Only half of small EU firms consider themselves prepared for geopolitical risks, compared with nearly three-quarters of large companies

Half of small EU firms consider themselves prepared to manage geopolitical risks, compared with 73% of large companies, according to the results of a 2025 survey published by the European Investment Bank (EIB). The 23-percentage-point difference concerns the preparedness reported by companies and highlights a gap that the authors possibly explain through differences in financial resources and analytical capabilities.

In brief: Reported preparedness increases with company size. The share is 47% for micro-enterprises with 5–9 employees included in the research, 50% for small firms, 62% for medium-sized firms and 73% for large companies. Across all European firms surveyed, 64% consider themselves prepared, but only 5% say they are very prepared. Another 59% describe themselves as fairly prepared, while 36% report a low level of preparedness or none at all. Firms that trade with the US or China consider themselves better prepared than those operating commercially exclusively within the EU. The authors suggest that exposure to disruptions may have prompted them to invest earlier in adaptation, without demonstrating that this is the only explanation. The survey included 1,165 EU importers and exporters interviewed between May and October 2025. The results are weighted according to firms’ value added and measure their self-assessment, not performance in a resilience test.

The gap between small and large firms appears as a gradual progression across size categories. The report’s chart indicates 47% for micro-enterprises, 50% for small enterprises, 62% for medium-sized enterprises and 73% for large companies. Medium-sized firms therefore have an assessment closer to that of large companies than to that of micro-enterprises.

The classification used in this analysis is based on the number of employees. The micro category comprises firms with 5–9 employees, the small-enterprise category firms with 10–49 employees, and the medium-sized category firms with 50–249 employees. Large companies have at least 250 employees. The result for micro-enterprises therefore does not cover firms with fewer than five employees.

Reported preparedness does not, in most cases, mean a very high level of confidence. Of the total European firms analysed, 59% consider themselves fairly prepared and only 5% very prepared. Together, they make up the 64% share presented by the report as prepared for geopolitical risks; the remaining 36% say they are slightly prepared or not prepared at all.

The authors believe that the disadvantage faced by smaller firms could stem from financial constraints and a lack of specialised staff to monitor geopolitical developments and assess their effects on business activity. Preparedness therefore also involves the ability to anticipate problems, in addition to the resources needed for adaptation. The report presents these explanations as plausible hypotheses, without quantifying each one’s contribution to the difference between categories.

International exposure produces a result that does not automatically follow the level of risk. Companies that trade with the US or China describe themselves as better prepared than firms that trade exclusively within the EU. The authors believe that experience of disruptions and expectations that they will persist may have encouraged earlier investment in resilience. This association does not mean that trade with these markets is safer.

Differences are also visible between sectors. In construction, 49% of firms consider themselves prepared, compared with 58% in electronics and mechanical equipment and 69% in services. Construction has the lowest level among the sectors presented, and the report notes that firms in this field have historically reported fewer adjustments in response to major disruptions.

In its recommendations, the study supports helping firms anticipate and continuously manage risks. The authors propose targeted financial instruments, including guarantees and insurance, alongside early-warning mechanisms, better information on geopolitical risks and investment in skills. These are public-policy recommendations; the report does not announce a new financing programme dedicated to small firms.

For information on trading conditions, the European Commission already provides the Access2Markets portal. A firm can enter the product and the import or export market to consult tariffs, customs procedures, product requirements and rules of origin. The tool offers a concrete example of access to trade information; the EIB report does not assess its effect on companies’ reported preparedness.

The data come from the EIB supply chain survey, conducted jointly with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. The research included 1,165 EU importers and exporters interviewed between May and October 2025, and the responses are weighted according to firms’ value added. The question asked companies to assess their own level of preparedness, without checking how long they could continue production or what losses they would incur in the event of an actual disruption.