No C 23/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the implementation at Community 
level of the main phase of the strategic programme for innovation and technology transfer, 
SPRINT (1989-1993) (!) 
(89/C 23/04) 
On 9 August 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 9 November 1988. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Nierhaus. 
At its 260th plenary session (meeting of 23 November 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee supports the Commission pro­
posal for the implementation of the main phase of 
the programme, since it regards its aims as extremely 
important for the Community's ability to hold its own 
in worldwide competition, given the dynamics of tech­
nological change and the considerable innovation 
requirement. Above all, with a view to the planned 
large internal market of 1992, it is high time that steps 
were taken to promote innovation potential which can 
be mobilized across national frontiers with the cooper­
ation of the various institutions in the areas of industry, 
science and service infrastructure. 
1.2. It is, however, in the nature of things that the 
real aims of the programme, i.e. strengthening inno­
vation capacity, promoting the advance of new tech­
nologies and increasing the efficiency of instruments 
and policies in the field of innovation and technology 
transfer, can be pursued only indirectly with the instru­
ments available to the Community. Hence measurement 
of the success achieved with the means employed is 
particularly difficult in this case. The Committee once 
again calls on the Commission to give its special atten­
tion to evaluating the assisted projects by applying 
effective, quantifiable and verifiable criteria and assess­
ment methods. 
1.3. Since, given its budget, the programme can make 
only a small contribution to national efforts to promote 
innovation potential, the Committee welcomes the 
Commission's planned concentration on promoting the 
Community-wide cooperation aspect. Existing national 
structures should therefore be purposefully placed at 
the service of these Community policy aims. The Com­
mission should give very special attention to overcom­
ing the persistent organizational and legal obstacles in 
individual Member States which impede implemen­
tation of the programmes. 
(!) OJ No C 268, 15. 10. 1988, p. 3. 1.4. Within the framework of these aims special pri­
ority should be given to including in the programme 
those regions and economic sectors which do not yet 
have a highly developed infrastructure for promotion 
of innovation and technology transfer. Cooperation 
with the national authorities and industrial associations 
would obviously be appropriate here, too. 
1.5. Within the framework of the planned basic 
objectives of SPRINT, however, this programme can 
only be one more component in the mosaic of Com­
munity activities. Should it not prove possible to achieve 
coherent coordination with other projects such as 
COMETT, ESPRIT, RACE, BRITE, PEDIP, etc. in 
terms of a comprehensive promotion strategy, then 
efficiency in the use of the resources allocated could in 
the Committee's view be seriously impaired. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. As regards the promotion of pilot projects the 
Committee notes the difficulty that on the one hand it 
is particularly the most promising projects that are to 
be supported, while on the other hand it is precisely 
these projects which could be nearest to the market, 
with the risk of undue influence on competition. The 
Committee therefore welcomes the plan for particularly 
flexible use of the various promotion instruments, 
especially since experience so far with the first phase of 
SPRINT suggests that this is advisable. Consideration 
should be given to whether in individual cases an inter­
est subsidy by the Commission in the case of financing 
via the capital market would be appropriate, particu­
larly for the implementation of important growth tech­
nologies very near to the market. 
2.2. The Committee considers that there will be a 
risk of the funds being spread too thinly unless it is 
clear from the start which technological fields should 
have priority. Thus, in addition to e.g. data-processing, 
laser technology, electronics and biotechnology, energy 
technology above all should have a special place in the 
scale of priorities, in view of the importance of new 
alternative energy sources. 
30. 1. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/7 
2.3. The Committee particularly welcomes the fact 
that the Commission is especially aiming to involve 
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in the pro­
gramme. Since large-scale industry generally has the 
know-how and an operational technology transfer 
infrastructure, tfce main emphasis in promotion must be 
on SME, including the smaller research and consultancy 
firms. The involvement of large-scale industry in the 
projects and cooperation agreements should not, how­
ever, be neglected, as it is an effective way of implement­
ing and broadening development projects. 
2.4. Since the programme is not primarily intended 
for the direct encouragement of research and develop­
ment, but is aimed at promoting an effective cooper­
ation infrastructure for the purpose of innovation and 
technology transfer, the Committee proposed that the 
aid ceiling of 50% be exceeded in individual cases in 
part A of the programme, especially if economic sectors 
without existing infrastrucure can only be involved in 
this way. 
2.5. The Committee particularly welcomes the inten­
tion to build up a project data bank which will be 
accessible to all participants. With regard to the cost 
of setting up and operating this information pool, the 
Committee suggests that this data bank be made avail­
able as an information source on potential providers 
of capital, technologies and operators of innovation 
projects—accessible at a fee, via existing data networks, 
to all interested parties in the Community or indeed 
the world. 
2.6. The Committee welcomes the laying down of 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1988. selection criteria and suggests as further criteria labour 
market impact and environmental compatibility. 
2.7. The development and testing of training and 
further training plans for innovation management seem 
to the Committee to be an especially useful project and 
one which can be carried out in the short term. Close 
cooperation and coordination with the DELTA pro­
gramme projects would also be necessary and poten­
tially beneficial. 
2.8. With particular reference to part C of the pro­
gramme, the Committee thinks it important for there 
to be close cooperation and exchanges of experience 
between the Member States and the Commission. A 
necessary result of SPRINT must be the analysis and 
exposition of the legal, economic and fiscal problems 
that still stand in the way of an effective innovation 
and technology transfer policy, with an indication of 
possible ways of solving them. The Committee expects 
the planned final report to deal with this matter. 
2.9. As many as possible of the groups involved 
should be represented on the Innovation Committee— 
without prejudice to nomination by the Member States. 
In other words, in addition to government representa­
tives, there should, if possible, be representatives of 
industry, scientists, consultants and representatives of 
the social groups. 
2.10. As in its Opinion on the first phase of SPRINT, 
the Committee stresses the importance of rapid expan­
sion of the comparative register of European standards 
(ICONE). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE