COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the mid-term evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) 2021-2027
Date: 2025-07-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, commitment of expenditure, dismissal, employment aid, financial aid, general budget (EU), globalisation, reintegration into working life

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.7.2025  SWD(2025) 180 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the mid-term evaluation  of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF)  2021-2027 {COM(2025) 382 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................ 1 

Evaluation methodology and data limitations .............................................................................. 1 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 3 

2.1 

2.2 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................................................ 3 

Point(s) of comparison ................................................................................................................. 5 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 6 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 15 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ............ 15 

4.1.1. EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................ 15 

a) 

Re-integration rates, and impact of the EGF support on beneficiaries’ employability ................... 15 

b)  Availability of support for all eligible beneficiaries and accessibility to EGF under the broader 
scope and modified intervention criteria .................................................................................................. 19 

c) 

Use of the EGF by Member States and by beneficiaries under the new conditions ....................... 22 

d)  Monitoring and reporting ............................................................................................................... 27 

e) 

f) 

g) 

Factors helping or hindering the achievement of objectives .......................................................... 28 

Involvement of companies and social partners ............................................................................... 30 

Information and communication activities ..................................................................................... 31 

h)  Overall impact of the EGF and lessons learned .............................................................................. 32 

4.1.2. EFFICIENCY........................................................................................................................ 33 

a. 

b. 

Efficiency at case level ................................................................................................................... 33 

Efficiency at instrument level ......................................................................................................... 36 

4.1.3. COHERENCE ....................................................................................................................... 37 

a. 

b. 

Complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives ................................................................ 37 

Complementarity with national measures and instruments ............................................................ 38 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? ...... 39 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? ................................................................ 41 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Relevance of the broadened scope of the EGF ............................................................................... 41 

Relevance of the modified intervention criteria of the EGF ........................................................... 42 

Extent to which support corresponds to needs and profiles of beneficiaries .................................. 43 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 44 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 44 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................................... 49 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................... 52 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 54 

 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 
TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................... 58 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 
ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] .................................................... 91 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 93 

ANNEX  VI.  CASE  PROFILE  DATA  BY  MEMBER  STATE  AND  BY  SECTOR  FOR  18 
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 3 MAY 2021 AND 31 DECEMBER 2024 ... 110 

ANNEX VII. EGF INTERVENTION LOGIC 2021-2027........................................................... 118 

ANNEX  VIII.  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  EGF  AND  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  ITS  RULES 
BETWEEN 2007 AND 2024 .............................................................................................. 119 

 
 
 
 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Large-scale restructuring events in EU-27, 2007–2024 ................................................... 7 
Figure 2. Total number of jobs recorded in large restructuring events, EU 27, 2019-2024 ............ 8 
Figure 3. Restructuring trends in the car manufacturing in 2024, EU 27 ........................................ 8 
Figure 4. Monthly unemployment rates (% of active population), EU-27, 2007–2024 .................. 9 
Figure 5. Applications per cause (left) and intervention criterion (right) ..................................... 10 
Figure 6. Men and women targeted (left) and age groups (right).................................................. 11 
Figure 7. Beneficiaries targeted per education level ..................................................................... 11 
Figure 8. Beneficiaries targeted vs assisted total (left) and per Member State (right) .................. 12 
Figure 9. Beneficiaries assisted per gender (left) and age group (right) ....................................... 12 
Figure 10. Number of replies received to EGF beneficiary survey per case ................................. 13 
Figure 11. Change in re-integration rates per case (short term vs long term) ............................... 17 
Figure 12. Beneficiary who developed new skills/qualifications after the EGF support .............. 18 
Figure 13. Absorption rate per each EGF case .............................................................................. 34 
Figure 14. Relationship between total EGF amounts spent and number of beneficiaries helped . 35 
Figure 15 Number of replies received to EGF beneficiary survey per case .................................. 95 
Figure 16. EGF beneficiary who responded to the surveys per gender and age group ................. 96 
Figure 17 The timeline of an EGF case from start to finish ........................................................ 124 
Figure 18 Number of applications received 2007–2024 (without withdrawn and rejected 
applications) (based on EGF Database) ...................................................................................... 125 

List of tables 

Table 1. Stakeholder consultation strategy: overview ................................................................... 95 
Table 2. General overview of 18 applications received between 3 May 2021 and 31 December 
2024 ............................................................................................................................................. 111 
Table 3. Case profile data by Member State ............................................................................... 114 
Table 4. Case profile data by sector ............................................................................................ 116 
Table 5 Number of applications received 2007–2024 ................................................................. 125 
Table 6. EGF applications by Member State, 2007–2024 ........................................................... 126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Beneficiary  

BRG  

DG EMPL  

EGF  

ERM  

ESF  

ESF+  

ESIFs  

EU  

FAQs  

GDPR  

ISSG  

MFF  

PES  

QFR  

SFC  

SMEs  

SWD  

A natural person who participates in EGF co-funded 
measures   

Better Regulation Guidelines  

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion  

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for 
Displaced Workers 

European Restructuring Monitor (Eurofound)  

European Social Fund  

European Social Fund Plus  

European Structural and Investment Funds  

European Union  

Frequently asked questions  

General Data Protection Regulation  

Interservice Steering Group  

Multiannual financial framework  

Public employment services  

EU Quality Framework for anticipation of change and 
restructuring  

System for Fund Management in the European Union  

Small and medium-sized enterprises  

Staff working document  

 
 
 
EU-27 country glossary 

Acronym 

Country 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

 
 
 
 
 
PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

This staff working document (SWD) presents the findings of the mid-term evaluation of 
the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) 2021-2027. 
This  evaluation  was  carried  out  in  compliance  with  Article  22(1)a  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/6911  (hereinafter  “the  EGF  Regulation”).  It  includes  relevant  statistics  on  the 
financial contributions, broken down by sector and Member State. 

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation assesses the EGF’s effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and the 
EU added value. The findings of this mid-term evaluation present how and to what extent 
the Fund achieved its objectives. 

The focus of the evaluation is on the changes introduced for the 2021-2027 period, in order 
to analyse to what extent these changes led to the expected outcomes. As the uptake of the 
Fund was low and the concrete evidence was limited2, it also examines the reasons for the 
Fund’s low uptake, despite the simplified requirements for applying for funding introduced 
by the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation.  

The purpose is to see if the EGF, under the current regulatory framework, continues to 
effectively support workers impacted by global economic transformations, thus aligning 
with the EU’s overarching social policy objectives. 

The evaluation covers 18 EGF applications3 (of which, 17 cases, i.e. approved applications, 
and one application still in assessment) received between the entry into force of the EGF 
Regulation on 3 May 2021 and 31 December 2024. Eleven applications received in 2022-
2024 are included, but without analysis of the results, which will only be available between 
2025 and 2027 because of the two-year implementation period. 

More information can be found in the evaluation’s call for evidence4. 

The results of this evaluation  will be sent  to  the  European Parliament, the Council, the 
Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the 
Regions and to the social partners. 

1.2.  Evaluation methodology and data limitations 

The evaluation follows the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines.  
The  evaluation  has  been  carried  out  internally  by  the  Commission  staff  from  the  unit 
coordinating  the  EGF  in  the  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and 
Inclusion (DG EMPL). The following sources of information were used for this evaluation: 

1 Regulation (EU) 2021/691 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021on the European 
Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  for  Displaced  Workers  (EGF)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1309/2013. 

2 Results of the first 7 EGF cases were only available in the second half of 2024. 
3 The overview of all 18 EGF applications received during 2021–2024 is included in Annex VI. 
4  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14150-European-Globalisation-

Adjustment-Fund-for-Displaced-Workers-mid-term-evaluation_en 

1 

 
 
 
-  Stakeholder  consultation  activities  (see  Annex  V),  including  an  online  public 
feedback period on the call for evidence via the ‘Europa Have your Say’5 website, 
targeted interviews and consultations of national and EU stakeholders involved in 
designing, managing and delivering EGF; 

-  Member States applications and final reports submitted; 
- 

Internal research and analysis done by the Commission service, general experience 
in the management of the EGF, including the Commission internal EGF Database 
with all the EGF cases from 2007 to 2024; 

-  External research for literature review was done during a pilot project between the 
staff of the Publication office and the unit coordinating the EGF in the Commission 
(Annex II); 

-  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  European 
(EGF)  2014-2020,  COM(2021)788  and 

Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund 
accompanying Staff Working Document, SWD(2021) 381; 
Impact assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund 
(EGF), SWD(2018)289, 5.06.2018;  

- 

-  Additional evidence from previous Commission reports and evaluations. 

The methodology used in the evaluation is detailed in Annex II to this report. An evaluation 
matrix (provided in Annex III) was elaborated based on the methodology to answer the 
evaluation questions. It identified operational questions, indicators, judgement criteria and 
data sources.  

The evaluation covers a four-year time-frame, and as the case implementation is two years, 
only a few cases could be covered by this evaluation. This posed a challenge in terms of 
the availability and comparability of quantitative data related to the results available of the 
EGF cases. The lack of quantitative data has been compensated to the extent possible with 
desk  research  and  qualitative  input  from  stakeholders.  More  information  about  the 
limitations caused by the limited data available are presented in Annex II. 

Limitations and challenges of this evaluation are presented in Box 1 below. 

Box 1–Limitations and challenges 

•  Timing of the evaluation did not allow for more EGF final reports to be analysed as 

implementation was still ongoing for 11 out of 18 EGF cases. 

•  Limited data availability existed due to several factors:  

o  Relatively  small  number  of  EGF  applications  received  during  the  period 
covered  by  the  evaluation  (18  cases  from  13  economic  sectors)  making  it 
impossible to conduct sectoral analyses. 

o  Results were fully available in 7 out of 18 EGF cases since the final reports 

were submitted to the Commission in the second half of 2024; 

o  Qualitative feedback from beneficiary surveys, was available as well, only in 

7 out of 18 EGF cases. 

• 

Improved reporting requirements6 were in place. However, the performance of EGF 
was  still  not  measured  in  the  absence  of  legal  requirements  included  in  the  EGF 
Regulation. 

5  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14150-European-Globalisation-

Adjustment-Fund-for-Displaced-Workers-mid-term-evaluation_en 

6 See explanation on reporting requirements in Section 4.1.1, Use of the EGF for beneficiaries. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  The significant differences across cases, Member States and economic sectors made 
it challenging to reach reliable and robust conclusions on the EGF’s cost-efficiency 
and cost-effectiveness. 

•  Limited  suitable  comparators  for  data  from  2007–2013  remained  an  issue.  A 
comparison with data from the 2007–2013 period is of limited use because of several 
changes  in  the  EGF’s  design  (see  Annex  VIII)  and  the  evolving  socio-economic 
context.  

•  Limited resources for the evaluation, which was conducted by Commission’s own 

resources, EMPL Unit G2, without procuring a supporting evaluation study. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The EGF expresses Union’s solidarity by helping workers who lost their job in the course 
of  large-scale  restructuring  events  (more  than  200  displaced  workers)  with  the  aim  of 
helping those workers find decent and sustainable jobs as quickly as possible. 

The EGF has been designed to tackle the employment and social challenges of structural 
change, helping displaced workers which are the beneficiaries of EGF assistance. The EGF 
also contributes to the implementation of the principles set out in the European Pillar of 
Social Rights and to enhancing social and economic cohesion among regions and Member 
States. 

For  the  2021-2027  period,  the  EGF  Regulation  (EU)  2021/691  introduced  significant 
changes7, adapted to the changing realities of the economy. The detailed description of the 
EGF, the changes introduced by the 2021-2027 Regulation, together with the evolution of 
the main rules of the EGF between 2007 and 2024, and the functioning of the EGF during 
2021-2027 are presented in Annex VIII. 

As its purpose, which is to provide quick support in situations of unexpected restructuring 
events,  the  EGF  is  one  of  the  flexible  and  special  instruments  outside  and  above  the 
budgetary ceilings of the multiannual financial framework (MFF). The EGF thus does not 
have  an  annual  budget  that  it  is  expected  to  spend,  but  additional  funding  up  to  a  pre-
defined maximum annual amount that may be mobilised, if needed. The co-financing of 
each case must be approved by the European Parliament and the Council.  

In practice, the annual amount used is dependent on the number and the requested amounts 
of the applications received from Member States. For 2021-2027, the EU initially provided 
the EGF with a maximum annual ceiling8 of up to EUR 186 million (2018 prices). Due to 
the low uptake of the EGF during 2021-2023, with the MFF mid-term review9, the annual 
ceiling was reduced to EUR 30 million (in 2018 prices) for the years 2024-2027, due to 

7 The changes  were introduced  largely based on the Impact assessment accompanying the  Proposal for a 
Regulation on the EGF 2021-2027, the EGF ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020 and previous EGF 
evaluations and reports on the EGF, such as EGF ex-post evaluation 2007-2013, the European Court of 
Auditors’ special report No 7 (2013) on the EGF, the European Parliament’s European Implementation 
Assessment of the EGF 2007-2014. 

8 The maximum amount ever used in a given year was EUR 132.1 million (in 2010) 
9 Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/765 of 20 February 2024 amending  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 

2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027. 

3 

 
 
 
 
the newly emerging financing needs, such as support for Ukraine, geopolitical tensions, 
natural disasters, etc10. 

Management mode 

The EGF is under shared management, the Member States are responsible for applying for 
assistance and for implementing the measures. The subsidiarity principle also limits EU 
action to what is necessary to achieve its objectives as laid down in the Treaties, and in 
line with this principle, the EGF can be mobilised only upon request by a Member State, 
when it is considered needed. 

Intervention logic 

The intervention logic describes how the intervention was expected to work or lead to the 
intended change. It summarises the links and causal relationships between the problems 
and needs identified and takes into consideration the general and specific objectives that 
the legislative framework was designed to address. It presents the specific actions (inputs) 
for addressing those problems and needs, as well as expected outputs, results and impacts. 
A diagram representing the intervention logic is presented in Annex VII. 

With a view to achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU, it is necessary 
to develop a coordinated strategy for employment. This strategy should particularly focus 
on  the  promotion  of  a  skilled,  trained  and  adaptable  workforce  as  well  as  on  labour 
markets’ responsiveness to economic change. To this end, the Union shall contribute to a 
high level of employment by supporting and, if necessary, complementing Member State’s 
action  through  the  mobilisation  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  for 
Displaced Workers (EGF) to co-finance measures to support redundant workers in case of 
major  restructuring  events.  These  events,  by  their  scale  and  effects,  cause  a  significant 
impact and can test the limits of what regular national labour market programmes are able 
to provide to assist displaced workers. 

The overall aim of the EGF is to express solidarity with and provide support to workers 
made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity ceased due to globalisation or 
a global financial and economic crisis.  

The  EGF’s  objective  of  improving  participants’  education/training  and  labour  market 
situation  has  two  dimensions:  the  general  one  of  solidarity  and  the  specific  one  of 
emergency relief.  

Solidarity of the EGF relates to supporting the re-integration of displaced workers and 
self-employed  persons  into  the  labour  market,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  most 
disadvantaged groups.  

The emergency relief dimension refers to EU’s intention of providing reactive support in 
cases  of  unexpected  mass  redundancies  when  national  administrations  would  find  it 
extremely difficult to cope with the situation by themselves. 

For the EGF, the problems and needs identified, in the context of structural changes, the 
consequence are large scale restructuring events, when the low-skilled or vulnerable are 
affected the most. Usually workers affected the most require a more tailored, a longer or a 
more intense support so that they can re-skill, up-skill and find new jobs. Often the national 
support measures are not enough, or are too short, too basic to respond to their needs. 

10 Special meeting of the European Council (1 February 2024) – Conclusions, 20240201-special-euco-
conclusions-en.pdf 

4 

 
 
the 

include 

number 

As the intervention logic’s starting point is the support offered to the displaced workers 
(EGF  beneficiaries). The inputs  both  at  EU  and  National  and delivery levels  consist  of 
funding and time necessary to design and implement the package of personalised measures 
for the displaced workers. The fund’s results are measured at micro-economic level. For 
example, the shared management common output indicators collected via the monitoring 
status 
system 
(unemployed/inactive/employed  (dependent)/self-employed),  while  the  common  long-
term result indicators include the percentage of EGF beneficiaries who gained a skill or 
qualification and the percentage of EGF beneficiaries in education or training. Provided 
that  a  certain  part  of  the  positive  outcomes  would  have  not  materialised  without  EGF 
support,  higher  results  indicate  an  increased  employment  at  regional  and  local  level, 
increased GDP, which, according to the theory, leads to the desired economic impacts, 
i.e., added value, societal and environmental impacts, such as increased activity and scope 
to assist displaced workers, influencing the operation of other funding sources and national 
policy choices, improved social cohesion, employment in green growth. 

beneficiaries 

employment 

by 

of 

Each  step  of  the  intervention  logic  corresponds  to  specific  parts  of  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework of EGF (see Annex VII). The EGF’s outreach is shown by output 
indicators (e.g. number of workers targeted, of older unemployed people, people at risk of 
poverty  targeted,  number  of  workers  receiving  EGF  measures  etc.).  Result  indicators 
describe the change in the beneficiary’s situation (e.g. how many moved to education or 
training or to employment, or gained a skill or qualification).  

The indicators do not  set  a baseline,  any  targets  or milestones. The number of targeted 
beneficiaries as specified by the Member State concerned is not considered a baseline. The 
reason  for  this  is  that  some  Member  States  target  only  workers  who  have  been  made 
redundant  and  have  little  chance  of  successfully  moving  jobs  without  tailored  support, 
while other Member States target all workers who have been made redundant. 

In short, to address the problem of unexpected large scale restructuring events, the EGF 
demonstrates  solidarity  with  displaced  workers  and  self-employed  persons  whose 
activity has ceased in the course of unexpected  major restructuring events through 
tailor-made  support  for  individuals11,  ranging  from  personalised  guidance  and  training 
courses  to  assistance  in  setting  up  a  business.  Through  this,  the  EGF  supports 
socioeconomic transformations that are the result of globalisation and of technological and 
environmental changes and contributes to the implementation of the principles set out in 
the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  shall  enhance  social  and  economic  cohesion 
among regions and Member States. 

2.2  Point(s) of comparison  

Throughout  this  Staff  Working  Document,  the  EGF  is  compared  to  the  way  it  was 
implemented in the previous programming periods. The effects of the changes in the design 
and implementation are compared mostly in qualitative terms, and only to a limited extent 
in quantitative terms across the evaluation criteria.  

Comparison in qualitative terms is done by looking at the results of the changes introduced 
by 2021-2027 Regulation related to: a) the larger scope of eligibilty; b) decreased threshold 
of  dismissals  needed  to  apply  for  the  EGF;  c)  faster  and  simpler  procedures;  d)  new 

11 See Annex VIII for detailed explanation on how the EGF works and the type of support offered. 

5 

 
 
 
requirement to  introduce  the dissemination of skills  required in  the digital age and in  a 
resource-efficient  economy  to  be  considered  a  horizontal  element  of  any  coordinated 
package of personalised services offered; e) a new tool: the beneficiary survey for each 
EGF case; f) other changes (See Annex VIII). For example, by broadening the scope of the 
EGF and by making the application procedure easier and faster in the current programming 
period, the fund is expected to be more inclusive and to reach more displaced workers in 
need of assistance. Beneficiary surveys will help assess the extent to which the assistance 
offered had an impact on the perceived change in the employability of beneficiaries or, for 
those who have already found employment, on the quality of the employment found (e.g. 
in terms of changes in working hours). 

In  terms  of  quantitative  comparison,  there  is  limited  information  to  analyse  the 
performance  of  the  EGF.  The  actions  covered  by  the  EGF  are,  by  definition,  not 
programmable because restructuring events giving rise to the redundancies are unexpected. 
Therefore, defining in advance how many mass redundancy events will take place in any 
given year and what would be the profile of beneficiaries is not possible for the EGF. The 
common output and results indicators will not have a baseline, targets or milestones. The 
historical  success  rate  will  not  be  adjusted  in  case  the  expected  macroeconomic 
environment  turns  to  be  less  favourable  in  the  EU  labour  market  and  job-placements 
become more difficult, due to current or future crises. Thus, the common output and results 
indicators12 give information about the results of the EGF cases, however they cannot be 
considered performance indicators. 

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

Context 

Job  displacement  is  a  common  occurrence  across  all  economies  and  a  natural  part  of 
structural change, but it can have significant impacts on workers, regions and communities. 
Nowadays globalisation is increasingly knowledge driven and no longer the main reason 
for structural changes.  

During 2021-2024, job displacement and worker relocation have become critical issues in 
the  context  of  the  current  economic  shocks,  as  industries  face  rapid  changes  due  to 
automation, globalisation, and the twin digital and green transition. While these changes, 
accelerated  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  increase  vulnerabilities  in  traditional  sectors, 
(such as manufacturing) and expose many – especially low-skilled and vulnerable workers 
– to the risks of job loss, they also create opportunities for labour market shifts (such as 
renewable  energy,  advanced  manufacturing,  digital  technologies).  However,  these 
opportunities often require different skillsets and may not arise in the areas most affected 
by displacement.13 

Amid  a  cost-of-living  crisis,  the  robust  recovery  from  the  COVID-19  recession  lost 
momentum since 2022. The energy shock caused by Russia’s war of aggression against 
Ukraine put a drag on global growth and contributed to propelling price inflation in many 

12  EGF  Indicators  are  monitored  in  MFF  Performance  Results  Reports.  Link  4e8f26d1-6604-496f-87c4-

0b9a886adf29_en (europa.eu). 

13 OECD Employment Outlook 2018 | OECD 

6 

 
 
countries to levels not seen in decades.14 Labour markets have proven resilient in the wake 
of  adverse  shocks  and  continued  to  perform  strongly,  with  many  countries  seeing 
historically high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment.15. 

According  to  the  Eurofound’s  European  Restructuring  Monitor  (ERM)16  database,  on 
average  about  670  restructuring  events  (of  any  size)17  occurred  within  the  EU-27  on  a 
yearly  basis  between  2007  and  2020.  After  a  peak  of  large-scale  restructuring  events 
(involving 500 or more job losses) of 173 in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (+68% 
compared  to  2019),  the  number  of  such  events  steadily  decreased  until  41  in  2022,  the 
lowest number recorded since 2007. However, since 2024 the tide started turning again 
and more restructuring events have being recorded, reaching 104. (see Figure 1 below). 

Figure 1. Large-scale restructuring events in EU-27, 2007–2024 

Source: Eurofound, European Restructuring Monitor Database  

In 2024, a slow-down in job creation was noticed and also an increase of jobs lost, which 
exceeded the total number of jobs created. The sectors with the largest recorded number 
of  jobs  lost  in  2024  are  manufacturing,  transportation/storage  and  retail.  (see  Figure  2 
below). 

14 OECD (2023), OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, OECD 

Publishing, Paris, p.19,  https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en. 

15 OECD (2024), OECD Employment Outlook 2024: The Net-Zero Transition and the Labour Market, OECD 

Publishing, Paris, p. 21, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8b3538-en. 

16 ERM is the most comprehensive source of data that records all announcements of redundancies in a certain 
year. Restructuring announcements are recorded in the ERM based on a screening of the main media sources 
in each of the Member States. European Restructuring Monitor | European Foundation for the Improvement 
of Living and Working Conditions 
17 In order to be included in the ERM database, an individual restructuring case must involve the announced 
loss or creation of at least 100 jobs, or employment effects affecting at least 10% of a workforce of more  
than 250 people. For the purpose of this evaluation, only cases involving job losses were considered. 

7 

                                                           2  2     22 2              2        2  2  2                     2 0 20  0  0  0  00  20   0 0 0 00  02002 0 00200 200 200 20 020  20 220  20  20  20  20  20  20  2020202 2022202 202   of total eventsNumber of eventsRestructuring events with  00 or more jobs lostRestructuring events with 200 or more jobs lost    00 of all restructuring events   200 of all restructuring events 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Total number of jobs recorded in large restructuring events, EU 27, 2019-2024 

Source: ERM, Data until 20 November 2024, EU27 

During 2021-2024, manufacturing accounted for the largest share of restructuring events, 
even though its share fluctuates over the years.18 During 2021–2024, there were five EGF 
cases19 targeting redundancies in the manufacturing sectors (NACE 27, 29, 30). (see details 
in Figure 3) 

In  the  manufacturing  sector,  the  restructuring  trend  in  car  manufacturing  show  a 
significantly more jobs were lost in EU 27 in 2024 than they were created. 

Figure 3. Restructuring trends in the car manufacturing in 2024, EU 27 

Source: ERM, NACE sectors included are: C 27.1,29.1, 29.2, 29.3, 30.3, 30.9, 74.9 

In  the  first  half  of  2020,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  caused  the  deepest  recession  in  EU 
history.  Annual  GDP  fell  by  6.4%  in  the  EU  in  2020  compared  to  201920.  Monthly 
unemployment rates steadily increased starting from March 2020, from an average of 6.5% 
in  March  2020,  to  7.9%  in  January  2021.  However,  afterwards  the  unemployment  rate 

18 According to the ERM, the share decreased from 41% (2002-2007) to 29% (2015-2016), then increased 

to 43% (2020), and was around 40% in 2024. 

19  EGF/2021/004  ES/Aragon  automotive,  EGF/2021/005  FR/Airbus,  EGF/2021/006  ES/Cataluña 
automotive,  EGF/2021/008  EL/Attica  Electrical  Equipment  Manufacturing,  EGF/2024/003  BE/Van 
Hool. 

20 Eurostat, table namq_10_gdp and table namq_10_a10_e. 

8 

 
 
 
 
started to decrease and reached 5.9% in December 2024, an even lowest recorded since 
2007, as shown in Figure 4 below. 

Figure 4. Monthly unemployment rates (% of active population), EU-27, 2007–2024 

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5

)

%

(

s
e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
e
n
U

12,2

8,3

7,9

6,4

5,9

1
0
-
7
0
0
2

8
0
-
7
0
0
2

3
0
-
8
0
0
2

0
1
-
8
0
0
2

5
0
-
9
0
0
2

2
1
-
9
0
0
2

7
0
-
0
1
0
2

2
0
-
1
1
0
2

9
0
-
1
1
0
2

4
0
-
2
1
0
2

1
1
-
2
1
0
2

6
0
-
3
1
0
2

1
0
-
4
1
0
2

7
0
-
4
1
0
2

2
0
-
5
1
0
2

9
0
-
5
1
0
2

4
0
-
6
1
0
2

1
1
-
6
1
0
2

6
0
-
7
1
0
2

1
0
-
8
1
0
2

8
0
-
8
1
0
2

3
0
-
9
1
0
2

0
1
-
9
1
0
2

5
0
-
0
2
0
2

2
1
-
0
2
0
2

7
0
-
1
2
0
2

2
0
-
2
2
0
2

9
0
-
2
2
0
2

4
0
-
3
2
0
2

1
1
-
3
2
0
2

6
0
-
4
2
0
2

European Union - 27 countries (from 2020)

Source: Eurostat, [ei_lmhr_m]  

Current state of play 

This section provides an overview of EGF implementation during the 2021-2024 period. 
It includes figures on EGF applications and covers the Fund’s performance by country and 
by  economic  sector  defined  at  NACE  Revision  2  division  level.  The  profile  of  people 
targeted by the EGF (by sex, age groups and education level of the displaced worker) is 
also reported. 

Since the EGF became operational in 2007, the number of applications has been highly 
cyclical, responding with a delay to economic developments21.  

In  what  follows,  the  18  applications  are  considered.  Of  these,  17  applications  were 
approved (i.e. EGF cases)22 and one was still in assessment by the Commission when this 
staff working document was drafted. This application is therefore only partially covered in 
the overview of 2021–2027 EGF applications (in Figures 5-7 and in Annex VI). 

Breakdown of EGF applications by event type and intervention criterion23  

In the majority of the 18 EGF applications (61%), the main reasons for the displacements, 
given by the applicant Member State’ authorities were crisis, such as corporate crisis (6), 
the COVID-19 health crisis (5), major changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation 

21 OECD (2013), Back to work: Re-employment, earnings and skill use after job displacement, p. 13. 
22 The 18 EGF applications from EGF/2021/001 to EGF/2024/003 (inclusive) are listed in Table 6. 
23 See Article 4 Regulation (EU) 2021/691. The modified intervention criteria refer to a decreased threshold 

of displacements from 500 to 200 and different conditions for the reference period, as follows: 
a.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a reference period 

of 4 months in an enterprise in a Member State; 

b.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons activity ceasing) over a reference period 
of 6 months in enterprises, especially SMEs that belong to the same sectors in one or two adjoining 
regions; 

c.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a reference period 
of 4 months in enterprises, especially SMEs that belong to the same of different sectors in the same 
region. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(5). Other causes, such as company takeover or other, was reason for displacements each 
in one application. 

Figure 5. Applications per cause (left) and intervention criterion (right) 

1

1

Globalisation

5

1

1

5

4

Corporate
Crisis

Crisis
(COVID-19)

Takeover

6

Other

Source: European Commission, EGF Database. 

Breakdown of EGF applications per Member State  

Intervention criterion a
- Article 4(2)(a)

Intervention criterion b
- Article 4(2)(b)

Intervention criterion c
- Article 4(2)(c)

12

Intervention criterion
small labour market -
Article 4(3)

In  terms  of  geographical  reach,  these  18  EGF  applications  covered  7  Member  States: 
Belgium (6), Spain (4), France (3), Italy (2), Germany (1), Greece (1), and Denmark (1). 
These Member States had benefited from the EGF during the two previous programming 
periods as well, 2007–2013 and 2014-2020, except for Denmark which applied only during 
2007–2013.  

The total number of people targeted was highest in Belgium (4 977), followed by France 
(2 243) and Spain (1 373) and lowest in Italy (190). 

Breakdown of people targeted through EGF applications 

Across  all  18  EGF  applications,  10 825  workers  were  targeted  via  EGF  measures,  of 
which,  77%  were  men  and  23%  women.  However,  women  represent  36%  of  the 
beneficiaries  who  participated  in  the  EGF  measures.  The  numbers  differ  significantly 
across cases, with a high number of male beneficiaries in cases assisting workers dismissed 
in  traditionally  ‘male-dominated’  sectors,  such  as  automotive,  aircraft  industry, 
metalworking, machinery and equipment, logistics, etc, and more female beneficiaries in 
sectors such as retail trade. A similar number of both female and male beneficiaries was 
observed in two EGF applications in the air transport sector. 

As  for  age  groups,  the  10 825  workers  targeted  belonged  to  the  following  age  groups: 
below  30  (5.16%),  30-54  (65.67%)  and  above  54  (29.16%)  (See  Figure  7  below).  The 
2021-2027 period reduced the required age groups to two (below 30 years of age and above 
54 years of age), from five age groups required during 2014-2020 (15-24, 25-29, 30-54, 
55-64 and above 65). Based on the two age groups, the third group, age 30-54, is calculated 
by the Commission. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Men and women targeted (left) and age groups (right) 

2.53
9

Men
targeted
Women
targeted

8.28
6

559

3.157

7.109

Below 30 Age 30-54

Above 54

Source: European Commission, EGF Database. 

The education level of the targeted workers, a new requirement at application stage, shows 
that  in  the  18  EGF  applications,  23%  had  lower  secondary  education  or  less,  59%  had 
upper secondary or post-secondary education and 18% had tertiary education. 

Figure 7. Beneficiaries targeted per education level 

1.991

2.500

Lower secondary education or less
(ISCED 0-2)

Upper secondary (ISCED 3) or
post-secondary education (ISCED
4)

6.334

Tertiary education (ISCED 5-8)

Source: European Commission, EGF Database. 

Breakdown of applications per sector  

These 18 EGF applications cover 13 economic sectors. The most common sectors were 
automotive (3 cases), warehousing and support activities for transportation (3 cases), retail 
trade (2 cases), air transport (2 cases) and basic metals (2 cases). Other sectors with one 
EGF  application  each  were  in  the  sectors  of  metalworking  industry,  manufacture  of 
transport equipment, of electrical equipment, of paper, of food producs, of machinery and 
equipment.  The  cases  in  the  automotive  (buses)  sector  targeted  the  largest  number  of 
beneficiaries, 2 397 people in total. The smallest number of people targeted in a single case 
was 190 persons in the warehousing and support activities for transportation sector carried 
out in a port. 

Completed EGF applications 

Of  the  18  EGF  applications  outlined  above,  seven  had  ended  by  December  2024  and 
submitted their final report to the Commission. The analysis of the results will be based 
on these seven final reports. Across these seven cases, of the 2 534 people targeted, 1 904 
people were assisted in total. This means that 75% of targeted beneficiaries were helped 
by the EGF (see Figure 8 below).  

11 

 
 
 
 
As for the distribution across Member States, the largest numbers of beneficiaries assisted 
were  in  Italy  and  Spain,  while  the  smallest  numbers  were  in  France.  The  rates  of 
beneficiaries helped24 ranged from 41% (Spain) to 101% (France).  

Figure 8. Beneficiaries targeted vs assisted total (left) and per Member State (right) 

1904

1070

436

1500

1000

500

0

801

791

663

677

2534

ES

IT

FR

Beneficiaries targeted

Beneficiaries assissted

Beneficiaries targeted

Beneficiaries assissted

Figure 9. Beneficiaries assisted per gender (left) and age group (right) 

36%

64%

Men
helped

Women
helped

5%

21%

74%

Below 30

Age 30-54

Above 54

Source for Figures 9 and 10: European Commission, EGF Database. 

Across the seven cases, about EUR 9.1 million in EGF funds were spent in total, compared 
to about EUR 14.5 million allocated. This gave an overall absorption rate about 63%. 
The average absorption rates25 for individual Member States ranged from 8.1% (Spain) to 
100% (France).  

An overview of all 18 EGF applications submitted between 2021–2024, together with case 
profile data by Member State and by sector, can be found in Annex VI. 

EGF beneficiary surveys 

For evaluation purposes, a beneficiary survey has to be conducted for each EGF case, a 
new  requirement  introduced  for  the  2021-2027  period.  The  template  of  the  survey  was 
designed by the Commission in close cooperation with the Member States and is translated 
into all official languages of the Union. Each survey is open to participants via the EU 
Survey website.  

Each  beneficiary  survey  is  open  to  participants  for  at  least  four  weeks  and  is  launched 
during the sixth month after the end of the implementation period. Member States assist 
the  Commission  in  conducting  the  beneficiary  survey,  by  encouraging  beneficiaries  to 
participate by sending out the invitation to take part and at least one reminder. Member 
States must also inform the Commission about the efforts made to contact the beneficiaries. 

24 Rate of beneficiaries helped is defined as the ratio of persons assisted over the number of persons targeted. 
25The absorption rate is the percentage of the spending of the EGF co-financing granted. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Seven EGF beneficiary surveys were carried out via the EU Survey website in the second 
half of 2024 for seven EGF cases from 202126 which finished implementation. 

In total 645 beneficiaries replied to the seven beneficiary surveys, representing about 
34% of the workers helped. The average reply rate for individual EGF case ranged from 
11% (EGF/2021/007 - France) to 61% (EGF/2021/002 - Italy) (See Figure 10 below). 

Figure 10. Number of replies received to EGF beneficiary survey per case 

Grand Total (645)

34%

1.904

1_ES/PaisVasco (31)

39%
80

2_IT/Air Italy (367)

61%

601

3_IT/Porto Canale (33)

4_ES/Aragon automotive (93)

17%

190

35%

263

5_FR/Airbus (48)

16%

299

6_ES/Cataluña automotive (32)

7_FR/Selecta (41)

34%
93

11%

378

0

200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000

% of replies to EGF beneficiary survey

Replies to EGF Beneficiary Survey

Source: European Commission, DG EMPL. 

Profile of the 645 respondents before participating in EGF measures: 

•  Gender: 35% were women, 64,5% were men and 0.5% non-binary; 

•  Age: 1.4% was below 30 years of age, 62.33% were between 30 and 54 years of 

age and 36.28% were above 54 years of age; 

•  Education  level:  5%  have  primary  education,  40%  secondary  education,  27% 
vocational  education,  22%  bachelor  education  or  above  and  about  6%  replied 
other; 

•  Years  of  professional  experience:  3%  have  between  1-5  years,  8.7%  have 
between 6 and 15 years, 20.3% have between 16 and 20 years and 36% have more 
than 21 years of professional experience; 

•  Experienced long-term unemployment: 50% of beneficiaries did, while 46% did 

not and 4% prefer not to say; 

•  Feel  disadvantaged  on  the  labour  market:  50%  of  the  beneficiaries  felt 
disadvantaged because of age, being a parent, education level, location, etc; 

•  Employment  situation  before  being  displaced:  89%  had  permanent  contract, 
while  11%  had  temporary  (fixed  term)  contracts.  The  majority  of  respondents 
(80%)  were  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  their  previous  job,  while  8%  were 
dissatisfied. 

26 The seven EGF cases from EGF/2021/001 to EGF/2021/007 (inclusive) are listed in Table 6. 

13 

 
 
 
After participating in EGF measures, the beneficiaries confirmed27 that they: 

a.  gained new skills or qualifications (54% of respondents agree), including 

digital skills (32%)28 and environmental/green skills (25%), 

b.  increased  their  self-confidence:  48%  of  beneficiaries  agree,  while  30% 

disagreed,  

c.  feel  better  qualified  for  work:46%  of  beneficiaries  agree,  while  41% 

disagree/strongly disagree,  

d.  feel  encouraged  to  overcome  gender-stereotypes  in  job  selection,  and/or 
more aware of gender discrimination in general: 48% of beneficiaries agree, 
while 30% disagree, and  

e.  built new networks of contacts (35%). 

More information on the results of the beneficiary surveys received is included in Annex 
V. 

Communication activities by the Commission 

During  the  2021–2024  period,  to  promote  exchanges  of  best  practice  and  provide 
information about the latest EGF developments, the Commission organised twice per year 
EGF  contact  persons’29  meetings.  In  2024,  the  Commission  organised  one  online 
networking  seminar  (aimed  at  EGF  implementers).  Until  end-2019,  the  meetings  took 
place in Member States implementing EGF cases. As of March 2020, the contact persons’ 
meetings took place online because of the COVID-19 pandemic and only since the end of 
2022  one  meeting  in-person  took  place.  The  EGF  meetings  received  positive  feedback 
from stakeholders (about 35 participants on average). 

27 Beneficiaries could select from the following 6 answers: agree/strongly agree, disagree/strongly disagree, 
do  not  know,  not  applicable.  When  results  presented  in  the  SWD  explain  only  the  replies  showing 
agreement and disagreement, the other replies refer to the answers “Do not know” or “not applicable”. 
28  Several  reasons  explain  these  results:  in  some  cases  (e.g.  two  thirds  of  the  beneficiaries  who  disagree 
worked in the air transport sector) where the level of digital skills was already good, no measures was 
offered, or in case both basic and ad hoc digital training measures were offered, those were not taken 
up. 

29  Contact  persons  are  nominated  by  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  responsible  for  the  EGF.  The 

authority of each Member State decides who will represent it. 

14 

 
 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

Considering the limitations and challenges identified in Box 1, a full in-depth analysis of 
the impacts could not be done at this stage of implementation and will be done for the ex-
post evaluation of the 2021-2017 EGF due by 31 December 2029.  

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1.  EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness criterion assesses the extent to which the EGF objectives have been met 
at both instrument and case level. The aim of the EGF is to demonstrate solidarity towards 
workers made redundant and to ensure for each EGF case that the largest possible number 
of  beneficiaries  find  sustainable  employment  as  soon  as  possible.  It  also  analyses  the 
impact of the Fund as a whole. This was done in particular by analysing: (a) the extent to 
which the EGF manages to ensure sustainable re-integration of redundant workers and the 
impact of the EGF support on beneficiaries’ employability; (b) the availability of support 
for  all  eligible  beneficiaries;  (c)  the  use  of  the  EGF  under  the  new  conditions;  (d) 
monitoring and reporting; (e) factors helping or hindering the achievement of objectives; 
(f)  involvement  of  companies  and  social  partners;  (g)  information  and  communication 
activities and (h) overall impact and lessons learned from the EGF implementation. 

a)  Re-integration  rates,  and  impact  of  the  EGF  support  on  beneficiaries’ 

employability  

The effectiveness of EGF support was measured in the previous programming periods only 
through the re-integration rates, for which there was no requirement for quantitative re-
integration  targets  in  an  EGF  application,  thus  making  the  medium  and  long-term 
monitoring difficult.  For 2021-2027, the EGF Regulation  also  could  not introduce such 
objectives30, however the new requirements: specific common indicators and the EGF 
beneficiary survey provide not  only  quantitative, but  also  qualitative information for 
each completed EGF case. This made it possible to also analyse the EGF impact on the 
general employability of the beneficiaries, and also the quality of the employment found 
by those beneficiaries re-employed. In what follows, the findings on the re-integration rates 
and the impact of the EGF support on beneficiaries’ employability will be presented. 

Re-integration rates 

In all EGF cases, the main aim was to bring workers made redundant back into sustainable 
work  as  quickly  as  possible.  Based  on  the  limited  available  case  data  received  by  the 
Commission for 7 final reports31 (out of 17 cases), the EGF has generally been effective in 
terms of the re-integration rates achieved, with an average re-integration rate of around 
50%.  The  re-integration  rate  for  beneficiaries  varied  between  16%  and  71%32.  This  is 
higher than in the 2007–2013 programming period, and the same as the target of 50% set 
in the impact assessment for the 2014–2020 EGF33. However, it is lower than in the 2014-

30 The Commission’s proposal to set case-specific targets and to include reporting by type of employment 
was not included in the final agreement of Parliament and the Council on the EGF Regulation for the 
2021–2027 period. 

31 Member States report on the re-integration rate in the final report of a case, due 6 months after the end of 

the implementation period. 

32 Commission internal EGF Database. 
33 Commission Staff Working Paper – Impact Assessment SEC(2011) 1130 final, p.33 

15 

 
 
2020 programming period, when it was 60% (average for 46 EGF cases). However, this 
result needs to be viewed with caution as  the base for analysing the re-intergration rate 
during the 2021-2024 period is very small, only 7 cases, compared to 46 cases during 2014-
2020 and 128 cases during 2007-2013. 

The  reasons  explaining  in  some  cases  the  re-integration  rate  for  the  EGF  cases 
implemented  during  2021-2024  are  related  (to  different  extents)  to:  a)  late  start  of  the 
implementation, sometimes intentional, in order to focus only on the displaced workers 
who cannot find a job on their own; b) the age of the beneficiaries approaching retirement, 
difficulties in finding a job because of long-term unemployment; c) existing challenges on 
the  labour  market  at  the  moment  when  the  EGF  measures  ended  in  2024,  such  as  an 
increasing trend of more jobs lost than jobs created, inflation, etc.  

Comparing the results with previous programming periods has to be done with caution, as 
two elements, among others, make data less comparable: (1) the implementation period 
and (2) the moment of reporting on the employment status of the beneficiaries.  

In the case of the implementation period for cases, it was much longer during the 2014–
2020 and 2021-2027 periods (24 months or longer if the implementation started early) than 
in  the  programming  period  2007-2013  (12  months).  The  results  of  the  longer 
implementation  period  show  better  re-integration  rates  on  average  for  the  2014-2020 
period  than  in  the  previous  2007-2013  period,  also  because  of  more  available  time  for 
beneficiaries  participating  in  EGF measures  to  re-skill,  upskill and help  them gain  new 
qualifications  or  improve  their  education  level  and  ultimately  find  a  new  job  or  start  a 
business.  As  regards  the  moment  of  reporting,  during  the  2021-2027  period,  Member 
States no longer need to report on the long term employment situation (i.e. 18 months after 
the end of the implementation period) as it was done during the 2014-2020 period. The 
only reporting on the employment status of the beneficiaries needs to be sent by Member 
States six  months  after the end of the implementing period, no longer  after 18 months. 
Information about the long term employment status is collected during 2021-2027 only via 
the  EGF  beneficiary  survey,  which  is  carried  out  six  months  after  the  end  of  the 
implementation period for each EGF case.  

The online EGF beneficiary survey was carried out via the EU Survey website. For seven 
EGF cases 645 replies were received from beneficiaries, representing 34% of the people 
helped.  

Overall, in the longer term, the re-integation rates improve, i.e. beneficiaries who found 
a new job or started a business. According to the replies from 645 beneficiaries, the re-
integration rate increases from 32.5% in the short-term (i.e. 6 months after the end of the 
last measure they participated in) to 46,5% in the long-term (i.e. more than 18 months after 
the end of the last measure). Results improved in most Member States in the long term, 
with one case experiencing a decrease in the re-integration rate compared to the short term 
(see Figure 11 below). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Change in re-integration rates per case (short term vs long term)34 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

71

63

135

66

13

7

15

9

39

30

23

28

4

7

300

210

Aragon

Cataluna

Pais Vasco

Airbus

Selecta

Air Italy

Porto Canale

ES

ES

ES

FR

FR

IT

IT

TOTAL

Total beneficiaries re-integrated (short-term)

Total beneficiaries re-integrated (long-term)

Source: Commission analysis of the results from the EGF beneficiary surveys 

Impact of the EGF support on beneficiaries’ general employabilty  

The beneficiaries’ general employability was analysed on the basis of different sources, 
such as the final reports, the results of the beneficiary survey and also feedback from the 
consultation of the implementing EGF stakeholders. 

One of the indicators analysing the results of the EGF in terms of the beneficiaries’ general 
employability  is  the  percentage  of  EGF  beneficiaries  in  education  or  training  six 
months after the end of the implementation period. According to the beneficiary surveys, 
178 out of 374 beneficiaries completed education or training with support of the EGF 
such as: re-training, re-skilling, professional re-orientation, language courses, vocational 
training,  training  to  prepare  for  recognition  of  skills  through  work  experience.  At  the 
moment  of  the  final  reports,  81  beneficiaries  (out  of  1904)  were  still  in  education  or 
training.  Findings  from  the  final  reports  show  that  people  more  often  opted  for  short 
trainings, which might have an indirect impact on their general employability, even if they 
did not gain a certified qualification through the training. To a limited extent, beneficiaries’ 
participation  in  a  personalised  orientation  process  made  them  feel  more  proactive, 
encouraged them to develop their personal and social skills and had a positive effect on 
their families. 

The EGF also helped improve the education level and gain new qualifications, albeit 
to a more limited extent. For example, in the case of EGF/2021/006 ES/Cataluña, 13 people 
(14% of the participants) increased their education level during the implementing period: 
8  people  (three  women  and  five  men)  moved  from  lower  secondary  education  or  less 
(ISCED 0-2) level up to secondary education or post-secondary (ISCED 3/ISCED 4), and 
5 people (one woman and four men) moved from secondary education or post-secondary 
education level up to tertiary education (ISCED 5-8). In the case of EGF/2021/002 IT/Air 
Italy,  beneficiaries  who  followed  certain  trainings  gained  new  qualifications  after 
obtaining the certification, in areas like sustainable tourism, customer management, human 

34 This graph includes all 2021–2024 EGF cases for which both the final report was sent to the Commission. 

It thus covers 7 (out of 18) cases.  

17 

 
 
 
resources management, foreign languages, digital literacy, web computing, digital security 
and web development training. 

Another indicator analysing the results of the EGF in terms of the beneficiaries’ general 
employability is  the  percentage of EGF beneficiaries  who  gained a qualification six 
months after the end of the implementation period. According to the beneficiary surveys, 
54% of beneficiaries confirmed that they developed new skills/gain new qualifications 
thanks to EGF support (see Figure 12 below). 

Figure 12. Beneficiary who developed new skills/qualifications after the EGF support 

Source: Beneficiary survey35 

The online EGF beneficiary survey introduced by the EGF Regulation for the 2021-2027 
period,  shows  for  each  EGF  case  that  beyond  the  re-integration  rates,  the  EGF  has 
broader  impacts  on  beneficiaries’  general  employability,  such  as  new  skills  or 
(32%), 
respondents), 
qualifications  gained 
environmental/green  skills  (25%),  and  increased  self-confidence  (48%),  feel  better 
qualified  for  work  (46%),  encouraged  them  to  overcome  gender  stereotypes  in  job 
selection  (30%),  and  build  new  networks  of  contacts  (35%).  These  less  tangible, 
unexpected  results  of  the  EGF  support  were  difficult  to  measure  before  2021,  in  the 
absence of an EGF beneficiary survey for each case, and could only be uncovered by the 
research done for the previous evaluations of the EGF.  

including  digital  skills 

(54%  of 

The beneficiary survey also gathered information about the labour market situation of the 
beneficiaries  before  losing  their  jobs.  This  gives  a  better  understanding  of  the  people 

35 Results of the case EGF/2021/003 IT/Porto Canale need to be seen together with the other case from Italy, 
EGF/2021/002 IT/ Air Italy. Initially the beneficiaries of both cases have received by mistake the link 
to reply to the same case: EGF/2021/002 IT/Air Italy. Later this was corrected, however, it is believed 
that from the total of 367 respondents to Air Italy dismissals, some belong to the case Porto Canale, who 
only  received  a  limited  number  of  replies  (33  replies  out  of  190  people  helped).  As  the  replies  are 
anonymous, no separation was possible. 

18 

 
 
 
targeted by the EGF support and also of the individual results, thus the effectiveness of the 
EGF measures. Of the 645 beneficiaries who responded to the survey, 245 found new jobs 
and 55 started a business. Related to the quality of the new jobs, most of the new jobs 
started were full-time, in the same sector and or region as before, and more than half of 
them worked the same or less hours of overtime as before. The salary level was the same 
or better for 42% of the beneficiaries who found a job. About 42% of beneficiaries agreed 
that the EGF measures helped them find a new job and 41% consider that the digital 
skills acquired helped them in the new job.  

Another effect of the EGF support was that it encouraged mobility outside the country 
or region, to a more limited extent (for 24% of the new jobs, mostly the previous workers 
from automotive and air transport sectors). 

Of the 55 self-employed36 who started new businesses, 76% were full-time and 86% were 
opened in the same region where they previously worked and in the sectors of automobile, 
retail  trade,  restauration,  coaching,  personal  development,  construction,  real  estate, 
tourism,  a  private  English  language  school,  take-over  of  family  business,  etc.  One 
beneficiary started a construction firm with 11 employees. 

Level of earnings for the self-employed was generally lower compared to the previous 
job, however in 60% of the cases the working conditions were considered better than 
before. 

Among the EGF beneficiaries who responded to the surveys, the views on EGF benefits 
were overall positive, especially from beneficiaries with increased employability or who 
found a new job after participating in EGF measures. 

b)  Availability of support for all eligible beneficiaries  and accessibility to EGF 

under the broader scope and modified intervention criteria37 

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  EGF  is  to  concentrate  on  the  most  vulnerable  groups, 
especially disadvantaged, older and young unemployed persons by offering measures to 
stimulate them to remain in or return to the labour market.  

In  the  EGF  application,  Member  States  are  required  to  include  information  about  any 
specific category of measure for vulnerable groups or people with a longstanding health 
problem or disability, or members of a recognised minority. Such information is usually 
collected when the displaced workers sign up for EGF measures and the information about 
the profiles or backgrounds becomes known. 

Examples of good practice were found in French and Belgian EGF cases, with measures 
tailored  to  disadvantaged  or  vulnerable  groups.  In  France38  specific  coaching  was 

36 The majority of self-employed were supported in one EGF case with displacements in the air transport 
sector (EGF/2021/005 FR/Airbus). However a limited number of beneficiaries from this case replied to the 
survey, thus it is not considered a representative sample for self-employed. 
37 See Footnote 27. 
38  EGF/2022/001  FR/Air  France  -  As  regards  the  redeployment  leave  (‘congé  de  reclassement’),  Article 
L1233-71 of the French Labour Code provides that a company which employs more than one thousand 
people  is  required  to  propose  the  measures  set  out  there  in  for  a  minimum  duration of  four  months. 
According to the above-mentioned legislation, the period as from the fifth month is therefore optional 
and may be subject to a contribution from the EGF in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 

19 

 
 
 
offered  to  96  persons  with  a  disability  for  a  longer  period,  15  instead  of  12  months. 
Feedback received for the beneficiary survey from 26 persons with disability showed that 
74%  agreed  that  the  measures  were  tailored  to  their  needs  and  that  the  most  useful 
measures were the allowances, the counselling sessions and the trainings courses. In Spain, 
special attention is also paid to accessibility in all places linked to the implementation of 
the project activities (information actions, awareness-raising, etc.) in order to achieve equal 
participation of persons with disabilities. Belgium39 includes measures offering financial 
incentives to every employer of the social economy sector who will employ a worker of 
50 years old or more. Another example from Belgium is that for people at risk of poverty 
they offer collective information on the tax impacts of the change of status from worker to 
unemployed but also on the prevention of over-indebtedness. Both Belgium and Spain40, 
try to overcome gender stereotypes by offering financial incentives to women participating 
in training programmes or jobs typically followed or done by men.  

The EGF applications provide insight only about the targeted beneficiaries’ age group and 
gender,  and  a  new  category  of  information  –  the  educational  level.  Across  all  18 
applications, the majority of targeted workers are male (76.5% of all targeted workers) and 
in  the  30–54  age  group  (66%).  This  result  is  explainable  because  in  most  EGF  cases 
dismissed  workers  came  from  predominantly  male-dominated  industries  (e.g.  such  as 
automotive, transport, warehousing). In most EGF cases, there is no discrepancy between 
the percentage of men and women targeted and those dismissed.  

Based  on  the  information  available,  the  EGF  is  flexible  enough  to  provide  tailored 
support to different groups; in some cases, specific support was included for vulnerable 
groups.Under  the  new  broadened  scope  of  eligibility  and  lowered  threshold  to  200  
displacements  (intervention  criteria),  the  EGF  is  effective  in  offering  support  to  all 
eligible beneficiaries, no matter the cause of the redundancy. The broadened scope and 
modified intervention criteria are more appropriate and allow a broader, more equitable 
distribution  of  resources,  making  the  EGF  more  accessible  to  a  wider  range  of 
beneficiaries. 

From the written consultation, stakeholders from 21 out of 26 Member States who replied 
confirmed that the broadened scope and the modified intervention criteria make the EGF 
fairer, more inclusive and more accessible. 

Shorter deadlines for approval and longer implementation of the EGF 

Faster mobilisation procedure and shorter deadlines both for the Commission and the 
Member States41 have been one of the changes of the EGF Regulation 2021-2027. At EU 
level, the total time for adoption of an EGF application from the date of submission by a 
Member State until the date of payment was reduced by five weeks, from 29 (2014-2020) 

2021/691.  Air  France  has  decided  to  propose  this  measure  for  a  period  of  up  to  12  months.  The  12 
months are supplemented by three additional months for senior workers (those born before 1 January 
1965), workers with disabilities, and workers belonging to low occupational levels (N1 and N2 in Air 
France’s jobs classification). The EGF co-financing does not contribute in the first four months of the 
redeployment leave, which correspond to the minimum duration stipulated by law. 

39 EGF/2024/001 BE/Match 
40 EGF/2021/004 ES/Aragon automotive 
41 For Commission: 50 working days instead of 12 weeks to complete its assessment of the application. 
For  Member  States:  15  working  days  instead  of  6  weeks  to  reply  to  Commission  request  for  additional 
information. 

20 

 
 
 
to  24  weeks  (2021-2027).  Total  time  for  EU  level  procedures  was  on  average  5.5 
months42 (reduced from 7.2 months during 2014-2020) for 17 EGF cases from 2021-2024. 
Another change was calculating all deadlines in working days instead of calendar days.  

During stakeholders’ consultations the majority of Member States acknowledged as being 
an improvement the shorter procedures and deadlines for adoption introduced during 
the 2021-2027 period, however, most of them43 still consider that mobilisation takes too 
long. 
The approval time between a Member State’s submission of an EGF application and the 
budgetary authority’s approval (without the 15 working days for the payment) is calculated 
to 21 weeks for 2021-2027. This deadline was observed in 11 out of 17 cases from 2021–
2024, and in 5 of these cases it was shortened to 20 weeks44. A longer approval occurred 
in 6 cases, of which 4 were adopted in 23 weeks, 1 in 26 weeks and the longest took 29 
weeks45.  

The Commission respected in all cases its legal deadline for adoption and in 14 out of 
17  cases  it  adopted  earlier  by  6  days  on  average  (ranging  from  1  to  30  days  earlier 
adoption).  The  budgetary  authority  kept  the  same  deadline  as  before  of  6  weeks  for 
deciding on the mobilisation of the EGF. In six cases approval was faster than the deadline, 
while in nine cases it exceeded it. 

Some delays were to some extent due to the lengthy and complex application procedure at 
EU level, but also to other reasons, such as, translation of the application needed  if not 
submitted in English, additional time requested by Member States to reply to Commission, 
etc. 

The EGF was designed as an emergency response instrument. However, its mobilisation 
is  not  as  quick  as  it  should  be,  even  with  the  shortened  deadlines,  thus  hindering  its 
effectiveness. Despite this, the delays in mobilisation of the EGF do not mean that the EGF 
fails to target all the people who would in principle need support after losing their job. 
Targeting all redundant workers is the regular task of the public employment service or 
other national  authorities. As the EGF aims specifically to  target  those who need it the 
most, i.e. the most vulnerable groups of workers made redundant, and to offer this help 
especially  in  regions  that  have  been  hit  particularly  hard  by  restructuring  events,  these 
situations on the labour market rather seem to be prerequisites for EGF assistance. 

Member States are responsible for the length of the application period and implementation 
of  the  EGF  measures.  In  some  cases,  e.g.,  when  Member  States  provide  sufficient 
information in the application sent to the Commission, the approval procedures can be sped 
up.  

The method of calculating the implementation period was changed to no longer include 
the time needed for the approval process at EU level, and the new start date of the 24 
months  is  from  the  date  of  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Financing  Decision  (i.e.  when 
Commission is notified of the adoption by the European Parliament and Council, rather 
than when the application is submitted), resulting in a full 24-month implementation period 

42 From the date of application until the date of payment. 
43 AT, CY, CZ, DE, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI. 
44 EGF/2021/004 ES/Aragon automotive, EGF/2023/001 BE/Logistics Nivelles, EGF/2023/002 BE/Makro, 

EGF/2023/004 DK/Danish Crown and EGF/2024/001 BE/Match. 

45 26 weeks for adoption of EGF/2021/008 EL/ Attica Electrical Equipment Manufacturing due to translation 
needed of the application and 29 weeks for EGF/2021/005 FR/Airbus due to the end of the year period. 

21 

 
 
for all Member States.  A consequence of the change  to  the start  of the implementation 
period  is  that  the  beneficiaries  can  participate  for  longer  than  24  months  in  EGF  co-
financed measures, since the measures began before the mobilisation decision in most of 
cases. , the implementation period averages 29 months in the 7 cases covered in this 
evaluation, ranging from 6 months to 40 months46. 

Out  of  the  seven  completed  cases,  in  five  cases  the  implementation  of  EGF  measures 
started  earlier  that  the  application  date.  In  four  cases47  implementation  started  on 
average  8  months  earlier  and  in  one  case  it  started  two  weeks  earlier.  In  two  cases 
considerable delays in the start of EGF  measures occurred, with 7 months delay in one 
case and 21 months in the other one48, mostly due to the way the cases were managed at 
national/regional level.  

Of  the  645  respondents  to  the  seven  beneficiary  surveys,for  34%  of  beneficiaries  the 
measures started between one and five months, for 28% measures started between 6-12 
months and for 36% they started more than 12 months after being dismissed. 

Reasons for delays in the start of implementation are largely country- and case-specific. In 
practice, some Member States often wait to receive formal approval from the budgetary 
authority before they start implementing the proposed measures. This is because they lack 
the financial capacity or the willingness to take the risk of starting implementation before 
the EGF co-financing is secured. This can lead to significant delays and therefore a shorter 
implementation period. 

c)  Use  of  the  EGF  by  Member  States  and  by  beneficiaries  under  the  new 

conditions  

Overall, not all the funding available under the EGF is used. Between 2021 and 202449, 17 
applications were approved, with a total EGF contribution granted of EUR 52.2 million, 
compared to the EUR 186 million annual ceiling (in 2018 prices) for 2021-2023 and the 
revised annual ceiling of EUR 30 million (in 2018 prices) for 2024-2027. 

Being an emergency relief instrument, the EGF is not expected to fully spend its ceiling. 
Moreover,  it  needs  a  comfortable  safety  margin  in  order  to  be  prepared  for  worst-case 
scenarios  of  mass  redundancies.  During  times  of  stability  and  economic  growth,  it  is 
expected that far less than the ceiling is used. As with all emergency relief instruments, it 
is not possible to accurately estimate the amount of assistance needed in a given year. 

However, it is important to consider the reasons why some Member States did not apply 
for the EGF support and whether there  could  have been more possible cases. Evidence 

46  Six  months  implementation  period  for  EGF/2021/006  ES/Cataluña  automotive,  and  40  months  for 
EGF/2021/005  FR/Airbus.  The  40  months  were  possible  because  the  Member  State  started 
implementing early, with national resources. 

47 EGF/2021/002 IT/Air Italy, EGF/2021/003 IT/Porto Canale, EGF/2021/005 FR/Airbus, EGF/2021/007 

FR/Selecta. 

48 EGF/2021/004 ES/Aragon automotive and EGF/2021/006 ES/Cataluña automotive. 
49  The  17  cases  analysed  include  EGF  applications  received  between  2021  and  2024  and  approved  by 
December 2024. The remaining one EGF application received at the end of 2024 is not included in this 
analysis. 

22 

 
 
collected in the context of this evaluation confirmed previously identified barriers50 and 
identified a few other issues:  

•  National economies are doing well and many Member States did not experience 
great job losses, and/or51 the labour market is able to absorb the displacements or 
there is limited institutional capacity52 or there is limited experience in applying for 
or implementing EGF cases. This was the case particularly in Central and Eastern 
Europe and was largely confirmed by EGF contact persons in Member States that 
did not apply during 2021-2027.  

• 

•  Even  with  the  changed  and  much  shorter  deadlines  during  2021-2027,  many 
Member  States53  consider  as  barrier  the  lengthy  and/or  complex  procedures  for 
applying and approval of the mobilisation of the EGF; 
In some Member States the threshold of 200 displacements is still considered too 
high54,  especially  smaller  Member  States  or  the  ones  with  limited  experience 
applying for EGF support have difficulties in demonstrating, under the criteria of 
small labour markets or exceptional circumstances, when the redundancies have a 
significant impact on the local or regional labour market. One Member State argued 
that the threshold might be too low compared to the administrative burden (BE - 
Wallonia); 

•  A degree of overlap between the EGF and national measures55, or with other EU 
instruments56 (such as the European Social Fund Plus, Just Transition Fund), which 
can be made available more quickly and provide more flexibility; 

•  The EGF co-financing rate is too low (AT, NL, RO) and the need to pre-finance all 
measures (BE - Flanders, EL, ES). Despite design differences between the EGF 
and the ESF+, the alignment of the EGF co-financing rate with the highest ESF+ 
cofinancing rate in the respective Member State, many were reluctant to apply for 
EGF.  

•  The  timing  of  the  redundancies.  Many  major  redundancies  happen  over  a 
timeframe longer than what is set out in the EGF Regulation (4 or 6 months) and 
very often they occur in waves57. In order to target most redundancies, Member 
States might need to submit several applications, depending on the timing of the 
dismissals; 

•  Some issues in national legislation that make the use of the EGF difficult (LT); 
•  The restructuring of the managing authority (SE); 
•  Lack of agreement between the parties involved in the region, i.e. between regional 

and local authorities when planning and implementing the project (ES). 

Identifying  how  many  other  restructuring  events  might  have  been  eligible  for  EGF  is 
challenging  because  of  the  limited  data  sources  available.  The  European  Restructuring 
Monitor  (ERM)  remains  the  most  comprehensive  source  of  data  for  recorded 

50 See European Commission (2024), Report on the 30th Meeting of the Contact Persons of the European 
Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF).; Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-
2020,  SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021.  The  evidence  was  complements  with  the  feedback  to  the  written 
survey received in November-December 2024 from Member States EGF contact persons. 

51 CZ, ES, EL, HR, LV, and LT. 
52 BE -Flanders, EL, HU, SI 
53 AT, CY, CZ, DE, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI. 
54 EE, EL, LU, RO. 
55 EL, IE, LU, NL, RO, SI, FI. 
56 CZ, EE, HR, HU, IE, LV, LT, PL, RO and SK. 
57 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021. 

23 

 
 
 
announcements of redundancies. Based on the ERM, in the last 10 years the average large 
scale restructuring (100-999 job losses) across all countries and all sectors lasted: 386.87 
days  ~  slightly  longer  than  1  year.  However,  the  timeframe  of  the  redundancies  is  not 
always indicated. The ERM could serve as one indicator, but more comparative data are 
needed to draw conclusions. A few Member States permanently scan the market for new 
possible EGF cases, but most do not. 

Use of EGF by Member States  

The specific labour market measures and allowances offered to displaced workers differ 
considerably in scope and volume for each case, even within the same Member State.  

A new requirement in the 2021-2027 period was the dissemination of skills required in 
the digital age and in a resource-efficient economy to be considered a horizontal element 
of any coordinated package of personalised services offered. Such measures on digital and 
green skills have been included in the measures offered in all cases, and have been tailor-
made  to  the  needs  of  the  beneficiaries.  According  to  the  feedback  received  during  the 
consultations of the implementing bodies, beneficiaries are profiled before the start of the 
measures,  and  measures  are  adapted  accordingly.  For  example,  in  Belgium  financial 
incentives are offered to improve digital skills, e.g. to obtain IT literacy. There are also 
cases  when  displaced  workers  already  have  a  high  level  of  digital  skills,  thus  no  such 
measures are needed. This was the case for workers displaced in the air transport sector. 
As for environmental/green skills, these are offered as part of the packages of measures, 
but have not been taken up much. 
The measures and allowances most commonly offered and taken up are set out below 58. 

•  Job search assistance and case management – this is quite broad, as it includes 
general  information  services  to  workers,  career  guidance,  advisory  services, 
mentoring  and  outplacement  assistance.  These  measures  were  offered  in  18 
applications,  targeting  in  total  20 903  workers,  for  a  total  budget  of  EUR  18.8 
million. The results from 7 final reports showed that these measures were provided 
to about 2 287 beneficiaries, for a total amount of about EUR 1.3 million. 

•  Training  and  retraining  –  this  was  offered  in  17  cases  and  helped  83%  of 
beneficiaries.  This  measure  ranges  from  trainings  on  key  and  horizontal 
compentencies, re-skilling, up-skilling vocational training, on-the-job training to 
full university degrees and to language courses, etc. A total of 6 888 workers were 
targeted by this measure, for a total budget of EUR 15.6 million. This measure was 
provided to 1 589 beneficiaries, for a total amount of about EUR 3.7 million. In 
terms  of  education,  13  people59  increased  their  education  level  during  the 
implementing period. 

•  Promotion of entrepreneurship – this was offered in 12 cases and helped 14% 
of beneficiaries on average. This measure includes guidance and advice for self-
employment  through  workshops,  individual  assistance  in  the  creation  of 
companies,  tutoring  meetings  and  mentoring  activities.  In  total,  1 245  workers 

58 EGF applications, adopted Commission Proposals and Final reports submitted by Member States. 
59 In the case of EGF/2021.006 ES/ Cataluña automotive, 13 people (14% of the participants) increased their 
education level during the implementing period: eight people (three women and five men) moved from 
lower  secondary  education  or  less  (ISCED  0-2)  level  up  to  secondary  education  or  post-secondary 
(ISCED 3/ISCED 4), and five people (one woman and four men) moved from secondary education or 
post-secondary education level up to tertiary education (ISCED 5-8). 

24 

 
 
were targeted, for a total planned budget of about EUR 11.9 million. This measure 
was  provided  to  258  beneficiaries,  for  a  total  amount  spent  of  about  EUR  3.6 
million. 

•  Less commonly used measures are supported employment and rehabilitation, 
and direct job creation. Only the first measure was offered in one case to 500 
beneficiaries  with  spending  at  EUR  0.44  million.  Direct  job  creation  was  not 
offered to  any beneficiary. The  first  measure  was offered in  one  EGF case and 
helped 37 beneficiaries (of 500 targeted), for EUR 32 350 spent. In most cases, 
this relatively low rate was due to people finding a job without support, or a lack 
of interest to participate due to low willingness for change. 

•  Allowances  offered  were  mainly  job  search  allowances,  training  allowances, 
subsistence  allowances  and  mobility  allowances.  Job  search  allowances  were 
targeted  at  4 681  persons  across  11  cases,  training  allowances  at  1 829  persons 
across 9 cases, mobility allowances at 953 persons across 6 cases, and subsistence 
allowances  at  591  persons across  two cases.  Other allowances were offered  to 
1 811 persons in 11 cases for: (a) bonus for improving IT skills and language 
skills, return-to-school allowance, hiring incentives (consisting of pay subsidies 
to encourage local companies to hire EGF beneficiaries), (b) contribution to the 
accommodation  and  commuting  expenses  incurred  when  participating  in 
training, (c) salary top-ups, to encourage beneficiaries to accept new employment, 
even if the salary of the new employment found is lower than in the previous job, 
(d) contribution to expenses for carers of dependent persons for workers with 
caring responsibilities (children, elderly or disabled persons), (e)  tutoring after 
reintegration into work, workers reemployed are guided during the first months 
to prevent possible problems arising in their new jobs, (f) contribution to moving 
and installation costs. 

As for beneficiaries helped, job search allowances (670 workers helped) had the 
highest  number  followed  by  training  allowances  (216  workers  helped),  other 
allowances (172 workers helped) and mobility allowances (27 workers helped)60. 
The main reason for the low take-up of mobility allowances is the low willingness 
for mobility among beneficiaries. The results of EGF cases in which subsistence 
allowances  were  offered  were  not  available  at  the  time  of  drafting  of  this 
document.  

The EGF is complementing regular measures by increasing the level of aid, as confirmed 
by  the  stakeholder  consultations.  In  many  cases,  EGF  assistance  removed  barriers  to 
participation  in  regular  (or  EGF)  measures  as  assistance  was  offered  for  travel, 
accommodation,  childcare  or  course  material  facilities.  This  was  also  confirmed  by  the 
evidence collected from the EGF beneficiary surveys. 

Use of the EGF for beneficiaries 

Case  research,  including  seven  beneficiary  surveys,  identified  considerable  differences 
across EGF cases and Member States in the rate of beneficiaries helped (defined as the 
ratio of persons assisted over the number of persons targeted). The differences are mostly 
due  to  case-specific  or  country-specific  factors.  The  take-up  of  EGF  measures  by 
beneficiaries is largely dependent on personal and contextual circumstances, although the 

60 The total amounts spent for each type of allowance were: EUR 0.8 million for job search allowances, EUR 
0.57 million for other allowances, EUR 0.22 million for training allowances, about EUR 77 220 million 
for mobility allowances. 

25 

 
 
way in which the measures are designed and implemented also play a role. The reasons 
that led to fewer people participating in the measures offered are re-confirming the findings 
from previous evaluations61: 

o  strong  national/local  support  systems  that  reduce  the  need  for  additional  EGF 

support; 

o  strong labour markets enabling quick re-integration without EGF support;  
o  generous  compensation  and  training  opportunities  offered  by  the  dismissing 

company;  

o  finding  a  job  sooner  than  expected;  highly-skilled  people  did  not  require  much 

support;  

o  personal  reasons  for  beneficiaries  not  wanting  to  take  part  (e.g.  poor  public 

transportation possibilities, caring for family members, etc.); 

o  delays in the start of implementation of EGF measures (so that beneficiaries had 
already found employment – this also implies, however, that EGF assistance might 
not have been needed); 
lack  of  awareness  that  measures  actually  exist  (implying  that  the  national 
authorities  were  not  able  to  identify  possible  beneficiaries,  and/or  did  not  put 
enough effort into guidance measures); and 

o 

o  measures not being regarded as useful (implying that the package of measures was 

designed without closely involving the beneficiaries). 

In total, across the 7 finalised EGF cases, 1 904 beneficiaries have been assisted. The rate 
of beneficiaries helped to those targeted ranged from a low of 20% to a high of 103%62.  

The beneficiary survey introduced by the EGF Regulation could provide for the first time 
on a case-by-case basis more information than in previous programming periods, not only 
on the specific characteristics of the beneficiaries targeted such as gender, age group and 
educational level, but also on the quality of the previous jobs they had, for how long they 
had been unemployed before starting the EGF  measures and their perception over their 
own capacity to get another job. The surveys also give a qualitative and more in depth view 
on the opinion of the beneficiaries after participating in EGF measures. Findings uncover 
details on the the most popular and useful measures taken up by beneficiaries, the situation 
of the beneficiaries on the labour market during a longer timeframe, and their perception 
on their own employability and the quality of the new job found. See more details in Annex 
III. 

As explained above, the results of the seven beneficiary surveys indicated that the EGF 
support was perceived as effective by most respondents and that the support they received 
was tailored to their needs (62% of respondents). Dissatisfaction rates are case-specific, 
and also vary widely within countries. Most of the reported dissatisfaction stems from the 
fact that measures offered turned out not to be of the expected quality, or the bad timing or 
location too far away of the measures offered. However, in a few instances, a mismatch 
between the measures offered and beneficiaries’ needs hindered participation63. 

61 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021. 
62 20% (EGF/2021/006 ES/Cataluña automotive) and 103% (EGF/2021/007 FR/Selecta). Reach rates of more 
than 100% can be attributed to additional workers being made redundant after the application deadline. Such 
people can (under certain conditions) still be included for support if this can be achieved within the agreed 
budget. Source: Final reports of EGF cases.  
63 Based on results of the beneficiary surveys for the seven completed EGF cases, reconfirming the findings 
of previous evaluations of the EGF 2014-2020. Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 
192/16.5.2018, p.30; Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.31. 

26 

 
 
In the 18 EGF applications, out of 10 825 persons targeted workers, 8 286 were men. The 
gender equality perspective in EGF cases had been addressed in a study for the European 
Parliament’s  Committee  on  Women’s  Rights  and  Gender  Equality64.  As  mentioned  in 
previous evaluations of the 2014–2020 EGF, the figures reflect the gender segregation of 
jobs,  and  the  fact  that  industries  prone  to  larger  restructuring  because  of  globalisation, 
especially  automotive,  metalworking  industries,  manufacture  of  basic  metals  are 
predominantly male industries. However, this is case-dependent. There are also cases from 
the retail sector or air transport with a far larger number of female workers made redundant 
than men. 

d)  Monitoring and reporting 

Under  the  2021-2027  EGF  Regulation,  Member  States  send  to  the  Commission  a  final 
report   months after the end of the personalised measures, indicating the case’s outcome, 
includes  not  only  the  beneficiaries’  employment  status,  but  also  some  qualitative 
information, such as the qualifications gained at the end of the operations. In the previous 
periods  reporting  was  limited  to  the  number  of  beneficiaries  helped,  broken  down  by 
gender  and  age,  and  to  the  categories  of  workers,  including  their  enmployment  status. 
During 2014-2020, Member State needed to send a long-term report on the employment 
status of the beneficiaries 18 months after the end of the implementation. This long-term 
report was removed for the 2021-2027 period, as it was considered burdensome by Member 
States.  

During 2021-2027, the reporting on the beneficiaries has been changed to better monitor 
implementation and measure impact as follows: (a) the common output indicators (the 
number of beneficiaries helped, broken down by gender and age and education level) and 
(b)  new  requirements  have  been  added:  i)  common  long-term  indicators  and  ii)  a 
beneficiary survey for each case65.  

The  indicators  do  not  have  a  baseline,  targets  nor  milestones.  The  number  of  targeted 
beneficiaries as specified by the Member State concerned is not considered as baseline, as 
some Member States target only the redundant workers with little chance of successfully 
achieving job transition without targeted and specific support, while other Member States 
target all redundant workers. 

The  beneficiary  survey  collects  data  on  the  perceived  change  in  the  employability  of 
beneficiaries,  or,  for  those  who  have  already  found  employment,  on  the  quality  of  the 
employment found. It is carried out for each case via the EU survey webpage. Six month 
after the end of the implementation period of each case, Member States are responsible for 
disseminating to the beneficiaries the link to the survey and later sending one reminder.  

64 European Parliament (2016), Assessment of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund from a gender 

equality perspective, p. 13 and 34. 

65 The common output and long-term indicators are: 1) the total EGF beneficiaries in a given case, 2) 
beneficiaries by gender (female/male/nonbinary), 3) beneficiaries by age group (below 30 years/above 
54  years),  4)  beneficiaries  by  education  level  (with  lower  secondary  education  or  less/with  upper 
secondary or post-secondary education/ with tertiary education), 5) percentage of EGF beneficiaries in 
education  or  training,  6)  beneficiaries  by  employment  status  (unemployed/inactive/employed 
(dependent)/self-employed) and 7) percentage of EGF beneficiaries who gained a qualification by six 
months after the end of the implementation period. 

27 

 
 
 
According to stakeholders from seven implementing Member States, the views on the new 
requirements are different. For some Member States these do not appear to be significantly 
more demanding than those of similar programmes (Denmark, France, Spain) or are more 
simplified than other instruments (Greece). On the contrary, Belgium66 and Italy67 consider 
that  the  new  reporting  obligations  are  more  significant  than  for  the  ESF+,  while  for 
Germany the funds are not comparable in terms of reporting. 

Considering the above, the new reporting requirements have improved monitoring of the 
EGF effectiveness. 

As in previous funding periods, there are no requirements for quantitative re-integration 
objectives  in  an  EGF  application,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  measure  and  monitor  the 
effectiveness of EGF support, because there is no baseline against which results can be 
compared. . 

Findings  from  the  final  reports  reconfirm  that  progress  on  case-specific  objectives 
continues to be poorly monitored by Member States68. In many cases there are no specific 
systems to keep track of the results beyond the end date of the EGF measures. Among the 
reasons for this are privacy concerns69 (related to GDPR) or most often because only the 
minimum information is collected for the employment status report.. 

Monitoring project visits by the Commission have usually been done on site once for each 
case in the middle of the implementation period to see the preliminary results and also to 
discuss  and  advise  Member  States  on  potential  issues  related  to  the  implementation. 
Following  such  visits,  the  Commission  provided  further  information  about  the 
implementation  in  the  form  of  a  report  which  also  constituted  a  useful  source  for  past 
evaluations. Due the prolonged restrictions post COVID-19 and the limitation to travel for 
Commission  staff,  the  2021-2024  EGF  cases  could  not  be  monitored  on  site,  but  only 
remotely in some cases. No reports were created and thus this source of information was 
not available for the mid-term evaluation. Such visits are planned to resume in 2025. 

e)  Factors helping or hindering the achievement of objectives 

The  qualitative  analysis  of  the  information  available  was  primarily  based  on  the  case 
reports and written consultation of the implementing case stakeholders. It confirmed the 
factors already identified in the ex post evaluation and the Commission’s biennial reports, 
and added additional factors. 

The success factors70 contributing to the effectiveness of the EGF are: 

•  The Member State’s past experience in EGF implementation and the institutional 
capacity to adopt a coordinated approach with all relevant stakeholders seems to be 
an important success factor. The success of EGF cases also benefits from building 

66 There are more controls (5 authorities control the EGF systematically while 4 authorities control the ESF 
non-systematically) and more extensive (more than half of the total expenditure of each EGF case is 
checked  while  this  is  not  systematically  the  case  for  the  ESF+).  In  terms  of  internal  administrative 
management at Member State level, the EGF requires more staff than ESF+. 

67 Checks are carried out more frequently and rigorously than the broader checks carried out under the ESF+ 

and the European Union Solidarity Fund. 

68 Final reports of EGF cases. 
69 GDPR or General Data Protection Regulation, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016. 
70Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.33. 

28 

 
 
on existing partnerships and delivery structures for employment and social policies, 
together with a solid social dialogue.  

•  Tailored  measures  to  the  individual  needs  of  beneficiaries.  The  EGF  allows  for 
intensive,  individualised  support,  usually  much  more  than  national  or  regional 
measures. Member States can experiment via the EGF with innovative measures 
and, if proven successful, they integrate them into the regular measures of national 
or local authorities or of the dismissing enterprise.  

•  Availability of support services in close proximity to the target group. For example, 
in Spain and Belgium EGF offices and reconversion units were set up in locations 
close to the target groups. 

•  Provision of support by a small group of implementers with a better understanding 

of the needs of the target group (Spain). 

•  Background of workers and willingness to actively participate in EGF measures. 
Workers  with  higher levels  of education or with  more versatile and transferable 
skills are likely to find new employment faster than the lower skilled. 

The  new  success  factors  identified  stemming  from  the  changes  introduced  in  the  EGF 
Regulation for 2021-2017 are: 

• 

• 

lowered  minimum  level  of  redundancies  to  200  people  made  the  EGF  more 
accessible; 
increased duration of support to two years after validation of the application by the 
EU;  

•  co-financing rate aligned to the highest ESF+ rate in the respective Member State; 
•  simplified  application  procedures  by  eliminating  the  need  for  Member  States  to 
demonstrate the link between the displacements and globalisation or any financial 
and economic crisis, and replacing it with a brief description of the events that led 
to a large-scale restructuring having a significant impact on the local or regional 
economy; 
the  involvement  of  the  most  representative  social  partners  in  the  sector  (trade 
unions  and  employers’  organisations)  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  the 
project’s measures. This favours the implementation of the project as well as the 
adequacy of the measures to the needs of the beneficiaries. 

• 

All  these  success  factors  reinforce  the  idea  that  personalised,  individualised  support 
services are highly beneficial for finding a quality job. However, success factors are largely 
case-specific, and there are factors that cannot be controlled, such as the economic situation 
in the country/region, the supply and demand for labour and the unemployment rate. 

Factors hindering the effectiveness71 of the EGF are: 

• 

Issues related to the profiles of beneficiaries, e.g. age, low levels of education or 
limited  knowledge  of  the  local  language.  Age  is  a  commonly  reported  factor 
hindering the reach of the EGF. Older people face greater challenges than younger 
people in terms of reintegration into the labour market. Redundant workers close 
to retirement age tend to be less inclined to participate in EGF measures. This is 
the case when they are eligible for early retirement or for generous unemployment 
benefits to bridge the gap until retirement, or when their job loss had a considerable 

71 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.34. 

29 

 
 
impact on their mental state and their self-confidence in being able to secure a new 
job. 

•  Difficulties in reaching and activating redundant workers. In many Member States, 
privacy issues have made it difficult to reach the specific people who are going to 
be  dismissed,  as  in  some  cases  (mainly  sectoral)  enterprises  do  not  disclose  the 
information about these workers. 

•  Workers’  low  willingness  for  mobility  and  change.  Depending  on  the  case 
specifics,  reasons  for  this  included  proximity  to  the  work  place  and  home, 
scepticism about the EGF project, reluctance to switch career paths, and workers’ 
rigid  expectations  regarding  their  potential  new  job.  Member  States  partially 
mitigated these challenges with workshops focusing on willingness for change and 
mobility and also with travel grants. 

•  Problems  and  delays  with  designing  and  implementing  EGF  measures,  the 
selection  of  implementing  partners  and  in  procurement  of  training  courses; 
submission of an application long after the reference period for redundancies; long 
and complicated national procedures; weak institutional capabilities and design of 
policy  instruments;  limited  cooperation  between  stakeholders  and  capacity  to 
implement innovative measures of interest to beneficiaries. 

The new hindering factors identified during for the 2021-2024 period are: 

•  Lack of awareness of the Fund, including at institutional level. 
•  The  institutional  difficulty  of  managing  an  additional  fund,  besides  the  other 
instruments,  such  as  the  ESF+,  Just  Transition  Fund  (JTF),  Recovery  and 
Resilience Facility (RRF). 

f)  Involvement of companies and social partners 

As already identified in the previous evaluations of the 2014–2020 EGF, notable success 
factors for EGF cases included the development of effective partnerships and appropriate 
delivery mechanisms, strong cooperation between the delivery partners, including social 
partners, and a coordinated approach72. This was largely confirmed by the supporting study 
for the ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020 through case research.  

As confirmed by previous evaluations73, the involvement of social partners and companies 
in  the  design  and  implementation  of  EGF  measures  was  helpful  in  reaching  (potential) 
beneficiaries, as their contact details are otherwise not known.  

The degree of involvement of social partners and companies in the design and provision 
of coherent support packages varies across Member States and cases, as it is largely based 
on  their  regular  support  systems.  Some  examples  from  case  studies  showed  that  either 
social  partners  are  involved  early  on  in  the  restructuring  negotiations,  with  the  public 
employment service coming in as a secondary actor, or companies laying off workers are 
required by law to be involved in implementing active labour market measures, which they 
contribute to both financially and with personnel. 

72 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, page 23; Ex post evaluation of 

the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.35.  

73Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.36. 

30 

 
 
Generally, it is clear that the involvement of former employers boosts the effectiveness of 
EGF cases, by providing beneficiaries with information and measures for them to get back 
into the labour market as soon as possible. 

The involvement of social partners is also generally very well received by both Member 
States and beneficiaries.  

g)  Information and communication activities 

The EGF Regulation requires Member States to provide information on and publicise the 
funded actions, highlight the role of the EU, and ensure that the EGF contribution is visible. 
It  also  requires  the  Commission  to  maintain  and  regularly  update  an  internet  website, 
provide information on the EGF, and provide guidance on the submission of applications, 
as well as information on all applications. 

At  Member  State  level,  for  successful  communication  on  the  EGF  cases,  all  relevant 
stakeholders at national, regional and/or local level need to be aware of the opportunities 
available from the EGF. Findings showed, however, that in some Member States not all 
relevant  stakeholders  are aware of the  EGF  and its  potential benefits.  In  other Member 
States, there is higher awareness of the EGF if social partners participated in delivering 
some of the measures.  

The survey of 20 Member States who did not apply for EGF support during 2021–2024 
found that there is a generally reasonable or good level of knowledge about the EGF at 
Member  State  level  (CZ,  MT,  PL,  SI),  even  in  some  cases  at  the  levels  of  workers’ 
organisations, implementing bodies, policy makers and social partners (BE, CY, DE, EE, 
ES, IT, FI, HR, HU, IE, LT, LV, PT, SE), however the level of knowledge is low at the 
level of workers made redundant or at risk of being made redundant. Some Member States 
(FR, PL, RO, SE) expressed the view that more can be done to raise awareness of the EGF. 
The same results emerged from the survey to EGF beneficiaries. The main objective of the 
communication  activities  is  to  inform  participants  about  the  EU  intervention.  This  is 
usually done during or after implementation because in the initial stages (i.e. before formal 
approval  from  the  budgetary  authority),  the  measures  are  implemented  using  national 
funds and there is little visibility of the EGF. 

The Member States are responsible for providing information about the EGF and choosing 
the best suited communication actions. However, this is not done to the same degree in all 
cases.  While  many  Member  States  have  created  dedicated  EGF  websites  to  provide 
information about every EGF project and the workers are informed about the role of the 
EU in the support they receive, results from the final reportsshow that Member States were 
consistently underspending the budget planned for information and publicity activities. In 
some  cases  the  information  and  publicity  costs  were  absorbed  by  the  Member  States 
outside of the EGF framework, or costs were simply lower than expected. 

Feedback collected from the beneficiaries surveys showed that overall awareness that the 
measures they received were co-financed by the EGF has improved compared to previous 
periods.  Nonetheless,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  of  the  usefulness  and 
effectiveness of communication activities. About 80% of respondents were aware that the 
measures  they  received  were  co-financed  by  the  EGF  and  or  EU,  while  20%  were  not 
aware of it. 

31 

 
At  EU  level,  the  EGF  website74  is  constantly  updated  with  information  about  EGF 
applications  received  since  2007,  EGF  publications  (the  biennial  report,  the  frequently 
asked  questions,  press  releases,  etc.),  events  and  news.  Once  or  twice  a  year,  the 
Commission  organises  EGF  contact  persons  meetings  online  and  in-person  and  EGF 
networking  seminars,  to  provide  information  about  the  latest  EGF  developments,  to 
promote  exchanges  of  best  practice  and  to  discuss  issues  of  common  interest.  Due  to 
COVID-19  there  were  no  in-person  meetings  organised  between  2020  and  November 
2022, but only online meetings of the contact persons. The meetings in persons re-started 
in  November  2022  and  have  since  taken  place  once  per  year.  The  EGF  networking 
seminars  have  not  been  organised  in  person  since  2019.  Views  on  their  usefulness  and 
effectiveness, however, remain mixed. The majority of Member States consulted are of the 
opinion that the EGF meetings and networking seminars are useful, as they allowed for 
knowledge sharing, and cross-fertilisation of new ideas and experiences, but are not used 
to  their  full  potential.  Some  Member  States  said  that  Commission’s  communication 
activities were useful for the relevant EGF stakeholders, however they did not reach Union 
citizens.  

h)  Overall impact of the EGF and lessons learned 

Overall, findings show that thanks to the new monitoring and reporting requirements it has 
become  easier  to  draw  conclusions  about  the  impact  of  the  EGF.  However,  challenges 
related  to  drawing  robust  conclusions  still  persist,  especially  at  case  level  where 
implementation and results depend heavily on the specificities of the labour market and 
the target group, and because the results are not monitored and reported on in an accurate 
and comparable way. Nevertheless, evidence indicated a clear positive impact.  

The EGF has shown solidarity towards workers, and supported them in finding sustainable 
employment. It has been successful in providing targeted emergency support adapted to 
the needs of dismissed workers, while ensuring  enough flexibility  for the support to  be 
integrated into Member States’ national systems, including through highly individualised 
and tailored support measures. A high number of beneficiaries have been re-integrated into 
the  labour  market,  and  even  those  who  were  not,  have  still  likely  gained  new  skills, 
qualifications or social networks.  Through one or more EGF cases Member States gain 
experience and use  the lessons learned from  the design  and implementation to  improve 
support  to  workers  in  the  future  EGF  applications    In  Member  States  with  previous 
experience and delivery mechanisms, the EGF serves as a tool to test innovative measures, 
which could later be mainstreamed in employment and social policies. 

Through  the  EGF  a  targeted,  tailor-made  and  individualised  support  is  offered  to  the 
beneficiaries, putting them in a more favourable position than people who did not benefit 
from EGF support to re-enter the labour market75. 

74https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/funding/european-globalisation-

adjustment-fund-displaced-workers-egf_en  

75 Study supporting the ex post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020), p. 
13, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ceb95383-a24f-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1.   

32 

 
  
 
4.1.2.  EFFICIENCY 

The  efficiency  criterion  analyses  to  what  extent  the  costs  associated  with  the 
implementation of the Fund were justified considering the results (cost-benefit analysis). 
At  instrument  level,  the  length  of  the  decision-making  process  is  looked  into  as  an 
indication on the procedural effiency of the fund, and in view of overall data limitations. 
It also analyses if there are any inefficiencies or unnecessary burdens at case or instrument 
level that should be addressed to improve the Fund’s efficiency in the future. The analysis 
was made at both case and Member State level via written consultations, an online seminar 
and an in-person meeting. 

The actions covered by the EGF are, by definition, not programmable because restructuring 
events giving rise to the redundancies are unexpected. Therefore, defining in advance how 
many mass redundancy events will take place in any given year and what would be the 
profile of beneficiaries is not possible for the EGF. Also, estimating the exact number of 
people who will sign up for EGF measures, the type and duration of measures needed, and 
how much of the planned budget for the package of personalised services will be spent is 
difficult when Member States draft the application for EGF support. 

a.  Efficiency at case level 

The  cost-efficiency  of  the  EGF  considers  the  degree  to  which  the  costs  incurred  are 
proportionate  to  the  results  (i.e.  the  number  of  beneficiaries  helped,  the  number  of 
beneficiaries re-integrated, percentage of beneficiaries in education or training and who 
gained  a  qualification  and  long-lasting  effects  on  beneficiaries’  general  employability). 
Overall, no concrete conclusions could be drawn on the cost-efficiency  per beneficiary, 
because the resources spent per case, and the number of beneficiaries helped and who re-
integrated the labour market as a result, differ considerably by case, sector and Member 
State. Comparing results across cases is irrelevant because of the specificities of each case. 
Most respondents (85% of the implementing Member States to the Commission’s written 
consultation  believed  that  the  same  results  could  not  have  been  achieved  with  less 
resources or in a shorter period of time. 

The absorption rate (the percentage of the spending of the assistance granted) is looked 
into when analysing the resources used, however it does not reflect the cost-efficiency at 
case level, it has no case-specific target and cannot be considered a performance indicator. 
The average absorption rate76 of the 7 EGF cases was 63%, with the lowest observed 
rate  being  approximately  8.1%77  and  the  highest  100%78.  The  absorption  rate  varies 

76The absorption rate is the percentage of the spending of the assistance granted. 
77 The absorption rate in this case (EGF/2021/006 ES/a) was 8.1%. The absorption rate was this low because 
of: (1) the lower than anticipated number of participants, 93 instead of 450, that is 20% of the estimated 
participants, likely due to the late start of the measures. (2) The training measures (40% of the total budget 
for measures) were not implemented. Workers participated in training that is part of the regular offer of the 
public employment service, so no EGF amount was certified. (3) many measures that were not carried out 
(contribution to business start-up and the allowance for on-the-job training). (4) the actual average cost per 
worker (€ ,2 0) is less than one-fifth of the budgeted average cost per worker (€ ,000). 
78 EGF/2021/007 FR/Selecta. 

33 

 
 
 
significantly between Member States (see Figure 13 below), sectors, cases and different 
measures and activities.  

Reasons for discrepancies include: 

•  an overestimation of budgets by Member States and the inclusion of high safety 
margins  due  to  insufficient  information  on  the  profiles  and  needs  of  potential 
beneficiaries during the planning stages; 

•  an overestimation of interested beneficiaries or unforeseen changes (e.g. workers 
finding  a  new  job  on  their  own,  especially  when  there  are  delays  in 
implementation);  

•  more  available  funding  at  Member  State  level  than  initially  expected,  deciding 
during implementation to use only national funding for some measures, resulting 
in less EGF co-financing being used;  
late start of the implementation of EGF measures;  
lower training cost per participant, as the workers opted for modular training of 
short duration. 

• 
• 

Figure 13. Absorption rate per each EGF case 

Source: European Commission, EGF Database. 

In all but one of the seven cases, the actual cost per worker was lower than initially planned. 
From the comparison of the absorption rate of EGF funds (the percentage of the spending 
of the assistance granted) and the rate of beneficiaries assisted to beneficiaries targeted, it 
was  clear  that  the  large  majority  of  cases  were  more  cost-efficient  than  initially 
planned.  In  other  words,  in  85%  of  EGF  cases,  each  euro  of  EGF  funds  helped  more 
people than planned in the initial budget. In addition, during previous evaluations evidence 

34 

 
 
from  the  RHOMOLO-IO  simulations79  performed  on  23  EGF  cases  from  2014–2015, 
which suggests that the Fund has positive indirect effects, as each additional job created 
influences other sectors positively. The findings were that the dimension of these indirect 
impacts varies across case studies, ranging from a minimum of 20% up to 50% of the total 
jobs  generated.  A  similar  simulation  could  not  be  performed  for  the  limited  number  of 
completed cases during the 2021-2024 period. 

At Member State level, after comparing the total EGF amount spent per case against the 
number  of  beneficiaries  assisted,  it  was  found  that  the  general  trend  is  that  more 
beneficiaries were assisted in cases that received more EGF funding. A higher number of 
beneficiaries requires more financial resources, however this is also applicable when the 
particular needs of the beneficiaries require more intensive or complex and costly training. 
(see Figure 14).  

Figure  14.  Relationship  between  total  EGF  amounts  spent  and  number  of  beneficiaries 
helped80 

Source: EGF Database 

The analysis of the EGF final reports and the results of the beneficiary survey shows that 
a higher cost per beneficiary is influenced by the cost of the measures, by the number of 
participants, but also by the duration of the measure. Variations in cost-efficiency result 
from a range of factors. These include the scale of the layoffs, the labour market situation, 
the  targeted  beneficiaries’  individual  circumstances  and  skills,  alternative  measures 
already  provided  by  the  Member  State,  the  services’  cost,  the  number  of  beneficiaries 
helped and how easy or difficult it was for them to be re-employed after participation in 

79  JRC  (Joint  Research  Centre)  Technical  Report,  The  RHOMOLO-IO  modelling  framework:  a  flexible 

Input-Output tool for policy analysis (2019) 

80 The number of beneficiaries helped in this graph is based on the results presented in the final reports (7 
months after the end of the implementation period). It thus covers the seven cases for which a final report 
was submitted to the Commission before 31 December 2024.  

35 

 
 
 
EGF measures. This was also noted by the Commission in its 2017, 2019 and 2021 biennial 
reports on the EGF. 

At sectoral level, no comparative analysis is possible. The average cost per beneficiary at 
sectoral level varies considerably, with the clear outliers being the sector of manufacture 
of transport equipment (an average cost of EUR 12 526 per beneficiary for starting new 
businesses81) and metalworking industry (average cost of EUR 2 189 per beneficiary82). 
In some cases, cost savings resulted from networks and processes already established from 
previous EGF cases.  

Case research did not reveal any correlation between the level of absorption and the re-
employment  rate.  This  re-confirms  similar  findings  from  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the 
2007–2013 EGF83.  

As the mid-term and the ex post evaluations of the 2014–2020 EGF pointed out, the case 
studies also showed that many of the implementation costs (i.e. managing and monitoring 
costs) are fixed, independently of the size of the case. The reporting of such expenditure 
as a percentage of the total  of the overall EGF assistance granted is  frequently seen by 
Member States as not giving a fair picture. This is because smaller cases that incur more 
or  less  the  same  costs  as  larger  ones  inevitably  look  ‘inefficient’  as  the  percentage  of 
implementing costs is a higher part of the total. 

Evidence  suggests  that  there  is  room  for  efficiency  gains.  The  main  inefficiencies  are 
related  to  processes  or  procedures  at  national  and/or  regional  level,  which  lengthen  the 
timeframe. Some examples of inefficiencies are issues with the procurement of training 
courses or partnerships established with delays. 

As a general rule, EGF assistance is more costly than regular national measures. However, 
according  to  the  final  reports  and  employment  status  reports  for  the  EGF  cases,  EGF 
assistance  leads  to  higher  re-employment  rates.  An  educated  judgement  as  to  whether 
additional costs are justified or not would also require further study of the societal costs of 
lower re-employment rates. This  was also  confirmed by the mid-term  evaluation  of the 
2014–2020 EGF84. 

b.  Efficiency at instrument level 

Most  stakeholders  who  respondented  (85%  of  the  implementing  Member  States)  to  the 
written  consultations  acknowledge  the  shorter  deadlines  for  application  and  approval, 
however they still consider that the decision-making process is lengthy and complex. 
Despite this, efficiency improves the more applications a Member State submits, thanks to 
lessons learned. There is little scope to reduce the length and complexity of the application 
process,  as  long  as  the  same  approval  by  the  budgetary  authority  is  required.  The 
Regulation covering the 2021-2027 period imposed shorter time limits for the Commission 

81 In the case of EGF/2021/005 FR/Airbus most measures offered were for creating a new business, which 
has a contribution up to EU 22 000 according to the EGF Regulation. Therefore, we cannot speak of a 
correlation between the cost per beneficiary helped and the sector.  

82 Final report of EGF/2021/001 ES/Pais Vasco metal. 
83  EGF  ex-post  evaluation  2007-2013  (2015),  p.  83.  The  rates  of  expenditure  per  beneficiary  and  the 

outcomes achieved were compared with previous EGF cases implemented in the same Member State. 

84 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p. 33, Ex post evaluation of the 

EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.40. 

36 

 
 
to process the applications (15 weeks instead of 20), while maintaining the same deadline 
of 6 weeks for the budgetary authority to approve. 

On average, across the 17 EGF cases approved during the 2021–2024 period, the process 
from the Member State’s application until approval by the budgetary authority took  5.5 
months85 a decrease, as compared to from 7.2 months during the 2014-2020 period. The 
shortest period for approval by the Commission was 104 days (3.7 months) and the longest 
168  days  (5.7  months)86.  Commission  adopted  in  14  out  of  17  cases  earlier  than  the 
deadline, on average by six days. Approval by the budgetary authority took an average of 
43.5 days (six weeks) for the entire process. The six-week deadline was exceeded by the 
budgetary  authority  in  9  out  of  17  cases,  however  it  was  met  or  even  shortened  in  the 
remaining 8 cases87. 

The  simplification  of  the  application  by  eliminating  the  need  for  Member  States  to 
demonstrate  the  cause  of  the  redundancies  was  also  introduced  by  the  2021-2027  EGF 
Regulation.  This  change  has  significantly  increased  efficiency  and  also  made  shorter 
deadlines  possible.  Feedback  received  during  the  break-out  sessions  with  stakeholders 
from the Member States implementing cases during 2021-2024,  viewedthis change as very 
positive as they considered that the applications are now easier to fill in the applications 
than before. 

The changes of the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation related to the shortening of the length of 
procedures and the simplification of the application have improved efficiency. However, 
even with shorter deadlines for the Commission and Member States and without the need 
for  Member  States  to  demonstrate  in  applications  the  cause  of  the  redundancies,  the 
mobilisation procedures are still considered lenghty by a majority of stakeholders.  

Based on the Commission’s experience in dealing with EGF applications and the feedback 
from implementing stakeholders in Member States the most promising avenue to increase 
efficiency is an early start of measures (even before the EU approval) and to further reduce 
the adoption deadlines. Member States could help more workers by early start of measures, 
and by further reducing Commission’s time to analyse an application efficiency could be 
further improved. 

The publication by the Commission in May 2017 of the EGF frequently asked questions 
(FAQs)88  proved  useful  for  Member  States89.  The  FAQs  contain  answers  that  serve  as 
assistance and guidance during all the stages of an EGF case. These have been constantly 
updated to include the changes of the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation.  

4.1.3.  COHERENCE 

a.  Complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives 

The coherence criterion looks at how well the EGF intervention works together with other 
EU policies and initiatives (particularly the ESF+) and with national instruments that have 

85 The 15 working days deadline for processing the payment is not included in this calculation. 
86 For this case, translation of the application was needed from Greek to English (see Article 8(4) of the EGF 

Regulation), and this took 4 weeks. However, this cannot be considered a delay. 

87 Commission EGF Database. 
88 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=22041&langId=en  
89 For the avoidance of doubt, it should be stressed that a guidance document cannot replace a legally binding 

act, thus the two are not interchangeable. 

37 

 
 
similar aims. This is done in particular by analysing complementarity at both instrument 
and  case  level,  overlaps  or  duplication,  and  measures  taken  to  avoid  this  or  to  ensure 
complementarity.  

Most  stakeholders(62%)  from  26  Member  Statesconsulted  via  the  written  consultation 
conducted by the Commission in November 2024 agree that EGF complements ESF+ in 
the area of employment policies by offering a reactive one-off support following specific 
restructuring  events,  in  a more tailored, flexible and intensive manner than the national 
measures or ESF+. The ESF+ has been designed to offer a more long-term approach, which 
also makes it possible to anticipate structural change, in contrast to the short-term one-off 
support offered by the EGF. The EGF is mobilised on a needs basis, when Member States 
require financial support to help dismissed workers, thus adding value. However, there is 
scope to better align the EGF and the ESF+, as some Member States choose to fund EGF-
type measures using the ESF because of the higher co-financing rate. 

Nearly  all  respondents  from  targeted  written  consultation  indicated  that  the  EGF  was 
strongly coherent with other support measures available at the EU level. However, in the 
written survey aimed at  the 20  Member States that did  not  apply  for EGF co-financing 
during  2021-2024,  more  than  one  third  indicated  that  they  did  not  apply  because  the 
national  measures or  ESF+  were more favourable, easier and faster to  mobilise in their 
country  or  because  of  a  certain  degree  of  overlap  between  the  EGF  and  national 
measures90, or with other EU instruments91 (such as the ESF+, JTF, RRF), which can be 
made available more quickly and provide more flexibility. 

An  extensive  study  was  published  in  2018  on  the  coherence,  complementarity  and 
coordination  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIFs)  and  between 
various other instruments such as the EGF. According to this study, the EGF complements 
the ESF in its objective to improve employment opportunities, strengthen social inclusion 
and promote education, skills and life-long learning92. 

Measures promoting international labour mobility had been offered to a limited extent in 
some cases, but they have not been taken up due to limited labour mobility. 

b.  Complementarity with national measures and instruments 

In general, the EGF is flexible enough to adapt to the national contexts, although there are 
considerable differences between national support frameworks for the unemployed. Also, 
the  EGF  supports,  complements  and  adds  to  measures  or  activities  funded  by  national 
instruments.  The  EGF  is  well  integrated  into  existing  delivery  models  or  models 
established for the EGF and operating within the mainstream frameworks93. All 16 national 
authorities that responded to the public consultation and the mid-term evaluation of the 
2014-2020 EGF confirmed this conclusion. 

In Member States with EGF cases during 2014-2020, no inconsistencies were observed. 
On the contrary, the EGF was widely  considered as complementary to national support 
structures. In many cases, the EGF adds to what can normally be implemented in a Member 

90 EL, IE, LU, NL, RO, SI, FI. 
91 CZ, EE, HR, HU, IE, LV, LT, PL, RO and SK. 
92 Study on the coordination and harmonisation of ESI Funds and other EU instruments - Regional Policy - 

European Commission (europa.eu), p.88. 

93 Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 192/16.5.2018, p. 42.  

38 

 
 
State (e.g. through more intensive support because more funds are available, or by making 
it possible for beneficiaries to choose from a tailor-made array of training courses that is 
broader than those usually offered at national level). 

The  new  requirement  of  the  2021-2027  EGF  Regulation  to  include  in  all  applications 
information on how the EGF is coordinated with the recommendations set out in the EU 
Quality  Framework  for  anticipation  of  change  and  restructuring  (QFR)94,  the  EU 
policy instrument setting a framework of best practice for anticipating and dealing with 
corporate  restructuring,  has  improved  coherence  of  the  Fund  (see  lessons  learned  in 
Chapter  5.2).  While  Structural  Funds  and  EGF  interventions  are  consistent  with  the 
principles  set  out  in  the  quality  framework,  this  policy  instrument  was  not  referred  to 
before  the  2021-2027  period  in  guidance  to  Member  States  when  designing  or 
implementing EGF measures. The analysis of the EGF applications sent by Member States 
during  2021-2024,  shows  that,  in  general,  the  EGF  is  clearly  coordinated  with  the 
recommendations set out in the EU QFR for anticipation of change and restructuring.  

In  some  cases,  the  EGF  intervention  was  part  of  a  wider  policy  framework  aimed  at 
minimising the consequences of mass redundancies in a region. The EGF addressed the 
short-term  employment  consequences  of  the  restructuring  event  and  was  implemented 
alongside a wider and longer-term economic growth plan for the area or region. This not 
only  ensured coherence  between the activities implemented by other  regional and local 
stakeholders, but also amplified the sustainability of the EGF’s results95. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

EU added value 

Despite the limited evidence, the EGF seems to provide added value when compared to 
what  Member  States  could  have  achieved  alone  through  national  measures  targeted  at 
helping workers made redundant.  

The results of the written consultations highlight that some 70% of respondents felt that 
the  EGF  represents  an  added  value96.  62%  of  respondents  to  the  beneficiary  survey 
evaluated  the  EGF  favourably  in  comparison  with  other  sources  of  support  at 
national/regional level, citing in particular the EGF support being  more tailored to the 
specific needs of beneficiaries.  

The  volume  effects97  are  defined  as  effects  that  show  how  the  EGF  has  added  volume 
compared  to  the  national  measures  in  place.  Based  on  the  case  research  and  on  the 
consultations,  the  majority  of  those  involved  in  the  delivery  of  the  EGF  confirm  it  has 
added  volume  effects  to  the  delivery  of  services.  Four  ways  in  which  the  EGF  adds  to 
volume have been identified:  

•  The EGF enabled Member States to help more people than would be the case if 
they  had  to  rely  only  on  national  funds.  This  was  further  intensified  by  the 
broadened scope and lowered threshold. 

94 COM(2013)882 final 
95 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.43. 
96 Written surveys with stakeholders from all Member States carried out during October-December 2024. 
97 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.46. 

39 

 
 
 
•  The EGF resources also enabled Member States to devote more time and financial 
resources  to  better  assessing  the  beneficiaries’  needs  and  thus  to  provide  more 
tailored support.  

•  The additional EGF resources resulted in more intensive, targeted support than 
national measures did. The EGF increased not only the overall number of services, 
but also their variety.  

•  The EGF makes it possible in some cases to add to existing active labour market 
measures already available in the Member States by extending the duration of the 
specialised services or the volume of support. Some national measures target only 
those who have been unemployed for a long time (e.g. 6 months to a year). 

Scope effects arise when more people are targeted or there is an expansion of the measures 
offered compared to what would have been the case without the EGF support. The EGF 
has  considerable  scope  effects,  although  this  also  varied  considerably  across  Member 
States depending on national support systems. 

Firstly, in almost all Member States98, the EGF allowed Member States to experiment with 
innovative  active  labour  market  measures  that  might  not  be  normally  available  to 
redundant  workers.  The  flexibility  of  the  EGF  allowed  for  greater  personalisation  of 
solutions for workers by taking into account their specific needs and aspirations; this aspect 
of  the  EGF  was  considered  to  contribute  substantially  to  the  success  of  the  national 
measures, thus raising their effectiveness99. At instrument level, the EGF provided more 
targeted and individualised support to beneficiaries compared to what could be achieved 
by the ESF+, which usually provides more horizontal and structural support. 

Secondly,  the  EGF  provides  a  scope  effect,  making  it  possible  to  provide  support  to 
different groups of beneficiaries. Usually, the national PES support targets those furthest 
from the labour market,  e.g. the long-term unemployed or people with  particularly  low 
levels of skills and education. In contrast, the EGF allows support to be given all groups 
of people, from high-skilled workers to workers who are very difficult to place on the job 
market,  need  additional  support  or  are  lacking  essential  skills.  Nevertheless,  this  scope 
effect is linked to the degree that the dismissing companies are involved in the design and 
implementation  of  the  measures  and  in  providing  financial  support  to  the  redundant 
workers. 

Role effects100 relate to the extent to which innovative ideas tested and lessons learned from 
the implementation were incorporated into the regular package of provisions. These are 
more likely to become visible in the long term, so limited examples have been identified. 
In  some  countries  innovations  from  the  EGF  have  been  (or  will  be  in  the  future) 
mainstreamed  at  national  level.  In  Belgium,  for  instance,  over  time  several 
innovations101  have  been  ‘tested’  in  EGF  cases,  to  be  mainstreamed  into  regional  or 

98 In Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain. In Germany, during a one-day bus tour former 
workers  from  Vallourec  were  taken  to  visit  and  discuss  with  possible  hiring  companies.  Also  in 
Germany, the beneficiaries who complete digital trainings would get a tablet. In Belgium, Flanders, a 
job fair was organised, while in Wallonia incentives were given to beneficiaries to participate in digital 
trainings. 
99 EGF case studies. 
100 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.47. 
101 Examples include the workshops reflecting on  self-confidence and self-esteem, awareness and support 
for entrepreneurship. In Flanders, examples include organising of job fairs to help displaced workers 
find new jobs, while in Wallonia incentives were given to beneficiaries to participate in digital trainings. 

40 

 
 
national measures if successful. In Spain, EGF cases have been used as a reference point 
in the design of other jobseeker-placement projects and local employment initiatives. 

Process  effects102  relate  to  the  general  improvement  of  delivery  processes  thanks  to 
experiences during EGF implementation. Overall, this is the least common EU added value 
effect  of  the  EGF,  although  examples  of  process  effects  from  previous  and  current 
progamming  periods  exist  in  Finland, Belgium, Germany, Spain,  Italy and Sweden103. 
The EGF fosters cooperation between public- and private-sector stakeholders in the design 
and delivery of the measures in a way that other EU instruments do not. A process effect 
in terms of the procedures employed is less common. From the case research, the lessons 
from the EGF had only been applied to other EGF cases, but they may feed into policy 
discussions  on  future  changes  that  would  mainstream  tested  processes  into  regional  or 
national provisions. 

In terms of cross-region and cross-border effects, the evidence collected does not show 
any such effects. Very few respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that the EGF 
helped them find a temporary job (8/33 respondents with new job in a different region or 
country)  or  permanent  job  (25/245  respondents)  outside  of  their  original  country  of 
residence. As the implementation of the Fund is left to individual Member States, there is 
limited cross-border coordination between Member States within the context of the EGF, 
which  might  be  a  limiting  factor  in  producing  cross-border  effects104.  Due  to  limited 
number of applications, further analysis on the cross-border effects was not possible. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Relevance 

The evaluation of relevance looks at the relationship between the current and future needs 
and  problems  and  the  objectives  of  the  intervention.  The  assessment  in  this  evaluation 
covers three core aspects: a) the appropriateness and usefulness of the broadened scope of 
the EGF; b) its modified intervention criteria of the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation; and c) the 
extent to which it met Member States’ current and future needs. 

Under the changed scope and intervention criteria the impact is defined as the threshold of 
200 workers who lost their jobs no matter the cause. The EGF can intervene, only at the 
request  of  a  Member  State,  by  providing  specific,  one-off  support  to  facilitate  the 
reintegration  into  decent  and  sustainable  employment  of  displaced  workers  in  areas, 
sectors, territories or labour markets suffering from a shock caused by serious economic 
disruption.  

a.  Relevance of the broadened scope of the EGF 

The scope of the EGF relates to the causes that trigger redundancy events. Until the end of 
2020, the EGF could only be mobilised if the redundancies had been caused by either trade-
related  globalisation  or  any  global  financial  and  economic  crisis.  The  2021-2027 
Regulation broadened the scope of eligibility to support displaced workers due to any 

102 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.47. 
103 Findings from previous evaluations of the EGF 2014-2020 confirm process effects in the cases from 
Finland and Sweden. The other Member States had cases during the 2021-2027 period. 

104 EGF beneficiary surveys for seven EGF cases. 

41 

 
 
unexpected  major  restructuring  event,  not  only  those  caused  by  challenges  related  to 
globalisation,  but  also  the  transition  to  a  low-carbon  economy,  or  as  a  consequence  of 
digitisation or automation, etc. 

During the 2021–2024 period, out of 18 EGF applications, there were: 5 (28%) relating to 
globalisation, 11 (61%) linked to a crisis (6 related to corporate crisis and 5 to COVID-19 
crisis), one linked to a company takeover and one linked to declining demand for a specific 
product and overcapacity105. 

The low number of applications during 2021-2024 can be explained by several reasons. 
One reason, underlined  by past  evaluations  is  that the number of EGF  applications has 
always  been  cyclical  and  correlated  with  the  general  trend  in  employment  and  the 
economic  realities  in  Member  States.  Other  reasons  presented  by  stakeholders  from 
Member States who did  not  apply  for EGF  co-financing  are:  national  economies doing 
well, the labour market is able to absorb the displacements, support to redundant workers 
was  provided  with  national  funds  or  other  EU  instruments  (ESF+,  JTF),  as  these  are 
available more quickly and provide more flexibility. 

Between  2021-2024,  18  EGF  applications  were  submitted  by  Member  States,  of  which 
only  five  EGF  applications  had  been  as  a  result  of  the  COVID-19  crisis.  Every  single 
stakeholder consulted, at EU level and in the Member States agreed that the broadened 
scope of the EGF  better reflects  the economic realities and makes  the EGF  fairer, 
more  accessible,  inclusive  and  more  relevant.  In  the  set-up  for  2014–2020,  the  EGF 
excluded redundancies generated by intra-EU trade and offshoring within the EU, and did 
not account for job losses driven by digitisation and automation that were not linked to 
globalisation or a global financial and economic crisis106.  

The  extended  the  scope  to  any  large-scale  restructuring  event  and  the  simplified 
application  procedure  made  the  EGF  fully  open  to  cover  all  displaced  workers,  thus 
striving  to  leave  no  one  behind.  Decisions  for  EGF  co-financing  are  based  on  the 
expected impact of the displacements (defined by the threshold of 200), rather than their 
cause. This results in more flexibility for Member States to target the needs of displaced 
workers. Based on the evidence collected, this made the scope of the EGF appropriate 
to the ever changing labour market needs. 

b.  Relevance of the modified intervention criteria of the EGF 

The  intervention  criteria  relate  to  the  number  of  redundancies  that  occurred  in  a  single 
enterprise or an economic sector. In case of redundancies in a particular economic sector, 
the emphasis is on allowing applications combining redundancies in SMEs operating in 
the  same  sector.  Among  the  18  applications  covered  by  this  evaluation,  12  concerned 
redundancies in a single enterprise, 4 were sectoral applications, 1 used the new clause of 
combining displacements in several economic sectors in the same region, and 1 used the 
derogation clause for small labour markets.  

105 In the case of EGF/2024/002 BE/Limburg machinery and paper, the displacements in the paper sector 
were due to the declining demand for graphics products resulting from increased digitalisation and the 
resulting growing overcapacity of the European woodfree coated paper industry. 

106 Lucian  Cernat  & Federica  Mustilli (2018):  Trade and Labour Market Adjustments: What Role for the 

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund? p. 80.  

42 

 
 
Since  the  launch  of  the  EGF  in  2007,  the  threshold  had  been  lowered  from  1 000 
redundancies in the 2007–2013 period to 500107 in 2014–2020, and further to 200 for the 
2021-2027  period.  The  majority  of  stakeholders  (80%)  from  all  26  Member  States 
consulted via written consultations consider that the lowered threshold is an encouraging 
factor for Member States to apply and no longer a barrier as it was considered during 
the  2014-2020  period.  Usually  not  all  dismissed  workers  need  support,  thus  the  total 
number of targeted workers is usually lower than the number of displacements. Regarding 
the  threshold  of  dismissed  workers,  in  5  applications  (out  of  18  received  during  2021-
2024), i.e. 27%, the total number of dismissed workers was below 500 dismissals, while 
in the rest (13 cases) it exceeded 500. This implies that the lowered threshold of 200 did 
not necessarily trigger more applications. In terms of number of workers targeted for the 
EGF measures, in 11 applications the number was lower than 500 targeted workers, while 
in 7 it exceeded 500. 

In  past  evaluations,  several  Member  States  and  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  EGF’s 
relevance  would be improved by adapting the dismissal period to avoid the exclusion of 
workers  falling  outside  the  standard  reference  periods.  This  feedback  was  taken  into 
account and the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation adapted the eligibility period for beneficiaries. 
Outside of the reference period of four or six months, more displaced workers and self-
employed  persons  whose  activity  has  ceased,  can  be  included  as  eligible  beneficiaries, 
provided the displacement happens six months before the start of the reference period or 
between the end of the reference period and the last day before the date of the completion 
of the assessment by the Commission. 

The  change  of  the  intervention  criteria  to  include  the  possibility  to  support  workers 
displaced from several economic sectors in a region, addressed the feedback received in 
the previous evaluation  from national  authorities, who argued that this was a hindering 
factor  for  applying  for  EGF.  Thus  the  EGF  warrants  a  more  flexible  approach  to 
restructuring events involving more than one company. This option was used in one case 
covering workers from two economic sectors (machinery and equipment, and paper). 

c.  Extent to which support corresponds to needs and profiles of beneficiaries  

Findings of this evaluation re-confirm what was uncovered by previous EGF evaluations, 
that  there  is  widespread  agreement  across  all  stakeholder  groups  that  the  EGF  is 
adequately tailored to the specific needs of the relevant target groups. EGF assistance 
also removed barriers to participation in measures by offering various types of allowance 
such as job search, training, and returning to study allowances (see above Use of EGF by 
Member States). According to the seven EGF beneficiary surveys, 62 % of the respondents 
agreed that the EGF was tailored to their needs, while 26% disagreed, and others (12%) 
were unable to provide a response.  

Analysis of the final reports and applications received show that same different practices 
uncovered by past EGF evaluations are used to match the beneficiaries’ needs and profiles 
with the support offered. In some cases (Belgium), the needs of beneficiaries are identified 
by sending a targeted survey to each worker prior to designing the EGF measures. In other 
cases (e.g. Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, Germany) a profiling and needs assessment is 
carried out via individual interviews at the start of the EGF implementation. 

107 The 500 dismissals threshold was first introduced for a limited period during 2009–2011 by Regulation 

(EU) 546/2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. 

43 

 
 
Interviews at EU level also pointed to an improvement with each programming period in 
the design of the package of measures at Member State level, stating that EGF measures 
increasingly  took  into  account  the  socio-economic  context,  therefore  addressing 
workers’ needs in a holistic way, for example by providing additional support for childcare 
and benefits during the retraining process (in Spain).  

There is substantial variance in the rates of beneficiaries helped and absorption rates across 
cases, even when taking into account the profiles and needs of beneficiaries, including also 
in most cases the needs of the labour market and local companies.  

As in previous programming periods, the EGF Regulation108 allows for a certain degree of 
flexibility  to  reallocate  funds  between  measures  based  on  needs  that  may  emerge 
during the implementation period, provided that the total EGF budget is not exceeded. 
Budgetary flexibility is important and Member States it was used it for minor reallocations 
(of  less  than  20%  of  the  planned  budget)  during  the  implementation  of  cases.  For 
reallocations  above  20%  of  the  planned  budget,  Member  States  must  inform  the 
Commission. Such reallocations have been requested during 2021-2024 period in about 
22% of cases109, while during the 2014-2020 these occurred in about 10% of cases. 

In terms of future needs of the labour market, the megatrends110 to look at are, among other, 
the  changes  to  where  and  how  we  live  and  the  demographic  challenge.  People  are 
increasingly  living  in  cities  and  are  more  exposed  to  the  negative  impacts  of  climate 
change. Technologies are changing the way we work and learn, bringing both opportunities 
and risks. On the one hand, there are new ways of working and delivering services; on the 
other, there are job losses and a pressing need for new skills. Both climate change and the 
twin digital and green transition will have dramatic and diverse impacts across EU regions 
and economic sectors. This trend coupled with the EU’s shrinking population and aging 
population will put pressure on the labour market as well as on fiscal sustainability.  

Against  the  backdrop  of  such  global  trends,  there  is  an  increasing  need  for  a  faster  re-
skilling and/or up-skilling of workers, which could start even before they lose their jobs. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS 

The Commission carried out a mid-term evaluation of the EGF to assess how and to what 
extent it is reaching its objectives. The effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and 
EU added value of the results achieved were assessed. The focus of the evaluation is on 
the changes introduced for the 2021-2027 period, in order to analyse to what extent these 

108 See Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/691. 
109 For EGF/2021/002 IT Air Italy and EGF/2021/003 IT/Porto Canale, Italy has requested several budget 
reallocations. For Air Italy, two measures regarding were increased for providing more reimbursement 
of mobility costs and contributions to accommodation and travelling  cost when in training. Also, the 
technical  assistance  lines  were  adjusted  to  use  the  amount  not  spent  for  preparatory  measures  to 
supplement  the  management  and  control  activities.  For  Porto  Canale,  the  budget  reallocation  was 
requested  to  offer  more  training  support.  For  EGF/2021/006 ES  Cataluña  automotive,  an  additional 
measure was added: a participation incentive offered to the workers encourage workers’ participation. 
The funds for this measure come from the reemployment incentive. For EGF/2022/003 ES Alu Ibérica, 
the reallocation was requested to offer more job search assistance and training courses. 

110 ESPAS-Global-Trends-to-2040-Choosing-Europes-Future-EN.pdf 

44 

 
 
changes led to the expected outcomes. Limited lessons for the Fund’s implementation and 
design are also included. 

The  conclusions  need  to  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  considerable  limitations.  The  early 
timing  of  the  EGF  mid-term  evaluation  allowed  for  only  limited  availability  of 
information,  evidence  and  experience  to  be  taken  from  the  current  period.  The 
improvement in the economy had led, among other reasons, to a downturn in the number 
of  EGF  applications,  reducing  further  data  availability.  Other  challenges  were  lack  of 
performance indicators, limited suitable comparators with data from the first programming 
period, and limited available resources for the evaluation.  

The overarching conclusions set out below are underpinned by evidence collected from 
the 18 applications, 7 final reports, 7 beneficiary survey for each completed case, previous 
EGF evaluations, and from other relevant Commission reports and studies . Results of the 
beneficiary  surveys  are  considered  representative  for  each  case111.  Despite  the 
Commission’s efforts to evaluate as broadly as possible and consult as widely as possible, 
the results of the evaluation have to be taken cautiously read due to the lack of available 
data.  

On the effectiveness of the EGF, based on the limited available data, the EGF has met its 
objective of solidarity towards displaced workers and  the self-employed whose activity 
ceased due to restructuring events, while supporting them to find sustainable jobs or start 
their own business. However, there are significant differences between cases and Member 
States.  Beyond  reintegration  into  the  labour  market,  the  EGF  has,  to  some  extent, 
producedlong-lasting effects on beneficiaries’ general employability. For example, new 
skills and qualifications, including digital skills and environmental/green skills, increased 
self-esteem,  feeling  better  qualified  for  work,  feeling  encouraged  to  overcome  gender 
stereotypes in job selection and new social networks from participating in EGF measures. 
These less tangible results are reflected in the beneficiary survey of each EGF case, which 
offers  a  more  qualitative  approach  to  evaluating  effectiveness.  To  a  limited  extent, 
beneficiaries’  participation  in  a  personalised  orientation  process  made  them  more 
proactive, encouraged them to develop their personal and social skills and had a positive 
effect on their families. Overall, the average re-integration rate of displaced workers into 
the job market was around 50% for the seven completed cases, a drop compared to the 
previous programming period (60%). This rate depends on the specific aspects of the case 
as well as external factors and personal reasons.  In the longer term, the re-integation 
rates improve in most cases. 

Under the extended scope of eligibility and lowered threshold to 200 displacements, the 
EGF is effective in offering support to all eligible beneficiaries, no matter the cause of 
the redundancy. The broadneded scope and modified intervention criteria (threshold 
of 200 displacements during 4 months in a company or a regional case, or during 6 months 
a sectoral case) are more appropriate and allow for a broader, more equitable distribution 
of resources, making it more accessible to a wider range of beneficiaries.Based on the 
information  available,  the  EGF  is  flexible  enough  to  provide  tailored  support  to 
different groups; in some cases, specific support was included for vulnerable groups. 

111 645 replies were received for the 7 beneficiary surveys carried out for the seven completed cases. Of these 
645 replies, only 80% of respondents were aware of that the measures were co-financed by the EGF and 
or  EU.  The  replies  can  be  considered  as  representative.  of  the  experience  of  beneficiaries  of  those 
completed EGF cases. 

45 

 
 
There are several reasons influencing beneficiaries’ uptakep of EGF measures. These are: 
(i)  external  factors  such  as  the  job  market  situation;  (ii)  an  early  and  intensive  general 
information  package;  (iii)  an  early  start  to  personalised  measures;  and  (iv)  continuous 
adjustment of measures in response to current developments. 

The EGF provides all eligible beneficiaries included in the application of a Member 
State  with  more  tailored  and  intensive  support  than  those  offered  by  national 
measures and other EU instruments112. The EGF measures ensure that all beneficiaries 
are treated equally. It helps to remove barriers to participation and enables tailored support 
to  be  provided  to  vulnerable  and/or  disadvantaged  groups.  For  example,  by  making 
available allowances for childcare or elderly care. The EGF’s flexibility in terms of the 
types of measures is highly appreciated. However, some Member States would like to use 
a higher percentage than 35% for the allowances113, such as job search allowances, training 
allowances, subsistence allowances and mobility allowances. 

At application stage, it is difficult for Member States to identify the needs and wishes of 
potential  beneficiaries.  Reallocations  of  funds  was  possible  for  the  2014–2020  period. 
Reallocations  continue  to  be  possible  for  the  2021-2027  period.  This  is  often 
communicated via the FAQs and EGF contact persons meetings. 

By simplifying the application procedure (removing the need to demonstrate the link to 
the cause of displacements) and shortening the deadlines for the procedures for both the 
Commission and the Member States, the EGF has become more  accessible.  

 The implementation period averaged 29 months in 7 cases, ranging from 6 months to 
40 months114. 

The new provision to take into account  the dissemination of skills required in the digital 
age and in  a  resource-efficient  economy as  a cross-cutting element  of any package of 
personalised services offered, has been consistently added by Member States to the offer 
of  measures.  Results  of  the  beneficiary  surveys  show  that  32%  of  beneficiaries  gained 
digital skills and 25% gained environmental/green skills thanks to the support of the EGF. 

As pointed out in  
 previous evaluations,  a  positive effect  of the use of EGF is  that it 
fosters  the  development  of  a  general  delivery  mechanism  to  restructure  assistance  in 
Member States with little experience in dealing with mass redundancies. In Member States 
that can already build on a wealth of experience and delivery mechanisms, the EGF serves 
as a tool to test innovative measures, which could later be mainstreamed in employment 
and social policies. In half of the cases, Member States expressed a positive opinion on the 
guidance received from the Commission during the application phase. 

112 Study supporting the ex post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020), p. 
13, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ceb95383-a24f-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1.   
113 As during the 2014-2020 period, the co-financing of allowances continues to be capped at 35% of the 
total  package  of  personalised  measures,  in  order  to  provide  proportional  assistance,  and  in  line  with  the 
findings of an audit of the 2007–2013 EGF (ECA (2013), p. 28). Such allowances can only be co-financed 
if they are conditional on the active  participation in EGF measures. 
114  Six  months  implementation  period  for  EGF/2021/006  ES/Cataluña  automotive,  and  40  months  for 

EGF/2021/005 FR/Airbus. 

46 

 
 
Aligning  the  EGF  co-financing  rate  with  the  highest  ESF+  rate  (while  maintaining  a 
minimum of 60%) has been seen as a factor encouraging EGF applications when the EGF 
rate was higher that the ESF+115. 

Better  data  collection  and  monitoring  requirements  were  observed  following  the 
specific common indicators and the beneficiary survey for each EGF case introduced under 
the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation. This enabled an evaluation of the EGF’ results not only 
using the re-integration rates, but also using the beneficiary survey. Less tangible results 
could alsobe analysed which increase the beneficiary’s overall employability.  However, 
because there is still no requirement of having a baseline, targets or milestones for these 
indicators cannot be considered as performance indicators. 

Other factors influencing the effectiveness of EGF cases are: (i) the level of involvement 
of  social  partners  and  companies  laying  off  workers  in  the  measures’  design  and 
implementation; (ii) the degree to which sufficient information on the possibilities of the 
EGF  is  available  to  workers;  and  (iii)  how  far  national  procedures  allow  for  smooth 
implementation. EGF cases sometimes start with a delay or planned measures cannot be 
implemented due to administrative issues. 

Feedback collected from the beneficiaries surveys shows that overall awareness of the 
EGF  has  improved  compared  to  previous  periods.  However,  there  is  still  room  for 
improvement. The Commission’s effort in promoting the EGF was considered an asset for 
the beneficiaries in several cases. In some Member States (notably BE, CY, DE, EE, ES, 
IT, FI, HR, HU, IE, LT, LV, PT, SE), there is  more awareness  about the EGF because 
social  partners  have  participated  in  delivering  some  of  the  measures.  In  other  Member 
States not all relevant stakeholders, including beneficiaries, are aware of the EGF and its 
potential benefits. About 80% of respondents to the beneficiary survey were aware that the 
measures they received were co-financed by the EGF/the EU, while 20% were not aware 
of it. There is thus scope to improve communication and raise awareness about the EGF 
among workers and their representative organisations at both EU and Member State level. 

Analysis of the efficiency of the assistance mobilised shows that the length of procedures 
during the decision-making process has been criticised despite the substantial shortening 
of the timing and the stricter deadlines for Commission and Member States.  

The changes introduced by the 2021-2027 Regulation, shortened the procedures to 
adopt an application both for the Commission and the Member States has improved the 
EGF’s efficiency. However, the length of the procedures at EU level continues to be cited 
as  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  not  applying  for  EGF  support  and  points  of  criticism 
according to Member States who did not apply. The total time needed to complete the 
EU level procedures for the 2021-2024 period was on average 5.5 months116 a decrease, 
compared to 7.2 months for 2014-2020. The decision-making process at EU level causes 
delays to project implementation. However, procedures at national/regional level are a 
more significant obstacle to efficiency. 

115 For the ESF+, the co-financing rate can vary between 50% and 85%, depending on the area of investment 
and the development level of the region in which the activities are taking place. For the EGF, the co-financing 
rate is aligned with the highest ESF+ co-financing rate in the respective Member State, while maintaining 
the minimum of 60%. 
116 From the date of application until the date of payment. 

47 

 
 
Simplifying  the  application  process  by  eliminating  the  need  for  Member  States  to 
demonstrate  the cause of the redundancies was also introduced by the 2021-2027 EGF 
Regulation.  This  change  was  appreciated  by  all  Member  States  who  applied  and  has 
brought significant increase in efficiency. 

According to the stakeholder consultations, the amounts available for the measures are 
sufficient. Most respondents to the Commission’s written consultation believed that the 
same results could not have been achieved with fewer resources or in a shorter time period. 

The absorption rate (the percentage of the spending of the assistance granted) is looked 
into when analysing the resources used, however it does not reflect the cost-efficiency at 
case level , it has no case-specific target and cannot be considered a performance indicator. 
When compared to the previous period, the absorption rate of EGF co-financing, seems to 
have improved, from an average of 59% (average for 46 EGF cases)117 to 63% (average 
for 7 EGF cases). In general, EGF cases tend to make partial use of resources allocated. 
Although some trends have been found across Member States, discrepancies are largely 
case-specific.  The  main  reasons  for  a  lower  absorption  rate  are  a  better-than-expected 
labour market situation and eligible beneficiaries finding new jobs by themselves when 
there are delays in the start of EGF measures. Other reasons for lower absorption rates are 
Member  States  tending  to  overestimate  budgets  to  reduce  the  risk  of  overspending, 
problems related to national procedures and the many unknowns at the time of application 
(e.g. the needs and interests of workers, level of participation in EGF measures). Thus, the 
absorption rate of an EGF case is not an indicator of the success of the case. 

The  EGF  is  coherent  with  national,  regional  and/or  local  policies  and  offers  sufficient 
flexibility to complement and/or add to the labour market measures provided by Member 
States  at  national  level.  In  some  cases,  EGF  intervention  was  part  of  a  wider  policy 
framework aimed at minimising the consequences of mass redundancies in a region, thus 
ensuring  coherence  between  the  activities  implemented  by  other  regional  and  local 
stakeholders, and also amplifying the sustainability of the EGF’s results118. 

Strong  complementarities  were  found  between  the  EGF  and  the  ESF+,  as  they  have 
different  scopes  and  objectives,  and  complementarity  is  ensured  through  coordination 
between the Funds at national level. However, there is scope to better align the EGF and 
the ESF+, as some Member States choose to fund EGF-type measures using the ESF+, 
JTF, RRF because these are already available and provide more flexibility to reallocate 
amounts quickly. At case level, no overlaps with other EU or national funding could be 
identified,  although  a  few  Member  States  expressed  that  there  are  some  overlaps  with 
national measures or the ESF+. 

Another change for the application requirements was that the Member States’ use of the 
EGF is better coordinated with the recommendations set out in the EU Quality Framework 
for  anticipation  of  change  and  restructuring  (QFR),  which  are  now  included  in  the 
explanations of each EGF application. 

The EGF has been successful and generated considerable EU added value in 2021-2024. 
This is particularly true in terms of its volume, scope, role and process effects, though they 
differ by Member State and are largely dependent on national support structures. The EU 
added  value  is  significant  for  volume  effects,  meaning  that  EGF  assistance  not  only 

 117Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p. 37. 
118 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.43. 

48 

 
 
increases  the  number  and  variety  of  services  offered,  but  also  their  level  of  intensity, 
striving to leave no one behind. 

EGF measures are always offered on top of national measures in order to  strengthen 
them. The help offered would otherwise not have been available. This is a clear sign of the 
complementarity of EGF measures.  

As the EGF is largely complementary to other EU instruments (notably the ESF+), it adds 
value compared to their scopes and target groups. It achieves this by offering an additional 
source  of  financial  support  on  a  case-by-case  basis  and  more  targeted,  tailored,  and 
individualised support to the very specific and narrow target groups it seeks to assist. 

On  relevance,  regarding  the  question  to  what  extent  the  EGF  addresses  beneficiaries’ 
needs,  the  findings  of  this  evaluation  re-confirm  previous  findings.  Those  findings 
highlighted, that there is widespread agreement across all stakeholder groups that the EGF 
is sufficiently adequately tailored to the specific needs of the relevant target groups.  

The  modified  intervention  criteria  with  a lowered  threshold  of  200  displacements  were 
found  to  be  relevant  and  useful.  Several  Member  States  indicated  that  smaller  labour 
markets would benefit from lowering the minimum threshold for redundancies. 

In conclusion, the evaluation shows  a high degree of relevance of EGF funding during 
the  2021-2024  period.  Evidence  also  shows  that  the  extended  scope  and  modified 
intervention  criteria  are  relevant,  better  reflect  the  economic  realities  of  the  applicant 
Member States, the current needs of the beneficiaries and make the EGF more accessible.  

In terms of future needs, by looking at megatrends data119  related to the way people work 
and learn, the challenges of the twin digital and green transitions, the impact of AI, coupled 
with the shrinking and ageing EU population, and the geopolitical environment, coupled 
with the EU’s shrinking population and aging population will put pressure on the labour 
market, as well as on fiscal sustainability.. On the one hand, there are new ways of working 
and delivering services; on the other, there are job losses and a pressing need for new skills.  

Against  the  backdrop  of  such  global  trends,  there  is  an  increasing  need  for  a  faster  re-
skilling and/or up-skilling of workers, which could start even before people lose their jobs. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

The 2021–2027 EGF Regulation addressed many issues (e.g. the extended scope, simpler 
and faster application procedures, more data collection including a beneficiary survey, the 
co-financing rate, more communication requirements), based on lessons learned from the 
implementation of the EGF during the previous programming period 

There are several key lessons learned from the implementation during 2021-2024 both at 
Member State and  at  EU level,  which  could further  improve the  implementation  of the 
EGF. 

At Member State level, there are several key lessons learned. 

119 ESPAS-Global-Trends-to-2040-Choosing-Europes-Future-EN.pdf 

49 

 
 
o  Faster  application  process  becomes  possible  for  Member  States  with  previous 
experience  in  EGF  cases.  However,  the  lengthy  procedure  remains  a  barrier  for 
some Member States. 

o  The  use  of  EGF  assistance  encourages  the  development  of  a  general  delivery 
mechanism of restructuring assistance in Member States with little experience in 
dealing with mass redundancies.  

o  Early  start  of  national  procedures 

to  ensure  early 

intervention.  This 

includesexample, procurement of training courses as quickly as possible.  

o  Design  of  the  labour  market  measures.  Many  Member  States  acknowledged  the 

importance of tailored support based on beneficiaries’ needs.  

o  The  importance  of  physical  proximity  and  easily  accessible  support  to 
beneficiaries. In many cases, the EGF support has positively  influenced the way 
active labour market measures are managed at national level and the partnerships 
that feed into them.  

o  The need to improve communication activities. This can be achieved by explaining 
what  measures  and  activities  can  be  supported  by  the  EGF  and  how,  through 
communication  adapted  to  different  stakeholders  (beneficiaries,  companies  and 
training providers) in addition to national EGF operators. Member States should 
actively  communicate  and  raise  awareness  about  the  EGF,  especially  among 
beneficiaries,  as  this  is  not  done  systematically  or  with    the  same  degree  in  all 
EUcountries. 

At EU level, there are also several key lessons learned.  

o  The EGF benefits from n extended scope adapted to all major challenges facing the 
European labour market (like automation, digitisation, transition to a low-carbon 
economy). 

o  As an emergency response instrument, the mobilisation of the EGF benefits from 
a  simpler  and  shorter  application  process,  with  less  evidence  required.  The 
simplified process included the 2021–2027 EGF Regulation improves the EGF’s 
effectiveness  and  accessibility.  However,  the  length  of  the  procedure  is  still 
considered too long and complex. Making the decision process even faster would 
further improve the EGF’s accessibility and uptake. 

o  The  success  of  EGF  measures  is  better  measured  through  a  combination  of  re-
integration rates and more qualitative data like new skills and qualifications, social 
networks and self-confidence gained as a result of participation in EGF measures 
and  also  from  the  direct  feedback  of  beneficiaries  received  via  the  beneficiary 
survey.  

o  The effectiveness of the EGF should be evaluated more systematically at case level 
by Member States, especially regarding the category of workers benefiting from 
the measures (professional and educational background), their employment status 
and the type of employment found.  Reporting and monitoring requirement  have 
improved,  however  there  are  still  no  performance  indicators  for  the  EGF.  If 
Member States were to develop case-specific targets, the measuring and monitoring 
of the EGF’s effectiveness would improve. However, some Member States are of 

50 

 
the  opinion  that  the  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  are  already  too 
burdensome. 

o  Some  budgetary  flexibility  is  needed  for  Member  States  to  reallocate  the  funds 
based on needs that emerge during implementation. Tthose changes, which must 
of course be duly justified, are allowed under the EGF Regulation . However, some 
Member States seem to be unaware of this, pointing to a need to further enhances 
awareness. 

o  It is important to maintain the flexibility of the EGF and the degree to which the 
EGF measures can be tailored to individual beneficiaries’ needs, backgrounds and 
interests. The flexibility  to  complement and/or add to  the measures provided by 
Member  States  at  national,  regional  and/or  local  level  will  ensure  that  the  EGF 
continues to provide EU added value. 

o  The need to improve communication activities. At EU level, the Commission has 
not organised any networking seminars since the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings 
from  past  evaluations  found  that  the  seminars  could  be  improved  with  a  more 
bottom-up  approach,  allowing  for  more  knowledge  sharing.  On  external 
communications, more emphasis should be put on increasing the visibility of good 
practices, not only among Member States, but also for the broader public. 

As underlined in  the mid-term  and ex post  evaluations  of the 2014–2020 EGF, another 
lesson  learned  that  has  been  reconfirmed  by  this  evaluation  concerns  organisational 
learning and the timing of the evaluation. Case implementation should be finalised, as this 
ensures that ample evidence can be collected, analysed and that the final results achieved 
are  evaluated.  The  2021–2027  EGF  Regulation  addressed  the  issue  of  the  evaluation’s 
timing to some extent, with the aim to allow sufficient time to implementation and finalise 
EGF cases. However, findings suggest more time is needed, as only a limited number of 
cases have been finalised and included in this evaluation. 

51 

 
 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING 

This evaluation was carried out by the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion (DG EMPL) and included in the Commission’s Agenda Planning System 
(PLAN/2024/4353). DG EMPL drafted the evaluation call for evidence, the stakeholder 
consultation strategy and the evaluation questions, and presented them to the Interservice 
Steering Group (ISSG) for feedback discussions and approval. DG EMPL also carried out 
all  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  and  ensured  the  publication  of  all  relevant 
evaluation documents. In the final phase of the evaluation, it is the responsibility of DG 
EMPL to: 

•  draft this staff working document; 
•  draft the report disseminating the evaluation findings to stakeholders. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An  ISSG  was  created  in  May  2024.  The  invitation  launched  on  20 March 2024  was 
addressed to the following DGs: BUDG, COMP, GROW, TRADE, REGIO, ECFIN, the 
Secretariat-General and the Legal Service.  

The timing of the evaluation was as follows: 

03 June 2024 – 
September 2024 
02 August 2024 
06 September 2024 

– 

September - October 2024 

10 October 2024 

28 November 2024 

April 2025 

Kick-off meeting and two rounds of consultation of ISSG 
via written procedure 

Publication of the call for evidence and feedback period 

Seven  EGF  beneficiary  surveys  received  for  seven  EGF 
cases from 2021. 
Online Networking Seminar with EGF stakeholders from 
implementing  bodies,  public  and  private  authorities 
involved in 2021-2024 EGF cases 
Consultation  of  EGF  contact  persons  on  the  EGF  at 
instrument level. Interviews with Member States. 
ISG  written  consultation  on  the  draft  staff  working 
document and report 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

N/A 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD  (IF APPLICABLE) 

N/A 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The main instruments used by the European Commission, DG EMPL, were: 

• 

Member States applications and final reports submitted; 

52 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Internal  research  and  analysis  done  by  the  Commission  service,  general 
experience in the management of the EGF, including the Commission internal 
EGF Database with all the EGF cases from 2007 to 2024; 
EGF beneficiary surveys, which were carried out via the EU survey for each 
finalised  EGF  case.  The  results  of  seven  EGF  beneficiary  surveys  were 
analysed internally by DG EMPL. 
Stakeholder consultation activities (see Annex III), including an online public 
feedback  period  on  the  call  for  evidence  via  the  ‘Europa  Have  your  Say’120 
website, targeted interviews and consultations of national and EU stakeholders 
involved in designing, managing and delivering EGF; 
Background  reseach  and  other  methods  and  tools  such  as  desk  research, 
targeted consultations, case studies, (see Annex II for more details).  
Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  European 
Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  2014-2020,  COM(2021)788  and 
accompanying Staff Working Document, SWD(2021) 381; 
Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  European  Globalisation 
Adjustment Fund (EGF), SWD(2018)289, 5.06.2018;  
Literature  review  was  done  during  a  pilot  project  with  the  staff  of  the 
Publication office. 
Additional evidence from previous Commission reports and evaluations. 

The Interservice Steering Group assessed the quality of this staff working document to be 
of good quality. 

The  conclusions  and  findings  of  the  evaluation  are  considered  as  robust,  within  the 
limitations  and  the  mitigating  measures  described  in  Annex  II  to  this  staff  working 
document. 

120  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14150-European-Globalisation-

Adjustment-Fund-for-Displaced-Workers-mid-term-evaluation_en 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Methodology and sources of information  

The  evaluation  process  started  in  202 ,  following  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines.  As  part  of  the  evaluation,  the  lead  DG  consulted  an  Inter-Service  Steering 
Group (ISSG) for advice reasons during the development of the task and also during the 
drafting  process.  The  ISSG  included  representatives  from  the  Commission  services: 
BUDG,  SG,  SJ,  COMP,  TRADE,  REGIO,  ECFIN  and  GROW,  thus  diverging 
backgrounds,  experiences and insights could be gathered,  which allowed to provide the 
input necessary in order to assess the impact in areas beyond the scope of the lead DG. 

This evaluation was done internally by Commission services and because of the low uptake 
during the analysed period 2021-2024, the focus was on the changes of the EGF Regulation 
2021-2027. 

The intervention logic presented in Annex VII was the starting point for the evaluation of 
the EGF in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.  

The evaluation was based on the overarching evaluation questions for each criterion; each 
overarching  question  was  further  detailed  in  sub-questions,  as  presented  in  Annex  III 
below. The evaluation work was structured around the conclusions reached on each of the 
questions. 

The Commission based this evaluation mainly on the results of the internal and external 
research carried out by the Commission, the feedback from all the consultation activities 
carried out (Annex V) and complemented it, where appropriate, with additional evidence 
from previous reports, evaluations and general experience in the management of the EGF.   

The following sources of information were used for this evaluation: 

-  Stakeholder  consultation  activities  (see  Annex  V),  including  an  online  public 
feedback period on the call for evidence via the ‘Europa Have your Say’121 website, 
targeted interviews and consultations of national and EU stakeholders involved in 
designing, managing and delivering EGF; 

-  Member States applications and final reports submitted; 
- 

Internal research and analysis done by the Commission service, general experience 
in the management of the EGF, including the Commission internal EGF Database 
with all the EGF cases from 2007 to 2024; 

-  External research for literature review was done during a pilot project between the 
staff of the Publication office and the unit coordinating the EGF in the Commission; 
-  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  European 
(EGF)  2014-2020,  COM(2021)788  and 

Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund 
accompanying Staff Working Document, SWD(2021) 381; 
Impact assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund 
(EGF), SWD(2018)289, 5.06.2018;  

- 

-  Additional evidence from previous Commission reports and evaluations. 

121  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14150-European-Globalisation-

Adjustment-Fund-for-Displaced-Workers-mid-term-evaluation_en 

54 

 
 
The consultation activities had the following three main objectives:  

•  To gather experiences and views from EGF beneficiaries for each completed EGF 

case,  

•  To provide the public and private stakeholders an opportunity to express their views 

and positions regarding the changes of the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation,  

•  To gather specialised input (data and factual information, expert views) from key 
stakeholders (implementing bodies and managing authorities at Member State level 
and  also  stakeholders  at  EU  level)  on  their  views  and  positions  regarding  the 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the EGF.  

The  final  synopsis  report  on  the  stakeholder  consultation  has  been  carried  out  by  the 
Commission, see also Annex V. 

Methods and tools used for the evaluation 

Desk research 

In order to provide the evaluation with factual information, desk research was performed, 
mainly aiming at identifying relevant secondary literature.  

The external literature review was done by the staff of the Commission Publication Office 
during  a  pilot  project  with  the  Commission  service  coordinating  the  EGF,  in  order  to 
complement  the  evaluation  research.  The  research  criteria  for  this  pilot  project  were 
provided by the Commission service coordinating the EGF and they were focused on four 
strands:  a)  searches  with  the  name  of  the  Fund;  b)  academic  research  search  using  a 
combination  of  several  keywords  related  to  restructuring,  dismissals,  mass  redundancy, 
displacements;  c)  internet  searches  to  explore  topics  that  could  have  an  impact  on 
collective dismissals, namely corporate restructuring (including insolvencies, mergers and 
acquisitions),  corporate/industry  distress,  collective  redundancies  from  the  employment 
law  perspective,  reports  around  the  future  of  work  and  skill's  gaps,  etc;  d)  think  tank 
institutions, international and governmental sources, data and statistics, and news outlets. 

Further research was carried out by the Commission unit coordinating the EGF in order to 
complement the evaluation with statistics on the EU employment situation available on 
Eurostat  and  on  the  restructuring  events  which  occurred  in  the  EU  during  2021-2024, 
provided by EUROFOUND’s European Restructuring Monitor Database. 

All available findings and insights were compared, synthesised, and included in section 
2.2 of this evaluation. 

Field research 

Call for Evidence (CfE) was conducted between 2 August 2024 and 6 September 2024. No 
Public Consultation was carried out, because the most important EGF stakeholders have 
provided their feedback directly in the beneficiary survey carried out via the EU Survey 
webpage for each of the seven completed EGF cases. The results of the seven beneficiary 
surveys have been received in September and October 2024.  

More information on the stakeholder consultation activities is presented in Annex V. 

The goal of the field research, which included targeted stakeholder meetings, interviews 
and surveys, was to supplement the body of information gathered through desk research 
and beneficiary surveys. Based on what  was necessary from  the Evaluation  Matrix, the 

55 

 
data  received  from  the  desk  review  and  the  beneficiary  surveys  allowed  for  the 
identification of gaps in the themes that needed to be studied and the data that needed to 
be collected. 

The data collected was used to respond to the evaluation questions. Each of the evaluation 
criteria  was  addressed  to  tailored  evaluation  questions,  as  laid  down  in  the  evaluation 
matrix. 

For  the  sake  of  completeness,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  from  all  the  consultation 
activities carried, feedback was received from all Member States and from the beneficiaries 
of the seven completed EGF cases from France, Italy and Spain. Although the total number 
of responses is considered to constitute a representative sample of EU stakeholders, the 
results of the consultations may not be interpreted to necessarily represent views of all EU 
stakeholders. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

Even  though  the  evaluation  process  as  a  whole  was  designed  to  ensure  the  evidence’s 
robustness, limitations to the findings and thus also the robustness of the results must be 
taken into account. The main limitations and challenges have decreased compared with the 
2014-2020 period, however some still persist:  

• 

•  Timing of the mid-term evaluation. The figures are based on the situation at the end 
of December 2024, when only seven EGF cases had finished implementation. The 
results  of  the  applications  submitted  in  2022-2024  could  not  be  evaluated  and 
included because their results will only be available between 2025 and 2027.  
•  The  relatively  small  number  of  EGF  applications  received  during  the  period 
covered by the evaluation (18 cases from 13 economic sectors) made it impossible 
to conduct sectoral analyses. To overcome this, based on the internal Commission 
EGF Database, overview tables on case profile data sorted by country and by sector 
were created; these can be found in Annex VI.  
Improved reporting requirements, but performance still not measured. According 
to the EGF Regulation122, in their final report, Member States have to state the type 
of action and main outcomes, the characteristics123 of the beneficiaries and their 
employment  status.  Data  on  beneficiaries  are  broken  down  by  gender,  by  age 
groups  and  educational  level.  Although  the  changes  in  the  2021-2027  EGF 
Regulation  included  the  addition  of  common  indicators  to  measure  outputs  and 
results and a beneficiary survey for each EGF case, it did not include targets set at 
the  time  of  the  application.  Therefore  performance  cannot  be  assessed  against 
planned outcomes. Overall, the available data is still limited and do not allow for 
further statistical analyses of the categories of beneficiaries, or a further breakdown 
of beneficiaries based on type of dismissing enterprise124. This issue was already 
identified by the European Court of Auditors during the audit of the 2007–2013 

122 See Article 20 of the EGF Regulation. 
123 Besides gender, age groups and educational levels (ISCED 0-8), Member States also include in an EGF 
case’s  final  report  information  about  the  percentage  of  EGF  beneficiaries  in  employment  and  self-
employment six months after the end of the implementation period, the percentage of EGF beneficiaries 
who gained a qualification by six months after the end of the implementation period and percentage of 
EGF beneficiaries in education or training six months after the end of the implementation period. 
124 For example the principal enterprise, or suppliers or downstream producers; or especially in the case of 

sectoral applications, also SMEs or the self-employed. 

56 

 
 
EGF125, in the course of the mid-term and ex post evaluations of the 2007–2013 
EGF126 and in the mid-term and ex post evaluations of the 2014–2020 EGF127. 
•  The  significant  differences  across  cases,  Member  States  and  economic  sectors 
made it difficult to formulate reliable conclusions on the EGF’s cost-efficiency and 
cost-effectiveness.  

•  Limited  suitable  comparators  for  data  from  2007–2013  remained  an  issue.  A 
comparison with data from the 2007–2013 period is of limited use128 because of 
several changes in the EGF’s design129 (see Annex VIII below) and the evolving 
economic context.  

125  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  (2013),  Special  Report  No  7:  Has  the  European  Globalisation 

Adjustment Fund delivered EU added value in reintegrating redundant workers?, p. 28. 

126 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, Staff Working Document, SWD(2021) 381, p.65, Mid-term 

evaluation of the EGF 2007-2013 (2011), p. 52 and EGF ex-post evaluation 2007-2013, p. 121. 

127The mid-term evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, (2018) – Final Report, ICF, p. 16 
128 Please see the Ex-post evaluation of the EGF 2007-2013, (2015) and the mid-term evaluation of the EGF 

2014-2020, (2018). 

129 The ex post evaluation of the 2007–2013 EGF had also considered the identification of comparators as a 

major challenge (See p. 90).  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Sub-questions  

Operational questions  

Indicators  

Judgement criteria  

Data sources  

Effectiveness (EQ1): The aim of the EGF is to demonstrate solidarity towards workers made redundant and to ensure for each EGF case that the largest 
possible number of beneficiaries find sustainable employment as soon as possible.  
•  As an instrument, how effective was the EGF in achieving these aims? 
•  At the level of cases, how effective was the EGF in achieving these aims? 

EQ 1.1: To what extent is the 
support provided by the EGF 
used? 

Is  the  objective  of  the  EGF 
clear? 

Number  of  applications  received 
by MS/year 

relevant 

Are 
stakeholders 
aware  of  the  EGF  in  given 
MS? 

To  what  degree  was  there 
sufficient  information  on  the 
EGF  available  to  Member 
States? 

What  are  the  factors  that 
encouraged Member States to 
apply for EGF? 

What  are  the  factors  that 
hindered Member States from 
applying for EGF? 

Number  of  applications  refused 
by MS/year 

Number of applications approved 
by  MS/year 
(leveraged  EU 
spending  to  support  dismissed 
workers)  

Stakeholders’ views on the degree 
of clarity of the EGF’s objective. 

Stakeholders’ views on the degree 
to which relevant stakeholders are 
aware of the EGF in their MS. 

Degree  to  which  the  European 
Commission advertises the EGF. 

58 

Member States take full 
advantage of the support 
provided by EGF 

Increase  in  the  number 
of  applications  received 
by MS/year  

Literature and data review 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
not 
for  EGF 
funding 

apply 

Increase  in  absorption 
rate of EGF funds  

Targeted interviews 

Online beneficiary survey 

Beneficiaries  take  full 
advantage of the support 
offered  to  them  though 
EGF 

Member  States  offer 
to  all 
support 
EGF 
eligible beneficiaries  

 
 
   
Did  cases  use  all  the  EGF 
funds 
the 
Commission? 

received 

from 

If not, why not? 

What  are  the  factors  that 
encourage targeted workers to 
accept/refuse  EGF  support 
offered  by 
their  Member 
State? 

attention 

To what extent have Member 
States  paid 
to 
vulnerable beneficiaries when 
the  coordinated 
designing 
package  of  active 
labour 
market measures? 

Has  the  principle  of  fairness 
been upheld? 

pay 
Member  States 
attention to the needs of 
the  most  vulnerable 
(women, 
beneficiaries 
young/old employees) 

Degree  to  which  the  relevant 
level 
stakeholders  at  national 
advertise/communicate  on 
the 
EGF. 

Absorption  rate  of  EGF  funds 
(MS/instrument level) 

Proportion of EGF funds unspent 
(MS/instrument level)  

Stakeholder  views  on  barriers  to 
absorption  of  EGF  funds  at  the 
level of cases. 

Enabling factors for applying for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

Hindering factors for applying for 
EGF (qualitative feedback)  

Number  of  dismissed  workers  / 
persons  who 
self-employed 
ceased their activity targeted. 

Number  of  older  unemployed 
people targeted. 

Number  of  women 
proportion of workers) targeted. 

(as 

a 

59 

 
 
Number  of  dismissed  workers  / 
self-employed persons with lower 
secondary education or less  

Number  of  dismissed  workers  / 
self-employed persons with upper 
secondary  (ISCED  3)  or  post-
secondary education 

Number  of  dismissed  workers  / 
self-employed 
persons  with 
higher education 

EQ.1.2: To what extent does 
scope(130) 
the  broadened 
make  the  EGF  fairer  and 
more inclusive? 

Does  the  broadened  scope 
encourage  Member  States  to 
apply for EGF support? 

Does 
its  broadened  scope 
make  the  EGF  fairer  and 
allow to reach more potential 
beneficiaries? 

If not, why not? 

on 
Stakeholders 
broadened scope of the EGF 

views 

the 

Number  of  applications  received 
by MS/year 

Number of applications approved 
(leveraged  EU 
by  MS/year 
spending  to  support  dismissed 
workers)  

Enabling  factor  for  applying  for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

Member States take full 
the 
advantage 
broadened 
scope 
provided by EGF 

of 

Increase  in  the  number 
of  applications  received 
by MS/year  

More 
and 
inclusive 
fairer EGF in absorption 
rate of EGF funds  

(130) See Section 2.1 above of SWD.  

60 

Data review 

and 

interviews  of 
Targeted 
EU 
national 
stakeholders  involved  in 
designing,  managing  and 
delivering EGF 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
for  EGF 
not 
funding 

apply 

 
 
 
 
EQ.1.3:  To  what  extent  do 
the  modified 
intervention 
criteria (131)  make  the  EGF 
more accessible? 

Hindering factor for applying for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

Do  the  modified  intervention 
criteria: 

Stakeholders 
modified intervention criteria 

views 

on 

the 

200 

least 

displaced 
At 
(or  self-employed 
workers 
persons’  activity  ceasing) 
over  a  reference  period  of  4 
months  in  an  enterprise  in  a 
Member State;  

least 

  200  displaced 
At 
(or  self-employed 
workers 
persons activity ceasing) over 
a reference period of 6 months 
in 
especially 
SMEs that belong to the same 
sectors 
two 
adjoining regions; 

in  one  or 

enterprises, 

Number  of  applications  received 
by MS/year 

Number of applications approved 
by  MS/year 
(leveraged  EU 
spending  to  support  dismissed 
workers)  

Enabling  factor  for  applying  for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

Hindering factor for applying for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

Member States take full 
advantage 
the 
modified 
intervention 
criteria provided by EGF 

of 

Increase  in  the  number 
of  applications  received 
by MS/year  

Increase  in  absorption 
rate of EGF funds  

Data review 

and 

interviews  of 
Targeted 
national 
EU 
stakeholders  involved  in 
designing,  managing  and 
delivering EGF 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
for  EGF 
not 
funding 

apply 

200 

least 

displaced 
At 
workers 
(or  self-employed 
persons’  activity  ceasing) 
over  a  reference  period  of  4 
months 
enterprises, 
especially  SMEs  that  belong 

in 

(131)  

See Section 2.1 above of SWD. 

61 

 
  
  
 
the  same  of  different 

to 
sectors in the same region. 

encourage  Member  States  to 
apply for EGF support? 

Do  the modified intervention 
criteria  of  the  EGF  make  it 
more accessible? 

If not, why not? 

EQ 1.4: To what extent is the 
alignment  of  the  EGF  co-
financing rate with the ESF+ 
(while  maintaining  60%  as 
threshold) 
the  minimum 
appropriate? 

Is 
the  aligned  EGF  co-
financing  rate  with  the  ESF+ 
(while  maintaining  60%  as 
the  minimum  threshold)  of 
the cost of the package and its 
implementation appropriate? 

rate 

Does  the  modified  EGF  co-
remove 
financing 
obstacles 
in  applying  and 
encourage  Member  States  to 
apply for EGF support? 

Has  the  modified  EGF  co-
financing  rate  made  the  fund 
reach  more 
and 
fairer 
potential beneficiaries? 

The  co-financing  rate  is 
sufficient  to  cover  all 
expenses incurred  

The  aligned  EGF  co-
financing 
rate 
encourages MS to apply 

Literature and data review 

and 

interviews  of 
Targeted 
national 
EU 
stakeholders  involved  in 
designing,  managing  and 
delivering EGF 

persons 

 Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
not 
for  EGF 
funding 

apply 

views 

Stakeholder 
the 
appropriateness  and  fairness  of 
the 2021-2027 co-financing rate. 

on 

Enabling  factor  for  applying  for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

Hindering factor for applying for 
EGF (qualitative feedback) 

62 

 
 
 
is 

EQ 1.5: At case level, did the 
support offered and the way 
it 
offered 
being 
correspond  to  the  needs  of 
the  beneficiaries  and  their 
specific profiles? 

To  what  degree  was 
the 
support  available  via  EGF 
cases  well-tailored 
the 
actual needs of beneficiaries? 

to 

To  what  degree  was 
the 
support offered and the way it 
is  offered  in  line  with  the 
needs of unemployed women, 
young and older  unemployed 
people? 

To what degree is the support 
offered  and  the  way  it  is 
offered in line with the needs 
of persons at an increased risk 
of poverty? 

EQ.1.6: To what extent does 
the  requirement  to  include 
measures  focusing  on  skills 
required 
the  digital 
in  a 
industrial  age  and 
resource-efficient  economy 

in 

To what extent have the EGF 
gained 
beneficiaries 
new 
competences 
skills 
or 
digital 
the 
required 

in 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

Number of workers receiving:  

Job-search 
counselling  

assistance 

and 

The 
support  offered 
through  EGF  responds 
to 
its 
the  needs  of 
beneficiaries  

Training allowances  

Employment incentives  

Training/re-training  

Entrepreneurship/start-up 
incentives  

Other financial assistance 

Stakeholder  views  on  how  far 
EGF support offered corresponds 
to  the  needs  of  beneficiaries  and 
their specific profiles at the level 
of cases. 

Number  of  EGF  beneficiaries 
in  measures 
who  participated 
and 
focusing 
skills 
competences 
the 
digital industrial age 

required 

on 

in 

support  offered 
The 
to 
EGF 
through 
beneficiaries 
has 
updated  their  skills  and 
competences  with  those 
required  in  the  digital 

Literature and data review 

Targeted 
national 
involved 

interviews  of 
stakeholders 
in  designing, 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
help  update  the  skills  and 
competences 
the 
beneficiaries? 

of 

industrial  age  and 
resource-efficient economy? 

in  a 

found  a 

For  the  EGF  beneficiaries 
job  after 
who 
participating 
EGF 
measures, to what extent have 
the new skills been helpful in 
the new job? 

in 

industrial  age  and  in  a 
resource-efficient 
economy 

managing  and  delivering 
EGF 

Online 
beneficiaries  

survey 

of 

Number  of  EGF  beneficiaries 
in  measures 
who  participated 
and 
focusing 
skills 
the 
in 
competences 
resource-efficient economy 

required 

on 

Number  of  EGF  beneficiaries 
who found the new digital and/or 
green skills helpful in the new job 

partners 

Views  of  stakeholders  (namely 
and 
delivery 
beneficiaries  themselves)  around 
new skills  gained required in  the 
digital  industrial  age  and  in  a 
resource-efficient economy. 

partners 

Views  of  stakeholders  (namely 
and 
delivery 
beneficiaries  themselves)  on  the 
degree to which EGF support was 
more  effective 
than  national 
measures, and reasons why. 

Views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
degree  to  which  EGF  funding 
alters  the  type  of  support  made 
available to redundant workers by 
Member States 

64 

 
 
 
EQ 1.7: What were the new 
factors 
that  helped  or 
hindered EGF cases achieve 
their objectives?  

What are the new factors that 
help EGF cases achieve their 
objectives? 

Stakeholders  views  at  case  level 
on the factors that help EGF cases 
achieve their objectives. 

What are the new factors that 
hinder  EGF 
from 
achieving their objectives? 

cases 

Stakeholders  views  at  case  level 
on  the  factors  that  hinder  EGF 
cases achieve their objectives. 

What  challenges  –  if  any  – 
exist  at  the  level  of  cases? 
And how were these tackled? 

Stakeholders  provide  concrete 
examples  of  how  the  challenges 
identified have been tackled. 

To  what  extent  was  learning 
from  previous  EGF  cases 
utilised to inform case design 
and implementation? 

Stakeholder views at case level on 
impact  learning  from  previous 
EGF  cases  on  ongoing  case 
design and implementation. 

Challenges  encountered 
case 
during 
implementation 
are 
regularly  identified  and 
promptly tackled 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

To  what  extent  was  EGF 
successfully 
assistance 
integrated  with  other  support 
systems? 

To  what  degree  was  a 
coordinated  approach  to  the 
delivery  of  EGF  assistance 
adopted for individual cases?  

Stakeholder views on integration 
of  EGF  assistance  into  other 
support systems. 

of 

Evidence 
coordinated 
approach  to  EGF  assistance  for 
individual cases. 

a 

65 

 
 
EQ 1.8: To what extent were 
case-specific 
objectives 
established  and  monitored? 
national 
Were 
monitoring  systems  timely 
and effective?  

the 

To  what  extent  were  case-
specific 
objectives/aims 
defined and monitored?  

Degree  to  which  case-specific 
aims  have  been  defined  and 
monitored at case level. 

Case-specific  objectives 
/ aims are developed and 
monitored 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

If yes, do they go beyond the 
aim to contribute to achieving 
re-
labour  market 
the 
dismissed 
of 
integration 
workers? 

is 

To  what  degree 
there 
variation  in  the  aims  across 
the 
between 
beneficiaries targeted / type of 
activities etc.? 

cases 

What  were 
the  national 
monitoring  requirements  in 
terms  of  data  collected; 
frequency  of  data  collection 
etc.? 

the 

monitoring 
Was 
conducted at regular intervals, 
allowing for an assessment of 
trends over time?  

Was monitoring data received 
on time? 

Stakeholders’ views on the degree 
to  which 
the  specific  aims 
identified have been defined. 

National 
monitoring 
systems are in place and 
are timely and effective  

Degree to which variations exists 
across  cases,  stakeholders  and 
activity types in the case-specific 
objectives. 

Existence of monitoring data gaps 
at case level. 

Reported  delays  in  receipt  of 
case-specific monitoring data. 

Degree 
to  which  a  national 
monitoring system was in place / 
external 
are 
undertaken. 

evaluations 

Frequency/rate  of  delays 
in 
receiving  national  monitoring 
data. 

Stakeholders’  views  on 
functioning  of 
monitoring system. 

the 
the  national 

66 

 
were 

monitoring 
How 
requirements  communicated 
to Member States - was there 
clarity around the type of data 
that needs to be collected? 

EQ  1.9:  How  reliable  was 
the data collected and was it 
sufficient?  

To  what  degree  were  there 
gaps; 
unexpected 
duplications;  inconsistencies; 
or anomalies in reported data? 

National  experts’  /  evaluators’ 
assessment  of  the  completeness, 
quality  and  comparability  of  the 
data collected. 

requirements 

Stakeholder  views  on  data 
collection 
– 
practical  views  on  requirements 
from case level and general views 
from the instrument perspective. 

How comparable was the data 
collected  between  cases  and 
Member States? 

How far did the reliability of 
data  collected  vary  between 
(a)  cases  and  (b)  Member 
States? 

Should more data per case be 
gathered in order to provide a 
complete  picture  of  EGF 
results? 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

The data collected at the 
level  was 
national 
reliable and sufficient to 
meaningful 
conduct 
and 
analyses 
across 
comparisons 
Member States 

EQ  1.10:  At 
instrument 
level, did the modified EU or 

the 
To  what  extent  did 
modified 
decision-making 
procedures act as a barrier to 

Average time between application 
and  implementation  per  Member 
State. 

EU/national  procedures 
in  place  ensured  a  swift 
resource-efficient 
and 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
national  procedures (132)  in 
place  ensure  a  swift  and 
resource  saving  decision-
making  process  and  thus  a 
quick implementation?  

EQ 1.11: How effective was 
the  EGF 
for 
beneficiaries?  

support 

Member  States  applying  for 
funding? 

What impact did the length of 
decision-making  procedures 
have  on  the  implementation 
of the case? 

the 
To  what  degree  can 
decision-making 
procedure 
around  the  granting  of  EGF 
support be linked to delays in 
case implementation? 

To  what  extent  have  EGF 
beneficiaries 
found 
permanent/temporary 
employment  as  a  result  of 
EGF support? 

To  what  extent  was 
outcome 
beneficiaries sustainable? 

for 

the 
EGF 

Decreased  verage 
decision-making 
Member State. 

time 
process 

for 
per 

decision-making process 
(quick implementation)   

Stakeholder  views  on  decision-
making procedure. 

Proportion  of  cases  reporting 
delays  in  final  reports  submitted 
by Member States. 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
for  EGF 
not 
funding 

apply 

down 

employment 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
(if  possible, 
in 
of 
broken 
type 
by 
employment 
full 
time/part  time,  fixed  term/open-
ended)  and  self-employment,  6 
months  after 
the 
implementation period. 

the  end  of 

contract: 

EGF 

support 
The 
provided to beneficiaries 
was 
in 
effective 
providing 
the  support 
needed 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

To what extent have the EGF 
beneficiaries 
new 
skills? 

gained 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
gaining  a  qualification 6  months 
the 
the 
after 
implementation period 

end 

of 

(132)  

See Section 2.1 above of SWD. 

68 

 
 
  
 
To  what  extent  was  the  EGF 
more  effective  than  national 
level  measures 
to  support 
redundant workers? 

the 

To  what  extent  did  EGF 
funding  alter 
type  of 
support  made  available  to 
redundant 
by 
Member States? 

workers 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
in education or training 6 months 
after 
the 
the 
implementation period 

end 

of 

partners 

Views  of  stakeholders  (namely 
delivery 
and 
beneficiaries  themselves)  around 
new  skills  gained  –  including 
“soft” skills. 

partners 

Views  of  stakeholders  (namely 
delivery 
and 
beneficiaries  themselves)  on  the 
degree to which EGF support was 
more  effective 
than  national 
measures, and reasons why. 

Views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
degree  to  which  EGF  funding 
alters  the  type  of  support  made 
available to redundant workers by 
Member States 

EQ  1.12:  How  and  to  what 
extent  has  the  EGF  support 
had 
and 
a 
medium-term 
impact  on 
individual participants?  

short-term 

What  was  the  labour  market 
status  of  assisted  workers  at 
the end of the implementation 
period? 

Percentage  of  beneficiaries  in 
immediately  after 
employment 
the  end  of  the  implementation 
period. 

EGF 

The 
support 
provided  had  short-term 
impacts  on 
individual 
beneficiaries 

What  was  the  labour  market 
status  of  assisted  workers 

Percentage  of  beneficiaries  in 
education or training immediately 

EGF 

support 
The 
provided  had  medium-

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
after 
months 
twelve 
submission of the final report 
of each case? 

the 
after 
implementation period. 

end 

of 

the 

on 
term 
individual beneficiaries 

impacts 

Percentage  of  beneficiaries  with 
permanent employment contracts. 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
in employment 6 months after the 
end of the implementation period 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
gaining  a  qualification 6  months 
after 
the 
the 
implementation period 

end 

of 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
in education or training 6 months 
after 
the 
the 
implementation period 

end 

of 

EQ  1.13:  Were  there  any 
unexpected  or  unintended 
the 
linked 
effects 
implementation  of  EGF 
measures? 

to 

To  what  degree  did 
the 
ultimate effects of the fund go 
beyond its intended aims? 

Views  of  stakeholders  across  all 
levels  on 
the  existence  of 
unexpected or unintended effects 
(qualitative feedback) 

Presence  of  unexpected 
effects 
the 
linked 
implementation  of  EGF 
measures 

to 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

the 
EQ  1.14:  How  do 
impacts  observed  compare 
with those achieved by: 

How do the impacts for EGF 
beneficiaries compare to other 
targeted  redundant  workers 

status 

of 
Labour  market 
individuals  who  received  EGF 
support  compared  to  individuals 
who did not receive EGF support 
at  the  end  of  the  implementation 

and 
Differences 
similarities 
between 
impacts  achieved  by 
EGF and:  

70 

 
 
 
 
(a)  individuals  who  did  not 
receive  EGF  support  (the 
control 
when 
group 
available); 

(b)  similar  re-employment 
projects 
at  national  or 
regional level? 

who  have  not  received  the 
same support? 

period  and  twelve  months  after 
intervention.  

How do the overall impacts of 
EGF  support  compare  with 
the 
support 
available 
at  national  or 
regional level? 

impact 

of 

compared 

re-employment  of 
Nature  of 
individuals  who  received  EGF 
support 
to  other 
redundant workers (broken down 
by  type  of  employment  contract: 
fixed 
full 
term/open-ended) 
self-
employment 

time, 
and 

time/part 

•  Those  who  did  not 
receive  any  form  of 
support  

•  Similar 

employment 
schemes 
national/regional 
level 

re-

at 

EQ  1.15:  To  the  extent  of 
available evidence, what are 
effects 
the 
generated by the EGF cases? 

long-term 

What  proportion  of  EGF 
beneficiaries  have  been  re-
employed  for  6  months  or 
more? 

What  proportion  of  EGF 
beneficiaries  have  been  re-
employed  on  a  permanent 
basis as opposed to temporary 
or fixed-term basis? 

What  proportion  of  EGF 
beneficiaries  are  engaged  in 
training 
or 
education 
activities  for  6  months  or 
more  following  engagement 
with an EGF case? 

Percentage of  EGF beneficiaries 
in  employment,  including  self-
employment,  6  months  after  the 
end of the implementation period 
specified in the financing decision 

EGF 

The 
support 
provided  had  long-term 
individual 
impacts  on 
beneficiaries 
and 
organisations  delivering 
support  

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

education 

Rate  of  sustained  engagement 
with 
training 
activities  of  EGF  beneficiaries  6 
months after receiving support. 

or 

Stakeholder  views  on  increased 
employability of beneficiaries  

Stakeholder  views  on  long-term 
effects 
for 
organisations  delivering  EGF 

generated 

71 

 
  
 
 
degree 
as  well 

do 
what 
To 
as 
beneficiaries 
employers  report 
increased 
employability  of  redundant 
workers? 

To what extent are there long- 
term  effects  generated  for 
organisations delivering EGF 
support  in  terms  of  being 
to  deliver 
better  placed 
/ 
to 
support 
unemployed workers? 

redundant 

To what  extent are their new 
jobs  better?  E.g.  higher 
salaries, 
more 
responsibilities, etc.  

Does  the  beneficiary  survey 
reach  more  people  than  a 
public consultation? 

providing 

Does  it  ask  useful  questions 
for 
qualitative 
information  about  the  EGF 
beneficiaries? 

EQ 1.16: How informative is 
the EGF beneficiary survey? 

support  in  terms  of  being  better 
placed to deliver support 

EGF beneficiary survey 

Number of beneficiaries replying 
to the beneficiary survey 

on 
Stakeholder 
effectiveness  of  the  beneficiary 
survey 

views 

Stakeholder views on information 
provided  by  the  replies  to  the 
beneficiary survey 

The  EGF  beneficiary 
survey  is  effective  by 
asking  useful  questions 
to  get  information  from 
beneficiaries 

More  replies  received 
via the EGF beneficiary 
survey  than  in  previous 
public consultations. 

72 

 
EQ 1.17: What lessons have 
been  drawn  or  could  be 
drawn 
EGF 
from 
implementation, both by the 
Commission  as  well  as  by 
national,  regional  and  local 
authorities?  

To what extent did EGF help 
in  mainstreaming  innovative 
ideas? 

Stakeholder  views  on 
lessons 
learnt  from  EGF  implementation 
at both case and instrument level.  

To what extent did EGF help 
in  (re)designing  other  active 
labour 
policy 
market 
instruments? 

Stakeholder  views  on  important 
EGF 
learning 
implementation  at  both  case  and 
instrument level 

from 

of 

Availability 
key 
lessons to be shared and 
common 
provide 
learning 
EGF 
on 
implementation 
(successes and failures)  

Targeted interviews 

EGF 

To  what  extent  have  there 
been important learning from 
the 
its 
implementation  which  have 
been/ could be applied in the 
Commission  or  in  national  / 
regional / local authorities? 

and 

social 

EQ  1.18.  To  what  extent 
have 
partners 
contributed to the design and 
coherent 
of 
provision 
support packages? 

involved 

What  proportion  of  social 
partners 
in 
dismissals have contributed to 
the  design  of  training  and 
other support measures for re-
employment?  

Stakeholders’ views on the extent 
to which social partners have been 
involved 
that 
the  design  of 
contributed 
training 
support 
other 
measures for re-employment  

in  dismissals 

to 
and 

Targeted interviews  

Social  partners  actively 
contribute  to  the  design 
of 
and 
provision 
support 
coherent 
packages  

What  proportion  of  social 
partners 
in 
dismissals have contributed to 
the  delivery  of  training  and 

involved 

Stakeholders’ views on the extent 
to which social partners have been 
involved 
that 
contributed  to  the  delivery  of 

in  dismissals 

73 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
other support measures for re-
employment?  

training 
measures for re-employment  

other 

and 

support 

Targeted interviews /  s 

actively 
Companies 
contribute  to  the  design 
of 
and 
provision 
coherent 
support 
packages  

Member States regularly 
local 
incentivise 
companies 
re-hire 
dismissed workers 

to 

Targeted interviews /  s 

EQ  1.19.  To  what  extent 
have  companies  contributed 
to  the  design  and  provision 
of 
support 
packages? 

coherent 

EQ  1.20.  To  what  extent 
States 
have  Member 
local 
incentivised 
companies 
employ 
dismissed workers?  

to 

involved 

proportion 

of 
What 
companies 
in 
dismissals have contributed to 
the  design  of  training  and 
other support measures for re-
employment?  

Stakeholders’ views on the extent 
to  which  companies  have  been 
involved 
that 
the  design  of 
contributed 
support 
other 
training 
measures for re-employment  

in  dismissals 

to 
and 

involved 

proportion 

What 
of 
in 
companies 
dismissals have contributed to 
the  delivery  of  training  and 
other support measures for re-
employment?  

What  proportion  of 
local 
companies  were  provided 
with 
hire 
dismissed workers? 

incentives 

to 

proportion 

of 
What 
companies  that  have  been 
offered 
incentives  by  MS 
have accepted them? 

What proportion of dismissed 
workers  were  hired  by 
incentivised local companies?  

Stakeholders’ views on the extent 
to  which  companies  have  been 
involved 
that 
contributed  to  the  delivery  of 
support 
training 
measures for re-employment  

in  dismissals 

other 

and 

Number  of  companies  that  were 
hire 
incentives 
offered 
dismissed workers 

to 

Number of companies that agreed 
to hire dismissed workers  

Number  of  dismissed  workers 
hired  by  local  companies  that 
received State incentives  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ  1.21:  What  was  the 
overall 
impact  of  EGF? 
(based on results of previous 
questions)  

Instrument level 

• 
•  Case level  

EQ  1.22:  To  what  extent 
have  the  information  and 
communication activities of  

the Commission  

• 
•  Member States 
proven  useful  and  reached 
the  dismissed  workers  and 
Union Citizens? 

To  what  extent  has  the  EGF 
had its desired impact, i.e.: to 
demonstrate 
solidarity 
workers  made 
towards 
redundant  and  to  ensure  for 
each EGF case that the largest 
possible 
of 
beneficiaries  find  sustainable 
employment  as 
soon  as 
possible?  

number 

To  what  extent  has  the  EGF 
to 
instrument  been  able 
effectively 
provide 
emergency,  targeted  support 
to  dismissed  workers  across 
Europe? 

How  far  do  the  information 
and communication activities 
the  Commission  reach 
of 
some  groups 
to 
others? 

relative 

How  far  do  the  information 
and communication activities 
of Member States reach some 
groups relative to others? 

What  are  the  most  effective 
and 
information 

Composite  indicator  (EQ  1.1  – 
1.24) 

The  EGF  achieved  its 
desired impact overall at 
instrument 
case 
level  

and 

Literature and data review  

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

of 

awareness 

of 
Level 
information  and  communication 
activities 
the 
organised 
Commission amongst: 

by 

•  dismissed  workers  receiving 

support via the EGF 

•  dismissed  workers  receiving 
support from other EU and/or 
national resources 

75 

information  and 

Literature and data review 

the 
have 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

The 
communication 
activities 
of 
Commission 
proved useful  

Key  stakeholders  are 
aware of the EGF 

Dismissed  workers  and 
Union  Citizens 
are 
aware of the EGF 

 
  
 
 
 
communication  channels  at 
EU  level  e.g.  multilingual 
website;  networking  events; 
social media campaigns etc.? 

What  are  the  most  effective 
information 
and 
communication  channels  at 
e.g. 
national 
website; 
multilingual 
networking  events; 
social 
media campaigns etc.? 

level 

Have  the  seminars  organised 
by  the  Commission  proved 
helpful  and  what  can  be 
improved? 

Have  the  seminars  organised 
by  Member  States  proved 
helpful  and  what  can  be 
improved? 

To  what  degree  have  the 
networking 
seminars 
organised by the Commission 
and 
facilitated 
exchange 
information 
between 
EGF 
stakeholders? 

learning 

various 

The  seminars  organised 
by the Commission have 
proven 
to  be  helpful 
learning tools  

•  Union citizens. 

of 

awareness 

Level 
of 
information  and  communication 
activities  organised  by  Member 
States amongst: 

•  dismissed  workers  receiving 

support via the EGF 

•  dismissed  workers  receiving 
support from other EU and/or 
national resources 

•  Union citizens. 

Attendance 
rate  of  different 
stakeholders / stakeholder groups 
at networking seminars organised 
by 
the  Commission  between 
2021-2024. 

Degree  of  consensus  among 
stakeholders  (including  targeted 
beneficiaries;  local  and  regional 
authorities etc.) on: 

•  how 

helpful 

organised 
Commission have been 

by 

seminars 
the 

76 

 
How far have the networking 
seminars  been  attended  by 
EGF  stakeholders  from  a 
range of groups and Member 
States?  Has  there  been  any 
over or underrepresentation in 
terms  of  EGF  stakeholder 
groups or countries present?  

•  usefulness  of 

information 
and communication activities 
of 
the  Commission  by 
type (133) 

Degree  of  consensus  among 
stakeholders  (including  targeted 
beneficiaries;  local  and  regional 
authorities etc.) on the usefulness 
and 
of 
information 
communication 
of 
Member States type (134) 

activities 

Evidence  of  network  building; 
information  exchange  around 
cases; mutual learning linked to: 

•  networking seminars 

• 

• 

information 
and 
communication  activities  of 
the Commission 

information 
and 
communication  activities  of 
Member States 

(133) i.e. multilingual website; networking events; social media campaigns etc. 
(134) i.e. multilingual website; networking events; social media campaigns etc. 

77 

 
 
Efficiency (EQ 2): To what extent were the results of the EGF per beneficiary cost-efficient? Are there significant differences in EGF cost-efficiency 
between and within Member States and per economic sector defined at NACE Revision 2 division level? If so, what is causing them? And how do these 
differences relate to the EGF support as a whole? 

The  results  of  the  EGF 
per beneficiary are cost-
efficient  

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

EQ 2.1: To what extent were 
the  results  of  the  EGF  per 
beneficiary cost-efficient?  

To what extent is the level of 
resources  used 
to  support 
each  redundant  workerby  the 
EGF  is  comparable  to  that 
used for national measures to 
support 
individuals’ 
reintegration  into  the  labour 
market or education/training?   

such 

Are there more cost-effective 
responses  to  job  losses  than 
the EGF? 

there 

significant 
Are 
in  EGF  cost-
differences 
efficiency between and within 
Member States?  

there 

significant 
Are 
in  EGF  cost-
differences 
efficiency 
economic 
per 
sector  defined  at  NACE 
Revision 2 division level?  

If  so,  what  is  causing  them? 
And how do these differences 

Degree  to  which  the  level  of 
resources  used  to  support  each 
redundant  worker  by  the  EGF  is 
that  used  for 
comparable 
national measures to support such 
individuals’ reintegration into the 
labour 
or 
education/training. 

market 

to 

to  which 
in 

there  are 
Degree 
cost-efficiency 
differences 
across Member States and reasons 
for this. 

to  which 
in 

there  are 
Degree 
differences 
cost-efficiency 
within  Member  States,  across 
cases  and  measures,  and  reasons 
for this.  

to  which 

Degree 
there  are 
differences  in  cost-efficiency  per 
economic sector defined at NACE 
Revision  2  division  level,  and 
reasons for this. 

78 

 
  
relate to the EGF support as a 
whole? 

Could  alternative  ways  have 
been more efficient and what 
are those? 

far 

How 
fewer 
resources  have  been  used  at 

could 

Stakeholders’ views on the extent 
to  which  the  level  of  resources 
used  to  support  each  redundant 
worker by the EGF is comparable 
to that used for national measures 
individuals’ 
such 
to 
support 
reintegration 
labour 
the 
into 
market or education/training. 

Stakeholders’ views on the extent 
to  which  there  are  more  cost-
effective  responses  to  job  losses 
than the EGF. 

Stakeholders’  views  on  reasons 
for  differences  in  costs  across 
cases  and  measures 
in  given 
Member States. 

Degree  to  which  any  differences 
in  cost-efficiency  identified  are 
reflected 
in  EGF  funding  at 
instrument level. 

Implementation  costs  (as  %  of 
total costs) 

Timing  of  application  (after  the 
reference period) 

The  same  results  could 
not  have  been  achieved 
with  fewer  resources  or 
in less time 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

79 

EQ  2.2:  At  case  level,  to 
what  extent  could  the  same 
results  have  been  achieved 
with  fewer resources  and/or 
in a shorter period of time?  

 
the  level  of  cases  to  achieve 
the same results? 

the  same 
How  far  could 
results have been achieved at 
case level  in  a shorter period 
of time? 

What  –  if  any  –  options  or 
barriers  exist  to  reduce  the 
resources used at the level of 
cases  to  achieve  the  same 
results per case? 

What  –  if  any  –  options  or 
barriers  exist  to  reduce  the 
amount  of  time  required  to 
achieve  the  same  results  per 
case? 

Length of application process 

of 

Timing 
re-employment 
measures  (after  the  application 
date) 

Length 
measures 

of 

re-employment 

Extent  to  which  the  same  results 
could  have  been  achieved  with 
in  a 
resources  and/or 
fewer 
shorter period of time (qualitative 
feedback) 

to  which  stakeholders 
Extent 
identify  options  for  increasing 
efficiency  in  achieving  results  at 
case level (qualitative feedback) 

Extent 
to  which  stakeholders 
identify barriers to for increasing 
level 
efficiency 
(qualitative feedback) 

case 

at 

- 

EQ  2.3:  At  case  level,  to 
what  extent  are  the  costs 
incurred  justified,  given  the 
benefits  which  have  been 
achieved? 

cost 

Total 
total  EGF 
(or 
contribution) / number of targeted 
beneficiaries 

The costs incurred at the 
case  level  are  justified, 
vis-à-vis 
the  benefits 
achieved  

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

80 

 
 
 
cost 

total  EGF 
(or 
Total 
contribution) / number of reached 
beneficiaries 

Total 
cost 
contribution) 
beneficiaries 
returned to education/training  

total  EGF 
(or 
of 
/ 
number 
or 
re-employed 

Extent to which the costs incurred 
are 
(qualitative 
feedback) 

justified 

Absorption  rate  of  EGF  funding 
support overall. 

Absorption  rate  of  EGF  funding 
support per case. 

Absorption  rate  of  EGF  funding 
by 
type  of  support  measures 
offered. 

Absorption  rate  of  EGF  funding 
by sector supported. 

EQ 2.4:  What  is  the overall 
and case by case absorption 
rate  of  the  funding  support 
given from EGF to Member 
States? 

Does  the  absorption  rate  of 
EGF  funding  vary  between 
Member States? Why? 

Does  the  absorption  rate  of 
EGF  funding  vary  between 
cases  within  Member  States? 
Why?  

To  what  degree  does  the 
absorption 
rate  of  EGF 
funding vary in relation to the 
type  of  support  measures 
offered? (135)  

(135) e.g. individual job search assistance; training and retraining; job search allowances etc. 

81 

Minimum/Maximum 
absorption  rates,  overall 
and  on  a  case  by  case 
basis.  

Literature and data review 

 
 
 
 
 
are 

Literature and data review 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
not 
for  EGF 
funding 

apply 

Targeted interviews 

EQ 2.5: At instrument level, 
to  what  extent 
  do  the 
changes  introduced  in  the 
2021-2027  period  improve 
efficiency? 

To  what  degree  does  the 
absorption 
rate  of  EGF 
funding vary in relation to the 
sector supported? 

To  what  degree  is  there  an 
administrative 
burden 
associated with the simplified 
application  procedure 
for 
EGF  support  for  Member 
States? 

To  what  degree  is  there  an 
administrative  burden  for  the 
Commission,  associated  with 
the  simplified  assessment  of 
the applications received?  

To  what  degree  is  there  an 
administrative  burden  for  the 
Commission,  associated  with 
to 
proposing  a  Decision 
the 
to 
mobilise 
Budgetary  Authority 
for 
accepted applications?  

the  EGF 

To  what  extent  are  reporting 
imposed  on 
requirements 
Member  States 
the 
on 
the  financial 
execution  of 
contribution  from  the  EGF 

Stakeholders’ views on the degree 
to  which  the  application  process 
was burdensome. 

procedures 

The 
efficient  

Stakeholders’ views on the degree 
to  which 
the 
application  process  acted  as  a 
barrier to applying. 

the  nature  of 

Comparison  of  EGF  application 
and  reporting  requirements  with 
similar programmes and or active 
labour  market 
or 
measures  at  EU  and  national 
level. 

policies 

82 

 
more or less demanding  than 
other similar programmes? 

Coherence (EQ 3): How coherent is the EGF intervention with other European Union programmes and national instruments? 

EQ 3.1: How coherent is the 
EGF intervention with other 
Union 
European 
programmes?  

Does the EGF complement or 
add to other EU programmes? 

EQ 3.2: How coherent is the 
EGF intervention with other 
national instruments?  

Does the EGF complement or 
add 
national 
other 
instruments? 

to 

EQ  3.3:  At  instrument  and 
case  level,  to  what  extent 
have Member States ensured 
the complementarity of EGF 
support with other European 
Union  instruments,  such  as 
the  European  Social  Fund, 
the Recovery and Resilience 
Facility,or 
national 
in  Member 
instruments 
States?  

What  –  if  any  –  mechanisms 
to 
are 
foster 
in  place 
/  prevent 
complementarity 
overlap between the EGF and 
other 
Union 
European 
instruments,  such  as  the ESF 
and YEI? 

What  –  if  any  –  mechanisms 
foster 
in  place 
are 
to 
complementarity 
/  prevent 
overlap between the EGF and 
national 
in 
Member States? 

instruments 

Extent  to  which  the  EGF  is 
additional to / complements other 
instruments 
European  Union 
including the ESF, YEI. 

The  EGF  and  other 
Union 
European 
are 
programmes 
coherent 
and 
complement each other  

Extent  to  which  the  EGF  is 
additional 
/  complements 
comparable  national  instruments 
in Member States. 

to 

The  EGF  and  other 
national  instruments  are 
coherent 
and 
complement each other 

Extent  to  which  individual  cases 
are  complementary  with  outputs 
of  comparable  European  Union 
instruments / national instruments 
in Member States. 

Existence  of  mechanisms 
support complementarity. 

to 

Member  States  have 
ensured 
the 
complementarity 
between  EGF  support 
and 
other 
European/national 
instruments  

83 

Literature and data review 

Literature and data review 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
not 
for  EGF 
funding 

apply 

Targeted interviews 

 
 
 
  
What  –  if  any  –  mechanisms 
to 
are 
foster 
in  place 
complementarity 
/  prevent 
overlap  between  individual 
EGF cases and the outputs of 
other  similar  EU  instruments 
or  national 
in 
Member States? 

instruments 

EQ  3.4:  If  applicable,  are 
there any lessons learned for 
ensuring complementarity? 

- 

Extent to which complementarity 
with  other  EU  and/or  national 
level initiatives can be ensured  

practices 

are 
Best 
available  on  how 
to 
ensure complementarity 

Targeted interviews 

EQ  3.5:  At  case  level,  to 
what extent have there been 
between  EGF 
overlaps 
support 
other 
and 
interventions in the Member 
States? 

How  far  does  EGF  support 
similar 
with 
overlap 
interventions at Member State 
level? 

If  overlaps  exist  –  to  what 
extent 
be 
considered complementary? 

could 

they 

At  case  level,  Member 
avoided 
States  have 
overlap  with 
other 
national interventions 

Presence / absence of overlaps. 

Presence 
mechanisms to avoid overlaps. 

absence 

/ 

of 

Specific reasons for overlaps. 

Impact  of  overlaps  (qualitative 
feedback) 

Literature and data review 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
contact 
in 
Member States which did 
for  EGF 
not 
funding 

apply 

Targeted interviews 

What  mechanisms  –  if  any  – 
are in place to avoid overlaps 
between  EGF  support  and 
other  similar  interventions  at 
Member State level. (136) 

(136) e.g. existence of formal or non-formal dialogue with organisers of other similar interventions at national level; multi-stakeholder working groups with a shared focus; mutual sharing 

of results and best practices as well as gaps and challenges at national / regional level with a focus on supporting the reintegration of vulnerable workers etc.  

84 

 
 
  
 
 () 

Relevance (EQ 4): How relevant is the EGF?  

EQ  4.1:  To  what  extent  are 
the broadened scope (137) of 
the  EGF  appropriate  and 
useful for its aims? 

sense 

it  make 

Does 
to 
mobilise  the  EGF  support 
available in case of any major 
no 
restructuring 
matter the cause? 

events, 

Does  it  make  the  EGF  more 
accessible? 

restructuring 

Number  of 
job 
losses  as  a  result  of  major 
structural  changes  in  world trade 
patterns  due  to  globalisation,  the 
impact of the global and financial 
and economic crisis. 

restructuring 

job 
Number  of 
losses as a result of other reasons, 
such as automation, digitalisation 
low-carbon 
or 
economy. 

transition 

to 

The  scope  of  the  EGF 
Regulation 
was 
appropriate  and  useful 
for its aims  

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
in 
contact 
Member States which did 
not 
for  EGF 
funding 

apply 

EQ  4.2:  To  what  extent  are 
the  updated 
intervention 
criteria (138)  of  the  EGF  as 
defined  in  Regulation  (EU) 

To  what  extent  were  are  the 
following criteria appropriate 
and useful: 

(137) See Section 2.1 above of SWD. 

(138)See Section 2.1 above of SWD. 

Extent  to  which  the  scope  has 
limited  access  to  funding  for 
relevant  cases 
otherwise 
for 
achieving 
the  EGF  overall 
objectives (qualitative feedback) 

Number  of  redundant  workers 
meeting the current threshold as a 

85 

The intervention criteria 
the  EGF 
set  out 
in 
Regulation 
were 
appropriate  and  useful 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
for  its  aims  during  the 
2021-2027 period  

persons 

Online  survey  of  EGF 
in 
contact 
Member States which did 
not 
for  EGF 
funding 

apply 

2021/691  appropriate  and 
useful for its aims?  

least 

  200  displaced 
At 
workers 
(or  self-employed 
persons’  activity  ceasing) 
over  a  reference  period  of  4 
months  in  an  enterprise  in  a 
Member State;  

least 

  200  displaced 
At 
workers 
(or  self-employed 
persons activity ceasing) over 
a reference period of 6 months 
especially 
in 
SMEs that belong to the same 
sectors 
two 
adjoining regions; 

in  one  or 

enterprises, 

200 

least 

displaced 
At 
workers 
(or  self-employed 
persons’  activity  ceasing) 
over  a  reference  period  of  4 
months 
enterprises, 
especially  SMEs  that  belong 
the  same  of  different 
to 
sectors in the same region. 

in 

proportion  of 
workers per Member State. 

all 

redundant 

to 

globalisation, 

Size of major restructuring events 
as  a  result  of  major  structural 
changes  in  world  trade  patterns 
due 
the 
continued  impacts  of  the  global 
financial  and  economic  crisis  or 
other reasons for restructuring job 
losses, 
automation, 
as 
digitalisation or transition to low-
carbon economy. 

such 

Extent  to  which  the  intervention 
criteria  have  limited  access  to 
funding  for  otherwise  relevant 
cases, e.g. in terms of the impact 
they  can  have  on  a  given 
region/MS, for achieving the EGF 
overall objectives 

Stakeholders’  views  on 
appropriateness 
intervention criteria  

of 

the 
the 

Having  small  labour  markets 
being  eligible  provided  that 
the 
redundancies  have  a 
serious  impact  on  the  local, 

86 

 
  
 
regional or national economy 
and on employment. 

of 

the 
To  what  extent  was 
redundant 
threshold 
workers 
in 
Regulation  (EU)  2021/691 
appropriate  and useful  for its 
aims? 

defined 

as 

To what extent should support 
be provided to both redundant 
and  self-employed  persons 
whose activity has ceased? 

To  what  extent  was 
four/six-month 
period appropriate? 

the 
reference 

EU added value (EQ 5): What is the EU added value of the EGF intervention?  

EQ 5.1: At case level, what 
is the EU added value of the 
EGF intervention? 

Volume  effects:  Has  EGF 
added 
supported, 
existing  actions  or  policy 
areas? 

to,  or 

Views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
degree  to  which  EGF  has  added 
to,  or  supported,  existing  actions 
or policy areas. 

The EGF has EU added 
value at case level  

Scope  effects:  Has  the  EGF 
broadened existing actions by 
supporting  groups  or  policy 

87 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
areas  that  would  not  have 
received support otherwise? 

Role  effects:  Have  lessons 
learnt 
the 
implementation  of  EGF  been 
applied elsewhere? 

from 

Process effects: Has the EGF 
improved/changed 
operational processes and the 
implementation  of  support 
measures 
redundant 
for 
workers  including  in  relation 
to other national or European 
sources of funding? 

EQ 5.2: At instrument level, 
what is the EU added value 
of the EGF intervention? 

Volume  effects:  Has  EGF 
supported, 
added 
existing  actions  or  policy 
areas? 

to,  or 

Views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
degree  to  which  EGF  has  added 
to,  or  supported,  existing  actions 
or policy areas. 

Scope  effects:  Has  the  EGF 
broadened existing actions by 
supporting  groups  or  policy 
areas  that  would  not  have 
received support otherwise? 

Role  effects:  Have  lessons 
the 
learnt 

from 

88 

At  instrument  level,  the 
EGF has EU added value   

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

 
 
 
  
or 

EQ 5.3: To what extent does 
the  aid  offered  by  the  EGF 
complement 
replace 
measures  or 
allowances 
which  the  Member  State 
would 
the 
provide 
absence of EGF funding? 

in 

implementation  of  EGF  been 
applied elsewhere? 

Process effects: Has the EGF 
improved/changed 
operational processes and the 
implementation  of  support 
redundant 
for 
measures 
workers  including  in  relation 
to other national or European 
sources of funding? 

What  other  measures  or 
allowances  are  available  for 
EGF  beneficiaries  beyond 
EGF support? 

of 

Existence 
measures  or  allowances 
supporting 
redundant in Member States.  

comparable 
for 
made 

workers 

The  aid  offered  by  the 
EGF 
substitutes/complements 
(partially  or  entirely) 
national measures  

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews 

Has the existence of the EGF 
affected the scope and scale of 
other comparable measures or 
allowances 
support 
workers  made  redundant  at 
national and regional level? 

to 

Views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
degree  to  which  funding  offered 
by  the  EGF  replaces  measures 
that  the  Member  State  would 
provide  in  the  absence  of  EU 
funding. 

replaced 

To  what  extent  has  EGF 
or 
funding 
complemented  measures  that 
were  being/would  have  been 
offered by Member States? 

Views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
degree  to  which  funding  offered 
by  the  EGF  replaces  allowances 
that  the  Member  State  would 
provide  in  the  absence  of  EU 
funding. 

89 

 
  
EQ  5.4:  Were  there  any 
cross-region  and/or  cross-
border  effects  of  the  EGF 
cases implemented? 

What  proportion  of  EGF 
beneficiaries found work in a 
region other than their region 
(whilst 
of 
remaining 
same 
country)? 

residence 

the 

in 

of 

workers 
Proportion 
(re)integrated  into  cross-border 
employment 
to 
their 
employment 
region/country of residence. 

as  opposed 

within 

EGF 
The 
implementation  resulted 
in  cross-border  effects 
(across  regions  and/or 
across countries) 

Literature and data review 

Targeted interviews /  s 

Online 
beneficiaries 

survey 

of 

Amount  of  mobility  allowance 
distributed via the EGF. 

Stakeholder  views  on  cross-
border effects of EGF cases 

What  proportion  of  EGF 
beneficiaries found work in a 
country  other 
their 
than 
country of residence? 

What  was  the  planned  EGF 
expenditure  on  cross-region 
and/or  cross-border  mobility 
allowances per case / Member 
State? 

What  was  the  actual  EGF 
expenditure  on  cross-region 
and/or  cross-border  mobility 
allowances  case  /  Member 
State? 

90 

 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation139 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Beneficiaries 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

Due to early stage of implementation costs and benefits of EGF could not be analysed. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mark the type of cost/benefit, 
each on a separate line: 

139 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the table 
should include the monetisation (€) of the costs/benefits based on any quantitative translation of the data (time taken, person days, number of records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved represented 
in monetary value  – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is drawn from a subset. 
An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and analytical models used. 

91 

 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
TABLE 2:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  
Report any simplification, burden reduction and cost savings achieved already by the intervention evaluated, including the points of comparison/ where available (e.g. REFIT savings 
predicted in the IA or other sources).  

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Beneficiaries 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitativ
e  

Commen
t 

Quantitative  Comment  

Quantitative  Comment 

Title140 [Select among:  (i) direct compliance cost savings (for example adjustment cost savings, administrative cost savings, savings from regulatory charges); (ii) enforcement cost 
savings (for example cost savings associated with activities linked to the implementation of an initiative such as monitoring, inspections and adjudication/litigation); (iii)  indirect 
cost savings (if possible - for example indirect compliance cost savings or other indirect cost savings such as transaction cost savings).  

Type: One-off / recurrent (select) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 
Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives141. 

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Beneficiaries 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Commen
t 

Quantitative 

Comment   Quantitative 

Comment 

Description: Increase simplification of the application process for Member States after the elimination of the requirement to demonstrate that the displacements occurred due to 
globalisation or a financial and economic crisis. Shorter deadlines for both Member States and the Commission, including the change of the deadlines, calculated in working days 
during 2021-2027 instead of calendar days calculation during 2014-2020. 
These changes led to a reduction in the approval time at EU level from 7.2 months during 2014-2020 to 5.5. months during 2021-2024. 

Type:  One-off / recurrent (select) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

140    Each simplification/saving should be included on a separate line.  
141    This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment. 

92 

 
 
 
 
               
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

After  approval  by  the  Commission’s  Interservice  Steering  Group  (ISSG),  DG  EMPL 
started conducting the consultations, and the results of all the consultation activities are 
covered by a synopsis report. All questionnaires used during the consultations were based 
on the evaluation questions discussed and approved by the ISSG beforehand. However, 
when  drafting  this  staff  working  document,  the  Commission  used  the  results  of  other 
specific consultations142 to double check the validity of data. 

SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1.  Overview of consultation strategy  

To ensure that the general public interest of the Union – as opposed to special interests of 
stakeholder  groups  –  is  well  reflected  in  this  evaluation,  and  in  the  design  and 
implementation of the EGF, the Commission regards it as a duty to conduct stakeholder 
consultations and consult the various stakeholders as widely as possible. 

The aim of these stakeholder consultations related to the EGF mid-term evaluation was to 
deliver a high  quality  and credible assessment by allowing interested parties to provide 
feedback and suggestions on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence,  and EU 
added  value  of  the  EGF  supported  actions.  This  also  ensured  transparency  and 
accountability. 

2.  Call for evidence 
The evaluation roadmap was published on the Commission’s Have your Say143 portal and 
made available for public feedback between 02 August 2024 and 06 September 2024. Six 
contributions  (two  from  Germany  and  one  each  from  Belgium,  Sweden,  Estonia  and 
Czechia) were received and the findings were taken into account in the conclusions of this 
evaluation. Of all the stakeholders targeted (See Table 1 below), the feedback was received 
from public authorities (4 contributions) and citizens/general public (2 contributions). 

3.  Stakeholder categories 

The EGF stakeholders at all levels  were  consulted through a variety  of means, ranging 
from  a  public  consultation  to  online  surveys  and  targeted  interviews.  Table  1  below 
presents an overview of the stakeholders targeted through each consultation tool/method. 

1)  Workers’  organisations/redundant  workers:  Workers'  organisations  and 
workers themselves can be directly affected. The EGF's beneficiaries are redundant 
workers and the most important stakeholders on an individual basis, as well as the 
organisations representing them. Depending on the Member State, some of these 
organisations might also be involved in the implementation of EGF measures. The 
interest of the individual redundant worker is very high, but his/her influence rather 
low. The interest of the organisations representing the workers is also very high, 

142 Consultations carried out for the European Commission, DG EMPL by the external contractor Ernst & 

Young for the Study on the future of EMPL funds, due to be published in June 2025. 

143 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14150-European-Globalisation-

Adjustment-Fund-for-Displaced-Workers-mid-term-evaluation_en 

93 

 
 
 
 
but their level of influence depends inter alia on the Member State and the level of 
involvement assigned to them in the implementation of EGF measures. 

2)  Citizens/general  public:  The  general  public  constitutes  the  largest  stakeholder 
group. On the one hand, the general public has an interest in how public funds are 
spent.  On  the  other,  even  if  not  directly  affected  by  EGF  measures,  any  active 
labour market policy measure indirectly affects the general public. Due to the more 
indirect  relation,  and  as  the  EGF  is  one  of  many  active  labour  market  policy 
instruments, the interest of this group is often low. Its influence is also quite low.  

3)  Industry/business: Even though the EGF does not provide any support to industry 
or businesses, they would have a general interest because of the EGF's nature as an 
active  labour  market  policy  instrument.  Some  organisations  representing  local 
business  in  an  area  affected  by  mass  redundancies  that  fall  under  the  EGF 
provisions, as well as organisations representing the interest of an industry strongly 
affected by globalisation or by the previous global financial and economic crisis, 
might however have a very high interest. The influence on the EGF measures is, 
however, usually low.  

4)  NGOs: NGOs that are not workers’ organisations and do not represent industries 
or businesses might still have an interest in the EGF. This group can include special 
interest organisations with a focus on environmental or gender issues. Their interest 
would  generally  be  rather  low,  except  regarding  the  particular  causes  they 
represent. Their general influence on the EGF is also rather low. 

5)  Private-sector bodies and professionals: Private-sector bodies are in most cases 
involved in implementing EGF measures and so both their interest and influence 
are  high.  They  may  be  training  bodies,  universities,  consultancies,  advisers  and 
various experts such as medical professionals, psychologists, lawyers, engineers, 
business and financial advisers, etc. 

6)  Public  authorities:  Politicians  and  national  governments  have,  by  definition,  a 
major  influence  on  EGF  measures.  Each  EGF  case  needs  to  be  approved  by  the 
national managing authority, usually a senior civil servant or even a Minister, before 
submission to the Commission. The Commission proposal is then presented to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  Due  to  the  limited  scope  of  the  EGF,  the 
overall interest of Member State public authorities is not considerable. The national 
EGF Managing Authorities, i.e. the Contact Persons of the EGF, have a very high 
interest  by  definition.  They  also  have  a  high  influence,  as  are  responsible  for 
designing EGF measures in their respective Member States, and are in permanent 
contact with the Commission. As regards local authorities in areas affected by EGF 
cases, these have a rather high interest in EGF. Even though they are often involved 
in the implementation of EGF measures, they usually do not have a major influence 
on their design. Their level of influence also varies depending on the Member State.  

7)  Research: Researchers representing academia or think tanks could have an interest 
in the EGF and, if they do, their findings might have an influence. These would 
usually  be  individual  researchers,  however,  so  that  it  would  not  make  sense  to 
consult ‘researchers’ as a group. 

94 

 
 
 
 
Table 1. Stakeholder consultation strategy: overview 

Feedback 
on call 
for 
evidence 

Targeted 
Consultations 

Beneficiary 
Survey 

Q3 2024  Q3-Q4/2024  Q3-Q4/2024 

Online 
Networking 
Seminar 

Contact 
Persons 
Meeting 

October 
2024 

Q4 2024 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Stakeholders targeted 

Workers/Beneficiaries 
Workers’ 
Organizations 
Citizens/General 
Public 

Industry/business 

NGOs 

Private sector bodies 

Public Authorities 

Research 

4.  Consultation methods and tools  

4.1.EGF beneficiary survey 

Seven EGF beneficiary surveys were carried out via the EU Survey website in the second 
half of 2024 for seven EGF cases from 2021144 which finished implementation. 

In total 645 beneficiaries replied to the seven beneficiary surveys, representing about 34% 
of the workers helped. The average reply rate for individual EGF case ranged from 11% 
(EGF/2021/007 - France) to 61% (EGF/2021/002 - Italy)(See Figure 15 below). 

Figure 15 Number of replies received to EGF beneficiary survey per case 

Grand Total (645)

 _ES/PaisVasco…

 _IT/Air Italy…

39%
80

34%

61%

601

 _IT/Porto…

17%

190

 _ES/Aragon…

5_FR/Airbus (48)

 _ES/Cataluña…

7_FR/Selecta (41)

35%

16%

263

299

34%
93
11%

366

% of replies to EGF beneficiary survey

0

500

1.892

1.000
Replies to EGF Beneficiary Survey

1.500

Workers helped according to Final Reports

144 The seven EGF cases from EGF/2021/001 to EGF/2021/007 (inclusive) are listed in Table 6. The final 

report for EGF/2021/007 was not fully available at the time of drafting of this report.. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: European Commission, DG EMPL. 

Profile of the 645 respondents before participating in EGF measures: 

•  Gender: 35% were women, 64,5% were men and 0.5% non-binary; 

•  Age: 1.4% was below 30 years of age, 62.33% were between 30 and 54 years of 

age and 36.28% were above 54 years of age; 

Figure 16. EGF beneficiary who responded to the surveys per gender and age group 

Source: European Commission, DG EMPL. 

•  Education  level:  5%  have  primary  education,  40%  secondary  education,  27% 
vocational  education,  22%  bachelor  education  or  above  and  about  6%  replied 
other; 

•  Years  of  professional  experience:  3%  have  between  1-5  years,  8.7%  have 
between 6 and 15 years, 20.3% have between 16 and 20 years and 36% have more 
than 21 years of professional experience; 

•  Experienced long-term unemployment: 50% of beneficiaries did, while 46% did 

not and 4% prefer not to say; 

•  Feel  disadvantaged  on  the  labour  market:  half  of  the  beneficiaries  feel 

disadvantaged because of age, being a parent, education level, location; 

•  Employment  situation  before  being  displaced:  89%  had  permanent  contract, 
while  11%  had  temporary  (fixed  term)  contracts.  The  majority  of  respondents 
(80%)  were  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  their  previous  job,  while  8%  were 
dissatisfied. 

EGF measures taken up 

The  EGF  measures  taken  up  by  the  645  beneficiaries  were:  individual  job  search 
assistance,  case  management,  and  general  information  services  (519),  Training  and  re-
training  (374),  employment  incentives/wage  subsidy  followed  by  (232),  supported 
employment  &  rehabilitation  (121),  promotion  of  entrepreneurship  (137),  allowances 
(training, job-search, mobility, subsistence, carers of dependent persons) (231) and other 
(renewal of licence for pilot, employers’ recruitment incentives) (67).  

96 

 
 
Beneficiaries considered the most helpful EGF measures to be training and re-training, 
counselling/coaching,  allowances,  wage  subsidy,  promotion  of  entrepreneurship  and 
supported employment and rehabilitation.  

About 174 beneficiaries could not participate in some EGF measures because they found 
another job,  bad timing, it was far  away, they  were not interested, personal  reasons,  or 
other (retirement, measure no longer took place because of low number of participants, no 
trainer available). 

Time passed between the dismissal and the start of the measures was up to 6 months 
for 37% of beneficiaries, between 6 and 12 months for 28% beneficiaries and longer than 
12 months for about 35% of beneficiaries. 

Duration of EGF support: 39% of beneficiaries followed measures which lasted up to 
five months, 32% between took up measures for 6 to 12 months, while 29% of beneficiaries 
got EGF support for more than 12 months. 

After participating in EGF measures, the 645 beneficiaries were of the opinion145 that 
the EGF support: 

•  was  tailored  to  their  individual  needs:  62%  of  beneficiaries  agree  or  strongly 

agree, while 26% disagreed with the statement. 

•  helped  them  develop  new  skills/gain  new  qualifications:  54%  of  beneficiaries 

agree or strongly agree, while 30% disagree/strongly disagree. 

•  helped them gain more confidence in their abilities: 48% of beneficiaries agree 

or strongly agree, while 30% disagree/strongly disagree.  

•  encouraged the beneficiaries to overcome gender-stereotypes in job selection, 
and/or  made  them  more  aware  of  gender  discrimination  in  general:  48%  of 
beneficiaries agree or strongly agree, while 30% disagree/strongly disagree.  

•  digital skills: 32% of beneficiaries agree or strongly agree that thanks to the EGF 
support they are better able to use digital technologies (e.g. internet; computer, 
smartphone,  other  devices,  software),  while  39%  disagree/strongly  disagree. 
Several  reasons  explain  these  results:  in  some  cases  (e.g.  two  thirds  of  the 
beneficiaries who disagree worked in the air transport sector) where the level of 
digital skills was already good, no measures was offered, or in case both basic and 
ad hoc digital training measures were offered, those were not taken up146. Other 
reasons for not taking up digital skills were related to the age of the beneficiaries, 
or the fact that they were long-term unemployed and less inclined to participate in 
such measures.  

•  environmental/green skills:  Thanks to  the EGF support beneficiaries are better 
able  to  save  energy,  produce  less  waste  or  find  other  ways  to  help  the 
environment:  25%  of  beneficiaries  agree  or  strongly  agree,  while  41% 
disagree/strongly disagree.  

145 The aggregate results presented refer only to the agreement and disagreement of the EGF beneficiaries 

with each statement. The remaining respondents chose either do not know or not applicable.  

146 In the case of EGF/2021/002 IT/Air Italy, the trainings on digital skills offered were: general training on 
digital skills (up to 90 hours), middle level general IT training, IT security and web. 

97 

 
 
•  helped  to  build  a  network  of  contacts:  35%  of  beneficiaries  agree  or  strongly 

agree, while 41% disagree/strongly disagree.  

• 

feel better qualified for work: 46% of beneficiaries agree or strongly agree, while 
41% disagree/strongly disagree.  

•  178 beneficiaries completed education or training with support of the EGF such 
as:  re-training,  re-skilling,  professional  re-orientation(147),  language  courses, 
vocational  training,  training  to  prepare  for  recognition  of  skills  through  work 
experience,  

•  beneficiaries chose to professionally re-train mostly within the same sector (132 
beneficiaries). The other beneficiaries (113) chose different  sectors than the one 
they  previously  worked  in,  retraining  as  receptionist,  HR  assistant,  accountant, 
teacher, translator, coaching, interior design, renewable energy. 

Employment situation after receiving EGF support: 

Of the 645 beneficiaries, 245 beneficiaries found a job, 55 started a new business (self-
employed), nine were still in education/training, 22 retired, and 90 were inactive. The rest 
of 266 were still unemployed, of which more than 60% have been unemployed for more 
than one year. 

Details of the 245 new jobs started: 

•  Type of new job found: 217 beneficiaries found a full-time job, while for 28 it 
was part-time. 152 have permanent contract, while 93 have temporary contracts. 

•  Profession: About 132 beneficiaries who found new jobs have the same profession 
as  before  receiving  EGF  support,  while  113  have  different  professions 
(administrative  employee,  receptionist,  project  manager,  mechanic,  plumber, 
driver, technician, etc). 

•  Location of new job: 197 beneficiaries got jobs in the same region as the one held 
before  receiving  EGF  support,  39  in  a  different  region,  while  12  got  a  job  in  a 
different country (the most of them had been displaced in the air transport sector). 

•  About 59 people were motivated by the support received to find a job outside 
the country or region (the most of them had been displaced in the air transport 
and automotive sectors), while 186 were not. 

•  More responsibilities in the current job than in the previous one: 95 beneficiaries 
confirmed they have more responsibilities in the current job, while  2  don’t and 
22 prefer not to say. 

•  Generally,  in  the  new  jobs  the  same  (95  beneficiaries)  or  less  hours  (90 
beneficiaries) of paid or unpaid overtime are normally worked the new job. Only 
60 beneficiaries are working more hours that in their previous jobs. 

•  Salary  level  compared  to  your  previous  job:  70  beneficiaries  declared  having 
higher salary than before, 33 the same level of salary and 101 lower than before. 

147  Examples  given  by  beneficiaries:  IT  course,  air  carrier  technical  instructor,  entrepreneurship,  hotel 
receptionist, industrial technician, Courses (forklift operators, overhead cranes, etc., and radio frequency 
and picking), forklift and plastic injection operator. 

98 

 
 
•  Working  conditions  in  your  new  job  compared  to  the  job  you  held  before 
receiving EGF assistance were better for 72 (29%) beneficiaries and the same for 
64 (26%), while 59 (24%) declared to be worse. 

•  The EGF measures helped beneficiaries find a new job: 104 (42%) agreed, while 

113 (46%) did not.  

•  The technical and digital skills you acquired during the support received were 
helpful in the new job: 39 (16%) beneficiaries considered they helped very much, 
for 61 (25%) beneficiaries it helped a little, for 53(22%) it did not help all, while 
92 (38%) beneficiaries did not receive such trainings.  

•  A limited number of beneficiaries acquired environmental/green skills during the 
support you received. 28% considered these skills  helped them a little or very 
much in the new job, while     considered that these didn’t help. 

Details of the 55 self-employed /new businesses started: 

Out of the 645 who replied to the beneficiary survey, 55 beneficiaries started their own 
business, of which 76% full-time and 24% part-time. Most businesses were opened in the 
same  region  (86%)  where  they  previously  worked  and  in  the  economic  sectors  of 
automobile, retail trade, restauration, coaching, personal development, construction, real 
estate, tourism, a private English language school, take-over of family business, etc.  

80% of the 55 business have been opened for more than 12 months, while the remaining 
20% for less than 12 months. 

In terms of number of people each new business had employed: 

•  One employee - 44 (80%) of businesses created; 

•  2 employees per business (7 businesses); 

•  5 employees in the case of 2 companies: one part-time private English language 

school and one take-over of the family farm and wine business; 

•  7 employees in the case of a start-up food business; 

•  12 employees in the case of a construction firm. 

Level of earnings was generally (78%) lower compared to previous job, however in 60% 
of the cases the working conditions are considered better than before.  

In  71%  of  the  new  opened  businesses,  the  beneficiaries  consider  that  EGF  support 
received helped them become self-employed. 

The technical and digital skills acquired during the EGF support received were helpful 
for  about  42%  of  the  beneficiaries  who  started  the  new  businesses.  About  45%  of 
beneficiaries who started a business did not receive such trainings because the majority 
had worked before in the air transport sector and already had a good level of digital skills. 
The  environmental/green  skills  acquired  were  considered  useful  by  15%  of  the  self-
employed beneficiaries, while 73% of them did not receive such trainings. 

Details of the nine beneficiaries still in education/training: 

Of the nine beneficiaries,   were still following bachelor’s degree, and other four were 
following  trainings  such  as:  welding  courses,  training  in  the  field  of  private  security, 
computer security. active directory administration.  

99 

 
About half of the beneficiaries who acquired digital environmental/green skills during the 
support received found it helpful in their education or training programme. 

4.2. Member State-level written and online consultations and interviews 

The  consultation  activites  carried  out  were:  (i)  one  online  seminar  and  one  in-person 
meeting148; (ii) two written surveys for all Member States implementing EGF cases, one 
focused  on  the  EGF  at  case  level  (September  2024)  and  the  other  one  on  the  EGF  at 
instrument  level  (November-December  2024);  (iii)  one  written  survey  for  the  Member 
States  who  did  not  apply  for  EGF  co-financing  (November-December  2024), 
complemented  by  discussions  and  interviews  during  the  Contact  Persons  meeting 
organized in person on 27 November 2024; and (iv) case studies covering six EGF cases149. 
Two interviews were carried out for three cases during the Contact Persons meeting.  

These written surveys and interviews have targeted EGF managing authorities, delivery 
partners, social partners. The interviews and case studies were used as the main source of 
information to answer the evaluation questions and feed into case study reports. 

Targeted surveys for Member States with EGF cases 

Two targeted written surveys were carried out with the seven Member States implementing 
EGF  cases.  One  survey  was  focused  on  the  EGF  at  case  level  (September  2024)  and 
received  4  written  replies  and  also  the  other  one  on  the  EGF  at  instrument  level 
(November-December 2024). Consultation of the implementing Member States has also 
been done during the online Networking Seminar. 

Results from the consultations are presented in section 5 Results of consultation activities. 

Targeted surveys for Member States that did not apply for EGF co - financing 

One written survey was carried out to understand why certain Member States did not apply 
for co-financing. It was aimed at EGF contact persons in countries that did not apply for 
EGF funding in the 2021-2027 period. 19 Member States replied to the written survey, 
while one Member State (SK) gave a feedback only during the in-person meeting organised 
on  27-28  November  2024  with  the  EGF  Contact  Persons  and  replied  to  one  of  the  ten 
questions from the survey. 

Further feedback was received from 13 Member States that did not apply for co-financing 
also during in-person discussions and interviews which took place during the EGF Contact 
Persons’ meeting from 2 -28 November 2024.  

148 An online Networking seminar on 10 October 2024 with the stakeholders from the seven implementing 
Member States and eight non-implementing Member States (CZ, IE, LT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SE), and a 
Contact Persons meeting organized in person on 27 November 2024 in Düsseldorf, Germany, with the 
EGF Contact Persons from 16 Member States ((BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, ES, HR, LV, LT, HU, NL, 
PL, SK, FI and SE).  

149 From EGF/2021/001 ES/Pais Vasco until EGF/2021/006 ES/Cataluña automotive. A case study could not 
be completed for the seventh case (EGF/2021/007 FR/Selecta),  because the data from the final report 
was incomplete at the moment of drafting this SWD. 

100 

 
 
 
Results of the consultation activities carried out during the Contact Persons meeting of 28 
November 2024 are presented below, in section 5 Results of consultation activities. 

EU-level interviews  

The purpose of the EU-level interviews was to add more in-depth qualitative evidence to 
data  already  gathered  on  the  design  and  implementation  of  the  EGF,  and  fill  data  gaps 
emerging from other consultation tools.  

Two semi-structured EU interviews were conducted with European Commission staff.  

5.  Results of consultation activities 

During the Networking Seminar which took place online on 10 October 2024, with seven 
implementing Member States was focused on the EGF at case level. Feedback received 
via Slido, tour de table and two breakout sessions showed the following: 

Effectiveness of the EGF 

1.  Factors encouraging displaced workers to  accept EGF support offered by their 
Member State: tailor-made measures, support services in proximity to the target 
group, how measures are designed and implemented, and background of workers 
and  their  willingness  to  actively  participate  in  EGF  measures.  Other  reasons 
mentioned  were:  being  well  informed  and  programmes  including  economic 
incentives. Feedback was received via Slido from 12 participants. 

2.  Reasons influencing displaced workers to refuse EGF support include: finding a 
job sooner than expected, delays in the start of implementation of EGF measures, 
generous  compensation  from  the  dismissing  company,  personal  reasons,  robust 
labour  markets  offering  employment  possibilities  and  strong  national  and  local 
support, mismatch between measures offered and beneficiaries’ needs. Feedback 
was received via Slido from 12 participants. 

3.  The  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  EGF  cases  was  helped  by:  the  Member 
State’s  past  EGF  experience,  institutional  capacity,  economic  situation  in  the 
country or region and case-specific circumstances. Feedback was received from 9 
participants via Slido. 

4.  The following factors were indicated to have hindered or posted challenges to 
achieve the objectives of EGF cases: problems and delays with the designing and 
implementation of EGF measures, difficulties in reaching and activating redundant 
workers  and  workers’  low  willingness  for  mobility  and  change.  Feedback  was 
received via Slido from 11 participants. 

5.  Ways  in  which  the  EGF  support  was  well-tailored  to  the  actual  needs  of 
beneficiaries,  including  the  needs  of  unemployed  women,  young  and  older 
unemployed  people  or  persons  at  an  increased  risk  of  poverty  (tour  de  table: 
feedback from 6 MS): 
-  The needs of the displaced workers are discovered at different moments and 

via different methods, such as:  

o  during orientation/counselling measures; 
o 

in studies focusing on specific groups of workers, sectors etc.; 

101 

 
 
o  during face-to-face meeting with employee representatives; 
o  even  before  the  workers  are  laid  off,  in  meetings  between  the 
implementing body and the individual  workers (in DE) to  profile the 
workers  to  see  what  the  competencies  are,  the  qualifications  and  the 
needs of each person made redundant.  

- 

In terms of timing, the measures are adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries 
either before designing the package of measures or during the implementation, 
after discovering the real needs of each individual. 

-  The measures are adapted to the specific groups of displaced workers, including 
to the needs of unemployed women, young and older unemployed people or 
persons at an increased risk of poverty; for these groups, also an analysis of the 
situation in different sectors in the region plays an important role. 

-  Previous experience with EGF helps in adapting the measures. 

6.  The following factors  prevent the early  start of measures:  public tenders, EU 
approval  process,  timing  deadlines,  long  processes  for  contracts,  prefinancing 
needed,  coordination  with  all  actors  involved,  bureaucracy,  common  national 
treatment  of  EGF  with  other  EU  financial  instruments  such  as  ESF+,  national 
legislation, etc. Feedback was received via Slido from 9 participants. 

7.  The early start of measures can be improved by reducing the time of validation 
process, with a good planning and chronology of implementation, by accelerating 
the process, prefinancing of EGF measures to shorten approval time, improvement 
of national legislation. Feedback was received via Slido from 6 participants. 
8.  The training offered for digital and green skills is appropriate to the needs of the 
beneficiaries. Feedback received during open discussions (breakout sessions) was:  
-  All cases have tailor-made measures on digital and green skills depending on 

the needs of the beneficiaries. 

-  Beneficiaries  are profiled before the start of the  measures, and measures  are 

adapted accordingly.  

-  There are financial incentives to improve digital skills, e.g. to obtain IT literacy. 

These were difficult to put in place but work very well now. 

9.  Lessons  learned  from  the  implementation  of  2021-2024  EGF  cases.  Feedback 

received during open discussions (breakout sessions) highlighted that:  
-  Applications are now easier to fill in than before. 
-  Previous experience with EGF helps a lot. 
-  Flexibility  in  new  intervention  criteria,  which  allows  support  to  be  given  to 
workers from small and medium-sized enterprises with different NACE Rev.2 
division. This has a positive impact on the image of the project as well as on its 
implementation. 

-  Different ways of informing the displaced workers about the participation in 
EGF co-funded measures are usually used, and in one case it was experimented 
to share such information also via posters at job fairs, besides regular methods. 
-  Active participation of social partners (Unions and employers associations) is 
important in designing the measures, particularly in counselling and training. 
-  Active involvement of the PES to identify the needs of the labour market, where 

the dismissals took place. 

-  Reducing the size of the groups in training is helpful. 
-  Economic incentives encourage participation in measures. 

102 

 
-  Monitoring  committees  involving  managing  authorities  and  implementing 

bodies allow to swiftly introduce changes/corrections, if needed. 

Efficiency of the EGF  

Stakeholders from implementing Member States were asked during the meetings, via Slido 
if the same results could have been achieved with fewer resources and/or in a shorter period 
of time. Several stakeholders consider that both the resources and the time were adequate, 
while one stakeholder mentioned a need for better adjusted budgets. 

During the Contact Persons meeting which took place in-person on 28 November 2024, 
with 16 Member States (of which 3 had EGF ongoing cases) was focused on the EGF at 
instrument  level,  the  relevance  of  some  changes  introduced  by  the  2021-2027  EGF 
Regulation and further improvements of the Fund. Feedback was received via Slido, tour 
de table and interviews. 

A short consultation via SLIDO provided answers to 3 questions about the (a) broadened 
scope, (b) the changes in the EGF Regulation and (c) how can be the EGF be improved. 
Out of 25 EGF stakeholders present from 16 Member States (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, 
ES, HR, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, SK, FI and SE), 18/19 replied for the first two questions 
and 11 for the third one. The results showed that:  

- (a) 100% of respondents agreed that the broadened scope of the EGF better reflects the 
economic realities and that the broadened scope makes the EGF more accessible.  

-  (b)  95%  of  respondents  agreed  that  the  changes  introduced  in  the  2021-2027  period 
improve the EGF’s efficiency (e.g. simplified application procedure).  

- (c) 11 participants suggested as further improvements of the EGF: more simplification, 
shorter deadlines, capacity  building,  support at  application stage, further  decreasing  the 
threshold of dismissals, guidance on Simplified Cost Options, etc.  

A tour the table followed for the EGF contact persons from 11 Member States (CZ, EE, 
IE, HR, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, SK and FI) who did not apply for EGF during 2021-2024. 
Each Member State was invited to present the reasons preventing them from applying for 
the EGF. The replies showed the main reasons for not applying have been:  

- Support to redundant workers was provided with national funds, as these are available 
more quickly and provide more flexibility (FI & NL).  

- Several countries (CZ, EE, HR, LV, LT, HU, PL and SK)150 show a preference for using 
the ESF+ to provide support to workers laid off. SK is also using the Just Transition Fund 
to support displacements in the mining sector. 

150  PL,  RO,  PT,  CZ,  HR,  HU,  SK,  LT  have  high  allocations  under  the  cohesion  policy  for  ESF+,  JTF, 
ERDF, CF. See 2021-2027 EU allocation per Member State - Cohesion Policy (ERDF - CF - ESF+ - JTF) | 
Cohesion Open Data. 

103 

 
 
- National economy is doing well (HR, LV, and LT). The labour market is able to absorb 
the displacements. 

104 

 
 
 
Survey for Member States implementing  
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers151 
(EGF) cases during 2021-2024 

EFFECTIVENESS at instrument level: 

The objectives of the EGF are to demonstrate solidarity towards workers made redundant 
and to ensure for  each EGF case that the largest possible number of beneficiaries find 
sustainable employment as soon as possible.  

1.  Use of EGF support by Member States: 

a.  Are the objectives of the EGF clear? 

b.  Are relevant stakeholders aware of the EGF in given MS? 

c.  What are the factors that: 

i.  encouraged Member States to apply for EGF? 

ii.  hindered Member States from applying for EGF? 

d.  Why were the EGF funds received from the Commission not entirely used 

in some cases? 

2.  To what extent does the broadened scope of the EGF     -    152 make the Fund 

fairer and more inclusive? 

3.  Modified intervention criteria153: 

a.  To what extent do the modified intervention criteria make the EGF more 

accessible?  

b.  To what extent are the modified intervention criteria appropriate and useful 

for the objectives of the Fund? 

4.  Alignment of the EGF co-financing rate with the ESF+ (while maintaining 60% 

as the minimum threshold): 

a.  To what extent is this alignment appropriate?  
b.  Does  it  remove  obstacles  in  applying  and  encourage  Member  States  to 

apply for EGF support? 

151    Regulation  (EU)  2021/691  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  April  2021  on  the 
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 
1309/2013 (OJ L 153, 3.5.2021, p. 48)   
152 For 2021-2027, the scope of the EGF was extended to cover job displacements resulting from any major 
restructuring events, in particular those caused by challenges related to globalisation, such as changes in 
world  trade  patterns,  trade  disputes,  significant  changes  in  the  trade  relations  of  the  Union  or  the 
composition of the internal market and financial or economic crises, as well as the transition to a low-
carbon economy, or as a consequence of digitisation or automation. 

153 See Article 4 Regulation (EU) 2021/691. The modified intervention criteria refer to a decreased threshold 

of displacements from 500 to 200 and different conditions for the reference period, as follows: 
a.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a reference period 

of 4 months in an enterprise in a Member State; 

b.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons activity ceasing) over a reference period 
of 6 months in enterprises, especially SMEs that belong to the same sectors in one or two adjoining 
regions; 

c.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a reference period 
of 4 months in enterprises, especially SMEs that belong to the same of different sectors in the same 
region. 

105 

 
 
c.  Has  the  alignment  made  the  EGF  fairer  and  does  the  EGF  reach  more 

potential beneficiaries? 

5.  Do  the  modified  EU  or  national  procedures154  in  place  ensure  a  swift  and 

resource saving decision-making process and thus a quick implementation? 

6.  Information and communication activities  

a.  To  what  extent  have  the  communication  activities  and  meetings  of  the 
Commission proven useful and reached the relevant EGF stakeholders or 
Union citizens?  

b.  To what extent have the information and communication activities of the 
Member States proven useful and reached the dismissed workers, the local 
population and other stakeholders, or Union citizens?  

c.  Was  there  anything  preventing  your  Member  State  from  carrying  out 
information and communication activities in order to promote the use of the 
EGF in general, or a specific EGF case in particular? 

EFFICIENCY at instrument level: 

7.  Do the changes introduced in the 2021-2027 period improve efficiency? 

a.  To  what  extent  does  the  simplified  application  procedure  (no  need  to 
demonstrate that the redundancies are linked to the effects of globalisation 
or an economic and financial crisis) help reduce the administrative burden 
when applying? 

b.  To what extent are reporting requirements imposed on Member States on 
the execution of the financial contribution from the EGF more demanding 
or less demanding than other similar programmes? 

COHERENCE at instrument level: 

8.  How coherent is the EGF intervention with other European Union programmes and 

national instruments? 

154 For 2021-2027, the main procedural changes were:  

a.  Deadlines are calculated in working days instead of calendar days. 
b.  Shorter deadlines:  

a. 

b. 

for Commission: 50 working days instead of 12 weeks to complete its assessment of the 
application; 
for Member States: 15 working days instead of 6 weeks to reply to Commission request 
for additional information. 

c.  Start of the 24 month-period  when Commission is notified of the adoption by the European 

Parliament and Council. This results in a full 24-monthimplementation period for all Member 
States. Before 2021, this was not the case for those whose national legislation prevented an early 
start of the measures before the decision on the mobilisation of the EGF. In 21-27, the flexibility 
to start implementation earlier at own risk is, and thus stretch implementation beyond 24 months, 
is retained. 

106 

 
 
 
 
9.  To  what  extent  and  how  have  Member  States  ensured  the  complementarity  / 
prevented overlap of EGF support with other European Union instruments, such as 
the European Social Fund Plus, the Recovery and Resilience Facility or national 
instruments in Member States? 

RELEVANCE at instrument level: 

10.  Does  the  broadened  scope  of  the  EGF,  covering  any  type  of  large-scale 
restructuring events, no matter the cause, better reflect the economic realities and 
needs?  
Does is make the EGF more flexible and responsive?  
Does it make the EGF more accessible?  

EU ADDED VALUE 

European added value is the value that an EU action adds through EU policy, regulation, 
legal  instruments  and  spending,  over  and  above  that  created  by  Member  States  acting 
alone.  

Is there an additional value of a Union intervention? 

11. What is the EU added value of the EGF intervention?  
12. To  what  extent  does  the  support  offered  by  the  EGF  replace  or  complement 
measures or allowances which the Member State would provide in the absence of 
EGF funding? 

13. What are your suggestions for the EGF’s further improvement? 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SURVEY  

for Member States who did not apply for the European Globalisation Adjustment 
Fund for Displaced Workers155 (EGF) funding during 2021-2027 

The role of the EU in active labour market measures  

1.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  that  the  European  Union  should  help  displaced 
workers and self-employed persons in case of any major restructuring events, no 
matter the cause? 

2.  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  that  the  European  Union  should  help  displaced 
workers find another job as rapidly as possible through the provision of funding for 
active labour market measures (e.g. tailor-made training and retraining, job-search 
allowances, employers’ recruitment incentives etc.)? 

Relevance of the EGF 

3.  Is  the  broadened  scope156  of  the  EGF,  covering  any  type  of  large-scale 
restructuring events, no matter the cause, appropriate? Does it make the EGF more 
accessible? 

4.  Are  the  modified  intervention  criteria157  of  the  EGF  for  the  2021-2027  period 

appropriate? 

5.  Is  the  alignment  of  the  EGF  co-financing  rate  with  the  ESF+158  (while 

maintaining 60% as the minimum threshold) appropriate? 

155  Regulation  (EU)  2021/691  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  April  2021  on  the 
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 
1309/2013 (OJ L 153, 3.5.2021, p. 48) 
156 For 2021-2027, the scope of the EGF was extended to cover job displacements resulting from any major 
restructuring events, in particular those caused by challenges related to globalisation, such as changes in 
world  trade  patterns,  trade  disputes,  significant  changes  in  the  trade  relations  of  the  Union  or  the 
composition of the internal market and financial or economic crises, as well as the transition to a low-
carbon economy, or as a consequence of digitisation or automation. 

157 See Article 4 Regulation (EU) 2021/691. The modified intervention criteria refer to a decreased threshold 

of displacements from 500 to 200 and different conditions for the reference period, as follows: 
d.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a reference period 

of 4 months in an enterprise in a Member State; 

e.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons activity ceasing) over a reference period 
of 6 months in enterprises, especially SMEs that belong to the same sectors in one or two adjoining 
regions; 

f.  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a reference period 
of 4 months in enterprises, especially SMEs that belong to the same of different sectors in the same 
region. 

158 See Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 
2021  laying  down  common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European 
Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries 
and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, 
the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa 
Policy 

108 

 
 
 
Awareness of the EGF  

6.  To what extent are the relevant stakeholders159 aware of the EGF in your country? 

Barriers to apply for EGF – Member states that did not apply for funding 

7.  What  are  the  barriers  that  prevent  your  Member  State  from  applying  for  EGF 

funding? 

Findings from the ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020160 listed as barriers can be 
found in the footnote161. 

8.  What changes in the EGF Regulation would make the EGF more accessible 

for your Member State or would encourage to apply for EGF? 

European added value is the value that an EU action adds through EU policy, regulation, 
legal  instruments  and  spending,  over  and  above  that  created  by  Member  States  acting 
alone.  

9.  What is the EU added value of the EGF intervention?  
10. If yes, to what extent does the support offered by the EGF replace or complement 
measures or allowances which the Member State would provide in the absence of 
EGF funding? 

159  The  relevant  stakeholders  are:  persons  who  have  previously  received  EGF-funded  support,  displaced 
workers,  workers  threatened by  displacement,  self-employed  persons  who  ceased  their activity,  workers’ 
organisations  and  trade  unions,  non-governmental  organisations,  organisations  involved  in  providing 
training, coaching, advice, business/companies, citizens/the general public, public authorities at regional or 
local level. 
160 Ex-post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) 2014-2020 
161 - There have not been any cases in my Member State that correspond to the EGF’s intervention criteria; 
-  EGF funding does not cater to the needs of the beneficiaries in my Member State; 
-  The actions funded by the EGF (e.g. job search support, training, help with self-employment etc.) are 

not adapted to my Member State; 

-  EGF support overlaps with measures or activities funded at national level with other EU funds (such as 

ESF); 

-  EGF support overlaps with measures or activities funded by national instruments; 
-  The EGF is not as cost-effective a response to job losses as national measures; 
-  The thresholds (500 redundancies) for intervention are too high for my Member State; 
-  The application procedure is too lengthy; 
-  The application is too burdensome; 
-  The co-financing rate is not sufficiently high; 
-  The financial support is not provided sufficiently quickly to enable quick implementation of the support; 
-  Other reasons. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. CASE PROFILE DATA BY MEMBER STATE AND BY SECTOR FOR 18 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 3 MAY 2021 AND 31 DECEMBER 2024 

Under Article 20(3) of the EGF Regulation, evaluations must include the figures showing the number of applications and cover the performance of the 
EGF by country and by sector, to assess whether the EGF is reaching its targeted recipients. The tables in this annex provide an overview of the 2021–2024 
EGF applications. There are 18 applications in total, of which the results are available for seven cases. Due to the small number of cases, profound analyses 
per Member State or per industrial sector were not possible.  

The most important general data on cases covered by this evaluation are given below.  

For completeness of the exercise and for information purposes, we present overview tables on cases, sorted by Member State and subsequently per sector. 
The final table in this annex presents workers targeted in EGF cases, including the breakdown by gender and age of targeted workers.  

110 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Case 
Name 

Pais 
Vasco 
metal 

Case ref.  

EGF/2021/0
01 

EGF/2021/0
02 

EGF/2021/0
03 

Porto 
Canale 

IT 

ES 

Aragon 
automoti
ve 

Airbus 

FR 

Cataluña 
automoti
ve 

ES 

Selecta 

FR 

EGF/2021/0
04 

EGF/2021/0
05 

EGF/2021/0
06 

EGF/2021/0
07 

 Table 2. General overview of 18 applications received between 3 May 2021 and 31 December 2024 

Memb
er 
State   

Sector (NACE) 

Interven
tion 
criterion  

Globalisati
on / Crisis   

EGF 
amount 
requested   
(€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Wor
kers 
targ
eted 

Worke
rs 
helped 

Average 
EGF  amount 
per 
spent 
worker 

ES 

Metalworking industry 

Air Italy 

IT 

Air transport 

b 

a 

Crisis 
(COVID-
19) 

Corporate 
crisis 

1214607 

175087,7 

300 

80 

2189 

3874640 

1600801,9 

611 

601 

2664 

Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation 

4(3) 
(Labour 
market) 

Manufacture of motor 
vehicles, trailers and 
semi-trailers 

Manufacture of 
transport equipment 

Manufacture of motor 
vehicles, trailers and 
semi-trailers 
(vending machines) 
Wholesale trade, except 
of motor vehicles and 
motorcycles  

b 

a 

b 

a 

Trade 

1493407 

1021361,7 

190 

190 

5376 

Crisis 
(COVID-
19) 

Crisis 
(COVID-
19) 

1404863 

710854,05 

320 

263 

2703 

3745264 

3745264 

297 

299 

12526 

Trade 

2795156 

226422,15 

450 

93 

2435 

1977200 

1661510,1 

366 

378 

4396 

Crisis 
(COVID-
19) 

111 

 
  
Sector (NACE) 

Interventi
on 
criterion  

Globalisati
on / Crisis   

EGF 
amount 
requested   
(€)  

EGF 
amou
nt 
spent 
(€) 

Worke
rs 
targete
d 

Worke
rs 
helped 

Average 
EGF  amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Case ref.  

Case Name 

EGF/2021/0
08 

Attica Electrical 
Equipment 
Manufacturing 

EGF/2022/0
01 

Air France 

EGF/2022/0
02 

TNT Express 
Worldwide 

Memb
er 
State   

EL 

FR 

BE 

Electrical 
equipment 
manufacturing 
Air transport & 
Aircraft 
maintenance 
Warehousing and 
support activities 
for transportation 

EGF/2022/0
03 

EGF/2023/0
01 

EGF/2023/0
02 

EGF/2023/0
03 
EGF/2023/0
04 

 Alu Ibérica 

ES 

Basic metals 

Logistics Nivelles 

BE 

Warehousing and 
support activities 
for transportation 
& Land transport 
and transport via 
pipelines 

Makro 

BE 

Retail trade 

Vallourec 
Deutschland 

DE 

Basic metals 

Danish Crown 

DK 

Food products 

b 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Trade 

1495830 

206 

Crisis 
(COVID-
19) 

17742607 

1580 

Takeover 

1956397 

Trade 

1275000 

559 

303 

Corporate 
crisis 

2153358 

603 

Corporate 
crisis 

2828223 

Trade 

2984627 

Corporate 
crisis 

1882212 

421 

835 

390 

112 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EGF/2024/0
01 

Match 

EGF/2024/0
02 

EGF/2024/0
03 

Limburg 
machinery and 
paper 

Van Hool 

Source: EGF Database 

BE 

Retail trade 

BE 

BE 

Machinery and 
Equipment & 
Paper 
Automotive 
(buses) 

a 

c 

a 

Corporate 
crisis 

2661564 

Other 

704135 

365 

632 

Corporate 
crisis 

7999015 

2397 

113 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Table 3. Case profile data by Member State 

Member 
State   

Case ref.  

Case Name 

Sector (NACE) 

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ Crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

BE 

EGF/2022/002 

TNT Express 
Worldwide 

BE 

EGF/2023/001  Logistics Nivelles 

Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation 
Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation & Land 
transport and transport 
via pipelines 

BE 

EGF/2023/002  Makro 

Retail trade 

BE 

EGF/2024/001  Match 

Retail trade 

BE 

EGF/2024/002 

Limburg machinery 
and paper 

Machinery and 
Equipment & Paper 

BE 

EGF/2024/003  Van Hool 

Automotive (buses) 

DE 

EGF/2023/003 

Vallourec 
Deutschland 

Basic metals 

DK 

EGF/2023/004  Danish Crown 

Food products 

Takeover 

1956397 

Corporate 
crisis 

2153358 

Corporate 
crisis 

Corporate 
crisis 

2828223 

2661564 

Other 

704135 

Corporate 
crisis 

7999015 

Trade 

2984627 

Corporate 
crisis 

1882212 

a 

a 

a 

a 

c 

a 

a 

a 

114 

559 

603 

421 

365 

632 

2397 

835 

390 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EL 

EGF/2021/008 

Attica Electrical 
Equipment 
Manufacturing 

ES 

EGF/2021/001  Pais Vasco metal 

ES 

EGF/2021/004  Aragon automotive 

ES 

EGF/2021/006  Cataluña automotive 

Electrical equipment 
manufacturing 

Metalworking 
industry 

Manufacture of motor 
vehicles, trailers and 
semi-trailers 

Manufacture of motor 
vehicles, trailers and 
semi-trailers 

ES 

EGF/2022/003 

 Alu Ibérica 

Basic metals 

FR 

EGF/2021/005  Airbus 

FR 

EGF/2021/007  Selecta 

FR 

EGF/2022/001  Air France 

Manufacture of 
transport equipment 

(vending machines) 
Wholesale trade, 
except of motor 
vehicles and 
motorcycles  

Air transport & 
Aircraft maintenance 

IT 

EGF/2021/002  Air Italy 

Air transport 

b 

b 

b 

b 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

Trade 

1495830 

206 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

1214607 

175087,7 

300 

80 

2189 

1404863 

710854,05 

320 

263 

2703 

Trade 

2795156 

226422,15 

450 

93 

2435 

Trade 

1275000 

303 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

Corporate 
crisis 

3745264 

3745264 

297 

299 

12526 

1977200 

1661510,1 

366 

378 

4396 

17742607 

1580 

3874640 

1600801,9 

611 

601 

2664 

IT 

EGF/2021/003  Porto Canale 

Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation 

4(3) 
(Labour 
market) 

Trade 

1493407 

1021361,7 

190 

190 

5376 

115 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Table 4. Case profile data by sector 

Sector (NACE) 

Case ref.  

Case Name 

Member 
State   

Intervention 
criterion  

Globalisation 
/ Crisis   

EGF  amount 
requested   (€)  

EGF 
amount 
spent (€) 

Workers 
targeted 

Workers 
helped 

Average 
EGF 
amount 
spent 
per 
worker 

Air transport 

EGF/2021/002  Air Italy 

Air transport & 
Aircraft maintenance 

EGF/2022/001  Air France 

Automotive (buses) 

EGF/2024/003  Van Hool 

Basic metals 

EGF/2022/003 

Basic metals 

EGF/2023/003 

Electrical equipment 
manufacturing 

EGF/2021/008 

 Alu Ibérica 
Vallourec 
Deutschland 
Attica Electrical 
Equipment 
Manufacturing 

Food products 

EGF/2023/004  Danish Crown 

Machinery and 
Equipment & Paper 

EGF/2024/002 

Limburg machinery 
and paper 

IT 

FR 

BE 

ES 

DE 

EL 

DK 

BE 

Manufacture of motor 
vehicles, trailers and 
semi-trailers 

EGF/2021/004  Aragon automotive 

ES 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

b 

a 

c 

b 

116 

Corporate 
crisis 

3874640 

1600801,9 

611 

601 

2664 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

17742607 

Corporate 
crisis 

Trade 

Trade 

7999015 

1275000 

2984627 

Trade 

1495830 

Corporate 
crisis 

1882212 

Other 

704135 

1580 

2397 

303 

835 

206 

390 

632 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

1404863 

710854,05 

320 

263 

2703 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Manufacture of motor 
vehicles, trailers and 
semi-trailers 

Manufacture of 
transport equipment 

EGF/2021/006  Cataluña automotive 

ES 

EGF/2021/005  Airbus 

FR 

Metalworking industry  EGF/2021/001  Pais Vasco metal 

ES 

BE 

BE 

IT 

BE 

Retail trade 

EGF/2023/002  Makro 

Retail trade 

EGF/2024/001  Match 

Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation 

Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation 
Warehousing and 
support activities for 
transportation & Land 
transport and transport 
via pipelines 
Wholesale trade, 
except of motor 
vehicles and 
motorcycles (vending 
machines)  

EGF/2021/003  Porto Canale 

EGF/2022/002 

TNT Express 
Worldwide 

EGF/2023/001  Logistics Nivelles 

BE 

EGF/2021/007  Selecta 

FR 

Trade 

2795156 

226422,15 

450 

93 

2435 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

Corporate 
crisis 

Corporate 
crisis 

3745264 

3745264 

297 

299 

12526 

1214607 

175087,7 

300 

80 

2189 

2828223 

2661564 

421 

365 

Trade 

1493407 

1021361,7 

190 

190 

5376 

Takeover 

1956397 

Corporate 
crisis 

2153358 

559 

603 

Crisis 
(COVID-19) 

1977200 

1661510,1 

366 

378 

4396 

b 

a 

b 

a 

a 

4(3) 
(Labour 
market) 

a 

a 

a 

117 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANNEX VII. EGF INTERVENTION LOGIC 2021-2027 

Source: Updated intervention logic Ramboll Management Consulting, SEOR (2020), Study supporting the ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, 
Final Report, p. 93. 

118 

 
 
ANNEX VIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE EGF AND THE EVOLUTION OF ITS RULES BETWEEN 2007 AND 2024 

Source: DG EMPL, based on Commission staff working document on the ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014–2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.109

119 

Applicability period2007-20092009-20112012-20132014-20202018-20202021-2027Co-fundingrate (max.)50% co-financing rate65% co-financing rate until 31 December 201150% co-financing rate60% co-financing rate60% co-financing rateco-financing rate aligned with ESF+ , while keeping 60% as a minimumScopeglobalisation •globalisation or •financial and economic crises(crisis derogation).globalisation No crisis derogation.•globalisation or •financial and economic crisesBroadened scope permanently reintroducing the crisis criterion, a higher co-funding rate as well as eligible actions for youth and the self-employed, and investment support in business start-ups and employee take overs (max. €  000).Same provisions.any unexpected major restructuring event, such as:• globalisation, trade disputes, significant changes in the trade relations of the Union or the composition of the internal market ,• financial or economic crises, •  the transition to a low-carbon economy, or • as a consequence of digitisation or automation• etc.Minimumredundancies1000+ redundancies over a period of :•   months in a Member Stateor•   months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises.If conditions not entirely met, intervention remains admissible when redundancies have serious impact on employment and the local economy.500+ redundancies over a period of :•   months in a Member Stateor•   months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises.Same provisionSame provisions500+ workers being made redundant or self-employed persons' activity ceasing, over a period of •   months, in an enterprise in a Member Stateor•   months, particularly in SMEs, all operating in the same economic sector.Projects in small labour markets or exceptional circumstances may be considered if conditions not entirely met, intervention remains admissible when redundancies have serious impact on employment and the local economy.same provisionor•   months, particularly in SMEs, all operating in the same economic sector. New possibility to cover collective applications involving SMEs located in one region, operating in different economic sectors, when SMEs are the main or only type of business in that region.Same provision200+ displaced workers or self-employed persons' activity ceasing,over a period of •   months, in an enterprise in a Member Stateor• 6 months, particularly in SMEs, all operating in the same economic sector in one or more contiguous regions,or• 4 months, particularly in SMEs, all operating in the same or different economic sectors and located in the same region.Same provision Funding period12-month period24-month period24-month period24-month period24-month period24-month period from the date when Commission is notified of the adoption by the European Parliament and Council 
 
The  EGF  is  one  of  the  Union’s  flexibility  and  special  instruments  and  it  was  initially 
established  for  the  2007-2013  programming  period162.  Its  aim  was  demonstrating  the 
Union’s  solidarity  by  helping  workers  who  lost  their  job  as  a  consequence  of  major 
structural  changes  in  world  trade  patterns  due  to  globalisation  leading  to  a  serious 
disruption of the local, regional or national economy.  

The EGF was set up to enable the EU to react to such unforeseen large-scale restructuring 
events. The restructuring challenges presented above are the responsibility of the national 
public employment services (PES). However, when unexpected large-scale restructuring 
events occur, with a significant impact on the regional labour market, the PES might have 
difficulties offering targeted measures with clear support strategies to a large number of 
redundancies only through national programmes.  

At the request of a Member State, the EGF can co-finance active labour market measures 
aimed  at  bringing  the  dismissed  workers  back  into  stable  employment163.  The  EGF 
intervention supplements national labour market measures for redundant workers. It also 
creates European added value by increasing the number, variety and intensity of services 
offered to redundant workers, and for a longer time than would be possible without EGF 
funding164. 

In 2009165, following the global economic and financial crisis, the crisis eligibility criterion 
was introduced. For the 2014–2020166 programming period, the EGF covered redundancies 
caused not only by globalisation and the continuation of the global financial and economic 
crisis, but also by any new global financial and economic  crisis. Due to  the high youth 
unemployment rates in  many parts of the EU,  Member States were allowed to  include, 
under  certain  circumstances,  the  same  number  of  young  people  ‘not  in  education, 
employment, or training’ (NEETs) as workers made redundant in EGF applications167. In 
2020, the European Commission declared the COVID-pandemic an economic crisis168 and 

162 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on 

establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.   

163  See  Commission  SWD  SEC(2006)274  European  Globalisation  adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  –  Impact 
Assessment,  p.  18,  which  bases  its  analyses  on  the  OECD’s  Trade  and  Structural  Adjustment: 
Recommendations  for  Good  Practice  (2005).  The  Commission  later  designed  its  own  framework  to 
tackle  the  challenges  of  restructuring,  the  EU  Quality  Framework  for  anticipation  of  change  and 
restructuring (QFR), see Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2013)882 final. 
164 See Commission SWD (2021)381 on the ex post evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment 

Fund (EGF) 2014-2020,  
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0381&qid=1739185614557 
165 For details see Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 
2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment 
Fund, OJ L 167, 29.6.2009, p. 26, and Annex VI to this SWD.   

166 Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013. 
167 The use of the derogation under Article 6(2) was initially permitted until 31 December 2017, provided 
that at least some of the redundancies within the meaning of Article 3 occurred in NUTS 2 level regions 
eligible under the YEI. The support could be rendered to NEETs under the age of 25 in NUTS 2-level 
regions eligible under the YEI or, where Member States so decide, to NEETs under the age of 30. Later 
this possibility was extended until 31 December 2020, under different rules. 

168 See communication The EU budget powering the recovery plan for Europe, 27.05.2020. 

120 

 
 
 
set out a recovery plan for the economy, which included the EGF as an emergency tool to 
assist people who lost their jobs due to a global financial and economic crisis. 

For  the  2021-2027  period,  the  EGF  Regulation  (EU)  2021/691  introduced  significant 
changes169, adapted to the changing realities of the economy: 

•  new  name:  becomes  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  for  Displaced 
Workers, while retaining its acronym “EGF”. This change emphasizes the core objective 
of the EGF, which is to express Union solidarity towards workers who have lost their jobs 
by helping them to adapt to structural change. 

 • 
larger  scope  of  eligibility  of  an  application  to  any  unexpected  major  restructuring 
event,  not  only  those  caused  by  challenges  related  to  globalisation,  such  as  changes  in 
world trade patterns, trade disputes, significant changes in the trade relations of the Union 
or the composition of the internal market and financial or economic crises, but also the 
transition to a low-carbon economy, or as a consequence of digitisation or automation, etc; 

•  decreased threshold of dismissals from 500 to 200;  

• 
simplified and faster application process, the requirement to demonstrate the cause 
of the displacements was removed; the focus has shifted on the significant impact, defined 
by the threshold of 200 displaced workers, instead of the cause of the displacements; 

faster mobilisation procedure and shorter deadlines both for the Commission and 
• 
the Member States170. Deadlines are calculated in working days instead of calendar days; 

•  aligned co-financing rate with European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) (while keeping 60% 
as a minimum);  

• 
the  dissemination  of  skills  required  in  the  digital  age  and  in  a  resource-efficient 
economy to be considered a horizontal element of any coordinated package of personalised 
services offered; 

• 
increased support for self-employment, up to EUR 22 000 per displaced worker, (up 
from EUR 15 000 during 2014-2020), for starting an own business or for employee take-
overs;  

• 
 application to include information about good practices implemented by the Member 
State,  in  line  with  recommendations  set  out  in  the  EU  Quality  Framework  for 
anticipation of change and restructuring171; 

• 
specific common indicators and data collection focused on the essential to monitor 
implementation  and  measure  impact,  also  introducing  for  the  first  time  a  beneficiary 
survey for each EGF case, for evaluation purposes;  

•  The start of the 24-months implementation period is postponed to the date of the entry 
into force of the Financing Decision (i.e. when Commission is notified of the adoption by 
the European Parliament and Council), resulting in a full 24-month implementation period 

169 The changes were introduced largely based on the Impact assessment accompanying the Proposal for a 
Regulation on the EGF 2021-2027, the EGF ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020 and previous EGF 
evaluations and reports on the EGF, such as EGF ex-post evaluation 2007-2013, the European Court of 
Auditors’ special report No 7 (2013) on the EGF, the European Parliament’s European Implementation 
Assessment of the EGF 2007-2014. 

170 For Commission: 50 working days instead of 12 weeks to complete its assessment of the application. 
For  Member  States:  15  working  days  instead  of  6  weeks  to  reply  to  Commission  request  for  additional 
information. 
171 COM(2013) 882 Final. 

121 

 
 
for all Member States. In the past, some Member States began implementing the measures 
only after notification of the adoption, resulting in shorter implementation time, as the 24-
month implementation period began on the day the application was submitted. 

longer time for Commission to process payments to Member States: 15 working days, 

• 
instead of 15 calendar days; 

•  NEETs no longer supported by the EGF. 

Member  States’  applications  must  comply  with  one  of  the  intervention  criteria  (i.e. 
conditions for EGF support) set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 2021/691: 

•  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a 

reference period of 4 months in an enterprise in a Member State;  

•  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons activity ceasing) over a 
reference  period  of  6  months  in  enterprises,  especially  SMEs  that  belong  to  the 
same economic sector defined at NACE Revision 2 division level and are located 
in one or two adjoining regions defined at NUTS 2 level; 

• 

•  At least 200 displaced workers (or self-employed persons’ activity ceasing) over a 
reference  period  of  4  months  in  enterprises,  especially  SMEs  that  belong  to  the 
same of different economic sectors defined at NACE Revision 2 division level in 
the same region defined at NUTS 2 level. 
In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated 
by the applicant Member State, an application for a contribution from the EGF may 
be  considered  to  be  admissible  even  if  the  criteria  laid  down  in  paragraph  2  of 
Article 4 are not entirely met, provided that the redundancies have a serious impact 
on  employment  and  the  local,  regional  or  national  economy.  In  such  cases,  the 
applicant Member State shall specify which of the intervention criteria set out in 
paragraph 2 are not entirely met. 

Outside  of  the  reference  period  of  4  or  6  months,  more  displaced  workers  and  self-
employed  persons  whose  activity  has  ceased,  can  be  included  as  eligible  beneficiaries, 
provided the displacement happens six months before the start of the reference period or 
between the end of the reference period and the last day before the date of the completion 
of  the  assessment  by  the  Commission.  Such  persons  will  be  considered  to  be  eligible 
beneficiaries if there is a clear causal link with the event which triggered the redundancies 
during the reference period. 

The EGF cannot be mobilised where public-sector employees are dismissed as a result of 
budgetary cuts by a Member State. 

Similar  to  the  2014-2020  period,  the  EGF  assistance  continues  to  take  the  form  of  a 
coordinated package of  personalised services, comprising  active labour market policy 
measures, ranging from personalised guidance and training courses to assistance in setting 
up a business. The EGF co-finances these measures, implemented by EU Member States, 
with  the  aim  of  helping  the  largest  possible  number  of  beneficiaries  find  decent  and 
sustainable new jobs as soon as possible within 6 months after the end of EGF assistance. 
It  enables  beneficiaries  to  update  their  knowledge  and  skills,  their  employability,  self-
esteem  or  benefit  from  other  suitable  support,  such  as  mobility  allowances,  childcare 
allowance. 

Assistance from the Fund is offered reactively, after the redundancies have occurred, in 
addition  to  the  efforts  of  the  Member  State  at  national,  regional  and  local  level,  when 
sudden  collective  redundancy  processes  put  the  public  employment  services  under 

122 

 
extraordinary pressure. This support complements the more anticipatory assistance offered 
by ESF+. 

Through  the  EGF,  a  more  personalised  approach  is  provided  to  the  most  vulnerable 
redundant  workers,  such  as  disadvantaged  beneficiaries,  including  young  and  older 
unemployed people and those at risk of poverty, enabling them to update their knowledge 
and skills, or benefit from other suitable measures (e.g. mobility allowances). 

The  budget  of  an  EGF  application  can  also  include,  besides  the  co-financing  of  the 
coordinated package of personalised measures, the costs of the preparatory, management, 
information and publicity, control and reporting activities172 . 

The EGF does not cover passive social protection measures such as pensions. Nor does it 
cover  passive  allowances,  i.e.  allowances  that  are  not  conditional  on  the  targeted 
beneficiaries’active  participation  in  job-search  or  training  activities.  The  co-financing 
cannot replace actions that are the responsibility of enterprises by virtue of national law or 
collective agreements (e.g. redundancy pay, legal requirements to draw up a social plan – 
depending on the national law of the Member State concerned). 

The  co-financing  of  allowances  continues  to  be  capped  at  35%  of  the  total  package  of 
personalised  measures,  in  order  to  provide  proportional  assistance,  and  in  line  with  the 
findings of an audit of the 2007–2013 EGF173. Such allowances can only be co-financed if 
they are conditional on the active  participation in EGF measures. 
Functioning 

The functioning of the EGF 2021-2027 follows the same procedural steps as in the 2014-
2020 period. 

The  EGF  can  be  mobilised  following  a  request  (‘EGF  application’)  made  by  an  EU 
Member State in  need of assistance further to  an unexpected major restructuring event. 
Applications are submitted by national EGF authorities to the European Commission. It is 
up to the Member State to decide on the working arrangements for the implementation of 
each case. 

The Member State’s application to the Commission must include information174 such as:  

- a brief description of the events that led to the displacement of the workers; 

- a description of the enterprise(s) affected;  

- a detailed categorisation of the displaced workers, by gender, age groups and education 
level;  

-  a  description  of  the  redundancies’  expected  impact  on  the  local,  regional  or  national 
economy and employment, including statistical and qualitative information; and  

- a description of the package of personalised services to  be financed, together with  its 
planned budget.  

The applications are then assessed by the Commission. For those fulfilling the criteria, it 
proposes  to  the  budgetary  authority  (the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council)  the 
mobilisation of the EGF. Once the budgetary authority has adopted the decision to mobilise 

172 Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) 2021/691. 
173 ECA (2013), p. 28 
174 See Article 8(7) of the Regulation (EU) 2021/691. 

123 

 
 
the Fund, the Commission pays the contribution to the applicant Member State withing 15 
working days.  

In principle, cases may be implemented for a maximum period of 24 months from the date 
of the entry into force of the Financing Decision (i.e. when Commission is notified of the 
adoption by the European Parliament and Council), instead of from the date the application 
is  submitted  (as  it  was  in  principle  during  2014-2020).  This  results  in  a  full  24-month 
implementation period for all Member States. Before 2021, this was not the case for those 
Member States whose national legislation prevented an early start of the measures before 
the decision on the mobilisation of the EGF.  

Member States can choose to start helping beneficiaries much earlier, even right after the 
redundancies occur; these measures are also eligible for EGF co-financing. The flexibility 
of an implementation beyond 24 months existed in 2014-2020 and was kept for the EGF 
2021-2027. However, early start of implementation is done at the own risk of the Member 
State,  until  the  decision  to  mobilise  the  EGF  is  approved.  Member  States  can  also  end 
implementation before the 24 months have elapsed. 

Figure 17 The timeline of an EGF case from start to finish 

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and 
Inclusion (DG EMPL). 

Overview of the EGF applications received between 2007-2024 

Under the first EGF Regulation (2007–2013), a total of 128 applications were received, 
out of which 15 were withdrawn and one was rejected by the Commission. The successful 
applications were submitted by 20 Member States and concerned 39 sectors. Assistance 
worth EUR 478 million was requested to help more than 105 000 workers. 

The  second  EGF  Regulation  (2014–2020)  saw  59  applications  submitted  by  Member 
States. Of these, 53 applications were approved, 5 were later withdrawn and 1 was rejected 

124 

 
 
 
by the Council. These 53 approved applications requested EUR 168.7 million to support a 
total of 56 807 targeted people, of which 3 369 were NEETs. 

The  third  EGF  Regulation  (2021-2027)  has  so  far  had  18  applications  submitted  by 
Member  States.  Of  these,  17  applications  have  been  approved  and  one  is  still  in  the 
assesment  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  The  18  applications  requested 
EUR 60.2 million to support a total of 10 825 targeted people. 

Trends can be observed from looking at the number of applications received from 2007 
and 2024 (Figure 18 and Table 5 below). The crisis criterion was on a downward trend 
after 2014, when the EU was on a path of economic growth and decreasing unemployment. 
This lasted until 2020 when the COVID-19 crisis started, resulting in many jobs lost and a 
new wave of nine EGF  applications under the  crisis criterion submitted between 2020-
2022. The trade-related  globalisation criterion went  through a similar trend, although it 
was used to a larger extent as the effects of globalisation are continuously affecting the 
labour force. 

Figure 18 Number of applications received 2007–2024 (without withdrawn and rejected 
applications) (based on EGF Database) 

Table  5  Number  of  applications  received  2007–2024  (without  withdrawn  and  rejected 
applications) 

Source: European Commission, EGF Database 

125 

200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024Total Crisis-related*002223170011312204513296Trade-related855659127858002311085Other01012Total8527292291218116102068343183% of total4%3%15%16%12%5%7%10%6%3%5%1%0%3%4%2%2%2%100% 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  6.  EGF  applications  received,  amount  requested  and  targeted  beneficiaries  by 
Member State, 2007–2024 (without withdrawn and rejected applications)  

Member States175 
which have applied 
for EGF funding 

Number of 
applications 

EGF contribution 
(EUR) 

Number of 
targeted 
beneficiaries 

Average amount 
requested per 
beneficiary 
(EUR) 

Belgium 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Finland 

Sweden 

Total 

20 

1 

11 

12 

2 

10 

10 

28 

12 

16 

5 

1 

19 

6 

5 

5 

2 

1 

11 

6 

183 

61 243 589 

23 592 

323 820 

65 562 994 

59 119 012 

5 605 838 

67 720 204 

44 763 580 

58 246 162 

123 120 413 

69 253 228 

2 861 619 

681 207 

460 

6 624 

16 474 

5 860 

11 209 

8 280 

17 108 

21 687 

15 197 

3 013 

675 

35 186 039 

10 359 

27 998 090 

2 575 712 

8 632 111 

6 513 830 

2 247 940 

38 377 138 

27 502 116 

1 952 

1 806 

4 367 

2 416 

2 554 

13 161 

5 868 

707 534 642  

172 662 

2 596 

704 

9 898 

3 589 

957 

6 042 

5 406 

3 405 

5 677 

4 557 

950 

1 009 

3 397 

14 343 

1 426 

1 977 

2 696 

880 

2 916 

4 687 

4 098 

Source: European Commission, EGF Database  

175 Member States are listed based on the EU protocol order according to the Roman alphabetical order of 

their geographical names in the original language(s). 

126