No C 41/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development (R&TD) programme in the field of industrial and materials technologies 
(1990-1994) (!) 
(91/C 41/16) 
On 6 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130Q of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 November 1990. The 
Rapporteur was M. Velasco Mancebo. 
At its 281st plenary session (meeting of 20 November 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The proposed programme comes under the 
framework programme for Community activities in the 
field of research and technological development 
(R&TD) (1990/1994) (2), more specifically its second 
line of action, 'Industrial and materials technologies', 
the objective of which is 'to contribute to the rejuven­
ation of European manufacturing industry by strength­
ening its scientific base through research and develop­
ment work'. 
1.2. To attain this objective the Community measur­
es are intended to encourage: 
— basic technical research, 
— the integration of new technologies by user indus­
tries, 
— the acquisition of the scientific and technical know­
ledge needed to establish standards and codes of 
good practice facilitating the transfer of such tech­
nologies, 
— the harmonization of methods of measurement and 
testing. 
1.3. It should be pointed out that Community 
research in the field of measurement and testing will be 
carried out under a separate specific programme; this 
programme, on which the Committee has also been 
consulted, will have to be closely coordinated with the 
programme under consideration here. 
1.4. Community financing for this programme, 
which will be implemented mainly through shared-cost 
research projects, is estimated at 748 million ECU. Of 
this amount 78 million ECU is earmarked for the Joint 
Research Centre (JRC) activities under the programme. 
t1) OJ No C 174, 16. 7. 1990, p. 28 
(2) Council Decision 90/221/Euratom-EEC; OJ No L 117, 
8. 5. 1990, p. 28. 1.5. Of the remaining 670 million ECU, a further 
6,7 million ECU will be allocated to the centralized 
action for the dissemination and exploitation of the 
results of the specific and supplementary research pro­
grammes, as provided for in Article 4 of the Decision 
on the framework programme (1990-1994). 
1.6. The remaining 663,3 million ECU will be div­
ided up as follows between the various areas of research 
covered by the programme (%): 
Area 1: Materials — raw materials 
— raw materials and recycling 12 % 
— materials 50-60 % 
Area 2: Design and manufacturing 30-40 % 
1.7. This new programme will be implemented in 
parallel with the BRITE/EURAM (3) and Raw 
Materials and Recycling (4) programmes already under 
way and will have to be closely coordinated with them. 
2. The framework programme and the specific R&TD 
programme in the field of industrial and materials 
technologies 
2.1. The gradual completion of the internal market 
is enhancing the scope for efficiency throughout the 
industrial production system; but at the same time the 
industrial and technological specialization of countries 
is producing, in the medium and long term, ever-widen­
ing rifts between the regions of the Community. 
(3) Specific R&TD programme in the fields of industrial manu­
facturing technologies and advanced materials applications 
(1989-1992). OJ No L 98, 11. 4. 1989, p. 18. 
(4) Specific R&TD programme in the field of raw materials and 
recycling (1990-1992). OJ No L 359, 8. 12. 1989, p. 16. 
18. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 41/47 
2.2. More specifically there are countries with indus­
trial sectors which require a low growth in research 
and development (R&D) but which, because of their 
fragmentation, cannot achieve it; there are others which 
are involved in new technological processes and can 
manage by their own efforts with some public or EC 
incentives; finally there are the volume sectors which 
are self-sufficient in R&D, provided they can attain 
sufficient critical mass. For them, collaboration with 
other enterprises would be a way of achieving this level. 
2.3. Any R&TD programme in the field of industrial 
and materials technologies must bear these factors in 
mind and thus ensure that: 
a) the proposed horizontal approach to the measures 
contained in the programme does not result in 
imbalance. In this respect it may be recalled that 
the first EC research programme into advanced 
materials (EURAM 1) (1986-1989) (*), which had a 
budget of 30 million ECU, drew most of its partici­
pants from France and the United Kingdom. 37% 
were from large industries, 34 % from the universit­
ies and only 7% from small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SME). The research was centred pri­
marily on basic research and the projects were 
medium and long term, which explains the predomi­
nance of university and major industry participants. 
The less important areas of the materials sector 
were almost entirely overlooked in EURAM; 
b) it takes a realistic view of the EC's industrial geogra­
phy and develops precise criteria with a view to 
attaining the twin objectives of competitiveness and 
cohesion, 
c) the arrangements for Community assistance take 
account of the type of firms in the sector which 
could benefit from the measures. 
2.4. This being the case, the Committee stresses that 
the proposed programme must also be evaluated in the 
light of the general objectives of the Community's 
R&TD strategy as stated in, for instance, the preamble 
to the Council Decision on the 1990-1994 framework 
programme, viz: 
a) to strengthen the scientific and technological basis 
of European industry and to encourage it to become 
more competitive at international level; 
(!) OJ No L 159, 14. 6. 1986, p. 36 b) to help strengthen economic and social cohesion 
within the Community. 
2.5. It is also stated that small and medium-sized 
enterprises are able to make a significant contribution 
to the innovative process, thereby contributing to the 
improvement of industrial competitiveness on a broader 
basis. The Committee considers that, as far as the 
programme under consideration is concerned, this 
aspect is closely linked to the objective of strengthening 
economic and social cohesion. 
2.6. In fact it is frequently the case that greater 
cohesion implies the promotion of traditional SME. But 
there is more to it than that: the modernization of these 
sectors presupposes greater competitiveness in products 
currently supplied by third countries and, at the same 
time, greater efficiency in sectors which, by lagging 
behind, put inflationary pressure on the system. 
2.6.1. In short: cohesion, in the form of technologi­
cal support for SME, whether through the strengthening 
of measures to disseminate results or through the set­
ting-up of organizations to carry out research for them, 
means greater stability and efficiency. 
2.7. According to Annex II to the Council Decision 
on the framework programme, which describes the 
scientific and technical objectives and content of the 
various research activities to be undertaken, the 
implementation of the present programme must meet 
three specific key requirements: 
a) that it reduce the 'design to product' lead time and 
improve manufacturing processes; 
b) that it integrate considerations of future market 
requirements and more severe constraints as regards 
the environment and working conditions; 
c) that the work carried out under the programme be 
interlinked as part of a systematic approach, i.e. 
research on new materials be linked to research on 
design and manufacturing processes and to prenor-
mative research. 
2.8. In the Committee's view these three require­
ments apply to the needs of two types of enterprise and 
hence to two distinct, but crucial, aspects of competi­
tiveness : 
a) increased productivity in the manufacturing pro­
cess, from which both large firms and SME should 
benefit; 
b) the development of new products, calling for 
advanced technology, which will increase the com­
petitiveness of the top end of the market and open 
up opportunities for all firms. 
No C 41/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
Such new products are the province of specialized high-
tech SME. 
3. General comments 
3.1. Broadly speaking the Committee approves the 
Commission proposal. It would, however, urge both 
the Commission and the Council to take account of the 
following comments which are intended to reinforce 
the programme's impact and to ensure that it is entirely 
in keeping with the objectives of Community R&TD 
policy. 
3.2. The Committee would also draw attention to its 
previous Opinions on the raw materials and recycling 
programme (1990-1992) (Rapporteur: Mr Jaschick) (*) 
and industrial manufacturing technologies and 
advanced materials applications (BRITE/EURAM) 
(1989-1992) ( Rapporteur: Mr de Normann) (2). Some 
of the comments expressed in these Opinions apply 
equally to the present programme, but regrettably were 
not taken into account when it was drawn up. 
3.3. The Committee stresses the importance of the 
criteria to be used in the selection of research projects 
to benefit from Community funding. In this connection, 
it is necessary to fully integrate the concepts of competi­
tiveness and cohesion, so that they are not just compat­
ible but complement each other closely. To this end 
priorities must be set based on pre-established criteria, 
giving particular prominence to support strategies for 
fragmented SME sectors and for 'cluster' sectors with 
both large and small businesses, guaranteeing the par­
ticipation of the smaller firms. 
3.4. Although it is vital that projects be selected on 
an across-the-board basis, there will inevitably be times 
when practical considerations dictate one type of firm 
rather than another. Thus medium and long-term 
research and high-tech areas are more relevant to large 
companies than small; conversely, research into updat­
ing a conventional process in a traditional sector will 
frequently be of no use to large companies. The benefits 
have to be balanced out. 
3.5. The Committee also feels that there are lessons 
to be learnt from the evaluation of previous pro-
f1) OJ No C 159, 26. 6. 1989, p. 31. 
(2) OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, p. 14. grammes. Under EUR AM 1 most of the research pro­
jects involved very advanced materials and less than 
1 % were devoted to improving traditional materials. 
3.6. These evaluations included recommendations 
for future programmes. The Committee would reiterate 
the following: 
— efforts have to be stepped up to distinguish the 
strong sectors (to be supported) from the weak 
sectors (to be given even more support). It is suggest­
ed that a small part of the budget be earmarked for 
independent studies of this question, 
— a better balance should be struck between long and 
short term work, new or improved materials and 
new technologies for existing materials. 
3.7. The Committee approves the integrated projects 
strategy. It must, however, be ensured that groups of 
SME are able to participate actively in them along with 
the large companies. Nor must the selection of such 
projects, because of the substantial resources, financial 
especially, needed to carry them through, lead to a 
reduction in support for other research areas covered 
by the programme and which the Committee regards 
as having priority in the light of the programme's 
objectives. 
3.8. Finally, the Committee warns that the suspicion 
could be aroused that the programme had been 'politic­
ized' and that the project selection criteria had been 
'nationalized' — there are no grounds for suspecting 
the Commission of this — if only a minority of indus­
trial sectors and countries were to benefit from such 
integrated projects. 
3.9. In the Committee's view the Commission pro­
posal does not provide any means of assessing the 
repercussions of the research measures provided for 
under the programme and hence of judging whether it 
is likely to fully achieve its objectives. 
3.10. The Committee has repeatedly asked that the 
economic and social aspects be taken into account at 
all stages of research programmes (from their definition, 
through the selection of research projects, to planning 
the utilization of the results) and that the idea of a 
'social impact assessment' be adopted as an integral 
part of R&TD programmes. Such an assessment should 
18. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 41/49 
include an evaluation of the effects of the programmes 
on: 
— industrial competitiveness, 
— employment, 
— the health and safety of workers, 
— working conditions, 
— the environment and quality of life. 
3.11. In this connection the Committee would refer 
to its afore-mentioned Opinion on the BRITE/EURAM 
programme. Such an assessment, allied to a strategic 
utilization study, could be used to underpin policy and 
gear it to the programme objectives. The combination 
of assessment and interim measures would also have a 
beneficial impact on the programme content. 
3.12. The quality of life, or in other words, the social 
aspect, is addressed in different parts of the proposal: 
— in the section on recycling, 
— when it is pointed out that the environmental 
aspects of products and processes play an important 
role and that the working environment represents 
a strategic element, 
— in the attention to be devoted to prenormative 
research into minimizing the impact of new 
materials on health and the environment, 
— in the intention to use products and processes which 
are environmentally and socially acceptable. 
3.13. The explicit mention of these aspects in the 
proposal is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, some objec­
tions are inevitable: 
a) declarations of intent are of little value if not 
accompanied by practical measures to implement 
them, and there is no trace of these in the proposal. 
Nowhere, for instance, does it define what is meant 
by 'environmentally and socially acceptable'; hence 
there are no criteria for the evaluation of a specific 
project; 
b) nor is there any mention of the social aspect in the 
proposed budget breakdown. Very little is allocated 
to recycling and nothing at all to social research. 
3.14. As regards the utilization of the results of 
research projects, here too the Committee has for sev­
eral years been calling for every R&TD programme to be accompanied by a plan for the subsequent exploi­
tation of the finished research. 
3.15. The Committee considers that such a prior 
analysis could be undertaken since 'nowadays the mic-
roeconomic theory of industry is beginning to be able 
to determine which market structure favours innovation 
most, to detect the channels whereby new technologies 
are disseminated and assimilated, to differentiate the 
economic effects of innovatory processes and products, 
to define optimal policies for R&TD spending and to 
analyze some of the results of the strategic competition 
between firms in the field of technology' (1). 
4. Specific comments 
4.1. Programme budget 
4.1.1. The Committee approves the amount which 
the Commission proposes allocating to the programme 
from the EC budget, but would question the distri­
bution of the funds among the various areas of research. 
This does not reflect the order of priorities indicated 
by the programme's objectives and the preceding com­
ments. 
4.1.2. As in the case of the raw materials and recyc­
ling programme (1990-1992), the Committee notes that 
only a very small share of the funds is allocated to 
recycling, although this area lends itself most readily 
for the financing of research project which meet the 
selection criteria laid down in the programme, in 
addition to meeting the twin concerns of protecting the 
environment and conserving raw materials. 
4.1.3. The Committee considers that materials are 
given too much weight to the detriment of design and 
manufacturing and that this is likely to raise certain 
problems; in particular it runs counter to the need to 
encourage R&D among SME since: 
— the ability to design and manufacture products 
which are both highly competitive and environmen­
tally and socially acceptable is the weak point of 
many SME. Consequently this research sector 
should receive special attention, 
— by favouring areas of research geared less to main­
taining or increasing a market share than to moving 
up-market by means of new or improved products 
(J) Julio Segura, 'Industrialization y cambio tecnico', Revista de 
Economia, No 3. 
No C 41/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
(products requiring an advanced technology which 
can only be developed with a high critical mass not 
generally attainable by SME) there is a risk that 
only large firms will be in a position to carry out 
research projects on materials. 
4.1.4. Accordingly the Committee considers that the 
funds should be divided more evenly between the three 
areas; raw materials, recycling and materials. 
4.1.5. Furthermore, where a project warrants it, 
funds should be earmarked for an assessment of the 
economic and social impact. 
4.2. Dissemination and exploitation of results 
4.2.1. As already pointed out by the Committee, the 
Council Decision on the framework programme (1990-
1994) states that 'the dissemination and exploitation of 
the results of research and technological development 
activities are essential elements in the innovative pro­
cess, in particular for small and medium-sized undertak­
ings' (15th clause of preamble). 
4.2.2. In this respect the Committee deplores the fact 
that as yet no information has been forthcoming on the 
practical arrangements for carrying out these activities, 
either as part of the programme under consideration or 
through the centralized action for the dissemination 
and exploitation of the results of the specific and sup­
plementary research programmes, as provided for in the 
second paragraph of Article 4 of the Council decision on 
the framework programme (1990-1994). 
4.2.3. Nor does the programme earmark any funds 
for carrying out these activities, despite the fact that 
Done at Brussels, 20 November 1990. they are expressly provided for in the proposal in the 
form of accompanying measures. It therefore calls for 
a suitable percentage of the budget to be earmarked 
specifically for this purpose. 
4.3. Review of the programme and assessment of the 
results 
4.3.1. Article 5 of the draft Decision provides for a 
review of the programme during 1992 and, at the end 
of the programme, an assessment of its results. 
4.3.2. The Committee wonders whether there is any 
point in reviewing the programme in 1992 since it 
cannot be implemented before 1 January 1991 at the 
earliest and also bearing in mind the time needed to 
select research projects and conclude the relevant con­
tracts. Under these circumstances, if it is to be of any 
use, the review should take place during the third year 
of the programme's implementation. 
The Committee notes that once again it is not explicitly 
listed among the recipients of the reports on the pro­
gramme review and of the assessment of its results. The 
Commission has never given a proper reason for this 
practice, which runs counter to EEC Treaty 
Article 130Q. 
It must be recalled that, in accordance with 
Article 130Q, the Committee must be consulted on any 
proposal to change, extend or renew research pro­
grammes. The Committee, just as much as the Council 
and the Commission, needs these reports if it is to 
evaluate Commission proposals. The Committee there­
fore urges the Commission and the Council to amend 
Article 5 of the draft Decision. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN