EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23/05/2008 
SEC(2008)1911 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
    
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE CO UNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
  
BETTER CAREERS AND MO RE MOBILITY: A EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR 
RESEARCHERS 
    
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
  
 
{COM(2008)317 final} 
{SEC(2008)1912} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 
1.1 Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Consultation of stakeholders and experts..................................................................... 4 1.3 Improvements in response to the Impact Assessment Board Recommendations........ 6 2 PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................... 8 2.1 Europe's human potential in science and technology................................................... 8 2.2 Europe's researchers..................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Conclusion: Europe has excellent human potential  
but does not efficiently employ it............................................................................... 14 
2.4 Existing policy initiatives  addressing researchers at the Community level............... 15 
2.5 Why a new EU policy momentum is needed............................................................. 18 3 OBJECTIVES THAT THE PROPOSAL  IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE ............... 22 
3.1 General objectives...................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Specific Objectives..................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Operational objectives................................................................................................ 22 4 MAIN POLICY OPTIONS and DELIVERY MECHANISMS ................................ 24 4.1 The policy response and the early discarde d options................................................. 24 
4.2 Policy Option 1. No policy change scenario.............................................................. 25 4.3 Policy Option 2: A Recommendation and more specific EU guidelines in the 
identified problem areas............................................................................................. 26 
4.4 Policy Option 3: A Communication and a partnership with Member States............. 26 
5 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS........................................................................................ 30 5.1 Policy Option 1: No policy change scenario.............................................................. 30 5.2 Policy Option 2: A Recommendation with more specific EU guidelines in the 
identified problem areas............................................................................................. 32 
5.3 Policy Option 3: A Communication and a Partnership with Member States............. 34 
5.4 Comparison of the policy options vers us the no policy change scenario .................. 37 
6 EU VALUE-ADDED AND SUBSIDIARITY .......................................................... 39 7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 41 
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................... 43 
EN 3   EN 9 TABLE OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... 45 
Annex 1: Highlights from the Public Cons ultation following the ERA Green Paper.............. 47 
Annex 2: Data and figures...................................................................................................... .. 56 
Annex 3: Highlights from the EG Report on Rea lising a single labour market for workers... 60 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF INTERESTED  PARTIES 
1.1. Organisation and timing 
This Impact Assessment accompanies the Communication: “Better careers and more 
mobility: A European partnership for researchers” , one of the five policy initiatives 
(catalogue 2008/RTD/033) planned by the Co mmission in 2008 to follow up on the Green 
Paper “The European Research Area: New Pe rspectives” (COM (2007) 161). A roadmap has 
been prepared and published in Agenda Pla nning. A consultation with other Directorate-
Generals has been carried out through an in ter-service group com posed of BEPA, BUDG, 
CCR, COMP, EAC, ECFIN, EMPL, ELARG, ENTR, ENV, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, the Secretariat-General, DG TRAD E and DG TREN. The group was set up in 
December 2007, has met twice and has been invite d to provide specific contributions during 
the course of the elaboration of the impact assessment. Most  comments have been taken into 
account.  
1.2. Consultation of stakeholders and experts  
The publication of the Green Paper by th e European Commission launched a broad 
institutional and public debate on  possible actions to give rene wed impetus to the realisation 
of an open, competitive and attractive European Research Area. 685 (211 coming from organisations) replies were received to an on-line questionnaire from 1st May 2007 until 31st 
August 2007. In addition, 145 free-format contribu tions (position papers, opinions, etc.), 
mainly coming from Member States (mostly from Ministries in charge of Research) and organisations, were received by 31 December 2007.  
The results of the consultation
1 highlight strong support for all ERA axes presented in the 
Green paper. Concerning the level of exp ected actions (EU, national or regional), “Realising 
a single labour market for researchers” is the top area of expected ac tion at the EU level . 
Respondents opt for flexible and adaptable,  bottom-up cooperation schemes, networking, 
voluntary frameworks, best practices and guide lines. There is genera lly little demand for 
binding legislative actions  at European level. 
According to Business Europe, which includes th e European Industrial Research Management 
Association, “ …priorities for the ERA should be expre ssed in terms of ensuring adequate 
numbers of people, trained to be skilled in the knowledge econom y and understanding the 
value and application of research in achiev ing these skills and in meeting social and 
economic objectives...  ” 
Less than half of the on-line respondents decl are that they are sufficiently aware of the 
Commission Recommendation on a European Charter for Researchers and the Code of 
Conduct for their Recruitment. They suggest that progress shou ld be speeded up, although 
they recognise that the great diversity of re search patterns throughout Europe requires 
a degree of flexibility when implementing the C&C principles . A large proportion of 
respondents suggest that a “C&C label”  awarded to employers and funders applying the 
principles would be preferable to more bindi ng regulation in this area to help speed up the 
implementation of the C&C.  
                                                 
1 SEC(2008)430, 2.4.2008, see also http://ec.eur opa.eu/research/era/progress-on-debate/stakeholder-
consultation_en.html  
EN 5   EN Concerning social security coordination , respondents perceive cl aiming social security 
rights in another Member State to be diffi cult and time-consuming, despite coordination 
regulations across the EU2 which aims to ensure that the application of the different national 
legislations does not adversely affect mobile  workers. The majority of respondents (74.6%) 
had a mobility experience, but most of them di d not spend more than three months in doing 
research in another EU country . Only 6.8% out of the responde nts used the Article 17 of 
Regulation 1408/713, granting exceptions to the rules, and more than two thirds used this 
possibility for 1 to 3 times. The bilateral ag reements on social secu rity coordination, signed 
between different countries, are still unknown. A ccording to the respondents, the lack of 
information on existing EU rules concerning the coordination of social security systems 
reduces the share of researcher s who can benefit from them.  
Concerning supplementary pension rights , a large majority (80%) of the on-line 
respondents favour common rules throughout the EU  on the acquisition, preservation and 
transferability of such rights. Main issues include the need to ensure a proper pension, to 
reduce the paperwork involved and to organise portability of supplementary pension rights. 
Vesting periods and negative effects on pension be nefits should be reduced and compensation 
in salary for pension gaps is proposed as a so lution. Over 65% agree that  researchers would be 
well served with a European researchers' pension fund  to secure their supplementary 
pension rights.  
Three quarters of the on-line re spondents consider that the lack of information on careers in 
research  is a major barrier towards greater up-take. However, the majority of those who 
consider having enough information do not find careers attractive and competitive with other 
options. Just over two thirds of respondents consider that greater use of end of career 
researchers for mentoring and advisory functions c ould be facilitated through the provision 
of new job opportunities/incentive s targeted at this group. Ho wever, less than half are 
supportive of legal changes enab ling later retirement. Some respondents are concerned that 
retaining end of career researchers could impede the creation of positions for younger 
researchers.  
Working conditions enabling a better work/life balance a re considered important for 
increasing the attraction and retenti on of women in research careers  by a large number of 
the respondents (88%). As to the idea of  benchmarking recruitment and funding of 
researchers at institutional level, the results are less clear with nearly half agreeing this can 
have positive effects, one third disagreeing and 20% of respondents st ating they have no 
opinion. The share of those that disagree is higher among men (38%) than among women 
(25%).  
                                                 
2 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the appli cation of social security schemes to employed 
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 
L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 392, 30.12.2006, p. 1), and the Regulation (EEC) 574/72 (OJ L 74, 
27.3.1972, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 311/2007 (OJ L 82, 23.3.2007, p. 6).. They will be replaced by Regulation 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the 
Council of 29.4.2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166 of 30.4.2004 and the draft 
new Implementing Regulation, once the latter is adopted by Parliament and Council 
3 It states that “two or more States…may by comm on agreement provide for exceptions to the provisions 
of article 13 to 16 in the interest of certain categor ies of persons or a certain person.” In this sense , the 
Recommendation of the Administrative Commission for Social Security for Migrant Workers  
n°16/1984 recommends the conclusion of agreements pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation 1408/71  
applicable to employed persons with special knowledge and skills 
EN 6   EN As part of the ERA Green Paper consultation pr ocess, seven independent  Expert Groups were 
set up to identify policy options addressing re search issues requiring new or improved 
initiatives. In its report4 the Expert Group "Realising a Singl e Labour Market for Researchers” 
puts forward policy options (see Annex 3) relatin g to the following four "cornerstones" which 
the group identified to  develop the ERA: 
• "Attraction, ethical recruitment  and retention of researchers "; 
• "Mobility in all its facets  (geographical, sector, disc iplinary and 'demographic')"; 
• "Researcher-friendly social security and supplementary pension systems" ; 
• "The European Charter for researchers a nd Code of Conduct for their recruitment 
as a dynamic process" . 
Other ERA Expert Groups also highlighted the need to enhance human resources policies, in 
particular by removing obstacles to inter-sectoral  mobility, fostering institutional autonomy in 
recruitment, compensation and promotion mech anism, and developing training on knowledge 
exploitation and other tr ansferable skills.  
The proposed initiative on resear chers has also been presented at a dedicated meeting with 
Member State representatives, organised in Brussels on18 March 2008. The meeting revealed 
an overall positive attitude. The only critical rema rks addressed the initial title of the initiative 
(“Passport”) and the possibility of legislative action on social  security and supplementary 
pension rights. 
1.3. Improvements in response to the Impact  Assessment Board Recommendations  
The revised IA report includes, in particular, a more systematic  and detailed analysis of the 
problems, clarification of the objectives, more detailed presentation of the baseline scenario, 
revision of the options considered  and identification and justifi cation of the options discarded, 
inclusion of administrative costs and impact on third countries.  
It clarifies from the beginning that the  focus is on both researchers’ mobility and careers  
and this is also reflected in the revised title . The revised IA explains  more clearly the links 
with the Lisbon process, in particular re garding the preferred option, clarifies the 
responsibilities of the Member States and pres ents the added value of the EU action. A table 
summarising the main impacts of the thre e options has been included in section 5.4. 
Additional  quantitative information has been added to the problem definition and the 
qualitative analysis has b een further developed. Some comparative data is now included on 
the differences between the situation in the diffe rent Member States. However, while there is 
a considerable amount of data available on rese archers and their situation from a number of 
different sources, information is by no means comprehensive and presents the usual problems 
of comparability between different data sets . Calls for tender to be launched in 2009 will 
support the implementation of th e initiative by collecting info rmation on the situation and 
policies in the Member States and their evol ution and impact over time using a set of 
indicators to be agreed with the Member Stat es as one of the first steps implementing the 
partnership.  
And although some of the key objectives have been described in quantitative terms (e.g.  
number of additional researchers needed), it would be very difficult, given the complexity of 
                                                 
4 The views expressed in the published Expert Group report are the sole responsibility of the author and 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission 
EN 7   EN the issues and the proposed implementation mech anism, to quantify with a reasonable degree 
of confidence, some of the expected impacts e .g. the exact numbers of researchers across the 
EU that could become mobile between different sectors.  
Finally, additional material has been added to the problem definition in response to the 
Board's specific recommendation to strengthen the arguments for EU intervention including 
on the issues of gender balance a nd salaries. This clarifies the n eed to provide more attractive 
employment and working conditio ns for all researchers through a series of measures at 
Community, national and institutional levels. 
EN 8   EN 2. PROBLEM  DEFINITION 
2.1. Europe's human potential in science and technology 
New technologies are develope d and applied increasingly quic kly and the renewal of the 
research workforce is crucial to manage these rapid changes in science and technology. 
Human capital in science and technology can be created domes tically, or attracted from 
abroad.  
2.1.1.  EU produces more science and engineering graduates and doctorates than US and 
Japan but is being rapidly caught up by India and China 
The supply of human resources for research is best reflected in the number of new university 
graduates. In the EU27, the total number of gra duates from all fields of  education amounted to 
3.57 million in 2004. Of these 820,000 graduated in maths, science and technology (MST) subjects. This is almost twice the number of  MST graduates produced by the US and almost 
four times as many as Japan. However adjust ed for population size  the numbers of MST 
graduates produced are roughly similar. The EU27 has 12.4 graduates in MST subjects per 
1,000 of the population aged 20 to 29 compared to 10.2 in the US and 13.4 in Japan (EC 2007a). 
And in terms of absolute numbers  of MST graduates it is proba bly India and Ch ina that lead 
globally. Full statistics are not ava ilable and there are problems of data comparability but it is 
estimated that India produces 2.5  million new graduates in scie nce, engineering and IT every 
year while China produces around 1.5 million (EC 2007a). 
Within the EU, Sweden, France and Ireland genera te the highest shares of S&E graduates, 
with around one-third of all de grees being awarded in these ar eas against an EU average of 
around one-quarter. However, since 1998 the share of S&E degrees has d eclined or stagnated 
in 19 of the 27 Member States. Only Spai n, Sweden, Slovakia and Finland saw steady 
increases, with high rates of growth in Malta and Estonia largely reflecting the small size of 
their graduate populations (EC 2007b). 
According to NSF data
5, 41,100 S&E6 doctoral degrees were awarded in the EU7, compared 
to 18,800 in the US, 13,500 in China, 7,100 in Japan and 6,300 in India. Over 1997-2004, the number of S&E doctoral degrees slightly de creased in the US, from 19,600 to 18,800 (-0.6% 
per year) and strongly increased in China, from 5,000 to 13,500 (+15.4% per year). It increased as well but to a lesse r extent in India, from 4,800 to 6,300 (+4.8% per year) and in 
Japan, from 5,800 to 7,100 in Japan (+3% per year). 
In the EU-27, the number of S&E doctoral degr ees increased on average by 3% per year over 
1998-2005 (from 33,200 to 40,900)
8 (EC 2007d). In science, mathematics and computing, the 
                                                 
5 National Science Board, S&E Indicators 2008 , volume 2. Calculations have been based on Appendix 
table 2-40. Data refer to 2004 except for India (2003) 
6 S&E are defined as the aggregation of the fields “Physical/biological sciences ”, “Mathematics/computer 
sciences” (not available for China, India and Ja pan), “Agricultural sciences” and “Engineering” 
7 Data for Cyprus and Malta are missing 
8 It is less than the growth observed for all tert iary degrees (calculations based on Eurostat data) 
EN 9   EN number of doctoral degrees increased by 2.7%  per year on average. In engineering, 
manufacturing and construction, the increase was one of 3.8% per year. 
Within EU, the share of doctoral degrees in sc ience and engineering in  the total number of 
doctoral degrees was the highest in Greece (62 %), Cyprus (60%), Ireland (57%), France 
(56%), Latvia (52%), Czech Republic (52%) and Belgium (51%) in 2005, all the other Member States being below 50% (European Commission 2007d). 
2.1.2.  EU and US attract significant numbers of st udents from rest of the world but from 
different sources and in diffe rent disciplines, with a significant net outflow from 
EU to US 
In 2004, the EU27 hosted around 610,000 non-EU students in tertiary education mostly from 
Asia (50%), Africa (35%) and the rest of Eu rope. A similar number of EU students (560,000) 
were studying in another EU Member State in  2004. In the same year, the US hosted 586,000 
non-US students nearly two-thirds of which we re from Asia (62.5%), especially China, 
Taiwan, India and South Korea. But Europe  (13.8%), Canada (10.2%) and South America 
(6.1%) also provided significan t numbers (EC 2007a). There are much smaller outflows of 
students from the EU and the US making these re gions substantial net recipients of foreign 
students overall. However, student s going to the US, Canada and to a lesser extent Australia 
form a significant outward stream from the EU which is not balanced by similar numbers of 
students from these countries coming to the EU (EC 2003). 
Within the EU, after Cyprus, wh ere 32% of students in  tertiary education were foreign, the 
UK has the highest proportion of  foreign students enrolled (16.2 %) with Germany and Austria 
the only other Member States above 10%. Es tonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and 
Slovakia had very low shares of foreign students participating in tertiary education. Shares 
were also low in Greece, Sp ain, Italy, Latvia and Finl and (2007b). The source of these 
students varies considerably. Mo st originate from other EU Me mber States, but apart from 
these, students from Asia and Oceania repres ent the largest shares in UK and Germany. 
Africans are strongly represented in Belgium, France and The Netherlands, while in Spain the 
largest group comes from Latin Am erica. Overall the fi ve largest groups of foreign students in 
the EU are Greeks in the UK, Turks in Ge rmany and Moroccans in France followed by 
French (mainly in UK and Belgium) and Ge rman (mainly in UK and France) students 
studying in other EU Member States (EC 2003)
9. 
It is significant that in the US a much larger share of foreign students are enrolled in science, 
mathematics and computing, engineer ing, manufacturing and construction  disciplines than the 
EU (37% versus 22%). This proportion also vari es widely between Member States within the 
EU, with for example, 39% of S&E PhDs bei ng earned by foreign students in the UK, 27% in 
France and 14% in Germany (EC 2007a). 
2.2. Europe's researchers 
Researchers are defined, according to the intern ationally recognised reference of the Frascati 
manual (OECD 2002), as professionals engage d in the conception and creation of new 
knowledge, products, processes, methods and syst ems and also in the management of the 
projects concerned. In 2005, the EU-27 currentl y had the equivalent of 1.3 million FTE (full-
                                                 
