Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing — towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy  COM(2005) 474 final
Date: 2006-04-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU industrial policy, processing industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, structural policy

C 185/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen
EU manufacturing — towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy

COM(2005) 474 final

(2006/C 185/14)

On 5 October 2005 the European Commission 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 the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 March 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Ehnmark.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 20 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 38 votes to one with five abstentions.

1. Summary of the opinion

1.1
The Lisbon strategy provides a wide range of horizontal
measures to create a framework in order to make Europe more
competitive. The sectoral approaches have so far been missing.
With the new communication by the European Commission,
the EU takes another step towards creating a common Euro-
pean Industry Policy. A common policy and common priorities
should enhance Europe's competitiveness in the global context.
The Commission communication on a framework for an Inte-
grated Industry Policy is therefore highly welcome.

1.2
The EESC supports the Communication's wide analysis
of necessary support measures in 27 sectors of manufacturing
industry. The EESC also supports the setting-up of 14 sectoral
and inter-sectoral task forces, with the objective of outlining
more concrete measures to boost the competitiveness of Euro-
pean industry.

However,

the communication fails to cover essential
1.3
aspects of
the shaping and implementation of a European
industry policy. Responsibility for implementation is conferred
on other units in the Commission, national and regional autho-
rities, and industry itself. The issues of ‘who does what’ are left
to further consideration.

1.4
In particular, the communication does not highlight the
necessary distribution of work between the EU and the national
level. The 14 new sectoral task forces will mainly operate at EU
level. The EESC emphasises that it is essential to establish coor-
dination with the national
level. This will save time — and
industry can ill afford time losses.

1.5
Two areas where the communication does not provide
much guidance are the governments' role in innovation and
competitiveness and the borderlines between manufacturing
industry and services.

1.7 With the communication, the EU is giving an answer to
the question ‘Is there a future for European manufacturing
industry?’ The EESC for its part is ready to include European
Industry Policy issues in the network set up for the Lisbon
strategy.

2. Introduction

2.1
The mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, as presented
to the European Council in March 2005, gave a very mixed
picture of what had been achieved in the first five years.

2.2 Where the Lisbon strategy has failed is particularly in
the areas of economic and industrial growth and the creation
of more and better jobs. In terms of global competition, Europe
is facing difficulties. A number of index rankings concerning
growth and competitiveness place the United States in a
leading position, together with the Nordic countries. The big
economies of Europe are far behind. In a recent ranking by the
World Economic Forum, the UK was ranked as number 13,
Germany as number 15, and France as number 30, immedi-
ately before Spain. On the other hand, it should be observed
that some of the new Member States in the EU are managing
well in terms of economic growth: in 2005, GDP growth rates
in Slovakia and Poland were 5.5 % and 5.4 % respectively.

2.3
A recent survey of productivity growth, produced by the
global business organisation ‘The Conference Board’, indicates
that, over a ten-year period, the leading European economies
have been falling further behind the USA. The 15 old Members
of the EU could report a productivity growth in 2005 of 0.5 %,
compared with 1.8 % in the USA and 1.9 % in Japan.

1.6
For the work ahead, the EESC underlines the importance
of close involvement of stakeholders, and particularly the social
partners. The EESC finds it essential that the social partners can
reach agreements on industry change and innovation, as is
already the case in some EU countries.

in March 2005,

In response to the decisions made by the European
2.4
Council
the European Commission has
presented a substantial number of proposals and communica-
tions over the year, targeting the issues of industry restruc-
turing, productivity and competitiveness as well as, support for
entrepreneurship and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/81

2.5 What has been missing in the palette of new proposals
are efforts to target sectoral
industry issues, particularly in
manufacturing industry, and provide a basis for sectoral or
vertical support measures. With the new communication on
‘Towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy’, the
Commission sets out to meet this need.

— Intellectual Property Rights and Counterfeiting Initiative

— A high-level group on Competitiveness, Energy and the

Environment

— External aspects of competitiveness and market access

— New legislative simplification programme

3. Outline of the new policy framework proposal

— Improving sectoral skills

The Communication can be seen as the launch of a new
3.1
process based on an analysis of the competitiveness situation of
27 segments in manufacturing industry.

The focus is on what the enterprises themselves see as
3.2
bottlenecks for innovation, competitiveness and growth. The
emphasis is on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
which is logical, given that EU manufacturing industry consists
of a large majority of SMEs, which represent 58 % of manufac-
turing employment. A number of stakeholders were also
consulted during the preparatory

The manufacturing sectors analysed in the communica-
3.3
tion cover four main areas: food and life science industries,
machine and system industries, fashion and design industries,
and basic and intermediate goods industries. In concrete terms,
the analysis covers industries ranging from biotech and phar-
maceutics to mechanical and electrical engineering, and the
defence and aerospace industries, and also covers textiles and
furniture, ceramics, steel, chemicals and pulp and paper.

The assessment of the competitiveness of the 27 sectors

3.4
used the following criteria:

— ensuring an open and competitive Single Market,

— knowledge, such as research, innovation, and skills,

— better regulation,

— Managing structural change in manufacturing

— An integrated European approach to industrial research and

innovation.

In addition to the cross-sectoral initiatives, the Commis-
3.7
sion proposes a number of new sector-specific initiatives. These
are a pharmaceuticals forum, a mid-term review of the life
sciences and biotechnology strategy, new high-level groups on
the chemicals industry and the defence industry, an initiative
on the European space industry, a task-force on ICT competi-
tiveness, and the launch of a mechanical engineering policy
dialogue.

4. General comments

The new Communication is the first major effort to
4.1
initiatives for competitiveness
create comprehensive sectoral
and innovation in manufacturing industry.
It is a welcome
initiative. Horizontal schemes and initiatives are not enough.
As it is structured, the new Communication provides a valuable
basis for decisions on concrete action. The initiative includes a
sophisticated analysis of growth and competitiveness issues in a
number of industry sectors.

The Commission has presented the proposal as a frame-
4.2
work for setting priorities. The guiding concern is to introduce
measures to meet the challenges of globalisation.

— ensuring synergies between competitiveness, energy and

environmental policies,

— ensuring full and fair participation in global markets,

— facilitating social and economic cohesion.

4.3 What is missing is a clear link between the efforts at EU
level, and the necessary involvement of governments, industry
and stakeholders at national and regional
is
supposed to be developed in the process ahead, particularly in
task forces. There is,
the new sectoral and inter-sectoral
however, an obvious risk that this will mean much planning
and limited implementation.

level. This

3.5
The sector conclusions indicate cases where ‘a policy
challenge is considered of the highest priority for each sector
amongst the many relevant policy challenges’, to quote from
the Communication. Even with this guidance, the conclusions
are not quite transparent. In biotech, for example, demand for
more research is registered, but not demand for more skills. For
textiles, demands for research and skills are registered together
with access to markets, but not the need to counter trade
distortions.

The Commission proposes the launching of seven major
3.6
cross-sectoral policy initiatives, in order to meet the common
challenges and reinforce the synergies. The seven cross-sectoral
initiatives are:

In order to avoid this,

the EESC recommends that
4.4
specific steps are taken for securing the necessary coordination.
This would also give wider scope for active participation of
various stakeholders.

represents

and communications,

The new communication, together with various other
4.5
proposals
step
towards the creation of a European Industrial Policy. Is this a
realistic way to go? Bearing in mind the challenges ahead for
Europe's industry, the EESC would conclude that this is prob-
ably the best way ahead, in terms of promoting competitive-
ness and utilising the specific advantages of the Union, such as
its high knowledge base and a very large internal market.

another

C 185/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

The Commission is keen to underline that

4.6
the new
Communication is intended to be congruent with the spirit of
the Lisbon strategy and to add to the total efforts of that
strategy. Responsibility for the actual implementation, in terms
of more research, or education, or regulation, will fall to other
units in the Commission and to national and regional bodies.
The planning and implementation have to be coordinated.

4.7
There is a certain ambivalence in the Commission's
approach. The balance between horizontal programmes and
new sectoral efforts should be further considered.

the

4.8
The Communication does not include resources for the
various actions. Instead, the necessary resources at EU level are
to come from the CIT programme, the Framework programme
education
on research,
programmes, to mention the most important. Coordinating
including resources, will be a difficult and delicate
policies,
task, particularly
available European financial
resources are relatively limited in relation to the needs and
demands.

Structural

and the

Funds,

since

the

4.9
The introduction of advanced new production methods
and machines, particularly in SMEs, will require credit on
favourable terms. The EIB and the EIF should be involved
closely in the work of the sectoral and inter-sectoral planning
groups.

4.10
In the new proposal, the Commission focuses on the
EU level, whilst regional aspects are only marginally high-
lighted. The importance of the metropolitan areas, with their
vast potential for promoting industry innovation and competi-
tiveness, is not included in the analysis. This, as well as issues
pertaining to a regional
industrial policy, will have to be
considered in the process ahead.

The Committee notes that the Commission makes no
4.10.1
specific proposals with regard to industrial sectors with a parti-
cularly high degree of regional concentration.

4.11
Three themes dominate in the responses from industry
and stakeholders concerning measures for competitiveness:
more research and connection to research, more education and
training, particularly in skills, and easier access to financial
support, particularly for entrepreneurships and micro enter-
prises.

4.12 Most of the manufacturing sectors analysed in the new
Communication list upgrading of sectoral skills as a point
where ‘a policy challenge is considered of the highest priority’,
to quote from the Communication. The issues of skills and
upgrading of
importance. The
proposed cross-sector initiative on skills issues will hopefully
provide innovative proposals.

skills are of

fundamental

4.13
The Communication pays little attention to the impor-
tance of governments in providing a level playing field for
industry and particularly manufacturing industry. The work
will no doubt generate a number of comments as to how the
governments can support industry, in terms of education, trans-

port systems, energy and ICT networks, to mention a few
examples.

4.14
The Communication does not discuss the fact that the
borderline between manufacturing industry and services is
becoming more and more blurred. What does this mean in
terms of human resources, market approaches and access, regu-
lation and access to finance?

4.15
Concerning access to finance for SMEs, it can be noted
that only five more specific demands are registered in the
broad analysis of 27 sectors, namely pharmaceuticals, biotech,
medical devices and mechanical and electrical engineering. It is
rather surprising that the same demand was not registered for
basic and intermediate goods industries, to take one example.

5. Towards a European Industry Policy

5.1 With the new communication by
the European
Commission, the EU is taking another step towards creating a
common framework for a European Industry Policy. This is
welcome. A common policy and common priorities should
enhance Europe's competitiveness in the global context. At the
same time, the European Industry Policy needs to be viewed in
the context of the structures built up for support to industry
(education and research being only two examples) and for
consultation with employees, to mention just a few aspects. A
sustained competitiveness for Europe is not possible without
the full participation of society and citizens.

5.2
It is often stated that what industry wants is a level
playing field with clear (and unbureaucratic) signalling systems.
The position accepted by many is: as little red tape as possible,
as much support in general terms as possible. To quote from a
recent Competitiveness Council: ‘Ministers stressed that legisla-
tive and regulatory burdens should not have an adverse effect
on competitiveness’. At the same time, it can be argued that EU
administrative obligations should not be presented as a mere
cost factor, as they often replace 25 different national legisla-
tions and thus decrease operating costs. In a recent Commis-
sion communication,
is argued that regulatory costs, of
which administrative obligations are just one element, must be
analysed in a broad context, encompassing the economic,
social and environmental costs and benefits of regulation.

it

The global competition confronting the EU and other
5.3
groups of countries is fierce. There is no room for compla-
cency. On the other hand, for Europe, growth and competitive-
ness can never be ends in themselves. There is a general recog-
nition of the existence of a European social vision, summarised
in the Lisbon strategy as follows: a high level of knowledge-
based competitiveness, a high level of social cohesion ambi-
tions, and a responsible policy in environment issues. A Euro-
pean industry policy is both part of the Lisbon strategy and an
ambition that extends many years beyond the strategy.
However, regardless of the time horizons, an industry policy
will be part of the overarching priorities that have been formu-
lated in the Lisbon strategy.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/83

5.3.1
A revised strategy for sustainable development has
been presented by the Commission, for Council decision later
this year. The Framework Industry Policy is in line with the
priorities of the strategy for sustainable development.

5.4
A European industrial policy should, in this perspective,
focus on three priority purposes: to identify priority sectors for
sustained competitiveness,
to address priority measures for
achieving this, and to accelerate the unification of the internal
market as one of key steps to promote the shaping of a level
playing field. At the EU level this means paying careful atten-
tion to what can realistically be achieved by initiatives at Euro-
pean level. An Industry Policy with these objectives could
provide a real added value to industry, to governments at
national and regional levels and to the social partners and orga-
nised civil society.

5.5
The Committee welcomes the Commission's announce-
ment of the creation of working groups looking at several
aspects. However, it believes that it is still important to clarify
the relationship between industrial policy and two other areas
if certain ambiguities, which have been detrimental
to the
development of large European industrial projects, are to be
removed.

5.5.1
industrial policy need to be clarified.

First of all, the links between competition policy and

5.5.2
Secondly, the Commission has presented an action
plan to modernise company law, one aspect of which involves
strengthening the rights of shareholders. It is essential that this
modernisation does not lead to the detriment of
industrial
investments.

It would be helpful if the commissioners responsible
5.5.3
internal market, competition policy
for the economic affairs,
and Lisbon strategy were to coordinate with each other so as
to avoid any risk of inconsistency that might jeopardise the
credibility and efficacy of any relaunch of industrial policy.

5.6
A European industry policy must take into consideration
the important role of the public sector, in supplying knowledge
and infrastructure, to mention but two essential items. In some
countries, close contacts are established between industry and
the public sector. In other countries this is not the case. The
importance of the public sector for innovation is illustrated by
the fact that in the US, public expenditure on innovation is
twice as high as in Europe. Even when taking into account that
a big slice is expenditure for military purposes, the figure indi-
In a European
cates the importance of
perspective, a relevant example would be the past (and partly
present) public expenditure in some countries on the develop-
ment of new pharmaceutical products. The importance of the
public sector is also illustrated by its role in the expansion of
ICT facilities, especially broadband networks.

the public sector.

strategy so far. ORGALIME, representing the mechanical, elec-
tronic and metalworking industries in 23 European countries,
has presented an extensive plan for the development of Euro-
pean manufacturing industry, as part of comments on the
Commission Communication. On the employees' side, in the
Autumn of 2005, the European Metal Workers' Federation
(EMF) presented a plan entitled ‘Boosting European Manufac-
turing’, which summarises a number of the proposals contained
in the other plans.

5.8
The EMF plan lists 15 key measures divided into two
blocs. The first, under the heading ‘Research and Development’,
emphasises the need for more resources for research and for
innovation; the second, under the
more attention to social
heading ‘A social framework for innovation’,
lists additional
concrete measures for promoting SMEs, entrepreneurship and
lifelong learning,
restructuring European labour
markets with a focus on social security.

and for

5.9
This action plan, like some other plans from the social
partners, bears witness to a degree of convergence in the
analysis of the challenges confronting European industry. There
is, in general terms, broad agreement about the road ahead for
identification of key challenges and
Europe: This parallel
measures provides a platform for social dialogue and social
partner agreements in favour of innovation and competitive-
ness (cf. chapter 6).

5.10
The Lisbon strategy has been successful in promoting
the concepts of a knowledge-intensive society and a leading
role for Europe in skills, competences and research and devel-
opment. The Barcelona European Council's decision to aim for
3 % of GDP for research has been widely applauded and
supported, in theory.

5.11
It is noteworthy that the Commission, in its dialogues
and discussions with representatives of industry, has not found
many new ideas and solutions for the important transfer of
knowledge from universities to industry. The Commission will
itself come back to these issues in a forthcoming communica-
tion. However, it must be up to the enterprises themselves to
take the necessary responsibility for establishing relevant links
with research. Bearing in mind the slow progress towards
implementing the target of committing 3 % of Europe's GDP to
research and development, this absence of ideas for the knowl-
edge transfer is worrying. Another cause for concern is the
number of students of scientific and engineering disciplines in
the EU, which is falling in comparison with the Union's main
competitors. It is essential for SMEs to upgrade their existing
human capital and to introduce an academic work force into
production and innovation. The 7th Framework Programme
should give support to SMEs for introducing advanced techno-
logical research and production techniques.

5.7
The mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy has also
inspired the social partners to develop plans for securing a
future for European manufacturing industry. The European
Employers' organisation, UNICE, has presented extensive
comments and proposals concerning the results of the Lisbon

In this context,

5.12
it should be recalled that, even if it
commits 3 % of its GDP to research, Europe will still be lagging
behind both the USA and Japan. The target of 3 % is an inter-
mediate target, as some EU Member States have already
acknowledged. The global competition will
require higher
ambitions over a 15 to 20 year time frames.

C 185/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

5.13
A similar comment can be made as to the need for
more upgrading of skills and for more lifelong learning. A
number of signals are coming from industry concerning issues
such as more upgrading of skills, but these are not issues that
can be solved at EU level. At EU level, the character of the
needs can be identified and analysed, but the actual implemen-
tation has to take place at national and regional
levels.
CEDEFOP could no doubt disseminate information on impor-
tant experiences.

5.14
In this context, it is worth recalling that the broader
education policy debate on lifelong learning actually started in
the early 1970s, with a major analysis by the OECD. However,
since then, not very many really new approaches have been
tried for bringing together the options and resources from
industry itself, from the public sector, and from individuals
themselves — who could ask for better opportunities for skills
upgrading that promotes mobility in the labour market.

The focus on off-shoring and relocation of industries
5.15
has drawn attention to the need to guarantee core workers
rights on a global basis. The 1998 ILO agreement on the
‘Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work’ has
provided a foundation for employment regulation, and a stand-
ard that should be applied throughout the international govern-
ance system. The OECD guidelines are political commitments
by governments. If change is to be perceived as positive, it has
to be demonstrated both that change need not be a zero sum
game, and also that it is possible to manage change in firms,
industries, regions and labour markets in socially equitable
ways.

5.15.1
The importance of the European Works Councils
should be recognised in this context. The Councils are a
concrete response to the demands for a widely applicable struc-
ture for
information and consultation within cross-border
enterprises. Even if it takes time to build such structures, and
even if the present Directive on Works Councils is somewhat
vague,
the councils are an indispensable part of the wider
efforts to develop a European Industry Policy.

5.16
A European Industry Policy can make an essential
contribution to Europe's competitiveness. The present Commu-
nication from the Commission is one building-block. The EESC
has enumerated a number of others. The EESC would suggest
that
the Commission takes the initiative to launch further
discussions and dialogues in the context of the Social Dialogue
and other relevant fora.

support the choice of themes for the initial batch of sectoral
and cross-sectoral task forces.

6.2
The EESC particularly welcomes particularly the planned
High level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and Environ-
ment. Environment and energy-saving technologies can give
the Union important advantages in the global context. The new
global awareness of the dangers of climate change, as a result
of too much dependence on fossil fuels, should give a forceful
support
to efforts to change production and consumption
patterns. The task of the High level group is formidable. The
fact that other countries — the US being just one example —
are now also investing heavily in environment-friendly technol-
ogies makes it no less formidable.

6.3
Design is becoming a key factor in product development
and product marketing. Design should be highlighted, not in a
single sectoral task force, but as one of the horizontal issues in
a couple of task forces. In a number of EU countries, industrial
design has a long record of successes. It is important to build
on this.

The Commission Communication does not explicitly
6.4
deal with the issues of communication and of reaching out to
industry itself and various
stakeholder groups. However,
bearing in mind that a considerable part of the implementation
will have to be via information and communication, these
issues will have be given high attention. How else will the large
group of SMEs get relevant information about joint partner-
ships and various support measures?

time

factor. Product development

Another crucial aspect for the implementation will be
6.5
the
in manufacturing
industry is not a slow affair; the global competition is prohi-
biting that. For the various task forces at European level, it will
be necessary to adopt tough time frames — in order to provide
an added value to those concerned with industry decisions on
investments and developments.

6.6
The EESC shares the Commission's concern that the
transfer of EU jobs to low-cost countries will have painful local
and sectoral consequences, particularly for low-skilled workers
who should be helped to cope with the effects of industrial
restructuring. The EESC has in other contexts advocated that
the Structural Funds should be more and better used for active
— and pro-active — measures in coping with the effects of
globalisation. The recent proposal for a Globalization fund will
be further considered by the EESC.

6. Comments on the sector proposals

7. A need for a widened social dialogue

6.1
The EESC supports the choice of screening parameters
for the analysis of the 27 segments of manufacturing industry.
Even with this very ambitious approach, some inconsistencies
are obvious in the individual results of the analysis. The EESC
supports the effort and the conclusions. The EESC can also

In some countries ambitious social partner agreements
7.1
on industry innovation already exists as expressions of mutual
interests and priorities for the further development of manufac-
turing industry.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/85

7.2
To cite one noteworthy example, an Industrial Agree-
ment between the social partners in Sweden was signed in
1997. Since then,
the signatories to the Agreement have
presented a number of proposals for achieving improved indus-
trial competitiveness. In particular, the signatories have targeted
issues such as the establishment of competitive industrial
research institutes, increased exchanges between industry and
educational establishments and institutes,
innovation support
for new and growing companies, and support for Industrial
Development Centres. A number of the proposals have been
accepted by government.

7.3
The EESC underlines that it is absolutely essential that
stakeholders, and particularly the social partners, are closely
involved in the process of
innovation, competitiveness and
restructuring. The tempo of change is not going to decrease. A
pro-active approach to change, based on mutual confidence, is
therefore becoming a necessity. Successfully managing indus-
trial change requires a social dialogue based on consolidated,
trust-based partnerships and a culture of dialogue, marked by
effective representation and stable structures. Effective represen-
tation also requires high levels of knowledge of the topical
issues and choices.

7.3.1
A reference should be made to efforts of many Euro-
pean Works Councils (cf. § 5.14.1) to strengthen the competen-
cies of those involved in the Council work. This is essential for
both sides of the dialogue. Without high levels of knowledge
and competence, the Councils will not be able to function as
an essential part of consultation and dialogue.

The EESC expresses its hope that

7.4
the Commission
Communication for an integrated industry policy, together with
other initiatives, will provide a platform of inspiration for close
stakeholder, and particularly social partner, involvement in the
processes of change. The EESC has outlined its positions on
Social dialogue and industrial change in an opinion adopted in
September 2005 (1).

Brussels, 20 April 2006.

the EESC has

In response to the conclusions of the 2005 European
7.5
Council,
launched an interactive network
covering experiences of implementing the Lisbon strategy. The
EESC will in a positive way consider enlarging this network to
cover issues concerning stakeholder and particularly social
partner involvement in the shaping of the European Industry
Policy.

In November 2005,

8.
the Consultative Commission on
Industrial Change (CCMI) adopted a supplementary opinion on
the Communication on a more integrated approach for indus-
trial policy. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

8.1
The CCMI considered it extremely interesting that the
European Commission is now addressing the issue of sector-
specific policy within industrial policy. More specifically, the
CCMI stated its belief that this sector-specific policy could have
a real impact if it were addressed in a structured way within
the context of social dialogue at local, national and EU levels.

8.2
The CCMI underlined, however, that the Commission
communication is lacking in concrete initiatives, action plans
and, above all, sufficient financial resources needed to back up
policies. In this regard, it would be particularly important to
involve the EIB and the EIF in enterprise projects.

The CCMI also underlined that the Commission should
8.3
acknowledge the importance of the increasingly modern public
sector.

Furthermore, the CCMI underlined the importance of a
8.4
regional
industry policy, outlined in a pro-active way. The
CCMI also emphasized the importance of trade policy for a
successful
industrial policy. Finally, the CCMI underlined the
importance of core labour rights as expressed in ILO conven-
tions.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) OJ C 24 of 31 January 2006.

C 185/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment was rejected but obtained at least a quarter of the votes cast:

Point 7.5

Delete the second sentence:

‘In response to the conclusions of the 2005 European Council, the EESC has launched an interactive network
covering experiences of implementing the Lisbon strategy. The EESC will in a positive way consider enlarging this
network to cover issues concerning stakeholder and particularly social partner involvement in the shaping of the
European Industry Policy.’

Reason

Emphasising specific social partner involvement in the shaping of the European Industry Policy plays down the role of
small and medium enterprises, professional organisations, sectoral associations and the scientific community in imple-
menting the Lisbon strategy.

Voting

In favour: 11

Against: 27

Abstentions: 1.