EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 423 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the   
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
"A new partnership for the modernisation of universities: the EU Forum for 
UNIVERSITY-BUSINESS DIALOGUE'' 
 
Impact Assessment  
 
 
{COM(2009) 158 final 
SEC(2009) 424 
SEC(2009) 425} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 3 
1.1 Introduction and mandate............................................................................................. 3 1.2 Consultation of interested parties................................................................................. 5 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Inappropriate mix of knowledge, skills and competences ........................................... 9 2.2 Europe insufficiently innovative................................................................................ 10 2.3 Diversity of situation in Europe ................................................................................. 11 2.4 Baseline scenario........................................................................................................ 12  
2.5 Legal basis, the principle of subsidiarity and EU added............................................ 13 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 14 
3.1 General Policy Objectives.......................................................................................... 14 3.2 Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 14 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 1 7 
5. Analysis of Possible impacts...................................................................................... 18 5.2 Possible economic impacts ........................................................................................ 19 5.2 Possible social impacts............................................................................................... 19 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 22 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 24 7.1 Possible indicators to  assess progress ........................................................................ 25 
 
EN 3   EN Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
Following the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board several changes have been made to 
the impact assessment: 
This version tries to make clearer the relationship with the University Modernisation Agenda. 
The general policy objectiv e has been redefined to clarify the link. We have also integrated an 
additional table to clarify the link between th e specific objectives and the general policy 
objective and the specifi c objectives and the areas addresse d under the modernisation agenda 
of Universities. 
This version provides also some more details on the proposed options 2, 3 and 4. 
A summary on the internal and external consulta tion has been included into the main part of 
the report. 
1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1 Introduction and mandate 
Lisbon Strategy – Important role  of Education and Training  
Education and training was, from the start, identified as a crucial factor in achieving the 
overall objectives of the Lisbon Strategy to  become the most competitive and dynamic 
knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more 
and better jobs and greater so cial cohesion. As part of this, the Heads of State and 
Government asked for "not only a radical tran sformation of the Europ ean economy, but also a 
challenging programme for the modernisation of social welfare and education systems”. At 
the 2007 Spring European Council, Member States  agreed in the framework of the Lisbon 
strategy for Growth and Jobs on 4 priority areas;  education and training is related to three of 
these areas, namely more research and innova tion, investing in people and a more dynamic 
business environment. In the recovery package1, which was endorsed by the European 
Council at its summit on 11-12 December 2008, the Commission highlighted the crucial role 
of education, innovation and research for Europe. 
Universities, research organisations and ente rprises are at the heart of the Knowledge 
Triangle:  
Within the overall focus on education and tr aining, there is a par ticular stress on the 
Knowledge Triangle, i.e. the in teraction of education, research  and innovation and acting as a 
key driver of the knowledge economy in deliv ering sustainable growth. Europe has to 
reinforce its efforts to make the triangle fully operational2. Universities have a key role to play 
in this regard and new forms of cooperation between universities and research organisations 
with the world of enterprise, to address edu cation – research – innova tion ecosystems have to 
be developed and implemented. 
                                                 
1 COM(2008) 800 final “A European Recovery Plan” 
2 COM(2008) 865 final “An updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and 
training” 
 
EN 4   EN Growing importance of Higher Education  
The educational attainment level of the worki ng age population in the EU (15 to 64 year olds) 
has risen during the last decade. In 2006 there were 7 million more persons in the labour force 
having a high educational attainment level,  compared to 2000. Si nce 2000, upper secondary 
attainment in the EU increased  slightly, from 76.6% of pe ople aged 18-24 to 77.8% in 2006. 
In other words, higher education institutions  produce about one million more graduates per 
year compared to 2000. Furthermore, the num ber of graduates in maths, science and 
technology has increased by 26% since 20003. 
About 19 million students were in 2006 enrolled in higher education in the EU, nearly 3 
million or 18% more than in 2000. 
This increase will not stop over the coming y ears. Given the up-coming challenges, many 
Member States intend to incr ease the participa tion rate of young age cohorts in Higher 
Education (HE) substantially  (ex. UK from 40% to 50% over next 5 years); however 
increasing the numbers is not sufficient. HE need s to be modernised to make sure that the 
quality is right. The positive trend noted above n eeds to be seen in this light. Europe needs 
more university graduates and needs them to be educated in new ways in order that they can 
address the need for adaptable, creative knowle dge workers to sustain its ambition to become 
the world's leading knowledge economy. Furthe rmore, many of the EU's key competitors 
have higher shares of people with tertiary le vel educational attainment. The EU average for 
25-64 years old is 23% compared to 40% for Ja pan, 39% for the USA, 32% for Australia and 
Korea and 27% for New Zealand. 
Modernisation of Universities  
The Communication of the Commission “Deliv ering on the Modernisation Agenda for 
Universities: Education, Research and Innovation”4 highlighted the key ro le Universities play 
in Europe’s future and for the successful tran sition to a knowledge-based economy and 
society. It underlined the need for  in-depth restructuring and mode rnisation of the sector if 
Europe is not to lose out in the global competition in education, research and innovation.  
The Communication suggested changes in nine areas as key to success:  
• Break down the barriers around universities in Europe 
• Ensure real autonomy and acc ountability for universities 
• Provide incentives for structured part nerships with the business community 
• Provide the right mix of skills and competencies for the labour market 
• Reduce the funding gap and make funding work  more effectively in Education and 
Research 
• Enhance Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity 
• Activate Knowledge through in teraction with society 
• Reward excellence at the highest level 
• Make the European Higher Education Area a nd the European Research Area more visible 
and attractive in the world. 
                                                 
3 SEC (2008) 2293 “Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008”  
4 COM(2006) 208 final "Delivering on  the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research 
and Innovation" 
 
EN 5   EN The Council in its Resolution on modernising un iversities for Europe's competitiveness in a 
global knowledge economy5 agreed to these items and invited the Commission to support 
the Member States with regard to the modernisation agenda, including through 
encouraging partnerships between univ ersities and industry/private sector.  
The implementation of the modernisation agenda  for higher education has also been defined 
as one of the priority themes for 2009 – 2010 in  the updated strategic framework for European 
cooperation in education and training6, within which the Commission and the Member States 
engage in policy cooperation and exchange base d on commonly agreed objectives, indicators 
to measure progress and, in cer tain key areas, benchmarks. 
Importance of partnership betw een business and universities  
Partnership between universities, research organisations and ente rprises is already crucial to 
several different actions at the EU level whic h are designed to stre ngthen the knowledge 
triangle. The Joint Technology Initiatives, the European Technology Platforms, the Clusters 
of Excellence and the newly established Eu ropean Institute for Innovation and Technology 
(EIT) with its Knowledge Innovation Cent res are good examples for new forms of 
collaboration and partnerships. 
The May 2006 Communication on modernising highe r Education argued that business had a 
contribution to make in three areas: 
– Governance: business models could be imported to the university world; 
– Funding: enterprises have a potential role to pl ay in funding university activities in both the 
education and the research fields; and Curricula: students need to receive the kind of education which will prepare them for the world of work of the future, enterprises can both help to define that and can offer the kinds of placement which will help students make the 
transition from study to work. Enterprises must also feel encouraged to release their staff 
for further learning and updating of thei r skills throughout their working lives. 
In successive Council exchanges on higher education , focussing on how the quality of higher 
education could be improved and on how to de velop top quality univers ities, the relationship 
between business, universities an d research has been identifie d as one important point. In 
addition, several Member States have begun to develop mechanisms to structure the dialogue 
and interaction between uni versities and business. 
1.2 Consultation of interested parties 
A public consultation on the importance and relevance of a mechanism for enhancing 
university-business dialogue was not consid ered necessary for the following reasons: 
a) Contacts with projects and di scussions with stakeholders ha d clearly identified the demand 
for such a mechanism; 
                                                
 
5 COUNCIL RESOLU TION of 23 November 2007 on modernising universities for Europe's 
competitiveness in a global knowledge economy; 16096/1/07 REV 1 
6 COM(2008) 865 final “An updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and 
training” 
 
EN 6   EN b) Discussions in the Cluster on Higher Edu cation (with representa tives from Education 
Ministries from the Member States) and at th e Peer Learning Activity (PLA) in the UK in 
October 2006 had further underlined the need for such a mechanism. 
c) The added value of a public consultation in this context was not obvious to us. Instead of 
organising a public consultation a more targeted  approach towards relevant stakeholders 
seemed more efficient and effective. 
Opinions and views of stakeholders on the importance and relevance of a mechanism for 
enhancing university-business di alogue were collected via two main roads: directly through 
the organisation of a number of targeted events with the stak eholders, indirectly through the 
analysis of a number of projects implemented under EU programmes. 
Most relevant input was collected via the organi sation of events bringing together the main 
stakeholders: representatives of Higher Educatio n (staff and students), re search organisations, 
companies (small and large), business or ganisations and public authorities. 
Workshop in July 2007 with representatives fr om European Business and Higher Education  
Associations  
The University-Business Forum in February 2008  
Thematic Forum on Continuing Educati on and Lifelong Learning in June 2008  
Thematic Forum on Curriculum Development and Entrepreneurship in October 2008  
Thematic Forum on Knowledge Transfer in November 2008  
The 2nd European University-Busin ess Forum in February 2009  
These six events brought together more th an 900 representatives from the different 
stakeholders from all over Europe. The first two events (workshop in July 2007 and the first 
European University-Business Forum in Februa ry 2008) addressed the issue of University-
Business Cooperation on general level and the re levance of specific acti on on European level 
in this field. The three other events were fo cusing on specific aspects of possible areas of 
cooperation. The 2nd University-Business Forum in Febr uary 2009 took stock of the lessons 
learned from the different meetings organi sed during 2008 and tried to map out future 
directions for the Forum’s work. It is the ma in source for the envisaged policy document. 
There was a clear message that participants wa nted the opportunity to dialogue on European 
level on these issues and to build on the expe rience already gained. There was strong support 
for a University Business Forum at the Euro pean level and for th e collection, exchange, 
sharing and dissemination of good practices. 
The participants supported the vi ew that cooperation between th e stakeholders needed to be 
reinforced. 
Modernising Higher Education Cluster - Peer  Learning Activity on University – Business 
Partnerships (UBPs), October 2006  
 
EN 7   EN Modernising Higher Education Cluster - Peer  Learning Activity on Circling the Knowledge 
Triangle from the perspective of Education: the added value in better connecting Higher 
Education to Research and Innovation, June 2008  
These two events were organised within the framework of the Education and Training 2010 
work programme. The Cluster on Higher Educatio n involves representatives of 20 Member 
States. Peer Learning Activities are organised in different Memb er States on specific topics 
that are considered as being of particular in terest by the cluster members. These two PLAs 
were focusing on partnership and better coope ration between releva nt stakeholders.  
Number of projects under the Erasmus pr ogramme, including a survey among Higher 
Education Institutions on University-Business Cooperation.  
There are a number of projects  under the Erasmus programme th at address issues related to 
University-Business cooperation. Particularly in teresting was a projec t, coordinated by the 
DAAD7, which included a survey of European Hi gher Education Institutions to understand 
the importance given to University-Business c ooperation. More than 80% of the HEIs that 
replied indicated that University-Business cooperation was of stra tegic importance. The 
project formulated also a number of conc lusions and messages to Higher Education 
Institutions, enterprises, governmental or ganisations and the European Commission. 
A working group with representa tives from DGs Research, Employment, Social Affairs and 
Equal Opportunities and Enterprise and Industr y met regularly during 2008; colleagues from 
those DGs participated also at the prepara tion/organisation of the plenary and thematic 
Forums. 
An Inter-Service Steering Group (for Impact Assessment)  with representatives from: 
Secretariat-General, Research, Employment , Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 
Information Society and Media, Regional Poli cy, Enterprise and Industry met 2 times. 
The annex provides a detailed list of the different  events together with the respective reports. 
The stakeholders involved in the events were: 
Representatives from European, National and Sectoral Business associations;  
Representatives from companies; Representatives from Regiona l Development Agencies;  
Representatives from European University Associations; European Student Associations; Universities and other Higher Education Instituti ons (presidents, rectors, professors and 
students); Representatives from nationa l and regional authorities. 
There was a clear message on the importance a nd value of University-Business Cooperation. 
Discussions did not focus on the "IF there shou ld be cooperation", but  on "HOW cooperation 
is to be organised" so that it is beneficial for all stakeholders. Part icipants from both the 
enterprise and the education sides welcomed th e opportunity to dialogue on these issues and 
to build on the experience already gained. Th ere was strong support for a University Business 
                                                
 
7 Socrates Accompanying Measur es: project 130023-AM-06-EMC  
 
EN 8   EN Forum at the European level and also for th e collection, sharing, exch ange and dissemination 
of good practices. 
The discussions in the thematic forums or ganised during 2008, which were focused on 
specific topics in the context of University -Business cooperation (Continuing Education and 
Lifelong Learning; Curriculum Development a nd Entrepreneurship; K nowledge Transfer), 
lead already to the identification of a number  of areas where action is required on National, 
regional or institutional level. 
The forum in February 2009 took stock of what  has been learnt and achieved so far, it 
provided a number of messages to the different topics addressed and proposed several lines of 
action for the future. 
2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
This impact assessment considers potential impact s relating to two specific issues from within 
the overall agenda for modernis ing higher education: the first concerns the issue that too 
many graduates do not have the right mix of knowledge , skills and competences for the labour 
market, and the second, the insufficient innovati on capacity of Europe. However, it is worth 
emphasising that the analysis c ould be extended to other fiel ds and the value of a dialogue 
will not be confined to these areas alone.  
The proposed initiative is a direct Commissi on contribution to the modernisation agenda. 
Given the broad nature of the issues and the natu re of the sector – the need to engage with 
Governments, with universitie s and with other stakeholde rs, all the while respecting 
subsidiarity – there is no one  unique track by which the Commission pursues university 
modernisation. Modernising univ ersities is a priority issu e within the Open Method of 
Coordination (OMC) for Educa tion and training – the main ve hicle by which the Commission 
works with Member States. It is also a major element within the Bologna process. 
A key element within the agenda for modern isation set out in 2006 was that universities 
should develop structured partnerships with th e world of enterprise in order to "become 
significant players in the economy, able to respond better and fa ster to the demands of the 
market and to develop partnerships which harn ess scientific and technological knowledge", 
without in any way calling into questi on their social and cultural remit. 
The Commission, in response to the invitati on from the Council (Council Resolution, 23 Nov 
2007; 16096/1/07 REV 1) has es tablished a report  to the Council on "Modernising 
Universities for Europe's competitiveness in a global knowledge economy" (COM(2008) 680 
final). This report recognises that although progress is  being made in all nine areas, a lot 
remains to be done. Just to mention some few of the nine areas: Mob ility of professors, 
researchers and students is by far not at the ta rgeted level (Break down the barriers around 
universities in Europe); stru ctured partnerships with th e business community are too 
exceptional (Provide incentives for structured partnerships with the business community); still 
too many graduates do not have  the right mix of knowledge, skills and competences for the 
labour market, universities do not sufficiently  support the development of researchers' and 
students' entrepreneurial attit udes and mindsets, universities ar e still not very committed to 
the lifelong learning agenda (pro vide the right mix of knowle dge, skills and competences for 
the labour market); universiti es do not sufficiently share their knowledge with society 
(Activate knowledge through in teraction with society). 
 
EN 9   EN The Commission will continue its  dialogue with national author ities and stakeholders on how 
best to advance the modernisation agenda. 
Links between universities and business were id entified early on as being important for the 
modernisation agenda, important for govern ance, funding and curriculum development. 
2.1 Inappropriate mix of knowled ge, skills and competences 
As highlighted in the Commission’s Communication8 on the ‘Employment in Europe 2008 
Report’, a recurrent concern of policy makers in the fields of education and employment is the 
mismatch between workers’ education and skil l levels, and actual job requirements in the 
labour market. 
While graduates generally succeed comparativel y well in the labour market, the composition 
of skills emerging from EU universities and training systems does not fully support a truly 
innovation-driven economy. 
Feedback from employers indicates that a too la rge number of graduates do not have the right 
mix of knowledge, skills and competence that is required in the labour market. Employers are 
in particular asking for more transversal and tr ansferable skills, an area of skills development 
which is often inadequately tackle d by universities. Research by the CBI9 shows that almost a 
third of employers (30%) have pr oblems with graduates’ generic employability skills such as 
team working, communication an d problem solving. Employers are also disappointed with 
graduates’ attitudes to work (25%), self-management (33%),  business awareness (44%) and 
knowledge of foreign languages (49%). This mismatch between the knowledge, skills and 
competences acquired by graduates and those ex pected and valued by employers, is explored 
in more detail in the study undertaken by the CIHE in the UK10. The report confirms the 
mismatch and provides some recommendations  to employers, universities and students. 
From the REFLEX survey, there is evidence that  graduates are expected to be more or less 
competent in at least the following five areas: professional expertise, functional flexibility, innovation and knowledge management, mobilisati on of human resources, and international 
orientation
11. 
The report of the European Univer sity Association (EUA) “Trends V”12 suggests that 
employability is a high priority in the reform  of curricula in all cycles. This concern 
transcends national boundaries a nd implementation priorities. Howe ver, the results also reveal 
that there is still much to be done to translate th is priority into  institutional pract ice. This is a 
paradox for a reform process inspired, at least in part, by a concern that higher education 
should be more responsive to the needs of a ch anging society and labour market. It indicates 
that one of the main challenges for the future  is to strengthen dialogue with employers and 
other external stakeholders. For many institutions this requires a change in culture that will 
take time. 
                                                 
8 COM(2008) 758 final “Key messages from th e Employment in Europe 2008 Report"  
9 CBI/Pertemps, “Employment Trends survey”, 2006 
10 Council for Industry and Higher Education; Grad uate Employability: what do employers think and 
want; 2008  
11 Cf. conclusions of the REFLEX project, Allen, J. and van der Velden, R. (eds) (2007), "The Flexible 
Professional in the Knowledge Society: General Resu lts of the REFLEX Project ", Research Centre for 
the Education and the Labou r Market, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. 
12 Trends V: Universities shaping the EU Higher Education Area, EUA report, 2007 
 
EN 10   EN But there does not only exist this qualitative skills mismatch in Europe; we also face the 
challenge of a quantitative skills mismatch: fo r a number of professions it is and/or gets 
problematic to find qualified staff (ex. Insuffici ent number of engineers in several Member 
States). 
And studies show that labour mark et demand in higher level skills in Europe is intensifying as 
EU countries strive to reinforce their compe titive edge. There is an  increasing demand for 
people with highest qu alification levels: 
In EU 25, between 2006 and 2020, the proportion of  jobs requiring high levels of education 
attainment should rise from 25.1% to 31.3% of th e total; jobs requiring medium qualifications 
would also increase slightly, from 48.3% to  50.1%. This would amount respectively to 38.8 
and 52.4 million high-and medium-level job openi ngs. At the same time, the share of jobs 
requiring low levels of education attainment  would decline from 26.2% to 18.5%, despite 10 
million job openings13. 
A detailed analysis of these issues is provi ded in the Communication on “New Skills for New 
Jobs” and the accompanying Staff Working Document14. 
Organisations and individuals are increasingly required to update their skills in response to 
the demands of competition and a globalised market place, but  also due to demographic 
developments in Europe. The limited and selective access to LLL is a major issue for Europe. Although in many countries the provision of LLL is  part of the missi on of universities, 
relevant strategies are rare and for many universities, LLL is st ill a “slogan”. Similarly, few 
employers have developed strategies which will  allow their workforce to update their skills 
throughout their working lives. 
2.2 Europe insufficiently innovative 
The Mid Term Review of the Lisbon Strate gy stressed the importance of knowledge and 
innovation as key drivers of European compe titiveness, and outlined a variety of proposals 
aimed at increasing the level, efficiency and th e exploitation of educatio n and research as the 
drivers of innovation
15. 
"There has been a continued improvement in the EU's performance (in 2008) relative to the 
US and a recent improvement relative to Japan. Nevertheless, there remains a significant gap between the EU and these two other regions an d there appears to be some slowing down in 
the catching up with the US in recent year's re ads the main conclusion in the eight edition of 
the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)
16. 
A key cause of this is the limited level of know ledge sharing, exchange  and transfer between 
higher education and research centres on the one hand and bus iness on the other17. Many 
European universities and researchers still cons ider business as a separate, perhaps even an 
                                                 
13 Cedefop, Skill Needs in Europe. Focus on 2020. Luxembourg 2008 
14 SEC(2008) 3058 Staff Work ing Document accompanying  COM(2008) 868 final “ 
15 COM (2005) 24 final “Working Together for Growth and Jobs: A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy”  
16 EIS 2008 published on 22 Jan 2009. EIS is an instrument providing a comparative assessment of the innovation 
performance of the EU Member States and a limited number of other countries . Report and annexes are available at 
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/metrics  
17 OECD (2002) Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships  
 
EN 11   EN undesirable world, and many businesses do not cons ider interaction with universities or other 
research organisations as a stra tegic input into their future. Wh ilst this is, in part, a demand 
side problem resulting from widespread private sector reluctance to work with the higher 
education sector18, the responsibility also lie s with European universitie s, and their ability to 
deal with the demands of companies19. 
Professors, students and researchers need to develop entrepreneurial skills to facilitate the 
creation of new opportunities  out of study and research20. On the whole they have a poorly 
developed entrepreneurial mindset in Eur ope that results in few spinouts and new 
businesses21. The staff working paper22 accompanying the Communica tion “Think Small First 
- A Small Business Act for Europe underlines that  Entrepreneurship is still not sufficiently 
reflected in educational and training policies.  
Another issue in the EU relates to insufficient mobility of professors, students, researchers and company staff in education, innovation and research. The lack of mobility – between 
institutions, across borders and between academia and business – hinders knowledge 
exchange, sharing, transfer and creation.  
2.3 Diversity of situation in Europe 
It is important in this context to underline the diverse situation that exists in Europe between 
the Member States. Whereas people with higher education have in all Member States better chances to find/keep a job, there are still subs tantial differences betw een unemployment rates 
of graduates in the Member States:  
Table 1 - Unemployment rates of the populatio n aged 25-64 with tertiary education level 
EU AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU 
3.6 2.4 3.3 2.2 2.8 1.5 3.7 2.9 Na 6.0 4.8 3.6 4.8 2.6 
IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK 
2.3 4.2 1.8 
(u) 3.0 
(u) 3.7 Na 1.8 3.8 6.6 2.2 3.4 3.2 
(u) 3.4 2.1 
Eurostat, Unemployment rates of the population aged 25-64 by level of education (annual average); extract of 
figures for tertiary education, year 2007.  
(u): Unreliable or uncertain data 
This diversity is also reflected in the a bove mentioned EIS. Although the US keeps its 
“innovation” lead towards the EU as a whole,  there are some MS with a higher innovation 
                                                 
18 (2003) The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration  
19 Lambert, R. and Butler, N. (2006) The Future of  European Universities: Renaissance or Decay?  
20 COM (2006) 33 “Fostering entrepreneurial mi ndsets through education and learning”  
21 Idem 9  
22 SEC(2008) 2101 “Commission St aff Working Document accompanying the Communication “Think Small First - 
A Small Business Act for Europe”  
 
EN 12   EN index than the US: Sweden, Finland, Denmar k, Germany and UK are the most innovative EU 
countries and ahead of the US23. 
2.4 Baseline scenario 
A number of policy initiatives and financial in struments exist on EU level in order to support 
policies and actions in the Member States to wards a stronger focus on the readiness of 
graduates for the labour market and the deve lopment of Europe’s innovation capacity.  
The Commission supports the modernisation agenda for universities24, which aims at creating 
a framework within which universities can adapt to the emerging demands and become 
stronger players in the global know ledge society and economy, and th ereby play a vital role in 
support of the knowledge and innovation objectives  of the Lisbon Agenda. Furthermore, the 
Commission25 has proposed a systematic approach to en trepreneurship education at all levels, 
from the primary school to university, with a view  to encouraging more start-ups and a better 
commercial exploitation of ne w research developments. 
The New Skills for New Jobs  initiative identifies a number of measures and actions to improve 
the availability and quality of information on present and future occupational demand and 
related skill requirements. Alt hough there is awareness of the complexity of the undertaking, 
everybody agrees that forecasting is an indispensa ble tool to better inform policy makers and 
to achieve a better matching betw een demand and supply of skills. 
Several policy initiatives address the promo tion and development of  innovation in Europe. 
Some examples: The Commission has proposed framework conditions26 as well as specific 
measures in support of research and innovation that  will contribute to meet the Lisbon targets. 
The communication on “improving knowledge tran sfer between research institutions and 
industry across Europe”27, with its annex28 goes a step further and provides more concrete 
support to different stakeholders.  
Particularly important in this c ontext is the set-up of the Eur opean Institute of Innovation and 
Technology (EIT)29, which aims 
• To contribute to improving the innovation capacity of the EU by involving partner 
organisations in integrated innovation, resear ch and education activ ities at the highest 
international standards; 
                                                 
23 Idem 17 
24 COM (2006) 298 “Delivering on the modernisation agenda for the Universities: Education, Research 
and innovation” 
25 Idem 21  
26 COM (2005) 488 “More research and Innovation, Invest ing for Growth and Employment: a common approach”  
27 COM (2007)182 “Improving knowledge transfer between re search institutions and industry across Europe”  
28 SEC(2007)449 “Voluntary guidelines for universities and other re search institutions to improve their links with 
industry across Europe”  
29 Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 
establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology 
 
EN 13   EN • To become a model and flagship for the in tegrated European Innovation Research and 
Education area by generating innovations in areas of key economic or societal interest and 
providing a reference for managing innovation. 
The policy initiatives are financially back ed up by various Community programmes: the 
Financial Framework 2007-2013 allocates substant ial amounts of resources to education, 
innovation and research related actions which will contribute to boost the EU economy and 
create more and better jobs. 
The integrated Lifelong Learning  Programme (2007 – 2013) addresses important needs 
concerning the modernisation and adaptation of  Member States’ education and training 
systems, particularly in the co ntext of the strategi c Lisbon goals. It also  bring added value 
directly to individual citizens participating in its mobility and other cooperation actions. 
The 7th Framework Programme for Rese arch and Technological Development is the 
main financial tool through which the Europe an Union supports research and development 
activities. Particular interesti ng in this context are measures that support the sharing, exchange 
and transfer of research results , particular important the mob ility programme for researchers 
and post-docs. 
The Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) aims at improving the structural 
innovation and growth conditions of the Union. Fo r this purpose, it includes actions in support 
of innovation and of growth for SMEs. It aims  to improve access to finance, promote eco-
innovation and funds EU services in  support of business and innovation. 
The new generation of economic and social cohesion programmes allocates a significant 
proportion of its budget to investing in the main drivers of growth and employment, 
especially in the fields of research and development, innova tion, business-suppo rt activities, 
employment and education. The Community strategic guidelines on cohesion policy (2007-
2013) adopted by the Council, stress the promo tion of sustainable development and the 
strengthening of competitiveness by concen trating resources on re search and innovation 
(RTDI), entrepreneurship, information society and training and adaptability of workers. 
This shows that a number of EU  policy initiatives and financial instruments are targeted 
towards supporting education, i nnovation and research activiti es, however mainly from one 
specific angle: education, innovation or rese arch; or focusing on specific target groups: 
Higher Education Institutions, companies, research organisations or regions. 
There is insufficient integration and cooperation ; synergies between different actions are not 
at their optimum. Sharing and exchange of good practice is mainly limited to the respective 
Community programmes under which they were funded. The analysis of the two problem 
areas above also shows that a large element of the problem has to do with changing institutional attitudes in both the education a nd the enterprise worlds. This can best be 
achieved by the fostering of dialogue and by learning from and extending the good practices 
which do exist. 
2.5 Legal basis, the principle of subsidiarity and EU added 
The legal basis for the proposed initiative and instrument is Article 149 of the Treaty.  
 
EN 14   EN The proposed initiative a nd instrument fully resp ect the principle of subsidiarity; the 
initiative aims at developing a platform on Eu ropean level for a stru ctured dialogue between 
the key stakeholders, in particular represen tatives from Universities and Business. The 
platform is meant to support the sharing and exchange of experien ce and good practice, and 
facilitating mutual learning. It complements an d supports activities unde rtaken on national or 
regional level. 
The EU added value  of the proposed initiative is two-fold: it will pr ovide concrete support to 
the stakeholders in the Member States, and it will contribute to better and more coherent EU activities in this field. The initiative on EU le vel is of particular value to those Member 
States/regions that are lagging behind. Examples  of good practice from leading countries can 
be used to inspire relevant reforms and acti ons. The initiative on EU level can provide 
important support to national and/or institu tional champions to promote and implement 
changes in their systems. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
3.1 General Policy Objectives 
To improve the relevance of HE for the labour market (employability of graduates) and to 
improve Europe’s innovation capacity by sp eeding up the implementation of the Higher 
Education Modernisation agenda 
3.2 Specific objectives 
Taking into account the current situation and the needs id entified, the most appropriate 
specific objectives to be considered are: 
To support curricular development, lead ing to employability  of graduates; 
To support the identification of those skills that graduates are expected to have when entering 
the labour market;  
To support the development of an entrepreneur ial mindset among graduates, professors and 
researchers; 
To support the development of appropriate Governance structures at Universities; 
To support the development of HE in the fi eld of lifelong learnin g, more precisely the 
cooperation between universities and companie s in the identification and provision of 
training/retraining programmes; 
To support the inter- and transdisciplinarity  in the research and trainings agenda; 
To support the exchange, sharing and creatio n of knowledge through increased mobility 
between universities, research organisations and business (stude nts, researchers, professors, 
other staff of Higher Education Ins titutions (HEI), company staff). 
The following table provides an overview of how the specific objectives relate to the general 
policy objective and to the areas identified in the modernisation agenda for higher education: 
 
EN 15   EN Specific objectives Link of specific objectives to 
General Policy Objective Link of specific objectives to 
areas under Modernisation agenda (speeding up of implementation of HE modernisation agenda) 
To support curricular development, leading to employability of graduates Cooperation in curriculum 
development should ensure that the needs of the labour market (the relevance of the study programmes) are better taken into account Æ 
contributes mainly to improving the relevance of HE to the labour market. Provide the right mix of skills 
and competencies for the labour market  
Provide incentives for 
structured part nerships with 
the business community 
 
To support the identification 
of those skills that graduates 
are expected to have when entering the labour market Getting a better 
understanding of the skills that graduates need in order to face successfully the challenges of the labour market should positively influence relevance of the study programmes and so the employability of graduates. Æ contributes mainly to 
improving the relevance of HE to the labour market. Provide the right mix of skills 
and competencies for the labour market 
Provide incentives for 
structured part nerships with 
the business community 
 
To support the development 
of an entrepreneurial mindset among graduates, professors and researchers; Development of 
entrepreneurial attitudes among graduates, professors and researchers should increase the number of start-ups and more generally to a more open and positive attitude to change and innovation Æ contributes 
mainly to the improvement of Europe’s innovation capacity Enhance inter- and 
transdisciplinarity  
Provide the right mix of skills 
and competencies for the labour market; 
 
To support the development 
of appropriate Governance structures at Universities; Development of relevant 
Governance structures should ensure the establishment of appropriate incentive and assessment systems that would support a better involvement of HE into the problems faced by society. Break down the barriers 
around universities in Europe 
Provide incentives for 
structured part nerships with 
the business community 
 
EN 16   EN Activities linked to the needs 
and expectations of society have to be recognised and valued. 
Æ contributes to improving 
the relevance of HE to the labour market and to the improvement of Europe’s innovation capacity 
To support the development of HE in the field of lifelong learning, more precisely the cooperation between universities and companies in the identification and provision of training/retraining programmes; Improving employability 
involves not only to those who enter the labour market: the upgrading of competences for those already in the workforce is an equally important challenge. Æ contributes mainly to 
improving the relevance of HE to the labour market. Provide the right mix of skills 
and competencies for the labour market 
Break down the barriers 
around universities in Europe 
Provide incentives for 
structured part nerships with 
the business community 
To support the inter- and transdisciplinarity in the research and trainings agenda Having more 
interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity will contribute to make people more open to changes and to innovation; will improve the development of transversal and transferable skills Æ 
contributes mainly to the improvement of Europe’s innovation capacity  Enhance inter- and 
transdisciplinarity  
Provide the right mix of skills 
and competencies for the labour market 
 
To support the exchange, 
sharing and creation of knowledge through increased mobility between universities,  research 
organisations and business (students, researchers, professors, other staff of HEI, company staff). Increased mobility between 
HEI and business in both directions will improve the understanding on both sides of respective needs, expectations and constraints; is a very effective preparation for students to learn about working and to exercise the application of theoretical knowledge to solve practical issues. Helps to build bridges between the two worlds – a good basis to build trust and longer-term relationships  Provide the right mix of skills 
and competencies for the labour market 
Break down the barriers 
around universities in Europe 
Enhance inter- and 
transdisciplinarity  
Provide incentives for 
structured part nerships with 
the business community 
Activate knowledge through 
interaction with society 
 
EN 17   EN Æ contributes to improving 
the relevance of HE to the labour market and to the improvement of Europe’s innovation capacity 
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
Four main options exist for action on EU level: 
(1) No additional action (baseline scenario) 
(2) Specific actions using th e existing instruments 
(3) Focused policy action on EU level including the issuing of a policy document on EU 
level together with the establishment of a platform on European level for a structured 
dialogue between the stakeholders 
(4) Focused policy action targeted at Member States. 
Policy option 1 : See baseline scenario (section 2) 
Policy option 2 : This option would use the existing financial instruments. No policy 
document would be published. In difference to the baseline scenario speci fic actions would be 
enabled through relevant priority setting in th e existing Community programmes. This would 
lead to the availability of extra resources and the launching  of specific calls for proposals 
and/or calls for tender to support dialogue between stakeholders from the worlds of enterprise 
and higher education within th e framework of existing financ ial instruments. This option 
would for example include the possibility to  issue specific calls for proposals under the 
different financing inst ruments of the EU. We could for example, after agreement by the 
Lifelong Learning Programme Co mmittee, launch a call for proposal on university-business 
cooperation in areas related to  the specific objec tives identified under Section 3.2. Similar 
calls could be issued under other financing instruments of  the EU, as for example the 
Research programme or the Innovation progra mme, always conditioned by the approval of 
the respective programme committees. It would al so be possible under this option to set up a 
(physical and virtual) platfo rm on European level for a structured dialog between the 
stakeholders, the development and implementation of a databa se with examples of good 
practice and relevant promotion and dissemination mechanisms.  
However there would be no specific mandate for the operation of such a forum, and it would 
keep its “piloting” character of 2008. It would no t be possible to develop a longer-term vision 
of the activities of the forum. 
Policy option 3 : Focused policy action on EU level supporting better cooperation between 
Universities and Business. As main difference to option 2, this option would include the 
publication of a policy document by the Commi ssion. This policy document would allow to 
give a clear mandate to the forum and 
– To take stock of what has been learned from the first year of the Forum and other relevant 
activities at European level about the challenges and barri ers to university-business 
cooperation, the issues to be addressed and good practices an d approaches which could be 
more widely used. 
 
EN 18   EN – To make proposals for the next  steps in the Forum's work. 
– To outline concrete follow-up actions to strengthen university-business cooperation. 
The policy document would raise the profile of the initiative substantially and attract attention 
to the related issue. It would allow, based on th e activities of the forum, to formulate a number 
of messages targeted at the different stakeholders . And last but not least, it allows formulating 
a number of concrete follow-up actions to strengthen university-business cooperation. The 
policy document would be of particular relevan ce for countries, regions or higher education 
institutions that are lagging behind, and would li ke to move forward and implement relevant 
changes. 
Policy option 4 : Focused policy action targeted at nati onal level to support better cooperation 
between Universities and Business. As options 2 and 3, this solution would involve the set up 
of a (physical and virtual) platform on Europe an level for a structured dialog between the 
stakeholders, the development and implementation of a databa se with examples of good 
practice and relevant promotion and dissemina tion mechanisms. As option 3, it would also 
include the publication of a policy document. Ho wever this option would try to focus much 
more on the national, regional and institutional level, and would seek defining a number of 
actions for Member States and stakeholders co upled with agreed deadlines and an agreed 
process for monitoring and follow-up. Under this op tion we could also envisage to ask for the 
definition of relevant benchmarks and indicator s that would allow to measure progress of the 
different Member States. 
Policy Instrument  
The initiative is based on Art. 149 of the Treat y; possible policy instruments under this article 
are 
– Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament  
– Recommendation from the Council and the European Parliament 
For policy option 3, a Communication from the Co mmission to the European Parliament and 
the Council with a number of clear messages on the main issues together with proposals for 
solution and/or actions to th e different stakeholders seem s the most appropriate policy 
instrument under Article 149. The establishmen t of a platform on European level for a 
structured dialogue between the stakeholders  would support and faci litate sharing of good 
practice and mutual learning. It would also allow supporting and following-up the 
implementation of measures id entified in the Communication. 
For policy option 4, a Recommendation from the Council and the European Parliament to the 
Member States seems the most appropriate po licy instrument. Such a Recommendation could 
specify a range of actions toge ther with deadlines and mechan isms for monitoring and follow-
up, addressed to the Member States.  
5. A NALYSIS OF POSSIBLE IMPACTS  
This initiative aims at improving the employa bility of HE graduates and at supporting an 
increase of Europe’s innovation capacity. It al so aims at speeding up the implementation of 
the modernisation agenda of Europe’s HE.  
 
EN 19   EN For none of the options any envi ronmental impacts are expecte d. The different options do not 
have budgetary impacts. All proposed actions w ould be implemented within existing financial 
resources. 
It is extremely difficult to assess the economic  and social impacts of the different proposed 
options. There is no way to prescribe on European level that and what ac tion is to be taken by 
the Member States. The EU can only provide su pporting measures to the Member States. The 
EU can show that there is urgency for action, it can identify and inform about main issues and 
possible solutions, it can provi de a platform for discussion and exchange between the 
stakeholders and it can provide access to ex amples of good practice stemming from multiple 
sources. On European level we can improve synergies between existing initiatives and 
programmes.  
5.2 Possible economic impacts 
Making progress in the modernisation of HE would trigger positive economic impacts in the 
EU. Options 2, 3 and 4 would – at different degrees – contribute to positive developments in the fields of higher education, innovation and research. It is al so expected that options 2, 3 
and 4 would have positive impacts on certain regions or sectors. In particular trailing regions 
and sectors could benefit from the proposed options. 
The proposed options should also positively in fluence the macroeconomic environment. HE 
graduates that are better prepared for the la bour market will increase the competitiveness of 
European companies. 
The University of Twente is a good exampl e of a university embedded in its regional 
economy. Together with regional partners, th e university has a knowledge park and business 
accelerators linking the knowledge in the univ ersity with the business community. In 
supporting entrepreneurship, for over 10 years, the university has had a programme available 
to all students. For students who wish to start a company there is support from the TOP 
programme (Temporary Entrepreneur ial Positions) with a number of benefits. There is also a 
programme for University Student Enterprises and a growth programme which is for owner 
managers of companies. Included in these mo dules are training and networking activities. 
Over the last ten years a substantial number of SMEs have been created. 
In Western Sweden, 3 universities have develo ped tailor-made distance-learning courses for 
SME employees as a means to boost the compe titiveness of these enterprises and of the 
region as whole. The courses address crucial questions for SMEs such as better production 
techniques, Economics, Logistics, Product De velopment and Total Production Management. 
Most of the employees who take these courses are in their forties and have not studied at 
university level before. 
5.2 Possible social impacts 
Better employability of HE graduates would have positive impacts on employment and labour 
markets. It would facilitate new job creation and prepare people better for a changing labour 
market and changing working places. Making pr ogress in the modernisation agenda of HE 
would positively affect the access of individuals to public/private education or continuing 
training. It would have an effect on mobility and it would affect universities (Access to and 
effects on social protection, h ealth and education systems). 
 
EN 20   EN Turku Academic Career Services (Rekry) is a joint service of universities in Turku and the 
Turku Employment Office in Finland. Rekry provides information on job openings and job 
seeking for students and graduates. Career counselling, seminars and info-days are also 
provided. In addition, Rekry serves companies a nd public authorities as a channel for finding 
interns, and students to do thei r thesis on a subject important to the company. The University 
of Turku has the alumni and mentoring program mes which both try to support at least partly 
students’ mobility from the uni versity to the labour market. W ithin the mentoring programme 
the person with working experience guides stud ent at the graduating pha se to direct final 
studies, look for job, write CVs etc. The ment or can also use own networks to find work 
opportunities for the student. 
In order to facilitate the comparison between  the different options, the following 2 tables 
provide  
– an overall assessment of the 4 identified op tions in relation to the specific objectives 
presented under Section 3 (table A); 
– B) an estimate to what extent the different options could contribute to the speeding up of 
the implementation of the HE m odernisation agenda (table B). 
Table A – Options in relation to specific objectives 
 Option 1 
(Baseline) Option 2 
Specific actions 
using the existing instruments Option 3 
Focused policy 
action on EU level Option 4 
Focused policy 
action targeted at Member States 
Curricular Development 0 + ++ +++ 
Identification of 
skills 0 + ++ +++ 
Entrepreneurial 
attitude 0 + ++ +++ 
Governance 0 + ++ +++ 
Lifelong 
learning 0 + ++ +++ 
Inter- and 
Transdisciplin. 
in research and training agenda 0 + ++ +++ 
Knowledge 
sharing and 0 + ++ +++ 
 
EN 21   EN creation 
There is a certain hierarchy between these options , which is reflected in the assessment of the 
possible impacts. The options are compleme ntary. Option 2 includes option 1 + additional 
actions within the existing programmes and financial instruments; option 3 includes option 2 + 
the publication of a policy document that provide s a clear mandate of the Forum and provides 
it with a more longer term vision. The policy document proposed unde r option 4 could cover 
the aspects addressed under option 3 and option 4 could also include the establishment of the 
platform foreseen under option 3. 
Table B – Options in relation to items on HE modernisation agenda 
 Option 1 
(Baseline) Option 2 
Specific actions 
using the existing instruments Option 3 
Focused policy 
action on EU level Option 4 
Focused policy 
action targeted at Member States 
Break down the barriers 0 + ++ +++ 
Autonomy and 
accountability 0 + + + 
Incentives for 
structured partnership 0 + ++ +++ 
Right mix of 
skills 0 + ++ +++ 
Reduce the 
funding gap 0 + ++ +++ 
Enhance 
Interdisciplin. and transdisciplin. 0 + ++ +++ 
Activate 
knowledge through .. 0 + ++ +++ 
Reward 
excellence at the highest level 0 + + + 
EHEA and ERA 
more visible and attractive 0 + + + 
 
EN 22   EN 6. C OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Policy option 1 would mean no change to the current situation. Member states and 
stakeholders that do well today will most prob ably continue to do so. The existing policy 
initiatives and financial instruments are highly valuable, however insufficient. The report of 
the Commission to the Council to the Council Resolution30shows that a certain progress has 
been made in the implementation of the mode rnization agenda of Higher Education, however 
“a lot remains to be done ”. It shows also that there are substantial differences between 
Member States and institutions. No action woul d mean that we continue as in the past; 
progress against the different targets would cont inue to be too slow. Without additional action 
on European level, the additional risk exists that  the gap between those countries that are doing 
well and those that lag behind, increases. 
Policy option 2 describes a first possible approach: within the existing policy framework, it is 
proposed to redefine certain priorities within the available financial instruments. Specific calls 
for proposals and/or calls for tenders could be organized, resulting in a number of projects and 
contracts. It is expected that these proj ects and contracts would positively contribute to 
achieving the specific objectives. However ther e would be no specifi c coordination on EU 
level between the different projects and contr acts. Cooperation, exchange, mutual learning 
between projects funded under different financia l EU instruments would most probably only 
happen in few cases. 
Policy option 3 is based on the analysis that e ffective university-business cooperation is of key 
importance for ensuring that graduates have the right mix of skills when entering the labour 
market and for improving the innovation capacity of the EU. This option involves the issuing 
of a policy document on university – business coope ration and the establishment of a platform 
at the European level for a structured dialog and partnership between the stakeholders 
facilitating and stimulating sharing and exch ange of good practice and supporting mutual 
learning. The initiative on EU level can provide im portant stimulus for ch ampions on national, 
regional or institutional level to implem ent changes in sometimes change-adverse 
environments. 
In addition this initiative has the potential of a specific added value on EU level: it should 
allow for better coordination of initiatives in the field of University-Business cooperation, 
managed and supported in different policy areas of the Commission and funded via different 
financial instruments (ex. Education; Re search; Enterprise; Employment; Regional 
Development). 
The strong involvement of the European Commi ssion in the implementation of this option 
increases the visibility and cr edibility of the action. The discussions and exchanges with the 
different stakeholders during 2008 show that ad ditional and coordinated action on EU level in 
this field is highly appreciated. 
Option 3 would also act to complement the policy exchange between the Commission and 
Member States on these issues which is planne d under the next phase of the Open Method of 
coordination for Education and Training, wher e modernization of universities has been 
identified as one of the priority fields to be addressed. 
Policy option 4 would, in addition to the actions  foreseen on EU level under option 3, involve 
policy recommendations to Member States, including the possibility to define a number of 
                                                 
30 SEC(2008) 2719; Report from the Commission to the Council on the Council Resolution of 23 
November 2007 on Modernising Universities for Europe's competitiveness in a global knowledge 
economy 
 
EN 23   EN actions for the Member States with deadlin es and mechanisms to monitor and follow-up. 
Whereas option 4 might potentially have the st rongest impact, it is extremely likely that 
Member States and stakeholders would be reluctant to follow a specific set of policy guidelines 
on university-business cooperation. The cooperative exchanges on education and training 
within the Open Method of Coordination are base d on a careful recognition of subsidiarity and 
of the different roles and responsibilities of th e Commission, Member St ates and of regional 
and institutional actors. Direct policy prescriptio ns from the EU-level would risk undermining 
the basis of this cooperation. In addition, the adoption of a Recommenda tion would be a much 
heavier process compared to the adoption of a Communication and the time frame would be 
substantially longer, which would lead to a delay in implementation. 
Conclusion of section 6  
Given the preceding analysis, in particular the strong risk associated with option 4, 
considering the potential of option 3 compared  with option 2, the limited administrative and 
procedural effort of option 2, the possibility for fast impl ementation and the strong support 
received by the stakeholders dur ing 2008 for the set-up on European level of a platform for a 
structured dialogue, our proposal is to proceed with option 3.  
Cooperation between Higher Education and Business is not any more an option, it is a must. 
The question is not if there should be  cooperation, the question is about HOW – 
Implementation is the issue. And the EU can su pport the Member States to make progress in 
implementation. 
Better and more intense cooperation is beneficial  for Academia and Business. It is mutually 
reinforcing and moves knowledge forward in bot h the ‘business’ context and the academic 
context, as the knowledge becomes an integr al part of the teaching, learning and the 
researching in HE and integrated into the business processes of firms and public 
organisations. Good cooperation provides the basi s for longer term relationships that generate 
a wider variety of opportunities an d returns. The insights gene rated from working together 
contribute to both the peer review of resear ch and the business need. Student learning is 
enriched and prepares them for future employment as they gain  exposure to live problems and 
solutions through the curriculum and placements. Relationships become stronger through an 
increasing number of arrangements from stude nt projects and placements to ambitious 
partnerships and collaborations that bri ng benefit to the business and the academics. 
The proposed initiative provides a basis for di alog and discussion between the stakeholders; 
an important element is the sharing and ex changing of examples of good practice. This 
process of mutual learning should help Member  States to establish favourable frameworks 
and conditions for University-Business Coope ration (ex. University-Business Cooperation 
part of national/regional HE st rategies; appropriate incentive structures for universities; 
removal of existing barriers (legal and non-lega l)). It should also help universities and 
business to better understand the challenges of Univers ity-Business cooperation. For 
universities it is important to integrate U-B coope ration into their strategies; they have to set-
up relevant incentive structures for their professo rs, researchers and students, and put in place 
structures that are appropriate  for cooperating with enterprise s. Companies, in particular 
SMEs, have to organise themselves for being r eady to cooperate with un iversities. They have 
to clearly express what they expect from uni versities. For SMEs, intermediary structures 
might be of crucial relevance to make cooperation happening. 
 
EN 24   EN For both sides it is important that cooperation ha s to be seen in a long-term perspective and 
not as a quick fix to urgent problems. 
As illustrated in table A (Sec tion 5), better cooperation betw een universities and business 
should have a positive impact on the specifi c objectives identif ied under point 3: 
• Involvement of Business in curriculum develo pment ensures closer li nkage to the needs of 
the labour market; 
• Graduates, researchers and professors are mo re entrepreneurial through increased exposure 
and cooperation with business (common projects, mobility); 
• Universities get active players in the provision of lifelong lear ning; they formulate a clear 
lifelong learning strategy and set- up relevant structures to m eet the needs of learners and 
companies. Companies provide structured  input on their need s to universities; 
• The cooperation will increase trust on both side s; Universities will get better acquainted 
with business and universities will be more open to involve business into the 
modernisation of its governance structures; 
• Cooperation with companies will stimulate work  with inter- and tr ansdisciplinary teams 
and approaches, including increased mobility of students, researchers, professors and 
company staff. 
This is not only wishful thinking. Examples of good practice exist which demonstrate the 
value of cooperation between universities and co mpanies: for the students, researchers and 
professors, for the universities as institution, for the companies and for society. There are examples of companies and universities coopera ting in the definition and organisation of new 
study programmes (very interesti ng in this context are the so -called dual study programmes, 
which combine periods of working in a company and studying at university). Some 
universities have set-up specific boards on faculty and on university  level that participate in 
the development and/or modification of curricu lum. Business representatives are members of 
these boards, ensuring the rele vance of the curriculum for the labour market. There are 
successful examples of coopera tion between universit ies and companies in the field of 
lifelong learning. Certain universities provide the possibility to people in employment to 
follow “normal” Bachelor or Master courses, others are setting up specific structures to widen access to their resources and services. Certain universities have implemented mechanisms for the validation of non-formal  and informal learning. 
A number of companies, in particular large mu lti-nationals, are very active towards mobility 
of students, researchers and pr ofessors. Students perform internships at the companies, and 
very often undertake their Master  Thesis or PhD on issues identified by the companies. The 
big challenge is to substantially increase th e exchange with SMEs. There are specific 
programmes in place targeting mobility of student s to SMEs: Students spend 3-6 months with 
an SME working on specific issues. These sche mes are highly successful and it is necessary 
to make the stakeholders, in particular the SMEs, aware of their existence. 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
It is proposed to launch a survey in 2010 in order to establish an analysis of the situation. The 
 
EN 25   EN study would target national and regional minist ries and Higher Education Institutions in 
Europe with a number of defined questions  on the situation of University-Business 
Cooperation. The survey could for example try to identify the number of universities that have 
university-business cooperation clearly defined in their missions; or identify the number of 
strategies or frameworks that exist on national, regional or institutional level, favoring or 
hindering University-Business cooperation. It is not  clear to what extent such a survey would 
allow to identify the concrete level of cooperation between universities and business, ie. to 
identify the number of concrete cooperation projec ts a university has with companies. It would 
be necessary to set some very clear criteri a allowing the definition of university-business 
cooperation. The survey could be rep eated later-on to identify progress. 
The survey would be undertaken by an external  contractor. The Terms of reference should be 
ready by end of 2009, and the results available by end of 2010. 
This quantitative work should be complemented by qualitative work, in particular the 
identification and dissemination of good practi ce and the definition of success factors for 
university-business cooperation, which lead to achieving the specific objectives. 
7.1 Possible indicators to assess progress – Number of new strategies on national or re gional level supporting the development of 
cooperation between HE and business (including the modification of laws to remove existing barriers and/or to  provide new incentives) 
– Number of universities that include coopera tion with business into  their mission/strategy 
– Number of concrete cooperation agreem ents between universities and business 
– Number of universities that involve busines s representatives into  the development of 
curriculum 
– Number of universities that  involve business representatives into their governance 
structures  
– Number of universities with structures  in place to comm unicate with business 
– Number of participants at different European forums and more important distribution 
between participants 
– Number of examples of good practice identi fied and disseminatedNumber of students, 
researchers, professors and/or compan y staff that participate at relevant 
exchange/cooperation programmes 
 
EN 26   EN ANNEXES 
1. Workshop in July 2007 with representatives from European Business and Higher Education 
Associations (report annexed)  
2. The University-Business Forum in February 2008 (report annexed)  
3. Thematic Forum on Continuing Education a nd Lifelong Learning in June 2008 (report 
annexed)  
4. Thematic Forum on Curriculum Development and Entrepreneurship in October 2008  
(report annexed)  
5. Thematic Forum on Knowledge Transfer in November 2008  
http://ec.europa.eu/invest-i n-research/pol icy/ipr_en.htm  
6. The 2nd European University-Business Forum in February 2009  
7. Modernising Higher Education Cluster - Peer Learning Activity on University – Business 
Partnerships (UBPs), Oc tober 2006 (report annexed)  
8. Modernising Higher Education Cluster - Peer  Learning Activity on Ci rcling the Knowledge 
Triangle from the perspective of Education: the added value in better connecting Higher 
Education to Research and I nnovation, June 2008 (report annexed)  
9. Number of projects under the Erasmus pr ogramme, including a su rvey among Higher 
Education Institutions on University-Business Cooperation. (report annexed)  
10. A working group with representatives from DGs Research, Employment, Social Affairs 
and Equal Opportunities and Enterprise and Industry  
11. An Inter-Service Steering Gro up (for Impact Assessment)  with representatives from: 
Secretariat-General, Research, Employment , Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 
Information Society and Media, Regiona l Policy, Enterprise and Industry.