Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Lisbon — Renewing the Vision?"
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Council, competitiveness, employment policy, environmental protection, innovation, marginalisation, social policy, sustainable development

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/145

2.20.
Proposal 10: Coregulation procedure. In the case
of voluntary agreements which are drawn up under the
coregulation process, with the involvement of the European
Parliament and the Council, when the proposal for a legislative
act (by definition a directive) is made, it must be made clear
which aspects are to be regulated directly by the directive and
which are the subject of a request for a voluntary agreement

between stakeholders for the purposes of implementing certain
measures designed to achieve the objectives of the directive.
Given the voluntary nature of the agreements, additional
measures would be needed for those individual cases where
the parties concerned directly by the directive do not wish
to participate in a voluntary agreement at Community
level.

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Lisbon — Renewing the Vision?’

(2003/C 61/24)

At its plenary session on 16 January 2002, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third
paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on the
‘Lisbon — Renewing the vision?’

In accordance with Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of Procedure the Committee set up a sub-committee
to prepare its work on this above-mentioned subject.

The sub-committee adopted its draft opinion on 29 July 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Morgan.

At its 393rd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 September 2002) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 86 votes in favour with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
High hopes were raised by the Portuguese Presidency
during the preparation for the Lisbon European Council held
in March 2000. In its Opinion prepared for Lisbon (1) the EESC
shared the optimism associated with the event and offered its
own agenda.

1.2.
In the process of preparation for the Barcelona Euro-
pean Council held in March 2002, it was clear that although
everyone accepted that the Lisbon targets were very ambitious,
many observers and many participants felt that insufficient
progress was being achieved against the Lisbon agenda.

The EESC decided to wait

1.3.
the
Barcelona Council before giving its opinion on progress, and
its view of the priorities going forward.

for the report of

2. The Vision

2.1.
The Vision for the Lisbon Council meeting was elo-
quently expressed by the Portuguese Presidency in a letter
dated 17 January 2000 addressed to the members of the
European Council. The following is an extract from Prime
Minister Guterres’ letter:

( 1) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 62.

‘A new period is beginning in European construction.

C 61/146

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

Despite the economic recovery, serious social problems con-
tinue to exist, such as unemployment, social exclusion and the
risks of a future imbalance of the social security systems —
which are also the reflection of deeper-seated structural
difficulties calling for courageous reform. These difficulties are
heightened by the unavoidable challenges posed by globalisa-
tion, technological change and an ageing population. The
European social model can only be sustained by building new
competitive factors and the renewal of the social model itself.

There is a central issue which I would like to raise as a starting
point. A new paradigm is emerging: that of the economy of
innovation and knowledge, which is becoming the main
source of the wealth of nations, regions, enterprises and
people. Europe is lagging behind significantly and should
define its own path for a new competitive platform, while also
fighting the new risks of social exclusion. It is necessary to
combine innovation with social inclusion.

I believe that we have the conditions to define a new strategic
goal for the next ten years; to make the European Union the
world’s most dynamic and competitive economic area, based
on innovation and knowledge, able to boast economic growth
levels, with more and better jobs and with great social
cohesion.

An economic and social strategy to renew the basis of growth
in Europe, must combine macro-economic policies, and the
modernisation of social protection.’

Before the Lisbon Council everyone knew that this was
2.2.
a hugely ambitious undertaking. In effect, the Council set
out a ten-year agenda for economic and social renewal,
subsequently complemented by an environmental dimension.
The interaction and synergy between these three dimensions
is vital, because they are clearly interdependent. To fulfil its
potential for improving employment and economic growth,
and be the leading region, Europe will clearly need to perform
at or beyond the targets set across all three dimensions of the
Lisbon strategy. In Section 2 of the Communication from the
Commission — ‘The Lisbon Strategy — Making Change
Happen’ (1) — Table 2 details the progress towards the Lisbon
Goals made in the last two years. The best Member States are
already performing at the target levels. The challenge is to
bring the EU average up to this level.

2.3.
To put these economic goals into perspective, here are
some EU:US comparative data. Two caveats must however be
expressed: first, that economic data may not reflect actual
quality of life comparisons and, second, that the quality of
economic activity may also vary considerably by country,
especially if measured against the standards of good corporate
governance and corporate social responsibility.

2.3.1.
The ambition from Lisbon is to achieve a growth
rate of 3 % p.a. during the decade. Against that target of 3 %
per annum aggregate GDP here are the average annual
percentage growth rates in real GDP over recent periods (2):

1975-1985

1985-1990

1990-1995

1995-2001

EU

US

2,3

3,2

1,5

2,6

3,4

3,2

2,4

3,9

2.3.2.
These differentials versus the USA have contributed
to a huge gap in aggregate figures over the period 1992-
2000 (3):

EU-15: 20,7 %;

USA: 38,7 %.

Again, Member States’ performance in this context is mixed,
with many of the smaller states outperforming the larger. To
close this gap, something radical has to be done: ‘courageous
reform’ in the words of the Portuguese Presidency.

2.3.3.
An important component of GDP is the rate of
employment. In 2001, the EU ran at 66 % while the US was at
75 %. The employment rate at any one time is the outcome of
previous employment growth. The annual average percentage
employment growth over recent time periods is as follows:

1975-1985

1985-1990

1990-1995

1995-2001

EU

0,1

1,4

− 0,5

1,2

US

2,2

2,0

0,9

1,4

( 1) COM(2002) 14 final.

(2) Source: European Competitiveness Report 2001, p. 19.
(3) Source: EUROSTAT, 2002.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/147

2.3.4.
This inability to create enough jobs goes to the heart
of the EU dilemma. There needs to be a greater demand for
workers and the employment market needs to work effectively.
Much is being done throughout the EU in respect of workforce
skills, quality of work and equal opportunity. More remains to
be done to get people into work.

2.3.5.
The following facts are widely understood, but the
issue does not get effectively addressed and so the problem
does not get resolved: employment growth in the business
sector over the period 1980 to 2000 has been 5 % in the EU
and 43 % in the USA (1). The EU does not have the necessary
job creation dynamics and this is at the heart of the challenge
expressed in the Lisbon Vision.

2.3.6.
It is instructive to consider the industries involved in
job creation. The technology driven industries have had a
higher share in total manufacturing in the United States
compared with the EU throughout the period since 1985 and
the divergence has risen considerably ever since. By 1998, for
example, technology driven industries represented about 35 %
of manufacturing value added compared to around 24 % in
the EU (2). The United States share has risen by almost
9 percentage points over the period (1985-1998), while the
EU share has increased by only 1.5 percentage points.

In the EU services account for 69 % of all jobs and
2.3.7.
70 % of total output. This is an increase of about 6 % in each
term since 1990 (3). In the US the services share of jobs is
about 74 % and the share of output about 78 %. In the
business services sector, the relative data as a percentage of the
total are:

tal action which is needed if the cyclical recovery is to be
translated into a structural renaissance leading to sustained
growth in employment (5).’

2.5. We also said that: ‘It is our conviction that in Europe
we do have the necessary innovation, creativity, knowledge
and enterprise to excel in the new paradigm. But we must
release these capabilities. Obstacles must be replaced by
opportunities. Penalties must be replaced by incentives. The
last decade saw the liberalisation of European industries. Now
we have to liberate the energies of European men and women.’

2.6.
The issue which is now being faced in most Member
States is how to do this. They need to get the balance right
between social security and economic flexibility and between
the short term and the long term. The US results demonstrate
that the overall economic and employment performance of
the EU can and must be substantially improved. Models for
how this may be done are available in Europe, notably in the
examples set by the few EU Member States that match or
outperform the US in employment and other areas. Moreover,
as demonstrated by the experience of some of these countries
(e.g. Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden) there need not
be any contradiction between a high level of social protection
and a high level of employment. In fact, if — as is the objective
of the Lisbon vision — economic, social and employment
policies are made mutually supportive, the traditional trade-
offs between growth and security can contribute positively to
the strengthening of existing synergies.

EU

US

— March 2000

3. Presidency Conclusions — Lisbon European Council

Value added

Employment

52,3 %

46,1 %

54,8 %

53,7 %

2.3.8.
Because of the rising demand for services as incomes
grow, the EU must ensure that the potential employment goals
associated with the growth of the service sector are realised.
This requires that the obstacles to service sector growth be
removed (4).

This need to create more new jobs was why the EESC
2.4.
stated in its Opinion for the Lisbon Council that the key
requirement was to take a strategic view of Europe in the
context of the new paradigm ‘The current cyclical economic
recovery could provide an excuse for not taking the fundamen-

The Vision was carried forward into the Presidency

3.1.
Conclusions:

‘The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the
next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable
economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion.’

In order to give effect to this goal, two main courses of

3.2.
action were outlined:

a)

preparing the transition to a competitive dynamic and
knowledge-based economy;

b) modernising the European Social Model by investing in

people and building an active welfare state.

( 1) Source: OECD 2000.
( 2) COM(2002) 206 final — Section 4, 4th paragraph.
( 3) European Competitiveness Report 2002, Chapter III.
( 4) COM(2002) 206 final — Section 5 — 6th paragraph.

(5) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000.

C 61/148

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

The detailed items proposed to prepare the transition

3.3.
of the economy were:

— an information society for all;

Spring Summits acting as an annual checkpoint on progress.
For the Lisbon vision to become a reality, it is essential that
Member States recognise this co-responsibility and the need to
achieve reforms at the national level.

— establishing a European area of research and innovation;

— creating a friendly environment

for starting up and

developing innovative businesses, especially SMEs;

— economic reforms for a complete and fully operative

internal market;

In addition to the ‘vertical’ coordination between the
3.5.2.
EU and Member States, a ‘horizontal’ dimension is added
through the involvement of the social partners, culminating in
the social summit in advance of the Spring Summit. Involving
the social partners also means involving business, so that
business is also expected to play a part in making change
happen.

— efficient and integrated financial markets;

— consideration of macro-economic policies, fiscal consoli-
dation, quality and sustainability of public finances.

In the view of the ESC the vision outlined at Lisbon is
3.6.
correct. The challenge is for the Union to make happen all the
changes envisaged, both at Member State and EU levels.

3.3.1.
These decisions were important for two reasons:
first, they signalled the intent to complete the internal market
in respect of the sections still to be opened up; second, in the
context of the theme of innovation and knowledge they
represent a framework for the transformation of the economy.

The detailed items proposed for modernising the

3.4.
European Social Model were:

— education and training for living and working in the

knowledge society;

— more and better jobs for Europe: developing an active

employment policy;

— modernising social protection;

— promoting social inclusion.

4. Presidency Conclusions — Nice European Council —

December 2000

4.1.
At Nice the Council approved the European Social
Agenda which defined, in accordance with the Lisbon Euro-
pean Council conclusions, specific priorities for action for the
next five years. ‘This Agenda constitutes a major step towards
the enforcement and modernisation of the European Social
Model’. At Nice the Council also undertook, at each Spring
meeting, in examining progress on the Lisbon Strategy, to look
at how the Agenda is being implemented. The social partners
were invited to play their full part in implementing and
monitoring the Agenda, particularly at an annual social
summit to be held before its Spring Council meeting.

4.2.

The main chapters of the Social Agenda are:

3.4.1.
European Council — see Section 4 below.

The Social Agenda was further developed at the Nice

— more and better jobs;

In addition to the two programmes referred to above,

3.5.
there was a focus on putting decisions into practice:

— anticipating and capitalising on change in the working
environment by creating a better balance between flexi-
bility and security;

— improving the existing processes;

— implementing a new, open method of coordination;

nation in order to promote social integration;

— fighting poverty and all forms of exclusion and discrimi-

— mobilising the necessary means.

— modernising social protection;

3.5.1.
The striking aspect of the Lisbon process is the
interaction between Member States acting at the national level
and the coordination of this activity culminating in the Spring
Summits. Targets are designed to be achieved through a
combination of peer pressure and open coordination, with the

— promoting gender equality;

— strengthening the social policy aspects of enlargement

and the European Union’s external relations.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/149

4.3.
The EESC underlines the need to modernise social
protection and create a better balance between flexibility and
security in the working environment while stressing the
individual responsibilities of employees and employers.

5. Presidency Conclusions — Gothenburg European

Council — June 2001

5.1.

At Gothenburg the Lisbon strategy was expanded:

‘The European Council agrees a strategy for sustainable
development which completes the Union’s political commit-
ment to economic and social renewal, adds a third, environ-
mental dimension to the Lisbon strategy and establishes a new
approach to policy-making.’

The main themes

5.2.
dimension were:

supporting the environmental

— a new approach to policy-making;

— the global dimension;

— targeting environmental priorities;

6. Commission Communication: — The Lisbon Strategy

— Making Change Happen — January 2002

In this Communication the Commission provided its

6.1.
assessment of the progress in the two years since Lisbon:

‘Achieving the Lisbon objectives requires a sustained EU
growth rate of 3 %. [Data provided in the Commission’s report
shows a growth rate of 1.6 %]. Given the slow down that the
European Union is going through, it is all the more important
in implementing the reforms leading to a
to be successful
continued rise in the employment rate and a higher labour
productivity.

Since Lisbon, the gap in GDP per capita between the European
Union and the USA has remained unchanged. According to
the latest data, GDP per capita was equivalent to 64 % of that
of the USA. The difference in labour productivity per hour
explains around one-third of the gap. The other two thirds are
due to the smaller number of yearly working hours per worker
and the lower employment rate in the Union. Progress across
the whole of the Lisbon Strategy is needed if this gap is to be
narrowed substantially.’

Elsewhere it went on to say: The Barcelona Council

6.2.
will be a critical moment for the Lisbon Strategy...

— integrating environment into Community policies.

— The Commission has now tabled most of the main policy

proposals.

The EESC has prepared an Opinion on sustainable develop-
ment strategy as its contribution to the Barcelona European
Council (1) and built on this work in an Opinion on the Global
dimension in view of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg in August/September 2002 (2).

— The second phase of agreeing and adopting these policies
is well under way. Success or failure is largely in the
hands of the European Parliament or Council, who must
take decisions in key areas of strategy.

5.3.

The four targeted environmental priorities were:

— combating climate change;

— ensuring sustainable transport;

— addressing threats to public health;

— managing natural resources more responsibly.

5.4.
The priorities are stated at a rather conceptual and
multi-discipline level. It remains to be seen how they can be
converted into action. More than that, the real issue will be the
‘sustainability’ of the EU policies in the social, economic and
environmental fields and the extent of policy coherence.

( 1) OJ C 94, 18.4.2002.
( 2) OJ C 221, 17.9.2002.

— The final phase, where agreed policies are implemented
and start to have an impact on the ground has barely
begun.

6.3.
‘Transforming new policies into visible results, as this
report shows, needs action from all the parties involved. There
have already been important successes but in some other
crucial areas of economic and structural reform, progress has
been slow or disappointing.

The European Council must overcome this “delivery gap”
before it grows any wider. It must send a signal of confidence
and give a clear political impulse in those areas where the need
for progress is most urgent.’

The EESC notes that after the emphasis at Lisbon
6.4.
and Gothenburg on putting decisions into practice,
the
Commission still felt the need to take the politicians to task.
Nevertheless, the EESC recognises the progress that has been
made in closing the delivery gap in the months since the
Barcelona meeting.

C 61/150

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

6.5.
Preparations for and expectations of the Barcelona
Council were clouded by the fact that election campaigns were
in progress in a number of countries. Politicians did not want
to prejudge at Barcelona those issues which were being debated
in the electoral campaigns.

The EESC welcomes a greater use of open method of
6.6.
coordination and it notes the efforts made by social partners
in the field of their responsibilities at the European level.
However, the Committee believes that it is essential for the
success of this approach that public and systematic evaluation
of progress is made in the Member States. The EESC rec-
ommends that an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness
of this approach is performed by the Commission in its
preparation for the next Spring Summit.

7. Presidency Conclusions — Barcelona European

Council — March 2002

7.1.

The conclusions focussed on two main programmes:

— maintaining the momentum behind our long-term strat-

egy (i.e. the Lisbon Strategy);

— priority actions in three areas.

7.5.
The first Action Priority invites active policies towards
full employment. There is no discussion of boosting economic
activity, and the demand for employment. However, para-
graph 28 of the Conclusions states: ‘Full employment in the
European Union is the core of the Lisbon Strategy and the
essential goal of economic and social policies, which requires
the creation of more and better jobs. It is therefore necessary
to continue paying special attention to the reforms of employ-
ment and labour-market policies’.

The general theme of a Reinforced Employment Strat-
7.6.
egy is to increase employability and the employment rate; in
other words, to improve the supply side of the employment
equation via skills development, social inclusion, etc.

There is one specific guideline relating to the working

7.7.
of the labour market:

‘In order to strike a proper balance between flexibility and
security, Member States, in line with national practice, are
invited to review employment contract regulations and, where
appropriate, costs with a view to promoting more jobs.’

This issue is now central to the political debate in a number of
Member States.

7.2. Maintaining the momentum had four themes:

The second Action Priority involves Connecting Euro-

7.8.
pean Economies. The themes are:

— coordination of economic policies;

— sustainable development;

— financial Markets (Financial Services);

— integrating European Energy, Transport and Communi-

— a more favourable environment for competitiveness and

cations Networks;

entrepreneurship;

— quality Public Services.

— rigorous social cohesion — the Social Agenda.

A statement in the section on coordination of econ-

7.3.
omic policies was noteworthy:

‘Focal points will be the quality and sustainability of public
finances, pursuing further necessary reforms in product, capital
and labour markets, and ensuring coherence with policies
established in each domain.’ The key question is how the
reforms highlighted in italics would be translated into pro-
posals in the Action Programmes.

All of these items are desirable although their execution
7.9.
will face considerable difficulties. These measures are expected
to stimulate the demand side of the employment equation,
although they will take time to work through.

7.10.
based on Knowledge. It has two dimensions:

The third Action Priority is a Competitive Economy

— education;

7.4.

The three Priority Actions are:

— research and frontier technologies.

— active policies towards full employment — more and

better jobs;

— connecting European Economies;

— a competitive economy based on knowledge.

Both of these are very desirable. The slow realisation of the
Lisbon R&D programme is one of the major disappointments
to date. The EESC urges priority action in this field. It is,
however worried, about the R&D target of 3 % of GDP. There
is a danger of shortfall from both the public and the private
sectors.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/151

7.11.
The European Council also took decisions to improve
Union working methods. The preliminaries to Barcelona
demonstrated that improvements are needed in the implemen-
tation of the open method of coordination especially with
regard to the execution of the Lisbon programme at national
level.

8.1.2. A c h i e v e m a s s t r a i n i n g i n I n f o r m a t i o n

S o c i e t y T e c h n o l o g i e s

‘To ensure employability and avoid social exclusion, specific
consideration needs to be given to each generation of men and
women.’

7.12.
The key political question is the extent to which the
social model will be reformed. There are two aspects. First, the
ways in which social security systems either encourage or
discourage people to seek work. Second, the ways in which
they either encourage or discourage employers to add jobs. In
a social market economy both aspects must work well. It is
necessary to balance security with flexibility for both
employees and employers. This is the ongoing debate which
the Lisbon process needs to resolve.

8. Renewing the Vision?

8.1.
The EESC would like to re-emphasise the main agenda
themes which it submitted to the Lisbon European Council in
point 3.2 of its Opinion

8.1.1. A d a p t

t h e s o c i a l m o d e l ( s )

t o t h e n e w

p a r a d i g m

While a wide range of significant initiatives are underway, the
mismatch between job opportunities and skills in each age
band remains a fundamental impediment to the achievement
of the Lisbon goals and, in particular, full employment.

8.1.3.

P o p u l a r i s e a n d f a c i l i t a t e t h e g r o w t h
o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e c u l t u r e

‘Issues include skills and employability for all, incentives for
entrepreneurs and employees and recognition of the social
value of enterprise. By entrepreneurs we mean the founders
including social economy firms,
and managers of SMEs,
exploiting new technologies and addressing new markets.’

In the Lisbon Opinion, the EESC was particularly concerned
about the formation and growth of new businesses as the
generators of new employment. There is, of course, the overall
issue of entrepreneurship in enterprises of all sizes and in
society at large. In the two years since Lisbon there have been
a number of Commission initiatives to create a friendly
environment for starting up and developing innovative busi-
nesses, especially SMEs. However, there remains a general need
to stimulate entrepreneurial culture and support entrepreneuri-
al activity.

‘While retaining social protection, the social model in its
different manifestations needs adapting to remove barriers to
employment, avoid social exclusion in all age groups and
reinforce equal opportunities, especially for women.’

8.1.4. H e l p e s t a b l i s h e d c o m p a n i e s
v e r t t o t h e n e w p a r a d i g m

t o c o n -

In the EESC Opinion to the Lisbon Council we highlighted the
existence of Rhenish, Nordic, Mediterranean and Anglo Saxon
social models and observed that they produced different
economic and social outcomes across a wide range of
measures. In the Communication from the Commission prior
to the Barcelona Council, Table 2 showed progress towards
certain Lisbon goals and also indicated that the average of the
best three Member States was now often at or above the 2010
target. It is instructive to look at which social models produced
these better than average results. The Nordic model seems to
produce the best results and also, arguably, produces the best
quality of life. The open method of coordination provides the
means by which the best from each model can contribute to a
higher level of achievement overall.

This theme can involve considerable change at the enterprise
level. A consensus has now developed that the resurgence of
productivity growth in the second half of the 1990’s in the US
and in some EU Member States is closely related to the use and
diffusion of Information and Communications Technologies
(ICT) that featured a wide and ever increasing set of economic
activities (1). With ICT now playing a crucial role in the
modernisation of our economies,
it is essential to create
conditions so that its diffusion is the widest possible (2).

(1) COM(2002) 262 final — Section 3, 2nd paragraph.
(2) COM(2002) 262 final — Section 3, last paragraph.

C 61/152

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

In paragraph 29 of the Barcelona European Council Con-
clusions, social partners were urged to place their strategies at
‘The multi-annual pro-
the service of the Lisbon Strategy.
gramme which they will submit in December 2002 should
already include that contribution, particularly with regard to
the adaptability of businesses in matters such as collective
bargaining, wage moderation, improved productivity, life-long
training, new technologies and the flexible organisation of
work’.

The EESC emphasises the need for social partners to facilitate
such change at the enterprise level as will allow ICT to have
the necessary impact on competitiveness and growth.

The following was the sustainable development agenda

8.2.
proposed by the EESC in point 9 of its Opinion.

‘8.2.1.
It would be difficult to conceive of a new paradigm
which did not encompass sustainable development. It must be
a “sustainable” paradigm, and to be so, it must be based on
innovation and knowledge. Amongst the major concerns are:

— The control and reduction of waste and pollution on

land, in water and in the atmosphere.

— The sustainable use of land and water, involving agri-
culture, forestry, horticulture, urbanisation, industrialis-
ation, transport, tourism and sport.

As was highlighted at Barcelona, the next Spring Summit will
be an important check-point for these concerns.

— The development of sustainable fuel resources and the

use of organic fuel and other limited natural resources.

8.1.5. A d a p t e d u c a t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g t o t h e

n e w p a r a d i g m

‘While education and training is central to the whole concept of
the new paradigm in general, and employability in particular, it
is remarkable that the new paradigm in the USA is emerging
from a base of generally low educational achievement. Given
the support of governments and companies, the EU has an
opportunity to create new employment of quality as well
as quantity as a result of higher educational achievement.
is the basis for a society of
Investment in human capital
innovation and knowledge.’

There have been a number of Commission initiatives for
education and training for living and working in the knowledge
society. Since this is such a fundamental issue, it would be
good to see more focus and more progress with the relevant
indicators at the next Spring Summit.

8.1.6. H a r n e s s s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t

f o r

i n n o v a t i o n a n d g r o w t h

‘Fully adapting the economy and culture of the EU to the
principles and precepts of sustainable development involves
radical change, fundamental discontinuity and both techno-
logical and behavioural innovation. Such developments are
consistent with the new paradigm.’

