Annexes to COM(2024)425 - - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2024)425 - . |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2024)425 |
| date | October 1, 2024 |
Source: Elaboration based on the supporting study for COSME evaluation
7. RELEVANCE
COSME objectives aimed at addressing key challenges for European SMEs, and the programme adapted to emerging needs. Changes in budget allocation were made during the implementation of the programme to meet changing needs. Flexibility was cited in feedback provided by stakeholders benefiting from public procurement, social economy, and tourism actions.31 All programming documents took account of the increased interest in sustainability, the digital and green transitions, and women entrepreneurship.
As programme implementation progressed throughout the period of the programme, more emphasis was put on innovation and digitalisation. New EU policy initiatives approved in the final years of the programme included the 2018 proposal for the Digital Europe Programme32 to strengthen the EU's digital capabilities.
In the 2014-2020 period, particular attention was also devoted to sustainability and the green transition. The European Green Deal (2019)33 became a central policy framework aiming to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050. COSME has helped enterprises and clusters develop green and sustainable products, and part of the COSME financial support was allocated to SMEs which made environmentally friendly investments.
8. COHERENCE
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 progress has been made (additional synergies, leveraging complementarities and minimising overlaps) throughout the period since the time of the interim evaluation, which found that synergies within the COSME programme at that time were not strong34. Nevertheless, the supporting study also suggests a need for a more systematic approach for identifying and implementing synergies, and for better interaction between communication tools for different actions.
Table 4 Synergies, complementarities and/or cooperation with other programmes or support services
| Type or name of programme or actions | COSME actions showing synergies, complementarities, or cooperation | Overlaps |
| Horizon 2020 | EEN, LGF, EFG | |
| ESIF | EFG, EEN LGF: some overlap, but SMEs’ demand for credit was sufficiently strong to ensure that both regional and LGF finance were fully used. | See middle column |
| EFSI | LGF (complementarity and cooperation) | EFG |
| IP Helpdesks under various EU programmes | International IP helpdesks EU Japan Centre | |
| National and/or regional support measures Digital Innovation Hubs35 | EYE: complementary to entrepreneurship and skills actions LGF and EFG: complementary to regional FIs EEN: - made good progress with regional integration - Cooperated with Digital Innovation Hubs |
Source: Elaboration based on the supporting study for COSME evaluation
9. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT
The programme built on the results of the previous Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) (2007-2013). Many of the actions supported under the EIP were continued in COSME. Whilst acknowledging the importance of innovation in its interventions, COSME focussed on competitiveness. The programme made significant progress towards achieving its general and specific objectives, successfully tackling a range of complex issues at the same time, based on the analysis of available hard data and the feedback from the surveys.
The programme supported SMEs in accessing finance, in understanding how to operate in new markets and global value chains and in collaborating across borders and within clusters. More generally, it promoted entrepreneurship and business creation and a more business-friendly environment.
1. Key strengths of COSME
- use of intermediaries that understood the needs of SMEs in specific sectors and ecosystems;
- flexibility of the Programme;
- strong track record on financial implementation and sound budgetary monitoring which enabled budget re-allocations when necessary;
- positive effects on final SME beneficiaries across all objectives;
- highly relevant and remained relevant throughout its duration, demonstrating capability to help SMEs tackle new issues.
The LGF demonstrated a good impact on survival rates, but no causal proof of impact on employment, turnover and total assets. The EFG had good impact on survival rates, employment and economic performance in general.36
The EEN proved effective. The programme helped nearly 2.9 million SMEs obtain crucial advisory services, information to operate in new markets and support in finding partners. Evidence from the surveys indicates that EEN services helped SMEs to survive, maintain and increase their workforce, expand into new markets, as well as maintain or sustain their turnover. The EYE also showed some very positive impacts, notably on skills.
2. Key weaknesses of COSME
- incomplete monitoring and reporting system with measurable indicators not fully covering all interventions;
- monitoring of smaller interventions focussed primarily on financial implementation, deliverables, and addressing any issues encountered;
- the governance structure of the programme and in particular, the involvement of multiple intermediary bodies, contributed to challenges for data gathering on final impacts.
The evaluation found that a weakness in programme planning is an incomplete monitoring system explaining how all actions, especially the smaller ones, aim to address specific needs and market failures coherently and contribute to the programme’s overall objectives and broader EU policy priorities.
Some smaller actions were more successful than others. A few actions faced implementation and performance issues that were closely monitored by the Commission.
3. Lessons learnt for the future
COSME presented several key strengths. The Programme had positive effects on final SME beneficiaries, was relevant and remained relevant throughout, presented a strong track record on implementation and confirmed the validity of intermediaries as an effective implementation mode. Yet, a number of key suggestions for future improvement can also be proposed:
- Develop a simpler and more logical framework for monitoring which would facilitate the assessment of the programme and ensure that all actions preserve a strong relevance.
- Increase attention paid to the results and impacts of the programme, including in the longer term, and to the measurement of the indicators laid down in the COSME regulation and subsequent programming documents for all the actions.
- Improve coherence of smaller actions. The identification and activation of synergies should be further pursued on a regular basis.
An area for improvement is developing a simpler monitoring and reporting system with measurable indicators. Although many aspects of reporting on smaller actions improved in the latter years of the COSME programme, the analysis did not find sufficiently granular monitoring data and information on their results and how they contributed to the Programme’s overarching objectives.
The study also identified a need for improved data-gathering on the final beneficiaries of the programme, as regards their results and how they contributed to the programme’s overarching objectives. The need for more complete monitoring data should not mean calling for additional reporting burden. Solutions are explored, including automation and use of existing data, to ensure provision of information while not adding administrative burden.
Financial instruments have demonstrated high internal coherence, with loan guarantee and equity financing being mutually supportive. Larger actions such as the EEN, the financial instruments, and actions such as the international IP SME Helpdesks built synergies with actions supported under other EU funds and programmes such as Horizon 2020. Although many smaller actions made a valuable contribution to the goals of the programme and achieved good impacts, some were less coherent.
Flagship COSME actions such as the Enterprise Europe Network could also further benefit from increased visibility among SME community. EU-wide branding has the potential to enhance the Programme’s international profile, further improve uptake of actions by SMEs as well as create new opportunities for cooperation.
1 Regulation (EU) No 1287/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing a Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) (2014 - 2020) and repealing Decision No 1639/2006/EC Text with EEA relevance.
2 The Small Business Act for Europe adopted in 2008 and updated in 2011 provided a comprehensive framework for EU SME policy, emphasising access to finance, markets, and entrepreneurship.
3 For example, the last operations for the Equity Facility for Growth are due to be wound down by 31 December 2034.
4 Study for the COSME final evaluation (CSES) 2024
5 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report.
6 The number of SMEs reached compares favourably to the SME competitiveness objective of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which benefited from a significantly higher amount of EU funding (EUR 26.5 billion from the ERDF). Source: Evaluation study for the ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2014-2020 financed by the ERDF.
7 Including the in-depth support from EEN, EYE and the IP SME helpdesks
8 The United Kingdom ceased to be an EU Member State as from 31 January 2020. UK beneficiaries participating in COSME actions funded under the EU budget of 2019 or from earlier years continued to participate until the end of those actions, and they were allowed to participate in COSME until the end of the transition period (31 December 2020).
9 *This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
10 The counterfactual analysis was carried out within the supporting study, and it used data from the Orbis database, Bureau van Dijk.
11 According to data from Orbis, it is too early to formally prove a direct causal link. Nevertheless, evidence from other studies on similar equity schemes supported under previous EU programmes 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.
12 As noted in point 4.1.1.1 of the supporting study.
13 European Commission. 2008. European Commission communication (COM (2008) 394 Final) – “Think Small First” – A “Small Business Act” for Europe.
14 Available at: European Commission. 2023. The Single Market strategy.
15 Available at: European Economic and Social Committee. 2016. Europe's next leaders: the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative.
16 Inter alia, evidence is provided in the effectiveness analysis for the financial instruments and the EEN.
17 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report.
18 EIF. 2022. COSME-Equity Facility for Growth Implementation Update, https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/single_eu_equity_instrument/cosme_efg/cosme-efg-implementation-update.pdf.
19 Clusters Go International “all sectors” call (GRO/SME/20/C/02).
20 COSME 2020 Monitoring Report.
21 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_850
22 Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/C/081.
23 These aimed to contribute to better, high-quality employment, the green, social and digital transition at a local level, and the adoption of resilient and sustainable business models. Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/D/01 - European Social Economy Missions.
24 For instance, the Initiative for a Built Environment, produced a monitoring tool to support the design and monitoring of construction-related measures in the context of the NRRPs Monitoring fiche. GRO/SME/20/F/103.
25 Evaluation Study of & Potential Follow-Up to Cluster Initiatives under COSME, H2020 & FPI: https://www.ideaconsult.be/en/projects/evaluation-study-of--potential-follow-up-to-cluster-initiatives-under-cosme-h2020--fpi.
26 Some of the interviewed EEN members reported that SMEs primarily recognise the name of the EEN member organisation.
27 TTI refers to the time from the call deadline to the invitation to sign the contract, whilst TTG refers to the time elapsing between the closure of a call and the signature of the Grant Agreement, which typically marks the start of the project.
28 Source: annual monitoring reports produced by the European Commission
29 This figure is based on the COSME LGF – Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019.
30 This figure is based on the COSME EFG – Growth & Employment report 31-12-2019.
31 Feedback collected from interviews on the topic for the study.
32https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/digital-europe-programme_en
33 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640
34 Implementation of the interim evaluation recommendations is provided in Annex VI A of the Staff Working Document. Further information on these synergies is given in 2019 and 2020 Monitoring Reports.
35 These started off as national/regional initiatives. As of 2023, the EDIH’s became operational.
36 Based on counterfactual analysis. Although the EFG could not demonstrate statistically significant and positive economic benefits, largely due to the very small final sample size, the analysis demonstrates that over time, the EFG final recipients have not only exhibited high survival rates, but have also experienced significant positive trends in their economic performance, e.g. increase in turnover and assets.
EN EN