Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Better careers and more mobility: a european partnership for researchers - Impact assessment {COM(2008)317 final} {SEC(2008)1912}
Date: 2008-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, dissemination of EU information, job mobility, research staff, vocational training

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23/05/2008 
SEC(2008)1911 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

BETTER CAREERS AND MORE MOBILITY: A EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR 
RESEARCHERS 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

{COM(2008)317 final} 
{SEC(2008)1912} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 

Consultation of stakeholders and experts..................................................................... 4 

Improvements in response to the Impact Assessment Board Recommendations ........ 6 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................... 8 

Europe's human potential in science and technology................................................... 8 

Europe's researchers..................................................................................................... 9 

Conclusion: Europe has excellent human potential  
but does not efficiently employ it............................................................................... 14 

Existing policy initiatives addressing researchers at the Community level............... 15 

Why a new EU policy momentum is needed ............................................................. 18 

OBJECTIVES THAT THE PROPOSAL IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE ............... 22 

General objectives...................................................................................................... 22 

Specific Objectives..................................................................................................... 22 

Operational objectives................................................................................................ 22 

MAIN POLICY OPTIONS and DELIVERY MECHANISMS ................................ 24 

The policy response and the early discarded options................................................. 24 

Policy Option 1. No policy change scenario.............................................................. 25 

Policy Option 2: A Recommendation and more specific EU guidelines in the 
identified problem areas............................................................................................. 26 

1 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

2 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

3 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

4 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

Policy Option 3: A Communication and a partnership with Member States............. 26 

5 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

6 

7 

8 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS........................................................................................ 30 

Policy Option 1: No policy change scenario.............................................................. 30 

Policy Option 2: A Recommendation with more specific EU guidelines in the 
identified problem areas............................................................................................. 32 

Policy Option 3: A Communication and a Partnership with Member States............. 34 

Comparison of the policy options versus the no policy change scenario .................. 37 

EU VALUE-ADDED AND SUBSIDIARITY .......................................................... 39 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 41 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 43 

EN 

2 

   EN 

9 

TABLE OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... 45 

Annex 1: Highlights from the Public Consultation following the ERA Green Paper.............. 47 

Annex 2: Data and figures........................................................................................................ 56 

Annex 3: Highlights from the EG Report on Realising a single labour market for workers ... 60 

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

This  Impact  Assessment  accompanies  the  Communication:  “Better  careers  and  more 
mobility:  A  European  partnership  for  researchers”,  one  of  the  five  policy  initiatives 
(catalogue  2008/RTD/033)  planned  by  the  Commission  in  2008  to  follow  up  on  the  Green 
Paper “The European Research Area: New Perspectives” (COM (2007) 161). A roadmap has 
been  prepared  and  published  in  Agenda  Planning.  A  consultation  with  other  Directorate-
Generals  has  been  carried  out  through  an  inter-service  group  composed  of  BEPA,  BUDG, 
CCR, COMP, EAC, ECFIN, EMPL, ELARG, ENTR, ENV, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, 
RELEX,  the  Secretariat-General,  DG  TRADE  and  DG  TREN.  The  group  was  set  up  in 
December 2007, has met twice and has been invited to provide specific contributions during 
the course of the elaboration of the impact assessment. Most comments have been taken into 
account.  

1.2. 

Consultation of stakeholders and experts  

The  publication  of  the  Green  Paper  by  the  European  Commission  launched  a  broad 
institutional and public debate on possible actions to give renewed impetus to the realisation 
of  an  open,  competitive  and  attractive  European  Research  Area.  685  (211  coming  from 
organisations) replies were received to an on-line questionnaire from 1st May 2007 until 31st 
August  2007.  In  addition,  145  free-format  contributions  (position  papers,  opinions,  etc.), 
mainly  coming  from  Member  States  (mostly  from  Ministries  in  charge  of  Research)  and 
organisations, were received by 31 December 2007.  

The  results  of  the  consultation1  highlight  strong  support  for  all  ERA  axes  presented  in  the 
Green paper. Concerning the level of expected actions (EU, national or regional), “Realising 
a single labour market for researchers” is the top area of expected action at the EU level. 
Respondents  opt  for  flexible  and  adaptable,  bottom-up  cooperation  schemes,  networking, 
voluntary  frameworks,  best  practices  and  guidelines.  There  is  generally  little  demand  for 
binding legislative actions at European level. 

According to Business Europe, which includes the European Industrial Research Management 
Association,  “…priorities  for  the  ERA  should  be  expressed  in  terms  of  ensuring  adequate 
numbers  of  people,  trained  to  be  skilled  in  the  knowledge  economy  and  understanding  the 
value  and  application  of  research  in  achieving  these  skills  and  in  meeting  social  and 
economic objectives... ” 

Less  than  half  of  the  on-line  respondents  declare  that  they  are  sufficiently  aware  of  the 
Commission  Recommendation  on  a  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of 
Conduct for their Recruitment. They suggest that progress should be speeded up, although 
they recognise that the great diversity of research patterns throughout Europe requires 
a  degree  of  flexibility  when  implementing  the  C&C  principles.  A  large  proportion  of 
respondents  suggest  that  a  “C&C  label”  awarded  to  employers  and  funders  applying  the 
principles  would  be  preferable  to  more  binding  regulation  in  this  area  to  help  speed  up  the 
implementation of the C&C.  

1 

SEC(2008)430,  2.4.2008,  see  also  http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/progress-on-debate/stakeholder-
consultation_en.html  

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Concerning  social  security  coordination,  respondents  perceive  claiming  social  security 
rights  in  another  Member  State  to  be  difficult  and  time-consuming,  despite  coordination 
regulations across the EU2 which aims to ensure that the application of the different national 
legislations  does  not  adversely  affect  mobile  workers.  The  majority  of  respondents  (74.6%) 
had a mobility experience, but most of them did not spend more than three months in doing 
research  in  another  EU  country.  Only  6.8%  out  of  the  respondents  used  the  Article  17  of 
Regulation  1408/713,  granting  exceptions  to  the  rules,  and  more  than  two  thirds  used  this 
possibility for 1 to 3 times. The bilateral agreements on social security coordination, signed 
between  different  countries,  are  still  unknown.  According  to  the  respondents,  the  lack  of 
information  on  existing  EU  rules  concerning  the  coordination  of  social  security  systems 
reduces the share of researchers who can benefit from them.  

Concerning  supplementary  pension  rights,  a  large  majority  (80%)  of  the  on-line 
respondents favour  common rules throughout the EU on the acquisition, preservation and 
transferability  of  such  rights.  Main  issues  include  the  need  to  ensure  a  proper  pension,  to 
reduce  the  paperwork  involved  and  to  organise  portability  of  supplementary  pension  rights. 
Vesting periods and negative effects on pension benefits should be reduced and compensation 
in salary for pension gaps is proposed as a solution. Over 65% agree that researchers would be 
well  served  with  a  European  researchers'  pension  fund  to  secure  their  supplementary 
pension rights.  

Three quarters of the on-line respondents consider that the lack of information on careers in 
research is a major barrier towards greater up-take. However, the majority of those who 
consider having enough information do not find careers attractive and competitive with other 
options.  Just  over  two  thirds  of  respondents  consider  that  greater  use  of  end  of  career 
researchers for mentoring and advisory functions could be facilitated through the provision 
of  new  job  opportunities/incentives  targeted  at  this  group.  However,  less  than  half  are 
supportive  of  legal  changes  enabling  later  retirement.  Some  respondents  are  concerned  that 
retaining  end  of  career  researchers  could  impede  the  creation  of  positions  for  younger 
researchers.  

Working  conditions  enabling  a  better  work/life  balance  are  considered  important  for 
increasing the attraction and retention of women in research careers by a large number of 
the  respondents  (88%).  As  to  the  idea  of  benchmarking  recruitment  and  funding  of 
researchers  at  institutional  level,  the  results  are  less  clear  with  nearly  half  agreeing  this  can 
have  positive  effects,  one  third  disagreeing  and  20%  of  respondents  stating  they  have  no 
opinion.  The  share  of  those  that  disagree  is  higher  among  men  (38%)  than  among  women 
(25%).  

2 

3 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1408/71  on  the  application  of  social  security  schemes  to  employed 
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 
L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 392, 30.12.2006, p. 1), and the Regulation (EEC) 574/72 (OJ L 74, 
27.3.1972, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 311/2007 (OJ L 82, 
23.3.2007,  p.  6)..  They  will  be  replaced  by  Regulation  883/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council of 29.4.2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166 of 30.4.2004 and the draft 
new Implementing Regulation, once the latter is adopted by Parliament and Council 
It states that “two or more States…may by common agreement provide for exceptions to the provisions 
of article 13 to 16 in the interest of certain categories of persons or a certain person.” In this sense, the 
Recommendation  of  the  Administrative  Commission  for  Social  Security  for  Migrant  Workers 
n°16/1984  recommends  the  conclusion  of  agreements  pursuant  to  Article  17  of  Regulation  1408/71 
applicable to employed persons with special knowledge and skills 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
As part of the ERA Green Paper consultation process, seven independent Expert Groups were 
set  up  to  identify  policy  options  addressing  research  issues  requiring  new  or  improved 
initiatives. In its report4 the Expert Group "Realising a Single Labour Market for Researchers” 
puts forward policy options (see Annex 3) relating to the following four "cornerstones" which 
the group identified to develop the ERA: 

•  "Attraction, ethical recruitment and retention of researchers"; 
•  "Mobility in all its facets (geographical, sector, disciplinary and 'demographic')"; 
•  "Researcher-friendly social security and supplementary pension systems"; 
•  "The European Charter for researchers and Code of Conduct for their recruitment 

as a dynamic process". 

Other ERA Expert Groups also highlighted the need to enhance human resources policies, in 
particular by removing obstacles to inter-sectoral mobility, fostering institutional autonomy in 
recruitment, compensation and promotion mechanism, and developing training on knowledge 
exploitation and other transferable skills.  

The  proposed  initiative  on  researchers  has  also  been  presented  at  a  dedicated  meeting  with 
Member State representatives, organised in Brussels on18 March 2008. The meeting revealed 
an overall positive attitude. The only critical remarks addressed the initial title of the initiative 
(“Passport”)  and  the  possibility  of  legislative  action  on  social  security  and  supplementary 
pension rights. 

1.3. 

Improvements in response to the Impact Assessment Board Recommendations  

The revised IA  report includes, in particular, a more systematic and detailed analysis of the 
problems, clarification of the objectives, more detailed presentation of the baseline scenario, 
revision of the options considered and identification and justification of the options discarded, 
inclusion of administrative costs and impact on third countries.  

It clarifies from the beginning that the focus is on both researchers’ mobility and careers 
and this is also reflected in the revised title. The revised IA explains more clearly the links 
with  the  Lisbon  process,  in  particular  regarding  the  preferred  option,  clarifies  the 
responsibilities of the Member States and presents the added value of the EU action. A table 
summarising the main impacts of the three options has been included in section 5.4. 

Additional  quantitative  information  has  been  added  to  the  problem  definition  and  the 
qualitative analysis has been further developed. Some comparative data is now included on 
the differences between the situation in the different Member States. However, while there is 
a considerable amount of data available on researchers and their situation from a number of 
different sources, information is by no means comprehensive and presents the usual problems 
of  comparability  between  different  data  sets.  Calls  for  tender  to  be  launched  in  2009  will 
support  the  implementation  of  the  initiative  by  collecting  information  on  the  situation  and 
policies  in  the  Member  States  and  their  evolution  and  impact  over  time  using  a  set  of 
indicators  to  be  agreed  with  the  Member  States  as  one  of  the  first  steps  implementing  the 
partnership.  

And  although  some  of  the  key  objectives  have  been  described  in  quantitative  terms  (e.g. 
number of additional researchers needed), it would be very difficult, given the complexity of 

4 

The views expressed in the published Expert Group report are the sole responsibility of the author and 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
the issues and the proposed implementation mechanism, to quantify with a reasonable degree 
of confidence, some of the expected impacts e.g. the exact numbers of researchers across the 
EU that could become mobile between different sectors.  

Finally,  additional  material  has  been  added  to  the  problem  definition  in  response  to  the 
Board's specific recommendation  to  strengthen  the arguments for EU intervention including 
on the issues of gender balance and salaries. This clarifies the need to provide more attractive 
employment  and  working  conditions  for  all  researchers  through  a  series  of  measures  at 
Community, national and institutional levels. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Europe's human potential in science and technology 

New  technologies  are  developed  and  applied  increasingly  quickly  and  the  renewal  of  the 
research  workforce  is  crucial  to  manage  these  rapid  changes  in  science  and  technology. 
Human  capital  in  science  and  technology  can  be  created  domestically,  or  attracted  from 
abroad.  

2.1.1.  EU produces more science and engineering graduates and doctorates than US and 

Japan but is being rapidly caught up by India and China 

The supply of human resources for research is best reflected in the number of new university 
graduates. In the EU27, the total number of graduates from all fields of education amounted to 
3.57  million  in  2004.  Of  these  820,000  graduated  in  maths,  science  and  technology  (MST) 
subjects. This is almost twice the number of MST graduates produced by the US and almost 
four  times  as  many  as  Japan.  However  adjusted  for  population  size  the  numbers  of  MST 
graduates  produced  are  roughly  similar.  The  EU27  has  12.4  graduates  in  MST  subjects  per 
1,000  of  the  population  aged  20  to  29  compared  to  10.2  in  the  US  and  13.4  in  Japan  (EC 
2007a). 

And in terms of absolute numbers of MST graduates it is probably India and China that lead 
globally. Full statistics are not available and there are problems of data comparability but it is 
estimated that India produces 2.5 million new graduates in science, engineering and IT every 
year while China produces around 1.5 million (EC 2007a). 

Within  the  EU,  Sweden,  France  and  Ireland  generate  the  highest  shares  of  S&E  graduates, 
with around one-third of all degrees being awarded in these areas against an EU average of 
around one-quarter. However, since 1998 the share of S&E degrees has declined or stagnated 
in  19  of  the  27  Member  States.  Only  Spain,  Sweden,  Slovakia  and  Finland  saw  steady 
increases, with high rates of growth in Malta and Estonia largely reflecting the small size of 
their graduate populations (EC 2007b). 

According to NSF data5, 41,100 S&E6 doctoral degrees were awarded in the EU7, compared 
to 18,800 in the US, 13,500 in China, 7,100 in Japan and 6,300 in India. Over 1997-2004, the 
number of S&E doctoral degrees slightly decreased in the US, from 19,600 to 18,800 (-0.6% 
per  year)  and  strongly  increased  in  China,  from  5,000  to  13,500  (+15.4%  per  year).  It 
increased as well but to a lesser extent in India, from 4,800 to 6,300 (+4.8% per year) and in 
Japan, from 5,800 to 7,100 in Japan (+3% per year). 

In the EU-27, the number of S&E doctoral degrees increased on average by 3% per year over 
1998-2005 (from 33,200 to 40,900)8 (EC 2007d). In science, mathematics and computing, the 

5 

6 

7 
8 

National Science Board, S&E Indicators 2008, volume 2. Calculations have been based on Appendix 
table 2-40. Data refer to 2004 except for India (2003) 
S&E are defined as the aggregation of the fields “Physical/biological sciences”, “Mathematics/computer 
sciences” (not available for China, India and Japan), “Agricultural sciences” and “Engineering” 
Data for Cyprus and Malta are missing 
It is less than the growth observed for all tertiary degrees (calculations based on Eurostat data) 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
number  of  doctoral  degrees  increased  by  2.7%  per  year  on  average.  In  engineering, 
manufacturing and construction, the increase was one of 3.8% per year. 

Within  EU,  the  share  of  doctoral  degrees  in  science  and  engineering  in  the  total  number  of 
doctoral  degrees  was  the  highest  in  Greece  (62%),  Cyprus  (60%),  Ireland  (57%),  France 
(56%),  Latvia  (52%),  Czech  Republic  (52%)  and  Belgium  (51%)  in  2005,  all  the  other 
Member States being below 50% (European Commission 2007d). 

2.1.2.  EU and US attract significant numbers of students from rest of the world but from 
different  sources  and  in  different  disciplines,  with  a  significant  net  outflow  from 
EU to US 

In 2004, the EU27 hosted around 610,000 non-EU students in tertiary education mostly from 
Asia (50%), Africa (35%) and the rest of Europe. A similar number of EU students (560,000) 
were studying in another EU Member State in 2004. In the same year, the US hosted 586,000 
non-US  students  nearly  two-thirds  of  which  were  from  Asia  (62.5%),  especially  China, 
Taiwan,  India  and  South  Korea.  But  Europe  (13.8%),  Canada  (10.2%)  and  South  America 
(6.1%)  also  provided  significant  numbers  (EC  2007a).  There  are  much  smaller  outflows  of 
students  from  the  EU  and  the  US  making  these  regions  substantial  net  recipients  of  foreign 
students overall. However, students going to the US, Canada and to a lesser extent Australia 
form a significant outward stream from the EU which is not balanced by similar numbers of 
students from these countries coming to the EU (EC 2003). 

Within  the  EU,  after  Cyprus,  where  32%  of  students  in  tertiary  education  were  foreign,  the 
UK has the highest proportion of foreign students enrolled (16.2%) with Germany and Austria 
the  only  other  Member  States  above  10%.  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Romania,  Slovenia  and 
Slovakia  had  very  low  shares  of  foreign  students  participating  in  tertiary  education.  Shares 
were  also  low  in  Greece,  Spain,  Italy,  Latvia  and  Finland  (2007b).  The  source  of  these 
students  varies  considerably.  Most  originate  from  other  EU  Member  States,  but  apart  from 
these,  students  from  Asia  and  Oceania  represent  the  largest  shares  in  UK  and  Germany. 
Africans are strongly represented in Belgium, France and The Netherlands, while in Spain the 
largest group comes from Latin America. Overall the five largest groups of foreign students in 
the  EU  are  Greeks  in  the  UK,  Turks  in  Germany  and  Moroccans  in  France  followed  by 
French  (mainly  in  UK  and  Belgium)  and  German  (mainly  in  UK  and  France)  students 
studying in other EU Member States (EC 2003)9. 

It is significant that in the US a much larger share of foreign students are enrolled in science, 
mathematics and computing, engineering, manufacturing and construction disciplines than the 
EU (37% versus 22%). This proportion also varies widely between Member States within the 
EU, with for example, 39% of S&E PhDs being earned by foreign students in the UK, 27% in 
France and 14% in Germany (EC 2007a). 

2.2. 

Europe's researchers 

Researchers are defined, according to the internationally recognised reference of the Frascati 
manual  (OECD  2002),  as  professionals  engaged  in  the  conception  and  creation  of  new 
knowledge,  products,  processes,  methods  and  systems  and  also  in  the  management  of  the 
projects concerned. In 2005, the EU-27 currently had the equivalent of 1.3 million FTE (full-

9 

These results are based on 1999 data. Recent results on the origin of doctoral candidates in the EU can 
be found in European Commission (2007d) 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
time equivalent) researchers, corresponding to approximately 1.8 million people with research 
as their main activity. Of these, around half work for the business enterprise sector (610,000) 
with  the  rest  split  between  the  higher  education  sector  (454,000),  government  research 
institutions (172,000) and the private non-profit sector (13,000) (EC 2007b).  

The term "researcher" covers many different roles and activities. From university academics 
and  scientists  engaged  in  long-term  basic  research  at  large  research  infrastructures  to  more 
mission-orientated  researchers  at  government  labs,  from  corporate  employees  engaged  in 
market-orientated  development  work  to  the  staff  of  high-tech  SMEs  that  may  be  engaged 
mainly in technology transfer or product and process innovation. 

In terms of the absolute number of FTE researchers, the EU closely follows the US (1.4m), 
followed by China (1.1m) and Japan (705,000) (EC 2007d). 

2.2.1.  EU  has  far  smaller  proportion  of  researchers  in  the  labour  force  than  US  and 

Japan primarily due to the lower share of business-based researchers 

The key difference between the EU and its main competitors is that Europe counts far fewer 
researchers per 1,000 labour force (5.5) than either the US (9.1) or Japan (10.1). This largely 
reflects Europe's lower overall R&D intensity (domestic spending on research as a percentage 
of GDP) which stands at 1.93 as against 2.59 in the US and 3.15 in Japan, and in particular the 
respective levels of business R&D intensity. In 2004, the private sector financed 64% of total 
R&D in the US, 67% in China, 75% in both Japan and South Korea, but only 55% in the EU. 
Consequently,  the  share  of  business-based  researchers  differs  widely  between  the  EU27 
(48%) and the US (79%), with Japan (68%) and China (62%) in between (EC 2007b). 

Within  the  EU  not  surprisingly,  the  countries  with  the  highest  R&D  intensities,  Finland 
(3.49%) and Sweden (4.27%), also have the highest numbers of researchers per 1,000 workers 
(16.2 and 10.1 respectively) with Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, France and Germany all 
above 6. Whereas the low R&D intensive countries such as the new Member States and the 
southern  European  countries  have  much  smaller  proportions  of  researchers  with  Slovakia, 
Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Greece and The Czech Republic all below 4, and Latvia, Italy and 
Cyprus below 3 (EC 2007b). 

In some Member States there are even significant levels of unemployment among those with a 
tertiary  education  in  an  S&T  discipline.  In  2004,  Romania  had  11%  unemployment  in  this 
group, with Spain and Greece having 7%. Lithuania, France, Poland, Bulgaria and Estonia all 
had unemployment levels above 5% against an EU-25 average of 3%. Austria, Hungary and 
The  Czech  Republic  had  the  least  unemployment  amongst  this  group  at  around  1%  (EC 
2006c). 

But  it  is  important  to  understand  that  the  direction  of  causation  behind  these  figures  is  not 
one-way.  Surveys  suggest  that  when  investing  in  R&D,  business  primarily  looks  for: 
favourable  framework  conditions  for  the  commercialisation  of  technologies;  large  potential 
markets; adequate numbers of well-trained and mobile researchers, responsive to the needs of 
industry; and an excellent public research base (research institutions and infrastructures) with 
strong interactions with industry (Thursby M. and J. 2006). 

So  the  links  between  an  excellent  public  research  base  and  business  are  therefore  vital. 
Increasingly,  businesses  thrive  in  an  environment  of  'open  innovation'  –  where  connections 
with  each  other  and  with  public  research  institutions  are  used  to  explore  ideas  and  develop 
products more effectively that would be the case alone.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

2.2.2.  Many  of  Europe's  universities  and  public  research  institutions  need  reform  to 

allow them to compete in the international labour market 

Member States value their universities and research institutions highly and many have tried to 
“preserve”  them  at  national  level  through  detailed  regulations  organising  them,  controlling 
them, micromanaging them and, in the end, imposing an undesirable degree of uniformity on 
them10. 

This pressure for uniformity has led to generally good average performance, but means that 
there are relatively few outstanding world class institutions in the EU. This can be seen in a 
number  of  global  university  rankings  where  US  universities  heavily  dominate  the  top  100 
with  Europe  gradually  catching  up  as  the  sample  gets  larger  and  finally  overtaking  the  US 
only in the top 500 (EC 2007a). If we look instead to bibliometric data, the EU share of the 
top 10 % most cited scientific publications of the world is 37.5 % against a US share of 48.9 
%, while in the total number of publications, EU has a bigger share than the US. Only 8 of the 
76 universities in the world with an average impact score of their publications higher than 1.5 
are located in the EU versus 67 in the US (EC 2007a). 

The performance of particular institutions is clearly related to the quality of their staff but also 
to how they  are managed.  Unfortunately, in  many European countries the public sector  still 
does  not  offer  sufficiently  attractive  career  prospects.  Academic  positions  remain  largely 
filled  by  national  or  even,  in  many  cases,  internal  staff.  Advancement  based  on  seniority 
rather than performance means it can take many years before talented researchers are able to 
become independent scientists in their own right. Many researchers are trained in a traditional 
academic  way  which  does  not  equip  them  for  the  needs  of  industry.  Mobility  between 
institutions,  between  academia  and  industry  or  across  borders  is  difficult  and  tends  to  be 
penalised rather than rewarded. 

Europe's universities and research institutions would in particular benefit from a greater focus 
on  performance  management  and  the  need  for  enhanced  autonomy  especially  in  respect  to 
hiring.  At  present,  rigid  compensation  and  promotion  structures  often  make  it  difficult  for 
universities  to  compete  in  an  international  academic  market.  The  key  issue  is  not  the  total 
budget spent on salaries and compensations (although in some countries this is an important 
constraint),  but  how  they  are  allocated;  in  particular,  how  academic  performance  is 
rewarded11. 

Evidence for these rigidities is that in most of Europe we see a two-tier workforce with short-
term contracts and low salaries often the rule for young researchers contrasting with little job 
to job mobility by senior researchers on permanent contracts. In almost all Member States the 
25-34 year old age group is most likely to have moved from one job to another in any given 
year. But the differences are considerable. For example, amongst those having moved job in 
Portugal in 2004, 71% were in the 25-34 year old age group (as against 19% and 11% in the 
35-44 year-old and 45-64 year-old age groups)12. In Denmark by contrast the proportion was 

10 

11 

12 

"Delivering  on  the  modernisation  agenda  for  universities:  education,  research  and  innovation" 
COM(2006) 208, 10.5.2006 
"Strengthening  research  institutions  with  a  focus  on  university  based  research"  Report  of  the  ERA 
Expert Group, January 2008 
These data refer to Human Resources for Science and Technology (HRST) at a whole (see Annex 2). 
They measure job-to-job mobility, within a one-year period, and do not include inflows into the labour 
market from unemployment or inactivity 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
35% in the 25-34 year old age group (against 36% and 29% in the 35-44 year-old and 45-64 
year-old age groups). Overall as a proportion of the total employed in an S&T occupation the 
highest  job  to  job  mobility  is  in  the  UK  (9.5%),  Denmark  (9.4%)  and  Finland  (8.9%).  The 
proportion in Germany (5.1%) is less than the EU average of 5.5% and the lowest proportion 
of job to job mobility is found in Sweden with less than 2.8% (EC 2006c). The insecurity and 
lack  of  independence  associated  with  being  an  early  stage  researcher  in  many  European 
countries is a significant disincentive to those considering whether to enter a research career. 

These  rigidities  are  also  evident  in  the  percentage  of  academic  staff  recruited  by  the  same 
institution  where  they  did  their  PhD.  The  percentage  is  generally  higher  in  small  countries 
with fewer research institutions such as Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden (between 40 
and 63 per cent), but not in Switzerland (24%). The percentage is generally smaller in large 
countries like Germany (40%), Italy (24%) and the UK (8%), but not Spain (69%) (Bruegel 
2007)13. 

This widespread practice of internal recruitment is a significant disincentive to many of those 
considering  whether  to  enter  a  research  career.  It  is  also  likely  to  have  important 
consequences  for  research  performance  as  researchers  are  a  relatively  small  and  highly 
specialised workforce so it will not always be possible to find the best qualified individual for 
a  given  research  position  within  any  single  national  system,  let  alone  within  a  single 
institution.  Researchers  appointed  from  outside  are  also  more  likely  to  use  links  with  other 
educational,  scientific  and  societal  institutions  and  tend  to  be  measurably  more  creative, 
proactive, dynamic, independent and original (Horta et al 2007 ). 

2.2.3.  EU will need many more researchers in future to meet the Lisbon objectives and 
counter the effects of an ageing workforce and the rising international competition  

Following  decisions  by  the  2006  Spring  European  Council,  Member  States  have  set  targets 
and  taken  steps  to  increase  investments  in  research  and  development.  The  Commission 
estimated that reaching the objective of investing an average of 3% of GDP in research set by 
the  Barcelona  European  Council14  would  create  between  600,000  and  700,000  additional 
research positions in Europe by 201015. 

At the same time, in the context of the ageing of the overall European population, the ageing 
of the research labour force is becoming a concern in many Member States. In the EU-27 as a 
whole about 35% of highly qualified S&T workers were in the 45-64 year-old age group in 
2006, compared to 31% in the 25-34 age group. But in Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden 
and Finland more than 40% of the highly qualified S&T workforce is aged between 45 and 
64, while the 25-34 year-old age group represents only about 25% (only slightly over 20% in 
Germany)  (EC  2007b).  This  situation  will  be  exacerbated  if  young  people  are  not  attracted 
into  the  profession  and  if  the  present  under-representation  of  women  in  science  and 
engineering is not addressed. Gender differentials in salaries in some countries reach 35% and 
equal opportunities still represent a challenge in many domains. Women hold less than 15% 
of the full professorships in Europe (EC 2006a) even though more than half of the European 
student population is female. 

13 

14 
15 

These  data  come  from  a  questionnaire-based  survey  of  66  “top”  universities  in  10  countries.  The 
percentages given are the “percentages of faculty trained in-house at PhD level” 
Presidency Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 15-16 March 2002 
COM (2003) 226 final of 30.04.2003 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
A third pressure comes from the rising international competition for the best talents. We have 
already noted the net outflow of EU students to the US above and this advantage is retained in 
terms of researchers. In 2004, 25% of the 400,000 foreign science and engineering workers in 
the  US  came  from  the  EU,  mostly  from  Germany,  UK,  Italy,  France  and  Greece  (the  large 
majority came from Asia) (EC 2007a).16 We can also see that foreigners are filling the highest 
positions  in  the  US  system.  If  we  take  just  one  example,  only  25%  of  the  112  assistant 
professors  in  the  top  10  US  university  economics  departments  had  received  their  Bachelors 
degrees in the US (Oswald and Ralsmark, 2008). So, while the proportion of EU researchers 
in the US amounts to less than 10% of the total EU researchers' population, these are likely to 
be top performers in their fields. 

Figures for the number of foreign researchers working in the EU27 are more limited but are 
likely  to  be  considerably  lower  recognising  the  lower  numbers  of  suitably  skilled  foreign 
students  that  enter  the  EU  in  the  first  place  and  the  more  limited  opportunities  on  offer  in 
Europe. One indication is that in 2001, the EU-15 hosted 28.4%17 of the total highly skilled 
expatriates in the OECD area with many of these being internal transfers within the EU-15. 
The figure for the US on the other hand was 42.5% (EC 2007a). This ability of the US system 
to draw more readily upon the global talent pool for researchers must at least partly help to 
explain the clear lead which the US enjoys over the EU in terms of the very best research. 

Historically  countries  like  India  and  China  have  seen  large  net  outflows  of  students  and 
researchers to other world regions but the scale and speed of their development mean that this 
cannot be taken for granted in future. For example, if current trends persist China will have 
caught  up  with  EU  in  terms  of  R&D  intensity  by  next  year  and  in  terms  of  the  absolute 
number  of  researchers  China  has  already  overtaken  Japan  (EC  2007a).  A  recent  study  has 
shown that the average salary (adjusted for purchasing power) for EU researchers is already 
below  average  salaries  in  the  US,  Japan  and  Australia  but  also  India  (EC  2007c).  In  future 
therefore there is likely to be decreasing outflow of researchers and students from some of the 
major emerging economies to the EU and elsewhere, a diversion to those emerging economies 
of researchers and students from other third countries that would previously have come to the 
EU, and an increasing outflow of EU researchers to those emerging economies. 

2.2.4.  Researchers' mobility 

Addressing  remaining  structural,  institutional,  national  and  cultural  barriers  to  mobility  of 
researchers,  could:  enhance  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  throughout  Europe,  dynamically 
balance demand and supply at European level for a highly skilled and specialised workforce; 
facilitate the creation of competitive poles of excellence and pools of talent; and enhance the 
qualifications and experience of researchers in Europe. 

Researchers  face  many  of  the  same  barriers  to  mobility  as  other  workers.  These  can  range 
from  legal  and  administrative  obstacles,  housing  costs  and  availability,  employment  of 
spouses and partners, portability of pensions, linguistic barriers, and issues on the acceptance 
of qualifications in other Member States. 

16 

17 

However, it seems that “Europe accounts for a decreasing share of a growing total. In 2004, 25% of the 
nearly 400 000 foreign S&E workers in the US came from the EU-25, compared to 29% of the roughly 
300 000 foreign S&E workers in the US in 1998.” (EC 2007a, p. 20). 
and the EU-19 29.6% 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
However, researchers are relatively speaking more mobile between different Member States 
than  other  workers.  Compared  to  the  2%  of  working  age  citizens  and  the  3%  of  highly 
qualified  workers  that  currently  live  and  work  in  another  Member  State,  6%  of  doctoral 
candidates and 12% of post docs have worked in another country (EC 2007d). 

But mirroring the situation at national level, these numbers largely reflect researchers moving 
between  short-term  contracts  in  the  early  stages  of  their  careers.  After  5  years  of  university 
education, a typical researcher might spend 3 to 4 years as a doctorate candidate, then accept 
2  or  3  post-doc  positions,  with  average  duration  of  2  years,  and  then  expect  an  open-ended 
employment contract. As such, the present situation could be described as one of "early-stage 
mobility" followed by relative immobility as researchers find permanent positions which they 
are then very unlikely to leave for a temporary opportunity elsewhere. The ideal situation would 
see researchers able to find opportunities to move at all stages of their career and for institutions 
to be able to appoint the best researcher for the job regardless of their origin.  

This  high  relative  rate  of  mobility  of  researchers  in  the  early  stages  can  present  its  own 
problems.  The  European  dimension  of  social  security  is  subject  to  Community  legislation 
which  coordinates  the  different  social  security  schemes  and  as  such  aims  to  ensure  that  the 
application of the different national legislations does not adversely affect mobile workers. But 
as highlighted in the recent EU Job Mobility Action Plan, new forms of mobility can make the 
application of current regulations problematic. Since researchers are among the most mobile 
categories of workers and can often hold a series of short-term contracts during their careers 
they are particularly likely to be confronted with such difficulties. 

Another  particular  problem  for  researchers  is  the  fact  that  national  administrations  do  not 
usually allow research grants to be carried across borders. To date, almost all project funding, 
usually  given  in  the  form  of  multi-annual  subventions  for  personnel  costs,  research  costs, 
equipment and travel, has to be executed at an institution  within  the country of the funding 
organisation. Recipients are as a rule not allowed carrying such grants over national borders, 
even if trans-national relocation would be beneficial for the results of the project. 

In  its  December  2007  paper  on  the  strategic  orientation  for  the  EU's  Lisbon  Strategy  2008-
2010, the Commission set out its vision of seeking to bring about a major increase in mobility, 
notably for students but also more broadly. There are important links to Erasmus and Erasmus 
Mundus programmes which support academic mobility both within Europe and globally. 

A  broad  EU  strategy  to  ensure  that  the  EU  has  high  quality  skilled  human  resources  in 
sufficient  numbers  to  meet  its  ambitions  to  be  a  world  leader  in  the  knowledge  economy, 
cannot  but  give  a  prominent  place  to  the  "skills  agenda".  The  forthcoming  EU  initiative  on 
"New Skills for New Jobs" will make proposals to address skills gaps and for forecasting and 
assessment of future skills and jobs needs.  

2.3. 

Conclusion:  Europe  has  excellent  human  potential  but  does  not  efficiently 
employ it 

In summary, many Member States do not efficiently employ their excellent human potential 
and at the same time other regions of the EU are already experiencing bottlenecks which are 
only  likely  to  get  worse  in  future  and  form  a  major  impediment  to  the  achievement  of  the 
Lisbon goals.  

From the analysis it is possible to identify two outstanding features of the European research 
landscape which lead to this outcome. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

Firstly, many parts of the public sector research base do not offer attractive employment and 
working  conditions,  practice  fully  open  recruitment  or  provide  the  right  training,  skills  and 
experience  for  researchers.  In  consequence  the  EU  does  not  succeed  in  retaining  its  best 
researchers  or  attracting  the  best  researchers from  third  countries  which  impacts  directly  on 
the  excellence  of  the  public  research  base.  These  problems  also  contribute  to  the  fact  that 
there are insufficient  levels  of  mobility between institutions, sectors and countries to rectify 
some of the current systemic imbalances. 

The  second  major  systemic  weakness  is  the  relatively  low  business  R&D  intensity  in  many 
parts  of  Europe.  This  provides  far  fewer  opportunities  for  researchers  in  the  private  sector 
than in comparable economies. There are many causes for this low intensity but weaknesses 
in the public research base are a major contributing factor as industry needs a sufficient flow 
of  well  trained  researchers  and  tends  to  locate  its  research  centres  close  to  the  best  public 
centres.  Strong  academic  research  is  also  a  stimulus  for  business  R&D  in  other  ways. 
Universities  generate  new  ideas  which  are  then  transferred  to  the  private  sector  The 
transformation  of  these  ideas  into  products  or  processes  requires  further  applied  research 
activity  and  development  and  universities  often  therefore  form  the  nucleus  of  industrial 
clusters. 

2.4. 

Existing policy initiatives addressing researchers at the Community level 

The  need  for  adequate  human  resources  for  R&D  has  been  identified  as  a  key  challenge18 
since the launch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2000. 

Article 165 of the Treaty states that the Community and the Member States shall coordinate 
their research and technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies 
and  Community  policy  are  consistent  and,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  the 
Commission may take any useful initiative to promote this coordination. Article 163 (d) states 
that,  complementing  the  activities  of  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  shall  carry  out 
activities to stimulate the training and mobility of researchers in the Community. 

The Commission's policy initiatives and actions to define and promote a European agenda to 
address issues of common interest related to researchers have developed along two separate 
streams,  one  focusing  on  mobility  and  the  other  one  on  careers.  Both  areas  are  now  widely 
recognised  as  important  for  improving  the  performance  of  national  and  European  research 
systems and also as being complementary. 

In  2001,  work  started  on  mobility  with  the  Communication  “A  mobility  strategy  for  the 
European  Research  Area”19,  which  defined  a  set  of  objectives  and  measures  aimed  at 
creating  a  more  favourable  environment  for  the  mobility  of  researchers  in  the  ERA,  with  a 
view  to  attracting  and  keeping  young  talents  and  promoting  innovation.  The  need  for  the 
strategy  was  endorsed  by  a  Council  resolution20  and  implementation  was  taken  up  by  a 
dedicated  Steering  Group  on  Human  Resources  and  Mobility  composed  of  Member  States 
representatives. 

A range of measures was put in place at EU level aimed at broadening and strengthening the 
support for researchers. Funding from the Research Framework Programme was allocated to 

18 
19 
20 

Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 23-24 March 2000 
COM (2001) 331 final of 20.06.2001 
2001/C 367/01 of 21.12.2001 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
various types of mobility grants and initiatives launched to provide information and assistance 
to  potentially  mobile  researchers  at  European  and  national  levels  and  to  create  more 
favourable  legal  and  administrative  environment  to  facilitate  the  entry  and  stay  of  foreign 
scientists. 

In  2003,  the  Communication  “Researchers  in  the  European  Research  Area:  one 
profession,  multiple  careers”21  marked  the  first  step  to  address  the  attractiveness  of  the 
research  career  with  the  aim  of  promoting  the  emergence  of  a  genuine  labour  market  for 
researchers  in  Europe.  The  Communication  was  endorsed  by  a  Council  resolution22  and 
contributed to enhance awareness among policy makers, public employers and funders of the 
importance of the issues and the various dimensions involved.  

Going one step further, in 2005, the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on 
the  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of 
Researchers  (C&C).  These  documents  set  out  a  voluntary  framework  of  principles, 
addressed to researchers as well as to employers and funders, in both the public and private 
sectors, with the aim of promoting the same rights and obligations wherever researchers may 
work in Europe. The European Charter includes a set of general principles and requirements 
related  to  the  management  of  research  and  the  conduct  researchers  (Research  Freedom, 
Ethical principles, Professional responsibility and attitude, Contractual and legal obligations, 
Accountability,  Good  practice  in  research,  Dissemination  and  exploitation  of  results,  Public 
engagement,  Relation  with  supervisors,  Supervision  and  managerial  duties,  Continuing 
professional development).  

The  Charter  also  covers  general  principles  and  requirements  for  employers  and  funders  of 
researchers:  recognition  of  the  profession;  working  conditions;  gender  balance;  career 
development; value of mobility; access to research training and continuous development; and 
recruitment.  

The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers defines more precise principles and 
requirements  that  should  be  followed  by  employers  and/or  funders  when  appointing  or 
recruiting researchers. They should ensure observance of values such as transparency of the 
recruitment process and equal treatment of all applicants. These principles and requirements 
cover also aspects related to: judging merit; recognition of mobility experience; recognition of 
qualifications; and post-doctoral appointments.  

21 
22 

COM (2003) 436 final of 18.07.2003 and COM (2004) 353 of 16.06.2004 
14636/03 RECH194 of 12.11.2003 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
Table I. Achievements of the mobility and career strategies 2000-2007 

The launch of the Researchers' Mobility Portal23 in 2004 to provide information on fellowships/grants, research 
job vacancies (more than 4,800 jobs posted in 2007) and practical information when moving  

The set up of the ERA-MORE network in 2004 to assist researchers in all matters relating to legal issues, social 
security, health and taxes, daily life and family support (200 information/ assistance centres in 32 countries) 

The adoption of the "Scientific Visa" package, in 2005, to facilitate administrative procedures for third country 
researchers entering the European Community. It includes a Council Directive 2005/71/EC (12 October 2005) 
and two Recommendations: the 2005/761/EC on short-term visas and the 2005/762/EC on long-term admission 
(more than three months). The Directive has been transposed in 15 Member States 

The adoption in 2005 of a Commission Recommendation on the European Charter & Code which aims at giving 
the  same  rights  and  obligations  wherever  researchers  may  work  in  Europe  (signed  by  over  200  organisations, 
representing over 800 institutions in 23 countries). 

The launch of ERA-link in the US in 2005 to keep the contact with European researchers active abroad (more 
than 3,000 EU researchers registered), the launch of ERA-link in Japan in 2008 (more than 500 EU researchers) 

Awareness initiatives (The Researchers' Night events involved 100,000 people in 21 countries in 2006) 

The  FP6  Marie-Curie  actions  have  been  the  equivalent  of  the  Erasmus  programme  for  researchers: 
Approximately 70,000 researchers have benefited so far from EC funding under this dedicated mobility action 

Progress has been made with these existing initiatives. The mobility and career strategies 
and  the  Charter  &  Code  have  established  important  principles  which  should  underpin  the 
European research system. And these initiatives have certainly succeeded in raising European 
wide  awareness  about  the  problems  of  mobility  and  careers  of  researchers  and  established 
general  objectives  and  principles.  But  implementation  has  been  slow  and  very  uneven 
across the different Member States and institutions.  

Learning the lessons from previous initiatives, the reasons for this disappointing progress can 
be summarised as follows: 

•  existing policies at Community and national levels have tended to address issues in relative 
isolation. The lack of a coherent framework addressing both mobility and career issues 
has  sometimes  resulted  in  a  failure  to  take  into  account  the  relevant  links  and 
interdependencies.  For  example,  promoting  more  mobility  without  improving  career 
development  and  opening  positions  in  the  public  sector  could  lead  to  more  "forced 
mobility"  for  early  stage  researchers  and  to  brain  drain  from  some  countries.  Similarly 
actions to open positions in the public sector would have limited impact without increased 
mobility; 

•  the  difficulties  of  coordination  between 

the  different  Ministries,  agencies  and 
Commission  services  dealing  with  different  aspects  of  mobility  and  career  issues  at 
Community,  national  or  regional  level  can  result  in  suboptimal  combinations  of  actions. 
This  can  mean  that  the  specific  circumstances  of  researchers  are  not  always  reflected  in 
wider  initiatives,  for  example  cooperation  between  ministries  in  charge  of  research  and 

23 

http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/ 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
social  security  policies  would  help  develop  a  common  understanding  of  the  issues  and 
possible actions;  

•  efforts  can  be  complicated  by  the  shared  competence  in  this  area.  Existing  policies  at 
national  level  have  tended  to  take  a  narrow  national  perspective  limited  in  scope  to 
encouraging the return of expatriate national researchers, attracting foreign researchers or 
promoting  intra-national  mobility  between  industry  and  public  research  organisations. 
Some  Member  States  have  also  been  concerned  that  past  initiatives  at  Community  level 
have not taken into account the diverse situations in the Member States which present very 
different  patterns  of  problems  and  needs  and  might  result  in  some  cases  in  too  much 
outward mobility or ‘brain drain’ due to better research conditions abroad.  

2.5.  Why a new EU policy momentum is needed 

The  Lisbon  strategy  seeks  the  transformation  of  the  EU  economy  towards  more  knowledge 
intensive activities. Achieving the overall Lisbon goals will require action across a wide range 
of areas but the availability of sufficient researchers of sufficient quality has been identified as 
an essential element of the strategy from the start24. Researchers are the main producers of 
new knowledge and the main agents in its transfer. In order to compete at a global level and 
to  achieve  our  broader  ambitions  Europe  must  be  able  to  train,  retain  and  attract  the  best 
research talents 

The  most  compelling  case  for  continued  action  for  Europe's  researchers  is  provided  by  the 
remaining systemic weaknesses in Europe's research system which impact on researchers 
as  highlighted  above.  This  need  for  action  has  been  recognised  by  political  leaders  at  the 
highest  level.  The  2008  Spring  European  Council  confirmed  investing  in  people  and 
modernising labour markets, and investing in knowledge and innovation as priority areas for 
the next cycle of the Lisbon Strategy. In particular the Council made a commitment that the 
Member States and the EU must remove barriers to the free movement of knowledge by 
creating a “fifth freedom” based on: 

•  enhancing  the  cross-border  mobility  of  researchers,  as  well  as  students,  scientists,  and 

university teaching staff; 

•  making the labour market for European researchers more open and competitive, providing 

better career structures, transparency and family-friendliness. 

In its Key Issues Paper 2008 to the European Council, the Competitiveness Council stated 
that  the  Commission  and  Member  States  should  take  concrete  steps  to  increase  human 
resources  for  S&T  and  to  “enhance  the  mobility  and  career  prospects  of  researchers 
through a coherent set of focused measures taken in partnership”, on which the Council 
welcomed the Commission's intention to present a Communication in 2008. 

The Integrated Guidelines for the Lisbon Strategy on raising research investments, include 
the  objective  that  a  determined  effort  must  be  made  to  ensure  a  sufficient  supply  of 
qualified  researchers  by  attracting  more  students  into  scientific,  technical  and  engineering 
disciplines and enhancing the career development and the European, international as well as 
inter-sectoral mobility of researchers and development personnel. 

24 

Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 23-24 March 2000 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
The  Single  Market  Review25  emphasises  that  further  efforts  are  needed  to  promote  free 
movement  of  knowledge  and  innovation  as  a  “fifth  freedom”  in  the  single  market  and  the 
need  to  remove  barriers  to  researcher  mobility  and  facilitate  the  exchange  of 
researchers. 

The  results  of  the  consultation  on  the  2007  Green  Paper  “The  European  Research  Area: 
New Perspectives” showed that realising a single labour market for researchers is the top 
area of expected action at the EU level by stakeholders. 

This new impetus is also reflected in actions on the ground and many Member States are now 
for  example  attempting  reforms  to  their  university  and  higher  education  sectors26.  These 
reforms,  and  in  particular  increasing  the  autonomy  and  improving  the  governance  and 
accountability  of  individual  institutions,  are  directly  relevant  to  improving  the  situation  for 
researchers. 

There would therefore be considerable EU added value in a new initiative at this stage which 
could  capitalise  on  this  political  momentum  and  stakeholder  support  and  build  upon 
reforms which are currently underway. There is much scope for learning from the lessons of 
previous  and  existing  initiatives  at  both  the  Community  and  national  levels.  The  impact  of 
individual  initiatives  could  also  be  greatly  increased  by  ensuring  that  they  are  planned  and 
implemented in a coordinated, consistent and mutually reinforcing way. 

The  mutual  benefits  of  acting  in  a  consistent  way  across  the  EU  would  be  considerable. 
For  example  the  opening  of  positions  in  public  institutions  beyond  national  borders  would 
improve  research  performance  and  specialisation  at  institutional  level,  it  would  balance  the 
supply  and  demand  for  researchers,  boost  productivity  growth  through  better  job  matching, 
increase  knowledge  transfer  and  facilitate  the  development  of  centres  of  excellence 
throughout the EU, create better international connections for collaborative research and the 
economic exploitation of research results 

In addition a new initiative for researchers at this time would also benefit from and contribute 
to the overall re-launch of the ERA and the Lisbon Strategy to implement the priorities agreed 
by  the  2008  Spring  European  Council.  The  preceding  analysis  tries  to  draw  a  picture  of  an 
interlinked innovation system both at national and European levels. Each individual element 
reinforces the others, while weaknesses or lack of progress in one holds back progress in the 
others. 

The  Lisbon  strategy  recognises  the  need  to  make  progress  in  a  comprehensive  and 
coordinated  way.  Significant  efforts  are  already  underway  to  create  the  right  framework 
conditions  including  measures  to  strengthen  the  single  market,  increase  job  mobility27  and 
incentivise more private investment in research and innovation28. These policies can help to 
address  some  of  the  systemic  weaknesses  identified  in  the  analysis  above  such  as  low 
business R&D intensity. Equally specific action for researchers will contribute to the success 
of these initiatives. 

25 
26 

27 
28 

"A Single Market for 21st Century Europe" COM(2007) 724 
"Delivering  on  the  modernisation  agenda  for  universities:  education,  research  and  innovation" 
COM(2006) 208, 10.5.2006 
The European Job Mobility Action Plan 2007-2010, COM(2007)773, 6.12.2007 
"Putting  knowledge  into  practice:  A  broad-based  innovation  strategy  for  the  EU"  COM(2006)  502, 
13.9.2006 and "A lead market initiative for Europe" COM(2007) 860, 21.12.2007 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
An  initiative  for  researchers  would  be  one  of  five  policy  initiatives  planned  by  the 
Commission in 2008 to follow-up the ERA Green Paper “The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives”29.  It  is  foreseen  that  the  overall  governance  of  the  ERA  initiatives  will  be 
overseen by the Competitiveness Council utilising the Lisbon process and national actions to 
implement  each  initiative  should  be  reflected  in  the  National  Reform  Programmes  of  the 
Member States. 

Furthermore  an  initiative  at  this  stage  would  also  complement  and  benefit  from  a 
number of other important and related European initiatives. In the recent Communication 
by  the  Commission  on  the  Job  Mobility  Action  Plan30,  it  is  reported  that  new  trends  in 
mobility  patterns  increasingly  include  “…young  and  higher-skilled  workers  engaged  in 
'multi-mobility  practices'"  with  "…short  mobile  periods  responding  to  specific  needs  in  a 
professional  career,  a  tendency  illustrating  that  mobility  is  becoming  more  integrated  into 
career  perspectives".  The  same  Communication,  thus,  also  aims  at  improving  existing 
legislation and administrative practices regarding worker mobility. A proposal for a Directive 
on  improving  the  portability  of  supplementary  pension  rights  is  currently  under 
negotiation31, and it may have a significant impact on "acquisition" and "preservation" rules 
on  supplementary  pension  rights  of  in  particular  highly-mobile  workers  holding  short-term 
contracts,  such  as  researchers  who  particularly  suffer  from  lack  of  consistency  between 
different supplementary pension schemes. 

The  EU  legislation  on  labour  law,  such  as  for  instance  the  Directive  on  fixed-term  work32, 
which  established  a  general  framework  for  ensuring  equal  treatment  for  fixed-term  workers 
by protecting them against discrimination and for using fixed-term employment contracts, is 
highly  relevant  for  young  researchers  who  often  hold  fixed-term  assignments.  The 
implementation of the common principles on flexicurity33 may also have a significant impact 
on  both  research  institutions  and  researchers  as  regards  problems  of  balancing  flexibility, 
deemed necessary to do research activities, and job security.  

Other  related  policies  are  the  mutual  recognition  of  diplomas  for  the  regulated  professions 
through Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications34, and, for 
the  other  professions,  through  the  European  Qualification  Framework  (EQF)  assessing 
and  comparing  qualifications35.  Recognition  of  researchers'  diploma  is  an  important 
instrument to facilitate the free movement of researchers in Europe. The network of national 
information  centres  for  the  recognition  of  diplomas36  provides  information  on  national 
academic recognition procedures. 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 
36 

Other initiatives will address the management of intellectual property by public research organisations; 
pan-European  research  infrastructures;  international  science  and  technology  cooperation;  and  joint 
programming and programmes 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  The  Regions  on  the  "Mobility,  an  instrument  for  more  and 
better jobs: The European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010)" 
Amended Commission proposal COM(2007)603 final on minimum requirements for enhancing worker 
mobility by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights 
Council  Directive  1999/70/EC  of  28  June  1999  concerning  the  framework  agreement  on  fixed-term 
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP 
"Towards  common  principles  of  flexicurity  –  more  and  better  jobs  through  flexibility  and  security", 
COM(2007)359. 
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional 
qualifications, Official Journal L255 of 30 September 2005 - page 22 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/in_en.html  
http://www.enic-naric.net/ 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
The ongoing inter-governmental Bologna process addresses some issues such as curricula 
development for quality doctoral programmes. Community measures such as the proposed 
Joint  Doctorates  action  in  the  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  and  the  European  Institute  for 
Innovation and Technology (EIT) will also contribute.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

3. 

OBJECTIVES THAT THE PROPOSAL IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE 

3.1. 

General objectives 

The general objective of the current initiative is to harness the current political momentum for 
action  for  researchers  to  make  further,  faster  progress  in  key  areas  selected  for  their  high 
potential  impact  at  the  Community,  national  and  institutional  levels  in  the  short  to  medium 
term.  The  initiative  will  build  on  the  success  of  existing  measures  and  will  benefit  from  a 
clearer focus, greater coherence and an increased engagement of the Member States.  

The  ultimate  goal  of  Community  policy  in  this  area  is  to  ensure  that  the  necessary  human 
resources are available to sustain a dynamic knowledge-based economy. 

3.2. 

Specific Objectives 

The  preceding  analysis  has  identified  a  series  of  key  weaknesses  in  the  European  research 
system  which  impact  on  researchers.  The  general  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  focus  on 
those areas where the greatest impact can be achieved by new coordinated efforts.  

Existing  efforts  are  underway  to  address  Europe's  low  business  R&D  intensity  including 
measures aimed at creating dynamic and innovation-friendly markets to incentivise increased 
private investment in research and innovation. 

The  major  remaining  weakness  identified  was  that  many  parts  of  the  public  sector  research 
base  do  not  offer  attractive  employment  and  working  conditions,  practice  fully  open 
recruitment  or  provide  the  right  training,  skills  and  experience  for  researchers.  These 
problems  also  contribute  to  the  fact  that  there  are  insufficient  levels  of  mobility  between 
institutions,  sectors  and  countries  to  rectify  some  of  the  current  systemic  imbalances.  In 
addition there are certain specific issues which mobile researchers can face and which should 
be addressed. 

The proposal is therefore to make rapid, measurable progress to: 

•  systematically open recruitment and portability of grants;  

•  meet the social security and supplementary pensions needs of mobile researchers;  

•  provide attractive employment and working conditions; and 

•  enhance the training, skills and experience of researchers 

3.3. 

Operational objectives  

Systematically open recruitment and portability of grants 

To  ensure  the  removal  of  remaining  barriers  to  the  open,  transparent,  competition-based 
recruitment of researchers at institutional, national and Community levels and make sure that 
the portability of individual grants is a possibility. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

Meet the social security and supplementary pension needs of mobile researchers 

To improve awareness about the existing legal framework in particular through ensuring that 
researchers and their employers have full access to relevant information on the application of 
EU  social  security  coordination  rules  and  by  exploring  derogations  to  general  rules  on 
legislation applicable to take into account the problems which can be encountered by highly 
mobile researchers on short-term contracts. To ease transferability of supplementary pension 
rights and explore the possibility to set up pan-EU pension schemes targeted to researchers. 

Provide attractive employment and working conditions 

To  introduce  more  attractive  "working  packages",  especially  for  young  researchers,  and  to 
progressively  introduce  more  flexibility  in  contractual  and  administrative  arrangements  and 
relevant national legislation for senior and end of career researchers; to enable both men and 
women to pursue a fulfilling and well-balanced scientific career. 

Enhance the training, skills and experience of researchers 

To ensure that researchers are equipped with the full range of skills necessary to participate in 
a range of evolving roles in the modern knowledge economy and society, and, in particular, to 
encourage better links between academia and industry. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

4. 

MAIN POLICY OPTIONS AND DELIVERY MECHANISMS  

4.1. 

The policy response and the early discarded options  

From the preceding analysis of the problems and stated objectives we now consider a number 
of concrete policy options to reach those objectives. As highlighted in the previous chapters 
any  options  also  need  to  take  full  account  of  the  wide  range  of  existing  policies  both  those 
specific  to  better  careers  and  more  mobility  for  researchers  in  the  EU  and  actions  in  other 
areas which may have a bearing on researchers’ issues, e.g. in social policy.  

Three main possible realistic options have been identified and developed: 

•  Option 1: No policy change scenario; 
•  Option 2: A Recommendation and more specific EU guidelines in the identified problem 

areas; 

•  Option  3:  A  Communication  and  a  partnership  with  Member  States  in  the  identified 

problem areas. 

Given that many of the relevant issues are in areas of shared competence the main differences 
between the options are in terms of the mechanism for focussing and coordinating action at 
the  Community,  national  and  institutional  levels.  There  is  a  balance  to  be  struck  between 
allowing the necessary flexibility to deal with specific national circumstances and maximising 
the leverage and spill-over effects of consistent and coordinated action at Community level. In 
addition to the three policy options explored in more detail in this and the following sections, 
some other policy options were initially considered as well but rapidly eliminated.  

In particular on the present legal basis, Community legislative action would be possible in the 
areas  of  social  security  coordination  and  supplementary  pension  rights.  However,  a  new 
implementing  regulation  coordinating  social  security  schemes  and  a  directive  covering  the 
portability of supplementary pension rights are currently under negotiation and the European 
Job  Mobility  Action  Plan  2007-2010  announced  a  systematic  investigation  to  see  if  the 
existing legislation and administrative practices regarding worker mobility in general need to 
be adapted to take account of the changed needs of the new patterns of mobility. . 

Similarly,  while  the  directive  on  the  portability  of  supplementary  pension  rights  currently 
under negotiation addresses the "acquisition" and "preservation" of such rights, the third key 
aspect, i.e. their "transferability", is now out of scope. In this area therefore, one of the policy 
options below includes the possibility of exploring the feasibility of a non-binding instrument 
(e.g.  a  Recommendation  by  the  Commission)  addressing  transferability  of  supplementary 
pension  rights  of  highly-mobile  categories  of  workers,  such  as  researchers.  If  such  an 
instrument were ultimately proposed, it would of course be subject to impact assessment. 

Apart from initiatives linked to the implementation of the EU Job Mobility Action Plan, 
it  would  be  premature  to  recommend  further  legislative  action  in  these  areas  now. 
Instead, the proposed options will explore the possibility of future legislative or other actions 
such  as  Council  or  Commission  recommendations  if  clear  evidence  of  deficiencies  emerges 
during  its  planned  three  year  timeframe.  Excluding  Community  legislative  action  in  the 
realistic policy options today does not therefore rule out possible future legislative action or 
recommendations to Member States. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

Another  option  would  have  been  to  propose  a  significant  reinforcement  of  the  researchers' 
related  elements  of  the  Seventh  Research  Framework  Programme  (FP7).  However,  any 
substantial reinforcement would not have been possible until the completion of the mid-term 
review scheduled for conclusion before the end of 2010 and would have required a lengthy 
co-decision process. 

4.2. 

Policy Option 1. No policy change scenario 

Given the existing policy  initiatives for researchers and in other relevant areas, the baseline 
scenario is a dynamic one. Under this scenario of no policy change (no additional EU actions 
then those already established or foreseen in established or proposed Community policy), the 
actions based on the current mobility and career strategies would continue.  

As part of the policy specific support actions financed from the FP7 “People” programme to 
foster  trans-national  collaboration  among  partners  in  a  European  network  for  proximity 
assistance and information to mobile researchers, the European Researchers’ Mobility Portal 
provides  access  to  researchers  vacancies,  contacts  with  scientific  diasporas,  statistical  and 
policy  relevant  information,  and  awareness  concerning  the  implementation  by  research 
employers and funders of the Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and 
Code of Conduct for their Recruitment.  

This is supplemented by substantial support for European level actions from the FP7 “People” 
programme  until  2013  for  trans-national  and  inter-sectoral  training  and  skills  development, 
mobility and careers of researchers at different stages.  

Still  on  training,  the  Bologna  process  is  set  to  remedy  some  of  the  key  aspects  relevant  to 
early-stage researchers: curricula development in doctoral programmes, quality assurance and 
recognition of qualifications. And the proposed Joint Doctorates in the proposed second phase 
of  the  Community  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  from  2009  would  signify  a  step  towards 
trans-national  development  of  joint  curricula  and  mutual  recognition  of  qualifications  of 
researchers at doctoral level. The European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) is 
also expected to influence the training agenda for early-stage researchers. 

On social security coordination and supplementary pension rights, actions in the frame of the 
Job  Mobility  Action  Plan  2007-2010  would  apply  to  researchers  as  to  any  mobile  worker, 
including those in case the foreseen assessment by 2009 highlights the need for amending or 
supplementing  EU  legislation  on  access  conditions  for  unemployment  benefits.  As  will  the 
Directive  on  supplementary  pension  rights,  once  adopted  and  ultimately  transposed  into 
national legislation.  

The current policy therefore covers a broad range of issues, but not necessarily those aspects 
of the problems identified that are the most relevant or likely to have the highest impact. 

Essentially the main current mechanism apart from Community funding is the development of 
voluntary actions on a potentially very wide variety of issues in the frame of the Open Method 
of Coordination  through a Steering Group for Human Resources and Mobility composed of 
Member States representatives, with mutual learning as a key component. This does allow a 
large  degree  of  flexibility  to  the  Member  States  but  does  not  entail  the  development  of 
national action plans or any specific coordination of the various efforts. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

4.3. 

Policy  Option  2:  A  Recommendation  and  more  specific  EU  guidelines  in  the 
identified problem areas  

Compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  this  option  would  be  to  put  forward  another 
Recommendation  for  voluntary  action  under  Article  165  of  the  Treaty,  focussing  on  what 
Member States would be expected to do in the identified main problem areas:  

Axis 1: open recruitment and portability of grants; 

Axis 2: meeting social security and supplementary pension needs of mobile researchers; 

Axis 3: attractive employment and working conditions; 

Axis 4: enhanced training and skills agenda. 

A  new  Recommendation  would  be  an  opportunity  to  refocus  national  efforts  on  the  main 
problem areas according to a common set of principles and allow the possibility to introduce 
more  specific  guidelines  of  what  would  be  expected  from  Member  States  and  research 
institutions and funders respectively. This option would therefore allow actions to be focused 
to a much greater extent than would be possible under the baseline scenario (Option 1). 

The  specific  support  actions  described  under  Option  1  financed  from  the  FP7  “People” 
programme  could  be  refocused  in  line  with  the  new  Recommendation  to  better  support  its 
implementation. 

The  other  actions  under  Option  1  concerning  training,  mobility,  career  development  and 
social security coordination and supplementary pension rights would also be applicable under 
this option. 

However, such a recommendation would, either, as with the Recommendation on the Charter 
and Code of 2005, have to set principles of a sufficiently general nature to be relevant to the 
situation  in  all  27  Member  States  or  run  the  risk  of  being  overly  prescriptive  and  failing  to 
take  account  the  specificities  in  each  country  vis-à-vis  the  problem  areas,  their  specific 
national  or  regional  legislation  governing  research  institutions  and  funders,  institutional 
settings, practices and traditions, as well as budgetary constraints. 

A  new  Recommendation  would  also  risk  creating  confusion  with  the  existing  Charter  and 
Code. The Charter & Code have established important principles which should underpin the 
European  research  system.  These  principles  cover  a  much  wider  variety  of  institutional 
practices and other important aspects than the priority areas identified above. It would be very 
unfortunate if the long term take-up of these principles was detrimentally affected by any new 
initiative. 

4.4. 

Policy Option 3: A Communication and a partnership with Member States  

Based  on  article  165  of  the  Treaty,  this  option  would  seek  to  bring  about  a  partnership 
between Community and Member States to jointly drive forward a number of targeted actions 
in the same four identified problem areas as mentioned under Option 2.  

The "partnership" approach would allow actions to be focused to a much greater extent than 
would be possible under the baseline scenario (Option 1). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

Compared  to  the  open-endedness  of  the  baseline  scenario  (Option  1)  and  Option  2,  the 
partnership  will  be  time-bound  initially  to  a  period  of  three  years.  The  actions  would  be 
selected for their potential impact within the timeframe of the partnership, at the Community, 
national and institutional levels.  

Through the partnership, the Member States would be invited to play a key role in the exact 
definition,  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  partnership,  which  minimises  the  risks  of 
low engagement and would allow the dynamic evolution of the measures over time. Within 
the  partnership  framework,  Member  States  would  be  expected  by  early  2009  to  adopt  a 
national  action  plan  setting  out  specific  objectives  and  actions  to  achieve  the  aims  of  the 
partnership. Given the different national situations each plan will naturally focus on different 
aspects of the overall objectives of the partnership.  

The  Commission  will  seek  to  optimise  existing  Community  instruments,  including  those 
available through the FP7 People programme to reinforce the partnership. As an integral part 
of  the  partnership,  Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  be  expected  to  identify  good 
practice and where appropriate develop common guidelines; monitor progress at national and 
EU  levels  and  report  annually  based  on  agreed  indicators.  The  partnership  will  explore  the 
possibility  of  future  legislative  or  other  actions  such  as  Council  or  Commission 
recommendations  if  clear  evidence  of  deficiencies  emerges  during  its  planned  three  year 
timeframe.  

A  "partnership  for  researchers"  would  be  one  of  five  policy  initiatives  planned  by  the 
Commission in 2008 to follow-up the ERA Green Paper “The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives”  It  is  foreseen  that  the  overall  governance  of  all  the  ERA  initiatives  will  be 
overseen by the Competitiveness Council utilising the Lisbon process and national actions to 
implement  each  initiative  should  be  reflected  in  the  National  Reform  Programmes  of  the 
Member  States.  The  partnership  approach  would  allow  for  the  more  dynamic  political 
management  of  the  initiative  over  time  rather  than  the  implementation  of  a  one-time  set  of 
principles as under option 2. However the success or failure of the partnership would depend 
to  a  greater  extent  than  with  the  other  options  on  maintaining  the  political  support  and 
commitment of the Member States. In 2010, an overall evaluation of the situation and results 
from the actions by the partnership will be made.  

Priority actions could include:  

Axis 1: open recruitment and portability of grants: 

•  Member States to ensure open, transparent, competition-based recruitment of researchers, 
in  particular  by  giving  institutions  greater  autonomy  over  hiring  and  by  adopting  best 
practice on the recognition of qualifications from other countries 

•  Member  States  and  Commission  to  ensure  that  all  publicly  funded  researchers'  positions 

are openly advertised online, in particular through EURAXESS 

•  Member States and Commission to ensure adequate information and assistance services for 
researchers  moving  between  institutions,  sectors  and  countries  including  through 
EURAXESS and the EURES platform37 

37 

European Employment Services network and website www.eures.europa.eu  

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Member  States  and  Commission  to  allow  portability  of  individual  grants  awarded  by 
national  funding  agencies  and  relevant  Community  research  programmes  where  this 
enables funders to better meet their research needs and researchers to better manage their 
careers 

Axis 2: meeting social security and supplementary pension needs of mobile researchers: 

•  Commission and Member States to ensure that researchers and their employers have access 
to  readily  available  and  targeted  information  on  the  application  of  EU  social  security 
coordination  rules  and  on  the  implications  for  supplementary  pensions  of  transnational 
mobility,  including  through  improving  existing  sources  at  EU  and  national  level  such  as 
the EUlisses website38 

•  Member States to better utilise the existing legal framework and agree appropriate bilateral 
and multilateral agreements on derogations foreseen in Regulation 1408/71for the benefit 
of researchers 

•  Member  States  to  include  rules  easing  international  mobility  of  researchers  when 

concluding bilateral and multilateral social security agreements with third countries 

•  Commission  and  Member  States  to  assess  the  need  for  a  Commission  or  Council 
Recommendation  on  easing  transfer  of  supplementary  pension  rights  for  highly-mobile 
workers, including researchers 

•  Commission  and  Member  States  to  encourage  pan-EU  pension  schemes  targeted  at 

researchers 

Axis 3: attractive employment and working conditions: 

•  Member  States,  funders  and  employers  to  improve  the  career  development  opportunities 
for early-stage researchers by moving towards "flexicurity principles", regular evaluation, 
wider autonomy and better training; Research funders should take career development into 
account when evaluating research proposals 

•  Member  States,  funders  and  employers  to  progressively  introduce  more  flexibility  in 
contractual and administrative arrangements and relevant national legislation for senior and 
end-of career researchers to reward good performance and allow non-standard career paths 

•  Employers  and  funders  should  ensure  that  all  publicly  funded  researchers  receiving 

stipends and fellowships can receive adequate social security coverage 

•  Member States and public research institutions to achieve adequate gender representation 
in selection and funding bodies, and to systematically adopt policies that enable both men 
and  women  to  pursue  a  scientific  career  with  an  adequate  work-life  balance  such  as 
developing dual career policies 

38 

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_security_schemes/eulisses/jetspeed/ 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
Axis 4: enhanced training and skills agenda: 

•  Member  States to develop and  support consistent "national skills agendas" to ensure that 
researchers are equipped with the necessary skills to contribute fully to a knowledge-based 
economy and society throughout their careers 

•  Member  States  to  ensure  better  links  between  academia  and  industry  by  supporting  the 
placement of researchers in industry during their training and promoting industry financing 
of PhDs and involvement in curriculum development  

EN 

29 

   EN 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Policy Option 1: No policy change scenario 

While the baseline option of no additional EU action is likely to generate some progress over 
time in the identified problem areas, this option scores poor in terms of likely overall impact. 
As until now, it can be expected that the policy initiatives on the mobility and career strategies 
will continue to raise awareness at government and institutional level across the EU about the 
problems of mobility and careers of researchers. As work progresses more and more data will 
become available through studies and data collection. 

However,  a  focused,  coherent  framework  at  European  and  national  level  addressing  both 
mobility and career issues in a way that takes into account their links and interdependencies in 
a  consistent  way,  is  unlikely  to  arise  organically  and  within  the  short  timeframe  which  the 
urgency of the problems imply. This option does not entail the development of national action 
plans or any specific concentration of the effort. Policies and measures in principle relevant to 
the four critical areas will therefore very likely continue to be addressed in fragmented ways 
in  most  countries,  as  one  aspect  of  policies  and  measures  focusing  on  different  main 
objectives:  reform  of  public  research  system  in  particular  universities,  funding  programmes 
(science and industrial research) promoting industry – university cooperation and technology 
transfer, developing regional clusters and international cooperation, etc. 

Where this fragmentation prevents adequate coordination of responsibilities between different 
Ministries  and  agencies  dealing  at  national  or  regional  level  with  different  aspects  of  the 
mobility  and  career  issues,  this  is  likely  to  continue  to  lead  to  suboptimal  combination  of 
actions in stead of developing a common understanding of the issues and possible actions.  

Despite a certain positive side, that the approach under this option gives maximum freedom 
for Member States to tailor policies and measures affecting mobility and career development 
to  their  national  environment,  this  strong  focus  in  most  countries  on  actions  defined  with  a 
national  perspective  fails  to  take  into  account  mutual  benefits  of  acting  in  a  consistent  way 
across countries with a European perspective; for example the opening of positions in public 
institutions  beyond  national  borders  would  contribute  to  a  more  balanced  circulation  of 
researchers  and  would  enhance  the  impact  of  such  actions  on  research  quality  and 
specialisation at institutional level. 

The European instrument of the Recommendation on the Charter and Code addresses issues, 
amongst many others, that are relevant to the identified problem areas, in particular where it 
concerns  open  competitive  recruitment  and  fair  employment  and  working  conditions.  The 
consistent implementation and concrete application of its principles in the practice of research 
institutions in each Member State would certainly contribute. However, since the Charter and 
Code  contain  a  very  wide  array  of  issues,  the  uptake  is  a  slow  process,  which  is  also  not 
enhanced for instance  because  of  the  absence of a recognition system at European level  for 
those institutions that do apply the Charter and Code principles or because of legal barriers at 
Member State level.  

The Steering Group for Human Resources in Research (SGHRM) has played a useful role in 
the development of many of the European level measures until now. It could continue to play 
a role as a forum for exchange of good practices and contributing to the yearly report on the 
progress of the implementation of the mobility and career strategies. However, it lacks a clear 

EN 

30 

   EN 

own  drive  for  identifying  subjects  for  mutual  learning  and  development  the  European 
guidelines, which could improve national action. This together with a lack of the focus of its 
work, including the by no means exhaustive monitoring of progress, and its overall weak links 
with  other  policy  areas  at  national  level,  make  its  relevance  for  decisive  progress  in  a 
relatively short-span not evident. 

Under the baseline scenario the Community financial instrument of FP7, and in particular the 
People  programme,  is  likely  to  contribute  progressively  to  stimulate  mobility  and  career 
development  of  researchers  in  Europe.  Because  of  the  absence  at  Member  States'  level  of 
national  strategies  to  training,  mobility  and  career  development  taking  account  of  trans-
national elements, its impact is likely to remain relatively modest.  

And  while  initiatives,  under  this  scenario,  such  as  FP7  People  and  Ideas,  Erasmus  Mundus, 
the  European  Institute  for  Innovation  and  Technology  and  Bologna  taken  together  are 
important  for  the  longer-term  progress  in  the  area  of  researchers'  training  and  skills 
development, the absence under this baseline scenario of national training and skills agendas 
developed  upon  commonly  developed  European  guidelines  is  not  helpful  to  advance  in  the 
short term on the important training objective identified. 

On social security and supplementary pension rights actions in the frame of the Job Mobility 
Action  Plan  2007-2010  would  apply  to  researchers  as  to  any  mobile  worker.  On  social 
security coordination, a certain lack of awareness of researchers of their social security rights 
and the suboptimal use of the existing rules on social security coordination is likely to persist 
under this scenario. Mobile researchers, as other migrant workers, are likely to benefit from 
the  electronic  exchange  of  data  foreseen  from  2010  in  the  field  of  coordination  of  social 
security schemes. 

On supplementary pension rights, the current framework based on the Mobility Strategy for 
the  ERA  however  does  not  foresee  in  a  coordinated  input  from  the  research  world  into  the 
assessment  by  2009  foreseen  in  the  Job  Mobility  Action  Plan  whether  there  is  a  need  for 
amending or supplementing EU legislation on access conditions for unemployment benefits. 
The  length  of  the  adoption  and  transposition  process  into  national  law  of  the  Directive  on 
supplementary  pension  rights  currently  under  negotiation  is  likely  to  have  an  impact  in  the 
long run, rather than in the desired shorter term.  

On  this  basis,  the  social  impacts  of  this  option  would  include  the  persistence  of  the 
unattractiveness of research relative to other professions for the highly educated and skilled, 
suboptimal  mobility  and  career  paths,  continued  highly  national  or  regional  segmented 
researchers  labour  markets  in  some  countries,  with  unfavourable  employment  and  working 
conditions particularly affecting younger researchers and women researchers. 

Economic impacts include continued loss of human capital to outside the EU and suboptimal 
contribution of research efforts to the economic development of the EU. The latter because of 
untapped  potential  of  greater  levels  of  merit  based  mobility  and  career  development,  intra-
nationally and intra–EU, that would bring about increased knowledge sharing and quality of 
research, and balance supply and demand of highly skilled and specialised workers.  

The  impact  on  third  countries  of  this  option  is  not  likely  to  be  negative,  as  the  EU  is 
expected to continue losing out on the most talented researchers that move away from, while 
difficulties are likely to grow in attracting larger number of talented non-EU researchers.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

The impact on the administrative burden and costs of this option is limited and mostly on 
a voluntary basis. For Member States there is no significant burden, other than their efforts in 
the  limited  European  frame  of  the  SGHRM.  Member  States  costs  arise  from  any  own 
initiative  and  are  usually  part  of  the  actions  they  undertake  at  national  level  in  other 
frameworks, e.g. on reform of universities. For research institutions, administrative costs for 
sorting  out  individual  cases  implying  several  Member  States  would  be  likely  to  continue. 
Costs by research institutions related to compliance with part or all principles of the Charter 
and  Code  can  be  significant.  They  are  however  on  a  voluntary  basis  and  can  be  seen  as  an 
investment  in  the  attractiveness  of  the  research  institutions,  rather  than  as  a  cost.  For  the 
Community the administrative burden and costs of this option would remain unchanged at a 
relatively modest level of the coordination and support actions paid from FP7 and in part from 
the administrative budget of the Commission. 

5.2. 

Policy  Option  2:  A  Recommendation  with  more  specific  EU  guidelines  in  the 
identified problem areas  

Compared to the baseline scenario, this option would in sum likely have a somewhat higher 
impact.  Although  the  Recommendation  with  more  specific  EU  guidelines  would  still  be  a 
framework  for  voluntary  action  on  what  Member  States  would  be  expected  to  do  in  the 
identified main problem areas, this would be much more focused than the baseline scenario. 

Such a recommendation would, either, as with the Recommendation on the Charter and Code 
of 2005, have to set principles of a sufficiently general nature to be relevant to the situation in 
all 27 Member States or run the risk of being overly prescriptive and failing to take account 
the specificities in each country vis-à-vis the problem areas, their specific national or regional 
legislation  governing  research  institutions  and  funders,  institutional  settings,  practices  and 
traditions, as well as budgetary constraints. 

Whether  Member  States  will  be  'bound  in'  sufficiently  by  option  2  in  terms  of  their 
engagement is crucial for the necessary impact of this option. Based on the experience with 
the Charter and Code, the expectations would not be overly high that full engagement of all or 
even a majority of MS could be expected.  

A  new  Recommendation  would  be  an  opportunity  to  refocus  national  efforts  on  the  main 
problem areas according to a common set of principles and allow the possibility to introduce 
more  specific  guidelines  of  what  would  be  expected  from  Member  States  and  research 
institutions and funders respectively. On the other hand, as in the baseline scenario, once the 
Recommendation  has  been  issued  it  remains  questionable  what  the  flexibility  would  be  to 
adapt its guidelines in the course of time. This may also have a (further) negative bearing on 
the above mentioned level of MS engagement over time. 

The impact of option 2 on the above mentioned areas is also likely to be negatively influenced 
by  its  open-endedness,  just  as  the  baseline  scenario  (option  1).  Even  if  one  would  put 
recommended  time  targets  for  achievements  in  the  more  detailed  guidelines  of  the 
Recommendation,  MS  would  not  necessarily  feel  more  bound  given  the  'one-size-fits-all' 
approach of the instrument. 

On the governance and monitoring in option 2, the Recommendation could seek to improve 
the  situation  in  comparison  with  the  Steering  Group  for  Human  Resources  in  Research 
(SGHRM) of the baseline scenario. The focus on the four identified problem areas would in 
principle give more steer to such a follow-up group and could make monitoring also straighter 

EN 

32 

   EN 

forward  and  effective.  However,  as  with  other  aspects  of  this  option  2,  the  impact  of  this 
hinges on the engagement of Member States, which as has been indicated above is not at all 
self-evident.  For  a  follow-up  group engagement  is  crucial  for  the  drive  to  work  together  on 
mutual learning, with a view to improve national action, and for the strength of the links with 
other policy areas at national level. 

A  new  Recommendation  would  also  risk  creating  confusion  with  the  existing  Charter  and 
Code. The Charter & Code have established important principles which should underpin the 
European  research  system.  These  principles  cover  a  much  wider  range  of  institutional 
practices and other important aspects than the priority areas identified above. It would be very 
unfortunate if the long term take-up of these principles was detrimentally affected by any new 
initiative. 

As  in  the  previous  options,  the  Community  financial  instrument  of  FP7,  in  particular  the 
People  programme,  is  likely  to  contribute  progressively  to  stimulate  mobility  and  career 
development  of  researchers  in  Europe.  To  support  the  uptake  and  impact  of  the 
Recommendation  under  option  2,  the  budgetary  build-up  of  FP7  could  be  used  to  adapt  the 
actions under the People programme. 

In contrast to the baseline option, the Recommendation under option 2 will make it possible to 
issue guidelines for developing national training and skills agendas, which, depending on the 
engagement of Member States, may be helpful to advance in the shorter term on the important 
training objective identified, in addition to longer-term relevant initiatives such as FP7 People 
and Ideas, Erasmus Mundus, EIT and Bologna. 

As in the baseline option, on social security and supplementary pension rights, actions in the 
frame of the Job Mobility Action Plan 2007-2010 would apply to researchers as to any mobile 
workers.  Also  under  option  2,  mobile  researchers,  as  other  migrant  workers,  are  likely  to 
benefit from the electronic exchange of data foreseen from 2010 in the field of coordination of 
social  security  schemes.  Contrary  to  the  baseline  scenario,  option  2  could  anticipate 
recommending  a  coordinated  input  from  the  research  world  into  the  assessment  by  2009 
foreseen  in  the  Job  Mobility  Action  Plan,  whether  there  is  a  need  for  amending  or 
supplementing  EU  legislation  on  access  conditions  for  unemployment  benefits.  Over  and 
above  the  baseline  scenario,  option  2  could  foresee  in  the  Commission  examining  with 
Member  States  the  feasibility  of  specific  recommendations  on  the  transferability  of 
supplementary pension rights for researchers and other highly skilled workers, to encourage 
EU-pension  institutions  to  open  up  for  researchers,  and  to  recommend  and  support  an  extra 
awareness raising effort to researchers and their employers on their social security rights and 
supplementary  pension  rights.  However,  as  for  other  aspects  of  this  option  2,  the  impact  of 
this hinges on the engagement of Member States, which, as has been indicated above, is not at 
all self-evident. 

On the basis of the overall doubtful Member States engagement under this option, the social 
impacts  would  include  the  likely  persistence  in  the  shorter  term  of  the  unattractiveness  of 
research relative to other professions for the highly educated and skilled, suboptimal mobility 
and  career  paths,  continued  national  or  regional  segmented  researchers  labour  markets  in 
some  countries,  with  not  unlikely  unfavourable  employment  and  working  conditions 
particularly affecting younger researchers and women researchers. 

Economic  impacts  possibly  include  continued  loss  of  human  capital  to  outside  the  EU  and 
suboptimal contribution of research efforts to the economic development of the EU. The latter 

EN 

33 

   EN 

because  of  untapped  potential  of  greater  levels  of  merit  based  mobility  and  career 
development,  intra-nationally  and  intra-EU,  that  would  bring  about  increased  knowledge 
sharing  and  quality  of  research,  and  balance  supply  and  demand  of  highly  skilled  and 
specialised workers.  

The impact on third countries of this option is not likely to be negative in the shorter term, 
as  the  EU  is  not  unlikely  to  continue  losing  out  on  the  most  talented  researchers  that  move 
away from, while difficulties are likely to grow in attracting larger number of talented non-EU 
researchers.  

The impact on the administrative burden and costs of this option is limited and mostly on 
a voluntary basis. For Member States there is no significant burden, other than their efforts in 
the limited European frame of the follow-up group for the new Recommendation, which is not 
expected  to  be  more  costly  than  the  involvement  for  the  SGHRM  under  option  1:  the  extra 
effort for the monitoring and reporting would likely be balanced by the reduction of topics as 
a  result  of  the  focusing.  If  Member  States  engage  in  the  implementation  of  the  new 
Recommendation,  they  would  only  incur  costs  arising  from  guidelines  that  fit  within  their 
own  interests  and  policy  agendas.  So,  although  the  costs  would  be  higher  than  under  the 
baseline scenario (Option 1)', they would not incur costs on all issues raised in the guidelines.  

Member States and employers and funders of research could be confronted with in some cases 
significant transitional costs of some of the measures proposed (for instance more attractive 
working  packages).  Some  of  these  costs  could  be  covered  by  using  part  of  the  higher 
investment  levels  for  R&D  planned  in  most  Member  States.  The  costs  of  some  of  the 
measures should also be seen as an investment in the attractiveness of the national and with 
that  of  the  EU  research  system.  However,  the  actions  proposed  emphasise  that  while  salary 
levels play a part in providing attractive employment and working conditions, job satisfaction, 
how  academic  performance  is  rewarded,  peer  relationships  and  having  a  supportive, 
professional environment where researchers can pursue their own research interests from an 
early  stage  and  where  they  can  balance  their  professional  and  family  life  are  at  least  as 
important.  Despite  important  ongoing  reforms,  compensation  and  promotion  structures  in 
many public research institutions remain rigid and often make it difficult, for universities in 
particular,  to  compete  in  the  international  academic  market.  Addressing  these  issues  can  be 
achieved without increasing overall salary costs. 

For research institutions administrative costs would not be substantially higher and could even 
be  lower  than  in  the  baseline  scenario,  provided  that  the  Commission  and  Member  States 
engage  in  including  targeted  information  on  European  aspects  of  social  security  and 
supplementary pensions. Costs by research institutions related to compliance with part or all 
principles of the new Recommendation could be similarly significant as for the Charter and 
Code  under  the  baseline  scenario.  Also  under  this  option  such  costs  are  however  on  a 
voluntary  basis  and  can  be  seen  as  an  investment  in  the  attractiveness  of  the  research 
institutions, rather than as a cost. For the Community the administrative burden and costs of 
this option 2 could be slightly higher than under the baseline option, but would at a modest 
level  of  the  coordination  and  support  actions  paid  from  FP7  and  in  part  from  the 
administrative budget of the Commission. 

5.3. 

Policy Option 3: A Communication and a Partnership with Member States 

This policy option potentially scores significantly higher on likely impacts than both options 1 
and 2. This is based on a number of essential elements brought together in this option. Option 

EN 

34 

   EN 

3 is seeking  engagement of Member  States in  a  partnership,  is  focused  on  taking  forward  a 
limited  number  of  actions  selected  from  the  four  identified  problem  areas  to  yield  concrete 
results within a clear short-term timeframe.  

Although  option  3  in  principle  is  as  voluntary  as  options  1  and  2,  a  number  of  factors 
combined  are  highly  likely  to  have  a  very  positive  effect  on  the  engagement  of  Member 
States: 

–  While  the  Communication  would  set  out  the  Commissions'  viewpoint  on  the  framework 
and broad objectives of the partnership for better careers and more mobility, it will be the 
Member States with the Commission to work on the final content; Member States can 
therefore, contrary to the baseline option and to a much higher degree than in option 2, take 
ownership of the partnership; this includes issues on the monitoring of and indicators for 
progress; 

–  This ownership would be further strengthened by the fact that Member States would, based 
on  the  overall  focus  of  the  partnership,  also  develop  their  own  national  action  plans, 
which  would  be  logically  geared  to  the  specific  national  situations  in  the  four  identified 
problem areas. Each and every Member State can book success through the partnership; 

–  Moreover, Member States' commitment is backed up by very recent political conclusions 
at  the  highest  level  endorsing  the  development  of  a  partnership  to  take  forward  focused 
actions  in  this  area.  And  Member  States  have  responded  overall  positively  on  informal 
consultation on the partnership and its possible orientation; 

–  Finally, the time horizon of the partnership (initially 3 years) is highly aligned with the 
Lisbon process, while it is important to note that the partnership would be flexible as to 
allow adaptation of its direction to new developments in case a majority of Member States 
would wish to do so.  

Not only would the partnership option allow actions to be focused to a much greater extent 
than  would  be  possible  under  the  baseline  scenario  (Option  1)  which  as  such  would  make 
results  and  impacts  more  achievable;  because  of  the  design  of  the  partnership  the  different 
actions in Member States would overall yield results contributing to solving issues in the four 
identified main problem areas deemed most relevant for the EU. 

In contrast to  option  2,  option  3 would allow some  more  room  for  research  institutions  and 
funders to continue work to address the implementation of the wider set of issues covered in 
the  Charter  and  Code,  supported  by  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  European 
recognition ('label') system. Member States would be free for example to include support for 
that in their national action plans for the implementation of the partnership. 

The partnership and the Commission's participation in it, will allow to fully optimise existing 
Community  instruments,  including  those  available  through  the  FP7  People  programme  to 
reinforce  the  partnership  with  a  view  to  concrete  results  and  impacts  in  terms  of  European 
added value, in line with the objectives formulated for the four main problem areas. 

Social  impacts  are  likely  to  include  an  increased  attractiveness  of  the  research  profession, 
including  to  younger  people  and  women,  based  on  better  employment  and  working 
conditions, catering for an acceptable work-life balance; gradual optimising the contribution 
to the research effort of senior and end of career researchers, through application of flexicurity 

EN 

35 

   EN 

principles;  more  acceptable  mobility  and  more  attractive  career  options;  de-segmenting 
national or regional researchers labour markets. 

Economic impacts would include a more optimal contribution of the EU research efforts to 
the  economic  development,  through  a  more  effective  deployment  of  the  EU  research 
workforce at national level and throughout Europe as a result of lower barriers to merit based 
mobility  and  better  career  options,  leading  to  increased  knowledge  sharing  and  quality  of 
research across the EU, as well as a balanced supply and demand of researchers.  

The  impact  on  third  countries  of  this  option  would  be  positive  in  terms  of  likelihood  to 
balance  flows  with  highly  industrialised  countries  and  the  attraction  of  researchers  from 
outside the EU, thereby as much as possible taking care through the partnership of mitigation 
of  negative  effects  in  case  of  researchers  from  neighbouring  countries  and  development 
countries.  The  possible  higher  influx  of  researchers  from  outside  the  EU  would  require 
commensurate  attention  of  Member  States  to  take  appropriate  security  measures  aimed  at 
preserving  their  interests  and  those  of  the  EU  in  the  fields  of  public  security  and  defence, 
monetary, economic and commercial matters, and the economic and scientific potential. 

The impact on the administrative burden and costs of this option is overall higher than in 
options  1  and  2,  but  still  modest.  For  Member  States  there  is  no  significant  extra 
administrative  burden.  The  partaking  in  the  partnership  would  require  an  additional  effort, 
depending  on  the  national  structures  in  place,  but  this  may  be  balanced  by  the  sharing  and 
supply  of  studies  and  results  among  the  partnership;  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements 
would  be  kept  as  light  and  proportionate  as  possible,  to  be  implemented  based  on  existing 
structures in the frame of the Lisbon programme.  

Member States and employers and funders of research could be confronted with in some cases 
significant transitional costs of some of the measures proposed (for instance more attractive 
working  packages).  Some  of  these  costs  could  be  covered  by  using  part  of  the  higher 
investment  levels  for  R&D  planned  in  most  Member  States.  The  costs  of  some  of  the 
measures should also be seen as an investment in the attractiveness of the national and with 
that  of  the  EU  research  system.  However,  the  actions  proposed  emphasise  that  while  salary 
levels play a part in providing attractive employment and working conditions, job satisfaction, 
how  academic  performance  is  rewarded,  peer  relationships  and  having  a  supportive, 
professional environment where researchers can pursue their own research interests from an 
early  stage  and  where  they  can  balance  their  professional  and  family  life  are  at  least  as 
important.  Despite  important  ongoing  reforms,  compensation  and  promotion  structures  in 
many public research institutions remain rigid and often make it difficult, for universities in 
particular,  to  compete  in  the  international  academic  market.  Addressing  these  issues  can  be 
achieved without increasing overall salary costs. 

For  research  institutions,  administrative  costs  would  not  be  substantially  higher  and  could 
even  be  lower  than  in  the  baseline  option,  for  instance  where  it  concerns  improvement  of 
access to information on the functioning of the EU legislation on social security coordination. 
For  the  Community  the  administrative  burden  and  costs  of  this  option  3  could  be  slightly 
higher  than  under  the  baseline,  but  would  remain  at  a  relatively  modest  level  of  the 
coordination and support actions paid from FP7 and in part from the administrative budget of 
the Commission. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

5.4. 

Comparison of the policy options versus the no policy change scenario 

Although  the  impacts  of  option  3  should  not  be  overestimated,  since  option  3  as  the  other 
options  is  based  on  an  essentially  voluntary  approach,  the  credible  impacts  of  this  option 
clearly  surpass  those  of  option  1  and  of  option  2.  The  combination  of  a  number  of  vital 
elements constituting the partnership approach in option 3, as highlighted in the previous 
chapter,  makes  the  essential  engagement  of  Member  States  in  that  option  far  more 
compelling than for option 2.  

Even if both options 2 and 3 are addressing the same four identified problems areas on which 
action would be best directed, the architecture of the partnership is far more likely to be 
successful  in  achieving  better  results  with  the  highest  EU  added  value  in  the  short 
timeframe  implied  by  the  urgency  of  the  problems  on  career  development  and  mobility  of 
researchers  in  Europe.  The  greater  probability  for  significantly  enhanced  engagement  is 
making  the  difference  in  expected  impacts.  The  higher  administrative  costs  associated  with 
option 3, in comparison with the other options, are outweighed by the impacts of option 3.  

The partnership will build on the current momentum and allow actions to be undertaken at the 
most  appropriate  level  but  towards  the  same  direction.  Member  States  can  play  their 
full  role  in  the  exact  definition  and  implementation  of  the  process,  in  a  European 
perspective  still  targeting  actions  to  their  needs  and  priorities.  Shared  ownership  of  the 
initiative  would  minimise  the  risks  of  low  engagement  of  the  Member  States  and  allow  the 
dynamic  evolution  of  the  measures  over  time.  The  Commission  will  seek  to  optimise 
existing  Community  instruments,  including  those  available  through  the  FP7  People 
programme,  to  complement  national  actions  and  support  the  partnership.  Actions  should  be 
monitored, at both national and EU-level, and according to commonly agreed indicators for 
progress.  

Table II. Summary of likely impacts of the various policy options 

IMPACTS 

No policy change scenario 

Commission 
Recommendation  and  more 
specific guidelines 

Communication and a 
focused Partnership with 
Member States 

Potential overall 
impact  

Somewhat higher impact, 
due to better focusing on 
the identified key problem 
areas, but limited by the 
overall unlikelihood of 
stronger engagement of 
Member States  

Significantly higher 
impact, and already in the 
shorter term, due to the 
higher probability of 
Member States' 
engagement in the 
partnership approach, the 
focusing of actions on the 
key problem areas and 
adaptation of actions 
within the Lisbon horizon 

Poor impact due to 
continued low engagement 
of Member States, the 
open-endedness of the 
approach and continued 
fragmentation of 
interventions and 
suboptimal use of existing 
frameworks. However, 
some longer progress in 
the key problem areas 
from continuation of the 
Mobility and Career 
strategies and effects from 
European level actions in 
other policy domains 

EN 

37 

   EN 

Potential Economic 
Impacts 

Continued loss of human 
capital to outside the EU 
and suboptimal 
contribution of research to 
the EU economic 
development  

Continued suboptimal 
contribution of research to 
the EU economic 
development  

Potential Social 
Impacts 

Persistence of 
unattractiveness of 
research in relation to 
other professions, 
suboptimal mobility and 
career paths, continued 
segmented research labour 
markets, unfavourable 
employment and working 
conditions, affecting 
younger researchers and 
women researchers 

Persistence, in the shorter 
term, of unattractiveness 
of research in relation to 
other professions, 
suboptimal mobility and 
career paths, continued 
segmented research labour 
markets, unfavourable 
employment and working 
conditions, affecting 
younger researchers and 
women researchers 

More optimal contribution 
of the EU research efforts 
to the economic 
development, through a 
more effective deployment 
of a sustainable research 
workforce at national level 
and throughout the EU 

Increased attractiveness of 
the research profession, 
including to younger 
people and women, based 
on better employment and 
working conditions, 
optimisation of the 
contribution of senior and 
end-of-career researchers; 
more acceptable mobility 
and more attractive career 
options; de-segmenting of 
national or regional 
research labour markets 

Impacts on Third 
Countries 

Continued net outflow 
from the EU of the most 
talented researchers 

Some net outflow from the 
EU of the most talented 
researchers 

Positive, more balanced 
flows between highly 
industrialised countries 

Administrative 
burden and costs 

Limited and mostly on a 
voluntary basis for 
Member States, more 
important for institutions 

Limited and mostly on a 
voluntary basis, although 
for some aspects they can 
be more important for 
Member States and 
institutions  

Still relatively modest and 
depending on the situation 
in the Member States; 
structural reforms can 
minimise overall expenses 
/ investments 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
6. 

 EU VALUE-ADDED AND SUBSIDIARITY 

Given that the areas covered by the initiative are areas of shared competence, there are clearly 
issues of EU added value and subsidiarity. The initiative proposes a partnership with the 
Member States in order to take different actions at the appropriate level. The levels of 
the various actions are consistent with the subsidiarity principles. The Community intervention 
is complementary to and coherent with interventions at national level and synergy is being sought 
between interventions. 

Many of the actions proposed relate to the reform of the national public system, the national 
funding  programmes,  and  education  policies,  which  are  essentially  national  competences. 
Community  contributions  relate  to  the  coordination  of  national  research  policies,  the 
Community  funding 
instruments  and  policies  on  coordinating  social  security  and 
supplementary  pension  rights.  Coordination  of  actions  and  cooperation  between  Member 
States are needed to make cross-border enforcement work.  

Through  the  partnership,  the  Member  States  are  invited  to  play  a  key  role  in  the  exact 
definition, implementation and monitoring of the partnership, which minimises the risks 
of low engagement and would allow the dynamic evolution of the measures over time. Within 
the proposed framework, Member States are expected by early 2009 to adopt a national action 
plan setting out specific objectives and actions to achieve the aims of the partnership. Given 
the  different  national  situations  and  priorities,  each  plan  will  naturally  focus  on  different 
aspects of the overall objectives of the partnership. 

More  engagement  of  the  Member  States  is  also  expected  because  many  of  the  proposed 
actions  are  linked  to  the  processes  being  undertaken  in  most  MS  to  reform  their  public 
research  system  and  their  funding.  The  direction  is  the  same,  with  different  scopes  and  at 
different  speeds:  more  autonomy  and  accountability.  As  some  institutions  open  recruitment 
procedures,  offer  more  attractive  employment  conditions  and  adopt 
their  doctoral 
programmes, a dynamic is being created which results in peer pressure on other institutions in 
the same country or in other countries to do the same.  

The  Commission  will  seek  to  optimise  existing  Community  instruments,  including  those 
available  through  the  FP7  People  programme  to  reinforce  the  partnership.  The  latter  will 
include refocusing and/or strengthening funding on instrument to support mobility grants and 
to  provide  information  and  assistance  services.  The  Commission  will  also  support  the 
partnership through coordination, mutual learning, exchange of best practices, monitoring and 
reporting, following the Lisbon process. As an integral part of the partnership, Member States 
and  the  Commission  will  identify  good  practice  and  where  appropriate  develop  common 
guidelines  and  monitor  progress  at  national  and  EU  levels  and  report  annually  based  on 
agreed indicators. The added value results from the common focusing on closely related 
issues which concern all Member States in different degree, the partnership process that 
should  mobilise  efforts  and  accelerate  progress,  the  increased  benefit  for  each  country 
by  acting  together  (increased  overall  brain  circulation  through  opening  positions  and 
consistent  doctoral  programmes)  and  more  effective  national  policies  due  to  mutual 
learning and common guidelines.  

Some  of  the  actions  at  national  level,  e.g.  improving  salaries  and  funding  industrial 
fellowships  will  require  additional  financial  resources.  They  are  expected  to  come  from 
increased public budget for research, according to their commitments towards the 3% target, 

EN 

39 

   EN 

reallocation  between  funding  instruments  and  reallocation  of  budget  within  institutions 
(autonomy and financial managing). 

The  overall  governance  of  the  ERA  initiatives  will  be  overseen  by  the  Competitiveness 
Council  utilising  the  Lisbon  process  and  national  actions  to  implement  each  initiative 
should be reflected in the National Reform Programmes of the Member States. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

In  order  for  the  partnership  to  successfully  contribute  to  the  creation  of  a  world  class 
European  research  system,  it  is  therefore  important  that  Member  States,  Council  and 
Commission  commit  themselves  to  the  common  objectives  and  endorse  the  proposed 
actions. To this effect: 

•  Member States should adopt a national action plan by early 2009 setting out specific 
objectives and actions to achieve the aims of the partnership. Given the different starting 
positions of each Member State each plan is expected to focus on different aspects of the 
overall  objectives  of  the  partnership;  the  priority  actions  identified  should  be 
implemented by the end of 2010; 

•  the  Commission  should  seek  to  optimise  existing  Community  instruments,  including 

those available through the FP7 People programme, to reinforce the partnership; 

•  as an integral part of the partnership, Member States and the Commission should: 

–  identify good practice and where appropriate develop common guidelines; 

–  monitor progress at national and EU levels and report annually based on agreed 

indicators, as on the following table; 

–  make  maximum  use  of  the  existing  Community  legal  framework  for  the 

benefit of researchers; 

•  in  line  with  its  central  role  in  the  governance  of  ERA  initiatives,  the  Competitiveness 
Council  should  monitor  and  assess  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  partnership 
actions;  

•  at  the  end  of  2010,  an  overall  evaluation  of  the  situation  and  results  from  actions  by 
the partnership should be made, with the help of inter alia the suggested indicators, and 
the need for further EU action to address specific outstanding issues should be considered. 
The evaluation  should fully incorporate the views of researchers themselves. A single 
contact point for researchers to notify the partnership of examples of good practice and 
ongoing  difficulties  should  be  considered  as  well  as  the  organisation  of  a  major 
conference in 2009 to provide a platform for researchers' views. 

Problems identified 

Objectives 

Core Indicators 

Europe  does  not  attract 
the best talents because 
of 
"closed" 
recruitment  conditions 
and non portable grants  

the 

To  accelerate  progress  towards  the 
removal  of  remaining  barriers  to  the 
open,  transparent,  competition-based 
at 
recruitment 
and 
institutional, 
Community 
the 
increased portability of grants 

researchers 

including 

national 

levels 

of 

Percentage  of  non-national  and  external 
researchers recruited by institution and MS;  

Percentage  of  public  researchers'  positions 
openly  advertised  on-line  by  institution  and 
MS;  

Percentage  of  individual  grants  awarded  by 
Community 
national 
agencies that can be portable  

programmes 

and 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
use 

of 
Suboptimal 
rules 
existing 
coordinating 
social 
security  throughout  the 
EU  for  the  benefit  of 
researchers 

access 

improved 

To improve awareness of researchers 
and  employers  of  and  optimise  the 
use  of  the  existing  legal  framework, 
through 
to 
information on the application of EU 
social security coordination rules and 
explore  derogations  to  general  rules 
on  legislation  applicable;  to  ease 
supplementary 
transferability 
of 
pension 
the 
a  EU  Pension 
possibility 
institution 

rights  and  exploit 

for 

Unattractive  working 
conditions  and  career 
prospects  cannot  bring 
the best talents 

To bring in more attractive "working 
packages" especially for young 
researchers and to progressively 
introduce more flexibility in 
contractual and administrative 
arrangements and relevant national 
legislation for senior and end of 
career researchers 

Deficient 
initial  and 
life-long training do not 
provide  for 
the  best 
innovation-driven skills 

that 

To  ensure 
researchers  are 
equipped with the full range of skills 
and  encourage  better  links  between 
academia and industry 

Percentage of researchers working in another 
MS, by gender and career stage;  

of 

administrations39 
Number 
providing  information  on  agreements  with 
other Member States and third countries;  

national 

Number and hits of social security web pages 
concerning researchers 

Percentage  of  researchers  on  fixed  term  and 
permanent  contracts  by  institution  and  by 
MS; 

Percentage  of 
senior 
alternative career paths;  

researchers  with 

Numbers of women in research and positions 
of responsibility by institution and MS 

Percentage  of  doctoral  programmes  with 
industry  placements  by  institution  and  MS 
and percentage of researchers that benefit; 

Percentage of researchers that have worked in 
or  moved  between  different  sectors  by 
institution and MS 

39 

Corrected  appropriately  for  the  differences  in  the  physical  infrastructure  of  social  security  at  national 
level  which  can  differ  considerably,  varying  from  only  a  few  institutions  to  a  large  number  of 
institutions responsible for the different fields of social security 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
8. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bruegel. 2007. Bruegel Policy Brief: Why Reform Europe’s Universities? Issue 2007/04 

EIRMA, EUA, EARTO, PROTON Europe. 2005. Responsible partnering: joining forces in 
a world of open innovation  

European Commission. 2003. Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators. 

European Commission. 2005a. A Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers 
and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. Brussels 

European Commission. 2005b. Inventory of post-doctoral schemes in Europe. Brussels 

European  Commission.  2006a.  She  Figures  2006.  Women  and  Science:  Statistics  and 
Indicators. Brussels 

European Commission. 2006b. Mobility of Researchers between Academia and Industry: 12 
Practical Recommendations. Brussels 

European Commission. 2006c. Science, technology and innovation in Europe. 

European Commission. 2007a. Europe in the global research landscape. Brussels 

European  Commission.  2007b.  Key  Figures  2007,  Towards  a  European  Research  Area: 
Science, Technology and Innovation. Brussels 

European  Commission.  2007c.  Remuneration  of  researchers  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors. Brussels  

European  Commission.  2007d.  Integrated  Information  System  on  European  Researchers. 
Brussels 

European  Commission.  2007e.  ERAWATCH.  Collection  and  analysis  of  existing  data  on 
RESearchers  CAReers  (RESCAR)  and  implementation  of  new  data  collection  activities. 
Brussels  

European  Commission.  2007g.  Implementation  report  of  the  mobility  and  career 
development strategy 2006. Brussels 

European Commission. 2008a. Evidence on the main factors inhibiting mobility and career 
development of researchers (survey under development). Brussels 

European Commission. 2008b. ERA consultation report. Brussels 

European  Commission.  2008c.  EG  report  on  Realising  a  labour  market  for  researchers. 
Brussels 

European University Association. 2007. DOC-CAREERS. Brussels 

Eurostat,  2007.  How  mobile  are  highly  qualified  human  resources  in  Science  and 
Technology. Statistics in Focus, 75/2007. Brussels 

EN 

43 

   EN 

Gago, J. M.(ed.) 2007. The Future of Science and Technology in Europe. A collective book 
of the EU Ministers of Science. Lisbon. Ministry of Sciences 

Horta, H. et al. 2007. Academic inbreeding and scientific productivity, Paper submitted to the 
CHER Conference 2007 " The Research Mission of the University" (UCD Dublin) 

Lambert R. 2003. Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration 

Ledin,  A.  et  al.  2007.  A  persistent  problem:  Traditional  gender  roles  hold  back  female 
scientists. Heidelberg: EMBO report 

Mahroum,  S.  2000.  ‘Highly  silles  globetrotters:  mapping  the  international  migration  of 
human capital in R&D Management 30. January 2000. Blackwell 

Morano-Foadi  S.  2005,  Scientific  Mobility,  Career  Progression,  and  Excellence  in  the 
European Research Area, International Migration. Vol. 43 (5) 

OECD.  2002.  Frascati  manual  (sixth  edition),  Proposed  Standard  Practice  for  Surveys  and 
Experimental Development. Paris 

OECD. 2006. Information Technology Outlook. Paris 

OECD. 2007a. Science, Technology and Industry, Scoreboard 2007. Paris 

OECD. 2007b. Economic survey of the European Union 2007. Paris  

OECD/ UNESCO Institute for Statistics/EUROSTAT. 2007. Careers of Doctorate holders 
(CDH)  Project.  Mapping  careers  and  mobility  of  doctorate  holders:  draft  guidelines,  model 
questionnaire and indicators. Paris 

Oswald  and  Ralsmark.  2008.  Some  Evidence  on  the  Future  of  Economics.  University  of 
Warwick. 

PRO INNO EUROPE. 2007. Mini study: Skills for innovation. Brussels  

The Scientist. 2007. Best Places to Work 2007 (Post-docs) 

Thursby M. and Thursby J. 2006. Here or There? A survey of factors in multinational R&D 
location. US National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute 
of Medicine. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

9. 

TABLE OF ACRONYMS 

BEPG: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 

C&C: Charter and Code 

CREST: Scientific and Technology Research Committee 

EARTO: European Association of Research Technology Organisations 

EAU: European Association of Universities 

EIT: European Institute of Technology 

EMBL: European Molecular Biology Laboratory 

ERA: European Research Area 

ERA-NET: European Research Area NETworking 

ERC: European Research Council 

ERAWATCH: Integrated Information system for ERA 

EQF: European Qualification Framework 

EURES: European Employment Services 

FTE: Full Time Equivalent 

FP: Framework Programme 

GDP: Gross Domestic Product 

HRST: Human Resources in Science and Technology 

IA: Impact Assessment 

INSCED: International Standard Classification of Education 

IORP: Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions 

ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations 

MS: Member State 

MST: Maths, Science and Technology 

NSF: National Science Foundation 

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OMC: Open Method of Coordination 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
PRO: Public Research Organisation 

R&D: Research and Development 

RFO: Research Funding Organisation 

RPO: Research Performing Organisation 

RTO: Research and Technology Organisation 

SME: Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 

S&E: Science and Engineering 

S&T: Science and Technology 

SET: Science, Engineering and Technology  

SGHRM: Steering Group for Human Resources in Research 

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths 

TRESS: Training and Reporting in European Social Security 

EN 

46 

   EN 

Annex 1: Highlights from the Public Consultation following the ERA Green Paper 

Highlights from the positions of national governments and European bodies 

Most of the responses by national authorities, received by 31.12.2007, were provided by the 
ministries in charge of research; some countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and UK) 
provided  overall  national  positions  and  others  only  sent  the  conclusions  of  national 
consultations40.  

Germany,  Sweden  and  Switzerland  highlight  the  need  for  European  research  policies  to 
uphold the principle of excellence. Belgium sees the EU as a catalyst which should create the 
necessary  political  consensus  to  remove  problems  and  barriers  to  transnational  cooperation, 
fill  identified  gaps  and  act  where  benefits  of  scale  can  be  realised.  The  Czech  Republic 
considers  that  the  EU  should  set  common  framework  conditions  while  respecting  national 
diversity and reducing bureaucracy. Denmark considers it fundamental for European research 
and  the  ERA  to  be  open  to  cooperation  with  the  best  scientists  in  the  world.  Switzerland 
considers  that  increasing  competition  between  European  scientists  is  the  key  issue  for  the 
ERA rather than addressing fragmentation.  

Concerning  the  single  market  for  researchers,  the  Czech  Republic  wants  to  minimise 
legislative  barriers.  Estonia  supports  the  creation  of  a  single  labour  market  for  researchers 
while  wishing  to  ensure  that  this  does  not  lead  to  the  deterioration  of  research  in  less 
developed regions. France also considers it necessary to create a single market for all research 
workers, including teachers, engineers and technicians and for all funding to include resources 
to support new researchers. Spain believes that the European Charter for Researchers and the 
Code of Conduct for their Recruitment should be made compulsory in the form of a Directive 
and  that  the  removal  of  barriers  to  mobility  should  also  be  enforced  by  regulation.  Finland 
believes that social security practices across the EU should be clarified in general, not just for 
researchers.  Poland  would  consider  arrangements  concerning  the  coordination  of  social 
security  at  the  EU  level  including  the  possibility  of  scientists'  taking  on  the  role  of  prime 
payers, as well as a legal framework covering scientists' rights, duties and salaries. 

Sweden considers  the lack  of  portability of social security  provisions and the reservation of 
academic positions for national and/or internal staff as the main obstacles to a single labour 
market  for  researchers.  Austria  emphasises  the  lack  of  researchers,  particularly  women,  in 
some fields. Denmark, Norway and Spain also put special focus on the promotion of women 
in science. Austria and Italy emphasise the need to focus on exchange rather than brain drain 
or  gain.  Italy  would  like  to  see  a  European  level  database  of  all  researchers  and  more 
emphasis on interdisciplinary training. 

Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland  and  UK  instead  favour  the  spreading  of  best  practice  and  the 
voluntary  implementation  of  instruments  like  the  Charter  and  Code.  Finland  believes  that 
compulsory  EU  legislation  in  this  area  could  have  highly  asymmetric  impacts  in  different 
Member States given the diversity of national employment legislation and practices. Belgium 
also does not favour compulsory measures but believes in strengthening existing tools like the 
Charter  and  Code.  At  the  EU  level,  the  Netherlands  considers  the  priority  to  be  continuing 

40 

EN 

all 

See 
consultation_en.html) 

contributions 

on 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/progress-on-debate/stakeholder-

47 

   EN 

                                                 
with measures aimed at promoting the training of researchers and the improvement of career 
prospects, through improving mobility. 

The European Parliament (EP), EESC and CoR support concerted action in this area. The EP 
makes particular reference to developing an information system, increasing mobility including 
inter-sectoral,  promoting  women  and  improving  science  education.  EESC  considers  that 
contract conditions, salaries, portability of social security and “family integrity” are the key 
obstacles to better carriers and mobility. This is supported by a similar assessment from CoR. 

Overall results: Researchers constitute the most important ERA dimension for action at the 

EU level 

All  six  of  the  ERA  dimensions  in  the  Green  paper  are  considered  important  by  the 
respondents  to  the  on-line  questionnaire.  “Sharing  knowledge”,  followed  by  “Developing 
world-class research infrastructures”, is highlighted as the most significant area contributing 
to  the  ERA  Vision.  However,  concerning  the  level  of  expected  actions  (EU,  National  or 
Regional),  “Realising  a  single  labour  market  for  researchers”,  followed  by  “Opening  to  the 
world”  and  “Developing  world-class  research  infrastructures”,  is  the  top  area  of  expected 
action at the EU level. “Realising a single labour market for researchers” is strongly supported 
especially by individual respondents, PROs and NGOs. At the other end of the spectrum, all 
groups  of  stakeholders  concur  that  it  is  not  primarily  at  the  EU  level  that  actions  for 
“Strengthening research institutions” are needed but rather at national level. 

Position papers provide insight on the kind of expected action. One organisation expresses it: 
“European-wide  structures  and  schemes  should  constitute  a  balanced  mix  of  approaches 
respecting  and  facilitating  bottom-up  research  activities,  combined  with  strategic  guidance 
and  coordination  where  this  serves  European  policy  objectives.”  Two  universities  suggest 
that  “the  EU  should  be  more  active  in  encouraging  light-touch  regulation  to  help  remove 
barriers  to  business-university  collaboration”  as  well  as  promoting  “the  establishment  of 
open access repositories and supporting academics in using them.”  

A majority of respondents  endorse  the use of  various mechanisms  to promote  ERA such as 
financial incentives, increased EU budget, reinforced coordination and guidelines. But, there 
is generally little demand for binding legislative actions at European level. Respondents prefer 
flexible  and  adaptable,  bottom-up  cooperation  schemes,  networking,  voluntary  legal 
frameworks,  the  exchange  of  best  practices  and  the  establishment  of  guidelines.  While 
respondents  do  not  welcome  regulatory  action  for  public-private  partnerships,  sustainable 
bottom-up partnerships among industry and institutions are deemed to be very important, both 
for knowledge sharing and for strengthening research institutions. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

Realising a single labour market for researchers 

Opening to the world: international cooperation in
S&T 

Developing world-class research infrastructures 

Strengthening research institutions 

Optimising research programmes and priorities 

Sharing knowledge

0

200

400

600

800

European National Regional No opinion

Figure 1: The expected level of action (EU, national and regional) for each of the six ERA areas 

Awareness and implementation of the C&C: voluntary versus mandatory actions 

Almost half of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire declare that they are sufficiently 
aware of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their Recruitment 
(Charter and Code - C&C) issued in 2005 by the European Commission as a common, albeit 
voluntary  framework  for  Member  States,  funders  and  employers  of  researchers  to  take 
account of the European dimension of research careers, including the transnational opening of 
vacancies  and  funding  opportunities  for  researchers.  However,  the  analysis  by  type  of 
stakeholder  reveals  that  the  Charter  and  Code  obtains  a  better  score  awareness  in  higher 
education institutions, public sector and research funding organisations and that governmental 
bodies are among the stakeholders that are least aware of the Charter and Code. The C&C are 
always less known in the private sector.  

Three  fifths  of  those  responding  positively  consider  that,  due  to  their  voluntary  nature,  the 
Charter  and  Code  will  not  become  a  genuine  factor  for  European  research  careers. 
Nonetheless,  a  number  of  individual  respondents  express  preference  for  the  C&C  to  be 
voluntary  rather  than  mandatory  and  incentives  for  compliance  are  also  recommended.  It  is 
also  underlined  that  a  mandatory  C&C  would  be  difficult  to  achieve  in  industrial  R&D 
organisations. 

The  great  diversity  of  research  patterns  throughout  Europe  makes  implementation  of  the 
Charter and Code difficult. Various suggestions are made in order to translate the voluntary 
principles  into  concrete  implementation.  For  example,  one  stakeholder  proposes  that  a 
concrete  measure  could  be  to  make  research  funding  from  the  EU  research  programmes 
conditional  on  recognition  and  implementation  of  the  principles  of  the  Charter  by  the 
institutions receiving EU funding.  

There is strong support for the principles of the Charter and the Code in the stakeholder free-
format  responses.  One  stakeholder  argues:  “The  European  Charter  constitutes  a  positive 
initiative,  which  it  would  be  advisable  to  prolong  by  more  concrete  measurements  of 
coordination.”  However,  there  are  divergent  viewpoints  regarding  whether  these  principles 
should be mandatory or linked to eligibility for funding support. Serious concern is expressed 

EN 

49 

   EN 

regarding the degree of flexibility with which the Charter and Code should be enforced in the 
private sector and in particular in innovating SMEs, for “it would be difficult to imagine that 
SMEs would follow the same rules as big research laboratories.” 

Recognition of the profession and salary conditions  

Of  the  main  concerns  that  could  be  addressed  if  the  Charter  and  Code  were  binding  (or,  at 
least, if more specific guidelines at European level applied), funding and salary levels come 
first, closely followed by the recognition and rewarding of mobility, recruitment and working 
conditions.  A  number  of  respondents  raise  the  substantial  problems  for  mobile  researchers, 
including  the  lack  of  harmonisation  of  pension  schemes  within  Europe,  non-competitive 
researcher salaries and the comparatively low professional status of researchers. A number of 
individual respondents comment on the difficulties linked to mobility, e.g. moving families, in 
terms  of  work  permits  for  partners  and  children  needing  to  adjust  to  different  education 
systems.  Some  respondents  also  identify  the  potential  for  a  mobility  requirement  to 
discriminate  against  those  with  disabilities.  Others  argue  that  working  conditions  should 
ensure  access  to  childcare  and  also  take  into  account  the  special  circumstances  of  single 
parents. 

From the overall results, a large proportion of respondents (80%) believe that a “Charter and 
Code  label”  should  be  awarded  to  employers  and  funders  who  are  successfully  engaged  in 
applying the principles. Indeed, a ‘label mechanism’ would help speed up implementation of 
the  Charter  &  Code  and  is  considered  preferable  to  coercive  legislation.  Some  stakeholders 
recommend that the Open Method of Coordination policy-making approach and the Bologna 
Process structures could be used for Charter and Code implementation rather than regulatory 
mechanisms.  The  substantial  administrative  burden  and  costs  associated  with  implementing 
and  monitoring  the  C&C  are  also  commented  on,  in  particular  in  relation  to  decreasing 
interest  and  commitment.  Nonetheless,  a  Foundation  believes  that  “a  more  aggressive  and 
coordinated approach is required if the ERA is to create the necessary working environment 
for the research community to thrive on. Initiatives such as the C&C will only be valuable if 
their implementation is monitored and assessed across Europe.” 

Legal status for mobile researchers 

The  majority  of  respondents  (74.6%)  have  a  mobility  experience  but  most  of  them  did  not 
spend more than three months in another EU country to do some research work (45.3%). A 
small  majority  are  fellowship  holders  and  only  one  third  may  be  considered  to  be  “posted” 
workers  as  they  keep  their  contract  in  their  country  of  residence.  Only  one  third  respond  to 
this  question,  perhaps  because  they  do  not  seem  fully  aware  about  their  real  status  during 
these periods. Some of the researchers think they are fellowship holders because they obtain 
money  from  European  organisations  e.g.  Marie  Curie  fellowships.  However,  this  money  is 
often given to the host organisation which signs an employment contract with the researcher. 
The researchers are then considered to be salaried workers even if they originally obtained an 
EU programme fellowship, which may have misled them in this question, as confirmed by the 
following  quote:  “Grants  should  be  inclusive  of  all  compulsory  pension  and  social  security 
contributions, and researchers should be recruited by their host organisation so as to clarify 
their labour market position and to guarantee pension and social security.” 

The  limited  period  of  time  (one  or  exceptionally  two  years)  for  which  a  worker,  including 
researchers,  posted  to  another  EU  country  can  be  subject  to  the  legislation  of  his  or  her 
country of origin can be prolonged based on Article 17 of Regulation 1408/71. Only 6.8% of 

EN 

50 

   EN 

the  respondents  to  this  question (61.8%  of  total  respondents)  used  this  possibility  and  more 
than two thirds of those used this possibility for 1 to 3 times. This may be due to the fact that 
only  a  few  host  organisations  know  about  this  system  and  that  researchers  may  not  be 
considered to be “certain categories of persons” allowed to remain within the social security 
system  of  their  country  of  origin.  The  remarks  reveal  that  the  application  of  bilateral 
agreements on social security signed between different countries is still unknown. Most often, 
it is up to the researcher to provide this information to the local social security administration. 
According to the respondents, the lack of information on this existing legislation also reduces 
the share of researchers who can benefit from this system. A Director of a research institute 
highlights: “I tried  to defend the interests of personnel we had delegated from another MS. 
The problem re-occurred regularly and in almost all cases we had to go to high levels in the 
Foreign Ministries to solve it.” 

Problematic issues related to social security for mobile researchers within the EU 

The  on-line  consultation  reveals  a  lack  of  information  on  the  rights  of  migrant  researchers: 
they  are  worried  firstly  about  matters  such  as  statutory  pension  rights,  followed  by  health 
insurance, unemployment benefits and family benefits (parental leave). Among the responses 
to the open questions, pension rights seem the main concern, as most of the researchers will 
have  to  claim  their  pension  benefits  from  different  systems,  in  the  different  countries  they 
have  lived  and  worked  in.  According  to  the  respondents,  even  if  the  actual  European 
legislation  allows  for  the  aggregation  of  periods  completed  under  different  systems,  the 
procedures to obtain the pensions is still very long. Less than 10% of the respondents are of 
the opinion that “accident at work” coverage is problematic.  

Acquisition, preservation and transferability of supplementary pension rights 

In the question on supplementary pension rights, the prevailing options include common rules 
throughout the EU and setting up a “European researchers’ pension fund”. A large majority 
(79.5%) of the on-line respondents agree that common rules should apply throughout the EU 
on the acquisition, preservation and transferability of supplementary pension rights. Out of the 
comments, the most relevant themes are: the need to ensure a proper pension, to reduce the 
paperwork  involved  and  to  organise  transferability  of  pension  rights.  Vesting  periods  and 
resulting negative effects should be reduced and compensation in  salary for pension gaps is 
voiced as a solution. Over 65% out of the 66% of the respondents to the question agree that 
researchers would be well served with a European researchers’ pension fund to secure their 
pension rights.  Even if several comments showed that  respondents would  find  it  difficult to 
judge  this  option  (because  they  would  need  more  information  to  fully  understand  it),  this 
principle is generally regarded as a potential positive step. 

Respondents to the on-line questionnaire are mostly (65%) favourable to the setting up of a 
“European  researchers’  pension  fund”.  When  looking  at  the  breakdown  by  type  of 
stakeholder,  it  is  worth  noting  that  large  commercial  organisations  and  associations 
representing commercial interests are mainly opposed to such a step. Comments suggest that 
the  two  options,  common  rules  and  European  researchers’  pension  fund,  are  not  mutually 
exclusive  but  they  can  coexist  next  to  each  other.  Respondents  point  out  that  there  are 
differences amongst the EU Member States in standards, both for social security, revenue and 
research  level.  Therefore,  it  is  important  to  opt  for  a  solution  which  takes  these  differences 
into account. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

The majority of the free-format opinions point out that to achieve truly seamless mobility of 
researchers,  further  progress  needs  to  be  made  to  foster  portability  of  social  security 
provisions  and  pension  rights  between  Member  States:  “Vesting  periods  for  portability  of 
pensions  should  be  abolished.  Supplementary  pension  rights  obtained  should  follow  the 
researcher  from  country  to  country  and  from  employee  to  employee.”  Higher  education 
institutions  assess  that  the  issue  of  portability  of  pension  schemes  requires  the  European 
Commission and Member States “to devote considerable political will to resolve this issue.”  

Flexicurity principles and the labour market for researchers 

Just  under  half  of  those  responding  to  the  question  (48.1%)  on  flexicurity  believe  that  its 
principles  could  enhance  the  attractiveness  of  European  research  careers.  There  is  a  similar 
level of support for the development of common standards in its implementation. However, 
support  for  advancing  flexicurity  via  fora  bringing  together  the  key  stakeholders  is  slightly 
lower. 

Free-format contributions provide a variety of viewpoints on flexicurity. Some argue that, in 
view  of  national  divergence  (discussed  in  the  Commission  Member  State  Employment 
Committees’ paper, May 2006, regarding Denmark, Holland and Sweden), “flexicurity should 
not  be  forced  upon  the  Member  States  through  binding  common  principles  or  prescriptive 
routes.”  An  organisation  comments  that  the  concept  of  flexicurity  is  not  sufficiently  well 
defined or its benefits readily identified; on the other hand, a research network suggests that 
flexicurity could make scientific careers more attractive.  

Industry warns that binding/enforceable measures at European level may smother the labour 
market  for  knowledge  workers  in  the  EU.  The  best  people  are  interested  in  research  jobs 
worldwide and are available on the labour market only very briefly (1-2 weeks) until they are 
hired.  Since  EU-level  measures  may  introduce  additional  steps  that  could  slow  down 
processes, Europe risks losing the flexibility and attractiveness that are essential to retain the 
top candidates. 

An association argues that policies of fostering and retaining talents are critical in successful 
ERA implementation. However, for this to occur, most of the association members stress the 
importance  of  flexicurity  principles,  being  at  the  same  time  concerned  by  the  impact  of  its 
implementation on future careers as well as on the working environment. 

Attracting young talents to a research career 

Three  quarters  of  the  on-line  respondents  agree  that  the  lack  of  information  on  careers  in 
research is a major barrier towards greater up-take, with a relatively much smaller proportion 
of  respondents,  however,  believing  that  information  on  careers  is  good  but  that  the  careers 
themselves  are  unattractive  and  not  competitive  with  other  options.  As  to  how  information 
could be improved, just under two thirds of respondents (60%) agree that the role of career 
advisors could be enhanced; whether parents need more information is less clear with nearly 
half agreeing this can have positive effects, one third disagreeing, and 18% of the respondents 
stating they have no opinion. 

A number of stakeholder organisations favour more active engagement of scientists with the 
public  and  particularly  with  schools:  “the  concept  of  research  should  be  introduced  at  an 
early age.” The JetNet “Youngsters and Technology Network” in the Netherlands is cited as 
an  example  of  successful  engagement  with  schools,  while  science  festivals  are  a  prime 
example of engagement with cities. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

About  a  quarter  of  respondents  provide  additional  comments  regarding  attraction  and 
retention issues. These include a plea to establish genuine career paths for researchers, along 
with competitive remuneration and family-friendly workplace policies. Honesty about career 
opportunities  available  in  particular  fields  of  research  is  also  considered  important  and  a 
number  raise  the  problems  of  partners/spouses  with  dual  careers  finding  satisfactory 
employment  opportunities  for  both.  In  relation  to  support  for  mobility  of  families,  an 
organisation recommends greater provision of international schools in Europe. This initiative 
is seen as one way of substantially reducing the disadvantages often experienced by children 
of mobile researchers when changing national education systems. 

The disenchantment regarding employment opportunities for young researchers is commented 
on by a number of free-format contributions. An organisation suggests that the Commission 
should investigate why some countries regard scientists highly and others do not and use the 
outcomes in the development of appropriate policies. Some free-format contributions suggest 
that  it  is  not  enough  to  attract  young  talents,  but  it  is  also  important  for  researchers  to 
“acquire multidisciplinary as well as soft skills that will enable them to cope more easily with 
change such as cross-border mobility or moving from one research environment to another.” 

Several stakeholder organisations comment that the Green Paper is much more focused on the 
supply side of skilled in Science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) workers needed for 
innovation than on the demand side. This is clearly emphasised by an industrial confederation 
as  follows  “Currently  ERA  policies  focus  firmly  on  the  “Push”  side  of  the  equation  –
generating research activity and collaboration, facilitating researcher movement, increasing 
infrastructure.  All  of  these  are  important  and  necessary,  but  the  “Pull”  side  must  also  be 
addressed:  creating  markets,  creating  intelligent  customers  (public  and  private,  corporate 
and  individual)  and  creating  demand  for  innovation.  These  are  the  real  drivers  of  research 
investment and innovation in the economy.” 

More women in research, in particular in more senior positions 

Working  conditions  enabling  a  better  work/life  balance  are  considered  important  for 
increasing the recruitment and advancement of women in research careers by a large number 
of respondents (88%). As to the idea of benchmarking recruitment and funding of researchers 
at institutional level, the results are less clear with nearly half agreeing this can have positive 
effects,  one  third  disagreeing  and  20%  of  respondents  stating  they  have  no  opinion.  The 
proportion  of  those  that  disagree  with  this  suggestion  is  higher  among  the  men  (38%)  than 
among  the  women  (25%).  Comments  added  by  respondents  confirm  the  often  ‘hidden’  or 
subtle  discrimination  of  women  in  the  scientific  world  and  plea  for  more  effective  changes 
than a ‘benchmarking’ effort. However, just under half of all respondents (and two thirds of 
the  male  respondents)  is  not  supportive  of  positive  discrimination  in  recruitment  regarding 
women.  

A  number  of  the  stakeholder  responses  identify  obstacles  to  the  participation  of  women  in 
research careers and suggest  model  initiatives which could help the reconciliation of family 
and  professional  life.  For  example,  the  Project  Juno  Code  of  Practice  in  the  UK  aimed  at 
advancing the careers of women in physics and the Nusslein-Vollhard programme within the 
Max-Planck  Society.  Incentives  such  as  employment  packages  including  childcare  facilities 
are  also  discussed.  Attention  is  also  drawn  to  the  pressure  on  researchers  to  demonstrate 
mobility as a factor in the underrepresentation of women scientists. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

The potential of end of career researchers 

Just over two thirds of respondents consider that greater use of end of career researchers for 
mentoring  and  advisory  functions  could  be  facilitated  through  the  provision  of  new  job 
opportunities/incentives targeted at this group. However, less than half are supportive of legal 
changes  which  enable  later  retirement.  Also  some  respondents  are  concerned  that  retaining 
end  of  career  researchers  could  impede  the  creation  of  positions  for  younger  researchers.  A 
number of stakeholder organisations also provide support for the more effective utilisation of 
end of career researchers in specific roles such as mentoring. Scientists from outside Europe 
are also considered to be an obvious source for increasing the talent pool. 

Attracting the European scientific diaspora and best world talents  

Countries  such  as  China  and  India  have  developed  a  wide  range  of  policies  and  initiatives 
aimed at the strategic management of their scientific diaspora for national economic growth 
and  development.  Over  half  of  the  respondents  (58.6%)  agree  that  joint  programming  and 
funding  approaches  along  with  sharing  of  information  throughout  Europe  would  enhance 
linkages  with  expatriate  researchers.  About  half  of  the  respondents  are  also  supportive  of 
initiatives  which  would  better  enable  non-European  researchers  based  in  Europe  to  keep  in 
touch with other fellow nationals. 

Approximately three fifths of respondents agree that mobility and recruitment of researchers 
irrespective  of  nationality  would  be  enhanced  through  the  exchange  of  good  practice 
regarding  fellowship  programmes  aimed  at  re-attracting  researchers.  Similar  support  is 
provided for fellowship and funding programmes that entail a transnational dimension and are 
not  limited  by  the  nationality  of  the  applicant.  There  is  also  support  for  joint  funding  in  a 
number of stakeholder responses. However, it is recommended that attention is also given to 
researchers form poorer economies and that the movement of researchers is not unilateral. 

Education and life-long training  

Transnational networking of doctoral training programmes is considered by around two fifths 
of respondents as one way of accelerating the development of high quality, industry relevant 
researchers. The development of common standards and exchange of good practices regarding 
these programmes is also considered important. 

In relation to life-long training, just over half of respondents agree with the proposal to raise 
awareness amongst stakeholders on the importance of this issue. Around half agree with the 
proposal  for  a  European-wide  exchange  on  good  practice.  And  slightly  less  than  half  are 
supportive of establishing common standards regarding life-long training across Europe.  

Just  under  15%  of  respondents  provide  additional  comments  on  life-long  training, 
standardisation of training and acquisition of transferable skills (e.g. project management and 
communication).  Whilst  some  advocate  standardisation  of  doctoral  training  and  research 
programmes in Europe, others comment on the importance of maintaining national diversity 
arguing that the introduction of common standards could stifle innovation rather than raise the 
quality of education and research.  Some also  recommend  much greater linkage  between the 
number  of  PhD  places  and  industry  demand  and  others  express  concern  about  common 
standards  increasing  an  already  heavy  administrative  burden  for  researchers.  It  is  also 
mentioned  that  mobility  could  be  detrimental  to  career  prospects  on  return  to  the  home 
country.  

EN 

54 

   EN 

Many  stakeholders  who  submitted  position  papers  mention  that  education  is  not  adequately 
present in the ERA Green Paper although it is seen as a pre-requisite for spreading scientific 
knowledge and attracting young people to science and therefore could have been the seventh 
axis of the ERA vision. 

According to the UK Higher Education Sector, there is a need for engagement with the ERA 
agenda at the earliest stages, i.e. at school level. It is also important that effective and reliable 
information is available through careers services when young people are making their initial 
career  choices.  The  opportunities  to  be  mobile  and  experience  the  advantages  that  a  period 
spent  living  and  working  abroad  offer,  could  also  be  highlighted  at  an  earlier  stage.  This 
argument is supported by a European Industry Council as follows “The Bologna model should 
be used for building researcher education with a strong ERA scope. An opportunity could be 
European wide programmes that aim at supply of world-class researchers in areas prioritised 
by  European  research  initiatives  such  as  European  Technology  platforms.”  One  comment 
concludes: “the EU must also grow its own quality researcher base and this must start at the 
earliest  stages.  Schools  should  provide  a  stimulating  environment  for  learning  STEM 
(science,  technology,  engineering  and  maths)  subjects  and  should  take  every  opportunity  to 
bring those with relevant practical experience into teaching and demonstration roles.” 

The importance of operating in a global context and increasing collaboration between public 
and private sector R&D organisations have made the concept of a conventional career path in 
science obsolete. In this regard, a range of the stakeholder organisations comment explicitly 
on  the  importance  of  Early  Career  Researchers  acquiring  transferable/soft  skills  to  enhance 
their  employability.  These  skills  include  project  and  financial  management;  knowledge  and 
data management, working in a multicultural environment, etc. The new UK/Irish Institute for 
Knowledge Transfer is suggested as a model for the provision of such training and could be 
made open to all researchers across Europe. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

Annex 2: Data and figures 

The professional category “Researcher” is not a defined occupation ascribed a code under the 
International  Standard  Classification  of  Occupations  (ISCO)41  and  this  is  the  source  of 
problems  in  data  comparability  and  harmonisation.  Doctoral  students  (who  are  students  but 
also  researchers  and  are  often  employed  as  such)  are  classified  under  the  International 
Standard  Classification  of  Education  (ISCED97),  which  is  used  to  define  tertiary  education 
programmes that lead to the award of an advanced research degree (ISCED Level 6). For the 
definition of this level this typically requires the submission of a thesis of publishable quality, 
representing the product of original research and a significant contribution to knowledge. In 
addition  this  level  is  also  considered  to  prepare  graduates  (one  assumes  through  training 
programmes)  for  faculty  posts  in  institutions  offering  largely  theoretically  based  taught 
programmes (ISCED level 5A). As doctoral students may also at the same time be employed 
in faculty posts, in  differing  institutions within differing educational systems, with differing 
employment conditions and time lengths for completion of doctoral studies, difficulties again 
arise in terms of data harmonisation and comparability. 

An increasing amount of quantitative and qualitative data become now available (EC 2007a-e, 
2008). Some of these data are derived from Eurostat’s education database but caution has to 
be exercised because the European education systems differ between countries, and for some 
countries  duplications  of  degrees  might  exist.  Eurostat  and  the  OECD  are  also  developing 
improved  harmonised  data  collections  in  several  areas.  Eurostat/OECD  and  UNESCO  are 
involved  in  harmonising  national  surveys  on  the  Careers  of  Doctorate  Holders  (CDH): 
currently  17  countries  have  such  surveys  but  with  various  objectives,  populations  and 
frequencies which currently hamper comparability. 

In  order  to  fill  the  information  gaps  on  "researchers",  studies  and  reports  often  use  proxy 
indicators such as Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST)42 as defined by the 
Canberra  Manual  on  the  measurement  of  human  resources  devoted  to  scientific  and 
technological  activities  (OECD  1995),  sub-classifications  of  which  include  Science  & 
Engineering (S&E) workers and doctorate holders. The table below shows the size for each 
population  according  to  the  proxy  used  in  comparison  to  Research  and  Development 
personnel and Researchers.  

Table  III.  Why  proxy  indicators  shouldn't  be  used  when  describing  the  population  of 
researchers. Comparison of various proxy indicators for researchers in EU25, 2005 

Active 
population 

HRST  HRST 

core 

Scientists  & 
engineers 

R&D 
personnel 

Researchers

213.8 

86.30 

31.8  

9.4  

2.9 

1.8 

(1.3 FTE) 

In 
(Million) 

Persons 

Source: Eurostat 

41 
42 

See http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/draft08.pdf  
HRST  is  defined  according  to  the  Canberra  Manual  as  a  person  fulfilling  one  of  the  following 
conditions:  Successfully  completed  education  at  the  third  level  in  a  S&T  field  of  study;  not  formally 
qualified  as  above,  but  employed  in  an  S&T  occupation  where  the  above  qualifications  are  normally 
required  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As population sizes are very different, none of the proxy indicators can inform adequately 
on research and development personnel or researchers, except if one hypothesizes that the 
proxy populations have the same mobility patterns and social characteristics as the population 
of  researchers.  Similarly,  some  researchers  are  doctorate  holders  but  others  are  not.  A 
recent  study  based  on  data  from  the  European  Patent  Office  found  that  only  a  minority  of 
patent holders are doctorate holders43. 

Table IV. Number of job posted on the Researchers Mobility Portal 

On-line 

XML 

Total 

2005 

799 

589 

1,388 

2006 

1,749 

3,074 

4,823 

2007 

2,176 

2,626 

4,802 

Source:  Researchers  Mobility  Portal  http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/  (last  update,  January 
2008; online refers to job posted directly, XML refers to exchange of information with other 
portals).  As  an  element  of  comparison,  101,000  doctoral  degrees  were  granted  in  2005  (EC 
2007d).  

Table V. Indicative Best practices  

In the UK, a number of the Research Councils including the Arts and Humanities Research 
Council (AHRC), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and 
the  Engineering  and  Physical  Sciences  Research  Council  (EPSRC)  and  the  two  main 
Research Council, in Ireland have career development as an integral part of the peer review 
process.  

In some countries, concrete actions have been undertaken to enhance contractual conditions 
for  post-docs,  such  as  for  instance  the  “RCUK  academic  fellowship”,  a  post-doc  scheme, 
which provides funding for 5 years and offers tenure positions after the fellowship providing a 
successful  evaluation.  At  EU  level,  the  ERC  5-year  "Starting  Independent  Investigators" 
grants represents a successful initiative of a similar nature, which should be replicated at a 
wider scale. 

Junior  professorship  in  Germany  is  a  new  career  path  for  young  scientists.  The  French 
National  Institute  for  Health  and  Medical  Research  (INSERM)  has  launched  a  tenure  track 
model for biomedical research, in collaboration with hospital and universities. The position 
offers tenure with, depending on professional experience, a fixed yearly salary and a five-year 
renewable  contract  with  complementary  salary  paid  by  the  hospital  or  university.  The 
INSERM  "Interface  Programme"  is  designed  for  researchers  with  tenure  positions  who  are 
offered  mobility  opportunities  for  3  to  5  years  in  hospitals,  universities  or  industries;  the 
partner  hosts  the  INSERM  researcher  and  will  pay  1/3  of  his/her  salary  while  INSERM 
maintain the researcher on its payroll for 2/3. 

Norwegian universities have 20% Professor II positions on “time-bank” terms for employees 
holding  senior  positions  in  industry,  research  institutions,  hospitals  etc.  or  at  another 

43 

See http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2005-20.html  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
university  (e.g.  abroad)  as  add-on  to  their  main  position  –  financed  by  either  party.  Vice 
versa, a 100% university professor may also hold a part-time position in e.g. a hospital or at 
another  research  institution.  Norway’s  Centres  of  Excellence  offer  corresponding  flexible 
part-time positions for foreign researchers who want to keep their home. 

In  the  UK,  the  Athena  SWAN  Charter  is  a  scheme  which  recognises  excellence  in  Science, 
Engineering  and  Technology  (SET)  employment  for  women  in  higher  education  and 
research. The Charter was launched in June 2005 and any university or research institution 
which  is  committed  to  the  advancement  and  promotion  of  the  careers  of  women  in  SET  in 
higher  education  and  research  can  apply  for  membership.  Over  twenty  five  per  cent  of  all 
eligible  universities  are  now  members.  Since  the  project’s  establishment  in  1999  Athena’s 
work  with  its  partner  HEIs  has  improved  the  understanding  of  the  SET  and  employment 
cultures of HE and has produced a wealth of evidence based good practice.  

In Switzerland, two programmes, namely "Re-start" and "Dual-career", offer starting grants 
to facilitate the recruitment of researchers returning to science (left for any reason, not only 
child  care).  The  support  is  for  2-4  years,  but  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  pressure  on  the 
institutions to promote the permanent hiring of the successful cases. 

ErhversPhD  in  Denmark,  Casimir  in  the  Netherlands,  CIFRE  in  France,  CASE  in  the  UK, 
Sweden,  and  others  are  examples  of  schemes  for  doctoral  candidates.  In  Spain,  the  Torres 
Quevedo  Programme  offers  labour  contracts  of  up  to  three  years  to  researchers  holding  a 
doctoral  degree  or  having  more  than  one  year  postgraduate  R&D  experience,  who  will 
develop their research activity in enterprises and technological centres. 

The  University  of  Manchester  &  UMIST  (University  of  Manchester  Institute  of  Science  and 
Technology)  Careers  Service,  are  working  with  large  companies  and  SMEs  to  develop 
placement but also to support local business by involving SMEs in curriculum development, 
by partnering with 13 other Careers Service in the region to offer a pool of 50,000 students 
placement and graduate jobs, and to help SMEs access resources at universities. PRO INNO 
II  in  Germany  supports  the  placement  of  doctorate  candidates  in  SMEs.  France  will 
implement in 2008 the "doctorant-conseil" initiative which will provide the opportunity for all 
doctorate candidates to have internships in companies in exchange for consultancy services. 

Novo  Nordisk  currently  co-finances  60  PhDs.  Plans  include  more  funds  in  the  frame  of  the 
Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI), one of the Joint Technology Initiatives. 

Some Member States are developing national skills agenda for researchers, in particular for 
doctoral  candidates  and  post-docs.  Following  the  review  by  Sir  Gareth  Robert,  the  UK 
government is allocating funds to academia for employability skill training. Key employment 
skills  are  mandatory  in  the  UK  for  professional  development  for  doctoral  candidates  and 
post-docs under contracts with the Research Councils. The training is equivalent to 2 weeks 
training  given  by  professionals.  The  UK  GRAD  Programme  provides  support,  advice  and 
resources to postgraduate research students, their supervisors and their universities. 

In  the  UK,  the  Leadership  Foundation  offer  development  on  leadership,  governance  and 
management 
institutions 
(http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/).  In  the  US,  the  Association  of  University  Technology  Managers 
(AUTM) offers courses to both academia and industry. 

leaders  within  higher  education 

to  current  and 

future 

EN 

58 

   EN 

The national research funding agencies regrouped in the EUROHORCs44 have piloted the so-
called "money follows researcher" scheme for trans-national transfer of individual grants.  

44 

EUROHORCs is a European association of the heads of RFO and RPO 
http://eurohorcs.drift.senselogic.se/initiativesandactivities/moneyfollowsresearcher 

EN 

59 

   EN 

                                                 
 
Annex 3: Highlights from the report of the independent Expert Group on "Realising a 
single labour market for researchers"  

(citations from the Executive Summary)45 

"It has become increasingly evident that a more concerted strategy is necessary to address the 
human  resources  needs  of  the  European  Research  Area  (ERA).  Such  a  strategy  should 
establish  realistic  goals  and  develop  clear  methods  for  their  implementation.  The  present 
(Expert Group - ed) Report addresses the Policy Options that the Expert Group 'Realising a 
single labour market for researchers' (EG Researchers) has identified in order to ensure more 
attractive careers for researchers and to progressively eliminate the obstacles hampering their 
mobility. 

"We have chosen an architectural image in order to highlight the complementary nature of the 
components of the tetrahedral structure that we have conceived. For each of the proposed four 
cornerstones we identify the obstacles and hindrances that, in our view, continue to hamper 
the development of ERA, and provide some 'case studies' in order to illustrate concerns. 

"We then provide Policy Options, some of which have already been successfully tested and 
implemented 
could 
progressively.  

therefore  be  generalised  almost 

immediately,  others  could  be 

"The recommendations in this report are addressed to all bodies in receipt of public funds for 
research.  This  is  meant  to  include  the  funding  agencies  who  disburse  funds  and  those  who 
receive them, in the public and private sector (universities, research centres and companies). 
All  must  take  individual  and  collective  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  the 
recommendations; in our opinion they will determine whether Europe does indeed become a 
single labour market for researchers."  

"Obstacles and hindrances that continue to hamper the development of the ERA: 

"First cornerstone – attraction, ethical recruitment and retention of researchers 

"There  are  often  substantial  obstacles  that  threaten  our  capacity  to  maintain  and  boost  the 
regional  pool  of  skilled  researchers  needed  to  fuel  the  EU  research  and  innovation  system. 
Namely: 

–  a lack of transparent recruitment and career progression mechanisms; 

–  the complexity of employment application procedures; 

–  an imbalance between demands of the workplace and personal life; 

–  a lack of attractiveness for young talents; 

–  the remaining ‘insufficiently equal’ opportunities, particularly for women." 

45 

The views expressed in the published Expert Group report are the sole responsibility of the author and 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
"Second  cornerstone  –  mobility  in  all  its  facets  (geographical,  sector,  disciplinary  and 
'demographic') 

"Other issues continue to hinder the mobility of researchers within Europe as well as between 
Europe and Third countries. These include: 

–  a lack of resources to support the direct and indirect costs of mobility; 

–  an insufficient weight given to mobility as a valuable component of the researcher CV; 

–  the persisting reluctance to move between the public and the private sector; 

–  the  lack  of  a  strategic  approach  to  the  accumulated  experience  of  senior  and/or  retired 

researchers." 

"Third  cornerstone  –  researcher-friendly  social  security  and  supplementary  pension 
systems  

"Significant  challenges  remain  in  promoting  an  equitable  and  cohesive  social  system  for 
researchers within the EU. These include: 

–  lack of awareness of social security and supplementary pensions rules and rights; 

–  the need to improve cooperation between national administrations, research authorities and 

institutions both in social security and supplementary pension areas; 

–  relatively  little  tailoring  of  social  security  rules  of  Regulation  1408/71  (883/2004)  to 

individual researcher profiles (whether EU citizens or Third-country nationals); 

–  need  to  exploit  potentialities  of  current  instruments  to  set  up  (a)  pan-European  Pension 

Fund(s) for researchers; 

–  the  need  to  encourage  the  use  of  tax  incentives  to  facilitate  the  participation  in 

supplementary pension schemes." 

"Fourth  cornerstone  –  The  European  Charter  for  researchers  and  Code  of  Conduct  for 
their recruitment as a dynamic process  

"  (…..)  The  ‘Charter  &  Code’  were  undersigned  by  a  considerable  number  of  (public) 
research institutions. Yet, there is scant awareness of this document among researchers and its 
implementation by institutions." 

"POLICY OPTIONS 

"First cornerstone – attraction, ethical recruitment and retention of researchers 

"Any organisation in receipt of public funds for research is required: 

•  to advertise externally any research position vacancy supported by those funds, especially 
on  the  European  Researcher's  Mobility  Portal;  to  take  concrete  actions  aimed  at 
simplifying application procedures, thus encouraging participation by external applicants; 

EN 

61 

   EN 

•  to  treat  researchers,  from  the  early  career  stages,  as  professionals,  also  in  terms  of 

remuneration and social security, irrespective of the type of contract;  

•  to clarify in a transparent manner the long term career prospects of each position;  

•  to promote the achievement of scientific independence by the youngest stratum, through, 

for example, reserved funds such as the ERC Starting Investigation Grants; 

•  to  ensure  that  transferable  skills  are  included  in  the  evaluation  procedures  for  researcher 
recruitment  and  career  progression,  to  promote  and  assist  the  transition  from  team 
members to team leaders; 

•  to  take  positive  and  urgent  actions  for  promoting  fair  gender  representation  among  all 

(selection) committees, boards and governing bodies;  

•  to adopt a dual career policy, inspired by successful existing models;  

•  to allow researchers who are eligible for pregnancy (or parental) leave while working in a 
fixed-term contract to receive an extension of their contracts, and the associated funds, for 
the duration of their pregnancy and/or parental leave. 

•  to develop, when it is entitled to award doctoral degrees, structured doctoral programmes, 
moving away from the traditional, highly individualised apprentice model, oriented only to 
academic profession to a new model, oriented to a wider employment market, to give PhD 
graduates multiple career options in the Knowledge Society;  

•  to  limit,  whenever  possible,  the  number  of  ‘research  products’  (e.g.  publications)  to  be 
attached to an application for a researcher position, in order to favour an assessment based 
on ‘performance relative to opportunity’, rather than on absolute performance." 

"Second  cornerstone  –  mobility  in  all  its  facets  (geographical,  sector,  disciplinary, 
virtual and ‘demographic’) 

"Any organisation in receipt of public funds for research is required:  

•  to  consider  and  value  mobility  in  all  its  facets  as  an  integral  part  of  the  researcher 

curriculum; 

•  to allocate incentives to compensate direct and indirect costs of mobility (e.g. in the case of 
intersectoral mobility, grant incentives for the public institutions, and career incentives for 
the researcher, and make best use of direct and indirect fiscal incentives for companies); 

•  to  avoid  that  talents  attraction  is  practiced  to  the  detriment  of  less  developed  regions, 
promoting  Institutional  partnerships,  within  which  mobility  of  researchers  is  anchored  to 
overall development projects for the partner institutions; 

•  to  promote  and  support  virtual  mobility  activities  and  infrastructures  (e-conferences,  e-
seminars,  electronic  newsletters,  thematic  portals,  e-fora  and  chats,  video-conference 
infrastructure;  virtual  labs  etc.),  as  effective  and  efficient  complements  to  physical 
mobility." 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
"Any  organisation  in  receipt  of  public  funds  for  research  is  encouraged  to  investigate  how 
best to systematically involve retired senior researchers in value added activities such as non-
salaried mentoring of early career researchers and the promotion of the excitement of science 
and research careers to school children and to the public generally; 

"At European level, the EC is urged to establish an 'international placement agency' for retired 
senior researchers who are willing to act as mentors, experts, conference organisers and peer 
reviewers.  The  agency  would  direct  this  highly  valuable  support  at  less  well  endowed 
research groups in Europe and in developing countries." 

EN 

63 

   EN 

"Third  cornerstone  –  research-friendly  social  security  and  supplementary  pension 
systems 

"The addresses are invited to take actions according to their responsibilities. 

"Information, training and cooperation between social security players  

"Addressed to: European Commission (EC), Member States (MS), Training and Reporting on 
Social Security (TRESS), ERA-MORE – Feasible in: mid-term 

•  to  systematically  organise  EU  and  national  training  sessions  on  EU  coordination 

Regulations for research institutions' staff and ERA-MORE Mobility Centres; 

•  to  draft  new,  and  spread  awareness  of  existing  EU  and  national  social  security  info 

packages (websites, guides, etc.) for mobile researchers; 

•  to  establish  close  cooperation  between  the  EC,  Ministries  in  charge  of  Research,  the 
Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers, TRESS network and 
ERA-MORE  Mobility  Centres  to  ensure  information  flows,  exchange  of  good  practice, 
best use of existing rules and assess feasibility and appropriateness of new rules to remove 
further obstacles to mobility of researchers." 

"Posting & 'Article 17 agreements' – (specific to researchers) 

"Addressed to: European Commission, TRESS and Member States – Feasible in: mid term 

"To  promote,  by  gathering  data  on  future  application  of  both  'Article  17  of  Regulation 
1408/71  agreements'  and  EU  rules  on  'posting'  of  researchers,  to  promote  their  wider 
application to the benefit of researchers by also making an extensive use of Recommendation 
16/84  of  the  Administrative  Commission  on  Social  security  for  Migrant  Workers  to 
researchers". 

"Access to unemployment benefits and specific rule(s) on conflict of law – (not specific to 
researchers)  

"Addressed to: EC, MS – Feasible in: mid-term 

"Within the context of EU 'Action Plan for Mobility 2007-2010' to: 

•  explore  the  feasibility  of  amending  unemployment  benefits  exportation  rules  for  migrant 

researchers/workers (Article 68 of Regulation 1408/71 (Art. 64 of Reg. 883/2004); 

•  explore the relevance and the impact of a specific rule of conflict of law applicable to 'new 

forms of mobility', in view of inserting them, if appropriate, in the EU legislation." 

"Third-country  researchers:  agreements,  information,  Directive  2005/71  –  (specific  to 
researchers)  

"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: mid-term 

•  to encourage (e.g. through a Commission or Council Recommendation) the signature of (or 
the amendment of existing) bilateral and/or multilateral social security agreements between 

EN 

64 

   EN 

EU  Member  States  and  non-EU  countries  including  appropriate  rules  for  mobile 
researchers; 

•  to set up more efficient information systems on social security agreements by for instance 

making full use of the European and National Researchers' Mobility Portals. 

•  when  monitoring  the  implementation  of  Directive  2005/71  on  the  admission  of  third-
country researchers to the EU, to pay specific attention to a correct application of Article 
12  of  that  Directive  concerning  equal  treatment  with  national  as  regards  social  security 
rights." 

"Pension subsidies attached to fellowships – (specific to researchers)  

"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: short-term 

"Target  group  and  pension  pillars:  research  fellowship  holders,  supplementary  and  private 
pensions 

"To  introduce  subsidies  for  research  fellows  who  are  not  covered  by  any  domestic  pension 
system,  by  also  facilitating  their  building  up  of  pension  rights  with  a  financial  institution 
(third pillar)." 

"Setting up of a Pension Support Centre in the Member States 

"Addressed to: EC, MS – Feasible in: mid term 

"Target  group  and  pension  pillars:  researchers  (pilot  group),  statutory  and  supplementary 
pensions 

"After assessing its legal and concrete feasibility, to set up a Pension Support Centre by also 
making use of existing information tools/services." 

"Promoting the setting-up of National Pension Registers in the Member States 

"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: mid term 

"Target  group  and  pension  pillars:  researchers  (pilot  group),  statutory  and  supplementary 
pensions 

"To promote by the EC the setting-up of national information systems (pension registers) on 
accrued pension rights in each MS and promote their interlinking."  

"A Pan-European Pension Fund (IORP) for Researchers 

"Addressed to: IORP pension schemes – Feasible in: mid term 

"Target group and pension pillars: researchers, supplementary pensions 

"For  the  EC  to  launch  a  feasibility  study  and  furthermore  stimulate  the  development  of 
supplementary pension pan-EU schemes for researchers based on the 'IORP' Directive." 

EN 

65 

   EN 

"Promoting  the  introduction  of  tax  incentives  for  participating  in  second  and  third 
pillar systems 

"Addressed to: MS, EC – Feasible in: mid term 

"Target group and pension pillars: all workers, supplementary pensions 

"To  promote  by  the  EC  national  tax  relief  systems  for  contributions  paid  to  supplementary 
(including 'IORP') schemes and to financial institutions managing private pension schemes." 

"Fourth  cornerstone  –  The  European  Charter  for  researchers  and  a  Code  of  Conduct 
for their recruitment as a dynamic process 

"Any organisation in receipt of public funds for research which signed the C&C is required: 

•  to  promote  knowledge  and  awareness  of  C&C;  the  EC  should  provide  human,  structural 
and  financial  means  for  the  management  and  organisation  of  a  European  information 
campaign including the establishment of an ERA and C&C promoters’ network; 

•  to define and advertise a Human Resources Mission Statement, in line with the C&C spirit, 
focusing  on  the  recruitment,  career  development  and  retirement  procedures  of  their 
respective  researchers;  the  European  Commission  should  play  a  proactive  role  in  the 
dissemination and promotion of the institutional HR mission statements."  

"The  European  Commission  is  urged  to  design  and  promote  a  'ERA  –  Researchers’  Human 
Resources Label' indicating research institutions, which  

•  participate actively in the network of ERA and C&C promoters;  

•  advertise and monitor the implementation of their specific Researchers’ Human Resources 

Mission Statement; 

•  accept some form of external monitoring." 

EN 

66 

   EN