EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.10.2024

SWD(2024) 226 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Accompanying the document

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

on the final evaluation of the programme for the competitiveness of enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) 2014-2020

{COM(2024) 425 final}

Table of contents

1Introduction

1.1    Purpose and scope of the evaluation    

1.2    Robustness of the findings and any limitations:    

2What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1    Description of the intervention and its objectives    

2.2    Point(s) of comparison    

3How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

3.1    Current state of play    

3.1.1    Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance    

3.1.2    Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets    

3.1.3    Specific Objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness    

3.1.4    Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship    

4Evaluation findings (analytical part)

To what extent was the intervention successful and why?    

4.1    Effectiveness    

4.1.1    Specific Objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance    

4.1.2    Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets    

4.1.3    Specific Objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness    

4.1.4    Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship    

4.2    Efficiency    

4.2.1    Costs of the different actions and cost-effectiveness metrics    

4.2.2    Benefits of the different actions    

4.2.3    Proportionality of costs and benefits    

4.2.4    Administrative costs for applicants and beneficiaries    

4.3    Coherence    

4.3.1    Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance    

4.3.2    Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets    

4.3.3    Specific objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness    

4.3.4    Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship    

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

4.4.1    Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance    

4.4.2    Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets    

4.4.3    Specific objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness    

4.4.4    Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship    

4.5    Is the intervention still relevant?    

4.5.1    Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance    

4.5.2    Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets    

4.5.3    Specific objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness    

4.5.4    Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship    

5What are the conclusions and lessons learnt?

5.1    Conclusions    

5.2    Lessons learnt    

Annex I: Procedural Information

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

A. Summary of the methodology, limitations, mitigating actions and overall robustness    

B. Detailed description of the methodology    

1.    Conceptual and Evaluation Framework for COSME    

2.    Document Review    

3.    COSME - Mapping and Grouping of actions    

4.    Statistical analysis    

5.    Assessment of Costs and Benefits    

6.    Open Public Consultation and analysis of responses to the calls for evidence    

7.    Targeted surveys of COSME stakeholders    

8.    Interviews    

9.    Counterfactual analysis    

10.    Create the beneficiaries’ dataset    

11.    Control group design    

12.    Econometric analysis    

13.    Results    

14.    Case studies    

15.    Main challenges and mitigation actions    

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. additional information on the implementation of the programme, including country information

A.    COSME Interim Evaluation recommendations and how they were addressed    

B.    Further information on implementation - SO1 - Access to finance    

C.    Further information on implementation - SO2 - Access to markets    

D.    Further information on implementation – SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness    

E.    Further information on implementation – SO4 - Entrepreneurship    

F.    Country Information    

Annex VII. Performance against indicators

Annex VIII. Case studies and success stories

Introduction    

Case study 1: Support for entrepreneurship policy implementation

Case study 2: IT Tool Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs

Case Study 3: Early Warning Europe EWE Mentor Academy

Case study 4: WEGate Platform for Women Entrepreneurship

Case study 6: Social Economy Mission

Case study 7: Clusters Go International: ESCP-4i

Case study 8: Training for SME-Friendly policies in Central Purchasing Bodies

Case study 9: Enterprise Europe Network: CarVertical

Glossary

1Introduction

1.1Purpose and scope of the evaluation

According to Article 15(4) of the COSME Regulation, the Commission shall establish a final evaluation report on the longer-term impact and sustainability of effects of the measures. 2 The conclusions and lessons learned would be considered in the implementation of the SME Pillar of the Single Market Programme (the programme supporting SME competitiveness and sustainability in the 2021-27 financial period 3 ) and the implementation of financial instruments for SMEs in the framework of InvestEU 4 . Regarding the SME pillar of the SMP, the findings of this evaluation would be be taken into account in the design of future work programmes, and in the implementation of monitoring activities.

The Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) (2014 - 2020) established by the COSME Regulation 5 focused on tackling challenges and obstacles for SME competitiveness, growth and entrepreneurship. It also aimed to contribute towards the goals of creating more (and better) jobs and on plugging the investment gaps in the EU.

The COSME programme sought to address a number of market failures and issues that were affecting SMEs’ survival and return to growth in the years after the 2008 financial crisis. These issues included high borrowing costs and difficulties in accessing finance (partly due to information asymmetries leading to reluctance by private financial institutions to lend to or invest in SMEs), challenges for accessing customers and international markets, and weaknesses in the entrepreneurial culture.

The COSME programme was set in the broader context of EU policy support to SMEs, notably the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Small Business Act for Europe 6 . The Europe 2020 flagship initiative "An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era" emphasised the importance of promoting the creation and growth of SMEs. The COSME programme was one of the 11 actions put forward to implement this flagship initiative. Other key initiatives running in the same period as COSME included the Horizon 2020 programme that supported innovation, and the Digital Europe that included a focus on helping SMEs to reap the benefits of digital technologies.

COSME also built on the achievements of previous EU support programmes for SMEs, in particular the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme 2007-2013 (EIP) 7 . The strong continuity from the EIP to COSME was acknowledged by the Commission in the proposal for the programme. 8 Improving access to finance for SMEs (during the different phases of their lifecycle) and access to markets, supporting entrepreneurship and better framework conditions for enterprises were key objectives of both programmes. Both programmes targeted micro-enterprises and SMEs. COSME carried forward key EIP measures that had demonstrated their value-added and impact for SMEs 9 , notably the financial instruments, the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) and Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE). Some adaptations were made to EEN to take account of issues noted during the EEN impact evaluation covering the 2008-2014 period, in particular putting in place of a new quality and performance framework.

There were also important differences between the EIP and COSME. Whilst the EIP had a dedicated focus on entrepreneurship and innovation and supported first application and market replication projects in the field of eco-innovation, the EIP actions for innovation were not carried over into COSME, as technological innovation was mainly supported though the Horizon 2020 programme in 2014-2020. In contrast to the EIP, COSME developed actions in the areas of tourism, public procurement and social economy. COSME also included actions to promote awareness, information and support measures and tools towards SMEs (including the EU Open for Business campaigns). The number of target groups was higher in COSME and efforts were made to achieve long term impacts and simplify the governance of the programme. 10  The Impact Assessment for the COSME programme 11 finalised in 2011 concluded that the best option was a modest budgetary expansion for all of the identified components, It also referred to findings from the final evaluation of EIP 12  on monitoring and evaluation, noting the good progress made so far, but also highlighting a need to make further improvements to data gathering and presentation, and to indicators.

The specific focus of COSME measures was adapted over time to take account of new EU policy initiatives related to SMEs, particularly the Single Market Strategy (2015) 13 and the Startup and Scaleup initiative (2016) 14 . The SME Strategy (March 2020) also fed into the implementation of actions under the 2020 work programme, leading to an increased focus on sustainability, digitalisation, boosting resilience, and addressing new challenges affecting businesses (notably supply chain issues).

The final beneficiaries of the COSME programme were SMEs. Many actions under the programme operated through business support organisations and other intermediaries that provided advisory and support services and/or funding to help SMEs to boost their competitiveness and sustainability.

COSME ran from 2014-2020 with a total planned budget of EUR 2.3 billion. Implementation of some actions is still ongoing. The COSME financial instruments were designed to run over a longer period. 15  

In addition to the Member States, the following countries participated in COSME: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Kosovo* 16 , Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine.

Taking account of the impact assessment for COSME referred to above and the interim evaluation of the programme completed in 2017 17 , the final evaluation assesses the extent to which the programme has achieved its objectives and its performance related to all five Better Regulation criteria 18 . It also considers the longer-term impacts and sustainability of the measures supported, and the progress towards fulfilling the recommendations set out in the interim evaluation. It also develops concrete conclusions and lessons learned covering policy aspects, strategy, and operational levels. The evaluation covers the full programme duration and all countries participating in the programme.

The evaluation covered all specific objectives of the programme. The findings were supported by an external study 19 (hereinafter ‘the supporting study’), in accordance with Better Regulation guidelines. The methodology for this study included analysis of monitoring data and statistics provided by the Commission including Eurostat, European Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (EISMEA) and the European Investment Fund (EIF), macro-economic context analysis, counterfactual analysis, data collection through surveys and 73 interviews with key stakeholders (focusing on six main evaluation questions and related sub-questions), and triangulation of findings from these different sources. Further information on the process and methodology to carry out this evaluation is available in Annexes I and II.

Due to the large number of actions supported by the programme the supporting study (see below) presents a mapping and prioritisation of actions to focus on. This mapping is based primarily on the amount of EU funding allocated to the action, and the expected level of impacts on SME beneficiaries. It also includes several actions that were less successful or for which issues were encountered.

1.2Robustness of the findings and any limitations:

There have been several challenges for carrying out this evaluation, notably the wide range of interventions (complexity, mitigated by mapping and prioritising actions), the different levels of detail in available monitoring data, the slow initial response to targeted consultations and stakeholder fatigue 20 (mitigated by further promotion of the surveys, extensions to survey deadlines and additional interviews). There is a lack of final beneficiary data for specific objectives SO2-4 (only data on intermediate bodies is available) and this is addressed by data gathering by means of targeted surveys and interviews.

Concerning the robustness of the consultations, the supporting study concludes that, overall, these provided the necessary evidence once the mitigating actions had been taken. However, the usefulness of the different consultation exercises varied. Five of the six targeted consultations attracted a good response 21 . There was a modest response to the targeted consultation of EEN’s SME clients (67), reflecting the challenge in reaching this population and getting them to respond. The 72 interviews provided valuable qualitative evidence to complement the quantitative data from the analysis of the programme portfolio and the targeted consultations. The call for evidence and the public consultation had a low response rate (3 and 24 responses respectively) despite the efforts to promote them, and the results were less useful and representative. 

As the consultant carrying out the supporting study only had access to Orbis data for the years 2013-2022, there was a potential data gap for counterfactual analysis on businesses supported by financial instruments in the first year of the COSME programme. However, in practice, Orbis data was only needed for 2013-2022, as the Loan Guarantee Facility only delivered finance to SMEs as from 2015, and the Equity Facility for Growth only started financing SMEs at the end of 2015 22 .

Challenges were also encountered for constructing a large and robust enough control group for counterfactual analysis for the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) due to the large number of SMEs supported by this facility (865 387 distinct SMEs). The consultant carrying out the supporting study proposed an alternative approach for the counterfactual scenario for the LGF, making use of the “the estimator of Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021) 23 ”, This involved using a pool of not-yet supported companies (e.g. companies that received funding only from 2019 and onwards were used as a control group for companies supported in 2018 to measure the effects in the year the guarantee was received). It should also be noted that the representativeness of the sample size is not uniform at the geographical level. While Italian companies are well represented in the final sample, SMEs from other key countries, such as Spain and France, are not. Furthermore, medium-sized enterprises present particularly positive trends in relation to the overall population and yet this is not reflected in the overall net causal impact because, among other factors, the share of medium-sized enterprises equals only 1% of the overall sample of final recipients.  

The results of the counterfactual analysis for the LGF (good impact on the number of employees and survival rates over time, but a non-significant effect on the turnover, personnel costs and total assets compared to businesses that had not yet received LGF support) only partly align with existing studies on LGF’s predecessors (e.g., under CIP and MAP). Previous studies 24 demonstrated that EU guaranteed loans impacted positively on SME growth in terms of employment, sales, and profits.

Due to the above-mentioned alternative approach, the counterfactual analysis results cannot be directly compared with previous research on financial instruments. One possible explanation for these different results is that the control group of businesses that had “not yet benefited” from LGF support were better prepared 25 than the businesses used as a control group for previous studies (that did not subsequently benefit from any funding from financial instruments at all). Further additional tests/checks (notably a check using the “log linear specification”) to track the relative causal effect of the loans, and breakdown businesses that had benefited, and businesses that had not yet benefited were carried out to improve the robustness of the approach.

In the case of the EFG, it was too early to formally establish a causal link for the full set of SME beneficiaries. Most SME recipients for the EFG received support as from 2021 and the methodology for the counterfactual analysis requires data from 2-3 years after the intervention, which is not yet fully available. The available Orbis data suggests that impacts for EFG so far are in line with those from previous studies on equity facilities from previous programmes.

2What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

At the end of 2011 when the impact assessment for COSME was finalized, SMEs constituted 99% of European businesses, provided two out of three private sector jobs and contributed more than half of the total value-added created by businesses in the EU. 26 In the five years preceding the impact assessment, 80% of new jobs in Europe had been created by SMEs. 27 By 2013, SMEs had recovered to pre-crisis levels in terms of value added but SME employment had dropped by 2.6% with a loss of 1.9 million jobs. 28

A number of market, institutional and policy failures undermined the competitiveness of European enterprises, including SMEs, and as well as their possibilities for growth linked to access to finance and global markets. The impact assessment shed light on key challenges faced by SMEs at that time:

·Access to finance: In many Member States, SMEs experienced difficulties in obtaining a bank loan. According to the external impact assessment study 29 , between 400 000 and 700 000 SMEs were unable to obtain a loan from the formal financial system, with total foregone loans ranging from EUR 40 - 70 billion, because financial institutions required substantial collateral and extensive financial and business records.

·According to a 2010 ECB survey 30 access to markets was a cause of concern.

·There were specific problems related to entrepreneurship, SME creation and growth. According to a 2009 Eurobarometer survey dedicated specifically to entrepreneurship, only 45% of European citizens indicated that they would like to be self-employed, as compared to 55% in the United States and 71% in China.

·SME competitiveness was hampered by administrative burdens and by the other issues referred to above. According to different surveys, between 70% and 88% of businesses regarded administrative difficulties in other Member States as ‘very important’ or ‘important’ in deciding whether to engage in cross-border trade. 31  

These issues were still prevalent in 2014 when COSME started. For instance, the 2013 SAFE survey identified the main challenges for SMEs (access to customers, followed by access to finance, availability of skilled staff and experienced managers, as well as competition and supply side pressures). 32 The 2014 Innobarometer 33 found that the lack of financial resources represented the main barrier encountered by companies in the commercialisation, marketing and distribution of their innovative products and services.

Market failures due to information asymmetries and lack of soft information affect both the ability of financial providers to assess SMEs’ requests for finance in a cost-effective way, and the ability for SMEs to access full information on market opportunities in other countries and on how to overcome single market barriers. 34

The intervention logic 35 describes the rationale for the intervention (market failures, challenges and issues in the business environment), the hierarchy of general and specific objectives of the programme, and the inputs and activities leading to desired outcomes (measured in terms of outputs, results, intermediate outcomes and impacts). It is consistent with the version in the impact assessment but has been further elaborated in the context of this evaluation, taking account of the COSME Regulation and programme documents.

COSME’s main objective was to enhance SME competitiveness. It also aimed to contribute to creating more (and better) jobs and plug investment gaps. In accordance with the impact assessment, the four specific objectives of COSME were:

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

·Supporting SME access to market and internationalisation (SO2)

·Creating a favourable environment for enterprises and supporting their competitiveness (SO3)

·Promoting entrepreneurship (SO4)

The programme also supported the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy - EU 2020 36 (contributing to the EU2020 objectives of “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” and employment creation) and the Small Business Act for Europe - SBA (2008 and 2011), including the implementation of SBA monitoring governance 37

The expected impacts were increased competitiveness, growth in SME value-added, improved sustainability performance of SMEs, improved SME access to markets, reduced administrative burdens for SMEs, the implementation of new business concepts, models, products or services by SMEs (including for digitalisation and sustainability), strengthened entrepreneurship capabilities, and growth in SME employment.

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

Table 1: Intervention Logic

The table below lists Programme’s actions under each specific objective. For the purpose of this evaluation, the actions were also grouped according to a set of thematic areas. The actions in bold were given greatest consideration by the evaluation after a processing of mapping and prioritisation (as explained in Annex B).

Table 2: Actions within the COSME programme (2014-2020)

Source:

i) Thematic areas and actions: elaboration based on the supporting study

ii) Contribution of the action to the specific objective: analysis from the supporting study and additional information from the European Commission.

COSME was implemented through Annual Work Programmes (AWPs), drawn up according to the Commission's policy priorities, evolving SME needs and support gaps and in cooperation with relevant DG GROW policy units. The programme committee composed of representatives of the Member States approved the work programmes.

Progress towards the objectives was monitored according to key performance indicators (KPIs).  One step forward in comparison to previous programmes was the inclusion of an initial set of indicators in the legal base for COSME. These were subsequently further elaborated. 39  As presented in further detail in the effectiveness analysis, most of the actions met or exceeded their performance targets. However, for approximately 25% of the indicators, there were either issues for gathering data, or performance was not fully on target.

An interim evaluation of COSME covering the activities funded in the 2014-2016 period was undertaken in 2017. 40 The interim evaluation found a strong alignment of the COSME programme with the needs of SMEs at the time and market failures that needed to be addressed, and a high relevance for citizens in terms of its targets of jobs creation and growth. It also confirmed that the programme had made progress towards its objectives and expected outputs. However, synergies between actions of the programme and other EU interventions could have been improved. The main conclusions of the interim evaluation are summarised in Annex VI A . 

An example of one key recommendation that was taken into account in the final implementation of the COSME programme was the evolution of EEN services after the interim evaluation. The EEN and the Commission worked together on a medium-term strategy for revamping EEN's services and service delivery models to ensure that it could meet SME's changing needs. A central feature of this new approach was a focus on SME clients' needs and a medium-term client journey with more in-depth services to support SME competitiveness and internationalisation. Towards the end of the programme EEN also progressively started to build capacities for providing sustainability advisor services and started delivering these services on a small scale.

COSME falls under the responsibility of DG GROW. DGs ECFIN and BUDG are closely associated in the implementation of the programme for matters related to the COSME financial instruments (SO1). Other DGs were also closely associated with COSME actions in their fields, including Secretariat General (for actions related to regulatory fitness and the reduction of regulatory burdens) and DG for Defence Industry and Space (DEFIS) for actions related to defence/dual use industries.

The implementation of the COSME financial instruments was delegated to the European Investment Fund (EIF) whereas EASME (now EISMEA) ensured the management of delegated actions under the other specific objectives of the programme.

2.2Point(s) of comparison 

The COSME Regulation stipulates that the programme should build on the achievements of the previous programme (the Entrepreneurship and Innovation programme strand of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme). It also indicates a number of matters to pay attention to, notably the visibility of financial instruments, synergies with other EU and national programmes and to make further advances with the quality, performance and visibility of EEN.

The present evaluation was informed by the above intervention logic and focuses primarily on the outputs, outcomes and impacts levels. It also takes account of the issues identified in the impact assessment (see the start of point 2.1 ) and the consultations designed to address the questions on whether COSME has effectively resolved all the problems faced by SMEs identified therein. 

The recommendations made in the interim evaluation of COSME (2017) 41 serve as important points for comparison (see Annex VI A), and the present evaluation includes an assessment of the progress made in this respect, broadened with additional indicators on other relevant aspects.

3How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

3.1Current state of play

The total implemented budget of the COSME programme for the 7-year period 42 was EUR 2.4 billion. Bearing in mind this relatively limited overall budget, the COSME programme reached a relatively large number of SMEs 43 . More than 2.9 million SMEs 44 benefited from the financial instruments and/or the in-depth services provided under this programme, and 21 million SMEs benefited from COSME’s digital services such as EEN web sites, digital information tools published by the IP SME helpdesks and the Your Europe Business Portal.

Further information on KPIs and targets is provided in the effectiveness analysis (see point  4.1.1 ).

3.1.1Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance 

Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF)

Between 2014 and 2022, the Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) signed a total of 163 guarantee contracts with 128 financial intermediaries, 45 in 35 countries. This resulted in 1 173 780 transactions for a total guarantee amount of EUR 53.9 billion provided to 865 387 final recipients, i.e. SMEs. 46 The number of transactions progressively increased until 2020 when there was a peak in demand and a substantial top-up from EFSI, and decreased from 2021 onwards 47 .

Figure 1: Evolution of the number of LGF transactions and total guarantee amount

Source: Elaborations on EIF monitoring data for the supporting study

The LGF supported 865 387 distinct SMEs (i.e. final recipients) as of 31 December 2022. The countries with the highest number of final recipients are Italy, France, Spain, Greece and Poland. The geographical distribution of supported SMEs is mainly determined by the portfolio volume of the financial intermediaries in each country 48 .

Most firms that benefited from the LGF are micro-enterprises (less than ten employees) - 89% of the final recipients reached. Small- (10-50 employees) and medium-sized enterprises (50-250 employees) account for 10% and 1% of the number of SMEs financed respectively. Overall, 50% of the firms financed under the LGF are sole proprietors. This is not unexpected given that the LGF set a EUR 150 000 loan threshold above which intermediaries had to apply a special procedure to verify the companies’ eligibility.

Demand for the LGF was high throughout the programme and the budget was increased with several top-ups from the European Fund for Strategic Investments’ (EFSI) SME Window. The top-ups amounting to nearly EUR 1.5 billion in total for 2014-2020 were successfully implemented. 49  

COSME Equity Facility for Growth (EFG)

The EIF signed EFG agreements with 23 financial intermediaries and committed an overall amount of about EUR 324 million from the EU budget to their funds in addition to the EIF own resources alongside with other private resources investing in these funds. 50 Under the core part of the COSME EFG 51 , the EIF has committed EUR 278 million into 21 intermediaries. The additional two operations (bringing the total to 23) for EUR 45 million have been signed under the Pan European VC Funds-of-Funds.

Under the core COSME EFG programme, investments were made, with either private debt, private equity (PE) or venture capital (VC), into 104 COSME EFG eligible final recipients (distinct SMEs) 52 , amounting to EUR 822 million in total. As some funds are still in the investment period, additional investments are also expected.

Figure 2: Evolution of total amount invested in core EFG beneficiaries by year, million EUR

Source: Elaborations on EIF database extract for the supporting study

The number of EGF final recipients and the total amount invested were closely correlated. The top 5 countries for both were Germany, France, Finland the Netherlands and Greece.

Size of SMEs supported by the EFG

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

Pan European Venture Capital Funds-of-Funds Initiative

In 2016 the Commission launched the Pan European Venture Capital Funds-of-Funds. The EIF invested in two multi-country funds established in Luxembourg providing EFG commitments of EUR 12 and 33 million respectively (14% and 12% of the funds’ size). These Funds-of-Funds invest in other funds which in turn finance the final beneficiaries of the programme. The two Funds-of-Funds supported a total of 45 funds which made 460 investments into COSME EFG eligible SMEs.

The eligibility criteria under the Pan European VC Funds of Funds are wider than for the core EFG programme. The COSME EFG eligible EU Target Investees for the Funds-of-Funds are SMEs that are established or operating in the EU, whereas the eligible final recipients for the core EFG operations are established and operating in a COSME Participating Country.

The Pan European VC Funds-of-Funds supported an overall investment of EUR 3.1 billion in the targeted SMEs. The funds’ investment activities remained low in the early years and started to gather momentum as from 2019 (EUR 545.8 million invested in the targeted SMEs), reaching a peak in 2021 (EUR 1.2 billion invested in EU target investees). As some funds are still in the investment period, additional investments are expected.

The average amount invested in the companies is smaller when compared to the core COSME EFG operations: 65% of the businesses received less than EUR 5 million, and 191 investments (42%) were less than EUR 1 million. In contrast with the EFG, the majority of investments under the Pan European VC Funds-of-Funds were made in small enterprises (10-50 employees), which accounted for 35% (155 firms) of the eligible final recipients. Micro and medium enterprises accounted respectively for 28% (115 firms) and 19% (91 firms) of eligible final recipients.

The EFG met most targets: 554 SMEs received investments (target: 360-540) and the overall financing volume was EUR 3.9 billion (target: EUR 2.6 - EUR 3.9 billion). It achieved a leverage ratio of 1:11 53 , target: 1:4 - 1:6 54 . The additionality target could not be measured.

The LGF met all targets: 873 751 SMEs received loans (target: 220 000- 330 000) and the overall financing volume was EUR 54 billion (target: EUR 14.3-21.5 billion). It achieved a leverage ratio of 1:21 55 (target: 1:20 – 1:30) and an additionality of 85% of final recipients considering that financial support received could not have been obtained by other means (target 64 %).

SO 2-4 were mainly implemented through calls for proposals and calls for tenders. There were also a small number of actions implemented through specialised bodies/organisations, including the OECD and the European Chemicals Agency and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). There were 69 calls for proposals in total, and these were published from 2014 - 2021. Since that time work has focused on implementing ongoing (legacy) projects which are expected to close by the end of 2025 at the latest 56 . The most important action in financial terms was the Enterprise Europe Network.

At the end of September 2023, 64 COSME projects were still ongoing for SO 2-4. The total EU funding for these ongoing projects (EUR 52 million) amounts to 18.8 % of the combined 2019 and 2020 EU budget for these programme objectives. 57

Further information on country participation is given under the specific headings below. Across these three specific objectives there was high participation from Italy, Spain and France.

3.1.2Specific objective 2 SO2 -  Access to markets

Under Specific Objective 2 (S02) 13 actions were implemented through 27 project calls with a total EU contribution amounting to EUR 396.5 million (57% of projects’ total costs). Most of this was allocated to business support networks and services.

Enterprise Europe Network

Since 2008, the EEN has supported 2.9 million SMEs by providing different services, including a wide range of advisory services on topics such as access to EU funding, internationalisation and single market, and cross-border partnering services thus supporting their innovation and growth both within the EU Single Market and globally. EEN’s services evolved over time to help SMEs deal with new needs and challenges. 58

In total, 664 distinct organisations in 42 different countries participated in 93 EEN consortia. 59  These consortia were located in all EU Member States and all countries associated with the COSME programme 60 . Their composition remained stable throughout the programme. The allocated budget per country/region was based on, inter alia, the size of the population, GDP and cost of living in the respective country. Further information on EEN calls and key figures on outputs and results 61 are provided in Annex VI.

Information on EEN KPIs fixed in the COSME Regulation and the end of programme results are given under the effectiveness heading below. For example, EEN digital services reached 21.5 million businesses.

Concerning results for specific contractual periods, inter alia EEN achieved 5 101 partnership agreements over 2-years from 2015-2016, 5 740 from 2017-18, 2 945 in 2019, and 5 095 from 2020-21 (systematically exceeding the target of 2 500 per year). EEN also provided 102 866 advisory services from 2015-6 and 81 442 from 2020-21 62 .

The Your Europe Business portal provides information in 23 languages about rights and obligations when doing business in another EU country, and access to assistance services. The COSME programme supported IT development and maintenance, and promotion of Your Europe Business portal YEB with an annual EU budget of EUR 350 000. The number of unique visitors increased by 21% from 2014-2015, 63 and doubled from 2015-2016. 64 In 2016 there were 2.9 million visitors (11% of all SMEs in COSME countries).  65 , 66 Most users were from large and EU countries such as Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom, Spain, France and Germany, but also non-EU countries such as Russia and the United States.

The Single Digital Gateway (SDG) 67 provides information on how EU rules and procedures are applied in each Member State, and access to assistance and problem-solving services to help businesses and citizens that are operating across-borders in the Single Market. COSME contributed EUR 7.1 million to IT development, translation and functionalities for the SDG in 2019 and 2020 enabling it to go live on schedule in December 2020. 68  

The International IP SME Helpdesks in China, South East Asia, Latin America and India provide first line advice, information and awareness raising services to help European SMEs to protect their IP when doing business with these target markets. They received EUR 20.7 million of COSME funding in total.

Between mid-2020 and 2023, the International IP SME Helpdesks replied to 7 830 enquiries 69 and participated in 585 matchmaking events (meeting or exceeding overall targets for both). Over 200 of the events were for the South-East Asia Helpdesk alone 70 . See Annex VI for information on KPIs and outputs and Annex VIII for a case study.

The EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation fosters industrial, trade and investment cooperation between the EU and Japan and contributes to economic diplomacy with Japan. 71 COSME provided EUR 21 million in funding to the centre from 2014-20. Figures on the centre’s key outputs are provided in Annex VI.

3.1.3Specific Objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness

SO3 covered 7 thematic areas, “Internationalisation”, “Competitiveness”, “Tourism”, “Social Economy”, “Framework conditions”, “Design of consumer goods” and “Fashion”.

SO3 was implemented through 21 actions and 30 calls. Most of the EU contribution went to Tourism (EUR 28.8 million), Internationalisation (EUR 26.6 million), and Competitiveness (EUR 25.8 million). Consistently with the fund allocations there were also many calls and projects in these three thematic areas. Many sectoral projects focused on helping SMEs to implement innovative methods (including digitalisation and environment-friendly processes 72 .

The 1 066 73 project participants under SO3 were based in 37 distinct countries, including both EU and associate countries. Overall, the largest demand and a relatively large share of participants were located in Italy (17%), Spain (16%), and France (9%) while a minority (45) were located in associate countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, and Türkiye).

3.1.4Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship

Under specific objective 4, 88% of the EU funding went to EYE (EUR 58.5 million). The remainder was allocated to smaller actions, notably “European Network for Early Warning and for Support to Enterprises and Second Starters”, “Migrant Entrepreneurs Best Practice Exchange”, “The European Entrepreneurship Education NETwork”, and “Social Economy Missions”.

The 478 participating organisations were located in 38 distinct countries. The countries with the largest number of participants are Italy (12.7% of the total), Spain (12.5%), and Belgium (6.5%), followed by France (5.3%), Portugal (4.8%) and the United Kingdom (4.8%). It is noteworthy that all projects that received a grant under SO4 were implemented by transnational consortia. These had 3 to 17 distinct partners.

4Evaluation findings (analytical part)

To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

4.1Effectiveness

This section provides an evidence-based assessment of the successes and shortcomings of the programme in terms of its effectiveness.

For specific objective 1 (financial instruments) measurement of success was based on evidence that the schemes mobilized additional finance for riskier SMEs (leverage), the number of riskier SMEs reached, and evidence of positive impact on company performance (notably survival rates, employment, turnover and total assets). The findings of the supporting study took account of the results of the counterfactual analysis, the targeted surveys and other findings from desk research.

For specific objectives 2-4, measurement of success was based on evidence that the actions delivered on the targets defined in the indicators (outputs, outcomes and impacts). Concerning impacts key measures of success for SO 2-4 were the impact on SMEs’ financial performance and other aspects of competitiveness (growth, survival, turnover, SME employment, new markets, new jobs, skills, including skills for doing international business). The targeted surveys and desk research, including monitoring data, previous evaluation studies, and case studies, were the main sources of information for this part of the analysis. Some highlights from the findings are given below, together with general observations on effectiveness.

Bearing in mind the relatively small scale of the programme in terms of EU budget, COSME reached a relatively large number of beneficiaries and businesses (SMEs, entrepreneurs including new and female entrepreneurs, business support organisations, intermediary organisations and other stakeholders across the EU and beyond). Within the SME categories the largest number of beneficiaries are microenterprises (notably via the LGF).

The broad reach of COSME in terms of number, type, geographical and sectoral distribution of its beneficiaries is illustrated in 3.1 above and Annex VI F. Unsurprisingly, there are a larger number of beneficiaries in the largest Member States, i.e. Italy, France and Spain where financial instruments have been of particular benefit to SMEs. The supporting study notes that the impacts of some actions can be explained also by differences in regional financial ecosystems and banking structures, where the countries with historically developed financial markets such as Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands can benefit the most. In addition, regions with stronger international trade links or strategic positions have benefited further from EEN support to internationalisation. Entrepreneurial culture also varies across Europe so regions with robust entrepreneurial ecosystems, supportive networks, and educational institutions may witness stronger impacts. Countries such as Lithuania and Cyprus were among the key beneficiaries of the EYE programme relative to the size of population, whereas France and Germany registered relatively the lowest number of exchanges.  

80% of the COSME budget was allocated to a few main actions: financial instruments (60.42% 74 ), EEN (15%), EYE (2.2%), and Clusters actions (1.9%). The financial instruments, EEN and EYE were particularly successful in achieving the expected results and most original performance targets set in the Regulation were accomplished or exceeded 75 . Available information, albeit limited, indicate that clusters actions have also delivered some good results and impacts, but reporting data on indicators was incomplete. Further information and justification is provided under the headings for each specific objective / action below.

To summarise:

·COSME’s financial instruments (LGF and EFG, SO1) facilitated access to finance to over 800 000 SMEs. Micro-enterprises which tend to struggle to demonstrate their creditworthiness was the main beneficiary group. The counterfactual analysis demonstrated that the LGF had a positive and significant impact on the number of employees and the survival rates of the SME final recipients. For the EFG, according to data from Orbis, SME final recipients experienced significant positive trends in their economic performance in the years after receiving finance via this scheme. However, it is too early to formally prove this causal link 76 . Nevertheless, evidence from other studies on similar equity schemes supported under previous EU programmes 77 suggests that the positive impacts of the EFG on employment, turnover, and total assets observed with Orbis data would also prove to be valid if a counterfactual scenario were replicated once all the company data needed for the counterfactual analysis becomes available. 78  

·The EEN (SO2) provided integrated advisory and support services to help nearly two million SMEs to take advantage of business opportunities in new markets both within the EU and beyond and supported cross-border business cooperation and transfer of knowledge. The network’s services delivered on and/or exceeded all targets and evidence from the targeted consultations shows the impact of EEN on various components of SME competitiveness.

·The cluster actions (SO3) promoted the international cooperation of SMEs, boosted their innovation capacity and excellence and the development of products and services. The programme supported 130 clusters initiatives with EUR 51 million of its budget 79 . As described in the specific heading on  clusters actions below, the clusters delivered some useful outcomes such as boosting cluster management skills, boosting cluster managers’ understanding of the internationalisation process, and led to increased cooperation, networking and the development of joint strategies.

·EYE exchanges (SO4) aimed to help new and experienced entrepreneurs to learn from one another (SO4) in order to promote entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial culture. EYE performed well on its KPIs and one key outcome observed in the targeted surveys was boosting the entrepreneurship and international business skills of the participating entrepreneurs (see the specific heading on EYE).

The advisory and support services for SMEs and many of the projects (EEN, EYE, financial instruments and Clusters) were implemented by intermediary bodies and entities with established relations and knowledge of the specific community targeted by the different initiatives. The supporting study found that the use of intermediaries in this way was a key strength of COSME 80 .  

Key success factors for the effectiveness of specific actions, and factors negatively influencing performance are mentioned in the following points:

·Two key success factors for LGF are the favourable conditions offered to financial intermediaries (to lend to riskier SMEs) combined with the reputational benefit of the EU support 81  which boosted the supply of loan finance for SMEs, leading to improved survival rates and maintaining and/or increasing jobs. 

·Key success factors for EEN services were the proximity of service providers in the local environment, the established relations between EEN members and the know-how developed over time.  However, the use of local intermediaries also made it more difficult to raise awareness among final beneficiaries about the EU’s contribution to these actions (based on the interviews with EEN members carried out for the study), the supporting study also notes that this also impacted on the availability of monitoring data at a central level as data on final beneficiaries (EEN clients) was held at the level of intermediaries 82 .

Further examples, and evidence are provided throughout the efficiency analysis.

Effectiveness of COSME for enhancing SME competitiveness

The measures supported by the programme impacted on various dimensions of SME competitiveness (helping businesses to gain an advantage in the market by reducing costs, increasing productivity, innovating, introducing new products/services, and expanding into new markets).

All four specific objectives of the programme contributed towards this goal. For matters related to the methodology and the selection of actions for this evaluation, there is stronger evidence of the contribution of SO1 and SO2. SO3 actions contributed both directly (clusters) and indirectly (SME performance review/SME envoys) to strengthening elements of SME competitiveness. The latter supporting the work of the Commission and the Member States for reducing administrative burdens which are widely recognised as a significant cost for SMEs.  SO4 actions contributed primarily to enhancing skills and promoting entrepreneurship. The impacts of the latter could be understated, as there is no source of longer term data, for example on whether entrepreneurs actually created a business after participating in EYE 83 . The table below summarizes the impacts of different actions on competitiveness, and further details and evidence for each specific action is given in the points below the table.

Table 3: Impacts of specific objectives and actions on SME competitiveness

The financial instruments enabled SMEs to secure working capital or acquire/lease small-scale equipment, supporting their day-to-day operations. This allowed SMEs to remain competitive.

The LGF finance filled a market niche and demonstrated additionality 84 . Within the partner financial intermediaries, COSME LGF has contributed to the expansion of riskier SME lending and the enhancement of credit terms and conditions 85 . Such a competitive financing offer helped those riskier SMEs limit the costs of their external financing to affordable level from economic point of view.

The evidence on higher survival rates of companies that benefited from the financial instruments shows that the COSME support often helped them to meet their basic needs. If those companies were more likely to survive also after the LGF support stopped, it means that they were also more competitive, could keep clients or gain new ones, keep their costs down, and be innovative – to secure their position in the market.

According to the survey of SMEs supported by the LGF, the loans allowed 54% of recipients (50/92) to develop a new product or service and 51% (47/92) to develop a new technology or process.

The EFG had a positive impact on enhancing SMEs’ access to finance and stimulating the creation of the Venture Capital /Private Equity market.

EFG targeted the subset of SMEs which are often young fast-growing innovative firms with a risk profile and business model that often makes them unable to obtain financing from the traditional system of financial intermediation. The key sector supported by the EFG was computing and consumer electronics, a sector renowned for its focus on innovation. The EFG also facilitated investment of more than EUR 62 million in SMEs in the energy and environment sector 86 .

Over time, EFG final recipients have not only exhibited high survival rates, but they have also experienced significant positive trends in their economic performance 87 . 

The positive impacts on turnover, where identified, confirm the positive impact on competitiveness. For example, regardless of their size at the time of investment, data from Orbis confirms that SMEs benefiting from EFG have grown in terms of employment, turnover, and total assets. According to these figures SMEs benefiting from EFG, have almost doubled the number of employees from the year before to the year after the intervention 88 . As explained in further detail in the previous sections, it is still too early to prove this via counterfactual analysis, but the results of previous surveys on similar financial instruments indicate that these impacts are likely to hold should a counterfactual analysis be held in future.

International competitiveness has been supported by the services delivered by EEN: Advice, pairing of business partners, guidance, etc. As mentioned earlier, among EEN client SMEs, 62% of respondents to the targeted survey pointed to expanding to new geographical markets. The COSME interim evaluation survey showed that more than 75% of client SMEs had entered a new market, including an international market for more than 20%. More than half of respondents attributed these results at least to some extent to the services provided by EEN. Of the EEN client SMEs responding to the targeted survey (59%) 89 confirmed that the network’s support had enabled them to develop new products or services and 63% (20/32) confirmed that EEN services had helped them to safeguard the number of employees.

Development of skills can also help increase competitiveness. EEN offered workshops, trainings, advice and support. The COSME Programme also supported E-skills for Jobs campaign in 2015-2016 to fill digital skill shortages, gaps and mismatches.

The Your Europe Business portal supported by COSME is also a source of knowledge for SMEs to refer to.

The 2021 evaluation study on clusters actions noted several important benefits/impacts of the clusters actions related to SME competitiveness, in particular:

·The clusters excellence action enabled clusters to enhance their management skills.

·Participation in the clusters excellence action also made it easier for clusters to obtain national funding, as many national support schemes for clusters targeted their support towards clusters organisations that had obtained the clusters excellence quality label.

·Clusters Initiatives also offered SMEs the unique opportunity to create new networks and develop new ideas with different partners.

·Clusters internationalisation actions enhanced the expertise of clusters in the field of internationalisation and enabled them to pool expertise.

However, the supporting study notes that there is insufficient evidence to determine the extent to which Clusters Go International increased SME internationalisation and competitiveness 90 .

The 2021 evaluation study on clusters 91 , found that the clusters excellence action contributed to strengthening the management skills of clusters and the clusters internationalisation action enabled them to gain a better understanding of issues related to internationalisation and to pool expertise.

The EYE programme allowed new entrepreneurs to gain skills, and boosted entrepreneurship by helping them to prepare better to start their own business:

·Amongst the entrepreneurs responding to the targeted survey, nearly 100% (654/655) of new entrepreneur respondents reported that participation in EYE had improved their knowledge and skills, particularly personal skills but also technical and managerial skills.

·Among the HEs 73% (165/227) confirmed that they had boosted their knowledge and skills. According to the survey of NEs carried out by DG GROW after the EYE exchanges (based on data from 1.2.2015 till 31.1.2023), 73.4 % of the 8009 respondents were planning to set up a business (either immediately: 5.3%, in the next 12 months: 29.9% or in the next 3 months: 11.8%), and 9.5% had already set up a business by the time of this follow-up survey 92 .

Effectiveness of the programme for reducing administrative burdens

Under S03, the COSME programme funded studies and meetings with stakeholders that supported the work by the Commission and the Member States to address administrative burdens in EU and national policies and to find solutions for helping SMEs to deal with emerging issues. The monitoring forms provide good evidence of how these actions impacted on policy making and helped enhance the business environment and reducing administrative burdens, for example:

·The Commission used the SME Performance Review surveys – financed by COSME – to inform its inputs to the European Semester and to policy actions related to SMEs, including its input to shaping national recovery programmes.

· COSME also funded the meetings of the SME Envoys and SME Assembly which provide advice and feedback to the Commission on issues that SMEs are facing, including administrative burdens. The SME Envoy Network regularly provided all Member States with up-to-date information on barriers/administrative burdens and national support measures for SMEs. That allowed Member States’ services for SMEs to learn from each other and coordinate support measures.

·COSME also provided annual support to Commission Secretariat General’s action “Engaging SMEs and Stakeholders on policy design and implementation/strengthening of the Better Regulation Agenda”. The 2019 edition of this action supported the definition of “call for evidence” business requirements. The 2020 work programme supported work to define the requirements and develop an internal Commission “one in, one out calculator 93 , (e.g. EUR 850 000 from COSME Work programme 2020). Some actions aimed to reduce the admin burden resulting from EU policy measures (e.g. the EU REFIT platform).

Regarding administrative burdens in the implementation of COSME actions:

·Of the SMEs responding to the targeted survey for EEN SME clients 85% (26/31) reported incurring no direct or indirect costs as a result of receiving the EEN services (including administrative burden and reporting obligations).

·The majority of LGF final beneficiaries (SMEs) responding to the targeted survey did not experience a high administrative burden (57/92; 62%). Just less than half (46%; 18/39) of surveyed LGF financial intermediaries reported an additional administrative burden associated with reporting (heightened programme monitoring requirements compared to the EIP). However, according to interviews, the perception of this burden varied considerably across financial instruments.

·EFG fund managers interviewed did not report any administrative burden associated with COSME.

·For the majority of EYE entrepreneurs (64%, 522/ 827) responding to the survey, the administrative requirements and reporting obligations were, at worst, slightly burdensome. However, 33% did observe burdens 94 .

Factors negatively influencing the performance of the programme

Although the quality of descriptions of actions in annual work programmes improved in the latter years of the programme 95 , one key factor negatively influencing the performance of COSME, lies in the fragmentation of smaller actions 96 which lacked a strong thematic link to other COSME initiatives and its overarching objectives. This includes a number of studies which did not have a strong thematic consistency with the programme, some pilot actions which did not foresee any follow up and were therefore perceived as a “one-off” by stakeholders, and other small actions which received few project applications due to the very limited budget offered. 

In most cases, although these smaller actions delivered the planned outputs (in terms of studies, events, training and other products), the monitoring data and reports do not clarify how and to what extent these actions contributed to COSME’s main objectives. This was particularly the case in the earlier years of the programme. In the latter years of the programme, the monitoring reports (notably the 2020 monitoring report) provided a clearer picture of how the smaller actions fitted into the overall programme goals.

Adapting to changing needs

In the 2020 COSME Monitoring Report, examples were provided of how particular components of COSME were adapted to reflect the changing needs of SMEs. For instance, an EFSI top-up supported LGF transactions related to the digitalisation pilot launched in 2019 to enable financial intermediaries to provide broader and more comprehensive debt support to SMEs for digital transformation in line with EU policy. In addition, the pilot allows the Financial Intermediary to enter a (Counter-) Guarantee Agreement dedicated to the digital transformation of SMEs. 97

Feedback from consultations conducted for the supporting study indicates that the EEN services also supported enterprises in implementing disruptive innovations and managing changes resulting from the crisis, while providing advice on overcoming emerging barriers and accessing finance.

The following sections provide an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of COSME key actions. Further information on specific actions, particularly some of the smaller actions, is provided through case studies (Annex VIII). These also include a number of case studies illustrating weaknesses. For example, the WE-GATE action that has only delivered to a limited extent on its goal to become self-sustaining after the project.

4.1.1Specific Objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance

This section presents the supporting study findings on the effectiveness of COSME financial instruments combining the results of the portfolio analysis with evidence gathered from desk research, targeted consultations and interviews.

Overall, EUR 1.6 billion were committed to the COSME financial instruments for the 2014-2020 programming period (slightly above the 60% target set in the COSME Regulation 98 ). The main longer-term impact of the LGF was helping riskier SMEs to enhance their viability, improve their survival rates and helping to maintain and create employment. For the EFG, there is evidence from Orbis data and previous studies on similar actions that the support is likely to generate positive impacts on SME employment, turnover and total assets. This is described in further detail under the EFG heading below.

Based on the portfolio analysis, including the analysis of KPIs and targets (see Table 4 below), it is possible to conclude that the COSME financial instruments met or exceeded their final targets in terms of number of SMEs supported, the overall volume of investments and leverage.

Table 4 – Achievements of the COSME financial instruments against targets

Source: elaboration for the supporting study based on EIF monitoring data and target data (Annex to the COSME Regulation and COSME Work Programme 2020) 101

Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF)

Looking at specific results achieved by financial instrument, COSME LGF supported 873 751 distinct SMEs through 1 173 780 transactions (as, for example, some SMEs received more than one loan). As of 31 December 2022, EUR 54 billion had actually been provided to those distinct SMEs. The financial intermediaries involved in LGF transactions were mainly commercial banks and guarantee institutions, covering the EU and COSME associated countries (see Annex VI).

The LGF demonstrated strong additionality. It offered financial intermediaries and riskier SMEs a product that went above and beyond what was available from alternative public sources of finance (see section 4.2). According to the interviewed financial intermediaries, the LGF addressed market failures (leading to a lack of finance for SMEs) in a more effective way than other national public programmes. Also, 19/24 respondents to the public consultation declared that COSME provided higher or similar support than other comparable national or regional programmes.

The supporting study also found that no commercial product could rival the advantages offered by the LGF, namely the attractive guarantee rate, the reputational benefit due to the support provided by the EU and the EIF and the fact that the guarantee was considered state aid consistent. Participants in the survey of financial intermediaries declared that their lending activity to SMEs would have been considerably different without the LGF guarantee. About 66% of survey respondents indicated that SME loans would have had higher collateral requirements, or higher costs (52%), or the volume of lending would have been reduced (59%). Financial intermediaries interviewed also confirmed that without the LGF they would have reduced their lending to SMEs, since most of them would not have had sufficient collateral to back their loan. The absence of LGF support would have significantly increased the barriers to finance for riskier SMEs.

For SMEs that benefited from COSME LGF, there were few comparable alternatives available. Respondents to the SME survey conducted for the supporting study, were asked to report what would have happened to their business or investment project if they had not received the EU-guaranteed COSME financing support. Only 12% of respondents reported that they would have been able to secure financing from alternative sources at similar terms and conditions and without having to downsize their investment. The others indicated that they would have opted for loans that had either higher interest rate (59% 19/32) or worse collateral requirements (53% 17/32). 102 The consultation also asked SMEs to share their opinions on the processes, terms and conditions of the EU-guaranteed financing compared to offers available on the market when they applied for the support. A majority stated that, compared to offers that were available on the market at the same time, the LGF guarantee was either much more favourable or favourable in relation to the overall terms and conditions (71% 65/92), as well as the interest rate they had to pay on the borrowing (61% 56/92), the collateral/security requirements (65% 60/92), the speed of processing the application (51% 47/92), and the repayment period (50% (46/92). 

COSME LGF had a positive impact on enhancing SMEs' access to finance. Contributions to the targeted consultation emphasise that this is perhaps the most significant advantage of COSME: its ability to bridge the gap for businesses that would otherwise struggle secure financing or, if they did, would face less favourable terms, such as higher interest rates and stringent collateral requirements (see the statistics in the previous paragraph on how the LGF compared to other offers on the market). A substantial majority of financial institution respondents (82%; 32/39) reported that their primary motive for seeking COSME loan guarantees was to extend lending opportunities to viable SMEs with insufficient collateral. The financial intermediaries that were interviewed for the supporting study also emphasised that LGF allowed them to offer loans to riskier SMEs on more favourable terms than they typically would have. Since the LGF guarantee was provided at no cost, financial institutions had greater flexibility to pass on financial benefits to their SME clients. This translated into lower interest rates compared to similar client profiles and longer loan maturities.

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

Impacts on LGF final recipients’ economic performance

LGF final recipients exhibit very high survival rates in the years that followed the loans. Based on Orbis data, on average only 0.6% of companies were liquidated one year after having received the loan, while the share increases up to 6% after five years. This is even more surprising if compared with the EU27 average survival rates in 2020 that ranged between 85.7% after one year and 58.4% after four years 103 (i.e. 14.3% and 41.6% respectively did not survive). This analysis alone could not establish a causal link between company performance and the support received, which is instead captured by the counterfactual analysis. Surprisingly, the share of active businesses after the intervention is broadly uniform over all the years of investment.

Table 5: Share of active firms by year of first LGF financing and years after investment

Source: Elaboration by the consultant for the supporting study based on Orbis data

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

Figure 4.1: Share of active LGF final recipients by size and years after investment (loans disbursed 2014-2020)

Source: Elaborations for the supporting study based on Orbis data

Across countries, the share of active enterprises is quite homogeneous. A few exceptions are Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Kosovo*, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom where the share of active enterprises each year after the loan is significantly below the average.

Despite the limited increase in the absolute number of employees, it is worth noting that the growth rates between one year before having received the guaranteed loan and three years after is more significant. On the one hand, the average growth rates in the number of employees equals 20% for micro-enterprises, and so do the growth rates in the cost of personnel. On the other hand, the average growth rates in the number of employees equals 11% for small enterprises and 19% when the cost of personnel is concerned. In contrast, medium-sized enterprises have experienced on average an increase in their number of employees (and so their average costs of personnel) both in absolute and relative terms. As far as the turnover and the total assets are concerned, all SMEs have shown positive trends, even though medium-sized enterprises have experienced larger growth rates.

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

Figure 4.2: Evolution in LGF final recipients’ employment before and after the loan, by size

Source: Elaborations for the supporting study based on Orbis data

Since the trends analysis does not allow to draw any causal conclusion on the observed patterns, a counterfactual analysis was conducted as part of the supporting study to estimate the net causal impact of the LGF intervention on SMEs’ economic performance (number of employees, cost of personnel, turnover, total assets). 104 The analysis has revealed that the LGF support led to an increase in the number of employees but it did not lead to an increase in turnover, and total assets as compared to not-yet-treated companies (see Figure below). These results only partly align with existing studies on the predecessor of LGF (e.g., CIP and MAP). Previous studies indeed found a positive impact of EU guarantee loans on SME growth in terms of employment, sales, and profits, even though the results are not always consistent across countries and schemes. The results obtained in the supporting study are to be considered with caution because of a series of limitations to the overall analysis 105 .

Figure 4.3: Evolution of the Average Treatment on Treated on economic performance before and after the intervention (average 2015 – 2020)

Note: In the figures above, the dot points equal the estimates of the ATT in the pre-treatment and post-treatment period, while the bars represent the confidence intervals at 95%. 106

Source: Elaborations for the supporting study based on Orbis data

The counterfactual analysis demonstrated that LGF had a positive and significant impact on the number of employees and the survival rates over time, but did not lead to an increase in turnover, cost of personnel and total assets of beneficiaries as compared to not-yet-treated companies. These results only partly align with earlier studies on the predecessors of LGF (e.g., CIP and MAP). 107 , 108 . These earlier studies observed a positive impact of EU guaranteed loans on SME growth in terms of employment, sales, and profits, even though the results are not always consistent across countries and schemes. As explained earlier, the results of the counterfactual analysis for COSME LGF cannot be directly compared with the previous surveys, due to the alternative methodological approach followed. The results of the supporting study are therefore considered likely to (at least partially) under-represent the full extent of the economic impacts of the programme.

One possible explanation for these different results is that the control group of businesses that had “not yet benefited” from LGF support were better prepared 109 than the businesses used as a control group for previous studies (that did not subsequently benefit from any funding from financial instruments at all).

The financial intermediaries interviewed for the supporting study reported that, in many instances, the LGF guaranteed loans were used to support the day-to-day operations of companies. The loans backed by the LGF were useful to SMEs, but the size of the loans, which were capped at EUR 150 000, did not allow firms to undertake sizeable investments.

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

Equity Facility for Growth (EFG)

(see  Table 4 above for related KPIs)

The funds benefiting from EFG support invested in portfolios of final recipients including COSME EFG eligible firms 110 . The investments in COSME EFG Eligible firms amounted to EUR 3.9 billion distributed through investments in 554 distinct SMEs as reported by the EIF as of December 2022. There was geographic concentration of equity investments, as the majority of the investment (53%) went to enterprises located in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. 111 This is to be expected considering that private equity (PE) / venture capital (VC) activity is often concentrated in geographical hubs and the availability of VC has a positive effect on the demand for external equity (i.e. firms are more likely to seek external equity when the local availability of VC is high). 112 It is important to note that the uptake of the EFG coincided with the development of the European equity market. 113

The average ticket size (amount of finance provided to an SME recipient) under EFG backed funds is around EUR 5 million, which is about three times the average European risk capital ticket size. This demonstrates that COSME has contributed to increasing the average volume of investments made by European PE/VC funds, addressing a structural weakness identified by the InvestEU impact assessment 114 and in numerous studies, such as the feasibility study to examine the potential for Venture Capital Funds-of-Funds. 115 Moreover, it is worth mentioning that despite its initially slow rollout, the EFG surpassed its intended leverage effect.

Interviewed fund managers for the EFG confirmed that the EIF involvement helped unlock fundraising by crowding-in other private investors even if it still remains challenging for a first-time team. It contributed to sustaining the level of capital allocation with the effect of achieving the outputs documented above.

In contrast, the cap imposed on EFG investment 116 is perceived by the financial intermediaries interviewed to have been a barrier to increasing the effectiveness of this instrument. Yet, fund managers also complain about the absence of a matchmaking process between funds and other investors in addition to EIF. Sharing a list of investors making similar investments in Europe and putting in contact, e.g., limited partners (LPs) 117  and venture capitalists would enlarge the outreach of the instrument.

COSME EFG had a positive impact on enhancing SMEs' access to finance and stimulating the creation of the VC/PE market which is underdeveloped in relation to the U.S. 11% of (15) interviewed investees stated that they used the equity investment received to develop new products they probably would not be able to develop otherwise.

EFG final recipients exhibit very high survival rates in the years that followed the investments. 118  Out of those found in Orbis, for all years of the intervention except 2018 and 2019, none of EFG related final recipients were liquidated one year after having received the investment, while the share increases to only 3.4% after five years. The results are even more positive if compared with the EU27 average survival rates in 2020 that ranged between 85.7% after one year and 58.4% after four years. 119  This analysis could not establish a causal link between company performance and the support received, which instead could only be captured by the counterfactual analysis. The share of active businesses two years after the intervention is 100% for the investment years 2014-2017, and falls by 4% to 96% for intervention year 2018, and ranges between 97.8-98.8 % for 2020-2021. These rates remain nevertheless high when compared with the EU27 average survival rates referred to above.

Table 6: EFG survival rates by year of investment and period after the intervention

Source: Elaborations for the supporting study based on Orbis data

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

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

Table 7: EFG survival rates by company size and period after the intervention

Source: own elaborations on Orbis data

EFG final recipients have experienced significant positive trends in their economic performance, as well as high survival rates. As shown in the table below, regardless of their size at the time of investment, SMEs have grown in terms of employment, turnover, and total assets. On average, they have almost doubled the number of employees from the year before to the year after the intervention. The EFG instruments have indeed targeted the equity needs of young and fast-growing enterprises. Whilst this is positive, a causal link could not yet be formally established for the full set of SME beneficiaries as most received support from 2021 and the methodology for the counterfactual analysis requires data from 3 years after the intervention. 120 Most equity investments were provided after 2021. It was therefore not possible to document their performance in the three years after the investment. Nevertheless, previous studies on similar schemes supported by EU institutions, showed a positive causal relationship between the provision of equity support and the economic performance of SMEs (e.g., employment, turnover, assets). 121 Therefore, it can be assumed that the positive impacts observed through the descriptive statistics would hold also in a counterfactual scenario if the analysis is replicated in the future once all expected impacts have materialised. In line with this positive expectation, the average ratio of job creation at the end of 2019 was 1.44. 122

Table 8: EFG Evolution in key performance indicators before and after the intervention (average numbers per company)

Source: Elaborations for the supporting study based on Orbis data.

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

Overall, combining the core EFG operations with the Pan European Venture Capital Funds-of-Funds initiative, evidence shows that the EGF enhanced access to finance, particularly in the form of equity products, in countries where supply was less developed.

4.1.2Specific objective 2 SO2 -  Access to markets

Table 9: KPIs and targets for EEN set in the Regulation

Source: Study Final evaluation of COSME (CSES) based on data provided by EISMEA

Enterprise Europe Network

The COSME Regulation set specific targets and indicators in relation to the EEN performance 130 which were reached and often exceeded. 

The satisfaction rate of client SMEs has been high at around 85% throughout COSME implementation increasing to 92% in 2019-20. 131 EEN members interviewed reported that the most effective services were advisory services, which create competences within SMEs and help them innovate and grow, and B2B or matchmaking events that foster new partnerships. Some areas for further improvement were mentioned by individual interviewees (a need to focus quality checks on content more than on form and to better differentiate between offers for basic common products).

In the targeted consultation of EEN’s SME clients 132 the vast majority of respondents (91% -29 unique SMEs/32) confirmed that EEN’s services had resulted in one or several positive impacts for their business (in particular, safeguarding the number of employees (63% of respondents), expanding to new geographical markets (63%), and developing new products or services (59%), and maintaining turnover (59%) or increasing turnover (56%) 133 . These positive impacts were also confirmed by past consultations (notably the 2017 interim evaluation 134 , which also refers to an earlier impact study).

The impact survey conducted by the EEN for EASME for the 2015-2016 period identified areas where the EEN had positive impacts. 135 such as improved market share in existing markets (57%) and increased turnover (67%), while job growth was less supported (only 32%). 136 The COSME interim evaluation survey showed that more than 75% of client SMEs had entered a new market, including an international market for more than 20%. More than half of respondents attributed these results at least to some extent to the services provided by EEN. 137 In addition, the interim evaluation of COSME showed that SMEs that used the EEN services performed better than SMEs that did not, with 6.45% more turnover growth and 9.45% more employment growth. However, 50% of SMEs did not attribute any of their growth to EEN. 138

The majority of EEN SME clients responding to the targeted survey for this evaluation stated that the EEN services had a positive impact on their business 139 overall (21/32 or 66% ‘greatly’, 8/32 or 25% ‘to some extent’). 140 In another survey of EEN member organisations conducted for the supporting study, 49% (33/68) of EEN member respondents believe that the EEN services they provided have been effective in helping SMEs to access international markets to a great extent and 49% (33/68) to a reasonable extent. 141 A large majority of SME clients (74% or 25/34) also stated that the EEN support received was effective in responding to their needs or in addressing the barriers they had. 142  

A key success factor for the effectiveness of the EEN services is the profile of EEN members, and in particular their credibility and close ties with their regional and national industrial and innovation ecosystems. 143 The networking and knowledge-sharing activities between EEN members, training and the various EEN events are also key to ensuring the effective functioning and quality of services. 144  It should be noted that while collectively most of the targets were achieved, the achievements in the number of partnership agreements signed and advisory services vary between countries and consortia 145   146

From 2017, EEN scale-up advisors were put in place to help young innovative SMEs develop their activities outside their home country. As of 2019, support for start-ups and scale-up enterprises became part of EEN’s core services. This implies, in a longer-term perspective, a shift from demand-based service provision to a long-term connection, with the provision of higher added-value services which can be enhanced by efficient signposting within EEN and by identifying external stakeholders to support clients’ needs in more specialist areas. 147  There is strong continuity in the EEN membership. The majority (72%) of EEN Network members have remained the same under COSME compared to the previous programming period. This has allowed knowledge and relationships between EEN members to be consolidated over time.

EEN also helps SMEs to plan their twin transitions (sustainable and digital).

In light of the good performance of the EEN so far, it is planned to continue this service at least until 2027. 148  

Box 1: Summary of an EEN success story - Italy 

See Annex VIII for other examples

Your Europe Business portal and Single Digital Gateway

Table 10: KPIs and targets - Single Digital Gateway (SDG)

Source: Elaborations for the supporting study based on COSME Monitoring Reports 2019 and 2020

The Your Europe Business portal registered high satisfaction rates for the service provided. The overall user satisfaction rate remained above the target figure of 90%, reaching 93% in 2019 and 94% in 2020. 150 . The key success factors are the multi-lingual format and its links to other national and EU support. In addition, the portal can help SMEs clarify simple issues by themselves, freeing up time for EEN to help SMEs with more complex questions. 151  

Since the launch of the Single Digital Gateway, the number of visits to it has fluctuated, ranging from 7.2 million visits (2021) to 8.2 million visits (2020) and the user satisfaction remained high (92-94%), as presented in the KPIs in Annex VI.

EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation

Table 11: Key KPIs and targets - EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation (EUJC) 2020-2022

Source: Elaboration for the supporting study based on the Monitoring data

A majority of EEN members (69%) and national trade promotion organisations (90%) reported satisfaction with the services provided and the cooperation with the EU-Japan Centre.  152 The main reasons for satisfaction include the continuity of the Centre (in place since 1987), its role as an EEN member and national contact point for R&I programmes, and its close interaction with key stakeholders, including Trade Promotion Organisations (which gave the Centre a satisfaction rating of over 90 %) and business associations. 153  

Box 2: Example of a success story of the EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation

Source: Elaboration for the supporting study based on EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation EEN Japan (2021)

International IP SME Helpdesks

Table 12: Key KPIs of the IPR Helpdesks during the COSME period

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

All KPIs indicators were achieved except for the number of enquiries addressed by the India IP helpdesk which was slightly below target (627 queries responded out of a target of 667), due to the delay in launching the website. 154 The Helpdesks collaborated with the EEN and sought cooperation with other EU actions (e.g. SME Assembly, EU Industry Days, EIC Days, etc). 155 More detailed KPIs with a break-down per contractual period are provided in Annex VII.

In addition, a large majority of IPR Helpdesk users reported satisfaction (around 90%) with the Helpdesk services. 156 A majority of EEN members (80%) also reported satisfaction on the cooperation with the IPR SME Helpdesks. 157 The box below presents an example of a use case of the Latin America IPR Helpdesk.

Box 3: Example of case study of the Latin America IPR Helpdesk

Clusters actions and internationalisation

Given that there was an evaluation study of clusters actions in 2021 the efficiency analysis for this evaluation relies largely on the findings of this earlier study. Further evidence includes monitoring data and the results of a targeted consultation for various beneficiaries including clusters.

COSME funded 130 initiatives for EUR 51 million that promoted clusters. Clusters actions aimed to improve the competitiveness of SMEs by strengthening their capacity to identify growth opportunities internationally, innovate and excel, and develop long-term strategic partnerships. This was the purpose of the Clusters Go International action, one of the largest initiatives under COSME SO3.

A key factor for enhancing the effectiveness of clusters is good cluster management. In this respect, the European Cluster Excellence Programme (ECEP) funded under the COSME programme was designed to directly respond to this need by developing a methodology for effective cluster management including a quality label scheme and the ClusterXchange mobility scheme (launched in 2020) to support short-term exchanges to better connect Europe’s industrial ecosystems 158 .

Other important actors involved in innovation ecosystems such as research-performing institutions and academia more generally also benefited from these actions, for example, in Spain the EXXTRA cluster in the sector of rail supplier industries. This excellence cluster has over 840 members, of which over 500 are SMEs and 130 are universities/research centres.

The 2021 evaluation study on clusters actions showed that the ECEP was effective with regards to a number of objectives. 159  It was considered successful in facilitating cluster cooperation and in enhancing cluster management skills. For Member States which did not have national-level labelling schemes, ECEP labels added more value and were used as a criterion for channelling national funding to cluster organisations.

Figure 4 - Long lasting effects of the Clusters Excellence initiative 160

The 2021 evaluation study of clusters also indicated that the projects for establishing European Strategic Cluster Partnerships for Going International (strand 1) enabled beneficiaries and participants to improve their understanding of the internationalisation process by working together on a common internationalisation strategy fostering cross-sectoral cooperation. This enabled them to gain an understanding of the complexity involved in the internationalisation process. They established strategic partnerships on the European level and in most cases, partnership agreements were signed by the involved clusters to merge their expertise and efforts on an international level. In total, 53 cluster partnership agreements were signed by clusters involved in the first two generations of projects from 2016-17 and 2018-19 respectively.

This 2021 evaluation also indicated that the work carried out by cluster organisations for internationalisation actions was seen as a ‘first step’ for SME internationalisation and linkages to global value chains.

The targeted survey was addressed to clusters for the supporting study. The respondents confirmed that the Cluster partnerships for going international successfully fostered collaboration between cluster organisations. A large majority of clusters organisations who responded to the survey considered the Clusters Go International action to be effective (91%, 20 out of 22). The initiative contributed to addressing key obstacles in the collaboration between clusters such as the lack of awareness around the potential benefits deriving from the collaboration (especially the identification of common goals, bottlenecks and joint actions), the lack of management capacity in the partner clusters and of financial resources dedicated to cluster cooperation. Furthermore, it offered SMEs the unique opportunity to create new networks and develop new ideas with different partners and enhanced the expertise of SMEs’ managerial staff in the field of internationalisation.

This targeted survey also confirmed that one main achievement of the action was the cooperation agreements signed between EU companies and organisations outside the EU (e.g. the agreements with USA and Canadian and Chinese cluster ecosystems brought together many innovative SMEs for further partnership). A key success factor for projects supported through this action, was the quality of the partners’ management and the level of commitment. Among the possible areas for improvement, survey respondents indicated a stronger orientation towards innovation.

There is a strong view among stakeholders interviewed for this evaluation that clusters and business networks are an important and strategic tool to support the internationalisation of SMEs. Matchmaking and B2B events with visitors and local companies are particularly appreciated by stakeholders consulted. However, this is only one aspect of internationalisation. Export promotion programmes supported by national governments and regional organisations are also valued. The financial support provided by national and regional public sector bodies was also deemed relevant.

4.1.3Specific Objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness

The meetings with SME Envoys and other stakeholders and, in particular, the studies funded under SO3 such as the SME Performance Review contributed to the Commission’s work to monitor actions and reforms by Member States for improving the business environment (the European Semester, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and feedback on the National Recovery and Resilience Programmes). Relevant results are given below. For example, good progress was made with reducing the time and cost of registering a businesses. The REFIT action contributed to reducing burdens imposed by EU legislation.

Table 13: KPIs and targets - SMEs and reducing administrative burdens

Clusters actions

The first two generations of Clusters Excellence and Clusters Go International actions met or exceeded most of their targets. In particular, the first generation of Clusters Excellence projects showed excellent performance with the number of supported SME exceeding expectations by far and the Clusters Go International projects were successful in reaching the expected outcomes.

The final results for the Clusters Excellence 2020 projects are not yet fully available as some projects were only recently completed 162 . Based on the partial reporting data available for the period up to July 2023, the indicators seem generally in line with expectations. For 5 of the 9 indicators progress towards final targets was well under way 163 . The work programme 2020 projects were hampered by a delay in the development of the ClusterXchange IT tool 164  which was only available and fully functioning in Q1 2023. This caused a postponement of several exchanges. 

The Clusters Go International 2020 projects are still ongoing. Based on the partial reporting data currently available, the actions are on track towards meeting all targets except three 165 . However, these specific targets are normally achieved towards the end of the project lifetime after the various international business missions have been concluded (at the end of a long preparatory phase and market analysis).

The first call for proposals for Joint Clusters Actions under the Single Market Programme SME Pillar took account of the emerging findings from the clusters evaluation study and issues/trends emerging from reporting data at the time. The ongoing interim evaluation of the SMP will also focus close attention on lessons learnt from these projects.

Table 14: KPIs and targets - Clusters Excellence

Table 15: KPIs and targets - Clusters Go International

4.1.4Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship

SO4 supported various actions for entrepreneurship, notably Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs described in further detail below and a number of tools, networks and initiatives to support entrepreneurial opportunities and culture for women. For example, WEgate 166 was established to help women create and run successful businesses. This action is presented through a case study in Annex VIII.

Another entrepreneurship-related activity which particularly benefitted women was “Scale Up Innovation for a Circular Fashion Industry”, where three in four funded partnerships were female-led. The social economy measures also witnessed a large contribution from female entrepreneurs. 167

In the earlier years of the programme there were also actions for other specific target groups such as migrant entrepreneurs.

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE)

EYE is a cross-border exchange programme to support entrepreneurship. It gives new or aspiring entrepreneurs an opportunity to benefit from first-hand, practical coaching from an experienced entrepreneur who runs a small and medium-sized business in another participating country. The new entrepreneur receives financial support for spending time on site in the experienced (host) entrepreneur’s business. This enables both entrepreneurs to learn from one another and enrich their experience.

EYE is implemented via intermediary organisations. These organisations take care of promoting the programme on local level and recruiting entrepreneurs to participate. They match the new and experienced entrepreneurs, and provide them with assistance for benefiting from this scheme. The intermediary organisations receive a grant from the COSME programme for implementing these support activities.

The COSME programme also provides support for the EYE IT tool that supports the matching process and the management of the action, and the EYE support office that coordinates and supports activities of intermediary organisations (IOs) and supports EISMEA and the European Commission (EC) in the daily management of the EYE programme.

Overall, the evidence from the desk research and consultations for the supporting study indicates that the EYE 168 was effective in boosting the entrepreneurship skills of the participating entrepreneurs. 

Overall, 15 600 new and host entrepreneurs were supported by EYE during the COSME programme. The performance of this action can be measured against several KPIs. The table below presents the main targets for EYE defined in the COSME annual work programmes, whilst the following table summarises the achievements against the key performance indicators across all years.

Table 16: EYE targets set out in work programmes 2014-2019

Source: Annual COSME Work Programmes 2014-2019

Table 17: Achievement against targets (EYE)

Source: EISMEA

Based on the analysis carried out for the supporting study, including a detailed review of monitoring data, the EYE realised between 792 to 2 525 matches a year and it is possible to conclude that EYE met the set targets and achieved important results. The dynamic progress towards achievement of these quantitative targets is well illustrated by the steady increase in the number of registrations, matches, and exchanges completed from the time of EYE’s inception as a pilot under the EIP 171 until 2019.

In the targeted survey of EYE entrepreneurs carried out for this evaluation, respondents confirmed that EYE achieved a range of positive results for the stakeholders involved, and for the European business environment more broadly. Nearly 100% (654/655) of new entrepreneur (NE) respondents reported that participation in the EYE had improved their knowledge and skills at least to some extent, and the corresponding figure for host entrepreneurs (HEs) was 73% (165/227). Only 7% of the survey participants have not witnessed such a result at all. Based on feedback from HE gathered by the Commission, the HE considered the NE entrepreneurial attitude, commitment and flexibility as key factors in the success of the scheme, followed by NE skills, language and knowledge of the sector.

There is no firm evidence of the impact of EYE on the number of enterprises actually created as a result of these exchanges. Surveys of the participating entrepreneurs after the exchanges carried out by DG GROW included a question on the percentage of new entrepreneurs that intended to set up a business. It should also be noted that the intermediary organisations are required to pay specific attention to evidence of the new entrepreneur’s intention to set up a business, when selecting candidate new entrepreneurs. 172   For this potential impact to be properly assessed there would be a need for an additional survey longer after the time of the exchange.

The EYE Support Office (that coordinates and supports activities of the Intermediary Organisations (IOs) and supports EISMEA and the European Commission (EC) in the daily management of the EYE programme), was effective in promoting EYE and coordinating the IOs network, 173 as well as the provision of support and the day-to-day management of activities connected to the IOs. 174  

Based on the analysis carried out by the evaluation team, EYE is expected to produce positive long-term impacts. Interview feedback suggests that the role of intermediary organisations was crucial in supporting the entrepreneurs returning from EYE exchanges to their home countries. In this context, the after-care programmes, the availability of legal support for EYE beneficiaries, and access to local support were identified as good practice that was effective in fostering longer-term impacts stemming from EYE exchanges. With respect to good practice within the EYE, interview feedback also suggested already having a business set up before participating in an EYE exchange might be a factor contributing to the production of long-term benefits.

Next to the actions which performed very well, the supporting study also identified some actions which faced challenges during implementation and where performance issues were identified (Box 4 presents one example). This has also been investigated through case studies (Annex VIII).

Box 4: Example of an action which faced implementation/performance issues

Effectiveness of the programme for addressing key policy priorities

At a policy level, the programme aligned with key policy priorities such as the Small Business Act 175 , the Single Market Strategy 176 , and the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative. 177 The programme played a crucial role in achieving the Commission's growth and employment priorities by improving access to finance, facilitating networking and cooperation between businesses, sharing of information and best practice, and expanding market opportunities for EU SMEs 178 .

COSME was highly valued by respondents to the consultations for the supporting study due to its focus on fostering economic growth and job opportunities and facilitating sustainable growth. However, its contribution in areas beyond the economic sphere and addressing societal challenges and inclusive and sustainable growth is difficult to assess at a programme level given the evidence gathered. Some considerations can be made at an action/sub-programme level such as for social economy or tourism actions.

Several actions considered climate-related challenges. Overall, the COSME contribution to the climate mainstreaming objective, set for all Commission programmes (overall 20% of the EU budget 2014-2020), is estimated at EUR 25.6 million (6% of the 2020 financial allocation). Over 200 expert EEN business advisers specialise in climate-related issues, and several studies provided evidence for policy measures on climate issues, in particular the European Climate Neutral Industry Competitiveness Scoreboard (CIndECS) informed policy work related to the Clean Energy Technology Observatory and the Net Zero Industry Act. However, there is no monitoring or assessment of the precise financial contribution of most COSME measures to climate mainstreaming, as emphasised in the COSME 2020 Monitoring Report,

The COSME also considered environmental challenges and goals, such as fostering a more circular economy or promoting clean technologies. Monitoring fiches and annual monitoring reports provided qualitative data and concrete examples of how specific actions had contributed to such objectives. For example, the EFG facilitated investment of more than EUR 62 million in SMEs in the energy and environment sector. Under the Clusters Go International all sectors 2020 call, 6 of the 12 projects had a specific focus on helping SMEs to improve their resource-efficiency and implement the green transition.

Tourism actions, actions supporting female entrepreneurship and social economy missions had mostly successful outcomes and demonstrated the role that SMEs can play in territorial and social cohesion. One focus area of the social economy missions was local or regional measures tackling unemployment. In the tourism sector, some smaller workshops and reports led to positive results, developing topics such as sustainability, digitalisation, and resilience and contributing evidence and experiences for the Transition Pathway for Tourism 179  policy published by the Commission in February 2022. 180 A number of events in 2020 led to proposals for concrete action points on the long-term transition towards green, digital and resilient tourism. 181

Other actions in the field of Social Economy supported inter-regional learning and collaboration for more sustainable growth. The European Social Economy Missions of 2020 182  involved a wide range of umbrella organisations focused on the social economy.

Furthermore, the annual SME Performance Reviews and smaller actions addressing the theme of Framework Conditions provided solid evidence to support policy making and published materials that generated additional visibility for the programme. For instance, the SME Performance Review reports have been useful in deepening the understanding of market trends through key performance indicators and in supporting national policy developments. Other initiatives were helpful in supporting evidence-based policy making and national reform efforts. 183

Some smaller actions supported SMEs in key sectors such as tourism – and others contributed to improving the framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of enterprises in the EU. As indicated in the targeted consultations, a factor which contributed to their success was their focus on tackling specific issues or SMEs’ specific needs. Their strong coherence with other initiatives in the programme was also mentioned, and their contribution to the achievement of longer-term impacts.

4.2Efficiency

The assessment of the efficiency of the COSME programme covers budget and implementation structures and governance, proportionality of costs and benefits, and the administrative costs for applicants and beneficiaries. It is based on data sources such as programme documentation and programme data on key metrics, notably “Time to inform” (TTI) and “Time to grant” (TTG) in relation to open calls 184 . It also uses the findings of the interim evaluation of COSME covering implementation in 2014-2016, and evidence gathered in the interviews and targeted surveys carried out for this evaluation and the results of earlier surveys (for EYE), and the findings of previous evaluations including evaluation studies on clusters actions and the international SME IP Helpdesks.

Efficiency of programme management

There has been a high execution rate of the programme budget in each year of the programme’s implementation, even though there was a steady increase in the annual budget year-on-year. The execution rate ranged from 94% in 2016 to 99% in (2014, 2015 and 2020) and the average rate over the life of the programme was 98%. 185  

Table 18: Budget commitments within COSME 2014-2020

Source: annual monitoring reports produced by the European Commission

This high execution rate is broadly in line with other EU programmes. For example, the execution rate for the Creative Europe programme was close to 100% 186 and Horizon Europe implemented 99.99% of commitments. 187

COSME was highly valued by stakeholders for the focus on fostering economic growth and job opportunities and facilitating sustainable growth. Its contribution in areas beyond the economic sphere and addressing societal challenges and inclusive and sustainable growth is difficult to assess at a programme level given the evidence gathered. However, some considerations can be made at a sub-programme level such as for social economy or tourism actions.

Several actions considered climate-related challenges. Overall, the COSME contribution to the climate mainstreaming objective, set for all Commission programmes (overall 20% of the EU budget 2014-2020), is estimated at EUR 25.6 million (6% of the 2020 financial allocation). Over 200 expert EEN business advisers specialise in climate-related issues, and several studies provided evidence for policy measures on climate issues, in particular the European Climate Neutral Industry Competitiveness Scoreboard (CIndECS) informed policy work related to the Clean Energy Technology Observatory and the Net Zero Industry Act. However, there is no monitoring or assessment of the precise financial contribution of most COSME measures to climate mainstreaming, as emphasised in the COSME 2020 Monitoring Report.

The COSME also considered environmental challenges and goals such as fostering a more circular economy or promoting clean technologies. Monitoring fiches and annual monitoring reports provided qualitative data and concrete examples of how specific actions contributed to such objectives. For example, the EFG facilitated investment of more than EUR 62 million in SMEs in the clean energy and environment sector. Under the Clusters Go International 2020 call, 6 out of 12 projects has a specific focus on helping SMEs to improve their resource-efficiency and implement the green transition.

The share of the programme budget devoted to administrative expenditure is relatively low in the last 5 years of the COSME programme (3%) 188 . In the first 2 years (2014-2015), the administrative expenditure was slightly higher (4.6% of total programme budget).

Overall, the percentage of the COSME programme budget devoted to administrative expenditure is comparable with other EU programmes or agencies:

·The administrative expenditure for other programmes ranged from 3.6% for LIFE 189 to 7% for Urban innovative actions, and Horizon 2020 was between these figures at 5%.  190

·The administrative costs for agencies generally ranged from 2.6 to 2.7% (INEA: 0.77%, REA: 2.6%, EISMEA H2020 actions: 2.7% and ERCEA: 2.75%) 191

The supporting study points out that the higher percentage of administrative costs in the first two years of the COSME can be largely explained by the need to establish programme management arrangements. It also suggests that the delegation of programme management tasks to EISMEA is a key factor explaining the decrease in the administrative costs over time for COSME, referring to the cost benefit analysis conducted by the Commission in 2013 192 on the delegation of programme management to executive agencies.

Regular monitoring has allowed the programme implementation bodies to reallocate funds 193 . In 2018, funds were reallocated from the EFG to other actions, because agreements for equity took longer to sign, due to the complexity of due diligence and fundraising processes. In 2019, budget was reallocated notably to the LGF, reflecting high market demand for guarantees and counter-guarantees. In 2020, EUR 815 000 was reallocated to the tourism call due to the high level of oversubscription of good quality proposals for this action 194 .

The programme implementation bodies also took steps to respond to challenges which affected several actions funded by 2019 and 2020 budget. They also carried out a specific monitoring of the affected projects, with re-allocation of funds and extensions to the duration of projects where appropriate 195 :

In the response to the targeted survey for this evaluation that included “Improving Framework Conditions” actions 196 respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the support and assistance offered.

·71/75 of providers and beneficiaries responding to the targeted survey confirmed that they were either very satisfied (37) or satisfied (34) with the support provided by the European Commission and EISMEA.

·57/61 beneficiaries reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the support offered by the relevant intermediary organisations.

4.2.1Costs of the different actions and cost-effectiveness metrics

Table 19: Total EU contribution to COSME per COSME specific objective

Source: European Commission (ABAC for SO1 and COSME Monitoring Data 2014-2020 for SO2-4) 197

It should be noted that within SO2, EEN accounted for most funding (93%), and within SO4, EYE accounted for most funding (89%).

Regarding the cost-effectiveness metrics, their comparison with relevant indicators from other programmes proves challenging as different financial instruments have different design, policy purpose, implementation mechanism and financing conditions. A dedicated horizontal study comparing financial instruments would have to take into account all specificities of the financial instruments by weighting the final results from a cost effectiveness perspective.

Table 20: Efficiency indicators for individual actions (2014-2020)

This table presents some efficiency metrics for COSME key actions that can be compared with 2014-2016 figures from the interim evaluation (in brackets when available):

€m = 1 million EUR 

The approach followed by the table above is in line with that of the interim evaluation of COSME. The two cost-effectiveness indicators (CEA) above reflect the number of outputs and outcomes produced per million Euro invested in the programme (with or without ‘other’ costs). The analysis is not exhaustive as it only considers the costs sustained by the Commission and other participants and not the costs to society. For benefits (A), the analysis looks at direct benefits of the programme, i.e. the number of SMEs supported, partnerships signed, etc. or outputs as proxy indicators of benefits.

The budget committed per beneficiary has decreased for EEN and EYE which may indicate a higher efficiency and increased slightly for LGF comparing the budget per beneficiary at the interim stage and at the end of the programme.

For the LGF, the cost effectiveness indicators (798.9 as CEA I and 470.3 as CEA II) as expected at the time of the COSME midterm evaluation are higher than those in the COSME final evaluation (719.36 for CEA I and 340.30 for CEA II). This is due to a modification to the LGF in the period after the 2017 interim evaluation. More flexibility was given to users of the LGF and the LGF guarantee rate was increased from 50 to 80% accordingly. When a larger guarantee rate is provided, less SMEs will be supported under other equal budgetary terms. Hence, the cost effectiveness indicators (which are ratios between SMEs supported via the LGF and EU guarantee) are lower in the final evaluation.

4.2.2Benefits of the different actions

The COSME actions provided a diversity of (quantifiable and unquantifiable) benefits for participants and beneficiaries, as well as for the EU more generally.

Table 21: Main quantifiable benefits of specific COSME actions

Source: COSME monitoring data

Table 22 - Main benefits for beneficiaries

An additional summary of information on the main benefits for beneficiaries based on data from the targeted surveys, studies, the interim evaluation, counterfactual analysis, and Orbis data (for LGF) is given below:

4.2.3Proportionality of costs and benefits

This section illustrates key findings on the cost-effectiveness of the main actions of the programme looking at the costs for the actions (considering figures in 2014-2016) and the benefits achieved. The targeted consultations with COSME participants for the supporting study have gathered some more comprehensive data on the extent to which the costs for intermediaries and final beneficiaries are proportionate to the benefits gained. This allows some comparison of the findings with those of the interim evaluation. This analysis covers those actions that received most funding (aside from the financial instruments), namely EEN and EYE. In addition, the end of this section contains analysis on the proportionality of benefits relative to costs for the international IP SME Helpdesks, and for the clusters internationalisation and clusters excellence actions, based on the results of recent evaluations of these actions.

Some caveats are required here, as Toolbox 57 of the Better Regulation Guidelines states that a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) entails the quantification of the benefits and that the typical method used within a CEA to compare options is the benefit-cost ratio, which means dividing the benefits by costs. In the case of the COSME programme, whilst the financial costs can be known with some accuracy, a diversity of (quantifiable and unquantifiable) benefits are produced. For that reason, a benefit-cost ratio cannot be calculated. Toolbox 57 also suggests that CEA is less easily applicable to interventions that have a number of objectives or that generate important indirect impacts, whereas the COSME programme addresses multiple objectives and is intended to generate both direct and indirect impacts. Given the requirement of the Better Regulations Guidelines, the approach proposed here is to apply the broad concepts of a CEA, whilst recognising that the detailed requirements of a CEA cannot be satisfied.

Taking this approach – which depends largely on the perceptions of participants and beneficiaries - the proportionality of costs and benefits is assessed in four ways. These are the extent to which participants and beneficiaries reported that:

·the benefits they gained exceeded the costs they incurred;

·the COSME actions offered value for money;

·the EU funding was sufficient for them to achieve the intended benefits;

·the administrative costs for them were proportionate (see next section).

First, the majority of participants and beneficiaries of the EEN and EYE report that the benefits they experienced exceeded the costs they incurred. As shown in the table below, this was confirmed by the targeted consultations undertaken at the interim and final evaluation stages.

Table 23: Proportionality of the benefits relative to costs

Second, the majority of participants and beneficiaries report that the EEN and EYE offered value for money. For EYE, 71% (439/618) of new entrepreneurs reported that the exchange offered value for money. The figure was slightly lower at 61% (129/212) for host entrepreneurs. On the other hand, 22% (133/618) of new entrepreneurs and 29% (62/212) of host entrepreneurs responded that that benefits only outweigh costs “to a limited extent or not at all” 209 .

The vast majority of EEN members responding to the targeted survey (92%, 55/60) reported that EEN services offered value for money, given the benefits gained and the costs incurred. 210

Third,    majority of participants and beneficiaries of the EEN and EYE report that the EU funding was sufficient to achieve the intended benefits. Within the EYE programme, 48% of NE responding to the Commission’s feedback survey on EYE found this financial support to be “more or less” sufficient, and 28% found it to be sufficient, while 23% found the support to be insufficient.

Only a small proportion of EEN member organisations faced challenges around the sufficiency of funding to achieve the desired benefits. Of the EEN member organisations responding to the targeted survey, 79% (62/78) reported that the EEN COSME grant was sufficient to provide all planned services, while 17% (13/78) disagreed. Overall, 91% (54/60) of the EEN members active during the COSME period considered that the EEN services offered value for money to a great extent (50% 30/60) or to some extent (41% 25/60).

The costs incurred for hosting a new entrepreneur for EYE varied but were rarely above EUR 5 000, according to the survey of EYE participants. The host entrepreneurs who quantified this in their responses mostly reported costs of no more than EUR 3 000 and nearly all reported costs below EUR 5 000. The feedback questionnaire commissioned by the Commission on EYE in 2023 indicated that 28% of new entrepreneurs considered the money to be sufficient, a further 47% considered the money to be more or less sufficient. 211 Finally, 25% of respondents considered the money to be insufficient. 

For Clusters Excellence, 64% 212 of respondents to the survey for the 2021 Evaluation Study of Cluster Initiatives under COSME, H2020 and FPI confirmed that benefits generated by the initiative(s) exceeded the costs. Similarly, 87% of respondents 213 to the survey questions on Clusters Go International for this 2021 evaluation confirmed that benefits generated by the initiative(s) exceeded the costs. 214

Regarding the international IP SME Helpdesks, as mentioned earlier, the 2018 Support Study for the Evaluation of the IP SME Helpdesks noted that the available evidence base for the efficiency criterion was limited, due to difficulties of fully measuring the possible benefits (ie potential cost savings of not being infringed or involved in litigation/enforcement of IP rights). This limits the possibility to use a classical cost/benefit (CB) ratio.

4.2.4Administrative costs for applicants and beneficiaries

Across the COSME actions, the applicants and beneficiaries tended to report that they found the administrative costs they incurred to be proportionate.

The proportion of ineligible proposals depends on various factors including the experience and capabilities of the applicants, the level of attention paid to the provisions in the call and the clarity of the call documents. One situation that wastes time for applicants and evaluators is low eligibility rates and poor quality proposals resulting from unclear call documents. The interim evaluation suggested that the relatively high proportion of ineligible proposals for Tourism grants, Cluster excellence and EYE 215 pointed to a need to improve the description of the eligibility criteria. Conversely the interim evaluation also mentioned the link between the clarity of the work programme descriptions and requirements for applicants and high proportion of eligible applicants, notably for actions such as EEN 216 (4% ineligible), design-based consumer goods (4%) and migrant entrepreneurship support schemes (8%). 

Across the full programme period, intermediaries and final beneficiaries found the costs and burdens associated with participation to be affordable and acceptable. At the interim evaluation stage, the costs and burdens were found to be affordable and acceptable across almost all actions. However, some bodies (especially financial intermediaries) reported that the overall administrative burden was high. The evidence gathered for this final evaluation suggests a higher level of satisfaction on the part of intermediaries and final beneficiaries compared with the interim evaluation, as explained below.

Financial intermediaries for the LGF report a reasonable level of satisfaction with the administrative burden: less than half (21/47) reported an additional administrative burden associated with reporting. This suggests some potential for streamlining the reporting process in this area.

The majority of financial intermediaries are positive about the LGF process itself. Out of 45 surveyed, the majority reported being satisfied with the different procedural requirements, namely application (40), appraisal and due diligence (36), time taken to sign the contract (29), and reporting requirements (27). The main exceptions to this positive experience overall tended to be small intermediary organisations and newcomers. Three issues mentioned were: the lengthy period for negotiating and signing the contract, the complexity of the contract (difficult to understand), and a linguistic barrier (as contracts and reporting documents were only available in English). 217

Private Equity and Venture Capital fund managers interviewed for this evaluation did not report any administrative burden specifically associated with COSME, although some highlighted aspects that could be improved. 218   The EIF’s in-depth due diligence and risk management process was reported by a few of the fund managers interviewed to have slowed down investment operations, although others felt it was necessary - especially when dealing with public money - while increasing the transparency and quality of the investment. Moreover, the requirement to prove that the investment is part of the EU taxonomy based on NACE codes can also limit or delay investment opportunities. 219  

Final beneficiaries of the LGF report a high level of satisfaction with the administrative and reporting process. In the targeted survey, only a minority reported increased complexity (9% 8/92) or costs (17% 16/92) related to the EU nature of the financing, and only 3% reported dissatisfaction with the reporting requirements (3/92). This is consistent with the evidence from the survey of final SME beneficiaries carried out as part of the interim evaluation. Of the final beneficiaries responding to the targeted survey, the majority had not experienced a greater administrative burden (62% 57/92) or greater complexity (74% 68/92) compared with similar SME support programmes. Just over half (62% 57/92) had not experienced substantial additional costs under the LGF. 220 When asked to state the specific costs or administrative burdens incurred, most referred to those related to obtaining or preparing the necessary documentation. 47/92 LGF beneficiaries surveyed for this evaluation claimed that the speed of the processing of the application was more favourable than for other offers on the market, and 29/92 said it was the same. 61/92 did not need any external help for this and 68 encountered no additional complexity due to the EU nature of the programme.

Nevertheless, financial intermediaries noted an increase in administrative costs during the transition from the EIP to COSME. This resulted from the heightened programme monitoring requirements stemming from the recommendations in the EIP final evaluation - the need to collect data on SME beneficiaries for programme assessment. 221  

As regards the EEN, the survey feedback indicates that there were no significant costs related to administrative burdens for SME clients or for EEN members. Of the SME clients responding to the targeted survey 222 , 84% (27/32) reported incurring no direct or indirect costs because of receiving the EEN services (including administrative burden and reporting obligations). When asked in the targeted survey to comment on overhead costs incurred in the provision of EEN services, 11% of EEN members (12/106) reported incurring such costs.

Intermediary organisations and SMEs involved in the clusters actions report high satisfaction with administrative aspects. In the targeted consultation for this evaluation, 82% (18/22) confirmed that low human and financial costs of monitoring and reporting requirements contributed to some or a great extent to the clusters’ success. 86 % of respondents (19/22) said the same about simple administrative procedures.

Similarly, for COSME clusters internationalisation actions, respondents to the surveys for the 2021 evaluation study on clusters actions 223 tended to be satisfied overall with the application process, the timeliness of support provision, the clarity of requirements and consortium agreement requirements. However, they were less satisfied with the frequency of calls.

Concerning EYE, the majority of the participating entrepreneurs (64%) did not find the administrative requirements and reporting obligations to be particularly burdensome. Over a third of them found the obligations to be fairly or very burdensome (25% and 9% respectively. 224

4.3Coherence 

The most internally coherent actions are the financial instruments, EEN, clusters internationalisation actions, the IP help desks, and the EU Japan centre.

The supporting study finds that considerable progress has been since the time of the interim evaluation, which found that synergies within the COSME programme at that time were not strong 225 . Nevertheless, it also suggests a need for a more systematic approach for identifying and implementing synergies, and for better interaction between communication tools for different actions.

The COSME LGF and EFG were complementary, given that different types of SMEs had different financing needs. 226   Both instruments were found to be mutually supportive.

There is strong coherence between the international IP helpdesks and other services supported by the programme. According to the most recent monitoring data, the international IPR Helpdesks for China, South-East Asia, and Latin America cooperated and created synergies with the International IP Helpdesk India (COSME). They also cooperated with IP helpdesks funded by other EU programmes. Moreover, there was close cooperation between the EU Japan Centre, the international IPR Helpdesks and the clusters internationalisation programme (Clusters Go International and the ECCP platform). In its 2022 special report on SME Internationalisation activities 227 , the European Court of Auditors confirmed the good level of cooperation between the EU Japan Centre and EEN.

The support for entrepreneurship was complementary to the financial instruments and the EEN, where some organisations are involved in implementation of both actions and the EYE HEs are invited to the EEN annual conference, and EYE NEs receive information packages on EEN and its services.

The majority of EEN members surveyed for the supporting study (62% 37/60) also reported complementarity with services such as Your Europe Business portal and network, SME internationalisation portal, cluster networks and EYE. EEN members also actively informed their SME clients of the opportunities available under COSME, especially financial support.

The Your Europe Business (YEB) portal included information from various sources relevant to SMEs, links to the EEN website and a form to submit questions to EEN. The EU-Japan Centre cooperated with EEN for partnership services and EEN concluded a bilateral agreement with IPR Helpdesks. However, in the targeted stakeholder survey for the supporting study, only 10% (3/31) of SME client respondents reported that they also benefited from other COSME actions. This would suggest that there is potential for improving synergies within the programme.

The study also suggests that COSME communication tools seemed not to have sufficient interaction with the different actions (e.g. for entrepreneurship support actions). One exception was the EU Open for Business campaign that did involve synergies between the main services and tools supporting SMEs. More could be done to signpost SMEs to the different forms of support available 228 .

Table 24: Synergies, complementarities and/or cooperation with other programmes or support services

Further details are given below, in the study, and the annual monitoring reports.

4.3.1Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance

Interviews with beneficiaries and the EIF carried out for this evaluation pointed to synergies between the COSME Loan Guarantee Facility (LGF) and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) SME Window, which enabled SMEs to benefit from additional finance for working capital and for digitalisation.

According to the monitoring reports and the interviews with beneficiaries and the EIF for the supporting study, beneficiaries found EFSI support more attractive (cheaper and with a longer tenure). 230 Following an arrangement with EIF, EFSI resources were fully used to support investments in the EU, and EFG resources were used for investments in non-EU participating countries only. The 2020 COSME Monitoring Report noted that this challenged the deployment of COSME EFG resources as they could only be used for non-EU participating countries where demand was much lower as the equity markets are much less developed in those non-EU participating countries. Since the market demand for the other COSME financial instrument LGF was much greater, the Commission addressed the situation also by allocating resources from EFG to LGF.

Based on targeted surveys, the supporting study suggests that there is some overlap between the LGF and ESIF (e.g. in regions where ESIF managing authorities had designed guarantee facilities with similar risk levels to COSME) 231 . It also finds them to be complementary. ESIF financial instruments are only implemented in the national or regional territories covered by the relevant programmes, which may lead to a fragmented delivery. The LGF, on the other hand, is pan-European. The COSME instruments provide SMEs with access to finance that would not otherwise be available or would only be available on less favourable terms and conditions. 232  

The financial intermediaries surveyed emphasised that a distinct advantage of COSME financial products, is their lack of geographical restrictions. 233  

Coherence between COSME and Horizon 2020 financial instruments is strong. This final evaluation validates the preliminary finding of the interim evaluation. 234

COSME LGF and national guarantee programmes were, in some cases, overlapping and competing against each other. The COSME interim evaluation raised some concerns that the very favourable terms and conditions of the LGF could have displaced national guarantee programmes. The interviews for the supporting study confirmed that both were complementary - the national schemes targeted different types of SMEs than LGF, particularly those seeking larger loan amounts.

4.3.2Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets

Enterprise Europe Network

EEN members and SME beneficiaries report synergies between the EEN services and business support services offered by Member States. This was confirmed by 68% (41/60) of EEN members 235  responding to the survey for this final evaluation. 48% of EEN clients (15 out of 31) found that the EEN services complemented the existing national or regional support services. 

There was a high level of synergies and complementarity between EEN and innovation support activities funded through the Horizon 2020 programme (H2020) This finding was confirmed by the desk research and interviews undertaken for this final evaluation. The EEN members interviewed for the supporting study confirmed that they collaborated with Horizon 2020 National Contact Points, for example by signposting clients to them and organising joint events.

The EEN provides information and advisory services to SMEs to identify relevant funding opportunities and support services offered by other EU programmes. The EEN members interviewed for this evaluation confirmed that they signposted clients towards such services 236 .

The design of the EEN helps ensure coherence with other support services offered to SMEs. The EEN calls for the 2014-20 financial period required that network services should be embedded in national regional and local support environments and seek synergies with existing actions such as the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) under Horizon 2020 and ensure that their services are complementary.

The Commission also concluded bilateral agreements with organisations active in the field of SME internationalisation, who became associate members providing services to the EEN. 237

Nevertheless, the supporting study also suggests that there is scope for improving the integration of EEN services into the wider support offered to SMEs. The interim evaluation of COSME highlighted a need to strengthen EEN’s regional integration and improve its visibility. 238  

Other internationalisation actions

There are no significant overlaps between COSME SME internationalisation actions and support offered by Horizon 2020. However, there are sub-programmes within Horizon 2020 that indirectly support SME internationalisation.

The international IPR Helpdesks in China, South-East Asia, and Latin America and India cooperated and created synergies with the European IP Helpdesk (Horizon 2020), the Africa IP Helpdesk (EU Intellectual Property Office) and IP Key (DG TRADE) for organising joint events related to intellectual property. The international IP helpdesks also share a website with the European and Africa Helpdesks. 239  

The 2021 clusters evaluation identified some synergies between both the European Cluster Partnership for Internationalisation and other EU programmes. For example, 36% of respondents to the survey for the 2021 evaluation 240 considered the Horizon 2020 programme to be very coherent with the European Cluster Partnership for Internationalisation. They also benefited from support under other EU programmes.

The COSME programme also contributed to the Single Market Strategy and enabled SMEs to capitalise on the opportunities afforded by the EU’s internal market notably through EEN service and by supporting the Single Digital Gateway. 241  

4.3.3Specific objective 3 SO3 - Framework conditions and competitiveness

The COSME tourism actions, by their unique focus on tourism SMEs, complement other forms of EU support for tourism. There are 17 EU programmes that offer the possibility of support for tourism businesses 242 , but they have no funding specifically targeted at this sector. The COSME tourism actions complemented these by providing specific support for the competitiveness and sustainability of tourism SMEs (127 projects funded from 2014-20) 243 . COSME also funded several studies that provided data and findings relevant to other EU programmes and to national/regional support measures, including studies on out of season tourism flows, resilience, digitalisation and sustainability 244 and a flash Eurobarometer on tourism (2021).

4.3.4Specific objective 4 SO4 - Entrepreneurship

The supporting study observes that there are similarities but no obvious overlaps between COSME support for entrepreneurship and other initiatives in the Commission's Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. 245 .

Overall, EYE was coherent with a number of EU policy goals and strategies in the field of SME and entrepreneurship policy, skills and education, and also single market. 246 EYE has also shown additionality to national, regional and local measures: the interim evaluation found that EYE paved the way in emerging areas such as migrant entrepreneurship, and complemented existing EU activities 247 in more established areas of support to entrepreneurship 248 . The cross-border dimension of EYE is highly relevant to many entrepreneurs and is a key feature distinguishing it from corresponding national schemes. 249  

The action “Enhancing Digital and Entrepreneurial Competences in Girls and Women” supported the implementation of the SME Strategy, the Skills Agenda, and the European Digital Education Action Plan. 250

4.4How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

COSME has offered EU added value by supporting actions that go beyond the scope and depth of actions supported at national or regional level. The advisory services and grants brought considerable additionality by combining expertise from a large number of countries. This could not have been achieved by any national or regional programme.

The programme enabled relatively large numbers of companies to benefit from finance and advisory services, bearing in mind the overall EU budget for the programme. The number of businesses receiving finance and/or advisory services was beyond the capacity of any national or regional support scheme.

For the LGF, COSME provided EU added value by offering better conditions for SMEs than national and regional support schemes. It also ensured availability of finance for riskier businesses that did not have collateral. The EFG provided partial additionality by providing a wider scope or array of support than national or regional equity schemes. These findings were confirmed by interviews with fund managers for this evaluation. The EFG has played a key role in developing the European equity ecosystem thanks to its pan-European perspective which helped overcome fragmentation of the European equity market. It also provided larger amounts of capital to individual SMEs (larger ticket size) than the EU average, helping SMEs that needed larger amounts of finance to support their growth.

COSME supported a range of in-depth advisory services for SMEs on a large and international scale. The international component of these services was not available through national services and support schemes in many Member States, and therefore not available for a large part of EU SMEs. EEN offered total additionality and European value-added by supporting networking and information sharing between the EEN advisors across the EU. This in turn enabled the network to provide in-depth services with a transnational and cross-border dimension which would not otherwise be offered by national or regional services. According to EEN clients responding to the survey, the main value-added of EEN was the individual services tailored to the needs of the enterprise, the support and connections for finding business partners abroad and quick and relevant information on EU legislation and EU funding opportunities. The international IP helpdesks also provided full additionality by helping SMEs to obtain tailor-made responses with complex input from several different countries.

The 2021 evaluation study on Cluster Initiatives under COSME, H2020 & FPI 251 found that cluster organisations participating in Clusters Go International considered the supported cluster partnerships to be unique in terms of offering a cross-regional and cross-sectoral EU approach to developing market access for SMEs in third countries. All 22 respondents to the targeted survey for clusters and SMEs benefiting from cluster services for the COSME evaluation reported that the COSME funded actions would not have been funded in the absence of support from the programme.

The EYE offered additionality and strong EU added value by providing transnational mobility possibilities for entrepreneurs that are not otherwise available. While Member States offer a wide range of support for entrepreneurs, there are few if any instances of national programmes supporting transnational mobility and certainly none with the scale and international profile of EYE.

Other examples of projects benefiting entrepreneurship include those supporting cooperation and peer learning between regions. These provided additionality vis-à-vis national programmes by fostering the cross-border exchange and transfer of entrepreneurial expertise that was more developed in certain regions and helped build a critical mass of specialised services and funding across individual ecosystems.

Small actions to enhance framework conditions offered a stronger pan-EU focus than could have been offered by national funding and the funding of studies that contributed to EU policy actions for boosting competitiveness. For example, COSME supported monitoring actions for the construction sector under the National Recovery and Resilience Plans providing a comparison between Member States and revealing differences and potential for improvement.

The EU branding and EU-wide scope of COSME has delivered EU added value in the form of greater international profile. EEN branding is widely used and its role for EU-related support is recognized, but there is scope to increase SMEs’ awareness that EEN services are EU co-funded 252 .

4.4.1Specific objective 1 SO1 - Access to finance

The LGF has filled a gap in financing for some SMEs that would not have been entirely filled by other sources of finance. Based on answers to the targeted survey 253 , it could be concluded that the additionality is 85% 254 , i.e. more than eight out of ten SMEs could not secure from other sources the same financial support that they received from COSME. This form of EU added value was also confirmed by the interim evaluation, where the additionality was 63%. Of the SME beneficiaries surveyed in 2017, most relied on LGF financing because other options at regional or national level were either unavailable or insufficient 255 and the LGF provided leverage by allowing the national and regional intermediaries to support more enterprises than they would be able to on their own. The possibility to combine national and LGF support led to even higher leverage, particularly in smaller markets.

The LGF has provided more favourable financing for SMEs than would otherwise be available. In the targeted survey for LGF final beneficiaries most respondents stated that, compared to offers that were available on the market at the same time, the LGF guarantee was either much more favourable or favourable than other sources of finance in relation the terms and conditions offered 256 .

Intermediaries report in the interviews for the supporting study that the LGF has provided more favourable terms and conditions for financing compared to similar national programmes. Furthermore, even when compared to national programmes with comparable or better contract conditions, such as a free of charge guarantee without a cap rate, COSME remained more advantageous. This was primarily due to its agile implementation framework, based on a delegated management system. In contrast, many national guarantee programmes often required individual loan authorisation before disbursement, making them less suitable for smaller loans and unusable for leasing companies.

The EFG provides more favourable and less fragmented financing than would otherwise be available. The fund managers consulted for the interim evaluation agreed that action at EU level is more efficient.  The fund managers interviewed for this evaluation confirmed these findings. The EFG's pan-European perspective has been crucial in overcoming the fragmentation in the European equity market. Interviewees also highlight that the first-time teams (or fund managers that establish a private equity fund for a first time) might not have been created without EFG support. SMEs surveyed in the interim evaluation indicated that in the absence of EFG financing, they would have considered other equity financing sources, but expected that their growth rate would have been lower. The SME interviewed for the final evaluation confirmed that, in the absence of the EFG, the financing would have been received on less favourable terms, if at all.

4.4.2Specific objective 2 SO2 - Access to markets

The EEN has a clear EU added value due to the scale and quality of their services, their cross-border nature in a Single Market context and the reciprocity.

EEN services offer a transnational and cross-border dimension, which would not otherwise be offered by national or regional services. In the interim evaluation of COSME, 87% of intermediaries and 48% of client SMEs indicated that EEN’s EU level support was ‘very important’ as opposed to only national support. 257  In the survey for the supporting study, 78% (47/60) of EEN members and 62% of SME clients 258   consider it important (‘to a great extent’/’very’) for SMEs to have EU-level support services such as EEN as opposed to (only) national level support.

The EEN introduced certain services that were not otherwise available at national or regional level. According to EEN members surveyed and interviewed for the final evaluation, the EEN added value to the host organisations, expanding their networks and knowledge, for example through the cross-border working groups and the brokerage events. 259 Moreover, despite a strong focus on cross-border issues, such as SME internationalisation, some EEN services also cover domestic markets issues, such as digital transformation and sustainability. In the targeted survey, EEN members reported that they were especially well supported by the Network for training (82%), monitoring/reporting (83%) and contractual management (73%). 260

The EEN provides SMEs with free-of-charge access to professional services that they would not otherwise be able to afford. According to EEN members interviewed for the final evaluation, the main EU added value of the EEN is in providing access to professional advice, such as lawyers, accountants or business development specialists in internationalisation. According to the SME clients responding to the survey, the main value of EEN was the individual services tailored to the needs of the enterprise, the support and connections in finding business partners abroad and the quick and relevant information on EU legislation and EU funding opportunities.

In its 2022 special report on SME internationalisation activities 261 , the European Court of Auditors confirmed the high level of satisfaction on additionality of the EU Japan Centre. This was based on a survey of EEN members and trade promotion organisations conducted by the European Court of Auditors.