No C 56/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 3. 89 
gramme by a management and Coordination Advisory 
Committee (CGC) which will be set up for this purpose. 
2.12.2. The Committee asks that the rules determin­
ing the structure and operation of this Committee be 
formulated to allow variable composition relevant to 
subjects as different as forecasting and evaluation. 
2.12.3. The Committee assumes that the Advisory 
Committee on Programme Management on FAST II 
will cease to operate. 
Done at Brussels, 14 December 198? 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee endorses the proposal that the 
Commission spend 439,5 million ECU over the four 
years 1989 to 1992 to promote collaborative technologi­
cal research to enhance the precompetitive position of 
the Community's manufacturing industries in particular 
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). 
(!) OJ No C 228, 3. 9. 1988, p. 3. 2.13. Information of the ESC on the programme 
implementation 
2.13.1. It is asked that Article 4 of the Commission 
proposal be amended to include the Economic and 
Social Committee as recipients of the review of the 
programme, any proposals for modification or pro­
longation, the evaluation of the results and the regular 
information on the state of Commission activities. 
2.13.2. Since the Council Decision will have regard 
to its Opinion, the ESC should equally be asked to give 
its view on the development of the programme. 
2.13.3. Therefore, the Committee asks the Council 
to request the Commission to make the appropriate 
amendments. 
1.2. The four areas of work which will be chosen 
from the fields of industrial manufacturing technologies 
and advanced materials applications are critical for 
many industries but nevertheless common to several. 
1.3. The Committee recognizes that a main purpose 
of this European Community programme is to bring 
about complementary research by industrial companies, 
research institutes, universities and other higher edu-The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on a proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development programme of the European Economic Community in the fields of industrial 
manufacturing technologies and advanced materials applications (BRITE/EURAM) 
(1989-1992) (^ 
(89/C 56/06) 
On 19 August 1988, the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130Q (2) 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 2 December 1988. The 
Rapporteur was Mr de Normann. 
At its 261st plenary session (meeting of 14 December 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/15 
cational establishments from different countries in the 
Community through transnational cooperation. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Committee Opinion on the existing BR1TE pro­
gramme 
2.1.1. The Committee endorsed the extension of the 
original BRITE programme to 185 million ECU for the 
period 1985 to 1988 (*) in its Opinion of November 
1987 (2). This extension was decided by the Council on 
29 February 1988 (3). 
2.1.2. The Committee emphasized the following 
points: 
— Technological advance can only succeed in a gener­
ally acceptable social and economic climate. 
— Employers and workers should be involved in an 
appropriate way in the assessment and introduction 
of new technologies. 
— The Council should ask the Commission to adopt 
the concept of a social impact assessment as an 
integral part of the research and development plan­
ned for BRITE and of the assessment of the results 
of programmes carried out. 
— The necessity to involve universities and higher 
educational establishments in the work. 
— The Commission should encourage the involvement 
of SME in the BRITE programme. 
— There should be adequate provision for the utilis­
ation of successful results. 
2.1.3. The Committee comments on some matters 
raised in its earlier Opinion in paragraphs below. 
2.2. Funding 
2.2.1. The Committee considers that a funding of 
about 440 million ECU is adequate to the objectives 
that this programme seeks to achieve, within the limits 
of the framework programme. 
2.2.2. Since the programme will be implemented 
almost entirely through shared-cost contracts, it is a 
total spend of about 800 million ECU which can be 
foreseen if the full 50 % industrial contractual contri­
bution is negotiated. 
(<) OJ No L 238, 4. 9. 1987, p. 2. 
(2) OJ No C 356, 31. 12. 1987, p. 5. 
(3) OJ No L 59, 4. 3. 1988, p. 23. 2.2.3. However the Committee noted that both the 
Management Coordination Advisory Committee 
(CGC) on industrial technology and the CGC on raw 
material and other materials recommended that 
500 million ECU should be made available, but that 
60 million ECU will be allocated to the pilot phase of 
a programme of strategic research and technology in 
the field of aeronautics. 
2.3. The restriction of the programme to precompeti-
tive technology 
2.3.1. The Committee believes that there is an 
element of contradiction in the policy of the Com­
mission and the objectives of this proposal to strengthen 
the competitiveness of industry, especially SME both in 
the Community market and the international market. 
2.3.2. The Committee has some misgivings about the 
restriction of research and technological development to 
precompetitive areas and suggests that the Commission 
undertake a review of its current policy and its defi­
nitions. 
