EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/94

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The road to the European knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy’

(2006/C 65/18)

On 22 April 2005, the future Austrian EU Presidency decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on The road to the European knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy

and under Rule 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee decided to establish a subcommittee to prepare its work on the matter.

The subcommittee adopted its draft opinion on 9 November. The rapporteur was Mr Jan Olsson, the co-rapporteurs were Ms Eva Belabed and Mr Joost van Iersel.

At its 422nd plenary session, held on 14 and 15 December 2005 (meeting of 14 December 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 127 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions.

Recommendations and conclusions

1. The EESC suggests that Member States and EU institutions commit themselves beyond 2010 to establish a Common European Area of Knowledge, based on intensified cooperation in Learning, Innovation and Research policies. This will be an important step in the relaunch of the Lisbon Strategy as well as in underpinning the European model of society, thereby also bridging the gap between Europe and its citizens.

2. This relaunch requires the public authorities and organised civil society in each country to be mobilised for this objective, by defining key priorities and proposing and implementing actions both on their own and in cooperation with each other, which also should be reflected in the national reform programme.

3. Member States, the European Commission, European and national parliaments, businesses and financial institutions as well as civil society must commit themselves to a Common European Area of Knowledge aimed at all citizens, organisations and companies and based on clearly defined targets, benchmarks, timetables as well as clear responsibilities.

4. The Internal Market remains the major cornerstone of the integration process, leading to improved economic performance, more and better jobs, social progress and sustainability. The interaction between the Common European Area of Knowledge and the Internal Market will release new potential for growth. Therefore, obstacles to the Internal Market that hamper the transition to the knowledge economy must be removed as quickly as possible

5. All citizens, all sectors and all regions must be encouraged to take part and be able to reap the rewards of the knowledge society, which provides unique opportunities to bridge existing divides.

6. Mobility is a way to acquire and transfer skills. Free circulation of labour, researchers and students must be stimulated, accompanied by decent wages and working conditions.

7. The EU, Member States and regions must redirect their public spending to growth-enhancing investments. Member States in cooperation with private stakeholders, should commit themselves to realising a ‘National Programme for Boosting Knowledge’ backed by EU funding.

8. The EESC urges that the European Commission proposals concerning the 2007-13 Financial Perspectives for funding research, innovation and learning be upheld. The proposed 7th Research Framework programme must be fully realised and targeted to contribute to European innovative capacity.

9. The EESC urges business, financial institutions and private foundations to increase their investments in the knowledge economy and that they be supported in doing so by fiscal incentives.

10. The European Commission should have more power to give policy directions and monitor progress. It should publish an annual report on progress to be discussed by the Council and the European and national Parliaments, as well as the concerned stakeholders and the public.

11. The EESC suggests the launch of a permanent and structured debate to motivate the decision-makers at all levels and to further the dialogue with citizens.

12. National parliaments as well as national economic and social committees have a crucial role and must participate in the debate. Local and regional actors should be involved.

13. Private stakeholders should act and take responsibility through tangible contributions and actions. Social and civil dialogue are important tools to further life long learning, innovation and technology policies.

14. A sound macroeconomic policy focusing on growth and employment, should create the conditions for creating the knowledge society and should give priority to demand pull policies for new technologies.

15. Life long learning is the key to the knowledge society. The EESC reiterates its call for a Charter of Life Long Learning to be implemented at all levels. It should be supported by public and private investments as well as by the structural funds. Employment policies and new forms of social protection need to create favourable conditions to enable workers to fully participate in lifelong learning. The Danish flexicurity approach may be an inspiring example.

16. High ambitions to foster health, sustainable environment, quality in urban and rural infrastructure, smart transport solutions, safe and reorganised workplaces and cultural heritage will generate new technologies and new innovative products and services and should be supported by healthy conditions for innovation and job creation in enterprises.

17. Dissemination of knowledge is a critical factor in policies to boost innovation and competitiveness. Industrial regions, technology parks and other innovative environments should be promoted.

1. Introduction

1.1 This EESC opinion is about how organised civil society can contribute to the knowledge society. It will focus on the role that social partners and other civil society organisations can play in establishing a ‘Common European Area of Knowledge’ as one of the major planks of the Lisbon Strategy. It stresses the responsibility of civil society organisations in Member States to mobilise for this objective. The opinion will be underpinned by other EESC opinions on related subjects and by a Summary report drafted in collaboration with the national economic and social councils.

2. Context and analysis

2.1 Europe is a project for people by people. However current developments have created a gap between Europe and its citizens At the same time the sustainability of our unique model of society based on democracy, social and civil dialogue, a social market economy and cohesion is threatened by increasing global competition, an ageing population and environmental pressures. Different philosophies over which policy directions to take lie behind the current EU crisis. In order to restore confidence in the European project, policies must first of all be refocused on their original aims of economic and social progress and improving working and living conditions. The crisis constitutes a crucial opportunity for reorientation.

2.2 Central to such a reorientation are policies to achieve sustainable growth, create more and better jobs and raise real incomes through the realisation of a knowledge society based upon human resources, learning, research and innovation. Enterprises are in a key position for this reorientation. They should direct their investments accordingly, but for this they need framework conditions that support their potential for innovation, growth and job creation.

2.3 The knowledge society, based on the responsibility of private and public stakeholders, must make for a more cohesive society which combats all kinds of inequalities. And in turn social cohesion is a prerequisite for a smoother transition to the knowledge society.

2.4 Prospects look rather alarming (1). Business-funded research has been decreasing since 2000. EU total R&D expenditure is stagnating and falls short of the 3 % target. It stands at 2 % compared to 2.7 % in the US and over 3 % in Japan. The brain-drain is a very worrying phenomenon. Moreover, large emerging economics like China are catching up with the EU in terms of research expenditure. The European Innovation Scoreboard shows that Europe lags behind the USA in 10 out of 11 indicators. This is a result of active US policies to support research and innovation through inter alia, public procurement, tax cuts, guarantees for venture capital funds and SME loans.

2.5 However, an assessment of research expenditure and innovative performance of the EU vis-à-vis the USA requires a deeper analysis. Europe has strengths both at Member State and sector level. European cooperation in aeronautics and the Galileo project can be highlighted as examples as well as the fact that the number of engineering students is higher than in the US. To boost its innovative capacity, Europe needs increased investments in life long learning, an additional 700 000 researchers, more technological poles and clusters, support for SMEs and better methods of disseminating knowledge.

2.6 Public investment in education is not progressing as rapidly as it should. The PISA study highlights some of the failures of the education system. Participation in adult education has only reached 65 % of the 2010 target. School dropouts continue at the same level. University students face unemployment when they graduate. Moreover, by 2015 over a million primary and secondary teachers will have to be recruited (2). The Commission could carry out a study on basic learning, in order to identify the keys to success in the most successful countries in the international PISA survey. Private and public stakeholders must recognise that the whole of the education system needs to be reformed in order to improve performance and provide everyone from early childhood through to old age, with opportunities to take an active part in the knowledge society. They must lend their full support to this reform, which also requires new pedagogical concepts and qualified teaching staff.

2.7 The transition towards the knowledge society is changing the nature and organisation of work and the structure of enterprises. A knowledge-driven society and new technologies offer great opportunities but also generate new risks and leave many behind. Jobs are restructured and tasks are redefined. There is also a risk of relocation of headquarters, research and production from Europe. New and better jobs have to be created by increased investment in learning, innovation and technology. The brain-drain has to be counteracted by finding new attractive sources of employment for university graduates in all Member States.

2.8 The knowledge society is a fundamental choice in addressing the challenges and it affects many areas of policy making. Its realisation requires an overall and comprehensive approach. Progress towards the knowledge society must be seen in a longer-term perspective beyond 2010. Policies must be pursued in a determined way.

2.9 To sharpen its global competitive edge by relying on its capacity to use the know-how and creativity of its people to produce high value-added products and services constitutes both a challenge and an opportunity for Europe. Resources have to be reoriented towards growth-enhancing technologies and innovative systems, safeguarding as well as adapting where necessary the essential elements of the European economic and social model in the wider context of sustainable development.

2.10 Knowledge creation, knowledge application and knowledge dissemination have to meet societal needs. Everyone has the right to reap the rewards of the knowledge society, everybody has a responsibility to take part in and contribute to the achievement of the knowledge society, if given adequate support.

2.11 Putting people first means focusing on learning, understanding, civilisation and cultural patterns to foster an environment that stimulates knowledge in its broadest sense. It is about human aspirations for knowledge which are not based predominantly on immediate benefit and which serve as the basis for the mix of theoretical, social and practical skills that are needed for the future.

2.12 Lifelong learning is the key to the knowledge society. High quality lifelong learning, based on models that make education and training accessible to everybody, gives people the opportunity to refresh their ideas, continually enhance their skills and play a full part in their community, family, neighbourhood and workplace. It is the basis for innovation, labour mobility and productivity growth. Motivation for lifelong learning starts by fostering the curiosity for learning in early childhood.

2.13 It is fundamental to strengthen and coordinate the links in the knowledge chain. The triangle linking private and public research institutions, universities and business (especially SMEs), should be reinforced. National and cross-border exchanges of qualified staff between industry and university can both help greatly. Basic education — from childcare facilities to secondary education — and lifelong learning must be linked to universities in order to raise the quality of teachers and training staff and update their knowledge.

3. Shortcomings of the Lisbon Strategy

3.1 ‘Alongside undeniable progress, there are shortcomings and obvious delays’ in implementing the Lisbon Strategy the European Council stated in March 2005 (3).

3.2 There are many reasons for these shortcomings and delays.

3.2.1 Commitment to the Strategy is lacking. It must be recalled that the Lisbon Strategy was launched by the European Council without a clearly defined role for the EU Commission. A fundamental problem is the inconsistency of a European strategy that has to be implemented mainly at national level. Member States have not shown real commitment to the objectives and actions agreed upon. The open method of coordination (OMC) has not delivered the expected results. National action plans on employment, social inclusion and in other areas have been transformed into bureaucratic activity reports and the intentions of the Strategy only partially implemented. Fragmentation between policy areas continues. There is too little support from the EU budget. Good practice from other Member States is not taken into account. Member States also fail to take into consideration the social and economic effects of their policies on other Member States.

3.2.2 The European Commission plays only a minor role in the Strategy. It does not have sufficient and effective powers to give policy directions and monitor progress. For instance, the open method of coordination has no alarm system that would enable warnings to be issued.

3.2.3 The Strategy is too abstract. Having largely become an exercise for bureaucrats and experts the Lisbon Strategy is not a reality, either in the minds of people or in the media and the political debate. The effects of the strategy are not visible. Public opinion does not make a distinction between the effects of globalisation, EU policy and national policy on their living and working conditions. The differences and the interrelations between different policy levels must be highlighted so that people can have a full and clearer picture of what the EU stands for.

3.2.4 The Strategy is a top-down process. Even if there has sometimes been reasonable consultation, particularly in those countries with a strong tradition of social and civil dialogue, there is still much too little involvement of organised civil society in the Member States. This is certainly the case with the OMC for research and education. Consultation is often formal and restricted to the national level and does not give the concerned civil society organisations at all levels sufficient opportunities to take part. Employers and trade unions as well as other stakeholders have to be made more aware of their responsibilities and roles. Low involvement also means that the reforms undertaken may miss the target and have negative social and economic consequences for those concerned. The EU focuses too much on structural reforms while it still lacks policies that empower citizens and their organisations to take on the challenges of a changing world.

4. The re-launch of the Lisbon Strategy — European Council March 2005

4.1. These shortcomings and delays led the European Council to re-launch the Lisbon Strategy, giving priority to growth and employment. ‘Europe must renew the basis of its competitiveness, increase its growth potential and productivity and strengthen social cohesion placing the main emphasis on knowledge, innovation and the optimisation of human capital’ (4) . And the Council continued: ‘A genuine dialogue must be encouraged among those directly involved in the knowledge-based society in the public and the private sector’ (5). The European Council fixed clearly defined objectives and suggested several actions to boost knowledge and innovation (6) twenty four integrated guidelines were established for the period 2005-2008 indicating three areas for reform: the macroeconomic, and microeconomic spheres and employment (7).

4.2. In order to make the refocusing of the Lisbon Strategy effective, the European Council called for improved governance based on increased Member State involvement (8). Member States were required to draw up national reform programmes, by the 15th of October, based on consultation with all stakeholders that will identify key priorities for action. Contributions and responsibilities of the main stakeholders involved should be highlighted. However, changing political situations in some countries have caused delays. The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) will be used in some areas.

5. A Common European Area of Knowledge

5.1 The EESC proposes a Common European Area of Knowledge to which the Member States and EU institutions should commit themselves beyond 2010, in order to achieve the Lisbon Strategy objectives through increased European cooperation in Learning, Innovation and Research. This proposal was agreed with the national Economic and Social Councils in the Luxemburg declaration (9).

5.2 The cooperation should be based on clearly defined targets complemented by appropriate legislative and non-legislative measures. A key factor will be to develop efficient systems for transferring knowledge and exploiting best practice.

5.3 The EESC recognises that the constitutional base for the Common European Area of Knowledge is not the same as for the CAP, the EMU or the Internal Market. However to make progress all the relevant provisions of the Treaty should be fully exploited. Member States should make up for the lack of constitutional competence by showing political determination and put into operation common European policies through better and more efficient cooperation in order to realise the Common European Area of Knowledge. The Commission's role would need to be enhanced, so as to enable it to spearhead the process.

5.4 Civil society organisations in Member States also have a responsibility for progress towards the Common European Area of Knowledge. Major private stakeholders in each country must be mobilised. In this way, they can be protagonists in the ‘genuine dialogue’ that the European Council called for and can partly compensate for the lack of political will. They must define key priorities and propose and implement actions on their own and in coordination with the public authorities. In addition, the issue of financial means must be addressed. The social partners should try to reach agreements to promote the knowledge society. Other sectors of organised civil society, including higher education and the research community, must contribute accordingly and elaborate their own platforms for reform.

5.5 The Internal Market, remains the major cornerstone of the integration process leading to improved economic performance, social progress and sustainability. The interaction between the Common European Area of Knowledge and the Internal Market implies synergy effects that will release new potentials for growth. Measures to boost learning, innovation and research will lead to higher competitiveness. A well-functioning Internal Market will allow for free circulation not only of goods, labour, services and capital but also of knowledge and ideas.

5.5.1 Therefore, certain remaining obstacles to the Internal Market that hamper the transition to the knowledge economy must be removed as quickly as possible. To realise these synergies and potentials, it is important to adopt the legislation on the Community Patent and the Intellectual Property Rights regime.

5.5.2 ‘Investments of businesses and other stakeholders in learning, innovation and research should be facilitated, including by state aid regimes and public procurement and within the framework of competition rules.’

5.5.3 A modernised EU industrial policy that is characterised by a sectoral approach is a fundamental building block for the knowledge society pooling excellence and providing stable and predictable framework conditions for the industry to develop.

5.5.4 It is also important to allow higher labour mobility in general between the Member States and to stimulate free circulation of researchers and students. Mobility is a natural way to acquire and transfer skills but has to be accompanied by decent wages and working conditions.

5.5.5 Universities and vocational training institutions must support the Common European Area of Knowledge by adapting a European approach to their activities. Existing instruments for the recognition of qualifications must be promoted (10).

5.6 A Common European Area of Knowledge is based on the fundamental right for everyone to reap the rewards of research, new technologies, innovation and learning. All people, all sectors and all regions must be able to participate. There must be adequate conditions for lifelong learning giving everybody the opportunity to participate. Education and vocational training are prerequisites for the knowledge society and, as public goods, must be managed by the public authorities in order to guarantee access for all, with the same rights and opportunities.

5.6.1 The knowledge society should not be a project for the elite convinced by the benefits of new technologies. Instead it must be conceived as part of an overall project and articulated with the other policies that are aimed at all citizens. It involves personal development, civic education and life long learning commensurate with the challenges of the 21st century. It is a unique opportunity to bridge existing divides and bring down existing barriers. To this effect it is crucial that new technologies are made accessible also to disadvantaged groups such as migrants and people with disabilities. New technologies and innovations must therefore to a greater extent be generated by initiatives and demand from users.

5.6.2 High quality basic education is fundamental. It is essential that everybody masters the basic skills in order to achieve the goal of education attainment for all. The underpinning for quality childcare facilities, that will give all children, irrespective of their social background, equal learning opportunities in the earliest phases of life.

