Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Innovation: impact on industrial change and the role of the EIB
Date: 2007-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Investment Bank, economic growth, industrial restructuring, innovation, investment, research and development, technology transfer

C 256/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Innovation: impact on industrial
change and the role of the EIB’

(2007/C 256/17)

On 6 July 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on Innovation: impact on industrial change and the role
of the EIB.

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for the Committee's work on
the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 June 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Tóth. The co-rapporteur was
Mr Calvet Chambon.

At its 437th plenary session, held on 11 and 12 July 2007 (meeting of 11 July), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by138 votes to 1, with three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

In its own-initiative opinion, the EESC, having studied
1.1
the links between innovation and industrial change, and
numerous relevant EU and national initiatives, has decided to
analyse and present recommendations on aspects of the innova-
tive system which are conducive to making direct commercial
use of research findings, and to strengthening and promoting
the development of European industry and economic perfor-
mance.

1.2
The EESC feels it is worth pointing out that in many
countries and regions there is a close correlation between
successful innovation and the openness of society and of educa-
tional systems. Insofar as in our century innovation occurs —
and is indeed a critical factor — not only in economic life, but
in all areas of activity, human resources can become a strong
this factor will become
growth factor. The EESC feels that
increasingly crucial as a catalyst
for development, and that
therefore innovation must above all build on the basis of broad
education and training in line with the criterion of
lifelong
learning; this should make use of equal access to an open-
sourced, open-content knowledge base.

1.3
The EESC feels that it is vital for companies to achieve
synergies between innovation, human resource policy and
knowledge sectors, which not only act as a basis for innovation
but also enable it to flourish. At the same time, a means must
be found of ensuring that industrial restructuring flexibly adapts
to changes in employment structures, and the requisite financial
conditions must be in place for this to happen.

The EESC feels that it is vital to raise public awareness of
1.4
innovative initiatives, while enhancing their public
successful
presence and boosting support. The innovative role played by
society is of key importance in the overall innovative process.
Non-technological
innovation such as new business models,
better planning, enhanced work organisation and competencies
is at least as important as technological innovation. In general,
innovation in terms of organisation or organisational develop-
ment is needed to fully tap into the potential of technological
innovation.

1.5
The social partners and players and institutions of orga-
nised civil society already play a very important role in ensuring
that modernising impulses emanating from innovation are iden-
tified, reinforced and accepted; we suggest strengthening this
role, not least in the formulation of strategic priorities and
policy.

1.6
The EESC is convinced that the answer to the European
paradox — our strength in basic research, combined with a
weakness in translating findings into practical, commercial
results — should involve shifting the emphasis on increasing
R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP to changing the struc-
ture of that expenditure. While we need to make more effort in
terms of
increasing expenditure, we also need to pay more
attention to new approaches.

1.6.1
To a large extent, R&D in EU Member States is
dominated by the supply side: the supply of R&D research find-
ings exceeds entrepreneurial demand. Demand must be stimu-
lated by reducing entrepreneurial risks, improving conditions for
private-sector
research, changing the business climate, and
promoting cooperation between universities, research institutes,
and business.

1.6.2
Enhancing the sustainable innovative capacity of busi-
ness requires a coordinated effort at EU, national and regional
levels in the fields of financing, R&D, industry, taxation, educa-
tion, environmental protection and media and communications.

1.6.3 We feel that it is worth considering a solution which
has already been put into practice in some Member States:
companies which are engaged in development or in outsourcing
development to research organisations could be awarded addi-
tional budgetary or private-sector funding, on the basis of
expressions of interest.

1.7
The EESC would stress that recognition and protection
for intellectual property in the EU is increasingly unable to meet
the intensifying demands of global competition. It is important

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/89

to continue to acknowledge the importance of publishing scien-
tific findings, and the role of the resulting evaluation — the
importance of the ‘scientific market’; equally, commercial exploi-
tation and patenting of research findings, the exercise of intellec-
tual property rights, and stronger assertion of Community inter-
ests are issues which call for closer attention and comprehensive
measures. The EESC feels that, at the same time as developing
Community law, Member States need to consider appropriate
policy instruments for developing legislation on intellectual
property rights, including institutional monitoring of patent use,
as well as improved intra-EU cooperation.

1.8
The EESC believes that in order to focus on innovation
and dynamically boost competitiveness and to move towards
sustainable development, it is essential to put in place manage-
ment functions for strategic innovation, as well as solutions to
the issue of training researchers and business specialists in this
It is especially important to integrate information and
field.
into
communication
that
e-learning pays special attention to training in the management
of innovation and on developing the accompanying systems of
incentives and organisational conditions.

education (1),

technologies

so

In the EESC's view, in the interests of promoting innova-
1.9
tion efforts must be made to align the priority axes of industrial
change with those of training and further training, enabling a
timely response to market needs and changes, including in the
field of training. It is important to ensure researcher mobility
innovation,
and appropriate mobility in the management of
enabling broad-based cooperation between managers in institu-
tions dealing with innovation and their counterparts in science
and technology parks.

The EESC feels that management and organisational
1.10
structures which are capable of making technology transfer
more effective have a special role to play in promoting industrial
change. Industrial, science and technology parks and technology
centres are extremely important instruments for providing the
necessary expertise and assistance together with the requisite
laboratories for small and medium enterprises to start up,
become established, secure a share of the market, and keep up
with technological advances. Providing businesses with the
requisite conditions for innovation with high-quality content
and at relatively low cost is increasingly essential for technology
transfer bodies to operate in networks, so that, using informa-
tion and communication technologies, they are able to perform
tasks. The Commission needs to consider various
logistical
to developing such structures, with particular
approaches
emphasis on promoting the development of science and tech-
nology (competitiveness) poles and knowledge centres. Science
(competitiveness) poles, which encompass universities, science
and technology parks,
incubators and technology centres,
should be given a key role in pursuing EU development priori-

(1) IT-supported lifelong learning and industrial change, CCMI/034,

21.9.2006.

ties; in addition, steps should be taken to facilitate the setting up
of such structures.

devoting

resources

significant

1.11
The EESC feels that the EU's emphatically stated objec-
tives — such as the Lisbon strategy's vision of Europe becoming
the most competitive economy in the world in the foreseeable
future — have not been reflected in the debates on the budget,
and in particular in the figures agreed in that budget. The
Commission is
to R&D
programmes but their role and importance are not growing in
line with expectations. For these programmes to work effec-
tively, their impact would have to be multiplied within the
Member States, and they would have to generate programmes
which take the particular circumstances of each country into
account. However, this is not happening. The EESC feels that
the Commission should review its system for managing innova-
tion, and provide support for more effective coordination of
Member States' efforts, enabling the multiplier effect of R&D
resources to be felt more strongly, particularly in view of the
EU's priorities for development.

1.12 With regard to financing,
the EESC welcomes the
various efforts by the European Investment Bank (EIB Group) to
boost European economic performance and innovation capacity,
both supply side and demand side. The EESC would point out
that this is only one element of a range of financing instru-
ments: it is essential for the EU budget to ensure that funding
for innovation matches Lisbon strategy objectives. In addition,
contributions of similar proportions from national and regional
budgets are also needed.

1.13
Based on the experiences to date, the EESC considers
that the activities of the EIB Group have generally exerted a
leverage effect. This is why the EESC calls for the EIB Group to
continuously monitor and review leverage, and to coordinate
with the European Commission together with other financial
institutions in general, in order to achieve as much leverage as
possible.

1.14
In the EESC's view the EIB Group has enormous capaci-
ties both as a public-sector bank and as a service provider. The
EESC recommends that the EIB Group expand its activity as a
manager of financial resources, with the involvement of private
funding as well as Community funding.

2. An innovation-friendly, modern Europe

2.1
Commission Communication COM(2006) 589, which
was published for the informal meeting of EU heads of state or
government held under the Finnish presidency on 20 October
2006 in Lahti, Finland, concerns issues connected with the
impact of
innovation on industrial change in various ways.
According to the communication, the EU and its Member States

C 256/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

possess many innovation assets. But we also suffer from a
number of paradoxes: we Europeans
invent and innovate
but frequently do not convert our inventions into new products,
jobs and patents; there are many small, highly innovative start-
ups but they do not easily grow into big, globally successful
companies; moreover, whereas in certain sectors, such as tele-
communications, take-up of (ICT) innovations has significantly
boosted productivity, in other sectors this has failed to happen,
Innovation and industrial
as illustrated by several examples.
change require thorough, flexible legislation on patent registra-
tion and on intellectual property. To this end, the Proposal for a
Council Regulation on the Community patent of 1 August
2000 needs to be reviewed and brought more into line with
rapidly changing economic trends (see, in particular, compulsory
licences and the causes of
lapse of the Community patent).
Thus, procedures are necessary for facilitating the use of regis-
tered patents in various industrial and/or commercial applica-
tions and recognising the intellectual ownership of innovation
by individual operators — researchers, managerial staff, engi-
neers — or groups of operators, including where they are part
of a business or administrative structure and the innovation is
external to that structure.

Innovation can have an optimal

impact on industrial
2.2
change, provided that there is a system for coordinating instru-
ments at
the level of companies, sectors, regions, Member
States, and the EU, providing easily accessible, user-friendly
instruments for businesses, employees, scientific and educational
institutions, and other stakeholder organisations participating in
this process.

(ii)

innovation,

At the level of individual businesses, pro-active drivers
2.3
in particular (i) strategic
for promoting innovation include,
strategic human resource
management of
management, (iii) development of skills, (iv) using new methods
to organise work, (v) corporate agreements on innovation. The
transition from static to more dynamic organisation of work
which focuses on respecting and building individual workers
and professionals' skills and capacity and provides for choice
between further training and/or retraining programmes, must
foster knowledge and innovation, and production of a broader
range of new concepts across the board.

At the level of individual businesses, active drivers for
2.4
managing change are, above all, (i) competence assessments and
personal career development plans, (ii) outsourcing of services,
(iii) further training and re-training, and (iv) collective agree-
ments and social plans on corporate restructuring.

The main pro-active drivers which can be used at both
2.5
sectoral and regional levels are (i) development of local produc-
tion clusters, (ii) innovation-oriented networks and partnerships,
(iii) innovation poles, science, technology and industrial parks,

regional

(iv)
innovation strategies and development plans,
together with institutions to implement them, and (v) knowl-
edge regions.

The European Commission is continuously monitoring

2.6
which areas are the most promising for European innovation.

2.7
The European Economic and Social Committee would
also emphasise that in no sector can the possibility be ruled out
of rapid growth in innovative capacity or an increase in the
proportion of value added. It is worth supporting any innova-
tive idea relating to new methods of using materials, the devel-
opment of technologies or of new products, ensuring new levels
of quality and generating added value.

2.8
The best way for Member State governments to proac-
tively facilitate the impact of innovation is by coordinating at all
levels of public administration their own national-level policies
on employment, industry, innovation, environmental protection,
education and trade. The added value offered by partnership
with social partners and organised civil society in this process is
obvious. Again at national
there is also a need for
level,
emphasis on the following elements: (i) research into sources of
new employment, and a forecasting system to identify them,
(ii) vocational training and re-training programmes, (iii) a life-
long learning strategy, (iv) labour market regulation which is
conducive to mobility and the development of skills.

Innovative cross-border approaches to cooperation can
2.9
play a particularly important and specific role as a catalyst in
the field of innovation and industrial change. This includes Joint
in the fields of nanotechnology,
Technology Initiatives (JTIs)
innovative medicines, hydrogen and fuel
embedded
computing systems, aeronautics and air transport, and global
monitoring for environment and security. In addition, the signif-
icance of European Technology Platforms should be stressed in
this context, together with the importance of pursuing their
development. A particularly good example is the widespread
dissemination of the experiences of the European Steel Tech-
nology Platform, the Clean Coal Platform and the Waterborne
Platform — initiatives which already have a solid track record.

cells,

(iii)

2.10
At the level of the European institutions, there should
be coordinated, pro-active use and development of the following
elements: (i) the Lisbon strategy, (ii) the Sustainable Develop-
ment Strategy,
the Partnership for Growth and Jobs,
(iv) European social dialogue (both sectoral and cross-sectoral),
(v) Community programmes on R&D, innovation, employment
and lifelong learning, (vi) Community regional policy, (vii) the
European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Develop-
ment Fund (ERDF), (viii) the European Monitoring Centre on
Change, and (ix) a European system to forecast new sources of
job creation.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/91

2.11
The initiative on founding a European Institute of Tech-
nology (EIT) (2) is promising. It should be emphasised in this
opinion that it is the current initial phase of developing the
institute's operational framework which offers the most scope
for ensuring that it makes a real contribution to translating
innovation into new products and jobs.

Among initiatives by the European Commission, par-
2.12
ticular mention
of Communication
be made
COM(2006) 728 final, Towards a more effective use of tax incentives
in favour of R&D, published on 21 November 2006.

should

2.13
innovation is the Commission's initiative on state aid rules (3).

Of equal relevance for promoting R&D together with

The European Economic and Social Committee agrees
2.14
that it is particularly important to: (i) build a leading role for
Europe in strategic technologies of the future, (ii) act effectively
to forge much stronger links between academic, research and
business circles, and (iii) improve general conditions.

In terms of improving general conditions, special atten-
2.15
tion should be paid to the following aspects:
(i) the single
market, (ii) financing innovation, and (iii) intellectual property
rights in the 21st century and (iv) helping EU business to
develop foreign trade and economic links, and to secure access
to markets in third countries.

In addition, sectoral evaluations should be conducted as
2.16
soon as possible, so that sector-specific conditions can be
improved to the maximum possible extent; in doing so, special
attention should be paid to the following aspects: (i) SME-related
factors, (ii) contributing to the implementation of the Lisbon
strategy and (iii) networking between regions.

3. The role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group

financial

regardless of whether

3.1
The EESC would point out that the full range of finan-
cing instruments together with coordinated use of such instru-
ments are needed to ensure that the effects of innovation asso-
ciated with industrial change are as beneficial as possible. All
appropriate products on financial and capital markets must be
they are created by
made available,
national
or
institutions,
conventional
governments or the European Union. Financing instruments
must be available to cover the entire innovation process, right
up to its completion, and there must be funding to ensure
market push/pull. In the context of the wider subject of finan-
cing, this opinion focuses on one of the key players in this field,
the European Investment Bank Group, bringing together the
European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment
Fund (EIF) instruments.

regional

strategy and to the European Action for Growth. The Innovation
2010 Initiative (i2i) constitutes the EIB's main contribution in
the process of making Europe more innovative and competitive,
with the lending objective of EUR 50 billion for the decade to
support
in the fields of
education and training; research, development and innovation
(RDI); and in advanced information and communication tech-
nologies (ICT) — including audiovisual media services and
content- and e-services.

investment projects across Europe,

3.2.1
Funding committed to projects already supported
through i2i since 2000 is estimated at EUR 46 billion by end of
2006, indicating that the target of EUR 50 billion by 2010 may
be exceeded. By means of the Structured Finance Facility (SFF)
— which is not confined to R&D objectives — the EIB has also
expanded its financing capacity,
in order to channel financial
resources
to cutting edge R&D and innovative products,
processes and systems. This involves support for individuals
participating in projects and start-ups requiring sub-investment-
grade and therefore higher-risk loans. In order to finance invest-
ment activities developed by SMEs, the EIB establishes lines of
credits with appropriate financial intermediaries.

In addition,

innovative transactions are being devel-
3.2.2
oped,
including risk-sharing mechanisms and/or combinations
of national and regional support tools with EIB's products in
order to answer the specific needs of SMEs. The EIF focuses on
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by means of venture
capital and guarantees. The action of the EIF is complementary
to the support for SMEs provided by the EIB.

3.2.3 With regard to SMEs' access to credit, the detrimental
effect of the Basel II Accord should be noted. Broadly speaking,
this agreement establishes specific obligations for the banking
system, forcing banks to give a rating for every SME that applies
for credit. For this rating to be calculated, SMEs will have to
provide a range of information that is much wider in terms of
both quality and quantity. SMEs that do not have ERP (Enter-
prise Resource Planning) information systems will not be able
to provide all the information required. ERP systems are extre-
mely expensive and the vast majority of SMEs do not have
them, thus rendering themselves ineligible for credit on favour-
able terms, which will have a detrimental effect on their devel-
opment. The EIB and the European Commission are requested
to remain attentive and monitor the level of SMEs' access to the
financing they require and the relationship between this access
and the effects of the Basel II Agreement.

3.2
The EIB and the EIF have identified boosting European
economic performance and innovation as one of their primary
goals. Appropriate financial instruments will be mobilised and
developed to achieve this objective of contributing to the Lisbon

(2) COM(2006) 604 final.
(3) Commission regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25.2.2004 amending

regulation (EC) No 70/2001, OJ L 63, 28.2.2004.

Support

3.3
for innovation from the EIB Group requires
development of new financing mechanisms and products,
appropriate to the risk profile of transactions. At the same time,
in order to increase the value added and synergies between the
different Community financing instruments, new joint initiatives
between the EIB Group and the Commission are being imple-
mented through the creation of partnerships with programmes

C 256/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

financed from the EU budget such as the Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7) and the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme (CIP). Although such joint initiatives are not limited
to the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF), starting in 2007, and
new initiatives implemented by the EIF under the CIP, they are
particularly good examples of it.

borative structures, joint ventures or Special Purpose Vehicles.
Through risk sharing agreements with the banking sector, RSFF
will contribute to boost the financial community's overall ability
to support RDI activities, particularly with regard to SMEs.

3.4 The Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF)

3.4.1
The RSFF (Risk-Sharing Finance Facility) is a new and
innovative initiative, jointly created by the European Commis-
sion and the European Investment Bank to foster investment for
Europe in research, technological development and demonstra-
tion implemented by means of the private sector, as well as
innovation, by building appropriate guarantees for loans to
riskier European projects in the field of innovation. This new
scheme should facilitate access to debt financing for activities
with a higher-than-average risk profile, on the basis of a risk-
sharing between the European Community, the EIB and promo-
ters of RDI projects. EIB financing provided under RSFF will be
available to the European research community on a complemen-
tary basis to FP7 grant resources.

for

the financing of

The RSFF, implemented using the same framework as
3.4.2
under
the existing EIB SFF rules, will have two windows
financed by contributions from the European Commission (FP7)
and EIB respectively, each for an amount of up to EUR 1 billion
for the 2007-2013 period. It will also be possible to use FP7
resources
research, development and
demonstration projects, whereas EIB resources can be used to
finance innovation projects. The application of
these two
windows for up to EUR 2 billion for risk provisioning purposes,
which will enable more extensive funding of research, develop-
ment and innovation programmes with a higher than average
implies that the EIB is expected to be able to
level of risk,
financing up to EUR 10 billion, a sum
support additional
capable of providing a substantial boost. The RSFF is intended
to support European research initiatives such as the European
Strategy forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFR), the European
Technology Platform, the Joint Technology Initiative or projects
(European Research Coordination
launched under Eureka
Agency).

3.4.3
Based on the idea of sharing risks between the Com-
munity, the EIB and beneficiaries, the RSFF serves as an addi-
tional instrument for financing research, development and inno-
vations, thus opening up a wide range of options both to the
private sector and to the research community and completing
the portfolio of existing instruments to finance RDI. The RSFF
enables
to offset
the EIB to develop financial products
market shortcomings, in line with the specific needs of a given
sector and of each project promoter, widening the scope of
potential financing beneficiaries. The RSFF will be available to
legal entities of all size and ownership including large compa-
nies, mid-caps, SMEs, research organisations, universities, colla-

to

initially

decided

Council

funding,

in terms of

In order to ensure a rapid launch of RSFF with a suffi-
3.4.4
the July 2006
cient critical mass
Competitiveness
allocate
EUR 500 million for the period up to the mid-term review of
the 7th Framework Programme. An additional EUR 500 million
may be released from the Community budget up to 2013, on
the basis of mid-term evaluations and potential requests for the
use of the new instruments. Whereas general conditions for the
use of funding and operation of the RSFF — including eligibility
requirements, rules and risk-sharing between institutions — are
specific
defined
programmes of the FP7, detailed measures will be regulated by a
bilateral agreement between the European Commission and the
EIB, which was signed on 5 June 2007.

the Cooperation

and Capacity

under

3.5 EIF support for innovation

3.5.1
EIF implements mandates on behalf of its shareholders
(EIB, European Commission), or third parties (at Member State
level) to support innovation and SME finance, in line with Com-
munity objectives. By the end of 2006, total EIF transactions
amounted to EUR 15 billion, of which EUR 11,1 billion was for
guarantees and EUR 3,7 billion for venture capital operations.

The Lisbon strategy, which aims

to strengthen
3.5.2
is one of the core drivers of EIF
European competitiveness,
activities (the EIF being only the European body specialising in
SME finance). With EUR 3,7 billion invested into 224 venture
capital funds, EIF has helped to bridge the innovation gap by
leveraging some EUR 20 billion for high-growth SMEs and
start-ups (including some worldwide success stories such as
Skype, Bluetooth/Cambridge Silicon Radio or Kelkoo).
In its
presidency conclusions,
the March 2005 European Council
recommended that the EIF diversify its activities towards the
financing of technological transfer. In 2006, the first technology
transfer operations were signed for licensing and spin-off activ-
ities.

is managing

In the framework of the new financial perspective, the
3.5.3
EIF
Innovation
Programme (CIP) and is one of the main players of the JEREMIE
initiative. Both programmes aim at enhancing SME finance and
financial engineering.

the Competitiveness

and

3.5.3.1
The CIP, as one of the EU's core SME and innovation
policy instruments, provides venture capital (including funding
for technology transfer activities, a network of business angels
and eco-innovation) and access to guarantee mechanisms for
SMEs.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/93

the

(Joint

Under

JEREMIE

initiative

tailored market-driven financial

3.5.3.2
European
Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises), national and
regional authorities can opt to deploy resources from the ERDF
instruments,
in the form of
such as equity, venture capital, guarantees or loans. JEREMIE has
been designed in a way that optimises ERDF funding by lever-
aging additional resources while its implementation is facilitated
by a more flexible regulatory framework. In 2007, EIF capital
increase should complement CIP and JEREMIE resources, and it
is estimated that by 2013, over one million SMEs will have
benefited from EIF financial instruments.

3.5.3.3 With a high leverage (e.g. EUR 1 from the Com-
munity budget leverages up to EUR 50 for SMEs by means of
guarantees), and a strong catalytic role vis-à-vis the financial
community (particularly in the case of venture capital funds),

Brussels, 11 July 2007.

the Community financial
instruments should be seen as an
example of best practice in the context of the Lisbon agenda. To
ensure wider take-up of technological applications under the
CIP, universities and SMEs should be targeted, with greater
emphasis on financing projects, on publicity to assist in identi-
fying intellectual capital, on approvals and issuing approvals, on
cooperation agreements and on the resulting benefits; b) to
ensure successful
JEREMIE, on
similar lines to rules for financing and state aids.

implementation by means of

3.5.4
In 2006 the EIB and EIF signed a cooperation agree-
ment, enabling in particular combinations of EIB credit lines
and EIF guarantees for innovative SMEs. Such operations are
likely to be further developed, in particular in the context of
JEREMIE.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of

the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Employment of priority

categories (Lisbon Strategy)’

(2007/C 256/18)

On 14 September 2006 (confirmed on 26 October 2006) the European Economic and Social Committee
decided, in accordance with Rule 31 of its Rules of Procedure and in the framework of its work initiated at
the request of the European Council of 23-24 March 2006, to draw up an information report on Employ-
ment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy).

On 15 March 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 29(2)
of its Rules of Procedure, to convert this information report into an own-initiative opinion.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 June 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Greif.

At its 437th plenary session of 11-12 July 2007 (meeting of 12 July 2007), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to none, with two abstentions:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

— Although standard jobs continue to be the predominant
form of employment throughout the EU, many of the new
jobs created in recent years — particularly for women —
have been part-time. There continues to be a manifest
shortage of suitable jobs for older workers. And for young
people in particular there has been a sharp increase in
atypical (non-standard) forms of employment, in some cases
without proper legal and social safeguards.

This opinion argues that in quantitative terms the ambi-
1.1
tious Lisbon employment objectives have been achieved only to
a limited extent and with clear differences between countries
which should always be borne in mind. The picture is also
contradictory as far as the quality of employment is concerned:
welcome examples of good practice in the employment policies
of individual Member States, which the EESC believes should be
identified and evaluated more systematically in future, are coun-
terbalanced throughout the EU by sobering facts:

— There has been little improvement in the labour market inte-
gration opportunities of disadvantaged groups (which can be
long-term
seen from the persistently high levels of