Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "A new partnership for the modernisation of universities: the EU Forum for University-business dialogue'' - Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 158 final SEC(2009) 424 SEC(2009) 425}
Date: 2009-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European Employment Strategy, business policy, education policy, integration into employment, organisation of teaching, university

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 423 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

"A new partnership for the modernisation of universities: the EU Forum for 
UNIVERSITY-BUSINESS DIALOGUE'' 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2009) 158 final 
SEC(2009) 424 
SEC(2009) 425} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1 

1.2 

2. 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

3. 

3.1 

3.2 

4. 

5. 

5.2 

5.2 

6. 

7. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 3 

Introduction and mandate............................................................................................. 3 

Consultation of interested parties................................................................................. 5 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

Inappropriate mix of knowledge, skills and competences ........................................... 9 

Europe insufficiently innovative ................................................................................ 10 

Diversity of situation in Europe ................................................................................. 11 

Baseline scenario........................................................................................................ 12 

Legal basis, the principle of subsidiarity and EU added............................................ 13 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 14 

General Policy Objectives.......................................................................................... 14 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 14 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 17 

Analysis of Possible impacts...................................................................................... 18 

Possible economic impacts ........................................................................................ 19 

Possible social impacts............................................................................................... 19 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 22 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 24 

7.1 

Possible indicators to assess progress ........................................................................ 25 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 

Following  the  opinion  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  several  changes  have  been  made  to 
the impact assessment: 

This version tries to make clearer the relationship with the University Modernisation Agenda. 
The general policy objective has been redefined to clarify the link. We have also integrated an 
additional  table  to  clarify  the  link  between  the  specific  objectives  and  the  general  policy 
objective and the specific objectives and the areas addressed under the modernisation agenda 
of Universities. 

This version provides also some more details on the proposed options 2, 3 and 4. 

A summary on the internal and external consultation has been included into the main part of 
the report. 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1 

Introduction and mandate 

Lisbon Strategy – Important role of Education and Training 

Education  and  training  was,  from  the  start,  identified  as  a  crucial  factor  in  achieving  the 
overall  objectives  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy  to  become  the  most  competitive  and  dynamic 
knowledge-based  economy  in  the  world  capable  of  sustainable  economic  growth  with  more 
and  better  jobs  and  greater  social  cohesion.  As  part  of  this,  the  Heads  of  State  and 
Government asked for "not only a radical transformation of the European economy, but also a 
challenging  programme  for  the  modernisation  of  social  welfare  and  education  systems”.  At 
the  2007  Spring  European  Council,  Member  States  agreed  in  the  framework  of  the  Lisbon 
strategy for Growth and Jobs on 4 priority areas; education and training is related to three of 
these  areas,  namely  more  research  and  innovation,  investing  in  people  and  a  more  dynamic 
business  environment.  In  the  recovery  package1,  which  was  endorsed  by  the  European 
Council at its summit on 11-12 December 2008, the Commission highlighted the crucial role 
of education, innovation and research for Europe. 

Universities,  research  organisations  and  enterprises  are  at  the  heart  of  the  Knowledge 
Triangle: 

Within  the  overall  focus  on  education  and  training,  there  is  a  particular  stress  on  the 
Knowledge Triangle, i.e. the interaction of education, research and innovation and acting as a 
key  driver  of  the  knowledge  economy  in  delivering  sustainable  growth.  Europe  has  to 
reinforce its efforts to make the triangle fully operational2. Universities have a key role to play 
in this regard and new forms of cooperation between universities and research organisations 
with the world of enterprise, to address education – research – innovation ecosystems have to 
be developed and implemented. 

1 
2 

COM(2008) 800 final “A European Recovery Plan” 
COM(2008)  865  final  “An  updated  strategic  framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and 
training” 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Growing importance of Higher Education 

The educational attainment level of the working age population in the EU (15 to 64 year olds) 
has risen during the last decade. In 2006 there were 7 million more persons in the labour force 
having a high educational attainment level, compared to 2000. Since 2000, upper secondary 
attainment in the EU increased slightly, from 76.6% of people aged 18-24 to 77.8% in 2006. 
In  other  words,  higher  education  institutions  produce  about  one  million  more  graduates  per 
year  compared  to  2000.  Furthermore,  the  number  of  graduates  in  maths,  science  and 
technology has increased by 26% since 20003. 

About  19  million  students  were  in  2006  enrolled  in  higher  education  in  the  EU,  nearly  3 
million or 18% more than in 2000. 

This  increase  will  not  stop  over  the  coming  years.  Given  the  up-coming  challenges,  many 
Member  States  intend  to  increase  the  participation  rate  of  young  age  cohorts  in  Higher 
Education  (HE)  substantially  (ex.  UK  from  40%  to  50%  over  next  5  years);  however 
increasing  the  numbers  is  not  sufficient.  HE  needs  to  be  modernised  to  make  sure  that  the 
quality is right. The positive trend noted above needs to be seen in this light. Europe needs 
more university graduates and needs them to be educated in new ways in order that they can 
address the need for adaptable, creative knowledge workers to sustain its ambition to become 
the  world's  leading  knowledge  economy.  Furthermore,  many  of  the  EU's  key  competitors 
have higher shares of people with tertiary level educational attainment. The EU average for 
25-64 years old is 23% compared to 40% for Japan, 39% for the USA, 32% for Australia and 
Korea and 27% for New Zealand. 

Modernisation of Universities 

The  Communication  of  the  Commission  “Delivering  on  the  Modernisation  Agenda  for 
Universities: Education, Research and Innovation”4 highlighted the key role Universities play 
in Europe’s future and for the successful transition to a knowledge-based economy and 
society.  It  underlined  the  need  for  in-depth  restructuring  and  modernisation  of  the  sector  if 
Europe is not to lose out in the global competition in education, research and innovation. 

The Communication suggested changes in nine areas as key to success: 

•  Break down the barriers around universities in Europe 
•  Ensure real autonomy and accountability for universities 
•  Provide incentives for structured partnerships with the business community 
•  Provide the right mix of skills and competencies for the labour market 
•  Reduce  the  funding  gap  and  make  funding  work  more  effectively  in  Education  and 

Research 

•  Enhance Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity 
•  Activate Knowledge through interaction with society 
•  Reward excellence at the highest level 
•  Make the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area more visible 

and attractive in the world. 

3 
4 

SEC (2008) 2293 “Progress Report - Indicators and benchmarks 2008” 
COM(2006) 208 final "Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research 
and Innovation" 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Council in its Resolution on modernising universities for Europe's competitiveness in a 
global knowledge economy5 agreed to these items and invited the Commission to support 
the  Member  States  with  regard  to  the  modernisation  agenda,  including  through 
encouraging partnerships between universities and industry/private sector. 

The implementation of the modernisation agenda for higher education has also been defined 
as one of the priority themes for 2009 – 2010 in the updated strategic framework for European 
cooperation in education and training6, within which the Commission and the Member States 
engage in policy cooperation and exchange based on commonly agreed objectives, indicators 
to measure progress and, in certain key areas, benchmarks. 

Importance of partnership between business and universities 

Partnership between universities, research organisations and enterprises is already crucial to 
several  different  actions  at  the  EU  level  which  are  designed  to  strengthen  the  knowledge 
triangle. The  Joint  Technology Initiatives, the European Technology Platforms,  the Clusters 
of  Excellence  and  the  newly  established  European  Institute  for  Innovation  and  Technology 
(EIT)  with  its  Knowledge  Innovation  Centres  are  good  examples  for  new  forms  of 
collaboration and partnerships. 

The May 2006 Communication on modernising higher Education argued that business had a 
contribution to make in three areas: 

–  Governance: business models could be imported to the university world; 

–  Funding: enterprises have a potential role to play in funding university activities in both the 
education  and  the  research  fields;  and  Curricula:  students  need  to  receive  the  kind  of 
education which will prepare them for the world of work of the future, enterprises can both 
help to define that and can offer the kinds of placement which will help students make the 
transition from study to work. Enterprises must also feel encouraged to release their staff 
for further learning and updating of their skills throughout their working lives. 

In successive Council exchanges on higher education, focussing on how the quality of higher 
education could be improved and on how to develop top quality universities, the relationship 
between  business,  universities  and  research  has  been  identified  as  one  important  point.  In 
addition, several Member States have begun to develop mechanisms to structure the dialogue 
and interaction between universities and business. 

1.2 

Consultation of interested parties 

A  public  consultation  on  the  importance  and  relevance  of  a  mechanism  for  enhancing 
university-business dialogue was not considered necessary for the following reasons: 

a) Contacts with projects and discussions with stakeholders had clearly identified the demand 
for such a mechanism; 

5 

6 

COUNCIL  RESOLUTION  of  23  November  2007  on  modernising  universities  for  Europe's 
competitiveness in a global knowledge economy; 16096/1/07 REV 1 
COM(2008)  865  final  “An  updated  strategic  framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and 
training” 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
b)  Discussions  in  the  Cluster  on  Higher  Education  (with  representatives  from  Education 
Ministries  from  the  Member  States)  and  at  the  Peer  Learning  Activity  (PLA)  in  the  UK  in 
October 2006 had further underlined the need for such a mechanism. 

c) The added value of a public consultation in this context was not obvious to us. Instead of 
organising  a  public  consultation  a  more  targeted  approach  towards  relevant  stakeholders 
seemed more efficient and effective. 

Opinions  and  views  of  stakeholders  on  the  importance  and  relevance  of  a  mechanism  for 
enhancing  university-business  dialogue  were  collected  via  two  main  roads:  directly  through 
the organisation of a number of targeted events with the stakeholders, indirectly through the 
analysis of a number of projects implemented under EU programmes. 

Most  relevant  input  was  collected  via  the  organisation  of  events  bringing  together  the  main 
stakeholders: representatives of Higher Education (staff and students), research organisations, 
companies (small and large), business organisations and public authorities. 

Workshop in July 2007 with representatives from European Business and Higher Education 
Associations 

The University-Business Forum in February 2008 

Thematic Forum on Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning in June 2008 

Thematic Forum on Curriculum Development and Entrepreneurship in October 2008 

Thematic Forum on Knowledge Transfer in November 2008 

The 2nd European University-Business Forum in February 2009 

These  six  events  brought  together  more  than  900  representatives  from  the  different 
stakeholders from all over Europe. The first two events (workshop in July 2007 and the first 
European  University-Business  Forum  in  February  2008)  addressed  the  issue  of  University-
Business Cooperation on general level and the relevance of specific action on European level 
in  this  field.  The  three  other  events  were  focusing  on  specific  aspects  of  possible  areas  of 
cooperation. The 2nd University-Business Forum in February 2009 took stock of the lessons 
learned  from  the  different  meetings  organised  during  2008  and  tried  to  map  out  future 
directions for the Forum’s work. It is the main source for the envisaged policy document. 

There was a clear message that participants wanted the opportunity to dialogue on European 
level on these issues and to build on the experience already gained. There was strong support 
for  a  University  Business  Forum  at  the  European  level  and  for  the  collection,  exchange, 
sharing and dissemination of good practices. 

The participants supported the view that cooperation between the stakeholders needed to be 
reinforced. 

Modernising  Higher  Education  Cluster  -  Peer  Learning  Activity  on  University  –  Business 
Partnerships (UBPs), October 2006  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Modernising Higher  Education  Cluster - Peer Learning Activity  on Circling the Knowledge 
Triangle  from  the  perspective  of  Education:  the  added  value  in  better  connecting  Higher 
Education to Research and Innovation, June 2008 

These two events were organised within the framework of the Education and Training 2010 
work  programme.  The  Cluster  on  Higher  Education  involves  representatives  of  20  Member 
States.  Peer  Learning  Activities  are  organised  in  different  Member  States  on  specific  topics 
that  are  considered  as  being  of  particular  interest  by  the  cluster  members.  These  two  PLAs 
were focusing on partnership and better cooperation between relevant stakeholders.  

Number  of  projects  under  the  Erasmus  programme,  including  a  survey  among  Higher 
Education Institutions on University-Business Cooperation.  

There are a number of projects under the Erasmus programme that address issues related to 
University-Business  cooperation.  Particularly  interesting  was  a  project,  coordinated  by  the 
DAAD7,  which  included  a  survey  of  European  Higher  Education  Institutions  to  understand 
the  importance  given  to  University-Business  cooperation.  More  than  80%  of  the  HEIs  that 
replied  indicated  that  University-Business  cooperation  was  of  strategic  importance.  The 
project  formulated  also  a  number  of  conclusions  and  messages  to  Higher  Education 
Institutions, enterprises, governmental organisations and the European Commission. 

A working group with representatives from DGs Research, Employment, Social Affairs and 
Equal Opportunities and Enterprise and Industry met regularly during 2008; colleagues from 
those  DGs  participated  also  at  the  preparation/organisation  of  the  plenary  and  thematic 
Forums. 

An  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (for  Impact  Assessment)  with  representatives  from: 
Secretariat-General,  Research,  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Equal  Opportunities, 
Information Society and Media, Regional Policy, Enterprise and Industry met 2 times. 

The annex provides a detailed list of the different events together with the respective reports. 

The stakeholders involved in the events were: 

Representatives from European, National and Sectoral Business associations;  
Representatives from companies; 
Representatives from Regional Development Agencies;  
Representatives  from  European  University  Associations;  European  Student  Associations; 
Universities  and  other  Higher  Education  Institutions  (presidents,  rectors,  professors  and 
students); 
Representatives from national and regional authorities. 

There was a clear message on the importance and value of University-Business Cooperation. 
Discussions did not focus on the "IF there should be cooperation", but on "HOW cooperation 
is  to  be  organised"  so  that  it  is  beneficial  for  all  stakeholders.  Participants  from  both  the 
enterprise and the education sides welcomed the opportunity to dialogue on these issues and 
to build on the experience already gained. There was strong support for a University Business 

7 

Socrates Accompanying Measures: project 130023-AM-06-EMC 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Forum at the European level and also for the collection, sharing, exchange and dissemination 
of good practices. 

The  discussions  in  the  thematic  forums  organised  during  2008,  which  were  focused  on 
specific topics in the context of University-Business cooperation (Continuing Education and 
Lifelong  Learning;  Curriculum  Development  and  Entrepreneurship;  Knowledge  Transfer), 
lead already to the identification of a number of areas where action is required on National, 
regional or institutional level. 

The  forum  in  February  2009  took  stock  of  what  has  been  learnt  and  achieved  so  far,  it 
provided a number of messages to the different topics addressed and proposed several lines of 
action for the future. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

This impact assessment considers potential impacts relating to two specific issues from within 
the  overall  agenda  for  modernising  higher  education:  the  first  concerns  the  issue  that  too 
many graduates do not have the right mix of knowledge, skills and competences for the labour 
market, and the second, the insufficient innovation capacity of Europe. However, it is worth 
emphasising  that  the  analysis  could  be  extended  to  other  fields  and  the  value  of  a  dialogue 
will not be confined to these areas alone.  

The  proposed  initiative  is  a  direct  Commission  contribution  to  the  modernisation  agenda. 
Given the broad nature of the issues and the nature of the sector – the need to engage with 
Governments,  with  universities  and  with  other  stakeholders,  all  the  while  respecting 
subsidiarity  –  there  is  no  one  unique  track  by  which  the  Commission  pursues  university 
modernisation.  Modernising  universities  is  a  priority  issue  within  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination (OMC) for Education and training – the main vehicle by which the Commission 
works with Member States. It is also a major element within the Bologna process. 

A  key  element  within  the  agenda  for  modernisation  set  out  in  2006  was  that  universities 
should  develop  structured  partnerships  with  the  world  of  enterprise  in  order  to  "become 
significant  players  in  the  economy,  able  to  respond  better  and  faster  to  the  demands  of  the 
market  and  to  develop  partnerships  which  harness  scientific  and  technological  knowledge", 
without in any way calling into question their social and cultural remit. 

The Commission, in response to the invitation from the Council (Council Resolution, 23 Nov 
2007;  16096/1/07  REV  1)  has  established  a  report  to  the  Council  on  "Modernising 
Universities for Europe's competitiveness in a global knowledge economy" (COM(2008) 680 
final).  This  report  recognises  that  although  progress  is  being  made  in  all  nine  areas,  a  lot 
remains  to  be  done.  Just  to  mention  some  few  of  the  nine  areas:  Mobility  of  professors, 
researchers  and  students  is  by  far  not  at  the  targeted  level  (Break  down  the  barriers  around 
universities  in  Europe);  structured  partnerships  with  the  business  community  are  too 
exceptional (Provide incentives for structured partnerships with the business community); still 
too many graduates do not have the right mix of knowledge, skills and competences for the 
labour  market,  universities  do  not  sufficiently  support  the  development  of  researchers'  and 
students'  entrepreneurial  attitudes  and  mindsets,  universities  are  still  not  very  committed  to 
the lifelong learning agenda (provide the right mix of knowledge, skills and competences for 
the  labour  market);  universities  do  not  sufficiently  share  their  knowledge  with  society 
(Activate knowledge through interaction with society). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
The Commission will continue its dialogue with national authorities and stakeholders on how 
best to advance the modernisation agenda. 

Links  between  universities  and  business  were  identified  early  on  as  being  important  for  the 
modernisation agenda, important for governance, funding and curriculum development. 

2.1 

Inappropriate mix of knowledge, skills and competences 

As  highlighted  in  the  Commission’s  Communication8  on  the  ‘Employment  in  Europe  2008 
Report’, a recurrent concern of policy makers in the fields of education and employment is the 
mismatch  between  workers’  education  and  skill  levels,  and  actual  job  requirements  in  the 
labour market. 

While graduates generally succeed comparatively well in the labour market, the composition 
of  skills  emerging  from  EU  universities  and  training  systems  does  not  fully  support  a  truly 
innovation-driven economy. 

Feedback from employers indicates that a too large number of graduates do not have the right 
mix of knowledge, skills and competence that is required in the labour market. Employers are 
in particular asking for more transversal and transferable skills, an area of skills development 
which is often inadequately tackled by universities. Research by the CBI9 shows that almost a 
third of employers (30%) have problems with graduates’ generic employability skills such as 
team  working,  communication  and  problem  solving.  Employers  are  also  disappointed  with 
graduates’  attitudes  to  work  (25%),  self-management  (33%),  business  awareness  (44%)  and 
knowledge  of  foreign  languages  (49%).  This  mismatch  between  the  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences acquired by graduates and those expected and valued by employers, is explored 
in  more  detail  in  the  study  undertaken  by  the  CIHE  in  the  UK10.  The  report  confirms  the 
mismatch and provides some recommendations to employers, universities and students. 

From  the REFLEX survey, there is  evidence that  graduates  are  expected  to  be  more  or  less 
competent  in  at  least  the  following  five  areas:  professional  expertise,  functional  flexibility, 
innovation  and  knowledge  management,  mobilisation  of  human  resources,  and  international 
orientation11. 

The  report  of  the  European  University  Association  (EUA)  “Trends  V”12  suggests  that 
employability  is  a  high  priority  in  the  reform  of  curricula  in  all  cycles.  This  concern 
transcends national boundaries and implementation priorities. However, the results also reveal 
that there is still much to be done to translate this priority into institutional practice. This is a 
paradox  for  a  reform  process  inspired,  at  least  in  part,  by  a  concern  that  higher  education 
should be more responsive to the needs of a changing society and labour market. It indicates 
that  one  of  the  main  challenges  for  the  future  is  to  strengthen  dialogue  with  employers  and 
other  external  stakeholders.  For  many  institutions  this  requires  a  change  in  culture  that  will 
take time. 

8 
9 
10 

11 

12 

COM(2008) 758 final “Key messages from the Employment in Europe 2008 Report" 
CBI/Pertemps, “Employment Trends survey”, 2006 
Council  for  Industry  and  Higher  Education;  Graduate  Employability:  what  do  employers  think  and 
want; 2008  
Cf. conclusions of the REFLEX project, Allen, J. and van der Velden, R. (eds) (2007), "The Flexible 
Professional in the Knowledge Society: General Results of the REFLEX Project", Research Centre for 
the Education and the Labour Market, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. 
Trends V: Universities shaping the EU Higher Education Area, EUA report, 2007 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
But  there  does  not  only  exist  this  qualitative  skills  mismatch  in  Europe;  we  also  face  the 
challenge  of  a  quantitative  skills  mismatch:  for  a  number  of  professions  it  is  and/or  gets 
problematic  to  find  qualified  staff  (ex.  Insufficient  number  of  engineers  in  several  Member 
States). 

And studies show that labour market demand in higher level skills in Europe is intensifying as 
EU  countries  strive  to  reinforce  their  competitive  edge.  There  is  an  increasing  demand  for 
people with highest qualification levels: 

In EU 25, between 2006 and 2020, the proportion of jobs requiring high levels of education 
attainment should rise from 25.1% to 31.3% of the total; jobs requiring medium qualifications 
would also increase slightly, from 48.3% to 50.1%. This would amount respectively to 38.8 
and  52.4  million  high-and  medium-level  job  openings.  At  the  same  time,  the  share  of  jobs 
requiring low levels of education attainment would decline from 26.2% to 18.5%, despite 10 
million job openings13. 

A detailed analysis of these issues is provided in the Communication on “New Skills for New 
Jobs” and the accompanying Staff Working Document14. 

Organisations  and  individuals  are  increasingly  required  to  update  their  skills  in  response  to 
the  demands  of  competition  and  a  globalised  market  place,  but  also  due  to  demographic 
developments in Europe. The limited and selective access to LLL is a major issue for Europe. 
Although  in  many  countries  the  provision  of  LLL  is  part  of  the  mission  of  universities, 
relevant strategies are rare and for many universities, LLL is still a “slogan”. Similarly, few 
employers  have  developed  strategies  which  will  allow  their  workforce  to  update  their  skills 
throughout their working lives. 

2.2 

Europe insufficiently innovative 

The  Mid  Term  Review  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy  stressed  the  importance  of  knowledge  and 
innovation  as  key  drivers  of  European  competitiveness,  and  outlined  a  variety  of  proposals 
aimed at increasing the level, efficiency and the exploitation of education and research as the 
drivers of innovation15. 

"There has been a continued improvement in the EU's performance (in 2008) relative to the 
US and a recent improvement relative to Japan. Nevertheless, there remains a significant gap 
between the EU and these two other regions and there appears to be some slowing down in 
the catching up with the US in recent year's reads the main conclusion in the eight edition of 
the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)16. 

A key cause of this is the limited level of knowledge sharing, exchange and transfer between 
higher  education  and  research  centres  on  the  one  hand  and  business  on  the  other17.  Many 
European  universities  and  researchers  still  consider  business  as  a  separate,  perhaps  even  an 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 

Cedefop, Skill Needs in Europe. Focus on 2020. Luxembourg 2008 
SEC(2008) 3058 Staff Working Document accompanying COM(2008) 868 final “ 
COM (2005) 24 final “Working Together for Growth and Jobs: A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy” 
EIS 2008 published on 22 Jan 2009. EIS is an instrument providing a comparative assessment of the innovation 
performance of the EU Member States and a limited number of other countries. Report and annexes are available at 
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/metrics 
OECD (2002) Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
undesirable world, and many businesses do not consider interaction with universities or other 
research organisations as a strategic input into their future. Whilst this is, in part, a demand 
side  problem  resulting  from  widespread  private  sector  reluctance  to  work  with  the  higher 
education sector18, the responsibility also lies with European universities, and their ability to 
deal with the demands of companies19. 

Professors,  students  and  researchers  need  to  develop  entrepreneurial  skills  to  facilitate  the 
creation of  new  opportunities out of study and research20.  On  the  whole  they  have  a  poorly 
developed  entrepreneurial  mindset  in  Europe  that  results  in  few  spinouts  and  new 
businesses21. The staff working paper22 accompanying the Communication “Think Small First 
-  A  Small  Business  Act  for  Europe  underlines  that  Entrepreneurship  is  still  not  sufficiently 
reflected in educational and training policies. 

Another  issue  in  the  EU  relates  to  insufficient  mobility  of  professors,  students,  researchers 
and  company  staff  in  education,  innovation  and  research.  The  lack  of  mobility  –  between 
institutions,  across  borders  and  between  academia  and  business  –  hinders  knowledge 
exchange, sharing, transfer and creation.  

2.3 

Diversity of situation in Europe 

It is important in this context to underline the diverse situation that exists in Europe between 
the Member States. Whereas people with higher education have in all Member States better 
chances to find/keep a job, there are still substantial differences between unemployment rates 
of graduates in the Member States:  

Table 1 - Unemployment rates of the population aged 25-64 with tertiary education level 

EU  AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR  HU 

3.6 

2.4 

3.3 

2.2 

2.8 

1.5 

3.7 

2.9  Na 

6.0 

4.8 

3.6 

4.8 

2.6 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU  LV  MT  NL 

PL 

PT  RO 

SE 

SI 

SK  UK 

2.3 

4.2 

1.8 
(u) 

3.0 
(u) 

3.7  Na 

1.8 

3.8 

6.6 

2.2 

3.4 

3.2 
(u) 

3.4 

2.1 

Eurostat, Unemployment rates of the population aged 25-64 by level of education (annual average); extract of 
figures for tertiary education, year 2007.  
(u): Unreliable or uncertain data 

This  diversity  is  also  reflected  in  the  above  mentioned  EIS.  Although  the  US  keeps  its 
“innovation”  lead  towards  the  EU  as  a  whole,  there  are  some  MS  with  a  higher  innovation 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

(2003) The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration 
Lambert, R. and Butler, N. (2006) The Future of European Universities: Renaissance or Decay? 
COM (2006) 33 “Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning” 
Idem 9 
SEC(2008) 2101 “Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication “Think Small First - 
A Small Business Act for Europe” 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
index than the US: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany and UK are the most innovative EU 
countries and ahead of the US23. 

2.4 

Baseline scenario 

A number of policy initiatives and financial instruments exist on EU level in order to support 
policies  and  actions  in  the  Member  States  towards  a  stronger  focus  on  the  readiness  of 
graduates for the labour market and the development of Europe’s innovation capacity.  

The Commission supports the modernisation agenda for universities24, which aims at creating 
a  framework  within  which  universities  can  adapt  to  the  emerging  demands  and  become 
stronger players in the global knowledge society and economy, and thereby play a vital role in 
support of the knowledge and innovation objectives of the Lisbon Agenda. Furthermore, the 
Commission25 has proposed a systematic approach to entrepreneurship education at all levels, 
from the primary school to university, with a view to encouraging more start-ups and a better 
commercial exploitation of new research developments. 

The New Skills for New Jobs initiative identifies a number of measures and actions to improve 
the  availability  and  quality  of  information  on  present  and  future  occupational  demand  and 
related skill requirements. Although there is awareness of the complexity of the undertaking, 
everybody agrees that forecasting is an indispensable tool to better inform policy makers and 
to achieve a better matching between demand and supply of skills. 

Several  policy  initiatives  address  the  promotion  and  development  of  innovation  in  Europe. 
Some  examples:  The  Commission  has  proposed  framework  conditions26  as  well  as  specific 
measures in support of research and innovation that will contribute to meet the Lisbon targets. 
The  communication  on  “improving  knowledge  transfer  between  research  institutions  and 
industry  across  Europe”27,  with  its  annex28  goes  a  step  further  and  provides  more  concrete 
support to different stakeholders.  

Particularly important in this context is the set-up of the European Institute of Innovation and 
Technology (EIT)29, which aims 

•  To  contribute  to  improving  the  innovation  capacity  of  the  EU  by  involving  partner 
organisations  in  integrated  innovation,  research  and  education  activities  at  the  highest 
international standards; 

23 
24 

25 
26 
27 
28 

29 

Idem 17 
COM  (2006)  298  “Delivering  on  the  modernisation  agenda  for  the  Universities:  Education,  Research 
and innovation” 
Idem 21 
COM (2005) 488 “More research and Innovation, Investing for Growth and Employment: a common approach” 
COM (2007)182 “Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe” 
SEC(2007)449  “Voluntary  guidelines  for  universities  and  other  research  institutions  to  improve  their  links  with 
industry across Europe” 
Regulation  (EC)  No  294/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2008 
establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  To  become  a  model  and  flagship  for  the  integrated  European  Innovation  Research  and 
Education area by generating innovations in areas of key economic or societal interest and 
providing a reference for managing innovation. 

The  policy  initiatives  are  financially  backed  up  by  various  Community  programmes:  the 
Financial  Framework  2007-2013  allocates  substantial  amounts  of  resources  to  education, 
innovation  and  research related actions which will contribute to boost the EU economy and 
create more and better jobs. 

The  integrated  Lifelong  Learning  Programme  (2007  –  2013)  addresses  important  needs 
concerning  the  modernisation  and  adaptation  of  Member  States’  education  and  training 
systems,  particularly  in  the  context  of  the  strategic  Lisbon  goals.  It  also  bring  added  value 
directly to individual citizens participating in its mobility and other cooperation actions. 

The  7th  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological  Development  is  the 
main  financial  tool  through  which  the  European  Union  supports  research  and  development 
activities. Particular interesting in this context are measures that support the sharing, exchange 
and transfer of research results, particular important the mobility programme for researchers 
and post-docs. 

The  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Programme  (CIP)  aims  at  improving  the  structural 
innovation and growth conditions of the Union. For this purpose, it includes actions in support 
of  innovation  and  of  growth  for  SMEs.  It  aims  to  improve  access  to  finance,  promote  eco-
innovation and funds EU services in support of business and innovation. 

The  new  generation  of  economic  and  social  cohesion  programmes  allocates  a  significant 
proportion  of  its  budget  to  investing  in  the  main  drivers  of  growth  and  employment, 
especially in the fields of research and development, innovation, business-support activities, 
employment  and  education.  The  Community  strategic  guidelines  on  cohesion  policy  (2007-
2013)  adopted  by  the  Council,  stress  the  promotion  of  sustainable  development  and  the 
strengthening  of  competitiveness  by  concentrating  resources  on  research  and  innovation 
(RTDI), entrepreneurship, information society and training and adaptability of workers. 

This  shows  that  a  number  of  EU  policy  initiatives  and  financial  instruments  are  targeted 
towards  supporting  education,  innovation  and  research  activities,  however  mainly  from  one 
specific  angle:  education,  innovation  or  research;  or  focusing  on  specific  target  groups: 
Higher Education Institutions, companies, research organisations or regions. 

There is insufficient integration and cooperation; synergies between different actions are not 
at their optimum. Sharing and exchange of good practice is mainly limited to the respective 
Community  programmes  under  which  they  were  funded.  The  analysis  of  the  two  problem 
areas  above  also  shows  that  a  large  element  of  the  problem  has  to  do  with  changing 
institutional  attitudes  in  both  the  education  and  the  enterprise  worlds.  This  can  best  be 
achieved by the fostering of dialogue and by learning from and extending the good practices 
which do exist. 

2.5 

Legal basis, the principle of subsidiarity and EU added 

The legal basis for the proposed initiative and instrument is Article 149 of the Treaty.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
The  proposed  initiative  and  instrument  fully  respect  the  principle  of  subsidiarity;  the 
initiative aims at developing a platform on European level for a structured dialogue between 
the  key  stakeholders,  in  particular  representatives  from  Universities  and  Business.  The 
platform is meant to support the sharing and exchange of experience and good practice, and 
facilitating mutual learning. It complements and supports activities undertaken on national or 
regional level. 

The EU added value of the proposed initiative is two-fold: it will provide concrete support to 
the stakeholders in the Member States, and it will contribute to better and more coherent EU 
activities  in  this  field.  The  initiative  on  EU  level  is  of  particular  value  to  those  Member 
States/regions that are lagging behind. Examples of good practice from leading countries can 
be  used  to  inspire  relevant  reforms  and  actions.  The  initiative  on  EU  level  can  provide 
important  support  to  national  and/or  institutional  champions  to  promote  and  implement 
changes in their systems. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1 

General Policy Objectives 

To  improve  the  relevance  of  HE  for  the  labour  market  (employability  of  graduates)  and  to 
improve  Europe’s  innovation  capacity  by  speeding  up  the  implementation  of  the  Higher 
Education Modernisation agenda 

3.2 

Specific objectives 

Taking  into  account  the  current  situation  and  the  needs  identified,  the  most  appropriate 
specific objectives to be considered are: 

To support curricular development, leading to employability of graduates; 

To support the identification of those skills that graduates are expected to have when entering 
the labour market;  

To  support  the  development  of  an  entrepreneurial  mindset  among  graduates,  professors  and 
researchers; 

To support the development of appropriate Governance structures at Universities; 

To  support  the  development  of  HE  in  the  field  of  lifelong  learning,  more  precisely  the 
cooperation  between  universities  and  companies  in  the  identification  and  provision  of 
training/retraining programmes; 

To support the inter- and transdisciplinarity in the research and trainings agenda; 

To  support  the  exchange,  sharing  and  creation  of  knowledge  through  increased  mobility 
between  universities,  research  organisations  and  business  (students,  researchers,  professors, 
other staff of Higher Education Institutions (HEI), company staff). 

The following table provides an overview of how the specific objectives relate to the general 
policy objective and to the areas identified in the modernisation agenda for higher education: 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Specific objectives 

Link  of  specific  objectives  to 
General Policy Objective 

support 

To 
development, 
employability of graduates 

curricular 
to 

leading 

Cooperation 
in  curriculum 
development  should  ensure 
that  the  needs  of  the  labour 
market  (the  relevance  of  the 
study programmes) are better 
account  (cid:198) 
taken 
contributes 
to 
mainly 
improving  the  relevance  of 
HE to the labour market. 

into 

To  support  the  identification 
of  those  skills  that  graduates 
are  expected  to  have  when 
entering the labour market 

To  support  the  development 
of an entrepreneurial mindset 
among  graduates,  professors 
and researchers; 

To  support  the  development 
of  appropriate  Governance 
structures at Universities; 

the 

successfully 

Getting 
better 
a 
understanding  of  the  skills 
that  graduates  need  in  order 
to 
the 
face 
labour 
challenges  of 
positively 
market 
influence  relevance  of  the 
study programmes and so the 
employability  of  graduates. 
(cid:198)  contributes  mainly 
to 
improving  the  relevance  of 
HE to the labour market. 

should 

of 
Development 
entrepreneurial 
attitudes 
among  graduates,  professors 
should 
researchers 
and 
increase  the  number  of  start-
ups  and  more  generally  to  a 
more  open  and  positive 
and 
attitude 
innovation  (cid:198) 
contributes 
mainly to the improvement of 
Europe’s innovation capacity 

change 

to 

of 

Development 
relevant 
Governance structures should 
ensure  the  establishment  of 
and 
appropriate 
assessment 
that 
would 
better 
involvement  of  HE  into  the 
problems  faced  by  society. 

incentive 
systems 

support 

a 

Link  of  specific  objectives  to 
areas  under  Modernisation 
(speeding  up  of 
agenda 
HE 
of 
implementation 
modernisation agenda) 

Provide the right mix of skills 
the 
and  competencies  for 
labour market  

incentives 

Provide 
for 
structured  partnerships  with 
the business community 

Provide the right mix of skills 
and  competencies  for 
the 
labour market 

incentives 

Provide 
for 
structured  partnerships  with 
the business community 

Enhance 
transdisciplinarity  

inter- 

and 

Provide the right mix of skills 
the 
and  competencies  for 
labour market; 

Break  down 
the  barriers 
around universities in Europe 

incentives 

for 
Provide 
structured  partnerships  with 
the business community 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Activities linked to the needs 
and  expectations  of  society 
have  to  be  recognised  and 
valued. 

(cid:198)  contributes  to  improving 
the  relevance  of  HE  to  the 
labour  market  and  to  the 
improvement  of  Europe’s 
innovation capacity 

To  support  the  development 
of HE in the field of lifelong 
learning,  more  precisely  the 
cooperation 
between 
universities and companies in 
and 
the 
identification 
provision 
of 
training/retraining 
programmes; 

employability 
Improving 
involves  not  only  to  those 
who  enter  the  labour  market: 
upgrading 
the 
of 
those 
for 
competences 
already in the workforce is an 
equally  important  challenge. 
(cid:198)  contributes  mainly 
to 
improving  the  relevance  of 
HE to the labour market. 

Provide the right mix of skills 
and  competencies  for 
the 
labour market 

the  barriers 
Break  down 
around universities in Europe 

incentives 

Provide 
for 
structured  partnerships  with 
the business community 

To  support  the  inter-  and 
transdisciplinarity 
the 
research and trainings agenda 

in 

and 

the  exchange, 
To  support 
sharing 
creation  of 
knowledge  through  increased 
between 
mobility 
universities, 
research 
organisations  and  business 
researchers, 
(students, 
professors, other staff of HEI, 
company staff). 

more 
Having 
and 
interdisciplinarity 
transdisciplinarity 
will 
contribute  to  make  people 
more  open  to  changes  and  to 
innovation;  will  improve  the 
development  of 
transversal 
transferable  skills  (cid:198) 
and 
contributes  mainly 
the 
improvement  of  Europe’s 
innovation capacity  

to 

respective 

Increased  mobility  between 
HEI  and  business  in  both 
directions  will  improve  the 
understanding  on  both  sides 
of 
needs, 
expectations  and  constraints; 
is a very effective preparation 
for  students  to  learn  about 
working  and  to  exercise  the 
application 
theoretical 
of 
knowledge  to  solve  practical 
issues. Helps to build bridges 
between  the  two  worlds  –  a 
good  basis  to  build  trust  and 
longer-term relationships  

Enhance 
transdisciplinarity  

inter- 

and 

Provide the right mix of skills 
the 
and  competencies  for 
labour market 

Provide the right mix of skills 
and  competencies  for 
the 
labour market 

Break  down 
the  barriers 
around universities in Europe 

Enhance 
transdisciplinarity  

inter- 

and 

incentives 

for 
Provide 
structured  partnerships  with 
the business community 

Activate  knowledge  through 
interaction with society 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
(cid:198)  contributes  to  improving 
the  relevance  of  HE  to  the 
labour  market  and  to  the 
improvement  of  Europe’s 
innovation capacity 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Four main options exist for action on EU level: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

No additional action (baseline scenario) 

Specific actions using the existing instruments 

Focused policy action on EU level including the issuing of a policy document on EU 
level together with the establishment of a platform on European level for a structured 
dialogue between the stakeholders 

(4) 

Focused policy action targeted at Member States. 

Policy option 1: See baseline scenario (section 2) 

Policy  option  2:  This  option  would  use  the  existing  financial  instruments.  No  policy 
document would be published. In difference to the baseline scenario specific actions would be 
enabled through relevant priority setting in the existing Community programmes. This would 
lead  to  the  availability  of  extra  resources  and  the  launching  of  specific  calls  for  proposals 
and/or calls for tender to support dialogue between stakeholders from the worlds of enterprise 
and  higher  education  within  the  framework  of  existing  financial  instruments.  This  option 
would  for  example  include  the  possibility  to  issue  specific  calls  for  proposals  under  the 
different  financing  instruments  of  the  EU.  We  could  for  example,  after  agreement  by  the 
Lifelong  Learning  Programme  Committee, launch a call for  proposal on university-business 
cooperation  in  areas  related  to  the  specific  objectives  identified  under  Section  3.2.  Similar 
calls  could  be  issued  under  other  financing  instruments  of  the  EU,  as  for  example  the 
Research  programme  or  the  Innovation  programme,  always  conditioned  by  the  approval  of 
the respective programme committees. It would also be possible under this option to set up a 
(physical  and  virtual)  platform  on  European  level  for  a  structured  dialog  between  the 
stakeholders,  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  database  with  examples  of  good 
practice and relevant promotion and dissemination mechanisms.  

However there would be no specific mandate for the operation of such a forum, and it would 
keep its “piloting” character of 2008. It would not be possible to develop a longer-term vision 
of the activities of the forum. 

Policy  option  3:  Focused  policy  action  on  EU  level  supporting  better  cooperation  between 
Universities  and  Business.  As  main  difference  to  option  2,  this  option  would  include  the 
publication  of  a  policy  document  by  the  Commission.  This  policy  document  would  allow  to 
give a clear mandate to the forum and 

–  To take stock of what has been learned from the first year of the Forum and other relevant 
activities  at  European  level  about  the  challenges  and  barriers  to  university-business 
cooperation, the issues to be addressed and good practices and approaches which could be 
more widely used. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
–  To make proposals for the next steps in the Forum's work. 

–  To outline concrete follow-up actions to strengthen university-business cooperation. 

The policy document would raise the profile of the initiative substantially and attract attention 
to the related issue. It would allow, based on the activities of the forum, to formulate a number 
of messages targeted at the different stakeholders. And last but not least, it allows formulating 
a  number  of  concrete  follow-up  actions  to  strengthen  university-business  cooperation.  The 
policy  document  would  be  of  particular  relevance  for  countries,  regions  or  higher  education 
institutions that are lagging behind, and would like to move forward and implement relevant 
changes. 

Policy option 4: Focused policy action targeted at national level to support better cooperation 
between Universities and Business. As options 2 and 3, this solution would involve the set up 
of  a  (physical  and  virtual)  platform  on  European  level  for  a  structured  dialog  between  the 
stakeholders,  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  database  with  examples  of  good 
practice  and  relevant  promotion  and  dissemination  mechanisms.  As  option  3,  it  would  also 
include the publication of a policy document. However this option would try to focus much 
more  on  the  national,  regional  and  institutional level,  and  would  seek  defining  a  number  of 
actions  for  Member  States  and  stakeholders  coupled  with  agreed  deadlines  and  an  agreed 
process for monitoring and follow-up. Under this option we could also envisage to ask for the 
definition of relevant benchmarks and indicators that would allow to measure progress of the 
different Member States. 

Policy Instrument 

The initiative is based on Art. 149 of the Treaty; possible policy instruments under this article 
are 

–  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament  

–  Recommendation from the Council and the European Parliament 

For policy option 3, a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the Council with a number of clear messages on the main issues together with proposals for 
solution  and/or  actions  to  the  different  stakeholders  seems  the  most  appropriate  policy 
instrument  under  Article  149.  The  establishment  of  a  platform  on  European  level  for  a 
structured  dialogue  between  the  stakeholders  would  support  and  facilitate  sharing  of  good 
practice  and  mutual  learning.  It  would  also  allow  supporting  and  following-up  the 
implementation of measures identified in the Communication. 

For policy option 4, a Recommendation from the Council and the European Parliament to the 
Member States seems the most appropriate policy instrument. Such a Recommendation could 
specify a range of actions together with deadlines and mechanisms for monitoring and follow-
up, addressed to the Member States.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE IMPACTS 

This  initiative  aims  at  improving  the  employability  of  HE  graduates  and  at  supporting  an 
increase of Europe’s innovation capacity. It also aims at speeding up the implementation of 
the modernisation agenda of Europe’s HE.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
For none of the options any environmental impacts are expected. The different options do not 
have budgetary impacts. All proposed actions would be implemented within existing financial 
resources. 

It is extremely  difficult to assess the  economic  and  social  impacts  of the different proposed 
options. There is no way to prescribe on European level that and what action is to be taken by 
the Member States. The EU can only provide supporting measures to the Member States. The 
EU can show that there is urgency for action, it can identify and inform about main issues and 
possible  solutions,  it  can  provide  a  platform  for  discussion  and  exchange  between  the 
stakeholders and it can provide access to examples of good practice stemming from multiple 
sources.  On  European  level  we  can  improve  synergies  between  existing  initiatives  and 
programmes.  

5.2 

Possible economic impacts 

Making progress in the modernisation of HE would trigger positive economic impacts in the 
EU. Options 2, 3 and 4 would – at different degrees – contribute to positive developments in 
the  fields  of  higher  education,  innovation  and  research.  It  is  also  expected  that  options  2,  3 
and 4 would have positive impacts on certain regions or sectors. In particular trailing regions 
and sectors could benefit from the proposed options. 

The proposed options should also positively influence the macroeconomic environment. HE 
graduates that are better prepared for the labour market will increase the competitiveness of 
European companies. 

The  University  of  Twente  is  a  good  example  of  a  university  embedded  in  its  regional 
economy. Together with regional partners, the university has a knowledge park and business 
accelerators  linking  the  knowledge  in  the  university  with  the  business  community.  In 
supporting entrepreneurship, for over 10 years, the university has had a programme available 
to  all  students.  For  students  who  wish  to  start  a  company  there  is  support  from  the  TOP 
programme (Temporary Entrepreneurial Positions) with a number of benefits. There is also a 
programme for University Student Enterprises and a growth programme which is for owner 
managers  of  companies.  Included  in  these  modules  are  training  and  networking  activities. 
Over the last ten years a substantial number of SMEs have been created. 

In Western Sweden, 3 universities have developed tailor-made distance-learning courses for 
SME  employees  as  a  means  to  boost  the  competitiveness  of  these  enterprises  and  of  the 
region  as  whole.  The  courses  address  crucial  questions  for  SMEs  such  as  better  production 
techniques, Economics, Logistics, Product Development and Total Production Management. 
Most  of  the  employees  who  take  these  courses  are  in  their  forties  and  have  not  studied  at 
university level before. 

5.2 

Possible social impacts 

Better employability of HE graduates would have positive impacts on employment and labour 
markets. It would facilitate new job creation and prepare people better for a changing labour 
market  and  changing  working  places.  Making  progress  in  the  modernisation  agenda  of  HE 
would  positively  affect  the  access  of  individuals  to  public/private  education  or  continuing 
training. It would have an effect on mobility and it would affect universities (Access to and 
effects on social protection, health and education systems). 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Turku  Academic  Career  Services  (Rekry)  is  a joint  service  of  universities  in  Turku  and  the 
Turku  Employment  Office  in  Finland.  Rekry  provides  information  on  job  openings  and  job 
seeking  for  students  and  graduates.  Career  counselling,  seminars  and  info-days  are  also 
provided. In addition, Rekry serves companies and public authorities as a channel for finding 
interns, and students to do their thesis on a subject important to the company. The University 
of Turku has the alumni and mentoring programmes which both try to support at least partly 
students’ mobility from the university to the labour market. Within the mentoring programme 
the  person  with  working  experience  guides  student  at  the  graduating  phase  to  direct  final 
studies,  look  for  job,  write  CVs  etc.  The  mentor  can  also  use  own  networks  to  find  work 
opportunities for the student. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  comparison  between  the  different  options,  the  following  2  tables 
provide  

–  an  overall  assessment  of  the  4  identified  options  in  relation  to  the  specific  objectives 

presented under Section 3 (table A); 

–  B) an estimate to what extent the different options could contribute to the speeding up of 

the implementation of the HE modernisation agenda (table B). 

Table A – Options in relation to specific objectives 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

(Baseline) 

Specific  actions 
using 
the 
existing 
instruments 

Focused  policy 
action  on  EU 
level 

Focused  policy 
action targeted at 
Member States 

Curricular 
Development 

Identification  of 
skills 

Entrepreneurial 
attitude 

Governance 

Lifelong 
learning 

Inter- and 

Transdisciplin. 
in  research  and 
training agenda 

Knowledge 
sharing 

and 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EN 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

20 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

   EN 

 
 
creation 

There is a certain hierarchy between these options, which is reflected in the assessment of the 
possible  impacts.  The  options  are  complementary.  Option  2  includes  option  1  +  additional 
actions within the existing programmes and financial instruments; option 3 includes option 2 + 
the publication of a policy document that provides a clear mandate of the Forum and provides 
it with a more longer term vision. The policy document proposed under option 4 could cover 
the aspects addressed under option 3 and option 4 could also include the establishment of the 
platform foreseen under option 3. 

Table B – Options in relation to items on HE modernisation agenda 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

(Baseline) 

Specific  actions 
using 
the 
existing 
instruments 

Focused  policy 
action  on  EU 
level 

Focused  policy 
action targeted at 
Member States 

Break  down  the 
barriers 

Autonomy  and 
accountability 

for 

Incentives 
structured 
partnership 

Right  mix  of 
skills 

Reduce 
funding gap 

the 

Enhance 
Interdisciplin. 
and 
transdisciplin. 

Activate 
knowledge 
through .. 

Reward 
excellence at the 
highest level 

EHEA  and  ERA 
more visible and 
attractive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EN 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

21 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

   EN 

 
 
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Policy  option  1  would  mean  no  change  to  the  current  situation.  Member  states  and 
stakeholders  that  do  well  today  will  most  probably  continue  to  do  so.  The  existing  policy 
initiatives  and  financial  instruments  are  highly  valuable,  however  insufficient.  The  report  of 
the  Commission  to  the  Council  to  the  Council  Resolution30shows  that  a  certain  progress  has 
been made in the implementation of the modernization agenda of Higher Education, however 
“a  lot  remains  to  be  done”.  It  shows  also  that  there  are  substantial  differences  between 
Member  States  and  institutions.  No  action  would  mean  that  we  continue  as  in  the  past; 
progress against the different targets would continue to be too slow. Without additional action 
on European level, the additional risk exists that the gap between those countries that are doing 
well and those that lag behind, increases. 

Policy option 2 describes a first possible approach: within the existing policy framework, it is 
proposed to redefine certain priorities within the available financial instruments. Specific calls 
for proposals and/or calls for tenders could be organized, resulting in a number of projects and 
contracts.  It  is  expected  that  these  projects  and  contracts  would  positively  contribute  to 
achieving  the  specific  objectives.  However  there  would  be  no  specific  coordination  on  EU 
level  between  the  different  projects  and  contracts.  Cooperation,  exchange,  mutual  learning 
between projects  funded  under different financial  EU  instruments  would  most  probably  only 
happen in few cases. 

Policy option 3 is based on the analysis that effective university-business cooperation is of key 
importance  for  ensuring  that  graduates  have  the  right  mix  of  skills  when  entering  the  labour 
market and for improving the innovation capacity of the EU. This option involves the issuing 
of a policy document on university – business cooperation and the establishment of a platform 
at  the  European  level  for  a  structured  dialog  and  partnership  between  the  stakeholders 
facilitating  and  stimulating  sharing  and  exchange  of  good  practice  and  supporting  mutual 
learning. The initiative on EU level can provide important stimulus for champions on national, 
regional  or 
in  sometimes  change-adverse 
environments. 

implement  changes 

institutional 

level 

to 

In  addition  this  initiative  has  the  potential  of  a  specific  added  value  on  EU  level:  it  should 
allow  for  better  coordination  of  initiatives  in  the  field  of  University-Business  cooperation, 
managed and supported in different policy areas of the Commission and funded via different 
financial 
(ex.  Education;  Research;  Enterprise;  Employment;  Regional 
Development). 

instruments 

The  strong  involvement  of  the  European  Commission  in  the  implementation  of  this  option 
increases  the  visibility  and  credibility  of  the  action.  The  discussions  and  exchanges  with  the 
different stakeholders during 2008 show that additional and coordinated action on EU level in 
this field is highly appreciated. 

Option  3  would  also  act  to  complement  the  policy  exchange  between  the  Commission  and 
Member States on these issues which is planned under the next phase of the Open Method of 
coordination  for  Education  and  Training,  where  modernization  of  universities  has  been 
identified as one of the priority fields to be addressed. 

Policy option 4 would, in addition to the actions foreseen on EU level under option 3, involve 
policy  recommendations  to  Member  States,  including  the  possibility  to  define  a  number  of 

30 

SEC(2008)  2719;  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the  Council  Resolution  of  23 
November  2007  on  Modernising  Universities  for  Europe's  competitiveness  in  a  global  knowledge 
economy 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
actions for the Member States with deadlines and mechanisms to monitor and follow-up. 

Whereas  option  4  might  potentially  have  the  strongest  impact,  it  is  extremely  likely  that 
Member States and stakeholders would be reluctant to follow a specific set of policy guidelines 
on  university-business  cooperation.  The  cooperative  exchanges  on  education  and  training 
within the Open Method of Coordination are based on a careful recognition of subsidiarity and 
of the different roles and responsibilities of the Commission, Member States and of regional 
and institutional actors. Direct policy prescriptions from the EU-level would risk undermining 
the basis of this cooperation. In addition, the adoption of a Recommendation would be a much 
heavier process compared to the adoption of a Communication and the time frame would be 
substantially longer, which would lead to a delay in implementation. 

Conclusion of section 6  

Given  the  preceding  analysis,  in  particular  the  strong  risk  associated  with  option  4, 
considering the potential of option 3 compared with option 2, the limited administrative and 
procedural  effort  of  option  2,  the  possibility  for  fast  implementation  and  the  strong  support 
received by the stakeholders during 2008 for the set-up on European level of a platform for a 
structured dialogue, our proposal is to proceed with option 3.  

Cooperation between Higher Education and Business is not any more an option, it is a must. 

The  question  is  not  if  there  should  be  cooperation,  the  question  is  about  HOW  – 
Implementation is the issue. And the EU can support the Member States to make progress in 
implementation. 

Better and more intense cooperation is beneficial for Academia and Business. It is mutually 
reinforcing  and  moves  knowledge  forward  in  both  the  ‘business’  context  and  the  academic 
context,  as  the  knowledge  becomes  an  integral  part  of  the  teaching,  learning  and  the 
researching  in  HE  and  integrated  into  the  business  processes  of  firms  and  public 
organisations. Good cooperation provides the basis for longer term relationships that generate 
a  wider  variety  of  opportunities  and  returns.  The  insights  generated  from  working  together 
contribute  to  both  the  peer  review  of  research  and  the  business  need.  Student  learning  is 
enriched and prepares them for future employment as they gain exposure to live problems and 
solutions through the curriculum and placements. Relationships become stronger through an 
increasing  number  of  arrangements  from  student  projects  and  placements  to  ambitious 
partnerships and collaborations that bring benefit to the business and the academics. 

The proposed initiative provides a basis for dialog and discussion between the stakeholders; 
an  important  element  is  the  sharing  and  exchanging  of  examples  of  good  practice.  This 
process  of  mutual  learning  should  help  Member  States  to  establish  favourable  frameworks 
and  conditions  for  University-Business  Cooperation  (ex.  University-Business  Cooperation 
part  of  national/regional  HE  strategies;  appropriate  incentive  structures  for  universities; 
removal  of  existing  barriers  (legal  and  non-legal)).  It  should  also  help  universities  and 
business  to  better  understand  the  challenges  of  University-Business  cooperation.  For 
universities it is important to integrate U-B cooperation into their strategies; they have to set-
up relevant incentive structures for their professors, researchers and students, and put in place 
structures  that  are  appropriate  for  cooperating  with  enterprises.  Companies,  in  particular 
SMEs, have to organise themselves for being ready to cooperate with universities. They have 
to  clearly  express  what  they  expect  from  universities.  For  SMEs,  intermediary  structures 
might be of crucial relevance to make cooperation happening. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
For both sides it is important that cooperation has to be seen in a long-term perspective and 
not as a quick fix to urgent problems. 

As  illustrated  in  table  A  (Section  5),  better  cooperation  between  universities  and  business 
should have a positive impact on the specific objectives identified under point 3: 

•  Involvement of Business in curriculum development ensures closer linkage to the needs of 

the labour market; 

•  Graduates, researchers and professors are more entrepreneurial through increased exposure 

and cooperation with business (common projects, mobility); 

•  Universities get active players in the provision of lifelong learning; they formulate a clear 
lifelong learning strategy and set-up relevant structures to meet the needs of learners and 
companies. Companies provide structured input on their needs to universities; 

•  The  cooperation  will  increase  trust  on  both  sides;  Universities  will  get  better  acquainted 
with  business  and  universities  will  be  more  open  to  involve  business  into  the 
modernisation of its governance structures; 

•  Cooperation  with  companies  will  stimulate  work  with  inter-  and  transdisciplinary  teams 
and  approaches,  including  increased  mobility  of  students,  researchers,  professors  and 
company staff. 

This  is  not  only  wishful  thinking.  Examples  of  good  practice  exist  which  demonstrate  the 
value  of  cooperation  between  universities  and  companies:  for  the  students,  researchers  and 
professors,  for  the  universities  as  institution,  for  the  companies  and  for  society.  There  are 
examples of companies and universities cooperating in the definition and organisation of new 
study programmes (very interesting in this context are the so-called dual study programmes, 
which  combine  periods  of  working  in  a  company  and  studying  at  university).  Some 
universities have set-up specific boards on faculty and on university level that participate in 
the development and/or modification of curriculum. Business representatives are members of 
these  boards,  ensuring  the  relevance  of  the  curriculum  for  the  labour  market.  There  are 
successful  examples  of  cooperation  between  universities  and  companies  in  the  field  of 
lifelong  learning.  Certain  universities  provide  the  possibility  to  people  in  employment  to 
follow “normal” Bachelor or Master courses, others are setting up specific structures to widen 
access to their resources and services. Certain universities have implemented mechanisms for 
the validation of non-formal and informal learning. 

A number of companies, in particular large multi-nationals, are very active towards mobility 
of  students,  researchers  and  professors.  Students  perform  internships  at  the  companies,  and 
very often undertake their Master Thesis or PhD on issues identified by the companies. The 
big  challenge  is  to  substantially  increase  the  exchange  with  SMEs.  There  are  specific 
programmes in place targeting mobility of students to SMEs: Students spend 3-6 months with 
an SME working on specific issues. These schemes are highly successful and it is necessary 
to make the stakeholders, in particular the SMEs, aware of their existence. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

It is proposed to launch a survey in 2010 in order to establish an analysis of the situation. The 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
study  would  target  national  and  regional  ministries  and  Higher  Education  Institutions  in 
Europe  with  a  number  of  defined  questions  on  the  situation  of  University-Business 
Cooperation. The survey could for example try to identify the number of universities that have 
university-business  cooperation  clearly  defined  in  their  missions;  or  identify  the  number  of 
strategies  or  frameworks  that  exist  on  national,  regional  or  institutional  level,  favoring  or 
hindering University-Business cooperation. It is not clear to what extent such a survey would 
allow  to  identify  the  concrete  level  of  cooperation  between  universities  and  business,  ie.  to 
identify the number of concrete cooperation projects a university has with companies. It would 
be  necessary  to  set  some  very  clear  criteria  allowing  the  definition  of  university-business 
cooperation. The survey could be repeated later-on to identify progress. 

The survey would be undertaken by an external contractor. The Terms of reference should be 
ready by end of 2009, and the results available by end of 2010. 

This  quantitative  work  should  be  complemented  by  qualitative  work,  in  particular  the 
identification  and  dissemination  of  good  practice  and  the  definition  of  success  factors  for 
university-business cooperation, which lead to achieving the specific objectives. 

7.1 

Possible indicators to assess progress 

–  Number  of  new  strategies  on  national  or  regional  level  supporting  the  development  of 
cooperation  between  HE  and  business  (including  the  modification  of  laws  to  remove 
existing barriers and/or to provide new incentives) 

–  Number of universities that include cooperation with business into their mission/strategy 

–  Number of concrete cooperation agreements between universities and business 

–  Number  of  universities  that  involve  business  representatives  into  the  development  of 

curriculum 

–  Number  of  universities  that  involve  business  representatives  into  their  governance 

structures  

–  Number of universities with structures in place to communicate with business 

–  Number  of  participants  at  different  European  forums  and  more  important  distribution 

between participants 

–  Number  of  examples  of  good  practice  identified  and  disseminatedNumber  of  students, 
relevant 

participate 

company 

staff 

that 

at 

researchers, 
and/or 
exchange/cooperation programmes 

professors 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES 

1. Workshop in July 2007 with representatives from European Business and Higher Education 
Associations (report annexed) 

2. The University-Business Forum in February 2008 (report annexed) 

3.  Thematic  Forum  on  Continuing  Education  and  Lifelong  Learning  in  June  2008  (report 
annexed) 

4.  Thematic  Forum  on  Curriculum  Development  and  Entrepreneurship  in  October  2008 
(report annexed) 

5. Thematic Forum on Knowledge Transfer in November 2008 

http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/policy/ipr_en.htm 

6. The 2nd European University-Business Forum in February 2009 

7. Modernising Higher Education Cluster - Peer Learning Activity on University – Business 
Partnerships (UBPs), October 2006 (report annexed) 

8. Modernising Higher Education Cluster - Peer Learning Activity on Circling the Knowledge 
Triangle  from  the  perspective  of  Education:  the  added  value  in  better  connecting  Higher 
Education to Research and Innovation, June 2008 (report annexed) 

9.  Number  of  projects  under  the  Erasmus  programme,  including  a  survey  among  Higher 
Education Institutions on University-Business Cooperation. (report annexed) 

10.  A  working  group  with  representatives  from  DGs  Research,  Employment,  Social  Affairs 
and Equal Opportunities and Enterprise and Industry  

11. An Inter-Service Steering Group (for Impact Assessment) with representatives from: 
Secretariat-General,  Research,  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Equal  Opportunities, 
Information Society and Media, Regional Policy, Enterprise and Industry. 

EN 

26 

   EN