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  COM(2025) 382 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the mid-term evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF)    2021-2027 {SWD(2025) 180 final}  
 
 
Background 

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund  (EGF) was set  up  in  the 2007-2013 period  to 
show solidarity with, and provide support to, workers who were made redundant  because of 
major structural changes in world trade patterns caused by globalisation. The scope of the initial 
Regulation1 was broadened in 20092 to include redundancies resulting from the global financial 
and  economic  crisis.  For  the  2014-2020  period,  the  scope  was  further  broadened  3  to  cover 
redundancies caused by any new global financial and economic crisis. During the 2014-2020 
period, the EGF co-financed up to 60%4 of the measures implemented by the Member States to 
help redundant workers swiftly re-integrate into the job market. To address the impact of the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  the  Commission  set  out  a  recovery  plan  for  the  economy5,  which 
included the EGF as an emergency tool to assist people who lost their jobs due to the global 
financial  and  economic  crisis.  The  European  instrument  for  temporary  support  to  mitigate 
unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE)6 mobilised until end of 2022 significant financial 
means to fight the negative economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

For the 2021-2027 period7, the Fund was re-named as the European Globalisation Adjustment 
Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF). Major changes were introduced8, such as a broadening the 
scope of eligibility  to  support displaced workers  regardless  of  the cause of the restructuring 
event, lowering the threshold from 500 to 200 displaced workers, simplifying and speeding up 
procedures, and aligning the co-financing rate with the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)9. An 
amendment of the EGF Regulation was proposed by the Commission on 1 April 202510, to also 
cover  workers  at  risk  of  imminent  job  loss  in  enterprises  undergoing  restructuring.  This 
amendment is briefly presented at the end of this document. 

Scope of the mid-term evaluation 

In  line  with  Article 22  of  the  EGF  Regulation,  the  Commission  carried  out  a  mid-term 
evaluation to assess how and to what extent the EGF is on track to achieve its objectives in the 
2021-2027 period. The evaluation assessed the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance 
and the EU added value of the EGF. Limited lessons for the EGF’s implementation and design 
are also included. 

The evaluation focuses on the changes introduced for the 2021-2027 period, in order to assess 
to the extent to which these changes led to the envisaged outcomes. As the uptake of the Fund 
was relatively low and the available evidence was limited11, the evaluation also examined the 
reasons for the EGF’s low uptake, despite the simplified application rules that were introduced 
by the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation. The purpose is to see if the EGF, under the current rules, 

1 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
2 Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 , OJ L 167, 29.6.2009, p. 26. 
3 Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855–864, ( ‘the EGF Regulation’). 
4Between 2007-2009 and 2012-2013, the EGF co-financing rate  was 50% during and it was increased to 60% 
during 2009-2011 and 2014-2020 (See Annex 6 of the accompanying SWD). 
5 See communication The EU budget powering the recovery plan for Europe, 27.05.2020. 
6 Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 of 19 May 2020, OJ L 159, 20.5.2020, p. 1–7 
7 Regulation (EU) 2021/691, OJ L 153, 3.5.2021, p. 48–70. 
8  The  changes  were  introduced  largely  based  on  the  Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a 
Regulation on the EGF 2021-2027, the ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020 and previous EGF evaluations 
and reports on the EGF, such as the ex-post evaluation of the EGF 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. 
9 EGF co-financing rate is aligned with the highest ESF+ co-financing rate in the Member State concerned, while 
keeping 60% as a minimum. 
10 COM(2025)140 
11 Results of the first seven EGF cases were only available in the second half of 2024. 

1 

 
 
continues  to  effectively  support workers impacted by global economic transformations,  thus 
aligning with the EU’s overarching social policy objectives. 

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 approached cautiously because of the limited 
data  available.  The  early  timing  of  the  EGF  mid-term  evaluationallowed  for  only  limited 
availability of information, evidence and experience to be taken from the current period. The 
improvement in the economy was a reason for the lower number of EGF applications, which 
led  to  the  limited  data  that  was  available  at  this  juncture.  Other  challenges  faced  in  the 
evaluation were lack of performance indicators, limited suitable comparators with data from 
the first programming perod, and limited resources for this evaluation. 

The evaluation is based on stakeholder consultation, targeted interviews and consultations of 
national and EU stakeholders involved in the implementation of the EGF. 

The evaluation covers 18 EGF cases (i.e. approved applications), received between the entry 
into  force  of  the  EGF  Regulation  on  3  May  2021  and  31  December  2024.  Out  of  these,  11 
applications  are  considered  without  an  analysis  of  the  results  which  will  only  be  available 
between 2025 and 2027 given that the cases are still on-going. The cases, concerning 7 Member 
States  (Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain),  cover  13  economic 
sectors, notably automotive, warehousing and support activities for transportation, wholesale 
trade, air transport and basic metals.  

The low number of applications during 2021-2024 can be explained by several reasons. One of 
the  reasons  that  has  been  underlined  in  previous  evaluations  is  that  the  number  of  EGF 
applications has always been cyclical and linked with the general trend in employment and the 
economic  realities  in  Member  States.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  caused  a  surge  in  business 
closures and job losses across Europe in 2021. However, European economies managed to cope 
well with the crisis partly thanks to the short-time work schemes put in place at EU and national 
level. As a result, there were fewer large-scale restructuring events and Member States were 
better equipped to deal with major restructuring events.  
However,  since  2024,  the  Eurofound’s  European  Restructuring  Monitor  Database  (ERM)12 
shows that the number of restructuring events with 200 or more jobs losses sharply rose by 50% 
from 2023 to 202413, reaching its highest level during the 2021-2024 period. Also, in 2024, for 
the first time since 2020, the overall number of jobs losses exceeded the number of jobs created 
in  the  course  of  major  restructuring  events,  especially  in  the  most  affected  sectors  of 
manufaturing,  transportation/storage  and  retail14.  This  shows  an  economic  downturn  which 
might lead, with some delay (depending on the duration and size of the restructuring events), 
to more EGF applications received in the future. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  is  presented  as  a  staff  working  document  (SWD).  The  SWD  was 
drafted  by  the  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and 
Inclusion, based on desk and field research, stakeholder feedback, analysis of EGF applications  
and  final  reports  submitted  by  Member  States.  Other  sources  included  previous  reports  and 

12 ERM is the most comprehensive source of data that records all announcements of redundancies in a given 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 
13 In the EU, in 2024, 309 restructuring events of 200 or more jobs lost where recorded, compared to 205 in 2023. 
14 European Restructuring Monitor | European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 
For example, the ERM registered in 2024 in the EU27, that 39706 jobs were lost while only 5727 jobs were created 
in the car manufacturing sector (NACE sectors included are: C27.1, 29.1, 29.2, 29.3, 30.3, 30.9, 74.9). 

2 

 
 
evaluations of the EGF, and results of the consultation activities with relevant EGF stakeholders 
from all Member States. Further evidence was gathered and analysed from the experience of 
several  Commission  staff  managing  the  EGF  and  the  Commission’s  internal  EGF  database 
which  includes  data  on  all  EGF  cases  between  2007  and  2024. The  results  of  th  evaluation 
provide lessons for the implementation of the EGF.  
These results are brought to the attention of  the EU institutions and bodies and social partners15.  

Main findings by evaluation criterion 

Assistance under the EGF is always offered retroactively, after the redundancies have occurred. 
The assisstance is provided in addition to the Member States’ measures at national, regional and 
local  level,  only  when  sudden  collective  redundancy  processes  put  the  public  employment 
services under extraordinary pressure and when a Member State decides to apply for funding 
under the EGF.  

The  EGF  offers  a  targeted,  tailor-made  and  individualised  support  to  beneficiaries16, 
putting them in a more favourable position than people who did not benefit from EGF support 
to re-enter the labour market17. The EGF measures respond to beneficiaries’ individual needs 
and wishes. The EGF removes barriers to participation and ensures that all beneficiaries are 
treated equally18, while focusing on vulnerable groups, such as disadvantaged beneficiaries, 
including young and older unemployed people and people at risk of poverty. The EGF enables 
people  to  upgrade  their  knowledge  and  skills,  or  benefit  from  other  suitable  measures  (e.g. 
mobility allowances, childcare allowances or elderly care.).  

The EGF allows Member States to experiment with innovative active labour market measures 
that might not be commonly available to displaced workers. If the innovative measures proved 
to be successful, then Member States, like Belgium, Germany and Spain,19 have subsequently 
incorporated them into their standard assistance measures. 

Effectiveness of the EGF  

The effectiveness criterion assesses how effective  the EGF was in achieving its aim both at 
instrument  and  at  case  level. The  EGF’s  aim  of  the  is  to  (i)  demonstrate  solidarity  towards 
workers have ben made redundant; and (ii) to ensure for each EGF case that the largest possible 
number of beneficiaries find sustainable employment as soon as possible. The results of this 
assessment are presented below. 

15 In line with Article 22 (2) of the EGF Regulation. 
16 According to the seven EGF beneficiary surveys, 62 % of the respondents (of 645 replies in total) agreed that 
the EGF was tailored to their needs. 
17 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.   
18 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. Belgium18 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 Spain18, try to overcome gender stereotypes 
by offering financial incentives to women participating in training programmes or jobs typically followed or done 
by men. 
19 In Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain. In Belgium, 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.  Also  in  Germany,  the  beneficiaries  who  complete  digital  trainings  would  get  a 
tablet. In Spain, EGF cases have been used as a reference point in the design of other jobseeker-placement projects 
and local employment initiatives. 

3 

 
 
The  broadened  scope,  the  modified  intervention  criteria,  the  simplified  application 
procedures (removing the need to demonstrate the link to the cause of displacements) and the 
shorter procedural deadlines for both the Commission and the Member States, have made 
the EGF fairer, more inclusive and more easily accessible. In addition, the alignment of the 
EGF co-financing rate  with the one of ESF+ (while maintaining a minimum of 60%), was 
considered an encouraging factor to apply for a financial contribution from the EGF. 

The EGF supports all eligible beneficiaries in a more tailored and intensive manner than 
national measures and other EU instruments do. The flexibility of the EGF in terms of the 
types  of  measures  is  highly  appreciated.  Some  Member  States  would  like  to  use  a  higher 
percentage than 35% for the allowances20, such as job search allowances, training allowances, 
subsistence allowances and mobility allowances. 

EGF measures boost national measures as they are always offered on top of national measures. 
Findings from previous evaluations and feedback from the beneficiaries confirm that the help 
offered  would  otherwise  not  have  been  available.  This  is  a  clear  indication  that    the  EGF 
measures complement and build on what is available at national level.  

The social partners and companies’ involvement in laying off workers had a positive impact 
on the effectiveness of EGF cases by contributing to a better design and implementation of the 
measures. Their involvement in France and Spain also sometimes guided the beneficiaries to 
swiftly finding new jobs. 

Feedback from surveys targeted at beneficiaries show that overall awareness of the EGF has 
improved  compared  to  previous  periods  although  there  is  still  room  for  improvement. The 
Commission’s promotion of the use of 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  increased  awareness  of  the  EGF  because  workers’  organisations, 
implementing bodies, policy makers and social partners participated in delivering some of the 
measures. In other Member States (notably FR, CZ, MT, PL, SI, PL, RO, SE), not all relevant 
stakeholders, including beneficiaries, were aware of the EGF and its potential benefits which 
can hinder its effectiveness. There is scope to improve communication and awareness  of the 
EGF among workers and their representative organisations at EU and national level. About 80% 
of respondents to the beneficiary survey were aware that the funding they received were co-
financed by the EGF/the EU, while 20% were not.  

Barriers to  the EGF’s effectiveness re-confirm findings of previous evaluations, which include 
(non-prioritised  list):  a)  the  lengthy  and  complex  decision-making  process  at  EU  level  (on 
average 5.5 months , an improvement as compared to 7.2 months in 2014-2020); b) the delayed 
start of the implementation; c) the national administrative procedures in the Member States; d) 
issues in the case management at national/regional level and Member States’ lack of experience 
in using the EGF; e) issues related to the age of the beneficiaries (e.g. older people who need 
particularly  intensive  training);  f)    difficulties  in  reaching  out  to  and  activating  redundant 
workers  (sometimes  due  to  difficulties  in  obtaining  their  contact  details  because  of  data 
protection  restrictions);  g)  workers’  low  willingness  for  labour  mobility  and  change;  h) 
problems and delays with the design and implementation of EGF measures; i) lack of awareness 
of the EGF in  some Member States; j) institutional  difficulty  in managing  additional fundd, 

20 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. 

4 

 
 
including other instruments like the ESF+, Just Transition Fund (JTF), Recovery and Resilience 
Facility (RRF). 

Beyond  reintegration  into  the  labour  market,  the  EGF  produced  long-lasting  effects  on 
beneficiaries’ general employability, such as giving them new skills and qualifications. These 
effects include giving beneficiaries digital skills and environmental/green skills, increased self-
esteem, feeling better qualified for work, feeling encouraged to overcome gender bias in job 
selection and widening their social networks from participating in EGF measures. These soft 
outcomes are easily seen in the beneficiary survey of each EGF case, offering a more qualitative 
approach to evaluating effectiveness. Better data collection and reporting arrangements were 
observed following the inclusion  of the specific common indicators and the beneficiary survey 
for  each  EGF  case  in  the  2021-2027  EGF  Regulation.  However,  since  setting  case-specific 
targets at the application stage is currently not a requirement,  the performance of each case 
cannot  be  assessed.  However,  the  Commission’s  proposal  to  set  case-specific  targets  and  to 
include reporting by type of employment was not included in the final agreement between the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  EGF  Regulation  for  the  2021–2027  period.  In 
general, monitoring of the EGF’s effectiveness has improved during 2021-2024. 

Overall, the EGF is effective, and 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. The average re-integration rate of displaced 
workers into the job market was around 50% for the seven completed cases, standing lower 
than in the previous programming period (60% for 46 cases). These results need to be viewed 
with caution due to the small sample size during the 2021-2024 period. This rate depends on 
case  specificities  as  well  as  on  external  factors  (such  as  situation  in  the  labour  market,  the 
specific sectors of activity) and the personal reasons of the beneficiaries. In the longer term, 
the reintegration rates improve in most cases21. 

Efficiency of the EGF  

The efficiency criterion analyses to what extent the costs associated with the implementation of 
the EGF were justified considering the results (cost-benefit analysis)22. This was been done by 
analysing the resources used to achieve the results as well as the decision-making process. It 
also analyses if there are any inefficiencies or unnecessary burdens at case or instrument level. 

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. Also, estimating precisely 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 their application for EGF support.  

The shortening the procedures to adopt individual applications for both the Commission and 
the  Member  States  improved  the  efficiency  of  the  EGF.  The  total  time  for  EU  level 

21 In  all 7  EGF  cases  from 2021  where  the  beneficiaries’  surveys  where  available,  the feedback  received  from 
beneficiaries showed that the re-integration into the labour market had improved in the longer-term compared to 
short-term after participating in the last EGF measure. Past evaluation of the EGF also included the same finding. 
22 The cost-efficiency of the EGF considers the degree to which the costs incurred are proportionate to the results 
(defined  as  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) and if they could have been achieved with fewer resources (absorption rate) and/or in a 
shorter period of time. When analysing the notion of time the following aspects have been analysed: timing and 
length of applications, timing and length of re-employment measures. 

5 

 
 
procedures  during  the  2021-2024  period  was  on  average  5.5  months23  a  decrease,  as 
compared to 7.2 months in 2014-2020. Despite this, the decision-making process at EU level is 
still considered lengthy and/or complex by 16 Member States24. In some Member States25 the 
lenghty procedure is considered the only barrier to applying for EGF support. Such a lengthy 
process  causes  delays  to  project  implementation,  but  findings  show  that  in  some  cases 
procedures at national/regional level are a more significant barrier to efficiency. 

According  to  the  stakeholder  consultations  at  case  level,  the  amounts  available  for  the 
measures  are  considered  to  be  sufficient.  Most  respondents  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 examined when 
analysing the resources used case-by-case. However it does not reflect the cost-efficiency at 
case level. Moreover,  it has  no case-specific target  and cannot  be  considered a performance 
indicator or an indicator of the success of the case. As in previous programming periods, most 
EGF cases tend to use up only a fraction of the resources allocated to them. The 2021-2024 
period has shown progress in the absorption rates of EGF co-financing.  For the seven cases 
from 2021-2024, the average absorption rate was 63% (for 7 EGF cases), an improvement 
compared to the previous periods (average of 55% for 73 cases in 2007-2013 and average of 
59% for 46 cases in 2014-2020)26, which indicates, to a certain extent, a better use of resources 
allocated.  

At Member State level, after comparing the total EGF amount spent per case against the number 
of beneficiaries assisted, 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 applies when the beneficiaries needs require more intensive or complex 
and costly training. Overall, no meaningful 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 into the labour market as a result, differ considerably by case, sector and 
Member State. Costs are largely dependent on national and regional specificities, as well as the 
nature of the measures offered, and the beneficiaries’ background.  

Reallocation  of  funds  between  measures  based  on  needs  that  emerged  during  the 
implementation period, remained to be possible as in previous programming periods. However, 
for reallocations above 20%, Member States must inform the Commission. Such reallocations 
have occurred in 22% of cases (4 out of 18)27 while in 2014-2020 these occurred in about 10% 
of cases (5 out of 46). 

Coherence of the EGF  

23 From the date of application until the date of payment. 
24AT, CY, CZ, DE, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI (according to the written survey carried out 
by the Commission in November 2024, for Member States who did not apply for EGF during 2021-2024). 
25 AT, CY, FI, HR. 
 26Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p. 37. 
27  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 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 to 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. 

6 

 
 
The EGF is coherent with national, regional and 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 results28. 

At  case  level,  no  overlaps  with  other  EU  or  national  funding  were  identified.  Strong 
complementarities were found between the EGF and the ESF+. In particular, complementarity 
is ensured through coordination between the funds at national level. There is scope to better 
align the EGF and the ESF+ in terms of availability, as some Member States choose to fund 
EGF-type measures using the ESF+, JTF, RRF because these instruments are already available 
and provide more flexibility to reallocate amounts quickly.  

The  new  requirement  for  Member  States  to  explain  in  each  EGF  application  how  it  is 
coordinated using the recommendations set out in the EU Quality Framework for anticipation 
of change and restructuring (QFR), a framework of best practice for anticipating and dealing 
with corporate restructuring, provides more evidence on the complementarity of the EGF with 
national measures and instruments. 

EU added value of the EGF 

The EU added value analyses to what extent changes happened thanks to this EU intervention. 
This  is  done  by  analysing  the  added  benefits  compared  to  a  scenario  with  Member  States’ 
assistance and the effect of discontinuing the EGF. 

Despite  limited  evidence  collected  from  stakeholder  consultations,  the  findings  from  this 
evaluation indicate that the EGF provides added value when compared to what Member States 
could have achieved alone through national measures targeted at helping workers  who were 
made  redundant.  The  results  of  the  written  consultations  highlight  that  some  70%  of 
respondents  felt  that  the  EGF  has  added  value29.  Some  62%  of  respondents  to  the 
beneficiary  survey  evaluated  the  EGF  favourably  compared  to  other  sources  of  support  at 
national/regional level, citing one of the benefits of the EGF support as being tailored to the 
specific needs of beneficiaries.  

The EGF has been successful and generated considerable EU added value in 2021-2024. As 
confirmed by past EGF evaluations, this is particularly true in terms of its volume effects, scope 
(e.g. innovative measures30), role and process effects31, though they differ by Member State and 
are largely dependent on national support structures. The added value is significant for volume 
effects,  meaning  that  EGF  assistance  not  only  increases  the  number  and  variety  of  services 
offered, but also their level of intensity, striving to leave no one behind. 

As the EGF largely complements other EU instruments (notably the ESF+), it adds EU value 
compared to their scopes and target groups.  

In  conclusion,  considering  the  limitations  of  this  evaluation,  the  EGF,  under  the  current 
regulatory framework, continues to EU add value by effectively support workers impacted by 

28 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.43. 
29 Written surveys with stakeholders from all Member States carried out during October-December 2024. 
30 In Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain. In Germany, during a one-day bus tour former workers 
from Vallourec (EGF/2023/003 DE/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 
(EGF/2024/002 BE/Limburg machinery and paper), a job fair was organised, while in Wallonia incentives were 
given to beneficiaries to participate in digital trainings. 
31 Ex post evaluation of the EGF 2014-2020, SWD(2021)381/13.12.2021, p.46-47. 

7 

 
 
global  economic  transformations,  thus  aligning  with  the  EU’s  overarching  social  policy 
objectives.  

Relevance of the EGF  

The  evaluation  criteria  of  relevance  assesses  the  relevance  ofthe  EGF.  It  covers  three  core 
aspects:  (i)  the  appropriateness  and  usefulness  of  the  extended  scope  of  the  EGF;  (ii)  its 
modified intervention criteria as set out in the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation; and (iii) the extent 
to which it met Member States’ needs. 

During the 2021-2024 period, evidence showed that the extended scope is relevant, useful for 
its  aims,  since  it  better  reflects  the  economic  situation  and  makes  the  EGF  more  easily 
accessible. Most stakeholders consulted also agreed that the application procedure has become 
simpler and faster following the removal of the need to demonstrate the cause of displacements. 

The extended scope  and the simplified application procedure make the EGF available to 
cover all workers displaced in the course of a major restructuring event, 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 displaced workers), rather than their cause. This 
fact  provides  more  flexibility  for  Member  States  to  target  the  needs  of  displaced  workers. 
Based on the evidence collected, this has made the scope of the EGF suitable in addressing the 
ever  changing  labour  market  needs  related  to  automation,  AI,  the  twin  digital  and  green 
transitions, etc. 

The modified intervention criteria which lowers the displacements threshold to 200 were found 
to be relevant and useful. Several Member States indicated that smaller labour markets could 
now  benefit  from  lowering  the  minimum  threshold  for  redundancies.  Most  stakeholders 
consider that the lowered threshold is an encouraging factor for Member States to apply, 
whereas the previous threshold for 2014-2020 was considered a barrier. In generally the total 
number of targeted workers is lower than the number of displacements because not all dismissed 
workers need support. Regarding the threshold of dismissed workers, in 5 applications (out of 
18 received in 2021-2024), i.e. 27%, the total  number of dismissed workers was  below 500 
dismissals, while in the rest (13 cases) it exceeded 500. In terms of number of workers targeted 
for the EGF measures, in 11 applications the number of targeted workers was less than 500, 
while in 7 it exceeded 500. 

Based on past EGF evaluations, the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation modified the reference period 
for  calculating  the  threshold  of  200  displaced  workers  to  four  months  (for  dismissals  in  a 
company or in a regional case) and six months32 (for dismissals in a sectoral case33). Outside 
the reference period of four or six months, more displaced workers and self-employed people 
whose  activity  had  ceased,  could  be  included  as  eligible  beneficiaries,  provided  that  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.  In  general,  this  modification  was  considered  useful  in  view  of  the  needs  of 
displaced workers. 

The change in the intervention criteria to include the option to support workers displaced from 
several  economic  sectors  in  a  region,  addressed  the  feedback  from  national  and  regional 

32 The reference period for calculating the threshold of 500 redundancies in regional cases was 9 months during 
2014-2020. 
33 The “sectoral case” was newly introduced for the 2021-2027 period for 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 or different economic sectors defined at NACE Revision 2 division level in the same region 
defined at NUTS 2 level. 

8 

 
 
authorities in the previous evaluation, which considered that the high threshold was a barrier to 
for  applying  for  EGF  support.  Therefore,  the  EGF  now  has  a  more  flexible  approach  to 
restructuring events involving more than one company. This option was used in one sectoral 
case  covering workers from two economic sectors (machinery and equipment, and paper). 

On relevance, regarding the question to what extent the EGF addresses Member States’ needs, 
findings  from  this  evaluation  reconfirm  previous  EGF  evaluations  findings,  that  there  is 
widespread agreement across all stakeholder groups that the EGF is sufficiently tailored to 
the specific needs of the relevant target groups. Interviews carried out at EU level also point 
to improvements with each programming period in the design of the package of measures at 
Member  State  level,  citing  that  EGF  measures  increasingly  took  into  account  the  socio-
economic context. As such workers’ needs were more comprehensively addressed, for example 
by  providing  additional  support  for  childcare  and  benefits  during  the  retraining  process  (in 
Spain).  

As  in  previous  programming  periods,  the  EGF  Regulation34  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. 

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 and make the EGF more accessible.  

In terms of future needs, by looking at megatrends data35 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 aging EU population, and the geopolitical environment, data seems to point 
to a pressing need for new skills. Investing in the re-skilling and up-skilling of the workers, in 
particular vulnerable workers e.g. in the manufacturing or automotive sectors, could support 
the transformation process of these sectors, or could potentially prevent, in some cases, future 
job losses. When restructuring cannot be prevented, then workers who were already re-skilled 
would be better equipped to quickly find a new job and avoid unemployment. 

Lessons learned 

The stakeholder consultations point to several key lessons learned both at Member State and at 
EU level which improved the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the EGF. 

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

•  A  faster  application  process  becomes  possible  for  Member  States  with  previous 
experience  in  EGF  cases,  by  preparing  more  complete  applications,  leading  to 
economies of scale through experience gained with the application process. However, 
the lengthy procedure remains a hindering factor for some Member States. 

•  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. 

•  Early start of national procedures to ensure early intervention.  
•  Design of the labour market measures to include tailored support based on beneficiaries’ 

needs.  

34 See Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2021/691. 
35 ESPAS-Global-Trends-to-2040-Choosing-Europes-Future-EN.pdf 

9 

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

•  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 EU countries. 

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

•  Extending the scope to cover job displacements in any large-scale restructuring event, 

regardless of the cause, has made the EGF more accessible. 

•  Faster and simpler mobilisation of the EGF as a result of the application process, with 
less  evidence  required  and  shorter  deadlines,  has  made  the  EGF  more  accessible. 
However, the length of the procedure is still considered too long and complex. Making 
the decision process even faster would improve the EGF’s accessibility and its uptake. 

The  new  reporting  requirements  improve  the  monitoring  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Fund. 
Further improvement of the measuring and monitoring of the EGF’s effectiveness would be 
possible, if Member States were to develop case-specific targets. However, of some Member 
States  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  are  already  too 
burdensome.  

Commission Proposal to amend the 2021-2027 EGF Regulation 
The  Commission  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  EGF  Regulation  on  1 April 202536.  The 
Commission proposes to extend the scope to also cover workers at risk of imminent job loss in 
companies undergoing restructuring. The EGF would support workers in acquiring the skills 
needed  to  help  them  transfer  into  a  different  role,  or  to  change  jobs.  By  swiftly  mobilising 
support  before  collective  dismissals  and  job  losses  occur,  the  EGF  will  prevent  larger 
disruptions and ensure smoother job transitions. Companies will have to co-finance a part of 
the assistance offered to workers. 

included 

Although  not  part  of  the  initial  scope  of  the  evaluation,  based  on  the  limited  results,  some 
lessons 
to  amend 
the Regulation. Based  on  the  findings  of  this  evaluation,  the  Commission  proposes  to 
streamline  and  accelerate  the  procedures  to  mobilise  EGF  support,  ensuring  it  is  quickly 
available where it is needed the most.  

the  evaluation  could  be  drawn  for 

the  proposal 

in 

Under the current  rules, the European  Parliament and  the Council must  review and approve 
each support request under the EGF. Under the proposal, they would instead have the option to 
approve the EGF budget once per year, with the Commission allocating the funding to Member 
States based on their requests.  

In addition to the faster mobilisation procedure at EU level, the Commission proposes shorter 
deadlines  both  for  Member  States  and  for  the  Commission  when  processing  requests  for 
assistance. This  would  reduce  the  total  timeline  of  approval  of  a  case  from  21  weeks  to  11 
weeks, thus addressing that aspect of the evaluation’s findings.  

36 COM(2025)140 

10 

 
 
 
Discussions on the proposal are ongoing in the European Parliament and in the Council. 

11