No C 319/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning a Community programme to 
create and develop business and innovation centres and their network 
(87/C 319/16) 
On 5 February 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was respon­
sible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 15 July 
1987 in the light of the report by Mr Vassilaras. 
At its 248th plenary session on 23 and 24 September 1987 (meeting of 23 September 1987), 
the Committee adopted the following Opinion nem. con., with 4 abstentions: 
Introduction 
Though the present proposal is part of the Action 
Programme for small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SME), upon which the Economic and Social Commit­
tee was recently consulted, it is nonetheless to be con­
sidered as a regional policy measure. It is designed to 
complement, not duplicate, other measures in the 
Action Programme. It proposes to spread new techno­
logical developments and innovation in the less-favou­
red areas of the Community and to help restructure 
declining industrial regions. It now has to be decided 
whether the implementation of the proposed regulation 
can boost regional development, improve the economic 
structure and generate employment in disadvantaged 
areas. 
The Committee generally welcomes the proposed regu­
lation, subject to the following comments: 
General comments 
1. The proposal seems to be geared above all to small 
industrial firms. Whilst it is recognized that regional 
development must rest largely on the promotion of 
small manufacturing firms, it is also recognized that 
there is much potential for small firms in the services 
and craft sectors. Even tourist services, which appar­
ently do not fall within the scope of the regulation, 
could give rise to computerized SME and develop new 
products for the market. However, it is important to 
recognize that manufacturing firms are the key factor 
for growth in deprived area. 
It would still be useful to pin-point potential businesses 
(of all legal forms, including cooperatives) in all sectors 
including services, and offer them help with training, particularly in administrative procedures and manage­
ment techniques where national governments do not 
have an appropriate programme. For example, groups 
of craft workers could set up cooperative associations. 
2. According to the Commission's explanations, 
Business and Innovation Centres (BIC) as defined in 
the proposed Regulation are not to be confused with 
existing 'business centres' established by Member 
States, some of which perform quite well but do not 
fulfil the same requirements. They are also different 
from the 'information centres' provided for in the 
Action Programme for SME. The Committee still fears 
that the different concepts are likely to be confused and 
is inclined to think that in areas where a BIC and an 
information centre co-exist cooperation and, after a 
time, fusion would be a sensible solution. To avoid 
duplication of effort it is essential that the Government 
of a Member State should at least be informed of an 
intention to support the establishment of a BIC on their 
territory. 
3. It should not be forgotten that the objective of 
the Community Programme is to encourage the estab­
lishment of good quality businesses, which create new 
jobs. Business and Innovation Centres are specially 
designed for regional development and are geared to 
the development of innovative companies. Their main 
activities should include training of potential managers, 
assistance and follow-up in marketing and project 
development and exchange of technological infor­
mation through a European network. As a reception 
centre that will draw all the potential entrepreneurs in 
the area, the BIC should also centralize all necessary 
information about national and Community legislation, 
and give comprehensive technical assistance 'under one 
roof to deal with all the potentially daunting formalit­
ies that setting up a business entails. This technical 
assistance should include advice on how to ensure that 
innovation is consistent with the recommendations on 
environmental protection, information on EEC pro­
curement policy, and so on. 
30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/53 
Structure of BIC 
4. The Commission must ensure that the organiz­
ational structure of the BIC reflects the interests of the 
different sponsors, including the private and public 
sectors. This structure should be common to all centres, 
and should ensure that, in the public interest, the best 
possible use is made of all resources granted to BIC. 
The responsibilities of already successful established 
firms in supporting the birth and development of new­
comers in order to improve the economic texture of the 
whole area should not be underestimated. It is the role 
of the BIC to encourage and extend this support. 
The involvement of interested professional and social 
organizations should also be encouraged. 
Financial problems 
5. Along with universities, industry and the regional 
authorities, banks and financing companies will be 
closely involved in the creation of these centres; the 
Commission and the national authorities should 
encourage them by using appropriate measures to sup­
plement the initial and development capital required 
for the prelaunching period (seed capital). 
6. In a situation where Community resources are 
limited, the Committee proposes that assistance to BIC 
should reflect a priority for the most disadvantaged, 
declining or peripheral areas. At any event, the density 
of BIC should be such as to avoid wasteful competition. 
This should be avoided by strict observance of the 
Commission criteria for the creation of these centres as 
defined in Article 1 (2). 
7. The priming money given by the Community 
should be granted over a period of up to ten years, 
because in less favoured areas it would be hard to 
achieve the desired results and make the centre self-
supporting after five years. Grants should be flexible 
enough to adjust to specific local needs (e.g. renting or 
Done at Brussels, 23 September 1987. renewing premises to set up the BIC, or even building 
it from scratch). Article 3 of the proposal seems to leave 
room for such flexible interpretation. 
8. As money for the financing of BICs comes from 
a number of sources, the Commission should pay atten­
tion to the range of criteria applied for the granting of 
funds and also to the auditing of their use. 
Training 
9. The Committee asks the Commission to ensure 
that specially trained local staff are available for the 
new centres. 
A high degree of professionalism is required at all 
levels of management and training. The appointed staff 
should make use of the European network to participate 
in seminars and compare their experiences. 
10. Projects need thorough initial evaluation to 
increase their chances of success. However, care should 
be taken that the selection process is not so rigorous as 
to eliminate projects that could prove to be highly 
interesting after the potential entrepreneur has followed 
a period of training. Innovative training programmes 
should be marketed aggressively in the local community 
so as to give every able person equal opportunity of 
access to the services of the BIC. 
Monitoring of results 
11. Each innovation centre should publish an annual 
report in a format to be determined by the Commission, 
so that the general public can monitor and assess its 
effectiveness. 
12. The Committee approves the fact that the centres 
are to form a European network: coordination between 
centres can be used to exchange information and make 
the regional authorities aware of innovation or new 
procedures successfully applied elsewhere. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
No C 319/54 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Amendments defeated 
The following amendments, drawn up on the basis of the Section Opinion and tabled in accordance with 
the rules of procedure, were defeated during the discussion: 
Point 3 
Add second paragraph: 
'Nevertheless, whilst reiterating our welcome for the concept of BIC, it has to be recognized that comparatively 
few are yet in operation, that results are mixed and that it may well be that certain of the criteria for their 
establishment and operation will need substantial revision in the light of further experience. In these 
circumstances, it might be better, at this stage, to assist the establishment and running costs of rather less 
than the 70 new centres proposed.' 
Reason 
The amendment is self-explanatory. 
Voting 
The amendment was defeated by a large majority, with 22 votes in favour. 
Point 6 
At end add: 
'Should the proposals for the restructuring of the Regional Fund be approved in their present form, thus 
reducing the area eligible for aid, difficulties will arise in regard to existing BIC finding themselves in areas 
no longer eligible for support. Also areas that could benefit from a BIC might well be excluded. Under such 
circumstances the Committee would ask the Commission to re-examine the criteria to ensure the avoidance 
of unfairness.' 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 28, against: 57, abstentions: 14. 
Point 8 
After the words 'should pay attention to' add: 'standardizing'. 
Reason 
The concern of the study group, following their visit to the SOCRAN Centre in Liege, was that too many 
different criteria were being applied to the provision of the various sources of funding. Ours is a clear call to 
the Commission to take the initiative and to standardize the criteria for all funding. 
Voting 
The amendment was defeated by a large majority, with 11 votes in favour.