Revision of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
ECON-VIII/005
Revision of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
To highlight the need for lower threshold for redundancies, whether within the same enterprise or particular sectors, as this would better reflect the actual situation on the ground, specifically in regions that are lesser populated and where SMEs are the main type of business, in view of this proposes that the threshold be set at 150 instead of 200 jobs.
To emphasiseshat that the intervention criteria should include provisions for transparency regarding the financial situation of the enterprise and the non-eligibility of their application in case of reasonable doubt regarding the financial predicament of the enterprise within the same reference period;
To emphasises the significance of the industrial transition pathways in achieving the objective of a green, digital, and resilient economy. Regrets, therefore, that the EGF proposal does not explore potential synergies with actions planned under the pathways and that the EGF is largely absent in the pathways;
To highlight that, due to the cyclical nature of the structural changes that the EGF aims to address, the need for the EGF support will vary significantly depending on the economic circumstances; advocates for the EGF budget to be sufficient and more stable to address these structural changes during economic downturns, rather than being based on estimates derived from periods of economic stability.
To emphasiseshat that the intervention criteria should include provisions for transparency regarding the financial situation of the enterprise and the non-eligibility of their application in case of reasonable doubt regarding the financial predicament of the enterprise within the same reference period;
To emphasises the significance of the industrial transition pathways in achieving the objective of a green, digital, and resilient economy. Regrets, therefore, that the EGF proposal does not explore potential synergies with actions planned under the pathways and that the EGF is largely absent in the pathways;
To highlight that, due to the cyclical nature of the structural changes that the EGF aims to address, the need for the EGF support will vary significantly depending on the economic circumstances; advocates for the EGF budget to be sufficient and more stable to address these structural changes during economic downturns, rather than being based on estimates derived from periods of economic stability.
It should be noted that this proposal for a revision of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) aims to widen the scope of the instrument to also cover workers affected by imminent job displacement, which was precisely one of the key demands of the CoR in its 2018 opinion on the original EGF proposal. This is therefore a very positive result from the CoR standpoint.
Furthermore, the EGF Regulation introduced the possibility for ʻregional’ applications (displacements in different enterprises, also in different sectors, in the same regions), and the EC continues to call for the involvement of regional and local authorities. In their applications, Member States need to set out to what extent regional and local authorities were involved, and to what extent the assistance is in line with possible regional development strategies.
Concerning the new opinion specifically, one of its key demands was to include the EGF in the proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-34. Unfortunately this was not taken up by the European Commission, whose proposals for the next MFF woud see the EGF as such discontinued.
Furthermore, the EGF Regulation introduced the possibility for ʻregional’ applications (displacements in different enterprises, also in different sectors, in the same regions), and the EC continues to call for the involvement of regional and local authorities. In their applications, Member States need to set out to what extent regional and local authorities were involved, and to what extent the assistance is in line with possible regional development strategies.
Concerning the new opinion specifically, one of its key demands was to include the EGF in the proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-34. Unfortunately this was not taken up by the European Commission, whose proposals for the next MFF woud see the EGF as such discontinued.
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR)
Welcomes that the proposal aims to widen the scope of the EGF to also cover workers affected by imminent job displacement, underlines that this was proposed by the CoR in its 2018 opinion on the EGF regulation;
Reiterates its demand for a lower threshold for redundancies, whether within the same enterprise or particular sectors, as this better reflects the actual situation on the ground, specifically in regions that are lesser populated and where SMEs are the main type of business, and hopes this decrease will lead to greater use and mobilisation of the EGF; in view of this, proposes that the threshold be set at 150 instead of 200 jobs; calls also for targeted support measures for employees of SMEs and subcontractors;
Suggests intervention criteria to include provisions for transparency regarding the financial situation of the enterprise and the non-eligibility of their application in case of reasonable doubt regarding the financial predicament of the enterprise within the same reference period;
Emphasises the significance of the industrial transition pathways in achieving the objective of a green, digital, and resilient economy. Regrets, therefore, that the EGF proposal does not explore potential synergies with actions planned under the pathways and that the EGF is largely absent in the pathways;
Emphasises that, due to the cyclical nature of the structural changes that the EGF aims to address, the need for the EGF support will vary significantly depending on the economic circumstances; advocates for the EGF budget to be sufficient and more stable to address these structural changes during economic downturns, rather than being based on estimates derived from periods of economic stability.
Welcomes that the proposal aims to widen the scope of the EGF to also cover workers affected by imminent job displacement, underlines that this was proposed by the CoR in its 2018 opinion on the EGF regulation;
Reiterates its demand for a lower threshold for redundancies, whether within the same enterprise or particular sectors, as this better reflects the actual situation on the ground, specifically in regions that are lesser populated and where SMEs are the main type of business, and hopes this decrease will lead to greater use and mobilisation of the EGF; in view of this, proposes that the threshold be set at 150 instead of 200 jobs; calls also for targeted support measures for employees of SMEs and subcontractors;
Suggests intervention criteria to include provisions for transparency regarding the financial situation of the enterprise and the non-eligibility of their application in case of reasonable doubt regarding the financial predicament of the enterprise within the same reference period;
Emphasises the significance of the industrial transition pathways in achieving the objective of a green, digital, and resilient economy. Regrets, therefore, that the EGF proposal does not explore potential synergies with actions planned under the pathways and that the EGF is largely absent in the pathways;
Emphasises that, due to the cyclical nature of the structural changes that the EGF aims to address, the need for the EGF support will vary significantly depending on the economic circumstances; advocates for the EGF budget to be sufficient and more stable to address these structural changes during economic downturns, rather than being based on estimates derived from periods of economic stability.