6. Increased funding is needed to achieve the knowledge society

6.1 In order to realise the Common European Area of Knowledge the EU, Member States and regions must redirect their public spending to growth-enhancing investments in learning, innovation and research. The EESC proposes that the Member States, in cooperation with the private stakeholders, commit themselves to realising a ‘National Programme for Boosting Knowledge’ with the aim of increasing investments in knowledge infrastructure and learning facilities for everybody.

6.2 In doing so, Member States and regions can be backed up by EU funding from the structural and cohesion funds. The 7th R& D framework programme will also play a crucial role. The Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP), the Life Long Learning and the Progress programmes are important supportive instruments.

6.3 The EESC urges that the European Commission proposals concerning the 2007-13 Financial Perspectives for funding research, innovation and learning be upheld.

6.4 The 7th R&D framework programme is a test case. The European Commission has proposed a doubling of resources to EUR 72 billion. The Committee urges that this level be maintained. Otherwise the 3 per cent target for research spending will be jeopardised. If Member States decide to reduce the level of EU spending originally proposed, they must compensate through supplying additional resources at national level.

6.5 The EESC urges business, financial institutions and private foundations to take their responsibility for increasing their investments in the knowledge economy. It favours public-private partnership arrangements at European, national and regional level as a method of financing investment. The EESC suggests that fiscal incentives to boost R&D through grants, tax credits and loan guarantees be introduced throughout the EU under the condition that the knowledge generated is made accessible. Special financial and other assistance must be directed to SMEs, including social economy organisations, in order for them to participate fully in the Common European Area of Knowledge. There must also be adequate funding and incentives for citizens and their organisations to actively take part.

7. Improving governance

7.1 The EESC endorses the summit conclusions on improved governance, as they respond to its persistent requests to involve Member States' governments and all stakeholders at regional and national level including parliamentary bodies. The Committee trusts that National Reform programmes will be drawn up in consultation with organised civil society, also involving the Social and Economic Committees in those countries where they exist. The Committee will follow this consultation procedure closely.

7.2 The Integrated Guidelines decided by the Council do not really reflect the need for cohesion between the areas for reform, but remain fragmented. A case in point is that around ten guidelines are related to the knowledge society. The Council should consider a reformulation in order to integrate different policy initiatives that can establish a Common European Area of Knowledge.

7.3 The Committee emphasises management and effective implementation as important elements of the process. This requires, on the one hand, goals, benchmarks and timetables, and on the other hand, clear responsibilities to develop, implement, and monitor actions.

7.4 Even if ownership of the Lisbon Strategy lies with the Member States, the capacity of the Commission should be strengthened in order to give policy directions, monitor progress and send strong reminders to countries failing to meet their commitments under the national reform programmes for instance by: — coordinating the relevant Community financial resources, programmes and agencies in an integrated EU programme for a Common European Area of Knowledge; — reviewing and if necessary adapting existing scoreboards to measure progress towards a Common European Area of Knowledge focusing in particular on targets, deadlines and evaluation of the efforts undertaken by the Member States; — measuring the real involvement of stakeholders in the elaboration of the National Reform Programmes; — building a framework for convergence with a precise timetable and real participation by stakeholders in the OMC particularly those concerning research, education/training and employment; developing indicators, benchmarks and data that reflects citizens' concerns and aspirations; — summarising the development towards the knowledge society in an Annual Report.

7.5 The Competitiveness and Employment Councils as well as the European Parliament and national parliaments should discuss the Annual Report and should also involve relevant stakeholders and the public.

7.6 The EESC suggests the launch of a permanent and structured debate to motivate decision-makers at all levels and the further development of public dialogue, in order to take on board citizens' aspirations and concerns and thereby fend off growing scepticism and lack of commitment. The debate must also include the local, regional and European levels and use innovative methods. Future challenges and strategic choices have to be addressed.

7.7 National parliaments have a crucial role and must participate. The EESC also recommends that debates on the National Reform Programmes be organised in each parliament prior to the debate in the Council, during the same month and, if possible, the same week. National economic and social councils and similar bodies also have a responsibility in this respect and in the countries where such councils do not exist social partners and other civil society organisations have to stimulate the debate.

7.8 Innovation and learning has a local base. The EESC underlines the involvement of regional and local actors in creating a Common European Area of Knowledge and their responsibility for taking on co-ownership of the Lisbon Strategy. In particular, city regions and metropolitan areas are important in this respect, but the participation of all other regions must also be promoted. The EESC wholeheartedly supports the fact that one of the three priorities of the future cohesion policy is to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and the knowledge economy.

8. Participation of organised civil society — how major stakeholders can contribute

8.1 The European Council urged the EESC to set up an interactive network of civil society initiatives with Member States' economic and social committees and other partner organisations aimed at promoting the implementation of the strategy (11). This process is now underway. Cooperation on this opinion and the Summary report is an important step in this direction. Best practice and experience of organised civil society participation in actions and policies to achieve the knowledge society will be highlighted (12).

8.2 There is an urgent need to bridge the existing information deficit between the citizens and Europe, Their aspirations and concerns must be focused. A modern approach to communication and awareness raising is needed in order to involve, motivate and possibly convince the public and have citizens take responsibility. Press and media must also engage themselves more in the debate over the future of Europe. In this respect the Committee refers to the Commission Action Plan proposed by Ms Wallström, based on three principles ‘Listen, Communicate, Go Local’ (13). The conclusions of the Stakeholders Forum organised by the Committee in cooperation with the Commission on 7-8 November should be followed up.

8.3 Participation also means that private stakeholders must act and take responsibility through tangible contributions and actions. Private-led initiatives contributing to the Common European Area of Knowledge must be welcomed and supported by the public authorities.

8.4 The EESC would like to highlight the potential contribution of some of the major stakeholders: — Social dialogue is an important tool in building the knowledge society. It is important to include SMEs in the dialogue. Life long learning, innovation and supplementary social protection are some of the important issues that can be addressed in the social dialogue. — The social partners in many Member States have made important contributions, in particular through common declarations and collective bargaining agreements on lifelong learning. However, far from all workers are covered by such joint agreements. Although very diverse in nature, the actions have common strands such as the right for all workers to participate in continuous training and the establishment of career development schemes and qualifications assessment frameworks. The implementation at national level of the framework agreement between the European social partners concluded in 2002 merits an evaluation. — Collective bargaining can correct the market failures of firms that do not invest enough in training (14). Through sectoral and nationwide collective agreements a level playing field is established, allowing enterprises to increase investment in training for lower-skilled workers too. Access to lifelong learning has increased by mutualising the finance of investment in human resources. — Businesses are key actors to create more and better jobs in the Common European Area of Knowledge. They should anticipate and manage change by making strategic investments in knowledge generation and knowledge application, and openly report their actions in lifelong learning, innovation and research as well as in restructuring as part of their corporate social responsibility. — Finance and venture capital institutions can supply private equity and venture capital and funds for innovative enterprises particularly SMEs and together with the public authorities develop integrated packages of support. They should make use of the new facilities offered by the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) (15) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) and find new financial solutions. — Social economy organisations based on solidarity can promote both economic and social innovations to create employment and combat social exclusion by integrating disadvantaged groups. — Non-formal learning organisations outside of the public education system — for instance those run by the social partners or associations — have proved to be highly efficient in supplying and adapting lifelong learning structures and methods to enable all social groups to take part in the knowledge society. — Consumers can favour and stimulate innovations and technologies aimed at improving quality of life with due regard to social and ethical consequences. — Young people may particularly benefit as they are open to new knowledge and technologies. Within the Lisbon strategy they can contribute under the Youth Pact (16). Important areas for action are the creation of employment facilities for students in higher education and measures to reduce early school drop-outs. — The professions and self-employed workers also have a role to play in the knowledge society through the introduction of access qualifications and life-long learning for their work areas. — Universities and higher education establishments must participate actively as they are key institutions for progress towards the knowledge society. It is important to encourage cooperation between industry and academia in order to transfer the results of applied research and also to promote the transnational mobility of students. — The research community can together with the Member States enhance the value of research as a profession, and involve researchers in cooperation across national borders, in accordance with the European Charter for Researchers and the code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers, thereby making research careers more attractive.

9. Four priority proposals

9.1 Create a positive macroeconomic policy framework for the knowledge society

9.1.1 At the summit the European Council endorsed a reform to be introduced in the Stability and Growth Pact. According to this reform macroeconomic stability and conformity with the rules remain a central concern (17). However, redirecting public expenditure towards R&D and innovation is one of the relevant factors to be taken into account by the EU when assessing temporary public deficits that exceed 3 per cent or when defining adjustment trajectories.

9.1.2 Economic growth and employment are needed as they facilitate the achievement of most other policy goals and cushion the impact of reforms. However, current EU policy lacks sufficient focus on growth and employment. The policy mix set out in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines is out of balance, since it is based on achieving stability at the expense of growth and focused mainly on supply-side measures. It neglects the fact that reforms to increase the potential for growth must be supplemented by measures to stimulate effective demand.

9.1.3 Also significant in this respect is the closer coordination of economic policies between Member States as well as linking macroeconomic dialogue to the tripartite summit of social partners and opening up in-depth discussions with the ECB.

9.1.4 Against this background macroeconomic policies, namely budgetary and tax policies, should foster the knowledge society, particularly by giving priority to a demand pull for new technologies.

9.2 Provide a framework and resources for lifelong learning

9.2.1 The spring summit stated that ‘Lifelong learning is a sine qua non if the Lisbon objectives are to be achieved’ (18).

9.2.2 It should be noted that the countries with the best economic and social performances have the highest percentage of the adult population in education and training, while the opposite is true of the poorest performers. The ‘second chance’ principle should be recognised, and a contract suggested to all those who missed the opportunity for initial training the first time round. This could take different forms, e.g. offering training courses or ‘time vouchers’ valid at any stage of life in order to refresh basic knowledge.

9.2.3 It is essential to make the conclusions of the summit reality. The EESC reiterates its call for a Europe-wide Charter for Lifelong Learning (19). The EU and Member States together with the major stakeholders, have to determine the key priorities and actions, giving them a legal basis and providing sufficient financial resources. The Member States should commit themselves to implementing the Charter at all levels through ‘lifelong learning pacts’ or similar arrangements. Roles and responsibilities of both the public and private sector should be defined within the context that lifelong learning is a service of general interest.

9.2.4 There is a need to invest substantially in all phases of lifelong learning, including early childhood. Member States should agree on a quantitative objective expressed as a percentage for investment in education including lifelong learning. However, the public budget alone will not meet the bill for education and training and has to be supplemented by collective or other agreements between employers and workers, by enterprise and by the individual according to his or her possibilities. Private and public stakeholders have a role to motivate and empower people to take part and make them responsible for adapting to changing circumstances.

9.2.5 The EU and Member States should also agree on a minimum level of resources for lifelong learning under the structural funds, for instance at least one third of the total (20). The funds should focus on and support ‘lifelong learning pacts’ which increase access to training for all workers as well as initiatives that are tailor-made for the most disadvantaged groups. Each Member State must demonstrate that it is using the European Social Fund to help implement the national reform programme.

9.2.6 At local level, open learning centres, lifelong learning pacts or similar training schemes can be established in a broad partnership. Universities must also play a larger role in lifelong learning.

9.3 User-friendly innovation and technology policies

9.3.1 The EESC strongly supports the conclusions of the Spring summit with respect to pushing for the 7th RD framework programme to fill the technological gap and the need for Member States to develop comprehensive innovation policies that are to be supported by the CIP in order to promote the competitiveness of SMEs in particular. It also supports the proposal that Europe needs an active industrial policy through different technological initiatives (21).

9.3.2 Research programmes need closer monitoring and evaluation to make sure that resources are targeted to contribute to European innovative capacity. Innovation must be considered an all-embracing concept and focus not only on processes, products and technology but also on governance, sustainable development and economic answers to social issues in order to underpin the European model of society. Innovations should permeate all societal processes. Social and civil dialogue are important accompanying measures to further innovation. Involving workers and other stakeholders in the conception of new products and technologies will cushion the effects of restructuring.

9.3.3 High ambitions to foster good health, a sustainable environment, quality in urban and rural infrastructure, smart transport solutions, safe and reorganised workplaces and cultural heritage will bring forward new technologies and new innovative products and services. New technologies and innovation can thereby favour the quality of life and work, responding both to societal needs and the market, while also taking social and ethical consequences into account.

