REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Evaluations of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme
Date: 2013-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, competitiveness, dissemination of information, energy use, information technology, innovation

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.1.2013  
COM(2013) 2 final 

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

Evaluations of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 

EN 

   EN 

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

Evaluations of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  highlights  the  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  evaluations  of  the 
Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  2007-2013  (CIP)  and  its  sub-
programmes, formulates the Commission's response to the evaluations' recommendations and 
sets out follow-up measures.  

Thereby  the  Commission  complies  with  the  requirement  of  Article  8(5)  of  the  Decision 
establishing  the  CIP1  to  communicate  interim  and  final  evaluations  of  the  Framework 
Programme and of its specific programmes to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

2.1. 

The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 

The  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme2  is  a  key  programme  in 
addressing  the  challenges  EU  industry  is  facing.  Its  objectives  are  in  line  with  the  flagship 
initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, where smart, sustainable and inclusive growth is a key 
priority for EU intervention to strengthen the EU economy. 

The CIP aims at contributing to the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the Union as 
an  advanced  knowledge  society,  with  sustainable  development  based  on  robust  economic 
growth and a highly competitive social market economy with a high level of protection and 
improvement of the quality of the environment. 

This  Framework  Programme  supports  innovation  activities  (including  eco-innovation), 
provides  better  access  to  finance  and  delivers  business  support  services  in  the  regions;  it 
encourages  a  better  take-up  and  use  of  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICT), 
helps  to  develop  the  information  society  and  also  promotes  the  increased  use  of  renewable 
energies and energy efficiency. 

• 

1 

2 

The CIP is divided into three operational programmes. Each of them has its specific 
objectives,  aimed  at  contributing  to  the  competitiveness  of  enterprises  and  their 
innovative  capacity  in  their  own  areas,  such  as  ICT  or  sustainable  energy;  The 

Decision  No  1639/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006, 
establishing  a  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  2007-2013  (OJ  L  310/15, 
09.11.2006) 
See http://ec.europa.eu/cip/ 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Entrepreneurship 
Communication  Technologies  Policy  Support  Programme 
Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE)5. 

Innovation  Programme 

and 

(EIP)3;  The 

Information 
(ICT-PSP)4;  The 

2.2. 

Evaluations of the CIP and its sub-programmes 

The Decision establishing the CIP contains specific provisions relating to the evaluation of the 
CIP and of its operational programmes. In particular, it states that the Framework Programme 
and its specific programmes shall be subject to interim and final evaluations to measure the 
impact  of  the  Framework  Programme,  and  each  of  the  specific  programmes,  against  its 
objectives,  including  competitiveness,  innovation,  entrepreneurship,  productivity  growth, 
employment and environment. The Decision also stipulates that the interim evaluation of the 
Framework Programme had to be completed by 31 December 2009 and the final evaluation 
by 31 December 2011, and that the interim and final evaluations of the specific programmes 
should be arranged in such a way that their results can be taken into account in the interim and 
final evaluation of the Framework Programme. 

The interim and final evaluations have aimed at: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

measuring  the  impact  of  the  Framework  Programme  and  its  specific  programmes 
against their objectives;  

assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Framework  Programme  and  its  specific 
programmes  have  contributed  to  the  objectives  set  out  at  the  beginning  of  this 
section;  

evaluating the extent to which the objectives of the Framework Programme and its 
specific programmes are pertinent to the needs, problems and issues it was designed 
to address;  

evaluating the efficiency of the Framework Programme and its specific programmes 
and identify their most efficient and its most inefficient aspects.  

The  interim  evaluation  of  the  EIP  was  conducted  by  GHK  Consulting  Ltd  and  Technopolis 
and the final report was presented on 30 April 2009. 

The CIP ICT-PSP interim evaluation was conducted by a panel of five experts6 and its final 
report was presented in May 2009. 

The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Intelligent  Energy-Europe  II  Programme  was  performed  by 
Deloitte Consulting and its final report was presented on 27 April 2009. 

3 
4 
5 
6 

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/eip/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/cip/ict-psp/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/cip/iee/index_en.htm 
Prof Gerard Pogorel (Chair), Professor of Economics and Management, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des 
Télécommunications, (ENST-Telecom ParisTech), France. Dana Berova, Gartner, Czech Republic. Prof 
Slavo  Radosevic,  Professor  of  Industry  and  Innovation  Studies,  University  College  London.  Eppie 
Eloranta,  Director  of  TIEKE,  the  Finnish  Information  Society  Development  Centre.Jeremy  Harrison 
(Rapporteur), Director of abdi Ltd, UK partners of the ROI Institute. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  was 
conducted by GHK Consulting Ltd and Technopolis and the final report was presented on 9 
March 2010. 

The  final  evaluation  of  the  Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation  Programme  was  performed  by 
the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) with a final report in April 2011. 

The  final  evaluation  of  the  Intelligent  Energy-Europe  II  Programme  was  conducted  by 
Deloitte and the final report was published on 8 June 2011. 

The CIP ICT PSP final (second interim) evaluation was completed on 20 July 2011 by a panel 
of experts7.  

The CIP Framework Programme final evaluation, taking into account the results of previous 
evaluation studies, was finalised in December 2011 by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation 
Services (CSES). 

All evaluation reports are available on the web8. 

3. 

MAIN FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS 

In  general,  the  evaluations  confirmed  the  relevance,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the 
Framework Programme and of each of its three specific programmes. 

3.1. 

Interim evaluation of the CIP 

The interim evaluation of the CIP9 found that ‘the limited budget attached to CIP means that 
it is not an expenditure-orientated programme like the Cohesion Policy Funds or the Seventh 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological  Development  (FP7),  but  one  that 
seeks to achieve its ambitious and broadly defined objectives by leveraging its ideas, products 
and partnerships into other policies and programmes.’  

The  report  states  that  an  overwhelming  support  was  present  among  internal  as  well  as 
external  stakeholders  for  intervention  at  a  Community  level  in  the  fields  of  innovation  and 
competitiveness  in  the  form  of  a  flagship  programme  such  as  CIP,  and  suggested  that  CIP 
needed to focus on areas that demonstrate the greatest European added value and impact. 

It was assessed that stakeholders tended to identify parts of the programme and not CIP as a 
whole: the evaluators considered that CIP is not well understood as a Framework Programme 
also  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was  a  new  framework  programme,  with  a  limited  budget  and 
supporting  a  wide  array  of  instruments  targeting  a  number  of  different  audiences.  They 
considered however that the information mechanisms already in place, being NCPs and the 
Enterprise Europe Network, were important instruments for improving on the information and 
communication of CIP. 

The  evaluation  found  that  many  planned  efficiencies  were  emerging  in  the  evidence 
associated  with  the  management  and  implementation  of  CIP.  In  particular  CIP  financial 

7 
8 
9 

Graham Vickery, Terttu Luukkonen, Slavo Radosevic, Robbert Fisher (Rapporteur). 
http://ec.europa.eu/cip/documents/implementation-reports/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/docs/interim_evaluation_report_march2010_en.pdf 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
instruments have been considered highly efficient instruments 'by design' for assisting SMEs. 
Financial intermediaries however, complained of excessive reporting requirements which add 
to the cost of participating and suggested to reduce administrative burden. 

The report also found that operational synergies were improved through the involvement of 
the  Executive  Agency  for  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  (EACI)  and  the  Enterprise 
Europe  Network.  In  particular  under  the  EIP  it  was  underlined  the  role  of  having  one 
Network  facing  SMEs  across  Europe.  The  role  of  EACI  was  considered  successful  in 
increasing resource efficiencies through the separation of administrative functions from policy 
making. 

3.2. 

Final evaluation of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) 

The  evaluation  of  EIP10  came  to  five  main  conclusions:  firstly,  that  the  program  was 
performing  well  and  was  on  track  to  achieve  the  expected  impacts;  secondly,  that  in  most 
instances,  the  Programme  was  gathering  momentum,  as  it  was  building  on  existing 
achievements; in addition, that survey evidence demonstrated the ‘utility’ of the Programme, 
by  confirming  that  it  directly  meets  SME  needs;  furthermore,  evaluators  found  that 
interviews and other evidence point to a clear European value-added. And finally that the 
monitoring  system  that  has  been  developed  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  assessing  the 
performance  of  the  Programme  on  an  on-going  basis,  but  this  system  was  still  being 
developed in some areas and the data on indicators needed to be presented more consistently.  

EIP  objectives  were  found  highly  relevant  to  the  needs  of  businesses.  Furthermore,  it  was 
found that ‘the programme is effectively benefiting end-users, in particular SMEs (small and 
medium-sized  enterprises)’.  The  major  strength  of  the  EIP  is  that  it  concentrates  on  core 
issues  for  SMEs  in  a  direct  and  practical  way.  The  EIP  actions,  notably  the  financial 
instruments and eco-innovation, have effectively created conditions for real replication in the 
market. 

For  what  concerns  the  Financial  Instrument,  they  have  been  found  as  achieving  their 
objectives of facilitating access to finance for the start-up and growth of SMEs. In detail, the 
GIF  facility  and  SMEG  loan  and  micro  credit  windows  are  found  relevant  to  the  needs  of 
European SMEs since they fulfil a demand for finance which otherwise would not have been 
met  and  contribute  to  the  start  up  and  growth  of  SMEs.  One  of  the  most  noticeable  effects 
found in the report for what concerns the instruments is the leverage effect.  

Concerning the Enterprise Europe Network, the evaluators found that the Network was well 
focused  on  its  main  objectives  of  promoting  innovation,  business  co-operation  and  cross-
border trading, and added that there is a high level of client satisfaction with the Network’s 
services.  In  particular  they  indicated  that  'the  Network  is  a  major  policy  asset  for  the  EU’s 
relationship  with  enterprises  and  has  considerable  further  potential  in  terms  of  the 
engagement of SMEs with the objectives and actions of the EIP'.  

The approach used for EIP eco-innovation related activities is found to be coherent across the 
Programme  in  terms  of  the  inclusion  of  the  appropriate elements and relevant in addressing 
existing market failures that restrict the sector, targeting both the demand and supply side of 
the market, as well as strengthening the operational environment. The evaluators found also 
that the scheme was likely to be significantly over-subscribed.  

10 

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/docs/final-evaluation-of-eip_en.pdf 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Final evaluation of the Intelligent Energy Europe II Programme (IEE) 

The  evaluation  of  the  IEE11  found  that  its  actions  are  achieving  their  specific  and  strategic 
objectives and contributing to the programme’s overall impact and outcome.  

The IEE programme is found to be "relevant and useful as it replies to the evolving needs, 
problems  and  barriers  related  to  sustainable  energy  issues  that  Europe  is  facing.  The 
combination  of  the  actions  which  covers  a  wide  spectrum  of  priorities,  the  involvement  of 
different type of actors which can clearly influence the uptake of sustainable energy solutions 
and in particular the combination of market solution oriented projects and projects targeting 
policy  adaptation  as  well  as  the  influence  of  the  IEE  II  actions  at  different  moment  of  the 
market cycle contribute to the effectiveness of the programme".  

There remain non-technological barriers which slow down the uptake of sustainable energy 
technologies.  IEE  II  contributes  to  reducing  them  by  supporting  activities  in  the  fields  of 
policy  support,  capacity  building,  dissemination  and  promotion  and  market  replication 
projects. 

Positive  feedback  has  been  collected  by  the  evaluators  as  regards  the  effectiveness  of  the 
actions  supported  both  in  reaching  their  objectives  and  in  contributing  to  the  programme’s 
objectives. Furthermore, the activities supported are judged the most appropriate to meet the 
objectives set. 

Concerning the efficiency of the programme, the evaluators suggested increasing the means 
put  in  place  to  better  facilitate  the  achievement  of  the  overarching  objectives  of  the 
programme, especially given the limited time remaining to achieve these before 2020 and the 
delays incurred vis-a-vis certain sustainable energy development objectives. 

It was demonstrated that the programme was able to use synergies with other EU funding 
programmes such as FP7 and the structural funds.  

3.4. 

Final  evaluation  of  the  Information  and  Communication  Technology  (ICT) 
Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)  

The final evaluation of the ICT PSP  12 underlined  the uniqueness of  the  programme  and  its 
innovative role as its projects design new platforms for innovative cross-border services in 
areas  of  public  interest,  in  particular  in  areas  where  there  are  continuing  systemic  and 
organisational risks..  

Some  attributes  of  the  programme  are  identified  as  very  positive:  'a  unique  and 
pioneering  innovation  instrument,  directly  policy-related,  complementary  portfolio  of 
instruments,  wide  stakeholder  participation'.  The  further 
increase  of  stakeholders 
participation  is  amongst  the  recommendations  given  by  the  panel  of  experts,  together  with 
overcoming  hurdles  to  SME  participation.  It  is  also  recommended  to  improve  information 
flows and linkages with other EU programmes such as the ones relating to regional policies. 

11 
12 

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/docs/2011_iee2_programme_en.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/docs/cip_ict_psp_interim_evaluation_report_2011_en.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The panel suggested continuing the ICT PSP as an innovation deployment policy instrument 
and  that  ICT  PSP  focus  on  deployment  of  ICT  innovations  and  addressing  systemic  and 
organisational risks should be maintained in any follow-up.  

They recommended that the top-down policy-driven approach in large-scale projects (Pilot A) 
should be continued, as it is a working model of how to enhance more widespread uptake of 
new  innovative  services  at  EU  level.  They  also  assessed  that  the  bottom-up  demand-driven 
projects (Pilot B) can provide  new  and innovative cross-border services in  new government 
service-related  areas  (eContent,  eHealth  and  aging,  eGovernment  and  eEnergy/eTransport), 
and  promote  interoperability  and  the  development  of  wider  markets  for  innovative  public 
services. 

3.5. 

Final evaluation of the CIP 

The final evaluation13 report of the CIP confirmed its success. 

The report states that '[T]he evidence from the Final Evaluations and other sources, confirms 
that the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme as a whole, and its specific 
programmes individually are all performing well, in line with expectations at the launch of 
the programme'.14 

In addition it is assessed that 'The CIP as a whole has become a major vehicle for promoting 
innovation,  particularly  as  conceived  as  a  relatively  open  process  going  beyond  the  simple 
focus on technological development that characterised earlier conceptions towards the more 
balanced  perspective  that  encompasses  developments  in  the  service  sector  as  much  as  in 
manufacturing  and  relates  to  processes  and  business  models  as  much  as  products.  This  in 
turn is a major contribution to the competitiveness of the European economy'. 

The definition of CIP's objectives is considered coherent and relevant to the needs, problems 
and  issues  intended  to  address,  and  a  concentration  in  areas  where  EU  action  can  make  a 
difference  was  achieved.  The  evaluation  assessed  positively  the  flexibility  of  CIP  and 
considered  that  accessing  support  under  the  CIP  is  easier  than  in  other  comparable 
programmes. 

It  is  found  that  the  body  of  work  on  support  for  innovation  created  by  the  CIP  Programme 
represents now a substantial corpus ok knowledge potentially informing other policy areas.  

The evaluation underlined the improvements arising from the delegation of the management 
of  substantial  parts  of  CIP  to  the  EACI  concerning  the  efficiency  of  the  programme 
management,  both  in  relation  with  costs  to  the  Commission  and  efficiency  of  the  services 
provided,  as  measured  in  terms  of  number  of  contracts  signed,  the  period  to  contract  and 
payment delays. 

The current economic crisis has underlined the significance of CIP's central objectives and 
the relevance of many of the issues CIP was designed to address, which makes it more urgent 
to  build  on  ideas  that  have  proven  successful  and  demonstrated  effectiveness,  such  as  the 
financial instruments. 

13 
14 

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/cip_final_evaluation_final_report_en.pdf 
CSES,  Executive  Report  -  Final  Evaluation  of  the  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Programme, 
December 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/executive_summary_cip_final_report_en.pdf 

available 

2011, 

page 

8 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS & PLANNED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 

The evaluations made some recommendations on how to further improve the implementation 
of  the  CIP  and  design  a  possible  successor  programme  which  have  been  taken  into  due 
consideration  during  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  and  when  preparing  the 
Commission  proposals  for  successor  programmes  to  the  CIP  (COSME15  and  parts  of 
Horizon 202016) 

The  CIP  final  evaluation  report  stated  that  further  synergies  between  the  three  sub-
programmes  could  be  created  by  articulating  new  positions  on  central  themes  of  the 
framework programme, for example on innovation policies.  

The CIP’s overall lack of visibility was identified as one of its main shortcomings. However, 
it  was  also  stressed  that  well-known  brands  such  as  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network, 
Intelligent  Energy  Europe,  and  SME  Week  should  not  be  renamed.  Furthermore,  better 
dissemination  of  information  on  successful  activities  supported  by  the  Programme  was 
recommended.  The  Commission  actively  uses  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network,  which  is 
funded  by  CIP,  to  distribute  information  on  EU  policies  and  services  available  under  all 
programmes such as FP7 or Structural Funds. A number of actions have been undertaken to 
reach  the  broadest  number  of  potential  participants.  In  the  area  of  Eco-innovation  Market 
Replication, the Enterprise Europe Network often acts as a regional or national contact point, 
distributing information on calls, organising dedicated matchmaking events or sectoral cluster 
meetings. Beneficiaries of grants are also referred to the IPR Helpdesk created by CIP to help 
them with intellectual property issues resulted from its participation in other EU programmes 
such as the FP7. In the area of innovation, actions have been and continue to be continuously 
promoted by TAKE IT UP (Europe INNOVA) and the INNO-Partnering Forum (PRO INNO 
Europe®). The outreach tasks of projects beyond their direct participants is enhanced by the 
offering  of  web  sites  in  which  other  organisations  can  actively  contribute  to  and  social 
networking features are integrated. Communication efforts will intensify regarding successor 
programmes. 

Furthermore, it was recommended that a stable set of output, result and impact indicators 
be devised to help monitor the programme effectiveness and the achievement of its objectives. 
The European Commission’s proposals for successor programmes to the CIP (COSME17 and 
parts  of  Horizon  202018)  are  addressing  most  of  these  recommendations,  in  particular  by 
strengthening  the  intervention  logic  of  the  programmes  (e.g.  Horizon  2020  provides  for  a 
seamless  connection  between  research  and  innovation,  taking  into  account  key  societal 
challenges,  such  as  energy  and  natural  resources,  as  well  as  crucial  technologies,  such  as 
ICT), linking it to the EU’s strategic priorities, and introducing in the legal text general and 
specific objectives linked to result and impact indicators 

Regarding the recommendation on "an active policy of promoting synergies at an operational 
level  by  a  systematic  approach  to  improving  the  management  of  the  links  between  different 
areas  of  the  Programme",  the  Commission  actively  uses  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network  to 

COM(2011)834 final 
COM(2011)808 
COM(2011)812 final 
COM(2011)834 final 
COM(2011)808 
COM(2011)812 final 

final,  COM(2011)809 

final,  COM(2011)809 

15 
16 

17 
18 

EN 

final,  COM(2011)810 

final,  COM(2011)811 

final, 

final,  COM(2011)810 

final,  COM(2011)811 

final, 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
distribute  information.  A  number  of  actions  have  been  undertaken  to  reach  the  broadest 
number  of  potential  participants.  In  the  area  of  eco-innovation,  the  Enterprise  Europe 
Network often acts as a regional or national contact point, distributing information on calls, 
organising dedicated matchmaking events or cluster meetings. Beneficiaries of grants are also 
referred  to  the  IPR  Helpdesk  to  help  them  with  intellectual  property  issues.  As  regards 
innovation,  seminars  have  taken  place  with  Network  members  on  public  procurement  for 
innovation to disseminate the lessons learnt by the relevant actions. Another example are the 
links  created  between  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network  and  IMP3rove19  when  the  Enterprise 
Europe Network partners organise innovation management training. 

The  EIP  final  evaluation  recommended  that  "further  developments  in  the  Entrepreneurship 
and Innovation Programme need to take care to build on current achievements to increase the 
momentum that has already been created in a range of the activities undertaken and to avoid, 
where  possible,  the  risks  of  disruption  inherent  in  any  new  departures".  In  the  EIP  annual 
work  programme  2013  the  Commission  will  to  a  large  extent  propose  a  continuation  of 
successful actions from previous years or new actions based on past experiences, while at the 
same time ensuring consistence with political priorities and economic developments. 

Regarding  the  recommendation  on  keeping  under  review  the  extent  to  which  European 
value-added  is  evident  in  the  Financial  Instruments,  the  Commission  has  taken  it  into 
account  in  the  preparation  of  the  next  generation  of  financial  instruments.  European  added 
value  will  be  a  key  element  of  the  new  debt  and  equity  platforms,  on  whose  principles  all 
future financial instruments in the MFF for 2014-2020 will be based. In particular, the  case 
for financial instruments relies on the benefits associated with the strengthening of the Single 
Market by overcoming market fragmentation in venture capital investment, high risk lending 
covered  by  EU  resources  and  credit  enhancement.  The  main  purpose  of  the  financial 
instruments  under  the  COSME  programme  as  proposed  by  the  Commission  will  be  to 
improve access to finance for SMEs in market segments which are not covered by Member 
States’  measures,  which  are  restricted  to  investments  and  support  within  each  country.  The 
focus  will  be  on  financing  expansion  of  growth-oriented  enterprises  that  are  aiming  at 
international expansion and to develop a cross-border SME finance market. Only an EU-level 
programme can fulfil this role. Similarly, in the proposal of the Commission on Horizon 2020, 
the Equity facility for Research & Innovation will complement national schemes that cannot 
cater  for  cross-border  investments  in  R&I.  The  early-stage  deals  will  also  have  a 
demonstration  effect  that  can  benefit  public  and  private  investors  across  Europe.  The  Debt 
facility will help remedy market deficiencies that prevent the private sector from investing in 
R&I  at  an  optimum  level.  Its  implementation  will  enable  the  pooling  of  a  critical  mass  of 
resources from the Union budget and, on a risk sharing basis, from the financial institution(s) 
entrusted with its implementation. It will stimulate firms to invest more of their own money in 
R&I  than  they  would  otherwise  have  done.  In  addition,  the  Debt  facility  will  help 
organisations, both public and private, to reduce the risks of undertaking the pre-commercial 
procurement or procurement of innovative products and services. 

With regard to eco-innovation the evaluation suggested that "given the small size of the eco-
innovation scheme, the eventual impacts are likely to be correspondingly restricted, in spite of 
the promising results anticipated and the fact it is likely to be significantly over-subscribed. 

19 

With  IMP³rove,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  have  the  valuable  chance  to  benchmark 
their own Innovation Management performance against other companies from the same industry sector, 
country,  size  and  age.  Benchmarking  offers  a  sound  basis  for  effective  support  by  an  Innovation 
Management support provider.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The implications for future funding should be considered." The Commission has proposed in 
the  next  generation  of  programmes  to  include  eco-innovation  as  one  of  the  priorities  in  the 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  -  Horizon  2020  and  to  expand  EU 
intervention both in terms of budget and range of instruments. 

The  Commission  is  drawing  the  lessons  from  the  evaluations  received  to  continuously 
improve  its  implementation  of  the  current  Framework  Programme  and  its  specific 
programmes.  The  evaluations  have  furthermore  served  as  important  guide  points  in  the 
preparation  of  the  new  generation  of  Programmes  (COSME  and  Horizon  2020).  The 
Commission  therefore  invites  the  Council  and  the  Parliament  to  make  full  use  of  these 
recommendations when amending the Commission's proposals in view of the final adoption 
of the programmes. 

EN 

10 

   EN