Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Improving the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy’
Date: 2004-10-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU research policy, European citizenship, European social policy, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, social partners, sustainable development

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/79

In view of the Community's financial contribution to the

3.3
national focal points, the Committee calls for:

— the national civil society networks active in the sector to be
closely involved in the work of the national focal points.

— closer Member State harmonisation when collating statis-
tical data, so that the information will be more reliable and
comparable, as is the case with Eurostat. Article 5(2) of the
draft Regulation must
therefore be strengthened in this
direction;

Brussels, 27 October 2004.

3.4
The Committee will examine closely the new European
Union action plan to combat drugs, which is expected to be
published in early 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Improving the implementation of
the Lisbon Strategy’

(2005/C 120/16)

On 25/26 March 2004,
invited the European
Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
to examine ways and means for ‘Improving the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy’.

in its (Presidency) conclusions, the European Council

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union, Economic and Social Cohesion, on the basis of the work
carried out by a Lisbon Strategy Steering Group, adopted its opinion on 7 October 2004. The rapporteur
was Mr Vever; the co-rapporteurs were Mr Ehnmark and Mr Simpson.

At its 412th plenary session on 27 and 28 October 2004 (meeting of 27 October), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 169 votes for, 4 against and 8 abstentions.

1. Preface

— aimed at a balanced development of its three strands, i.e.
economic growth,
social cohesion and environmental
sustainability, by stimulating European competitiveness and
job creation whilst at the same time building on appro-
priate environmental policies.

The

European

Economic

1.1
Social Committee
welcomes the fact that the European Council of 25 and 26
March 2004 invited it to examine ways and means for more
effective implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, which is now
at the halfway point.

and

The Committee recalls that from the outset, the Lisbon

1.2
mandate of 24 March 2000:

— emphasised the need to actively involve the social partners
and civil society with the strategy, using variable forms of
partnership;

Throughout

1.3
its debates, hearings and opinions over
recent years, the Committee has consistently underlined the
importance of the Lisbon Strategy for the economic and social
future of the Union, and called upon all the socio-occupational
players to play an active part in it. In particular, the Committee
has recently adopted opinions on European business competi-
strategy (1), better
tiveness,
economic governance and employment support measures (2).
The Committee has continuously underlined that the Lisbon
Strategy objectives will not be achieved without the full invol-
vement of civil society.

sustainable development

the

— specified that

its success depends primarily on private

sector and public-private partnerships;

(1) OJ 117 of 30.4.2004.
(2) OJ 110 of 3.4.2004.

C 120/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

1.4
In response to the European Council's invitation, the
Committee, while referring to its recent positions regarding the
Lisbon Strategy, has:

— a strategy to build on the past success of the European

Union;

— involved all its specialised sections in this task;

— capable of sustainable economic growth with more and

better jobs and greater social cohesion.

— sought the views of the economic and social councils of the
Member States and of major European organisations repre-
senting organised civil society;

— held a hearing in Brussels on 9 and 10 September for this

purpose.

2. Overall appreciation

The Lisbon Strategy is best known,

2.1
in a reductive
manner, as a commitment to make Europe into the world's
most dynamic competitive, knowledge-based, economy.

2.2
This abbreviated description of the Lisbon Strategy has
been repeated frequently but not always with an understanding
of the scope and the full implications.

2.3
The Lisbon Strategy is a very ambitious vision for the
whole of the society of the European Union. The formulation
of the strategy is a restatement of the fundamental objectives of
the Union, now on the larger scale of a Union of 25 Member
States.

2.4

The Lisbon Strategy is not:

— a concept only for professional economists;

being,

creating

economic well

2.6
In the evolution of the Lisbon Strategy, the search for
competitiveness and growth is a critical feature in generating
improved
employment,
protecting the quality of lifestyles as well as improving them. In
turn, better quality of life, social improvements and environ-
mental sustainability may also create growth. In consonance
with economic progress achieved through Lisbon,
it will be
possible to improve the support offered to those sections of the
European population that are below the poverty line, broad-
ening the application of social inclusion, and taking account of
the sustainability of these achievements for later generations.

To argue that the Lisbon Strategy is only about competi-

2.7
tiveness is to misunderstand the thesis.

The Committee would firstly note that

2.8
the Lisbon
Strategy has already enabled a number of positive develop-
ments to begin emerging over the last five years, including:

— an awareness of the need for reform that goes beyond tradi-

tional divisions;

— accelerated expansion of
innovation processes;

information technologies and

— an ambition for the ‘Brussels establishment’ working alone;

— increased support for starting up businesses and financing

— a narrow perspective relating only to economic change;

SMEs;

— an ambition that can be viewed as inconsistent with

sustainable development;

— a concept
growth.

that

ignores the social effects of economic

The Lisbon Strategy, when properly presented and

2.5
understood, is:

— a method of shaping the future of Europe;

— a strategy to maintain and enhance the quality of life for

the citizens of Europe;

— needed to exploit the new opportunities of the knowledge-

based economy;

— a recognition that maintaining employment and improving
living standards on the one hand, and competitiveness on
the other, calls for a new dynamic;

— a strategy to promote synergies between economic, social

and environmental measures;

— greater concern for sustainable development designed to
lower public deficits, restore stability to the social protec-
tion budget and protect the environment;

— initiatives on the part of social partners in social reform;

— measures to simplify legal and administrative procedures,

albeit of limited scope.

2.9
Despite these positive points, the main observation is
that the last five years have been disappointing when viewed
against the ambitions voiced at Lisbon. Europe, caught between
its great industrialised competitors and emerging low produc-
tion cost economies that are making greater use of new tech-
nologies,
increasing competitive challenges.
Several indicators give cause for concern, such as:

facing ever

is

— weak domestic demand,

low investment and flagging
growth in the European Union, at around 1 % per annum
on average between 2001 and 2003;

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/81

— the failure to achieve employment targets, declining quality

of employment and loss of job security;

— accelerating closures and relocations of European produc-

tion sites;

— a significant exodus to third countries of researchers and

young people who have completed their studies;

— continuing or even worsening public deficits in several

Member States;

— widely disparate taxation rules and tax rates for businesses;

— the growing cost of social protection and accelerated demo-
graphic ageing and increasing vulnerability of some groups;

— the trend towards specialising in products which does not
correspond to what would normally be expected from a
knowledge economy.

2.10
lagging behind:

At the same time,

the Lisbon Strategy reforms are

2.10.1
At European level, the 25 Member States undertook
to complete the single market in several areas (energy, services,
public procurement, trans-European networks, adaptation of
public services), but balk at
implementing the necessary
measures within the timeframe.

2.10.2
concerning mostly:

At national

level, results vary, with shortcomings

— the structural complexity of regulations and administrative

procedures;

— a persistent mismatch between labour supply and demand;

— excessively high rate of early retirement, in spite of commit-

ments;

— educational systems;

— insufficient provision of lifelong learning possibilities;

— research spending that has generally diminished further,
rather than increasing to the Lisbon target of 3 % of GDP;

— insufficient attention to the societal problems raised by the

need for innovation.

2.10.3
The new Member States must often overcome addi-
tional handicaps due to a development gap, for example in
employment, technologies or the environment, although these
handicaps are sometimes also offset by renewal measures
which are more radical than in the EU-15. Among the latter,
the northern countries have in general made greater progress
in their reforms than their southern counterparts. The same

to Member States

general observation applies
that have
managed to bring their budgets into balance, compared with
those that have allowed the deficit to grow. Even the more
advanced Member States are experiencing certain delays in
some areas in comparison to more high-performing third coun-
tries. The object of reform is not simply to do better than
before but to do better than elsewhere.

2.11
The Lisbon Strategy is therefore caught in a vicious
circle: low growth complicates the implementation of reform
whilst delays in reform further inhibit growth and employment.
The reforms implemented thus far have been mainly concerned
with the supply side of the economy. They have not been
successful since they have not been matched by sufficient
demand.

At

the Spring Summits,

2.12
the Member States have
seemed to favour new debates on the objectives already set at
Lisbon – even if it means adding yet more recommendations –
rather than a rigorous assessment of the state of play on
reforms that are actually under way, and a clear commitment
by means of deadlines on outstanding actions. All too often,
they fail to explain clearly in Brussels what they are doing at
home, or in which areas they have failed to reach targets
agreed in Brussels. Multiplying reform aims, commitments and
participating states, have been matched by an equivalent
number of shortcomings as regards co-responsibility,
imple-
mentation, and coordination and a corresponding economic
impact and impact on jobs.

There is therefore the risk of failing to apply sufficient
2.13
determination to the necessary reforms, whilst believing that
the strategy can be delivered. Such a Lisbon bubble would be
unlikely to wait until 2010 to burst.

2.14
The objective set at Lisbon of improving competitive-
ness by means of carefully targeted reforms and coupling this
with sustainable, employment-generating economic growth and
a strengthening of social solidarity remains relevant to Europe,
which is now at a crossroads:

— on the one hand, it is the world's leading exporter and the
world's largest internal market (in terms of GDP) and its
ability to carry forward a dynamic project as demonstrated
by the euro and enlargement;

— on the other, it is lagging behind in economic growth, is
weakened by business relocations and feels disoriented and
threatened by setbacks it is experiencing through reduced
competitiveness in the global market.

C 120/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

2.15
The Lisbon objective is a balanced one, reconciling the
economic aim of competitiveness with social requirements
(employment,
living and working
conditions) and, as emphasised at the Göteborg Summit, envir-
onmental demands, in a proportionate and interactive way.

training, social cohesion,

2.18.2 Many people in Europe are discovering that, while
social entitlements are being called into question, the benefits
they stand to gain in exchange – in terms of employment and
sustainable social protection – remain unclear. People are
profoundly concerned by:

2.16
on:

The Lisbon Strategy methods remain valid, being based

— a multi-annual timetable, spread over a number of distinct
stages up to 2010, in which to complete the single market;

— joint evaluation each year at the Spring summit;

— an open method of coordination with the Member States
on common objectives, favouring best practice, which can
usefully complement
the Community method in areas
which are of national scope;

— emphasis on the central role of the private sector, public-
private partnerships, the involvement of civil society by the
public authorities and dialogue between the social partners.

2.17
Thus far, cooperation under the open method of coor-
dination has been an intergovernmental affair. There has been
a general lack of democratic consolidation in national parlia-
ments. A serious national parliamentary debate on Lisbon
Strategy issues must be launched in the Member States.

The crucial

2.18
involvement and support of civil society
players has been largely lacking in many of the Member States.
This major failure is a great disappointment in the implementa-
tion of the Lisbon Strategy, and goes a long way to explaining
the concerns raised and the shortcomings experienced. The
persistent
failings of communication and partnership bear
witness to this.

training,

2.18.1
The communication shortfall is obvious. Neither the
Member States nor the media are communicating with public
opinion on the question of the Lisbon Strategy, in spite of the
ongoing national debates on employment,
social
protection, business relocations and technological competition.
When informed of the competitiveness objective set at Lisbon,
most European citizens fail to understand either its purpose or
its scope. Many believe that to become the ‘most competitive
(…) economy in the world’ is either unrealistic or spells the
end of the European social model, by levelling down to the less
advanced countries in this area. These reactions show that the
objective needs to be explained, making it clear that the aim is
to take on world competition successfully by diminishing some
of our handicaps and offsetting others through better use of
our assets.

— the growing number of relocations to rival countries with

low production costs;

— growing pressure on employment and working conditions,

and loss of job security;

— redevelopment difficulties in the regions and sectors that

are most affected by unemployment;

— weakened social protection systems (unemployment, illness,

old age).

2.18.3
Too many people in Europe also feel they have no
say in reforms that nonetheless directly affect them and which,
generally speaking,
jeopardise previously acquired safeguards
and benefits. Moreover, reports from the Commission and the
Member States by and large provide little information about
arrangements for consulting and involving civil society or
about partnerships with the various civil society players (the
role of the private sector, the role of the social partners, public-
private partnerships, NGOs etc.), despite the fact that these
were considered to be of key importance under the Lisbon
remit.

3. Improving competitiveness

The emphasis on competitiveness acknowledges the
3.1
need to achieve sustainable competitiveness in an open and
global economy by enhancing our use of new technologies,
identifying more
ensuring
employees are well qualified and improving productivity. The
concept of quality (quality of goods, services,
regulation,
governance, employment, social relations and the environment)
is central to the strategy.

vocational

training,

effective

These objectives would best be achieved with a fairer
trade and

framework for

international

3.2
and more efficient
payments.

In addition to new rules at an international

3.3
level, the
European economy currently needs to simplify its internal regu-
lations at both Community and national levels. Excessive red
tape discourages the taking of initiatives that are needed in
order to compete.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/83

sustained and more

Unlike the Commission and the Council,

in particular, macroeconomic policies will

3.4
the EESC
thinks that only by changing the basic thrust of economic poli-
cies and,
it be
possible to eliminate within Europe the obstacles which are
thwarting a
economic
recovery. The EU has to act from within if it is to steer the
European economy back on the road to growth and full
employment. This will
require a balanced macroeconomic
policy with the declared aim of: achieving the objectives of the
Lisbon Strategy,
in particular full employment; strengthening
competitiveness; and giving real consideration to the obligation
to pursue sustainable development, in line with the conclusions
of the Gothenburg Summit.

far-reaching

The aim of monetary policy at all events should be to
3.5
strike a balance between price stability, economic growth and
employment. However, the policy-mix recommended by the
Council fails to include a clear call to the ECB to also assume
its responsibilities in relation to the real economy (growth and
employment). It would make sense to urge the ECB to target
stability in the wider sense, i.e. not only price stability but also
stability in terms of growth, full employment and social cohe-
sion. The European Economic and Social Committee has itself
already demanded on several occasions that monetary policy
should help to achieve the goal of growth and full employment
(see, for example, the Committee's resolution of 19 September
2002 addressed to the European Convention).

3.6
Policies to assist businesses to start up and develop
should be intensified including, inter alia, quicker, lower-cost
startups, measures to improve access to risk capital, more
entrepreneurial training programmes and a denser network of
support services for small enterprises.

3.7
Lifelong training should be available to all citizens, of all
ages, in all Member States and people should be encouraged to
take advantage of it.

— difficulties have arisen in agreeing workable European intel-

lectual property rights;

— distortions are caused by forms of fiscal differences.

Community aid should be made contingent on improve-
3.9
ments in Member States where ‘structural’ deficiencies inhibit
transposition.

3.10
Trade and payments should be facilitated through
strengthened administrative cooperation between the Commis-
sion and Member States in a number of areas such as customs
procedures, public sector contracts and trans-national public
services.

3.11
following sectors:

In addition,

the Member States are lagging in the

— interconnecting and modernising transport infrastructure,
trans-European

which has affected the completion of
network projects;

— access to risk capital for SMEs;

— public deficits in some countries;

— research spending, which has generally diminished rather
than increased in relation to GDP (1,9 % of GDP as
opposed to 2,6 % in the USA), has stagnated at well below
the 3 % target;

— high rate of early retirement, despite the Barcelona 2002

commitments;

— educational systems remain out of touch with economic

realities and future employment prospects.

3.8
The potential of the Single Market should be unleashed.
The European Union should now have the advantages of a
market that is bigger than that of the USA or China but

3.12
following areas:

For their part, European businesses are behind in the

— too many directives have not been fully transposed into

national legislation;

— inadequate progress has been made in securing standardisa-
tion and mutual recognition for the supply of services;

— delays have taken place in liberalizing markets, including

those in the public sector;

— Research and development:

in 2002,

the private sector
spent EUR 100 billion more on research and development
in the United States than it did in Europe. The Lisbon Euro-
pean Council set the goal of devoting 3 % of GDP to R&D,
two thirds of which must come from the private sector.
Currently it is contributing just 56 %.

— Lifelong learning: since the Lisbon Strategy was launched,
the level of adult participation in lifelong learning has
increased by just half of one percentage point to 8,5 %.
This trend would indicate that the target of 12,5 % by 2010
set at Lisbon is unlikely to be attained.

C 120/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

4. Integrating the social dimension

4.1
An explicit strategy to encourage competitiveness and
also to maintain social cohesion is needed: this could be a new
deal for social policy. The framework should be developed by
the social partners in cooperation with the Commission and
the governments of the Member States. The social dimension
of the Lisbon Strategy should be fully recognised as a key
factor for achieving welfare, productivity, and social inclusion
and will have to be updated in the coming five years of the
Lisbon Strategy.

4.2
The EESC urges the governments of Member States to
register progress on the measures needed to make progress on
Lisbon in an effort to stimulate the desired economic develop-
ment. This is highly desirable so that a New Deal for European
Society can be worked out. This should centre around four
areas that require special attention. The four areas are:

— more, better, and safer jobs!

— the elderly in work life;

— a more active social inclusion policy;

— healthcare and the relation between health and environ-

ment.

4.3
A combined effort, involving social partners, NGOs and
governments, is also needed to develop forms and financing of
further qualified training at a substantially higher level than at
present for a much larger proportion of those seeking employ-
ment particularly in sectors where more advanced knowledge-
based skills are in evidence.

4.4
The social partners need to explore joint efforts to
improve the work environment and the organisation of work
to link improved productivity and higher value added per
employee. To alleviate some of the problems of an ageing
force (and a decreasing number of young people
labour
entering the labour market) these demographic features will
need to be addressed by Governments, businesses and labour
organisations.

4.5
Since there are particular issues affecting people disad-
vantaged by the processes of change, guidelines will be needed
to establish a more active social inclusion policy.

and India has direct implications for the Lisbon Strategy: more
and more high-tech products and services are being launched
at very attractive prices. The sustained high growth of produc-
tivity in the United States means that the Lisbon Strategy is
chasing rapidly moving objectives. Europe's outperformance of
the US in terms of productivity (per hour) gains in the 1990s
appears to have come to an end.

4.7
A positive and challenging factor is the enlargement of
the European Union. The new Member States represent a
the Internal Market, of
tremendously important growth of
purchasing power, and of qualified human resources. However,
the new Member States also represent new challenges to social
inclusion. In relation to human resources, the education and
training available will have to be advanced in areas of high-tech
– as is the case also in the fifteen Member States.

4.8
The EESC has considered the merits of a possible
Sustainable Social Development Charter covering the above
fields of social policy and setting out the relevant fundamental
rights of citizens. The EESC proposes, on the basis of these
considerations, that a Sustainable Social Development Charter
be included in the work programme in the social policy field.
A charter would have to be accompanied by an EU action
programme, aiming at coordinating the various actions, and
assist Member States in focusing priority areas.

5. Sustainable development

5.1
The EU strategy for sustainable development is being
reviewed, and a decision on the outcome is expected at the
European Council meeting in March, 2005. The strategy for
includes actions in the economic,
sustainable development
social and environmental
implemented in mutual
support.

fields,

The Lisbon Strategy, as it appeared after the European
5.1.1
includes parallel
Council meetings in the Spring of 2002,
actions in the economic, social and environmental fields. The
environmental dimension was added by decision at the Göte-
borg European Council.

4.6
The overall objectives defined for social policy within
the Lisbon Strategy are still valid, with only some small modifi-
cations. On the other hand, the nature and size of the global
challenges have changed considerably in the past four years.
The appearance of the rapidly growing economies of China

5.2
It would be a mistake to see the Lisbon Strategy and the
principle underlying the strategy for sustainable development
as conflicting ambitions. The Lisbon Strategy has a clear time-
frame, up to the year 2010. The strategy for sustainable devel-
opment has an unlimited timeframe; it covers intergenerational
issues.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/85

5.3
Bearing in mind the intentions of the European Council
to review at the same time, in March 2005, both strategies, it is
essential to recognise three aspects:

partners who wish to be involved in establishing a network of
civil society initiatives to promote the success of the reforms.

— The Lisbon Strategy, with only five years remaining, will
have to start approaching issues with a timeframe beyond
2010. For such issues and actions,
is necessary that
assessments are made according to the criteria applied in
the
sustainable development. With this
approach, the Lisbon Strategy offers a possibility to start in
concrete terms projects that as well can be characterised as
actions within sustainable development.

strategy

for

it

— It is essential that

the reviewed strategy for sustainable
development, in defining long-term objectives and actions,
recognises the functions of the Lisbon Strategy and coordi-
nates whenever relevant actions and programmes.

— The Lisbon Strategy may have a certain multitude of objec-
tives and actions, but the strategy for sustainable develop-
ment will, by definition, have an even wider set-up of
objectives and actions. However, they will appear only step-
by-step. In both cases, it is essential that the national and
local levels can play a decisive role. Neither of the two stra-
tegies can function if it is mainly top-down; both will have
to be bottom-up strategies.

6. Partnerships

6.1
There are various themes expressed in the ambitious
proposals for the more dynamic implementation of the Lisbon
process. Whilst no single policy or action plan will be the key
essential feature, one theme does stand out. An effective imple-
mentation of the Lisbon Strategy does demand a Community-
wide recognition of the interaction of many people, govern-
ments, agencies, organisations and the European institutions.

This will be an interactive, decentralised network,

6.5
bringing together participants' websites so as:

— to set out the socio-occupational initiatives – both up and
running and in the pipeline – that help drive forward the
Lisbon Strategy reforms at European, national or regional
level;

— to highlight best practices in these areas,

including on

cross-border issues;

— to share the appropriate experiences and analyses of civil

society players;

— to organise consultative forums and debates about

the

reforms.

6.6
A code of conduct will be drawn up to promote such
initiatives and will be applied by those involved in the network.

6.7
An annual conference will be staged with the network
partners in the run-up to the Spring summit in order to take
stock of the civil society initiatives.

6.8
The Committee intends to serve as a European-level
forum for dialogue on ‘partnerships for reform’ drawing on
national and European experience.

6.9
This linkage with national representative bodies would
bring well established experience so that the EESC could contri-
bute more effectively to the annual reviews at the Spring meet-
ings of the Council.

6.2
In positive format, a renewed dynamic depends on a
multi-tiered ‘partnership for change’. The partnership concept
can illustrate that Lisbon goals are neither top-down nor
remote from the issues affecting the day-to-day lives of citizens.

7. The preconditions for an effective implementation of

the Lisbon Strategy

6.3
The Committee underlines that a major weak spot in
the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy is the failure to
adequately involve civil society players – despite the express
insistence on this point in the Lisbon remit. This weak spot
could prove fatal to the strategy's success. The Committee is
pleased that, on 24 March 2004, the European Council advo-
cated a solution to this problem through partnerships for
reform. The Committee has agreed to play its part in this
process by submitting an action plan.

6.4
The Committee intends to work with Member States'
economic and social councils and all the socio-occupational

7.1 While highlighting the need to reconcile the Lisbon
reforms with European civil society, the Committee considers
that the revision process necessary to implement the Lisbon
Strategy must meet four requirements:

First of all,

the Lisbon Strategy
implementation of
7.2
cannot be put off to tomorrow. International competition is
growing every day. As a result,
industry is relocating – a
phenomenon affecting an increasing number of regions and
sectors as they compete against low-wage emerging economies
with low production costs and, often, the most cutting-edge
and innovative technologies. Effective,
long-term measures to
restore Europe's competitiveness as a business location can
brook no delay.

C 120/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

The Lisbon Strategy is a strategic concept. In that sense
7.3
is comparable to earlier strategic concepts which led to
it
radical advances in integration.
In those cases the planning
involved a time limit and a strictly controlled series of stages,
with close cooperation between the Commission and the
Member States. At the end of the 1960s this applied in the case
of the customs union, which was enshrined in the Treaty. The
success of ‘Europe '92’ was also the result of similar planning.
Monetary Union is another successful example. In these cases,
either the Community method was successfully followed, as
with the customs union and ‘Europe '92’, or positive coopera-
tion between the Member States gave them an urgently needed
result, namely participation in the EMU. The problem is that
neither of these two approaches applies at present. Satisfactory
progress now really depends entirely on political will.

7.4
Secondly, the Lisbon Strategy cannot succeed without
international rules. European employers and workers have no
desire to grapple with unbridled competition and become
mired in an uncontrolled cost-cutting spiral without regard for
health, safety, social and environmental progress and balanced
and sustainable development. Hence, the Lisbon reforms can
only succeed if the Union exerts parallel pressure within the
ambit of the WTO, the IMF, the WIPO, the ILO and other inter-
national organisations to establish a framework for globalisa-
tion through fairer, more effective rules. It is essential to put in
place an internationally recognised frame of reference for
competitiveness, comprising minimum rules on competition,
safety, quality standards, social rights, protection of children,
environmental protection and intellectual property. It would be
unrealistic to try to enlist the support of the European public
without such assurances.

Thirdly, the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy must
7.5
not run counter to the EU social model – at the risk of killing
off the patient it is supposed to be curing.

to the sustainability of

7.5.1
It is vital to assuage fears about the scale and social
cost of the reforms. People must be made aware that these
reforms are essential
the European
development model as part of an open economy. The key goal
of the Lisbon Strategy must be to ensure the continued viability
of the European social model to which our citizens are so
attached, as expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
and at the same time to reconcile that model with the demands
of competitiveness.

it

Fourthly,

is clear that

the success of

7.6
the Lisbon
Strategy is contingent on stronger European, national and
regional partnerships, both between States and with representa-
tives of socio-occupational interest groups and the social part-
ners. In the first few years of implementing the Lisbon Strategy,
too many states failed to fully involve the social partners in
framing and implementing the reforms, barely consulting them
and giving them scant mention in the annual progress reports.
In the five years left to attain the Lisbon objective, such failures
must not be repeated. The objective will not be achieved
without civil society being informed, alerted,
involved and
indeed mobilised.

8. Eight priority proposals from the EESC to improve the

implementation of the Lisbon Strategy

On the base of the analysis, and of the extensive consultations
carried out, the EESC would like to respond to the European
Council's invitation with the following proposals:

8.1 Member States to take greater ownership of the Strategy

8.1.1
The governments of Member States should take a clear
and more active responsibility for implementing the work
agenda of the Lisbon Strategy. It is essential that the Strategy is
‘owned’ by the Member States' governments and national
parliaments. Member States should prepare clear plans with
time-frames for the actions they propose to take in order to
achieve the Lisbon targets in the follow-up summit meetings.

8.1.2
The Lisbon Strategy must be recognised for what it is:
a very ambitious agenda for building a European society of
prosperity, welfare, competitiveness, social inclusion and a high
awareness of the environmental dimension. On this basis, it is
essential to communicate more actively with social partners
and organised civil society. The Lisbon Strategy has been too
much identified as only an economic agenda.

8.1.3
The Open Method of Coordination must be given
more teeth: the annual comparative analysis must be more
detailed, and Member States will have to demonstrate more
clearly if there are structural or other obstacles to reaching the
jointly decided objectives.

8.2 Reinforcing growth and cohesion

7.5.2
The Lisbon Strategy must also take environmental
concerns fully on board. The commitments entered into in
Gothenburg in 2001 clearly confirm and amplify the desire
expressed in Lisbon to reconcile a competitive economy with a
good quality of life.

The Stability and Growth Pact must be developed into
8.2.1
for growth and improving productivity,
an instrument
focussing stability objectives over whole economic cycles
instead of
individual years. A tension-free macro-economic
policy mix is necessary for supporting demand.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/87

The ECB should take more account of

8.2.2
the wider
economic impact of its decisions and, subject to the constraints
of controlling inflation, should act supportively of the Lisbon
goals.

social policy agenda has to be developed for the enlarged Euro-
pean Union. This should take the form of a Sustainable Social
Development Charter covering the key fields of social policy
and the fundamental rights of citizens.

8.2.3
In coordination of economic policies between (and
within) Member States governments should set performance
targets
to demonstrate
outcomes.

the key indicators

and monitor

Cohesion policies must be designed to actively rein-
8.2.4
force improvements in competitiveness, which,
in turn, will
help to reduce the scale of income differences across the Com-
munity. As an aspect of cohesion policies, a code of acceptable
practice on the use of State Aids should be adopted.

8.3 Implementing the internal market more efficiently

8.3.1
The agenda for implementing the Internal Market,
now enlarged to 25 Members States, has to be given particular
attention. The European Commission should include a detailed
report on the outstanding implementation issues in the annual
assessments of the Lisbon Strategy.

for

Several measures

the single market are long
8.3.2
overdue and need to be adopted immediately: the regulation
abolishing double taxation within the single market;
the
immediate availability of a simple, effective, and reasonably
priced Community patent; the relaunch of the completion of a
genuine internal market in services on a balanced basis.

8.4 Promoting innovation and quality

8.4.1
The EIB and the EIF should intensify their activities in
identifying, prioritising and structuring innovation investment
projects and programmes, by both public and private sector
promoters,
cooperating with the Commission and with
Member States. The EIF should continue to address the need of
high growth and innovative SMEs through its operation of
venture capital and SME mandates and by greater promotion of
the possibilities open for EIB financing.

The concept of quality (quality of goods, services,
8.4.2
regulation, governance, employment, social relations and envir-
onment) is essential to the implementation of the Strategy, and
should be an integral element of the annual evaluations of
progress made at national and EU level.

8.5.2
Four areas of social policy are particularly essential for
promoting competitiveness: employment policies, the elderly in
working life, more active social inclusion policies and health-
care including the relation between health, social protection
and the environment. There is a need for new initiatives in all
these fields, combined with close consultation between the EU,
national governments and the social partners.

8.5.3
Building a knowledge-intensive society requires high
levels of resources for both basic and continued education and
training. Life-long learning, although expanding in all Member
including also life-long
States, has to be developed further,
learning at advanced levels. The European Commission should,
in consultation with the social partners, explore the possibilities
for
reaching a Europe-wide Charter on life-long learning,
including alternative financial options.

The EU must adopt a more active common immigra-
8.5.4
tion policy, as recommended at the Tampere and Thessaloniki
European Councils. For demographic, economic and social
reasons, immigration in Europe will remain a key issue over
the next few years. The Lisbon Strategy calls for transparent
legislation for the admission of legal immigrants, good coordi-
nation between immigration policy and the employment
strategy, as well as new policies for integration and combating
discrimination

8.6 Promoting private-public partnership for research

8.6.1
Research, both basic and applied, constitutes a major
pillar of the knowledge-intensive society. Enterprises in the EU
are falling behind rather than reaching the targets for more
spending on research. The same applies to governments. More
resources can be generated by private-public partnership for
research. Europe must have active policies for attracting foreign
researchers and encouraging the return of European researchers
working elsewhere.

8.5 Revamping social policy

8.5.1
Social policy must be recognised as a prerequisite for
competitiveness and productivity and vice-versa. A revamped

The European Commission should present a plan for
8.6.2
increasing research investments, for better coordinating the EU
and national programmes and for creating a European Research
Council.

C 120/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

8.6.3
Transfer of knowledge from research to industrial
application is inefficient and slow in the European Union,
compared with the United States. The European Commission
should present a concrete plan for measures to promote the
transfer of knowledge to industrial application.

8.6.4
Small and medium-sized enterprises are in particular
need of access to research and of support for introducing
advanced technical solutions. The EIB should, together with the
European Commission, develop ways and means for further
promoting this transfer of knowledge.

8.7 Protecting environment more actively

8.7.1
The Lisbon Strategy is also based on a third pillar, the
environmental dimension. The development of environmental-
friendly technologies has to be promoted more actively. Joint
public-private efforts should be expanded in the areas of energy
important
supply and transport.
synergy effects can be reached through the environmental
sector.

In a longer perspective,

8.7.2
Sustainable development is necessarily an integral part
of the Lisbon Strategy for the next five years, but with time
perspectives reaching far beyond the Lisbon Strategy. The
revised strategy for sustainable development should include
concrete measures that are compatible with the second half of
the Lisbon Strategy.

8.8 Gaining the support of the citizens

8.8.1
Take the Lisbon Strategy back to the citizens of
Europe! Organised civil society and the social partners must
play a more clear and encompassing role in the implementation
of the Lisbon Strategy. The EESC expresses its full support of
the statements made in this context by the European Council.

8.8.2
If the Lisbon objectives are to become realistically
attainable, the European Union must offer a coherent, dynamic
and progressive approach both in terms of objectives for the
Union and in terms of institutional dynamics. As possibly the

Brussels, 27 October 2004.

most important representation of these goals, the new Euro-
pean Constitutional Treaty needs to be explained persuasively,
adopted by Member States, and gain the support of the citizens
of Europe.

8.8.3
Thus the EESC would argue that a ‘new style’ Lisbon
process should borrow from the successful methods of ‘Europe
'92’. Building on existing practice, this would mean that the
reports on policy guidelines, the internal market, employment
and the Lisbon Strategy would be summarised in a clear plan
with stages and a timetable, within which it would be made
clear what action would be expected from whom (Commission,
Council, or Member States), on the basis of what decision and
within what sort of timescale.

At national

8.8.4
level, the economic and social councils
can play a very important role, together with the social part-
ners and various civil society organisations. The implementa-
tion of the Lisbon Strategy can give the councils a very particu-
lar role.

At EU level,

8.8.5
the EESC is ready to take an active
responsibility for supporting the implementation and follow-up
of the Lisbon Strategy, working in close contact with the social
partners and with civil society organisations at European level.

Inform the citizens of Europe about

8.8.6
the Lisbon
Strategy! Emphasise the ultimate objectives of the Strategy: to
build a prosperous and welfare Europe with high competitive-
ness, and with awareness of the environmental issues. There
will never be a successful
the Strategy
without the active involvement of citizens. The EESC intends to
make active contributions to this information effort.

implementation of

8.8.7
Implementation of the Lisbon Strategy requires a clear
policy coherence at both EU and national
level. The three
pillars of
the Strategy provide unique chances for synergy
terms.
effects, both in economic, social and environmental
Reactivate the process of the Lisbon Strategy – with the three
pillars in joint policy coherent terms.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND