5th European conference on corporate R&D and innovation : CONCORDi 2015 industrial research and innovation : evidence for policy : background report.
Date: 2015-09-25
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: EU Member State, corporate finance, financing, industrial investment, industrial research, innovation, research and development, research policy, research report

5th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation 

5th European Conference on Corporate 
R&D and Innovation – CONCORDi 2015 

Industrial Research and Innovation: 
Evidence for Policy 

Background Note 

Mafini Dosso, Fernando Hervás and            
Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello 

2 0 1 5  

Report EUR 27443 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation 

European Commission 
Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies  

Contact information 
Fernando Hervás 
Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 
E-mail: jrc-ipts-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954488318 
Fax: +34 954488300 

JRC Science Hub  
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

Legal Notice 
This publication is a Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service.  
It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

All images © European Union 2015  

JRC97469 

EUR 27443 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-51568-2 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2791/000195 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

© European Union, 2015 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Abstract 
This background note offers first a synthesis of the main research questions addressed under the three topics of the  5th 
European  Conference  on  Corporate  R&D  and  Innovation  -  Industrial  Research  and  Innovation:  Evidence  for  Policy 
(CONCORDi 2015). Section II positions the selected papers in the current academic literature. It focuses on the extent to 
which the papers address the main issues, and on how they strengthen and challenge what we know about  evidence for 
industrial  R&D  and  innovation  policies.  Section  III  briefly  presents  the  key  priorities  of  the  European  innovation  and 
industrial policy and some examples of current programs to support corporate R&D and innovation activities. Section IV 
raises a series of research and policy issues the Conference will address. 
. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 
Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

5th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation: 

Industrial Research and Innovation: Evidence for Policy  
- CONCORDi 2015 - 1 

Background Note  

Mafini Dosso, Fernando Hervás and Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello2 

I. Introduction 

The key role of an innovative industry for the creation of future jobs and growth have led policy 
makers  at  European,  national  and  regional  levels  to  design  and  implement  specific  policies  to 
support  industrial  research  and  innovation.  At  the  EU  level,  the  Europe  2020  strategy  and  its 
Innovation Union and Industrial Policy flagship initiatives3 constitute the main policy frames for 
such interventions. They  put forward industrial R&D and innovation as key drivers of  a smart, 
inclusive and sustainable growth (European Commission, 2010)4.    

The view of innovation as part of the solution to societal challenges and the scientific advances in 
the  understanding  of  innovation  have  broadened  the  scope  of  innovation  policy  making.  The 
mainstream rationale for public support to industrial research and innovation is anchored in the 
well-known market failures framework. Typically they refer to situations where firms’ individual 
behaviours  do  not  lead  to  socially  desirable  outcomes.  In  a  pure  market  failures  approach, 
innovation  policy  is  only  justified  in  order  to  ensure  that  markets  will  adjust  back  to  the 
“equilibrium  path”.  In  this  perspective,  corrective  public  actions  target  the  market  deviations 
from the equilibrium resulting from the imperfect competition, the public nature of knowledge, 
information  failures,  negative  externalities5 and  coordination  failures.  The  market  failures 
argument  has  favoured  the  early  design  of  narrow  innovation  policies  targeting  R&D  and 
patents-based  indicators  (Landry  and  Amara,  2012;  Mazzucato  et  al.,  2015).  A  now  quite 
extensive  corpus  of  studies,  which  stress  together  the  importance  to  consider  the  micro 

Acknowledgements:  This  document  benefitted  from  the  editorial  comments  of  Dr  F.  Sachwald  (Ministry  of  Education,  Higher 
Education and Research – FR, and Member of the Scientific Committee - CONCORDi 2015), and of Dr A. Coad (European Commission, 
JRC-IPTS). 
1 CONCORDi 2015 was organised by the European Commission, JRC-IPTS on 1-2 October 2015 in Seville (Spain). See the Conference 

website: http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/concord/2015/index.html  

2 All authors are from the European Commission, Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 
3 Section III provides a brief description of the key priorities under the Innovation Union and Industrial Policy flagship initiatives and 
some examples of the EU policy support to corporate R&D and innovation. 
4 In  the  context  of  this  note,  the  industrial  and  innovation  policy  refers  to  the  set(s)  of  policy  instruments  and  programmes 
implemented mainly to support the R&D and innovation in manufacturing and services industries, acknowledging that both terms, 
"industrial" and "innovation" policies, may encompass a broader range of distinct topics and policy interventions. 
5 Negative externalities occur when the activities of firms result in negative effects on other firms or individuals, such as air and 
water pollution or more generally the activities that threaten the environmental sustainability.       

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
foundations  and  the  institutional  context  of  the  innovation  dynamics6,  has  challenged  the 
traditional approach to innovation policy making. These works mainly call for a more systemic 
approach  to  innovation  and  innovation  policy  that  accounts  for  the  many  factors,  interactions 
and  the  heterogeneity of  actors  that  influence  innovation  activities  and  outcomes  (Smits  et al., 
2010).  These  arguments  have  gradually  echoed  in  policy  circles.  On  the  one  hand,  they  have 
favoured the development of more systemic instruments and programs targeting the framework 
conditions for innovation, the interactions between actors, and more recently the diffusion and 
commercialization  of  firms’  innovations  (see  for  instance  Horizon  2020,  OECD  countries 
reviews7). On the other hand, several efforts at the international and European levels have been 
implemented  to  develop  standards  in  the  measurement  and  interpretation  of  R&D  and 
innovation as for instance, the Frascati manual of the OECD, the Community Innovation Surveys, 
and  the  OECD-Eurostat’s  Oslo  manual.  In  parallel,  continuous  efforts  to  monitor  innovation 
performances  and  to  evaluate  industrial  and  innovation  policies  are  either  planned  or  taking 
place (European Commission, 2011, 2013, 2014b, 2015b). 

In  spite  of  the  knowledge  accumulated  so  far  on  innovation,  its  processes  in  the  industry,  its 
measurements and on the evaluation of related policies, important issues remain open. The first 
issue  relates  to  the  capacity  of  current  indicators  and  theoretical  frames  to  account  for  the 
complexity  of  the  innovation,  their  multiple  determinants  and  effects.  A  second  set  of  issues 
relate  to  the  nature  and  scope  of  the  evidence  provided,  or  the  extent  to  which  they  can 
adequately  inform  policy  making  in  the  area  of  industrial  research  and  innovation.  Third,  the 
evidence and scientific findings themselves can be questioned on the grounds of, among others, 
their  transferability  and  predictive  value,  the  realism  of  underlying  assumptions  and  the 
hierarchy of  methodologies (i.e.  randomized control trials, cross-industry studies, case studies, 
surveys, etc.). Also, the validity of traditional assessment tools and methods for policy purposes 
are subjected to closer scrutiny. Indeed the risks of misleading policy implications increases with 
the  level of abstraction of complex real-world issues  – here  of  the  processes  of  corporate  R&D 
and  innovation  (Nowotny,  2007;  Aghion  et  al.,  2009;  Saltelli  and  Funtowicz,  2014).  Another 
simple,  although  fundamental,  question  is  how  well-equipped  is  the  academic  community  to 
address the industrial and innovation policy challenges. Last but not least, are the issues raised 
by the operationalization and the conditions to successfully translate evidence on corporate R&D 
and  innovation  into  meaningful  and  successful  innovation  policies8.  In  a  nutshell,  turning 
evidence  into  policy  is  a  difficult  task.  Consequently,  calls  for  an  evidence-based  innovation 
policy are now widespread. And, the demand for adequate measurement frames and indicators 
for industrial R&D and innovation activities, their outcomes and for ex-ante, intermediary and ex-
post innovation policy evaluations has never been so prominent. 

