17 Amendments of Claude TURMES related to 2018/2545(RSP)
Amendment 1 #
Recital A
A. whereas the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU, which make up around 99 % of all businesses and provide more than 90 million jobs while generating some EUR 3.9 trillion in added value, make a vital contribution to economic growth, social cohesion and job creation and are key drivers in the context of the energy transition, the fight against climate change and EU competitiveness on green tech as well as a major source of innovation in the EU;
Amendment 13 #
Recital D
D. whereas a coherent legal environment is favourable to all businesses and whereas the SME definition is a tool to overcomethe SME definition as provided in Recommendation 2003/361/EC1 is a structural tool to identify those enterprises, which are confronted with market failures and problemarticular challenges stemming from size, volume of assets and business models; and therefore are allowed to benefit from specific EU support, such as financing opportunities, simplified procedures or exemptions
Amendment 16 #
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the Commission regularly monitors the implementation of the EUSME Definition; whereas repeatedly in 2006, 2009 and latest 2012 evaluations were carried out and concluded that there is no need for a major revision of the EU SME definition.
Amendment 21 #
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s initial impact assessment, and approves the focus on enterprises that are in need in of support and simple rules and the objective to increase planning and legal certainty for businesses and create a level playing field; in this context also welcomes the on-going public consultation open till 6th May 2018;
Amendment 33 #
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to prevent larger players from attempting to create specific corporate structures to take advantage of the SME definition, which would lead to a system in which the available support is wrongly distributed more widely and hence not available to SMEs in need; emphasises that an adjustment of the SME definition should not work to the detriment of SMEs, denying them access to public support;
Amendment 36 #
Paragraph 4
Amendment 50 #
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the employee numbers is not a criterion which can be used to draw up for accurate EU-wide comparisons, as labour productivity varies from one Member State to another; welcomes, therefore, a shift towards the criteria of turnover and balance sheet totals; staff threshold of 250 employees is still appropriate, as it covers already 99.8% of all enterprises and two-thirds of the European economy in terms of employment. Larger enterprises with 250 to 500 employees often have stronger market positions as well as consolidated management structures. As confirmed also by the Commission’s impact assessment, any expansion of the threshold would risk watering down the SME definition and distract financial support from those micro, small and medium-sized enterprises needing it.
Amendment 65 #
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that there is a need to clarify not only the terms ‘linked enterprise’ and ‘partner enterprise’ but also SMEs’ status in mergers and consortiums, and regards the simplification of procedures and the cutting of red tapereduction of excessive administrative burden as imperative; calls on the Commission in that connection to further simplify the applicable rules;
Amendment 74 #
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the Commission’s start- up and scale-up initiative; views the promotion of entrepreneurship as important for economic growth in the EU; cCalls on the Commission to introduce a two-year transitional period during which enterprises which no longer qualify for SME status would retain that statuslook into new fundraising initiatives for entrepreneurs and start-ups such as crowdfunding, to assess how these could benefit SMEs and if they should be promoted; furthermore the need for a legislative framework to frame such practices in the EU would need to be also evaluated;
Amendment 86 #
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that economic diplomacy instruments employed at EU level, such as the Mission for Growth, could be used to address economic challenges and exploit economic opportunities at global level more effectively; calls on the Commission to step up its efforts in that area, without creating duplicate structures; calls, i on that connection, for an ‘Export growth in relation to enterprise size’ indicator to be developed and for additional support to be offered to small enterprises with high export volumee Commission and Member States to provide information and support service about opportunities for internationalisation and ensure access to exchange of experience and good practices, in particular for small business;
Amendment 93 #
Paragraph 9
9. Is concerned that, despiteRecognises the considerable contribution theyat MidCaps make to employment and growth by virtue of their productivity, MidCaps (enterprises that have outgrown the SME definition but still have typicyet believes that the introduction of the new category of MidCaps is diluting the effectiveness of the SME definition; in particular including a criteria ´family-run´ would be misleading, as family businesses can be smally, medium- sized structures) are being neglected by policy-makeror large, listed or unlisted; equating ´family businesses´ to SMEs is neglecting the fact that there are also very large multinational corporations that are family businesses; recalls, therefore, for a definition to be established for these companies based on the criteria that they are family-run, have high equity ratio and employ up to 3000 people; its resolution from 8 September 2015 calling the Commission to propose a statistically workable Europe-wide definition of ‘family business’ – developed together with Eurostat –, taking into account the different circumstances in the Member States; reminds that MidCaps capabilities often exceed the capabilities of medium- sized enterprises in terms of access to human, financial and technical resources and hence very solid management structures as well as frequently inherit strong market positions;
Amendment 117 #
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the CommissionBelieves that, in addition to the priority EU measures for SMEs, to launch asufficient MidCaps-oriented initiative using new funding, which would covers exist regarding collaborative research access, digitalisation strategies, export market development and an easing of the Basel specifications and data protection rulrules; through measures in the framework of the relevant programmes;
Amendment 118 #
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes that the future COSME, FP9 as well as Structural Funds Programmes under the next MFF should continue to earmark sufficient amounts to support SMEs to innovate and generate employment;
Amendment 127 #
Paragraph 11
11. Takes the view that SME categorisation should not be exclusively based on the criteria of employee headcount, annual turnover and balance sheet totals; calls, therefore, for the criteria of ‘export-intensive’ (high level of exports in relation to number of employees), ‘largely independently-run’ and ‘high equity ratio’ - to be defined in due course - to be taken into account when categorising companies and for enterprises with these characteristics to at least be exempted from the relevant specific reporting obligations and/or for it to be made easier for them to access financial support, as repeatedly confirmed by Commission´s impact assessments;
Amendment 138 #
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to conduct a study into the possible impact of the SME definition on business development and on lock-in-effects, i.e. when enterprises deliberately opt not to expand in order to avoid bureaucratic burdens and other obligations that arise from the loss of their SME status;
Amendment 147 #
Paragraph 13
Amendment 152 #
Paragraph 14