9.3.4 Europe needs to put much more emphasis on technological transfer, exploiting the results of the 7th framework programme and promoting an innovation-friendly market in order to increase competitiveness. EU and national mechanisms for dissemination of knowledge — whether research results, new technologies, innovative systems or learning methods — should be given priority and more resources used for this purpose. A new generation of public-private partnerships can be developed as a model for promoting the dissemination of knowledge. More efforts should be made to more rapidly transform technological development into commercial products and services.

9.3.5 The EESC calls for a more regular and systematic dialogue with key stakeholders at all levels in order to pursue and monitor user-friendly innovation and technology policies. The European Commission should support such an approach by issuing guidelines and recommendations and also benchmarking good practice. In this context, it is important to promote industrial regions, technology parks and other innovative environments.

9.3.6 Particular attention must be paid to involving SMEs as well as social economy enterprises and responding to their needs, giving them access to RTD and research services as well as engaging them in RTD activities. SMEs have an important role to play in creating regional clusters of excellence. Introducing measures to increase the SME share of the public market must also be considered, and the successful US experience of providing support for new high-tech small enterprises can serve as a model.

9.3.7 The industry-led technology platforms launched in 2003 by stakeholders with the support of the Commission, are set to become powerful actors in EU research policy and a base for its industrial policy. The EESC suggests that industry should react positively to the demand of the European Commission that it play a still more active role in the technology platforms. However, the EESC also suggests that the platforms be open to social partners and other civil society organisations so that they can also take part in defining the research agenda.

9.4 Social protection must facilitate the transition to the knowledge society

9.4.1 A strong sense of job security is necessary to motivate workers to actively take part in the transition to the knowledge society. Flexibility has to be coupled with active labour market policies encouraging workers to participate in life long learning. The Danish experience of flexicurity may be an inspiring example.

9.4.2 New forms of social protection must be defined to facilitate the up-grading of skills and the occupational mobility of workers and their choices between work, training and family life, but also for new forms of work organisations and for transitions between different statuses. Through this, labour market contracts and conditions that threaten worker rights and have negative impacts on their ability to participate in the knowledge society can be avoided.

9.4.3 The Kok I (22) report suggested that employment insurance and social protection systems have to support flexibility by facilitating such transitions during the life-cycle of each individual person. For instance, new forms of work-life cycle insurance can be established, e.g. through setting up personal ‘learning accounts’ partly funded by social contributions.

9.4.4 The EESC suggests that the Social Protection Committee look into this matter, and should, inter alia, identify good practice and propose guidelines for such new forms of protection. The Committee will also contribute with its opinion on flexicurity (23).

Brussels, 14 December 2005 The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) European Innovation Scoreboard 2004 – Comparative analysis of innovation performance, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (2004) 1475 of 19.11.2004.

(2) Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training (2005 report), Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC (2005) 419 of 2203.2005.

(3) Presidency Conclusions European Council 22-23 March 2005, point 4.

(4) Presidency Conclusions European Council 22-23 March 2005, point 5.

(5) Idem, point 10.

(6) Idem, points 20-28.

(7) See appendix.

(8) Presidency Conclusions European Council 22-23 March 2005, points 38-41.

(9) Luxemburg declaration of presidents of ESCs of European Union and of the EESC. 26 November 2004.

(10) For instance the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the Europe The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and the European Credit Transfer System in Vocational Training (ECVET).

(11) Idem.

(12) A website has been opened http://www.esc.eu.int/lisbon_strategy/index_en.asp. More details on this proposal can be found in the EESC opinion ‘Improving the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy’, points 6.4.-6.9 (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, page 79).

(13) Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe.

(14) ‘Facing the Challenge’, Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok, November 2004.

(15) Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013), COM(2005) 121 final of 6.4.2005.

(16) Presidency Conclusions, European Council, 22-23 March 2005, point 37 and Annex I.

(17) The Committee is currently drawing up an opinion on Strengthening economic governance — The reform of the Stability and Growth Pact (ECO/160).

(18) Presidency Conclusions. European Council 22-23 March 2005, point 34.

(19) EESC opinion ‘Improving the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy’OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, page 79).

(20) 37 per cent of total EU Structural Funds allocated to Ireland were spent on investment in human resources.

(21) Presidency Conclusions European Council 22-23 March 2005, points 13, 14 and 16.

(22) Report of the High Level Group on the future of the social policy in an enlarged European Union, May 2004.

(23) Flexicurity: The case of Denmark (ECO/167), to be available in 2006.