020. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The satisfaction rate of EEN’s client SMEs has been high at around 85% throughout 
COSME  implementation.  This  builds  on  the  success  of  the  EEN  during  the  period  of 
support from the EIP (2007-13); the ex post evaluation of the EIP found that EEN clients 
appeared  satisfied  with  the  services  received.  Based  on  a  review  of  EEN  satisfaction 
surveys for the COSME period, 86% of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with network 
services in 2015-2016, 88% in 2017-2018150 and 85% in 2019-2020.151 In 2020-2021, 92% 
of  EEN  clients  confirmed  their  satisfaction.152  EEN  members  interviewed  for  this  study 
provided positive feedback and confirmed that the EEN services were effective overall. An 
EEN member reported that more than half of their clients are returning clients, which means 
that SMEs often approach EEN for an initial service and come back for additional services 
to support their growth or internationalisation. EEN members interviewed reported that the 
most effective services were advisory services, which create competences within SMEs and 
help them innovate and grow, and B2B or matchmaking events that foster new partnerships. 
As an area of further improvement, an interviewee (EEN member) noted that the quality of 
the partnership services could be improved by conducting quality checks that look at the 
content  more  than  at  the  form.  In  fact,  it  might  be  difficult  to  differentiate  between 
cooperation  offers  from  businesses  that  produce  or  sell  basic  common  products.  As 
reported  by  another  EEN  member,  this  led  to  a  lower  than  expected  impact  of  the 
partnership profile services.  

The impact  survey among  EEN  clients  for the  2015-2016  period  identified  several  areas 
where  the  EEN  had  positive  impacts  on  business  performance.153  According  to  SMEs 
responding  to  this  survey,  receiving  the  EEN  support  led  to  improved  market  share  in 
existing  markets  (57%)  and  increased  turnover  (67%),  while  only  32%  experienced  jobs 
growth.154 The COSME interim evaluation survey showed that more than 75% of EEN’s client 
SMEs  had  entered  a  new  market,  including  an  international  market  for  more  than  20%. 
More than half of respondents attributed these results at least to some extent to the services 
provided by EEN.155 In addition, the Interim evaluation of COSME showed that SMEs that 
used the EEN services performed better than SMEs that did not, with 6.45% more turnover 
growth and 9.45% more employment growth. However, 50% of SME clients did not attribute 
any of their growth to EEN, and in the remaining half, only 10% attributed their growth ‘to a 
great extent’ to the EEN services.156 

The  majority  of  EEN  SME  clients  responding  to  the  survey  supporting  this  study 
stated that the EEN services received had a positive impact on their business overall. 
Of those who answered the question, most (29/32) reported a positive impact either to a 
great extent (21) or to some extent (8). In particular, the support helped them to maintain 
the number of employees in their firm, expand to new geographical markets and sustain 
their turnover. Some EEN SME clients reported an increase in their turnover of between 12 
and 2613% in the 2015-2023 period. Furthermore, SME clients reported an increase in their 
staff  of  up  to  157%  while  two  SMEs  reported  a  decrease  of  between  17  and  54%.  This 
builds on the achievement of the EEN during the period of support from the EIP (2007-13); 
the ex post evaluation of the EIP found that SMEs supported by the EEN went on to gain 
business  benefits  (such  as  increased  employment  and  turnover,  and  expansion  to  new 
markets) in the years after receiving support. 

In another survey of EEN member organisations conducted for this study, 49% (33/68) of 
EEN member respondents believe that the EEN services they provided have been effective 

150 COSME Monitoring Report 2017.  
151 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 
152 COSME Monitoring Report 2020. 
153 This impact survey among EEN’s clients was coordinated by EASME. . Data for the 2015-2016 EEN 
impact survey were presented in the 2017 Interim evaluation of the COSME programme. The results of these 
surveys are not publicly available. 
154 N= 1,579 
155 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
156 Interview feedback.  

101 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

in helping  SMEs  to  access  international  markets to a great  extent  and  49%  (33/68) to a 
reasonable extent.157 A large majority of SME clients responding to the survey for this study 
(74%, 25/34) also stated that the EEN support received was effective in responding to their 
needs or in addressing the barriers they had experienced.158 As noted by an EEN member 
interviewed, while the impacts of some services (such as information services) can be seen 
in the  short term ,  other  services  (such  as  advisory  services)  produce  long-term  impacts 
that can be more difficult to measure. 

A key success factor for the effectiveness of the EEN services is the profile of EEN 
members,  and  in  particular  their  credibility  and  close  ties  with  their  regional  and 
national  industrial  and  innovation  ecosystems.  Their  proximity  to  the  local  business 
environment  is  a facilitator  for  reaching  and  advising  client  SMEs.159  The networking  and 
knowledge-sharing  activities  between  EEN  members,  facilitated  by  EEN  thematic  and 
sector  working  groups,  training  and  the  various  EEN  events,  is  also key  to ensuring the 
effective functioning and quality of services. In the 2015-2016 period, about two-thirds of 
the EEN staff participated in training made available at EEN level,160 and EEN members 
reported having increased their expertise and ability to provide high-level services to their 
client SMEs by participating in EEN.161 It should be noted that while collectively most of the 
targets were achieved, the achievements in the number of partnership agreements signed 
and advisory  services  vary  between  countries and  consortia (e.g.  from 24  achievements 
per FTE of staff in Ireland and 20 in Lithuania, to two, three or four in many other countries). 
These  variations  could  be  linked  to  consortium  management  issues  such  as  changes 
affecting coordinating organisations and the departure of key staff.162 

From  2017,  EEN  scale-up  advisors  were  put  in  place  to  help  young  innovative  SMEs 
develop  their  activities outside their  home  country.  As  of  2019, support for  start-ups  and 
scale-up  enterprises  became  part  of  EEN’s  core  services,  in  a  context  of  increasing  the 
client-centric  approach  of  the  EEN  advisors  with  a  long-term  partnership  to  support  the 
growth of scale-ups. This implies, in a longer-term perspective, a shift from demand-based 
service provision to a long-term connection with the SME client, and the provision of higher 
added-value services which can be enhanced by efficient signposting within EEN and by 
identifying  external  stakeholders  to  support  clients’  needs  in  more  specialist  areas.163 
However,  the  focus  on  growth-oriented  SMEs  could  leave  out  other  potentially  relevant 
SMEs (e.g. those with a high growth potential over the longer term or those with important 
roles in their local economies) from these services.164 

The study found that there is strong continuity in the EEN membership. The majority 
(72%)  of  EEN  Network  members  remained  the  same  under  COSME  compared  to  the 
previous  programming  period.  This  allowed  knowledge  and  relationships  between  EEN 
members  to  be  consolidated  over  time.  The  established  relations  between  EEN 
members and the know-how developed over time are additional success factors for 
the  EEN  overall.  Some  EEN  members  interviewed  for  the  study  indicated  that 
organisations which faced significant staff changes also experienced a decrease in terms 
of 
institutional 
knowledge/capacity.165 

the  quality-of-service  provision  probably  due 

loss  of 

the 

to 

157 N= 68 respondents to this question.  
158 N= 34 respondents to this question.  
159 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
160 EEN staff also received some training from their host organisations and other members of their local EEN 
Team. 
161 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
162 European Court of Auditors. 2022. Special report 07/2022: SME internationalisation instruments - A large 
number of support actions but not fully coherent or coordinated, 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?did=61072. 
163 COSME Monitoring Report 2018. 
164 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
165 Ibid.  

102 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The EEN has performed well and it is planned to continue this service  at least until 
2027.166 The EEN also provides advice and support to help client SMEs to plan their twin 
transitions (green and digital), and the Commission and EISMEA have helped put in place 
a solid governance  structure for the  EEN  which in  turn will  ensure more success for  the 
entrepreneurs. 

The box below presents examples of successful EEN support to SMEs during the COSME 
period. 

Box 4.1: EEN case examples 

Success stories of EEN during the COSME period 

In Latvia, a teacher making sweets as a hobby decided to make it a business and registered her 
brand  Skim  Treats  in  2018.  In  2020  she  contacted  the  EEN  who  provided  her  with  business 
support on management, marketing and logistics. The EEN member advised her to participate in 
the innovation stand at the international fair Riga Food where she had a great success. She is 
now delivering locally, nationally and internationally thanks to the help of the EEN.167 According to 
an EEN member interviewed, the owner of Skim Treats went back to the international fair Riga 
Food and expanded her team with two more people in two years. For EEN Latvia, this was a case 
where EEN was an accelerator of the enterprise’s growth.  

The Italian biomedical company Umbria Bioengineering Technologies (UBT) was born in 2015 
as a spinoff of the University of Perugia. They developed two products: Mammowave, an Xray-
free mammogram for breast cancer detection, and Brainwave, a device for brain stroke detection 
and classification. In 2017, the EEN provided UBT with a coach to help them review their business 
and development plan and develop their speeches to commercialise their products. In 2017 and 
2018 UBT obtained two Horizon 2020 grants. Thanks to the EU funding, they were also able to 
hold international clinical trials in German, Italian and Spanish hospitals. They also obtained the 
CE mark with support from the EEN. In addition, the award of a Marie Curie project in a consortium 
with  13  other  international  partners  will  allow  UBT  to  deepen  its  research.  The  EEN  has  been 
helping UBT for 6 years and UBT has experienced a steady growth, from a few associates to 20 
staff  members  now.  The  EEN  played  an  important  role  in  this  development  thanks  to  their 
networking and the advice they provided.168  

4.2.3.2.  Your Europe business portal 

This  portal  provides  European  enterprises  with  official  information  about  their  rights  and 
obligations when doing business in another EU country and grants access to assistance 
services. The portal is part of the EUROPA portal and is available in 23 EU languages. Your 
Europe Business portal is managed by an editorial team in DG GROW, in coordination with 
more  than  15  Directorate-Generals  that  provide  content.  As  the  backbone  of  the  Single 
Digital Gateway, it provides access to a network of national portals providing information on 
how EU rules are applied in each EU country for cross-border users.169 

The Your Europe Business portal has reached a large number of users. The number 
of unique visitors increased by 21% between 2014 and 2015,170 and doubled between 2015 
and 2016.171 In 2016, 2.9 million visitors were recorded, representing 11% of all SMEs in the 

166 It is planned to ensure the continuity of flagship actions such as EEN, EYE and support for clusters 
throughout the 2021-2027 financial period. The current EEN network covers the period 2022-2025 (Call for 
proposals: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/smp/wp-call/2021/call-
fiche_smp-cosme-2021-een_en.pdf). Another call is foreseen to cover the period 2025-2028.  
167 Facebook.com. 2023. https://www.facebook.com/EnterpriseEuropeNetworkEU/videos/731224671796403/ 
(accessed: 17.10.2023). 
168 youtube.com. 2021. Umbria Bioengineering Technologies (UBT) - full version, 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVHfz_Rgxx0&list=PLq0qsbVGoO6HdGYLwJzRnocoTbIzksYTC&index=6
&ab_channel=EnterpriseEuropeNetwork.  
169 COSME monitoring fiche Your Europe Business. 
170 COSME monitoring report 2015.  
171 COSME monitoring report 2016. 

103 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME countries. 172,173 Most users were first-time users, and came from large EU countries 
such  as  Italy,  Poland,  the  United  Kingdom,  Spain,  France  and  Germany,  but  also  some 
non-EU  countries  like  Russia  and  the  United  States.  The  portal  also  registered  high 
satisfaction rates for the service provided, with 88% of users reporting that they found at 
least partially what they needed, and 93% at least satisfied with the portal. The key success 
factors  are  the  multi-lingual  format  of  the  portal  and  its  links  to  other  national  and  EU 
support. In addition, the portal can help SMEs clarify simple issues by themselves, freeing 
up time for EEN to help SMEs with more complex questions.174 In 2019-2020, a promotional 
campaign for Your Europe Business was conducted which led to an increase of 5.8% in the 
overall  number  of  visits  from  2019-2020.  This  was  below  the  target  of  10%  but  was still 
considered a good result considering the small budgets put into the advertising campaigns. 
User satisfaction remained above the target figure of 90%, with 93% in 2019 and 94% in 
2020.175 

4.2.3.3.  Single Digital Gateway 

Regulation  (EU)  2018/1724176  established  the  Single  Digital  Gateway  (SDG),  to  provide 
information to enterprises and citizens on how EU rules and procedures relating to cross-
border  users,  are  applied  in  each  Member  States  and  give  access  to  assistance  and 
problem-solving  services.  The  SDG  enhances  public  service  digitalisation  as  it  obliges 
Member  States  to  create  full  online  access  to  the  most  important  and  most  often  used 
procedures,  thus  incentivising  them  to  adopt  cross-border  and  national  e-government 
models and strategies.177  

The SDG contributes to the Commission priority “Europe fit for the digital age“ and has the 
specific objectives of 1) increasing the number of EU SMEs having access to cross-border 
business  by  digital  means,  2)  increasing  business  opportunities  generated  in  the  Single 
Market,  and  3)  ensuring  more  efficient  enforcement  of  the  Single  Market  rules  by  the 
Commission and Member States.178 

The  COSME  programme  contributed  to  the  preparatory  work  for  the  SDG,  with  the 
expansion of the content and functionalities of the Your Europe portal (which then became 
the platform for hosting the SDG) and the development of an administrative dashboard for 
the Member States’ coordinators, and the integration of all required IT functionalities. This 
enabled  the  SDG  to  go  live  on  schedule  on  12  December  2020.179  The  Your  Europe 
Business service supported by COSME was also integrated into the SDG. 

Since the SDG was launched, the Your Europe portal provides access to information about 
EU  and  national  rules,  procedures  for  complying  with  these  rules  and  EU  and  national 
assistance services from an authoritative source, along with contact details of competent 
authorities and assistance services to guide users when they need help. The Your Europe 
logo,  placed  on  all  interlinked  pages,  operates  as  a  quality  label  indicating  a  trusted 
information source. A common user feedback tool was introduced to all the national and EU 
gateway pages to help service providers monitor the user-friendliness of their service and 
continuously improve. In addition, the Single Market obstacles tool allows users to report 
obstacles they encounter. Finally, all information on national websites that are part of the 
gateway network is provided in English in addition to the national language(s). 

172 However, it is unclear whether double counting has been avoided, and whether all visitors are SMEs.  
173 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
174 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
175 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 
176 Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, 
assistance and problem solving services. 
177 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
178 COSME Monitoring Report. 2019. Annex 1: Details of COSME actions in 2019. 
179 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Since the launch of the SDG, the number of visits has fluctuated but the user satisfaction 
remained highly positive, as presented in the KPIs below. 

Table 4.9: KPIs for the Single Digital Gateway 

KPI 

Targets 

Results 

Preparatory 
(2018), 
successful launch of beta version 
(2019), and of the SDG in 2020 

study 

Beta version: 2019 
SDG: December 2020 

Number  of  visits  to  Your  Europe 
Business 

Year on year increase 
by 10% 

Preparatory study, beta version, and 
SDG  successfully  delivered  as 
planned. 

2019: 7,766,937 
2020: 8,217,193 (increase by 5.8%) 
2021:  7,166,623 
(decrease  by 
12.8%) 

User  satisfaction  figures  for  the 
Your 
Business 
component of the SDG (based on 
user satisfaction surveys180) 

Europe 

90% positive rating 

2019: 93% positive rating 
2020: 94% positive rating 
2021: 92% positive rating 

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on COSME Monitoring Report 2019, Annex 1: Details of COSME actions in 2019 

4.2.3.4.  EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation 

The  objective  of  the  EU-Japan  Centre  for  Industrial  Cooperation  is  to  foster  all  forms  of 
industrial, trade and investment cooperation between the EU and Japan and to contribute 
to economic diplomacy with Japan.181 The centre‘s aims are to improve the competitiveness, 
entrepreneurship  and  market  access  of  European  SMEs  in  Japan.  Following  the 
implementation of the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the Centre also 
aims  to  raise  awareness  of  EPA  opportunities  among  EU  enterprises182  and  an  EPA 
Helpdesk was set up to help EU enterprises take advantage of the EPA.183  

The  EU-Japan  Centre  provides  a  coherent  ‘package’  of  tools,  support  and  services  to 
SMEs, including the EPA Helpdesk, a public procurement helpdesk, a technology transfer 
helpdesk, the ‘Get Ready for Japan’ scheme, a regional cooperation helpdesk focusing on 
industrial clusters and coordination with the Trade Promotion Organisations (TPOs) of the 
EU Member States.184 

In  the  COSME  period,  the  Centre  has  been  active  and  effective,  although  the  scale  of 
activities  and  the  number  of  SME  participants  remain  small  within  the  overall  COSME 
programme:185 

•  2014-2016:  the  Centre  organised  21  policy  seminars  involving  close  to  3,000 
participants in total, organised three cluster matchmaking events per year with 15-
20  SMEs,  conducted  five  firm  visits  per  year  to  address  practical  adaptation  of 
Japanese  management  and  production  systems  to  Europe  and  organised 
information webinars with an average of about 107 participants per webinar.186 

•  2018-2019: the Centre had over 35,000 companies registered in its database and it 
organised 17 seminars, 34 technology support webinars, 21 support missions, and 

2019: 1,349 responses, data gathering period: 11 February to 11 March 2019 
2020: 1,354 responses, data gathering period: 3 February to 6 March 2020 
2021: 1,634 responses, data gathering period: 1 February to 7 March 2021 

180 Further information on the YEB annual user surveys: 
- 
- 
- 
181 The Centre is a joint venture established in 1987, funded and managed jointly by the European 
Commission (DG GROW) and the Japanese Government (METI), with its head office in Tokyo and an office in 
Brussels. 
182 COSME monitoring fiche EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation. 
183 COSME Monitoring Report 2020. 
184 EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation EEN Japan. 2021. Celebrating 10 years of working together 
185 COSME Monitoring Report 2019. 
186 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 

105 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

2 EU-Japan business roundtables. It also created a dedicated EPA helpdesk which 
processed 193 inquiries from EU SMES in 2019, and raised awareness about the 
EPA using several channels such as a network of industrial and innovation clusters, 
the EEN in Europe, Chambers of commerce and industry in the Member States, and 
Trade Promotion Organisations in Japan. Through the Business round table and the 
High-Level  Economic  Dialogue,  28  partnerships  were  signed  between  EU  SMEs 
and Japanese companies.187 

•  2020-2021: the Centre organised 27 EPA webinars with a total of 1,478 participants, 
76 webinars on Japan and exporting to Japan (with 2,857 participants in total), 11 
webinars  on  lean manufacturing  (with  502  participants),  and webinars  on  key  EU 
policy  topics.188  The  Centre  enabled  25  partnerships  between  EU  and  Japanese 
companies; (co-)organised 38 virtual / physical or hybrid B2B events, resulting in a 
total of 1,237 business meetings. The “EU Business in Japan” repository website 
aimed  to  offer  EU  SMEs  updated  market  intelligence,  and  information  about 
Japanese  culture  and  regulations.  A  total  of  33  market  reports  covering  various 
topics were also published. The EPA helpdesk answered 102 enquiries.189 

The Centre also manages the ‘Vulcanus in Japan’ programme which matches Japanese 
host companies with EU businesses for a 12-month traineeship to enhance their knowledge 
and their preparedness for business in or with Japan. In 2014-2015, around 20 Japanese 
host  enterprises  were  matched  with  on  average  44  EU  business  trainees  per  year.  190  In 
2016-2017, 35 European participants were involved in Vulcanus,191 and 60 in 2018-2019.192 
A majority of EU business trainees interviewed for the purpose of the interim evaluation of 
COSME reported that the programme enhanced their technological and socio-cultural skills 
in relation to the Japanese environment. Their involvement in this programme creates trust 
among Japanese customers, which helps increase the company’s business activities in or 
with Japan.193 

The table below presents some KPIs for the EU-Japan Centre in the 2020-2022 period. 

Table 4.10: Key KPIs of the EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation, 2020-2022 

KPI 

Targets 

Data 

Business  Support  -  Infodesk  (Answer  EU  & 
Japan-related inquiries within 48 hours) 

 N/A 

1,016 inquiries processed 

Number  of  webinars  organised  covering 
cross-cultural 
sectors/operational 
matters in Japan 

and 

Number of meetings facilitated (via company 
missions,  brokerage  events,  or  incoming 
missions) 

12 webinars 

40 webinars 

500 meetings 

1,525 meetings facilitated 

Vulcanus in Japan (2x12-month traineeships 
+ reports in Japan) 

2 sessions with 2x (22 to 
30) participants 

30 traineeships 

Companies stored in the EUJC database 

5,000 in Japan 
36,000 in the EU 

2,421 
32,722 

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Monitoring fiche of EUJC 

187 COSME Monitoring Report 2018. 
188 COSME Monitoring Report 2020. 
189 COSME monitoring fiche EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation. 
190 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
191 COSME monitoring report 2016.  
192 COSME monitoring report 2018.  
193 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

A  majority  of  EEN  members  (69%)  and  national  trade  promotion  organisations  (90%) 
reported  satisfaction  with  the  services  provided  and  the  cooperation  with  the  EU-Japan 
Centre. 194 The main reasons for satisfaction include the continuity of the Centre (in place 
since 1987), its role as an EEN member and national contact point for R&I programmes, 
and its close  interaction with  key stakeholders,  including  Trade  Promotion  Organisations 
(which gave the Centre a satisfaction rating of over 90%) and business associations.195 The 
box below illustrates the success of the Centre with some case examples.  

Box 4.2: Examples of success stories 

EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation 

Beer: 2019, the owner of the Belgian bottled beer shop Beer Mania visited the EU-Japan Centre’s 
office in Brussels to find useful information on how to expand his business to Japan. In the same 
period,  the  Japanese  beer  importer  and  restaurant  HIGHBURY  informed  the  EU-Japan  Centre 
that  they  were  planning  a  visit  to  Belgium  and  looking  for  a  beer  consolidator  to  bring  various 
Belgian beers to Japan. In early 2020, the EU-Japan Centre introduced the two companies to each 
other, who reached a partnership agreement for exporting Belgian beers to Japan. 

Electronic products: after a stay in Japan during a start-up programme organised in Osaka, the 
Chief Executive Officer of the Spanish company Natural Machines, developer of the 3D printers 
Foodini for the food industry, contacted the EU-Japan Technology Transfer Helpdesk and the EEN 
at the EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation to find a possible Japanese partner. The Centre 
connected  them  with  the  Japanese  company  Innova  Global,  specialised  in  the  distribution  of 
consumer electronic products. The Centre arranged a meeting and managed follow-up between 
the parties, that resulted in the signing of an agreement between the two companies to boost the 
sales of Foodini in the Japanese market. 

Fresh fruit processing: the Greek company CHB Group, active in the processing of fresh fruit, 
came into contact with a Japanese trading company in 2018. Then the Chief Executive Officer of 
the Greek company visited Japan as a part of the EU-Japan Centre’s training programme ‘Get 
Ready for Japan’, which  aims to educate  and train EU managers  in a  wide variety of facets of 
Japanese business culture, and the companies had a follow up meeting at the EU-Japan Centre’s 
office within the scheme of this programme. This led to the agreement between the Greek and 
Japanese counterparts for the purchase of peaches, starting from 2020.  

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation EEN Japan (2021). Celebrating 10 years 
of working together 

4.2.3.5. 

IPR Helpdesks 

Over  the  2015-2022  period,  the  international  Intellectual  Property  Rights  SME 
Helpdesks achieved most of their targets by running a successful helpline, developing 
and updating a wide range of business-friendly IP publications, running training sessions 
with the help of Chambers of Commerce and other business intermediators, providing IP 
support to EU SMEs for business field trips and trade fairs and organising matchmaking 
events where SMEs were supported. 

Overall between 2017-2018, the Helpdesks answered 3,202 questions from EU SMEs or 
EU  business  organisations  and  ran  300  training  sessions  involving  8,224  participants. 
Furthermore, 209 matchmaking events were organised where EU SMEs were supported.196 
In 2019, the content of the four international IP helpdesks (China, South-East Asia, Latin 
America and India IP SME Helpdesk) was integrated in the Europa.eu website to be part of 
the Single Digital Gateway.197  

Between  mid-2020  and  2023,  overall  the  international  IP  SME  Helpdesks  involved  more 
than 15,000 stakeholders. They replied to 7,830 enquiries, including over 2,500 queries for 

194 European Court of Auditors. Special report N°7 2022 on SME internationalisation instruments 
195 European Court of Auditors. Special report N°7 2022 on SME internationalisation instruments 
196 COSME Monitoring Report 2018. 
197 COSME Monitoring Report 2019.  

107 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

the  China  Helpdesk,  98.8%  of  them  within  three  working  days,  while  the  Latin  America 
Helpdesk  answered  83.1%  of  the  queries  within  one  day.  The  Helpdesks  trained  7,549 
members of the staff of European SMEs in 501 training sessions, with the China Helpdesk 
training  twice  the  target  number  of  staff.  The  Helpdesks  also  participated  in  585 
matchmaking  events,  with  the  South-East  Asia Helpdesk  alone  carrying  out  over  200  of 
them. All KPIs indicators were achieved except for the number of enquiries addressed by 
the  India  IP  helpdesk,  due  to  the  delay  in  launching  the  website  and  the  nearly  total 
lockdown of the country. The Helpdesks collaborated with the EEN to promote themselves 
and sought cooperation with other EU actions (e.g. SME Assembly, EU industry days, EIC 
days, etc).198  

The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  key  KPIs  for  the  IPR  Helpdesks  over  the 
COSME period.  

Table 4.11: Key KPIs of the IPR Helpdesks during the COSME period 

Helpdesk 

Target 

Result 

Enquiries answered through the IP helpline 

China 

South-East Asia 

Latin America 

2015-2018: 1,500 
2018-2020: 1,200 
2020-2022: 1,200 

2015-2018: 1,053 
2018-2020: 1,000 
2020-2022: 1,065 

2015-2018: N/A 
2018-2020: 1,000 
2020-2022: 1,000 

India 

2020-2022: 667 

All helpdesks 

2015-2018: 2,553 
2018-2020: 3,200 
2020-2022: 3,932 

Matchmaking events supporting EU SMEs 

China 

South-East Asia 

Latin America 

2015-2018: 30 
2018-2020: 65 
2020-2022: 60  

2015-2018: 60 
2018-2020: 72 
2020-2022: 72 

2015-2018: N/A 
2018-2020: 64  
2020-2022: 64  

India 

2020-2022: 56  

All helpdesks 

2015-2018: 90 
2018-2020: 201 
2020-2022: 252 

Training sessions implemented 

2015-2018: 2,286 
2018-2020: 1,258 
2020-2022: 1,320 

2015-2018: 1,138 
2018-2020: 999 
2020-2022: 1,563 

2015-2018: 1,219 
2018-2020: 1,009 
2020-2022: 1,037 

2020-2022: 627 

2015-2018: 4,643 
2018-2020: 3,266 
2020-2022: 4,547 

2015-2018: 133  
2018-2020: 62 
2020-2022: 86  

2015-2018: 80 
2018-2020: 82 
2020-2022: 172  

2015-2018: 219 
2018-2020: 65 
2020-2022: 68 

2020-2022: 59 

2015-2018: 432 
2018-2020: 209 
2020-2022: 385 

China 

2015-2018: 230 (115 in China, 115 in 
EU) 
2018-2020: 75 (25 in China, 50 in 
EU) 
2020-2022:  100  (45  in  China,  55  in 
EU) 

2015-2018: 216 (108 in China, 108 in 
EU) 
2018-2020: 75 (34 in China, 41 in EU) 
2020-2022: 107 (52 in China, 55 in EU) 

198 EISMEA. 2023. COSME Work Programme 2020, International IP SME Helpdesks, Synthesis report. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Helpdesk 

South-East Asia 

Target 

Result 

2015-2018: 200 (100 in SEA, 100 in 
EU) 
2018-2020: 50 (35 in SEA, 35 in EU) 
2020-2022: 70 (35 in SEA, 35 in EU) 

2015-2018: 129 (64 in SEA, 65 in EU) 
2018-2020: 78 (39 in SEA, 39 in EU) 
2020-2022: 62 (36 in SEA and 26 in EU) 

Latin America 

2015-2018: N/A 
2018-2020: 56 (28 in LA, 28 in EU) 
2020-2022: 68 

2015-2018: 90 
2018-2020: 48 (10 in LA, 38 in EU) 
2020-2022: 70 

India 

2020-2022: 58 

All helpdesks 

2015-2018: 430 
2018-2020: 181 
2020-2022: 296 

Participants in training sessions (SMEs) 

China 

South-East Asia 

Latin America 

2015-2018: 12,500 
2018-2020: 1,000  
2020-2022: 1,000 

2015-2018: 10,000 
2018-2020: 800 
2020-2022: 800 

2015-2018: N/A 
2018-2020: 900 
2020-2022: 900 

India 

2020-2022: 900 

All helpdesks 

2015-2018: 22,500 
2018-2020: 2,700 
2020-2022: 3,600 

2020-2022: 59 

2015-2018: 435 
2018-2020: 201 
2020-2022: 298 

2015-2018: 10,000+ 
2018-2020: 3,367 
2020-2022: 2,027 

2015-2018: 8,664 
2018-2020: 3,276 
2020-2022: 1,599  

2015-2018: N/A 
2018-2020: 1,581 
2020-2022: 1,583 

2020-2022: 980 

2015-2018: 18,644+ 
2018-2020: 8,224 
2020-2022: 6,189 

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on data provided by EISMEA. 

In addition, a large majority of IPR Helpdesk users reported satisfaction (around 90%) with 
the Helpdesk services.199 A majority of EEN members (80%) also reported satisfaction on 
the cooperation with the IPR SME Helpdesks.200 The box below presents an example of a 
use case of the Latin America IPR Helpdesk. 

Box 4.3: IPR Helpdesk case study 

Latin America IPR Helpdesk 

An Italian-based SME providing tailor-made solutions and the implementation of  machines and 
plants for agri-food processing was seeking to expand to Argentina and potentially also to Brazil 
and Mexico. They contacted the Latin America IPR Helpdesk and the IP expert found out that the 
company had no IP protection strategy yet. The IP expert recommended to identify and prioritise 
their  IPR  to  measure  the  financial  resources  needed;  to  protect  the  relevant  IP  rights  for  their 
business,  with  special  attention  to  trade  marks  (company  name),  patents/utility  models 
(prototypes) and trade secrets (know how); urged them to ensure that the technology used does 
not  infringe  any  existing  patents/utility  models;  provided  information  about  IP  and  the  risks  of 
operating in Latin American countries without proper IP protection, and encouraged them to seek 
IP professional support. 

199 Data provided by EISMEA. For the China Helpdesk, the information is based on satisfaction surveys with 
139 training participants and 66 stakeholders involved in matchmaking events. For the South-East Asia 
Helpdesk, it is based on 161 emails of SME users of trainings and matchmaking events. For the Latin America 
Helpdesk, it is based on satisfaction surveys on the queries and trainings, and 179 responses from 
participants in matchmaking events. For the India Helpdesk, it is based on 20 responses to the satisfaction 
survey on enquiries, and 77 responses from participants in matchmaking events. 
200 European Court of Auditors. 2022. SME internationalisation instruments. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Latin America IPR Helpdesk 

Based on this advice, the company decided to define a proper strategy before entering the Latin 
American market. The company prioritised trademark registration, ensured that their products did 
not  infringe  any  valid  patents  in  Argentina,  contacted  a  patent  engineer  to  see  if  some  of  their 
inventions are patentable, and sought funding to cover the high costs for registration of IPR. The 
company  also  started  using  non-disclosure  agreements  in  negotiations  with  third  parties  and 
including  Technological  Protection  Measures  when  sharing  information  about  their  products  or 
services. 

The IPR Helpdesk was thus instrumental in raising the company’s awareness about their rights 
and obligations on IP and the potential risks of not protecting their IP. The information provided by 
the IPR Helpdesk had an impact on the company’s knowledge of IP and its strategy for entering 
the Latin American market. It was estimated that the Helpdesk’s support saved the company EUR 
3,000 of costs for legal research, drafting of non-disclosure agreements and legal advice on how 
to tackle IP cases, and saved them four months of time that would have been spent in trade mark 
searches in public databases and collecting information to file trade marks from the different trade 
mark and patent offices. 

Source: Own elaboration based on European Commission (2022) Latin America IP SME Helpdesk DH.2.4 Helpdesk Impact 
Reports. 

4.2.4.  SO3:  Framework  conditions  for  competitiveness  and 

sustainability 

COSME funded 130 initiatives that promoted clusters (accounting for EUR 51 million of 
its  budget).  Clusters  actions  aimed  to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs  by 
strengthening  their  capacity  to  identify  growth  opportunities  internationally,  innovate  and 
excel, and develop long-term strategic partnerships. This was the purpose in particular of 
the Clusters Go International action, one of the largest initiatives under COSME SO3 as 
illustrated  in  the  portfolio  analysis  (Section  3).  Other  clusters  actions  aimed  to  facilitate 
interregional  cluster  collaboration  and  cross-sectoral  value  chains  and  to  promote 
excellence in cluster management to improve the quality of services to SME members. 

According to the COSME Data Hub, a total of 392 clusters were supported as part of 
COSME throughout the duration of the programme. There is a high degree of geographic 
variation  regarding  the  concentration  of  COSME-supported  clusters  across  Member 
States. Spain (62), France (51) and Italy (40) were the countries with the largest number of 
clusters receiving support. Conversely, Slovenia (3), Ireland (2) and Slovakia (2) had the 
lowest number of clusters supported.  

These differences in the distribution of clusters across the EU that received support from 
the programme could be partly explained by the different national frameworks supporting 
cluster policy. Countries with an established framework, such as France and Spain, have a 
higher concentration of clusters and are better able to take advantage of the EU clusters 
support.201 In addition, it is worth noting that the European Cluster Excellence Programme 
supported clusters in neighbouring countries such as Serbia (7), Turkey (6), and Albania (1) 
and Macedonia (1), strengthening their networking and management capacities and thus 
contributing to the European cluster strategy goal of supporting internationalisation.  

The  COSME-supported  clusters  covered  a  wide  range  of  sectors  including  textile, 
transportation and automobile, electronics, digital industries, construction, agri-food, health 
and  aerospace.  These  are  all  sectors  where  innovation  drives  growth.  No  COSME-
supported  clusters  could  be  identified  for  energy-intensive  industries  despite  it  being  a 

201 Présentation Des Pôles De Compétitivité, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté 
industrielle et numérique, 2023.  

110 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

strategically  important  sector  which  could  benefit  from  higher  levels  of  innovation 
particularly in the light of green transition goals.  

A  large  number  of  SMEs  and  larger  companies  were  able  to  benefit  from  COSME 
clusters actions, but also other important actors involved in innovation ecosystems 
such  as  research-performing  institutions  and  academia  more  generally.  For  example,  in 
Spain  the  EXXTRA  cluster  in  the  sector  of  rail  supplier  industries  participated  in  and 
benefited from the COSME programme. This excellence cluster has over 840 members, of 
which over 500 are SMEs and 130 are universities/research centres.  

As mentioned above, one of the main actions supported by COSME in this area, was the 
Clusters  Go  International  action.  This  action  aimed  to  foster  co-operation  between 
European clusters and sector-organisations with a view to facilitating the internationalisation 
of European SMEs and their access to global value chains through third country markets. 
Clusters  Go  International  supported  78  projects,  through  four  calls  and  received  a  large 
share of the COSME budget. This initiative was extended for a fourth generation.202 The 
Clusters Go International action has been further explored through a case study. As part of 
this study, we also carried out a targeted consultation with participants in different COSME 
actions. This survey elicited a response from 33 cluster organisations.  

The  Clusters  Go  International  action  successfully  fostered  collaboration  and  trust 
between cluster organisations. A large majority of cluster organisations who responded 
to the survey considered the Clusters Go International action to be effective (91%, 20 out 
of  22).  This  action  was  perceived  as  highly  successful  and  beneficial  for  both  clusters 
management  and  beneficiary  SMEs.  As  indicated  by  results  from  desk  research, 
consultations  and  other  sources  triangulated  for  this  study,  the  initiative  contributed  to 
addressing  key  obstacles  in  the  collaboration  between  clusters,  such  as  the  lack  of 
awareness  around  the  potential  benefits  deriving  from  the  collaboration  (especially  the 
identification of common goals and bottlenecks and joint actions), the lack of management 
capacity in the partner clusters and of financial resources dedicated to cluster cooperation. 
Furthermore, it offered SMEs the opportunity to create new networks, come together and 
develop new ideas with different partners and enhanced the expertise of SMEs’ managerial 
staff in the field of internationalisation. One of the main achievements of the action were the 
cooperation agreements signed between EU companies and organisations outside the EU 
(e.g.  the  agreements  with  USA  and  Canadian  and  Chinese  cluster  ecosystems  brought 
together  many  innovative  SMEs  for  further  partnership/business  opportunities).  A  key 
success factor for projects supported through this action, was the quality of the partners’ 
management and the level of commitment. Among the possible areas for improvement, 
survey  respondents  indicated  the  need  for  a  less  business-centred  focus  and  a  stronger 
orientation  towards  innovation  as  key  drivers  of  enhanced  international  business 
collaboration and excellence in Europe. 

Box 4.4: Clusters case study 

ESCP-4i: European Semiconductor Cluster internationalisation Project – Silicon 

Silicon Europe Worldwide started in January 2016 as a two-year project funded by the European 
Commission  to  implement  the  internationalisation  strategy  of  Silicon  Europe  strengthening  the 
global impact of this European cross-regional ecosystem. In the meantime, the project has come 
to an end and the activities are intended to be continued as part of the internationalisation program 
of  Silicon  Europe,  a  European  cluster  collaboration  in  the  area  of  electronic  components  and 
systems. 

Within  the  timeframe  of  two  years,  a  relation  framework  was  developed  with  the  two  selected 
regions,  Taiwan  and  the  North  Eastern  region  of  the  USA  supported  by  three  Memoranda  of 
Understanding.  Several  activities  involving  SMEs  were  organised.  With  Taiwan,  the  project 

202 In 2020, two clusters Go International actions took place in parallel, one dedicated to the defence sector, 
and the main action dedicated to other sectors. 

111 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

ESCP-4i: European Semiconductor Cluster internationalisation Project – Silicon 

organised in total 2 outbound missions and hosted 3 inbound missions; and with the Northeastern 
region of the USA there was one outbound mission. In total, more than 130 SMEs and 35 cluster 
organisations were involved in the activities. This project laid down the foundation for the Silicon 
Europe Alliance for developing internationalisation activities outside Europe. 

Source: Own elaboration drawing on ESCP4i Silicon Europe Worldwide Partnership : Key achievements.203 

The COVID-19 pandemic was one of the factors that negatively impacted Clusters Go 
International  and  other  cluster  actions.204  It  greatly  affected  the  performance  of  the 
clusters partnerships given the limit to international travel. Three respondents to the survey 
also raised concerns regarding the duration of the support received and the low financial 
support  for  Clusters  Go  international  that  limited  the  possibility  to  achieve  longer  term 
impact.  In  their  view,  extending  the  duration  of  the  support  would  facilitate  the 
implementation  of  a  long-term  cooperation  agenda  and  consolidate  the  results.  Finally, 
differences in international strategies among clusters posed challenges to the collaboration. 
This  is  in  line  with  the  findings  of  other  studies  on  the  Clusters  Go  International  action. 
However, one unforeseen positive impact of the pandemic on third generation projects was 
that “online missions/events” with cluster organisations and SMEs were identified as a good 
way  to  launch  projects,  especially  strand  2  projects  that  focused  on  developing  specific 
activities to support co-operation with partners in third countries. 

into 

insights 

A  2021  evaluation  of  cluster  actions205  indicated  that  the  main  value  of  this  initiative  for 
participating cluster organisations and SMEs lay in the possibility to gain an understanding 
of  and 
the  SMEs 
internationalisation process.206 The work carried out by cluster organisations was seen 
as a ‘first step’, or ‘one of many steps’ for SME internationalisation and linkages to global 
value chains. To achieve these goals, a longer time was needed than provided for under 
the  programme,  as  well  as  more  funding,  compared  with  traditional  export  promotion 
programmes operating at national and regional levels.207  

the  complexity  and 

involved 

issues 

in 

important  and  strategic 

There  is  a  strong  view  among  stakeholders  interviewed  for  this  study  that  clusters  and 
business  networks  are  an 
the 
internationalisation  of  SMEs.  Matchmaking  and  B2B  events  with  visitors  and  local 
companies are particularly appreciated by stakeholders consulted for this study. However, 
this  is  only  one  aspect of internationalisation. Export  promotion  programmes  supported  by 
national  governments  and  regional  organisations  are  also  valued.  The  financial  support 
provided by national and regional public sector bodies through for example reimbursement 
of travel costs were also deemed relevant. 

to  support 

tool 

The first two generations of Clusters Excellence and Clusters Go International actions met 
or exceeded most of their targets. In particular the first generation of Clusters Excellence 
projects  showed  excellent  performance  with  the  number  of  supported  SME  exceeding 
expectations by far and the Clusters Go International projects were successful in reaching 
the expected outcomes, despite the huge challenges they faced due to the Covid-19 crisis.  

The final results for the Clusters Excellence 2020 projects are not yet fully available as some 
projects were only recently completed. Based on the partial reporting data available for the 
period up to July 2023, the indicators seem generally in line with expectations. For 5 of the 
9 indicators progress towards final targets was well under way. Two major issues affected 
overall  performance.  The  Covid-19  pandemic  significantly  reduced  the  possibilities  to 
perform  exchanges.  The  work  programme  2020  projects  were  also  hampered  by  a 

203 See: https://clustercollaboration.eu/sites/default/files/silicone_europe_worldwide_phase_2_0.pdf 
204 COVID-19 was the factor indicated as the affecting the cluster performance in the study survey.  
205 European Commission. 2021. Evaluation Study of and Potential Follow-Up to Cluster Initiatives under 
COSME, H2020 and FPI, Final report. 
206 Ibid., pp. 61-62. 
207 Ibid., pp. 67. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

significant delay in the development of the ClusterXchange IT tool which was only available 
and fully functioning in Q1 2023. This caused a postponement of several exchanges.  

The Clusters Go International 2020 projects are still ongoing. Based on the partial reporting 
data currently available, the actions are on track towards meeting most targets. However, 
these specific targets are normally achieved towards the end of the project lifetime after the 
various  international  business  missions  have  been  concluded  (at  the  end  of  a  long 
preparatory phase and market analysis). 

The first call for proposals for Joint Clusters Actions under the Single Market Programme 
SME  Pillar  took  account  of  the  emerging  findings  from the clusters  evaluation  study  and 
issues/trends emerging from reporting data at the time. The ongoing interim evaluation of 
the SMP will also focus close attention on lessons learnt from these projects 

The table below shows the main outputs generated by the cluster actions in comparison to 
the targets  (based  on  information  from the  work  programmes).  The  table presents  some 
KPIs that are common across the different years. Additional KPIs are available in the work 
programmes but these can vary, particularly for the Cluster of Excellence, which makes the 
comparison  across  all  KPIs  and  by  year  difficult.  The  evidence  on  KPI  results  shows  a 
positive trend, particularly for Clusters Go International and in 2019. It is worth noting that 
the results  in  2020  were  less  positive  and sometimes below the targets, as results  were 
significantly affected by the pandemic in the early stages. Reported results on the increase 
in the percentage of the turnover of the SMEs having benefited directly and indirectly from 
Clusters Go International, as measured through a survey by the end of the action, also show 
an increase of 4.5% and 3.5% for 2019 and 2020, which can be seen as positive (although 
yet below the targets of 9.5% and 5% for the different years, respectively). 

Table 4.12: KPIs and targets – Clusters Excellence 

in 

Clusters Excellence 
KPI 
Number  of  cluster  organisations 
engaged 
benchmarking, 
accreditation, labelling 
Number  of  staff  benefitting  from 
training activities 
Number  of  bilateral/  multilateral 
partnership agreements signed and 
projects/cooperation 
joint 
agreements 
Clusters Go International 
KPI 
Number  of  promotional  events 
organised by the partnership 
Number  of  cluster  organisations 
and  business  networks 
from 
different  COSME 
participating 
countries having benefited from the 
supported actions 
Number  of  bilateral/  multilateral 
partnership agreements signed 
Number of SMEs having directly or 
the 
indirectly  benefited 
supported  actions, 
in 
cooperation projects 

from 
resulting 

2015 

2018 
Results  Target  Results  Target  Results  Target 

2020 

10 

10 

105 

94 

53 

77 

51 

16 

42 

19 

286 

190 

366 

275 

83 

61 

80 

448 

2017 

2019 
Results  Target  Results  Target  Results  Target 

2020 

20 

20 

17 

11 

629 

388 

477 

301 

638 

317 

169 

250 

2 

2 

314 

293 

102 

262 

100 

59 

21729 

7764 

3186 

3796 

Source: Consultant’s elaboration based on monitoring data from EISMEA208 

208 The Clusters Excellence 2020 data is based on the 3rd synthesis report finalised in January 2024 covering 
the period up to July 2023. Most of the Clusters Go International projects are still ongoing. The figures in this 
113 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

As  regards  the  impacts,  there  is  insufficient  evidence  to  determine  the  extent  to  which 
Clusters  Go  International  increased  SME  internationalisation  and  competitiveness. 
According to interview feedback, follow-up data on participating SMEs are difficult to obtain 
by cluster organisations due to, among other factors, the time lags between initial contacts 
and the realisation of positive outcomes in terms of profitability and exports for SMEs. This 
suggests  a  need  for  continuous  monitoring  and  a  longitudinal  follow-up  with  SMEs  who 
participated  in  the  programme  to  assess  whether  SMEs  have  actually  internationalised 
thanks to the support services received. Another important element is developing results 
and  impact  indicators  and  data  collection  strategies  to  demonstrate  the  full  impact  of 
clusters in terms of internationalisation. 

A key factor to enhancing the effectiveness of clusters is good cluster management. 
In this respect, the European Cluster Excellence Programme (ECEP) funded under the 
COSME  programme  was  designed  to  directly  respond  to  this  need  by  developing  a 
methodology for effective cluster management. This included a labelling scheme focused 
on  continuous  learning  and  benchmarking  with  other  clusters.  By  2020,  1,383  cluster 
organisations  in  Europe  had  been  awarded  a  European  cluster  excellence  label  (1,141 
bronze,  132  silver  and  110  gold).209  Interview  feedback  from  an  organisation  which  was 
tasked with developing the methodology for labels, suggests that the investment made has 
the potential to generate longer-term impacts as cluster organisations use and disseminate 
the  methodology  among  their  members.  Providing  information  on  the  methodology  was 
reported by an interviewee as crucial for longer-term impact. 

The 2021 evaluation of and potential follow-up to cluster initiatives under COSME showed 
that  the  ECEP  was  effective  with  regards  to  a  number  of  objectives.210  It  was 
considered  successful  in  facilitating  cluster  cooperation  and  in  enhancing  cluster 
management skills. These findings were also confirmed by an interviewee who was 
overseeing the development and implementation of the methodology underpinning 
the labelling of clusters consulted as part of this evaluation. For Member States which 
did  not  have  national-level  labelling  schemes,  ECEP  labels  added  more  value  and  were 
used to channel national funding to cluster organisations. Put differently, the ECEP labels 
allowed  public  authorities  and  private  partners  to  gain  the  confidence  necessary  to 
collaborate with new cluster organisations and members in less established clusters. 

COSME  also  supported  actions  that  helped  create  a  regulatory  environment  that 
imposes  a  lower  overall  administrative  burden  on  SMEs.  The  programme  funded 
studies and meetings with stakeholders that helped to address administrative burdens in 
EU and national policies and find solutions for helping SMEs to address emerging issues. 
The monitoring fiches provide good evidence of how the actions impacted on policy-making. 
Examples of such activities supported by COSME included the following: 

•  SME Performance Review: the Commission used the surveys to inform its inputs to 
other policy actions related to SMEs, including its input to shaping national recovery 
programmes. 

•  SME  Envoy  Network  and  SME  Assembly:  the  meetings  of  the  Network  and  the 
Assembly provided advice and feedback on issues that SMEs are facing, including 
administrative  burdens.  During  the  Covid-19  pandemic,  the  SME  Envoy  Network 
regularly provided all Member States with up-to-date information on national support 
measures for SMEs, which enabled Member States‘ services for SMEs to learn from 
each other and coordinate support measures. 

table are based on data compiled by EISMEA in May 2024. The cut-off date (end of reporting period) for this 
data ranged from September to November 2023. 
209 European Commission. 2023. European Clusters Excellence. 
210 European Commission. 2021. Evaluation Study of and Potential Follow-Up to Cluster Initiatives under 
COSME, H2020 and FPI, Final report. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  Engaging 

SMEs 

and 
implementation/strengthening of the Better Regulation Agenda: the 2019 edition of 
this action supported the definition of “call for evidence” business requirements. 

Stakeholders 

design 

policy 

and 

on 

•  Online one in, one out (OIOO) calculator: an internal Commission tool to calculate 
and record new and removed administrative burden, based on the EU standard cost 
model, notably in relation to impact assessments, with a view to reducing the burden 
of  EU  legislation  for  companies  (including  SMEs.211  COSME  supported  work  to 
develop the OIOO and define its requirements and develop an internal Commission. 

•  Some actions aimed to reduce the administrative burden resulting from EU policy 

measures (e.g. EU REFIT platform). 

4.2.5.  SO4: Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture 

4.2.5.1.  Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) 

Overall,  the  evidence  from  the  desk  research  and  consultations  indicates  that  the 
EYE was effective in reaching its objective of fostering entrepreneurship among its 
participants  and beneficiaries.  Since  its  launch  in  2009, the  EYE facilitated more than 
10,700 exchanges, with the number of applications constantly increasing over that period.212 
During the COSME period (2014-2020), 7,548 exchanges took place involving 15,096 new 
and  experienced  entrepreneurs.  Most  new  entrepreneurs  came  from  Italy  (13%),  Spain 
(11.9%), United Kingdom (5.8%) and France (5.2%). 

The COSME programme provided support to consortia of intermediary organisations (IOs). 
The IOs  were  in charge of recruiting  and  matching  the  entrepreneurs  and facilitating  the 
exchanges. They also promoted the programme and its benefits at local and national level. 
These  activities  were  supported  by  a  grant  from  the  COSME  programme.  Calls  for 
proposals for IOs were held at regular intervals during the programme. 

Figure 4.9: Number of participants in EYE intermediary 
organisations projects by country 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

211  See  Tool  #58  of 
process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en  
212 European Commission. 2023. Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs.  

the  Better  Regulation’ 

toolbox:  https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-

115 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The  distribution  of  the  granted  amounts  is  similar  to  that  of  the  beneficiaries  (the 
organisations participating in intermediary organisation consortia). Italy (20.9%) and Spain 
(16%) are again on top of the list, followed by Germany (7.5%), the United Kingdom (5.5%) 
and France (4%). When looking at the amounts we find a higher concentration in the two 
top beneficiaries’ countries. The available data does not allow us to state with any certainty 
why some countries witnessed larger numbers of project participants. Looking at the costs 
of the action by country, the EU contribution is also larger for countries such as Italy and 
Spain. More recently, there was a pilot project and preparatory action (funded outside the 
framework of the COSME programme) to temporarily expand the EYE programme to other 
third  countries  beyond  the  EU  that  are  not  associated  with  the  COSME  programme. 
Through EYE Global, new entrepreneurs from EU countries and the UK were able to go on 
exchanges with host entrepreneurs from different countries including Canada, Singapore, 
South Korea, Taiwan and the USA.213 

Figure 4.10: Total cost and EU contribution by legal country of 
EYE intermediary organisations 

Source: Own elaboration based on EISMEA data 

The performance of the EYE action can be measured against several KPIs. Specifically, 
Table  4.13,  presents  the  main  targets  defined  in  the  COSME  work  programme  for  this 
action,  whilst  Table  4.14  summarises  the  achievements  against  the  key  performance 
indicators across all years. 

Table 4.13: EYE targets set out in work programmes 2014-2019 

Indicator 

Entrepreneurs 
newly-
registered 

Entrepreneurs 
participating 

Matches 

Intermediary 
Organisations 

2014 
WP: by 
Jan 
2017 
2,000 

2015 
WP: by 
Jan 
2018 
2,000 

2016 
WP: By 
Jan 
2019 
5,500 

2017 
WP: by 
Jan 
2020 
5,000 

2018 
WP: by 
Jan 
2021 
2,500 

2019 
WP: By 
Jan 
2022 
3,000 

Total 

17,000 

1,300 

1,300 

4,800 

2,600 

2,000 

3,600 

15,600 

650 

100 

650 

100 

2,400 

1,300 

1,000 

1,800 

7,800 

120 

100 

120 

120 

660 

213 European Commission. 2023. Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

2014 
WP: by 
Jan 
2017 
25 

2015 
WP: by 
Jan 
2018 
25 

2016 
WP: By 
Jan 
2019 
28 

2017 
WP: by 
Jan 
2020 
28 

2018 
WP: by 
Jan 
2021 
28 

2019 
WP: By 
Jan 
2022 
33 

Total 

33 

of 

>90% 

>90% 

>90% 

>90% 

>90% 

>90% 

>90% 

Indicator 

Countries 
covered 

Rate 
successful 
exchanges 

Source: Annual COSME Work Programmes 2014-2019 

Table 4.14: Achievement against targets (EYE) 

Indicator 

Work Programme 

Total 

2014 
Cycle 7 
by Jan 
2017 

2015 
Cycle 8 
by Jan 
2018 

2016 
Cycle 9 
By Jan 
2019 

2017 
Cycle 
10 
by Jan 
2020 

2018 
Cycle 11 
(SGA-2) 
by Jan 
2021 
2,525 

2019 
Cycle 
12 
by Jan 
2022 
917 

7,548 

1,742871  2,0441,022  2,8431,421  1,583792 

2,525 

917 

7,548 

111 

131 

110 

- 

98% 

28 

93% 

29 

95 

29 

99 

- 

77 

623 

- 

>30 

83% 

>90% 

95% 

95% 

92% 

Entrepreneurs 
participating 

Matches214 

Intermediary 
organisations215 

Countries covered 

Rate  of  successful 
exchanges 

Source: EISMEA 

Based  on  the  review  of  monitoring  data,  it  is  possible  to  conclude  that  EYE  met  the  set 
targets and achieved important results. The dynamic progress of the programme towards 
achievement  of  its  quantitative  targets  is  well  illustrated  by  the  number  of  registrations, 
matches,  and  exchanges  completed  increasing  steadily  since  EYE’s  inception  as  a  pilot 
under the EIP. In particular, based on our analysis the EYE realised between 790 to 2,500 
matches a year. Between 2009 and 2012 (under the previous EIP programme) the number 
of registrations increased fivefold, up to 5,000.216 By 2015, already 12,000 entrepreneurs’ 
profiles were registered and 3,900 matches involving 7,700 entrepreneurs. In the period up 
to  2022,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  exchanges,  as  projects  that  had  been 
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic caught up on their targets.217 

The study found that the EYE achieved a range of positive results for the participating 
entrepreneurs,  and  for  the  European  business  environment  more  broadly.  For 
example,  73%  (165/227)  of  the  HE  respondents  to  the  survey  of  EYE  entrepreneurs 
conducted  for  this  study  assessed  that  the  programme  had  improved  their  skills  and 
knowledge at least to some extent. Only 7% (17/227) of the HEs had not witnessed such a 

214 The activities of intermediary organisations were seriously affected by the Covid-19 crisis and extensions to 
grant agreements were approved to allow sufficient time to reach targets. The grant agreements on WP2019 
ended on 31 January 2024. 
215 The total for all years is the number of annual participations by intermediary organisations not the total of 
organisations, as some organisations may have participated in multiple years. 
216 European Commission. 2019. Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 10, 2009-2019, p. 12. 
217 The extension of the duration of projects affected by the COVID-19 crisis and the work to catch up on targets 
was mentioned in the 2019 Monitoring report published in 2022: European Commission. 2019. Report from the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council:  COSME  2014-2020  Programme  for  the 
Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs, 2019 Monitoring Report, COM(2022) 527 final.  

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

result at all. One of the interviewed Intermediary Organisations stated that the result of an 
EYE cooperation often depends on the previous experience of the HE in providing advice 
and  engaging  with  other  entrepreneurs.  Based  on  feedback  from  HEs  gathered  by  the 
Commission, the HE considered the NE entrepreneurial attitude, commitment and flexibility 
as key factors in the success of the scheme, followed by NE skills, language and knowledge 
of the sector. 

Box 4.5: EYE case example 

EYE participation in the ICT sector 

One successful match was in the ICT sector between a new entrepreneur in the Netherlands and 
a host entrepreneur in Portugal. The exchange took place between 01/2019 and 03/2019, for a 
total of 11 weeks. 

Menno  van  Dam  is  a  new  entrepreneur  from  the  Netherlands  whose  activities  revolve  around 
entrepreneurship innovation tech and start-ups. Host entrepreneur Pedro Oliveira from Portugal 
runs  “landing.jobs”  a  new  business  concept  for  the  tech  recruitment  market  and  offers  new 
entrepreneurs the opportunity not only to learn from him and what it takes to build an international 
marketplace but also to be a great asset helping the growth of Pedro's company. 

The intermediary organisations (IOs) supported the entrepreneurs at initial stage with finding each 
other and consequently advised them with preparation of the exchange commitment (description 
of activities to be undertaken during the exchange, the benefits and results to be achieved). Prior 
to the exchange, the IOs provided the entrepreneurs with initial training, which included information 
on other EU business support programmes. After the exchange, the IOs collected feedback from 
the entrepreneurs and offered aftercare services, including signposting to the Enterprise Europe 
Network for further business support. 

The entrepreneurs worked together to check the feasibility of the new entrepreneur’s international 
strategy  service  and  the  possibility  for  him  to  expand  his  business  in  both  Portugal  and  the 
Netherlands.  

The work activities consisted of two parts. The first part was to explore whether there was a need 
for a tailored international strategy service in Portugal. This was the Netherlands project and the 
work activities to achieve this validation were diverse. After some fine-tuning of the Dutch partner’s 
plan and strategy, the Host Entrepreneur introduced this partner to entrepreneurs from his network 
in need of international strategy support. The Dutch partner contacted them, started a LinkedIn 
campaign  and  attended  events  related  to  start-ups.  The  second  part  of  the  activities  was 
supporting  the  launch  of  the  Portuguese  Host  Entrepreneur’s  “landing.jobs”  service  in  the 
Netherlands. The Dutch partner supported the Host Entrepreneur with research for promotional 
activities (the “landing festival”) and did campaigns to get new clients for the Host Entrepreneur. 

The benefits achieved by the Host Entrepreneur included new clients from the Netherlands and a 
strategic partnership with a Dutch accelerator in the Netherlands. The benefits achieved by the 
Dutch partner include start-up proposals as venture partner to expand in the Netherlands and a 
deal with a paying Portuguese client and a working business model.  

Source: EYE programme website218 

Overall,  the  EYE  Support  Office  (that  coordinates  and  supports  the  activities  of  the 
Intermediary Organisations222 and supports EISMEA and the European Commission in the 
daily management of the EYE programme), was effective in carrying out these tasks, and 
in the provision of support to, and the management of activities connected to the IOs on an 
everyday basis.219 

There were issues with a separate action for upgrading the EYE IT tool. Due to its age 
(the tool was designed in 2008) it had to be redeveloped by using a new technology. This 
redevelopment took longer than expected and some modules could not be redeveloped as 

218 https://www.erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu/page.php?cid=09&id=574  
219 COSME Monitoring Fiche - GRO/SME/20/D/021 Support to Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs - Support 
office. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

the  Search  and  Match,  Relationships,  Monitoring, 
originally  planned  (such  as: 
Administration, and Reporting modules). These issues arose due to a new requirement for 
Brussels-based  Commission  services  to  ensure  that  any  IT  specialists  they  used  were 
working/teleworking from Belgium. This led to insufficient human resources and increased 
prices  for  these  activities.  However,  such  problems  did  not  impact  the  programme  as  a 
whole, as the old version of the IT tool was fully operational and the new one was deployed 
only after the full redevelopment, in early 2023.220 

Based on the analysis carried out by the evaluation team, EYE is expected to produce 
positive long-term impacts. Of the entrepreneurs participating during the COSME period 
and who responded to the survey undertaken for this evaluation, 74% (629/825) reported 
that they were still in contact with the other entrepreneur involved in the exchange, including 
23% (190/825) regularly and 31% (255/825) occasionally. Interview feedback suggests that 
the role of intermediary organisations was crucial in supporting the entrepreneurs returning 
from EYE exchanges to their home countries. In this context, the after-care programmes, 
the availability of legal support for EYE beneficiaries, and access to support locally were 
identified  as  good  practice  that  was  effective  in  fostering  longer-term  impacts  stemming 
from EYE exchanges. With respect to good practice within the EYE, interview feedback also 
suggested already having a business set up before participating in an EYE exchange might 
be a factor contributing to the production of long-term benefits.  

The  positive  impact  of  EYE  has  been  further  confirmed  by  the  direct  feedback  from  the 
entrepreneurs that benefited from this scheme, based on the data collected by GROW. In 
that context, 94% of the host entrepreneurs found that the objectives of the exchange as 
set out in the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs Commitment had been met, while 95% of 
NEs expressed the same opinion. Among the new entrepreneurs, only roughly 350 (5%) 
out  of  6,700  respondents  to the  Commission’s  questionnaire indicated that  EYE  had  not 
contributed to their ambition to start a business, while 95% suggested that their host during 
the exchange had contributed to development of their entrepreneurial activity. The largest 
share of host entrepreneurs identified the following benefits from their participation in EYE: 
development of ideas to improve one’s firm, gaining useful know-how, and acquisition of 
knowledge on new markets and working methods. 

4.2.5.2.  Other actions 

Under  SO4,  COSME  also  supported  other  measures  for  entrepreneurship  (see  portfolio 
analysis in Section 3.5). 

Some  tools,  networks  and  initiatives  have  specifically  support  entrepreneurial 
opportunities and culture for women. For example, WEgate221 was established to help 
women create and run successful businesses. WEgate brings together all programmes that 
encourage female entrepreneurship in a single platform targeted at female entrepreneurs 
and  their  requirements  in  terms  of  establishing,  funding,  and  managing  their  firms.  This 
action  has  also  been  investigated  through  a  case  study.  In  addition,  the  EEN  has  an 
established women entrepreneurship group, which brings together 21 organisations in 14 
countries. According to the COSME monitoring report for 2019, the EEN dedicated group 
for women entrepreneurs provides partnership and advisory services specifically to female 
businesspersons. The EEN group connects them with key national stakeholders and fosters 
cooperation  between  women  entrepreneurs  across  different  countries.  This  EEN  group 
covers various sectors, from information technology to textile and fashion, retail, agrifood 
and creative industries. In 2020, the group published an e-catalogue including pitches by 
successful  women  business  leaders  in  Europe  to  attract  new  clients,  promote  business 
cooperation, and to inspire women to embrace entrepreneurship.222 Another activity which 
particularly  benefitted  female  entrepreneurs  was  “Scale  Up  Innovation  for  a  Circular 

220 COSME Monitoring Fiche, EYE IT Tool, GRO/SME/20/D/022. 
221 WEGate.eu. 2023. https://www.wegate.eu/. 
222 EEN. 2023. Unlocking the full potential of women entrepreneurs. 

119 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Fashion  Industry”,  where  around  three  in  four  funded  partnerships  were  female-led.  As 
described  in  the  2019  monitoring  report,  COSME’s  support  for  the  social  economy  also 
witnessed a large contribution from female entrepreneurs.223 

COSME also supported European Social Economy Missions. Through workshops and 
other  events,  the  social  economy  missions  supported  inter-regional  cooperation  and 
creative  partnerships.  The  missions  aimed  to  create  a  social  economy  community  in 
Europe. Stakeholders from several countries participating in the COSME programme with 
similar  social  economy  situations  were  able  to  share  and  replicate  good  practice,  find 
solutions to existing challenges and develop inter-regional partnerships.224 One of the study 
case studies explores a social economy action in more depth. In 2020, more than 60 social 
economy  mission  workshops  were  organised  with  approximately  2,500  participants,  and 
350 good practices were reported. The projects also produced a set of recommendations 
for  improving  regional/local  social  economy  and  created  opportunities  and  incentives  for 
future partnerships. 

Next to the actions which performed very well, the study also identified a number of actions 
which  faced  challenges  during  implementation  and  where  performance  issues  were 
identified. The text box below presents three examples. 

Box 4.6: Case examples of other actions for entrepreneurship 

Actions which faced implementation/performance issues 

The  EWE  Mentor  Academy  (GRO/SME/20/C/013)  created  training  content  for  mentors 
supporting  SMEs  facing  various  challenges.  This  included  developing  a  modular  training 
programme, identifying best practice in business mentoring, and building networks of mentors and 
support  organisations  across  Europe.  Challenges  emerged  during  its  implementation  due  to 
issues  within  the  consortium,  affecting  activities  like  communication  and  training  curriculum 
creation, leading to delays and even the withdrawal of a partner. Poor quality assurance and social 
media also hindered progress. Despite the delays, mitigation steps were taken, such as reinforcing 
the team and revising the implementation plan with external expert assistance. 

As  already  mentioned  above,  the  IT  Tool  for  EYE  (GRO/SME/20/D/022)  action  faced 
implementation challenges that resulted in postponed deployment of a new EYE IT Tool system. 
The action aimed to revamp the outdated 2008 version of the IT tool database for EYE to take 
account of technological advancements. While some modules were successfully developed and 
tested (such as Registration, European Partnership management, and New/Host entrepreneurs 
management),  others  (like  Search  and  Match,  Relationships,  Monitoring,  Administration,  and 
Reporting) were not delivered as planned. This was due to constraints imposed by DG DIGIT for 
its framework contracts, requiring IT specialists to work from Belgium. This led to a shortage of 
human  resources.  Additionally,  the  cost  increased  due  to  technological  changes  mandated  by 
DIGIT,  including  moving  away  from  ColdFusion  technology.  This,  however,  did  not  affect  the 
implementation of the EYE programme at all because it was still possible to use the original EYE 
IT tool, until the whole system was redeveloped and successfully deployed in 2023. 

Study on development of a European Food Price Indicator along the value chain225 (GRO-
SME-19-C09).  This  study  faced  some  issues  during  its  implementation.  Problems  included  the 
absence of a clear and transparent methodology for the action, difficulties in gathering cost and 
price  data,  and  unclear  definitions  of  cost  types  and  questionnaires.  The  contracting  authority 
decided to reduce the amount paid to the contractor and the study was not published. 

223 European Commission. 2022. COSME, 2014-2020 Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and 
SMEs, 2019 monitoring report, COM(2022) 527 final. 
224 European Commission. 2023. European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA), Social 
Economy. 
225 As indicated in the 2019 COSME Monitoring Report, under-performance issues were identified in relation 
to this study and thus, the price paid for this assignment by the contracting authority was reduced. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.2.6.  Overall impact on the general objectives of COSME 

The  COSME  Regulation  set  two  general  objectives  for  the  programme,  namely  (a)  the 
strengthening the competitiveness and sustainability of the Union’s enterprises, particularly 
SMEs; and (b) encouraging entrepreneurial culture and promoting the creation and growth 
of SMEs. Based on the evidence presented in the previous sub-sections within Section 4, 
the two sub-sections that follow consider the overall impact against these objectives. 

4.2.6.1. 

Impact on competitiveness 

The measures supported by the programme impacted on various dimensions of SME 
competitiveness (helping businesses to gain an advantage in the market by reducing 
costs, increasing  productivity,  innovating, introducing new  products/services,  and 
expanding into new markets). All four specific objectives of the programme contributed 
towards this goal. For matters related to the methodology and the selection of actions for 
this evaluation, there is stronger evidence of the contribution of SO1 and SO2. 

The following Table summarises the impacts of different actions on competitiveness, and 
further details and evidence for each specific action is given in the points below the table. 

Table 4.15: Impacts of specific objectives and actions on SME competitiveness 

Objective 

Actions under SO 

Impact 

SO1 

Financial 
(LGF, EFG) 

instruments 

Supported  day-to-day  operations  of  SMEs  enabling 
them  to  remain  competitive  and  to  survive,  Expanded 
SME lending, provided finance to SMEs on better credit 
terms and conditions, helping SMEs to limit their costs 
(outcome) 

Allowed  SMEs  to  develop  and  invest  in  innovation 
(including  investment  in  energy  and  environment) 
(outcome) 

SO2 

EEN 

Improved access to markets, helped SMEs to 
introduce new products (impact) 

Clusters 
Internationalisation 

Enhanced internationalisation skills of clusters (better 
understanding of internationalisation issues) (outcome) 

Clusters excellence 

Enhanced management skills of clusters (outcome) 

The quality label was used by national funding 
authorities as a criterion for allocating national funding 
to clusters. This therefore helped to ensure that 
national funding was allocated to clusters that could 
provide better quality support to businesses. 

Contributed to reducing administrative burdens, 
including the time and cost of registering a business 
(economic indicator in the COSME Regulation) 
(impact) 

SME Performance 
Review, and the work of 
the SME Envoys 

These actions contributed to the Commission’s work to 
monitor actions and reforms by Member States for 
improving the business environment. (European 
semester, Recovery and resilience facility and 
feedback on national reform programmes)  

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Objective 

Actions under SO 

Impact 

SO4 

EYE 

Related economic indicators laid down in the COSME 
regulation demonstrate good progress made with 
reducing the time and cost of registering a businesses 
(impact) but these do not prove a causal link. 

Enhanced business and internationalisation skills of 
both new and host entrepreneurs (outcome) 

Boosted entrepreneurship, and boosted motivation to 
set up a business.  

Impacts from actions under SO1 

Direct  impacts  on  the  competitiveness  and  growth  of  SMEs  have  been  achieved 
primarily  through  the  provision  of  equity  finance  on  more  favourable  terms  than 
would otherwise be available. The financial instruments enabled SMEs to secure working 
capital or acquire/lease small-scale equipment, supporting their day-to-day operations. This 
allowed SMEs to remain competitive.  

As  noted  in  section  4.2.2.4,  EFG  final  recipients  have  grown  in  terms  of  employment, 
turnover, and total assets. However, a causal link could not yet be formally established for 
the full set of SMEs supported by the EFG, as most received support from 2021 onwards 
and  the  methodology  for  counterfactual  analysis  requires  data  from  2-3  years  after  the 
intervention was provided. 

The COSME financial instruments have directly strengthened the survival and long 
term  continuity  of  operations  of  SMEs.  The  LGF  finance  filled  a  market  niche  and 
demonstrated  additionality.  Within  the  partner  financial  intermediaries,  COSME  LGF  has 
contributed  to  the  expansion  of  SME  lending  and  the  enhancement  of  credit  terms  and 
conditions. Such a competitive financing offer helped those SMEs limit the costs of 
their external financing. 

The evidence on higher survival rates of companies that benefited from the financial 
instruments shows that the COSME support often helped them to meet their basic 
needs. If those companies were more likely to survive also after the LGF support stopped, 
it means that they were also more competitive, could keep clients or gain new ones, keep 
their costs  down,  and  be innovative  – to  secure  their  position  in the  market.  As  noted  in 
section 0, LGF final recipients exhibit very high survival rates in the years that followed the 
loans.  The  support  provided  by  the  LGF  helped  SMEs  in  securing  working  capital  or 
acquiring or leasing small-scale equipment, supporting their day-to-day operations, which 
could allow them to remain price competitive. Feedback from the financial intermediaries in 
the targeted surveys confirmed that the LGF financing filled a market niche, enabled them 
to  lend  to  riskier  SMEs  on  more  favourable  terms  than  they  would  otherwise  have  and 
contributed  to  the  expansion  of  SME  lending  and  the  enhancement  of  credit  terms  and 
conditions.  Since  the  LGF  guarantee  was  provided  at  no  cost,  financial  institutions  had 
greater flexibility to pass on financial benefits to their SME clients. This translated into lower 
interest rates compared to similar client profiles and longer loan maturities. Similarly, the 
counterfactual  analysis  has  demonstrated  a  causal  link  between  the  provision  of  equity 
financing by the EFG and very high survival rates of final recipients, which were above the 
EU27 average (see section 4.2.2.4). 

There is limited evidence that loan financing has directly enabled SMEs to grow. As 
shown  in  section  0,  the  trends  analysis  shows  that  LGF  end-beneficiaries  (particularly 
micro-enterprises  and  small  enterprises)  have  not  significantly  grown  in  terms  of 
employment, turnover and total assets. Similarly, the counterfactual analysis revealed that 
the LGF support led to an increase in the number of employees but it did not lead to an 

122 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

increase in turnover, and total assets as compared to not-yet-treated companies. One of 
the main reasons for the limited impact on competitiveness is that the limited size of loans 
(capped  at  EUR  150,000)  did  not  allow  recipients  to  undertake  sufficiently  sizeable 
investments. 

The  financial  instruments  contributed  to  competitiveness  of  SMEs  through 
supporting innovation. The EFG targeted the subset of SMEs which are often young fast-
growing  innovative  firms  with  a  risk  profile  and  business  model  that  often  makes  them 
unable to obtain financing from the traditional system of financial intermediation. According 
to the survey of SMEs supported by the LGF, the loans allowed 54% of recipients (50/92) 
to  develop  a  new  product  or  service  and  51%  (47/92)  to  develop  a  new  technology  or 
process. The key sector supported by the EFG was computing and consumer electronics, 
a sector renowned for its focus on innovation. The EFG also facilitated investment of more 
than EUR 62 million in SMEs in the energy and environment sector. 226  

impacts  on 

turnover,  where 

Over time, EFG final recipients have not only exhibited high survival rates, but they 
have also experienced significant positive trends in their economic performance. The 
positive 
impact  on 
competitiveness. For example, regardless of their size at the time of investment, data from 
Orbis  confirms  that  SMEs  benefiting  from  EFG  have  grown  in  terms  of  employment, 
turnover,  and  total  assets.  According  to  these  figures  SMEs  benefiting  from  EFG,  have 
almost  doubled  the  number  of  employees  from  the  year  before  to  the  year  after  the 
intervention . However, it is still too early to prove this via counterfactual analysis, but the 
results of previous surveys on similar financial instruments indicate that these impacts are 
likely to hold should a counterfactual analysis be held in future. 

identified,  confirm 

the  positive 

Impacts from actions under SO2 

International  competitiveness  has  been  supported  by  the  services  delivered  by  EEN: 
Advice,  pairing  of  business  partners,  guidance,  etc.  Among  EEN  client  SMEs,  62%  of 
respondents to the targeted survey pointed to expanding to new geographical markets. The 
COSME interim evaluation survey showed that more than 75% of client SMEs had entered 
a  new  market,  including  an  international  market  for  more  than  20%.  More  than  half  of 
respondents  attributed  these  results  at  least  to  some  extent  to  the  services  provided  by 
EEN. Of the EEN client SMEs responding to the targeted survey (59%) confirmed that the 
network’s support had enabled them to develop new products or services and 63% (20/32) 
confirmed that EEN services had helped them to safeguard the number of employees.  

Development  of  skills  can  also  help  increase  competitiveness.  EEN  offered  workshops, 
trainings, advice and support. 

The Your Europe Business portal supported by COSME is also a source of knowledge for 
SMEs. 

Impacts from actions under SO3 

The 2021 evaluation study on clusters actions noted several important benefits/impacts of 
the clusters actions related to SME competitiveness, in particular: 

•  The clusters excellence action enabled clusters to enhance their management skills 

•  Participation  in  the  clusters  excellence  action  also  made  it  easier  for  clusters  to 
obtain national funding, as many national support schemes for clusters targeted their 
support  towards  clusters  organisations  that  had  obtained  the  clusters  excellence 
quality label. 

EIF. 

226 
https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/single_eu_equity_instrument/cosme_efg/cosme-efg-implementation-
update.pdf  

Implementation 

COSME-Equity 

Growth 

Facility 

2022. 

for 

Update, 

123 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  Clusters Initiatives also offered SMEs the unique opportunity to create new networks 

and develop new ideas with different partners. 

•  Clusters internationalisation actions enhanced the expertise of clusters in the field 

of internationalisation and enabled them to pool expertise.  

The 2021 evaluation study on clusters, found that the clusters excellence action contributed 
to  strengthening  the  management  skills  of  clusters  and  the  clusters  internationalisation 
action enabled them to gain a better understanding of issues related to internationalisation 
and to pool expertise. 

This evaluation has concluded that SO3 actions contributed both directly (clusters) 
and indirectly (SME performance review/SME envoys) to strengthening elements of 
SME competitiveness. The latter supporting the work of the Commission and the Member 
States for reducing administrative burdens which are widely recognised as a significant cost 
for SMEs. The positive impacts on turnover, where identified, confirm the positive impact 
on competitiveness.  

Competitiveness  and  growth  of  SMEs  have  been  indirectly  supported  through 
improved framework conditions. By their very nature, the actions supported under SO3 
do not directly support individual SMEs but instead support projects often implemented by 
consortia  and  involving  business  organisations,  intermediaries  or  other  stakeholders.  As 
noted  in  section  4.2.4,  the  organisations  involved  in  such  projects  are  generally  positive 
about their effects. However, any impact on SME competitiveness is likely to be indirect and 
the data does not allow any direct causal link to be demonstrated. For example, the Clusters 
Initiatives offered SMEs the opportunity to create new networks, develop new ideas with 
different  partners,  and  enhance  the  expertise  of  their  managerial  staff  in  the  field  of 
internationalisation. However, there is no strong evidence to demonstrate that Clusters Go 
International  achieved  the  desired  outcome  of  increasing  SME  internationalisation  and 
competitiveness.227 This suggests a need for longitudinal follow-up with SMEs. 

Impacts from actions under SO4 

Support  for  business  services  and  entrepreneur  exchanges  has  potentially 
strengthened the competitiveness of SMEs but there is a need for more evidence to 
demonstrate a causal link. The vast majority of host entrepreneurs participating in EYE 
(90%, 193/214) reported that hosting the new entrepreneur provided commercial benefits. 
Moreover, rates  of  user satisfaction  are  high  not  only  for the  EEN,  but  also for the  Your 
Europe  Business  portal,  the  Single  Digital  Gateway,  the  EU-Japan  Centre  for  Industrial 
Cooperation and the IPR Helpdesks. However, since the SMEs using these services and 
host  entrepreneurs  participating  in  EYE  are  not  systematically  tracked,  the  data  is  not 
sufficient to quantify the impacts of these activities or to compare the performance of such 
SMEs to the general population of SMEs. 

The  EYE  programme  allowed  new  entrepreneurs  to  gain  skills,  and  boosted 
entrepreneurship by helping them to prepare better to start their own business. Amongst 
the  entrepreneurs  responding  to  the  targeted  survey,  nearly  100%  (654/655)  of  new 
entrepreneur respondents reported that participation in EYE had improved their knowledge 
and skills, particularly personal skills but also technical and managerial skills. Among the 
HEs 73% (165/227) confirmed that they had boosted their knowledge and skills. 

According  to  the  survey  of  new  entrepreneurs  carried  out  by  DG  GROW  after  the  EYE 
exchanges (based on data from 1.2.2015 until 31.1.2023), 73% of the 8,009 respondents 
were planning to set up a business (including 5% immediately; 12% in the next 3 months; 

227  According  to  interview  feedback,  it  is  difficult  for  clusters  organisations  to  obtain  follow-up  data  on 
participating SMEs, due to, among other factors, the time lags between initial contacts and the realisation of 
positive outcomes in terms of profitability and exports for SMEs. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

and 30% in the next 12 months), and 10% had already set up a business by the time of this 
follow-up survey.228 

4.2.6.2. 

Impact on entrepreneurial culture and the creation and growth 
of SMEs 

COSME  actions  have  directly  strengthened  entrepreneurial  culture  within  the 
participating  countries.  This  has  primarily  been  achieved  through  the  exchanges 
supported  by  EYE.  As  noted  in  section  4.2.5.1,  73%  (165/227)  of  host  entrepreneurs 
responding to the survey undertaken for this study reported improved skills and knowledge, 
as a results of the exchange. Of the new entrepreneurs, 95% suggested that the exchange 
had  contributed  to  development  of  their  entrepreneurial  activity,  nearly  100%  (654/655) 
reported  improved  knowledge  and  skills,  and  99%  (630/635)  reported  strengthened 
business  and  internationalisation  skills  and  capacities.  Of  the  participating  host  or  new 
entrepreneurs,  74%  (629/825)  reported  that  they  were  still  in  contact  with  the  other 
entrepreneur  involved  in  the  exchange.  Other  actions  under  SO4  have  either  directly 
supported entrepreneurs, including female entrepreneurs, or strengthened entrepreneurial 
culture more broadly, for example, the social economy actions (see section 4.2.5.2). 

The  creation  of  SMEs  has  been  supported  by  exchanges  undertaken  within  the 
context of Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs but the number of new business starts 
cannot be known due to lack of tracking. Thus, the impacts could be understated, as 
there  is  no  source  of  longer  term  data,  for  example  on  whether  entrepreneurs  actually 
created a business after participating in EYE. According to the “exit surveys” undertaken by 
the  Commission,  61%  of  new  entrepreneurs  participating  in  the  EYE  confirmed  their 
intention to set up a business within 12 months of completing the exchange. However, since 
the participants were not systematically tracked, it is not possible to know how many did go 
on to start a business. Moreover, any new business creation cannot be solely attributed to 
the EYE given that participating entrepreneurs were selected on the basis that they already 
intended to set up a new business (or had already set up a new business within the last 
three years). 

Section 4.3.2.2 below gives further statistics from the targeted surveys on how the COSME 
programme impacted on different components of competitiveness. 

Impact on reducing administrative burdens 

Under S03, the COSME programme funded studies and meetings with stakeholders that 
supported the work by the Commission and the Member States to address administrative 
burdens  in  EU  and  national  policies  and  to  find  solutions  for  helping  SMEs  to  deal  with 
emerging  issues.  The  monitoring  forms  provide  good  evidence  of  how  these  actions 
impacted on  policy making  and helped enhance the  business  environment  and  reducing 
administrative burdens, for example: 

•  The  Commission  used  the  SME  Performance  Review  surveys  –  financed  by 
COSME – to inform its inputs to the European Semester and to policy actions related 
to SMEs, including its input to shaping national recovery programmes. 

•  COSME also funded the meetings of the SME envoys and SME Assembly which 
provide advice and feedback to the Commission on issues that SMEs are facing, 
including  administrative burdens.  During the  Covid-19  pandemic, the  SME  Envoy 
Network  regularly  provided  all  Member  States  with  up-to-date  information  on 
barriers/administrative  burdens  and  national  support  measures  for  SMEs.  That 
allowed Member States’ services for SMEs to learn from each other and coordinate 
support measures.  

228 For the moment, there is no longitudinal follow-up survey to track the number of enterprises created over a 
longer period as a result of an EYE exchange. 

125 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  COSME  also  provided  annual  support  to  the  action  “Engaging  SMEs  and 
Stakeholders  on  policy  design  and  implementation/strengthening  of  the  Better 
Regulation Agenda” managed by the Secretariat-General of the Commission. The 
2019  edition  of  this  action  supported  the  definition  of “call  for  evidence” business 
the 
requirements.  The  2020  work  programme  supported  work 
requirements  and  develop  an  internal  Commission  “one  in,  one  out  calculator229 
(e.g.  €850,000  from  COSME  Work  programme  2020).  Some  actions  aimed  to 
reduce  the  admin  burden  resulting  from  EU  policy  measures  (e.g.  the  EU  REFIT 
platform). 

to  define 

Regarding administrative burdens in the implementation of COSME actions:  

•  Of the SMEs responding to the targeted survey for EEN SME clients 84% (26/31) 
reported incurring no direct or indirect costs as a result of receiving the EEN services 
(including administrative burden and reporting obligations). 

•  The majority of LGF final beneficiaries (SMEs) responding to the targeted survey did 
not experience a high administrative burden (57/92; 62%). Just less than half (46%; 
18/39)  of  surveyed  LGF 
reported  an  additional 
administrative burden associated with reporting (heightened programme monitoring 
requirements  compared  to  the  EIP).  However,  according  to  interviews,  the 
perception of this burden varied considerably across financial instruments.  

intermediaries 

financial 

•  EFG fund managers interviewed did not report any administrative burden associated 

with COSME. 

•  For  the  majority  of  EYE  entrepreneurs  (64%,  522  out  of  827)  responding  to  the 
survey,  the  administrative  requirements  and  reporting  obligations  were,  at  worst, 
slightly burdensome. However, 33% did observe burdens.230 

4.2.7.  Achievement against indicators 

The  Annex  to  the  COSME  Regulation  provided  indicators  for  the  general  and  specific 
objectives of the programme. The two tables below summarise the evidence of achievement 
against  the  indicators.  Annex  B  provides  full  details,  including  sources  and,  where 
necessary, comments on the indicators. 

Where data is available, there has been good performance against most indicators 
relating to the specific objectives: 

•  SO1:  most  targets  related  to  the  financial  instruments  have  been  reached,  albeit 
with  some  equity  funds  being  still  in  the  investment  period  (thus  with  further 
achievement expected in the coming years). 

•  SO2: where data is available, it shows that targets for the EEN have been reached. 

•  SO3: collection of data has mostly been discontinued, however, there is evidence 

of achievement against some indicators in the early years of the programme. 

•  SO4:  targets  were  reached,  i.e.  relating  to  Member  States  implementing 

entrepreneurial solutions. 

229  Meanwhile  this  tool  is  operational  and  is  used  across  the  Commission  for  entering  information  on 
administration burden implications, notably in relation to impact assessments, with a view of reducing the burden 
of EU legislation for companies (including SMEs). 
230 Nearly one quarter (24%, 195 out of 827) the administrative requirements and reporting obligations were not 
burdensome at all. Only 9% (78 out of 827) found the requirements to be very burdensome. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

It has not proved useful or feasible to collect evidence against several indicators. As 
shown  in  the  table  below,  in  many  cases  data  is  unavailable  or  data  collection  was 
discontinued. For example, EEN members were no longer required to record the number of 
clients  served  from  2015.  In  other  cases,  surveys  were  discontinued  (e.g.  regarding 
the  SME  population)  or  not  undertaken  (e.g. 
recognition  of 
Eurobarometer  survey  of  SMEs  regarding  their  resource  efficiency).  Annex  B  provides 
further details. 

the  EEN  amongst 

Some key COSME activities were not covered by indicators in the Regulation. Whilst 
the performance of the financial instruments, the EEN and (to a lesser extent) the tourism 
projects  are  reflected  in  the  indicators,  no  indicators  relate  to  the  EYE,  Your  Europe 
business portal, Single Digital Gateway or the IPR Helpdesks. In this sense, the indicators 
in  the  Regulation  do  not  adequately  reflect  the  breadth  of  activity  implemented  with  the 
support of the COSME programme. 

Table 4.16: Performance against indicators related to specific objectives 

Indicator 

Performance 

SO1: To improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt 

•  C1.  Number  of  firms  benefiting  from  debt 

•  Target reached 

financing 

•  C2.  Number  of  venture  capital  investments 
from  the  COSME  programme  and  overall 
volume invested 

•  865,387  SMEs  supported  by  the  LGF 

(target: 220,000 to 330,000) 

•  Target reached and some funds are still in 

the investment period 

•  521  investments,  including  core  COSME 
EFG and VentureEU SMEs (target: 360 to 
540) 

•  EUR  3.9  billion  of  investments  (target: 

EUR 2.6 billion to 3.9 billion) 

•  C3. Leverage ratio 

•  Targets reached 

•  C4.  Additionality  of  the  EFG  and  LGF 
(Proportion of final beneficiaries considering 
that the EFG or the LGF provide funding that 
could  not  have  been  obtained  by  other 
means) 

•  LGF: 1.21 (target: 1:20 - 1:30) 

•  EFG: 1.11 (target: 1:4 - 1:6) 

•  LGF: 84% (baseline: 64%)  

•  EFG: data unavailable (baseline: 62%) 

SO2: To improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but also at global level 

•  D1. Number of cases of improved alignment 
countries' 

between  Union  and 
regulations for industrial products 

third 

•  E1. Number of EEN partnership agreements 

signed 

•  Data unavailable 

•  Target reached 

•  18,701 

cross-border 
agreements (target: 2,500 per year) 

partnership 

•  E2.  Recognition  of  the  EEN  amongst  SME 

•  Data unavailable (2015 baseline: 8%) 

population 

•  E3. Client satisfaction rate (% SMEs stating 
satisfaction, added-value of specific service 
provided by the EEN) 

•  92% in 2021 (target: 82%) 

•  E4. Number of SMEs receiving EEN support 

•  Target reached in 2014 

127 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Indicator 

Performance 

services 

•  Data collection discontinued in 2015 

•  E5.  Number  of  SMEs  using  digital  services 
(including  electronic  information  services) 
provided by the EEN 

•  Target reached 

•  21.5 million (target: 2.3 million per year) 

SO3: To improve framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of Union 
enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector 

•  F1.  Number  of  simplification  measures 

•  Progress made to 2015 but data collection 

adopted 

discontinued 

•  F2.  Making  the  regulatory  framework  fit  for 

purpose 

•  2014-2018:  5-8  fitness  checks  launched 
per year (target: 5 during 2014-2020) 

•  Data collection discontinued after 2018 

•  F3.  Number  of  Member  States  using  the 

•  Data unavailable 

competitiveness proofing test 

•  F4.  Resource  efficiency:  Increase  in  the 
proportion of Union SMEs that are: i) taking 
at  least  one  action  to  be  more  resource 
efficient; 
implement 
additional  resource  efficiency  actions  every 
two years. 

ii)  are  planning 

to 

•  Data unavailable 

•  G1.  Number  of  Member  States  using  SME 

•  2017: 27 (baseline: 15) 

test 

•  H1. 

Participation 
cooperation projects (tourism) 

in 

•  Data collection discontinued after 2017 

transnational 

•  Target reached: >3 countries covered per 

project (2017, 2018, 2019, 2021) 

•   Data unavailable for other years 

•  2018: 158 (baseline: 98; target: 200) 

•  Data collection discontinued after 2018 

•  H2.  Number  of  destinations  adopting  the 
sustainable  tourism  development  models 
promoted  by  the  European  Destinations  of 
Excellence 

•  I1. Number of new products/services in the 

•  Target reached (after revision of indicator) 

market 

•  New 

transnational 

partnerships 
supporting innovative business ideas: 152 
(2017-2021); 138 (2021-2025) 

SO4: To promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture 

•  J1. Number of Member States implementing 
entrepreneurship  solutions  based  on  good 
practice identified through the programme 

•  Target reached 

•  28 (baseline: 22) 

•  J2. Number of Member States implementing 
targeting 
entrepreneurship 
potential, 
female 
entrepreneurs,  as  well  as  other  specific 
target groups 

solutions 
new 

young, 

and 

•  Target reached 

•  28 

Sources (indicators): COSME Regulation. Sources (performance): see Annex B 

Data is unavailable to assess performance against some impact indicators related to 
the general objectives of the programme. As shown in the table below, data collection 
has  not  been  undertaken  or  has  been  discontinued for some  indicators.  This  would cast 
doubt on the utility and the feasibility of the indicators in question. 

128 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

There are difficulties in directly attributing some impacts to the COSME programme, 
which would raise questions about the relevance of some indicators. The achievement 
of most, if not all, indicators is perhaps more dependent on factors outside the programme 
than on the programme itself. First, the decisions and actions taken by authorities within 
Member States could be said to be more important than the programme, for example, in 
relation to the time and cost needed to set up a business. In particular, the time needed to 
get  licences  and  permits  to  undertaken  the  activity  of  an  enterprise  (e.g.  environmental 
permits, licences to produce or sell certain products and services, premises licences) relies 
on  the  regimes  operated  by  a  large  number  of  authorities  at  national,  regional  and  local 
level.231 Whilst some (national, regional, local) authorities in Member States are involved in 
or reached by activities supported by COSME, it would be hard to argue that the programme 
has  sufficient  influence on  enough  authorities  to  significantly  affect  this  impact  indicator. 
Second, broader trends in the economy and society are likely to far outweigh the influence 
of the programme in respect of the overall SME population. Most notably, the positive trends 
in  performance  against  impacts  B1  (output  and  employment  within  the  SME  population) 
were outweighed by the negative effects of the CODVID-19 pandemic. 

The  collection  of  evidence  of  performance  against  impact  indicators  (where 
available)  mostly  relies  on  sources  outside  of  the  programme  monitoring  system. 
The sources used by the Commission to collect evidence against the indicators include the 
World  Bank  “Doing  Business”  reports,  Eurobarometer  surveys  (if/when  carried  out)  or 
additional studies (e.g. regarding the time needed to get licences and permits to undertaken 
the  activity  of  an  enterprise).  Performance  against  the  impact  indicators  tends  not  to  be 
directly informed by the programme activities and the programme monitoring system. For 
example, the collection of feedback from  beneficiaries  of the financial  instruments,  EEN, 
EYE  or  other  activities  does  not  inform  the  assessment  of  performance  against  impact 
indicators. 

Table 4.17: Performance against indicators related to general objectives 

Indicator 

Performance 

General  objective:  To  strengthen  the  competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  the  Union's 
enterprises, particularly SMEs 

•  A.1. Increase in the proportion of Union SME 
i.e.  environmentally 

producing  green, 
friendly, products compared to baseline 

•  Quantitative data unavailable 
•  Several  actions  contributed 
indicator. (See section 4.2.8) 

to 

this 

•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme 

•  Reduction from 15.6  days  (2014) to 11.9 

•  A.2a Marked reduction in number of days to 

days (2020) 

set-up a new SME 

•  A.2b. Marked reduction in the average start-
up costs in the Union compared to baseline 

•  A.2c.  Marked  increase  in  the  number  of 
Member  States  where  the  time  needed  to 
get 
(including 
environmental  permits)  to  take  up  and 
perform the specific activity of an enterprise 
is one month 

licences  and  permits 

•  A.2d.  Marked  increase  in  the  number  of 
Member  States  with  a  one-stop  shop  for 
business start-ups 

•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme 

•  Reduction  from  4.84%  of  income  per 

capita (2014) to 3.09% (2020) 

•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme 

•  Progress made (quantitative targets were 

not set) 

•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme 

•  Data unavailable 
•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme. 

231 See: European Commission (2015), Study on the compliance by Member States on the time needed to get 
licences and permits to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise as from beginning of 2014. 

129 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Indicator 

Performance 

•  A.3.  Increase  in  the  proportion  of  SMEs 
exporting  and  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
SMEs exporting outside the Union compared 
to baseline 

•  Data unavailable after 2014 
•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme 

General objective: to encourage an entrepreneurial culture and promote the creation and 
growth of SMEs 
•  B.1a. Increase of SME output (value added) 

•  Progress made up to 2018 but 2020 target 

compared to baseline 

not reached due to COVID-19. 

•  B.1b.  Increase  of  employees  compared  to 

•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

baseline 

•  B.2  Increase  in  the  proportion  of  Union 
citizens that would like to  be self-employed 
compared to baseline 

the COSME programme. 

•  Progress made up to 2019 but 2020 target 

not reached due to COVID-19. 

•  Difficulties in directly attributing impacts to 

the COSME programme . 

Sources (indicators): COSME Regulation. Sources (performance): see Annex B 

4.2.8.  Contribution to wider EU policy objectives 

Effectiveness – Key Questions from the COSME Evaluation Matrix 

•  To what extent and how has the Programme contributed to broader EU policy priorities and 

objectives? 

•  How far has the Programme contributed to the five Union priorities for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive  growth  in  the  period  up  to  2019  (including  climate  objectives  and  gender 
mainstreaming) and to the current Commission’s keynote objective “An economy that works 
for people”? 

COSME aimed to contribute to enhancing the competitiveness of the Union economy by 
facilitating SMEs’ access to finance, markets, internationalisation and by contributing to a 
business-friendly  business  environment  and  a  stronger  entrepreneurial  culture.  COSME 
also pursued a sustainable growth model. The programme aimed to contribute to the growth 
in SMEs’ value-added and performance as regards sustainability in the long term. 

The  programme  aligned  with  key  EU  policy  priorities,  such  as  those  of  the  Small 
Business Act,232 the Single Market Strategy,233 and the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative.234 The 
programme  played  a  crucial  role  in  achieving  the  Juncker  Commission’s  priority  of 
promoting growth and employment by improving access to finance, facilitating networking, 
sharing information and best practice, and expanding market opportunities for EU SMEs. 

COSME  was highly  valued  by stakeholders  who  were  consulted for  this study  due to its 
focus on fostering economic growth, creating job opportunities and facilitating sustainable 
growth. However, its contribution in areas beyond the economic sphere and in achieving 
objectives related to societal challenges and inclusive and sustainable growth is difficult to 
assess at a programme level given the evidence gathered. 

Some considerations can be made at an action/sub-programme level. Below we provide an 
overview  of  how  additional  specific  COSME  actions  contributed  to  wider  EU  policy 
objectives  and  contributed  to  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  COSME  programme  as  a 
whole. 

232 European Commission. 2008. European Commission communication (COM (2008) 394 Final) – ‘think 
small first” – A ‘small business act’ for Europe. 
233 Available at: European Commission. 2023. The single market strategy. 
234 Available at: European Economic and Social Committee. 2016. Europe's next leaders: the Start-up and 
Scale-up Initiative. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Several  actions  considered  climate-related  challenges.  The  COSME  EFG  facilitated 
investment of more than EUR 62 million in SMEs operating in the energy and environment 
sector, albeit within the broader competitiveness objective, as there was no distinct budget 
for climate-related objectives. Investments in this sector further increased after the COSME 
programming  period.235  As  regards  the  EEN,  over  200  expert  EEN  business  advisers 
specialise  in  climate-related  issues  such  as  the  circular  economy,  intelligent  energy, 
sustainable  construction  and  green  technologies.  Under  the  Clusters  Go  International 
action,  6  of  the  12  projects  funded  under  the  “all  sectors”  2020  call  funded  by  the  2020 
budget looked into SMEs’ performance and actions to become more resource-efficient, the 
barriers  they  encounter  and  the  potential  for  policy  measures  to  speed  up  SMEs’  green 
transition.236 A 2022 Flash Eurobarometer was dedicated to resource efficiency and green 
markets  for  SMEs,237  and  the  European  Climate  Neutral  Industry  Competitiveness 
Scoreboard (CIndECS) was developed through an administrative agreement with the JRC. 
This work has already informed reports for the Clean Energy Technology Observatory and 
the Net Zero Industry Act.238 Overall, the COSME contribution to the climate mainstreaming 
objective, set for all Commission programmes (overall 20% of the EU budget 2014-2020), 
has  been  estimated  at  EUR 25.6 million  (6%  of  the  financial  allocation  in  2020).239  As 
emphasised in the COSME 2020 Monitoring Report, there is no monitoring or assessment 
of  the  precise  contribution  of  most  COSME  measures  to  climate  mainstreaming,  but 
qualitive information and examples are available.240 

Actions in the tourism thematic area and actions supporting female entrepreneurship 
and social economy missions had mostly successful outcomes and demonstrated 
the role that SMEs can play in territorial and social cohesion. One focus area of the 
social  economy  missions  was  local  or  regional  measures  tackling  unemployment.  In  the 
tourism sector, some smaller actions, which focused on preparing workshops, reports etc. 
led to positive results, developing topics such as sustainability, digitalisation, and resilience 
and contributing evidence and experiences for the Transition Pathway for Tourism policy 
published  by  the  Commission  in  February  2022.241  Moreover,  there  have  been  events, 
discussions, and workshops on the recovery of EU tourism post COVID-19 and on the long-
term transition towards green, digital and resilient tourism,242 leading to a set of 30 action 
points at the end of the European Tourism Convention (October 2020). 

Other actions in the field of Social Economy supported inter-regional learning and 
collaboration for more sustainable growth. The European Social Economy Missions of 
2020243 involved a wide range of umbrella organisations focused on the social economy. 
These actions aimed to contribute to better, high-quality employment, supporting the green, 
social  and  digital  transition  at  a  local  level,  and  the  adoption  of  resilient  and  sustainable 
business  models.  In  the  context  of  EYE,  it  was  reported  that  roughly  one  in  two  new 
entrepreneurs participating in exchanges are women, and three among four coordinators 
under EYE are females (as of 2020).244 

235 EIF. 2022. COSME-Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) Implementation Update, 
https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/single_eu_equity_instrument/cosme_efg/cosme-efg-implementation-
update.pdf.  
236 Clusters Go International ”all sectors call (GRO/SME/20/C/02). There was also a smaller Clusters Go 
International action for the defence sector. 
237 The Eurobarometer is being used for policymaking to support SMEs with the green transition, in line with the 
updated EU Industrial Strategy (including for the transition pathways). The final report was published in March 
2022: SMEs, resource efficiency and green markets – March 2022 – Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu). 
238 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report. 
239 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report. 
240 Ibid. 
241 Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/C/081.  
242 Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/C/083.  
243 Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/D/01 - European Social Economy Missions. 
244 European Commission. 2022. COSME, 2014-2020 Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and 
SMEs, 2019 monitoring report, COM(2022) 527 final.  

131 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Furthermore, the annual SME Performance Reviews and smaller actions addressing 
the  theme  of  Framework  Conditions  provided  solid  evidence  to  support  policy 
making  and  published  materials  that  generated  additional  visibility  for  the 
programme.  For  instance,  the  SME  Performance  Review  reports  have  been  useful  in 
deepening the understanding of market trends through key performance indicators and in 
supporting  national  policy  developments.  Other  initiatives  were  helpful  in  supporting 
evidence-based policy making and national reform efforts. For instance, the Initiative for a 
Built  environment,  produced  a  monitoring  tool  populated  with  construction-relevant 
components, to facilitate the assessment of the magnitude of planned construction-related 
measures and the monitoring of the progress of the NRRPs implementation.245 

Actions in the area of public procurement were effective in contributing to COSME 
priorities.  More  specifically,  the  actions  leveraged  public  funds  to  boost  and  support 
enterprises and SMEs allowing them to develop and scale their innovative products. SMEs 
benefit greatly from participating in public procurement because it helps them expand, build 
their reputation, and as a result secure more business opportunities in the private sector. 
Moreover,  it  also  provides  public  authorities  with  more  opportunities  to  acquire  the  most 
value for their money through the competitive call for tenders process. In addition, public 
procurement actions under COSME also supported the internationalisation of SMEs. For 
example, the action GRO-SME-20-B-04 supported European SMEs in participating in public 
procurement  outside  the  EU.  This  demonstrates  an  effective  approach  to  ensuring  that 
different  thematic  initiatives  within  the  programme  (in  this  case,  public  procurement  and 
SME internationalisation) were mutually reinforcing. 

4.3.  Efficiency  

Efficiency  considers  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  and  the  changes 
generated by the intervention (which may be positive or negative). Evaluation of efficiency 
involves looking at both the costs and the benefits as they accrue to different stakeholders, 
identifying what factors are driving these costs and benefits and how these factors relate to 
the EU intervention. It also involves looking at how efficiently the programme was managed 
and implemented. 

This section provides findings on the efficiency of COSME based on: 

• 

Interim evaluation of COSME, which covered implementation in 2014-2016; 

•  Programme documentation, such as annual monitoring reports; 

• 

Interviews of stakeholders and participants; 

•  Evidence from the surveys of EEN members, SMEs supported by the EEN and the 

entrepreneurs participating in EYE; 

•  Programme data on key metrics, notably “Time to inform” (TTI) and “Time to grant” 
(TTG) in relation to open calls. TTI refers to the time from the call deadline to the 
invitation to sign the contract, whilst TTG refers to the time elapsing between the 
closure of a call and the signature of the Grant Agreement, which typically marks 
the start of the project. 

Efficiency Questions 

•  How efficient was the implementation structure and governance of the programme? 

•  To what extent were the effects (benefits) of COSME achieved at a reasonable cost (including 
the administrative and reporting burden on participants, beneficiaries and stakeholders)? Were 

245 Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/F/103. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Efficiency Questions 

the  costs  (direct  and  indirect)  generated  by  the  programme  proportionate  to  the  benefits 
generated? 

•  How did overlaps/ complementarities between COSME and any other Community action in the 

relevant areas affect the administrative burden? 

4.3.1. 

Implementation structures and governance  

There has been a high execution rate of the programme budget in each year of the 
programme’s  implementation,  as  shown  in  the  table  below.246  This  high  rate  was 
maintained  throughout  the  programme  period  even  in  the  context  of  an  increase  in  the 
annual budget year-on-year from 2014-2019. This high execution rate is broadly in line with 
other EU programmes. For example, the predecessor EIP programme (2007-13) featured 
a commitment rate of 98.9%-100% in each year of its implementation. The Creative Europe 
programme  achieved  close  to  100%  absorption  of  its  budget  of  EUR  1,488m  in  2014-
2020.247 During the same period, the implementation rate for Horizon Europe was 99.99% 
for commitments.248 

Table 4.18: Budget commitments within COSME 2014-2020 

Budget available 
(EUR m) 

Budget implemented 
(EUR m) 

Percentage implemented 

247.2 

329.9 

347 

367.1 

386.9 

399.7 

426.6 

245.3 

315.5 

327.5 

359.3 

376.8 

387.4 

423.1 

99% 

96% 

94% 

98% 

97% 

97% 

99% 

Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Source: Monitoring data 2014-2020, European Commission  

2504.4 

2434.9 

The  share  of  the  programme  budget  devoted  to  administrative  expenditure  was 
relatively low, particularly in the latest years. Data from the COSME annual monitoring 
reports  states  an  initial  figure  of  4.6%  per  annum  in  2014  and  2015,  falling  to  3%  in 
subsequent years, as shown in Table 4.19 below 

below. The larger amount in the first two years is largely explained by the need to establish 
programme management arrangements. The Interim evaluation of the COSME programme 
indicated  that  the  administrative  budget  during  2014-2016  represented  6.6%  of  the  total 
programme budget, which is similar to the figures reported here (if considered annually). As 
noted in the interim evaluation, administrative expenditure was on average EUR 7.2 million 
per  annum,  representing  6.6%  of  the  budget  committed  to  COSME  over  the  period 
(excluding Access to Finance). 

246 The figures for “Budget available” and “Budget implemented” include budget commitments carried over from 
previous years. Thus, a portion of the budget features in multiple years and is in effect double-counted. As a 
result, the total figures in this table exceed the budget stated in the COSME Regulation. 
247 European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, 
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Education and Culture Executive 
Agency, Creative Europe – Monitoring report 2020, Publications Office, 2021, DOI: 10.2759/602038. 
248 European Commission. 2023. Horizon Europe Performance. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Table 4.19: Administrative expenditure within COSME 2014-2020 (% of programme 
budget) 

Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

GROW 

EISMEA 

Percentage 

2.0% 

2.0% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.9% 

1.0% 

0.8% 

2.6% 

2.6% 

2.1% 

2.2% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

4.6% 

4.6% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

Source: annual monitoring reports produced by the European Commission 

Overall,  the  percentage  of  the  programme  budget  devoted  to  administrative 
expenditure is comparable with other EU programmes or agencies, as shown in Table 
4.20  below.  For  instance,  the  Horizon  2020  Regulation  set  a  threshold  of  5%  for 
administrative expenditure, whilst elements of the Seventh Framework Programme had a 
level  of  administrative  expenditure  of  5%  (Ideas  programme)  and  6%  (Cooperation, 
Capacities and People programmes). The ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020 indicated that 
total  administrative  expenditure  for  the  programme  reached  3.90%  of  the  budget249, 
250(EUR 2,783.3 million) at current prices. The percentage stayed approximately constant 
between  2014  to  2020,  reaching  3.37%  in  its  last  year,  well  under  the  2020  target.  The 
interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, conducted in 2017, concluded that the externalisation 
of the most resource intensive part of the programme to the Executive Agencies helped to 
keep the administrative expenditure below the target of 5% of the budget, with the EISMEA 
percentage being around 2.7%.251 

Table 4.20: Administrative expenditure within other EU programmes or Agencies 

Programme or Agency 

Administrative expenditure as a percentage 
of programme budget 

Horizon 2020 

FP7: Ideas programme 

FP7:  Cooperation,  Capacities  and  People 
programmes 

LIFE programme 

Urban Innovative Actions 

ERCEA 

EISMEA (actions within Horizon 2020) 

REA 

INEA 

3.9% 

5% 

6% 

3.6% 

7% 

2.75% 

2.7% 

2.6% 

0.77% 

249 Admin. Expenditure 2014-2020 based on committed budget, point 5.1 of Statement of Estimates of the EC 
for financial year 2020. Figures account for 2020 annual budgetary procedure, amendments, and transfers. 
250 Commission Staff Working Document, ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020, January 2024, SWD(2024) 29 
final: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c3b6ab34-9d98-45d7-b238-
c86d4924273e_en 
251 The agencies’ administrative expenditure was particularly low at 2.75% for ERCEA, 2.6% for REA, 0.77% 
for INEA and 2.7% for EISMEA; the latter similar to the ones above for COSME. CEC (2017): Interim 
Evaluation of Horizon 2020. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Following a cost-benefit analysis conducted in 2013, the Commission recognised that the 
delegation of programme management to external bodies or Executive Agencies is a more 
efficient  and  cost-effective  approach.252  This  approach  offers  the  potential  for  significant 
cost-savings compared to in-house management by the DGs, whilst allowing the DGs to 
focus  on  their  core  institutional  tasks,  such  as  policy-making,  implementation  and 
monitoring of the application of EU law, and strategic management. This helps to explain 
the decrease in the administrative costs over time for COSME. In particular, the assessment 
of a very high number of applications to COSME is a very resource-intensive task, which 
does not lend itself to being undertaken in-house by the Commission. The use of Executive 
Agencies  also  offers  benefits  in  the  form  of  higher  specialisation,  creation  of  synergies 
between closely related portfolios and the agencies’ communication and outreach channels.  

Regular  monitoring  has  allowed  the  programme  implementation  bodies  to  identify 
opportunities and threats in order to reallocate funds between action lines and thus 
maximise the effectiveness of the programme. In 2018, funds were reallocated from the 
EFG  to  other  actions,  because  agreements  for  equity  take  longer  to  sign  due  to  the 
complexity of due diligence and fundraising processes. In 2019, budget was reallocated in 
particular  to  the  LGF,  reflecting  high  market  demand  for  guarantees  and  counter-
guarantees. In 2020, some EUR 815,107 was reallocated to the tourism call in the light of 
the high level of oversubscription of good quality projects to this action. 

The  programme  implementation  bodies  have  thus  taken  steps  to  revise  the 
programme  management  in  response  to  the  challenges  raised  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. This has included: 

•  Specific monitoring to identify risks and delays due to COVID-19 (which affected the 

final years of implementation of COSME i.e. 2020-2022); 

•  Reallocating funds, where there is a risk of underspending; 

•  Provision of updated monitoring guidance to take account of COVID-19; 

•  Approving  extensions  to  the  duration  of  projects,  where  appropriate,  to  allow  the 
planned activities to take place, particularly where travel, physical events or other 
face-to-face contacts have been essential to project implementation (most notably, 
Erasmus for young entrepreneurs, Clusters Go International and EU China Centre). 

•  Moving programme-level events on-line, e.g. Data 4 Healthy Recovery Hackathon; 

•  Using the experiences gained from monitoring to strengthen the design of actions in 

future years. 

The interim evaluation reported teething problems with SYGMA, the grant management tool 
used  across  the  Commission  (i.e.  not  only  with  COSME).  However,  these  issues  were 
horizontal to the Commission and not specific to EISMEA operations or COSME actions. 

Recommendation  4  of the  interim  evaluation  highlighted  a need for  a  more  consolidated 
approach to data management to promote better programme management efficiency and 
provide a basis for quality monitoring and evaluation. A review of data undertaken within 
this  evaluation  has  confirmed  that  the  quality  of  data  gathering  and  monitoring  reports 
improved  in  the  latter  years  of  the  programme  allowing  more  complete  reporting  to  be 
provided on the coverage of the activities, outputs and state of play, also for smaller actions. 
However, the quality and completeness of the data on beneficiaries remains sub-optimal 
with  the  exception  of  the  larger  actions.  For  example,  this  was  the  case  for  secondary 
beneficiaries  (i.e.  SMEs)  within  the  Clusters  programmes  and  internationalisation. 
Reporting systems were overly focused on activities and outputs with less attention given 

252 SEC(2013) 493 final, Communication to the Commission on the delegation of the management of the 
2014-2020 programmes to executive agencies. 

135 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

to  the  profile  of  the  beneficiaries,  which  was  seen  as  necessary  for  the  monitoring  of 
outcomes and progress towards the fulfilment of the programme’s objectives. 

Providers and beneficiaries of the “Improving Framework Conditions” actions report 
high  levels  of  satisfaction  with  the  support  and  assistance  offered.  Of  those 
responding to the survey of providers and beneficiaries of COSME actions including those 
involved in framework conditions actions, the vast majority (71/75) reported that they were 
either  very  satisfied  (37)  or  satisfied  (34)  with the  support  and  assistance offered  by the 
European  Commission  and  EISMEA. Of the  beneficiaries  of  these  actions responding to 
the survey, 57/61 reported being very satisfied (25) or satisfied (32) with the support and 
assistance offered by the relevant intermediary organisations. 

A key strength of COSME lies in the use of intermediaries for the implementation of the 
programme. COSME provided support to intermediary bodies and entities with established 
relations  and knowledge  of the community  targeted  by the  different  initiatives.  Feedback 
from interviews conducted with EU officials, EISMEA and intermediaries also the suggests 
that  the  close  collaboration  with  intermediaries  maximised  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme  and  the  potential  to  achieve  the  desired  impacts.  However,  the  use  of 
intermediaries also made it more difficult to achieve visibility for the actions among the final 
beneficiaries receiving support (based on feedback from beneficiaries interviewed for this 
study). With the exception of the main actions (access to finance, EEN, EYE), there are no 
granular  monitoring  data  on  the  number  and  type  of  final  beneficiaries  of  COSME 
interventions, their geographical and sectoral distribution and other characteristics. The lack 
of this data poses limitations on the assessment of the performance of these actions and 
outcomes achieved as explained in the methodology (Annex C). Other success factors for 
the  effectiveness  of  specific  actions  as  well  as  factors  which  might  have  negatively 
influenced their performance are reported in the following sections. 

4.3.2.  Costs and benefits 

4.3.2.1.  Costs of the different actions 

The total EU contribution to COSME is shown in the table below. 

Specific objective 

SO1 Access to finance (LGF, EFG) 
SO2 Improve Access to Markets (EEN, IPR Helpdesks, Your Europe, etc.) 
SO3 Framework conditions and competitiveness and sustainability of 
enterprises (Clusters Go International ECCP, Tourism, SME policy, etc.) 
SO4 Promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture (EYE, etc.) 

TOTAL 

Source: COSME Monitoring Data (SO 2-4) and ABAC for SO1 

It should be noted that: 

•  Within SO2, EEN accounted for most funding (93%); 

•  Within SO4, EYE accounted for most funding (89%), 

Cost-effectiveness metrics 

Budget 
committed  
EUR m 
1,587 
482 
256 

78 
2,403 

The  following  table  presents  some  of  the  metrics  on  efficiency  that  can  be  compared 
between  COSME  key  actions  and  the  figures  for  2014-2016,  provided  in  the  Interim 
Evaluation of COSME (values provided in brackets below when available).253 The purpose 
of the analysis was to track the development of indicators over the life of the programme. 

253 No benchmarks were available to compare to other EU actions or programmes. 

136 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The figures show an overall improvement since the last evaluation on specific actions. In 
particular: 

•  For EYE, the number of entrepreneurs benefitting, per €million invested has nearly 

doubled since the last evaluation; 

•  There has been a significant increase in the number of SMEs supported by EEN per 
€million since 2016, which would suggest a significant efficiency improvement. 

Other actions’ indicators, such as the LGF, do not fare as well against those in the earlier 
evaluation.  For  the  LGF,  the cost  effectiveness  indicators  (798.9  as  CEA  I  and  470.3  as 
CEA II) as expected at the time of the COSME midterm evaluation are higher than those in 
the  COSME  final  evaluation  (719.36  for  CEA  I  and  340.30  for  CEA  II).  This  is  due  to  a 
modification  to  the  LGF  in  the  period  after  the  2017  interim  evaluation.  For  example,  in 
reaction to the 2020 COVID crisis, EUR 714 million from the European Fund for Strategic 
Investments were redirected to the COSME LGF to allow the EIF to incentivise banks to 
provide  liquidity  to  SMEs  affected  by  the  COVID  crisis.  To  this  end,  more  flexibility  was 
given  to  users  of  the  LGF  and  the  LGF  guarantee  rate  was  increased  from  50  to  80% 
accordingly. When a larger guaranteed rate is provided, less SMEs will be supported under 
other  equal  budgetary  terms.  Hence,  the  cost  effectiveness  indicators  (which  are  ratios 
between SMEs supported via the LGF and EU guarantee) are lower in the final evaluation. 
The analysis considers the benefits of the actions (looking at the results achieved and using 
monitoring data) and the costs reported for these actions. The costs include: the direct costs 
of  the  programme  (i.e.  budget  committed  to  COSME  in  2014-2020)  and  indirect  cost  to 
beneficiaries to indicate the overall cost of the action to the ‘system’ (C). For the EEN, this 
includes the co-funding from member organisations and for EYE it includes additional costs 
incurred by hosts and new entrepreneurs. This approach is in line with that of the interim 
evaluation of COSME and similarly it focuses on the costs and investments made by the 
EU and by participant organisations. The two cost-effectiveness indicators (CEA) reflect the 
number  of  outputs  and  outcomes  produced  per  million  Euro  invested  in  the  programme 
(with or without ‘other’ costs). The analysis is not exhaustive as it only considers the costs 
sustained by the EU and other participants and not the costs to society. For benefits, the 
analysis looks at direct benefits of the programme and not at externalities. 

The data suggest a fall in the “unit costs” of supporting entrepreneurs via the EYE 
and  SMEs  via  EEN  during  the  life  of  the  programme.  In  the  case  of  the  EYE,  258 
entrepreneurs  were  supported  per  €m  of  funding  over  the  life  of  the  programme  (2014-
2020) compared with only 144 in the years covered by the interim evaluation (2014-2016). 
Similarly, 5,337 SMEs were supported by the EEN during 2014-2020 compared with only 
1,363 SMEs during 2014-2016. Since the support offered through the EYE and the services 
provided  by  the  EEN  did  not  change  substantially  during  the  period,  this  suggests  that 
improvements in efficiency have been made. Evidence from the interviews of stakeholders, 
EYE  intermediaries  and  EEN  members  suggest  that  the  early  years  required  some 
capacity-building to allow an expansion of provision compared with the previous programme 
period.  Once  capacity  was  in  place,  both  actions  were  then  able  to  reach  more  end-
beneficiaries and thus enjoy economies of scale, as reflected in the lower unit costs in the 
later years of the programme. 

Table 4.21: Efficiency indicators for individual actions (2014-2020) 

CEA Indicator 
description 

Benefits 
(units) 
[A] 

EU 
funding 
(€m) 
[B] 

Other costs 
(€m) 
[C]* 

CEA Indicator 
1 (value per 
€m invested) 
[A/B]*** 

CEA Indicator 
2 (value per 
€m invested) 
[A/B+C]**** 

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 

No. entrepreneurs 
benefitting, per €m 
invested 
(interim value) 

15,096 
(3,737) 

 € 58.5 m 
(€ 25.9 m) 

€ 10.1 m 
(€ 12.2 m) 

258 
(144) 

220 
(98) 

137 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

CEA Indicator 
description 

Benefits 
(units) 
[A] 

EU 
funding 
(€m) 
[B] 

Other costs 
(€m) 
[C]* 

CEA Indicator 
1 (value per 
€m invested) 
[A/B]*** 

CEA Indicator 
2 (value per 
€m invested) 
[A/B+C]**** 

Enterprise Europe Network 
No. SMEs supported, 
per €m invested 
(interim value) 
No. cross-border 
partnerships, per €m 
invested 

1,957,822 
(210,000) 

18,701 

Loan Guarantee Facility 
No. SMEs supported 
via COSME 
financing, per €m 
invested (interim 
value) 

865,387 
(300,000) 

Equity Facility for Growth 
No. SMEs supported, 
per €m invested 

521 

€367.28m 
(€154.1m) 

€294.07 
(€57.8m) 

5,337 
(1,363) 

€367.28m 

€294.07 

 56.4 

2,960 
(991) 

31.3 

 €1,203m 
(€367.5m) 

€1,340m 

719.36 
(789.9) 

340.30 
(476.3) 

€378.1m 

€0m 

1.38 

1.38 

* Costs incurred by other organisations, including beneficiaries, e.g. co-funding costs or additional 
guarantees, for instance under EFSI. 
** CEA1 reflects value generated by the programme per €m invested (without other costs) 
*** CEA2 reflects value generated by the programme per €m invested (including other costs) 

4.3.2.2.  Benefits of the different actions 

The COSME  actions  provided a  diversity  of  (quantifiable and  unquantifiable)  benefits  for 
participants  and  beneficiaries,  as  well  as  for  the  EU  more  generally.  The  table  below 
provides a summary of the main quantifiable benefits. 

Action 
EYE 

EEN 

Indicator (proxy of benefits) 

Number of host/new entrepreneurs  

Number of intermediary organisations 
Number of EYE exchanges 
Number of SMEs receiving EEN services 
Number of SMEs using digital services (2020-21) 
Number of cross-border partnership agreements signed 

Clusters  Number of cluster initiatives and events 

LGF 

EFG 

Number of cluster organisations involved 
Number of SMEs benefitting from actions 
Number of sectors covered by cluster initiatives254 
Total EU commitments to debt finance 
Number of intermediaries supported 
Total  value  of  lending  provided  on  the  basis  of  LGF  as 
supported by the EFSI 
Number of SMEs receiving guaranteed loans 
Number of jobs maintained or created in the SMEs or sector255 
Total EU contribution 
Number of financial intermediaries supported 
Total funding catalysed by instrument 
Number of jobs maintained or created in the SMEs or sector256 

Value 
15,096 

360 
7,548 
1,957,822 
21.5 m  
18,701 
132 
392 
>4,055 
61 
€ 1,203 m 
128 
€ 53,872 m 

865,387 
233,146 
€ 378.1 m 
23 
€ 3,920 m 
1,604 

254 Cluster Go International: 21 Cluster partnership agreements signed in Strand 1 and at least 40 in Strand 2 
(Cluster-to-Cluster). At the time of writing, some partnerships indicated that they were about to conclude other 
partnership agreements. 
255 This figure is based on the COSME LGF – Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019. 
256 This figure is based on the COSME EFG – Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The main benefits for beneficiaries are as follows. 

Regarding the LGF, as noted above: 

•  Out  of  92  LGF  final  beneficiaries  surveyed,  between  47  and  72  agreed  that  EU-

guaranteed financing had different positive impacts on their business. 

•  The counterfactual analysis demonstrated that LGF had a positive and significant 
impact  on  the  number  of  employees  and  the  survival  rates  over  time,  but  a  non-
significant effect on the turnover, cost of personnel and total assets of beneficiaries 
as  compared  to  not-yet-treated  companies  (see  Annex  VII  below).  As  explained 
earlier, the counterfactual analysis is likely to (at least partially) under-represent the 
full extent of the economic impacts of the programme. 

Regarding the EFG, as noted above: 

•  Over time, EFG final recipients have not only exhibited high survival rates, but they 
have  also  experienced  significant  positive  trends  in  their  economic  performance, 
e.g.  increase  in  turnover  and  assets.  Regardless  of  their  size  at  the  time  of 
investment, data from Orbis confirms that that these SMEs have grown in terms of 
employment, turnover,  and total  assets. On  average SMEs,  have  almost  doubled 
the  number  of  employees  from  the  year  before  to  the  year  after  the  intervention. 
These positive trends combined with the results of other studies for similar equity 
actions supported by the EIF would suggest that the EFG is likely to produce similar 
positive impacts over a longer term. 

Regarding the EEN, as noted above: 

• 

Just over 1.9m SMEs were supported during 2015-2021.257 

•  The overwhelming majority of SME respondents to the targeted survey reported that 
EEN  services  delivered  positive  impacts  for  their  business  (91%  29/32258).  EEN 
services  had  the  greatest  impact  on  SME  employment,  either  for  safeguarding 
employees  (63%  of  SME  respondents  20/32)  or  for  helping  them  to  expand  their 
workforce (47% 15/32). Other key impacts of EEN services for SMEs’ business were 
expansion  to  new  geographical  markets  (62%  of  respondents),  developing  new 
products or services (59%) and maintaining turnover (59%) or increasing turnover 
(56%).259 The findings on turnover are consistent with the assessment provided in 
the  interim  evaluation  which  also  quantified  the  impact  in  monetary  terms  at  that 
time.  The  interim  evaluation  found  that  over  the  2014-2016  period,  each  EUR  1 
million invested in the EEN led to an increase of EUR 45 million in turnover and an 
increase in employment of circa 377 people among all client SMEs.260 

• 

In  another  survey  of  EEN  member  organisations  conducted  for  this  study,  49% 
(33/68) of EEN member respondents believe that the EEN services they provided 
have  been  effective  in  helping  SMEs  to  access  international  markets  to  a  great 
extent and 49% (33/68) to a reasonable extent.261 A large majority of SME clients 

257 Based on the 2-yearly monitoring reports (which do not precisely correlate with the 2014-2020 programming 
period). 
258 66% - 21/32 of respondents to a great extent and 25% 8/32 to some extent. 
259 Expansion of workforce: to a great extent 34% (11/32), to some extent 13% 4/32. 
Expansion to new geographical markets (62% 20/32): to a great extent 34% 11/32, to some extent: 26% 8/32. 
Maintain turnover: (59% 19/32:to a great extent 34% 11/32, to some extent 25% 8/32 ,  
Increase turnover: 56% 18/32 to a great extent: 34% 11/22, to some great extent: 22% 7/32 
260 This is based on an increase of 2 employees per company in the period 2014-2016 (calculated from the SME 
client survey conducted for the interim evaluation), the total number of companies supported (210,000), and the 
additionality factor. Source: European Commission. 2017. Interim evaluation of the COSME programme. 
261 N= 68 respondents to this question.  

139 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

(74%, 25/34) also stated that the EEN support received was effective in responding 
to their needs or in addressing the barriers they had.262 

•  The EEN members perceived that the main benefits of belonging to EEN were the 
increased professionalism of staff in their organisation (95%), on the same level as 
an increased internationalisation of their SME clients (90% 56/60), followed by the 
development  of  their  organisation  (70%  42/60).  Overall,  91%  (54/60)  of  the  EEN 
members active during the COSME period considered that the EEN services offered 
value for money to a great extent (50% 30/60) or to some extent (41% 25/60).  

Regarding the actions under SO3: 

•  Most providers and beneficiaries of actions (64/76) reported positive impacts on their 
SME or organisation, included all who participated in clusters (22/22). The majority 
of participants in clusters also reported benefits to a great extent or some extent, 
including access to new international partners for collaboration (22/22), access to 
targeted  new  markets  for  SMEs  (22/22),  Awareness  on  internationalisation 
opportunities in target markets (22/22), improved internationalisation capacities and 
knowledge  (21/22),  improved  understanding  of  the  internationalisation  process 
(20/22), and exchanged information and experience gained at an international level 
(20/22). 

Regarding the EYE, as noted above: 

•  The  vast  majority  of  Host  entrepreneurs  (90%  193/214)  reported  that  hosting  the 
new entrepreneur contributed (to a great extent or to some extent) to one or several 
commercial  benefits:  including  development  or  growth  of  the  business  (45%),  an 
increase in jobs or safeguarding of jobs (43%).263 Only 19% of host entrepreneurs 
reported not gaining any of those benefits at all. 73% of HEs (165/227) confirmed 
that they had boosted their knowledge and skills. 

•  Amongst  the  new  entrepreneurs  responding  to  the  targeted  survey,  nearly  100% 
(654/655) of NE respondents reported that participation in EYE had improved their 
knowledge and skills, particularly personal skills but also technical and managerial 
skills.  An  overwhelming  majority  of  NEs  (99%,  630/635)  confirmed  that  EYE 
contributed  to  strengthening  their  business  and  internationalisation  skills  and 
capacities.264 

•  There are some data on actual and intended enterprise creations as a result of EYE 
exchanges.  61%  of  New  entrepreneurs  (NE)  confirmed their  intention  to set  up  a 
business within the next 12 months as a result of the exchange, according to the 
consultation  undertaken for  this  evaluation  report  According to the  survey  of  NEs 
carried out by DG GROW after the EYE exchanges (based on data from 1.2.2015 
till 31.1.2023), 73.4 % of the 8009 respondents were planning to set up a business 
(either immediately: 5.3%, in the next 12 months: 29.9% or in the next 3 months: 
11.8%), and 9.5% had already set up a business by the time of this follow-up survey. 

As for the benefits from other actions, the following can be highlighted: 

•  There were 33,000 participating SMEs in events organised by the helpdesks, and 
these responded to 12,456 helpline queries. The services of the IP SME Helpdesks 
enabled SMEs to save costs for protecting their IP for moving into a foreign market. 

262 N= 34 respondents to this question.  
263 Other benefits included expansion of sales to new countries (17%), expansion of operations in new countries 
(23%), increase in export turnover (14%) to new countries (36%), increase in the number of employees (26%), 
safeguarding jobs (17%) and an increase in turnover (29%), increased export turnover (14%). 
264They confirmed that EYE contributed (to a great extent or some extent) to at least one of the following benefits: 
learning  about  another  country/market  (86%),  new  knowledge  and  skills  in  running  a  business  (83%), 
development  of  business  plan/activities,  (77%),  encouragement  to  be  professionally  active  in  another  EU 
country (73%), identifying potential business contacts and opportunities (70%). 

140 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

The 2018 evaluation study also highlighted the “potential benefit” of these services 
for helping SMEs to avoid litigation (there could be potentially huge cost savings, 
but these are difficult to measure).  

•  Clusters  enhanced  the  internationalisation  of  companies,  also  through  improved 
skills.  Additionally,  the  Clusters  Excellence  label  ensured  that  additional  national 
funding  could  be  allocated  to  clusters  that  could  provide  better  quality  support  to 
businesses.  

There  is  limited  concrete  evidence  of  direct  economic  benefits  for  SMEs  using  services 
supported  by  other  COSME  actions,  reflecting  the  nature  of  those  actions  and  the  data 
collection methods  used  in this  evaluation.  Such  services  include Your  Europe Business 
portal and Single Digital Gateway, EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation, International 
IP SME Helpdesks. Case studies on the IP Helpdesks illustrate the way that their services 
have  helped  SMEs  to  save  costs  for  protecting their  IPR  rights  by  concentrating  on  key 
priorities and to avoid the risk of litigation (potential legal costs). There is no quantitative 
evidence available on these savings. Similarly, Clusters Go International generated a range 
of benefits but there is no strong evidence of direct economic impacts in terms of increased 
SME internationalisation and competitiveness.265 

4.3.3.  Proportionality of costs and benefits for beneficiaries 

This  section  illustrates  key  findings  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  main  actions  of  the 
programme looking at the costs for the actions (considering figures in 2014-2016) and the 
benefits achieved. The targeted consultations with COSME participants for this study have 
gathered data on the extent to which the costs for intermediaries and final beneficiaries are 
proportionate to the benefits gained. This allows some comparison of the findings with those 
of the interim evaluation. 

Some caveats are required here, as Toolbox 57 of the Better Regulation Guidelines states 
that a CEA entails the quantification of the benefits and that the typical method used within 
a CEA to compare options is the benefit-cost ratio, which means dividing the benefits by 
costs. In the case of the COSME programme, whilst the financial costs can be known with 
some accuracy, a diversity of (quantifiable and unquantifiable) benefits are produced. For 
that reason, a benefit-cost ratio cannot be calculated. Toolbox 57 also suggests that CEA 
is less easily applicable to interventions that have a number of objectives or that generate 
important indirect impacts, whereas the COSME programme addresses multiple objectives 
and is intended to generate both direct and indirect impacts. Given the requirement of the 
Better Regulations Guidelines, the approach proposed here is to apply the broad concepts 
of a CEA, whilst recognising that the detailed requirements of a CEA cannot be satisfied. 

Taking  this  approach  –  which  depends  largely  on  the  perceptions  of  participants  and 
beneficiaries - the proportionality of costs and benefits is assessed in four ways. These are 
the extent to which participants and beneficiaries reported that: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the benefits they gained exceeded the costs they incurred; 

the COSME actions offered value for money; 

the EU funding was sufficient for them to achieve the intended benefits; 

the administrative costs for them were proportionate (see next section). 

The  analysis  covers  those  actions  that  received  most  funding  (aside  from  the  financial 
instruments), namely EEN and EYE. However, this approach does not lend itself to the final 
instruments, since the costs and benefits for SME beneficiaries are very different to those 

265  According  to  interview  feedback,  it  is  difficult  for  clusters  organisations  to  obtain  follow-up  data  on 
participating SMEs, due to, among other factors, the time lags between initial contacts and the realisation of 
positive outcomes in terms of profitability and exports for SMEs.  

141 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

arising in the EEN and EYE (i.e. they do not participate in grant-funded activities but instead 
receive financing to invest in their businesses; for the analysis of impacts, see sections 0 
and 4.2.2.4). It also does not lend itself to the other actions under SO3, where many of the 
main  benefits  arise  for  SMEs  in  the  wider  sector  rather  than  directly  to  the  participating 
organisations, although some evidence is available for clusters actions (described below). 

First, the majority of participants and beneficiaries of the EEN and EYE report that 
the benefits they experienced exceeded the costs they incurred. As shown in the table 
below, this was confirmed by the targeted consultations undertaken at the interim and final 
evaluation stages. 

Table 4.22: Proportionality of benefits relative to costs 

Source: 
Interim 
evaluation of 
COSME 

Data from 
targeted 
consultations 

Source: Interim 
evaluation of 
COSME 

Data from 
targeted 
consultations 

Benefits > Costs 
to a great/some extent 

Benefits > Costs266 
not at all/to limited extent 

EEN 

SMEs 

Member 
Organisations 

EYE 

Host 
entrepreneurs 

New 
entrepreneurs 

68% 

63% 

69% 

67% 

91% 

92% 

55% 

64% 

5% 

10% 

11% 

8% 

9% 

5% 

31% 

23% 

Second, the majority of participants and beneficiaries report that the EEN and EYE 
offered  value  for  money.  For  EYE,  71%  (439/618)  of  new  entrepreneurs  and  61% 
(129/212) for host entrepreneurs reported that the exchange offered value for money. Only 
22% (133/618) of new entrepreneurs and 29% (62/212) of host entrepreneurs reported that 
benefits outweighed costs only to a limited extent or not at all.267 The vast majority of EEN 
members  responding  to  the  targeted  survey  (92%,  55/60)  reported  that  EEN  services 
offered value for money, given the benefits gained and the costs incurred.268 

Third, the majority of participants and beneficiaries of the EEN and EYE report that 
the EU funding was sufficient to achieve the intended benefits. Within the EYE, only 
25% of new entrepreneurs responding to the Commission’s feedback survey reported that 
the EU funding to be insufficient, whilst 47% reported it to be “more or less” sufficient and 
28% found it to be sufficient.269 Only a small proportion of EEN member organisations faced 
challenges around the sufficiency of funding to achieve the desired benefits. Of the EEN 
member  organisations  responding  to  the  targeted  survey,  79%  (62/78)  reported  that  the 
EEN  COSME  grant  was  sufficient  to  provide  all  foreseen  services,  while  17%  (13/78) 

266 The numbers are based on survey responses to consultation for this evaluation. For EEN, the SMEs receive 
the services for free but the surveys included a question on the administrative burden and those from reporting 
obligations. For EYE, respondents were asked whether the EY had offered value for money, given the benefits 
arising and the costs incurred. 
267 Some HEs shared feedback on possible ways to reduce the costs and increase the value derived from the 
exchange (notably be simplifying administrative, reporting and IT requirements. Overall, many HEs recognised 
that this situation has improved since 2018. 
268 Offered value for money to a great extent (50% of respondents 30/60), to some extent (42% - 25/60) 
269 N= 6,050 NEs participating in exchanges between 2018 and 2023. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

disagreed. A small number of EEN members responding to the targeted survey and/or the 
interviews made various comments suggesting that costs were increasing, and/or that the 
grant  was  not  always  sufficient  to  cover  all  services  that  were  planned,  or  needed  in 
practice. 

The work for this study did not include extensive new data gathering or surveys on the costs 
and benefits of clusters actions, as a recent evaluation completed in 2021 covered clusters 
actions  supported  under  various  EU  programmes,  including  Clusters  internationalisation 
(ESCP-4i) and clusters excellence (ESCP-4x) supported under the COSME programme.270 
This previous evaluation found that “the overall cost-benefit ratio was seen as positive by 
the core beneficiaries and stakeholders (both in surveys and interviews).” In addition, some 
specific observations were made regarding the efficiency of both actions: 

•  While the Cluster internationalisation actions ESCP-4i were mostly efficient to kick-
off  first  activities,  the  duration  of  partnerships  was  perceived  as  too  short  and 
financial support to SMEs was not foreseen within the initiative. In this context, some 
KPIs  were  too  ambitious  for  the  cluster  support  initiatives  scope  (e.g.,  increased 
turnover of SMEs) and could not be reached as they would require a longer duration 
of partnerships and an extension of the target group to SMEs.  

•  Regarding the Clusters excellence (ESCP-4x), the overall benefits from the cluster 
support  initiative  were  believed  to  outweigh  the  costs  due  to  the  longer-term 
potential of the activities (networking, peer-learning and management skills). Some 
demanding KPIs (in particular regarding the number of exchanges with SMEs) could 
be  revised  given  that  they  require  a  higher  workload  than  anticipated  from  the 
consortium to meet the set targets. 

4.3.4.  Administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries 

Across  the  COSME  actions,  the  applicants  and  beneficiaries  tended  to  report  that  they 
found the administrative burden they incurred to be proportionate. 

The  high  share  of  ineligible  proposals  in  some  actions  in  the  early  years  of  the 
programme  represents  an  unnecessary  cost  for  applicants  and  evaluators  of 
proposals. The submission of ineligible proposals represents time and effort wasted by the 
applicant  and  evaluator  alike.  According  to  the  interim  evaluation,  ineligible  proposals 
represented  a  high  share  of  all  proposals  in three  actions,  namely  Tourism  grants  (23% 
share of ineligible proposals), Cluster excellence (24% share of ineligible proposals) and 
EYE (18% share of ineligible proposals). This contrasts with the EEN (4% share of ineligible 
proposals), Design-based consumer goods (4% share of ineligible proposals) and Migrants 
entrepreneurship  support  schemes  (8%  share  of  ineligible  proposals).  According  to  the 
interim  evaluation,  one  contributing  factor  in  these  actions  was  the  clarity  of  the  work 
programme descriptions, which helps determine the extent to which applicants understand 
what is required of them. In the case of the EEN, the low share of ineligible proposals also 
reflects  the  fact  that  there  can  be  only  two  proposals  for  the  same  region  or  country,  of 
which  only  one  proposal  can  be  successful,  and  competing  proposals  are  unlikely  to  be 
submitted from the same territory, given that consortia were already in place in the previous 
period.  

Across the full programme period, intermediaries and final beneficiaries found the 
costs and burdens associated with participation to be affordable and acceptable. At 
the interim stage, the costs and burdens were found to be affordable and acceptable across 
most, if not all, actions, including the Clusters programmes and internationalisation, and the 

270 European Commission (2021), Evaluation study of and potential follow-up to cluster initiatives under COSME, 
H2020 and FPI, Publications Office, 2021. 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Tourism  actions.  There  was,  however,  some  divergence  of  views,  with  some  bodies 
(especially  financial  intermediaries)  reporting  that  the  overall  administrative  burden  was 
high. The evidence gathered for this final evaluation suggests a higher level of satisfaction 
on the part of intermediaries and final beneficiaries compared with the interim evaluation, 
as explained in the paragraphs and figures that follow. 

The  LGF  allowed  financial  intermediaries  to  seamlessly  incorporate  it  into  their 
existing product offerings. One of its key strengths was its ability to reach the broader 
SME population without requiring those loans be tied to other specific policy objectives than 
final recipients being higher risk SMEs. This made it easily comprehensible for loan officers 
and SME clients alike. Certain intermediaries, especially leasing companies, successfully 
integrated the LGF guarantee into their automated decision-making processes. This was 
particularly advantageous for leasing businesses where swift decision-making is crucial to 
their operations. 

Financial intermediaries for the LGF report a reasonable level of satisfaction with the 
administrative  burden.  As  shown  in  Figure    below,  just  less  than  half  (46%;  18/39)  of 
financial  intermediaries  reported  an  additional  administrative  burden  associated  with 
reporting.  The  programme  had  monitoring  requirements 
into  an 
administrative burden for all partner FIs. However, according to interviews, the perception 
of this burden varied considerably across FIs. Some had good IT systems in place that were 
easily adapted to the LGF monitoring needs, others had more complex internal systems. All 
FIs  complained  about  the  frequency  of  reporting.  This  suggests  some  potential  for 
streamlining  the  reporting  process.  Fewer  reported  other  types  of  additional  costs  or 
burdens.  During  interviews,  some  intermediaries  reported  that  adapting  their  IT  systems 
and collecting data on turnover and headcount from microbusinesses posed challenges. 

translated 

that 

Figure 4.11: Satisfaction of financial intermediaries with costs and 
administrative burden 

Source: Financial Intermediaries for the COSME and EIP loan 
guarantee instruments 

The majority of financial intermediaries are positive about the LGF process. As shown 
in  Figure  4.12  below,  the  majority  reported  being  satisfied  with  the  different  procedural 
requirements, namely application (89%; 35/39), appraisal and due diligence (79%; 31/39), 
time taken to sign the contract (64%; 25/39), and reporting requirements (56%; 22/39). The 
main  exceptions  to  this  positive  experience  overall  tended  to  be  small  intermediary 
organisations  and  newcomers.  When  asked  to  comment  on  these  aspects,  two 
intermediaries  reported  that  it  had  taken  more  than  one  year  to  negotiate  and  sign  the 
contract.  A  few  financial  intermediaries  interviewed  found  the  LGF  contract  to  be  overly 

144 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

complex and difficult to understand, necessitating multiple iterations with the EIF. A position 
paper submitted during the public consultation also emphasised that the linguistic barrier 
(as all contract and reporting documents are in English) hindered the participation of smaller 
financial intermediaries. 

Figure 4.12: Satisfaction of financial intermediaries with procedural 
requirements 

Source: Financial Intermediaries for the COSME and EIP loan 
guarantee instruments 

Private  equity  and  venture  capital  fund  managers  interviewed  did  not  report  any 
administrative  burden  specifically  associated  with  COSME,  although  some 
highlighted aspects that could be improved. Fund managers interviewed for this study 
did not raise any issues with respect to administrative burden, apart from one fund manager 
who received investment from EIF under multiple mandates (EU and regional) and thus had 
to fulfil separate reporting requirements for each mandate. The EIF’s in-depth due diligence 
and risk management process was reported by a few of the fund managers interviewed to 
have slowed down investment operations, although others felt it was necessary - especially 
when  dealing  with  public  money  -  while  increasing  the  transparency  and  quality  of  the 
investment.  As  regards  complexity,  one  fund  manager  mentioned  that  use  of  the  SME 
definition (based on headcount, turnover and balance sheet) is not standard practice in the 
industry and is not well suited to all geographies. For example, there can be firms with a 
relatively  high  headcount  and  low  turnover  or  assets.  According  to  one  interviewee, 
restrictions  on  investment  based  on  firm  size  linked  to  headcount  can  potentially  put 
European fund managers at a disadvantage vis-à-vis US or UK-based fund managers and 
lead to missed opportunities. Moreover, the requirement to prove that the investment is part 
of the EU taxonomy based on NACE codes can also limit or delay investment opportunities. 
Frontier technologies in ICT and energy transitions do not always fit neatly into NACE codes 
and  hard  data  are  often  requested  to  prove  that  they  are  part  of  the  existing  taxonomy 
discouraging firms from seeking support. 

Final  beneficiaries  of  the  LGF  report  a  high  level  of  satisfaction  with  the 
administrative and reporting burden. As shown in Figure  below, of the final beneficiaries 
responding to the targeted survey, only a minority reported increased complexity (8/92; 9%) 
or costs (16/92; 17%) related to the fact that the financing was guaranteed by the EU. Only 
a  tiny  minority  of  final  beneficiaries  (2%;  3/92)  reported  dissatisfaction  with  the  reporting 
requirements. This is consistent with the evidence from the survey of final SME beneficiaries 

145 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

carried  out  as  part  of  the  interim  evaluation.  Of  the  final  beneficiaries  responding  to  the 
targeted survey, the majority had not experienced a greater administrative burden (57/92; 
62%) or greater complexity (74%, 68/92) compared with similar SME support programmes. 
Just  over  half  (57/92;  53%)  had  not  experienced  substantial  additional  costs  under  the 
LGF.271 47 out of 92 LGF beneficiaries surveyed for this evaluation claimed that the speed 
of the processing of the application was more favourable than for other offers on the market, 
and 29 said it was the same. 61 did not need any external help for this and 68 encountered 
no additional complexity due to the EU nature of the programme. When asked to state the 
specific costs or administrative burdens incurred, most referred to those related to obtaining 
or preparing the necessary documentation. One beneficiary reported that 1% of the loan 
amount  was  retained  by  the  bank  for  administrative  costs  and  another  reported  being 
charged a processing fee. 

Figure 4.13: Satisfaction of LGF final beneficiaries with complexity 
and costs of EU financing 

Source: Survey of final beneficiaries of loan guarantees 

Nevertheless,  financial  intermediaries  noted  an  increase  in  administrative  costs 
during  the  transition  from  the  EIP  to  COSME.  This  increase  stemmed  from  the 
heightened  programme  monitoring  requirements  following  the  EIP's  final  evaluation 
recommendations. The collection of detailed data at the level of SME beneficiaries is crucial 
for an accurate programme assessment, especially given the limited availability of external 
data sources for certain SMEs, particularly microbusinesses. Another important point raised 
in interviews is that the administrative burden, driven by reporting requirements aligned with 
EU policy objectives, is anticipated to further increase for both financial intermediaries and 
SMEs under the facilities established in Invest EU. 

271 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 4.14: Satisfaction of LGF final beneficiaries with reporting 
requirements 

Source: Survey of final beneficiaries of loan guarantees 

EEN members and their clients reported no significant costs related to administrative 
burdens. Of the EEN member organisations responding to the targeted survey, the vast 
majority  (80%,  or  61/76)  reported  that  the  EEN  grant  was  sufficient  to  provide  all  the 
services. When asked in the targeted survey to comment on overhead costs incurred in the 
provision of EEN services, very few EEN members (11%, 12/106) reported incurring such 
costs.  Of  the  SME  clients  answering  the  question  in  the  targeted  survey,  84%  (27/32) 
reported  incurring  no  direct  or  indirect  costs  as  a  result  of  receiving  the  EEN  services 
(including administrative burden and reporting obligations).272 

Intermediary  organisations  and  SMEs  involved  in  the  cluster  actions  report  high 
satisfaction with administrative aspects, whilst those involved in the tourism actions 
report moderate levels of satisfaction. As shown in the figures below, the vast majority 
of  those  participating  in  cluster  actions  reported  that  the  human  and  financial  costs, 
monitoring and reporting requirements and administrative procedures contributed to a great 
extent or to some extent to the success of the clusters. Similarly, within the clusters and 
internationalisation  actions,  the  direct  programme  beneficiaries  (cluster  organisations) 
tended to be satisfied overall with regards to the application process, timeliness of support 
provision,  clarity  of  requirements  and  consortium  agreement  requirements.  Satisfaction 
was,  however,  lower  regarding  the  frequency  of  calls.  This  is  consistent  with  the  2021 
evaluation of cluster initiatives under COSME, H2020 and FPI, which found that the Clusters 
Go International action was considered efficient by cluster organisations most of whom were 
satisfied or very satisfied with the application process (timeliness of provision of support, 
clarity  of  briefing  material,  requirements  to  create  a  consortium,  and  duration  of  the 
application process).273 In contrast, the survey carried out for this final evaluation found that 
participants  in  the  tourism  actions  were  less  satisfied,  particularly  in  respect  of  the 
administrative  procedures.  More  positively, 
the 
Eurobarometer  flash  survey  was  reported  to  have  imposed  only  a  minimal  burden  on 
participants in the tourism actions.274 

the  requirement 

to  respond 

to 

272 In total, 67 SMEs responded to this targeted survey, but the number of responses to individual questions 
varied.  
273 European Commission. 2021. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and 
SMEs, Galdiga, L., Van de Velde, E., Sadlik, A. et al., Evaluation study of and potential follow-up to cluster 
initiatives under COSME, H2020 and FPI, Publications Office, 2021, DOI: 10.2873/977418. 
274 Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/F/116 - Eurobarometer Tourism 2020. 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 4.15: Satisfaction of participants regarding administrative 
aspects of cluster actions 

Source: Survey of intermediary organisation and SMEs 
participating in cluster actions 

Figure 4.16: Satisfaction of participants regarding administrative 
aspects of tourism actions 

Source: Survey of intermediary organisation and SMEs 
participating in tourism actions 

The majority of participants in EYE did not find the administrative requirements and 
reporting obligations to be particularly burdensome. As shown in the figure below, only 
9% (78/827) of EYE participants found the obligations to be very burdensome, whilst most 
(64%, 522/827) found them to be slightly burdensome at worst. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Figure 4.17: Satisfaction of EYE participations with administrative 
and reporting requirements 

Source: survey of EYE beneficiaries 

The costs incurred in hosting new entrepreneurs varied but were rarely above EUR 
5,000,  according  to the  survey  respondents. Of the  host  entrepreneurs  responding  to 
the survey of EYE participants who offered a figure, nearly all reported costs between zero 
and EUR 5,000. Most reported costs of no more than EUR 3,000, although a few reported 
costs of EUR 10,000 or more. It is important to note that host entrepreneurs can only host 
one new entrepreneur at any one time. These costs included welcome and hospitality costs, 
equipment  (office  supplies  and  material),  work-place,  travel  costs.  The  costs  varied 
depending  on  the  location  of  the  host  entrepreneur,  the  level  of  experience  of  the  new 
entrepreneur, and training and coaching needs. 

4.4.  Coherence 

The criterion of coherence is now considered, both in terms of how well COSME functioned 
internally (“internal coherence”) and the programme’s inter-relationship with other relevant 
EU and national/regional interventions (“external coherence”). In this study, the extent to 
which different components of the programme complemented each other has been defined 
as internal coherence while synergies and the overall degree of complementarity with other 
EU and national schemes is considered under external coherence. 

Coherence Questions 

•  To what extent has the internal coherence of the four specific objectives been maximised? 

What are the lessons learnt? 

•  Are there overlaps or complementarities between the measures supported and any other EU 

action which have similar objectives? 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.4.1. 

Internal coherence 

COSME has demonstrated an adequate level of internal coherence overall. The interim 
evaluation of COSME found that synergies within COSME were not strong, particularly for 
the smaller actions. This was also the situation during the predecessor EIP programme with 
the ex post evaluation identifying concerns about the fragmentation of the EIP and the weak 
links between the small actions and the other interventions. Since the interim evaluation of 
leverage 
COSME,  efforts  have  been  made 
complementarities and minimise overlaps.  

to  create  additional  synergies, 

With  respect  to  the financial instruments, the  evidence suggests there was  a high 
degree  of  internal  coherence.  The  COSME  LGF  and EFG  were  complementary,  given 
that  different  types  of  SMEs  had  different  financing  needs  (e.g.  start-ups  and  scale-up/s 
higher growth firms are proportionately more likely to need equity funding, whereas many 
established SMEs will only consider loan finance to fund their development and would be 
reluctant  to  use  the  equity  instruments).  These  instruments  were  found  to  be  mutually 
supportive and not duplicative. 

There  is  strong  coherence  between  the  various  helpdesks.  According  to  the  most 
recent monitoring data, the international IPR Helpdesks cooperated and created synergies 
with the International IP Helpdesk India (COSME), the European IP Helpdesk (funded by 
Horizon  2020),  the  Africa  IP  Helpdesk  (managed  by  the  European  Union  Intellectual 
Property Office) and IP Key (managed by DG TRADE) in the organisation of joint events in 
the domain of intellectual property. The international IP helpdesks also share a website with 
the  Indian,  European  and  Africa  Helpdesks.275  The  EU-Japan  Centre,  the  three  IPR 
Helpdesks 
the  cluster 
for  China,  South-East  Asia,  and  Latin  America,  and 
internationalisation programme (Clusters Go International and ECCP platform) have been 
complementary  internationalisation  actions,  working  through  intermediaries,  knowledge 
sharing,  building  capacity  and  networking,  on  geographical  areas  and  countries  that  are 
important trade partners of the EU. The EU-Japan Centre and the IPR Helpdesks were both 
engaged  with  the  EEN.  The  EU-Japan  Centre  also  collaborated  with  the  Clusters 
Internationalisation  programme  to  support  the  internationalisation  efforts  of  the  cluster 
partnerships.276  EEN  is  also  working  closely  with  the  EU-Japan  Centre  for  industrial 
cooperation, on partnership agreements, the organisation of events, workshops and B2B 
meetings, and the expressions of interest from EU or Japanese companies.277  

To increase cooperation with other EU actions, EEN has concluded a bilateral agreement 
with  IPR  Helpdesks  and  a  declaration  of  intent  to  cooperate  with  the  European  Digital 
Innovation  Hubs  (EDIH).  The  Commission  also  concluded  bilateral  agreements  with 
organisations  active  in  the  field  of  SME  internationalisation,  who  became  associate 
members providing services to the EEN.278  

The different actions supporting SMEs and entrepreneurs are complementary to each 
other  and  there  are  numerous  instances  of  collaboration  between  them,  although 
more could be done to signpost SMEs to the different forms of support available. The 
support for entrepreneurs was distinct from and complementary to other forms of support 
for SMEs provided by the access to finance actions and the EEN. On internationalisation 
aspects,  EEN  members  interviewed  reported  that  the  European  Cluster  Collaboration 
Platform (ECCP) was advised to cooperate with EEN when organising brokerage events, 
or  when  promoting  EU  initiatives,  while  the  EEN  and  IPR  Helpdesk  experts  were 
encouraged  to  get  involved  in  the  ECCP  events.  Coherence  between  EYE  and  EEN  is 
helped by the fact that some organisations are involved in implementation of both actions 

275 COSME monitoring fiche IP Helpdesk 2020. 
276 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
277 EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation EEN Japan. 2021. Celebrating 10 years of working together. 
278 European Court of Auditors. 2022. SME internationalisation instruments. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

and that EYE hosts are invited to the EEN annual conference. Moreover, EYE participants 
are  offered  an  induction  training  before  leaving  on  an  exchange,  including  provision  of 
information  on  EEN  and  other  means  of  available  SME  support.  The  EYE  Intermediary 
Organisations  also  offer  after  care  services  to  participants,  and  during  that  process  they 
signpost entrepreneurs to EEN. In addition, there are sessions at EEN and EYE meetings 
on synergies between the programmes, and the EYE website includes a section concerning 
other SME support actions. The EEN member organisations interviewed reported that they 
actively informed their EEN clients of the opportunities available under COSME, especially 
financial support. The Your Europe Business (YEB) portal provided information from various 
sources,  including  links  to  the  EEN  website.  The  portal  also  allowed  SMEs  to  submit 
questions to EEN members. In 2016, 83% of the EEN members received SME requests via 
the YEB Portal, and 71% of the EEN members who received such requests indicated that 
these  requests  were  mostly  relevant  to  the  EEN  services.279  According  to  the  2021 
evaluation of Cluster Initiatives under COSME, Horizon 2020 and FPI, 44 out of 48 
participants  in  Clusters  Go  International  reported  synergies  between  the  clusters 
and EEN (including 11 to a very great extent and 16 to a great extent). This was 
also confirmed during interviews for this study. EEN contacts were highly valuable 
for identifying partners for clusters in Third Countries. 

The potential for synergies was not always exploited to the maximum. For example, 
in the targeted stakeholder survey for this evaluation, only 10% of SMEs benefitting from 
the EEN reported that they also benefitted from other COSME actions. According to some 
interviewees, more explicit signposting between the actions might have been possible both 
at EU level (e.g., partner searches across the EEN and EYE networks, links between the 
websites for the different actions) and at operational level (e.g., referrals between the EEN 
members and the EYE intermediaries). Indeed, the COSME communication tools were in 
general  seen  as  having  had  been  deployed  without  sufficient  interaction  between  the 
different  tools,  and  this  weakness  also  arose  in  the  communication  aspects  of  the 
entrepreneurship support actions. The EU Open for Business Campaign was, however, an 
attempt at raising awareness of SMEs on the opportunities of the Single Market and on the 
EU networks and tools available for them for areas such as intellectual property, access to 
finance,  international  trade  and  the  single  market.280  Other  recent  evidence  suggest  that 
some  actions  are  well  signposted  to  other  actions  offering  support.  For  instance,  EYE 
participants are offered induction training before the exchange, and receive information on 
EEN and other SME support schemes. There are also sessions at EEN and EYE meetings 
on  synergies  and  the  EYE  website  has  a  section  on  other  SME  support  actions,  other 
relevant programmes and projects.281 This would suggest that work is on-going to highlight 
the synergies. 

There was a fragmentation of smaller actions which lacked a strong thematic link to 
other COSME initiatives and its overarching objectives. A number of smaller actions 
featured  weak  alignment  with the  overall  goals  of the  programme,  such as the  Study  on 
development of a European Food Price Indicator along the value chain (Work Programme 
2019)282 and payments for participating international study groups for specific sectors (Work 
Programme  2014).  Some  pilot  actions  did  not  foresee  any  follow  up  and  were  therefore 
perceived as a “one-off” by stakeholders. There were also other small actions which did not 
receive  many  project  applications  due  to  the  very  limited  budget  offered  (e.g.  EDEN 
European Excellence Destination initiative). In most cases, although these smaller actions 
delivered the planned outputs (in terms of studies, events, trainings and other products) as 

279 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
280 COSME monitoring reports 2019 and 2020. 
281 Relevant programmes and projects - Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu) 
282 As indicated in the 2019 COSME Monitoring Report, under-performance issues were identified in relation 
to this study and thus, the price paid for this assignment by the contracting authority was reduced. 

151 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

shown  in  the  monitoring  data,  but  it  is  not  clear  to  what  extent  and  how  these  have 
contributed to the COSME’s main objectives. 

4.4.2.  External coherence 

COSME was designed and implemented as the only programme exclusively focused 
on SMEs of all kinds. Whilst COSME provided important support for SMEs across many 
different  sectors,  a  number  of  other  EU  programmes  also  provided  financial  support  to 
facilitate growth. SMEs were therefore also beneficiaries of programmes being implemented 
in parallel. 

4.4.2.1.  Access to finance 

There is evidence of synergies between the COSME Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) 
and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) SME Window. The EFSI came 
as a much-needed complement to the initial LGF allocation. However, the EFG and EFSI 
equity instruments were already found to be overlapping in COSME interim evaluation, with 
the  latter  potentially  having  a  “cannibalising”  effect.  Interviews  with  beneficiaries  and  the 
EIF indicated that the EFSI is more attractive than other instruments because it is “cheaper 
and support has a longer tenure”.283 To address this overlap and competition between the 
two  instruments,  an  order  of  priority  was  established whereby  the  EIF  was asked to  first 
absorb the investment capacity available under EFSI before making use of EFG resources 
for investments taking place in EU Member States (eligible investments in funds operating 
in non-EU participating countries were to continue under the EFG). According to the 2020 
COSME  Monitoring  Report,  the  demand  for  equity  within  the  EU  could  be  met  entirely 
through  EFSI  resources;  leaving  COSME  EFG  resources  to  cover  the  (relatively  low) 
demand from non-EU participating countries. 

There is limited evidence of overlap between the LGF/EFG and financial instruments 
implemented  with  support  from  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(ESIF).  The  risk  of  such  an  overlap  was  raised  in  the  interim  evaluation  of  COSME. 
However,  the  pan-EU  nature  of  the  LGF/EFG  makes  them  distinct  from  financial 
instruments supported by the ESIF, which are only implemented in the national or regional 
territories  covered  by  the  relevant  programmes.  This  territorial  focus  can  provide  an 
advantage  over the  COSME  instruments  by  allowing  the  customisation of  instruments to 
national  or  regional  circumstances  but  does  lead  to  a  fragmented  pattern  of  provision. 
Moreover, the surveys of financial intermediaries and SME beneficiaries contain evidence 
that the COSME instruments provide SMEs with access to finance that would not otherwise 
be available to them or would only be available on less favourable terms and conditions. 
Thus,  the  instruments  supported  by  COSME  and  by  the  ESIF  should  be  seen  as 
complementary,  given  that  they  do  not  target  the  same  maturity  of  companies,  as 
companies targeted by PE/VC funds typically are not yet able to attract debt. 

Some overlaps may have occurred in regions where ESIF managing authorities had 
designed  guarantee  facilities  with  similar  risk  levels  for  SME  financing.  This 
instruments  where 
coexistence  may  have  created  competition  between 
intermediaries  chose  the  most  advantageous  option  based  on  their  preferences. 
Nonetheless,  financial  intermediaries  underscored  the  point  that  there  is  a  distinct 
advantage  in  the  financial  products  supported  by  COSME,  because  of  their  lack  of 
geographic  restrictions.  Consequently,  partner  banks  found  it  easier  to  construct  a 
compatible portfolio, resulting in high and rapid absorption rates. Moreover, while financial 

the  two 

283 The Expansion and Growth Window under the EFSI Equity instrument has largely the same investment 
focus as the COSME EFG. However, the COSME EFG is broader in geographic scope as it can also invest in 
third countries participating in COSME.  

152 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

instruments supported by the ERDF were prevalent in certain Member States and regions, 
others made primary or exclusive use of COSME funding to support SMEs. 

Coherence between COSME and Horizon 2020 financial instruments is strong. This 
final evaluation validates the preliminary finding of the interim evaluation, which found that 
the EFG and InnovFin equity instruments were complementary, with the EFG focusing on 
funds investing in SMEs in the expansion and growth stage and InnovFin Equity focusing 
on  funds  investing  in  early-stage  companies  (pre-seed,  seed,  start-up  phase)  and  small 
midcaps that are RDI-driven. Regarding the LGF, there was no overlap with the financial 
instruments  provided  by  Horizon  2020.  The  loans  provided  by  InnovFin  were  larger  and 
targeted to SMEs pursuing innovation, whereas the LGF loans targeted the general SME 
population and were not tied to specific purposes. 

COSME LGF financial instruments and national access-to-finance programmes were, 
in some cases, overlapping and competing against each other. The COSME interim 
evaluation raised some concerns that the very favourable terms and conditions of the LGF 
could  have  displaced  national  guarantee  programmes.  However,  at  the  same  time,  the 
evaluators  considered  that  this  overlap  was  judged  to  be  complementary  rather  than 
duplicative given the significant demand for credit among SMEs, suggesting that there were 
difficulties  in  obtaining  loan  finance  without  guarantees  being  in  place.284  Interviews  with 
financial  intermediaries confirmed  that,  compared  to  national  programmes,  the  LGF  was 
offered at better terms and conditions for them and their SME clients. However, they also 
pointed out that the national public guarantee facilities were used to complement the LGF 
offer to target different types of SME, especially those seeking larger loan amounts. 

4.4.2.2.  Enterprise Europe Network 

EEN members and SME beneficiaries report synergies between the EEN services and 
business  support  services  offered  by  Member  States.  This  was  confirmed  by  the 
majority of EEN members (67%, 39/58) responding to the survey for this final evaluation 
(with 33%, 19/58 agreeing to a great extent and 34%, 20/58 to some extent). It was also 
confirmed by a number of SME beneficiaries of the EEN in their qualitative responses to 
open questions in the survey. The majority of EEN members (61%, 35/58) also reported 
complementarity with the other business support services offered by the programme such 
as  Your  Europe  Business  portal  and  network,  SME  internationalisation  portal,  cluster 
networks and EYE (with 21%, 12/58 to a great extent and 40%, 23/58 to some extent). 

There  was  a  high  level  of  synergies  and  complementarity  between  EEN  and 
innovation support activities funded through the Horizon 2020 programme (H2020). 
This included the SME Instrument where the EEN acted as an intermediary between SMEs 
and those involved in the coaching scheme, but also the “Innovation in SMEs” (INNOSUP) 
programme,  which  offered  highly  specialised  support  services  aiming  to  complement 
existing national and regional support initiatives.285 This finding was confirmed by the desk 
research  and interviews undertaken  for this final  evaluation. Whereas  H2020  funded  the 
testing of new approaches for better innovation support through funding opportunities for 
innovation  actors  across  the  EU,  for  instance,  through  cross-sectoral  SME  projects,  the 
EEN focused on entry-level innovation awareness support and innovation capacity building 
(innovation  audits  and  strategy,  advice  on  IPR,  technology  and  innovation  brokerage 
services and advice on technology marketing). H2020 also made available EUR 10 million 
of funding for EEN partners to provide European Innovation Council (EIC) beneficiaries with 
support  to  implement  their  projects  and  assist  innovative  companies  in  enhancing  their 
innovation  management  capacities.286  The  EEN  members  interviewed  for  this  study 

284 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COSME 2014-2020 Programme 
for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 2019 Monitoring Report. Available here: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0527. 
285 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
286 Monitoring fiche COSME EEN grants 2020. 

153 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

confirmed  that  they  signposted  clients  and  collaborated  with  Horizon  2020  NCPs,  for 
example by organising joint events. 

The  EEN  provides  information  and  advisory  services  to  SMEs  to  identify  relevant 
funding  opportunities  and  support  services  offered  by  other  EU  programmes.  The 
EEN  signposted  SMEs  towards  other  EU  funding  opportunities,  most  notably  those 
supported  by  Horizon  2020,  the  EIC  or  ERDF,  among  others.  The  EEN  members 
interviewed for this final evaluation confirmed that they signposted clients towards services 
provided by Horizon 2020 NCPs, ERDF, Interreg projects, EURES, Europe Direct centres, 
clusters and Digital Innovation Hubs. The ERDF provides very significant funding for SME 
support services in many national or regional territories, depending on the priorities of each 
operational programmes. However, EEN services are generally distinct from such services 
by  providing  reasonably  consistent  coverage  across  EU-27  and  beyond,  whereas  those 
funded by ERDF tend to operate only in the relevant national or regional territories. 

The design of the EEN helps ensure coherence with other support services offered 
to SMEs. The EEN calls for the 2014-20 financial period required that EEN services should 
be embedded in national regional and local support environments and seek synergies with 
existing  actions.  During  the  application  process,  EEN  members  had  to  detail  how  they 
planned  to  ensure  coherence  and  integrate  their  services  by  collaborating  with  other 
organisations  in  their  region.  Indeed,  EEN  members  were  often  embedded  in  the  local 
environment  and  reported  seeking  complementarity  with  existing  services  at  local  level 
when  defining  their  EEN  service  offering  (prioritising  services  not  yet  available  in  their 
regions). They also reported signposting to or organising joint events or activities with other 
stakeholders providing services to SMEs in the region, such as ministries, municipalities, 
chambers of commerce, EU info centres, IPR specialists, etc.287  

Notwithstanding this, there is scope to better integrate EEN services into the wider 
support for SMEs. While many EEN members are key regional players in business and 
innovation support ecosystems, due to the nature of their host organisations, the Interim 
evaluation of COSME highlighted a need to strengthen the regional integration of EEN, and 
improve the visibility of the EEN and the opportunities it provides.288 Following the interim 
evaluation of COSME, further efforts were done to better integrate EEN at regional level, in 
particular by strengthening EEN’s cooperation with regional authorities dealing with ERDF 
funding. It should be noted that according to a 2019 survey with 167 EEN partners, 15% of 
EEN  members  are  also  managing  authorities  of  ERDF  programmes,  25%  act  as 
intermediary  bodies,  and  40%  of  EEN  members  are  involved  in  monitoring  the 
implementation of operational programmes.289 One EEN member interviewed for this final 
evaluation  explained  that  alignment  of  the  goals  of  the  EEN  with  national  or  regional 
priorities had been achieved through meetings of the national advisory board of EEN, where 
EEN  members  held  discussions  with  Ministries  and  experts  on  the  results  achieved, 
challenges and future needs. Many EEN consortia had regional stakeholder groups. 

4.4.2.3. 

Improving framework conditions and competitiveness 

There  are  no  significant  overlaps  between  COSME  actions  supporting  SME 
internationalisation  and  support  offered  by  Horizon  2020.  However,  there  are  sub-
programmes within Horizon 2020 that indirectly support SME internationalisation.  

Stakeholders  confirm  that  the  clusters  actions  are  coherent  with  other  EU 
programmes.  Both  the  2021  evaluation  of  Clusters  Go  International  and  the  survey  of 
stakeholders  for  this  study  found  evidence  of  external  coherence  with  other  community 
programmes. In the 2021 evaluation, the Horizon 2020 programme was seen as coherent 

287 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
288 Ibid. 
289 European Commission. 2020. Enterprise Europe Network enriching ERDF Programmes, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0d489f6-837a-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1  

154 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

with the European Cluster Partnership for Internationalisation (ESCP-4i) ‘to a great extent’ 
by  36%  of  respondents,  as  was  the  Smart  Specialisation  Platform  for  Industrial 
Modernisation (22%). The stakeholder survey for this study found that a good number  of 
respondents benefited from other EU programme support: Horizon 2020 (77%), INTERREG 
(41%), Erasmus (41%), ERDF (27%), LIFE (14%) and a handful of others. 

The COSME tourism actions, by their unique focus on tourism SMEs, complement 
other forms of EU support for tourism. The European Commission website provides a 
list of 17 EU programmes that offer the possibility of support for the tourism sector, such as 
EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, and Horizon Europe.290 However, whilst support for tourism is eligible 
under  these  programmes  (subject  to  their  priorities,  eligibility  criteria,  etc.),  these 
programmes mostly  do not  explicitly  target  the tourism  sector.  The  COSME  actions thus 
complement  these  other  programmes  through  the  specific  focus  on  supporting  the 
competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  tourism  SMES,  as  evidenced  by  the  127  projects 
supported  between  2014-2020.291  COSME  also  offers  the  potential  to  inform  other  EU 
programmes with the potential support tourism through support for studies, such as those 
on  resilience,  digitalisation  and  sustainability.292  Moreover,  the  COSME  tourism  actions 
helped inspire a flash Eurobarometer on tourism which was undertaken in 2021.293 

There  is  some  evidence  of  weak  coherence  between  public  procurement  actions 
within  COSME  and  other  EU  actions  in  this  field.  The  desk  research  drawing  on 
monitoring  data  has  identified  issues  with  the  specific  concept  of  some  actions. 
Fragmentation of service delivery has happened because similar actions were envisaged 
and  implemented  by  different  Commission  services,  and  this  has  prevented  potential 
applicants  from  concentrating  their  efforts.  In  addition,  the  monitoring  fiche  of  the  action 
GRO-SME-20-B-05  indicated  that  the  public  sector  finds  it  challenging  to  immediately 
respond  to  the  initiatives  initiated  by  the  Commission  in  this  area  due  to  the  extensive 
financial and legal planning required to conduct public procurement in general and public 
procurement aiming to fund innovation in particular.294 

4.4.2.4.  EYE and other actions for entrepreneurship 

Overall, the EYE was coherent with a number of EU policy goals and strategies, both 
longstanding  objectives  and  more  recent  policy  developments.  For  instance,  the 
interim evaluation of COSME found that the aims of the EYE were complementary to the 
Green  paper  on  entrepreneurship  (2003),  the  Small  Business  Act  for  Europe  (2008), 
Thinking  Big  for  Small  Businesses  (2011),  the  Communication  on  Rethinking  Education 
(2012), the Entrepreneurial Action Plan 2020 (2013), or the New Skills Agenda for Europe 
(2016).295 Moreover, the EYE was found to have responded particularly well to the needs 
set out in the Small Business Act for Europe (2008). 

EYE has not only been additional to, but also synergistic with efforts undertaken at 
a  national,  regional  and  local  level.  There  are  similarities  but  no  obvious  overlaps 
between  COSME  support  for  entrepreneurship  and  other  initiatives  in  the  Commission's 
Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. The interim evaluation of COSME found assessment 
of coherence of COSME support for entrepreneurship, though, depends on a specific sub-
sector in a broader European business landscape. In this context, in some emerging areas, 
such  as  migrant  entrepreneurship,  EYE,  as  a  part  of  a  broader  COSME  support  for 

290 European Commission. 2023. Guide on EU funding for tourism, https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/tourism/eu-funding-and-businesses/funding-guide_en.  
291 European Commission. 2021. COSME: Seven years supporting the growth of EU Tourism, 
https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/news/cosme-seven-years-supporting-growth-eu-tourism-2021-05-31_en.  
292 GRO/SME/20/C/081 – Organisation of a number of events - Very low value contract – Support to the 
stakeholder consultation process for preparing transition pathway for tourism on the topic of Resilience, 
Digitalization and Sustainability.  
293 GRO/SME/20/F/116 - Eurobarometer Tourism 2020.  
294 Co-financing of Public Procurement of Innovation GRO-SME-20-B-05. 
295 Ibid.  

155 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

entrepreneurship,  paved  the  way  forward,  while  in  more  established  areas  of  support  to 
entrepreneurship  it  complemented  the  activities  already  in  place.296  The  programme 
contributed  to  the  Single  Market  Strategy  and  enabled  SMEs  to  capitalise  on  the 
opportunities afforded by the EU’s internal market.297 Whilst the cross-border dimension of 
EYE remains highly relevant to many new entrepreneurs and remains a key value added of 
the sub-programme, equally, not all entrepreneurs want to spend time in another Member 
State,  which is  a  key  distinction between  EYE  and  corresponding  national  schemes  that 
supported entrepreneurship. 

There was also a COSME action for Enhancing Digital and Entrepreneurial competences 
in  Girls  and  Women.  According  to  the  monitoring  fiche  for  this  initiative,  it  supported 
implementation  of  the  SME  Strategy,  the  new  Skills  Agenda,  and  the  European  Digital 
Education Action Plan.298 

4.5.  EU Added Value 

According to the Better Regulation Guidelines, “EU added value looks for changes that are 
due  to  the  EU  intervention,  over  and  above  what  could reasonably  have  been  expected 
from national actions by the Member States”.299 In this context, financial additionality is also 
an aspect of European added value. The Guidelines go on to note that the evaluation of EU 
added value brings together the findings of the other criteria, presenting the arguments on 
causality and drawing conclusions.  

EU Added Value Questions 

•  How did COSME and its measures deliver added value, compared to what could have been 

achieved at merely a national, regional and/or local level? 

•  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the  Programme  and  its  measures  continue  to 

require action at EU level? 

4.5.1.  Access to finance 

The  LGF  has  offered  additionality  compared  to  other  sources  of  financing.  Of  the 
SMEs responding to the survey of final beneficiaries of loan guarantees undertaken for this 
final evaluation, only 12% (13) reported that, in the absence of EU-guaranteed financing, 
they would have obtained the same amount of financing elsewhere, with the same or similar 
terms and conditions. One may argue that the finance provided by the EIB may have had 
similar effects, but, as highlighted in section 3.2.1.1, EIB funding concentrated in a very few 
countries. 

The  LGF  has  filled  a  gap  in  financing  for  some  SMEs  that  would  not  have  been 
entirely filled by other sources of finance. Of the SMEs responding to the survey of final 
beneficiaries  of  loan  guarantees,  just  less  than  half  (46%)  would  not  have  obtained  the 
same level of financing in the absence of EU-guaranteed financing. This includes 36% that 
would have received a smaller amount of financing and 10% that would have received no 
financing at all. This form of EU added value was also confirmed by the interim evaluation. 
Of the SME beneficiaries surveyed in 2017, most relied on LGF financing because other 
options were either unavailable or did not cover the full amount needed. The LGF filled the 

296 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
297 Ibid.  
298 Monitoring Fiche. GRO/SME/20/D/032 Enhancing Digital and Entrepreneurial competences in Girls and 
Women. 
299 European Commission. 2023. Better Regulation Toolbox, p. 411. 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

gap  where  similar  national  or  regional  instruments  were  lacking.300  By  providing  financial 
leverage, COSME allowed national and regional intermediaries to support a larger number 
of  enterprises  than  they  would  be  able  to  on  their  own.  Combining  national  support 
programmes with the LGF led to even higher leverage, particularly in smaller markets. 

The LGF has provided more favourable financing for SMEs than would otherwise be 
available. Of the SMEs responding to the survey of final beneficiaries of loan guarantees 
and who would have obtained the same amount elsewhere (32), the majority reported that 
those alternative sources of financing were less favourable than the EU financing, i.e. in 
relation to overall terms and conditions. 

Most of the respondents to the multiple-choice question (52%, 16) confirmed that the overall 
terms and conditions of the alternative funding would have been a little worse (39%, 12) or 
much worse (13%, 4) as compared to the EU-guaranteed financing. This would also have 
been the case for the collateral requirements and the interest rate reported by respectively 
55% (17) and 61% (19) of the respondents as a little worse or much worse than the EU-
guaranteed  financing.  Conversely,  a  smaller  proportion  of  respondents  stated  that  the 
interest rate (29%, 9), the repayment period (35%, 11), or the overall terms and conditions 
(35%, 11) would have been slightly or much more favourable under the alternative financing 
as compared to the EU-guaranteed financing.  

Intermediaries  report  that  the  LGF  has  provided  more  favourable  financing  than 
would  otherwise  be  available.  The  terms  and  conditions  of  the  LGF  were  generally 
regarded  as  more  favourable  by  the  financial  intermediaries  interviewed,  compared  with 
those  offered  by  similar  national  programmes.  Furthermore,  even  when  compared  to 
national  programmes  that  had  comparable  or  better  contract  conditions,  such  as  a 
guarantee  offered  free  of  charge  and  without  a  cap  rate,  COSME  remained  more 
advantageous.  This  was  primarily  due to  its  agile  implementation framework,  which  was 
based  on  a  delegated  management  system.  In  contrast,  many  national  guarantee 
programmes often required individual loan authorisation before disbursement, making them 
less  suitable  for  smaller  loans  and  rendering  them  unusable  for  leasing  companies. 
Consequently,  financial  intermediaries  were  leveraging  the  complementarities  between 
their domestic guarantee schemes and the LGF. 

The  EFG  provides  more  favourable  and  less  fragmented  financing  than  would 
otherwise  be  available.  The fund managers  consulted  as  part  of  the  interim  evaluation 
agreed that action at EU level is more efficient and indeed crucial for the European equity 
market to gain maturity. They also claimed that EU level action “allows a wider scope and 
range of support than national and regional programmes could realise”. These findings are 
confirmed by fund managers interviewed for this evaluation. They also build on the added 
value offered by the High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF) operated by the EIP 
during  2007-13;  the  ex  post  evaluation  found  that  the  GIF  helped  leverage  other 
investments and also offered an important cross-border dimension. Overall, the EU equity 
ecosystem is learning, growing and maturing, but not fast enough and still lagging behind 
the  US.  The  EFG  has  played  a  key  role  in  developing  the  ecosystem  thanks  to  its  pan-
European perspective which helped to overcome the fragmentation of the European equity 
market. Furthermore, interviewees emphasised that it is likely that without the EFG the first-
time teams that were supported would not have come into existence. SMEs surveyed in the 
interim  evaluation  indicated  that  in  the  absence  of  EFG  financing,  they  would  have 
considered  alternative  sources  of  equity  financing;  however,  without  EFG  financing  they 
would expect to have achieved a lower growth rate. One SME interview for this evaluation 
confirmed  that the  company  would not  have been capable of  restructuring and surviving 
without the EFG intervention.  

300 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

4.5.2.  Enterprise  Europe  Network  and  other  business  support 

services 

Some elements of EEN services for SMEs are not necessarily different in essence to those 
provided  by  national  actions  (for  example,  advice  on  how  to  access  national  or  regional 
funding, but in the case of EEN, this is part of a wider service to orient SMEs towards the 
most  suitable  source  of  funding  including  European  funding.  Another  example  could  be 
advice on national funding combined with strategic advice to the same business for entering 
new markets abroad). The value added of EEN in these cases is its holistic service package. 
Some  services  with  a  purely  national  dimension,  contribute  to  the  overall  objective  of 
helping the business to become internationally competitive and to move into new markets 
abroad. Furthermore, EEN services are provided on a greater scale, with greater visibility, 
in a less fragmented way and with a greater international dimension, than would otherwise 
be the case. This would make the impacts larger, also enhanced by the facilitation of cross-
border partnerships and knowledge exchange. 

The EEN has a clear EU added value stemming from the scale and quality of their 
services, their cross-border nature in a single market context and the reciprocity they 
have  created  in  sharing  knowledge,  expertise,  resources,  and  advisory  support 
across EEN members. The EEN members provided effective cross-border support thanks 
to a comprehensive network coverage within the EU-27 and third countries, their connection 
with other members and the uniformity of the types of services provided across countries. 
They also provide specialist expertise that might not otherwise be available (especially in 
smaller Member States), through the pooling of knowledge across EEN members. 

EEN  services  offer  a  transnational  and  cross-border  dimension,  which  would  not 
otherwise be offered by national or regional services. The EEN services also add value 
to the non-EEN services of their host organisations through the synergies with their EEN 
work. In the interim evaluation of COSME, the majority of EEN members (87%) indicated 
that EU level support was ‘very important’. As opposed to only national support, almost half 
(48%) of client SMEs reported that the EEN is ‘very important’.301 In the survey conducted 
for the present study, 79% (46/58) of EEN members consider that during the COSME period 
it was important (‘to a great extent’) for SMEs to have EU-level support services such as 
those provided by the EEN as opposed to (only) national level support. A majority of SME 
clients (91%, 31/34) agreed that it was very important (21/34) or fairly important (10/34) to 
benefit from the EEN services as opposed to (only) national level support. 

The EEN introduced certain services that were not otherwise available at national or 
regional level. According to EEN members consulted via the survey and interviews for this 
final evaluation, the EEN added value to the host organisations, expanding their network 
and knowledge, for example through the working groups and the brokerage events. Whilst 
there  are  many  different  types  of  national  and  regional  business  and  innovation  support 
providers  other  than  the  EEN,  the  network  represents  the  largest  network  of  this  type 
globally. Moreover, particular EU added value stems from having a strong focus on issues 
with a cross-border nature, such as SME internationalisation, although some services cover 
issues  relevant  to  SMEs  in  both  domestic  and  international  markets,  such  as  digital 
transformation and sustainability. In the present evaluation survey, EEN members reported 
that  they  were  especially  well  supported  by  the  EEN  Network  in  terms  of  training, 
monitoring/reporting and contractual management. 

The EEN provides SMEs with free-of-charge access to professional services that they 
would not otherwise be able to afford. According to EEN members interviewed for this 
final evaluation, the main EU added value of the EEN is in providing access to professional 
advice covering areas such as law, finance, business development and internationalisation. This 

301 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 

158 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

builds on the positive performance identified by the ex post evaluation of the EIP (2007-13), 
which  found  that  SME  clients  were  benefitting  from  services  that  were  not  otherwise 
available or affordable to them. 

The EU added value of the EEN is not fully recognised by many of its client SMEs. 
Whilst SMEs benefit from the EEN services across EU-27 and beyond, many are not always 
fully  aware  that  these  are  EU  services,  especially  since  the  EEN  members  are  often 
business  organisations  with  a  high  profile  in  their  own  regions.  For  example,  a  previous 
evaluation cites a 2015 Flash Eurobarometer, which found that only 8% of the EU’s SME 
population were aware of EEN’s existence at that time.302 All EEN members interviewed for 
this final evaluation reported that they clearly communicate to SME clients that the service 
is EU co-financed. At the very least, this involves displaying the EU logo and providing a 
description of the EEN on websites. Some websites also explicitly state that the EEN is co-
financed  under  COSME.303  However,  the  visibility  requirements  appear  not  to  be 
systematically met, as the Court of Auditors found that only ten of the 30 websites examined 
displayed  the  EEN  logo  and  a  link  to  EEN  services  on  their  homepage.304  Some  EEN 
members also reported that they verbally inform clients about the EU co-financing of the 
service.  However,  some  of  the  interviewed  EEN  members  reported  that  SMEs  primarily 
recognise  the  service  provider  and  do  not  always  realise  or  remember  that  the  service 
provision  is  ultimately  co-funded  by  the  EU.  Of  the  SME  beneficiaries  responding  to  the 
survey,  nearly  half  (47%,  16/34)  reported  that  their  understanding  of  the  European 
Commission and its policies improved to a great extent thanks to the EEN services received 
and  26%  (9/34)  to  some  extent,  especially  through  the  information  services  and  by 
answering  surveys  related  to  different  aspects  of  EU  legislation  with  the  help  of  EEN 
advisors. 

A discontinuation of the EEN would result in considerable loss of EU added value in 
terms of the benefits gained by SMEs. If their organisations were to stop participating in 
the  EEN,  EEN  members  responding  to  the  survey  pointed  to  several  disadvantages, 
including  a  loss  of  network  contacts  which  could  result  in  fewer  opportunities  for  the 
internationalisation of local SMEs and less knowledge sharing with other EEN partners and 
EISMEA, difficulty in providing in-depth advisory services to SMEs for free, and a lack of 
capacity to provide support services on EU regulations, EU funding and innovation support. 
This would result in a reduced visibility for the organisation, a decrease in SME awareness 
of EU funding opportunities and a weaker implementation of EU political goals relating to 
regional economic development and the innovation ecosystem. One example of the loss of 
EU added value was provided by an interview with a former EEN member from a non-EU 
Member  State;  since  their  government  had  not  yet  ratified  the  SMP  agreement,  the 
consortium was no longer able to offer EEN activities and instead offered a lower level of 
service to SMEs. 

4.5.3. 

 Improve Framework Conditions and Competitiveness 

EU added value is offered by the tourism actions providing a better understanding of 
the development of the sector and a greater contribution to raising its profile than is 
offered  by  national  actions.  For  example,  COSME  actions  that  supported  innovation 
pointed to the need to assist the tourism ecosystem at an EU level, especially to bring about 
digital transition in a sector that had been somewhat slower than other sectors in embracing 

302 European Commission. 2015. Final evaluation of the impact of the Enterprise Europe Network 2008-2014, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d4cf03ed-972c-11e5-983e-01aa75ed71a1.  
303 For examples, see: https://www.localenterprise.ie/Carlow/Start-or-Grow-your-Business/Enterprise-Europe-
Network/  
304 European Court of Auditors. 2022. Special report 07/2022: SME internationalisation instruments - A large 
number of support actions but not fully coherent or coordinated, 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?did=61072.  

159 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

the opportunities afforded by digitalisation.305 Reports and studies developed through EU 
RTD  framework  programme  funding306  and  Eurobarometer307  also  suggested  that  the 
possibility to use a larger sample size for studies carried out at an EU level exposed trends 
at a more macro level more clearly than would have been possible at a national or regional 
scale.  The  competition  for  European  Capital  of  Smart  Tourism308  has  also  delivered  EU 
added  value  as  this  initiative  brings  together  cities  within  the  EU  and  pools  resources 
allowing best practice to be shared. The communication and events organised through this 
action also attract an additional flow of visitors. 

The clusters actions offer EU added value by providing a more co-ordinated and pan-
European approach to the relevant sectors than would be offered by national actions 
alone.  For  example,  the  2021  evaluation  of  Clusters  Go  International  found  that  cluster 
organisations consider the EU Cluster Partnerships for going international support (ESCP-
4i)  unique  in  terms  of  offering  a  cross-regional  and  cross-sectoral  EU  approach  to 
developing market access for SMEs in third countries. By approaching such markets as a 
group, they attained much more of a presence and greater visibility than would have been 
the case if they had attempted this individually, or as single Member States. This allowed 
them to access more networks and international matchmaking opportunities. All 22 cluster 
participants who responded to the targeted survey for this final evaluation reported that it 
was  important  for  their  organisation  to  receive  EU  support  (as  opposed  to  national  or 
regional support only), including 18 (82%) who stated it was very important. The same 22 
participants  also  reported  that  COSME  funded  actions  would  not  have  otherwise  been 
funded,  of  which  17  who  reported  this  was  the  case  “to  a  great  extent”  and  5  “to  some 
extent”. 

Social  economy  actions  offered  EU  added  value  through  their  international  scope 
and  vision.  Given  the  international  aspect  of  the  actions  it  was  possible  to  expand  the 
stakeholders' engagement, widen SMEs networks, and share best practice across different 
Member States. 

Small actions in the thematic area of Framework Conditions have offered a stronger 
pan-EU focus on the issues in question. For example, a dashboard for monitoring actions 
for  the  construction  sector  under  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans309 provided  a 
comparison  between  Member  States  that  revealed  where  there  were  differences  or 
potential for improvement. This action served as a motor of change in the domains of climate 
action,  energy  efficiency,  digitalisation,  and  mobility.  Moreover,  the  Better  Regulation 
actions310 supported the further development of consultation tools for gathering stakeholder 
feedback (a mandatory part of the process of preparing EU legislative proposals). 

4.5.4.  EYE and other actions for entrepreneurship 

The  EYE  offers  transnational  mobility  possibilities  for  entrepreneurs  that  are  not 
otherwise  available.  Whilst  the  Member  States  offer  a  wide  range  of  support  for 
entrepreneurs, there are few, if any, national programmes supporting transnational mobility 
and none operating at the scale and with the international profile of the EYE. For example, 
the interim evaluation of COSME emphasised that EYE operated on a transnational level, 

305 GRO/SME/20/C/07 (TOURINN) - Boosting the uptake of digitalisation, innovation and new technologies in 
tourism through transnational cooperation and capacity building.  
306 GRO/SME/20/C/081 – Organisation of a number of events - Very low value contract – Support to the 
stakeholder consultation process for preparing transition pathway for tourism on the topic of Resilience, 
Digitalization and Sustainability. 
307 GRO/SME/20/F/116 - Eurobarometer Tourism 2020. 
308 GRO/SME/20/C/06 - European Capital of Smart Tourism - Fostering smart tourism solutions in EU 
destinations through the European Capital of Smart Tourism. 
309 GRO/SME/20/F/103 - Initiatives for a Built environment - FR: 11554. 
310 GRO/SME/20/C/11 - Better Regulation: Engaging SMEs and Stakeholders on policy design and 
implementation / strengthening of the Better Regulation Agenda. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

providing support to entrepreneurs, and work of this kind, carried out on such a scale would 
not have been possible in initiatives implemented at a national or regional level. It was also 
emphasised that only through the implementation of policy interventions with the scale and 
scope of the EYE, would it be possible “to make inroads into dealing with the relatively low 
levels of entrepreneurial capacity in Europe”.311 

The EYE allowed COSME to invest in training and skills enhancement opportunities, 
and such investments received limited funding from other COSME actions.312 

The  EYE  also  provided  a  range  of  business  benefits  that  would  not  have  been 
realised in the absence of the programme. For example, 64% (558/866) entrepreneurs 
responding  to  the  survey  reported  that  the  EYE  helped  identify  potential  partners  or 
collaborators, 41% (357/866) found potential suppliers and 39% (335/866) of them identified 
potential buyers thanks to their involvement in EYE. 

The EYE provided added value for host entrepreneurs but there is scope for this to 
be  strengthened.  Importantly,  though,  whether  a  given  type  of  added  value  could  be 
generated thanks to EYE depended also on the type of business activity carried out by the 
host (as, for example, expansion of sales to new countries could not in all cases be seen 
as an aim relevant to a specific business).  

Other  examples  of  projects  benefitting  entrepreneurship  include  those  supporting  the 
collaboration  and  peer  learning  between  the  European  Entrepreneurial  Regions.313  Their 
added value stemmed from the fact that these projects fostered the exchange and transfer 
of entrepreneurial expertise possibly missing in certain EU regions, but also enhanced joint 
regional capacities to foster development of more effective policies and helped to build a 
critical mass of specialised services and funding across individual ecosystems.314 

311 European Commission. 2017. Interim Evaluation of the COSME programme. 
312 Ibid. 
313 European Committee of Regions. 2022. Summary of the EER final workshop of the COSME project on 
Connecting entrepreneurial ecosystems. 
314 Monitoring Fiche, fostering collaboration through mapping, analysing and interlinking European 
Entrepreneurial Regions – Phase II (30_GRO-SME-20-C-01 F-EER II).  

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

5. Conclusions 

COSME was highly relevant at the time that it was launched. SMEs faced challenges 
in  accessing  finance,  barriers  in  accessing  markets  and  global  value  chains  and  a  high 
administrative and regulatory burden. Weaknesses in the EU’s entrepreneurial culture also 
hindered SME creation and growth. 

COSME maintained its relevance by evolving to meet emerging challenges, changing 
beneficiary needs and new EU policy priorities. The programme management adjusted 
interventions to respond to challenges arising from COVID-19 and to give greater attention 
to  broader  EU  policy  priorities  such  as  the  green  and  digital  transition,  gender  equality, 
social cohesion and inclusion. 

A significant omission in programme planning was a coherent logical framework to 
explain how all actions would address specific needs and market failures coherently and 
contribute to the programme objectives and to broader EU policy priorities. 

COSME  has  generated  impact  against  all  four  specific  objectives  set  out  in  the 
Regulation: 

• 

• 

• 

Improved access both to loan financing and to equity financing for SMEs (SO1). The 
LGF  enabled  865,387  SMEs  to  receive  financing  that  some  would  not  have 
otherwise received and that others would only have received at on less favourable 
terms  conditions.  Improvements  in  access  were  particularly  enjoyed  by  SMEs 
rates,  such  as  sole  proprietorships, 
experiencing  higher 
microenterprises,  and  start-ups.  The  EFG  enabled  564  investments  in 521  SMEs 
eligible under COSME. It also stimulated venture capital and private equity markets 
and allowed funds to increase the average size of their investments in SMEs. Access 
to  equity  finance  was  particularly  improved  in  countries  where  supply  was  less 
developed. 

rejection 

loan 

Improved  access  to  markets  for  SMEs  (SO2):  the  EEN  served  2.9  million  SME 
clients,  helping  many  to  expand  to  new  markets  or  develop  new  products  or 
services. Other  business  services  helping  SMEs to access  new markets  featured 
high  rates  of  user  satisfaction  (e.g.,  Your  Europe  business  portal,  Single  Digital 
Gateway, EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Co-operation, IPR Helpdesks). 

Improved  framework  conditions  for  competitiveness  and  sustainability  (SO3): 
clusters initiatives created better conditions for SMEs to create new networks and 
develop  new 
in 
internationalisation and stimulated cooperation agreements between EU companies 
and organisations  outside the  EU.  Framework conditions  have  been  improved  by 
the ECEP through facilitating cluster cooperation and enhancing management skills. 

ideas  with  different  partners,  enhanced  SMEs’  expertise 

•  Promoted  entrepreneurship  and  entrepreneurial  culture  (SO4):  the  EYE  has 
supported  entrepreneurial  skills  transfer  and  knowledge  exchange,  as  well  as  a 
stronger entrepreneurial culture through the continued contacts and collaborations 
between  participating  entrepreneurs.  Other  actions  have  supported  a  stronger 
entrepreneurial through between networking and co-operation, in some cases with 
a particular focus on female entrepreneurship. 

COSME  has  generated  positive 
impacts  against  the  general  objective  of 
strengthening the competitiveness and sustainability of SMEs. SMEs receiving equity 
finance have grown in terms of employment, turnover, and total assets (although as noted 
in section 4.2.2.4, it is too early to definitively establish a causal link, given that most SMEs 
were  supported  from  2021).  Loan  financing  supported  the  long  term  continuity  and  life 
expectancy  of  SMEs  with  recipients  demonstrating  higher  survival  rates than  the  overall 
population of SMEs, although there is limited evidence that recipients have grown in terms 
of turnover, employment or total assets, in part due to the cap on loan size. SMEs served 

162 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

by the EEN report growth in turnover and employment. Experienced entrepreneurs report 
business benefits from hosting new entrepreneurs with support from EYE. Competitiveness 
and  sustainability  of  SMEs  has  also  been  indirectly  strengthened  by  improvements  in 
framework conditions through support for clusters. 

COSME has generated positive impact against the general objective of encouraging 
entrepreneurial  culture  and  promoting  the  creation  and  growth  of  SMEs. 
Entrepreneurs report increased entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and experience from their 
participation  in  the  EYE.  Most  new  entrepreneurs  report  an  intention  to  create  a  new 
business following their participation in EYE, although data is lacking on how many do in 
practice.  Entrepreneurial  culture  has  also  been  encouraged  through  a  range  of  actions, 
including in respect of female entrepreneurship and the social economy. 

COSME  would  have  benefitted  from  a  unified  and  comprehensive  monitoring  and 
reporting  system  with  clear  and  measurable  indicators  for  all  interventions.  While 
there is extensive information and monitoring data for the main actions (LGF, EFG, EEN, 
EYE),  the  monitoring  of  small  actions  focuses  primarily  on  financial  implementation, 
deliverables,  and  addressing  any  issues  encountered,  with  insufficient  attention  paid  to 
results and impacts. The involvement of multiple intermediary bodies further contributed to 
the fragmentation of the monitoring and reporting system. 

Levels  of  efficiency  in  programme  management  are  comparable  with  other  EU 
programmes and agencies. There was a high execution rate of the programme budget 
and  the  share  of  the  budget  devoted  to  administrative  expenditure  was  relatively  low, 
particularly  in the  latest  years.  Delegation  of  management  tasks  to  an  executive  agency 
offered  efficiency  savings.  Regular  monitoring  allowed  the  implementation  bodies  to 
reallocate funds between actions and respond to the challenges raised by COVID-19. More 
entrepreneurs were supported by the EYE and more SMEs were served by the EEN per 
€m of EU funding in the later years than in the early years reflecting the greater capacity in 
place. 

The beneficiaries of the EEN and EYE were positive about the proportionality of costs 
and  benefits,  as  experienced  by  them.  EEN  members,  their  SME  clients  and  the 
entrepreneurs within EYE reported that the benefits they gained exceeded the costs they 
incurred, the EU funding was sufficient for them to achieve the intended benefits and the 
administrative costs for them were proportionate. 

COSME demonstrated an adequate level of internal and external coherence but there 
is room for improvement. The LGF and EFG were complementary in providing different 
forms  of  financing.  Synergies  were  found  between  the  EEN  and  financial  support  and 
internationalisation  actions  and  efforts  were  made  to  leverage  complementarities  and  to 
minimise overlaps between COSME and other EU funds and programmes. However, there 
is  a  need  for  better  signposting  of  support  available  for  SMEs  and  entrepreneurs  and 
stronger links between actions at the operational level. 

COSME has offered EU added value above and beyond actions supported at national 
level: 

• 

• 

Improve access to finance (SO1): most SMEs reported that, in the absence of the LGF, 
they would have received financing at a lower level or on less favourable terms or not 
at all. Intermediaries were able to lend to more SMEs than they would otherwise have 
done.  Combining  national  support  with  the  LGF  increased  leverage,  particularly  in 
smaller  markets.  The  EFG  provided  more  favourable  and  less  fragmented  financing 
than  was  otherwise  available.  SMEs  served  by  the  LGF  and  EFG  were  less 
concentrated in certain countries than those served by other EIB instruments. 

Improve access to markets (SO2): EEN services offer a transnational and cross-border 
dimension,  which  would  not  otherwise  be  offered  by  national  services.  They  also 
introduced certain  services  that  were not  otherwise available at  national  level.  SMEs 
received free-of-charge access to professional services that some would not otherwise 

163 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

be able to afford. 

• 

Improve  framework  conditions  for  SME  competitiveness  and  sustainability  (SO3): 
tourism actions offered a better understanding of the sector and a greater contribution 
to  its  profile  than  national  actions  alone.  The  clusters  actions  provided  a  more  co-
ordinated  and  pan-European  approach  to  sectors  than  would  be  offered  by  national 
actions.  and they  have also  delivered  some  good  results  and impacts  (although final 
reporting  data  has  not  yet  been  received  for  all  projects  that  would  allow  further 
validation). Social economy actions offered an international scope, whilst small actions 
offered a pan-EU focus on the issues in question. 

•  Promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture (SO4): EYE offers transnational 
mobility  possibilities  that  were  not  otherwise  available  via  national  programmes  and 
provided  a  range  of  benefits  for  entrepreneurs  that  would  not  have  been  otherwise 
realised, including identifying partners, collaborators, suppliers and buyers. 

The EU “branding” offers greater international profile and prestige. In the case of the 
EYE,  its  prestige  and  profile  is  enhanced  by  drawing  on  the  long-established  and  highly 
valued Erasmus brand. In the case of the EEN, the branding is widely used and EU support 
is acknowledged, although there is scope to increase SMEs’ awareness that the services 
are supported by the EU. 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex  A:  Main  findings  from  the  COSME  interim 
evaluation 

The Interim Evaluation of the COSME Programme was undertaken in 2017. One of the key 
findings and conclusions was that COSME’s non-targeted, multi-action and multi-sectoral 
approach  allowed  European  SMEs  to  pursue  their  goal  of  greater  international 
competitiveness and growth. The strength of COSME lies in the use of intermediaries at 
national or regional level for the implementation of the programme actions, ensuring more 
proximity and direct access to SMEs. At the same time, the non-targeted approach of some 
COSME instruments (e.g. EEN) was reported to have hindered the achievement of sectoral 
competitiveness and of inclusive and sustainable growth. Furthermore, the evaluation noted 
that COSME had been performing reasonably well across each of its main strands, reaching 
around  230,000 final  beneficiaries,  with  approximately  140,000  SMEs  obtaining  loans  to 
finance their growth ambitions through the activities of the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF), 
and  a  comparable  number  of  SMEs  engaged  in  business  development  actions,  cross-
border  partnerships,  knowledge  exchange  etc.  The  limited  evidence  available during  the 
interim evaluation suggested that COSME would have a positive effect on its beneficiaries’ 
growth and employment, but a less significant impact on the international competitiveness 
of EU SMEs. Overall, COSME was found to be operating at a reasonable level of efficiency, 
although the cost-efficiency of COSME was reported to have been hampered by the large 
number of smaller actions. 

Main findings and recommendations from the interim evaluation of COSME 

Interim Evaluation of COSME – Main Findings 
•  The evaluation found that the COSME programme was highly relevant to EU citizens, thanks 
to  the  focus  on  fostering  economic  growth  and  the  commitment  to  supporting  any  or  all  of 
Europe’s  SMEs  in  their  pursuit  of  improved  competitiveness  and  growth;  it  is  more  limited 
when considering areas beyond the economic sphere. 

• 

In terms of effectiveness, COSME was performing reasonably effectively across each of its 
main  strands,  having  helped  around  140,000  SMEs  obtain  loans  to  finance  their  growth 
ambitions.  The  strength  of  COSME  was  found  to  lie  in  the  use  of  intermediaries  for  the 
implementation  of  the  programme.  However,  a  major  weakness  identified  was  the  lack  of 
capacity to respond effectively to EU policy objectives related to sectoral competitiveness and 
SME internationalisation. 

•  With  respect  to  efficiency,  COSME  was  found  to  be  operating  at  a  reasonable  level  of 
efficiency overall. The main element contributing to the efficiency of the delivery of COSME 
was  the  clarity  of  its  work  programme  descriptions,  leading  to  a  relatively  small  share  of 
ineligible proposals responding to the calls for grants. A key feature of the programme design 
was said to be uneven distribution of the budget across the different actions. Whilst there were 
important  arguments  in  favour  of  this  distribution,  some  actions  were  effectively  under 
resourced.  This  was  indicated  as  a  factor  which  reduced  the  potential  impact  produced  by 
smaller actions. 

•  On  the  coherence  dimension,  first  regarding  internal  coherence,  the  evaluation  noted  that 
efforts  were  increasingly  being  made  to  strengthen  the  coherence  and  degree  of 
complementarity  among  the  actions  funded  under  COSME.  Regarding  external  coherence 
with H2020, the evaluation found that it was based on a strict division of labour at the end of 
the previous Multiannual Framework. 

•  The evaluation found that COSME has a good level of European added value. While many 
national and regional initiatives seek to strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs, the scale of 
support through COSME and its availability to financial and business support intermediaries 
in every EU Member State are quite distinct and highly additional. 

165 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

A  number  of  recommendations  were  made  in  the  interim  evaluation  of  COSME.  The 
recommendations are set out below together with the action that was taken in response. 

Interim Evaluation of COSME - Recommendations 
Recommendation  1:  The  Commission  should  carefully  explore  ways  to  improve  COSME's 
alignment  with  EU  policy  goals  relating  to  the  improvement  of  EU  global  competitiveness  and 
sustainable and inclusive growth. COSME serves as Europe's programme for small and medium-
sized  firms.  SMEs  are  essential  to  achieving  these  EU  policy  goals,  as  several  studies  and 
initiatives on policy have shown. 

Recommendation 2: A stronger emphasis on industrial competitiveness would make it easier for 
the  COSME  programme  to  be  more  fully  integrated  into  all  of  DG  GROW's  initiatives  and 
strategies. 
Action taken to address Recommendations 1 and 2: Increased attention was paid to actions 
for supporting competitiveness, and sustainability (including actions for industrial ecosystems) in 
the  latter  years  of  the  programme,  including  several  substantial  calls  for  clusters  projects.  The 
EEN and the Commission worked on a medium-term strategy for revamping EEN's services and 
service delivery models to ensure that it could meet the changing needs of SMEs. A central feature 
of this new approach was a focus on SME clients' needs and a medium-term client journey with 
more in-depth services to support SME competitiveness and internationalisation. Towards the end 
of  the  programme,  EEN  also  progressively  built  capacities  for  providing  sustainability  advisor 
services and started delivering these services on a small scale. 
Recommendation 3: The programme should be able to limit or even prevent financing for specific 
standalone  activities  and  guarantee  the  integration  of  smaller  actions  within  the  broader 
programme portfolio with a better description of the COSME priority areas and the boundaries of 
its duties. It is advised that the Commission think through the best ways to increase COSME's 
comparative cost-effectiveness. 
Action taken to address Recommendation 3: The process for screening actions and drafting 
the  work  programme  improved  throughout  the  programme  (also  taking  account  of  advice  from 
EISMEA on the scope for enhancing cost-effectiveness: size of calls, number of projects, etc.). 
Nevertheless, the supporting study found that some smaller actions from the latter years of the 
programme had a weaker link with overall programme goals. 
Recommendation  4:  To  promote  better  COSME  programme  management  efficiency  and  an 
improved ability for a quality execution of the monitoring and evaluation role, the Commission must 
adopt a more consolidated approach to data management. 
Action  taken  to  address  Recommendation  4:  A  review  of  data  for  the  evaluation  study 
confirmed that the quality of data gathering and monitoring reports improved in the latter years of 
the programme allowing more complete reporting to be provided on the coverage of the activities, 
outputs and state of play, also for smaller actions. However, the quality and completeness of the 
data on beneficiaries remains sub-optimal with the exception of the larger actions. For example, 
this  was  the  case  for  secondary  beneficiaries  (i.e.  SMEs)  within  the  Clusters  programmes  and 
internationalisation. 
Recommendation 5: The COSME's integration with other EU projects and its synergies/added 
value  with  national  and  regional  programmes  and  policies  might  both  be  strengthened  by  the 
Commission. 
Action taken to address  Recommendation 5:  Progress has been achieved with internal and 
external  synergies,  in  particular  for  larger  actions  such  as  EEN,  financial  instruments,  the 
international SME IP helpdesks, and the EU Japan Centre.  
Recommendation 6: We advise the Commission to direct the programme's resources towards 
those areas of intervention where they will have the greatest impact in the line with the mandate 
of COSME. 
Action taken to address Recommendation 6: A large proportion of the budget was allocated to 
flagship actions which had demonstrated their impacts such as the financial instruments and EEN. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex B: Performance against indicators 

The  Annex  to  the  COSME  Regulation  provided  indicators  for  the  general  and  specific 
objectives  of  the  programme.  The  table  below  summarises  the  evidence  of  achievement 
against the indicators and, where necessary, provides a comment. 

Indicator 

Evidence of achievement 

Comment 

General  objective:  To  strengthen  the  competitiveness  and  sustainability  of  the  Union's 
enterprises, particularly SMEs 

A.1. Performance of SMEs as regards sustainability 

• 

SME 

Increase in the proportion of 
Union 
producing 
green,  i.e.  environmentally 
friendly,  products  compared 
to baseline 

Quantitative data unavailable to 
the evaluation 

Regulation 
Programme 
specifies  measurement 
by 
means  of  a  Eurobarometer 
survey. However, no survey was 
undertaken. 

Several  actions  contributed  to 
this indicator. (See section 4.2.7 
of the main report.) 

Difficulties in attributing impacts 
to the COSME programme 

A.2  Changes  in unnecessary  administrative  and  regulatory  burden  on  both  new  and  existing 
SMEs 

•  Marked reduction in number 
of days to set-up a new SME 

•  Marked 

reduction 
the 
average start-up costs in the 
Union compared to baseline 

in 

•  Marked 

in 

the 
increase 
number  of  Member  States 
where  the  time  needed  to 
licences  and  permits 
get 
environmental 
(including 
permits) 
take  up  and 
perform  the  specific  activity 
of  an  enterprise 
is  one 
month 

to 

Based on the methodology used 
by the World Bank for the Doing 
Business Report 

input 

from  2019, 

As 
this  criterion 
looked  not  only  at  the  minimal 
legal  requirements,  but  also 
took  account  of 
from 
experts about how long it takes 
in practice to set up a business. 
The  reported  number  of  days 
has 
considerably 
increased.  The  data  for  this 
indicator is complete and shows 
decrease 
a 
throughout the programme from 
15.6 days in 2014 to 11.9 days 
in 2020.  

continuous 

therefore 

As from 2019, the data for cost 
to  set  up  a  new  SME 
is 
expressed  in  %  of  income  per 
capita. There was a progressive 
decrease from 4.84% in 2014 to 
3.09% in 2020. 

The  time  to  obtain  licences  to 
the 
start  up  a  company, 
milestone  target  for  2017  had 
already been reached in 2014. 

Based on the methodology used 
by the World Bank for the Doing 
Business Report. 

A  study  carried  out  in  2015 
provided  additional  data  on 
licencing  procedures,  including 
those related to protection of the 
environment,  health  and  safety 
which 
represent  a 
typically 
challenge for start-ups. 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Indicator 

Evidence of achievement 

Comment 

•  Marked 

in 

the 
increase 
number  of  Member  States 
with  a  one-stop  shop  for 
business start-ups 

The  baseline  was  already  18 
Member  States  in  2009  with 
good progress in the early years 
of the programme. 

Reporting  on  this  indicator  was 
discontinued  in  the  latter  years 
of the programme. 

A.3. Changes in the proportion of SMEs exporting within or outside the Union (Impact indicator) 

• 

exporting 

Increase in the proportion of 
SMEs 
and 
increase in the proportion of 
SMEs  exporting  outside  the 
Union compared to baseline 

2018 targets achieved in 2014:  

• 

• 

30% of SMEs export (2009 
baseline: 25%) 

20%  of  SMEs  export 
outside 
(2009 
the  EU 
baseline: 13%) 

for  assessing 
Lack  of  data 
further  progress,  as  there  was 
no later Eurobarometer surveys 
to update this data. 

General objective: to encourage an entrepreneurial culture and promote the creation and growth 
of SMEs 

B.1. Changes in SME growth 

• 

Increase  of  SME  output 
(value  added)  compared  to 
baseline 

•  Targets were fully met until 
result  was 
2018.  The 
slightly below target in 2019 
(3.84%  compared  to  the 
target  of  4%).  As  of  2020 
growth of SME value added 
was  severely  affected  by 
the  Covid-19  crisis  (-7.6%) 
with  a  slight  recovery  in 
2021. 

• 

Increase 
compared to baseline 

of 

employees 

from 

•  Employment  exceeded  the 
target  figure  of  1%  for  all 
years 
2014-2019, 
except  2015.  As  of  2020, 
employment  growth  turned 
negative (-1,7%) due to the 
Covid-19 
but 
rebounded slightly in 2021. 

crisis 

Source: European Commission 

Source: European Commission 

B2. Changes in the proportion of Union citizens who wish to be self-employed (impact indicator) 

• 

Increase in the proportion of 
Union citizens that would like 
to 
self-employed 
compared to baseline 

be 

• 

[not known] 

against 

Performance 
this 
indicator  was  to  be  measured 
every 
a 
Eurobarometer  survey.  But  no 
survey on entrepreneurship has 
been performed since 2012. 

years 

2-3 

by 

Specific objective: To improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt 

C. Financial instruments for growth 

•  C1.  Number 
benefiting 
financing 

of 
from 

firms 
debt 

•  C2.  Number  of  venture 
capital investments from the 
COSME  programme  and 
overall volume invested 

• 

• 

865,387  supported  by  the 
LGF  (target:  220,000 
to 
330,000) 

521  investments,  including 
the  core  COSME  EFG  and 
the 
SMEs 
(target: 360 to 540) 

VentureEU 

•  EUR 

of 
investments  (target:  EUR 

billion 

3.9 

168 

Source:  COSME  programme 
data 

Source:  COSME  programme 
data  

Some  funds  are  still  in  the 
therefore 
investment  period, 
additional 
are 
expected. 

investments 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Indicator 

Evidence of achievement 

Comment 

•  C3. Leverage ratio 

•  Debt 

instrument: 
(target: 1:20 - 1:30) 

1.21 

Source:  COSME  programme 
data 

2.6 billion to 3.9 billion) 

•  Equity 

instrument:  1.11 

(target: 1:4 - 1:6) 

•  EFG: 

data 

unavailable 

(baseline: 62%) 

• 

LGF: 84% (baseline: 64%)  

•  C4. Additionality of the EFG 
and LGF (Proportion of final 
beneficiaries 
considering 
that  the  EFG  or  the  LGF 
provide  funding  that  could 
not  have  been  obtained  by 
other means) 

It had been planned to measure 
the  EFG  additionality  via  the 
interviews of SME beneficiaries 
of EFG for the final evaluation of 
COSME. As interviews for other 
evaluations  took  place  at  the 
same 
the  Commission 
decided  that  extensive  online 
surveys  should  be  replaced  by 
targeted interviews.  

time, 

Specific objective: To improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but also at global 
level 

D: International co-operation 

•  D1.  Number  of  cases  of 
alignment 
third 
for 

improved 
between  Union  and 
countries' 
industrial products 

regulations 

• 

[no data] 

The  Commission  discontinued 
reporting on this indicator due to 
measurability issues.  

E: Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) 

•  E1.  Number  of  partnership 

• 

agreements signed 

18,701 
partnership 
(target: 2,500 per year) 

cross-border 
agreements 

Source:  COSME  programme 
data 

•  E2.  Recognition  of 

the 
amongst  SME 

Network 
population 

• 

8% (2015) 

•  E3.:  Client  satisfaction  rate 
(% 
stating 
SMEs 
satisfaction,  added-value  of 
specific  service  provided  by 
the EEN) 

• 

92% (target: 82%) 

•  E4.  Number  of  SMEs 
receiving support services 

• 

1,957,822  (target:  500,000 
per year) 

The  Commission  discontinued 
reporting on this indicator as the 
underlying survey to provide this 
data was not renewed. 

Source:  EEN  2021 
satisfaction survey 

client 

The methodology was changed 
in 2015. EEN partners no longer 
need  to  record  the  number  of 
clients.  If  the  old  methodology 
the 
continued, 
had 
reported 
figures  would  have 
been  approximately  3,800,000 
(compared  with  the  target  of 
3,500,000). 

been 

•  E5.  Number  of  SMEs  using 
(including 
digital  services 
electronic 
information 
services)  provided  by  the 
Network 

• 

21.5  million 
million per year) 

(target:  2.3 

Data  on  the  EEN  provided  by 
EISMEA. 

Specific objective: To improve framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability 
of Union enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector 

169 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Indicator 

Evidence of achievement 

Comment 

F: Activities to improve competitiveness 

•  F1. Number of simplification 

measures adopted 

• 

• 

2014: 5 (target: 7) 

2015: 4 (target: 4) 

•  F2.  Making  the  regulatory 
framework fit for purpose 

• 

5-8 

2014-2018: 
fitness 
checks  launched  per  year 
(target: 5 during 2014-2020) 

• 

[no data] 

• 

[no data] 

•  F3.  Number  of  Member 
the 
proofing 

States 
competitiveness 
test 

using 

•  F4.  Resource  efficiency: 
Increase in the proportion of 
Union  SMEs 
that  are:  i) 
taking at least one action to 
be  more  resource  efficient; 
ii) are planning to implement 
additional 
resource 
efficiency  actions  every  two 
years. 

G: Developing SME policy 

•  Number  of  Member  States 

• 

2017: 27 (baseline: 15) 

using SME test 

This  refers  to  the  number  of 
simplification measures adopted 
and accompanied by an impact 
assessment.  This  quantitative 
reporting  was  discontinued  in 
subsequent years. 

Data  was  not  available 
subsequent years. 

for 

Quantitative data unavailable to 
the evaluation. 

Regulation 
Programme 
specifies  measurement 
by 
means  of  a  Eurobarometer 
survey. However, no survey was 
undertaken. 

report 
underlying 
As 
the 
this 
the  data 
providing 
indicator  was  discontinued  by 
the  Commission,  no  data  is 
available for subsequent years. 

for 

Specific objective: To improve framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability 
of Union enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector 

H: Tourism 

•  H1. 

Participation 

in 
cooperation 

transnational 
projects 

•  H2.  Number  of  destinations 
adopting 
the  sustainable 
tourism 
development 
the 
models  promoted  by 
European  Destinations  of 
Excellence 

I: New Business Concepts 

• 

Number 

I1. 
products/services 
market 

of 

in 

new 
the 

•  >3  countries  covered  per 

project 

This  indicator  was  measured 
from 2017-2021 with a data gap 
for 
Figures  were 
consistently  above  target,  in  all 
years where data was provided. 

2020. 

• 

2018:  158  (baseline:  98; 
target: 200) 

Data unavailable for subsequent 
years. 

Transnational partnerships:  

• 

• 

2017-2021: 152 

2021-2025: 138 

170 

by  WORT, 
pilot 

This 
the 
indicator  measures 
number  of  new  partnerships 
supported 
an 
acceleration 
project 
providing  support  to  develop 
innovative  business  ideas.  The 
2017-2021  edition  supported 
152  transnational  partnerships. 
The  second  edition  supported 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Indicator 

Evidence of achievement 

Comment 

by  work  programme  2020  is 
ongoing until 2025. So far it has 
than  138 
supported  more 
partnerships (against a target of 
200). 

Specific objective: To promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture 

J. Support for entrepreneurship 

• 

• 

J1.  Number  of  Member 
States 
implementing 
entrepreneurship  solutions 
based  on  good  practice 
identified 
the 
programme 

through 

J2.  Number  of  Member 
States 
implementing 
entrepreneurship  solutions 
targeting  potential,  young, 
female 
new 
entrepreneurs,  as  well  as 
other specific target groups 

and 

• 

28 (baseline: 22) 

Source:  European  Commission 
Programme  Statement  for  the 
COSME Programme. 

• 

28 

Source:  European  Commission 
Programme  Statement  for  the 
COSME Programme. 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex C: Overview of costs and benefits (main actions) 

Action 

Indicator (proxy of benefits) 

Value of the 
indicator 

Direct costs 
(€m) 

Other action 
costs (€m) 

EYE 

Number of host and new entrepreneurs 
benefiting from EYE exchanges  

15,096 

€59m 

€10.08m 

Number of intermediary organisations 

Number of EYE exchanges 

360 

7,548 

(Total EU 
Contribution) 

EEN 

Number of SMEs receiving EEN 
services 

Number of SMEs using digital services 

Number of cross-border partnership 
agreements signed 

Clusters  Number of cluster initiatives and 

events 

Number of cluster organisations 
involved 

1,957,822 

€367 m 

€296m 

21,5 m  
(2020-21) 

18,701 

132 

142 

€27m 

€6m 

Number of SMEs benefitting from 
actions 

>4,055 SMEs 

Number of sectors covered by cluster 
initiatives 

61315 

LGF 

Total EU commitments to debt finance 

€1,203 m 

€1,203m 

€1,340 m 

Number of intermediaries supported 

128 

Total value of lending provided on the 
basis of LGF as supported by the EFSI 

€53,872 m 

Number of SMEs receiving guaranteed 
loans 

865,387 

Number of jobs maintained or created 
in the SMEs or sector 

233,146316 

EFG 

Total EU Contribution Committed by 
DG GROW 

€378.1m 

€378.1 m 

€0 m 

Number of financial intermediaries 
supported 

23 

Total funding catalysed by instrument 

€3,920m 

Number of jobs maintained or created 
in the SMEs or sector 

1,604317 

315 Cluster Go International: 21 Cluster partnership agreements signed in Strand 1 and at least 40 in Strand 2 
(Cluster-to-Cluster). At the time of the reporting, some partnerships indicated that they were about to conclude 
other partnership agreements. 
316 This figure is based on the COSME LGF – Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019. 
317 This figure is based on the COSME EFG – Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019. 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex D: Intervention Logic 

173 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex E: Evaluation Matrix 

Evaluation questions  
Effectiveness 
General Questions  
EQ1.1 How effective was COSME in achieving 
its general and specific objectives, in terms of 
outputs,  results  and  long-term  impact  of  its 
measures? 

EQ 1.1.1 What have been the outputs, outcomes, 
results  and  impacts  of  COSME  actions  (for the  4 
specific  objectives), 
in  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative  terms?  To  what  extent  have  these 
actions  contributed  to  the  general  and  specific 
objectives of COSME? 

Information source(s) 
Desk research  
•  Portfolio analysis 
•  Flash 

trade 
Eurobarometers, 
statistics,  annual  burden  survey, 
etc.)318 

•  Review  COSME  monitoring  system 

(Annual monitoring reports)  

Interviews and Targeted consultations 

Indicators/specific evidence 
 Assessment  of  achievements  of  the  programme  by  COSME  specific 
objective  

(Note: Part 2 of this document provides more detailed ‘effectiveness’ KPIs 
by programme specific objective. These can be considered as measures of 
‘success’. KPIs presented in Part 2 which are also reported in this table by 
relevant evaluation question are marked with a ‘*’ and colour coded: red for 
output indicators, blue for result indicators and black for impact indicators)  

Desk research  
• 
•  Flash 

 Portfolio analysis 

trade 
Eurobarometers, 
statistics,  annual  burden  survey, 
etc.) 

•  Review  COSME  monitoring  system 

(Annual monitoring reports)  

Targeted consultations 

EQ  1.1.2  Who  were  the  main  beneficiaries  of 
COSME?  In  particular,  which  types  of  enterprise 
benefitted? Were any measures more effective for 
certain types of SMEs than others? 

Desk research 
•  Portfolio analysis 
•  Review  of  COSME  monitoring 
system (Annual monitoring reports) 

Beneficiary  coverage  by  type  (size,  sector,  turnover,  assets)  and  country 
(SO1) 
Beneficiary coverage by Member State (Other SO) 

Interviews and Targeted consultations 

 . 

318 Note that some of these sources will provide only the context to the evaluation; but attribution may be questionable. The consultation will address this question.  

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Evaluation questions  
Effectiveness 
EQ  1.1.3  To  what  extent  did  the  effectiveness  of 
the  Programme  vary  across  different  Member 
States and participating third countries? 

indicated 

EQ 1.1.4 Are the results achieved thus far in line 
with the objectives and milestones foreseen in the 
prior  Impact  Assessment  or  to  the  baseline  for 
KPIs 
the  Regulation?  Where 
expectations have not been met, what factors have 
hindered their achievement? 
EQ1.2 How was COSME implemented over the 
Programme period? 

in 

Desk research 
•  Portfolio analysis 
•  Review  of  COSME  monitoring 
system (Annual monitoring reports) 

Interviews and Targeted consultations 

Beneficiary  coverage  by  Member  State/COSME  country  (e.g.  for  financial 
support:  Number of  SMEs  getting  finance,  volume  of  finance,  agreements 
signed with intermediaries, international collaborations) 

Contribution  of  actions  to  COSME  objectives  by  MS/participating  country 
based on feedback from consultations 

As above 

Assessment of achievements and estimations/baseline KPIs319  

Changes  in  SME  growth,  GVA,  competitiveness,  sustainability  based  on 
feedback from consultations 

Desk research  

Factors cited in consultations - by thematic group of actions 
Implementation milestones 

EQ1.2.1 How was the budget allocated per specific 
objective  and  type  of  action  (as  defined  by  the 
COSME Regulation)?  

•  Portfolio analysis 
•  Review  COSME  monitoring  system 

(Annual monitoring reports) 

Budget  allocation  in  terms  of  amounts,  annual  number  of  operations, 
geographical allocation, type of financial instrument (SO1) 

Interviews and Targeted consultations 

Budget allocation in terms of amounts, specific objectives, group of actions 
(other SOs) 

EQ1.2.2.  How  has 
programme  evolved  over 
implementation?  

the  effectiveness  of 
the  years  of 

the 
its 

Desk research  
•  Portfolio analysis 
•  Review  COSME  monitoring  system 

Evolution of financial and accounting ratios of the programme over the years 
by type of financial instrument and sectors (SO1) 

(Annual monitoring reports) 

Interviews,  

Changes in the nature of actions/flexibility of the programme to adapt and 
respond  to  new  needs  (digitalisation,  new  markets,  response  to  external 
factors such as COVID) 

319 Some specific targets and milestones are set in the COSME Regulation, e.g. for 2020, with particular regard to the access to finance objective. Other objectives do not include 
specific targets and just mention “an increase” (e.g. Increase in the proportion of Union citizens that would like to be self-employed compared to baseline, Increase in the proportion of 
SMEs exporting, etc.) 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Evaluation questions  
Effectiveness 
EQ1.2.3 Which factors drove or hindered progress 
and why, and how did these factors vary across the 
different actions in the Programme? 

EQ1.2.4. How effectively has information about the 
availability of the programme instruments and the 
results and impacts of actions been transmitted to 
potential stakeholders and beneficiaries? 

•  EQ1.3. To what extent and how has the 
Programme contributed to broader EU 
policy priorities and objectives? 

•  EQ1.3.1 How far has the Programme 

contributed to the 5 Union priorities for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 
in the period up to 2019 (including 
climate objectives and gender 
mainstreaming) and to the current 
Commission’s keynote objective “An 
economy that works for people”? 
•  EQ1.3.2 Has the programme/its 

measures achieved any unintended 
effects? 

Specific questions on Action: (SO 1) LFG & EFG  
•  To what extent have the financial instruments 
contributed to improving access to finance for 
SMEs? How is any improvement in access to 
finance for SMEs measurable and/or 
objectively verifiable? What are other key 
achievements and impacts? 

Desk research  
Interviews,  

Desk research 

Interim evaluation 

Factors cited in consultations - by thematic group of actions 

Promotion efforts by action/group of actions 

•  Review  COSME  monitoring  system 

Recognition of the EEN Network amongst SME population  

(Annual monitoring reports) 

Targeted consultations 
Desk research  
•  Flash  Eurobarometer  surveys  on 
SMEs,  Resource  Efficiency  and 
Green Markets? 

•  Eco-Management 

and 

Audit 

Scheme (EMAS) (europa.eu) 
Interim evaluation 

• 
•  Review COSME monitoring system 

(Annual monitoring reports) 

Interviews and Targeted consultations 

Counterfactual (econometric) analysis 
Interviews,  
Targeted consultations 

Desk  research  and  Annual  Monitoring 
reports 

Interviews,  
Targeted consultations 

Evidence of beneficiaries’ awareness cited in consultations 

Contributions to EU policy priorities cited in consultations 

Feedback from participants regarding an improved regulatory framework 

Other impact indicators in Part 2 

Contributions  to  climate  &  gender  mainstreaming  priorities  cited  in 
consultations Performance of SMEs as regards sustainability 

Assessment of unintended (positive/negative) impacts 

*Funding distributed by EFG /Total EU commitments to debt finance 
*Number of VC funds supported /Number of intermediaries supported  
*Sectoral distribution of EFG and LGF 

*Total funding catalysed by instrument 
*Total value of lending provided on the basis of LGF 
*Gearing effect of the instrument) 
*% of SMEs reporting difficulty in accessing finance  

*Leverage Ratio 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Evaluation questions  
Effectiveness 

•  To what extent did the instruments reach the 
target  groups  or  groups  of  beneficiaries 
envisaged?  What  could  be  done  to  improve 
targeting?  

•  What are the barriers, if any, impeding access 
by  beneficiaries  to  the  instruments?  What 
could be done to make access easier? 

•  To what extent has the principle of additionality 
been ensured? What was done/could be done 
to improve additionality?  
•  To  what  extent  have 

the  visibility  and 
promotion  of  the  instruments  been  ensured 
and  to  what  extent  has  the  support  provided 
from  the  instruments  been  recognised  in  the 
market (including by final recipients)? 

•  To  what  extent  has  EFSI  contributed  to 
LGF 
effectiveness 

the 

of 

increasing 
instrument?  

*Number of jobs maintained or created in the SMEs or sector  

*% of SMEs reporting a positive impact as a result of the funding received 
(growth, added-value and employees) 
*Feedback  regarding  changes  in  lending/  investment  patterns  of  financial 
instruments as a result of COSME 
*Change of venture capital availability indicator (EU average) 2014-2020 
*Change of access to loans indicator (EU average) 2014-2020 
* Funding take-up by country where access to finance is more constrained 
(signature amounts, number of SMEs supported) 
*Number and type of SMEs receiving guaranteed loans  

*% of SMEs reporting difficulties in accessing finance  

 *% of SMEs reporting full (no alternatives available) or partial additionality 
(alternatives available but at less favourable conditions or smaller scale) 

*%  of  intermediaries  and  final  beneficiaries  recognising  the  origin  of  the 
support 

EFSI impacts on LFG : additional signatures made possible by EFSI top-ups, 
additional SMEs reached and investment mobilised 

As above 

As above 

As above 

As above 

As above 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Evaluation questions  
Effectiveness 
Specific questions on Action: (SO 2) EEN 
•  How effective was the Enterprise Europe 

Network in achieving its aim?  

Feedback, 

•  Are  certain  aspects  of  the  Enterprise  Europe 
Network  more  or  less  effective  than  others? 
(Information, 
Business 
cooperation,  Internationalisation  beyond  the 
EU, Innovation and transfer of technology and 
knowledge,  Encouraging  the  participation  of 
SMEs 
framework 
the  Community 
programme for RTD, Networking activities) 
•  How  have  the  services  of  the  Enterprise 
Europe Network evolved over the period of the 
Programme and from the EIP? 

in 

Specific questions on Action: (SO 4) EYE  
•  How effective was the Erasmus for Young 
Entrepreneurs (EYE) in achieving its aim?  

Desk research  
•  Annual monitoring reports 
•  Final  evaluation  of  EEN  (dated 

2014) 
Interim evaluation of COSME 

• 

*Number of EEN member organisations  
*Number of SMEs receiving EEN services (or which advisory services such 
as EU programmes, IPR, technology review, financing services etc.) 
*Number of SMEs using digital services (incl. electronic information services) 
provided by the network 

Interviews  
Targeted consultations 

*Number of co-operation agreements 
*Number of partnership agreements signed 
*Global and average SME client satisfaction rate 

As above 

Case Studies 

*% of SMEs reporting positive impact due EEN support (growth, jobs, others) 

 *Feedback from SMEs and EEN organisations on effectiveness and utility 
of specific EEN services  

Identification of success stories 

As above 

Key variations in service provision (number of regional/local events, level of 
advisory support) 

Desk research – 
reports 
Monitoring 
 Annual 
• 
European 
exchange 
business 
programme  -  Erasmus  for  Young 
Entrepreneurs 
(erasmus-
entrepreneurs.eu) 

Interviews 
Targeted consultations 

*Number of host/new entrepreneurs participating in the EYE programme 
*Number of successful EYE matches  
*Number of intermediary organisations involved in the EYE programme 

*Feedback regarding the number of new enterprises created and enhanced 
capacities/knowledge etc. following the EYE exchange 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Evaluation questions  
Effectiveness 
•  Which 

impacts  did  EYE  have  on 

the 
participants  (New  Entrepreneurs(NEs)/Host 
Entrepreneurs (HEs)?  

As above 

•  How has EYE evolved over the period of the 

As above 

Programme in terms of its impacts?  

Other actions - tourism actions, cluster actions, social economy  
•  To  what  extent  and  how  have  the  smaller 
actions contributed to COSME objectives?  

Desk research  
•  Trade 

statistics 

(see  Small 
businesses  exporting  outside  the 
EU  employ  over  13  million  people 
(europa.eu)) 

*%  of  EYE  entrepreneurs  reporting  other  positive  impacts  of  the  EYE 
exchange  in  terms  of  jobs  created,  joint  projects/cooperation  agreements, 
others 
*Increase  in  the  entrepreneurship  rate:  percentage  of  entrepreneurs  who 
have started a business or currently taking steps to start one 
Key variations in nature and level of impacts 

 See Part 2 (objective C) 

•  Are 

that 
there  any  aspects/means/actors 
render  certain  aspects  of  these  actions  more 
or less effective than others, and – if there are 
– what lessons can be drawn from this?  
•  How  have  the  selected  actions  evolved  over 
the period of the Programme in terms of their 
impacts?  

Interviews  
Targeted consultations 
As above  

Factors cited in consultations 
Factors explaining performance variations 

As above 

Time sequence of main performance variables of actions 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
 Efficiency 
General 
•  EQ3.1 To what extent were the effects 
(benefits) of COSME achieved at a 
reasonable cost (including the 
administrative and reporting burden on 
participants, beneficiaries and 
stakeholders)? Were the costs (direct 
and indirect) generated by the 
programme proportionate to the benefits 
generated? 

Information source(s) 
Desk research  
•  Cost  data 

/ 

monitoring 
information 
analysis 
Interim evaluation 

from  programme 
expenditure 
portfolio 

through 

• 
•  SME Performance Review 
•  External:  Annual  Burden  Survey 

(europa.eu) 

179 

Indicators/specific evidence 
Benefits derived from the participation in COSME  
Reported costs including the administrative and reporting costs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
 Efficiency 

•  EQ3.1.1 What are the 

regulatory/administrative costs and the 
benefits for the different participants and 
stakeholders?  

•  EQ3.1.2 Which interventions of COSME 
were the most efficient or inefficient, 
especially in terms of resources mobilised 
by stakeholders?  

•  EQ3.1.3 What was the potential for 
simplification and reduction of the 
administrative burden?  

•  EQ3.2 How efficient was the 

implementation structure and 
governance of the programme? 

•  EQ3.3 How did overlaps/ 

complementarities between COSME and 
any other Community action in the 
relevant areas affect the administrative 
burden?  

Action: (SO 1) LFG & EFG 
•  Given the results that have been or are 

likely to be generated, to what extent are 
the costs of managing the instrument 
reasonable? 

•  To what extent are the costs in line with the 
initial expectations and with comparable 

Interviews 
Targeted consultations 
Case studies 
Econometric  analysis 
impacts) 
As above 

(benefits 

/ 

Benefits derived from the participation in COSME 
Reported  administrative  and  reporting  burden/costs  experienced  by 
participants and other stakeholders  

As above 

Benefit cost ratio/comparison of different actions (NB: not all benefits 
may be quantifiable so a ratio may not be feasible) 

Extra resources mobilised by actions (e.g. own resources) 
Simplifications cited by stakeholders 

Perceived ease of use, complexity, and speed of operations 
Share of the programme devoted as administrative expenditure 

Assessment  of  costs/benefits  generated  by  overlaps  with  other 
Community  actions  (joint  collaborative  actions  and  any  savings  from 
these) 

Qualitative  assessment  of  administrative  costs/burden  in  relation  to 
finance provided 
Human resources allocated to process applications (e.g. for financial 
instruments). 

Comparative  analysis  of  costs  incurred  with  other  comparable 
schemes (qualitative assessment) 

Desk research  
• 

Interim evaluation 

Interviews 
Targeted consultations 
As above  

As above 

research 

instruments 

Desk 
(programme 
management  data  on  EIF  costs  of 
on 
administering 
delegated basis) 
Interviews 
Case studies 
As above 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
 Efficiency 

instruments, and (if intermediated) those of 
financial intermediaries? 

•  Have the instruments, including the 
respective asset management, been 
implemented efficiently by the EIF and DG 
GROW, BUDG and ECFIN?  

•  What lessons can be learned including for 
further alignment of the design of financial 
instruments on the most efficient and up-to-
date market practices? 

Action: (SO 2) EEN 
•  Are the costs of the EEN structure (direct 
and indirect) proportionate to the benefits 
obtained? 

•  Are certain activities or components of the 

Enterprise Europe Network more or less 
efficient than others, and – if this is the 
case – what lessons can be drawn from 
this? 

•  Use a few specific examples or case 
studies of Partnership Agreements to 
describe the cost-efficiency of the EEN 
services provided for this purpose 
•  Use a few specific examples or case 

studies of Advisory Service Outcomes to 
describe the cost-efficiency of the EEN 
services provided for this purpose.  

Action: (SO 4) EYE 
•  How efficient was EYE? (Comparing the 

costs and benefits).  

•  Use a few complementary examples or 
case studies of successful matches to 

As above 

Number of FTE devoted at Commission to manage LGF and EFG 
Steps taken to ensure efficiency by the Commission and the EIF 

As above 

Lessons cited by stakeholders and own judgements 

Desk research  
Interim evaluation 
Annual monitoring reports 
Interviews 
As above 

 Feedback on the proportionality of costs Ratio between EU funds and 
own resources for the EEN activities (reported in the interviews and in 
the survey) 

Lessons cited by stakeholders 
Costs comparison of different activities of EEN 

Case studies 

Examples of Partnership Agreements cited, their costs and benefits  

Case studies 

Examples of Advisory Service Outcomes cited, their costs and benefits 

Desk research 
Interim evaluation 
Annual monitoring reports 
Interviews 
Case studies 
Case studies 

Benefits derived from the participation in EYE 
Costs incurred for participating in EYE  

Examples of successful matches cited 

181 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
 Efficiency 

describe the cost-efficiency of the support 
provided to achieve each match320?  
•  Use a few complementary examples or 

case studies to illustrate what is the cost-
efficiency of one new job/enterprise created 
by EYE?  

Case studies 

Examples of successful creation of jobs/enterprises cited 

Other actions - tourism actions, cluster actions, social economy  
•  To what extent was it cost-efficient to 

implement the specific objectives of the 
programme by a significant number of 
small actions?  

Desk research 
Interviews 
Interim evaluation 
Annual monitoring reports 

costs/benefits of participating in actions based on estimates provided 
by survey respondents 

Resource allocated to small actions/other similar projects 

Targeted consultation  

Areas for improvement in terms of cost-efficiency 

Percentage of survey respondents that indicate that costs deriving from 
participating in COSME were proportionate to the benefits derived from 
it  

COSME Evaluation Questions 
Relevance 
•  EQ5.1 To what extent were COSME's initial objectives 

relevant and pertinent to the needs, problems and issues 
they were designed to address?  

Desk research 
Interviews 

Correspondence between actions and needs, problems 
and issues identified in Programme legislation  

•  EQ5.1.1. Were the initial objectives and measures more 

As above 

Mapping of actions to needs of different SMEs 

relevant to specific types of SMEs than others?  

•  EQ5.2. To what extent were COSME’s objectives and 

As above 

measures relevant to the needs and problems faced by 
SMEs throughout their implementation period? How did the 
programme adapt to new needs, priorities, problems? 

•  EQ5.2.1 To what extent were adaptations made to meet current 
and emerging needs and problems of different types of SMEs 

As above 

Identification  of  new  needs,  priorities  &  problems  and 
responses 

Identification of the main changes made 
As above 

320 When a match is found between one New Entrepreneur and one Host Entrepreneur to organise the exchange. 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
Relevance 
•  EQ5.2.2 To what extent were there adaptation mechanisms in 
place to ensure that the programme meets new needs in 
response to political, economic, technological, and scientific and 
social developments?  

•  EQ5.2.3 How did COSME adapt to political priorities for instance 
to the new Single Market Strategy and its particular objective to 
support Start-ups and Scale-ups? 

As above 

Description  of  adaptation  mechanisms  &  their  use  in 
relation  to  specified  political,  economic,  technological, 
and scientific and social developments 

As above 

Changes made to support new policy priorities 

•  EQ5.2.4 How did COSME adapt to deal with major new 

• 

As above 

• 

Changes made to respond to Covid-19 

challenges affecting businesses, in particular the Covid-19 
crisis? 

•  EQ5.2.5 To what extent are the COSME actions addressing 

As above 

Identification of new market deficiencies & responses 

new market deficiencies?  

Action: (SO 1) LFG & EFG 
•  To what extent were the instruments' objectives pertinent to the 
needs, priorities, problems and issues they were designed to 
address?  

Desk research 
Interviews 

•  To what extent are they relevant to current needs?  

As above 

Action: (SO 2) EEN 
•  To what extent were the objectives set for the network at the start 
of the programme, and the network’s initial services in line with 
SMEs’ needs at that time? 

•  To what extent do EEN objectives and services meet current 

needs/challenges faced by SMEs?  

Action: (SO 4) EYE 
•  To what extent did EYE respond to the needs/ problems and 

challenges identified at the start of the programme?  
•  To what extent does EYE respond to current needs and 

challenges faced by SMEs?  

Desk research 
Interviews 
Targeted survey 

As above 

Desk research 
Interviews 
As above 

Action: Other actions - tourism actions, cluster actions, social economy  
•  To what extent were the smaller actions relevant to the needs, 
priorities, and problems that the COSME programme was 
designed to address?  

Desk research 
Interviews 
Targeted survey 

183 

Correspondence between financial actions and finance 
needs,  problems  and  issues  identified  in  Programme 
legislation 
Correspondence with current finance needs and market 
gaps/ weaknesses 

Correspondence  between  network  objectives  and  the 
services provided 

Identification 
needs 
current 
correspondence with EEN objectives & services  

service 

of 

and 

Correspondence  between  perceived  problems  and 
challenges and EYE responses 
Identification  of  current  needs  of  new  entrepreneurs 
and correspondence with EYE objectives & services 

Identification of contribution of other actions to needs, 
priorities,  and  problems  expressed  in  the  Programme 
legislation 

 
 
 
  
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Identification of current needs in areas covered by other 
actions and correspondence with current provision 

Identification of interaction between the actions under 
the 4 objectives  
Identification of potential for further interaction 
Identification 
in  COSME 
key 
implementation  processes  &  interaction  between 
them 

elements 

of 

Examples of co-ordination within COSME 
Identification of any management of synergies 

Identification of main overlaps/complementarities with 
other EU action 

Examples  of  main  overlaps/synergies  with  the  other 
EU SME actions 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
Relevance 
•  To what extent were the smaller actions pertinent to the current 

needs, priorities, and problems faced by SMEs? 

As above 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
Coherence 
•  EQ7.1 To what extent has the internal coherence of the four 
specific objectives been maximised? What are the lessons 
learnt?  

•  EQ7.1.1 To what extent were/are the different actions of COSME 
implemented coherently between one another? Are/were there 
any issues of internal coherence between the various 
components of the Programme?  

•  EQ7.1.2 To which extent have the individual components of the 
Programme been coordinated to maximise the effects of the 
Programme and, in this regard to which extent has there been 
active management of synergies in place?  

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 
As above 

As above 

•  EQ7.2 Are there overlaps or complementarities between the 

As above 

measure and any other EU action which have similar 
objectives?  

•  EQ7.2.1 How have the different COSME instruments 

As above 

overlapped/synergised with the activities of ESI funds, the 
Innovfin, SME instrument and Innosup actions of Horizon 2020 or 
the SME window of EFSI (European Fund for Strategic 
Investments), EASI (Employment and Social Innovation) and 
other measures impacting SMEs in other programmes?  

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions 
Coherence 
Action: (SO 1) LFG & EFG 
•  To what extent are the financial instruments complementary to 
others such as EFSI (European Fund for Strategic Investment), 
Horizon 2020’s Innovfin or financial instruments set up under 
ESIF (European Structural and Investment Funds)? To what 
extent have EFG and LGF been implemented in synchronicity as 
part of the single equity/debt  
financial instruments, respectively? Are there complementarities 
with other relevant EU-level financial instruments?  

• 

•  To what extent has the external coherence between COSME 
financial instruments and national programmes maximised?  

As previous 

As previous  

•  How could complementarities be improved, particularly with ESIF 

As previous  

instruments (cohesion policy)?  

Action: (SO 2) EEN 
•  What is the level of interaction of different support services for 
businesses (Your Europe Business portal, and the EEN)?  

•  Does 

for 

the 

(for 

intervention 

the  EEN)  create  synergies 
with/contradict other EU interventions that have similar objectives? 
for  Young 
the  EU:  cluster  networks,  Erasmus 
(e.g., 
Entrepreneurs  programme,  business  centres  in  third  countries, 
EIAH 
related),  Gateway  and  Executive  Training 
programmes with third countries, helpdesks etc.):  

(EFSI 

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 
As previous  

Institutional  arrangements  for  co-ordination  of  EU 
financial instruments by EIF 
Identification of particular contributions of EFG & LGF 
& their interaction with other EU funds 

Identification of overlaps/ synergies between COSME 
financial instruments and national programmes 
Evidence of competition/ ‘deal shopping’ 
Improvements cited during consultations, particularly 
in relation to ESIF 

Identification  of  interaction  between  EEN  services  / 
EEN & related services provided by COSME 

Identification  of  main  complementarities  or  frictions 
between EEN services & other EU action 

•  Does 

the 

intervention 

the  EEN)  create  synergies 
with/contradict  other  Member  States  interventions  that  have 
similar objectives? (e.g. chambers of commerce in third countries 
etc.). 

(for 

As previous  

Identification  of  main  complementarities  or  frictions 
between EEN services and national/regional services  

Action: (SO 4) EYE 
•  To what extent are the objectives and implementation of EYE 

coherent with the Enterprise Europe Network?  

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 

Action: Other actions - tourism actions, cluster actions, social economy  
•  To  what  extent  are  the  other  actions  coherent  with  the  overall 

objectives of COSME? 

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 

185 

Identification  of  main  complementarities  between 
EEN and EYE services  

Identification  of  relative  contribution  of  other  actions 
to overall COSME objectives 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions  
EU Value-added 
•  EQ9.1 How did COSME and its measures deliver added value, 
compared to what could be achieved on merely national, 
regional and/or local level?  

•  EQ9.1 .1 How has the Programme tackled the challenges it is 
addressing at the level of each of its 4 specific objectives? 
•  EQ9.1.2 How has COSME helped to improve the business 

environment across the EU? 

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 
Validation Workshops 
As previous  

As previous  

•  EQ9.1.3 To what extent has the programme supported the 

As previous  

development of cross-border business activities?  

•  EQ9.1.4 How and to what extent have Programmes’ actions 

As previous  

synergised or overlapped with national and regional 
programmes?  

•  EQ9.1.5  Are  the  Programmes’  actions  better  addressing  the 
market failures detected than national or regional programmes? 
•  EQ9.1.6 The Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a 
COSME regulation established five areas making up the potential 
European  added  value.  To  what  extent  have 
the  actions 
demonstrated that they add value at European level? 
•  EQ9.2 To what extent do the issues addressed by the 

Programme and its measures continue to require action at 
EU level?  

•  EQ9.2.2. What would be the most likely consequences of 

stopping or withdrawing the measure?  

Action: (SO 1) LFG & EFG 
•  To what extent have the COSME financial instruments 

contributed to improving access to finance for SMEs at EU level 
in comparison to national or regional similar instruments and 
what is their EU added value?  

Action: (SO 2) EEN 
•  To what extent can the added value of the Enterprise Europe 

Network be considered EU added value? To what extent do the 
stakeholders attribute the perceived added value to the EU?  

As previous  

As previous  

As previous  

As previous  

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 

Desk research 
Interviews 
Case studies 

186 

Identification of main instances of COSME EU added-
value  

Identification of distinctive contributions of COSME in 
relation to each of the 4 objectives 
Feedback on improvements attributable to COSME 

Identification  of  extent  of  support  to  cross-border 
activity across COSME actions 
Feedback  on  duplications  in  COSME  and  country-
level provision and effects 

to  addressing  market 

Contributions 
COSME and national or regional programmes 
Observed value-added in the 5 areas identified by the 
Impact Assessment 

failures  of 

Identification  of  instances  of  continuing  need  for EU 
action 

Principal  anticipated 
withdrawing the measure 

impacts  of  stopping  or 

EU-value added of COSME financial instruments,  

Identification  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  EU  value-
added by the EEN.  
Recognition  of  EU  contribution  evidenced 
consultations 

in 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME Evaluation Questions  
EU Value-added 
•  Which services do host organisations (chambers of commerce 
etc.) provide exclusively under the umbrella of the Network 
compared with those services that they provide in their own right 
without support from the Programme? 

Action: (SO 4) EYE 
•  To what extent is EYE creating EU added value? 

As previous 

Identification of services exclusively provided through 
the EEN 

Desk research 
Interviews 

Identification  of  nature  &  extent  of  EYE  EU  added-
value 

Action: Other actions - tourism actions, cluster actions, social economy  
•  What is the EU added-value of the other actions? 

Desk research 
Interviews 

Identification of nature & extent of the EU added-value 
of the other actions 

COSME Evaluation Questions  
Longer term continuity and impacts 
EQ11.1  What  measures  were  taken  to  foster  the  longer-term 
continuity and impact of actions that generated positive changes 
or  impacts  for  SMEs  and  stakeholders?  Could  any  further 
measures be taken to this scope? 

Desk research 
Interviews 
Validation Workshops 

Identification  of  COSME  measures  positively 
fostering  longer-term  continuity  and  the  impact  of 
actions 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex F: Performance indicators by specific objective 

The ‘effectiveness/impact’ indicators and descriptors are presented below by specific objective of the programme. This table  contains indicators and 
descriptors that were defined in the COSME Regulation (Annex 1). The 2012 ‘ Development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the COSME 
Programme’ assignment led by CSES also informed this list. Indicators are colour coded: red for output indicators, blue for result indicators and black 
for impact indicators. 

EQ1.1 How effective was COSME in achieving its general and specific objectives, in terms of outputs, results and long-term impact of its measures? 
Specific objectives 

Indicators (red: output, blue: result, black: impact) 

COSME activities 

a. To improve access 
to finance for SMEs 
in the form of equity 
and debt 

Operational 
objectives 
Improve SMEs’ 
access to venture 
capital and 
mezzanine markets 
and strengthen EU 
wide markets for 
these instruments 

EFG (Equity Facility for 
Growth) 

Funding distributed by EFG 
Number of VC funds supported 
Sectoral distribution of EFG  

LGF (Loan Guarantee 
Facility) 

Improve conditions 
for guarantees and 
other forms of risk 
sharing including 
cross-border lending 
and commercial 
activities 

Funding take-up by country where access to finance is more constrained (signature 
amounts, number of SMEs supported) 
Total funding catalysed by instrument 
% of SMEs reporting difficulty in accessing finance  
% of SMEs reporting full (no alternatives available) or partial additionality (alternatives 
available but at less favourable conditions or smaller scale)  

Number of jobs maintained or created in SMEs or industry  
Leverage ratio 
% of SMEs reporting a positive impact as a result of the funding received (growth, 
added-value and employees) 
Change of venture capital availability indicator (EU average) 2014-2020 
Total EU commitments to debt finance 
Number of intermediaries supported  
Sectoral distribution of LGF 

Number and type of SMEs receiving guaranteed loans  
Total value of lending provided on the basis of LGF 
Leverage ratio 
Feedback from SMEs on added-value, utility and relevance (e.g. firms stating financial 
instruments as only/significant source of finance) 
% of intermediaries and final beneficiaries recognising the origin of the support 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

EQ1.1 How effective was COSME in achieving its general and specific objectives, in terms of outputs, results and long-term impact of its measures? 
Specific objectives 

Indicators (red: output, blue: result, black: impact) 

COSME activities 

Operational 
objectives 

Number of jobs maintained or created in SMEs or industry  
% of SMEs reporting a positive impact as a result of the COSME guarantees (growth, 
added-value and employees) 
Feedback regarding changes in lending/ investment patterns of financial instruments as 
a result of COSME 
Number of EEN member organisations 
Number of SMEs receiving EEN services (including advisory services on matters such as 
EU programmes, IPR, technology review, financing services etc.) 
Number of SMEs using digital services (incl. electronic information services) provided by 
the network 

Number of co-operation agreements 
Number of cross-border partnership agreements signed 
Global and average SME client satisfaction rate 

% of SMEs reporting positive impact due to EEN support (growth, jobs, others) 
Feedback from SMEs and EEN organisations on effectiveness and utility of specific EEN 
services 
Number of activities organised 
Number of information materials (leaflets, web pages, etc.) 

Number of users of services (e.g. use of help lines/services/website)  
Clients/users satisfaction rate 

Trade balance of goods/services as % of total exports of goods/services 

Feedback from participants regarding an improved regulatory framework 

b. To improve access 
to markets, 
particularly inside 
the Union but also at 
global level 

Help SMEs take full 
advantage of the 
Single Market 

Enterprise Europe Network 
(EEN) 

Support for SME 
internationalisation including:  
1) EU-Japan centre for 
industrial cooperation 
2) Your Europe Business 
portal 
4) China IPR Helpdesk 
5) other Helpdesks 
 Activities to 
improve European 
competitiveness 

Help SMEs to access 
and develop activities 
in markets outside 
the EU 

c. To improve 
framework 
conditions for the 
competitiveness and 
sustainability of 
Union enterprises, 
particularly SMEs, 
including in the 
tourism sector 

Enhance the 
effectiveness of 
policies and 
institutions 
supporting 
competitiveness and 
growth 
Foster the 
competitiveness of 
targeted EU sectors 

Support for specific industry 
sectors - tourism 

Number of total applications for tourism related funding opportunities 

Number and type of beneficiaries supported 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

EQ1.1 How effective was COSME in achieving its general and specific objectives, in terms of outputs, results and long-term impact of its measures? 
Specific objectives 

Indicators (red: output, blue: result, black: impact) 

COSME activities 

Operational 
objectives 

Facilitate market 
uptake of 
sustainable, inclusive 
products, services 
and processes 

Clusters 
Internationalisation 

European Cluster 
Excellence Programme with 
ClusterXchange scheme 
connecting ecosystems and 
cities 

Feedback on the improved visibility of tourism destinations and products 
Number of cluster initiatives and events (workshops/conferences/match-making 
organised) 
Number of cluster organisations and SMEs participating in events 
Number of sectors covered by cluster initiatives 
Numbers of SMEs assisted to export within or outside the Union 

Successful cluster matching and cooperation agreements 
Feedback from cluster organisations and cluster managers on the added-value of the 
supported activities and cluster actions 

% of SMEs reporting positive impact from cluster actions (growth, jobs, others) 

Improve framework 
conditions and SME 
policy  

d. To promote 
entrepreneurship 
and entrepreneurial 
culture 

Foster 
entrepreneurial 
attitudes, mindsets, 
skills and capabilities 

Improve framework 
conditions for 
entrepreneurship 
development 

SME performance review 

Reduction of start-up time and complexity for new enterprises 

Small Business Act for 
Europe (SBA) including 
implementation, outreach 
tools and communication 
activities 

EU REFIT platform 
Erasmus for Young 
Entrepreneurs (EYE)  

Number of host/new entrepreneurs participating in the EYE programme (per year of the 
programme) 
Number of successful EYE matches (per year of the programme) 
Number of intermediary organisations involved in the EYE programme (per year of the 
programme) 

Feedback regarding the number of new enterprises created and enhanced 
capacities/knowledge etc. following the EYE exchange 

Increase in the entrepreneurship rate: percentage of entrepreneurs who have started a 
business or currently taking steps to start one (survey feedback) 

% of EYE entrepreneurs reporting other positive impacts of the EYE exchange in terms 
of jobs created, joint projects/cooperation agreements, others 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

EQ1.1 How effective was COSME in achieving its general and specific objectives, in terms of outputs, results and long-term impact of its measures? 
Specific objectives 

Indicators (red: output, blue: result, black: impact) 

COSME activities 

Operational 
objectives 

Other actions supporting 
entrepreneurship e.g. 

Feedback regarding new policy measures for entrepreneurship in Member States 
(survey feedback) 

European Network of female 
entrepreneurs and on-line e-
platform,  

Support for entrepreneurship 
policy implementation 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex G: Methodology 

Overview 

The  table  below  lists  the  analytical  tools,  research  tasks  undertaken  and  the  formal 
deliverables of the evaluation. The sub-sections that follow provide more details. 

Analytical tools 
Intervention Logic for the COSME programme (see Annex D) 
Evaluation Matrix (see Annex E) 
Performance Indicators (see Annex F) 
Research tasks 
Task 1: Inception 
Task 2: Document review 
Task 3: Statistical analysis 
Task 4: Open call for evidence and public consultation 
Task 5: Targeted surveys of intermediaries and beneficiaries 
Task 6: Interviews 
Task 7: Counterfactual analysis 
Task 8: Case studies 
Task 9: Analysis and reporting 
Deliverables 
D1: Inception Report 
D2: Progress Report 
D3: Draft Final Report 
D4: Final Report 
D5: Executive Summary and Synopsis Report 

Task 1: Inception  

The inception phase featured: 

•  Kick-off meeting with the European Commission; 

•  Preliminary research, including initial interviews with programme management staff and 

an assessment of the availability of documents and data; 

•  Development of the methodology, evaluation framework and questions; 

• 

Inception Report (D1) and Inception Meeting with the European Commission. 

Due  to  the  wide  range  of  interventions,  the  inception  phase  featured  a  prioritisation, 
grouping  and  selection  of  actions  to  provide  a  coherent  structure  to  the  evaluation. 
Consideration was also given to the approach used in previous evaluations. The selection 
of  actions  was  agreed  with  the  Commission  and  based  on  the  scale  of  EU  funding,  the 
expected level of impacts on SME beneficiaries and also including a number of actions that 
were less successful or for which issues were encountered. 

The selected actions thus prioritised were: 

•  SO1: Equity Facility for Growth 

•  SO1: Loan Guarantee Facility including the SME Initiative 

•  SO2: Enterprise Europe Network 

•  SO3: Clusters Go international 

•  SO4: Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 

192 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

In addition, a number of activities were selected as case studies (see Task 8 below). 

Task 2: Document review 

The research team reviewed: 

•  key  programme  documentation  (including  COSME  work  programmes,  implementation 

reports, monitoring data and fiches) 

•  previous evaluations (including the interim evaluation of COSME),  

•  other secondary sources (listed in the bibliography in Annex B). 

Task 3: Statistical analysis 

Portfolio analysis 

The  portfolio  analysis  involved  mapping  the  policy  mix  used  in  the  programme  by 
reconstructing COSME expenditures by several parameters (e.g., operations and budget 
distribution over the different structural components of the programme). The table provides 
an overview of the data analysed. 

Data type 

Programme 

Level 

Source 

Data hub for COSME 

COSME - SO2, 3, 4  Projects 

EASME/EISMEA 

SME 
Review data 

Performance 

COSME  -  SO1,  2, 
3, 4 

Aggregated 

DG GROW 

Data 
reports 

from  Quarterly 

COSME - SO1 

Aggregated  + 
intermediaries 
recipients 

financial 
final 
+ 

DG GROW 

Data from EIF 

COSME - SO1 

Intermediaries  and 
beneficiaries 

final 

EIF 

Country/region statistics 

COSME - SO1 

Countries/regions 

Eurostat/  SAFE/ 
ECB/ EIBIS  

Final  recipients’  balance 
sheet 

COSME - SO1 

Final recipients 

Orbis 

For the  portfolio analysis,  data  on  both  planned and  committed  operations/budgets  have 
been  collected.  The  distribution  of  operations  and  budget  has  been  determined  across 
policy  instruments  and  thematic  areas  (and  corresponding  action  lines).  Using  data 
disaggregated  at  the  country  level,  the  analysis  was  enriched  to  detect  geographical 
patterns. 

The portfolio analysis generated findings regarding: 

•  Relevance  of  the  COSME  programme,  in  terms  of  the  budget  allocated  for  the 
attainment of specific objectives and sub-objectives as an illustration of the relative 
importance attributed.  

•  Efficiency of implementation, in terms of the extent to which COSME allocated 
sufficient levels of budget to specific actions and projects within these actions, and 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

the eventual distribution or fragmentation of the budget over multiple actions with 
similar objectives.  

The  portfolio  analysis  has  been  contextualised  with  data  on  macroeconomic  conditions 
using  macroeconomic  statistics  (such  as  GDP,  business  demography)  and  data  on  the 
evolution  of  relevant  indicators  (mainly  EIBIS  and  SAFE  data).  Multivariate  analyses 
combining  portfolio  data  with  macroeconomic  data  have  allowed  to  draw  conclusions 
amongst others, on whether the amount paid is mostly concentrated in countries where the 
macroeconomic  conditions  are  more  constraining,  i.e.,  where  there  is  lower  access  to 
finance. 

Final beneficiary analysis 

The final beneficiary analysis consisted of profiling the stakeholders involved in the financial 
instruments of the COSME programme. The main variables covered by the analysis were 
the  geographical  locations  of  the  beneficiaries,  the  types  of  stakeholders  involved  in the 
actions funded, and their sectoral distribution. 

Overall, the final beneficiary analysis leveraged the database developed in the context of 
the Interim evaluation of COSME, especially the methodology for identifying and classifying 
different types of stakeholders and sectors of activity. Additionally, the existing information 
was  complemented  with  an  elaboration  on  data  drawn  from  the  ORBIS  database.  By 
combining  monitoring  data  with  Orbis  data,  it  was  possible  to  assess  final  beneficiaries’ 
performance before and after they received support (e.g., survival rates, the evolution in the 
number of employees, evolution of the turnover etc.) for the COSME LGF and EFG firms. 

Despite the very large share of micro-enterprises benefitting from the programme, it was 
possible to find almost 60% of companies in Orbis. Nevertheless, missing values emerged 
as a key issue when reviewing the available ORBIS data, which further reduced the sample 
size of the analysis. 

Another constraint that finally did not have any impact on the COSME evaluation was the 
fact that the contractor’s Orbis licence did not allow access to company data from before 
2013.  As  the  roll  out  of  the  COSME  financial  instruments  only  took  off  as  of  2015,  this 
access was largely sufficient for gathering the data needed to analyse the situation of the 
businesses before they had benefited from treatment. 

Finally,  the  analysis  (including  the  counterfactual)  of  the  ORBIS  data  was  based  on  a 
sample which was not balanced with respect to the original sample of firms (in particular in 
terms of the location and size of firms). 

Task 4: Call for evidence and public consultation 

The call for evidence published by the European Commission opened on 17 March 2023 
and closed on 14 April 2023. Only three responses were received in the form of position 
papers.  These  were  analysed,  with  any  relevant  evidence  contributing  to  the  research 
findings alongside evidence from other tasks. 

A public consultation on the COSME programme was carried out between 15 June and 18 
September  2023.  The OPC  received  24  responses,  as well  as 2 position  papers  via EU 
Survey.  The  results  of  the  OPC  are  presented  in  the  Synopsis  Report  (D5a)  submitted 
together with the Final Reports. 

The call for evidence and public consultation provided some evidence, which informed the 
the  respondents  were  organisations  representing 
evaluation.  Moreover,  some  of 
stakeholders across the EU. However, the overall usefulness of these exercises was limited 
due to the low response rate and the fact that the overall cohort of respondents was not 

194 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

representative of any particular population (given the open nature of these exercises and 
the self-selecting nature of respondents). 

Task  5:  Targeted  consultations  of  intermediaries  and 
beneficiaries 

A series of online surveys targeted intermediaries and beneficiaries served by the COSME, 
as shown in the table below. (It should be noted that each consultation covered both the 
EIP and COSME periods, thus the number of responses received includes intermediaries 
and  beneficiaries  for  the  EIP,  as  well  as  COSME).  The  questionnaires  for  the  targeted 
consultations are provided in Annex K. 

There was a slow initial response to targeted consultations (reflecting stakeholder fatigue 
and the fact that the consultations were launched during the summer), which was mitigated 
by  further  promotion  of  the  surveys,  extensions  to  survey  deadlines  and  additional 
interviews.  After  taking  the  mitigating  actions,  the  targeted  consultations  provided  the 
necessary  evidence  on  the  opinions  and  experiences  of  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries. 
Five  of  the  six  targeted  consultations  attracted  a  good  response:  EEN  member 
organisations, entrepreneurs participating in EYE, and providers and beneficiaries of other 
COSME co-funded services. There was a modest response to the targeted consultation of 
SME clients served by the EEN), which reflected the challenge in reaching this population 
(i.e. relying on EEN member organisations to forward the invitation to their clients, the time 
elapsed  since  some  SMEs  were  served  by  the  EEN  and  those  clients  perhaps  feeling 
somewhat  remote  from  the  COSME  programme).  The  72  interviews  provided  valuable 
qualitative  evidence  to  complement  the  quantitative  data  from  the  analysis  of  the 
programme portfolio and the targeted consultations. 

Target group 

Sampling strategy 

Sample of 102 intermediaries 

Responses 
received 
59 

•  Financial  intermediaries  for  the 
LGF 
and  SME 
Guarantee (SMEG) Facility (EIP) 
•  SMEs  supported  by  the  LGF 

(COSME) 

(COSME) and SMEG (EIP) 
•  EEN member organisations 
•  SME clients served by the EEN 
•  Host  entrepreneurs  and  new 
in 
entrepreneurs  participating 
Erasmus 
Young 
Entrepreneurs 

for 

•  Providers  and  beneficiaries  of 
co-funded 
COSME 
tourism 
social 

(including 
clusters, 

other 
services 
actions, 
economy) 

SMEs served by a sample of 48 
financial intermediaries 

All beneficiaries 
All beneficiaries 
All beneficiaries 

201 

109 
67 
1,200 

All beneficiaries 

110 

Task 6: Interviews 

A  series  of  72  one-on-one  interviews  was  undertaken,  as  shown  in  the  table  below 
(compared with the initial target of 45-80). It should be noted that each consultation covered 
both the COSME and EIP periods. The questionnaires for the interviews are provided in 
Annex I. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Type 

Performed 

Representatives from  EU institutions and  bodies (DG GROW, DG ECFIN,  EIF, 
EISMEA) 

National authorities/agencies (including those in charge of SME support) 

Financial intermediaries for the LGF (COSME) and SMEG (EIP) 

Funds involved in EFG (COSME) and GIF (EIP) 

Investee companies under EFG (COSME) and GIF (EIP) 

Providers and partners of COSME and EIP co-funded services to SMEs (e.g. EEN 
member  organisations,  EYE  support  office,  cluster  managers,  social  economy 
actors) and representatives of stakeholders (e.g. business support organisations, 
associations) 

Total 

9 

7 

21 

7 

5 

23 

72 

The  original  consultation  strategy  foresaw  separate  targeted  consultations  (surveys)  for 
intermediaries  and  beneficiaries  of  equity  support.  However,  the  EIF  suggested  not  to 
conduct  a  survey  of  fund  managers,  given  that  another  survey  was  planned  and  the 
population  was  limited  (23).  Instead,  the  EIF  proposed  more  in-depth  interviews  with  a 
sample of fund managers. Similarly, the EIF recommended replacing the survey for investee 
companies  with  more  in-depth  interviews  about  additionality,  costs,  and  the  impact  of 
support received by a sample of beneficiaries. The primary reason for this change was to 
mitigate the risk of survey fatigue among beneficiaries. Consequently, the team sampled 
fund managers and investee companies and conducted interviews with them. 

Task 7: Counterfactual analysis 

The  counterfactual  analysis  assessed  the  net  quantitative  causal  impact  of  the  COSME 
financial instruments on final beneficiaries’ performances in the short and medium term. It 
involved  a  comparison  of  the  supported  SMEs  to  a  control  group  of  “not-yet-supported” 
SMEs. This was the only feasible methodological approach that enabled causal conclusions 
to be drawn within a policy evaluation framework. The assessment of impacts focused on 
indicators  relating  to  firm  performance,  such  as  the  number  of  employees,  the  cost  of 
personnel, turnover, and total assets. Given the data limitations explained below, we have 
not further enriched the list of indicators. Other type of impacts, e.g., on firms’ cross-border 
trade, contribution of the actions to climate objectives or gender mainstreaming could not 
be  captured  by  the  counterfactual  analysis  because  of  lack  of  data  proxying  the 
phenomena.  These  impacts  were  assessed  by  means  of  targeted  consultations  and 
interviews. 

A necessary condition for any counterfactual analysis is access to reliable and extensive 
data for both the treated (beneficiary SMEs) and “not-yet-treated” (control groups) entities 
for at least the two years before and after the treatment. The contractor’s subscription to 
Orbis, covering the period as of 2013, was sufficient for gathering the company data needed 
for the counterfactual analysis for the early years of the COSME programme as the roll out 
of the financial instruments only became significant as of 2015. However, in the case of the 
EFG, a causal link could not yet be formally established for the full set of SME beneficiaries 
as most received support from 2021 and the methodology for the counterfactual analysis 
requires data from 2-3 years after the intervention.321 

321 A necessary condition for a counterfactual analysis of this type is access to robust data for both the treated 
(beneficiary SMEs) and not-yet treated (control groups) entities for at least the two years before and after the 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

One key challenge was the construction of a large enough sample for the control group for 
the counterfactual analysis in the limited timeframe for the study, due to the large number 
of SMEs supported by the LGF (865,387). The approach for the counterfactual scenario for 
the  LGF  made  use  of  the  estimator  proposed  by  Callaway  and  Sant’Anna  (2021),322  an 
approach that has been widely used in peer-reviewed academic works. This involved using 
a  pool  of  not-yet  supported  companies  (e.g.  companies  that  received  funding  only  from 
2019  and  onwards  were  used  as  a  control  group  for  companies  supported  in  2018  to 
measure the effects in the year the guarantee was received). It should also be noted that 
the representativeness of the sample size was not fully satisfied at the geographical level.323 

The  results  of  the  counterfactual  analysis  for  the  LGF  (good  impact  on  the  number  of 
employees  and  survival  rates  over  time,  but  a  non-significant  effect  on  the  turnover, 
personnel costs and total assets compared to businesses that had not yet received LGF 
support) only partly align with existing studies on LGF’s predecessors (e.g., under CIP and 
MAP).  Previous  studies  demonstrated  that  EU  guaranteed  loans  impacted  positively  on 
SME growth in terms of employment, sales, and profits.324 However, due to the alternative 
approach followed for this counterfactual analysis, the results cannot be directly compared 
with previous research on financial instruments. One possible explanation for these different 
results is that the control group of businesses that had “not yet benefited” from LGF support 
were better prepared than the businesses used as a control group for previous studies (that 
did not subsequently benefit from any funding from financial instruments at all).325 

In the following paragraphs, after having presented the results of a literature review on the 
topic, we briefly present our approach to assessing the short and medium-term impacts of 
COSME  debt  financing  measures  including  the  provision  of  portfolio  guarantees.  Credit 
enhancement support is excluded because the underlying operations provide capital relief 
to  financial  intermediaries,  but  usually,  no  financial  advantages  are  transferred  to  final 
beneficiaries.  The  geographical  scope  of  the  “counterfactual  analysis”  extends  to  all 
countries eligible for the programme, despite the heterogeneity of the data coverage across 
countries. 

Literature review of impact assessment studies of financial instruments (debt-
based) 

Impact assessment studies of financial instruments 

For an EIB evaluation, CSIL recently carried out an extensive literature review of counterfactual 
analysis  of  debt-based  support  instruments  within  and  outside  the  EU.  This  work  informed  the 
approach to COSME evaluation and for comparative purposes. 

The  review  covered  a  wide  range  of  studies  providing  robust  and  nuanced  information  on  the 
impact of intermediated loans and loan guarantees on the performance of the beneficiary SMEs. 
In total, 34 studies were reviewed covering different geographical areas. Most of them (25) focus 
on the impact of risk sharing facilities (guarantees), seven examine intermediated loans, while a 
few papers include other financial instruments such as direct loans (2). 

Most of the studies conclude that publicly-funded intermediated lending and guarantee schemes 
help SMEs to grow compared to  a no-lending scenario. The  majority  of studies  concluded that 

treatment. In addition, it should be noted that it generally takes several months after the end of the relevant 
financial year for company data to be entered in Orbis. 
322 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620303948 
323 Italian SMEs were well represented in the final sample, but SMEs from other key countries, such as Spain 
and  France,  are  not.  Moreover,  the  positive  trends  observed  amongst  medium-sized  enterprises  are  not 
reflected in the overall net causal impact because, among other factors, the share of medium-sized enterprises 
equals only 1% of the overall sample of final recipients. 
324  See,  for  example:  Brault, J., and  Signore,  S.  (2019).  The  real effects  of  EU  loan  guarantee schemes  for 
SMEs: A pan-European assessment. EIF Working Paper 2019/56, EIF Research & Market Analysis. June 2019. 
http://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/EIF_Working_Paper_2019_56.htm. 
325 For example, they could have been in the process of improving their business plans in preparation for seeking 
additional finance in future. 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

SMEs supported by such schemes outperform non-beneficiary SMEs with respect to a number of 
key performance indicators (see Table 1 below). 

When the result is positive, the effects would be as follows: 

•  Turnover: ranging from 4% to 35%; 

•  Employment: ranging from 1% to 30%;  

•  Survival probability: ranging from 1% to 17%; 

•  Assets (total and fixed assets, capital, investments): ranging from 3% to 35%. 

Table 1: Evidence of impacts from the reviewed literature (number of studies) 

Indicators 

Turnover 
Employment 
Survival rate 
Assets 
Profitability 

Positive 
19 
23 
8 
16 
10 

Negative 
- 
1 
- 
- 
1 

Null 
5 
3 
4 
3 
8 

In  contrast,  the  evidence  related  to  the  impact  on  the  beneficiary’s  profitability,  including  profit 
(e.g., EBIT, EBITDA), productivity, returns on assets (ROA) and investment (ROI) is more mixed. 
Among  the  18  papers  that  examine  the  impact  on  profit,  10  papers  indicate  positive  results, 
meaning  that  there  is  a  positive  and  statistically  significant  difference  in  the  profit  between  the 
treated  SMEs  and  their  control  group.  However,  8  out  of  34  papers  do  not  find  any  difference 
between the two groups. The absence of a positive effect on profit is explained by the literature 
through  two  possible  factors.  Firstly,  the  observed  difference  in  the  output  of  the  production 
process (increased turnover) and inputs (increased assets, employment) offset each other leaving 
the profits almost unaltered. Secondly, profit measures from balance sheet data are less available 
than other output and input indicators and this strongly reduces the reliability of results based on 
profitability. Lastly, profitability indicators come downstream in the income statements after having 
factored in taxation, which makes attribution to the policy under investigation more difficult.  

According to the literature, most of the impacts materialise in the short-medium term, particularly 
between 1 to 4 years: first, a direct impact on assets (after one or two years after the loan); later, 
indirect impacts on turnover, employment, and other economic performance indicators. However, 
it  should  be  said  that  the  time  horizon  of  impacts  covered  by  the  papers  depends  on  data 
availability with only 4 papers (out of 34) looking at the long-term impacts, namely from 5 to 10 
years after the treatment.  

The literature also highlights that impacts are not homogeneous and there are important factors 
that  shape  the  magnitude  of  publicly  supported  debt-based  products  on  SMEs’  performance. 
These are:  

•  Age of the beneficiary SME: the effect on key performance indicators is larger for younger 
companies, which face higher financial constraints as compared to larger companies;  
•  Size of the beneficiary SME: the effect is larger for smaller companies, especially micro, 

which are more likely to lack collateral and credit history;  

•  Geographical location. Evidence from pan-European and multi-country studies identifies 
a different geographical distribution of benefits. These studies support the idea that the 
effects  on  both  intermediated  loans  and  loan  guarantees  are  larger  in  less  developed 
regions  where  more  barriers  to  credit  access  exist  as  compared  to  developed  areas 
(Nyikos  et  al.,  2020).  For  instance,  Amamou  et  al.,  (2020),  and  Asdrubali  and  Signore 
(2015)  show  that  the  effects  are  larger  in  Central,  East  Europe,  and  South  Europe  as 
compared to West and North Europe. Similarly, Barrot et al. (2020) argue that the effect 
is larger in areas characterised by high unemployment rates.  

•  Economic cycle. 10 out of 34 papers reviewed look for economic-cycle specific impacts 
and  all  of  them  corroborate  the  hypothesis  that  intermediated  loans  and  guarantee 
schemes act as countercyclical policies. Access to finance is likely to make a difference 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

in  a period characterised by financial  and economic turmoil  having  positive  impacts on 
assets, investments and survival probability. 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Create the beneficiaries’ dataset 

The  evaluation  relied  on  granular  portfolio  data  provided  by  the  EIF  (the  list  of  final 
beneficiary SMEs) and cross-sectional data series on SMEs’ economic performance from 
Orbis. Orbis is widely used in economic research as a source of firm-level data for micro-
econometric  analysis  and  has  been  widely  used  in  existing  studies  on  the  impact  of 
guaranteed loans on SMEs and midcaps, as well as on the impact of equity financing. 

The two sources of data (portfolio data and Orbis data) were matched using the companies’ 
Orbis ID, and when this was not available the matching was based on the company name, 
VAT number, and locations. The figure below shows the process we followed to construct 
the database on treated companies. This database was also used for the final beneficiary 
analysis (see Statistical Analysis).  

Database construction 

Source: Author’s elaboration  

The matching process was time-consuming since it was based on Orbis batch algorithm 
search  and  manual  checks  needed  to  be  performed  to  ensure  the  correctness  of  the 
results.326 To make the process as efficient as possible, the batch search was carried out 
only  for  companies  with  more  than  one  employee  at  the  time  of  investment.  We  have 
combined  all  data  retrieved  using  the  software  STATA  17.  The  assessment  of  impacts 
focused on indicators relating to firm performance as listed in the table below. 

Selected variables relevant to this “counterfactual analysis” 

TOPIC 

Firm’s structural 
feature 

VARIABLE 

SOURCE 

Country, year of incorporation, firm size 

Economic 
performance 

Number  of  employees,  Personnel  cost,  Turnover,  Profit, 
Revenue,  Operating  Costs,  Liabilities,  Total  assets,  Fixed 
assets, Profitability ratio, Solvency ratio 

Source: Author’s elaboration 

Once data had been downloaded, the data went through a cleaning procedure to finalise 
the database of treated companies. Out of the companies that were successfully matched 
in  Orbis,  some had  incomplete  time  series.  8.6%  (42,530)  of  LFG  beneficiaries  found  in 
Orbis and 18.1% (85) of EFG beneficiaries found in Orbis were excluded for this reason. In 
addition to this, we also excluded observations with odd or inconsistent values, firm-year 
observations in which data from the balance sheet have negative values; firm-year financial 
statements  when  the  basic  balance-sheet  equivalences  are  violated  by  more  than  10%. 
Finally, variables were deflated using the country-specific Harmonised Index of Consumer 
Prices (HICP) deflators.  

326 The EIF provided the Bureau van Dijk ID (BvD ID) unique firm identifier for 60% of the portfolio. This facilitated 
the downloading of firms’ financial data, but a consistent number of batch searches were needed to retrieve 
data on the entire portfolio. 

199 

Orbis 

Orbis 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

After having cleaned the data, we assessed the degree of data attrition (see table below). 
To avoid losing too many observations, the analysis on each indicator was performed using 
different samples. In other words, the sample of treated SMEs varies across the analysis 
depending on the data availability on the explanatory variable and the covariates included 
in the model. 

Country 

Number 
of final 
recipients 

Number of 
companies 
found in 
Orbis 

Number of 
companies 
in the final 
database 

Number of 
employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total 
Assets 

COSME - LGF 

Albania 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Kosovo 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Montenegro 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Serbia 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Türkiye 

209 

3,400 

4,879 

448 

170 

2,762 

3,501 

410 

137 

1,933 

2,950 

409 

0 

0 

426 

266 

0 

10 

456 

92 

0 

1 

48 

174 

0 

577 

752 

276 

11,531 

11,439 

11,330 

6,474 

4,878 

6,373 

6,476 

1,048 

392 

386 

14,756 

13,864 

13,598 

681 

1,596 

4,053 

622 

1,258 

3,576 

425 

1,258 

3,574 

236,425 

170,122 

165,246 

31,929 

21,448 

13,956 

62 

3,828 

5,999 

3,998 

3,735 

3,965 

13,098 

13,074 

19 

297 

19 

279 

172 

442 

0 

730 

439 

530 

15 

1,686 

6,009 

2 

64 

132 

205 

205 

1,603 

1,940 

3,536 

0 

652 

1,151 

4,114 

14 

1 

0 

894 

0 

920 

1,426 

1,618 

4,792 

9,922 

2 

358 

1,670 

1,690 

6,570 

7,874 

8,605 

1 

16 

0 

0 

5 

167 

183,861 

125,080 

122,438 

43,575 

40,335 

51,584 

51,710 

2,057 

1,021 

990 

199 

1,081 

6,145 

1,596 

837 

699 

170 

767 

5,321 

65,112 

29,843 

6,982 

13,120 

18,029 

4,320 

2,298 

6,408 

11,917 

16,393 

4,273 

2,199 

76 

771 

697 

163 

752 

1,055 

8,752 

6,406 

11,917 

16,380 

4,262 

2,194 

6 

563 

434 

0 

513 

24 

48 

3,495 

6,301 

4,826 

39 

1,491 

0 

20 

0 

1 

71 

2 

0 

502 

336 

0 

451 

0 

0 

25 

214 

29 

513 

142 

887 

1,345 

1,410 

3,206 

5,098 

4,632 

1,034 

1,456 

3,647 

3,727 

6,295 

6,291 

4,670 

4,831 

1,862 

2,025 

1,510 

1,726 

173,057 

52,126 

51,089 

14,504 

15,074 

17,949 

18,511 

26 

22 

22 

31,947 

4,324 

1,894 

6 

1 

5 

1 

11 

143 

13 

130 

200 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Country 

Number 
of final 
recipients 

Number of 
companies 
found in 
Orbis 

Number of 
companies 
in the final 
database 

Number of 
employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total 
Assets 

3,235 

2,265 

2,051 

31 

20 

39 

1,070 

863,729 

495,767 

453,237 

93,112 

91,532 

115,743  127,474 

Number 
of 
final 
recipients 

Number of 
companies 
found in 
Orbis 

Number of 
companies 
in the final 
database 

Number of 
employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total 
Assets 

United 
Kingdom 

TOTAL 

Country 

COSME – EFG 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hong Kong 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Israel 

Italy 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Mexico 

2 

5 

6 

2 

1 

7 

13 

2 

13 

79 

2 

5 

6 

2 

0 

7 

12 

2 

12 

47 

134 

133 

7 

1 

4 

12 

6 

1 

1 

4 

1 

6 

1 

4 

12 

6 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

5 

6 

2 

0 

7 

12 

2 

12 

46 

92 

6 

1 

4 

10 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Netherlands 

36 

36 

31 

Norway 

Portugal 

Romania 

Serbia 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Türkiye 

2 

2 

4 

1 

4 

4 

18 

22 

9 

1 

2 

2 

4 

1 

4 

4 

17 

21 

9 

1 

2 

1 

4 

1 

4 

4 

12 

21 

5 

0 

201 

0 

3 

3 

2 

0 

2 

0 

0 

6 

3 

3 

2 

0 

4 

3 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

4 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0 

3 

3 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

6 

2 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

7 

4 

2 

4 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0 

3 

3 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

7 

4 

14 

4 

0 

4 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

5 

0 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Country 

Number 
of 
final 
recipients 

Number of 
companies 
found in 
Orbis 

Number of 
companies 
in the final 
database 

Number of 
employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total 
Assets 

United 
Kingdom 

United 
States 

Total 

74 

45 

69 

36 

58 

29 

3 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

8 

3 

523 

470 

384 

52 

44 

50 

77 

Year of 
investment 

Number 
of final 
recipients 

Number of 
companies 
found in 
Orbis 

Number of 
companies 
in the final 
database 

COSME – LGF 

Number of 
employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total 
Assets 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

466 

50,119 

97,907 

129,509 

138,082 

134,916 

160,453 

99,988 

52,254 

35 

100 

26,526 

59,104 

76,693 

90,590 

84,655 

99,073 

40,010 

18,992 

24 

92 

25,174 

55,395 

72,744 

84,168 

73,905 

91,200 

35,205 

15,339 

15 

0 

2,853 

8,610 

0 

0 

0 

3,145 

3,977 

5,446 

9,064 

11,534 

13,258 

16,044 

15,649 

20,077 

22,053 

20,539 

19,520 

25,051 

26,634 

12,494 

12,287 

16,022 

17,550 

25,322 

25,104 

30,983 

32,609 

7,250 

6,763 

8,099 

9,924 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total 

863,729 

495,767 

453,237 

93,112 

91,532 

115,743  127,474 

Year of 
investment 

Number 
of final 
recipients 

Number of 
companies 
found in 
Orbis 

Number of 
companies 
in the final 
database 

COSME - EFG 

Number of 
employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total 
Assets 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

Total 

2 

6 

11 

18 

25 

61 

97 

195 

108 

523 

2 

6 

9 

17 

25 

56 

91 

169 

95 

470 

0 

0 

3 

5 

9 

6 

2 

11 

16 

52 

0 

0 

1 

4 

6 

3 

4 

10 

16 

44 

0 

1 

2 

4 

7 

6 

4 

11 

15 

50 

0 

1 

3 

7 

11 

8 

7 

20 

20 

77 

1 

5 

9 

17 

24 

52 

70 

137 

69 

384 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Finally, we performed some data processing along a number of important dimensions that 
are  needed  as  control  variables.  This  included  using  data  on  location,  company’s  age, 
sector of activity, independence indicator. 

Control group design  

Constructing the sample of potential controls is another crucial step for any counterfactual 
analysis.  The  main  challenge  of  the  evaluation  of  the  impacts  is  that  the  control  group 
cannot  be  observed  by  construction,  and  we  need  to  select  a  pool  of  not-supported 
companies  to  simulate  the  counterfactual  scenario.  Control  companies  should  not  have 
received the  COSME  support  and  should  perform  as the  supported  SMEs  and  midcaps. 
Ideally,  not-supported  companies  should  not  have  received  any  type  of  support.  Since 
constructing  an  ad-hoc  group  of  never  treated  companies  would  have  not  been  feasible 
because of time constraints, we have used not-yet-treated companies as a control group. 
This implies that companies who received the treatment in 2019 have been used as control 
group for companies that have received the support in 2018. This approach excluded those 
receiving support in 2021 from the analysis since they were the last group receiving support. 

Econometric analysis 

This analysis establishes if there are any visible impacts on SMEs’ performance that can 
be attributed to COSME interventions. We deployed a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) as 
the counterfactual method, whereby the net impact of the COSME’s guaranteed loans is 
measured  by  the  difference  in  means  between  the  observed  outcomes  (employment, 
turnover,  total  assets)  in  the  treated  and  not-yet-treated  group,  and  before  and  after  the 
treatment  period.  The  DiD  estimator  produces  very  accurate  and,  often,  conservative 
estimates  of  the  net  effect  of  policy  interventions.  It  allows  control  for  other  sources  of 
selection bias, including unobservable characteristics specific to the individual firms, which 
remain  stable  over  the  time  period  covered  by  the  analysis  and  influence  the  observed 
outcomes (e.g., the quality of the management). 

To  account  for  the  fact  that  the  treatment  is  delivered  over  multiple  time  periods  (i.e., 
staggered treatment adoption), we followed the approach recently developed by Callaway 
and  Sant’Anna  (2021).  Traditionally,  Two-Way  Fixed  Effect  (TWFE)  estimators  and  their 
dynamic variation would have been applied. However, both approaches do not necessarily 
provide  unbiased estimates.  Authors (Borusyak and Jaravel,  2017;  de  Chaisemartin  and 
D’Haultfœuille, 2020; Goodman-Bacon, 2021; Sun and Abraham, 2020) have demonstrated 
that  the  TWFE  estimator  might  not  be  interpreted  as  a  causal  parameter  nor  as  reliable 
measures of dynamic treatment effects, especially if there is heterogeneity of the impact 
across  cohorts.  Indeed,  in  TWFE  specifications,  OLS  only  considers  variations  in  the 
treatment dummy variable and does not consider the fact that the treated were not exposed 
to  the  treatment  at  the  same  time  but  that,  within  the  treated  group,  there  are  separate 
cohorts. 

The  estimator  of  Callaway  and  Sant’Anna  (2021)  overcomes  this  issue  and  explicitly 
accounts for the fact that among treated units, there are cohorts exposed to the treatment 
at  different  points  in  time.  Another  key  advantage  of this  estimator  is  that  it compares  in 
each year companies that have been supported with those that have not yet been supported 
(i.e., not yet treated) without the need for pure controls (i.e., never treated). Additional details 
on the underlying theoretical framework are described in the box below.  

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Identification strategy 

Identification strategy 

Let 𝑌𝑖𝑡 be the observed outcome variable of company 𝑖 in period 𝑡 ;  

𝐷𝑖𝑡   ∈ {0,1}  be  the  staggered  treatment  adoption  variable,  with  𝐷𝑖𝑡 = 1  if  the  company  𝑖  has  received  the 
treatment  in  period  𝑡  or  before  and  0  otherwise  (this  is  the  irreversibility  of  treatment  assumption:  𝐷𝑖𝑡 =
1 implies that 𝐷𝑖(𝑡+1) = 1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡 = 1,2, … , 𝑇). 

𝐺 be the time period when a company first becomes treated; this variable defines the cohorts among treated 
units; 

𝐺𝑖𝑔 ∈ {0,1} be the treatment starting dummy (or cohort dummy), with 𝐺𝑖𝑔 = 1 if company 𝑖 is first treated at 
time 𝑔 and 0 otherwise; 

 𝑝𝑔𝑠(𝑋) be the generalised propensity score (𝑝𝑔𝑠(𝑋) = 𝑃(𝐺𝑔 = 1|𝑋, 𝐺𝑔 + (1 − 𝐷𝑠)(1 − 𝐺𝑔) = 1)) indicating the 
probability of being first treated at time 𝑔, conditional on pre-treatment covariates 𝑋 and on either being in 
the group 𝑔 such that 𝐺𝑔 = 1 or a in the not-yet-treated group at time 𝑠 such that (1 − 𝐷𝑠)(1 − 𝐺𝑔) = 1. 

We  have estimated the  average  treatment effect  for  the  group  of  companies first  treated  at  time  𝑔  in  the 
calendar time 𝑡 as follows: 

𝐴𝑇𝑇(𝑔, 𝑡) = 𝔼(𝑌𝑡(𝑔)− 𝑌𝑡(0)| 𝐺𝑔 = 1), 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡  ≥ 𝑔 

Then,  we  have  estimated  the  overall  average  treatment  effect  by  means  of  weighted  averages  of  the 
𝑇
𝐴𝑇𝑇(𝑔, 𝑡). Specifically, ∑
. Two weighting schemes were exploited, and results 
𝑔=2
were compared to investigate the differences: i) simple weighted average of all 𝐴𝑇𝑇(𝑔, 𝑡); ii) average effect 
of  participating  in  the  treatment  for  the  group  of  companies  that  have  been  exposed  to  the  treatment  for 
exactly 𝑘 time periods. 

𝟏{𝑔 ≤ 𝑡}𝑤𝑔𝑡𝐴𝑇𝑇(𝑔, 𝑡)

𝑇
∑
𝑡=2

As in the traditional DiD framework, also in this framework, parallel trends assumption on both never treated 
groups and not-yet-treated groups must hold.  

Source: Author’s elaboration 

The estimation phase assessed the impact of COSME on supported SMEs and midcaps. 
As  previously  mentioned,  we  employed  the  DiD  approach  with  multiple  time  periods, 
recently developed by Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021) to obtain the DiD estimator (i.e., the 
ATT)  using  the  STATA  command  “csdid”.  Thus,  we  measured  the  net  casual  impact  of 
COSME support on each outcome variable for each cohort (by year of first investment) as 
well  as  the  aggregated  impact.  To  ensure  the  robustness  of  the  results,  we  conducted 
different  specifications  to  test  how  sensitive  the  results  were  to  certain  specifications. 
Finally,  robustness  checks  confirmed  the  obtained  results.  We tested  the  parallel  trends 
assumption underlying the DID estimation of the ATTs. This assumption requires that both 
treated and not-yet-treated firms share the same trend in the outcome variables in the pre-
treatment period in the absence of the treatment. 

Assessment of Costs and Benefits 

Regarding  the  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits,  in  so  far  as  possible,  we  aligned  the 
approach with the approach adopted during the Interim evaluation of COSME (Technopolis, 
2017). 

The analysis of the costs is not exhaustive as it only considers the costs sustained by the 
Commission  (EU  contribution  to  the  programme  and  its  actions)  and  costs  incurred  by 
participants. It does not include direct or indirect costs to other stakeholders not targeted or 
participating  in  the  actions  (e.g.  industry  representatives,  sub-contractors).  The  analysis 
considers the outputs and outcomes of the programme as proxies of the benefits generated. 
The impacts achieved by the programme were also explored through the study consultation. 
However, stakeholders were not able to provide specific estimates to allow quantification. 
Therefore,  the  metrics  presented  in  the  report  provide  a  partial  picture  of  the  benefits 

204 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

generated. This was complemented in qualitative terms by the consultation feedback on the 
impacts. 

In terms of costs and benefits, we have thus considered the following: 

•  direct  costs  of  the  programme  (i.e.  EU  contribution  in  2014-2020).  The  data 
extraction included a portfolio analysis involving the mapping of the policy mix used 
in the programme by reconstructing COSME expenditure and by several parameters 
(e.g. budget distribution over the different structural components of the programme). 
Data was obtained from the quarterly reports, information on budget committed and 
information on administrative costs when available.  

•  other costs to beneficiaries. For the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), this includes 
the co-funding from member organisations; for Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 
(EYE) it includes additional costs incurred by hosts and new entrepreneurs; and for 
the LGF, indirect costs include the additional guarantee provided under EFSI. These 
come from portfolio data provided by EISMEA (for EYE and EEN) and from Q4 2022 
quarterly  report  (for  LGF  and  EFG).  The  figures  represent  the  total  for  the  2014-
2020 period. 

• 

the  benefits  produced  by  the  actions  (based  on  the  results  achieved).  Monitoring 
data from the different actions informed the assessment of the benefits. 

Two  cost-effectiveness  indicators  (CEA)  are  produced  using  the  above  data.  The  first 
indicator (CEA Indicator 1) reflects the benefits produced per million Euro invested by the 
programme. The second indicator (CEA Indicator 2) reflects the benefits produced over the 
cost of the programme and the indirect costs to beneficiaries.  

These metrics can be compared across actions. In particular, the analysis focuses on the 
following actions: EYE, EEN, LGF and EFG. The value of these indicators at the interim 
stage (assessed in the earlier evaluation) is also considered when available. This allows to 
understand whether there have been any improvements in the cost/ benefits ratio.  

Results 

The table below shows the aggregated results obtained for final recipients of the LGF and 
EFG,  separately.  As  shown  in  the  table  and  elaborated  upon  in  the  main  report,  the 
evidence  suggests  an  average  null  effect  of  both  financial  instruments  on  the  economic 
performance of supported companies. An exception is the positive and significant impact of 
LGF on the number of employees. However, these findings may be biased by the fact that 
the sample of analysis is not fully representative of the entire population, particularly in terms 
of  geographical  distribution.  As  shown  in  the  tables  above,  for  the  LGF  instrument,  a 
significant portion of French and Spanish companies was not included in the analysis due 
to data availability issues. Moreover, the findings are likely influenced by the relatively small 
average ticket size of LGF support, which was primarily used by SMEs for working capital 
purposes rather than for expansion. Conversely, the results obtained for the EFG may be 
biased due to the small sample size and the restriction of the sample to companies that had 
full  time  series,  as  EFG  mostly  targeted  very  young  companies.  Moreover,  most  EFG 
recipients received equity financing starting from 2021, which was too early to determine if 
any impact materialises. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

No. employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total assets 

ATT_LGF 

1.170** 

(0.451) 

N. observation 

93,112 

ATT_EFG 

17.10 

(27.02) 

N. observation 

52 

0.875 

(1.970) 

91,532 

1093.6 

(1007.4) 

44 

0.0304 

(0.161) 

115,743 

0.359 

(0.626) 

50 

-465,223.9 

(1946415.3) 

127,474 

23.96 

(16.24) 

77 

Standard errors in parentheses: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 

To  check  the  robustness  of  the  results,  we  conducted  the  pre-trends  analysis  using  the 
“csdid” STATA command. Results are provided in the table below. It should be noted that 
the null hypothesis (H0) states that all pre-treatment are equal to 0. Although for turnover, 
the overall Chi2 statistics did not allow us to conclude that the pre-trends assumption holds, 
it is noted that the event study shows that the coefficients associated with ATT in each pre-
treatment period are never statistically significant. 

No. employees 

Cost of 
personnel 

Turnover 

Total assets 

Chi2_LGF 

20.3738 

18.0649 

38.0428** 

17.4266 

p-value 

0.1581 

N. observation 

93,112 

0.2593 

91,532 

0.0009 

0.2940 

115,743 

127,474 

Chi2_ EFG 

7.7815 

12.0797 

22.0106* 

12.7226 

p-value 

0.9322 

0.5999 

0.0374 

0.6237 

N. observation 

52 

44 

50 

77 

Standard errors in parentheses: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 

The Commission requested additional tests/checks (notably a check using the “log linear 
specification”) to track the relative causal effect of the loans, and a breakdown of businesses 
that had benefited, and businesses that had not yet benefited. The results were consistent 
with those obtained with the main specification: an average null effect was estimated for 
both  financial  instruments  on  the  economic  performance  of  supported  companies.  We 
provided  all  requested  information,  and  after  receiving  this  additional  information,  the 
Commission confirmed its positive assessment of the robustness of the approach.  

Task 8: Case studies  

A series of case studies explored some of the key evaluation issues in greater depth. The 
case studies included flagship actions, good practice examples, and examples of activities 
that  had  not  performed  as  well  as  expected.  The  case  studies  provide  a  qualitative 
assessment  to  complement the  quantitative work  under  the  counterfactual  (econometric) 
analysis to assess the longer-term impacts of interventions supported by COSME. 

More  specifically,  the  case  studies  include  examples  of  flagship  actions  and  their 
achievements,  examples  of  good  practice/success  stories  to  investigate  the  factors  that 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

have led to the effective implementation of the activities as well as examples of initiatives 
that have not performed as effectively in order to identify and review barriers and disabling 
factors  that  have  prevented  the  achievement  of  results.  The  analysis  of  these  examples 
allowed  the  identification  of  lessons  learnt  and  of  the  elements  and contextual factors  to 
take into account, in order to maximise the effectiveness of future initiatives for SME growth 
and innovation. The case studies are presented in Annex L. 

Task 9: Analysis and reporting 

Analysis and reporting was undertaken at two stages: 

• 

Interim  analysis  was  undertaken  based  on  the  evidence  gathered  to  that  point, 
culminating in the submission of the Progress Report (D2); 

•  Final analysis was undertaken based on all evidence gathered during the evaluation 
and culminating in the submission of the Draft Final Report (D3), Final Report (D4) 
and Executive Summary and Synopsis Report (D5). 

Main challenges and mitigation actions 

The main  challenges  encountered  in  the  evaluation  and  the  mitigation  actions  taken  are 
summarised in the table below.  

Challenges 

Description of the challenge and mitigation actions taken  

Scope of the study   The scope of the study was broad, as COSME supported a wide range of 
interventions  that  pursued  different  objectives  and  targeted  different 
beneficiaries.  It  was  challenging  to  strike  the  right  balance  between 
different actions supported by the programme (between larger and smaller 
actions for instance). To address this issue, we took a balanced approach 
in  our  research  efforts  for  COSME  making  the  best  use  of  available 
evidence from monitoring data, past evaluations, and studies 

Lack of common 
reporting 
arrangements/ 
level of detail in 
monitoring data 

Lack of quantitative 
data on benefits for 
the assessment of 
the efficiency 
criterion 

Monitoring and 
programme data 
gathering 
process/governance 
structure 

The  availability  of  monitoring  data  and  information  on  actions  varies 
significantly  based  on  their  type  and  value.  Additionally,  there  was  no 
unified monitoring and reporting system for all actions, and a clear set of 
indicators for assessing the programme performance, especially for smaller 
actions,  is  missing.  Targeted  consultations  and  interviews  with  selected 
stakeholders were used to gather relevant information and data on some 
of these smaller actions.  

Limited  quantitative  data  was  found  in  relation  to  efficiency.  The  team 
followed a similar approach to that of the earlier evaluation by assessing 
the costs, both direct costs to the Commission, and other costs incurred by 
beneficiaries  in  order  to  develop  some  efficiency  metrics,  relative  to  the 
number  of  beneficiaries.  Other  costs 
the  costs  by  other 
organisations,  non-EU  and  including  beneficiaries.  These  include  co-
funding  costs  or  additional  guarantees,  for  instance  under  EFSI.  These 
were  calculated  from  the  total  costs  of  the  action  subtracting  the  EU 
contribution.  

include 

(e.g.,  EISMEA,  EIF, 

The  research  team  conducted  an  extensive  data  collection  exercise 
involving  different  stakeholders 
intermediary 
organisations,  business  umbrella  organisations  etc.)  to  gather  relevant 
monitoring information as well as data on the programmes, the projects and 
final  recipients  supported  through  the  different  specific  measures.  This 
complex  governance  structure  has  posed  some  challenges  to  the  data 
gathering process. The monitoring data are indeed managed by different 
entities  at  different  levels  of  granularity.  As  an  illustrative  example,  for 
financial instruments data was collected at the level of the final recipients, 

207 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Challenges 

Description of the challenge and mitigation actions taken  

the 

intermediate  bodies  (rather 

i.e.,  SMEs, while for other  measures/thematic  actions, the  most granular 
final 
unit  of  analysis  were 
beneficiaries). Therefore, one key challenge has been that the information 
was fragmented and so ad-hoc requests for clarification and meetings had 
to be scheduled. To accommodate the data availability, multiple datasets 
have been built depending on the unit of analysis available and the type of 
measure. The size of each dataset widely differs, ranging from 5,788 rows 
for grants to more than 1 million for the LGF. Furthermore, the team has 
ensured  a  smooth  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  with  the 
Commission, EISMEA and the EIF to discuss data availability and needs. 

than 

Slight delay in the 
launch of the 
targeted 
consultations 

& 

The testing and finalisation phase of the six survey questionnaires with the 
Commission, EISMEA and the EIF took slightly longer than expected (more 
than  one  month).  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  different  Commission, 
EISMEA  and  the  EIF’s  services  were  involved  in  the  review  of  the 
questionnaires.  However,  we  believe  that  this  resulted  in  better  quality 
surveys.  

Contractor 
responsible for the 
dissemination of the 
surveys 

Limited response to 
interview requests 
and surveys 

Risk that emerged 
during the project: 
The limited duration 
of the contractor’s 
Orbis licence could 
hamper counter-
factual analysis for 
interventions at the 
start of the 
programme. 

Challenge arising 
during the 
assignment: 
constructing a large 

As regards the dissemination, according to the original consultation plan, 
the  EIF  and  EISMEA  were  expected  to  play  a  significant  role  in  the 
dissemination  of  the  surveys  to  targeted  stakeholders  in  order  to  ensure 
higher participation. However, the EIF could not play this role due to the 
potential burden imposed on the front office. The contractor agreed with the 
EIF on a solution: the contractor would disseminate the survey links to the 
selected financial intermediaries using the contact details shared by the EIF 
and  keep  the  EIF’s  front  office  copied  into  the  communications  to 
encourage  a  better  response.  Unfortunately,  the  surveys  of  financial 
recipients and beneficiaries did not receive a significant response during 
the  first  two  weeks  of  the  consultation.  To  mitigate  this  issue  and  boost 
participation,  the  research  team  translated  the  survey  questionnaire  for 
final  recipients  into  different  EU  languages.  The  EIF  also  supported  the 
contractor in sending follow-up messages to the intermediaries. 

Overall,  the  consultations  provided  the  necessary  evidence  (e.g.  needs 
addressed,  activities  undertaken,  and  the  characteristics,  opinions  and 
experiences  of  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries).  A  number  of  mitigating 
actions  were  taken  to  ensure  a  sufficient  response  rate.  Two  main 
challenges were faced: a general 'consultation fatigue' among the targeted 
stakeholders given that other consultations were launched just before or in 
parallel  to  the  evaluation;  and  the  fact  that  some  of  the  consultations 
overlapped  with  the  summer  period.  The  successful  mitigating  actions 
included  working  closely  with  the  Commission,  the  EIF,  and  EISMEA  to 
identify  stakeholders  willing  to  participate  in  interviews  and  leverage 
effective channels for survey dissemination and extended the deadlines for 
completing surveys. 

The contractor’s Orbis licence, which only covered access to company data 
from 2013 onwards. In practice, there was no need to go back earlier than 
2013 for analysing the control group’s performance, as the LGF only started 
delivering finance to SMEs in 2015, and the EFG at the end of 2015. 

We proposed an alternative approach for the counterfactual scenario for 
the  LGF,  making  use  of  the  “the  estimator  of  Callaway  and  Sant’Anna 

208 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Challenges 

Description of the challenge and mitigation actions taken  

enough sample for 
the control group in 
time due to the 
large number of 
SMEs supported 
(865,387) 

(2021)327 ”, a recent approach that, however, has been already widely used 
in  peer-reviewed  academic  works,  This  involved  using  a  pool  of  not-yet 
supported  companies.  This  is  further  explained  in  the  points  on  the 
counterfactual  analysis  and  the  methodology  section  of  the  main  report. 
The Commission requested further data and tests which we provided and 
confirmed the robustness of the methodology. 

327 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620303948 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex H: Synopsis of consultation activities 

Call for evidence 

The call was open from 17 March 2023 to 14 April 2023. In total, 3 responses were received 
from: 

•  2  business  associations  from  Belgium:  both  were  small  organisations  (10  to  49 

employees) 

•  1 NGO from Slovakia: a micro-organisation (1 to 9 employees) 

•  The two business associations expressed satisfaction with the COSME programme. 

•  The  NGO  criticised  the  programme,  stating  that  it  is  not  equally  accessible  to  all 
participants and those from less developed regions face disproportionately higher 
barriers. 

Public consultation 

The  consultation  was  open  from  15  June  2023  to  18  September  2023.  A  total  of  24 
organisations and individuals responded to the consultation. The responses came from Italy 
(8),  Belgium  (2),  Germany  (2),  Netherlands  (2),  Romania  (2),  Finland  (1),  France  (1), 
Hungary  (1),  Luxembourg  (1),  Malta  (1),  Poland  (1),  Portugal  (1)  and  Spain  (1).  No 
responses were received from non-EU countries. Business associations accounted for most 
responses (7), followed by NGOs (5), businesses (3), public authorities (3), EU citizens (3) 
and other (3). The size of organisation varied with 6 having more than 250 employees, 4 
having 50 to 249 employees, 6 having 10 to 49 and 5 having fewer than 10. 

All respondents were asked for their views and experiences on the various measures within 
the COSME programme. The respondents reported that the COSME programme enabled 
them to gain a range of positive results relating to competitiveness, entrepreneurship, SME 
start-up  and  growth,  support  services  for  SMEs,  uptake  of  technologies  and  skills,  and 
access  to  information  and  knowledge.  Based  on  their  experience,  the  majority  (21/24) 
reported that the support provided through the COSME programme is still having positive 
effects.  When  asked  to  explain  their  response,  respondents  reported  that  COSME  was 
having  significant  and  lasting  impact  on  European  SMEs,  for  example,  in  terms  of  the 
connections and collaborations facilitated through COSME continuing beyond the period of 
support and with the current Single Market Programme ensuring continuity of support. The 
most relevant COSME actions were those relating to SME internationalisation, support for 
events, grants, networks of services providers to SMEs and capacity-building actions, no 
doubt reflecting the fact that most respondents had received support either as EEN member 
organisations or through the clusters or tourism actions. 

Respondents  offered  a  positive  view  of  the  design  and  operation  of  the  COSME 
programme. Indeed, the majority of the 24 respondents reported that: the objectives related 
to  the  needs  of  SMEs,  annual  programming  was  transparent,  communication  activities 
reached  potential  beneficiaries,  descriptions  were  clear  in  calls  for  proposals/tenders, 
activities in the COSME work programme were clearly defined, and it was easy to find the 
appropriate action or support to address respondents’ needs. Of the 14 respondents that 
could provide a view, the majority (11/14) reported that the conditions for receiving support 
through  the  loan  guarantees,  counter-guarantees  and  equity  funds  were  clear  and 
transparent. The minority of respondents whose organisation also had a presence in a non-
EU  country  (and  who  were  able  to  give  a  view)  were  positive  about  the  COSME 
communication activities in those countries and the ease of finding calls that were open to 
participation of organisations in those countries. 

210 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

However,  the  process  of  applying  for  funds  was  reported  to  pose  some  challenges.  A 
majority of respondents reported that it took a long time to prepare an application and that 
the level of administrative requirements for participating was high. 

The adaptation mechanisms  within  COSME  were seen  as  being  well  adapted to  dealing 
with  emerging  challenges  and  addressing  market  failures.  Almost  all  the  respondents 
(22/24) confirmed that COSME adapted well (i.e. to a great or to some extent) to new and 
emerging  political  priorities,  for  instance  with  the  new  Single  Market  Strategy  and  its 
objective of supporting start-ups and scale-ups. Likewise, most (21/24) respondents stated 
that the programme adapted well to major new challenges affecting businesses,  such as 
the Covid-19 pandemic, and most (19/24) stated that COSME actions effectively addressed 
market failures, including new deficiencies. 

COSME  is  seen  as  having  strongest  linkages  with  the  Horizon  2020  programme,  the 
European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Regional Development Fund and 
Creative  Europe.  Indeed,  the  majority  of  respondents  who  were  able  to  give  a  view 
highlighted  these  programmes  as  having  linkages  with  COSME.  Reflecting  this,  one 
position paper highlighted the facilitative role played by EEN nodes providing businesses 
with  extensive  knowledge  of  available  funding  opportunities,  including  the  EU  structural 
funds.  However,  there  was  some  divergence  of  views,  with  some  respondents,  albeit  a 
minority also perceiving no linkages or even a degree of overlap. For example, one position 
paper focused on financial instruments highlighted that the rules for combining ESI funds 
with centrally managed financial instruments such as COSME were too complex. Far fewer 
respondents perceived linkages or overlaps between COSME and other programmes, such 
as Erasmus+, LIFE, Employment and Social Innovation, European Social Fund, Connecting 
Europe Facility, and the European agricultural fund for rural development. 

COSME is perceived to contribute to a range of wider EU policy priorities. A considerable 
majority of the 24 respondents considered that COSME contributed to a great extent or to 
some  extent  to  sustainable  development  (20/24),  a  deeper  and  fairer  internal  market 
(20/24), jobs growth and investment (19/24), a connected digital single market (18/24), the 
role of the EU as a stronger global actor (17/24) and an Energy Union with a forward-looking 
climate  policy  (16/24).  Gender  equality  was  the  EU  priority  which  fewest  respondents 
(12/24) considered that COSME contributed to. 

The  majority  of  respondents  (14/24)  considered  that  COSME  provided  a  higher  level  of 
support  compared  with  national  or  regional  programmes  supporting  SMEs  and 
entrepreneurship. Only 4 reported that COSME offered a lower level of support, whilst 5 
reported that it offered the same level. When asked about how specific aspects of COSME 
compare  with  national  or regional  programmes, COSME  was seen as more  beneficial  in 
respect of cooperation with partners from other countries, improved international visibility, 
project  financing  (which  would  otherwise  not  be  available),  strengthened  critical  mass  to 
address  pan-European  challenges  and  strengthened  capacities,  competences  and  skills 
inside companies. National or regional programmes were seen as providing a higher level 
of support in strengthening co-operation between academia and the private sector. When 
asked to explain their responses, respondents highlighted the lower administrative burden, 
greater  flexibility,  leaner  application  processes  and  international  scope  of  COSME 
compared with national or regional programmes. 

Consultation strategy 

In addition to the call for evidence and the public consultation, the consultations included:  

•  72 interviews with key stakeholders, including European Commission and Executive 
Agency  officials,  financial  intermediaries,  funds,  investee  companies  and  other 
participants in thematic actions.  

211 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  6 targeted consultations carried out via online surveys. These provided evidence on 
the programme and specific actions which complemented the statistical analysis and 
the results of the review of available monitoring data/secondary sources. All surveys 
operated from 7 August to 25 September (apart from the financial support ones kept 
open for a few more days to encourage participation). 

The  tables  below  present  the  numbers  of  stakeholders  consulted  via  the  interviews  and 
targeted  consultations.  The  number  of  responses  are  in line  with the results  achieved in 
previous consultations about the programme. The study team adopted mitigation measures 
to  achieve  a  good  response  rate:  multiple  dissemination  channels,  sending  follow-ups, 
extending  the  survey  deadlines,  etc.  Furthermore,  the  survey  for  final  recipients  of 
guaranteed loans covering both COSME LGF and SMEG (EIP) was translated into French, 
Italian,  German  and  Spanish  to  facilitate  participation.  These  measures  significantly 
increased  the  survey  response  rate  (with  the  EYE  survey  achieving  particularly  good 
results).  

Target groups 

Interviews 
undertaken 

EU institutions (DG GROW, DG ECFIN, EIF, EISMEA) 

National authorities/agencies (including those in charge of SME support) 

Financial intermediaries for the LGF (COSME) and SMEG (EIP) 

Funds involved in EFG (COSME) and GIF (EIP) 

Investee companies under EFG (COSME) and GIF (EIP) 

Providers and partners of COSME and EIP co-funded services to SMEs (e.g. EEN 
member  organisations,  EYE  support  office,  cluster  managers,  social  economy 
actors) and representatives of stakeholders (e.g. business support organisations, 
associations) 

Total 

9 

7 

21 

7 

5 

23 

72 

Target groups 

(e.g. 

organisations 

SMEs supported by the LGF (COSME) and SMEG (EIP) 
Financial intermediaries for the LGF (COSME) and SMEG (EIP) 
EEN  member 
development 
organisations,  universities  and  research  institutes,  chambers  of 
commerce and industry and innovation agencies) 
SME clients of EEN  
Providers  and  SME  beneficiaries  of  other  measures  (e.g.  cluster 
international  organisations/managers,  thematic  actions  including 
tourism, social economy)  
EYE Entrepreneurs (host and new entrepreneurs) 

regional 

Number of responses 
to targeted 
consultations 
201 
59 
109 

67 
110 

1 200 

Results of the interview programme 

The 72 stakeholder interviews covered a range of purposes. Interviews of officials of the 
European  Commission  DG  GROW  and  EISMEA  were  concerned  with  the  design  of  the 
evaluation but also the operation and effects of the programme at EU level.  

Interviews with financial intermediaries related to the relevance, implementation and effects 
of the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) and Equity Facility for Growth (EFG). Interviews with 
EEN  members  explored  their  experiences  of  providing  EEN  services.  Interviews  of 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

entrepreneurs  explored 
in  Erasmus  for  Young 
their  experiences  of  participating 
Entrepreneurs (EYE), as host entrepreneurs or new entrepreneurs. Interviews of providers 
and  beneficiaries  of  other  COSME  actions  explored  their  role  in  those  actions  and  their 
perceptions of the results and impact achieved by the specific projects they participated in 
and by the programme as a whole.  

The financial intermediaries reported that the LGF addressed market failures (i.e. lack of 
finance for SMEs) more effectively than national programmes. Without the LGF, they would 
have  reduced  their  lending  to  SMEs,  since  most  of  them  would  not  have  had  sufficient 
collateral to back their loans. The LGF also allowed them to offer loans to riskier SMEs on 
more favourable terms. This translated into lower interest rates compared to similar client 
profiles  and  longer  loan  maturities.  Financial  intermediaries  confirmed  that  the  EIF 
involvement in the EFG helped unlock fundraising by crowding-in other private investors. 
This  was  particularly  important  in  the  last  two  years,  which  were  characterised  by 
geopolitical  uncertainty  and  restrictive  economic  measures  such  as  increasing  interest 
rates,  and  a  squeeze  of  the  public  budget  after  the  massive  intervention  to  address  the 
Covid-19  effects  on  the economy.  In  contrast, the  cap  imposed  on  EFG investment  was 
perceived by financial intermediaries to have limited its effectiveness. Another barrier was 
the absence of a matchmaking process between funds and other investors in addition to 
EIF. 

EEN members interviewed reported that the EEN services addressed the needs of SMEs. 
They noted an evolution of the services in line with SMEs’ needs, towards a deeper and 
more comprehensive support to SME’s growth, innovation and internationalisation, and an 
expansion  of  the  online  services  provided.  EEN  members  considered  the  EEN  services 
effective  overall,  with  the  most  effective  services  being  advisory  services  and  business 
cooperation services (e.g. B2B and matchmaking events). Some members noted that the 
impact of the partnership services was lower than expected. Overall, EEN members said 
that  the  benefits  of  EEN,  such  as  enhanced  networks  and  increased  knowledge, 
outweighed the costs of providing EEN services. However, some EEN members considered 
that the EEN grant was not adapted to the growing EEN service portfolio and rising labour 
costs, which required them to make a choice in the services to provide. The EEN members 
interviewed reported synergies with other EU programmes, by cooperating with EYE, the 
European  Cluster  Collaboration  Platform  (ECCP)  and  the  H2020  NCPs,  as  well  as 
signposting  their  SME  clients  towards  services  provided  by  Horizon  2020  NCPs,  ERDF, 
Interreg projects, EURES, Europe Direct centres, clusters and Digital Innovation Hubs. EEN 
members also cooperate with national and regional authorities and stakeholders. The EU 
added value of EEN lies in its cross-border nature, the support and knowledge sharing from 
the  network,  and  the  free-of-charge  services  for  SME  beneficiaries.  Although  all  EEN 
members interviewed reported communicating clearly to their SME clients that the service 
is EU co-funded, several noted that SMEs primarily recognise the service provider and do 
not always realise or remember that the service provision is ultimately co-funded by the EU. 

Entrepreneurs participating in EYE reported that the action was successful in achieving its 
objective of fostering entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial culture. In particular, the EYE 
action helped new entrepreneurs improve their skills and business knowledge and identify 
new partners. It also responded to the needs of the host entrepreneurs in terms of helping 
aspiring  entrepreneurs  and  generating  new  ideas.  EYE  Global  also  responded  to  the 
European firms’ needs to establish relationships with businesses located in the US, South 
Korea, and other countries that are progressive in terms of their start-up support culture. 
EYE  achieved  a  range  of  positive  results  for  the  stakeholders  involved  and  it  is  also 
expected to achieve positive long-term impacts. Interviewees also confirmed that the role 
of intermediary organisations was key in supporting the entrepreneurs returning from EYE 
exchanges  to  their  home  countries.  In  this  context,  the  after-care  programmes,  the 
availability  of  legal  support  for  EYE  beneficiaries,  and  access  to  support  locally  were 
identified  as  good  practice  that  was  effective  in  fostering  longer-term  impacts  stemming 
from EYE exchanges. Entrepreneurs participating in the action also suggested that having 

213 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

a business set up before participating in an EYE exchange might be a factor contributing to 
the production of long-term benefits. 

Providers  and  beneficiaries  of  other  COSME  actions  shared  positive  feedback  on  the 
actions they participated in and the programme as a whole. This stakeholder group includes 
participants  in  tourism-related  actions,  cluster  actions,  public  procurement  and  social 
economy actions. 

Participants  in  tourism  actions  indicated  that  the  support  provided  by  the  programme  to 
SMEs in the tourism sector was crucial and addressed their needs. From their perspective, 
some  tourism-related  initiatives  were  particularly  relevant  as  they  facilitated  information 
exchanges  on  smart  tourism  practices,  the  impact  of  COVID-19  on  the  industry  and 
pathways to long-term transition towards green, digital and resilient tourism. These were 
deemed as key priorities for the competitiveness and sustainable growth of SMEs in the 
tourism  sector.  Other  initiatives  were  appreciated  as  they  supported  the  organisation  of 
events between different players in the sector. 

Participants  in  clusters  actions  reported  a  strong  interest  in  Cluster  Go  international 
initiative.  The  initiative  was  deemed  particularly  helpful  in  supporting  SMEs  in  their 
internationalisation  process  and  cross-border  collaboration.  The  initiative  allowed  SMEs 
from  one  country  to  team  up  with  European  partners,  work  together  on  common 
internationalisation  goals  and  learn  from  each  other.  COVID-19  had  a  transformational 
impact on this initiative as it encouraged participants to find alternative ways of cooperating. 
Online meetings were seen as ways to improve communication and matching processes. 

Results  of  the  targeted  consultation  of  final  recipients  of 
COSME LGF 

The  targeted  consultation  with  final  beneficiaries  of  COSME  (LGF)  loan  guarantees  ran 
between 7 August 2023 and 27 September 2023. 

In total, 189 LGF final beneficiaries participated in the consultation. The number of answers 
for  each  question  varies  given  that  not  all  questions  were  mandatory,  and  some  replies 
were inappropriate and removed from the overall set of contributions. 

The businesses responding had mainly been established since 2000 (129/175, 74%). 

The  main reasons  for  seeking  LGF  support  was  to  meet  working  capital  needs  (44/146, 
30%),  capital  purchases  (24/146,  16%),  expansion  or  renovation  of  business  premises 
(22/146,  15%),  financing  a  start-up  (16/146,  11%)  or  a  new  product  or  service  (15/146, 
10%).  Most  respondents  (92/146,  63%)  were  aware  that  the  financing  received  was 
supported by an EU guarantee under the COSME programme. The most common way by 
which  respondents  became  of  the  EU  guarantees  was  via  financial  institutions  (58/146, 
40%) or promotional banks (28/146, 19%). 

Apart from the EU-guaranteed support, most respondents (100/146, 68%) also considered 
normal  bank  loans,  family  and  friends  (13/146,  9%),  equity  (10/146,  7%)  or  a  guarantee 
from  a national/regional  scheme (10/146,  7%).  However, for  some respondents  (30/146, 
21%),  the  LGF  was  the  only  source  of  finance  they  considered.  Among  those  that 
considered other sources of funding (116), a large majority effectively applied for normal 
bank loans (94/116, 81%) or a national or regional scheme (22/116, 19%). 

Of the respondents who were refused other financing (113), the main reasons were lack of 
collateral (23/113, 20%), lack of track record (7/113, 6%), and high risk related to the project 
or purpose (6/113, 5%). The rest (21/113, 19%) mentioned a variety of other reasons (e.g. 
debt rates that were already too high or context due to Covid 19). 

In the absence of LGF support, only a few respondents (18/113, 16%) would have obtained 
the same amount of financing from other sources with similar terms and conditions as the 

214 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

LGF. Most (83/113, 73%) would have accessed other sources of finance, but either with 
different terms and conditions (44/113, 39%) or a smaller amount with similar terms and 
conditions (13/113, 12%) or a smaller amount with different terms and conditions (26/113, 
23%). The rest (12/131, 9%) reported that they would not have accessed other sources of 
finance at all. 

Compared  to  other  offers  available  on  the  market  at  the  time,  a  majority  of  respondents 
reported  that  the  LGF  was  favourable  or  much  more  favourable  in  terms  of:  terms  and 
conditions  (81/122,  66%);  collateral/security  requirements  (78/122,  64%);  interest  rate 
(76/122, 62%); repayment period (63/122, 52%); and speed of processing the application 
(61/122, 50%). 

Most respondents (81/102, 79%) did not seek external help in relation to the EU-guaranteed 
support. 

Most  respondents  were  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the  LGF  reporting  requirements 
(84/122,  69%),  whilst  only  a  few  reported  any  additional  costs  or  administrative  burden 
(17/122, 14%) or additional complexity (10/122, 8%) related to the fact that the financing 
was guaranteed by the EU. When additional costs were reported, they concerned time and 
budget  to  prepare  the  necessary  documentation  and  to  process  fees  taken  by  financial 
intermediaries. 

The main  reported  impacts  of  the financing  were allowing  the recipients  to:  expand their 
business in existing markets (93/122, 76%); survive in difficult times (80/122, 66%); enter 
new markets (66/122, 54%); develop a new product or service (64/102, 63%); and develop 
a  new  technology  or  process  (58/102,  57%).  Almost  all  respondents  (109/122,  89%) 
confirmed that the EU-guaranteed funding produced a positive influence on the long-term 
growth prospects of their business. 

In the absence of the LGF, only a minority of businesses (25/122, 20%) would have would 
have  achieved  the  same  results.  The  rest  would  have  achieved  the  same  results  on  a 
smaller scale (65/122, 53%) or not achieved the same results (32/122, 26%). However, a 
large majority (102/122, 84%) believed that their business would still be operating even if it 
had not obtained the EU-guaranteed support. 

The majority of respondents recommended making it easier for businesses to access the 
LGF  (69/122,  57%),  but  only  a  minority  suggested  any  need  to  make  the  support  more 
attractive to businesses (37/122, 30%). 

In terms of the need for the facility, most respondents (88/119, 74%) reported that it was 
difficult  or  impossible  (without  collateral)  for  MSMEs  to  obtain  debt  financing  from 
commercial  lenders,  whilst  most  (110/119,  92%)  felt  that  there  was  a  need  for  an  EU 
guarantee facility for MSMEs (including 80/119, 67% to a great extent). 

Results  of 
the 
intermediaries of COSME LGF 

targeted  consultation  of 

financial 

The survey of financial intermediaries ran between 7 August 2023 and 27 September 2023. 
It  targeted  the  entire  population  of  financial  intermediaries,  except  those  involved  in  the 
interview programme. 

In  total,  47  financial  intermediaries  participated  in  the  consultation.  The  total  number  of 
answers for each question varies as not all respondents fully completed the questionnaire. 
Given the number of respondents, absolute figures are provided in this analysis, rather than 
percentages. 

The 47 respondents included public actors (20), leasing companies (3), and other types of 
stakeholders  (4),  such  as  National  Funds,  Specialist  lenders,  Lending  platforms,  and 

215 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Cooperative  Banks.  Respondents  were  established  in  22  countries,  including  non-EU 
Member States. The highest number came from Italy(6), Greece (4) and Serbia (4). 

More  than  half  of  respondents  (23/47)  agreed  that  market  conditions  compelled  their 
institutions to impose stricter requirements on borrowers. For instance, some respondents 
(17/47)  reported  that  bank  lending  to  MSMEs  was  highly  constrained  due  to  increasing 
regulatory  capital  requirements,  while  others  (16/47)  stated  it  was  due  to  adverse 
macroeconomic  conditions  in  the  market.  No  significant  differences  emerged  between 
respondents from different countries. 

The main reasons for applying for the COSME loan guarantees were to: increase lending 
to  viable  MSMEs  without  sufficient  collateral  (37/47);  attract  new  clients  with  better 
conditions (32/47); extend financing to viable MSMEs lacking a track record (20/47); and 
continue to provide MSME lending (19/47). A small number (5) cited other reasons, such 
as offering loans with longer maturities and supporting riskier MSMEs. More than half of 
respondents (24/47) reported that the COSME guarantee enabled them to target specific 
segments or type of SMEs, such as agriculture (mentioned by 5).  

The essential factors in the decisions to apply (mentioned as highly attractive or attractive) 
were:  the  free  guarantee  (44/47),  guarantee  rate  (42/47),  eligibility  criteria  (41/47),  and 
quality  stamp/reputational  benefit  of  EU/EIF  support  (41/47).  The  cap  rate  was  also 
important, albeit to a lesser extent (28/47). 

Almost  half  of  respondents  (22/47)  reported  additional  costs  or  administrative  burdens 
arising from the LGF. This mainly includes administrative burden associated with reporting 
requirements (21/47). Less commonly-experienced were the burden related to adapting the 
IT  system  to  meet  EU  requirements  (13/47),  the  application  process  (10/47)  and  the 
complexities  in  applying  the  SME  eligibility  criteria  (5/47).  Other  additional  costs  were 
reported, including external legal support services. Six respondents provided estimates of 
the  additional  annual  costs  of  implementing the EU  guarantee;  they ranged from tens  of 
thousands to a few hundred thousand. 

Regarding alternatives to the LGF: nearly half of respondents (19/47) reported that there 
were no available alternatives, whilst nearly one-third (13/47) reported that the alternative 
would have been a counter-guarantee on less favourable terms and conditions. Only a few 
(4/47)  reported  that  the  alternative  was  a  counter-guarantee  on  comparable  terms  and 
conditions 

In the absence of the LGF, most respondents (27/47) reported that the volume of lending 
would have been  reduced  and that final  beneficiaries  would have faced higher  collateral 
requirements  (29/47)  and  higher  costs  (24/47).  Only  8/47  reported  that  it  would  have 
remained unchanged. A minority of respondents reported that they would have excluded 
firms MSMEs without collateral or track record (14/47) or that their lending would have come 
with shorter maturities for the final beneficiaries (12/47). 

Overall,  respondents  were  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the  key  aspects  of  the  LGF, 
including: the application process (40/47); appraisal and due diligence carried out by the 
EIF  36/47);  time  taken  to  negotiate  and  sign  the  contract  (29/47);  and  the  reporting 
requirements (27/47). 

The  financial  intermediaries  suggested  that  less  burdensome  reporting  would  have 
increased the attractiveness of the LGF, especially when the transaction size is very small 
and when data not directly available to them is required. One respondent suggested that 
advanced  notice of  audit  dates  would  greatly  help in time management  and  preparation. 
Another called for improved guidance on data collection during the application and reporting 
phases, as well as translation of guidelines into national languages and clearer definitions 
and thresholds. 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Results of the survey of EEN member organisations 

In  total,  109  EEN  member  organisations  participated  in  the  survey.  The  total  number  of 
answers for each question varies as not all respondents fully completed the questionnaire. 
Given the number of respondents, absolute figures are provided in this analysis, rather than 
percentages. 

Respondents included Chambers of Commerce (36), Regional Development Agencies (12), 
universities (11), other types of organisations (10), business associations (9), consultancies 
(7), development agencies (6), chambers of craft (5), ministries (4), banks (4), technology 
organisations (3) and research organisations (2). 

Of EEN members who answered the question (78), the majority (75/78) believed that the 
objectives of the EEN during 2008-2021 were pertinent to SMEs’ needs to a great extent or 
to  some  extent.  More  specifically,  the  EEN  member  respondents  considered  that  the 
barriers to SME internationalisations that the EEN services addressed to the greatest extent 
during the COSME period were getting information on markets (51/78), followed by spotting 
international business opportunities (50/78) and finding customers and business partners 
outside their home country (43/78). 

The majority of EEN member respondents provided all EEN services, with an increase in 
the  share  of  members  providing  each type  of  service  between  the  EIP  and  the  COSME 
period.  The  vast  majority  (68/70)  believed  that  the  EEN  services  they  provided  were 
effective in helping SMEs to access international markets to a great extent or a reasonable 
extent. 

Most respondents (62/78) considered that the COSME grant agreement was sufficient to 
provide  all  foreseen  services.  Several  respondents  also  indicated  that  the  total  costs  of 
providing  EEN  services  generally  increased  in  the  COSME  period  compared  to  the  EIP 
period  (from  1%  to  500%  increase)  which  could  reflect  changes  in  the  consortium 
composition,  services  provided and  staff.  The  estimations  of  overhead  costs  reported  by 
the EEN members ranged between 20 to 35% of costs.  

Most respondents (55/60) agreed to a great extent or some extent that the EEN services 
offered value for money, given the benefits arising and the costs incurred. The main benefits 
reported (to a great extent or some extent) were: increased professionalism of staff (57/60), 
increased  internationalisation  of  SME  clients  (54/60)  and  growth  in  the  turnover  of  SME 
clients (38/60). One EEN member noted that the EU funding was a good investment into 
innovation and growth of EU SMEs. Another reported that the EEN clients were or became 
above average innovation actors, above average in their product diversity and market/client 
relationships and above average in company growth, and that these are the results of the 
entrepreneurial skills of the company with the contribution of EEN. 

Most respondents considered that the EEN services show synergies (to a great extent or 
some  extent)  with:  other  EU  initiatives  to  support  SMEs  (43/60);  other  business  support 
services offered by Member States (41/60); and other business support services offered by 
COSME (37/60). 

At the same time, a significant proportion of respondents considered that the EEN services 
overlapped (to a great extent or some extent) with: other business support services offered 
by Member States (27/60); other EU initiatives to support SMEs (22/60); and other business 
support services offered by COSME (20/60). 

The large majority of respondents (56/60) considered that it was important (to a great extent 
or some extent) to have an EU-level support service such as the EEN network for SMEs as 
opposed to (only) national level support. 

At least half of the EEN member respondents provided each EEN service only under the 
EEN  umbrella,  while  at  least  a  third  provided  information  services  about  the  EU  internal 

217 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

market, EU funding opportunities, internationalisation, and implemented the ‘no wrong door 
principle’ both under the EEN and as part of their own activities or budget. 

As EEN partners, respondents felt well supported (to a great extent or some extent) by the 
EEN  in  terms  of:  HR  for  training  and  coaching  (51/60);  monitoring/reporting  (50/60); 
operational processes (47/60); contractual management (44/60); and IT tools (34/60). 

If  their  organisation  were  to  stop  participating  in  the  EEN,  respondents  pointed  to 
disadvantages, including a loss of network contacts which could result in fewer opportunities 
for  the  internationalisation of  local  SMEs  and  less  knowledge-sharing  with other  network 
partners and EISMEA, difficulty in providing in-depth advisory services to SMEs for free, 
and  a  lack  of  capacity  to  provide  support  services  on  EU  regulations,  EU  funding  and 
innovation  support.  This  would result  in a reduced  visibility  for the  organisation,  reduced 
SME awareness of EU funding opportunities and a weaker implementation of EU political 
goals relating to regional economic development and the innovation ecosystem. 

Results of the survey of EEN beneficiary SME clients 

In total, 67 EEN SME clients participated in the survey. The total number of answers for 
each question varies as not all respondents fully completed the questionnaire. Given the 
number  of  respondents,  absolute  figures  are  provided  in  this  analysis,  rather  than 
percentages. 

Respondents came from 17 countries, including: Romania (17), Germany (13), Spain (10) 
and Poland (6). They were active in a diversity of sectors: manufacturing (14/67), agriculture 
(13/67), wholesale and retail trade (7), other service activities (5), construction, (5), other 
activities (4), ICT (4), accommodation/food services/tourism (4), human health and social 
work activities (3), professional, scientific and technical activities (2), mining and quarrying 
(2),  administrative  and  support  service  activities  (2),  electricity,  gas  and  air  conditioning 
supply (1), and arts, entertainment and recreation (1). Nearly all respondents made use of 
EEN during the COSME period (34/36), while only a small share had experience of EEN 
during the EIP period (8/36). 

The  most  commonly-reported  barriers  for  doing  business  abroad  were:  spotting 
international business opportunities (23/36), getting information on markets (21/36), getting 
finance (19/36), access to personal with skills in international markets (18/36), and finding 
customers and business partners outside their home country (17/36).  

The majority of SME clients found the EEN services to be (very or fairly) relevant to their 
business (33/36) during the COSME period. 

The EEN services that were most often reported to be (very or somewhat) useful during the 
COSME period were: help with developing international commercial cooperation with other 
SMEs  (33/36),  receiving  information  about  the  EU  internal  market  and  EU  funding 
opportunities (33/36), specialised advice beyond receiving information (31/36), and the “no 
wrong door" principle, i.e. receiving help directly or being put in contact with other suitable 
providers of SME-oriented services (29/36). A minority (5/32) reported negative effects on 
their business, although when asked to elaborate, none did. 

A large majority of respondents (33/36) reported that the EEN services and support they 
received during the COSME period were (very or somewhat) effective in responding to their 
needs or addressing the barriers they faced. 

The majority of EEN SME client respondents stated that the EEN services received had a 
positive impact on their business to a great extent or to some extent (29/32). The majority 
also reported that the EEN support helped them (to a great extent or to some  extent) to: 
expand to new geographical markets (20/32); safeguard the number of employees (20/32); 
maintain turnover (19/32); develop new products or services (19/32); and increase turnover 
(18/32). 

218 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Some SME clients reported a positive increase in their turnover between 1% and 60% in 
the  2008-2015  period  and  between  12%  and  2613%  in  the  2015-2023  period  while  two 
SMEs  reported  a  decrease  between  3  and  48%.  Furthermore,  SME  clients  reported  an 
increase in their staff up to 67% in the 2008-2015 period and up to 157% in the 2015-2023, 
while  two  SMEs  reported  a  decrease  between  17  and  54%.  Only  a  few  SMEs  (4/32) 
reported any direct or indirect costs deriving from the EEN services such as administrative 
burden or reporting obligations.  

Very  few  SMEs  reported  that  the  EEN  services  overlapped  with  other  services: 
national/regional support services (2/31), Your Europe business portal (2/31) or the SME 
internationalisation  (2014-2017)  portal  (1/31).  Only  a  few  SME  clients  (3/31)  reported 
benefiting from other actions or projects or services co-funded by the COSME programme. 

The majority of EEN SME client respondents (32/36) considered that it was important to 
benefit from the EEN services as opposed to (only) national level support. The majority of 
respondents (27/36) reported that their understanding of the European Commission and its 
policies improved to a great extent or to some extent thanks to the EEN services received. 

Results of the survey of EYE entrepreneurs  

The survey of Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) participants ran between 7 August 
and 25 September 2023. Overall 1,200 entrepreneurs responded to the online survey. The 
total number of answers for each question varies, as some questions were not relevant to 
all  respondents  and  not  all  respondents  fully  completed  the  questionnaire.  Given  the 
number of respondents, both percentages and absolute figures are provided in this analysis. 

New  entrepreneurs  (NE)  accounted  for  most  respondents  (862,  74%)  with  host 
entrepreneurs  (HE)  accounting  for  the  rest  (307,  26%).  Of  those  indicating  their  country 
(757), most came from Spain (128, 17%), Italy (116, 15%), Germany (47, 6%), Belgium (35, 
5%)  and  Poland  (35,  5%).  Others  (4%  or  lower)  came  from:  Austria,  Armenia,  Croatia, 
Czech Republic, France, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, 
Portugal, Turkey, and the UK. 

Most respondents were aged younger than 40 years (619, 82%), whilst the rest were 40-49 
years old (113, 15%) or above 49 years (25, 3%). More than half of respondents (473, 62%) 
participated in EYE exchanges in the period 2015-2021 (under the COSME programme), 
11% (80) of respondents participated in exchange before or during 2014 (under the EIP) 
and 27% (204) of respondents since early 2021. (Some of the exchanges that took place in 
or extended beyond 2021 can still be attributed to COSME.) 

The majority of respondents (650/814, 80%) confirmed that EYE addressed their needs to 
a great extent or to some extent. In particular, most indicated that EYE addressed “a lack 
of entrepreneurial culture and weak entrepreneurial spirit” (625/814, 77%) and “obstacles 
to setting up businesses” (591/814, 73%) to a great extent or to some extent. Furthermore, 
most  agreed  that  EYE  addressed  “low  levels  of  entrepreneurial  firm  creation”  (544/814, 
67%) and helped “new businesses struggling to survive and grow” (543/814, 67%)%) to a 
great extent or to some extent. A great majority of HE reported that supporting young and 
aspiring entrepreneurs was a very important or a somewhat important motivation for them 
(227/233, 97%). 

Overall, EYE was effective in achieving its planned objectives and produced a wide range 
of benefits. The entrepreneurs reported that EYE enabled them to a great extent or some 
extent  to  identify  or  meet:  potential  partners  or  collaborators  (558/866,  64%),  potential 
suppliers  (357/866,  41%),  potential  buyers  (335/866,  39%)  or  other  contacts  (134/866, 
15%). HEs reported that hosting NEs contributed to a great or some extent to: improved in-
house  knowledge  and  skills  (165/227,  74%);  development  or  growth  of  the  business 
(96/214,  45%);  increasing  the  number  of  employees  (56/214,  26%);  increasing  turnover 
(50/214, 23%); expansion of operations to new countries (49/214, 23%); expansion of sales 

219 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

to  new  countries  (37/214,  17%),  safeguarding  jobs  (36/214,  17%)  and  increased  export 
turnover (31/214, 14%).  

The feedback from NE on EYE was very positive. Nearly 100% (654/655) of NEs reported 
that participation in the EYE had improved their knowledge and skills, particularly personal 
skills but also technical and managerial skills. The majority of NEs also confirmed that EYE 
contributed  to  a  great  extent  or  some  extent  to:  learning  about  another  country/market 
(542/635,  86%);  new  knowledge  and  skills  in  running  a  business  (528/635,  83%); 
development  of  business  plan/activities 
to  be 
professionally  active  in  another  EU  country  (531/635,  73%);  and  identifying  potential 
business contacts and opportunities (443/635, 70%). Most participants remained in contact 
after the EYE exchange (463/856, 54%). 

(486/635,  77%);  encouragement 

Most respondents (839/901, 93%) were satisfied with the support and assistance offered 
by the intermediary organisations. Some reported scope for possible improvements in the 
communication with the intermediary organisation and in the payment process. Most NEs 
(466/618, 75%) and HEs (135/212, 64%) believed that the exchange offered good value for 
money. Only a minority of entrepreneurs (288/827, 34%) reported that the administrative 
requirements and reporting obligations were particularly burdensome (including 25% fairly 
burdensome and 9% very burdensome). There is evidence of an improvement over time 
with  44%  (12/27)  reporting  them  to  be  fairly  or  very  burdensome  during  the  EIP  period 
compared with 34% (42/124) during the COSME period.328 Survey respondents also shared 
some suggestions for simplifying or reducing these additional burdens such as: simplifying 
the documentation requested and reporting requirements (e.g. providing visual outputs in 
lieu of written documents), making the platform for exchanges more user-friendly, improving 
the  matching  process,  the  possibility  to  host  more  than  one  NE  at  a  time,  shorter 
questionnaires and a streamlined digital process without the need for multiple signatures 
on documents. 

Results of the survey of providers and beneficiaries of other 
COSME actions 

The survey of providers and beneficiaries of other EIP and COSME actions ran between 7 
August and 25 September 2023. The total number of answers for each question varies, as 
some questions were not relevant to all respondents and not all respondents fully completed 
the  questionnaire  and  not  all  respondents  fully  completed  the  questionnaire.  Where  the 
number of respondents to any question is less than 100, absolute figures are provided in 
this analysis, rather than percentages. 

A  total  of  110  organisations  responded  to  the  survey,  including:  non-profit  organisations 
(20/110,  18%),  chambers  of  commerce,  chambers  of  crafts  or  similar  bodies  and  their 
umbrella associations (16/110,  15%), training  or educational  institutions, universities and 
research centres (15/110, 14%) and intermediary organisations or agencies (15/110, 14%). 
The  rest  were  ministries  or  government  departments,  SMEs,  consultancies  and  other 
entities. 

The  most  represented  countries  were  Spain  (28/110,  25%),  Italy  (18/110,  16%),  France 
(11/110, 10%), Germany (7/110, 6%) and Poland (4/110, %). The most represented sectors 
were education (25/110, 23%) administrative and support service activities (12/110, 11%) 
and  manufacturing  (8/110,  7%).  Other  sectors  included  tourism,  fashion  and  textile, 
innovation  and  internationalisation,  international economic  and  scientific cooperation  and 
agrifood. 

328  Of  the  827  survey  respondents  answering  the  question,  676  did  not  specify  the  period  in  which  they 
participated in the EYE. 

220 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

A total of 33 respondents participated in cluster actions. Of these, most expressed views on 
Clusters go international and Cluster excellence (20/23). The major factors that hindered 
obstacles  to  cooperation  among  clusters  included  a  lack  of  financing  or  other  monetary 
reasons, insufficient personnel resources, a lack of support from regional authorities, and 
challenges  in  making  joint  investments.  Concerns  about  losing  independence  were 
generally not perceived as an obstacle to cooperation among clusters. The clusters actions 
were successful in delivering: European Strategic Cluster Partnership Agreements (15/22); 
a common internationalisation strategy (14/22); and common market studies and strategic 
intelligence (13/22). The majority of respondents indicated that clusters helped: improve the 
understanding  of  the  internationalisation  process  (15/22);  identify  and  connect  with  new 
international partners for collaboration (15/22); enhance the internationalisation capacities 
and knowledge (14/22) and facilitate access to targeted new markets for the SMEs in the 
cluster  (14/22).  Respondents  reported  that  the  cluster  actions  had  positive  impacts  on: 
SMEs who participated (22/22), the sector in which participants operated (18/22), and the 
country where the SMEs were located (11/22). 

A total of 13 respondents participated in tourism actions. The vast majority of respondents 
reported that the programme addressed the needs of the tourism industry in the EU either 
to a great extent or to some extent. The two main needs reported by respondents were: 
improving  capacity  for  networking  and  knowledge-sharing  (5/11)  and  improving  the 
exploitation of new tourism demand trends (5/11). Most (7/11) reported positive impacts on 
their organisation. 

The majority of respondents (66/77) reported that the actions in which they participated (e.g. 
clusters, tourism) were (very or reasonably) effective in responding to their needs. 

The majority of respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with the support and assistance 
offered  by:  the  European  Commission  and  EISMEA  (71/77);  and  the  intermediary 
organisations (57/75). 

Most respondents (57/72) reported that COSME programme supported actions and projects 
that would have not been funded otherwise. Most (61/72) also reported that it was important 
or  very  important  for  their  organisation  to  receive  EU  support,  as  opposed  to 
national/regional support only. 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex I: Interview questionnaires  

EU institutions and bodies  

Questions for European Commission and Executive Agencies 

1.  Please describe your knowledge of or role in the implementation of the programme 

2.  How relevant in your view was COSME to the situation that existed when it was launched (in 
particular  competitiveness  issues  of  EU  SMEs,  obstacles  in  accessing  finance,  low  level  of 
business creation etc.)? What sort of market failures did COSME aim to address?  

3.  How effective was COSME in achieving its specific objectives? What do you see as having 
been the main strengths (and weaknesses) of COSME in promoting SMEs competitiveness, 
growth and innovation?  

4.  Were the target groups and actions supported appropriate to address the identified needs? To 
what extent did the instruments reach the target groups or groups of beneficiaries envisaged - 
start-ups, growth-stage, smaller SMEs etc.? Which measures (if any)  were more successful 
than others in your view? What could be done to improve targeting? 

5.  Were the COSME specific objectives achieved at a reasonable cost? Did the implementation 

go according to plan (without creating unnecessary burdens for your team)? 

6.  What  was  the  programme  added  value  compared  with  other  EU  programmes  and  financial 

instruments at the time (for example those in H2020, EIC, etc.)?  

7.  How  coherent  was  COSME  with  other  EU  initiatives  and  programmes  aiming  to  support 
competitiveness, innovation and growth in the EU? To what extent were the actions supported 
by COSME complementary? 

8.  What factors explain either COSME as a whole or part of it performing better (or worse) than 

expected? 

9.  Please comment on any other aspects of COSME, for example, what could have been done 
to achieve better results and/or potential impact in the future. What are the lessons to be learnt 
for the future? 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Member State Authorities and Agencies 

Questions for Member States authorities and agencies 

1.  Please describe your role and your experience/knowledge of the programme. 

2.  What were the main challenges faced by SMEs and entrepreneurs in your country at the time 

when EIP was introduced?  

3.  How relevant was the programme to fulfilling the needs of SMEs, facilitating access to market, 
addressing  structural  gaps  and  issues  in  the  business  environment  in  your  country  and 
promoting SMEs growth and competitiveness and fostering an entrepreneurship culture? How 
flexible was the programme in adapting to new/emerging needs throughout its implementation? 

4.  How effective was the programme in achieving its objectives? What do you see as having been 
the main strengths (and weaknesses) of the programme? Were the target groups appropriate 
i.e. SMEs, intermediary bodies, entrepreneurs, other stakeholders? 

5.  Which  actions  were  most  important  and  which  had  the  best  results  in  your  country?  Some 
measures aimed at supporting public authorities to create new opportunities for SMEs and/or 
to put in place more SME-friendly processes, notably in the area of procurement. How effective 
were these in your view? 

6.  Could  you  provide  estimates  of  the  administrative  costs  (and  other  types  of  cost,  if  any) 
generated  by  the  programme  to  you/your  administration?  Were  the  costs  incurred 
proportionate to the benefits generated? 

7.  Were  there  any  national  and/or  regional  public  schemes  supporting  SMEs’  growth  and 
competitiveness  and  entrepreneurship?  As  regards  the  financial  support,  were  there  any 
competition  or  crowding-out  issues?  To  what  extent,  in  you  view,  did  the  programme 
complement existing national/regional actions (or was there any overlapping/duplication)?  

8.  What  was  the  programme  added  value  compared  with  other  EU  and  other  national  and/or 
regional initiatives and schemes at the time? What would have happened had the programme 
not been implemented? 

9.  How well were the opportunities and services supported by the programme communicated in 
your country? What (if anything) could have been done to increase beneficiaries’ awareness? 

10.  To  what  extent  and  how  did  the  programme  achieve  the  expected  outcomes  in  terms  of 
promoting  SMEs  competitiveness  and  entrepreneurship  in  your  country?  Can  you  cite  any 
examples  of  the  long-lasting  impacts  the  programme  has  had  in  your  country  or  of  lessons 
learnt that have been implemented (including creation of SMEs supporting services after the 
end of the programme, financial instruments, business networks etc.)? 

11.  Please comment on any other aspects of the programme, for example, what could have been 
done to achieve a greater impact? What are the lessons learned that the successor SME Pillar 
programme addressed? Other lessons to be learnt for future programmes. 

223 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Financial  intermediaries  for  the  COSME  EFG  and  the  EIP 
GIF (High Growth and Innovative SME Facility) 

Questions for financial intermediaries for the COSME EFG and the EIP GIF 

Introduction 

1.  Please confirm your role and responsibilities within the organisation? 

2.  Please provide an overview of the fund supported by EIF under EIP/COSME - nature of the 
fund, including scale, type of investment fund (Explore size of fund, stage focus: pre-seed, 
seed,  early  stage,  expansion/  development  capital,  mid-  market/  mezzanine  etc.  Sector, 
technology and/ or geographic focus) 

3.  Please provide an overview of your fund’s investment strategy and criteria. 

Fundraising process 

4.  Please describe the process you went through in raising your fund? What challenges did you 

encounter? How was the fundraising environment at the time? 

Role and impact of EU/ EIF investment 

5.  What has been the importance and impact of the EIF investment in your Fund? Did: 

•  EIF commitment facilitate successful first closing of the Fund? 
•  EIF participation facilitate subsequent closings? 
•  EIF participation help the Fund to achieve its target size at financial close? 

6.  To what  extent was EU/EIF’s participation instrumental in  getting  other  investors (LPs) on 
board?  (Explore  whether  EIF  helped  attract  specific  classes  of  investors  such  as  non-
institutional investors, private investors?) 

7.  What would have happened in absence of EU/EIF investment? For example: 

•  Would you have received this investment from other sources?  
•  Would the Fund have been set-up at a smaller scale? 
•  Would it have taken you longer to close the Fund? 
•  Would you have asked the EIF to invest if you could have raised without them? 

8.  What was the non-financial value added of the EU/EIF investment? For example: 

•  EIF role in improving the quality of the Fund’s governance and procedures; 
•  EIF contribution during the due diligence phase in improving team composition/ quality, 

promoting team independence, for example; 

•  The degree to which EIF was instrumental in aligning the terms and conditions of the 
Fund  with  institutional  standards  or  promoting  industry  best  practice  (on  distribution 
waterfall, design of carried interest, reporting etc.); 

•  Role of EIF in influencing the investment strategy of the Fund. 
•  EIF being a patient investor 

9. 

Is  the  EIF  an  active  or  passive  investor?  (Explore  EIF  involvement  as  shareholder  and 
member of advisory board or investors' board). 

10.  How challenging was it to deal with the EIF compared to other large, institutional investors 
(Explore how EIF compares to large endowments or institutional investors? Are they similarly 
efficient, pragmatic?) 

Structural requirements 

11.  Did the EIF introduce structural requirements for your fund (in the fund legal docs) that only 

the EIF asked for? 

•  How have they impacted the ease of fundraising? 
•  How much additional time was needed to implement them? 
•  How much were the costs incurred in implementing those changes? 
•  How do you think those requirements will affect fund performance? 
•  How do you think the requirements will affect your “ease of doing business”? 

224 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Questions for financial intermediaries for the COSME EFG and the EIP GIF 

Performance of the portfolio 

12.  What benchmarks or metrics do you use to gauge the performance of your fund? Explore: 

Investment returns on other alternate asset classes held in your portfolio  

• 
•  Historical return performance of your VC/ PE portfolio  
•  Market data on returns by investment funds in comparable PE/VC categories  

13.  How is your fund currently performing? Is it in line with your expectations? 

Wider Impact 

14.  What has been the role of the EU/EIF in supporting the development of European or national 

PE/ VC industry? Explore: 

•  By supporting first time teams; 
•  Helping boost the attractiveness of European PE/ VC industry (for example, by helping 

improve the performance and track record of EU/EIF backed funds) 

•  Widening investor base etc. 

15.  Do you think the EIF might have outcompeted other LPs, thereby hindering the development 

of market-based financing environment? 

16.  Do you see any particular positive / negative effect from the EIFs activity in the market? 

Summary 

17.  How  would  you  describe  the  current  fundraising  environment?  What  are  the  barriers  and 

constraints to PE/ VC fundraising in Europe?  

18.  What can the public sector do to enhance the attractiveness of Europe’s PE/VC industry and 

to facilitate fundraising? 

19.  Specifically,  what  role  can  the  EU/  EIF  play  in  supporting  the  development  of  a  PE/VC 

industry? 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Financial  intermediaries  for  the  LGF  (COSME)  and  the 
SMEG (EIP) 

Questions for financial intermediaries for the LGF (COSME) and the SMEG (EIP) 

Introduction 

1.  Could you please confirm your specific role, and responsibilities within the organisation. 

2.  Please provide an overview of your organisation’s MSME (micro, small and medium-sized 

enterprises) lending activity.  

•  How important is this sector for your bank/ organisation?  
•  Approximately,  what  proportion  of  your  overall  lending  activities  does  the  MSME 

segment represent?  

Rationale for using EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee 

3.  What were the factors constraining your capacity to lend to MSMEs at the time you 

applied for EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee? 

•  Explore  supply  side  constraints:  risk  appetite,  risk  taking  capacity,  high  transaction 
costs,  low  profitability,  lowering  capital  requirements  enabling  higher  lending  to 
innovative SMEs etc. 

•  Explore demand side constraints: lack of collateral, financial statements 

Suitability, attractiveness and added value of the EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee 

4.  What were the alternatives available to you at the time and at what terms and conditions? 

For example, guarantee schemes available via NPBIs. 

5.  Have you used any of these alternatives/ nationally supported schemes? What were the 
advantages and the disadvantages of the EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee versus these 
alternatives?  

6.  What did the EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee provide that went above and beyond what 

was available from other sources? Explore: 

•  Complementarities (e.g. gap filling, offering better conditions)  
•  Overlaps (e.g. with target groups) with other (counter) guarantee schemes on offer. 

7.  Does the EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee provide features conducive to more MSME 
lending  activity?  For  example:  suitability  of  final  beneficiary  eligibility  criteria,  reporting 
requirements, guarantee rate, cap rate, maximum loan amounts. 

8.  Are there any aspects of the EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee lending requirements that 

you find particularly challenging to fulfil? 

9. 

In your view, to what extent were the potential recipients aware of the financial support 
opportunities available through the EIP/COSME programme? [Likert Scale] Which actions 
did you take (if any) to inform potential recipients about the EIP/COSME financial support 
and to ensure visibility on the source of support? 

Impact of EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee on the lending pattern and behaviour of FI  

10.  What has been the impact of the EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee on your MSME lending 
activities: (a) possibility to lend at better terms, (b) granting more loans, (c) reaching to 
new (riskier or under-served) market segments, (d) offering new product on the market? 
Explore: 

•  Extent to which the EIP/ COSME guarantee was offered to existing clients or used to 

reach out to new clients  

•  approach to marketing the guarantee facility, e.g. SME clients are referred by business 

support organisations or industry bodies. 

11.  How do the terms and conditions offered to MSMEs (interest rate, collateral requirements, 
tenor etc.) under EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee differ from your standard SME/ mid-
226 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Questions for financial intermediaries for the LGF (COSME) and the SMEG (EIP) 

cap lending activities?  

12.  What would have been the likely consequences of no EIP/ COSME (counter) guarantee 
support for your SME/mid-cap lending activity? How would it have impacted your SME/ 
mid-cap  lending  volumes  and  conditions?  To  what  extent  were  clients  benefitting  from 
EIP/  COSME  guarantee  are  financially  constrained  i.e.  the  FI  would  not  lend  to  these 
clients in absence of the EU guarantee? 

13.  If applicable >> how would you judge the speed and flexibility of EIF response during crisis 

periods (time to market, flexibility with procedures, scaling-up etc.) 

14.  Would  you  recommend  any  changes  to  the  conditions  (  such  as  guarantee  rate  or 
financing criteria or  monitoring  & reporting requirements) of the EIP/  COSME (counter) 
guarantee  to  improve  its  effectiveness?  Please  explain  how  these  changes  would  be 
beneficial. 

Performance of the portfolio 

15.  How  does  the  performance  of  the  loan  portfolio  backed  by  EIP/  COSME  (counter) 
guarantee compare with the performance of your usual MSME portfolio? Are the default 
rates any different? If so, why? 

Wrap-up 

16.  Looking ahead, do you expect financing constraints and conditions to get better or worse 

or remain unchanged?  

17.  What could the EU or national government do to facilitate improvements in lending to the 

MSME sector? 

18.  Is there anything that you would like to add that we haven’t already covered? 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Providers  and  partners  of  COSME  and  EIP  services  to 
SMEs and stakeholder organisations 

Providers and partners of COSME and EIP services to SMEs and stakeholder 
organisations 

Introduction 

1.  Please describe your role in your organisation and knowledge/experience in the programme. 

Questions  

2.  What were the main challenges that SMEs / entrepreneurs in your network faced at the time 

when the COSME was introduced?  

3.  How  relevant  in  your  view  was  the  programme  to  fulfilling  the  needs  of  SMEs,  facilitating 
access to market, addressing the identified structural gaps and issues relating to the business 
environment  and  promoting  SMEs’  growth  and  competitiveness  and 
fostering  an 
entrepreneurship  culture?  How  flexible  was  the  programme  in  adapting  to  new/emerging 
needs throughout its implementation?  

4.  How  effective  was  the  programme  in  achieving  its  objectives?  What  do  you  see  as  having 

been the main strengths (and weaknesses) of the programme?  

5.  Which measures under the programme have been the most effective or ineffective (and why)? 
How  satisfied  are  you  with  the  results  achieved  by  the  measures  you  have  been  involved 
in/have knowledge of [EEN, EYE, Cluster etc.] in your country/region? What could have been 
done to achieve better results? 

6.  Were  there  any  national  and/or  regional  public  schemes  supporting  SMEs  growth  and 
competitiveness  and  entrepreneurship?  To  what  extent,  in  your  view,  did  COSME 
complement existing national/regional actions (or was there any overlapping/duplication)?  

7.  To what extent did COSME and its predecessor the EIP provide support and  added value 

compared with national and/or regional SMEs and entrepreneurship support programmes?  

8.  Were the  SMEs / entrepreneurs  in your  network aware of the  programme  instruments and 
support during its implementation? How well do you think were the results of the programme 
communicated? 

9.  How  did  the  actions/services  supported  by  the  EIP  evolve  in  COSME  and  the  SME  Pillar 
programme? Is it possible to identify positive changes and effects that the EIP brought about 
to the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the EU? Can you cite any examples of the 
long-lasting impacts the programme has had (including (e.g. policies, initiatives, structures 
and  networks,  demonstration/multiplication  effects)?  Were  there  any  unintended  effects  on 
stakeholders/end-users? 

10.  Please comment on any other aspects of the COSME and/or EIP, for example, what could 
have been done to achieve a greater impact on beneficiaries, final users and the business 
environment? What are the lessons learned to be learnt for future programmes? 

228 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex J: Public consultation questionnaire 

Introduction 

The  Programme  for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized 
Enterprises (COSME) aimed to improve the competitiveness of enterprises, with a particular 
emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 

COSME  built  on  previous  programmes  focused  on  supporting  SMEs,  in  particular  the 
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) 2007-2013. In this way, it 
ensured  the  continuous  enhancement  of  several  actions  needed  by  SMEs  to  grow  in 
competitive markets. Such actions include, for example: to improve access to finance (via 
financial  instruments),  to  address  SMEs’  support  needs  through  the  Enterprise  Europe 
Network (EEN), as well as to provide opportunities to entrepreneurs through Erasmus for 
Young Entrepreneurs (EYE). 

With a EUR 2.3 billion budget for 2014-2020, COSME supported the creation and growth 
of  businesses  and contributed  to  the  Commission’s  key priority  of  promoting  growth  and 
jobs and stimulating investments in the EU during the 2014-2019 mandate. 

These are still firmly integrated in the policy agenda of the current Commission as part of 
the  keynote  objective  “An  economy  that  works  for  people”  which  refers  in  particular  to 
investment, growth and quality jobs for small businesses.  

The four specific objectives of COSME were: 

•  To improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt (at least 60% 

of the budget, i.e. EUR 1.4 billion). 

•  To improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but also at a global level, 
mainly through the Enterprise Europe Network (indicatively 21.5% of the budget). 

•  To improve the framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of 
Union  enterprises,  particularly  SMEs,  including  in  the  tourism  sector  (indicatively 
11% of the budget). 

•  To promote entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial culture (indicatively 2.5 % of 

the budget). 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Questions with * are compulsory 

About you  

* Language of my contribution 

 (choice: all EU official languages) 

* I am giving my contribution as  

(choice  among  several  options  such  as  citizen  (EU/non-EU),  company,  NGO,  public 
authority etc.) 

* First name 

(free text) 

* Surname 

(free text) 

* Email (this won't be published) 

(free text) 

* Organisation name 

(free text) 

* Organisation size 

 (as in SME Definition: micro, small, medium, large)) 

Transparency register number (not compulsory) 

(free text) 

Check  if  your  organisation  is  on  the  transparency  register.  It's  a  voluntary  database  for 
organisations seeking to influence EU decision-making. 

230 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

*Scope 

•  International 
•  Local 
•  National  
•  Regional 

*Level of governance 

• 
• 

Local Authority 
Local Agency 

*Level of governance 

•  Parliament 
•  Authority 
•  Agency 

* Country of origin  

The Commission will publish all contributions to this public consultation. You can choose 
whether you would prefer to have your details published or to remain anonymous when your 
contribution is published. For the purpose of transparency, the type of respondent (for 
example,  ‘business  association,  ‘consumer  association’,  ‘EU  citizen’)  country  of 
origin, organisation name and size, and its transparency register number, are always 
published.  Your  e-mail  address  will  never  be  published.  Opt  in  to select  the  privacy 
option that best suits you. Privacy options default based on the type of respondent selected. 

(N.B.:  there  is  always  the  choice  between  anonymous  or  public.  Please  find  below  an 
example for an organisation) 

* Contribution publication privacy settings 

The  Commission  will  publish  the  responses  to  this  public  consultation.  You  can  choose 
whether you would like your details to be made public or to remain anonymous. 

Anonymous 

Only organisation details are published: The type of respondent that you responded to this 
consultation  as,  the  name  of  the  organisation  on  whose  behalf  you  reply  as  well  as  its 
transparency number, its size, its country of origin and your contribution will be published 
as received. Your name will not be published. Please do not include any personal data in 
the contribution itself if you want to remain anonymous. 

Public  

Organisation details and respondent details are published: The type of respondent that you 
responded to this consultation as, the name of the organisation on whose behalf you reply 
as well as its transparency number, its size, its country of origin and your contribution will 
be published. Your name will also be published. 

* I agree with the personal data protection provisions 

231 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Evaluation of the COSME programme  

* 1a Did you or your company/organisation receive financial support from the COSME 
programme? 

1.  Yes 
2.  No 
3.  Don’t know 

*1b Did your company benefit in other ways from the COSME programme? 

4.  Yes 
5.  No 
6.  Don’t know 

* 1c (only if you replied “yes” to question 1a or 1b) - In which of the following actions 
were you involved? (N.B.: several choices possible) 

7.  Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) – as financial institution 
8.  Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) –as SME (final beneficiary) 
9.  Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) – as financial institution 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 

Equity Facility for Growth (EFG) – as SME (final beneficiary) 
Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) – as EEN member organisations 
Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) – as SME or other beneficiary of EEN’s services 
Cluster internationalisation 
Tourism (calls) 
Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs – as new entrepreneurs 
Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs – as host entrepreneurs 
Other 
Don’t know 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

*1d (only if you replied “no” to questiond1a or 1b) - Why you did not participate in 
the COSME programme? (N.B.: several choices possible): 

19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 

I did not know about the COSME Programme  
Other European or international programmes were better suited to my needs 
Other national or regional programmes were better suited to my needs 
Participation involved too cumbersome procedures 
The probability of being successful in receiving support from COSME actions was 

low 

24. 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 

I had difficulties in finding project partners  
I did not find actions covering my needs  
I did not have enough financial/human resources to prepare a proposal 
Other  
Don’t know 

1d1  (only  if  you  reply  “other  European  programmes  etc.”  or  “other  national 
programmes etc.” in question 1d) - Please specify which programme  

(free text, 500 character(s) maximum) 

1d2 (only if you reply “other” in question 1d - free text, 500 character(s) maximum) 

1e (only if the reply “don’t know” in question 1a and 1b) - Please specify (free text, 
500 character(s) maximum) 

*2 In your view, to what extent did the COSME programme help you to achieve the 
following positive results?  

Not at 
all 

To a 
small 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a large 
extent 

Don’t 
know 

Ease  access  to  finance  for  SMEs  through  loan 
portfolio guarantees/counter-guarantees 

Ease access to risk capital through equity funds 
for SMEs 

Support the creation of start-ups  

Support the growth of SMEs, including start-ups 
and scale-ups 

Foster business transfers 

Support cross-border and multi country financing 

Provide  integrated  business  support  services  to 
SMEs 

Create  opportunities  for  SMEs  to  access  new 
markets within the EU 

Create opportunities for SMEs to access markets 
outside the EU 

Provide  access  to  knowledge  and  information 
relevant for business development 

Contribute to improving the business environment 
in  the  EU  (by  reducing  administrative  burden, 
simplifying  rules 
for  starting-up  a  business, 
obtaining licences, etc.) 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Not at 
all 

To a 
small 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a large 
extent 

Don’t 
know 

Support  better  regulation  and  evidence-based 
policies in the EU 

Foster  cross  sectoral  partnerships  and  public-
private collaborations through cluster activities 

industrial 
the  competitiveness  of 
Support 
sectors/ecosystems  and  services  (e.g.  tourism, 
construction,  chemicals,  etc.)  in  which  you  are 
active 

Support the uptake of new technologies and skills 
(e.g.  digital  skills,  Key  Enabling  Technologies, 
advanced manufacturing, etc.) 

Support the uptake of green and / or sustainable 
solutions, technologies, and/or skills 

Support the emergence of new business models 
and  concepts 
innovative 
practices etc.)  

(social  economy, 

Promote  entrepreneurship  and  entrepreneurial 
culture (e.g. through education, mentoring etc.) 

Create  learning  and  new  business  opportunities 
for  entrepreneurs  through  Erasmus  for  Young 
Entrepreneurs 

Develop  entrepreneurship 
groups 
(young 
entrepreneurs, 
disadvantaged, etc.) 

migrants, 

in  specific 

people,  women, 

the 

target 
senior 
socially 

2a Please explain your replies 

(Free text – max 500 characters) 

3*  Is  the  support  provided  through  the  COSME  programme  still  bringing  about 
positive effects based on your experience? 

1.  Yes 
2.  No 
3.  Don’t know 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

3a Please explain your replies / provide further information below 

(Free text – max 500 characters) 

*4 Were the following forms of funding and actions provided by COSME relevant for 
your specific needs? 

To a large 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a 
small 
extent 

Not at all 

Don’t 
know 

Grants 

Loan  portfolio  guarantee 
instruments 

financial 

Equity financial instruments 

Public procurement (calls for tenders) 

Studies (strategic information, guidance 
documents,  policy  support,  monitoring 
tools, etc.) 

Outreach  support  actions 
campaigns, portals, etc.) 

(videos, 

Support 
conferences, etc.) 

for 

events 

(workshops, 

Capacity-building 
(training, 
mobility  schemes  such  as  Erasmus  for 
Young Entrepreneurs, etc.) 

actions 

Observatories 

Networks  of  service  providers  to  SMEs 
(such as Enterprise Europe Network) 

Networks  of  national/regional  policy-
makers 

Cooperation 
and 
actions for clusters 

network-building 

IPR  (intellectual  property  rights)  SME 
Helpdesks 

Actions 
internationalisation 

supporting 

SME 

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

*5 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

Not at 
all 

To a 
small 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a large 
extent 

Don’t 
know 

COSME's  objectives  were  pertinent  to  the 
needs,  problems  and  issues  that  SMEs 
were facing 

the  appropriate 
find 
It  was  easy 
action/support addressing my needs under 
COSME 

to 

Activities  under 
programme were clearly defined 

the  COSME  work 

The annual programming for COSME was 
transparent 

description 

The 
proposals/tenders  of  activities 
under COSME was clear 

in 

calls 

for 
funded 

for 

The  conditions 
receiving  support 
through  the  COSME  financial  instruments 
(loan  portfolio  guarantees  &  counter-
guarantees  and  equity  funds)  were  clear 
and transparent 

COSME  communication  activities  reached 
potential programme beneficiaries 

The level of administrative requirements to 
participate in the COSME actions was high 

It 
took  a 
application. 

lot  of 

time 

to  prepare  an 

*6  To  what  extent  were  there  adaptation  mechanisms  in  place  to  ensure  that  the 
programme meets new needs in response to political, economic, technological, and 
scientific and social developments? 

Not at 
all 

To a 
small 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a large 
extent 

Don’t 
know 

The  programme  adapted  well  to  new  and 
emerging political priorities.  

Example - the new Single Market Strategy 
and  its  objective  of  supporting  Start-ups 
and Scale-ups 

The programme adapted to deal with major 
new  challenges  affecting  businesses,  e.g. 
the Covid-19 crisis 

COSME actions addressed market failures, 
including new deficiencies 

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

7 If your organisation is established in a non-EU country participating in the COSME 
programme, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

Not at 
all 

To a 
small 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a large 
extent 

Don’t 
know 

Communication activities on COSME in my 
country  helped  me  find  out  about  the 
programme 

It was easy to find calls which were open to 
participation from my country 

It  was  easy  to  find  calls  that  encouraged 
non-EU  COSME 
participation 
participating countries 

from 

*8  The  European  Commission  implemented  several  support  programmes  in  2014-
2020.  How  would  you  describe  the  linkages  between  COSME  and  the  following 
programmes? 

There are 
strong 
synergies 

There are 
some 
synergies 

There are 
some 
overlaps 
between 
the two 

There are 
strong 
overlaps 

No 
linkages 

Don't 
know 

European 
development 
(ERDF) 

regional 
fund 

European 
Strategic Investment 

Fund 

for 

European Social Fund 

Agricultural 
Common 
Policy 
European 
agricultural  fund  for  rural 
development (EAFRD) 

& 

Erasmus+ 

(EU 
LIFE  programme 
programme 
for 
environment  and  climate 
action) 

Connecting 
Facility 

Europe 

Horizon 2020 (research & 
innovation) 

EASI (EU programme for 
employment  and  social 
innovation) 

Creative  Europe 
programme 
for 
culture 
audiovisual sector) 

(EU 
for  support 
and 

the 

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

*9 In your view, to what extent did the COSME Programme contribute to the following 
European Union (EU) priorities? 

Not at 
all 

To a 
small 
extent 

To some 
extent 

To a 
large 
extent 

Don’t 
know 

Supporting jobs, growth and investment 

Promoting  an  Energy  Union  with  a 
forward-looking climate policy 

Fostering the role of the European Union 
as a stronger global actor  

Helping  to  create  a  connected  digital 
single market 

Achieving  a  deeper  and  fairer  internal 
market 

Supporting sustainable development 

Promoting gender equality 

*10  To  what  extent  did  COSME  provide  support  compared  with  national  and/or 
regional SMEs and entrepreneurship support programmes? 

1.  Higher 
2.  Similar 
3.  Lower 
4.  I do not know 

*11  How  did  COSME  compare  to  similar  national  and/or  regional  SMEs  and 
entrepreneurship  support  programmes  for  the  different  potential  benefits  listed 
below? 

COSME 
much more 
beneficial 
than 
national and 
regional 
programmes 

COSME 
more 
beneficial 

than national 
and regional 
programmes 

COSME 
equally 
beneficial to 
national and 
regional 
programmes 

National / 
regional 
programmes 
more 
beneficial 
than COSME 

National / 
regional 
programmes 
much more 
beneficial 
than COSME 

Don’t 
know 

More 
cooperation 
with partners 
from other 
countries 

Improved 
international 
visibility 

Strengthened 
critical mass to 
address pan-
European 
challenges in a 
given area 

Strengthened 
cooperation 
between 
academia and 
the private 
sector 

238 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

COSME 
much more 
beneficial 
than 
national and 
regional 
programmes 

COSME 
more 
beneficial 

than national 
and regional 
programmes 

COSME 
equally 
beneficial to 
national and 
regional 
programmes 

National / 
regional 
programmes 
more 
beneficial 
than COSME 

National / 
regional 
programmes 
much more 
beneficial 
than COSME 

Don’t 
know 

Strengthened 
interdisciplinary 
cooperation 

Projects 
financed (which 
otherwise could 
not have been 
supported at 
national and/or 
regional level) 

Sharing out of 
business risks 

Reimbursement 
of costs at a 
higher level 
than in national 
and/or regional 
programmes 

Strengthened 
capacities, 
competences 
and skills inside 
the company 

12 Do you have any comments on the benefits of COSME or shortcomings/gaps in 
comparison to national and/or regional programmes (Free text max 500 characters) 

13 Do you have any other views which have not been covered in the consultation? 

14 You may upload below any document which you would like to share in relation 
to the final evaluation of the COSME programme 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex K: Targeted consultation questionnaires 

Intermediaries  and  SMEs  benefitting  from  actions  (clusters,  tourism, 
social economy, etc.) 

240 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

241 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

242 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

243 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

244 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

245 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

246 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

247 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

248 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

249 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

250 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

251 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

252 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

253 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

254 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

255 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

256 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

257 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

258 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Survey  of  Host  and  New  Entrepreneurs  of  Erasmus  for  Young 
Entrepreneurs (EYE) 

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

260 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

261 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

262 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

264 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

265 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

266 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

267 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

268 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Survey of SMEs supported by the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) 

269 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

270 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

272 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

273 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

274 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

275 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

276 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

277 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Survey of Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) member organisations 

278 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

279 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

280 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

281 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

282 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

284 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

285 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

286 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

287 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Survey of final beneficiaries of loan guarantees 

288 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

289 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

290 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

291 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

292 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Survey questionnaire - Financial Intermediaries for the COSME and 
EIP Loan Guarantee instruments

295 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

296 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

297 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

298 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

299 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex L: Bibliography 

•  EIB Group. 2022. Evaluation of EIB Group equity and quasi-equity support for small 
businesses 
mid-caps, 
https://www.eib.org/attachments/lucalli/20220197_ev_eib_group_equity_and_quas
i_equity_for_smes_en.pdf.  

and 

•  EIF. 2016. The European venture capital landscape: an EIF perspective Volume I: 
https://www.fi-
the 

The 
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/the-european-venture-capital-
landscape-an-EIF-perspective-Vol-I.pdf. 

ecosystem, 

impact 

EIF 

VC 

on 

of 

•  EISMEA. 2023. COSME Work Programme 2020, International IP SME Helpdesks, 

Synthesis report 

•  Enterprise  Europe  Network.  2022.  Enterprise  Europe  Network  SME  -  Growth 
Outlook  2019-2020.  https://een.ec.europa.eu/news/enterprise-europe-network-
presents-sme-growth-outlook-2019-20.  

•  Erasmus 

for  Young  Entrepreneurs.  2023.  Skuteczna  sieć  kontaktów  dla 
przedsiębiorców - programme „Erasmus dla młodych przedsiębiorców”, Menno van 
Dam & Pedro Oliveira - Erasmus entrepreneurs (erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu). 

•  EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation EEN Japan. 2021. Celebrating 10 years 
of  working  together,  https://www.eu-japan.eu/publications/een-japan-celebrating-
10-years-working-together-booklet-and-video. 

•  European  Commission.  2023.  Call  for  evidence  for  the  COSME  programme 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

evaluation. 
say/initiatives/13399-COSME-programme-evaluation_en.  

•  European  Commission.  2023.  Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs.  https://single-
market-economy.ec.europa.eu/smes/supporting-entrepreneurship/erasmus-young-
entrepreneurs_en#:~:text=Since%20its%20launch%20in%202009%2C%20the%2
0scheme%27s%20number,and%20currently%20we%20have%20organised%20ov
er%2010%2C700%20exchanges.  

•  European Commission. 2023. European Clusters Excellence, https://single-market-

economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy/cluster-policy/european-clusters-
excellence_en. 

•  European  Commission.  2023.  European  Innovation  Council  and  SMEs  Executive 
https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/social-

(EISMEA),  Social  Economy, 
Agency 
economy_en#:~:text=Social%20economy%20missions,-
The%20aim%20of&text=The%20call%20was%20launched%20in,and%20develop
%20inter%2Dregional%20partnerships. 

•  European 

Commission. 

2023. 

Horizon 

Europe 

Performance, 

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-
reporting/programme-performance-statements/horizon-europe-
performance_en#performance-assessment. 

•  European 

2023. 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/ERIAB_pb-
Impact_of_financial_crisis.pdf.  

Commission. 

Research 

and 

innovation, 

•  European  Commission.  2015.  The  single  market  strategy.  https://single-market-

economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/single-market-strategy_en.  

•  European Commission. 2022. Annual report on European SMEs – digitalization of 

SMEs. 

300 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46062/attachments/1/translations/en/re
nditions/native  

•  European  Commission.  2022.  Annual  Report  on  European  SMEs  2021/2022. 

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/40742729-315d-
48ed-b7f1-6335ce2819b8_en.  

•  European  Commission.  2022.  COSME,  2014-2020  Programme 

the 
Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs, 2019 monitoring report, COM(2022) 527 
final. 

for 

•  European  Commission.  2021.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
the 
Parliament  and 
Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 2018 Monitoring Report, COM/2021/685 
final. 

the  Council  COSME  2014-2020.  Programme 

for 

•  European  Commission.  2018.  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE 
EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  THE  COUNCIL  COSME  Programme  for  the 
Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  SMEs  2014-2020  Monitoring  Report  2015 
{SWD(2018)  299  final}  -  {SWD(2018)  300  final}.European  Commission.  2022. 
Evaluation  study  on  the  European  Innovation  Council  (EIC)  pilot:  Final  report. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5efbc2a4-f68a-11ec-b976-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-260379944.  

•  European Commission. 2021. Directorate-General for Communications Networks, 
Content  and  Technology,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and 
Culture,  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency,  Creative  Europe  – 
Monitoring report 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/602038. 

•  European  Commission.  2021.  Evaluation  Study  of  and  Potential  Follow-Up  to 
report, 

Cluster 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a2c3e9e1-3deb-11ec-89db-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF. 

under  COSME,  H2020 

and  FPI,  Final 

Initiatives 

•  European  Commission.  2021.  Study  on  the  effectiveness  of  public  innovation 
support for SMEs in Europe: final report. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/d031aa03-9295-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

•  European  Commission.  2020.  Horizon  2020  –  Work  programme  2018-2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-
2020/main/h2020-wp1820-finance_en.pdf. 

•  European Commission. 2020.  Supporting  European SMEs  to  participate  in  public 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
EU, 
procurement 
tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/ppout-01-2020. 

outside 

•  European  Commission.  2019.  Annual  report  on  European  SMEs  –  research  & 
SMEs. 

development 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43885/attachments/1/translations/en/re
nditions/native.  

innovation 

and 

by 

•  European  Commission.  2019.  Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs  10,  2009-2019, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/925094b5-ff7d-11e9-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1. 

•  European  Commission.  2019.  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL COSME 2014-2020 Programme 
for  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  SMEs,  2019  Monitoring  Report, 
COM(2022) 527 final. 

•  European  Commission.  2019.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
the 

the  Council,  COSME  2014-2020  Programme 

Parliament  and 

for 

301 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  SMEs,  2019  Monitoring  Report,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0527. 

•  European  Commission.  2017.  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  COSME  programme  – 
the  Final  Report:  Synopsys  report.  https://www.technopolis-

Annex  E 
group.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Interim-Evaluation-of-the-COSME-
Programme.pdf  

to 

•  European  Commission.  2017.  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  COSME  programme. 

https://www.technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Interim-
Evaluation-of-the-COSME-Programme.pdf.  

•  European  Commission,  Directorate-General 

Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Mahieu, B., Rosemberg, C., Roman, L. et al., Interim 
evaluation  of  the  COSME  Programme  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office,  2017, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/87360 

Internal  Market, 

for 

•  European Commission. 2016. Assessing the potential for EU investment in venture 
capital 
report, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8557bb3e-e10a-11e5-8a50-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

capital 

funds, 

other 

Final 

fund 

and 

risk 

of 

•  European  Commission.  2015.  Final  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  Enterprise 
Europe  Network  -  2008  –  2014.  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/d4cf03ed-972c-11e5-983e-01aa75ed71a1.  

•  European Commission. 2014. Lack of funding prevents companies from capitalising 
innovations, 

on 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_14_610. 

their 

•  European Commission. 2014. SME Performance Review Annual Report. 

•  European  Commission.  2013.  Annex  to  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
amending  Implementing  Decision  C  (2012)  9442  concerning  the  adoption  of  the 
2013  work  programme  for  the  implementation  of  the  Entrepreneurship  and 
Innovation  Programme,  https://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/docs/financing-decision-
eip-work-programme-annexe-2013_en.pdf.  

•  European Commission. 2013. EU R&D Scoreboard – the 2013 EU industrial R&D 
https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-
investment 
12/The%202013%20EU%20Industrial%20RD%20Investment%20Scoreboard.pdf  

scoreboard. 

•  European  Commission.  2013.  Regulation  (EU)  No  1287/2013  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing a Programme for 
the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(COSME) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
2020). 
(2014 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013R1287  

- 

•  European  Commission.  2013.  SEC(2013)  493  final,  Communication  to  the 
Commission on the delegation of the management of the 2014-2020 programmes 
to 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0493(01). 

agencies, 

executive 

•  European  Commission.  2013.  SMEs’  Access 

to  Finance  survey  results, 

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/7864/attachments/1/translations/en/ren
ditions/pdf. 

•  European Commission. 2008. European Commission communication (COM (2008) 
394  Final)  –  ‘think  small  first”  –  A  ‘small  business  act’  for  Europe.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/a-small-business-act-for-european-
smes.html.  

302 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  European  Commission.  2006.  Decision  No  1639/2006/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness 
and 
to  2013).  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32006D1639. 

Innovation  Framework  Programme 

(2007 

•  European  Commission.  2006.  European  Competitiveness  Report  2006. 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/67d1593b-9c0c-4c42-a285-
be46d7a79d07.  

•  European  Commission.  2003.  Commission  recommendation  of  6  May  2003 
the  definition  of  micro,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

concerning 
(2003/361/EC). 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361.  

•  European  Commission.  2003.  Green  Paper  Entrepreneurship 

in  Europe. 

https://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/pdf/download_en/entrepreneurship_europe.pdf. 

•  European  Commission.  2002.  A  study  of  Business  support  services  and  market 

failures. 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/3646/attachments/1/translations/en/ren
ditions/pdf. 

•  European Committee of Regions. 2022. Summary of the EER final workshop of the 
COSME 
ecosystems, 
Connecting 
https://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Pages/eer-fostering-collaboration-summary.aspx. 

entrepreneurial 

project 

on 

•  European Court of Auditors. 2022. Special report 07/2022: SME internationalisation 
instruments  -  A  large  number  of  support  actions  but  not  fully  coherent  or 
coordinated, https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?did=61072. 

• 

European Court of Auditors. 2019. Centrally managed EU interventions for venture 
capital: 
report, 
more 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR19_17/SR_Venture_capital_E
N.pdf. 

direction, 

Special 

need 

of 

in 

•  European Economic and Social Committee. 2016. Europe's next leaders: the Start-
Initiative,  https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-

up  and  Scale-up 
information-reports/opinions/europes-next-leaders-start-and-scale-initiative. 

•  European  Investment  Bank.  2021.  InnovFin  -  EU  finances  for  innovators. 

https://www.eib.org/en/products/mandates-partnerships/innovfin/index.htm.  

•  European Investment  Bank.  2013.  Operations  Evaluation  –  Second  evaluation  of 
(RSFF). 

the 
https://www.eib.org/attachments/ev/ev_second_evaluation_of_rsff_en.pdf.  

sharing 

finance 

facility 

risk 

•  European Investment Fund. 2020. Financial Instruments of the Programme for the 
Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) 
(2014-2020), comprising the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) and the Equity Facility 
for 
(EFG). 
https://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/eif_flyer_cosme_en.pdf. 

Growth 

•  European  Investment  Fund.  2019.  Econometric  study  on  the  impact  of  EU  loan 
of  SMES. 

guarantee 
https://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/EIF_Working_Paper_2019_54.pdf. 

instruments 

financial 

growth 

jobs 

and 

on 

•  European Parliament. 2021. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on EU industries. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662903/IPOL_STU(2
021)662903_EN.pdf  

303 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  Federation  of  Small  Businesses.  2019.  Small  Business,  Big  Heart:  Bringing 
Communities  together.  https://www.fsb.org.uk/resource-report/small-business-big-
heart-communities-report.html.  

•  Henningsen  Consulting  for  the  European  Commission.  2022.  Evaluation  of  the 

promotion activities carried out by the European Travel Commission. 

•  Kraemer-Eis,  H.,  Botsari,  A.,  Gvetadze,  S.,  Lang,  F.  and  Torfs,  W.  2021.  The 
2022 

European 
https://www.eif.org/news_centre/publications/eif_working_paper_2022_84.pdf. 

Business 

Finance 

Outlook 

Small 

•  Lee  H.,  Kelley  D.,  Lee  J.,  Lee  S.  2012.  SME  survival:  The  impact  of 
internationalization, technology resources, and alliances. Journal of Small Business 
Management, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00341.x. 

•  Ministère  de  l'Économie,  des  Finances  et  de  la  Souveraineté  industrielle  et 
Compétitivité : 

numérique. 
https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/fr/innovation/poles-de-competitivite/presentation-
des-poles-de-competitivite 

Présentation 

2023. 

Pôles 

Des 

De 

•  Nordhaus, 

S. 

1989. 

Economics. 

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-

search/title/economics/author/samuelson-nordhaus/.  

•  Pearce,  D. 

1996.  Macmillan  Dictionary 

of  Modern 

Economics. 

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-18424-8. 

•  Peia, O., Romelli, D. 2022. Did financial frictions stifle R&D investment in Europe 
during  the  great  recession?,  Journal  of  International  Money  and  Finance, 
10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102263. 

•  Technopolis  Group.  2021.  European  Open  for  Business  Campaign  Synthesis 

Report. 

COSME Actions- Monitoring Fiches 

•  Achieving  Synergies  and  Champions  in  the  Implementation  of  the  European 
Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp) (GRO/SME/20/D/031). 

•  Adaptations of the Your Europe portal and YEST in view of the (in 2020) up-coming 

single digital gateway (GRO/SME/20/F/011). 

•  Boosting  competitiveness  and  innovation  capacity  of  SMEs  through  creative 
II 

-  Worth  Partnership 

the  use  of  new 

technologies 

partnerships  and 
(GRO/SME/20/C/05). 

•  Business Planet (GRO/SME/20/C/16). 

•  Circular Plastics for SMEs – Meetings (GRO/SME/20/F/209). 

•  Climate 

neutral  market 

opportunities 

and 

EU 

competitiveness 

(GRO/SME/20/F/104). 

•  Clusters Go International (GRO/SME/20/C/02). 

•  Clusters Internationalisation programme for SMEs in the Defence & Security sector 

(GRO/SME/20/C/03). 

•  Co-financing of public procurement of innovation consortia (GRO/SME/20/B/05). 

•  COIN-GROW III: Monitoring the national implementation of the Small Business Act 

II - Administrative Arrangement with JRC (GRO/SME/20/C/014). 

•  Creating 

for 
(GRO/SME/20/B/06). 

links 

the 

facilitation  of  public  procurement  of 

innovation 

304 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  DIGIT  Hosting 

and 

Services 

for  COSME 

Information 

Systems 

(GRO/SME/CODEL/20/F/013). 

•  Early Warning Europe Mentor Academy (Improving the availability and the scope of 

services for companies in financial difficulties) (GRO/SME/20/C/013 – 1). 

•  EEN ANNUAL CONFERENCE (GRO/SME/20/B/12). 

•  EEN budget for Enterprise Europe Network animation (GRO/SME/20/B/02). 

•  Enhancing  Digital  and  Entrepreneurial  competences 

in  Girls  and  Women 

(GRO/SME/20/D/032). 

•  Enterprise Europe Network (GRO/SME/20/B/011). 

•  Equity Facility for growth (GRO/SME/20/A/01). 

•  ESER concluding event (GRO/SME/20/F/205/a). 

•  EU Industry Days 2022 (5th edition) (GRO/SME/20/F/201). 

•  EU  Open  for  Business  synthesis  study;  According  to  the  Specific  Contract 
SI2.833936 the project had the title “EU Open for Business” Campaign Synthesis 
Study (EUO4B) - 2020 (GRO/SME/20/F/002). 

•  EU REFIT platform (Better Regulation: Engaging SMEs and Stakeholders on policy 
design  and  implementation/strengthening  of  the  Better  Regulation  Agenda) 
(GRO/SME/20/C/11). 

•  EU-Japan centre for industrial cooperation (GRO/SME/20/B/03). 

•  Eurobarometer Tourism 2020 (GRO/SME/20/F/116). 

•  European  Capital  of  Smart  Tourism  -  Fostering  smart  tourism  solutions  in  EU 
destinations through the European Capital of Smart Tourism (GRO/SME/20/C/06). 

•  European Cluster Excellence Programme with ClusterXchange scheme connecting 

ecosystems and cities (GRO/SME/20/C/04). 

•  European construction sector Observatory (GRO/SME/20/C/10). 

•  European Social Economy Missions (GRO/SME/20/D/01). 

•  Evaluation and follow-up to EU Cluster Initiatives (GRO/SME/20/F/001). 

•  Financial Instruments – Accompanying Actions (GROW/SME/20/A/). 

•  Fostering  collaboration  through  mapping,  analysing  and  interlinking  European 
I  under 

Entrepreneurial  Regions  –  Phase 
GRO/SME/17/C/019b - EASME/COSME/2017/041) (GRO/SME/20/C/01). 

(Initial  EER  action/Phase 

II 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Implementation,  upgrading  and  maintenance  of  Chemicals  Legislation  Finder 
(GRO/SME/20/C/12). 

Initiatives for a Built environment (GRO/SME/20/F/103). 

Innovation uptake and digitalisation in the tourism sector: (TOURINN) Boosting the 
uptake  of  digitalisation,  innovation  and  new  technologies  in  tourism  through 
transnational cooperation and capacity building (GRO/SME/20/C/07). 

Intellectual Property voucher for post-COVID-19 recovery (also known as SME fund) 
(GRO/SME/20/C/17). 

International IP SME helpdesks – India (GRO/SME/20/B/10). 

International  IP  SME  helpdesks  (China,  South-east  Asia  and  Latin  America) 
(GRO/SME/20/B/010). 

• 

IT Tool Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (GRO/SME/20/D/022). 

305 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  LEVELs  website 

(assessment 

tool 

for  sustainable  buildings)  – 

(CAT) 

(GRO/SME/20/F/102). 

•  Mapping of the EU mid-cap landscape (GRO/SME/20/F/114). 

•  Membership fees for International Rubber Study Group (GRO/SME/20/F/010). 

•  Methodology  for  the  cost  benefit  analysis  for  the  use  of  the  Building  Information 

Modelling (BIM) (GRO/SME/20/F/101). 

•  Nanomaterials Observatory (GRO/SME/20/C/13). 

•  Organisation  of  a  number  of  events  -  Very  low  value  contract  –  Support  to  the 
stakeholder consultation process for preparing transition pathway for tourism on the 
topic of Resilience, Digitalization and Sustainability (GRO/SME/20/C/081). 

•  Organisation of a number of tourism meetings and events & Technical Assistance 

(GRO/SME/20/C/083). 

•  Outreach SME policy - IT tools (GRO/SME/20/C/018). 

•  Participation  in  the  International  Lisbon  Study  Groups  (ILZSG,  ICSG  and  INSG) 

(GRO/SME/20/F/018). 

•  Public Buyers Network (GRO/SME/20/B/11). 

•  Related IT services for COSME Information Systems (GRO/SME/20/F/012). 

•  Single Digital Gateway – IT part (GRO/SME/CODEL/20/B/081). 

•  SME Envoy Network and Sherpa meetings, SME Assembly incl. EEPA/SME week 
coordinators and expert meetings (Late payment directive and SPR experts incl.), 
other outreach activities (GRO/SME/20/C/019). 

•  SME Performance Review – Green Eurobarometer (GRO/SME/20/C/015). 

•  SME performance review (GRO/SME/20/C/011). 

•  SME  Performance  Review  SPR 

-  Study  on  Late  Payment  Directive 

(GRO/SME/20/C/016). 

•  SME Policy Outreach Activities, In particular, Organisation of SME Assembly, SME 

Week and European Enterprise Promotion Awards (GRO/SME/20/C/012). 

•  SME  Webinars  -  EU Open  for  Business  -  a new  compass  for  SMEs (GROW.D.4 

GRO/SME/20/F/042). 

•  Social Economy – Technical Assistance and Mapping Exercise (GRO/SME/F/205b). 

•  Social media production and boosting (GRO/SME/20/F/034). 

•  SOLVIT trainings (GRO/SME/20/B/093). 

•  Strategic  alliances  for  the  uptake  of  advanced  technologies  by  SMEs  on  the 

economic recovery (GRO/SME/20/C/09). 

•  Study for Foresight for Chemicals (GRO/SME/20/F/117). 

•  Study on the legal protection of trade secrets in the context of the data economy 

(GRO/SME/20/F/206). 

•  Support  for  SMES  on  mineral  supply  chain  due  diligence  –  maintenance  phase 

(conflict minerals) (GRO/SME/20/F/216). 

•  Disseminating  information to  SMEs  about  access  to  EU  sources  of financing  -  IT 

part (GRO/SME/20/A/32a). 

•  Support 

to  Erasmus 

for  Young  Entrepreneurs 

-  Support 

office 

(GRO/SME/20/D/021). 

306 

 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

•  Support to the Commission in stakeholder engagement activities in preparation of 
an EU Strategy for Textiles (GRO/SME/20/F/207).European Cluster Collaboration 
Platform (GRO/SME/20/C/015). 

•  Supporting actions for the digitalisation of construction SMEs (GRO/SME20/F107). 

•  Supporting  European  SMEs  to  participate  in  public  procurement  outside  EU 

(GRO/SME/20/B/04). 

•  The EU retail ecosystem in the future - a vision for 2040 (GRO/SME/20/F/108). 

•  Training for SME-friendly policies in central purchasing bodies (GRO/SME/20/B/07). 

•  Your Europe Business portal (GRO/SME/20/B/092). 

307 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Annex M: Case studies 

This annex presents eight case studies undertaken during the course of the evaluation. The 
purpose of the case studies is to provide practical examples of issues with implementation 
faced  by  different  actions,  as  well  as  to  present  success  stories  or  best  practices  with 
examples of costs and benefits. 

The case studies are listed in the table below and described in the sub-sections that follow. 

Case studies of COSME actions and initiatives 

Fostering  smart  tourism  solutions  in  EU  destinations  through  the  European  Capital  of  Smart 
Tourism (GRO/SME/20/C/06 

Clusters Go International: ESCP-4i (GRO/SME/20/C/02) 

Social Economy Missions 

Support for entrepreneurship policy implementation 

Early Warning Europe Mentor Academy (GRO/SME/20/C/013) 

IT Tool for Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 

Training for SME-friendly policies in Central Purchasing Bodies 

WEGate Platform for Women Entrepreneurship (GRO/SME/18/F/204) 

Enterprise Europe Network: CarVertical 

308 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Fostering  smart  tourism  solutions  in  EU  destinations 
through 
the  European  Capital  of  Smart  Tourism 
(GRO/SME/20/C/06) 

Context 

The need for the European Capital of Smart Tourism action was prompted by needs of the 
EU’s  tourism  sector,  as  evidenced  by  the  survey  of  providers  and  beneficiaries  of 
EIP/COSME  actions  undertaken  as  part  of  this  evaluation.  First,  public  authorities  were 
keen to address the significant gap in awareness and knowledge concerning sustainable 
tourism  practices  among  key  stakeholders,  as  well  as  the  low  rate  of  implementation  of 
sustainable tourism initiatives among SMEs. Second, providers of tourism-related services 
displayed  limited  interest  in  environmental  and  sustainability  aspects.  The  sector  also 
featured  insufficient  cooperation  between  the  public  and  private  sectors  and  between 
stakeholders in general. 

Objective 

The  European  Capital  of  Smart  Tourism  action  aims  to  promote  innovation,  intelligence, 
and  sustainability  within  the  tourism  industry,  primarily  through  the  exchange  of  best 
practices at the EU level. It recognises and rewards exceptional tourism initiatives in larger 
European  cities  and  destinations,  designating  two  as  the  European  Capitals  of  Smart 
Tourism.329  This  initiative  provides  cities  with  a  platform  to  showcase  their  innovative 
approaches as smart tourism destinations and acknowledges their efforts by awarding titles 
in four key categories: sustainability, accessibility, digitalisation, and cultural heritage and 
creativity.330  Through  this  action,  cities  across  the  EU  are  encouraged  to  implement 
innovative measures and enhance their tourism offerings while contributing to the broader 
goal of advancing intelligent and sustainable tourism practices in the EU.331 

Outputs and results 

The  action  successfully  achieved  its  planned  objectives  in  terms  of  providing  European 
cities  with  the  opportunity  to  share  best  practices  as  smart  tourism  destinations  and 
promoting  cooperation  among  cities  at  the  EU  level  for  innovative  and  smart  tourism 
initiatives.  This  success  was  notably  demonstrated  by  awarding  the  titles  of  European 
Capital  of  Smart  Tourism  through  an  EU-wide  competition  to  cities  that  implemented 
outstanding measures. The outcomes included the selection of two European Capitals of 
Smart Tourism per year for 2022 and 2023, the exchange of good practices among cities 
(both winners and non-winners), the organisation of events, and effective communication, 
media  coverage,  and  public  relations  activities  to  enhance  the  visibility  of  the  winners. 
Information exchanges generated benefits both for the winners and for the non-winners. 

Success factors 

A first success of the action is significantly enhanced international networking opportunities, 
bringing together cities from diverse backgrounds and facilitating the exchange of innovative 
ideas  and  practices.  This  diversity  of  participating  cities  has  proven  extremely  valuable, 
encouraging the cross-pollination of new approaches across different regions and countries. 

329 COSME 2020 Monitoring fiche on action FRO/SME/20/C/06 
330 https://smart-tourism-capital.ec.europa.eu/index_en 
331 https://smart-tourism-capital.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-04/Compendium_2020_FINAL.pdf 

309 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Second, the greater profile and prestige offered by the award of the title offers the potential 
for the title-holders to attract more tourists and support the growth of tourism SMEs; future 
evaluations could investigate the extent to which such benefits have arisen for the 2022 and 
2023  title-holders.  Third,  the  action  has  enhanced  the  uptake  of  innovation  and 
technological  tools  in  the  tourism  sector,  exploiting  the synergies  between tourism  offers 
and other industries and assets (e.g. culture, creative industries, sport, nature, etc.).332 

Best practice 

The  European  Capital  of  Smart  Tourism  has  encouraged  the  spread  of  best  practices 
relevant to the four categories. In terms of Accessibility, cities like Vienna have implemented 
comprehensive accessible tourism strategies, ensuring that public spaces, attractions, and 
transportation  are  fully  accessible  to  people  with  disabilities.  Regarding  Digitalisation, 
Barcelona stands out for its innovative use of technology, offering augmented reality apps 
and  digital  maps  to  enhance  visitor  experiences  and  navigation.  In  the  Sustainability 
category, Ljubljana has excelled in promoting eco-friendly practices by emphasising green 
mobility,  sustainable  tourism,  and  waste  reduction  efforts.  For  Creativity  and  Cultural 
heritage, Athens showcases its rich history and culture through immersive exhibitions and 
cultural  events,  while  also  encouraging  creativity  in  the  arts.  Collectively,  these  cities 
demonstrate the diverse and impactful ways in which the action is driving positive change 
in  European tourism,  fostering  accessibility,  digital  innovation,  sustainability,  and  cultural 
preservation.333 

Challenges 

Although the  action  achieved  positive  outcomes,  a few challenges  were faced.  First, the 
COVID-19 pandemic caused a degree of disruption, for example, making it impossible to 
award the title in 2021.334 Second, respondents to the survey reported that the significant 
time  and  resources  required  to  administer  the  action  could  potentially  have  hindered  its 
overall  effectiveness.  Third,  there  was  a  need  for  clearer  and  more  comprehensible 
guidelines at the outset. Finally, further promotion of tourism offers at the transnational level 
and extending beyond EU would have increased the action’s impact and reach.335 

Costs and benefits 

The  total  budget  available  for  the  action  was  EUR  2  million.  The  action  facilitated 
international  networking,  encouraged  diverse  participation,  and  recognised  outstanding 
smart tourism practices in various categories. The initiative demonstrated the potential for 
economic growth and SME market expansion through increased tourism. 

Conclusion 

The  European  Capital  of  Smart  Tourism  successfully  addressed  key  challenges  in  the 
European  tourism  sector  by  promoting  innovation  and  sustainability.  However,  it  faced 
challenges  due to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  administrative  demands,  unclear  guidelines, 
and the need for broader transnational tourism promotion. Despite these obstacles, it has 
made significant progress in advancing intelligent and sustainable tourism practices in the 
EU, benefiting cities and the tourism sector as a whole. The action indirectly supports SMEs 

332 Survey of providers and beneficiaries of EIP/COSME actions 
333 https://smart-tourism-capital.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-04/Compendium_2020_FINAL.pdf 
334 COSME 2020 Monitoring fiche on action FRO/SME/20/C/06 
335 Survey of providers and beneficiaries of EIP/COSME actions 

310 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

in the tourism sector and contributes to COSME's goals of improving the competitiveness 
of SMEs. 
Clusters Go International: ESCP-4i 
(GRO/SME/20/C/02) 

Clusters  contribute  to  industrial  innovation  by  supporting  collaboration  and  linking  of 
enterprises,  especially  SMEs.  COSME  provided  EUR  51  million  funding  for  clusters  for 
capacity building and networking during 2014-2021.336 Since 2015, the European Cluster 
Collaboration  Platform  (ECCP)  has  supported  cluster  networking  and  growth.  It  hosts 
European Cluster Partnerships (ECP) which pool resources and knowledge so that clusters 
can  carry  out  joint  actions  for  their  members  to  improve  competitiveness,  growth  and 
resilience. Within ECP, one of the four strands of work is internationalisation towards third 
countries through ESCP-4i (Clusters Go International).  

Objectives 

The  objective  of  ESCP-4i  is  to  get  clusters  collaborating  to  develop  and  implement  joint 
internationalisation strategies so that SMEs develop new value chains and leading global 
positions.  There  are  two  strands  in  ESCP-4i:  one  to  develop  joint  internationalisation 
strategies and roadmaps, the other to develop specific activities that support co-operation 
with partners in third countries.337, 338 

Outputs and results 

According  to  the  survey  for  this  evaluation,  cluster  organisations  valued  support  to  help 
them  deal  with  issues  such  as  lack  of finance  and  personnel,  challenges  in making joint 
investments, lack of awareness of the benefits of joint action and lack of regional support. 
As  a  result,  the  clusters  were  able  to  develop  common  internationalisation  strategies, 
communications, market research, etc., all of which was highly valued. There were three 
generations of calls for ESCP-4i under COSME (2016-2017; 2018-2019; and, 2020-2022). 
Under  the  first  generation  15  co-partnerships  were  funded  (10  on  a  voluntary  basis), 25 
under the second generation, and 24 in the third generation (2020-2022). Under first and 
second  generation  projects,  1,314  cluster-to-cluster  events  were  organised.  45 
collaboration projects ensued from the first and 180 from the second generation projects.339 

The  clusters  gained  an  improved  understanding  of  the  internationalisation  process  and 
increased  access  to  international  markets  for  SMEs  that  put  them  in  a  good  position  to 
support  further  internationalisation,  have  helped  increase  awareness  of  the  benefits  of 
internationalisation  for  SMEs  (indirect  beneficiaries)  and  provided  support  for  their 
internationalisation journey. International matchmaking activities and initial identification of 
new strategic partners by clusters were highly valued by SMEs.340 However, there is little 
evidence that they led to successful SME internationalisation (new value chains or global 
positions) in third countries on a significant scale. 

336 Within COSME specific objectives C: improving framework conditions 
337 Prognos, CSES, Idea Consult (2021); Evaluation Study of and Potential Follow-Up to Cluster Initiatives under 
COSME, H2020 and FPI, DG GROW, European Commission, Brussels, p.34 
338  Two  assessments  of  the  ESCP-4i  have  been  undertaken:  one,  by  Prognos  et.  al.  (op.cit.),  the  other  by 
Sociedade  Portuguesa  de  Inovação  (SPI)  (2019);  Progress  Report  on  the  European  Strategic  Cluster 
Partnerships, EOCIC, EASME 
339 Prognos et. al., p.34 
340 Prognos et. al. p.63 and targeted survey 

311 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Success factors 

Factors  identified  as  contributing  to  the  success  of  ESCP-4i  in  the  survey  for  this  study 
were: good collaboration between clusters and the commission, duration of the programme, 
simple administration, level of funding, stakeholder engagement and the level of resource 
inputs required. 

The  main  change  between  EIP  cluster  initiatives  and  ESCP-4i  was  that  the  ESCP-4i 
included a focus on planning for markets and then addressing those markets, whereas the 
EIP  initiatives  focused  more  on  joint  collaboration  between  clusters.  Both  the  targeted 
survey for this evaluation and the 2021 evaluation identified synergies with the Horizon 2020 
programme, the EEN (e.g. to find contacts in third countries and for matchmaking events) 
and  the  Smart  Specialisation  Platform  for  industrial  modernisation.  However,  links  with 
national and regional programmes could be improved.341 

Challenges 

In the 2021 evaluation, cluster organisations pointed out that after 24 months (duration of a 
call)  only  a  modest  number  of  successful  co-operation  cases  were  counted  because 
development of business relationships needs time and trust, and it is difficult to follow up 
after the end of the project.342 While SMEs see ESCP-4i as a door-opener and a way to 
achieve a critical marketing mass (travelling a European delegation) compared to travelling 
alone,343 they see participation in ESCP4-i as only part of the internationalisation process, 
and  other  activities  are  not  funded  under  ESCP4-i.  National  and  regional  programmes 
funded some activities not supported by ESCP-4i. Restrictions arising from the COVID-19 
pandemic affected third generation calls and led to major changes in planned activities.344 
The  use  of  on-line  meetings  helped  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  restrictions,  although  not 
entirely.345 

Costs and benefits  

In the survey undertaken for this evaluation, cluster organisations indicated that their costs 
for implementing ESCP-4i projects ranged from EURO 20k to EURO 100k. Benefits related 
to  the  ESCP-4i  can  most  readily  be  identified  as  accruing  to  cluster  organisations  (see 
“outputs and results" above), which would in turn benefit SMEs. 

Conclusions 

Operationally,  both  the  EOCIC  ‘Progress  Report’  (2019)346  and  the  2021  evaluation347 
identified several lessons and recommendations. In terms of the COSME intervention logic, 
there does not seem to be data collected (other than anecdotal) that is usable to inform a 
robust  view  as  to  whether  or  Clusters  Go  International  has  contributed  to  longer  term 
impacts. It would be useful to address this data gap. 

341 Prognos et.al., p.69 
342 Prognos et.al., p.65 
343 Prognos et.al., p.65 
344 Prognos et.al., p.65 
345 Prognos et.al., p.71 
346 Op. cit., p. 26 
347 Prognos et. al., p.70; refer to intervention logic, p.58 

312 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Social Economy Missions 

Context 

The Social Economy Missions were launched in a context in which EU and national policies 
for  social  economy  development  needed  to  be  harmonised  and  reinforced.348  In  the 
absence  of  a  single  definition  of  the  social  economy,  Member  States  applied  different 
subsets of the social economy principles to define and support their social economy actors. 
There was also insufficient awareness of the potential of the social economy, which reduced 
the effectiveness of tools and support scheme and results in a lack of active collaboration 
of social economy networks at regional and local level. To address these challenges, the 
Commission had launched the European Social Economy Regions Pilot (ESER) in 2018 to 
raise awareness and build networks of social economy stakeholders at regional and local 
level. 

Objective 

The  Social  Economy  Missions  aimed  to  build  on  the  achievements  of  the  ESER  by 
accelerating the development and acknowledgement of the potential of social economy via 
inter-regional  learning  and  collaboration  among  social  economy  stakeholders.  They 
involved numerous workshops involving 88 beneficiary organisations from 27 EU/COSME 
countries.349  Furthermore,  the  action  aimed  to  establish  a  network  of  regional  and  local 
authorities  across  the  EU  and  COSME  countries  with  similar  social  economy  priorities, 
fostering inter-regional learning and collaboration. Ultimately, the goal was to facilitate the 
development of a social economy community of practice as an integral part of a sustainable 
European economic model.350 

Outputs and Results 

The action successfully achieved its planned objectives, even in the face of COVID-related 
constraints. It effectively motivated participants to engage in future projects and fulfilled the 
need  for  a  cross-sectoral  network  of  actors.  Furthermore,  it  significantly  increased  the 
visibility of social economy initiatives and promoted the sharing of best practices, resulting 
in improved knowledge and connections with stakeholders. The action facilitated bilateral 
dialogues  and  enhanced  responsiveness  to  stakeholder  needs.  It  also  enabled  the 
involvement  of  socio-economic  institutions  in  innovative  work  tools.351  Importantly,  the 
action  established  an  inter-regional  network  of  SMEs  actively  engaged  in  the  social 
economy, fostering collaboration, peer learning, and the exchange of best practices across 
different regions. Overall, it generated useful materials to enhance regional and local social 
economies through a series of inter-regional workshops, engaging over 2,500 participants 
from 27 EU Member States and resulting in the identification of 350 good practices.352 The 
experiences  of  this  action  contributed to  a  subsequent  action  “Social  economy  and local 
green deals supporting SMEs to become more resilient” that aimed to contribute to recovery 
in Europe resulting from COVID-19 crisis and accelerate the green and digital transition in 
different industrial ecosystems and economic sectors. 

348  European  Commission  (2020),  Call  for  Proposals:  Social  Economy  Missions,  GRO/SME/19/D/021, 
GRO/SME/20/D/01, COS-SEM-2020-4-01 
349 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report 
350 Monitoring fiche 2020, Social Economy Mission 
351 Feedback collected from interviews on Social Economy Mission 
352 Monitoring fiche 2020, Social Economy Mission 

313 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Success Factors 

The  action  demonstrated  several  successful  factors.  First,  it  showcased  flexibility  in 
adapting to new emergencies and needs, benefiting from robust support from EU officials. 
The work was engaging and produced valuable local outputs. Effective communication and 
dissemination  of  best  strategies  were  employed,  leveraging  various  channels,  including 
social  media,  local  newsletters,  and  interviews.  The  action's  strong  commitment  to 
dissemination and communication contributed to its success. Networking added significant 
value,  fostering  active  involvement  and  a  keen  interest  in  long-term  impact.  Even 
participants facing language barriers found opportunities to engage.353 

Challenges faced 

The  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  at  the  beginning  of  the  action  significantly 
impacted its implementation, forcing a shift to online events and limiting full cooperation.354 
The  lack  of  in-person  study  groups  also  hindered  their  full  potential.  While  the  action 
facilitated  the  exchange  of  practices,  it  lacked  tools  for  concrete  applications,  limited  its 
effectiveness in delivering shareable results. Stakeholders expressed a need for more local, 
in-person visits to complement the action's efforts. In addition, the duration of the project 
was  considered  too  short  by  some  partners,  necessitating  more  time  for  information-
sharing.355 

Costs and benefits 

The total budget per work programme available was EUR 1 900 000 with an additional up 
of  EUR  237  501.356  However,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  led  to  unforeseen  management 
expenses.  Feedback  from  beneficiaries  suggested  that  the  budget  per  work  programme 
was sufficient for the management and implementation of the action, although challenges 
persisted,  particularly  during  the  pandemic.357  Examples  of  the  type  of  expenses  of  the 
action  included  workshop  organisation,  translation,  interpretation,  and  video  production, 
with many experts participating voluntarily. Overall, the participants reported that the costs 
they  incurred  appeared  proportional  to  the  value  they  derived  from  the  workshops,  and 
subcontracting was employed to enhance events development. 

Conclusion 

The Social Economy Mission action has proven successful in achieving its objectives and 
promoted the creation of a social economy community. Despite the unforeseen obstacles 
posed by the pandemic, this initiative promoted inter-regional collaboration and knowledge-
sharing  among  social  economy  stakeholders  effectively  by  establishing  a  network  of 
authorities  across  the  EU  with  similar  social  economy  priorities,  fostering  inter-regional 
collaboration.358 The project's ability to adapt to emergent needs, supported by EU officials, 
demonstrated significant flexibility. It created a valuable cross-sectoral network of actors, 
significantly increased the visibility of social economy initiatives, and facilitated the sharing 
of  best  practices.  Moreover,  it  established  an  inter-regional  network  of  SMEs  actively 
engaged in the social economy, fostering collaboration and peer learning. While challenges 
such as the pandemic's impact and the need for more concrete applications were evident, 

353 Feedback collected from interviews on Social Economy Mission 
354 Monitoring fiche 2020, Social Economy Mission 
355 Feedback collected from interviews on Social Economy Mission 
356 Monitoring fiche 2020, Social Economy Mission 
357 Feedback collected from interviews on Social Economy Mission 
358 Feedback collected from interviews on Social Economy Mission 

314 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

the overall benefits, including improved networking and knowledge sharing, far outweighed 
the costs incurred.359 
Support for entrepreneurship policy implementation 

Context 

The support for entrepreneurship policy implementation aimed to address specific needs 
and difficulties faced by European entrepreneurs through support for establishment of pro-
entrepreneurship policies across the EU. Support was focussed on policies supporting three 
objectives, each of which was the subject of a specific conference:  

• 

• 

• 

“Boosting the Business of Liberal Professions” (2014) 

“Transfers of Business” (2017) 

“Second Chance for Honest Failed Entrepreneurs” (2015). 

Objectives and activities 

The general objective was to provide support to implementation of entrepreneurship policy. 
This was pursued through the three conferences. 

The  “Conference  on  Boosting  the  Business  of  Liberal  Professions”  provided  a  forum  for 
policymakers and stakeholders to consider the recommendations of the Working Group on 
Liberal Professions, which the Commission established in 2013.360 The Working Group was 
composed of representatives of national and European associations of Liberal Professions 
from  EU  Member  States  and  was  tasked  with  identifying  potential  recommendations  in 
terms of policies to be developed at EU level. The final report of the Working group, "Action 
Lines for Bolstering the Business of Liberal Professions", presented recommendations to 
the  Commission  to  create a  more favourable environment  and  support measures for the 
businesses of liberal professions.361 Recommendations for measures to support the liberal 
professionals were made in five thematic areas: Reduction of Regulatory Burden; Access 
to Finance; Strengthening Representation and Participation at European Level; Access to 
Markets; and Education and Training for Entrepreneurship. 

The  “Conference  on  Transfers  of  Business”  followed  up  the  recommendations  of  the 
Commission  expert  group  in  2013  and  the  Evaluation  of the Implementation  of  the  2006 
Commission  Communication  on  Business  Transfers,362  as  well  as  the  Commission 
Recommendation of 1994.363 The Conference built on the findings around regulatory and 
financial issues connected to business transfers and support for using on-line platforms for 
business transfers. 

The “Conference on Second Chance for Honest Failed Entrepreneurs” followed up the 2007 
Communication  on  Overcoming  the  stigma  of  business  failure,364  as  well  as  the 

359 Feedback collected from interviews on Social Economy Mission 
360 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/growth/items/48642/en 
361 European Commission (2015), Action Lines for Bolstering the Business of Liberal Professions: Final Report 
of the Working Group 2015. 
362  CSES  (2013),  Evaluation  of  the  Implementation  of  the  2006  Commission  Communication  on  Business 
Transfers. 
363 94/1069/EC: Commission Recommendation of 7 December 1994 on the transfer of small and medium-sized 
enterprises. 
364 COM(2007) 584 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Overcoming  the  stigma  of 
business failure – for a second chance policy. 

315 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

recommendations of the 2011 report of the expert group Bankruptcy and Second Chance.365 
The expert  group  recommended that the Member  States should,  inter  alia,  set  an  upper 
limit of three years for the discharge and debt settlement period for honest entrepreneurs, 
differentiate between debtors who have acted honestly in their conduct or business giving 
rise  to  the  indebtedness  and  those  who  have  acted  dishonestly,  provide  out-of-court 
procedures  for  all  types  of  debtors,  and  prioritise  interventions  to  support  SMEs  in  the 
following order: prevention; post-bankruptcy and second chance, out-of-court settlements; 
and  in-court  procedures.  The  expert  group  also  recommended  that  the  Commission 
continue exchanges of information and good practices among Member States on a regular 
basis. The need to destigmatise business failure reflected the fact that one in five newly-
established firms would fail during their first year.366 

Outputs and results 

The “Conference on Boosting the Business of Liberal Professions” reported the following 
outputs: 103 representatives of national and European organisations in the area of liberal 
professions attended, and peer-learning has been facilitated among EU Member States. It 
contributed  to  unification  and  cohesiveness  of  efforts  to  promote  the  entry  liberal 
professionals into non-EU markets and to the availability of support for such professionals 
across Europe, as well as to progress around entrepreneurial policy development in Europe. 
The conference was followed by the meeting of the Working Group on Liberal Professions 
in the SME Assembly that took place in late 2014 in Italy. 

The  “Conference  on  Transfers  of  Business”  identified  good  practices  in  regulatory  and 
financial issues related to business transfers, such as the use of on-line platforms for such 
transfers.  The  results  included  testimonials  by  policymakers,  business  persons  and 
business support providers. More than 100 participants attended the one-day conference. 
They included persons in charge of decision-making regionally, and on a state level, as well 
as a range of other stakeholders relevant to the subject. The participants had an opportunity 
to  attend  four  workshops  and  two  plenary  sessions  where  they  contributed  to  the 
development of solutions for business transfer issues. These contributions led to exchange 
of  knowledge  between  stakeholders  representing  the  Member  States,  and  increased 
awareness  of  the  subject  and  of  good  practices  across  Europe.  However,  based  on  the 
reviewed documentation, no specific follow-up actions have been identified with regard to 
the Conference. 

The “Conference on Second Chance for Honest Failed Entrepreneurs” reported attendance 
of 280 representatives from national and regional administrations and other stakeholders. 
The  attendees  included  representatives  of  academia,  public  administration,  businesses, 
and  other  stakeholder  groups.  Key  topics  addressed  during  the  conference  included 
financial support for persons who previously failed in business, legal knowledge connected 
to  business  failures,  and  information  on  how  to  learn  from  past  mistakes  made  in  one’s 
entrepreneurial  activity.  Specific  recommendations  were  developed  and  included  in  the 
report  summarising  the  conference’s  proceedings.  With  regards  to  follow-up  actions,  the 
Conference  was  described  as  having  paved  the  way  for  the  initiative  on  the  European 
network of early warning and advisory services for a second chance established in 2016.367 

365 European Commission (2011), Report of the expert group, A second chance for entrepreneurs: prevention 
of bankruptcy, simplification of bankruptcy procedures and support for a fresh start. 
366  Statista.com  (2021).  One-year  business  survival  rates  in  selected  European  countries  by  country,  2018. 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1114070/eu-business-survival-rates-by-country/#:~:text=One-
year%20business%20survival%20rates%20Europe%202018%2C%20by%20country,survival%20rates%20in
%20the%20European%20Union%20for%202018 (accessed: 11.10.2023). 
367  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council:  COSME  Programme  for  the 
Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 2014-2020 Monitoring Report 2014, COM(2016) 526 final. 

316 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Challenges 

No particular challenges were reported in the organisation of the conferences. 

Costs 

Overall,  the  “Support  for  entrepreneurship  policy  implementation”  was  one  of  the  minor 
activities financed  under  “4.  Promoting  entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial  culture”.  Its 
share in the overall envelope devoted to the above thematic objective included roughly 4% 
(EUR 0.6 million out of EUR 12.9 million).368 

The  planned  budgets  of  the  both  the  “Conference  on  Transfers  of  Business”  and  the 
“Conference on Second Chance for Honest Failed Entrepreneurs” were EUR 200 000 and 
the  ultimate  commitments  were  EUR  149  140  each.  The  third  initiative,  “Conference  on 
Boosting the Business of Liberal Professions”, had a planned budget of EUR 300 000, while 
the reported commitment totalled EUR 178 358. It follows that the planned budget for all 
three the initiatives totalled EUR 700 000, while the total commitment reached close to EUR 
480 000. 

Conclusions and lessons learned 

The “Support for entrepreneurship policy implementation” contributed to a more favourable 
policy environment for the competitiveness and development of European businesses. The 
three conferences allowed for a knowledge exchange, discussion, and refinement of policy 
proposals to improve a policy framework in the three subject areas. The follow-up actions 
identified based on the documentation analysis confirmed the relevance of the initiative to 
the needs of the European business landscape. Moreover, the feedback on the conferences 
further  confirmed  their  success  in  terms  of  contribution  to  development  of  European 
business.369 The “Conference on Boosting the Business of Liberal Professions” was part of 
a broader trend of support for development of policies supporting the liberal professionals 
that  was  supported  at  the  time  also  by  the  Italian  EU  Presidency  and  by  the  European 
Parliament.  No  information  on  the  feedback  to  the  “Conference  on  Second  Chance  for 
Honest  Failed  Entrepreneurs”  has  been  identified.  However,  the  information  on  the 
conference’s outputs suggests that its results matched the expectations. The “Conference 
on Transfers of Business” was described as “highly relevant, informative and successful” 
by the organisers and participants. 

368 ibid. 
369 ibid. 

317 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Early Warning Europe Mentor Academy 
(GRO/SME/20/C/013) 

Context 

The Early Warning Europe Mentor Academy (EWE Mentor Academy) was implemented as 
a  response  to  the  low  rate  of  business  survival  in  the  EU  and  to  the  typical  causes  of 
insolvency, such as lack of proper long-term cash flow planning, late payments, excessive 
borrowing  to  accelerate  business  growth,  unreliable  business  strategies,  and  poorly 
prepared  or  managed  transfer  of  company  ownership.  Moreover,  the  Annual  Report  on 
European  SMEs  2016/2017  (cited  in  the  call  for  tenders  which  ultimately  funded  the 
Academy) found that the majority of EU Member States had not made much progress since 
2008 in terms of improving the policy frameworks for second chance entrepreneurs.370 The 
COVID-19 outbreak then resulted in a major cash flow challenge for SMEs and significantly 
changed  the  landscape  regarding  the  volume  of  possible  insolvencies  among  European 
SMEs.  For  example,  temporary  framework  support  measures  preserved  some  market 
players who otherwise could (or should) have gone bankrupt, whilst the gradual withdrawal 
of COVID-19-related support for businesses further affected the market.371 In that context, 
the rates of business insolvency across the EU plummeted during the COVID-19 pandemic 
(2020),  alongside  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  newly-registered  businesses,  following  a 
moderate  increase  in  insolvencies  between  mid-2016  and  the  outbreak  of  COVID-19  in 
early 2020.372 The data for 2022 indicated that across all four quarters of the previous year 
the rate of bankruptcies across the EU has been increasing, with the second half of the year 
seeing it significantly increasing, while the numbers of business registrations remained on 
a similar level.373 

Objectives and activities 

The  EWE  Mentor  Academy  was  implemented  following  a  call  for  tenders  in  2021.374  It 
responded  to  the  needs  of  firms  at  risk  of insolvency  in  the  EU  and  third  countries 
participating  in  COSME.  In  this  way,  the  EWE  Mentor  Academy  supported  the 
implementation of the Directive on restructuring and insolvency.375 It was implemented by 
a partnership of three organisations: AARC Consultancy (Ireland), Erhvervshus Midtjylland 
(Denmark)  and  Fundacja  Firmy  Rodzinne  (Poland).  These  organisations  were  part  of  a 
broader  partnership,  Early  Warning  Europe,  which  was  first  formed  in  2016  to  develop 
national  “Early  Warning  mechanisms”  providing  advice  and  support  to  companies  in 
distress.376 

The EWE Mentor Academy focused on improving the availability and the scope of services 
for companies in distress by mobilising experts and mentors across Europe, training them 

(2021). 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Business 

370  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs, 
Annual  report  on  European  SMEs  2016/2017  –  Focus  on  self-employment,  Publications  Office,  2017, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/742338 
371 European Parliament (2023). Social and Economic Consequences of COVID-19; PE 740.079, March 2023. 
372 
EU, 
the 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210825-1 (accessed: 11.10.2023). 
373 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/DDN-20220217-2. 
374 Call for tenders EASME/2021/OP/0001: Improving the Availability and the Scope of Services for Companies 
in Financial Difficulties (GRO/SME/20/C/013). 
375 Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive 
restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency 
of  procedures  concerning  restructuring,  insolvency  and  discharge  of  debt,  and  amending  Directive  (EU) 
2017/1132. 
376 https://www.earlywarningeurope.eu/about/early-warning-europe-network/early-warning-europe 

bankruptcies 

bankruptcies 

registrations 

Business 

highest 

(2023). 

2022: 

2015, 

since 

and 

Q4 

in 

318 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

and ensuring expertise exchange, while at the same time linking them with other European 
networks  providing  services to  SMEs.377  It  developed  a  modular  learning  programme  for 
business mentors working with companies in financial crisis and at other decisive moments 
of their lifecycle (e.g., transfer of business ownership). Based on hands-on experience, the 
activities  were  planned  to  include  mapping  best  practices  and  supporting  connections 
between  business  mentors  and  a  broader  community  of  European  and  country-level 
providers of business support. 

Outputs and results 

The  monitoring  fiche  for  the  period  up  to  May  2023  reported  underperformance  and  an 
intention  to  suspend  the  action  in  April  2022.  After  that,  mitigation  measures  were 
implemented to steer the project back on track, with a view to its successful completion. 
These measures included:  

• 

• 

revised  implementation  plan  following  the  withdrawal  of  one  of  the  consortium 
partners  (for  example:  acknowledging  that  some  project  activities  will  be  run  in 
parallel instead of sequentially); 

strengthening  the  project  team  with  some  new,  senior-level  hires  (a  new  Task 
Leader on Training and QA, a new Leader on the Communication Task, and a new 
Task Leader on Pilot and Training); and 

•  a review of the project by an external expert, and the subsequent implementation of 

recommendations to address issues. 

The project will conclude in late 2024. By late 2023, according to interview feedback, 30 
networks were operating under its framework, which allowed the project to source adequate 
know-how  inputs.  Beyond  that,  the  reported  benefits  included  some  mentors  having 
established  partnerships  that  provide  pro-bono  services,  e.g.,  in  Italy  and  Serbia, 
businesses  avoiding  court  costs  connected  to  insolvencies,  and  individuals  that  avoid 
bankruptcy.  During the  first  year  of  activity,  the  project  reached  or  exceeded  the  targets 
related  to  most  of  the  key  performance  indicators,  including  recruitment  of  stakeholders, 
organisation  of  substantive  activities  such  as  peer-learning  workshops,  facilitation  of 
networking, or conducting research on the existing resources around the project’s area of 
interest. 

Challenges 

Several  challenges  are  reported  in  the  monitoring  fiche.378  Some  activities  (e.g., 
communication  and  creation  of  modular  training  curricula)  were  affected  by  “a  rather 
unfortunate composition of the consortium  which hindered  the  implementation of  specific 
parts of the activities” (including the withdrawal of one of the consortium partners). Other 
challenges  included:  poor  quality  assurance  leading  to  some  deliverables  being  of 
insufficient quality, or the social media channels functioning sub-optimally in deployment of 
the  action.  These  delays  impacted  a  number  of  its  deliverables.  The  interview  feedback 
suggests that the administrative requirements around the project were seen as burdensome 
(e.g. the need for detailed reporting on nine workshops) by the implementing party, and that 
the lack of clarity around the relevant legislation proved a challenge for the project, as its 
activities  are  based  directly  on  the  EU  legal  framework  around  late  payments  and 
bankruptcies.  

377 https://www.earlywarningeurope.eu/mentor-academy 
378 Monitoring Fiche, Improving the availability and the scope of services for companies in financial difficulties - 
GRO/SME/20/C/013. 

319 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Costs 

According to the monitoring fiche, the budget for the EWE Mentor Academy totalled EUR 
900 000 over three years, while the funding committed in practice was EUR 842 064. Some 
efficiencies were achieved through the trainers often providing the courses for free. 

Conclusions and lessons learned 

Given that the implementation of the EWE Mentor Academy will continue throughout most 
of 2024, the full effects cannot yet be determined. However, the project demonstrates some 
achievements in developing a learning programme, community of practice and workshops 
for mentors. The experience of the project demonstrates the management challenges that 
can be faced in implementing activities of this type but also how such challenges can be 
resolved,  for  example  by  sourcing  external  expertise,  early  detection  of  implementation 
issues, having a contingency plan in place, and awareness of additional resources available 
in the broader market. 

320 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

IT Tool for Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 

Context 

From its launch in 2009 as a pilot under the EIP until early 2023, the Erasmus for Young 
Entrepreneurs  (EYE)  programme  enabled  11,000  exchanges  between  experienced 
entrepreneurs and new or aspiring entrepreneurs from other countries. During this period, 
there has been significant enhancement of the IT tools used to manage the programme. 
The  original  technology  supporting  EYE  was  ColdFusion,  a  web  programming  language 
that  allowed  online  applications to maintain  communication with  back-end  systems.  That 
technology,  however,  stopped  being  supported  by  the  Commission.  This  warranted 
investment in a new IT tool. 

Objective and activities 

Development of the IT Tool Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (GRO/SME/20/D/02) started 
in March 2020, and the closed in October 2021. 

The objective of the project was to re-develop the original IT tool database, built in 2008, to 
take advantage of the technological advances during the preceding decade. In the light of 
the  Commission  discontinuation  of  support  for  ColdFusion,  it  had  been  planned  that 
COSME would assess the technology to be used for the investment, then plan, develop, 
and test several modules of the new IT tool, and at the same time maintain the old version 
of the IT tool running to support implementation of the EYE. 

Outputs and results 

Based on the assessment of the documentation, the action delivered mixed results, with 
some  deliverables  developed  and  others  discontinued.  Although  the  2019  COSME 
monitoring  report  (which  closed  mid-2020)  informed  about  the  success  of  the  testing  of 
some of the new technologies to be deployed, this was not consistently implemented across 
all  the  modules  that  were  originally  planned.379  For  instance,  some  of  the  successful 
modules 
and 
Intermediary Organisation management and the new/host entrepreneurs management. The 
monitoring report specifically reports that “the deliverables [had been] provided on-time and 
according to requirements”. The Monitoring Fiche for the action maintained the view that 
the action was delivering on some of its aims, informing that “the IT tool [had] been running, 
necessary maintenance and updates [had been] done and participants [had been] able to 
apply and participate in the [EYE] programme”. 

process,  European  Partnership 

the  Registration 

included 

Those  modules  that  were  originally  envisaged  but  finally  were  not  developed  nor  tested 
included Search and Match, Relationships, Monitoring, Administration, and Reporting). The 
challenges encountered are explained below. 

Challenges 

The original plan was to redevelop the following modules of the tool: Reporting, Search and 
Match, Monitor, Reporting, and Administration. However, a revision of the plan was required 
to due resource constraints. For example, one requirement (under the DG DIGIT framework 
contract) was for the IT specialists working on the project to be based in Belgium. There 
were difficulties and delays in recruiting, which increased the costs of the project. Moreover, 
with  the  technological  development  imposed  by  DG  DIGIT’s  requirements  forcing  the 

379 Monitoring fiche, IT Tool Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs - GRO/SME/20/D/022. 

321 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

project  owners  to  resign  from  ColdFusion  (the  EYE  had  been  written  in  that  exact 
technology),  the  project  had  to  invest  more  resources  to  switch  to  one  of  technologies 
supported by DIGIT (PHP Symphony, JAVA, Drupal). 

Costs and benefits 

The challenges above resulted in a need to increase the budget. In the third quarter of 2020, 
the budget was increased from EUR 200 000 to EUR 300,0000. The new budget of EUR 
300 000 was confirmed in the revised 2023 work programme, with EUR 299 813 ultimately 
committed. 

Lessons learned 

The  need  to  redevelop  the  IT  Tool  Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs  was  triggered  by 
technological  developments  over  the  course  of  the  decade  and  by  changes  in  the 
Commission’s own technical requirements. The redevelopment was then made challenging 
by  external  market  conditions,  COVID-19,  and  changing  compliance  requirements  which 
imposed additional costs. Based on the monitoring documentation, it is uncertain whether 
a  feasibility  study  and  business  case  could  have  minimised  the  impact  of  some  of  the 
challenges encountered, particularly the technological challenges. Mitigation planning may 
have also helped with some of the external market conditions to do with the availability of 
the skilled force. Ultimately, the redevelopment of the tools was essential to the effective 
implementation of EYE, not least its role in matching of new and experienced entrepreneurs. 

322 

 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Training for SME-friendly policies in Central Purchasing 
Bodies 

Context 

Recent research has demonstrated that SMEs face significant barriers to accessing public 
procurement opportunities, including low trust in procurers (e.g. related to late payment), 
high administrative burden, cultural obstacles hampering collaboration between companies, 
linguistic  barriers  and  tender  documentation  differences,  and  difficulties  in  using  digital 
platforms,  such  as  Tenders  Electronic  Daily  (TED).380  In  response  to  these  challenges, 
COSME  supported  numerous  actions  and  initiatives  to  improve  SMEs'  access  to  public 
procurement markets by boosting their knowledge about the procurement process and their 
rights  within  and  outside  the  EU,  navigating  the  perceived  administrative  barriers  and 
capacity-building for procurement authorities. 

Objectives 

The action "Training for SME-friendly Policies in Central Purchasing Bodies (CPBs)" aimed 
to equip CPBs in the COSME participating countries with the necessary skills to enhance 
SMEs’ access to public procurement opportunities. Further objectives included promoting 
the professional growth of CPBs in the EU, increasing awareness about facilitating SME 
participation  in  public  procurement,  and  encouraging  the  use  of  strategic  procurement 
practices,  including  innovation,  sustainability,  and  social  considerations.381  This  training 
initiative  targeted  CPBs  in  COSME  participating  countries,  particularly  those  with 
structurally  weak  or  newly  established  procurement  systems,  such  as  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.382 

Outputs and results 

The action was considered by participants to be very successful in meeting its objectives. 
It provided CPBs’ staff members with an established and well-connected network of experts, 
improved their interaction with SMEs and helped them develop fairer and more transparent 
procurement processes. Notable achievements include the acquisition of valuable insights 
into daily tasks and work processes, offering a better understanding from the perspective 
of SMEs and the creation of an international network of CPBs’ staff members across the 
EU Member States. 

Success factors 

As emphasised by the beneficiaries interviewed for this study, key success factors included: 
increased  competences  of  experts  in  public  procurement,  the  creation  of  networks  and 
platforms which enable concrete collaboration across regions and the elimination of barriers 
for entries of SMEs thanks to the simplification of the bidding criteria EU SMEs had to meet. 
Furthermore,  it  helped  smaller  countries  tailor  their  procurement  approaches,  simplify 
eligibility criteria and provide SMEs with timely access to essential information. Barriers to 
SME  entry  were  strategically  and  systematically  dismantled,  and  the  establishment  of  a 

380 European Commission (2021), SME needs analysis in public procurement. 
381 https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/call-SME-friendly-training-central-purchasing-
bodies_en.pdf  
382 Annex I: Details of COSME actions in 2019 

323 

 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

dedicated SME helpline enhanced overall transparency in the process.383 The added value 
of  the  action  also  lies  in  the  contribution  to  developing  and  consolidating  networks  both 
across  CPBs  and  SMEs  though  workshops  and  events,  which  created  new  market 
opportunities for less-connected SMEs.384 

Challenges 

Despite its  successes,  the  action faced  some  challenges.  Beneficiaries reported that the 
intensive nature of the programme, requiring participation six days a week might have been 
too intensive for the attendees. However, such logistical issues have been addressed in the 
subsequent programme batches.385 Visibility and promotion were also perceived as minor 
challenges,  with  a  need  for  more  effective  advertising  and  outreach  efforts.  Ineffective 
information-sharing  practices  were 
for  clearer 
communication.  Furthermore,  ensuring  SME  commitment  as  reliable  partners  was 
highlighted, as a lack of commitment and understanding of contract obligations could lead 
to  implementation  issues.  To  address  this,  a  feedback  loop  was  introduced  to  better 
understand delays and derive lessons from these experiences in collaboration with SMEs. 
Furthermore,  the  interviewees  reported  that  it  was  appreciated  that  the  programme  was 
designed for subject experts on public procurement. At the same time, it was suggested 
that  the  experts  attending  the  workshops  were  more  representative  of  all  the  relevant 
sectors. 

identified,  emphasising 

the  need 

Costs and benefits 

The  maximum  grant  amount  per  Specific  Grant  Agreement  resulting  from  the  first 
consultation  for  SGAs  was  EUR  400  000.386  While  the  programme's  intensity  posed 
scheduling  challenges,  the  in-person  format  was  deemed  highly  effective.  The  benefits 
included improved public procurement expertise, reduced barriers for SME entry, and the 
establishment  of  networks,  enhancing  market  opportunities  for  less-connected  SMEs.  It 
also simplifies entry criteria and offers a dedicated SME helpline for transparency. 

Conclusions and lessons learned 

The "Training for SME-Friendly Policies in CPB" action effectively addressed the pressing 
issue  of  SMEs'  access  to  public  procurement  markets.  It  provided  significant  value  for 
participants.  The  adjustments  in  the  timing  of  the  action  and  flexibility  shown  proved 
advantageous,  especially  during  challenging  periods,  most  notably  during the  COVID-19 
pandemic. It contributed to establishing a network of experts which is expected to deliver 
value  in  the  long  term  by  facilitating  the  sharing  of  knowledge  and  good  practices.  The 
initiative also complemented existing actions in participating countries. 

383 Feedback collected from interviews on the action: Training for SME-friendly policies in central purchasing 
bodies. 
384 Feedback collected from interviews on the action: Training for SME-friendly policies in central purchasing 
bodies. 
385 Feedback collected from interviews on the action: Training for SME-friendly policies in central purchasing 
bodies. 
386 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/other_eu_prog/cosme/wp-call/cosme-call-cos-tsmfriend-
fpa-2019-2-02_en.pdf  

324 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

WEGate  Platform 
(GRO/SME/18/F/204) 

for  Women  Entrepreneurship 

Context 

WEGate  was  established  in  2016  as  an  online  platform,  and  received  further  funding  in 
2020  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  its  long-term  economic  viability.  The  platform  was  one  of 
several  solutions  supported  by  COSME  to  support  women’s  entrepreneurship,  aiming  at 
bringing female-targeted initiatives together in a single online space. Since early 2020, it 
was  managed  by  EASME  (based  on  a  grant  procedure),  with  EASME  functioning  as  a 
contracting authority through COSME. The project ended in January 2023. 

Objective 

The objective of the project was to support women in establishing, managing, and securing 
financing  for  their  firms.  Among  the  operational  objectives  was  the  development  of  a 
“European women entrepreneurship of practice” and involving more stakeholders, and not 
just women entrepreneurs, in supporting female businesspersons. The aim was to see the 
“women  entrepreneurs’  community  reflourishing  in  Europe”  and  to  build  an  umbrella 
organisation for stakeholders involved in supporting female entrepreneurship, and ensure 
there  would  be  an  active  community  centred  around  WEGate.  To  help  this,  WEGate 
modernised  the  platform,  with  contributions  from  “an  external  consortium  with  high 
communication skills and academic, financial and scientific backgrounds”. 

Outputs and results 

According  to  the  2017-18  COSME  report,  the  project  was  to  feature  events  providing 
inspiration  to  aspiring  female  entrepreneurs,  promoting  role-models,  or  stimulating  the 
women  entrepreneurs’  ecosystem  (including  facilitated  access  to  training,  mentoring,  or 
networking).  Other  areas  envisioned  as  follow-up  action  areas  included  peer-learning 
(workshops,  networking  events,  webinars),  communication  and  outreach  (activities 
targeting  the  youth  and beginner  entrepreneurs, awareness-raising,  coaching,  sharing  of 
information,  newsletter  publication,  blogging,  press  releases,  rebranding  of  WEGate,  its 
promotion and others), a strategic and multifaceted community-building process, activities 
connected  to  project  coordination,  and  management  of  the  e-platform  (including  e.g., 
preparation  of  optimised  layout  and  navigation,  richer  contents,  or  achieving  a  more 
engaged  community).  The  activities  included  “a  homogeneous  set  of  services,  i.e., 
organisation of meetings/events, peer learning workshops, communication and community 
building  activities  and  finally  […]  one  practical  tool  to  network  and  support  female 
entrepreneurs.” 

a 

on 

broad 

providing 

information 

The majority of WEGate participants were female entrepreneurs representing many sectors, 
particularly the service sector and ICT sector. The WEGate developed an online assistance 
module 
female 
entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship-related subjects. Subjects addressed by the website’s 
materials  include:  women  empowerment  through  skills-development,  digital  transition, 
advocacy, access to funding, support for women entrepreneurs in Ukraine, and COVID-19 
recover). A WEBarometer survey mapped challenges and needs of female entrepreneurs 
and informed the choice of subjects for the subsequent public activities (such as webinars) 
of the project. The WEGate platform served as a tool for sharing best practices regarding 
women’s  participation  in  business.  Finally,  according  to  the  organisation  managing 
WEGate,  the  three  summits  (online  in  December  2020  and October  2021  online,  and  in 
person in Brussels in October 2022) were particularly productive, having fostered lobbying 
and networking in the context of female entrepreneurship, both online and in person. 

range 

of 

325 

 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

As  of  2020,  WEGate  featured  1,814  members  from  43  countries,  including  all  28  EU 
Member  States.  As  of  October  2023,  there  were  4,000  members  of  the  project,  and  50 
networks at the EU level, involved in its community. The available data suggests that the 
action  was  successful  in  achieving  it  end  goals,  in  particular  in  contributing  to  gender 
mainstreaming. The successful performance of the project in terms of its outreach is well 
illustrated by the fact that WEGate gained approximately 2,000 followers on LinkedIn, which 
was assessed by the managing organisation as a success. 

To secure the long-term impacts of the project, it was necessary to ensure the community’s 
functioning beyond the official end of the project. For this reason, the proposal accepted in 
the context of refinancing of WEGate included the development of a new business plan to 
allow  WEGate  to  become  self-sustaining.  Indeed,  such  a  business  plan  had  then  been 
developed and it was decided that WEGate would be transformed into a Brussels-based 
association, funded by its members’ fees. The feedback on this proposal, provided by the 
stakeholders  addressed  by  the  WEGate  management  team,  confirmed  the  community’s 
willingness to partake in the association and started the process of its establishment. 

Challenges 

Challenges to successful implementation of the project include a delay in implementation 
due  to  the  change  of  the  managing  team.  The  change  was  prompted  by  a  suboptimal 
communication  between  the  managing  team  and  the  project  coordinator.  To  make  the 
internal  cooperation  on  the  project  smoother,  a  completely  new  team  implementing  the 
project was appointed by the lead of the consortium (ESBA), to start their work on the project 
in  August  2020,  with  a  view  to  reinvigorating  the  initiative.387  The  new  consortium 
successfully  took  over  and  established  connections  with  the  WEGate  partners  and  a 
broader community, even if initially the new managers had to build trust among the WEGate 
stakeholders. The COVID-19 outbreak made it more difficult to cooperate on the project, 
and the project partners met each other for the first time in person close to the end of the 
project, while the management of the project was carried out continuously through online 
bi-weekly calls. 

One success factor was the good communication between the management team and the 
Commission’s  policy  officers.  Moreover,  the  involvement  of  the  target  audiences  (the 
community)  in  shaping  the  project  (most  importantly,  via  direct  communication  and  the 
WEBarometer tool) ensured that WEGate delivered results of high relevance to the needs 
of female entrepreneurs across Europe. This now allows for WEGate’s sustainability, as the 
community  itself  requested  for  the  initiative  to  be  continued.  The  project  was  also 
implemented  in  a  flexible  manner,  being  gradually  amended  in  line  with  the  changing 
perception of the target community’s needs. Finally, the managing organisation highlighted 
the importance of a responsible and engaged approach to the use of EU funding. 

Costs and benefits 

According to the COSME detailed report for 2017-2018, of the project was due to complete 
in January 2023, and the budget committed to it totalled EUR 850 000. The 2018 COSME 
implementation report specified that administrative expenditure consumed 3% of the annual 
budget  of  the  project.  The  long-term  business  strategy  adopted  by  the  managing 
organisation is likely to generate significant benefits in the long term, with the members of 
the new association potentially contributing financially to WEGate.  

387 We-gate.eu, https://www.WEGate.eu/WEGate-is-back-with-a-new-managing-consortium/, access: 
03.10.2023. 

326 

 
 
 
 
STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Conclusions 

The  WEGate  faced  some  challenges  in  delivery,  but  the  successful  sourcing  of  human 
resources allowed it to get back on track. It is very relevant to the COSME intervention logic, 
having  supported  the  European  business  landscape  and  successfully  mainstreamed  a 
gender-focused approach into the promotion of entrepreneurship. As such, it exemplified 
two dimensions of COSME, as a programme that is both business-driven, and conducive 
to  broader  societal  development.  Two successes  in  particular  should  be  noted:  first,  the 
effective integration of the target audiences’ voices into the design and delivery of activities 
(which supported relevance and sustainability of the investment) and, second, the project 
becoming self-sustaining beyond the period of EU funding on the basis of members’ fees. 

327 

 
 
 
 
 
 STUDY SUPPORTING THE FINAL EVALUATION OF COSME PROGRAMME - 2014-2020 

Enterprise Europe Network: CarVertical 

The way that EEN operates and the impact of its services on competitiveness is illustrated 
in the published EEN success story about the Lithuanian business “CarVertical”. CarVertical 
is a Blockchain-based technology firm that compiles data on the previous history of second 
hand cars, providing an accurate picture of a vehicle’s history for use by potential buyers. 

Background and services provided by EEN 

The entrepreneur planning to set up this business contacted an EEN member in Lithuania 
who  advised  him  in  relation  to  an  Initial  Coin  Offering.  The  successful  outcome  of  this 
provided  enough  funding  to  get  the  business  up  and  running.  EEN  then  successively 
provided various advisory and partnership services to support the business with growth and 
internationalisation. To continue its international expansion, CarVertical needed to access 
information  from  other  European  countries  to  broaden  the  coverage  of  its  Blockchain 
database. Given the complex array of legal requirements and procedures across Europe 
for accessing this type of vehicle data, the business needed in-depth advice. The Lithuanian 
EEN member networked with EEN members across the EU to clarify the exact procedures 
to follow for accessing this data. 

Impacts  of  EEN  services  on  the  growth  and  competitiveness  of  this 
business 

The Network’s support  had  a  significant  impact  on this  business,  and  it  has achieved  its 
goal  of  rapid  expansion.  Within  12  months,  CarVertical  launched  its  product  within  16 
different countries. CarVertical also created jobs in Lithuania, growing from 8 to 28 members 
of staff as a result of the Network’s support. Revenue continues to increase at a rate of 30% 
per month. "The Network was one of those key factors that enabled us to scale our business 
fast" said the entrepreneur who created this business. 

Source: published EEN case study.388 

388 https://een.ec.europa.eu/success-stories/lithuanian-technology-firm-accelerates-towards-international-

growth 

328 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en  

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: european-union.europa.eu 

EU publications 

You can view or order EU publications from: op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (see 
european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. 
These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 
The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
2
-
2
4
-
6
9
1
-
3
A
N

-

 doi: 10.2873/296030 
ISBN 978-92-68-18650-3