9 These results are based on 1999 data. Recent results on  the origin of doctoral candidates in the EU can 
be found in European Commission (2007d) 
EN 10   EN time equivalent) researchers, corresponding to approximately 1.8 million people with research 
as their main activity. Of these, around half work for the business en terprise sector (610,000) 
with the rest split between the higher e ducation sector (454,000), government research 
institutions (172,000) and the private non-profit sector (13,000) (EC 2007b).  
The term "researcher" covers many different ro les and activities. From  university academics 
and scientists engaged in long-te rm basic research at large rese arch infrastructures to more 
mission-orientated researchers at government labs, from corporate employees engaged in 
market-orientated development work to the st aff of high-tech SMEs that may be engaged 
mainly in technology transfer or  product and process innovation. 
In terms of the absolute number  of FTE researchers, the EU closely follows the US (1.4m), 
followed by China (1.1m) and Japan (705,000) (EC 2007d). 
2.2.1.  EU has far smaller proportion of research ers in the labour force than US and 
Japan primarily due to the lower sh are of business-based researchers 
The key difference between the EU and its main competitors is that Europe counts far fewer 
researchers per 1,000 labour force (5.5) than either  the US (9.1) or Japan (10.1). This largely 
reflects Europe's lower overall R&D intensity (d omestic spending on resear ch as a percentage 
of GDP) which stands at 1.93 as against 2.59 in th e US and 3.15 in Japan, and in particular the 
respective levels of business R&D intensity. In 2004, the private sector fi nanced 64% of total 
R&D in the US, 67% in China, 75% in both Ja pan and South Korea, but only 55% in the EU. 
Consequently, the share of business-based re searchers differs widely between the EU27 
(48%) and the US (79%), with Japan ( 68%) and China (62%) in between (EC 2007b). 
Within the EU not surprisingl y, the countries with  the highest R&D intensities, Finland 
(3.49%) and Sweden (4.27%), also have the hi ghest numbers of rese archers per 1,000 workers 
(16.2 and 10.1 respectively) with Luxembourg,  Denmark, Belgium, France and Germany all 
above 6. Whereas the low R&D intensive countries  such as the new Member States and the 
southern European countries have much smalle r proportions of resear chers with Slovakia, 
Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Greece and The Czech Republic all below 4, and Latvia, Italy and 
Cyprus below 3 (EC 2007b). 
In some Member States there ar e even significant le vels of unemployment  among those with a 
tertiary education in an S&T discipline. In  2004, Romania had 11% unemployment in this 
group, with Spain and Greece having 7%. Lithuani a, France, Poland, Bulgaria and Estonia all 
had unemployment levels above 5% against an EU- 25 average of 3%. Austria, Hungary and 
The Czech Republic had the least unemployment amongst th is group at around 1% (EC 
2006c). 
But it is important to understand that the dire ction of causation behind these figures is not 
one-way. Surveys suggest that when investi ng in R&D, business primarily looks for: 
favourable framework conditions for the commercia lisation of technolog ies; large potential 
markets; adequate numbers of well-trained and mobile researchers, responsive to the needs of 
industry; and an excellent public research base (research institutions and infrastructures) with 
strong interactions with indus try (Thursby M. and J. 2006). 
So the links between an excellent public rese arch base and business are therefore vital. 
Increasingly, businesses thrive in an envir onment of 'open innovation' – where connections 
with each other and with public research ins titutions are used to explore ideas and develop 
products more effectively that  would be the case alone.  
EN 11   EN 2.2.2.  Many of Europe's universities and public research institutions need reform to 
allow them to compete in the international labour market 
Member States value their universities and resear ch institutions highly and many have tried to 
“preserve” them at national level through deta iled regulations organising them, controlling 
them, micromanaging them and, in the end, im posing an undesirable degree of uniformity on 
them10. 
This pressure for uniformity has led to gene rally good average performa nce, but means that 
there are relatively few outstanding world class inst itutions in the EU. This can be seen in a 
number of global university ra nkings where US universities heavily dominate the top 100 
with Europe gradually catching up as the samp le gets larger and finally overtaking the US 
only in the top 500 (EC 2007a). If we look instead to bibliometric data, the EU share of the 
top 10 % most cited scientific publications of the world is 3 7.5 % against a US share of 48.9 
%, while in the total number of publications, EU has a bigger share than the US. Only 8 of the 
76 universities in the world with  an average impact score of their publications higher than 1.5 
are located in the EU versus 67 in the US (EC 2007a). 
The performance of particular inst itutions is clearly related to th e quality of their staff but also 
to how they are managed. Unfortunately, in ma ny European countries th e public sector still 
does not offer sufficiently attractive career pr ospects. Academic positions remain largely 
filled by national or even, in many cases, internal staff. Advancement based on seniority rather than performance means it can take many y ears before talented re searchers are able to 
become independent scientists in their own ri ght. Many researchers are trained in a traditional 
academic way which does not equip them for the needs of industry. Mobility between institutions, between academia and industry or  across borders is difficult and tends to be 
penalised rather than rewarded. 
Europe's universities and research institutions would in particular benefit from a greater focus 
on performance management and the need for e nhanced autonomy especi ally in respect to 
hiring. At present, rigid comp ensation and promotion structur es often make it difficult for 
universities to compete in an international a cademic market. The key issue is not the total 
budget spent on salaries and compensations (although in some countries this is an important 
constraint), but how they are allocated; in  particular, how academic performance is 
rewarded
11. 
Evidence for these rigidities is that in most of  Europe we see a two-tier workforce with short-
term contracts and low salaries often the rule for young researchers contrasting with little job 
to job mobility by senior researchers on permanent contracts. In almost all Member States the 
25-34 year old age group is most likely to have  moved from one job to another in any given 
year. But the differences are considerable. For example, amongst those having moved job in Portugal in 2004, 71% were in th e 25-34 year old age group (as against 19% and 11% in the 
35-44 year-old and 45-64 year-old age groups)
12. In Denmark by contrast the proportion was 
                                                 
10 "Delivering on the modernisation agenda for uni versities: education, research and innovation" 
COM(2006) 208, 10.5.2006 
11 "Strengthening research institutions with a focus on university based research" Report of the ERA 
Expert Group, January 2008 
12 These data refer to Human Resources for Science and Technology (HRST) at  a whole (see Annex 2). 
They measure job-to-job mobility, within a one-year pe riod, and do not include inflows into the labour 
market from unemployment or inactivity 
EN 12   EN 35% in the 25-34 year old age group (against  36% and 29% in the 35-44 year-old and 45-64 
year-old age groups). Overall as a proportion of  the total employed in an S&T occupation the 
highest job to job mobility is in the UK ( 9.5%), Denmark (9.4%) and Finland (8.9%). The 
proportion in Germany (5.1%) is less than the EU average of 5.5% and the lowest proportion 
of job to job mobility is found in Sweden with less than 2.8% (EC 2006c). The insecurity and 
lack of independence associated with being an early stage researcher in many European 
countries is a significant  disincentive to those considering wh ether to enter a research career. 
These rigidities are also evident in the percen tage of academic staff recruited by the same 
institution where they did their PhD. The percentage is genera lly higher in small countries 
with fewer research institutions such as Be lgium, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden (between 40 
and 63 per cent), but not in Switzerland (24%). The percentage is generally smaller in large countries like Germany (40%), Italy (24%) a nd the UK (8%), but not Spain (69%) (Bruegel 
2007)
13. 
This widespread practice of internal recruitment is a significant disincentive to many of those 
considering whether to enter a research car eer. It is also likel y to have important 
consequences for research performance as re searchers are a relatively small and highly 
specialised workforce so it will not always be possible to find the best  qualified individual for 
a given research position with in any single national system, let alone within a single 
institution. Researchers appointed  from outside are also more likely to use links with other 
educational, scientific and societal instituti ons and tend to be meas urably more creative, 
proactive, dynamic, independent an d original (Horta et al 2007 ). 
2.2.3.  EU will need many more researchers in fu ture to meet the Lisbon objectives and 
counter the effects of an ageing workforce and the rising international competition  
Following decisions by the 2006 Spring European Council, Member States have set targets 
and taken steps to increase investments in research and development. The Commission 
estimated that reaching the objective of investing an average of 3% of GDP in research set by 
the Barcelona European Council14 would create between 600,000 and 700,000 additional 
research positions in Europe by 201015. 
At the same time, in the cont ext of the ageing of the overall European population, the ageing 
of the research labour force is becoming a con cern in many Member States. In the EU-27 as a 
whole about 35% of highly qualified S&T work ers were in the 45-64 year-old age group in 
2006, compared to 31% in the 25-34 age group. But in Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Finland more than 40% of  the highly qualified S&T work force is aged between 45 and 
64, while the 25-34 year-old age group represents  only about 25% (only slightly over 20% in 
Germany) (EC 2007b). This situa tion will be exacerba ted if young people are not attracted 
into the profession and if the present und er-representation of wo men in science and 
engineering is not addressed. Gender differentials in salaries in some countries reach 35% and 
equal opportunities still represent a challenge in many doma ins. Women hold less than 15% 
of the full professorships in Europe (EC 2006a) even though more than half of the European 
student population is female. 
                                                
 
13 These data come from a questionnaire-based survey of 66 “top” universities in 10 countries. The 
percentages given are the “percentages of faculty trained in-house at PhD level” 
14 Presidency Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 15-16 March 2002 
15 COM (2003) 226 final of 30.04.2003 
EN 13   EN A third pressure comes from the rising internatio nal competition for the best talents. We have 
already noted the net outflow of EU students to the US above and this advantage is retained in 
terms of researchers. In 2004, 25% of the 400,000 foreign science and engineering workers in 
the US came from the EU, mostly from Ge rmany, UK, Italy, France and Greece (the large 
majority came from Asia) (EC 2007a).16 We can also see that fore igners are filling the highest 
positions in the US system. If we take just  one example, only 25% of the 112 assistant 
professors in the top 10 US university econom ics departments had received their Bachelors 
degrees in the US (Oswald and Ralsmark, 2008). So, while the proportion of EU researchers 
in the US amounts to less than 10% of the tota l EU researchers' populat ion, these are likely to 
be top performers in their fields. 
Figures for the number of foreign researchers working in the EU27 are more limited but are 
likely to be considerably lowe r recognising the lower numbers of suitably skilled foreign 
students that enter the EU in the first place and the more limited opportunities on offer in Europe. One indication is that  in 2001, the EU-15 hosted 28.4%
17 of the total highly skilled 
expatriates in the OECD area w ith many of these being internal  transfers within the EU-15. 
The figure for the US on the other hand was 42.5% (EC 2007a). This ability of the US system to draw more readily upon the glob al talent pool for researchers must at least partly help to 
explain the clear lead which the US enjoys over the EU in term s of the very best research. 
Historically countries like In dia and China have seen large net outflows of students and 
researchers to other world regions  but the scale and sp eed of their development mean that this 
cannot be taken for granted in fu ture. For example, if current trends persist China will have 
caught up with EU in terms of R&D intensity by next year a nd in terms of the absolute 
number of researchers China has already overtaken Japan (EC 2007a). A recent study has 
shown that the average salary (adjusted for purchasing power) for EU researchers is already below average salaries in the US, Japan and Au stralia but also India (EC 2007c). In future 
therefore there is likely to be  decreasing outflow of researcher s and students from some of the 
major emerging economies to the EU and elsewher e, a diversion to t hose emerging economies 
of researchers and students from other third coun tries that would previously have come to the 
EU, and an increasing outf low of EU researchers to those emerging economies. 
2.2.4.  Researchers' mobility 
Addressing remaining structural, institutional, national and cultural barriers to mobility of 
researchers, could: enhance the diffusion of knowledge throughout Europe, dynamically 
balance demand and supply at European level for a highly skilled and specialised workforce; facilitate the creation of comp etitive poles of excellence and pool s of talent; and enhance the 
qualifications and experience of researchers in Europe. 
Researchers face many of the same barriers to mobility as other workers. These can range 
from legal and administrative obstacles, hous ing costs and availability, employment of 
spouses and partners, portability of pensions, linguistic barriers, and issues on the acceptance 
of qualifications in other Member States. 
                                                
 
16 However, it seems that “Europe accounts for a decreas ing share of a growing total. In 2004, 25% of the 
nearly 400 000 foreign S&E workers in the US came from the EU-25, compared to 29% of the roughly 
300 000 foreign S&E workers in the US in 1998.” (EC 2007a, p. 20). 
17 and the EU-19 29.6% 
EN 14   EN However, researchers are relatively speaking mo re mobile between different Member States 
than other workers. Compared to the 2% of  working age citizens and the 3% of highly 
qualified workers that currently live and work in another Member State, 6% of doctoral 
candidates and 12% of post docs have wo rked in another country (EC 2007d). 
But mirroring the situation at national level, these numbers largely reflect researchers moving 
between short-term contracts in the early stages  of their careers. After 5 years of university 
education, a typical researcher might spend 3 to 4 years as a doctorate candidate, then accept 
2 or 3 post-doc positions, with average duration of 2 years, and then expect an open-ended 
employment contract. As such, the present situat ion could be described as one of "early-stage 
mobility" followed by rela tive immobility as researchers find  permanent positions which they 
are then very unlikely to leave for a temporary opportunity elsewhere. Th e ideal situation would 
see researchers able to find opport unities to move at all stages of their career and for institutions 
to be able to appoint the best researcher  for the job regardless of their origin.  
This high relative rate of mobility of resear chers in the early stages can present its own 
problems. The European dimension of social security  is subject to Community legislation 
which coordinates the different social security schemes and as such aims to ensure that the 
application of the different nati onal legislations does not adversel y affect mobile workers. But 
as highlighted in the recent EU Job Mobility Action Plan, new forms of mobility can make the 
application of current regulati ons problematic. Since researchers are among the most mobile 
categories of workers and can often hold a series  of short-term contracts during their careers 
they are particularly likely to be confronted with such difficulties. 
Another particular problem for researchers is the fact that national administrations do not 
usually allow research grants to  be carried across borders. To date, almost all project funding, 
usually given in the form of multi-annual subv entions for personnel costs, research costs, 
equipment and travel, has to be executed at an institution within the country of the funding 
organisation. Recipients are as a rule not allowed carrying such  grants over national borders, 
even if trans-national relocation would be be neficial for the resu lts of the project. 
In its December 2007 paper on the strategic orientation for the EU 's Lisbon Strategy 2008-
2010, the Commission set out its vision of seeking to bring about a major increase in mobility, 
notably for students but also mo re broadly. There are important links to Erasmus and Erasmus 
Mundus programmes which support academic m obility both within Europe and globally. 
A broad EU strategy to ensure that the EU has high quality skilled human resources in 
sufficient numbers to meet its ambitions to  be a world leader in the knowledge economy, 
cannot but give a prominent plac e to the "skills agenda". The forthcoming EU initiative on 
"New Skills for New Jobs" will make proposals to address skills gaps and for forecasting and assessment of future skills and jobs needs.  
2.3. Conclusion: Europe has excellent human  potential but does not efficiently 
employ it 
In summary, many Member Stat es do not efficiently employ th eir excellent human potential 
and at the same time other regions of the EU  are already experiencing bottlenecks which are 
only likely to get worse in future and form a major impediment to the achievement of the 
Lisbon goals.  
From the analysis it is possible to identify two outstanding features of the European research 
landscape which lead to this outcome. 
EN 15   EN Firstly, many parts of the public sector research  base do not offer attr active employment and 
working conditions, practice fully open recruitm ent or provide the right training, skills and 
experience for researchers. In consequence th e EU does not succeed in retaining its best 
researchers or attracting the best researchers from third countries which impacts directly on 
the excellence of the public research base. Thes e problems also contribut e to the fact that 
there are insufficient levels of mobility between institutions, sectors an d countries to rectify 
some of the current systemic imbalances. 
The second major systemic weakness is the re latively low business R&D intensity in many 
parts of Europe. This provides far fewer opportun ities for researchers in the private sector 
than in comparable economies. There are many causes for this low intensity but weaknesses in the public resear ch base are a major contributing factor  as industry needs a sufficient flow 
of well trained researchers and tends to locate its re search centres close to the best public 
centres.
 Strong academic research is also a stimulus for business R&D in other ways. 
Universities generate new ideas which are th en transferred to the private sector The 
transformation of these ideas in to products or processes requi res further applied research 
activity and development and un iversities often ther efore form the nucleus of industrial 
clusters. 
2.4. Existing policy initiatives addressing researchers at the Community level 
The need for adequate human resources for R&D has been identified as a key challenge18 
since the launch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2000. 
Article 165 of the Treaty states that the Comm unity and the Member St ates shall coordinate 
their research and technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Community policy are consistent and, in cl ose cooperation with the Member States the 
Commission may take any useful initiative to pr omote this coordination. Article 163 (d) states 
that, complementing the activities of the Me mber States, the Commission shall carry out 
activities to stimulate the training and mobility of researchers in the Community. 
The Commission's policy initiatives and actions to  define and promote a European agenda to 
address issues of common interest related to researchers have devel oped along two separate 
streams, one focusing on mobility and the othe r one on careers. Both areas are now widely 
recognised as important for improving the pe rformance of national and European research 
systems and also as being complementary. 
In 2001, work started on mobility with the Communication “A mobility strategy for the 
European Research Area”
19, which defined a set of objectives and measures aimed at 
creating a more favourable environment for the mobility of researchers in the ERA, with a 
view to attracting and keeping young talents and promoting innovation. The need for the 
strategy was endorsed by a Council resolution20 and implementation was taken up by a 
dedicated Steering Group on Human Resources a nd Mobility composed of Member States 
representatives. 
A range of measures was put in place at EU level aimed at broadeni ng and strengthening the 
support for researchers. Funding from the Res earch Framework Programme was allocated to 
                                                 
18 Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 23-24 March 2000 
19 COM (2001) 331 final of 20.06.2001 
20 2001/C 367/01 of 21.12.2001 
EN 16   EN various types of mobility grants and initiatives  launched to provide information and assistance 
to potentially mobile researchers at Europe an and national levels and to create more 
favourable legal and administrative environment to  facilitate the entry and stay of foreign 
scientists. 
In 2003, the Communication “Researchers in the Europe an Research Area: one 
profession, multiple careers”21 marked the first step to ad dress the attractiveness of the 
research career with the aim of promoting the emergence of a genuine labour market for researchers in Europe. The Communicati on was endorsed by a Council resolution
22 and 
contributed to enhance awareness among policy makers, public employers and funders of the 
importance of the issues and th e various dimensions involved.  
Going one step further, in 2005, th e European Commission adopted a Recommendation on 
the European Charter for Researchers and a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of 
Researchers (C&C).  These documents set out a volun tary framework of principles, 
addressed to researchers as we ll as to employers and funders, in both the public  and private 
sectors, with the aim of prom oting the same rights and obligations wherever researchers may 
work in Europe.  The European Charter incl udes a set of general prin ciples and requirements 
related to the management of research a nd the conduct researchers (Research Freedom, 
Ethical principles, Professional responsibility and attitude, Contractual and legal obligations, Accountability, Good practice in research, Disse mination and exploitation of results, Public 
engagement, Relation with supervisors, Supe rvision and managerial duties, Continuing 
professional development).  
The Charter also covers general principles and requirements for employers and funders of 
researchers: recognition of the profession; working conditions; gender balance; career development; value of mobility; access to research training and continuous development; and recruitment.  
The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Res earchers defines more precise principles and 
requirements that should be followed by em ployers and/or funders when appointing or 
recruiting researchers. They shoul d ensure observance of values such as transparency of the 
recruitment process and equal tr eatment of all applicants. Thes e principles and requirements 
cover also aspects related to: judging merit; re cognition of mobility expe rience; recognition of 
qualifications; and post-doctoral appointments.  
                                                
 
21 COM (2003) 436 final of 18.07.2003 and COM (2004) 353 of 16.06.2004 
22 14636/03 RECH194 of 12.11.2003 
EN 17   EN Table I. Achievements of the mobility and career strategies 2000-2007  
 
The launch of the Researchers' Mobility Portal23 in 2004 to provide information on fellowships/grants, research 
job vacancies (more than 4,800 jobs posted in 2007) and practical information when moving  
The set up of the ERA-MORE network in 2004 to assist re searchers in all matters relating to legal issues, social 
security, health and taxes, daily life and family support  (200 information/ assistan ce centres in 32 countries)  
The adoption of the "Scientific Visa" package, in 2005, to facilitate administrative procedures for third country 
researchers entering the European Community. It includes a Council Directive 2005/71/EC (12 October 2005) 
and two Recommendations: the 2005/761/EC on short-term visas and the 2005/762/EC on long-term admission 
(more than three months). Th e Directive has been transposed in 15 Member States  
The adoption in 2005 of a Commission Recommendation on the European Charter & Code which aims at giving 
the same rights and obligations wherever researchers may work in Europe (signed by over 200 organisations, 
representing over 800 institutions in 23 countries).  
The launch of ERA-link in the US in 2005 to keep th e contact with European res earchers active abroad (more 
than 3,000 EU researchers registered), the launch of ERA-link in Japan in 2008 (more than 500 EU researchers)  
Awareness initiatives (The Re searchers' Night events involved 100,000 people in 21 countries in 2006)  
The FP6 Marie-Curie actions have been the equivalent of the Erasmus programme for researchers: 
Approximately 70,000 researchers have benefited so far from EC funding under this dedicated mobility action  
Progress has been made with these existing initiatives . The mobility and career strategies 
and the Charter & Code have established impor tant principles which should underpin the 
European research system. And th ese initiatives have certainly succeeded in raising European 
wide awareness about the problems of mobility and careers of researchers and established 
general objectives and principles. But implementation has been slow and very uneven 
across the different Member States and institutions.   
Learning the lessons from previ ous initiatives, the reasons for this disappointing progress can 
be summarised as follows: 
• existing policies at Community a nd national levels have tended to address issues in relative 
isolation. The lack of a coherent framework  addressing both mobility and career issues 
has sometimes resulted in a failure to take into account the relevant links and 
interdependencies . For example, promoting more mobility without improving career 
development and opening positions in the pub lic sector could lead to more "forced 
mobility" for early stage researchers and to brain drain from some countries. Similarly 
actions to open positions in the public sector would have limited impact without increased mobility; 
• the difficulties of coordination  between the different Ministries, agencies and 
Commission services dealing with different aspects of mobility and career issues at 
Community, national or regional level can resu lt in suboptimal combinations of actions. 
This can mean that the specific circumstances of researchers are not always reflected in 
wider initiatives, for example cooperation betw een ministries in char ge of research and 
                                                
 
23 http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/ 
EN 18   EN social security policies woul d help develop a common under standing of the issues and 
possible actions;  
• efforts can be complicated by the shar ed competence in this area. Existing policies at 
national level have tended to ta ke a narrow national perspective  limited in scope to 
encouraging the return of expatriate national researchers, attracting foreign researchers or 
promoting intra-national mobility between in dustry and public research organisations. 
Some Member States have also been concerne d that past initiatives at Community level 
have not taken into account the diverse situations in the Member States which present very different patterns of problems and needs and might result in some cases in too much 
outward mobility or ‘brain drain’ due to  better research conditions abroad.  
2.5. Why a new EU policy momentum is needed 
The Lisbon strategy seeks the transformation of the EU economy towards more knowledge 
intensive activities. Achieving the overall Lis bon goals will require acti on across a wide range 
of areas but the availability of sufficient researchers of sufficien t quality has been identified as 
an essential element of the strategy from the start
24. Researchers are the main producers of 
new knowledge  and the main agents in its transfer. In order to compete at a global level and 
to achieve our broader ambitions Europe must be  able to train, retain and attract the best 
research talents 
The most compelling case for continued action for Europe's researchers is provided by the 
remaining  systemic weaknesses in Europe's research system  which impact on researchers 
as highlighted above. This need for action has been recognised by political leaders at the 
highest level. The 2008 Spring European Council confirmed  investing in people and 
modernising labour markets, and investing in knowledge and innovation as  priority areas for 
the next cycle of the Lisbon Strategy. In partic ular the Council made a commitment that the 
Member States and the EU must remove barriers to th e free movement of knowledge by 
creating a  “fifth freedom” based on: 
• enhancing the cross-border mobility of researchers, as well as students, scientists, and 
university teaching staff; 
• making the labour market for European resear chers more open and competitive, providing 
better career structures, transpar ency and family-friendliness. 
In its Key Issues Paper 2008  to the European Council, the Competitiveness Council  stated 
that the Commission and Member States should take concrete steps to increase human resources for S&T and to “enhance the mobility and career prospects of researchers 
through a coherent set of focused measures taken in partnership” , on which the Council 
welcomed the Commission's intention to present a Communication in 2008. 
The Integrated Guidelines for the Lisbon Strategy  on raising research investments, include 
the objective that a determined effort must  be made to ensure a sufficient supply of 
qualified researchers  by attracting more students into scientific, technical and engineering 
disciplines and enhancing the ca reer development and the European, international as well as 
inter-sectoral mobility of resear chers and development personnel. 
                                                
 
24 Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 23-24 March 2000 
EN 19   EN The Single Market Review25 emphasises that further efforts are needed to promote free 
movement of knowledge and innovation as a “fifth freedom”  in the single market and the 
need to remove barriers to researcher mo bility and facilitate the exchange of 
researchers . 
The results of th e consultation on the 2007 Green Paper  “The European Research Area: 
New Perspectives”  showed  that realising a single labour market for researchers is the top 
area of expected action at the EU level by stakeholders . 
This new impetus is also reflected in actio ns on the ground and many Me mber States are now 
for example attempting reforms to their university and higher education sectors26. These 
reforms, and in particular increasing th e autonomy and improving the governance and 
accountability of individual instit utions, are directly relevant to improving the situation for 
researchers. 
There would therefore be considerable EU added value in a new initiative at this stage which 
could capitalise on this political momentum and stakeholder support and build upon 
reforms  which are currently underway. There is much  scope for learning from the lessons of 
previous and existing initiatives at both the Community and national levels. The impact of 
individual initiatives co uld also be greatly increased by ensuring that they are planned and 
implemented in a coordinated, consis tent and mutually reinforcing way. 
The mutual benefits of acting in a consistent way across the EU would be considerable. 
For example the opening of positions in public  institutions beyond national borders would 
improve research performance a nd specialisation at institutiona l level, it would balance the 
supply and demand for researchers, boost pr oductivity growth through better job matching, 
increase knowledge transfer and facilitate the development of centres of excellence 
throughout the EU, create better international connections for co llaborative research and the 
economic exploitation of research results 
In addition a new initiative for researchers at th is time would also benef it from and contribute 
to the overall re-launch of the ERA and the Lisb on Strategy to implement the priorities agreed 
by the 2008 Spring European Council. The precedi ng analysis tries to dr aw a picture of an 
interlinked innovation system both at national a nd European levels. Each individual element 
reinforces the others, while wea knesses or lack of progress in one holds back progress in the 
others. 
The Lisbon strategy recognises the need to  make progress in a comprehensive and 
coordinated way. Significant efforts are alread y underway to create the right framework 
conditions including measures to strengthen the single market, increase job mobility27 and 
incentivise more private investme nt in research  and innovation28. These policies can help to 
address some of the systemic weaknesses iden tified in the analysis  above such as low 
business R&D intensity. Equally specific action for researchers will contribute to the success of these initiatives. 
                                                
 
25 "A Single Market for 21st Century Europe" COM(2007) 724 
26 "Delivering on the modernisation agenda for uni versities: education, research and innovation" 
COM(2006) 208, 10.5.2006 
27 The European Job Mobility Action Plan 2007-2010, COM(2007)773, 6.12.2007 
28 "Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for the EU"  COM(2006) 502, 
13.9.2006 and "A lead market initiative for Europe" COM(2007) 860, 21.12.2007 
EN 20   EN An initiative for researchers would be one of five policy initiatives planned by the 
Commission in 2008 to follow-up the ERA Green Paper “The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives”29. It is foreseen that the overall governance of the ERA initiatives will be 
overseen by the Competitiveness Council utilising the Lisbon process and national actions to 
implement each initiative should be reflected  in the National Reform Programmes of the 
Member States. 
Furthermore an initiative at this stage would also complement and benefit from a 
number of other important and related European initiatives.  In the recent Communication 
by the Commission on the Job Mobility Action Plan30, it is reported that new trends in 
mobility patterns increasingly include “… young and higher-skilled workers engaged in 
'multi-mobility practices'" with "…short mobile periods responding to specific needs in a professional career, a tendency illustrating that  mobility is becoming more integrated into 
career perspectives". The same Communication, thus, also  aims at improving existing 
legislation and administrative practices regarding worker mobility. A proposal for a Directive 
on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights  is currently under 
negotiation
31, and it may have a significant impact on "acquisition" and "preservation" rules 
on supplementary pension rights of in particular highly-mob ile workers holding short-term 
contracts, such as researchers who particular ly suffer from lack of consistency between 
different supplementary pension schemes. 
The EU legislation on labour law, such as fo r instance the Directive on fixed-term work32, 
which established a general framework for ensu ring equal treatment for fixed-term workers 
by protecting them against discrimination and fo r using fixed-term employment contracts, is 
highly relevant for young researchers who often hold fixed-term assignments . The 
implementation of the common principles on flexicurity33 may also have a significant impact 
on both research institutions and researchers as  regards problems of balancing flexibility, 
deemed necessary to do research activities, and job security.  
Other related policies are the mutual recogniti on of diplomas for the regulated professions 
through  Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognitio n of professional qualifications34, and, for 
the other professions,  through the European Qualification Framework (EQF) assessing 
and comparing qualifications35. Recognition of researchers' diploma is an important 
instrument to facilitate the free movement of researchers in Europe.  The network of national 
information centres for the recognition of diplomas36 provides information on national 
academic recognition procedures. 
                                                 
29 Other initiatives will address the management of intellectual property by public research organisations; 
pan-European research infrastructures; international science and technology cooperation; and joint 
programming and programmes 
30 Social Committee and the Committee of The Regions on the "Mobility, an instrument for more and 
better jobs: The European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010)"  
31 Amended Commission proposal COM(2007)603 final on minimum requirements for enhancing worker 
mobility by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights 
32 Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term 
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP 
33 "Towards common principles of flexicurity – more and better jobs through flexibility and security", 
COM(2007)359. 
34 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional 
qualifications, Official Journal L255 of 30 September 2005 - page 22 
35 http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/in_en.html  
36 http://www.enic-naric.net/ 
EN 21   EN The ongoing inter-governmental Bologna process addresses some  issues such as curricula 
development for quality doctoral programmes . Community measures such as the proposed 
Joint Doctorates action in the Erasmus Mundus programme and the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) will also contribute.  
EN 22   EN 3. OBJECTIVES  THAT  THE  PROPOSAL  IS EXPECTED  TO ACHIEVE 
3.1. General objectives 
The general objective of the curren t initiative is to harness the current political momentum for 
action for researchers to make further, faster progress in key areas selected for their high 
potential impact at the Commun ity, national and institutional levels in the short to medium 
term. The initiative will build on the success of  existing measures and will benefit from a 
clearer focus, greater coherence and an incr eased engagement of the Member States.  
The ultimate goal of Community policy in  this area is to ensure that the necessary human 
resources are available to sustain a dynamic knowledge-based economy. 
3.2. Specific Objectives 
The preceding analysis has identified a series of key weaknesses  in the European research 
system which impact on researchers. The general objective of this initiative is to focus on 
those areas where the greatest impact can be achieved by new coordinated efforts.  
Existing efforts are underway to address Eu rope's low business R&D intensity including 
measures aimed at creating dynamic and innovati on-friendly markets to incentivise increased 
private investment in research and innovation. 
The major remaining weakness identified was that many parts of the public sector research 
base do not offer attractive employment and working conditions, practice fully open 
recruitment or provide the right training, sk ills and experience for researchers. These 
problems also contribute to the fact that th ere are insufficient levels of mobility between 
institutions, sectors and countri es to rectify some of the current systemic imbalances. In 
addition there are certain specific issues whic h mobile researchers can face and which should 
be addressed. 
The proposal is therefore to make rapid, measurable progress to: 
• systematically open recruitment and portability of grants;  
• meet the social security and supplementary pensions needs of mobile researchers;  
• provide attractive employment and working conditions; and 
• enhance the training, skills a nd experience of researchers 
3.3. Operational objectives  
Systematically open recruitme nt and portability of grants  
To ensure the removal of remaining barriers to the open, transparent, competition-based 
recruitment of researchers at institutional, natio nal and Community levels and make sure that 
the portability of individual  grants is a possibility. 
EN 23   EN Meet the social security and supplementary  pension needs of mobile researchers 
To improve awareness about the existing legal framework in pa rticular through ensuring that 
researchers and their employers have full access to relevant information on the application of 
EU social security coordination rules and by exploring derogations to general rules on 
legislation applicable to take  into account the problems whic h can be encountered by highly 
mobile researchers on short-term contracts. To ease transferab ility of supplementary pension 
rights and explore the possibility  to set up pan-EU pension sche mes targeted to researchers. 
Provide attractive employm ent and working conditions 
To introduce more attractive "working packages ", especially for young researchers, and to 
progressively introduce more flexibility in c ontractual and administrative arrangements and 
relevant national legislation for senior and end of career research ers; to enable both men and 
women to pursue a fulfilling and we ll-balanced scientific career. 
Enhance the training, skills and experience of researchers 
To ensure that researchers are equipped with th e full range of skills necessary to participate in 
a range of evolving roles in the modern knowledg e economy and society, and, in particular, to 
encourage better links between academia and industry. 
EN 24   EN 4. MAIN  POLICY  OPTIONS  AND DELIVERY  MECHANISMS   
4.1. The policy response and the early discarded options  
From the preceding analysis of the problems and stated objectives we now consider a number 
of concrete policy options to r each those objectives. As highlight ed in the previous chapters 
any options also need to take  full account of the wide range  of existing policies both those 
specific to better careers and more mobility for researchers in the EU and actions in other 
areas which may have a bearing on resear chers’ issues, e.g. in social policy.  
Three main possible realistic options h ave been identified and developed: 
• Option 1: No policy change scenario; 
• Option 2: A Recommendation and more specifi c EU guidelines in the identified problem 
areas; 
• Option 3: A Communication and a partnership with Member States in the identified 
problem areas. 
Given that many of the relevant issues are in areas of shared competence the main differences 
between the options are in terms of the mech anism for focussing and coordinating action at 
the Community, national and ins titutional levels. There is a ba lance to be struck between 
allowing the necessary flexibility to deal with  specific national circumstances and maximising 
the leverage and spill-over eff ects of consistent and coordinate d action at Commun ity level. In 
addition to the three policy options explored in more detail in this and the following sections, 
some other policy options were initially cons idered as well but rapidly eliminated.  
In particular on the present legal basis, Commun ity legislative action w ould be possible in the 
areas of social security coordination and supplementary pension rights. However, a new 
implementing regulation coordinating social se curity schemes and a directive covering the 
portability of supplementary pension rights are currently under negotiation and the European 
Job Mobility Action Plan 2007-2010 announced a systematic investigation to see if the 
existing legislation and administrative practices re garding worker mobility in general need to 
be adapted to take account of the change d needs of the new pa tterns of mobility. . 
Similarly, while the directive on the portability  of supplementary pens ion rights currently 
under negotiation addresse s the "acquisition" and "preservation" of such  rights, the third key 
aspect, i.e. their "transferability", is now out of  scope. In this area therefore, one of the policy 
options below includes the possibility of explor ing the feasibility of a non-binding instrument 
(e.g. a Recommendation by the Commission) addr essing transferability  of supplementary 
pension rights of highly-mobile categories of workers, such as researchers. If such an 
instrument were ultimately proposed, it would of  course be subject to impact assessment. 
Apart from initiatives linked to the implemen tation of the EU Job Mobility Action Plan, 
it would be premature to recommend furth er legislative action in these areas now.  
Instead, the proposed options will explore the possibi lity of future legislative or other actions 
such as Council or Commission recommendations if clear evidence of deficiencies emerges 
during its planned three year timeframe. Ex cluding Community legislative action in the 
realistic policy options today does not therefore rule out possible future legislative action or 
recommendations to Member States. 
EN 25   EN Another option would have been to propose a si gnificant reinforcement of the researchers' 
related elements of the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7). However, any 
substantial reinforcement would not have been possible until th e completion of the mid-term 
review scheduled for conclusion before the end of 2010 and would have required a lengthy co-decision process. 
4.2. Policy Option 1. No policy change scenario 
Given the existing policy initiatives for research ers and in other relevant areas, the baseline 
scenario is a dynamic one. Under this scenario  of no policy change (no additional EU actions 
then those already established or foreseen in  established or proposed Community policy), the 
actions based on the current mobility and career strategies would continue.  
As part of the policy specific support actions financed from the FP7 “People” programme to 
foster trans-national collaboration among part ners in a European network for proximity 
assistance and information to mobile researcher s, the European Researchers’ Mobility Portal 
provides access to researchers v acancies, contacts with scientific diasporas, statistical and 
policy relevant information, and awareness concerning the implementation by research 
employers and funders of the Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and 
Code of Conduct for their Recruitment.  
This is supplemented by substa ntial support for European level actions from the FP7 “People” 
programme until 2013 for trans-national and inte r-sectoral training and skills development, 
mobility and careers of researchers at different stages.  
Still on training, the Bologna process is set to remedy some of the key aspects relevant to 
early-stage researchers: curricu la development in doctoral progr ammes, quality assurance and 
recognition of qualifications. A nd the proposed Joint Doctorates  in the proposed second phase 
of the Community Erasmus Mundus programme from 2009 would signify a step towards 
trans-national development of joint curricula and mutual recognition of qualifications of 
researchers at doctoral level. The European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) is 
also expected to influence the training  agenda for early-stage researchers. 
On social security coordination and supplementary  pension rights, actions in the frame of the 
Job Mobility Action Plan 2007-2010 would apply to researchers as to any mobile worker, 
including those in case the fo reseen assessment by 2009 highlight s the need for amending or 
supplementing EU legislation on access conditi ons for unemployment benefits. As will the 
Directive on supplementary pension rights, once adopted and ultimately transposed into national legislation.  
The current policy therefore covers a broad rang e of issues, but not necessarily those aspects 
of the problems identified that are the most re levant or likely to ha ve the highest impact. 
Essentially the main current mechanism apart from Community funding is the development of 
voluntary actions on a potentially very wide variet y of issues in the frame of the Open Method 
of Coordination through a Steer ing Group for Human Resources and Mobility composed of 
Member States representatives, with mutual l earning as a key component . This does allow a 
large degree of flexibility to the Member States but does not entail the development of national action plans or any specific c oordination of the various efforts. 
EN 26   EN 4.3. Policy Option 2: A Recommendation and more specific EU guidelines in the 
identified problem areas  
Compared to the baseline scenario, this option would be to put forward another 
Recommendation for voluntary action under Ar ticle 165 of the Treaty, focussing on what 
Member States would be expected to do in the identified main problem areas:  
Axis 1: open recruitment and portability of grants; 
Axis 2: meeting social security and supplemen tary pension needs of mobile researchers; 
Axis 3: attractive employment and working conditions; Axis 4: enhanced training and skills agenda. 
A new Recommendation would be an opportunity  to refocus national efforts on the main 
problem areas according to a common set of prin ciples and allow the possibility to introduce 
more specific guidelines of what would be e xpected from Member States and research 
institutions and funders respectiv ely. This option would therefore allow actions to be focused 
to a much greater extent than would be po ssible under the baseline scenario (Option 1). 
The specific support actions described under Option 1 finan ced from the FP7 “People” 
programme could be refocused in line with  the new Recommendation to better support its 
implementation. 
The other actions under Option 1 concerning tr aining, mobility, career development and 
social security coordination and supplementary pension rights would also be applicable under 
this option. 
However, such a recommendation would, either , as with the Recommendation on the Charter 
and Code of 2005, have to set principles of a suffi ciently general nature to  be relevant to the 
situation in all 27 Member States or run the ri sk of being overly prescriptive and failing to 
take account the specificities in each country vis-à-vis th e problem areas, their specific 
national or regional le gislation governing research inst itutions and funders, institutional 
settings, practices and traditions, as well as budgetary constraints. 
A new Recommendation would also risk creati ng confusion with the existing Charter and 
Code. The Charter & Code have established im portant principles wh ich should underpin the 
European research system. These principles cover a much wider variety of institutional 
practices and other important aspects than the pr iority areas identified ab ove. It would be very 
unfortunate if the long term take-up of these pr inciples was detrimentally affected by any new 
initiative. 
4.4. Policy Option 3: A Communication and a partnership with Member States  
Based on article 165 of the Treaty, this optio n would seek to bring about a partnership 
between Community and Member States to jointl y drive forward a number of targeted actions 
in the same four identified problem  areas as mentioned under Option 2.  
The "partnership" approach would allow actions to  be focused to a much greater extent than 
would be possible under the ba seline scenario (Option 1). 
EN 27   EN Compared to the open-endedness of the baseli ne scenario (Option 1) and Option 2, the 
partnership will be time-bound init ially to a period of three ye ars. The actions would be 
selected for their potential imp act within the timeframe of the partnership, at the Community, 
national and institutional levels.  
Through the partnership, the Member States would be invited to play a key role in the exact 
definition, implementation and monitoring of th e partnership, which minimises the risks of 
low engagement and would allow the dynamic e volution of the measures over time. Within 
the partnership framework, Member States would be expected by early 2009 to adopt a 
national action plan setting out specific objecti ves and actions to achieve the aims of the 
partnership. Given the different national situatio ns each plan will naturally focus on different 
aspects of the overall objectiv es of the partnership.  
The Commission will seek to optimise exis ting Community instruments, including those 
available through the FP7 People programme to rein force the partnership. As an integral part 
of the partnership, Member States and the Commission will be expected to identify good 
practice and where appropriate develop common guidelines; monitor prog ress at national and 
EU levels and report annually based on agreed indicators. The partnership will explore the possibility of future legislative or ot her actions such as Council or Commission 
recommendations if clear evidence of defici encies emerges during its planned three year 
timeframe.  
A "partnership for researchers" would be on e of five policy initiatives planned by the 
Commission in 2008 to follow-up the ERA Green Paper “The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives” It is foreseen that the overall governance of all the ERA initiatives will be overseen by the Competitiveness Council utilising the Lisbon process and national actions to 
implement each initiative should be reflected  in the National Reform Programmes of the 
Member States. The partnership approach would allow for the more dynamic political 
management of the initiative over time rather than the implementation of a one-time set of 
principles as under option 2. Howe ver the success or failure of  the partnership would depend 
to a greater extent than with the other op tions on maintaining the political support and 
commitment of the Member States. In 2010, an ove rall evaluation of the situation and results 
from the actions by the partnership will be made.  
Priority actions could include:  
Axis 1: open recruitment and portability of grants: 
• Member States to ensure open, transparent, competition-based recruitment of researchers, 
in particular by giving instit utions greater autonomy ove r hiring and by adopting best 
practice on the recognition of qualif ications from other countries 
• Member States and Commission to ensure that all publicly funded researchers' positions 
are openly advertised online, in  particular th rough EURAXESS 
• Member States and Commission to ensure adeq uate information and assistance services for 
researchers moving between institutions, sectors and countries including through 
EURAXESS and the EURES platform37 
                                                 
37 European Employment Services network and website www.eures.europa.eu   
EN 28   EN • Member States and Commission to allow porta bility of individual grants awarded by 
national funding agencies and relevant Co mmunity research programmes where this 
enables funders to better meet their research needs and researchers to better manage their 
careers 
Axis 2: meeting social security and supplemen tary pension needs of mobile researchers: 
• Commission and Member States to ensure that researchers and their employers have access 
to readily available and targeted information on the application of EU social security 
coordination rules and on the implications fo r supplementary pensions of transnational 
mobility, including through improving existing sour ces at EU and national level such as 
the EUlisses website38 
• Member States to better utilise the existing legal framework and agree appropriate bilateral 
and multilateral agreements on derogations foreseen in Regulation 1408/71for the benefit 
of researchers 
• Member States to include rules easing inte rnational mobility of  researchers when 
concluding bilateral and multilate ral social security agreem ents with third countries 
• Commission and Member Stat es to assess the need for a Commission or Council 
Recommendation on easing transfer of supplem entary pension rights for highly-mobile 
workers, including researchers 
• Commission and Member States to encourag e pan-EU pension schemes targeted at 
researchers 
Axis 3: attractive employment and working conditions: 
• Member States, funders and employers to improve the career development opportunities 
for early-stage researchers by moving towards "f lexicurity principles",  regular evaluation, 
wider autonomy and better training; Research funders should take career development into 
account when evaluating research proposals 
• Member States, funders and employers to pr ogressively introduce mo re flexibility in 
contractual and administrative ar rangements and relevant national legislation for senior and 
end-of career researchers to reward good performance and al low non-standard career paths 
• Employers and funders should ensure that all publicly funded researchers receiving 
stipends and fellowships can receive adequate social security coverage 
• Member States and public research institutions to achieve adequate gender representation 
in selection and funding bodies, and to systema tically adopt policies that enable both men 
and women to pursue a scientific career with  an adequate work-life balance such as 
developing dual career policies 
                                                 
38 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_security_schemes/eulisses/jetspeed/ 
EN 29   EN Axis 4: enhanced training and skills agenda: 
• Member States to develop and support consistent  "national skills agendas" to ensure that 
researchers are equipped with the necessary skills to contribu te fully to a knowledge-based 
economy and society throughout their careers 
• Member States to ensure better links betw een academia and industry by supporting the 
placement of researchers in industry during th eir training and promo ting industry financing 
of PhDs and involvement in curriculum development  
EN 30   EN 5. ANALYSIS  OF IMPACTS 
5.1. Policy Option 1: No policy change scenario 
While the baseline option of no additional EU actio n is likely to generate some progress over 
time in the identified problem areas, this option scores poor in terms of likely overall impact. 
As until now, it can be expected that the policy initiatives on the mobility and career strategies 
will continue to raise awareness at government and institutional level across the EU about the 
problems of mobility and careers of researchers.  As work progresses more and more data will 
become available through st udies and data collection. 
However, a focused, coherent framework at European and national level addressing both 
mobility and career issues in a wa y that takes into account their links and interdependencies in 
a consistent way, is unlikely to arise organica lly and within the short timeframe which the 
urgency of the problems imply. This option does not entail the development of national action plans or any specific concentration of the effort . Policies and measures in  principle relevant to 
the four critical areas will therefore very likely continue to be addressed in fragmented ways 
in most countries, as one aspect of policie s and measures focusing on different main 
objectives: reform of public res earch system in particular un iversities, funding programmes 
(science and industrial research) promoting indu stry – university cooperation and technology 
transfer, developing regional clusters and international cooperation, etc. 
Where this fragmentation prevents adequate co ordination of responsibil ities between different 
Ministries and agencies deali ng at national or regional level with different aspects of the 
mobility and career issues, this is likely to co ntinue to lead to s uboptimal combination of 
actions in stead of developing a common unders tanding of the issues and possible actions.  
Despite a certain positive side , that the approach under this  option gives maximum freedom 
for Member States to tailor policies and meas ures affecting mobility and career development 
to their national environment, this strong focus in most count ries on actions defined with a 
national perspective fails to take  into account mutual benefits of acting in a consistent way 
across countries with a European perspective;  for example the opening of positions in public 
institutions beyond national borde rs would contribute to a mo re balanced circulation of 
researchers and would enhance the impact of  such actions on research quality and 
specialisation at institutional level. 
The European instrument of the Recommendation on the Charter and Code addresses issues, 
amongst many others, that are rele vant to the identified problem areas, in particular where it 
concerns open competitive recruitment and fa ir employment and working conditions. The 
consistent implementation and concrete application of its principles in the practice of research 
institutions in each Member State would certain ly contribute. However, since the Charter and 
Code contain a very wide array of issues, the uptake is a slow process, which is also not 
enhanced for instance because of the absence of a recognition system at European level for those institutions that do  apply the Charter and Code principl es or because of legal barriers at 
Member State level.  
The Steering Group for Human Resources in Resear ch (SGHRM) has played a useful role in 
the development of many of the European level measures until now. It could continue to play 
a role as a forum for exchange of good practices  and contributing to the yearly report on the 
progress of the implementation of the mobility a nd career strategies. However, it lacks a clear 
EN 31   EN own drive for identifying subjects for mutu al learning and development the European 
guidelines, which could improve national action. Th is together with a lack of the focus of its 
work, including the by no means ex haustive monitoring of progress,  and its overall weak links 
with other policy areas at national level, ma ke its relevance for decisive progress in a 
relatively short-span not evident. 
Under the baseline scenario the Community financ ial instrument of FP7, and in particular the 
People programme, is likely to contribute progressively to stimulate mobility and career development of researchers in Europe. Because of the absence at Member States' level of national strategies to training, mobility and career development taking account of trans-
national elements, its impact is likely to remain relatively modest.  
And while initiatives, u nder this scenario, such as FP7 People and Ideas, Erasmus Mundus, 
the European Institute for Innovation and Technology and Bologna taken together are 
important for the longer-term progress in the area of researchers' training and skills development, the absence under this baseline sc enario of national training and skills agendas 
developed upon commonly developed European gui delines is not helpfu l to advance in the 
short term on the important training objective identified. 
On social security and supplemen tary pension rights actions in the frame of the Job Mobility 
Action Plan 2007-2010 would apply to researcher s as to any mobile worker. On social 
security coordination, a certain lack  of awareness of researchers of  their social security rights 
and the suboptimal use of the existing rules on soci al security coordination is likely to persist 
under this scenario. Mobile  researchers, as other migrant wo rkers, are likely to benefit from 
the electronic exchange of data foreseen from  2010 in the field of co ordination of social 
security schemes. 
On supplementary pension righ ts, the current framework base d on the Mobility Strategy for 
the ERA however does not foresee in a coordina ted input from the research world into the 
assessment by 2009 foreseen in the Job Mobility  Action Plan whether there is a need for 
amending or supplementing EU legislation on a ccess conditions for unemployment benefits. 
The length of the adoption and transposition pr ocess into national law of the Directive on 
supplementary pension rights curre ntly under negotiation is likely to have an impact in the 
long run, rather than in the desired shorter term.   
On this basis, the social impacts  of this option would incl ude the persis tence of the 
unattractiveness of research relative to other pr ofessions for the highly educated and skilled, 
suboptimal mobility and career paths, contin ued highly national or regional segmented 
researchers labour markets in some countries , with unfavourable employment and working 
conditions particularly affecting younger researchers and women researchers. 
Economic impacts  include continued loss of human capita l to outside the EU and suboptimal 
contribution of research efforts to the economic development of the EU. The latter because of 
untapped potential of greater levels of mer it based mobility and career development, intra-
nationally and intra–EU, that would bring abou t increased knowledge sh aring and quality of 
research, and balance supply and demand of highly skilled and specialised workers.  
The impact on third countries of this option is not likely to be negative, as the EU is 
expected to continue losing out on the most tale nted researchers that move away from, while 
difficulties are likely to grow in attracting la rger number of talented non-EU researchers.  
EN 32   EN The impact on the administrative burden  and costs  of this option is li mited and mostly on 
a voluntary basis. For Member States there is no  significant burden, other than their efforts in 
the limited European frame of the SGHRM. Member States costs arise from any own 
initiative and are usually part of the acti ons they undertake at national level in other 
frameworks, e.g. on reform of universities. For research institutions, administrative costs for 
sorting out individual cases im plying several Member States would be likely to continue. 
Costs by research institutions related to complian ce with part or all principles of the Charter 
and Code can be significant. They are however  on a voluntary basis and can be seen as an 
investment in the attractiveness of the research  institutions, rather than as a cost. For the 
Community the administrative burden and costs of this option would remain unchanged at a 
relatively modest level of the coordination and s upport actions paid from FP7 and in part from 
the administrative budget of the Commission. 
5.2. Policy Option 2: A Recommendation with more specific EU gu idelines in the 
identified problem areas  
Compared to the baseline scenario, this opti on would in sum likely have a somewhat higher 
impact. Although the Recommendation with more  specific EU guidelines would still be a 
framework for voluntary action on what Member  States would be e xpected to do in the 
identified main problem areas, this would be mu ch more focused than the baseline scenario. 
Such a recommendation would, either, as with the Recommendation on the Charter and Code 
of 2005, have to set principles of a sufficiently gene ral nature to be releva nt to the situation in 
all 27 Member States or run the risk of bei ng overly prescriptive and failing to take account 
the specificities in  each country vis-à-vis the problem ar eas, their specific national or regional 
legislation governing research institutions a nd funders, institutional settings, practices and 
traditions, as well as budgetary constraints. 
Whether Member States will be 'bound in' sufficiently by option 2 in terms of their 
engagement is crucial for the necessary impact  of this option. Based on the experience with 
the Charter and Code, the expecta tions would not be overly high th at full engagement of all or 
even a majority of MS could be expected.  
A new Recommendation would be an opportunity  to refocus national efforts on the main 
problem areas according to a common set of prin ciples and allow the possibility to introduce 
more specific guidelines of what would be e xpected from Member States and research 
institutions and funders respec tively. On the other hand, as in  the baseline scenario, once the 
Recommendation has been issued it remains que stionable what the flexibility would be to 
adapt its guidelines in the course of time. This  may also have a (further) negative bearing on 
the above mentioned level of MS engagement over time. 
The impact of option 2 on the above mentioned areas  is also likely to be  negatively influenced 
by its open-endedness, just as the baseline scenario (opti on 1). Even if one would put 
recommended time targets for achievements in the more detailed guidelines of the Recommendation, MS would not n ecessarily feel more bound gi ven the 'one-size-fits-all' 
approach of the instrument. 
On the governance and monitoring in option 2, the Recommendation coul d seek to improve 
the situation in comparison with the Steer ing Group for Human Resources in Research 
(SGHRM) of the baseline scenario. The focus on  the four identified problem areas would in 
principle give more steer to such a follow-up gr oup and could make mon itoring also straighter 
EN 33   EN forward and effective. However, as with other aspects of this option 2, the impact of this 
hinges on the engagement of Member States, whic h as has been indicated above is not at all 
self-evident. For a follow-up group engagement is crucial for the drive to work together on 
mutual learning, with a view to improve national action, and for the streng th of the links with 
other policy areas at national level. 
A new Recommendation would also risk creati ng confusion with the existing Charter and 
Code. The Charter & Code have established im portant principles wh ich should underpin the 
European research system. These principles cover a much wider range of institutional practices and other important aspects than the pr iority areas identified ab ove. It would be very 
unfortunate if the long term take-up of these pr inciples was detrimentally affected by any new 
initiative. 
As in the previous options, the Community fina ncial instrument of FP 7, in particular the 
People programme, is likely to contribute progressively to stimulate mobility and career development of researchers in Europe. To support the uptake and impact of the 
Recommendation under option 2, th e budgetary build-up of FP7 c ould be used to adapt the 
actions under the People programme. 
In contrast to the baseline option, the Recomm endation under option 2 will make it possible to 
issue guidelines for developing national traini ng and skills agendas, which, depending on the 
engagement of Member States, may be helpful to  advance in the shorter term on the important 
training objective identified, in ad dition to longer-term relevant initiatives such as FP7 People 
and Ideas, Erasmus Mundus, EIT and Bologna. 
As in the baseline option, on soci al security and supplementary pension rights, actions in the 
frame of the Job Mobility Action Plan 2007-2010 w ould apply to researcher s as to any mobile 
workers. Also under option 2, mobile researchers,  as other migrant workers, are likely to 
benefit from the electronic excha nge of data foreseen from 2010 in the field of coordination of 
social security schemes. Contrary to th e baseline scenario, option 2 could anticipate 
recommending a coordinated input from the research world into the assessment by 2009 
foreseen in the Job Mobility Action Plan, whether there is a need for amending or supplementing EU legislation on access conditions for unemployment benefits. Over and above the baseline scenario, option 2 could foresee in the Commission examining with 
Member States the feasibility of specific recommendations on the transferability of 
supplementary pension rights for researchers and other highly skilled workers, to encourage 
EU-pension institutions to open up for resear chers, and to recommend and support an extra 
awareness raising effort to researchers and thei r employers on their social security rights and 
supplementary pension rights. However, as for other aspects of this option 2, the impact of 
this hinges on the engagement of Member States, which, as has been indicated above, is not at all self-evident. 
On the basis of the overall doubtful Member  States engagement under this option, the social 
impacts  would include the likely persistence in the shorter term of the unattractiveness of 
research relative to other professions for the hi ghly educated and ski lled, suboptimal mobility 
and career paths, continued national or region al segmented researchers labour markets in 
some countries, with not unlikely unfavour able employment and working conditions 
particularly affecting younger res earchers and women researchers. 
Economic  impacts  possibly include continued loss of human capital to outside the EU and 
suboptimal contribution of research efforts to the economic development of the EU. The latter 
EN 34   EN because of untapped potential of greater le vels of merit based mobility and career 
development, intra-nationally and intra-EU, that would bring about  increased knowledge 
sharing and quality of research, and bala nce supply and demand of highly skilled and 
specialised workers.  
The impact on third countries of this option is not likely to be negative in the shorter term, 
as the EU is not unlikely to continue losing ou t on the most talented researchers that move 
away from, while difficulties are likely to grow in attracting la rger number of talented non-EU 
researchers.  
The impact on the administrative burden  and costs  of this option is li mited and mostly on 
a voluntary basis. For Member States there is no  significant burden, other than their efforts in 
the limited European frame of the follow-up gr oup for the new Recommendation, which is not 
expected to be more costly than the involvement for the SGHRM under option 1: the extra 
effort for the monitoring and re porting would likely be  balanced by the reduction of topics as 
a result of the focusing. If Member States  engage in the implementation of the new 
Recommendation, they would only incur costs arising from guide lines that fit within their 
own interests and policy agendas. So, althoug h the costs would be higher than under the 
baseline scenario (Option 1)', they would not incu r costs on all issues raised in the guidelines.  
Member States and employers and funders of rese arch could be confronted  with in some cases 
significant transitional costs of some of the m easures proposed (for instance more attractive 
working packages). Some of these costs co uld be covered by usin g part of the higher 
investment levels for R&D planned in most Member States. The costs of some of the 
measures should also be seen as an investment  in the attractiveness of  the national and with 
that of the EU research system. However, th e actions proposed emphasi se that while salary 
levels play a part in providing attr active employment and working conditions , job satisfaction, 
how academic performance is rewarded, p eer relationships and having a supportive, 
professional environment where researchers can pursue their own research interests from an 
early stage and where they can balance their professional and family life are at least as 
important. Despite important ongoing reforms, compensation a nd promotion structures in 
many public research institutions remain rigid and often make it difficult, for universities in particular, to compete in the international acad emic market. Addressing these issues can be 
achieved without increasing overall salary costs. 
For research institutions administrative costs wo uld not be substantiall y higher and could even 
be lower than in the baseline scenario, pr ovided that the Commissi on and Member States 
engage in including targeted information on European aspects of social security and 
supplementary pensions. Costs by research institu tions related to compliance with part or all 
principles of the new Recommendation could be  similarly significant as for the Charter and 
Code under the baseline scenario. Also under this option such costs are however on a voluntary basis and can be seen as an investment in the attractiveness of the research 
institutions, rather than as a cost. For the Community the ad ministrative burden and costs of 
this option 2 could be slightly  higher than under the baselin e option, but would at a modest 
level of the coordination a nd support actions paid from FP7 and in part from the 
administrative budget of the Commission. 
5.3. Policy Option 3: A Communication a nd a Partnership with Member States 
This policy option potentially scor es significantly higher on likely  impacts than both options 1 
and 2. This is based on a number of essential el ements brought together in this option. Option 
EN 35   EN 3 is seeking engagement of Member States in  a partnership, is focused on taking forward a 
limited number of actions selected from the four  identified problem areas to yield concrete 
results within a clear short-term timeframe.  
Although option 3 in principle is  as voluntary as options 1 and 2, a number of factors 
combined are highly likely to have a very positive effect on the engagement of Member States: 
– While the Communication would set out the Commissions' viewpoint on the framework 
and broad objectives of the partnership for be tter careers and more mo bility, it will be the 
Member States with the Commission to work on the final content ; Member States can 
therefore, contrary to the baseline option and to a much higher degree than in option 2, take 
ownership of the partnership ; this includes issues on the m onitoring of and indicators for 
progress; 
– This ownership would be further strengthened by  the fact that Member States would, based 
on the overall focus of the partnership , also develop their own national action plans , 
which would be logically geared  to the specific national situations in the four identified 
problem areas. Each and every Member Stat e can book success through the partnership; 
– Moreover, Member States' commitment is ba cked up by very recent political conclusions 
at the highest level endorsing the developmen t of a partnership to take forward focused 
actions in this area. And Member States have responded overall positively on informal 
consultation on the partnership and its possible orientation; 
– Finally, the time horizon of the partners hip (initially 3 years) is highly aligned with the 
Lisbon process , while it is important to note that th e partnership would be flexible as to 
allow adaptation of its direction to new developm ents in case a majority of Member States 
would wish to do so.  
Not only would the partnership option allow actions  to be focused to a much greater extent 
than would be possible under the baseline scen ario (Option 1) which as such would make 
results and impacts more achievable; because of  the design of the partnership the different 
actions in Member States would overall yield results contributing to solving issues in the four 
identified main problem areas deemed most relevant for the EU. 
In contrast to option 2, option 3 would allow so me more room for research institutions and 
funders to continue work to address the implem entation of the wider set of issues covered in 
the Charter and Code, supported by the devel opment and implementation of a European 
recognition ('label') system. Member States w ould be free for example to include support for 
that in their national action plans for the implementation of the partnership. 
The partnership and the Commission' s participation in it, will allow to fully optimise existing 
Community instruments, including those ava ilable through the FP7 People programme to 
reinforce the partnership with a view to concrete results and impacts in terms of European added value, in line with the objectives fo rmulated for the four main problem areas. 
Social impacts  are likely to include an increased at tractiveness of the research profession, 
including to younger people and women, ba sed on better employment and working 
conditions, catering for an acceptable work-life balance; gradual optimising the contribution 
to the research effort of senior  and end of career researchers, through application of flexicurity 
EN 36   EN principles; more acceptable mobility and more attractive career options; de-segmenting 
national or regional resear chers labour markets. 
Economic impacts  would include a more optimal contribu tion of the EU research efforts to 
the economic development, through a more e ffective deployment of the EU research 
workforce at national level and throughout Europe as a result of lower barriers to merit based 
mobility and better career options, leading to increased knowledge sharing and quality of 
research across the EU, as well as a bala nced supply and demand of researchers.  
The impact on third countries of this option would be positive in terms of likelihood to 
balance flows with highly indus trialised countries and the at traction of researchers from 
outside the EU, thereby as much as possible taking care through the partnership of mitigation 
of negative effects in case of  researchers from neighbouri ng countries and development 
countries. The possible higher influx of resear chers from outside the EU would require 
commensurate attention of Member States to ta ke appropriate security measures aimed at 
preserving their interests and thos e of the EU in the fields of  public security and defence, 
monetary, economic and commercial matters, a nd the economic and scientific potential. 
The impact on the administrative burden  and costs  of this option is overall higher than in 
options 1 and 2, but still modest. For Memb er States there is no significant extra 
administrative burden. The partaking in the part nership would require an additional effort, 
depending on the national structures in place,  but this may be balanced by the sharing and 
supply of studies and results among the partne rship; monitoring and reporting requirements 
would be kept as light and pr oportionate as possible, to be implemented based on existing 
structures in the frame of the Lisbon programme.  
Member States and employers and funders of rese arch could be confronted  with in some cases 
significant transitional costs of some of the m easures proposed (for instance more attractive 
working packages). Some of these costs co uld be covered by usin g part of the higher 
investment levels for R&D planned in most Member States. The costs of some of the 
measures should also be seen as an investment  in the attractiveness of  the national and with 
that of the EU research system. However, th e actions proposed emphasi se that while salary 
levels play a part in providing attr active employment and working conditions , job satisfaction, 
how academic performance is rewarded, p eer relationships and having a supportive, 
professional environment where researchers can pursue their own research interests from an 
early stage and where they can balance their professional and family life are at least as 
important. Despite important ongoing reforms, compensation a nd promotion structures in 
many public research institutions remain rigid and often make it difficult, for universities in particular, to compete in the international acad emic market. Addressing these issues can be 
achieved without increasing overall salary costs.
 
For research institutions, administrative cost s would not be substant ially higher and could 
even be lower than in the ba seline option, for instance where it concerns improvement of 
access to information on the functioning of the EU  legislation on social security coordination. 
For the Community the administrative burden and costs of this option 3 could be slightly 
higher than under the baseline, but would rema in at a relatively modest level of the 
coordination and support actions paid from FP7 and in part from the administrative budget of 
the Commission. 
EN 37   EN 5.4. Comparison of the policy options v ersus the no policy change scenario 
Although the impacts of option 3 should not be overestimated, since option 3 as the other 
options is based on an essentially voluntary approach , the credible impacts of this option 
clearly surpass t hose of option 1 a nd of option 2. The combination of a number of vital 
elements constituting the partnership approach in option 3 , as highlighted in the previous 
chapter, makes the essential engagement of Memb er States in that option far more 
compelling  than for option 2.  
Even if both options 2 and 3 are addressing the same four identified problems areas on which 
action would be best directed, the architecture of the partners hip is far more likely to be 
successful in achieving better results with the highest EU added value  in the short 
timeframe implied by the urgency of the probl ems on career development and mobility of 
researchers in Europe. The gr eater probability for significan tly enhanced engagement is 
making the difference in expected impacts. The higher administrative co sts associated with 
option 3, in comparison with the other options , are outweighed by the impacts of option 3.  
The partnership will build on the current momentum and allow actions to be undertaken at the 
most appropriate level but towards the same direction . Member States can play their 
full role in the exact definition and implementation of the process, in a European 
perspective still targeting actions to their needs and priorities.  Shared ownership of the 
initiative would minimise the risks of low e ngagement of the Member States and allow the 
dynamic evolution of the measures over time. The Commission will seek to optimise 
existing Community instruments , including those availabl e through the FP7 People 
programme, to complement national actions a nd support the partnership. Actions should be 
monitored, at both national and EU-level, and according to commonly agreed indicators for 
progress.  
Table II. Summary of likely impacts of the various policy options 
IMPACTS No policy change s cenario Commission 
Recommendation and more 
specific guidelines Communication and a 
focused Partnership with 
Member States 
Potential overall 
impact  Poor impact due to 
continued low engagement 
of Member States, the 
open-endedness of the approach and continued 
fragmentation of 
interventions and suboptimal use of existing 
frameworks. However, 
some longer progress in the key problem areas 
from continuation of the 
Mobility and Career strategies and effects from 
European level actions in 
other policy domains Somewhat higher impact, 
due to better focusing on 
the identified key problem 
areas, but limited by the overall unlikelihood of 
stronger engagement of 
Member States  Significantly higher 
impact, and already in the 
shorter term, due to the 
higher probability of Member States' 
engagement in the 
partnership approach, the focusing of actions on the 
key problem areas and 
adaptation of actions within the Lisbon horizon 
EN 38   EN Potential Economic 
Impacts Continued loss of human 
capital to outside the EU 
and suboptimal 
contribution of research to the EU economic 
development  Continued suboptimal 
contribution of research to 
the EU economic 
development  More optimal contribution 
of the EU research efforts 
to the economic 
development, through a more effective deployment 
of a sustainable research 
workforce at national level and throughout the EU 
Potential Social 
Impacts Persistence of 
unattractiveness of 
research in relation to 
other professions, 
suboptimal mobility and career paths, continued 
segmented research labour 
markets, unfavourable employment and working 
conditions, affecting 
younger researchers and women researchers Persistence, in the shorter 
term, of unattractiveness 
of research in relation to 
other professions, 
suboptimal mobility and career paths, continued 
segmented research labour 
markets, unfavourable employment and working 
conditions, affecting 
younger researchers and women researchers Increased attractiveness of 
the research profession, 
including to younger 
people and women, based 
on better employment and working conditions, 
optimisation of the 
contribution of senior and end-of-career researchers; 
more acceptable mobility 
and more attractive career options; de-segmenting of 
national or regional 
research labour markets 
Impacts on Third Countries Continued net outflow 
from the EU of the most 
talented researchers Some net outflow from the 
EU of the most talented 
researchers Positive, more balanced 
flows between highly 
industrialised countries 
Administrative burden and costs Limited and mostly on a 
voluntary basis for 
Member States, more important for institutions Limited and mostly on a 
voluntary basis, although 
for some aspects they can be more important for 
Member States and 
institutions  Still relatively modest and 
depending on the situation 
in the Member States; structural reforms can 
minimise overall expenses 
/ investments 
 
EN 39   EN 6.  EU VALUE-ADDED  AND  SUBSIDIARITY 
Given that the areas covered by the initiative are areas of shared competence, there are clearly 
issues of EU added value and subsidiarity. The initiative proposes a partnership with the 
Member States in order to take differe nt actions at the appropriate level.  The levels of 
the various actions are consistent with the subsidiarity principles. The Community intervention 
is complementary to and coherent with interventions at national level and synergy is being sought 
between interventions.  
Many of the actions proposed relate to the re form of the national public system, the national 
funding programmes, and educatio n policies, which are essent ially national competences. 
Community contributions relate to the coor dination of national research policies, the 
Community funding instruments and policie s on coordinating social security and 
supplementary pension rights. Coordination of actions and cooperation between Member 
States are needed to make cross-border enforcement work.  
Through the partnership, the Member States are invited to play a key role in the exact 
definition, implementation and monitoring of the partnership , which minimises the risks 
of low engagement and would allow the dynamic e volution of the measures  over time. Within 
the proposed framework, Member States are exp ected by early 2009 to adopt a national action 
plan setting out specific objectives and actions to achieve the aims of the partnership. Given 
the different national situations and prioriti es, each plan will natura lly focus on different 
aspects of the overall objec tives of the partnership. 
More engagement of the Member States is also expected because many of the proposed 
actions are linked to the proc esses being undertaken in most  MS to reform their public 
research system and their funding. The directio n is the same, with different scopes and at 
different speeds: more autonomy and accountabili ty. As some institutions open recruitment 
procedures, offer more attr active employment conditions  and adopt their doctoral 
programmes, a dynamic is being created which results  in peer pressure on other institutions in 
the same country or in other countries to do the same.  
The Commission will seek to optimise exis ting Community instruments, including those 
available through the FP7 People programme to reinforce the partnership. The latter will 
include refocusing and/or strengthening funding on instrument to support mobility grants and 
to provide information and assistance se rvices. The Commission will also support the 
partnership through coordination, mu tual learning, exchange of best practices, monitoring and 
reporting, following the Lisbon process. As an inte gral part of the partnership, Member States 
and the Commission will iden tify good practice and where ap propriate develop common 
guidelines and monitor progress at national an d EU levels and report annually based on 
agreed indicators. The added value results from the co mmon focusing on closely related 
issues which concern all Member States in di fferent degree, the partnership process that 
should mobilise efforts and accelerate progre ss, the increased benefit for each country 
by acting together (increased overall brain circulation through opening positions and 
consistent doctoral programmes) and more effective national policies due to mutual learning and common guidelines.  
Some of the actions at nati onal level, e.g. improving sa laries and funding industrial 
fellowships will require additional financial re sources. They are expected to come from 
increased public budget for research, according to their commitments towards the 3% target, 
EN 40   EN reallocation between funding instruments and reallocation of budget within institutions 
(autonomy and financial managing). 
The overall governance of the ERA initiatives will be overseen by the Competitiveness 
Council utilising the Lisbon process and nation al actions to implement each initiative 
should be reflected in the National Re form Programmes of the Member States.  
EN 41   EN 7. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION 
In order for the partnership to successfully contribute to the crea tion of a world class 
European research system, it is therefore important that Member States, Council and 
Commission commit themselves to the common objectives and endorse the proposed 
actions. To this effect:  
• Member States should adopt a national action plan by early 2009  setting out specific 
objectives and actions to achieve the aims of  the partnership. Given the different starting 
positions of each Member State each plan is ex pected to focus on different aspects of the 
overall objectives of the partnership; the priority actions identified should be 
implemented by the end of 2010; 
• the Commission should seek to optimise  existing Community instruments , including 
those available through the FP7 People progr amme, to reinforce the partnership; 
• as an integral part of the partnership, Member States and th e Commission should: 
– identify good practice  and where appropriate develop common guidelines ; 
– monitor progress  at national and EU levels and report annually based on agreed 
indicators, as on the following table; 
– make maximum use of the existing Community legal framework  for the 
benefit of researchers; 
• in line with its central role in the governance of ERA initiatives, the Competitiveness 
Council should monitor and assess progress  in the implementation of the partnership 
actions;  
• at the end of 2010, an overall evaluation of the situatio n and results from actions by 
the partnership  should be made, with the help of inter alia  the suggested indicators, and 
the need for further EU action to address specif ic outstanding issues should be considered. 
The evaluation should fully incorporate the views of researchers themselves . A single 
contact point for researchers  to notify the partnership of examples of good practice and 
ongoing difficulties should be considered as well as the organisation of a major 
conference in 2009  to provide a platform for researchers' views. 
Problems identified  Objectives  Core Indicators  
Europe does not attract 
the best talents because 
of the "closed" 
recruitment conditions 
and non portable grants  To accelerate progress towards the 
removal of remaining barriers to the 
open, transparent, competition-based 
recruitment of researchers at 
institutional, national and 
Community levels including the increased portability of grants 
 Percentage of non-national and external 
researchers recruited by institution and MS; 
 
Percentage of public researchers' positions openly advertised on-line by institution and 
MS;  
Percentage of individual grants awarded by 
Community programmes and national 
agencies that can be portable
  
EN 42   EN Suboptimal use of 
existing rules 
coordinating social 
security throughout the EU for the benefit of 
researchers
 To improve awareness of researchers 
and employers of and optimise the 
use of the existing legal framework, 
through improved access to information on the application of EU 
social security coordination rules and 
explore derogations to general rules on legislation applicable; to ease 
transferability of supplementary 
pension rights and exploit the possibility for a EU Pension 
institution Percentage of researchers working in another 
MS, by gender and career stage; 
 
Number of national administrations39 
providing information on agreements with other Member States and third countries;  
Number and hits of social security web pages 
concerning researchers
 
Unattractive working conditions and career 
prospects cannot bring 
the best talents
 To bring in more attractive "working packages" especially for young 
researchers and to progressively 
introduce more flexibility in contractual and administrative 
arrangements and relevant national 
legislation for senior and end of career researchers Percentage of researchers on fixed term and 
permanent contracts by institution and by 
MS; 
Percentage of senior researchers with 
alternative career paths;  
Numbers of women in research and positions 
of responsibility by institution and MS 
Deficient initial and life-long training do not 
provide for the best 
innovation-driven skills
 To ensure that researchers are equipped with the full range of skills 
and encourage better links between
 
academia and industry  Percentage of doctoral programmes with 
industry placements by institution and MS 
and percentage of researchers that benefit; 
Percentage of researchers that have worked in 
or moved between different sectors by 
institution and MS  
                                                 
39 Corrected appropriately for the diffe rences in the physical infrastructure of social security at national 
level which can differ considerably, varying from only a few institutions to a large number of 
institutions responsible for the different fields of social security 
EN 43   EN 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Bruegel. 2007.  Bruegel Policy Brief: Why Reform Eu rope’s Universities? Issue 2007/04  
EIRMA, EUA, EARTO, PROTON Europe.  2005. Responsible partneri ng: joining forces in 
a world of open innovation  
European Commission.  2003. Third European Report on Sc ience & Technology Indicators. 
European Commission.  2005a. A Recommendation on the Eu ropean Charter for Researchers 
and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. Brussels 
European Commission.  2005b. Inventory of post-doctoral schemes in Europe. Brussels 
European Commission.  2006a. She Figures 2006. Women a nd Science: Statistics and 
Indicators. Brussels 
European Commission . 2006b. Mobility of Researchers betw een Academia and Industry: 12 
Practical Recommendations. Brussels 
European Commission . 2006c. Science, technology and innovation in Europe. 
European Commission . 2007a. Europe in the global re search landscape. Brussels 
European Commission.  2007b. Key Figures 2007, Towards a European Research Area: 
Science, Technology and Innovation. Brussels 
European Commission.  2007c. Remuneration of researchers in the public and private 
sectors. Brussels  
European Commission.  2007d. Integrated Information System on European Researchers. 
Brussels 
European Commission.  2007e. ERAWATCH. Collection and an alysis of existing data on 
RESearchers CAReers (RESCAR) and implemen tation of new data collection activities. 
Brussels  
European Commission.  2007g. Implementation report of the mobility and career 
development strategy 2006. Brussels 
European Commission.  2008a. Evidence on the main factor s inhibiting mobility and career 
development of researchers (sur vey under development). Brussels 
European Commission.  2008b. ERA consultation report. Brussels 
European Commission.  2008c. EG report on Realising a labour market for researchers. 
Brussels 
European University Association. 2007. DOC-CAREERS. Brussels 
Eurostat,  2007. How mobile are highly qualified human resources in Science and 
Technology. Statistics in Focus, 75/2007. Brussels 
EN 44   EN Gago, J. M.(ed.) 2007. The Future of Scie nce and Technology in Europe. A collective book 
of the EU Ministers of Science.  Lisbon. Ministry of Sciences 
Horta, H. et al. 2007. Academic inbreeding and scie ntific productivity, Pape r submitted to the 
CHER Conference 2007 " The Research Miss ion of the Univers ity" (UCD Dublin) 
Lambert R. 2003. Lambert Review of Busine ss-University Collaboration 
Ledin, A. et al. 2007. A persistent problem: Traditi onal gender roles hold back female 
scientists. Heidelberg: EMBO report 
Mahroum, S.  2000. ‘Highly silles globetrotters: ma pping the international migration of 
human capital in R&D Manage ment 30. January 2000. Blackwell 
Morano-Foadi S. 2005, Scientific Mobility, Career Progression, and Excellence in the 
European Research Area, Intern ational Migration. Vol. 43 (5) 
OECD.  2002. Frascati manual (sixth edition), Pr oposed Standard Practice for Surveys and 
Experimental Development. Paris 
OECD.  2006. Information Technology Outlook. Paris 
OECD.  2007a. Science, Technology and Industry, Scoreboard 2007. Paris 
OECD. 2007b. Economic survey of the European Union 2007. Paris  
OECD/ UNESCO Institute for Statistics/EUROSTAT.  2007. Careers of Doctorate holders 
(CDH) Project. Mapping careers and mobility of  doctorate holders: draft guidelines, model 
questionnaire and indicators. Paris 
Oswald and Ralsmark. 2008. Some Evidence on the Future of Economics. University of 
Warwick.  
PRO INNO EUROPE.  2007. Mini study: Skills for innovation. Brussels  
The Scientist.  2007. Best Places to Work 2007 (Post-docs) 
Thursby M. and Thursby J.  2006. Here or There? A survey of factors in multinational R&D 
location. US National Academy of Sciences, Na tional Academy of Engineering and Institute 
of Medicine. 
EN 45   EN 9. TABLE  OF ACRONYMS 
BEPG: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 
C&C: Charter and Code CREST: Scientific and Technology Research Committee EARTO: European Association of Research Technology Organisations 
EAU: European Association of Universities EIT: European Institute of Technology EMBL: European Molecular Biology Laboratory ERA: European Research Area ERA-NET: European Research Area NETworking ERC: European Research Council ERAWATCH: Integrated Information system for ERA EQF: European Qualification Framework EURES: European Employment Services FTE: Full Time Equivalent  FP: Framework Programme GDP: Gross Domestic Product HRST: Human Resources in  Science and Technology 
IA: Impact Assessment INSCED: International Standard  Classification of Education 
IORP: Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations 
MS: Member State MST: Maths, Science and Technology NSF: National Science Foundation OECD: Organisation for Economic  Cooperation and Development 
OMC: Open Method of Coordination 
EN 46   EN PRO: Public Research Organisation 
R&D: Research and Development RFO: Research Funding Organisation RPO: Research Performing Organisation RTO: Research and Technology Organisation SME: Small and Medium-sized Enterprise S&E: Science and Engineering S&T: Science and Technology SET: Science, Engineering and Technology  SGHRM: Steering Group for Human Resources in Research STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths TRESS: Training and Reporting in  European Social Security 
EN 47   EN Annex 1: Highlights from the Public Cons ultation following the ERA Green Paper  
Highlights from the positions of natio nal governments and European bodies 
Most of the responses by national author ities, received by 31.12.2007, were provided by the 
ministries in charge of res earch; some countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and UK) 
provided overall national positions and othe rs only sent the conclusions of national 
consultations40.  
Germany, Sweden and Switzerland highlight th e need for European research policies to 
uphold the principle of excellence. Belgium sees  the EU as a catalyst which should create the 
necessary political consensus to  remove problems and barriers to transnational cooperation, 
fill identified gaps and act wh ere benefits of scale can be  realised. The Czech Republic 
considers that the EU should set common fr amework conditions while respecting national 
diversity and reducing bureaucracy. Denmark cons iders it fundamental fo r European research 
and the ERA to be open to c ooperation with the best  scientists in the world. Switzerland 
considers that increasing competition between Eu ropean scientists is the key issue for the 
ERA rather than addressing fragmentation.  
Concerning the single market for researchers, the Czech Republic wants to minimise 
legislative barriers. Estonia s upports the creation of a single labour market for researchers 
while wishing to ensure that this does not lead to the deterioration of research in less developed regions. France also cons iders it necessary to create a single market for all research 
workers, including teachers, engineers and techni cians and for all funding  to include resources 
to support new researchers. Spain believes that the European Charter for Researchers and the 
Code of Conduct for their Recruitment should be made compul sory in the form  of a Directive 
and that the removal of barriers to mobility sh ould also be enforced by regulation. Finland 
believes that social security pract ices across the EU should be clar ified in general, not just for 
researchers. Poland would consider arrangeme nts concerning the coordination of social 
security at the EU level including the possibili ty of scientists' taking on the role of prime 
payers, as well as a legal framework coveri ng scientists' rights, duties and salaries. 
Sweden considers the lack of portability of so cial security provisions and the reservation of 
academic positions for national and/or internal st aff as the main obstacles to a single labour 
market for researchers. Austria emphasises the lack of researchers, particularly women, in 
some fields. Denmark, Norway and Spain also put special focus on th e promotion of women 
in science. Austria and Italy emphasise the need to focus on exchange rather than brain drain 
or gain. Italy would like to see a European level database of all researchers and more 
emphasis on interdisciplinary training. 
Denmark, Germany, Ireland and UK instead favour the spreading of best practice and the 
voluntary implementation of instruments like th e Charter and Code. Finland believes that 
compulsory EU legislation in this area could have highly asymmetric impacts in different 
Member States given the divers ity of national employment legi slation and practices. Belgium 
also does not favour compulsory measures but believes in streng thening existing tools like the 
Charter and Code. At the EU level, the Netherlands considers the priority to be continuing 
                                                
 
40 See all contributions on http://ec.europa.eu/ research/era/progress- on-debate/stakeholder-
consultation_en.html) 
EN 48   EN with measures aimed at promoting the training of researchers and the improvement of career 
prospects, through improving mobility. 
The European Parliament (EP), EESC and CoR s upport concerted action in this area. The EP 
makes particular reference to developing an information system, increasing mobility including inter-sectoral, promoting women and improvi ng science education. EESC considers that 
contract conditions, salaries, portability of soci al security and “family integrity” are the key 
obstacles to better carriers and mobility. This is supported by a similar assessment from CoR. 
Overall results: Researchers constitute the mo st important ERA dimension for action at the 
EU level 
All six of the ERA dimensions in the Gr een paper are considered important by the 
respondents to the on-line questionnaire. “Sharing knowledge”, followed by “Developing 
world-class research infrastructures”, is highli ghted as the most significant area contributing 
to the ERA Vision. However, c oncerning the level of expected  actions (EU, National or 
Regional), “Realising a single la bour market for researchers”, followed by “Opening to the 
world” and “Developing world-class research in frastructures”, is the top area of expected 
action at the EU level. “Realising a single labour market for researchers” is strongly supported 
especially by individual responde nts, PROs and NGOs. At the ot her end of the spectrum, all 
groups of stakeholders concur that it is no t primarily at the EU level that actions for 
“Strengthening research institutions” are needed but rather at national level. 
Position papers provide insight on the kind of expected action. One organisation expresses it: 
“European-wide structures and schemes should  constitute a balanced mix of approaches 
respecting and facilitating bottom-up research activities, combined with strategic guidance 
and coordination where this serves European policy objectives.”  Two universities suggest 
that “the EU should be more active in encour aging light-touch regulation to help remove 
barriers to business-university collaboration” as well as promoting  “the establishment of 
open access repositories and suppor ting academics in using them .”  
A majority of respondents endorse the use of various mechanisms to promote ERA such as 
financial incentives, increased EU budget, reinfo rced coordination and guidelines. But, there 
is generally little demand for binding legislative ac tions at European level. Respondents prefer 
flexible and adaptable, bottom-up coopera tion schemes, networking, voluntary legal 
frameworks, the exchange of best practices  and the establishmen t of guidelines. While 
respondents do not welcome regulatory action fo r public-private partne rships, sustainable 
bottom-up partnerships among industry and instituti ons are deemed to be very important, both 
for knowledge sharing and for streng thening research institutions. 
EN 49   EN 0 200 400 600 800Sharing knowledgeOptimising research programmes and priorities Strengthening research institutions Developing world-class research infrastructures Opening to the world: international cooperation in
S&T Realising a single labour market for researchers 
European National Regional No opinion
Figure 1: The expected level of action (EU, nati onal and regional) for ea ch of the six ERA areas 
Awareness and implementation of the C& C: voluntary versus mandatory actions 
Almost half of the respondents to the on-line que stionnaire declare that  they are sufficiently 
aware of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of  Conduct for thei r Recruitment 
(Charter and Code - C&C) issued in 2005 by the European Commission as a common, albeit 
voluntary framework for Member States, funders and employers of researchers to take 
account of the European dimension of research careers, including the transnational opening of 
vacancies and funding opportunities for research ers. However, the analysis by type of 
stakeholder reveals that the Charter and Code  obtains a better score awareness in higher 
education institutions, public se ctor and research funding organi sations and that governmental 
bodies are among the stakeholders that are leas t aware of the Charter and Code. The C&C are 
always less known in the private sector.   
Three fifths of those responding positively consid er that, due to their voluntary nature, the 
Charter and Code will not become a genuine  factor for European research careers. 
Nonetheless, a number of individual responden ts express preference for the C&C to be 
voluntary rather than mandatory and incentives for compliance are also recommended. It is also underlined that a mandatory C&C would be difficult to achieve in industrial R&D 
organisations. 
The great diversity of resear ch patterns throughout Europe makes implementation of the 
Charter and Code difficult. Vari ous suggestions are made in or der to translate the voluntary 
principles into concrete implementation. Fo r example, one stakeholder proposes that a 
concrete measure could be to make research  funding from the EU research programmes 
conditional on recognition and implementation of the principles of the Charter by the 
institutions receiving EU funding.  
There is strong support for the principles of the Charter and the Code in  the stakeholder free-
format responses. One stakeholder argues: “The European Charter constitutes a positive 
initiative, which it would be advisable to prolong by more concrete measurements of 
coordination.”  However, there are divergent viewpoint s regarding whether these principles 
should be mandatory or linked to  eligibility for fundi ng support. Serious c oncern is expressed 
EN 50   EN regarding the degree of fl exibility with which the Charter and Code should be enforced in the 
private sector and in particular in innovating SMEs, for “it would be difficult to imagine that 
SMEs would follow the same rules as big research laboratories.”  
Recognition of the profession and salary conditions  
Of the main concerns that could be addressed if the Charter and Code were binding (or, at 
least, if more specific guidelines at European  level applied), funding and salary levels come 
first, closely followed by the recognition and re warding of mobility, recruitment and working 
conditions. A number of respondents raise the s ubstantial problems for mobile researchers, 
including the lack of harmonisation of pension schemes within Europe, non-competitive researcher salaries and the comparatively low pr ofessional status of rese archers. A number of 
individual respondents comment on the difficulties linked to mob ility, e.g. moving families, in 
terms of work permits for partners and childre n needing to adjust to  different education 
systems. Some respondents also identify the potential for a mobility requirement to 
discriminate against those with disabilities . Others argue that working conditions should 
ensure access to childcare and also take in to account the special ci rcumstances of single 
parents. 
From the overall results, a large proportion of respondents (80%) believe that a “Charter and 
Code label” should be awarded to employers and funders who are successfully  engaged in 
applying the principles. Indeed, a ‘label mechanism’ would help speed up implementation of 
the Charter & Code and is considered preferable  to coercive legislation. Some stakeholders 
recommend that the Open Method of Coordina tion policy-making approach and the Bologna 
Process structures could be used for Charter and Code implementation rather than regulatory 
mechanisms. The substantial administrative bur den and costs associated with implementing 
and monitoring the C&C are also  commented on, in particular  in relation to decreasing 
interest and commitment. Nonetheless, a Foundation believes that “a more aggressive and 
coordinated approach is required if the ERA is to  create the necessary working environment 
for the research community to thrive on. Initia tives such as the C&C will only be valuable if 
their implementation is monito red and assessed across Europe.”
 
Legal status for mobile researchers 
The majority of respondents (74.6%) have a m obility experience but most of them did not 
spend more than three months in another EU country to do some research work (45.3%). A 
small majority are fellowship holders and only one third may be consid ered to be “posted” 
workers as they keep their cont ract in their country of reside nce. Only one third respond to 
this question, perhaps because they do not seem  fully aware about their real status during 
these periods. Some of the researchers think they are fellowship holders because they obtain 
money from European organisations e.g. Marie Curie fellowships. However, this money is 
often given to the host organisa tion which signs an employment contract with the researcher. 
The researchers are then considered to be salaried  workers even if they originally obtained an 
EU programme fellowship, which may have misled them in this question, as confirmed by the 
following quote: “Grants should be inclusive of all co mpulsory pension and social security 
contributions, and researchers should be recruite d by their host organisa tion so as to clarify 
their labour market position and to g uarantee pension and social security.”  
The limited period of time (one or exceptionally  two years) for which a worker, including 
researchers, posted to another EU country can be subject to the legislation of his or her 
country of origin can be pr olonged based on Article 17 of Re gulation 1408/71. Only 6.8% of 
EN 51   EN the respondents to this question (61.8% of total respondents) us ed this possibi lity and more 
than two thirds of those used th is possibility for 1 to 3 times. Th is may be due to the fact that 
only a few host organisations know about this system and that researchers may not be 
considered to be “certain categories of persons”  allowed to remain within the social security 
system of their country of origin. The remarks reveal that the application of bilateral agreements on social security signed between di fferent countries is st ill unknown. Most often, 
it is up to the researcher to provide this informa tion to the local social security administration. 
According to the respondents, th e lack of information on this ex isting legislation also reduces 
the share of researchers who can benefit from th is system. A Director of a research institute 
highlights: “I tried to defend the interests of pe rsonnel we had delegated from another MS. 
The problem re-occurred regularly and in almost all cases we had to go to high levels in the 
Foreign Ministries to solve it.”  
Problematic issues related to social secu rity for mobile researchers within the EU 
The on-line consultation reveals a lack of information on the righ ts of migrant researchers: 
they are worried firstly about matters such as  statutory pension righ ts, followed by health 
insurance, unemployment benefits and family benefits (parental leav e). Among the responses 
to the open questions, pension rights seem the ma in concern, as most of the researchers will 
have to claim their pension benefits from diff erent systems, in the different countries they 
have lived and worked in. A ccording to the res pondents, even if th e actual European 
legislation allows for the aggregation of pe riods completed under different systems, the 
procedures to obtain the pensions  is still very long. Less than 10% of the respondents are of 
the opinion that “accident at wo rk” coverage is problematic.  
Acquisition, preservation and transferabi lity of supplementary pension rights
 
In the question on supplementary pension rights,  the prevailing options include common rules 
throughout the EU and setting up  a “European researchers’ pe nsion fund”. A large majority 
(79.5%) of the on-line respondents agree that common rules should apply throughout the EU 
on the acquisition, preservation an d transferability of supplementa ry pension rights. Out of the 
comments, the most relevant themes are: the ne ed to ensure a proper  pension, to reduce the 
paperwork involved and to organise transferab ility of pension rights. Vesting periods and 
resulting negative effects should be reduced and compensation in salary for pension gaps is 
voiced as a solution. Over 65% out of the 66% of th e respondents to the question agree that 
researchers would be well served with a Europe an researchers’ pensi on fund to secure their 
pension rights. Even if several comments s howed that respondents would find it difficult to 
judge this option (because they would need more information to  fully understand it), this 
principle is generally regarded as a potential positive step. 
Respondents to the on-line questionnaire are mo stly (65%) favourable to the setting up of a 
“European researchers’ pension fund”. Wh en looking at the breakdown by type of 
stakeholder, it is worth noting that large commercial organisatio ns and associations 
representing commercial interests are mainly op posed to such a step. Comments suggest that 
the two options, common rules and European re searchers’ pension fund, are not mutually 
exclusive but they can coexist next to each other. Respondents point  out that there are 
differences amongst the EU Member States in standards, both for social security, revenue and research level. Therefore, it is important to  opt for a solution which takes these differences 
into account. 
EN 52   EN The majority of the free-format opinions point ou t that to achieve truly seamless mobility of 
researchers, further progress n eeds to be made to foster portability of social security 
provisions and pension rights between Member States: “Vesting periods for portability of 
pensions should be abolished. Supplementary  pension rights obtained should follow the 
researcher from country to country and from employee to employee.”  Higher education 
institutions assess that the i ssue of portability of  pension schemes requires the European 
Commission and Member States “to devote considerable political  will to resolve this issue.”   
Flexicurity principles and the labour market for researchers 
Just under half of those responding to the que stion (48.1%) on flexicurity believe that its 
principles could enhance the attractiveness of Eu ropean research careers. There is a similar 
level of support for the development of comm on standards in its implementation. However, 
support for advancing flexicurity via fora bringing together the key stakeholders is slightly 
lower. 
Free-format contributions provide  a variety of viewpoints on fl exicurity. Some argue that, in 
view of national divergence (discussed in  the Commission Memb er State Employment 
Committees’ paper, May 2006, regardi ng Denmark, Holland and Sweden), “flexicurity should 
not be forced upon the Member States through binding common principles or prescriptive 
routes.”  An organisation comments that the concept of flexicurity is not sufficiently well 
defined or its benefits readily identified; on th e other hand, a research network suggests that 
flexicurity could make scientif ic careers more attractive.  
Industry warns that binding/enforceable measur es at European level may smother the labour 
market for knowledge workers in the EU. The best  people are interested  in research jobs 
worldwide and are available on the labour market only very briefly (1-2 weeks) until they are 
hired. Since EU-level measures  may introduce additional steps that could slow down 
processes, Europe risks losing th e flexibility and attractiveness that are essential to retain the 
top candidates. 
An association argues that policies of fostering and retaining talents are critical in successful 
ERA implementation. However, for this to occur,  most of the association members stress the 
importance of flexicurity princi ples, being at the same time concerned by the impact of its 
implementation on future careers as well as on the working environment. 
Attracting young talents to a research career 
Three quarters of the on-line respondents agree that the lack of info rmation on careers in 
research is a major barrier towards greater up- take, with a relatively much smaller proportion 
of respondents, however, believi ng that information on careers  is good but that the careers 
themselves are unattractive and not competitive with other options. As to how information 
could be improved, just under two thirds of re spondents (60%) agree that  the role of career 
advisors could be enhanced; whether parents need  more information is less clear with nearly 
half agreeing this can have positive effects, one third disagreeing, and 18% of the respondents 
stating they have no opinion. 
A number of stakeholder organisations favour more  active engagement of scientists with the 
public and particular ly with schools: “the concept of research should be introduced at an 
early age.”  The JetNet “Youngsters and Technology Network” in the Netherlands is cited as 
an example of successful engagement with schools, while science festivals are a prime 
example of engagement with cities. 
EN 53   EN About a quarter of respondents provide ad ditional comments regarding attraction and 
retention issues. These include a plea to estab lish genuine career paths for researchers, along 
with competitive remuneration and family-friendly workplace policies. Honesty about career opportunities available in particul ar fields of research is also considered important and a 
number raise the problems of partners/spou ses with dual careers finding satisfactory 
employment opportunities for both. In relation  to support for mobility of families, an 
organisation recommends greater provision of in ternational schools in Europe. This initiative 
is seen as one way of substantially reducing the disadvantages often experienced by children 
of mobile researchers when cha nging national education systems. 
The disenchantment regarding employment opportunities for young researchers is commented 
on by a number of free-format contributions. An organisation suggests that the Commission 
should investigate why some countries regard sc ientists highly and others do not and use the 
outcomes in the development of appropriate poli cies. Some free-format contributions suggest 
that it is not enough to attract young talents, but it is also important for researchers to 
“acquire multidisciplinary as well as soft skills th at will enable them to cope more easily with 
change such as cross-border mobility or movi ng from one research environment to another.” 
Several stakeholder organisations  comment that the Green Paper is much more focused on the 
supply side of skilled in 
Science, technology, engineering and maths ( STEM) workers needed for 
innovation than on the demand side. This is clea rly emphasised by an industrial confederation 
as follows  “Currently ERA policies focus firmly on the “Push” side of the equation –
generating research activity and collaboration, facilitating researcher movement, increasing 
infrastructure. All of these ar e important and necessary, but th e “Pull” side must also be 
addressed: creating markets, creating intelligen t customers (public and private, corporate 
and individual) and creating demand for innovati on. These are the real drivers of research 
investment and innovatio n in the economy.” 
More women in research, in particular in more senior positions 
Working conditions enabling a better work/life balance are considered important for 
increasing the recruitment and advancement of women in research careers by a large number 
of respondents (88%). As to th e idea of benchmarking recruitment and funding of researchers 
at institutional level, the results are less clear with nearly half agreeing this can have positive effects, one third disagreeing and 20% of respondents stating they have no opinion. The 
proportion of those that disagree  with this suggestion is higher among the men (38%) than 
among the women (25%). Comm ents added by respondents confirm the often ‘hidden’ or 
subtle discrimination of women in the scientif ic world and plea for more effective changes 
than a ‘benchmarking’ effort. Ho wever, just under half of a ll respondents (and two thirds of 
the male respondents) is not supportive of positive discrimination in recruitment regarding women.  
A number of the stakeholder responses identify  obstacles to the participation of women in 
research careers and suggest model initiatives which could help the reconciliation of family 
and professional life. For example, the Project  Juno Code of Practice in the UK aimed at 
advancing the careers of women in physics and the Nusslein-Vo llhard programme within the 
Max-Planck Society. Incentives such as employm ent packages includin g childcare facilities 
are also discussed. Attention is also drawn to  the pressure on researchers to demonstrate 
mobility as a factor in the underrep resentation of women scientists. 
EN 54   EN The potential of end of career researchers 
Just over two thirds of respondents consider that  greater use of end of career researchers for 
mentoring and advisory functi ons could be facil itated through the provision of new job 
opportunities/incentives targeted at this group. Ho wever, less than half are supportive of legal 
changes which enable later retirement. Also so me respondents are con cerned that retaining 
end of career researchers could impede the cr eation of positions for younger researchers. A 
number of stakeholder organisatio ns also provide support for the more effective utilisation of 
end of career researchers in specific roles such as mentoring. Scientists from outside Europe 
are also considered to be an obvious  source for increasing the talent pool. 
Attracting the European scientific diaspora and best world talents  
Countries such as China and I ndia have developed a wide range  of policies and initiatives 
aimed at the strategic management of their sc ientific diaspora for national economic growth 
and development. Over half of the responde nts (58.6%) agree that joint programming and 
funding approaches along with sharing of information throughout Europe would enhance 
linkages with expatriate researchers. About ha lf of the respondents ar e also supportive of 
initiatives which would better en able non-European res earchers based in Eu rope to keep in 
touch with other fellow nationals. 
Approximately three fifths of respondents agree that mobility and recruitment of researchers 
irrespective of nationality w ould be enhanced through the exchange of good practice 
regarding fellowship programmes aimed at re-a ttracting researchers. Similar support is 
provided for fellowship and funding programmes th at entail a transnational dimension and are 
not limited by the nationality of  the applicant. There is also  support for joint funding in a 
number of stakeholder responses. However, it is recommended that atten tion is also given to 
researchers form poorer economies and that the movement of researchers is not unilateral. 
Education and life-long training  
Transnational networking of doctoral training programmes is considered by around two fifths 
of respondents as one way of accelerating the development of high quality, industry relevant 
researchers. The development of common standa rds and exchange of good practices regarding 
these programmes is also considered important. 
In relation to life-long training, just over half of respondents agree with the proposal to raise 
awareness amongst stakeholders on the importance of this issue.  Around half agree with the 
proposal for a European-wide exchange on good pr actice. And slightly less than half are 
supportive of establishing common standards regarding life-long training across Europe.  
Just under 15% of respondents provide a dditional comments on life-long training, 
standardisation of training and acquisition of transferable skills (e.g. project management and 
communication). Whilst some advocate standard isation of doctoral training and research 
programmes in Europe, others comment on the importance of maintain ing national diversity 
arguing that the introducti on of common standards could stifle innovation rather than raise the 
quality of education and resear ch. Some also recommend much  greater linkage between the 
number of PhD places and industry demand and others express concern about common 
standards increasing an already heavy administ rative burden for researchers. It is also 
mentioned that mobility could be detrimenta l to career prospects on return to the home 
country.  
EN 55   EN Many stakeholders who submitted position papers mention that education is not adequately 
present in the ERA Green Paper although it is seen as a pre-requi site for spreading scientific 
knowledge and attracting young people to science a nd therefore could have been the seventh 
axis of the ERA vision. 
According to the UK Higher Education Sector, th ere is a need for engagement with the ERA 
agenda at the earliest stages, i.e. at school level. It is also impor tant that effective and reliable 
information is available through careers servi ces when young people are making their initial 
career choices. The opportunities to be mobile and experience the advantages that a period 
spent living and working abroad offer, could also  be highlighted at an earlier stage. This 
argument is supported by a European Industry Council as follows “The Bologna model should 
be used for building researcher education w ith a strong ERA scope. An  opportunity could be 
European wide programmes that aim at supply of world-class researchers in areas prioritised 
by European research initiatives such as European Technology platforms.” One comment 
concludes: “ the EU must also grow its own quality rese archer base and this must start at the 
earliest stages. Schools should provide a st imulating environment for learning STEM 
(science, technology, engineering and maths)  subjects and should take every opportunity to 
bring those with relevant practical experi ence into teaching and de monstration roles.” 
The importance of operating in a global contex t and increasing colla boration between public 
and private sector R&D organisa tions have made the concept of a conventional career path in 
science obsolete. In this regard, a range of th e stakeholder organisatio ns comment explicitly 
on the importance of Early Career Researcher s acquiring transferable/soft skills to enhance 
their employability. These skills include pr oject and financial management; knowledge and 
data management, working in a multicultural environment, etc. The new UK/Irish Institute for Knowledge Transfer is suggested as a model fo r the provision of such  training and could be 
made open to all researchers across Europe. 
EN 56   EN Annex 2: Data and figures  
The professional category “Resear cher” is not a defined occupa tion ascribed a code under the 
International Standard Classi fication of Occupations (ISCO)41 and this is the source of 
problems in data comparability and harmonisa tion. Doctoral students (who are students but 
also researchers and are often employed as su ch) are classified under the International 
Standard Classification of Edu cation (ISCED97), which is used to define tertiary education 
programmes that lead to the award of an adva nced research degree (ISCED Level 6). For the 
definition of this level this typically requires the submission of a thesis of publishable quality, 
representing the product of orig inal research and a significan t contribution to  knowledge. In 
addition this level is also considered to prepare graduates (one assumes through training 
programmes) for faculty posts in institutions  offering largely theo retically based taught 
programmes (ISCED level 5A). As doctoral students may also at the same time be employed 
in faculty posts, in differing institutions within differing educational systems, with differing employment conditions and time lengths for comp letion of doctoral studies, difficulties again 
arise in terms of data ha rmonisation and comparability. 
An increasing amount of quantit ative and qualitative data become now available (EC 2007a-e, 
2008). Some of these data are derived from Euro stat’s education database but caution has to 
be exercised because the European education sy stems differ between countries, and for some 
countries duplications of degr ees might exist. Eurostat and the OECD are also developing 
improved harmonised data collections in se veral areas. Eurostat/OECD and UNESCO are 
involved in harmonising national surveys on the Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH): 
currently 17 countries have such surveys but with various objectives, populations and 
frequencies which currently hamper comparability. 
In order to fill the information gaps on "researchers", studies and reports often use proxy 
indicators such as Human Resource s in Science and Technology (HRST)
42 as defined by the 
Canberra Manual on the measurement of huma n resources devoted to scientific and 
technological activities (OECD 1995), s ub-classifications of which include Science & 
Engineering  (S&E) workers and doctorate holders . The table below shows the size for each 
population according to the proxy used in comparison to Research and Development  
personnel  and Researchers .  
Table III. Why proxy indicators shouldn't be used when describing the population of 
researchers. Comparison of various pr oxy indicators for researchers in EU25, 2005  
 Active 
population  HRST  HRST 
core Scientists & 
engineers  R&D 
personnel  Researchers
In Persons 
(Million) 213.8 86.30 31.8  9.4  2.9 1.8 
(1.3 FTE) 
Source: Eurostat 
                                                 
41 See http://www.ilo.org/public/englis h/bureau/stat/isco/docs/draft08.pdf   
42 HRST is defined according to the Canberra Manual  as a person fulfilling one of the following 
conditions: Successfully comp leted education at the third level in  a S&T field of study; not formally 
qualified as above, but employed in an S&T occupa tion where the above qualif ications are normally 
required  
EN 57   EN As population sizes are very different, none of the proxy indicators can inform adequately 
on research and development personnel  or researchers , except if one hypothesizes that the 
proxy populations have the same mo bility patterns and social ch aracteristics as the population 
of researchers . Similarly, some researchers  are doctorate holders  but others are not . A 
recent study based on data from the European  Patent Office found that only a minority of 
patent holders are doctorate holders43. 
Table IV. Number of job posted on the Researchers Mobility Portal  
 On-line  XML  Total  
2005 799 589 1,388 
2006 1,749 3,074 4,823 
2007 2,176 2,626 4,802 
Source: Researchers Mobility Portal  http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/  (last update, January 
2008; online refers to job posted directly, XML refers to excha nge of information with other 
portals). As an element of comparison, 101,000 doctoral degrees were granted in 2005 (EC 
2007d).  
Table V. Indicative  Best practices  
In the UK, a number of the Research Councils including the Arts and Humanities Research 
Council (AHRC), the Biotechnology and Biologic al Sciences Research  Council (BBSRC) and 
the Engineering and Physical Sciences Re search Council (EPSRC) and the two main 
Research Council, in Ireland have career developm ent as an integral part of the peer review 
process.  
In some countries, concrete actions have been  undertaken to enhance contractual conditions 
for post-docs, such as for instance the “R CUK academic fellowship”, a post-doc scheme, 
which provides funding for 5 years and offers tenure positions after the fellowship providing a 
successful evaluation. At EU level, the ERC 5- year "Starting Independent Investigators" 
grants represents a successful initiative of a si milar nature, which should be replicated at a 
wider scale. 
Junior professorship in Germany is a new career path for young scientists. The French 
National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM ) has launched a tenure track 
model for biomedical research, in collaborat ion with hospital and universities. The position 
offers tenure with, depending on professional experience, a fixed  yearly salary and a five-year 
renewable contract with complementary sala ry paid by the hospital or university. The 
INSERM "Interface Programme" is designed for researchers with tenure positions who are 
offered mobility opportunities for 3 to 5 years in hospitals, universities or industries; the 
partner hosts the INSERM researcher and will pay 1/3 of his/her salary while INSERM 
maintain the researcher on its payroll for 2/3. 
Norwegian universities have 20% Professor II positions on “time-bank” terms for employees 
holding senior positions in industry, research  institutions, hospitals etc. or at another 
                                                 
43 See http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2005-20.html   
EN 58   EN university (e.g. abroad) as add-on to their main position – financed by either party. Vice 
versa, a 100% university professor may also hol d a part-time position in e.g. a hospital or at 
another research institution. Norway’s Centre s of Excellence offer corresponding flexible 
part-time positions for foreign researchers who want to keep their home. 
In the UK, the Athena SWAN Charter is a sche me which recognises excellence in Science, 
Engineering and Technology (SET) employme nt for women in higher education and 
research. The Charter was launched in June 2005 and any university or research institution 
which is committed to the advancement and promotion of the careers of women in SET in 
higher education and research can apply for memb ership. Over twenty five per cent of all 
eligible universities are now members. Since the project’s establishment in 1999 Athena’s 
work with its partner HEIs has improved  the understanding of the SET and employment 
cultures of HE and has produced a wealth of evidence based good practice.  
In Switzerland, two programmes, namely "Re-st art" and "Dual-career", offer starting grants 
to facilitate the recrui tment of researchers returning to science (left for any reason, not only 
child care). The support is for 2-4 years, but th ere is a certain degree of pressure on the 
institutions to promote the permane nt hiring of the successful cases. 
ErhversPhD in Denmark, Casimir in the Neth erlands, CIFRE in France, CASE in the UK, 
Sweden, and others are examples of schemes for doctoral candidates. In Spain, the Torres 
Quevedo Programme offers labour c ontracts of up to three years to researchers holding a 
doctoral degree or having more than one yea r postgraduate R&D experience, who will 
develop their research activity in en terprises and technological centres. 
The University of Manchester & UMIST (Universi ty of Manchester Institute of Science and 
Technology) Careers Service, are working with large companies and SMEs to develop 
placement but also to support lo cal business by involving SMEs  in curriculum development, 
by partnering with 13 other Careers Service in the region to offer a pool of 50,000 students 
placement and graduate jobs, and to help SMEs access resources at universities. PRO INNO 
II in Germany supports the placement of do ctorate candidates in SMEs. France will 
implement in 2008 the "doctorant-conseil" initia tive which will provide the opportunity for all 
doctorate candidates to have internships in co mpanies in exchange for consultancy services. 
Novo Nordisk currently co-finances 60 PhDs. Pl ans include more funds in the frame of the 
Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI), one  of the Joint Technology Initiatives. 
Some Member States are developing national skil ls agenda for researchers, in particular for 
doctoral candidates and post-docs . Following the review by Sir Gareth Robert, the UK 
government is allocating funds to academia for employability skill training. Key employment 
skills are mandatory in the UK  for professional developmen t for doctoral candidates and 
post-docs under contracts with th e Research Councils. The traini ng is equivalent to 2 weeks 
training given by professional s. The UK GRAD Programme provides support, advice and 
resources to postgraduate research students,  their supervisors and their universities. 
In the UK, the Leadership Foundation offe r development on leadership, governance and 
management to current and future leaders within higher education institutions 
(http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/). In the US, the A ssociation of University Technology Managers 
(AUTM) offers courses to both academia and industry. 
EN 59   EN The national research funding agenc ies regrouped in the EUROHORCs44 have piloted the so-
called "money follows researcher" scheme for tr ans-national transfer of individual grants.  
                                                 
44 EUROHORCs is a European association of the heads of RFO and RPO  
http://eurohorcs.drift.senselogic.se/initia tivesandactivities/moneyfollowsresearcher  
EN 60   EN Annex 3: Highlights from the report of the independent Expert Group on "Realising a 
single labour market for researchers"   
 
(citations  from the Executive Summary)45 
"It has become increasingly evident that a more concerted strategy is necessary to address the 
human resources needs of the European Rese arch Area (ERA). Such a strategy should 
establish realistic goals and develop clear methods for their implementation. The present 
(Expert Group - ed) Report addr esses the Policy Options that  the Expert Group 'Realising a 
single labour market for researchers' (EG Research ers) has identified in order to ensure more 
attractive careers for researchers and to progressively eliminate the obstacles hampering their mobility. 
"We have chosen an architectural image in orde r to highlight the complementary nature of the 
components of the tetrahedral structure that we have conceived. For each of the proposed four 
cornerstones  we identify the obstacles and hindrances  that, in our view, continue to hamper 
the development of ERA, and provide some 'cas e studies' in order to illustrate concerns. 
"We then provide Policy Options, some of which have already been succ essfully tested and 
could therefore be generalis ed almost immediately, othe rs could be implemented 
progressively.  
"The recommendations in this report are addresse d to all bodies in rece ipt of public funds for 
research. This is meant to include the fundi ng agencies who disburse funds and those who 
receive them, in the public and private sector ( universities, research centres and companies). 
All must take individual and collective re sponsibility for the im plementation of the 
recommendations; in our opinion th ey will determine whether Eu rope does indeed become a 
single labour market for researchers."  
"Obstacles and hindrances that continue  to hamper the development of the ERA:
 
"First cornerstone – attraction, ethical recruitment and retention of researchers 
"There are often substantial obs tacles that threaten our cap acity to maintain and boost the 
regional pool of skilled researchers needed to  fuel the EU research and innovation system. 
Namely: 
– a lack of transparent recruitmen t and career progression mechanisms; 
– the complexity of employment application procedures; 
– an imbalance between demands of the workplace and personal life; 
– a lack of attractiveness for young talents; 
– the remaining ‘insufficiently equal’ opportunities, partic ularly for women."  
                                                 
45 The views expressed in the published Expert Group report are the sole responsibility of the author and 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission 
EN 61   EN "Second cornerstone – mobility in all its face ts (geographical, sector, disciplinary and 
'demographic')  
"Other issues continue to hinder the mobility of  researchers within Europe as well as between 
Europe and Third countries. These include: 
– a lack of resources to support the di rect and indirect costs of mobility;  
– an insufficient weight given to mobility as a valuable component of the researcher CV;  
– the persisting reluctance to move between  the public and the private sector;  
– the lack of a strategic appro ach to the accumulated experien ce of senior and/or retired 
researchers."  
"Third cornerstone – researcher-friendly social security and supplementary pension 
systems   
"Significant challenges remain in promoting an equitable and cohesive social system for 
researchers within the EU. These include: 
– lack of awareness of social  security and supplementary pensions rules and rights; 
– the need to improve cooperation between nationa l administrations, research authorities and 
institutions both in social secur ity and supplementary pension areas; 
– relatively little tailoring of  social security rules of Regulation 1408/71 (883/2004) to 
individual researcher profile s (whether EU citizens or  Third-country nationals); 
– need to exploit potentialities of current in struments to set up (a) pan-European Pension 
Fund(s) for researchers; 
– the need to encourage the use of tax incen tives to facilitate the participation in 
supplementary pension schemes." 
"Fourth cornerstone – The European Charter for researchers and Code of Conduct for 
their recruitment  as a dynamic process  
" (…..) The ‘Charter & Code’  were undersigned by a considerable number of (public) 
research institutions. Yet, there is scant awaren ess of this document among researchers and its 
implementation by institutions." 
"POLICY OPTIONS 
"First cornerstone – attraction, ethical recruitment and retention of researchers 
"Any organisation in receipt of public  funds for research is required: 
• to advertise externally any research position vacancy supporte d by those funds, especially 
on the European Researcher's Mobility Portal; to take concrete actions aimed at simplifying application procedures, thus encour aging participation by external applicants; 
EN 62   EN • to treat researchers, from the early career st ages, as professionals, also in terms of 
remuneration and social security, irre spective of the type of contract;  
• to clarify in a transparent manner the long term career prospects of each position;  
• to promote the achievement of scientific independence by the youngest stratum, through, 
for example, reserved funds such as the ERC Starting Investigation Grants; 
• to ensure that transferable skills are includ ed in the evaluation procedures for researcher 
recruitment and career progression, to prom ote and assist the transition from team 
members to team leaders; 
• to take positive and urgent actions for prom oting fair gender representation among all 
(selection) committees, board s and governing bodies;  
• to adopt a dual career policy, inspir ed by successful existing models;  
• to allow researchers who are eligible for pre gnancy (or parental) leav e while working in a 
fixed-term contract to receive an extension of their contracts,  and the associated funds, for 
the duration of thei r pregnancy and/or parental leave. 
• to develop, when it is entitled to award docto ral degrees, structured doctoral programmes, 
moving away from the traditional, highly indivi dualised apprentice model, oriented only to 
academic profession to a new model, oriented to a wider employment market, to give PhD 
graduates multiple career options in the Knowledge Society;  
• to limit, whenever possible, the number of ‘resear ch products’ (e.g. p ublications) to be 
attached to an application fo r a researcher position, in order to favour an assessment based 
on ‘performance relative to opportunity’, rather than on absolute performance." 
 
"Second cornerstone – mobility  in all its facets (geogra phical, sector, disciplinary, 
virtual and ‘demographic’)  
"Any organisation in receipt of public funds for research is required:  
• to consider and value mobility in all its facet s as an integral part of the researcher 
curriculum; 
• to allocate incentives to compensate direct a nd indirect costs of mobility (e.g. in the case of 
intersectoral mobility, grant incentives for th e public institutions, and career incentives for 
the researcher, and make best use of direct and indirect fiscal incentives for companies); 
• to avoid that talents attraction is practiced  to the detriment of less developed regions, 
promoting Institutional partnerships, within wh ich mobility of researchers is anchored to 
overall development projects for the partner institutions; 
• to promote and support virtual mobility activ ities and infrastructures (e-conferences, e-
seminars, electronic newsletters, thematic por tals, e-fora and chats, video-conference 
infrastructure; virtual labs etc.), as eff ective and efficient complements to physical 
mobility." 
EN 63   EN "Any organisation in receipt of public funds for resear ch is encouraged to investigate how 
best to systematically involve retired senior re searchers in value added activities such as non-
salaried mentoring of early career researchers and the promotion of the excitement of science 
and research careers to school chil dren and to the public generally; 
"At European level, the EC is urged to establish an 'internati onal placement agency' for retired 
senior researchers who are willi ng to act as mentors, experts, conference organisers and peer 
reviewers. The agency would direct this hi ghly valuable support at less well endowed 
research groups in Europe and in developing countries." 
EN 64   EN "Third cornerstone – research-friendly soci al security and s upplementary pension 
systems 
"The addresses are invited to take acti ons according to their responsibilities. 
"Information, training and cooperation  between social security players   
"Addressed to: European Commi ssion (EC), Member States (M S), Training and Reporting on 
Social Security (TRESS), ERA-MORE – Feasible in: mid-term  
• to systematically organise EU and nati onal training sessions on EU coordination 
Regulations for research institutions' staff and ERA-MORE Mobility Centres; 
• to draft new, and spread awareness of exis ting EU and national social security info 
packages (websites, guides, etc.) for mobile researchers; 
• to establish close cooperation between the EC , Ministries in charge of Research, the 
Administrative Commission on Social Security  for Migrant Workers, TRESS network and 
ERA-MORE Mobility Centres to ensure info rmation flows, exchange of good practice, 
best use of existing rules and assess feasibili ty and appropriateness of  new rules to remove 
further obstacles to mobility of researchers." 
"Posting & 'Article 17 agreements ' – (specific to researchers) 
"Addressed to: European Commi ssion, TRESS and Member States – Feasible in: mid term 
"To promote, by gathering data on future a pplication of both 'Article 17 of Regulation 
1408/71 agreements' and EU rules on 'posting' of researchers, to promote their wider 
application to the benefit of researchers by al so making an extensive use of Recommendation 
16/84 of the Administrative Commission on Soci al security for Migrant Workers to 
researchers". 
"Access to unemployment benefits and specific rule (s) on conflict of law – (not specific to 
researchers)  
"Addressed to: EC, MS – Feasible in: mid-term 
"Within the context of EU 'Acti on Plan for Mobility 2007-2010' to: 
• explore the feasibility of amending unemploym ent benefits exportation rules for migrant 
researchers/workers (Article 68 of Re gulation 1408/71 (Art. 64 of Reg. 883/2004); 
• explore the relevance and the impact of a specifi c rule of conflict of law applicable to 'new 
forms of mobility', in view of inserting them, if appropria te, in the EU legislation." 
"Third-country researchers: agreements, in formation, Directive 2005/71 – (specific to 
researchers)  
"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: mid-term 
• to encourage (e.g. through a Commission or C ouncil Recommendation) the signature of (or 
the amendment of existing) bilateral and/or mu ltilateral social security agreements between 
EN 65   EN EU Member States and non-EU countries including appropriate rules for mobile 
researchers; 
• to set up more efficient information systems on social security agreements by for instance 
making full use of the European and Nati onal Researchers' Mobility Portals. 
• when monitoring the implementation of Di rective 2005/71 on the admission of third-
country researchers to the EU, to pay specific attention to a correct application of Article 
12 of that Directive concerning equal treatment  with national as rega rds social security 
rights." 
"Pension subsidies attached to fellowships – (specific to researchers)   
"Addressed to: MS, EC – F easible in: short-term 
"Target group and pension pillars: research fellowship holders, supplementary and private 
pensions 
"To introduce subsidies for research fellows who are not covered by any domestic pension 
system, by also facilitating thei r building up of pension rights with a financial institution 
(third pillar)." 
"Setting up of a Pension Support Centre in the Member States  
"Addressed to: EC, MS – Feasible in: mid term "Target group and pension pillars: researcher s (pilot group), statut ory and supplementary 
pensions 
"After assessing its legal and concrete feasib ility, to set up a Pension Support Centre by also 
making use of existing information tools/services." 
"Promoting the setting-up of National Pension Registers in the Member States  
"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: mid term "Target group and pension pillars: researcher s (pilot group), statut ory and supplementary 
pensions 
"To promote by the EC the setting-up of nationa l information systems (pension registers) on 
accrued pension rights in each MS and promote their interlinking."  
"A Pan-European Pension Fund (IORP) for Researchers 
"Addressed to: IORP pension sche mes – Feasible in: mid term 
"Target group and pension pillars: re searchers, supplementary pensions 
"For the EC to launch a f easibility study and furthermore stimulate the development of 
supplementary pension pan-EU schemes for re searchers based on the 'IORP' Directive." 
EN 66   EN "Promoting the introduction of tax incenti ves for participating in second and third 
pillar systems 
"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: mid term 
"Target group and pension pillars: al l workers, supplementary pensions 
"To promote by the EC national tax relief system s for contributions paid to supplementary 
(including 'IORP') schemes and to financial in stitutions managing private pension schemes." 
"Fourth cornerstone – The European Chart er for researchers and a Code of Conduct 
for their recruitment as a dynamic process 
"Any organisation in receipt of public funds fo r research which signed the C&C is required: 
• to promote knowledge and awareness of C&C;  the EC should provide human, structural 
and financial means for the management and organisation of a European information 
campaign including the establishment of an ERA and C&C promoters’ network; 
• to define and advertise a Huma n Resources Mission Statement, in line with the C&C spirit, 
focusing on the recruitment, career developm ent and retirement procedures of their 
respective researchers; the European Commi ssion should play a proactive role in the 
dissemination and promotion of the institutional HR mission statements."  
"The European Commission is urged to design  and promote a 'ERA – Researchers’ Human 
Resources Label' indicating research institutions, which  
• participate actively in the networ k of ERA and C&C promoters;  
• advertise and monitor the impl ementation of their specific Researchers’ Human Resources 
Mission Statement; 
• accept some form of external monitoring."