CONTENTS

1. Industrial performance scoreboard. 3

1.1. Introduction. 3

1.2. Overall performance. 5

1.3. Productivity and skills. 7

1.4. Export performance. 9

1.5. Innovation and sustainability. 12

1.6. Business environment and infrastructure. 16

1.7. Finance and investment 20

1.8. Annex: Performance of Member States. 23

2. Overview of progress by broad policy area. 28

2.1. Introduction. 28

2.2. Innovative industrial policy. 28

2.3. Sustainable industry. 36

2.4. Business environment 41

2.5. Improving the quality of public administration. 50

3. Country chapters. 63

3.1. Belgium.. 63

3.2. Bulgaria. 71

3.3. Czech Republic. 77

3.4. Denmark. 84

3.5. Germany. 90

1. Industrial performance scoreboard

1.1. Introduction

A diversified economy that combines well-performing industries and services sector with a favourable business environment is the best basis for sustainable growth and the creation of jobs. Although the share of industry in the EU economy has declined in the last decade, the importance of manufacturing has not diminished, owing to its growing interdependence with the services sectors. While services have become vital inputs in manufacturing processes, many services sectors depend on industries that produce the equipment and hardware they use. Increasingly complex value chains that combine products and services, and changing production methods that emphasise mass customisation and closeness to the market are creating new opportunities for European industry and services. European industry should be able to quickly seize these opportunities to achieve the Europe 2020 goal of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

However, the business environments of Member States need to be flexible and ready for change to benefit from these developments. Looking at the Member States through a series of indicators illustrates the variation in their industrial performance, and makes it clear that there is scope for improvement through structural reform at national level. To facilitate reform and policy learning, this scoreboard focuses on five areas: productivity in manufacturing; export performance; innovation and sustainability; business environment and infrastructure; and finance and investment.

Productivity and skills. Whilst total productivity is the function of different production inputs, the quality of human resources and the skill levels of the workforce have been a strong comparative advantage of the European economy relative to the rest of the world. A well-qualified and skilled workforce leads to high labour productivity, which in turn has been the key transmission mechanism for growth throughout industrialised countries. Hence increasing the level of skills is the key to increased labour productivity and the continued success of European industry. This holds especially true for the most advanced economies at the productivity frontiers. At the same time, in particular the catching-up countries can boost their productivity by the use of advanced technology based on foreign direct investment.

Export performance. Exports are a key source of growth and serve as an indicator of an economy’s performance in price, technological or structural competitiveness. Some Member States are successful global exporters of manufactured goods, some are more specialised in intra-EU trade and others have economies dominated by services. The European value chains that have evolved due to the Single Market and enlargement have contributed to the success of EU exports.[1] The EU remains the largest exporter of goods and services in the world and has broadly managed to hold a share of 20% of global exports (excluding energy) – despite the rise of China. Some Member States are performing better than others. Price competitiveness and ongoing industrial restructuring help boost exports of the catching-up Member States. Mature economies tend to benefit from technological competitiveness and structural shifts toward knowledge-intensive sectors.

Innovation and sustainability. In the long run, innovation capacity is a key driver of growth. Successful investment in research and innovation can boost productivity and the competitiveness of European businesses. At the same time, improved innovation performance facilitates structural change in Member States’ economies towards economic activity with high added value.

A transition towards a sustainable, resource-efficient economy is instrumental for maintaining the long-term competitiveness of Member States. Energy efficiency can reduce the impact on industrial competitiveness of volatile energy prices on the world market. Over the last decade, many Member States have significantly improved their energy efficiency and have been able to grow without consuming more energy. However, wide differences in energy intensity persist, indicating potential for improvement. Investment in the development, production and purchase of goods and services needed for the greening of the economy indicates how extensive such investments are in an economy.

Business environment and infrastructure. The business environment influences the decisions taken by enterprises. Lack of red tape, an efficient public administration and judicial system, transparent legislation, and good physical and digital infrastructure contribute to the productivity and growth of enterprises by allowing them to seize opportunities and by reducing costs. New business activity benefits from an easy start-up environment, competition-promoting regulation, easy access to finance, and open trade. Overall, a business-friendly environment helps to create growth and jobs by increasing firms’ chances of success and by improving Member States’ attractiveness for investment. Competitive energy markets facilitate cost-efficient production, as energy is an essential input for all firms. However, the internal market in electricity is still incomplete. A well-performing transport infrastructure is also crucial to run any business efficiently.

Finance and investment. A crucial ingredient in allowing businesses to grow and create new jobs is easy access to finance. Whilst macroeconomic and banking sector stability plays a crucial role in the supply of credit, the viability and growth prospects of businesses affect their capability to attract venture capital and other investors. European enterprises tend to be under-capitalised and have traditionally been heavily dependent on bank loans. The recession and the turmoil in the banking sector have affected business investment in equipment.

The scoreboard indicators

The industrial performance scoreboard has indicators in five areas: productivity and skills; export performance; innovation and sustainability; business environment and infrastructure; and finance and investment. Taking into account these areas, the basis for the scoreboard were the 30 or so indicators that are monitored in the report Member States’ Competitiveness Performance and Policies, out of which a representative set of ten individual policy indicators was selected. The selection was based on the following criteria: (i) they are closely related to policy instruments and the economic reform agenda; (ii) they are available on a reasonably timely basis; (iii) there is (almost) full country coverage; (iv) there is a time series available for the last five or so years, so that a country can be compared with its own past performance. 1. Overall industry performance can be gauged through manufacturing productivity. 2. The quality of the workforce in the manufacturing sector is assessed by educational attainment. 3. The share of exports in GDP published by Eurostat is an indication of the openness of the economy, with high-tech exports and eco-innovation exports reflecting specific aspects of export performance. 4. For innovation performance, the main indicator is the innovation index published annually in the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS), drawing together the overall innovation performance. 5. For sustainability, energy intensity in industry and the energy sector is used. 6. For business environment and infrastructure, the goal is to measure improvements in the business environment and efforts towards better regulation. An overall business environment score has been calculated by the Commission, based on the annual survey data of the World Bank. 7. Electricity prices (excluding VAT) for small and medium-sized enterprises, published by Eurostat, represent one of the most significant costs of inputs and therefore directly affect industry competitiveness. 8. Enterprises need modern and efficient transport networks to operate. Business satisfaction with infrastructure (rail, road, port and airport) is recorded by an annual indicator published in the Global Competitiveness Report. 9. Bank lending is still by far the main source of access to finance for SMEs and, therefore, a score for access to bank lending has been calculated by the Commission. 10. Business investment in equipment is an indicator of how well businesses can keep up their manufacturing capability over a period of time.

1.2. Overall performance

As industrial structures vary considerably across the EU, the Member States have been following different paths towards a more knowledge-intensive economy. Accounting for more than 70 % of total manufacturing output, the five biggest economies markedly affect the EU’s overall industrial performance (see figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Country share in EU manufacturing (2011)

Source: Eurostat

Manufacturing is an important part of the Member State economies (see figure 1.2). It should be noted that in addition to manufacturing, mining and energy activities contribute more to value added in some Member States than in others. In Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic mining and energy account for over 6 % of total value added, whereas in Malta, Ireland, France and Italy this contribution is between 1 % and 2.5 %.

Figure 1.2: Manufacturing and construction in Member State economies (as % of GDP at factor cost; 2011)

Note: LU (2010) Source: Eurostat; LU (STATEC)

Over one third of the inputs in manufacturing production are business-related services, which are therefore an important contributor to the competitiveness of industry. About one sixth of total output of the business-related service sector goes directly to manufacturing. Business services include network industries (energy, telecommunication, transport), distributive trade and others (including consulting, engineering, research and development, and information technology services).

Looking at the overall performance of the Member States, it is clear that policy decisions over long periods of time have created business environments that are specific to each country. Nevertheless, based on clustering the key characteristics of the Member States as identified by the indicators of the scoreboard, three main groups emerge.

The ‘consistent performers’ are: Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium and France. Their industries are dominated by technologically advanced firms and their workforces are highly skilled. Their research and innovation systems perform well over a number of indicators. For example, strong public-private collaboration helps the commercialisation of technological knowledge. Their innovation capacity, high labour productivity and moderate wage increases make high-value exports competitive in third-country markets. A mostly friendly business environment, access to finance and good infrastructure further enhance the productivity of enterprises. Moves towards high-value production have helped many of these countries to reduce their energy intensity and benefit from the opportunities presented by the greening of industries. Performing very well against all these competitiveness criteria, in particular Germany, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden appear to have the most competitive industrial economies in the EU. With a growing competitiveness gap, France appears at the lower end. Nevertheless, variations in their relative performance show that all economies in this group still have room for improvement.

The group of ‘uneven performers’ comprises Estonia, Slovenia, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece, along with Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg. These countries tend to show uneven performance, good against some criteria, but below the average on others. Manufacturing sectors in Spain, Italy and Greece benefit from relatively good levels of labour productivity. Italy’s industry belongs among the most energy-efficient. In several aspects, for xample Portugal has a friendly business environment. On the other hand, difficulties in accessing finance, further aggravated by bad payment behaviour of public authorities, pose a serious challenge for SMEs in these countries. Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg are strong in exports of high-tech and environmental goods, have good domestic infrastructure, but businesses in particular in the first two are dragged down by high electricity prices. Most countries in this group also have in common weaker research and innovation systems and some severe constraints related to the business environment, although in each country there are examples of innovative internationally successful companies or even clusters. This uneven performance does not, however, enable the synergy of the essential competitiveness ingredients to be reaped, and as a result, hinders to lesser or greater extent the modernisation and growth prospects of their economies. Particularly worrying in this respect has been the continuous stagnation or deterioration in some measures of competitiveness in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece.

The ‘catching-up’ group consists of Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania. These countries face significant challenges, as their move towards more knowledge- and skills-oriented industries is hampered by weak innovation capacity and knowledge transfer. In spite of improvement, their resource efficiency is still low, in particular in the case of Bulgaria and Romania. The business environment is particularly difficult, with clear problems related to the transparency and efficiency of public administration, for instance when setting up a business, registering property, protecting investors, and dealing with insolvency. Businesses in these countries are also particularly unsatisfied with domestic infrastructure. Only Polish enterprises do not have significant problems in accessing finance. Although they have substantial relative strengths in several areas, each economy in this group has considerable scope for improvement. However, there are clear signs that the catch-up process in these countries has been fairly brisk on many competitiveness criteria, enabling them to further narrow down their gap with the most advanced economies.

1.3. Productivity and skills

1.3.1. Labour productivity

Total output depends on the quantity and quality of production factors and how efficiently they are combined. Almost all of the average growth in real output per capita in the past four decades has been determined by labour productivity growth. Productivity growth depends on innovation, research and development spending, and technology dynamism and diffusion, which in turn are influenced by institutional factors, such as regulations and preferences. Ultimately labour productivity captures the improvements in all the dimensions of competitiveness. However, for countries to fully benefit from investment in innovation and technological progress, structural reforms have to provide a fertile environment that allows firms to profit from these investments.

Figure 1.3: Labour productivity in manufacturing

Note: Luxembourg, Ireland and EU average are for 2010; data for Bulgaria, Romania and the UK is not available. Source: Eurostat (except for LU STATEC); expressed as gross value added, in 1 000 PPS/employee, 2011.

Labour productivity in manufacturing is very high in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Germany and Finland, reflecting their relative specialisation in highly knowledge-intensive manufacturing and their production systems equipped with modern technology (see figure 1.3). The high productivity of Ireland[2] is also affected by the operations of foreign multinationals and their activities undertaken outside the country. Manufacturing plays a smaller role in France’s economy and its productivity is slightly lower than the best performers, reflecting an industrial structure that is less specialised in high innovation sectors. Italy has a large manufacturing sector, although with productivity only around the EU average, mainly due to its specialisation in less technology-intensive sectors, small firm size, and a backlog in implementing structural reforms in education systems, competition and product market regulations. This also holds for the Greek economy, which is dominated by services, and whose manufacturing is strongly specialised in food processing.

Between 2006 and 2011, labour productivity in manufacturing improved in most Member States (see figure 1.4). In contrast, Finland experienced an unprecedented drop in productivity, mainly due to the contraction in production and R&D activity of its large ICT sector. Overall, advanced economies tend to record smaller increases in productivity in line with long-term improvements in total-factor productivity. On the other hand, for countries that are more distant from the technology and productivity frontier, there is potential for major leaps forward. For instance Slovakia, with the highest productivity among the catching-up economies, had experienced major productivity gains that were driven by large FDI inflows and the related technology imports.

Figure 1.4: Change in manufacturing productivity (2011, 2006=100)

Note: Luxembourg, Ireland and EU average are for 2010; data for Bulgaria, Romania and the UK is not available. Source: Eurostat (except for LU STATEC); using Nace Rev 1

1.3.2. Educational attainment

A structural shift towards a knowledge-based economy is possible only with simultaneous improvements in the level, quality and relevance of skills of the workforce. In developing new cutting-edge technologies, transforming them into advanced products and services, and commercialising them, companies need a workforce with appropriate educational background, training and skills that is capable of occupying high value-added jobs.

Figure 1.5: Percentage of people employed in manufacturing with high qualifications

Note: ‘High qualifications’ consists of employees with at least first or second stages of tertiary education. Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

The share of highly qualified labour force in Ireland, Spain, Finland and Belgium highlight the role of this production factor in overall labour productivity performance, as well as the importance of education and skills-related investments (figure 1.5). On the other hand, the examples of the Netherlands, Germany or Sweden show that investments in advanced technology and top-notch manufacturing equipment matter equally. This is confirmed by Slovakia and Lithuania, both catching-up economies with relatively high labour productivity, albeit each relying on different comparative advantages. The former benefited from FDI-induced imports of modern technologies, whereas the latter benefited from the higher educational profile of people employed in manufacturing. The low share of highly-qualified employment in manufacturing in Portugal reflects the prevalence of low-skill, labour-intensive industries (e.g. textiles).

With all but two Member States showing an increasing share of highly-skilled labour force, the overall trend since 2006 has been encouraging, suggesting a continued shift to a more knowledge-based economy and the accompanying increase in medium and highly-qualified labour at the expense of low-skilled jobs. In particular Ireland seems to have experienced further structural changes towards high value-added sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and electronics. On the other hand, the apparent progress of Luxembourg is likely due to the effect of the partial closure of its iron and steel plants. Denmark’s minor decline can be explained by its dual export specialisation in both highly innovative and less education-intensive sectors (e.g. food products).

1.4. Export performance

1.4.1. Total exports

Smaller economies naturally tend to be more open than large ones. Nevertheless, there are significant relative differences in how similarly sized economies benefit from international trade. Of the large economies, Germany stands out as the strongest exporter of manufactured goods, whereas Spain, Italy and France show considerably lower export orientation (see figure 1.6). When considering exports of both goods and commercial services, the United Kingdom was the second-largest exporter after Germany, reflecting the importance of services for some economies in the EU. The position of Greece at the lower end is due to its accumulated competitiveness losses, the fact that it is closed to FDI and the large share of services in GDP.

Figure 1.6: Total exports as a percentage of GDP (2011)

Source: Eurostat

Despite the rise of emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere, the EU has broadly held to a 20% share of global exports (excluding energy)[3]. The relative share of individual Member States in total EU exports of goods reveals, however, that some economies are coping with global developments better than others. Overall, the mature economies tend to benefit from technological competitiveness and favourable structural developments toward knowledge-intensive sectors. On the other hand, price competitiveness and ongoing industrial restructuring induced by FDI help boost the export performance of the catching-up Member States.

Looking at the share of Member States of the total EU exports of goods (figure 1.7), it is clear that their fortunes have diverged since 2006. Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain have been able to expand their share of EU goods exports, indicating an improvement in industrial competitiveness. Belgium, Sweden and Austria have largely maintained their relative positions. The shares of France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Ireland have declined. This development can be due to loss in price and technological competitiveness, but can also reflect a continued shift towards an economy dominated by services.

Figure 1.7: Country share of EU exports of goods

Note: The exports cover both intra-EU and extra-EU exports. The EU’s export share in world trade in goods declined in 2006-2010 from 17.3 % to 16.0 %. Source: Eurostat

1.4.2. High-tech exports

The share of high-tech products in total exports varies considerably between the Member States, ranging from 3.7 % in Portugal, 5.7 % in Poland, around 14 % in Germany, Sweden and Finland, and 19.7 % in France to 43.8 % in Malta. As small countries tend to be more open, some economies are specialised in intra-EU trade whereas others are global exporters; these figures need to be read with care and alongside the change in total exports.

Figure 1.8: Change in high-tech exports and exports of goods

Note: The figure shows the change in the share of high-tech exports against the change in exports of goods, 2007 to 2011. Source: Eurostat

A large share of high-tech exports normally reflects a shift in the industrial structure towards knowledge-intensive sectors that use advanced materials and technologies to produce internationally tradable goods with high added value.

Comparing export performance in goods and the performance in high-tech exports over the crisis years gives a picture that is skewed by the recession (see figure 1.8). It is clear that many Member States have faced a difficult exporting environment during the years in question. In particular, in Finland both high-tech exports and total exports fell. In many Member States (those in the lower right-hand quarter), high-tech exports have not yet recovered to the relative level of 2007, even though their goods exports have grown. Many of the catching-up countries in the upper right hand quarter have improved their exports of goods, as well as their exports of high-tech goods (albeit from a relatively low level).

In many of the Member States that are catching up, in particular Poland, Estonia and Romania, both exports and the share of high-tech exports increased. This development seems to reflect the positive effects of large foreign direct investment inflows and the related imports of advanced investment goods that upgraded domestic production structures in these countries.

1.4.3. Exports of environmental goods

Thriving eco-industries can make a key contribution towards reaching EU climate change and environmental objectives. Development and production of the goods and services needed for greening the economy also fosters innovation capacity and sustains job creation within the EU. Cyprus, Luxembourg, Germany, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands have been most successful at seizing opportunities arising from the greening of economies, as they are the only Member States where the share of environmental goods exports exceeded 1 % of total exports (see figure 1.9).

Figure 1.9: Exports of environmental goods as % of all exports of goods (2011)

Note: The outlying performance of Cyprus reflects the relative strength of its photovoltaic production. Source: Eurostat, Commission calculations

Germany performs strongly in all sectors and is the largest supplier of environmental products and services in the EU. Although its exports account for a small proportion of its total production, it is the second largest global exporter (after the US), with a significant share of world trade in this sector. On the other hand, the eco-industry in the Netherlands is very export-oriented, exporting almost half of its production. Sweden and the UK are specialised in indoor air pollution control and cleaning technologies. France and Denmark are successful exporters of water processing and waste management technologies, whereas the latter in particular has ambitious policies targeting green technologies.

Although total trade in eco-goods still represents only a small percentage of GDP, it is encouraging that it increased in most Member States from 2006 to 2011.

1.5. Innovation and sustainability

1.5.1. Innovation performance

Based on the Innovation Union Scoreboard, the innovation leaders are Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany (see figure 1.10). The national research and innovation systems of these countries perform well on all innovation indicators, including human resources, excellence in research, intellectual assets, entrepreneurship, finance and firms’ R&D investments. The performance of these systems is improved by close cooperation between research institutions and businesses.

Figure 1.10: Innovation Union Scoreboard (0=worst possible performance / 1=best possible performance)

Source: Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011[4]

Moderate innovators, such as Spain, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and Latvia, are characterised by uneven research and innovation systems. An example would be the very low share of SMEs introducing product, process or organisation innovations in these countries.

Whilst innovation performance varies significantly among Member States, almost all have improved their performance since 2007. There has also been convergence as less innovative Member States have improved faster than the already more innovative ones. In particular, Bulgaria and Portugal have achieved considerable improvement due to increased private R&D investment. Slovenia and Estonia also have significantly improved their performance, mainly by boosting the creation of intellectual assets (patent applications and trademarks). The differences separating the innovation leaders have also narrowed down, with Germany and Finland moving closer to Sweden at the top. On the other hand, Lithuania appears to have lost ground and progress in Poland and Slovakia has been slow.

With an EU average innovation score higher than in 2007, the overall picture is one of improvement (see figure 1.11). However, the convergence process appears to have been slowing down in recent years. Moreover, the innovation gap between Member States risks widening again due to the diverging way in which countries have responded to the economic crisis. The leading Member States have responded with proactive innovation policies, recognising innovation capacity as a key driver of future growth. On the other hand, the innovation followers and the less innovative countries are reducing their funding and support for R&D. A positive sign, however, is that with political will governments can embark on ambitious policies and improve the innovation performance of their economies.

Figure 1.11: Innovation performance — Change (2007=100)

Note: Progress in innovation performance in the Member States in 2011 compared to 2007. The data is further analysed in the Innovation Union Scoreboard report. Source: Own calculations based on the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2007 and 2011

1.5.2. Energy intensity

The least efficient Member State consumes nearly 20 times more energy to produce the same value of output as the most efficient one (see figure 1.12). Ireland, the best performer in 2009, has substantially improved its energy intensity due to a structural shift from traditional manufacturing industries to high value-added sectors such as pharmaceuticals and electronics.

Figure 1.12: Energy intensity in industry and the energy sector

Note: No data for Malta. Source: Eurostat, expressed as kg oil equivalent/euro GVA; ref. year 2000, 2010

A number of Member States, where energy intensity was still relatively high in 2009 have, however, improved their efficiency significantly from 2006 to 2009 as can be seen from figure 1.13. This was evident in particular in those Member States that have been catching up, as they have benefited not only from improved efficiency but also from structural change towards less energy-intensive sectors. Energy efficiency also deteriorated in several Member States, most likely because the economic crisis caused a drop in industrial production while energy consumption did not decrease proportionally. This effect was particularly pronounced in Latvia, which saw its GDP fall by 25 % between 2008 and 2010. In any event, many Member States have considerable potential to further reduce their energy intensity by facilitating structural change towards high-value industrial activities.

Figure 1.13: Changes in energy intensity (countries with the biggest change, 2006=100)

Note: Values above 100 indicate improvement. Source: Eurostat

1.6. Business environment and infrastructure

1.6.1. Business environment

The World Bank composite indicator on the business environment puts the United Kingdom and Ireland at the top in the EU, followed by the Nordic countries (figure 1.14). These countries rank well in most of the component indicators.

The business environment scores are much lower in most of the new Member States. In Italy, very slow legal procedures drag down the overall score. The business environments in Poland and Greece are ranked as the most difficult, with severe problems when starting a business, registering property, protecting investors, and dealing with insolvency.

Figure 1.14: Business environment (0=least attractive / 1=most attractive, 2011)

Note: No data for Malta. Each of the seven components of the indicator has been normalised to values between 1 (best) and 0 (worst). These components are then averaged for each Member State and for each year to obtain a score which reflects the position of the Member State with regard to the best and worst practices measured over 2011. Best practice can be defined in the same way but normalising values to 1 for the best performance over 2006-2011 and zero for the worst performance. Source: World Bank Doing Business, Commission calculations

However, many Member States have improved their business environment noticeably in recent years (figure 1.15). The UK has shown that even the best can improve further. The biggest improvements have been achieved by the Member States with a low starting point in 2006, in particular Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Slovenia has significantly streamlined the conditions for starting a business and registering property; the Czech Republic has considerably simplified insolvency procedures and the payment of taxes. In spite of the overall progress achieved, all Member States have continuing weaknesses in some components, leaving substantial room for further improvement. Figure 1.16 ranks Member States by progress towards best practice.

Figure 1.15: Business environment, improvement 2006-2011

Note: Data for Malta and for Cyprus are missing. Source: World Bank Doing Business, Commission calculations

1.6.2. Electricity prices

Electricity prices for medium-sized enterprises vary considerably across the EU (see figure 1.16). The prices in France are relatively low due to the country’s reliance on cost-competitive nuclear energy. In Sweden, Finland and Denmark, enterprises also enjoy affordable electricity, benefiting from the competition on the common Nordic electricity market, which shows how countries can liberalise markets across national borders.

Figure 1.16: Electricity prices for medium-sized enterprises, 2011

Note: No data for Austria. Source: Eurostat, data refer to prices in the second half-year; including tax, except VAT; expressed in euro/KWh

The energy market functions efficiently also in the Netherlands, where unbundling has worked well, changing suppliers is relatively easy, concentration in electricity production is relatively low, and transmission networks are well connected to neighbouring countries. In Germany, competition in the electricity sector has increased due to initiatives launched in recent years, including transposition of the Third Energy Package in 2011, although better interconnections and higher cross-border transmission capacity would enable it to function even better. Estonia has direct access to the Russian gas network; the future of its low electricity prices depend on price agreements and increases are anticipated from 2013 onwards.

Most Member States have seen their electricity prices go up between 2007 and 2011 as can be seen from figure 1.17. Whilst the high prices in Malta and Cyprus reflect the dominance of incumbent energy providers and the costs of importing energy to a small island economy, in Slovakia they reveal high transmission and distribution fees. In Italy, the high prices reflect a concentrated market structure, dependency on energy imports (mainly gas) and an energy mix that makes it more difficult to produce electricity at competitive prices. On the other hand, relatively high prices in Italy, Germany, Cyprus and Ireland show that they act also as a major incentive for improving the energy efficiency of industrial processes.

Figure 1.17: Change in electricity prices for medium-sized enterprises, 2011-2007

Note: No data for AT, IT. Figures for Cyprus also reflect the explosion at the Vassiliko power station in July 2011, which forced it to use its old and less efficient generators to avoid power shortages. Source: Eurostat

1.6.3. Satisfaction with the quality of infrastructure

The Global Competitiveness Report surveys the satisfaction of users of physical infrastructure. The replies differ among the Member States, but improvements have been seen in most of them. Satisfaction is highest in France, closely followed by Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark (figure 1.18).

Figure 1.18: Satisfaction with the quality of infrastructure, 2011

Source: Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013, World Economic Forum, Commission calculations; refers to rail, road, port and airport infrastructure, 1=underdeveloped / 7=extensive and efficient by international standards. http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2012-2013/#

Since 2006, Italy, Spain and Ireland appear to have enhanced their infrastructure to the satisfaction of their citizens (figure 1.19). Improvements have been noted likewise in Cyprus, Malta, Hungary and the Czech Republic, no doubt partially as a result of the use of EU Structural Funds for investments in transport infrastructure. Progress has been slower in Poland and Romania, which suffer from underdeveloped road infrastructure and delays in construction projects. Among the mature economies, satisfaction seems lowest in Italy and Greece, also partially due to the complexities of preparing and implementing infrastructure investments.

Figure 1.19: Change in satisfaction with the quality of infrastructure, 2006-2011

Source: Global Competitiveness Report, Commission calculations; 2006=100

1.7. Finance and investment

1.7.1. Access to bank loans

The ongoing stresses in the financial markets continue to be reflected in access to bank loans. Since 2009, the situation has deteriorated in more than half of the Member States. This deterioration has been caused mainly by the general tightening of credit standards due to the greater risk aversion of banks, as well as by problems in financial sector stability. The supply of credit has been further restricted by the deleveraging process that has started or continued in some Member States where the private sector had accumulated large levels of debt during previous credit expansions and where financial institutions have been unwinding their excessively leveraged positions.

Alongside supply-side effects, however, the impact of falling demand for loans has been equally important for some countries. Credit condition surveys have revealed that the demand for loans has fallen in particular among small businesses. As their profit situation has deteriorated, many businesses have postponed investments and stepped up efforts to find alternative sources of financing, including longer commercial credit and stronger internal cash reserves. While there were few quarterly improvements coinciding with the revival of industrial output in 2010 and the first half of 2011, the rejection rate when applying for a loan has remained historically high. Falling returns and prospects of further uncertainty have adversely affected SMEs’ capability to attract venture capital and other risk investors.

Access to bank lending remained easiest in Finland, followed by Latvia, Sweden, Poland and Austria (figure 1.20). Since 2009, access to bank loans in Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria and Estonia has become easier, the last two countries having seen the largest relative improvement. The situation remained relatively difficult or worsened in Italy, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Spain. For instance, in the United Kingdom, loan demand from small businesses has dropped significantly — in contrast to large and medium-sized companies — with many small businesses not even approaching their bank about further funding. In the case of Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg, the supply of credit has been adversely affected by the ongoing deleveraging of bank balance sheets. The stress in the banking sector has also been reflected in the difficulties encountered by firms in Ireland, Slovenia, Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Figure 1.20: SME access to bank lending

Note: Responses to six key questions in the above ECB-Commission survey have been used to construct the composite indicator ‘SME access to bank lending’. Data are based on the percentage of respondents who experienced one of the following situations, whereas the normalised values range from zero (worst) to 1 (best possible situation). Source: ECB/Commission, Commission calculations; (0=worst possible / 1=best possible) See also: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/finance/data/enterprise-finance-index/access-to-finance-indicators/loans/index_en.htm

In Spain, Portugal and Greece businesses are also disadvantaged by the very long waiting times for payments by public authorities, which further deteriorated in 2011. On the other hand, Ireland has been able to shorten public sector payment times, demonstrating that this is possible even in a country undergoing intensive fiscal consolidation.

Although under normal circumstances most businesses consider that access to loans is more important than their interest rate, the turmoil in the banking sector has led to considerable interest rate differentials between countries. For the first quarter of 2012, the average interest rates for business loans up to EUR 1 million were highest in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Portugal, Cyprus and Greece, averaging over 9 %, well above the EU average of 5.3 %. Austria, Belgium Luxembourg, France and Finland had the lowest average interest rates, ranging between 2 % and 3.5 %.

1.7.2. Investment in equipment

Weak business investment holds back economic recovery. Despite structural reforms that have improved the business environment, uncertainty and balance sheet cleaning mean that firms are keeping investment low and hoarding cash. The difficulties in accessing loans and working capital from banks are contributing to this by forcing firms to build up their cash reserves. Firms will only invest when they are confident about the economic outlook and the recovery of consumer demand.

The figures show that business investment in equipment has suffered throughout Europe during the crisis (figure 1.21). Bulgaria, Latvia and Estonia have seen the largest drops from 2006-2008 to 2009-2010/11 averages. Equipment investment continues to be above the EU average in many of the catching-up countries, but investment levels in Belgium, Italy and Austria have also held up well. Investment levels in Finland, France, Lithuania, the UK and Ireland are below the EU average.

Figure 1.21: Investment in equipment, % of GDP, averages

Note: Latest EU and Bulgaria data are for 2009-2010. Source: Eurostat

1.8. Annex: Performance of Member States

The spider graphs below present, for each indicator, the distance of the respective Member State from the EU average. This distance is expressed in terms of standard deviations, which is a common measure of the spread of observations in a distribution (in this case, a measure of the variation of Member State performance around the EU average). This enhances the comparability of the presentation of indicators with different measurement units and distributions across Member States. The same method is used in the country-specific bar charts of this report.

Figure 1.22: Performance of each Member State against the EU average on eight main indicators

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

2. Overview of progress by broad policy area

2.1. Introduction

This report focuses on the measures Member States have taken to improve their competitiveness, and assesses their performance with respect to a number of key framework conditions. The main policy areas covered are innovative industrial policy, sustainability of industry, the business environment, and public administration.

The report is drafted on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty and comes under the Europe 2020 Strategy, specifically the flagship initiative ‘An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era’. The policy areas which are covered in this report are also ingredients in the European Semester process, which calls for Europe to restore its competitiveness, among other things by investing in key technologies and reducing delays in payments by public administrations.

This report looks at competitiveness both horizontally, with an overview of progress by broad policy area, and by country, with chapters presenting national performance and policy developments in the same policy areas. The annex provides details on the indicators and industry classifications adopted and the data used in the preparation of the various graphs.

2.2. Innovative industrial policy

2.2.1. Global competition

Research and development (R&D) and innovation are key sources of economic and productivity growth in the medium term and the EU has confirmed its objective of spending 3 % of its GDP on research and development by 2020. Successful investment in research and innovation can boost productivity and the competitiveness of European businesses. At the same time, improved innovation performance facilitates structural changes in Member States’ economies towards economic activity with high added value.

Meanwhile, our competitors too are pursuing very ambitious innovation policies.[5] Japan has set itself the target of increasing its R&D expenditure to 4 % of its GDP by 2020. South Korea is aiming at an R&D intensity of 5 %, Singapore 3.5 %, and China 2.5 % which means that it is likely to overtake the EU by 2014 in terms of R&D intensity.[6]

For R&D expenditure in the business sector, the US, Japan and South Korea outperform the EU, with the US and South Korea increasing their lead in this field. This is in particular due to the lesser ability of the EU to translating knowledge into advanced and commercially successful goods and services. In particular in the US, young innovative firms can grow rapidly into world leaders[7]. Finally, the skills base in the EU is eroding due to the decline in the working population and the lack of highly qualified immigrant workers.

Under the current economic conditions, public R&D expenditure is under pressure and measures are needed to promote private R&D expenditure. These include facilitating access to capital, encouraging closer cooperation between academia and enterprises and creating a business environment conducive to private investment. The trend whereby multinationals are shifting R&D across borders within their global value chain offers new opportunities for Member States to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) and enlarge their knowledge base.

To reap the benefits of technological progress, a stronger focus is needed on promoting the diffusion of technological development into marketable products and services. An effective strategy is needed to ensure that the necessary skills are available to consolidate a technology-driven competitive advantage. National systems for evaluating innovation policy can foster good governance, including the administration of public R&D budgets, which should aim for maximum impact. This chapter focuses on recent innovation policy developments in the Member States, paying particular attention to the business sector.[8]

2.2.2. Fostering private research

Many Member States have enacted measures to promote business sector research, in particular tax incentives, grants and tax credits. France is providing a Research Tax Credit that reduces the cost of R&D expenditure for businesses, focusing on technological innovation. Finland has also recently introduced R&D tax incentives. The Netherlands has cut subsidies and transformed them into generic tax deductions; especially for R&D wages and R&D-based profits, with the goal of making it easier to apply for these instruments. Belgium allows similar tax deductions to be combined with a generic allowance for corporate equity and R&D grants. Greece has recently shifted its R&D support from grants to loans, guarantees and tax incentives.

However, tax incentives can be expensive instruments and need to be well targeted. Several Member States have therefore revised their systems to make them more suitable for SMEs. For instance, the Czech Republic has redesigned its previous tax incentive for in-house research so that smaller companies which outsource research to external institutes or enterprises can also benefit from it. Measures in Portugal follow a similar line. Austria has turned its tax allowance into a tax credit that will better suit SMEs which may make few profits; and France has a scheme targeting young innovative firms with tax advantages. The United Kingdom is slightly adapting its R&D tax credit scheme based on a recent evaluation.[9]

Some countries are not convinced about the value of tax allowances in promoting R&D. In Germany, it is assumed that large enterprises would benefit from such a system more than SMEs. For SMEs, the system of direct grants and project-related support is still perceived as being more efficient.

Another avenue to enhance growth based on research and innovation is to increase the availability of venture capital, an area where Europe lags considerably behind the United States. Recent developments include initiatives in the Netherlands, Poland and France to set up new venture capital schemes. Many of these initiatives focus on fund-of-fund schemes, investing public funds in venture capital funds, aiming to attract more private institutional investors to the field.

All Member States are encouraging closer cooperation between academia and enterprises. Estonia has set up further competence centres to bridge the gap between firms and academic research. In Slovenia, one selection criterion for public research grants is whether the researcher cooperates with businesses.

Innovation vouchers for enterprises to buy services from R&D providers remain a popular policy measure. For example, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all have such schemes and Slovakia is considering a similar system.

Policy example: Slovenia’s call to strengthen companies’ research departments

As part of the Research and Innovation Strategy of Slovenia 2011-2020, the former Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Economic Affairs launched, in July 2011, a call for proposals aimed at ‘strengthening companies’ research departments’. Its objectives are to ensure effective interinstitutional mobility of researchers, to support the employment of researchers or developers in the economy, to increase the number of PhDs and ‘young researchers’ in companies and to increase the number of interdisciplinary research departments in the business sector. The funding available for the call amounts to EUR 20 million. More than 60 companies and more than 500 researchers (100 PhD students) will be financed until mid-2014.

Knowledge transfer has also been a focus of policy measures, including measures such as Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (UK) for using effective intermediaries; INNCORPORA (Spain), providing support for hiring highly qualified workers; and Sociétés d’acceleration de transfert de technologies (France) providing wide support for technology transfer.

Policy example: the UK’s Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs)

This programme is led by the Technology Strategy Board, and includes three-way partnerships between a business (the company partner), one or more recent graduates (associates) and a senior academic acting as a supervisor (knowledge base partner). The aim of these partnerships is to increase interactions between the knowledge base (a university or research organisation) and companies through the mediation of the associate who during the period he or she stays in the company will work on a project developed in collaboration with the partners for a year or more.

2.2.3. Internationalisation of R&D

A large share of business R&D in the world is performed by a small group of multinational firms. Some of them have begun shifting R&D investments outside their home base, which may present some risks, but also provides new opportunities for Member States trying to catch up with innovation leaders in Europe.[10] R&D activities abroad help firms to enter new markets and expand and are not a substitute for R&D in the home country.[11]

In some Member States (Ireland, Belgium, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria) the majority of business R&D is performed by foreign-owned firms. Ireland benefits from considerable process innovation in multinationals as they aim to preserve their cost competitiveness. In the Czech Republic, the public investment agency ‘Czech Invest’ continues to make a significant effort to attract foreign companies and has set up a web portal trying to link businesses with partners all over the world such as in the US and China. In Austria, German firms are prominent in the research and innovation system. While some American and Chinese enterprises have bought successful Austrian companies, their manufacturing and R&D activities are usually kept in Austria as long as the productivity stays high. The strategy of Malta for attracting FDI targets life sciences. In Finland too, attracting FDI is seen as an increasingly important topic since tangible investments in manufacturing have contracted more than in other EU countries.

Policy example: Finland’s R&D internationalisation strategy

The strategy focuses on broad-based innovation policy, and the changes and reforms necessary for its implementation. It focuses on global competence and value networks; demand and user orientation; innovative individuals and communities; and a systemic approach. In practical terms foreign companies are eligible for funding by the Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes); a strategy for the internationalisation of education, research and innovation has been adopted by the national Research and Innovation Council; the Finland Distinguished Programme (FiDiPro) enables international researchers to work with the best in Finnish academic researchers; and the legal status of universities has been changed to encourage them to internationalise.

2.2.4. Promoting key enabling technologies

The capacity of European industry to deploy key enabling technologies (KETs[12]) is vital for preserving its global competitiveness.[13] KETs are a key source of innovation, providing indispensable technology building blocks that enable a wide range of product applications. Due to their cross-cutting nature and systemic relevance, KETs are instrumental in modernising Europe’s industrial base and in driving the development of entirely new industries.

Figure 2.1: Competitiveness in KETs

Note: Figure for Malta reflects exports by a single large microelectronics company. Source: Calculations by Commission/ZEW/NIW based on Patstat and UN Comtrade data

A recent study[14] found that most Member States have policy initiatives supporting basic and technological research on key enabling technologies. However, in many of them there are no specific measures covering the later stages of technology and product development and commercialisation.

Policy example: Innovation Alliances in Germany

Innovation Alliances are created around specific application areas or future markets. They combine several stages of technology, aiming at ground-breaking industrial innovation and comprise several strands that are mutually reinforcing in bringing new technologies to the market. The scheme provides funding for strategic cooperation between industry and public research in key technology areas that demand a large amount of resources and a long time horizon, but promise considerable innovation and economic impact. The funding premise is that every euro of Federal money should be matched by five euros from industry. This investment policy is also important for small and medium-sized enterprises since knowledge of future technological developments together with the commitment from large companies enables SMEs to remove some of the uncertainty from the high level of risk involved in R&D investment decisions.

In order to successfully deploy key enabling technologies, it is important to combine several actors across the value chain. In larger Member States programmes can fund projects that focus on the complete value chain, but smaller Member States often do not cover the whole of it.

SMEs are important for the deployment of key enabling technologies but they are often too small to make a difference in a particular industry. To make an impact on a global scale, large firms are needed. Hence, programmes that promote collaboration with international partners can be valuable. For instance, the Functional Materials programme in Finland emphasises the whole value chain and international collaboration.

There have been two essential constraints to enhanced collaboration between academia and business: the low capacity of enterprises to absorb research, and the lack of applied research capability that enterprises can access. To correct this, Ireland has tried to close the gap by requiring that research programmes involve industry collaboration. Investments in key enabling technologies, such as nanotechnology, advanced materials, microelectronics and biotechnology, made by the Science Foundation Ireland are aligned with the interests of industrial partners interested in deploying these technologies in areas such as semiconductors, medical devices or food processing.

Policy example: The French patent fund

France Brevets is a EUR 100 million investment fund dedicated to promoting the use of patents. Its task is to enable universities and other public research bodies, as well as private firms, to better exploit their patents, also internationally. This should happen through creating patent clusters for licencing purposes, and through combined management and pooling of public and private patents.

Smaller Member States tend to have a less comprehensive research base on key enabling technologies. To achieve a critical mass, some countries are making specific choices on research themes to support, and on the scale of intervention. They concentrate often on close coordination between infrastructure and project investments. In Denmark, policy-makers have focused on new climate technologies and the objective of Green Labs DK is to become a leader in developing new technologies for the purpose of supporting energy-policy objectives on security of supply, independence from fossil fuels, a cleaner environment and cost-efficiency.

Several Member States are promoting key enabling technologies explicitly, while others use more general programmes targeting industrial innovation. Larger Member States tend to focus on top-down thematic programmes, whereas smaller Member States favour a bottom-up approach that is driven by industry demand. Further, many countries are pursuing active cluster policies to promote regional links between academia, enterprises, banks and policy-makers, benefiting also key enabling technologies.

But more could be done[15] and policy learning can provide a springboard for action. The United Kingdom is developing a network of technology and innovation centres — termed ‘catapults’ — based on the German Fraunhofer Institutes[16], with a focus on developing pilot and demonstration projects. The development of clusters and networks can be supported with the assistance of the EU structural funds.[17] And several Member States have set up ambitious programmes to improve the use of public procurement as a tool to promote innovation.

Policy example: The Dutch Small Business Innovation Research programme

This programme allows public authorities to publish calls for tender to procure an innovative product that still needs to be developed. In a first step, companies hand in their proposals for product development and several companies are then funded to perform feasibility studies. In the light of these studies, three companies are asked in a second step to develop their idea into a marketable product and are subsidised with up to EUR 450 000 each. In a third step, the procuring authority is free to buy one of these three products. The advantages of this scheme are: it is quick, result-oriented and tailored to SME needs, with 100 % funding and little red tape. The programme has been positively evaluated. More than a dozen marketable innovations (e.g. traffic guiding, dyke monitoring, bio-based catalysis) have been developed through this tool since 2004.

2.2.5. Using structural funds for innovation

In some countries, structural funds are the main source of financing for R&D and innovation policy budgets (e.g. Greece, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania). The key question for them is how to spend the available funds well and how to increase the absorptive capacity.[18]

Structural funds are widely used to develop a research and innovation infrastructure. Bulgaria has created the Sofia Technology Park specialising in ICT and pharmaceuticals; and Lithuania has created five higher education, research and business oriented science and technology valleys.

To leverage public funding, Poland’s Operational Programme Innovative Economy and Hungary’s policy measure Support for Market-oriented R&D Activities show how EU structural funds can be employed to support industrial innovation. Another option is to trigger investment through the use of public-private partnerships, as is the case in the Christian Doppler Laboratories, where every private euro invested in applied basic research is doubled by a matching public investment. Grants by innovation agencies are sometimes linked to a requirement that companies and research institutions pay return fees based on the utilisation of research infrastructure. The French Key Technologies for the Digital Economy programme provides 100 % funding for pilot installations involving nanoelectronics. Industrial partners gain access to the equipment and laboratories by paying an access fee, and if the project is an economic success they have to pay a return fee.

Policy example: The CzechAccelerator

The CzechAccelerator 2011-2014 programme is part of the Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation. Since 2011, the programme has offered companies doing business in ICT, clean technologies, biotechnology, life sciences, new materials or nanotechnology a stay in the US (Silicon Valley, Boston), Israel, Singapore or Switzerland. In addition to an office in one of the business incubators, the participants are provided with consulting services, coaching and training. Companies also participate in various networking events, which makes their search for a strategic partner or investor easier. The programme aims to enhance the managerial skills and capacities needed to successfully commercialise products, implement business plans and gain easier access to venture capital.

2.2.6. Improving skills for innovation

Figure 2.2: Tertiary graduates in science and technology per 1000 of population aged 20-29

Note: Latest available data for France (2009) and Italy (2008). Source: Eurostat, 2011

Technological and industrial changes are increasing the demand for employees with high and intermediate levels of skills.[19] Thus in a knowledge-intensive economy, excellence in research, engineering and science needs to be backed by further skills, in particular in management, team work, creativity and design. Attracting top talent from abroad can be an effective strategy to build up excellence quickly and gain a more immediate competitive advantage.[20]

Skills gaps have started to emerge in some Member States, partly related to a decline in the working-age population due to decreasing birth rates over the last decades and emigration of well-qualified people. This issue is likely to become more important in the future. Most Member States have a relatively low share of graduates in science, technology and engineering (Figure 2.2), but not many have taken ambitious action to improve this. However, some have specific actions; for example, Germany has adopted a strategy to ensure a sufficient skills base;[21] Austria will fund more study places in applied natural sciences and engineering; and Estonia has an ‘industrial PhD scheme’ and a web portal to attract Estonian talent from abroad.

2.2.7. Good governance and evaluation in the area of innovation policy

Many Member States are improving the governance of their innovation system, in particular by extending the use of evaluations. Austria and Finland have evaluated their innovation system recently.

Others are evaluating partially: the Czech Republic embarked on an audit in 2012 and Estonia is evaluating its current policies. Germany has commissioned an evaluation of its major SME innovation programme which supports the findings of stakeholders and the government that the programme is very successful. The United Kingdom Innovation Agency NESTA has performed a preliminary evaluation[22] of its SBRI scheme, which aims to encourage innovation via public procurement. France is evaluating its cluster policy. Luxembourg has established annual evaluations of university research activities.

Italy has a new agency for evaluating research and the quality of R&D in universities. In Ireland, a number of partial evaluation reports have recently been published, but there are no plans to conduct an overall evaluation of the national innovation system.

Policy example: Germany’s SME innovation programme

The evaluation of the Zentrales Innovationsprogramm Mittelstand (ZIM)[23] notes its easy and quick application procedures, high approval rates (about 75 %), sufficient amounts (up to EUR 350 000 per application), high flexibility (applications can be made by all sectors and industries and equally by individuals and groups of enterprises) and relatively low administrative costs.

Policy fragmentation due to overlapping programmes, unclear competences of public bodies and the lack of an overall strategy to promote innovation has been identified as a challenge in many Member States over the last few years. However, many Member States have recognised this challenge and are taking steps to address it. Evaluations of existing policies are a natural first step, upon which new strategies can be built.

Some Member States are developing new comprehensive strategies. The United Kingdom published a new R&D and Science Strategy in December 2011 and France will review its National Research and Inovation Strategy 2009-2012. Austria has adopted a new comprehensive innovation strategy with the vision to become an innovation leader and Finland is likely to streamline its governmental R&D institutions. Slovenia has adopted a new Research and Innovation Strategy for the next 10 years and simplified its governance structures. Ireland is planning to reform its innovation strategies on the basis of evaluations.

Romania adopted a reform action plan concerning the innovation system in 2011, as a result of the functional review performed in the context of the previous loan received from the EU. In Slovakia, an ambitious new strategy still awaits implementation.

Stakeholder involvement has been recognised as an important success factor in public and private innovation governance systems.[24] A fairly new development is that the internationalisation of the R&D and innovation system has become an important issue in many countries.

A question that will become more prominent in the future is to what extent increased R&D and innovation spending is translated into successful enterprises, growth and jobs. One factor that has an effect on this is the business environment, including improving the business environment for start-ups, reducing the administrative burden, and pursuing active SME and entrepreneurship policies. Such measures are essential for fostering innovation and commercialisation of research, and form an essential complement to policies promoting research.[25]

2.3. Sustainable industry

2.3.1. Introduction

Sustainable competitiveness refers to the promotion of economic growth and development while at the same time improving resource efficiency, minimising waste and strengthening energy security. The Annual Growth Survey 2012[26] highlighted the importance of unleashing the potential of green growth through enhancing structural reforms to create a new policy mix of regulatory, market and voluntary measures to promote investment in greening the European economy.

Businesses are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of sustainable industry. A recent Eurobarometer survey[27] highlighted that 93 % of European SMEs are taking at least one action to be more resource-efficient, most notably in order to save energy, minimise waste and recycle. However, the survey also reveals that in comparison with large companies, SMEs less frequently undertake some form of sustainable activity, less frequently bid for a public procurement contract which includes environmental requirements, and less frequently offer green products and services. Although the concept of sustainable industry is gaining ground, the survey seems to indicate that there is significant growth potential to further enhance the role of sustainable industry in the EU.

2.3.2. Energy consumption, energy intensity and carbon intensity

Within the National Reform Programmes of the Europe 2020 Strategy, Member States have agreed to a number of targets, including energy efficiency and renewable energy targets. They have also been required to submit their second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan in June 2011[28] and to publish their National Renewable Energy Action Plans in 2010.

Between 2000 and 2010, final energy consumption in industry[29] in the EU fell by approximately 12 %. This declining trend in energy consumption in industry compares to an increase in energy consumption of 7 % for transport, 32 % for services and 5.2 % for residential sectors over the same 10-year period. As a result, the share of industry in total final energy consumption decreased from 29.4 % in 2000 to 25.3 % in 2010. With respect to energy intensity, for the same period 2000 to 2010, energy intensity in industry and energy[30] in the EU declined by 10.6 %.

Looking at the figures at country level, most Member States have seen a decline in energy intensity over the past decade, 2000-2010. In particular, Member States with relatively high energy intensity have seen improved efficiency over the past decade. Particularly large declines in energy intensity were experienced in Bulgaria, Romania, Ireland, Cyprus and Poland. This has been due to a combination of both a decline in energy consumption by industry and an increase in its gross value added over the period. Other Member States have seen an increase in energy intensity between 2000 and 2010, such as Austria, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In the case of Luxembourg, the increase in energy consumption can be explained by an increase in energy consumption by industry and a decline in gross value added. However, in the case of Austria and the Netherlands, the increase in energy consumption was greater than the accompanying increase in gross value added in that category.

Figure 2.3: Energy intensity in industry and the energy sector

Note: Includes construction and final non-energy consumption. Measured in kilograms of oil equivalent per euro gross value added (reference year 2000). The latest data for France is for 2009. No data were available for Malta. Source: Calculations based on Eurostat data

The policy response of the Member States to help industries improve energy performance varies according to their specificities. For example, Belgium and the Netherlands provide tax deductions for investment in energy efficiency. The Netherlands also provides a subsidy scheme to support catching-up with the cheapest available technology in industry for renewables. Various forms of financial incentives are also provided across Member States. For example, in Malta grants are provided towards the initial capital investment in renewables and in Cyprus grants are awarded for energy-efficient investments. In Finland, funding is granted for environmental technologies. In Germany, interest-rate subsidies are granted to projects aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of SMEs. Measures have also targeted improving energy efficiency in buildings, including in industrial buildings. Furthermore, initiatives such as the Ecodesign Directive[31] are driving change and helping to deliver more sustainable products, production and consumption.

The recent Eurobarometer survey highlighted further measures that can be undertaken to assist industry. It underlined that more information on energy service contracts and options to save energy would help around a quarter of SMEs to reduce their energy bills. Moreover, 25 % of SMEs stated that simplifying administrative procedures for creating co-generation capacity, such as installing solar panels, would be effective in boosting energy efficiency.

The carbon intensity of European industry[32] declined by 12.1 % from 2000 to 2009. Almost all Member States were part of this, with the most significant reductions being measured in Romania, Slovakia, Ireland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. In all these Member States this was due to significant declines in carbon emissions accompanied by an increase in gross value added of industry and energy over this period.

2.3.3. Resource efficiency

Resource efficiency is one of the main challenges for the EU, but at the same time it offers significant potential for European firms. Enhancing resource efficiency can potentially reduce costs for businesses. There are good opportunities to improve further in this field, e.g. by adopting cleaner technologies, improving the use of by-products and waste, and adopting eco-design solutions. As part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Commission has launched the Industry Policy and Resource Efficiency flagships under the sustainable growth priority. More recently, the Commission launched a Resource Efficiency Roadmap[33] in 2011.

The recent Eurobarometer survey highlights a number of trends in resource efficiency. For example, a third of European SMEs are striving to improve their resource efficiency. Around a fifth say that they are taking these measures because of financial or tax incentives or other forms of public support. Over a third indicate that measures to improve resource efficiency have reduced their production costs while about a quarter report that their production costs have increased.

A 2009 study[34] suggested that European companies are taking action to increase their resource efficiency. The most prominent actions were first-order measures, i.e. incremental changes in production through short-term investments, e.g. recycling of materials, use of green and intelligent information technology, and the use of green business models. Second-order measures, i.e. fundamental changes to business operations involving longer-term investments, were present to a lesser extent. In both these cases, the lack of access to finance and lack of knowledge were identified as major barriers.

When looking at resource efficiency in the context of waste disposal, waste from production processes is no longer being seen as just a burden, but is being recognised as an important re-usable resource for industries. Figures from 2004 and 2008[35] show that the total amount of waste generated by EU industry fell by 8.6 %, whereas for the whole economy this decline was 8.1 %, thus indicating that industry reduced its waste faster than the wider economy. Country-specific data for 2008 indicate that enterprises generate the highest amount of waste (in tonnes per capita) in Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Finland and Estonia, while enterprises in Latvia, Hungary and Cyprus produce the lowest amount.

Policy example: Thermal insulation of buildings in Austria

A EUR 100 million package for the thermal restoration of existing premises up to 2014 was introduced in Austria in 2009. Owners of both private and company premises are granted special grants for insulating exterior walls of buildings and replacing old heating systems and windows with new ones. In 2011, more than 18 000 projects (approximately 17 500 for residential and 800 for industrial buildings) were funded which triggered a total investment value of EUR 860 million.

Policy example: The Green Start programme in Ireland

The Green Start programme (Ireland) helps companies to put a simple environmental management system in place. The programme is designed to boost the level of environmental awareness concerning regulatory compliance and developments in green markets in companies that have no in-house expertise or exposure to environmental issues. An increase in environmental performance can help companies reach a level where they will achieve competitive advantage through greater resource efficiency (energy/water/waste costs) and greater market share through enhanced credentials.

2.3.4. Development of environmental industries

Eco-industry refers to the production of goods and services to measure, prevent, limit, minimise or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil and problems related to waste, noise and eco-systems. The global market for environmental goods and services represents an opportunity for European firms. The global market for eco-industries is estimated at roughly EUR 1.15 trillion a year, with the European Union seen as capturing around one third of it. In the future the global market could almost double, with the average estimate for 2020 being around EUR 2 trillion a year.[36]

According to a recent study,[37] European companies are performing well on the global market, in particular in photovoltaics, air pollution control and waste disposal where the EU seems to have a comparative advantage. However, the study also shows that many environmental goods and services included in the study are sold on local or national markets and not traded extensively.

When looking at the situation from an SME point of view, the Eurobarometer results suggest that one quarter of SMEs in the EU, approximately 26 %, offer green products or services.[38] This would tend to suggest that SMEs still have significant potential to enter the eco-industry. Furthermore, the results show that 87 % of SMEs in the EU that sell green products or services only do so in national markets and that it is large companies that are more likely to sell their green products or services in foreign markets. Therefore, there is significant potential for European SMEs to exploit the green market to a greater extent.

Innovation plays an important role in helping to decouple growth from environmental pressures and it is essential to have a framework conducive to innovation, including competitive markets and openness to trade and investment. Green innovation is also influenced by other factors such as the environmental policy framework. For example, in Slovenia, the Slovenian Development and Export Bank (SID) has earmarked EUR 44 million from June 2012 for SMEs to finance green technology solutions such as waste or water treatment or reducing air pollution. In Germany, the ongoing Energy Research Programme has allocated EUR 3.5 billion to energy research between 2011 and 2014. The SDE+ subsidy incentive scheme in the Netherlands is also promoting the use of cost-effective technologies, including renewable sources of heat. In Italy, as part of initiatives to favour the environmental restoration and industrial reconversion of local areas in difficulty, such as Porto Marghera in Veneto and Porto Torres in Sardinia, there is an attempt to favour the emergence of a more sustainable industry (e.g. through the promotion of ‘green chemicals’), stressing that restructuring processes can also provide opportunities. Also, Finland has a green mining programme aimed at making Finland a global leader in the sustainable mineral industry by 2020.

The size of the eco-industry can be measured by its turnover, an approximation of which is the level of environmental protection expenditure. In 2009, the estimated environmental protection expenditure by industry as a percentage of GDP was 0.43 %.[39] This figure has remained relatively stable since 2001.

In 2011 approximately 0.71 % of the value of EU exports corresponded to environmental goods.[40] The percentage varies between Member States. The largest share of environmental goods in total exports was in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Germany. At the other end of the spectrum, Malta, Latvia and Bulgaria had the lowest level of exports of environmental goods. The large export share of Cyprus is due to the assembly and export of photovoltaic panels from imported parts.

The figure 2.4 shows that the bulk of exports of environmental goods belong to the group of photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells which account for approximately 44 % of EU exports of environmental goods. This concentration has perhaps contributed to the difficulties the sector has experienced. Other major exports were devices for filtering and purifying liquids and gases, accounting for approximately 24 % of exports in 2011.

Several initiatives have been taken by Member States to promote green industries. Germany has an initiative on ‘electro-mobility’ which aims to establish it as a leading market for electric vehicles. A similar project has been launched in Finland, known as the Electric Vehicles Systems (EVE) programme. This programme is aimed at companies and research institutions whose goal is to increase the amount of business related to electric vehicles and machinery. Germany is also working on a programme aimed at developing hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Poland has launched a green technologies accelerator scheme aimed at fostering the development and international transfer of Polish innovative environmental technologies.

Policy example: Green deals in the Netherlands

Green Deals are the government’s ‘deals’ with society. The government has asked businesses, citizens, civil society organisations, and local and regional authorities to indicate green projects which they have not managed to launch in an effort to identify how it can help these projects become viable. This can take place through providing advisory capacity, organisational capacity, removing legislative and regulatory obstacles and establishing public-private financing structures. Nearly 60 ‘Green deals’ have been signed since 2011 and an initial analysis by the Dutch Government found that these deals have supported and strengthened the policy to achieve CO2 reduction and renewable energy targets. An example of a green deal includes a pilot project with a greenhouse company to store heat from their greenhouses in the summer for use during the winter.

Figure 2.4: Composition of intra- and extra-EU 27 exports of environmental goods, 2011 (volume)

Source: Eurostat COMEXT

On green public procurement, the Commission set an indicative target that by 2050, 50 % of all public tendering procedures should be green.[41] A recent study[42] found that the uptake of green public procurement in the EU has been significant. 26 % of the latest contracts signed in 2009-2010 by public authorities in the EU included all the core green criteria, while 55 % of these contracts included at least one core criterion. The top performing countries, according to the contracts signed by public authorities, were Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. The Eurobarometer survey also showed that green public procurement is still a challenge for SMEs, with only 11 % of SMEs bidding for a public procurement tender that included environmental requirements compared with 16 % of large companies.

Policy example: ÖkoKauf Wien/EcoBuy Vienna’[43]

An example of best practice in green and efficient public administration is the green procurement initiative ÖkoKauf Wien/EcoBuy Vienna. It is a programme for sustainable public procurement across the entire city administration of Vienna. It has developed about 100 product catalogues and green criteria for supply, construction and other regularly procured services. By changing administrative routines the programme had a significant financial and environmental impact corresponding to about EUR 17 million and 30 000 t of CO2 emissions per year. It demonstrates that green products do not need to cost more and educating suppliers is an important additional result. Ownership of the programme has been broad, with about 180 public procurement practitioners from all parts of the administration involved in 22 working groups.

2.3.5. Conclusion

In an effort to tackle the challenges posed by environmental constraints and ensure sustainable production, Member States are using a variety of demand-side and supply-side policies. The effects of these policies have not always been fully favourable, as the difficulties of the photovoltaics sector show. However, demand-side policies and support, such as green public procurement and labelling, taxation and subsidies seem to have solidly taken root. Supply-side policies, such as better access to finance for environmentally viable solutions, education and information services directed at enterprises, have been identified as bottlenecks and should be strengthened.

Despite the potential for problems, well-directed, commercially sound and significant investment by European industry is needed to seize opportunities in environmental industries, especially for SMEs. To complement this investment, Member States have to strike the right balance between creating supportive policies, avoiding wasteful spending and avoiding excessive burdens on companies when they design policies aiming at creating incentives for investment required to achieve sustainable growth.

2.4. Business environment

2.4.1. Introduction

The business environment can be described as a set of conditions that affect a company’s operations and include customers, competitors, suppliers, legislation and economic and political factors. The World Bank Report ‘Doing Business in 2012’, confirms that OECD high-income economies, by a large margin, have the world’s most business-friendly environment. A good business environment requires rules that are efficient, transparent and provide certainty. The regulatory framework must contribute to achieving growth and jobs, while continuing to take into account social and environmental objectives.

2.4.2. Access to finance

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, SMEs have been particularly affected by tightening credit conditions and face difficulties in accessing financing. As a result of the slowdown, debt financing has become more expensive and difficult to obtain, and alternative financing instruments are often not fully developed in Member States.[44]

According to the SMEs’ Access to Finance Survey 2011,[45] access to finance is the second most pressing problem facing EU SMEs after finding customers. Larger and older companies are more likely to obtain external financing whilst younger and smaller companies, and in particular microcompanies, are more likely to be rejected. 77 % of large companies that applied for a bank loan were granted the loan. The equivalent figure for SMEs is 63 %. For SMEs active for between 2-5 years, 24 % received the finance requested and for microcompanies, with less than 10 people, only 16 % could obtain access to finance.

The survey results show that access to bank loans has continued to deteriorate; on balance, SMEs reported a worsening in the availability of bank loans (20 %, up from 14 % in the previous survey round). Along with access to bank loans, SMEs also reported a further deterioration in the availability of bank overdrafts and of trade credit, indicating an overall considerable worsening in the access to finance.

According to the survey, since 2009 the overall situation has deteriorated in more than half of the Member States. This was mainly caused by the overall tightening of credit standards due to banks’ greater risk aversion. The results show that just under a fifth (19 %) of EU SMEs applied for a bank loan in the last six months of 2011, down from 26 % in 2009. Applications for bank loans were most common in France (31 %) and Slovenia (30 %), while for SMEs in Germany, Italy and Poland there were significant drops in the proportion of firms applying for bank loans from 2009. SMEs in Ireland (12 %) and Greece (11 %) were most likely not to apply because of the risk of rejection. SMEs in Finland and Sweden were more likely than those in the other Member States to gain access to bank loans. In Greece and Ireland the proportions that were rejected were significantly higher than the EU average.

While the volume of large loans (over a million euros) to the corporate sector in the euro area has stabilised on a year-to-year basis, that of smaller amounts, and especially those below EUR 250 000, which are most likely to be granted to SMEs, has continued to deteriorate. In addition, the interest rate differentials for corporate loans have widened considerably within the euro area, reflecting the sovereign debt problems.

Although the decline reflects the lack of investment demand in a recession, SMEs perceived a further deterioration in the availability of bank loans between October 2011 and March 2012 (20% of SMEs thought so in net terms). In the second half of 2011, euro area SMEs’ need for bank loans and overdrafts increased somewhat, although this was not reflected in their financing need for fixed investment or for inventory and working capital. The deteriorating economic environment was responsible for a part of the deteriorating access to loans, but banks’ unwillingness has also played a role, as 23% of SMEs (in net terms) pointed to a lower willingness of banks to provide a loan, which was close to their perception in in the period after the Lehman bankruptcy.[46]

Banks’ continuing efforts to strengthen their balance sheets, their risk aversion, and their other difficulties could make it difficult for the European banking sector to continue to fullfill its role as the main provider of finance to the economy that it had before the crisis. Lending to businesses could be hampered even more if the securitisation market for small business loans does not take off in the near future.

However, obtaining financing from alternative sources is difficult for most firms. The issuance of bonds is a viable option only for larger companies with an external rating. The overwhelming majority of SMEs do not have an external rating and in any case look for smaller amounts of financing which is potentially more difficult to place with investors.

Figure 2.5: Venture capital as % of GDP, 2011

Note: No data for Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta or Slovakia. Source: EVCA

Venture capital funds are operators that provide mostly equity finance to companies with growth potential. Venture capital is essential for innovative firms that have prospects for rapid growth and are willing to take outside equity investors. These firms are a small minority of all firms, but they often have the potential to grow into large ones. The December 2011 Commission survey shows that equity financing was used by less than one in ten SMEs (7 %) during the period April-October 2011. Its use was more likely among larger businesses (11 % of those with more than 250 employees). Gazelles (firms that are less than five years old and have grown at more than 20 % per annum) are also slightly more likely (12 %) than SMEs overall to use equity financing. The main challenge concerning this source of financing among SMEs is their lack of investment readiness and limited knowledge of equity financing.[47]

The deteriorating economic outlook and the sovereign debt crisis have taken their toll on the availability of venture capital. Many venture capital funds are nursing their portfolio of companies and are shunning new deals. Venture performance has remained weak, apart from those in the top quartile, emphasising the importance of careful selection by investors.[48] Venture capital markets continue to be seriously underdeveloped in a number of Member States.

Looking at a selection of policy responses from the Member States, a recent evaluation[49] identified good practices in terms of stages in programme development: design, operation and monitoring and evaluation. These practices can be built into any programme, whether a loan, guarantee or equity scheme, and whatever stage of company development is targeted.

The Member States have a variety of programmes over the whole spectrum of funding gaps that firms may encounter. This makes direct comparisons of programmes difficult, especially as the client firms range from start-ups with no employees to well-established growing firms.

In terms of programme design, good practices require the scheme to fit into the financial ecosystem; to provide for linkages with other support schemes; to have clear and specific intervention aims and targets; to avoid crowding out private sources of finance; for investments to specify the target rate of return; and to have flexibility built in from the beginning.

When operating programmes, good practices tended to favour speed in decision-making; awareness-raising among potential customers; collaboration with private sources of finance; direct cooperation with the applicants; and provision of advice in addition to finance.

On programme evaluation, it is good practice to ensure regular evaluation of the success of any programme, and ongoing public scrutiny.

Policy example: High-tech Gründerfonds in Germany

In Germany the Equity Fund for High-Tech Start-ups provides venture capital for start-ups with large growth potential, which nonetheless often have difficulty in obtaining financing from private venture capital funds, because the investment seems too risky. The fund provides not only financing, but also coaching to the companies in its portfolio. It is a good example of successfully implemented public-private partnerships, as the Federal Government and private companies contribute to the funding.

2.4.3. Support to SMEs and the implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe

In 2010, there were almost 21 million SMEs in the EU. Of these, over 19 million (or 92 % of all EU businesses) were microfirms with less than ten employees.[50] The Small Business Act for Europe (SBA) that was adopted in 2008 reflects the Commission’s commitment to SMEs as the backbone of the EU economy. The SBA is a policy framework aimed at strengthening SMEs so that they can grow and create employment. Between 2008 and 2010, the Commission and the Member States implemented actions set out in the SBA to lighten the administrative burden, facilitate SMEs’ access to finance and support their entry into new markets. Although many of the actions outlined in the SBA have been started, a review of implementation in 2011, and a reassessment of needs in the light of the recent economic crisis, revealed that more must be done to make Europe more entrepreneurial.

In order to remain competitive, to grow and to create employment, SMEs need to be encouraged and supported in their efforts to enter new markets. The SBA and its review encourage Member States to take measures to help SMEs access public procurement, take advantage of the single market, use environmental challenges as a springboard to new business opportunities, and tap into international markets beyond the EU.

2.4.3.1. Entrepreneurship

The SBA Fact Sheets 2011/2012 provide an analysis of the situation of SMEs across Europe. These indicate that several Member States have launched programmes and initiatives aimed at improving the environment for entrepreneurship.

Measures have been taken to encourage people to become entrepreneurs, in particular with projects targeting young people, the unemployed and women. A large majority of member States have introduced entrepreeurship curricula in schools and are increasingly providing entrepreneurship training programmesfor teachers. This should be extended to all levels of education. Many countries have also promoted the entrepreneurial spirit with a series of targeted initiatives. Female entrepreneurship has been fostered through programmes in Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Spain. In Finland child care allowances and social benefits have been increased to support self-employment.

Policy example: Entrepreneur Individuel à Responsabilité Limité in France

In France, the creation of an entrepreneur statute (Entrepreneur Individuel à Responsabilité Limité or EIRL) allows entrepreneurs to defer the payment of any tax until a turnover has been generated. This reduces the cost of setting up a business and encourages entrepreneurship. This statute also allows entrepreneurs to differentiate between their personal and business capital, thus avoiding situations where a business bankruptcy turns into a personal insolvency.

2.4.3.2. Public procurement

The SBA Fact Sheets indicate that SMEs are impeded from participating in public procurement markets, which account for 17 % of EU GDP, often simply because smaller businesses are not aware of opportunities or are discouraged by procedures. For small firms, the costs of participating in tendering procedures can easily be prohibitive if the process is not efficient. Further, public authorities may find it easier to focus on large enterprises.

Many Member States have enacted measures to simplify access to public procurement, using electronic portals and overhauling their legislation. In Belgium, as from January 2012, it is compulsory for both the Flemish and the Walloon administrations to use e-tendering procedures. Further, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Romania and the UK have sought to improve access to information and to facilitate the participation of SMEs in public procurement. To this end they have improved the electronic procurement system, and facilitated the participation of, and the flow of information to SMEs.

Many Member States have also simplified existing laws to reduce and limit requirements for SMEs, and to divide larger contracts into smaller lots to facilitate access for SMEs. Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia and Spain are examples of this.

2.4.3.3. Internationalisation

Many Member States have introduced support schemes or implemented plans aimed at fostering internationalisation. According to a study,[51] 25 % of SMEs in the EU export or have exported at some point during the last three years. However, most of the exports are to countries inside the EU and only about 13 % of SMEs export to markets outside the EU.

Support and financial assistance to businesses interested in expanding their markets has been introduced in Austria, Denmark and Malta. In the Netherlands the ‘sME Export Accelerator’ provides easier access to credit for SMEs that want to increase their exports.

Services and assistance have been offered to businesses to help them find new markets or improve their export potential. Estonia’s government is preparing an ‘Asia Programme’ aimed at helping exporters to enter the Chinese market. Germany has put in place several initiatives to promote exporting. The UK has launched a programme that includes the provision of commercial export finance facilities to SMEs.

Policy example: Made in Italy portal

The Made in Italy portal is an interactive platform aimed at helping Italian companies to promote and sell their products around the world. The portal is available in English, Chinese and Russian. The services provided, which are all completely free, include e-commerce services and matching services for Italian partners. The programme addresses a key problem for Italian companies, namely the setting-up of online sales channels.

2.4.4. Reducing administrative burdens

2.4.4.1. Administrative burden

The EU’s better regulation policy aims to simplify and improve existing regulations, improve the design of new regulations, and increase the effectiveness of applicable rules and regulat