2.3.3. The Committee believes that some worthwhile 
projects may at present be ineligible for funding and 
others may be distorted to fit this current restrictive 
policy. 
2.3.4. The Committee believes that a major objective 
of this programme is to foster international competitive­
ness. It points to recent changes in US legislation in this 
respect and to current policy in Japan. The Committee 
believes that this programme must attract leading indus­
trial participation and to this end the Commission must 
be seen to be acting in the best interests of both industry 
and workers to ensure that legislation is the servant of 
the Community rather than the master. 
2.4. Cohesion 
2.4.1. The Committee considers that the enhance­
ment of cohesion is a very serious objective of this 
proposal. The Commission must take proper account 
of it in selecting projects within the programme. 
2.4.2. The Committee noted that in the evaluation of 
the BRITE I programme the smaller and less developed 
Member States have gained a greater relative share of 
the budget than the larger and more developed Member 
States. 
2.5. Social and economic considerations 
2.5.1. The Committee emphasizes that, to achieve 
the objectives of the programme, science and tech-
No C 56/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 3. 89 
nology must advance in step with social considerations. 
Science and technology required a favourable economic 
and social climate in which to bear fruit. On the other 
hand such a climate could not be created unless the 
results of science and technology were demonstrably 
productive of new products and services which were in 
turn job creative and socially supportive. 
2.5.2. The Committee realized it would be difficult 
to achieve this balance and it urged the Council to ask 
the Commission to give specific and positive attention 
to this problem. 
2.6. Evaluation 
2.6.1. The Committee notes with approval the evalu­
ation of the first BRITE programme (1985-1988) carried 
out by a panel drawn widely from sources independent 
of the Commission in accordance with the Council 
Resolution of 9 December 1986 'concerning a Com­
munity plan of action relating to the evaluation of 
Community research and development'^). 
2.6.2. The Committee urges the Commission to con­
sider evaluation procedures for this proposal coinciden-
tally with the formulation of the projects. It believes 
that projects should be formulated in such way that 
they may be effectively evaluated. 
2.7. European standards 
2.7A. As a subsidiary objective for this proposal the 
Commission hopes that transnational cooperation in 
projects will be a valuable step in the harmonisation of 
manufacturing practices which will in turn encourage 
the quest for standards. It adds that one of the outcomes 
of the BRITE/EURAM programme will hopefully be 
an enriched range of European standards which are 
created by the European Committee for Standardization 
(CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechni-
cal Standardization (Cenelec), under mandate from the 
Commission. 
2.7.2. Although standards are very important in 
Europe and internationally, the Committee cautions 
against accepting this as more than a minor benefit 
from the programme. It refers the Commission to a 
series of Committee's Opinions on 'new approach' 
directives notably construction products, machines and 
personal protective equipment. 
2.7.3. It reminds the Commission that while the Sin­
gle European Act calls for minimum regulatory require­
ments to protect the health and safety of the citizen and other matters, the use of standards remains volun­
tary and a matter of consumer choice unless such stan­
dards are embodied in regulations. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. The criteria for choice and priority for project 
selection and the technical content of the pro­
gramme 
3.1.1. The Committee emphasizes the need to 
achieve the optimum success from this programme in 
terms of satisfaction for the four interested parties: 
— the Community which needs policies leading to 
cohesion, 
— the Member States which demand value for the 
funds expended, 
— the citizens and workers who require results which 
will contribute positively to their health, safety and 
quality life, 
— industry which requires results which can rapidly 
and effectively be developed to their advantage both 
in the internal market and internationally. This 
applies even more to SME than to the multinational 
companies. 
3.1.2. The Committee urges the Commission to exer­
cise choice and priority on these considerations rather 
than on a political basis of spreading the resources 
available over many organizations in all Member States. 
3.1.3. The Committee believes that in the longer 
term the Commission will gain from a concentration 
of resources on a few vital topics. Success in some areas 
will give credence to requests for funding extensions in 
years to come. 
3.1.4. The Committee also suggests that priority be 
given to areas of technology which lack multinational 
organization with considerable R&D facilities and 
depend instead on a multitude of SME often involving 
a considerable work force. 
3.1.5. The programme proposed concentrates on the 
medium-term (5-10 years ahead) goals to increase com-
petitivity of the Community manufacturing industry. 
The Committee is satisfied that the Commission has 
operated a wide and effective process of consultation 
to formulate the technical areas of the programme. 
(') OJNoC2, 6. 1. 1987, p. 1. It endorses the range given in the technical Annex 
(Annex 1 to the proposal). 
6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/17 
3.1.6. The Committee recommends that project 
selection does not exclude in whole or in part tech­
nologies and materials which will be of interest to the 
aviation industry and which were covered in the first 
BRITE and EURAM programmes. 
3.1.6.1. In the Committee's view there is a consider­
able overlap between individual research areas set out 
in the BRITE/EURAM programme and the separate 
aeronautic research programme. 
3.1.6.2. The Committee has been asked for an 
Opinion on both of these programmes and it is issuing 
a separate Opinion on the aeronautic research pro­
gramme. 
3.1.6.3. Given the coordination problems which 
might arise, consideration could also be given to the 
interrelation between two programmes by setting out 
the funds allocated for aeronautic research in the 
BRITE/EURAM programme. 
3.2. Industrial involvement 
3.2.1. The Committee welcomes the emphasis that 
this proposal places on industrial involvement and com­
mitment. It believes that industrial commitment ex­
pressed in terms of resources is essential to success. 
3.2.2. The Committee is convinced that for 
maximum industrial involvement: 
— industry must participate to a greater extent than 
at present in the identification of the industrial and 
technical strategy, in the choice of priority areas 
and in the selection of projects, 
— industry must be convinced that considerations of 
precompetitiveness do not inhibit the value of the 
projects in the international market (2.3 above), 
— contract terms, management and accounting pro­
cedures, utilization terms and the protection of intel­
lectual property must be constantly reviewed in the 
light of feedback from industry. 
3.2.3. The Committee notes that in the shared cost 
contracts the 'Community contribution will not exceed 
50% of total cost, the remainder to be provided by 
industry'. 
3.2.4. However the Committee is confused in 
Annex II between industrial enterprises and research 
organisations. It suggests the Commission should clari­
fy this section of the rules for implementation. 
3.2.5. The Committee notes with satisfaction that 
the Commission has undertaken a horizontal harmon­
ization of its procedures for shared-cost contracts. 3.3. University and higher education establishments 
involvement 
3.3.1. The Committee notes that a majority of the 
delegations to the Management and Coordination 
Advisory Committee (CGC) raw materials and other 
materials recommended that the participation of uni­
versity and higher education establishments in any pro­
ject should be funded up to 100 % of their marginal cost. 
The Committee does not support this recommendation 
unless and until the Commission has undertaken a study 
of the variations in subsidy of such establishments 
between Member States. 
3.3.2. The Committee draws attention to its report 
on the importance of technological research and devel­
opment to small and medium-sized enterprises (!) in 
which the importance of a symbiosis between industry 
and higher education establishments is analysed and 
emphasized. 
The Committee does not find in Annex II, 'Rules for 
the implementation', any mention of the role of univer­
sities and higher education establishments in the shared 
cost programmes. 
3.3.3. It therefore urges that the rules for the 
implementation be clarified in this respect. 
3.4. Involvement of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
laboratories 
3.4.1. The Committee would like to see JRC involve­
ment in this programme to the extent that its skills and 
resources allow. It urges the Commission to seek a 
positive role for the JRC. 
3.5. Information package 
3.5.1. The Committee notes with approval the infor­
mation package for the first call for proposals which 
used in conjunction with the national contact persons 
in each Member State and each country of the European 
Free Trade Association (EFTA) will alert a far wider 
range of potential contractors than the Official Journal 
accomplished in the past. 
3.5.2. The Committee believes nevertheless that 
Member States must assist the Commission in a positive 
way by promoting this programme in their own State, 
especially through the use of national mechanisms in 
place for assisting SME. 
3.6. Rolling programme based on annual calls for pro­
posals 
3.6.1. The Committee recommends that there should 
be an annual procedure for calls for proposals in order 
that a continuous review may result in an updated 
programme. 
(!) Doc. CES of 20 August 1986. 
No C 56/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 3. 89 
3.7. Demonstration projects 
3.7.1. The Committee notes that the panel evaluating 
BRITE I is not convinced that demonstration projects 
are appropriate for the context and aims of this pro­
gramme. 
3.7.2. The Committee considers that in certain con­
texts they may indeed be appropriate and it endorses 
the proposal of the Commission to provide for such 
projects although it urges careful consideration in the 
light of experience. 
3.8. Feasibility awards for SME 
3.8.1. The Committee endorses the introduction of 
a pilot scheme for feasibility awards for SME to assist 
them in a subsequent subcommission of a proposal. 
The Commission will fund up to 75% (maximum 
25 000 ECU) of the cost of research for a period of up 
to 6 months. The scheme will be cofinanced by task 
force SME in the Commission. 
3.8.2. The Committee notes that the Commission 
will shortly publish the details of the practical pro­
cedures it proposes to adopt. 
3.8.3. The Committee: 
— is pleased to note that the Commission is proposing 
a first step under a small business innovation 
research programme for the Community as rec­
ommended in the Committee's information report 
on the importance of technological research and 
development to SME, 
— asks the Commission to establish mechanisms for 
the evaluation and assessment of this programme 
and to keep the Committee informed, 
— asks the Commission to update information on the 
results of the SBIR programme in the USA with a 
view to its relevance to the European Community. 
3.9. Focussed fundamental research (FFR) 
3.9.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal to 
make 20 % of the budget for the materials field equiva­
lent to 7% of the total Commission funding or 
31 million ECU available to strengthen the necessary 
basic science. 
3.9.2. The Committee understands that the Com­
mission would fund 100% of projects by at least two 
transnational organizations with two nominated indi­
viduals from industry involved in steering each project. 3.9.3. The Committee asks that the Commission 
keep a close watch on this scheme with a view to 
extension to other spheres if successful. The Committee 
would wish to be kept informed of progress. 
3.10. Socio-economic impact assessment 
3.10.1. In its Opinion on the proposal to extend the 
BRITE I programme the Committee emphasized the 
vital need for socio-economic considerations to be taken 
into account at all stages of the proposal: 
— at programme formulation, 
— at individual project assessment, 
— at evaluation, and 
— at utilisation planning. 
3.10.2. The Committee refers the Council and the 
Commission to that Opinion and especially to the need 
for a social impact assessment as an integral part of 
the research and development programmes planned for 
BRITE/EURAM. 
3.10.3. The Committee urges the Commission to 
make full use of the Industrial Research and Develop­
ment Advisory Committee (IRDAC) in the necessary 
consultations with the social partners. 
3.11. Management 
3.11.1. The Committee understands that the Com­
mission will be assisted in the implementation of the 
programme by a single CGC, the Management and 
Coordination Advisory Committee on industrial tech­
nology. 
3.11.2. The role of the CGC raw materials and other 
materials will cease. 
3.11.3. The Committee understands that it will be 
necessary to adopt a procedure to vary the composition 
of the single CGC in accordance with the topics to be 
discussed. 
3.11.4. It recommends that the Commission should 
consider ways to introduce more industrial expertise 
and experience to the CGC. 
3.12. Utilisation and dissemination of results 
3.12.1. The Committee feels that the proposal does 
not elaborate provisions to meet the requirement of 
Article 130K of the Single European Act 'to define the 
detailed arrangements for the dissemination of know­
ledge resulting from specific programmes'. 
3.12.2. The Committee would like to hear the Com­
mission proposals and the funding thought necessary to 
6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/19 
discharge its responsibility under the 'Communication 
from the Commission accompanied by a proposal for 
a Council Decision adopting a specific programme for 
the dissemination and utilisation of results from scien­
tific and technological research (1989-1992) (COM(88) 
260 final). 
3.12.3. The Committee draws attention to the satis­
factory way in which the results of work on magnets 
under the first EURAM programme was disseminated 
and utilized. 
3.13. Transmission to the ESC of the progress report 
and evaluation report mentioned in article 4 of 
the programme proposal 
3.13.1. The Commission proposal for Council 
Decision has regard to the opinion of the Economic 
and Social Committee. 
Done at Brussels, 14 December 1988. 3.13.2. The Committee considers it both reasonable 
and sensible that this regard should continue for the 
life of the programme. 
3.13.3. Therefore, Article 4 should be amended to 
provide for the forwarding also to the Economic and 
Social Committee of the progress report referred to in 
Article 4(1), on the results of the review of the progress 
together, if necessary, with any proposal for modifi­
cation or prolongation. 
3.13.4. The forwarding of this progress report is 
regarded as essential since the Committee shall be 
requested to give an Opinion under article 130Q(2) of 
the EEC Treaty, on any proposal for modification or 
prolongation on the programme. 
3.13.5. Similarly in Article 4 (2) it is considered 
equally illogical that the Commission shall not be 
required to forward to the Committee the evaluation 
of the results of a programme on which the Committee 
has given an Opinion. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE