Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission on the Implementation of the First Action Plan on Innovation in Europe'
Date: 1998-05-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, action programme, development policy, employment policy, innovation

C 235/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
on the Implementation of the First Action Plan on Innovation in Europe’

(98/C 235/10)

On 21 January 1998 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 May 1998. The rapporteur
was Mrs Sirkeinen.

At its 355th plenary session held on 27 and 28 May 1998 (meeting of 27 May) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to none, with three
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. Gist of the Commission’s communication

In its opinion (1) on the Green Paper on inno-
1.1.
vation the Economic and Social Committee notes that:

— innovation is the basis for competitiveness, employ-
ment and economic and social development and
well-being;

— innovation lays
cohesion; and

the

foundations

for ongoing

— innovation is by nature an extensive and decentral-
ized process comprising many elements and should
be approached on the basis of respect for the
subsidiarity principle, albeit in a coordinated fashion.

1.2.
Reducing unemployment in Europe requires the
adoption of new attitudes and approaches. In particular,
there is a need to improve the capacity for innovation
in Europe. This extends far beyond research and
technology to include factors related to prevailing
attitudes, the social and educational context and the
legal framework. The Amsterdam and Luxembourg
European Councils entrusted the Commission with the
task of promoting research and innovation with a view
to reducing unemployment.

1.3. With the publication of its Green Paper on
innovation in 1995, the Commission launched a debate
on innovation policy. (2) The Economic and Social
Committee adopted an opinion on the Green Paper
in May 1996 (1). On the basis of the Green Paper and
the feedback generated by it the Commission drew
up the First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe
in December 1996. The Commission communication
which is the subject of the present opinion contains the
first annual report on implementation of the Action
Plan together with a proposal for priorities for action in
1998.

(1) OJ C 212, 22.7.1996.
(2) COM(95) 688 final.

The Commission document is organized as follows:

2.1.

Implementation of the Action Plan

Implementation has commenced at Community level.
The following table lists the various measures and
summarizes the main progress made and current situ-
ation in different fields.

P r o t e c t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o p e r t y

Green Paper on patents:

— Commission decision on appropriate follow-up at

the beginning of 1998

Intellectual Property Right (IPR) Help Desk:

— Call for tenders concerning the provision of external
services at the beginning of 1998; service operational
mid-1998

Access to data on patents:

— Decision by the European Patent Office on

implementation of a single interface

Protection of biotechnological inventions:

— Unanimous agreement by the Council on the need

for a directive in November 1997

Intellectual property in the information society:

— Commission proposal for a directive on 10 December

1997

Technical inventions:

— Commission proposal for a directive subsequent to
consultation on the Green Paper on protection of
utility models in the single market

F i n a n c i n g i n n o v a t i o n

The European Capital Markets:

— Launch of the Euro-New Market and EASDAQ
(European Association of Securities Dealers Auto-
mated Quotations)

— Commission report to the European Council on the

remaining obstacles, June 1998

27.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235/47

I-TEC (Innovation and Technology Equity Capital):

Form-Inno-Tech:

— Selection of the first nine venture capital funds at
the end of 1997 (ECU 380 million for 150 high-tech
SMEs); plan to establish a network between the
selected funds

JEV - Joint European Ventures:

— Implementation of project to support the creation

of European joint ventures (ECU 5 million)

LIFT (Links to Innovation Financing for Technology):

— Call for tenders for the external operation of a Help
Desk to facilitate contacts between investors and
players in the field; operational mid-1998

Spirit of enterprise and access to financing :

— Investment fora and training seminars under the
Innovation programme (approx. 330 projects to
date) and the Brite-Euram programme (five projects
to date)

— Establishment of a Biotechnology and Finance Forum

— Paris Round Table on innovation, the creation of

businesses and jobs

T h e r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k a n d a d m i n i s -
t r a t i v e s i m p l i f i c a t i o n

BEST (Business Environment Simplification Task
Force):

— Report to the European Council in June 1998

SLIM (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market):

— Report to the European Council in November 1997

European Economic Interest Groupings (EEIG):

— Communication from the Commission on the partici-
pation of European economic interest groupings in
public contracts and programmes financed by public
funds

— Practical guide to EEIGs for SMEs under the Regie

(European Network of EEIGs) initiative

E d u c a t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g

Erasmus Apprenticeship initiative:

— Transnational placement of 70 000 apprentices by

1998

Europass:

— Introduction of sandwich classes in higher vocational

education

Campus-Voice:

— Network of partnerships involving 70 universities,
six enterprises, seven newspapers and student associ-
ations

— Founding principles for the establishment of a
European network drawn up in September 1997;
aimed at enterprises and establishment of SMEs

Train-Re-Tech:

— Increased cooperation between the Training and
Mobility for Researchers programme and the Leo-
nardo programme; continuation of the fifth RTD
framework programme

— Development of

the Training and Mobility of

Researchers network

G e a r i n g r e s e a r c h t o i n n o v a t i o n

Fifth RTD framework programme:

— Concentrated key actions as an integral part of the

framework programme

— Promotion of
grammes

innovation within thematic pro-

Integrating SMEs into the EU’s fifth RTD framework
programme:

— Horizontal programme ‘Innovation and Partici-

pation of SMEs’

— Some 9 000 SMEs have participated in the fourth
framework programme over a period of two and a
half years

Improved gearing of research to standardization:

— Working document on research and standardization

Prosoma Esprit:

— Access to RTD results on CD-ROM and the Internet

European technology-transfer initiative at the Joint
Research Centre (JRC):

— Phasing in of the initiative from 1998, with provision
for monitoring developments and evaluating results

S t r e n g t h e n i n g o v e r a l l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f
i n n o v a t i o n p o l i c y

Establishment
implementation:

of mechanisms

for

coordinating

— Group of Directors-General for Innovation

— Commission Communication on coherence, com-
petitiveness, RTD and innovation policy in prep-
aration

Trend Chart on innovation in Europe

— Project and work schedule confirmed in November

1997

2.2. Priorities for action in 1998

2.2.1.
Continued implementation of the Action Plan
will remain one of the Commission’s top priorities, in
particular in the following fields:

— intellectual property,

C 235/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.98

— access to financing,

— administrative simplification,

— developing the spirit of enterprise.

2.2.2. With that objective in mind, emphasis will be
put on actions aiming at:

— mobilizing Member States and the operators con-
cerned, in particular through their participation in
the elaboration of the Trend Chart on innovation;

— fostering the creation, development and growth of
companies, in particular of those based on new
technologies;

those who are interested in it. More attention needs to
be paid to presentation, however. Despite its conciseness
the communication is rather difficult to understand for
people who are not familiar with the subject, especially
since the classification it employs differs from the one
used in the Action Plan. Moreover, no justification is
given for the priorities for action in 1998 nor is there
any description of the measures required.

3.3.
In order to make the report easier to read, the
Committee proposes the inclusion of a separate summary
table with three columns headed as follows:

— priority measures;

— encouraging new production and trading patterns;

— progress made with regard to each measure; and

— supporting the acquisition of professional skills by
innovation support specialists, in particular through
training in the areas of technology brokerage, tech-
nology transfer and financial analysis of stocks;

— facilitating the interconnection or, whenever neces-
sary, the setting up of private and/or public networks
to support and advise firms in the area of technology,
marketing, management, information and finance.

2.2.3.
above are appended to the communication.

Information sheets on the actions described

3. General comments

In the present opinion the Economic and Social
3.1.
Committee focuses on making a number of general
observations on the Commission document and com-
menting on the priorities for action in 1998 listed therein.
Reference is made to measures already under way only
to the extent that there is something fundamentally new
to note about them. The Committee has already adopted
or is currently drawing up a number of opinions that
touch on the Action Plan on innovation policy. (1) The
present opinion draws on the views expressed in these
opinions without actually repeating them.

3.2.
The publication by the Commission of an annual
report on the Action Plan on innovation, together with
proposals on priorities for action, is clearly beneficial
both to the parties directly involved in such activity and

(1) Opinion on the Green Paper on innovation, OJ C 212,
22.7.1996. Own-initiative opinion on the impact on SMEs
of the steady, widespread reduction in funds allocated to
research and technological development in the EU (at
Community and national level), OJ C 355, 21.11.1997,
p. 31. Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision
concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings,
research centres and universities and for the dissemination
of research results for the implementation of the Fifth
Framework Programme of the European Community
(1998-2002) and the Fifth Framework Programme of the
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (1998-
2002).

— planned action in the following year.

Objectives and priorities of EU innovation policy

3.4. High unemployment is one of the most serious
problems facing Europe. It is therefore both right and
necessary that innovation policy be used to alleviate this
problem as well. Countries which invest more on
education and training, research, innovation and new
technology also generate more new jobs.

3.5.
Innovation is essentially a cultural issue. This
should be given more emphasis in the Commission’s
Action Plan. It has to do with attitudes and society’s
willingness to renew itself, the way people relate to
change and risk, entrepreneurial spirit and dynamism
in general. Developing education and training and
strengthening their connections with firms and the world
of work play a key role in this regard.

3.6.
It is important for the success of innovation that
at the workplace there is wide involvement in all aspects
of the innovation process and that work organization is
such that it fosters participation by each individual
and the development and utilization of the skills and
know-how of each individual.

3.7.
It is customary in Europe to focus particular
attention on the need to ensure that due regard is also
paid to social cohesion in the process of structural
change in the economy. This need is now formally
recognized in the Amsterdam Treaty. Social dialogue
between the social partners can play a major role in this
process.

3.8.
Job creation takes place primarily in small and
medium-sized enterprises, craft industries and micro
enterprises. They are close to markets and can adapt
and respond quickly to people’s needs. Improving the
ability of SMEs to participate in all aspects of the
innovation process is a top priority. The ESC has drawn

27.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235/49

attention to various aspects of this question in a number
of opinions. (1) The creation of business networks and
particularly cooperation between small and large firms
can make a major contribution in this connection.

3.8.1.
It would be useful in implementing the Action
Plan to apply the three-fold classification of SMEs into
those which develop technology, those which exploit
new technology and passive enterprises which is pre-
sented in more detail in the above-mentioned opinion.
A practical proposal based on this classification is given
below in point 5.1.4.

3.9.
Innovation policy is a highly complex sector and
operates at many levels. It involves enterprises and other
individual operators at local, regional, national and
Community level. In its opinion on the Green Paper on
innovation, the ESC stressed that the EU should give
first priority to those issues which fall within its
competence, that is issues related to the regulatory
framework at EU level, the single market, the structural
funds and research programmes. The ESC would reiter-
ate that human resources and financing allocated to
these areas must be given clear priority.

3.10.
The EU can take action in areas falling within
the sphere of activity of Member State, regions or market
operators only if this generates added value or political
mobilization is called for. Among the decentralized areas
typically associated with the innovation system are
funding, education and training; the formation, develop-
ment and research activity of firms; and universities and
other research centres. The EU’s primary task in these
areas should be the collation and provision of compar-
able data, the creation of opportunities for exchange
of experience and the establishment of networks of
partnerships between organizations providing infor-
mation, educational and advisory services in Member
States and, where necessary, the coordination of national
and regional action.

First Action Plan on Innovation

The ESC notes with satisfaction that

3.11.
the
Action Plan echoes many of the views set out in its
opinion on the Green Paper on innovation. (2) Since,
however, the ESC has not had an opportunity to
deliver a separate opinion on the Action Plan for

innovation in Europe, the following comments on the
Action Plan are presented below.

3.11.1. Given the importance of promoting inno-
vation, it is essential to have an effective and smoothly
functioning Action Plan. So far, however, the Com-
mission’s first Action Plan and its implementation give
the impression of being somewhat fragmentary and
lacking in direction. Whilst recognizing that the pro-
motion of innovation is a complex and thus difficult
task, the Committee is nevertheless concerned about the
effectiveness of the Action Plan in its present form.

3.11.2.
The Action Plan is very largely built on
research activity and exploitation of research results, and
in particular the EU’s fifth RTD framework programme.
Most of the measures are designed to improve oppor-
tunities for and remove obstacles to exploitation of
research results.

But not all

3.11.3.
innovation is research-driven.
The Action Plan completely ignores one part of the
innovation system which is at least equally important,
namely markets. Recognition of market needs and
marketing within and outside the EU must be developed
in enterprises parallel with the development of supply
in the technology field. This should be stated explicitly
in the Action Plan, even though a large proportion of
potential measures in this area, such as those related to
education and training, do not fall within the competence
of the EU.

The effective functioning of the single market
3.11.4.
is, however, one area which clearly falls the within
the EU’s competence and is vital for the success of
innovation. Though this applies to all market segments,
the problems are particularly acute in those sectors
which are still partially or totally closed to competition.
Areas where development has most clearly lagged behind
that of leading competitors are telecommunications and
information technology in general, i.e. those sectors
with the highest level of innovation.

3.11.5.
The Structural Funds are the most important
resource which the EU has at its disposal for fostering
regional economic development, cohesion and a steady
improvement in living conditions in Europe. The use of
the structural funds to foster innovative activities should
also be one of the main tools of innovation policy at EU
level in the future. This would also be the best way to
promote employment, which, in the view of the ESC,
should be the prime objective of the structural funds
reform. At the moment the Action Plan only mentions
this possibility.

(1) Own-initiative opinion on the impact on SMEs of the
steady, widespread reduction in funds allocated to research
and technological development in the EU (at Community
and national level), OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 31.

(2) OJ C 212, 22.7.1996.

3.11.6.
All projects supporting the development of
the information society in Europe are also important
from the point of view of improving innovative activity.
The information society offers a favourable environment
for innovative activity and creates both demand and the

C 235/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.98

necessary conditions for the emergence of new products
and services.

effective, wide-ranging instruments, including in particu-
lar the expertise of the Innovation Platform mentioned
above. The ESC must be involved in a constructive way
in the evaluation process.

Implementation of the Plan

3.12.
The ESC welcomes the fact that implementation
of the Action Plan has commenced on such a broad front.
In particular, the Committee notes with satisfaction that
a major part of the measures which have been initiated
fall under the priority area of action aimed at establishing
a legal, regulatory and financial framework conducive
to innovation. The ESC considers measures in this area
to be of prime importance because, as noted in point
3.9, they fall specifically within the EU’s competence.

3.13.
The ESC would point out that not even in the
priorities for action in 1998 does the communication
make any mention of taxation, technology foresight,
competition, structural funds, etc., all of which are
identified as areas for action in the Action Plan. It would
be useful if the Commission could make known its
intentions as regards measures in these areas, for
example when outlining the priorities for action in 1998.

3.14.
It is not intended to grant separate appropri-
ations for the Action Plan. Instead, action will take the
form of horizontal measures, coordination and revisions
to the content of existing programmes. In its opinion on
the Green Paper on innovation, the ESC endorsed
precisely this kind of approach, but considered it
necessary to make additional funding available for the
dissemination and exploitation of RTD results within
the framework of the (fourth) framework programme.
To what extent have these views been taken on board
in the proposals concerning the fifth framework pro-
gramme?

3.15.
As innovation policy is horizontal by nature,
cooperation and coordination between the Com-
mission’s DGs is a sine qua non for successful action
at EU level. The indications are that the Group of
Directors-General has already made good progress in
this regard. The ESC calls for a further strengthening of
cooperation so that concrete results can be achieved.

3.16.
The Commission has set up a Group of Senior
National Officials to guide preparation of the Trend
Chart on innovation performance and policies in Europe.
The ESC feels the Group should be enlarged to form an
Innovation Platform which would bring together experts
representing various interest groups in society, give its
views on key problems and priorities and serve as a
forum for the exchange of effective methods and
practices.

4. Specific comments on the Action Plan

4.1. Protection of intellectual property rights

4.1.1.
has adopted a separate opinion on this subject (1).

The Green Paper on patents. The Committee

4.1.2.
Intellectual Property Right (IPR) Help Desk.
The service as such is necessary but the ESC nevertheless
recommends that use of the Help Desk be monitored
closely in order to determine whether this kind of
centralized solution corresponds to users’ needs or
whether preference should be given to the provision of
decentralized services at national or regional level.

4.2.

Innovation financing

4.2.1.
I-TEC pilot project. The project and the way
in which it is implemented seem well-founded, but it is
too early as yet to comment on the practical experience
gained.

4.2.2.
LIFT project. This seems to be a necessary
action but here, too, the project has not yet advanced to
a stage where there is enough experience for results to
be evaluated. Rather, the focus for the time being must
be on monitoring the project and, in particular, the
effectiveness of a centralized solution.

Entrepreneurship and access to financing for
4.2.3.
advanced technologies. A number of worthwhile initia-
tives have already been launched in this very important
area. It is still too early to evaluate results; the ‘results’
presented by the Commission refer to the measures
implemented rather than to final results.

4.3. The regulatory framework and administrative

simplification

4.3.1.
Communication on EEIGs. Public procurement
can play an important role in promoting innovation,
and this is a factor which the Commission should
emphasize in the future. EEIGs, for their part, are a key
instrument as regards organizing firms’ activity in the
innovation field. Accordingly, a communication which
highlights these aspects is to be welcomed.

4.3.2.
Regie Action. Networks of this kind are necess-
ary. However, the initiative seems to be progressing very
slowly.

3.17.
Evaluation and the measures it gives rise to
must form an integral part of the management of the
Action Plan. This requires the active deployment of

(1) OJ C 129, 27.4.1998.

27.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235/51

4.4. Education and training

The Campus-Voice, Form-Inno-Tech and
4.4.1.
Train-Re-Tech initiatives are all aimed at key com-
ponents of the innovation system. The ESC considers
them to be pilot projects which can serve as a source of
experience and ideas for programmes at national and
even EU level. It is important to evaluate the projects
implemented under these initiatives and draw practical
conclusions, including where necessary the discontinu-
ation of less successful projects.

4.5. Gearing research to innovation

The planning of action at EU level in the years
4.5.1.
ahead is in its final stages as the key decisions concerning
the Fifth RTD framework programme have almost been
finalized. The ESC has adopted or is currently drawing
up a number of opinions on this subject (1).

4.5.2.
The Commission notes that the EU’s RTD
efforts face four handicaps: insufficient investment in
research; fragmentation; shortcomings in identifying the
needs of society and emerging markets; and insufficient
linkage between research and its applications. Proof of
the existence of the last two handicaps is provided by,
for example, the fact that Europe has lost market shares
in the fastest growing sectors, in particular. The better
research is able to respond to the needs of the market-
place, the smaller are the problems associated with
funding research: the resources invested can be quickly
recouped from the market.

4.5.3.
Integrating SMEs into the framework pro-
gramme. In its opinions the ESC has repeatedly high-
lighted the importance of this type of action. Whilst the
increased participation of SMEs is a positive develop-
ment, the goals set for action in this area must be more
ambitious.

4.5.4.
Improved gearing of research to standardiza-
tion. Although the Commission working document
marks an important stage in the implementation of
Community policy on standardization, measures in this
area should go further and have a wider range of
application. When research projects are launched,

(1) Opinion on the Commission Working Paper: Towards the
Fifth Framework Programme — scientific and technologi-
cal objectives, OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 38; Opinion on the
amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council
Decision concerning the Fifth Framework Programme of
the European Community for research, technological
development and demonstration activities (1998-2002), OJ
C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 133; Opinion on the specific programmes
of the Fifth Framework Programme for R&TD (in prep-
aration); Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision
concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings,
research centres and universities and for the dissemination
of research results for the implementation of the Fifth
Framework Programme of the European Community
(1998-2002).

whether at EU level or some other level, standardization
must be taken into account from the outset, either by
seeking to ensure compatibility with existing standards
or being aware of future standardization needs.

4.5.5.
Prosoma. The purpose of this interesting initiat-
ive seems to be to facilitate the dissemination of research
results. It is too early at this stage to draw any conclusions
about the experience gained.

4.5.6.
Technology transfer initiative at the Joint
Research Centre (JRC). The ESC supports all measures
aimed at promoting exploitation of research carried out
at the JRC. The results would be even better if, from
the very beginning, the JRC and its activities were
market-oriented.

4.6. Strengthened overall coordination

4.6.1.
Trend Chart on innovation in Europe. The
Trend Chart is designed to serve as a tool for analyzing
innovation policy. This is need for a tool like this, given
the very complex nature of innovation policy and the
fact that the instruments at its disposal are still only
partly developed.

5. Priorities for action in 1998

5.1.
The criteria used for establishing priorities are
not stated explicitly in the Commission document.
Notwithstanding this, the four priority areas identified
— intellectual property, financing, administrative sim-
plification and developing the spirit of enterprise — are
important and of topical interest.

5.1.1.
In the field of intellectual property, there is a
particularly urgent need for regulations to ensure the
effective functioning of the information society, includ-
ing electronic commerce, and for action to address issues
in the biotechnology sector. The Commission should
also take a leading role in advocating the harmonization
of the patent system on a global basis, all the more so if
the EU develops into a single patent area.

5.1.2.
In order to improve financing of innovation,
the EU and the Member States must create an effective
regulatory framework and put in place a system of
general incentives. It would be useful in this context to
identify the obstacles to financing in the various Member
States. Direct financing by the EU and Member States
should be limited to the provision of seed capital.

5.1.3.
As regards administrative simplification several
studies have been carried out and a number of pro-
grammes launched. The ESC has addressed this issue in
a number of opinions and endorsed measures aimed at
simplification. Rather than spend more money on new

C 235/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.98

studies, efforts should henceforth focus on implementing
plans and dismantling unnecessary administrative
obstacles at EU and national level.

5.1.4.
As for developing the spirit of enterprise, the
ESC would refer to the comments made in point 3.9. In
the view of the ESC, it would be useful to apply the
classification proposed in point 3.8.1 in seeking to
increase the innovative capacity of SMEs of various
kinds. The Committee further proposes the launching
of pilot projects for the development of technology
brokerage bodies in areas where they do not already
exist. These bodies could be associations or individuals,
such as chambers of commerce and consultants, which
either possess the relevant expertise themselves or act as
intermediaries for the transfer of such expertise and
which, on demand, would assist SMEs in the acquisition
of appropriate technology, partners (large firms, individ-
ual researchers, etc.) and funding. With the aid of the
Commission, these intermediaries could be organized
into EU-wide networks.

5.2.
The five objectives mentioned at the end of
the communication deserve the Committee’s support.
However, the Commission does not make it very clear
what action it is intended to take in each of these areas.
largely within the
All of the areas concerned fall
competence of the Member States, and so the need for
and planning of action at EU level must be examined
very carefully.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1.
The Committee feels it is useful to publish an
annual report on implementation of the Action Plan on
innovation. However, the first report is rather difficult
to read. The ESC therefore proposes that the readability
of the report be improved by the addition of a summary
table setting out the priority measures, the progress
made for each measure and planned action for the
following year.

6.2. More still needs to be done to improve the
capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises, craft
industries and micro enterprises to participate in the
innovation process as a whole. In order to develop the

Brussels, 27 May 1998.

spirit of enterprise, which is one of the priorities for
action in 1998, the ESC proposes the launching of pilot
projects for the development of technology brokerage
bodies in areas where they do not already exist. They
would assist SMEs in the acquisition of technology,
partners and funding. In the view of the ESC, it would
be useful to apply the three-fold classification of SMEs
into those which develop technology, those which
exploit new technology and passive enterprises.

6.3.
The Action Plan completely ignores the fact
that markets are an extremely important part of the
innovation system. The ESC considers it important to
note that the effective functioning of the single market,
the responsibility for which lies clearly with the EU, is a
sine qua non for successful innovation.

The use of the structural funds to promote
6.4.
innovation should also be a key instrument of innovation
policy at EU level. This would also be the best way to
improve employment, which the ESC considers to be
the prime objective of the structural funds reform.

6.5.
In the view of the ESC, EU innovation policy
should focus primarily on those issues which fall within
the competence of the EU, i.e. those related to the
regulatory framework at EU level, the single market,
the structural funds and research programmes. The EU
can take action in areas falling within the sphere of
activity of national or regional authorities or market
operators where such action generates added value. The
EU’s primary role in these areas should be to collate and
disseminate comparable information, provide oppor-
tunities for the exchange of experience, establish partner-
ship networks and, where necessary, coordinate national
and regional measures.

6.6.
The effective implementation of the Action
Plan on innovation in Europe calls for a broad-based
approach towards the identification of problems and
priorities and evaluation of results which draws on
available expertise in this area. To this end, the ESC
proposes the setting up of an Innovation Platform
comprising the Group of Senior National Officials
augmented by experts representing different interest
groups in society. The Platform could serve as a forum
for the exchange of experience and coordination between
Member States and other relevant players.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS