A short history of the SME Instrument Audit scope and approach Observations Targeting the right beneficiaries Objectives and target group of the SME Instrument have changed during its implementation Late introduction of non-bankability concept Geographical reach Varying levels of participation among countries – partly due to factors beyond the control of the Commission Awareness affected by the absence of a targeted marketing and communication strategy at Commission level Selection of projects Limited resources for evaluation and remote evaluation procedure overloaded by high number of submissions Presentation to jury largely improves the selection procedure while complying with time-to-grant Some IT tools pose risks for the evaluation process Resubmission of proposals straining evaluation resources Effectiveness of support in the SME Instrument phases Phase 1 provides useful support to SMEs but similar schemes already exist in some Member States Phase 1 imposes an excessive burden on SME Instrument administration Paragraph I-XIV 01-20 01-03 04-06 07-12 13-20 21-26 27-128 27-39 28-34 35-39 40-58 40-49 50-58 59-79 61-64 65-69 70-73 74-79 80-105 81-86 87-90 2 Phase 2 provides effective support to SMEs Phase 3 business acceleration services have potential but were launched late Effectiveness of the SME Instrument not assessed and its future role in Horizon Europe is still to be determined Attracting investment after SME Instrument funding Commission has only limited knowledge of beneficiaries ́ overall financing needs and has not made link to EU financial instruments Beneficiaries attract further investment but levels vary across EU Conclusions and recommendations Targeting the right beneficiaries Geographical reach Selection of projects Effectiveness of support in the SME Instrument phases Attracting investment after SME Instrument funding Annexes Annex I – Methodology Annex II – Statistics Annex III – From the idea to the proposal of the EIC under Horizon Europe Acronyms and abbreviations Glossary Replies of the Commission Audit team Timeline 91-94 95-103 104-105 106-128 107-116 117-128 129-139 131 132 133-135 136-138 139 3 
Fas 1 ger användbart stöd till små och medelstora företag men det finns redan liknande system i vissa medlemsstater Fas 1 är alltför betungande för förvaltningen av SMF-instrumentet Fas 2 ger ändamålsenligt stöd till små och medelstora företag Företagsaccelerationstjänsterna i fas 3 har potential, men de lanserades sent SMF-instrumentets ändamålsenlighet har inte bedömts, och dess framtida roll i Horisont Europa har ännu inte fastställts Locka till sig investeringar efter finansieringen genom SMF-instrumentet Kommissionen har bara begränsad kunskap om stödmottagarnas övergripande finansieringsbehov och har inte skapat länkar till EU:s finansieringsinstrument Stödmottagarna lockar till sig ytterligare investeringar, men nivåerna varierar i EU Slutsatser och rekommendationer Inriktning på rätt stödmottagare Geografisk täckning Urval av projekt Stödets ändamålsenlighet i SMF-instrumentets faser Locka till sig investeringar efter finansieringen genom SMF-instrumentet Bilagor Bilaga I – Metod Bilaga II – Statistik Bilaga III – Europeiska innovationsrådet inom ramen för Horisont Europa – från idé till förslag Akronymer och förkortningar Ordlista Kommissionens svar Granskningsteam Tidslinje 81–86 87–90 91–94 95–103 104–105 106–128 107–116 117–128 129–139 131 132 133–135 136–138 139 3