Evaluation Findings:

The evaluation shows that the definition remains relevant, fit for its purpose, coherent with other EU policies and provided EU added value. It has thus been effective in reaching its objectives, which were mainly to ensure that available support and special measures to reduce administrative burden are focussing on those enterprises that are most in need of it, and create a level playing field for EU-based SMEs within the Internal Market with regard to their access to public support and finance.

Within the overall context of SME policy, the evaluation has not found evidence that points to a need for a revision.

While the evaluation identified challenges faced by certain companies that do not qualify as SMEs, such as regulatory burden, these are often not specific to the SME definition and in most cases concern a very small segment of companies. A revision of the definition would thus not be the appropriate way to address the concerns of these companies.

The report has identified a number of positive consequences following the introduction of the SME definition, such as: 

• The definition has limited the proliferation of different SME Definitions at both EU level and in the Member States and contributed to levelling the playing field for SMEs throughout the EU.

• The definition is well integrated into EU legislation and provides the necessary flexibility to adapt to the requirements of particular policy areas and individual target groups.

• The definition is widely used by EU Member States, with more than half of them directly applying it. In the remaining Member States, the national definitions resemble the EU one but apply variations on some aspects (mainly turnover and balance sheet thresholds), to adapt to their own specific economic structure.

In summary, the issues that were identified in the evaluation only concern very specific categories of companies. Furthermore, several issues are not related to the SME definition, but to the concrete policy instrument in which it is used. It therefore follows that such issues are better addressed by more specific policy instruments.

Estimated savings and benefits

• The burden and cost to verify the SME status of a company is modest for autonomous companies, which represent the overwhelming majority (over 90%) of SMEs. However, the burden increases for non-autonomous enterprises, especially those with complex ownership structures and companies requiring retrieval of documentation from other Member States or non-EU countries.

• The burden to provide the necessary proof is in general seen as proportionate to the benefits derived from the status, but again there is a link with the complexity of the ownership structure.

• Stakeholders suggest that:(a) the definition could be applied more efficiently through e.g. an overall increase in the digitalisation of SMEs as well as public administrations (increased use of digital tools, sharing of databases), (b) existing support (such as the online self-assessment tool of DG GROW, the State Aid wiki platform of DG COMP) is not sufficiently visible which means that awareness raising about it could be enhanced, (c) more user-specific guidance in the User guide to the SME Definition would be welcome and (d) the access to company data could be improved. The further development of the business registers inter-connection system (BRIS) and the European Single Access Point (ESAP) could offer opportunities to improve the use of digital tools between SMEs and public administrations as well as access to and use of more company data.