The EESC, taking a holistic view, had already anticipated in
Section 9 of its Lisbon Opinion the need to incorporate the
environmental and sustainable dimensions. On reflection, the
need for political leadership to bring about the scale of change
needed should have been given more emphasis.

— That food production on land and at sea be better
balanced to demand and sustainability, with increased
attention to the quality of the good chain.

— A better balance between public and private transport,
supported by a more rational approach to spatial plan-
ning and land use.’

8.3.
The EESC commends the above structure as a way of
giving effect to the Commission’s own priorities which are
more conceptual, less concrete, and less focussed.

— combating climate change;

— ensuring sustainable transport;

— addressing threats to public health;

— managing natural resources more responsibly.

Since Gothenburg, the Commission has introduced a
8.4.
number of
initiatives aimed at adding an environmental
dimension. Again, the EESC would emphasise that the key
issue is sustainability in all dimensions. In this context, we
repeat sections of our Opinion relating to sustainability:

‘8.4.1.
Development of the relevant knowledge base pro-
vides the means for improved management of sustainability.
There are opportunities for public and private research but
public initiatives are imperative.

There is a vast potential for job creation arising from
8.4.2.
the exploitation of technologies for environmental protection
and sustainable development.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/153

8.4.3.
Technical, industrial, behavioural and cultural inno-
vations will all be needed if the concerns detailed in 8.1 above
are to be achieved. Successful innovation should lead to the
revival of existing companies and the formation of new
and successful SMEs. Member States will need to establish
appropriate incentives (both carrots and sticks) to stimulate
such innovation.

8.4.4.
The prospects for a durable economic, ecological
and socially stable future will improve if a broad basis of
technological and organisational expertise can be built up and
developed further. One of the requirements for this is a
functional and effective system of innovation in which the
interplay between research and education, between training,
production and organisation, and between technology transfer
and state policy on innovation takes on a variety of forms.

It is also necessary for this purpose to give more
8.4.5.
support in Europe, in terms of breadth and depth, to research
and development as the seedbed and basis for future inno-
vations (1). At the same time the associated careers must be
made so attractive that the most gifted candidates can be
attracted and remain in Europe. Already in schools there must
be more qualified teachers of mathematics and science subjects
(and also, if need be, of technical subjects).

8.4.6.
The Lisbon Summit should charge the Commission
with the responsibility for examining the issues raised in
point 8.1 (point 9.1 of the initial EESC submission) in the
context of existing EU programmes and commitments, so that
the Council can consider further actions to ensure that the
new paradigm is sustainable.’

9. Conclusion

It is our opinion that good progress has been made in
9.1.
many areas especially those where the Commission has had
the initiative.

9.2.
It is our opinion that in areas which require political
leadership, only a few Member States have made the necessary
progress.
In particular we urge politicians to incorporate
environmental protection and sustainability considerations in
all their major initiatives in every field. The sustainability of
existing social models needs to be addressed in a number of
Member States.

9.3.
The EESC has received the Commission Communi-
cation (2) entitled ‘Productivity: The key to Competitiveness of
European Economies and Enterprises’. In this document the
Commission itself underlines the challenge and the importance
of achieving the Lisbon Goals. The EESC will produce its own
Opinion on this Communication in due course.

9.4.
Progress on Lisbon depends heavily on the open
method of coordination and the progress reported at each
Spring Summit and the involvement of the social partners at
the prior social summit. This process needs objective appraisal
in the context of the 2003 Spring Summit, when the Lisbon
timetable will already be 30 % complete. The EESC will submit
its own report to the Council and the Parliament prior to the
Spring European Council in 2003.

In the Opinion submitted to the Lisbon Council, the
9.5.
EESC asked whether it might not be the case that in order to
address the challenges of the new paradigm, we might not
need a new paradigm for government
itself. It is clearly
appropriate to ask that question again, if we are to get the
action needed to fulfil the Lisbon Vision. The new paradigm
should be defined by the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The EESC requests the Convention to do so.

( 1) See also Commission Communication “Towards a European

research area” (COM(2000) 6 final).

(2) COM(2002) 262 final.

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS