Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Fostering structural change: an industrial policy for an enlarged Europe’(COM(2004) 274 final)
Date: 2004-12-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU industrial policy, competitiveness, enlargement of the Union, structural policy

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/75

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Fostering structural change: an
industrial policy for an enlarged Europe’

(COM(2004) 274 final)

(2005/C 157/13)

On 20 April 2004, in accordance with Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication:
‘Fostering structural change: an industrial policy for an enlarged Europe’.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for the Committee's work on
the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 December 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Van Iersel and the co-
rapporteur was Mr Legelius.

At its 413th plenary session of 15 and 16 December 2004 (meeting of 15 December 2004), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 142 votes to one with nine abstentions.

Executive summary

After many years industrial policy is once more a priority on
the European agenda. Of course, in the past decade there have
been specific
thematic
industrial policy measures
approaches but these have not always been properly coordi-
nated or balanced from the point of view of European business.
The changing world context — with the United States, China,
India playing a major role– requires rethinking and enhanced
efforts. The time has come for a reappraisal of manufacturing
industry and for a clarification of the complex interrelationship
between industry and services.

and

In the Committee's view, the need to raise public awareness
constitutes an important challenge. Transparent data and
analyses have to be made available to the public,
thereby
promoting consensus and public support. The EESC endorses
wholeheartedly the three strategic axes: ‘better lawmaking’; an
integrated approach at EU level; sectoral policies with specific
and adapted measures. ‘Better lawmaking’ means a careful and
ongoing assessment of current and new measures. Integrated
approach means effective coordination of EU and national poli-
cies. A particularly new aspect of the Commission document is
the sectoral dimension and tailor-made approaches. Notwith-
standing certain common denominators,
the picture varies
from sector to sector. The Commission has carried out a
number of sectoral analyses and more are foreseen. The EESC
endorses this practice as a basis for ‘new style’ industrial policy.

The Committee considers industrial policy to be a useful tool
to bring the European economy to the forefront of competitive-
ness, knowledge and sustainability as intended by the Lisbon
Strategy. To that end, analyses and policies must be aligned
more closely to the dynamics of the various sectors and busi-
nesses involved. ‘New style’ industrial policy has indeed to be
based on market conformity and on a process of liberalisation.
It also includes, however, sector-specific features, such as

the business

ongoing consultations of
regulation,
removal of non-trade barriers, R&D, trade and targeted human
resources management. In addition, it implies the setting-up of
Technology Platforms that may generate new private-private
and public-private alliances in Europe, e.g. between universities,
research centres and businesses.

sector,

Improved coordination is desirable within the Commission (e.g.
under the aegis of DG Enterprise) and in the Council of Minis-
ters in order to promote visibility and encourage synergies. A
mid-term action plan approved by the Commission and the
Competitiveness Council configuration would be most desir-
able. The EESC urges that ‘new style’ industrial policy be taken
into account in the preparation of the Mid-term Review of the
Lisbon Strategy in March 2005.

1. Introduction

1.1
Industrial policy has been on the agenda of the Euro-
pean integration from the very outset. The ECSC Treaty
embraced specific objectives and instruments for the coal and
steel
sectors. The EEC Treaty envisaged a more general
approach in which the realisation of the internal market has
always been and still is the key issue.

There have been specific industrial policy measures at
1.2
EU level, targeting related objectives such as environmental,
R&D or social ones. Over time, sectoral approaches were
replaced by thematic approaches, but these have not always
been properly coordinated with, or balanced from the point of
view of European business.

Apart from general policies some sector policies have
1.3
been worked out in view of market liberalisation, such as in
energy and telecommunications. Some European industrial
projects were initiated, e.g. Galileo.

C 157/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

1.4
Continuous industrial change and globalization nowa-
days require a further adjustment of approach both of industry
and of public authorities to enhance European competitiveness.
Last July the European Commission published an impressive
analysis of the situation and prospects of European industrial
sectors in the current global context, characterised by strong
dynamism in other world regions. (1) This dynamism may influ-
ence the investment strategies of European companies. Europe
leap forward to sustain
needs a qualitative technological
competitiveness in most sectors.

1.5
In the framework of the Lisbon Strategy the European
Council and other Council configurations, such as Ecofin and
the Competitiveness Council, have discussed and are discussing
a number of Communications and concrete proposals of the
Commission for the improvement of macro- and micro-condi-
tions for industry. In these documents and discussions a hori-
zontal policy approach prevails. For a number of years the
expression ‘industrial policy’ was simply avoided. It provided
too many memories of state intervention and state subsidies,
which have hampered the creation of a level playing field in a
well functioning internal market. In the meantime, these inter-
ventions have gradually been abolished.

1.6
New views of industrial policy are being examined. In
this context the Communication on Industrial Policy in an enlarged
Europe was adopted in 2002 (2).

1.7
The 2003 Spring European Council set the Competitive-
ness Council the task to review on a regular basis both horizontal
and sectoral issues (3).

1.8
The Commission issued a second Communication on
Industrial Policy in April 2004, which is the subject of the
present document (4).

These initiatives and the outcome of the discussions to
1.9
date led Commissioner Liikanen in May 2004 to state that
contrary to the forecasts in the mid-1990s the EU's industrial
policy is once again at the top of the European political agenda (5).

1.10
The EESC welcomes the change of attitude regarding
industrial policy, which is timely. It shares the view that, while

(1) European industry's place in the International Division of Labour: situation
and prospects, July 2004, report commissioned by DG Trade of the
European Commission and carried out by CEPII-CIREM (European
Consortium for Trade Policy Analysis- ECTA).

(2) COM(2002) 714 final, 11.12.2002. The Committee issued its
Journal C 234 , 30.9.2003,
Opinion on 17.7.2003 (Official
pages 76-85). This Opinion also had CCMI input, which can be
consulted at the following website: http://www.esc.eu.int/ccmi/docu-
ments/docs/divers/di_ces25-2003_fin_rev_di_en.doc.

(3) Presidency Conclusions pt. 21, Spring European Council 20/

21.3.2003.

(4) Fostering Structural Change: an Industrial Policy for an Enlarged

Europe, COM(2004) 274 final.

(5) Statement of Commissioner Liikanen on European Industrial Policy

Day, 27 May 2004, SPEECH/04/268.

avoiding mistakes of the past, specific attention to industrial
interests and to the sectoral dimension is desirable. Experience
and knowledge in this field, represented by the CCMI, may be
supportive for the future. Correct industrial and sectoral poli-
cies will help significantly the realisation of the goals of the
Lisbon Strategy.

2. The Commission's views in a changing context

2.1
The crucial element nowadays is the change of context
in the world economy. This requires new approaches. In the
Commission's view industrial policy in the future must be built
around three axes:

— industry should not be overburdened by legislation and
regulation. This implies careful assessment of both current
and new measures;

— an integrated approach at EU level is needed to reinforce

industry's competitiveness; (6)

— sectoral policies with specific and adapted measures are

desirable.

2.2
This approach, cautiously announced by the Commis-
sion in 2002, marks a breakthrough. The previous document
of the Commission on industrial policy dated from 1990 (7).
Since then some decisive factors have pushed industrial policy
to the background in favour of primarily horizontal policies.

2.3
In 2000 the Lisbon Strategy was set out to bring the
European economy to the forefront of knowledge and competi-
tiveness. Until now this strategy has not been actively driven
forward. Instead, the growth of productivity has diminished
and unemployment has increased. Moreover, certain fears have
arisen regarding delocalisation of industries (8).

For these reasons more precise analyses became desir-

2.4
able in the following areas:

— productivity and unemployment;

— what are the real facts about delocalisation?

— what is the overall impact of industry for and in Europe?

(6) This objective is already worked out in the Commission's document:
Some Key Issues in Europe's Competitiveness – Towards an Inte-
grated Approach, COM(2003) 704 final.

(7) The Bangemann report.
(8) See the related CCMI Opinion on The scope and effects of company

relocations, currently being drawn up.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/77

— how to realise an integrated EU-policy towards industry?

— how to define and to work out sectoral approaches?

Although European industry performs quite well

2.10
in
traditionally strong sectors, such as engineering, chemicals, tele-
communications and the automotive industries, new competi-
tors are emerging. China and India are starting to compete
successfully both in traditional and high-technology sectors.
Here a direct link with de- or relocation of European compa-
nies can be observed.

it still

formulates this policy in rather abstract

The Commission's document of 2002 (9) sets the agenda
2.5
for changes. It introduces a new content to ‘industrial policy’.
But
terms,
putting together all EU-policies that are directly relevant for
industry, without presenting concrete methods or procedures
regarding a decision-making and coordinating role for the
European institutions, and especially for the Commission.

2.11
An ongoing adjustment process is taking place world-
wide. This adjustment is needed because of globalisation, which
in turn also creates new opportunities. There are diverging
analyses in this respect, but the Commission notes that certain
worrying signals are emerging.

2.6
The document Fostering structural change of April 2004,
published under the aegis of Commissioner Liikanen and DG
Enterprise, adds a lot more. This document in its analysis goes
right to the heart of the matter in:

2.12
In relation to enlargement, investment from the former
EU-15 in the new Member States is expanding. Given that this
now constitutes investment within the EU, the proper func-
tioning of the internal market is all the more necessary as
regards environmental and working standards, for example.

— presenting some illustrative figures on issues related to
output and employment in manufacturing industry, also in
relation with developments elsewhere in the world;

— presenting sectoral developments,

thus giving a more
precise picture of what is at stake in various sectors with a
very different outlook.

The Commission rightly starts from ongoing dynamics,
2.7
but emphasises at the same time that these dynamics can be
conditioned positively
identification of
problems and fostering growth factors.

anticipation,

by

The general analysis confirms the slowdown in the
2.8
the gap compared with
growth of productivity in Europe,
developments in the US and the disappointing performance of
industry, especially in high-technology sectors. The relative
shortfall
in R&D expenditure in European companies, partly
due to lack of sufficient private sector investment in relation to
that of American companies, is — according to the Commis-
sion — quite obvious, with notable exceptions such as Finland
and Sweden. In addition, knowledge-based capacities in China
and India are expanding rapidly.

2.9
The Commission mentions — and it is worthwhile to
mention this also here — a survey of major firms carried out
by the European Round Table of Industrialists in 2002 that
shows that a number of these companies intend to locate new
R&D activities outside Europe,
if the regulatory environment
does not improve (10).

(9) Cf. footnote no. 2.
(10) ‘The European Challenge’, message of the European Round Table of

Industrialists to the Spring European Council, March 2003.

As companies have to face competition in open
2.13
markets within the framework set by the WTO, the Commis-
sion argues that it is up to the EU and to the Member States to
give a clear-cut answer to the process of dynamic changes by:

— ‘better lawmaking’;

— an integrated approach to different policies with a view to

competitiveness;

— taking fully into account the specific needs of the various

industrial sectors.

2.14
The Commission advocates a detailed impact assess-
ment of existing regulations and legislation as well as of forth-
coming measures. Closer cooperation between the Member
States and the EU is required, as many rules are implemented
at national level. The Commission insists that the Competitive-
ness Council plays an important and transparent role in this
process.

The Commission argues that synergy between policies
2.15
can be obtained, when a more adequate fine-tuning consulta-
tion between the legislators, in close cooperation with indus-
trial circles, is promoted.

2.16
The same goes for R&D. Undoubtedly, this will have
financial consequences for the EU and also at a national level.
This touches on the core of the Lisbon Strategy. In the coming
year the Commission will propose new guidelines on research
in the manufacturing industry, and on state aid for innovation.
Technological platforms can play a very useful role.

C 157/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

2.17
Some policies aim directly at the creation of a favour-
able climate for competitiveness, e.g. competition policy and
the abolition of
the Commission
trade barriers. However,
argues that sometimes more sophistication in the application of
these policies is possible and is required.

2.18
The Commission argues that cohesion policies can be
used to promote desirable regional and structural changes as
regards the functioning of the labour markets (11). The same
goes
sustainable development with
for
competitiveness.

reconciling better

As the world at large is the field of play, the Commis-
2.19
sion advocates a level playing field on the basis of international
standards. The EU standards are generally higher than in other
competing world regions.
In the future therefore a certain
degree of equalisation will have to take place either via bilateral
negotiations or in the framework of the WTO. This problem
should be tackled not by adapting Europe's standards to those
of the rest of the world; rather, Europe must take initiatives, as
in the case of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, to
raise the standards of other parts of the world by acting appro-
priately in all international institutions.

All these issues have at regular intervals been discussed
2.20
previously at EU level. The increased emphasis on ‘competitive-
ness’ is striking. The ultra-rapid developments in world markets
do not leave much choice for Europe.

2.21 What is especially new in this Commission document
is the sectoral dimension. For several years the Commission has
been conducting in-depth studies on sectors, often based on
consultations with sectoral organisations on EU level.

rial’,
increasing capital-intensity and increasing international
competition, but differences between the sectors are manifest.
High technology and low technology,
labour intensive and
capital intensive, consumer goods and capital goods, few main
players in the market and sectors characterised by SMEs etc. It
is a fascinating picture that, as the Commission argues, has not
been sufficiently taken into account by policymakers for many
years.

2.24
In the framework of ‘industrial policy’ sectoral analyses
and approaches are also back on the agenda. In this document
the Commission does not work out
initiatives as
regards the mentioned sectors.

further

2.25
Alongside these sectors the Commission is planning
new activities. For the coming year studies are announced on
the mechanical engineering sector, the ECO-industry, the auto-
mobile sector, the non-ferrous metals sector and the ICT-sector.

3. Favouring ‘new style’ industrial policy — EESC views

3.1
The EESC shares the view that the dynamics in the
world economy require a renewed focus. It welcomes the fact
that after a long period of time, ‘industrial policy’ is again back
as a priority on the EU agenda. Certain aspects of Europe's
industry (such as the environment) have been on the EU
agenda for the last decade, but the Council of Ministers has
neglected to discuss policies that would improve coherently the
conditions for overall output and that would sustain pro-
actively the environment for (value-added) investments.

industry (CESE 842/2004),

Interesting proposals have been made which have also
2.22
been discussed by the EESC, regarding for example the pharma-
ceutical
textiles and clothing
(CESE 62/2004 fin; CCMI Supplementary Opinion CESE
528/2004), shipbuilding and ship-repair (CESE 397/2004 fin;
CCMI
space
Supplementary Opinion CESE 478/2004),
(CESE 501/2004),
industry (CESE 524/2004;
CCMI
Information Report CESE 242/2004, currently under
preparation) and life sciences and biotechnology (CESE 1010/
2002; CESE 920/2003).

the chemical

In retrospect, and in view of the present change to a
3.2
more
to
focused industrial
summarize the main factors that have contributed to a certain
taboo on industrial policy:

is worthwhile

approach,

it

— the failure of state intervention,

in the large majority of
cases, to make industry stronger and more competitive in
the long run;

2.23
The picture varies from sector to sector. Of course,
there are common denominators such as the requirement of
quality as a competitive advantage, ICT as the new ‘raw mate-

(11) The Commission is mentioning among other factors the emphasis
to be laid on ‘competitiveness’
in the regional policy, and the
outcome of the Task Force for Employment in Europe under Mr
Wim Kok, established on 1.4.2003. In this regard it is worthwhile
to see the related Opinion of the CCIC on Industrial change and
economic, social and territorial cohesion.

— the abolition of economically unjustified market distortions
and promotion of a level playing field for industrial activ-
ities in Europe (although specific measures adopted in some
Member States which distort competition need still to be
scrutinised in a appropriate way at EU-level);

— the overall and successful emphasis on liberalisation of

markets;

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/79

— the exaggerated expectations of the ‘new economy’ and of a

post-industrial era;

— the focus on implementing EMU and adequate macro-

economic policies;

— the loss of influence of the Ministries responsible for indus-

trial interests in a number of Member States.

3.3 Most of what is presented by the Commission in its
Communication has already been known for several years. The
way it
is presented, however, and the links between the
different areas of analysis and proposed action, differ from
earlier documents. More than in the past, analyses and policies
are more directly related to the dynamics of the various sectors
and of the businesses involved.

3.4
The EESC strongly endorses that more numerous in-
depth studies of sectoral developments be undertaken in coop-
eration with business itself. These may promote the necessary
‘sense of urgency’ that was also the objective of the Lisbon
Strategy in 2000, but which has subsequently slipped away,
largely because the Council and the Member States have not
implemented their own arrangements and previously agreed
policies. This means that, in the view of the EESC, new style
industrial policy has to be taken into account in the Mid-term
review of the Lisbon Strategy in 2005. It may become a key
pillar of that strategy in the future.

3.5
‘New style’ industrial policy is indeed based on market
conformity and on a process of liberalisation but it includes
other factors as well, such as sector-specific features; harmoni-
sation of legislation in view of the internal market; the removal
of non-tariff barriers;
technology and R&D; and human
resources.

3.6
This industrial policy must by no means fall back on
incorrect policies of the past, that were characterised by market
distortions of various kinds. The financial discipline that was
brought about by EMU has also led to caution as regards finan-
cial and other state intervention in business. Except in a few
specifically justified cases, it is generally accepted that in the
long run intervention and public financial support do not serve
business interests.

trying to implement

Taking into account recent worldwide developments
3.7
and after some years of
the Lisbon
Strategy — in particular as regards ailing economic growth in
Europe, productivity, the application of ICT and reallocation of
investment — the time has also come for a reappraisal of
manufacturing
sectoral
approaches and concrete steps. These should target activities

to that

industry

and,

end,

for

best suited to European socio-economic conditions, particularly
activities making intensive use of highly-skilled workforces in
both operational and back-office areas (for instance, the manu-
facturing of tailor-made industrial equipment and systems: i.e.
robotics, instrumentation, control equipment, etc.). The EESC
endorses fully this approach and this objective.

A very important

3.8
issue is to raise public awareness
regarding the need for a sound industry. In order to serve this
objective, transparent data and analyses have to be made avail-
able to the public. In the same context, European and national
decision-makers should pay special attention to aspects such as
the coherence of EU policies, harmonisation of national legisla-
tions within the EU and relative alignment of European and
world standards (e.g. WTO).

Public awareness will promote consensus and public
3.9
backing. Industrial policy cannot be limited to selective groups
of people who are directly involved, either in government or in
business. This matter concerns society at large. The health of
European manufacturing industry serves the interest of all. In
all related fields efforts have to be made to promote its image,
e.g. in the field of education — not only professional, but also
general education, with a view to stimulating the creation of
technical skills.

3.10
The public needs to be made more aware of the close
interdependence between the different links in the industrial
production chain. For example,
the entire steel-processing
industry, and with it the automobile industry, is reliant on a
sufficient and cheap supply of steel, the production of which in
turn depends on a sufficient and cheap supply of raw materials.

Directly related to this is the need to clarify the interre-
3.11
lationship between industry and services. The economy is
moving to a service industry, indeed, but many services depend
directly on industry due to outsourcing and they will continue
to do so. On the other hand sophisticated services are of para-
mount importance for the development of high quality and
high technology performance in industry. In many ways it is a
single package.
In the dynamics of today the dividing line
between industry and services tends to disappear.

3.12
The EESC is of the opinion that the Commission has to
play an active role in this process. Putting industrial policy on
the agenda serves in itself the objective of creating awareness.
But much more can be done. First of all analyses, data and an
adequate publication of these should be improved on:

— industrial Europe, both in terms of output and in employ-

ment;

C 157/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

— individual sectors and clusters;

— the interaction between industry and services;

— technological inter-linkages;

— the development of service industry itself;

— worldwide comparisons.

3.13
The analyses should also take into account the differ-
ences of structure in the Member States given that some coun-
tries and regions have a stronger industrial base than others.
improve
In-depth knowledge of major industrial sectors will
the objectivity of the debate on trends in, and consequences of
the dynamics in the world economy.

3.14
Correct data are the basis of any sectoral approach.
Many studies are made in business and on a national or
academic scale (12). The EESC advocates the gathering of the
results of such studies at EU-level with the support of Eurostat
in order to create reliable and dynamic European databases on
industry and services and to make SWOT analyses. Compre-
hensive and clear statistics will give a continuous picture of the
ongoing changes. Eurostat's fifty years of ECSC statistics could
provide an example after appropriate adaptation.

3.15
The Commission rightly emphasises an integrated
approach to policies, such as national corporate taxation
systems, tax formalities, standards, trade, intellectual property,
R&D, environment, labour market, training and education. The
EESC strongly welcomes this objective, which has failed for too
long, not only at European level, but also in a number of
Member States.

3.16
It is not the first time that an integrated approach is
advocated. Unfortunately, such an approach is very difficult to
realise in a complicated environment in which the EU institu-
tions have to come to terms with 25 Member States. A viable
solution would be that the Competitiveness Council, together
with the Commission, defines a mid-term action plan, to be
evaluated annually (13).

(12) A very interesting example is the study The Significance of Competi-
tive Manufacturing Industries for the Development of the Service Sector,
Bremen, December 2003.
It can be consulted at the following
website:
http://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/Service/bestellservice,di-
d=31812,render=renderPrint.html

(13) This objective has directly to do with effective economic govern-
ance. The importance of a transparent and visible framework, espe-
cially as concerns the Competitiveness Council, is underlined in the
EESC opinion on Better economic governance in the EU.

3.17
It is also necessary that any policy affecting the compe-
titiveness of industry in this action plan takes into account the
different policy objectives of the EU in a balanced way. This
has not always been the case in the past (14). Consequently,
better exploitation of synergies between Community policies is
needed.

3.18
It is to be expected that, when the rules of procedure
and a mid-term plan will be discussed and approved in the
Competitiveness Council, similar patterns will come into being
in the Member States as regards industry in general as well as
the issues for which the Member States themselves are respon-
sible. This will also increase the influence of the Ministries
responsible for industrial interests in the Member States.

The improvement of the regulatory framework implies,
3.19
among other things, simplification and effective legislation at
EU level. It must certainly not be limited to new regulations.
‘Better lawmaking’ is related both to the past and to the future.
The proposal of the Dutch Presidency to give greater attention
to the simplification of legislation, and the reduction of the
administrative burden must be worked out (15). It is necessary
to coordinate the directives and regulations that have general
aims (horizontal policies)
involving industrial safety, energy
saving, waste etc. because they are interrelated and, sometimes,
their effects are contradictory. Environmental directives have a
special
impact. Because these directives focus primarily on
objectives, without harmonising implementation procedures,
inconsistent application by Member States can lead to distor-
tion of the market. Impact assessment and implementation are
of utmost importance, since credibility of policies depends on
their effectiveness.

Some aspects are of specific interest

3.20
for the new
Member States who must not limit themselves to acquiring
foreign investment for cost reasons; in order to strengthen the
durable capabilities of their economies they will also have to
diversify their own industrial activity. There are some major
challenges ahead, such as improvement of environmental poli-
cies, focus on training and improving skills and the engagement
of all stakeholders in the industrial
field via sectoral social
dialogue, inter alia.

to be

3.21 Market monitoring will have
stepped up
regarding products originating from outside the EU. Fair
competition can only be safeguarded if there is a level playing
field worldwide. In this connection, the EESC calls upon the
Commission to strengthen its efforts in ensuring that appro-
priate
are
observed by all global players.

environmental

and product

standards

labour,

(14) See also Mr Liikanen's speech on 27 May in favour of an active

industrial policy (cf. footnote no. 4).

(15) Cf. also COM(2004) 274, chapter 5, page 39.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/81

3.22
Another important element of industrial policy is the
safeguarding of a level playing field worldwide as regards trade.
Competition-distorting practices by third countries, such as
state aid and dumping, need to be subjected to systematic and
detailed monitoring by the European Commission. Trade-policy
measures need to be implemented resolutely, when the relevant
criteria are met.

problems. It has defined eight chapters for action either by the
industry or by the Commission. It is the basis for a fruitful
social dialogue with the social partners on the modernisation
process.

industrial policy is

3.23
Along with ‘better lawmaking’ and the promotion of
synergies between Community policies, the third pillar of the
‘new style’
the sectoral approach, an
approach based on market conformity and open markets and
one which is in line with the desirable horizontal policies. The
EESC fully endorses this objective, which is already underway
in practice. As the sectoral approach focuses on specific charac-
teristics and developments of individual sectors, it may also be
beneficial to the other two pillars, namely ‘better lawmaking’
and the promotion of synergies between EU policies. Environ-
mental policy, vocational and professional training and research
and development programmes can be formulated and imple-
mented more successfully when embedded in a sectoral
approach.

3.24
Sectoral analyses will show the dynamics of the devel-
opments in world context. They will have to put the picture of
European industry in the perspective of the other partners and
competitors on the world scene. They will show the interaction
between industry and services. They also take proper account
of social aspects, such as industrial relations and employment.
Finally, sectoral analyses will also serve to identify the obstacles
business faces as a result of specific EU rules and legislation.
Consequently, business should be consulted more often at an
early stage — when impact assessments are done — in order
to identify desirable rules and procedures at EU level.

3.25
In this respect the Commission methodology for tack-
ling competitiveness problems based on analysis, consultation
and action (page 19) has to be extended. The Commission
rightly cites cases as G10, STAR 21 and LeaderShip as exam-
ples.

LeaderShip 2015 (16) is a graphic example, provided it
3.26
is executed correctly. The target is to safeguard a profitable
future for the EU shipbuilding and ship-repair industries in an
open market.
It has brought together the Commission and
European business. It has led to a common identification of the

(16) See the Commission's document COM(2003) 717 final and the

respective Opinions of the EESC: OJ C 241 of 28.9.2004.

3.27
Other sectors may follow. There is no one-size-fits-all
model. As the Member States themselves and their policies are
also involved, it is desirable that tailor-made approaches as a
consequence of these sectoral analyses will result in commit-
ments of the industry, the Commission and the Member States
alike. As far as the Member States are concerned such commit-
ments may also contribute to promote exchanges of experi-
ences and best practice. In the EESC's view, sectoral observa-
tories at EU level could be very useful and should be set up.

Because of the overwhelmingly important aspect of
3.28
‘knowledge’ and R&D and because of
the phenomenon of
worldwide ‘brains mobility’ (scientists, searchers, managers and
professionals) the EESC strongly endorses the set-up of Tech-
nology Platforms in which industrial sectors and business are
expected to participate actively. They must not be limited to
business itself, but they have also to include other key players
such as leading technological institutes and universities. These
Platforms may also generate new private-private and public-
private alliances in Europe. (17)

technological

3.29
It is necessary to create a European environment for
knowledge that derives from an effective synergy between
university,
institutes and industry in order to
promote applied technology. Sector specific features have to be
taken into account. Furthermore, establishing a knowledge-
based economy must be accompanied by the tools needed for
life-long training, which should also be undertaken within insti-
tutions and universities. Once more, this can be fostered by
sector-based impulses. In this context, the role of professional
and executive management should be reinforced, with a view
to mobility within the European Union.

3.30
In this connection, and in response to projects else-
where in the world, major initiatives need to be launched to
generate synergies between different
(e.g. Galileo,
defence industry) and to stimulate cooperation between knowl-
edge centres and industry, establishing the necessary conditions
for the creation of groupings (e.g. Airbus) and clusters; the
latter may boost competitiveness and foster economic, social
and territorial cohesion. (18)

sectors

(17) Regarding technology platforms, cf. the Complementary Opinion
of the CCMI on the Commission Communication Science and tech-
nology, the key to Europe's future – Guidelines for future European
Union policy to support research (COM(2004) 353 final), CCMI/
015; rapporteur: Mr. Van Iersel.

(18) See the EESC Opinion on Industrial change and economic, social and
territorial cohesion OJ C 241 of 28.9.2004, especially points 1.4, 3
and 10.i).

C 157/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

3.31
Human resources are more than ever of paramount
importance. In the ongoing process of industrial change this is,
of course, a responsibility both of the management and the
employees and their organisations. It implies among others an
emphasis on quality, professionalisation, skills and motiva-
tion. (19)

similar developments in various Member States and may
promote common views across the Union in this area. It will
contribute to define better the ways and means to boost Euro-
it will also be of help in
pean competitiveness. Hopefully,
defining appropriate and concrete goals
in the Mid-term
Review of the Lisbon Strategy in 2005.

3.32
In this respect it has to be duly taken into account that
young people have become disenchanted with the idea of
working in industry due to a lack of positive image. This has
led, inter alia, to the scarcity of skilled labour.

3.33
In addition, the EESC argues that in the framework of
the desirable sectoral approach sectoral social dialogues will
enhance the commitment of employees and their organisations
in view to adjustment and quality. Tailor-made approaches on
a sectoral level will also promote discussions between the social
partners on specific requirements as concerns competences,
adaptability and capabilities of the employees.

3.34
In order to promote the implementation of specific
measures based on the sectoral analyses, each of these has to
be discussed in the Competitiveness Council. In the view of the
EESC, this Council configuration is bound to play a decisive
role in ‘new style’ industrial policy by providing a general plat-
form for the involved interests. Adequate sectoral analyses
conducted by the Commission and the Council and, ultimately,
negotiations on measures to be taken in the above-mentioned
fields will also reinforce the commitment of
the national
administrations, which, alongside business, play an outstanding
role in creating a future-oriented environment.

In such an environment and in this approach there is
3.35
‘picking the winners’ as former
no room for a policy of
Commissioner Liikanen rightly said. The same goes
for
‘national champions’. (20) This would place the whole debate on
‘new style’ industrial policy on the wrong footing. The objective
is to promote a climate in which risk taking by European
industry is encouraged. A policy of empowering the winners or
backing the winners is much more suitable. (21) Financial and
non-financial instruments to realise this objective have to be
(re-)examined.

4.2
The EESC notes that, in view of a ‘new style’ industrial
policy, there is an urgent need for a confidence-inspiring insti-
tutional framework in terms of the proper division of tasks
within the Union — who is responsible for what, and when?
— and in terms of the implementation in the Member States of
objectives and directives decided upon by the European
Council and the various Council configurations. (22)

regulation, promoting

The EESC supports the three elements of the ‘new style’
4.3
industrial policy: better
synergies
between different Community policies and the development of
the sectoral dimension. In view of transparency and visibility a
better coordination is desirable within the Commission (e.g.
under the aegis of DG Enterprise) and in the Council of Minis-
ters. A better coordination must also lead to a much needed
and fruitful synergy of policies. To that end a mid-term action
plan approved by the Commission and by the Competitiveness
Council, that is annually evaluated, would be most welcome.

4.4
The ESC welcomes the analysis and many recommenda-
tions in the report Facing the Challenge. (23) Nonetheless, it is a
pity that the report does not refer to ‘new-style’
industrial
policy as a useful tool to face challenges on world markets. In
particular the sectoral approach and the need for well coordi-
nated policies in that framework should have been emphasised.
The EESC endorses the proposal of national action plans. In
order to enhance the output of these action plans and of EU
policies, each must be coordinated effectively in the Competi-
tiveness Council configuration. The EESC urges that
these
elements be taken into account in the preparation of the Mid-
term Review of the Lisbon Strategy in March 2005.

4. Specific conclusions

4.1
The EESC welcomes the initiative of the Commission (in
particular of Commissioner Liikanen and DG Enterprise) to
restore ‘industrial policy’ as a priority to the EU agenda in addi-
tion to horizontal policies. This initiative corresponds with

4.5
The EESC emphasises the need for raising awareness,
which is indispensable for consensus and public backing. It
must become clear that the European society as a whole is
involved in this worldwide industrial change that requires
efforts in a much broader field than in business alone.

(19) Cf. the EESC Opinion on Industrial Change: current situation and
prospects, An overall approach OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004, points 2.2.2.14
and 3.9.

(20) See footnote 5.
(21) Ibid.

(22) Cf. EESC Opinion on Better economic governance in the EU OJ C 74

of 23.3.2005.

(23) Facing the challenge, the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employ-
ment, report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok,
November 2004.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/83

4.6
The EESC believes that sectoral analyses can and will
contribute positively to a better understanding of developments
at stake. These will also favour a closer cooperation between
public and private parties as well as tailor-made approaches
and desirable adjustment of policies at EU-level and national
level
in order to promote the creation of new opportunities
and, consequently, to contribute to the realisation of the Lisbon
Strategy. Sectoral frameworks are also an appropriate vehicle
social dialogues aiming at promoting broadly shared
for
commitment and at promoting the quality of human resources.

4.7
A sectoral approach of this type increasingly requires
knowledge of world trends and industrial change within the

services of the Commission. The EESC recommends strongly
that Commission officials deepen their practical knowledge of
what is at stake in the private sector. The CCMI and the Euro-
pean Monitoring Centre on Change can contribute to sectoral
analyses as consultative partners without encroaching upon the
role of the social players.

4.8
Taking into account the developments in the other big
world regions — costs, competences and the combination of
both — the decisive factors for European competitiveness are
knowledge, quality, both of companies as such and of human
resources and skills, and adequate organisation. Future-oriented
policies and measures in these fields will be crucial.

Brussels, 15 December 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the principle of equal opportu-
nities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation’

(COM(2004) 279 final — 2004/0084 (COD))

(2005/C 157/14)

On 18 May 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 November 2004 The rapporteur was
Mrs Sharma.

At its 413th plenary session on 15/16 December 2004 (meeting of 15 December 2004), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 147 votes in favour, one vote against
and six abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
The proposal's principal objective is to enhance trans-
parency and clarity of equal treatment legislation and to facili-
tate effective application by reinforcing the acquis and avoiding
regression. A single piece of legislation is needed with a clear
structure, easily accessible and legible to support the achieve-
ment of socio-economic Community policy goals for more and
better jobs for women.

1.2
Regrouping the provisions of the Directives on access to
employment, equal pay, occupational social security and the
burden of proof opens the chance to present a single coherent
text
is free of contradicting definitions. The proposal
accounts for recent developments in European case law by

that

updating existing secondary legislation in line with judgements
of the European Court of
Justice which have clarified and
further developed the concept of equality. It also serves to guar-
antee a high level of legal certainty by putting together provi-
sions of Directives linked by their subject — all this in the
context of the new political environment which presents the
Union as being open, understandable and relevant to daily life.

applies

The Directive

1.3
to the working population,
including self-employed persons, persons whose activity is
interrupted by illness, maternity, accident or involuntary unem-
ployment and persons seeking employment, and to retired and
disabled workers, and to those claiming under them, in accord-
ance with national law and/or practice.