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.    Purpose and scope of the evaluation    

1.2.    Evaluation methodology and data limitations    

2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1    Description of the intervention and its objectives    

2.2    Point(s) of comparison    

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

4.Evaluation findings (analytical part)

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

4.1.1.EFFECTIVENESS

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

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

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

h)    Overall impact of the EGF and lessons learned    

4.1.2.EFFICIENCY

a.    Efficiency at case level    

b.    Efficiency at instrument level    

4.1.3.COHERENCE

a.    Complementarity with other EU policies and initiatives    

b.    Complementarity with national measures and instruments    

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

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

a.    Relevance of the broadened scope of the EGF    

b.    Relevance of the modified intervention criteria of the EGF    

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

5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

5.1.Conclusions

5.2.Lessons learned

Annex I: Procedural Information

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion)

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs [and, where relevant, Table on simplification and burden reduction]

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report

Annex VI. Case profile data by Member State and by sector for 18 applications received between 3 May 2021 and 31 December 2024

Annex VII. EGF intervention logic 2021-2027

Annex VIII. Description of the EGF and the evolution of its rules between 2007 and 2024

List of figures

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

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    

Table 2. General overview of 18 applications received between 3 May 2021 and 31 December 2024    

Table 3. Case profile data by Member State    

Table 4. Case profile data by sector    

Table 5 Number of applications received 2007–2024    

Table 6. EGF applications by Member State, 2007–2024    

Glossary

EU-27 country glossary

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) 2021/691 1 (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 limited 2 , 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 applications 3  (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 evidence 4 .

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:

-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 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;

-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.

2.1Description 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 changes 7 , 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 ceiling 8 of up to EUR 186 million (2018 prices). Due to the low uptake of the EGF during 2021-2023, with the MFF mid-term review 9 , the annual ceiling was reduced to EUR 30 million (in 2018 prices) for the years 2024-2027, due to the newly emerging financing needs, such as support for Ukraine, geopolitical tensions, natural disasters, etc 10 .

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.

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 system include the number of beneficiaries by employment status (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.

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 individuals 11 , 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 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 indicators 12  give information about the results of the EGF cases, however they cannot be considered performance indicators.

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 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).

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 cases 19 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 2019 20 . 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 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

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 developments 21 . 

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 criterion 23  

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 (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)

Source: European Commission, EGF Database.

Breakdown of EGF applications per Member State

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.

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

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

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).

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 helped 24 ranged from 41% (Spain) to 101% (France).

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

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

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 rates 25 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.

Seven EGF beneficiary surveys were carried out via the EU Survey website in the second half of 2024 for seven EGF cases from 2021 26 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

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.

After participating in EGF measures, the beneficiaries confirmed 27 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).

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 objectives 30 , 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 reports 31 (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 EGF 33 . However, it is lower than in the 2014-2020 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).

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

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 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 survey 35

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 qualifications gained (54% of respondents), including digital skills (32%), 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.

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 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-employed 36 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 criteria 37

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 France 38  specific coaching was 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. Belgium 39  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 Spain 40 , 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 States 41 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) to 24 weeks (2021-2027). Total time for EU level procedures was on average 5.5 months 42  (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 them 43 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 weeks 44 . A longer approval occurred in 6 cases, of which 4 were adopted in 23 weeks, 1 in 26 weeks and the longest took 29 weeks 45 .

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 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 months 46 .

Out of the seven completed cases, in five cases the implementation of EGF measures started earlier that the application date. In four cases 47 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 one 48 , 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 2024 49 , 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 collected in the context of this evaluation confirmed previously identified barriers 50 and identified a few other issues: 

·National economies are doing well and many Member States did not experience great job losses, and/or 51 the labour market is able to absorb the displacements or there is limited institutional capacity 52 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 States 53  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 high 54 , 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 measures 55 , or with other EU instruments 56 (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 waves 57 . 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 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 people 59 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 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 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 evaluations 61 :

ostrong national/local support systems that reduce the need for additional EGF support;

ostrong labour markets enabling quick re-integration without EGF support;

ogenerous compensation and training opportunities offered by the dismissing company;

ofinding a job sooner than expected; highly-skilled people did not require much support;

opersonal reasons for beneficiaries not wanting to take part (e.g. poor public transportation possibilities, caring for family members, etc.);

odelays 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);

olack 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

omeasures 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 participation 63 .

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 Equality 64 . 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 7 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 case 65 .

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.

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, Belgium 66  and Italy 67  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 States 68 . 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 concerns 69 (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 factors 70 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 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 effectiveness 71 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 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 approach 72 . 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 evaluations 73 , 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.

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.

At EU level, the EGF website 74 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 market 75 .

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 rate 76 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 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 from the RHOMOLO-IO simulations 79  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 helped 80

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 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 businesses 81 ) and metalworking industry (average cost of EUR 2 189 per beneficiary 82 ). 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 EGF 83 .

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 EGF 84 .

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 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 months 85  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 cases 87 .

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 States 89 . 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 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 measures 90 , or with other EU instruments 91 (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 learning 92 .

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 frameworks 93 . 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 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 results 95 .

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 value 96 . 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 effects 97  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.

·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 States 98 , 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 effectiveness 99 . 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 effects 100 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 innovations 101 have been ‘tested’ in EGF cases, to be mainstreamed into regional or 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 effects 102 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 Sweden 103 . 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 effects 104 . 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 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 overcapacity 105 .

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 crisis 106 . 

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.

Since the launch of the EGF in 2007, the threshold had been lowered from 1 000 redundancies in the 2007–2013 period to 500 107 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.

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 Regulation 108 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 cases 109 , while during the 2014-2020 these occurred in about 10% of cases.

In terms of future needs of the labour market, the megatrends 110  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.

5.1.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 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 case 111 . 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.

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 instruments 112 . 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 allowances 113 , 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 months 114 .

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.

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 months 116  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.

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 results 118 .

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 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 data 119   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.

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

oThe 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.

oEarly start of national procedures to ensure early intervention. This includesexample, procurement of training courses as quickly as possible.

oDesign of the labour market measures. Many Member States acknowledged the importance of tailored support based on beneficiaries’ needs.

oThe 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.

oThe 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.

oThe 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).

oAs 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.

oThe 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.

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

oSome 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.

oIt 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.

oThe 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.

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:

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;

•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.

Methodology and sources of information

The evaluation process started in 2024, 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 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;

-Additional evidence from previous Commission reports and evaluations.

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 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 Regulation 122 , in their final report, Member States have to state the type of action and main outcomes, the characteristics 123 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 enterprise 124 . This issue was already identified by the European Court of Auditors during the audit of the 2007–2013 EGF 125 , in the course of the mid-term and ex post evaluations of the 2007–2013 EGF 126 and in the mid-term and ex post evaluations of the 2014–2020 EGF 127 .

·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 use 128 because of several changes in the EGF’s design 129 (see Annex VIII below) and the evolving economic context.

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 consultations 142 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 Say 143 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, 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.

Table 1. Stakeholder consultation strategy: overview

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 2021 144 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

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).

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 opinion 145 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 up 146 . 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.

·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 128 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.

·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 18% 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, 3 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.

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 meeting 148 ; (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 cases 149 . 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 27-28 November 2024.

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:

oduring orientation/counselling measures;

oin studies focusing on specific groups of workers, sectors etc.;

oduring face-to-face meeting with employee representatives;

oeven 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.

-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.

- National economy is doing well (HR, LV, and LT). The labour market is able to absorb the displacements.

Survey for Member States implementing

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers 151 (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 2021-2027 152 make the Fund fairer and more inclusive?

3.Modified intervention criteria 153 :

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?

c.Has the alignment made the EGF fairer and does the EGF reach more potential beneficiaries?

5.Do the modified EU or national procedures 154 in place ensure a swift and resource saving decision-making process and thus a quick implementation?

6.Information and communication activities