Against this background, CONCORDi 2015 aims at discussing the role of scientific analyses in the 
design  and  implementation  of  an  EU  industrial  policy  based  on  research,  innovation  and 
technological  advancement.  The  use  of  scientific  evidence  to  support  policy  is  a  topic  of  high 
policy  relevance  in  the  context  of  the  EU  better  regulation  agenda,  which  calls  for  the  best 
evidence  to  support  policy  design,  implementation  and  evaluation  (ESF,  2012;  European 
Commission  2014a,  2015a).  The  budgetary  constraints,  especially  following  the  crisis,  and  the 
recognition of innovation as a complex process of value creation, have accentuated the need for 
more comprehensive, effective and evidence-based innovation policies. 

6 See  the  early  seminal  works  of  Nelson  and  Winter  (1982),  Dosi  (1988)  on  the  microeconomic  characteristics  of  innovation 

processes and of Lundvall et al. (1992), Cooke (1996) and Edquist et al. (1997) on the systems of innovation. 

7 See the official site of the European innovation funding program Horizon 2020 at 

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020  and  the  OECD’s  series  on  the  Governance  of  innovation 
systems and Reviews of innovation policies at  
http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/governanceofinnovationsystemsvol1synthesisreport.htm  

8 See  also  Landry  and  Amara  (2012)  for  a  series  of  concrete  examples  of  typical  dilemma  faced  by  policy  makers  in  the 

implementation of innovation policies and the related theoretical arguments.   

2 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
In  line  with  the  importance  of  evidence-based  approach  for  a  better regulation,  the  discussion 
will  take  place  against  the  policy  frame  of  a  renewed  EU  agenda  to  boost  Jobs,  Growth  and 
Investment  as  highlighted in Juncker Commission's top priorities and to the  related 'Industrial 
Policy' agenda (European Commission, 2014c, d). Drawing on the experience accumulated from 
internal  monitoring  and  analyses9 on  the  dynamics  of  corporate  R&D  and  innovation,  the  key 
broad issues identified to frame the debates are:  

(i)  What  are  the  current  and  up-coming  EU  policy  challenges  in  the  area  of  corporate  R&D  and 
innovation for its contribution to industrial competitiveness, employment and social well-being?  

(ii)  To  what  extent  can  the  evidence  on  corporate  R&D  and  innovation  support  policy-makers  to 
address such challenges?  

(iii) How to provide a proper assessment of the impact of industrial R&D and innovation policies on 
competitiveness, employment and well-being? 

These  issues  were  identified  following  the  call  for  papers  of  CONCORDi  2015  released  earlier 
this  year.  Nine  papers  out  of  more  than  fifty  submissions  were  selected  by  the  Scientific 
Committee of CONCORDi 2015. In addition of these selections, two keynote paper presentations, 
and  the  six  invited  papers,  all  from  the  Scientific  Committee,  have  been  integrated  in  order  to 
structure the Conference into thematic sessions.  

The Conference will address the main issues in three thematic Plenary Sessions10.   

Plenary  Session  I  will  address  key  issues  on  the  theory,  measurement  and  evidence  on 
corporate  R&D  and  innovation  dynamics  and  on  their  relevance  for  policy  making  purposes. 
Particularly,  the  importance  of  adequate  theoretical  and  analytical  frameworks  and  of  proper 
access and use of firm level data will be discussed. Plenary Session II will tackle issues related 
to  the  role  of  entrepreneurship,  to  firms'  behaviour  and  performances,  and  to  the  current 
implementation  of  territorial  innovation  policies.  It  will  aim  at  an  in-depth  reflection  on  the 
underlying  assumptions  and  expectations  of  the  existing  conceptual  policy  frames  and 
programmes. Plenary Session III will discuss the use of evaluation in policy making, focusing on 
the  assessment  of  the  additionality  of  public  interventions  supporting  corporate  R&D  and 
innovation.  

This background note offers first a synthesis of the main research questions addressed under the 
three  topics  of  the  Conference.  Part  II  positions  the  selected  papers  in  the  current  academic 
literature. It focuses on the extent to which the papers address the main issues underlined above 
and strengthen or challenge the prevailing knowledge on the topic. Part III briefly presents the 
key  priorities  of  the  European  innovation  and  industrial  policy  and  some  examples  of  current 
programs to support corporate R&D and innovation activities. Part IV raises a series of research 
and policy issues to be addressed in the Conference. 

II. State of the Art 

2.1 Theory, measurement and evidence on corporate R&D and innovation dynamics 

The  importance  of  the  policy  support  to  enhance  knowledge  and  innovation  supply  primarily 
reflects the wide spread theoretical argument that under uncertainty, expectations of firms are 

9 The  Economics  of  Industrial  Research  and  Innovation  (IRI)  scientific  project  carried-out  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the 
European Commission provides the EU policy-makers and the business and academic communities with robust empirical evidence 
and  analysis  on  the  contribution  of  private-sector  R&D  to  the  growth  and  employment  of  the  European  economy.  The  main 
activities of the mentioned IRI project are a result of a close co-operation between the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and Research & 
Innovation (DG-RTD) Directorates-General of the European Commission.  
See at http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home for detailed information on the works of IRI. 

10 The annex I provides texts-based highlights of the invited and accepted papers/abstracts. The annex II gives the programme of the 

Conference and annexes III and IV contains the members of the scientific and steering committees and bios. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
rather  timid,  primarily  due  to  the  limited  appropriability, non-rival  nature  and  indivisibility  of 
knowledge  (Arrow,  1962;  Antonelli,  2009).  This  rationale  has  also  for  long  influenced  the  way 
initial  indicators  and  empirical  settings,  reflecting  the  determinants  and  the  processes  of 
knowledge  creation  and  innovation,  have  been  conceived  (Aghion,  2009;  Mazzucato,  2015). 
Despite their limitations, traditional R&D-based measures serve as the main basis for assessing 
corporate innovation inputs and for international comparisons. However the importance of R&D 
intensity greatly depends on the industry context (Mathieu and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 
2010; Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2010). In addition, this indicator misses the transformation of 
inputs  into  outputs,  which  may  lead  to  an  overestimation  of  unproductive  R&D.  Likewise  the 
consequences  of  R&D  activities  are  still  often  captured  through  the  measurement  of  narrow 
output indicators (e.g. patent counts) and direct economic outcomes11. Paradoxically, on the one 
hand,  it  is  recognized  that  the  determinants  of  innovation  are  multiple,  interrelated  and  yet, 
many  are  still  to  be  identified  (Edquist,  1997).  On  the  other  hand,  the  effects  of  R&D  and 
innovation  extend  well  beyond  changes  in  firms  or  country  socio-economic  performances  and 
are  fundamentally  of  a  multidimensional  nature.  For  instance,  the  widely  accepted  labour-
friendly effects of innovation are not straightforward, as other opposite forces might be at play 
depending on the type of innovation and the industry (Harrison et al., 2014; Vivarelli, 2014).  

More,  industrial  innovation  policies  interact  with  other  areas  of  policy  regulation  and 
intervention  (labour  markets,  human  capital  formation,  environment,  taxes,  standardisation, 
etc.), thus increasing the difficulty to assess their effects and the likelihood of unexpected effects.  

Furthermore,  R&D  and  innovation  intensity  indicators  are  increasingly  employed  also  in  the 
formulation of targets for policies stimulating research and innovation to economies at different 
stages of development. However in this respect, national policymakers have to take into account 
that often the bulk of R&D and innovation is conducted by companies that mostly operate on a 
global scale (Moncada-Paternò-Castello and Smith, 2009). The international comparisons should 
be based on appropriate indicators and statistics leading to solid evidence-based policy making. 
Unfortunately,  the  statistical  coverage  of  financial  and  knowledge  flows  managed  by 
multinational  enterprises  (MNEs)  involved  in  R&D  and  innovation,  outsourcing/off–shoring  is 
often very poor or non-existent (Perani and Cozza, 2006) 

Much progress  has been  achieved both in the collection  of micro level data  and the  updates of 
econometric  methodologies  in  order  to  better  account  for  heterogeneity  and  endogeneity 
associated  to  the  modelling  of  R&D,  innovation  activities  and  their  effects.  However  so  far 
commonly used indicators and theoretical approaches still bear many limitations. Unfortunately, 
such tools and frames are likely to lead to or encourage short-sighted innovation and industrial 
policies  or  policies  doomed  to  be  confined  in  the  boundaries  set  by  the  prevailing  techno-
economic  paradigm  (Mazzucato,  2015).  The  availability  of  adequate  data  and  conceptual 
approaches  of  innovation  dynamics  and  effects  are  of  primary  importance  for  the  design, 
implementation  and  evaluation  of  industrial  research  and  innovation  policies.  Particularly,  for 
the latter, this would include the access to and use of quantitative and qualitative firm level data 
on  innovation  and  complementary  aspects  of  firms’  behaviours,  attributes  and  strategies  that 
still remain to be identified and/or measured.   

Departing  from  these  fundamental  issues,  the  invited  and  selected  papers  in  the  Plenary 
Session  I  offer  relevant  alternative  theoretical  and  empirical  perspectives  to  rethink  some 
important  conceptual  and  measurement  aspects  of  knowledge,  corporate  R&D  and  innovation 
dynamics and outcomes.  

The  first  invited  paper  (by  Antonelli)  deals  with  a  fundamental  property  of  knowledge,  its 
limited appropriability, and brings light on the related misleading assumptions of under-supply 
of  knowledge.  Policy  implications  point  to  the  importance  of  supporting  the  diffusion  of 
knowledge and enhancing the knowledge connectivity of the system. The second invited paper 

11 See Hall et al., 2010 for a review. 

4 

 
 
                                                        
(by  Moncada-Paternò-Castello)  takes  grounds  on  the  so-called  EU-US  corporate  R&D  intensity 
gap.  The  paper  proposes  an  empirical  assessment  of  the  intrinsic  and  structural  causes  of  the 
R&D  intensity  differences  between  companies  of  the  Triad.  It  further  relates  the  sectoral 
dynamics  with  the  specific  demographics  of  top  R&D  investing  firms.  Analysis  of  such  data 
allows  for  international  comparisons  of  R&D  performance  at  the  micro-level  during  the  last 
decade, and suggests possible policy implications. 
The  first  selected  paper  (by  Andries,  Hoskens,  Janger,  Rammer  and  Schubert)  discusses  the 
relevance of the new Innovation Output Indicator developed by the European Commission. In a 
comparative  perspective,  the  analysis  is  grounded  on  the  difficulty  to  measure  innovation 
outcomes  and  the  limitations  this  may  entails  in  informing  innovation  policy  making.  Avenues 
for  improvements  are  also  suggested.  The  second  selected  paper  (by  Van  Roy,  Vertesy  and 
Vivarelli,) tackles the issues of the job creation effects of innovation in a EU-wide panel dataset of 
firms. Policy implications related to the sectoral heterogeneity and the importance of the quality 
of innovation are underlined. Exploiting firm level data from the CIS, the third selected paper (by 
Blind and Rainville) focuses on demand side innovation policies and sheds light on the individual 
and interactive effects of innovation and standardisation as determinants of public procurement 
receipts in Germany.  

2.2 Entrepreneurship, firms' performance and territorial innovation policies 

The  concept  of  knowledge-based  economy  emphasizes  the  role  of  intangible  assets  as  key 
engines  of the  competitiveness  and growth of territories.  On the  one hand, this  has challenged 
the  traditional  role  of  knowledge-oriented  actors,  such  as  universities  and  higher  education 
organizations,  and  has  increased  the  demand  for  a  market-oriented  knowledge  production 
(Lester, 2005; Mowery and Sampat, 2006). Partly in response to their new missions, universities 
have  undergone  deep  transformations  including  the  development  of  applied  programs  and  a 
greater involvement into the diffusion and commercialization of university research for instance, 
through  clusters  and  science  parks,  technology  and  knowledge  transfer  units,  collaborations 
with  the  industry  and  academic  entrepreneurship.  Universities  are  now  seen  as  a  key 
contributor to local economy development (Tödtling, 2006).  

On  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  the  knowledge  economy  has  translated  into  specific  innovation 
policies aiming to  further enlarge  the  corporate  intangibles assets  and facilitate their  diffusion 
and  exploitation.  Several  governments  have  already  or  are  implementing  favourable  tax 
treatments for R&D and patenting activities (e.g. R&D tax credits, patents subsidies and  patent 
boxes)  in  order  to  foster  and  attract  knowledge-intensive  activities  on  their  territories.  The 
support to knowledge creation and firms’ intangibles in general reflects the no-less-strong belief 
that  these  stimuli  would  accelerate  the  creation  and  diffusion  of  innovations  and  the 
development  of  high-growth,  and  supposedly  profitable,  innovative  firms  or  entrepreneurial 
successes. This in turn would bring more employment and growth in the local economies.  

Few arguments  to  nuance this  reasoning should be  underlined.  First, at the  firm level, the link 
between  innovation  and  growth  are  not  straightforward  and  can  be  asymmetric  (Geroski  and 
Mazzucato, 2002; Audretsch et al., 2014). Beyond the more philosophical question of “what do 
entrepreneurs  and  firms  want?”,  the  mixed  evidence  call  for  a  careful  attention  on  how  firm 
innovation  dimensions  and  growth  (e.g.  sales,  employment,  profits,  market  value,  etc.)  are 
apprehended  and  how  the  aggregated  effects  are  estimated.  A  related  fundamental  issue 
concerns  the  risks  for  a  misuse  or  misinterpretation  of  the  existing  evidence  in  the  policy 
frameworks and decision making  or the lack of appropriate evidence-based frameworks in the 
evaluation,  design  and  implementation  of  innovation  policies.  Last  but  not  least,  there  is  the 
issue of how to anticipate and prevent the negative effects that individual corporate innovative 
behaviours and strategies might have in the attainment of policy desirable social outcomes.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
The papers in the Plenary Session II tackle these issues from different perspectives. They offer 
relevant  contributions  to  our  understanding  of  the  performances,  the  dynamics  and  the 
complexity  of  innovation  dynamics,  and  of  the  (mis)use  of  evidence  in  territorial  innovation 
policy making frames and concepts.   

frameworks 

in  the  context  of 

The  first  invited  paper  (by  Audretsch)  focuses  on  the  new  market-oriented  missions  of 
universities and discusses the conditions for the entrepreneurial university to contribute to the 
development  of  regional  innovation  systems.  Policy  conclusions  relate  to  the  importance  of 
entrepreneurial universities with porous boundaries. The second invited paper (by Brännback) 
addresses fundamental issues about the misinterpretation of evidence and the shortcomings of 
firm  growth  and 
innovation  policy  assumptions  and 
entrepreneurship.  
The first selected paper (by Alstadsæter, Barrios, Nicodeme, Skonieczna and Vezzani) provides 
an original assessment of the effects of patent boxes regimes on corporate patenting strategies, 
in  the  European  context.  Relying  on  a  sample  of  top  R&D  investors  worldwide,  the  study 
disentangles the effects associated with different patent boxes modalities. At the policy level the 
findings  support  the  introduction  of  development  conditions  to  guarantee  that  research 
activities  are  effectively  undertaken,  balancing  tax  motivations.  The  second  selected  paper  (by 
Bianchini, Pellegrino and Tamagni) exploits the Spanish Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC) 
and a wide set of innovation indicators. It contributes to the literature by adopting a richer set of 
innovation dimensions and up-to-date quantile regression techniques. The study provides novel 
empirical evidence  on the relationships between success on the  market and innovation inputs, 
outputs and new knowledge sourcing modes. The third selected paper (by Dosso and Hardeman) 
addresses  the  conceptual  challenges  and  shortcomings  in  the  operationalization  of  the 
innovation policy concept of Smart Specialisation from an evidence-based perspective. Building 
upon  the  prior  reflections  on  evidence-based  policy  and  its  antecedent,  evidence-based 
medicine,  the  paper  discusses  the  challenges  of  an  evidence-based  research  and  innovation 
policy and underlines important implications for the science-policy interface. 

2.3  Impact  of  public  policies  and  their  additionality  in  supporting  corporate  R&D  and 
innovation 

The higher demand for public funds and the budgetary constraints have increased the pressure 
on governments to ensure that public policies generate demonstrated returns. The effectiveness 
and  efficiency  of  innovation  policies  greatly  depend  on  adequate  and  systematic  evaluations 
undertaken  at  the  different  stages  of  the  policy  cycle.  Evaluation  is  now  considered  as  a 
necessary condition for the design of evidence-based public policies in general (EC, 2015a), and 
in the area of industrial research and innovation, in particular (OECD, 2010). Evaluations should 
inform  policy  makers  not  only  on  what  works,  but  also  on  what  does  not  work  and  the 
conditions under which interventions work or under which they do not work.  

Earlier impact assessments of innovation policies have focused either on the input or the output 
additionality of public support to  R&D and innovation activities. Additionality occurs when the 
government  intervention  leads  to  an  increase  in  the  innovative  activities  of  firms.  Input 
additionality  refers  to  the  changes  in  private  R&D  investments  while  output  additionality 
reflects the increase in innovation outputs (e.g. patents) or outcomes (e.g. sales). In other words, 
there  is  additionality  if  the  increase  would  not  have  taken  place  in  the  absence  of  public  R&D 
support. This definition intrinsically implies that a key methodological issue in the additionally 
literature relates to the ability to assess also the counterfactual (Georgiou, 2002; Söderblom et 
al., 2015). Based on the neoclassical rationale for public intervention, the focus on the resources 
and  results  effects  entails  several  limitations  that  may  result  into  unappropriated  policy 
recommendations or instruments. Two important issues concern the failures to apprehend the 
non-linearity  in  the  innovation  investments-output  relationships  and  the  lack  of  a  consensual 
approach  to  output  additionality  (Clarysse  et  al.,  2009).  Not  less  relevant  limitations  include 

6 

 
 
 
 
their  inaptitude  to  inform  on  the  intermediary  steps  between  the  R&D  and  innovation  or  to 
account  for  the  potential  impact  of  different  corporate  R&D  management  processes.  An 
additional limitation results from the failure to account for the indirect and more complex effects 
of innovation policies.  

Partly in response to this dichotomous approach to additionality, a flourishing literature in the 
evolutionary tradition has focused on the behavioural additionality of innovation policies. In this 
perspective,  public  support  may  give  rise  to  complementary  effects  besides  increases  in 
resources and results, and the impact can extend beyond short term effects. These effects reflect 
the changes in the behaviour12 of firms following public R&D support (Bruissenet et al., 1995). 
Indeed  innovation  policies  can  also  influence  the  firms’  capabilities  and  learning  curves,  the 
economic signals they face, as well as their interactive behaviour (OECD, 2006; Edler et al., 2013; 
Cimoli  et  al.,  2015).  In  this  framework,  the  concerns  for  governments  are  not  limited  to  the 
additional  spending  incurred  by  innovation  policies,  but  include  also  the  way  their  different 
actions  influence  corporate  behaviours  and  strategies  (e.g.  R&D  management,  cooperative 
behaviour, etc.). For these concerns, traditional evaluations cannot do much (OECD, 2006).     

Building  upon  these  new  challenges,  the  papers  in  the  Plenary  Session  III  adopt  a  broader 
perspective on the effects of industrial and innovation policies. They contribute to enhance our 
knowledge on the use of evaluation for policy making and on the wider additionality effects of 
public support to R&D and innovation.   

The first invited paper (by Borrás) adopts a novel and complementary perspective on the issue 
of research and innovation policies' evaluation. Contributing to the vacuum of the literature on 
policy makers learning, it discusses the use of evidence from evaluation studies and elaborates 
an  analytical  framework  from  the  policy  learners’  perspective.  Policy  messages  stress  the 
importance  of  different  learning  modalities  and  their  implications  for  the  use  and  value  of 
research evaluation. The second invited paper (by Edquist) tackles the conditions for the public 
involvement into corporate innovation funding, i.e. for additionality to take place. Drawing upon 
the  Swedish  experience,  the  paper  points  at  typical  failures  in  the  governance  of  public  risk 
capital funds; that is when duplication or crowding out effects are taking place. Corrective policy 
actions  are  suggested  in  order  to  enhance  early-stages  private  capital,  and  shift  or  adjust  the 
intervention stage of public funding.  

The first selected paper (by Demeulemeester and Hottenrott) uses a  panel dataset of R&D and 
non-R&D performing firms to assess the effects of government R&D subsidies on the cost of debt. 
Different  types  of  effects  are  disentangled  including  the  resources,  certification  and  formation 
effects. In line with the findings, the paper brings further support to the additionality effects of 
public R&D policies, and suggests continuity in the provision of research subsidies to small and 
young  firms.  The  second  selected  paper  (by  Radicic,  Pugh  and  Douglas)  addresses  the  issue  of 
cooperation  additionality.  It  assesses  the  impact  of  public  support  on  different  types  of  firms’ 
innovation cooperation in a dataset of Europe-based SMEs. In addition, of matching estimation, 
the  paper  introduces  sensitivity  analysis  to  assess  the  robustness  of  identified  effects.  The 
findings point to a broader policy support for SME cooperation for innovation. The third selected 
paper  (by  Neicu)  considers  the  additionality  effects  of  innovation  policy  mixes.  It  assesses  the 
effects  of  a  combination  of  R&D  tax  credits  and  subsidies  in  a  sample  of  Belgian  firms.  Policy 
implications  highlight  the  potential  effectiveness  of  firms’  combination  of  direct  and  indirect 
R&D support.  

12 See OECD (2006) for the multiple dimensions of behavioural additionality and country case-studies.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
III. Key priorities of the European innovation and industrial policy 

The support to corporate R&D and innovation activities is a major element of the Europe 2020 
strategy,  which  aims  at  stimulating  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  in  Europe.  The 
European  growth  strategy  is  outlined  around  five  main  Headline  targets  in  the  areas  of 
employment,  R&D  investment,  energy/climate,  education  and  poverty.  In  addition,  seven 
flagship  initiatives  are  defined  under  the  priority  themes.  They  include  the  'Innovation Union', 
'Youth on the move‘, ‘A digital agenda for Europe', 'Resources efficient Europe', 'An industrial policy 
for the globalisation era',  'An agenda for new skills and jobs'  and  the  'European platform against 
poverty' (European Commission, 2010).  

In  line  with  the  main  focus  of  the  CONCORDi  2015  Conference  “Industrial  Research  and 
Innovation:  Evidence  for  Policy”,  this  section  briefly  recalls  the  priorities  of  the  European 
innovation and industrial policies and some examples of the EU innovation policy instruments. 
The  focus  will  therefore  be  put  on  the  concrete  subsets  of  measures  targeting  the  support  of 
corporate R&D and innovation activities as presented in the  main corresponding flagships, the 
'Innovation  Union'  and  'An  industrial  policy  for  the  globalisation  era',  as  well  as  the  new 
Investment Plan launched under the auspices of president Juncker. The objective and challenge 
is  to  make  all  these  initiatives  work  together,  as  part  of  the  comprehensive  agenda  to  support 
jobs, growth and investment in Europe. 

The Innovation Union considers the R&D and innovation activities as the privileged and smart 
path  to  respond  to  the  grand  societal  challenges.  The  Innovation  Union  aims  at  creating  an 
innovation-friendly  environment  that  facilitates  the  commercialization  of  new  ideas  and 
innovations  in  order  to  foster  growth  and  jobs.  Several  actions  targeting  corporate  R&D  and 
innovative  activities  are  already  undertaken  or  planned  to  be  implemented.  Most  of  them  are 
reflected in the commitments of the European Commission (EC 2010), which aim to:  

  Stimulate  the  increase  in  private  innovation  activities  mainly  through  the  funding  support 
provided in the EU research and innovation programme, Horizon  2020 (see  examples in box 1 
below); 

  Improve the framework conditions for innovation; 

  Support the uptake or commercialization of innovations on the markets; 

  Foster  the  entrepreneurship,  the  investments  in  start-ups  and  the  involvement  of  SMEs  in  EU 

research and innovation programs;  

  Promote the knowledge diffusion, the cooperation and networking for innovation;  

  Strengthen the industry-academy collaborations and knowledge and technology transfer;  

  Stimulate the corporate innovation activities through public procurement for innovation; 

  Accelerate the standards setting to enable interoperability and foster innovation in fast-growing 

markets. 

The  Industrial  policy  flagship  defines  the  European  policy  strategy  for  a  more  dynamic, 
competitive,  sustainable  and  modern  EU  industry.  The  main  priorities  for  the  industrial  policy 
are  set  out  in  the  communication  “For  a  European  Industrial  Renaissance”  (European 
Commission, 2014c). They reflect the Commission commitment for an “Industrial Renaissance” 
that  requires  the  modernisation  of  Europe’s  industrial  base  across  all  industrial  sectors.  The 
priorities can be underlined as follows: 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Improve  the  market  integration  through  better  integrated  information,  energy  and  transport 

network, markets for goods and services and the business and regulatory environments; 

  Modernize  the  EU  industry  through  the  investment  in  innovation,  production  inputs  and  the 
upgrading of skills. Under this priority, six strategic priorities have also been identified including 
advanced manufacturing, Key Enabling technologies (KETs), bio-based products, clean vehicles 
and  vessels,  sustainable  construction  and  raw  materials  and  smart  grids  and  digital 
infrastructure. The EU industry modernization also aims at a better productivity and resources 
efficiency  of  the  EU  industry  and  at  an  improved  access  to  affordable  finance,  energy  and  raw 
materials;  

  Support to SMEs and entrepreneurship through the reduction of regulatory and administrative 
costs,  of  the  barriers  to  growth,  a  better  integration  into  excellence  clusters  and  global  value 
chains as well as dedicated entrepreneurial training; 

  Promote the internationalization of EU firms through a better access to world markets and the 

support to standards setting and regulatory cooperation. 

The  EU  overall  strategy  for  jobs  and  growth  will  also  be  supported  by  the  recently  launched 
Investment  Plan  (European  Commission,  2014d)  and  the  establishment  of  a  new  European 
Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI)  aiming  at  mobilising  public  and  private  resources  to  be 
invested in strategic areas including among others research, innovation and education, as well as 
risk finance for small businesses. Other priorities of the Juncker Commission will also contribute 
to  support  a  strong  and  modern  industrial  innovation  agenda,  such  as  the  establishment  of  a 
Digital Single Market, and of an Energy Union.  

Horizon 2020  is  the  main EU Research and Innovation  programme for the  period 2014-2020, 
which  targets  the  excellence  in  science,  the  industrial  leadership  and  the  development  of 
solutions  to  the  grand  challenges.  Horizon  2020  is  the  main  financial  instrument  for  the 
implementation of the Innovation Union flagship. Under the programme, dedicated support has 
been designed to foster the corporate R&D and innovation activities. Some of them are described 
in Box 1 (next page). 

In  addition,  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds13 (ESIF)  will  devote  important 
financial resources to support EU research and innovation policy priorities in the context of the 
EU  structural  and  cohesion  policy.  In  order  to  benefit  from  such  investments,  national  and 
regional  authorities  have  been  requested  to  prepare  Research  and  Innovation  Strategies  for 
Smart  Specialisation 
integrated,  place-based  economic 
transformation  agendas  which  aim  at  focusing  policy  support  and  investments  on  key 
national/regional  priorities,  challenges  and  needs  for  knowledge-based  development.  In  this 
context  they  support  technological  as  well  as  practice-based  innovation  and  aim  to  stimulate 
private sector investment. 

(RIS3  strategies).  RIS3  are 

In  the  context  of  this  extense  policy  agenda,  the  proper  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  EU  and 
Member States’ research and innovation policies acquire strong relevance. As part of the yearly 
cycle of economic policy coordination called the European Semester, the implementation of the 
Europe  2020  and  its  related  flagship  initiatives  is  monitored.  The  progress  at  the  EU  level  is 
evaluated and national reform programmes, which include research and innovation policies, are 
evaluated and, when required, country specific recommendations are provided. 

13 See at http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/funds_en.htm  

9 

 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Box 1 - Examples of corporate R&D and innovation  support at the European level 
under the Horizon 2020 program 

-  Fast Track  to  Innovation  (FTI)  finances  the  commercialisation  process  and  encompasses  the 
demonstration  stage,  including  piloting,  test-beds,  systems  validation  in  real  world/working 
conditions, validation of business models, pre-normative research, and standard-setting. It targets 
relatively  mature  new  technologies,  concepts,  processes  and  business  models  that  need  a  last 
development step to reach the market and achieve wider deployment. 

- SME INSTRUMENT targets  highly  innovative  SMEs  to  enhance  their  growth  potential.  It  offers 
lump  sums  for  feasibility  studies,  grants  for  an  innovation  project’s  main  phase  (demonstration, 
prototyping, testing, application development...) and provides facilitated access to debt and equity 
financial instruments for the commercialization. Under this instrument, examples of funding lines 
include  (i) SMEs  efforts  for  the  development  -  deployment  and  market  replication  of  innovative 
solutions  for  blue  growth;  (ii)  Open  Disruptive  Innovation  Scheme;  (iii)  SME  business  model 
innovation  ;  (iv)  and  several  technology-oriented  themes  in  nanotechnologies,  biotechnologies, 
diagnostic  medical  devices,  advanced  materials  or  advanced  manufacturing  and  processing 
technologies, energy and raw materials, transport and urban infrastructure, etc. 

-  The  contractual  Public-Private  Partnerships  (cPPP)  aim  at  triggering  additional  private 
investments to develop new technologies, products and services. The 8 cPPP target the following 
strategic  areas:    Factories  of  the  Future,  Energy-efficient  Buildings,  European  Green  Vehicles 
Initiative,  Sustainable  Process  Industry,  Photonics,  Robotics,  High  Performance  Computing  and 
Advanced 5G networks for the Future Internet. 

-  The  Joint  Technology  Initiatives*  (JTI)  are  part  of  the  Investment  package  which  aims  at 
leveraging private investment in strategic areas for the EU. The  new JTI are active in: Innovative 
Medicines  2  (IMI2),  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  2  (FCH2),  Clean  Sky  2  (CS2),  Bio-based  Industries 
(BBI), Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL) and Single European 
Sky ATM Research (SESAR) 2020.   

For more information on the HORIZON 2020 program, see at 
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/  

* http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/index_en.cfm?pg=home  

In the area of research and innovation policies, one important priority is to increase the impact 
and value for money of public intervention. A series of priority axes for reform of Member State's 
research  and  innovation  systems  has  been  established  (European  Commission,  2014a)  and 
specific  instruments  to  provide  support  to  the  implementation  of  these  agendas  has  been 
established (such as the Policy Support Facility established in the context of Horizon 2020 and 
including technical assistance, peer reviews and mutual learning).  

All  this  monitoring  and  assessment  process  requires  adequate  data  and  information.  This 
includes the establishment of a set of indicators to monitor the implementation of the Innovation 
Union  (Innovation  Union  Scoreboard14).  It  is  also  in  this  context  that  the  above  referred 
Industrial Research and Innovation project (which includes the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard15) 
is implemented and the CONCORDi conferences are organised. 

The following section concludes with some of the main research and policy questions to be 
addressed in CONCORDi 2015 Conference.  

14 European Commission (2015b) 

15 European Commission (2014e) 

10 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
IV. Open research and policy questions for CONCORDi 2015 

Drawing on the invited and selected papers for the Conference (see in the Annex the text-based 
highlights of the selected papers), the posters to be presented and the discussions they will set in 
motion, CONCORDi-2015 aims to address a number of open research and policy issues. Some of 
the questions are proposed in the following paragraphs. 

IV.1 Research issues 

  Which are  the  shortcomings of current  theoretical and analytical frames  in providing evidence 

for industrial research and innovation policy?  

  To  which  extent  evidence  can  inform  about  the  territorial  level  or  levels  at  which  policies  can 

usefully be designed and implemented? 

  What  is  the  present  and  future  of  industrial  dynamics  and  how  research  and  innovation  can 

better boost EU corporate competitiveness and growth? 

  Which  indicators  could  be  more  adequate  to  measure  corporate  innovation  inputs,  processes 

and outcomes? 

  Which  data  and  level(s)  of  data  disaggregation  are  the  most  appropriate  in  addressing  the 

different of levels of policy making?  

  To  which  extent  and  how  the  hierarchy  of  evidence  and/or  methodologies  (e.g.  randomized 
control  trials,  cross-industry  studies,  case  studies,  surveys,  etc.)  shall  be  accounted  for  in  the 
innovation policy design and implementation?  

  How  to  properly  assess  the  multiple  additionality  effects  of  public  innovation  policies  on 

corporate R&D and innovation activities?  

  To  which  extent  the  evidence  on  additionality  effects  of  public  policies  can  inform  on  the 

effectiveness of innovation policy instruments? 

  What  type  of  evidence  and  evaluations  would  be  needed  to  inform  policy  making  on  the 
contextual  circumstances  for  failures  and  successes  of  the  public  support  to  industrial 
innovation?  

IV.2 Policy questions 

  What are the current and upcoming challenges of EU policy making in the area of corporate R&D 

and innovation? 

  Which kinds of evidence would be expected to best contribute to the design and implementation 

of industrial research and innovation policies?   

  How to reinforce the use of scientific evidence in the EU corporate innovation policy making? 
  Is there a room for policy testing and experimentation before introducing measures tailored to 

corporate R&D and innovation at larger scale? 

  To which extent innovation policy concepts and frames are evidence-based and provide relevant 

policy prescriptions to foster innovation? 

  How  evaluation  studies  can  be  used  to  inform  on  or  limit  government  failures  in  innovation 

policy making and implementation?  

  How to design appropriate regional, national and European research and innovation policies for 

knowledge-intensive firms that aim at increasing their international scope? 

  How  to  improve  the  coordination  of  evidence-based  policy  frames  and  practices  between 

Member States systems? 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
References 

Aghion, P., David, P.A., Foray, D. (2009). Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: linking 

policy research and practice. Research Policy, 38(4), pp. 681-693. 

Antonelli,  C.  (2009).  The  economics  of  innovation:  from  the  classical  legacies  to  the  economics  of 
complexity.  Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pp. 611-
646. 

Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In Nelson, R.R. (ed.), 
The  Rate  and  Direction  of  Inventive  Activity:  Economic  and  Social  Factors,  pp.  609-625.  Princeton 
University Press, Princeton. 

Audretsch, D. B., Coad, A., Segarra, A. (2014). Firm growth and innovation. Small Business Economics, 43, pp. 

743-749. 

Buisseret,  T.,  Cameron,  H.,  Georghiou,  L.  (1995).  What  difference  does  it  make?  Additionality  in  public 

support of R&D in large firms. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 10 (4–6), pp. 587–600. 

Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). The Rationale for Industrial and Innovation Policy. pp. 120-125, in 
Mazzucato, M., Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., Stiglitz, J. E., Landesmann, M. A. Pianta, M., Walz, R., Tim Page (2015). 
Which Industrial Policy Does Europe Need?, Intereconomics , Volume 50, May/June 2015, No. 3. 

Clarysse,  B.,  Wright,  M.,  Mustare,  P.  (2009).  Behavioural  additionality  of  R&D  subsidies:  a  learning 

perspective. Research Policy, 38 (10), pp. 1517–1533. 

Cooke, P. H. M. (1996). Regional Innovation Systems. UCL Press, London. 
Dosi,  G.,  (1988).  Sources,  Procedures,  and  Microeconomic  Effects  of  Innovation.  Journal  of  Economic 

Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pp. 1120-71, September. 

Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., Shapira, P. (2013). Impacts of innovation policy: synthesis and conclusion. 

Nesta Working Paper 13/21, November. 

Edquist,  C.  (1997)  (ed.).  Systems  of  Innovation:  Technologies,  Institutions  and  Organisations.  London  and 

Washington, Pinter Publishers. 

European commission (2015a). Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda. Communication from 
the  Commission,  Brussels,  19.5.2015,  COM  (2015)  215  final.  Accessible  at  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2015b).  Innovation  Union  Scoreboard  2015.  Directorate-General  for  Growth. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 100 p. Accessible at  

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf   
European Commission (2014a). Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth. Accessible at  
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2013/research-and-innovation-

as-sources-of-renewed-growth-com-2014-339-final.pdf . 

European Commission (2014b). Research and Innovation performance in the EU. Innovation Union progress 
at country level 2014. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union. 364 p. Accessible at  http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-
of-the-union/2014/iuc_progress_report_2014.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

European  Commission  (2014c).  For  a  European  Industrial  Renaissance.  Communication  from  the 
Commission,  Brussels,  22.1.2014  COM(2014)  14  final.  Accessible  at  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0014&from=EN 

European  Commission  (2014d).  An  Investment  plan  for  Europe.  Communication  from  the  Commission, 
at  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

final.  Accessible 

Brussels,  26.11.2014  COM(2014)  903 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0903&from=EN  

European  Commission  (2014e).  The  2014  EU  Industrial  R&D  Investment  Scoreboard.  Luxembourg: 

Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2013).  Measuring  innovation  output  in  Europe:  towards  a  new  indicator. 
Communication  from  the  Commission,  Brussels,  13.9.2013,  COM  (2013)  624  final.  Accessible  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2013/pdf/indicator_of_innovation_output.pdf  

European Commission (2011). 'Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. 

Communication from the Commission, Brussels, 30.11.2011, SEC (2011) 1427 final. Accessible at  
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_ 
report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

European  Commission  (2010).  EUROPE  2020  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth. 

Communication from the Commission, Brussels, 3.3.2010 COM (2010) 2020 final. Accessible at  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 

12 

 
 
 
 
European Science Foundation, ESF (2012). The Science of Innovation. ESF-STOA policy brief. Accessible at   

http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Science_Innovation.pdf  

Georghiou, L. (2002). Impact and Additionality of Innovation Policy. in Boekholt, P. (Ed.) Innovation Policy 
and Sustainable Development: Can Innovation Incentives Make a Difference? IWT Observatory: Brussels. 
Geroski, P., Mazzucato, M. (2002). Learning and the sources of corporate growth.  Industrial and Corporate 

Change, 11, pp. 623-644. 

Hall, B.H., Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the Returns to R&D. In Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. 

(Ed), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Chapter 24, Volume 2. North-Holland, pp. 1033–1082. 

Harrison, R., Jaumandreu, J., Mairesse, J., Peters, B. (2014). Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-
level  analysis  using  comparable  micro-data  from  four  European  countries.  International  Journal  of 
Industrial Organization, 35, pp. 29-43. 

Landry, R., Amara, N. (2012). Dilemmas of practice-based innovation policy-making. Pp. 65-89, in Melkas, 
H., Harmaakorpi, V. (eds), Practice-Based Innovation: Insights, Applications and Policy Implications, Berlin, 
Heidelberg: Springer.  

Lester,  R.  K.  (2005).  Universities,  Innovation,  and  the  Competitiveness  of  Local  Economies:  A  Summary 
Report from the Local Innovation Systems Project— Phase I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Industrial Performance 
Center Working Papers, 05-010. 

Lundvall,  B.-A.  (1992)  (ed.).  National  Innovation  Systems:  Toward  a  theory  of  innovation  and  interactive 

learning. Pinter Publishers, London. 

Mathieu, A., B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2010). A Note on the Drivers of R&D Intensity, Research 

in World Economy 1, pp. 56-65. 

Mazzucato, M. (2015). Innovation Systems: From Fixing Market Failures to Creating Markets. pp. 120-125, 
in  Mazzucato,  M.,  Cimoli,  M.,  Dosi,  G.,  Stiglitz,  J.  E.,  Landesmann,  M.  A.,  Pianta,  M.,  Walz,  R.,  Tim  Page 
(2015). Which Industrial Policy Does Europe Need? Intereconomics, Volume 50, May/June 2015, No. 3. 
Mazzucato, M., Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., Stiglitz, J. E., Landesmann,  M. A., Pianta, M., Walz, R., Tim Page (2015). 
Which Industrial Policy Does Europe Need? Intereconomics, Volume 50, May/June 2015,  No. 3, pp. 120-
155. 

Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P. (2010). Introduction to a special issue: New insights on EU–US comparison of 

corporate R&D. Science and Public Policy, 37(6), pp. 391–400. 

Moncada-Paternò-Castello P., Smith, K. (2009). Corporate R&D: A policy target looking for 

instruments.IPTS Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation series, European Commission – No. 
01/2009 - JRC 50908– Link: http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/papers/01_IPTS_WP_JRC50908.pdf 

Mowery,  D.C.  Sampat,  B.N.  (2004).  Universities  and  Innovation.  In,  J.  Fagerberg  et  al  (eds.),  The Oxford 

Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press.  

Nelson,  R.  R.,  Winter,  S.  G.  (1982).  An  Evolutionary  Theory  of  Economic  Change.  Belknap  Press/Harvard 

University Press: Cambridge. 

Nowotny,  H.  (2007).  How  many  policy  rooms  are  there?  Evidence-base  and  other  kinds  of  science  policies 

(answer to Webster, A. 2007). Science, Technology and Human Values, volume 32, n° 4, pp. 479-490. 

Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development,  OECD  (2010).  The OECD Innovation Strategy: 

Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083479-en  

OECD  (2006).  Government  R&D  Funding  and  Company  Behaviour:  Measuring  Behavioural  Additionality. 

OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264025851-en   

Perani, G., Cozza, C., (2006). A proposal for developing new indicators on the internationalisation of R&D by 
matching micro–data from national R&D surveys. Paper presented at the International Conference Blue 
Sky II 2006: What indicators for Science, Technology and Innovation Policies in the 21st Century 

Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S. (2014). When all models are wrong: More stringent quality criteria are needed for 

models used at the science-policy interface. Issues in Science and Technology, winter, pp. 79-85. 

Smits,  R.E.,  Kuhlmann,  S.  Shapira,  P.  (eds)  (2010).  The  Theory  and  Practice  of  Innovation  Policy  –  An 

International Research Handbook. Edgar Elgar. 

Söderblom,  A.,  Samuelsson,  M.,  Wiklund,  J.,  Sandberg,  R.  (2015).  Inside  the  black  box  of  outcome 
additionality:  Effects  of  early-stage  government  subsidies  on  resource  accumulation  and  new  venture 
performance. Research Policy. 44(8), pp. 1501-1512. 

Tödtling, F. (2006). The role of universities in innovation systems and regional economies. Expert meeting 
on ‘The future of academic research’, Vienna, 19-20 October 2006, Vienna University of Economics and 
Business Administration. 

Vivarelli, M. (2014). Innovation, Employment and Skills in Advanced and Developing Countries: A Survey of 

Economic Literature. Journal of Economic Issues, 48, pp. 123-154.   

13 

 
 
 
 
Annex I  
Texts-based highlights of the invited and accepted 
papers/abstracts 

KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS 

[Day  1  –  Opening  Plenary]  Evidence-based  policy:  The  holy  grail?  Or  a  snare  and  a 
delusion? 

by Martin, B. R. 

“The  paper  examines  the  driving-forces  behind  the  rise  of  evidence-based  policy  and  other  related 
developments.  It  analyses  what  evidence-based  policy  requires  in  order  to  be  put  into  operation, 
and the conditions under which evidence is most likely to influence policy. A number of examples of 
where researchers in the field of science policy and innovation studies have had a major impact on 
policy  are  considered,  along  with  the  factors  that  appear  to  have  contributed  to  the  successful 
impact.” 

[Day 2 – Closing Plenary] Europe’s twin deficits: excellence and innovation in new sectors 

by Sachwald, F. 

“This paper argues that the diagnosis on the European innovation performance should be thoroughly 
re-examined:  the  EU  suffers  from  twin  deficits,  in  research  excellence  and  in  innovation  in  new 
sectors. The EU is insufficiently R&D intensive to a large extent because its structure is not that of a 
knowledge-based  economy.  And  this  is  not  only  about  manufacturing,  but  also  about  the  digital 
economy  and  knowledge  intensive  services.  (…).The  identification  of  the  EU’s  innovation  twin 
deficits  calls  for  a  renewed  reflection  on  the  mix  of  public  policies  to  stimulate  research  and 
innovation.  These  policies  would  benefit  from  more  precise  and  detailed  evidence  on  the 
interactions between research and innovation across scientific disciplines, technological areas and 
industrial sectors.” 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SESSION I. Theory, measurement and evidence on corporate R&D and innovation dynamics  

 [1.1] Knowledge appropriability and economic policy,  
by Antonelli, C. 

“The  aim  of  the  paper  is  to  explore  the  full  range  of  consequences  of  the  limited  appropriability  of 
knowledge.  It  calls  attention  on  the  interplay  between  its  negative  effects  in  terms  of  missing 
incentives  to  its  generation  and  on  its  positive  effects  on  the  levels  of  pecuniary  knowledge 
externalities, the recombinant generation of knowledge, the consequent secular decline of its cost 
and hence on the augmented supply of new technological knowledge.(…)  Along these metaphoric 
lines,  the  quality  of  the  institutional  set  of  an  economic  system  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  most 
effective  use  of  technological  knowledge  seems  to  consist  in  the  architectural  design  of  the 
distribution of mirrors that is able to maximize the amount of light produced by each candle.” 

[1.2] Evolution of EU corporate R&D: intensity gap, sector dynamics and firms demographics, 
by Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P. 

“This study provides new insides on the evolution of corporate R&D, by searching one of the foundations 
which originated for the EU 3% R&D investment policy target. The investigation contributes to the 
existing  literature  on  the  subject  (…),  by  (a)  verifying  whether  the EU corporate  R&D  investment 
gap  vis-à-vis  competing  economies  is  due  to  an  "intrinsic"  or  to  a  "structural"  effect  (…)  and 
allowing to analyse how the  EU corporate R&D intensity gap has changed in the last decade (…). 
Furthermore, (b) the analysis investigates the distribution of R&D by sectors and firms, and (c) the 
link between R&D sectoral dynamics and the demographics of top R&D investing firms”.  

[1.3] The new EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation output?,  

by Andries, P., Hoskens, M., Janger, J., Rammer, C. and Schubert, T. 

“The  aim  of  this  paper  is  to  evaluate  this  new  innovation  output  indicator,  based  on  advancing  our 
conceptual  understanding  of  notoriously  difficult  innovation  output  measurement.  (…).  In  a 
nutshell,  in  the  following  we  argue  that  measuring  innovation  output  and  outcome  in  a 
comprehensive way based on indicators requires a balanced approach. First, one should consider 
both radical and incremental innovations since both contribute to economic benefits. Second, one 
should combine a micro and a meso perspective, i.e. consider changes in the behaviour of economic 
actors within existing industries towards higher innovation content of output (which we will label 
“structural  upgrading”),  as  well  as  structural  change  towards  more  innovation-  or  knowledge 
intensive industries (which we will label “structural change”) ” 

[1.4] Innovation and employment in patenting firms:  empirical evidence from Europe,  

by Van Roy, V., Vertesy, D. and Vivarelli, M.   

“This  paper  differs  from  prior  work  from  different  perspectives.  Firstly,  we  measure  the  impact  of 
innovation  from  a  “quality”  perspective;  for  this  purpose,  we  rely  on  forward-citation  weighted 
patent  counts  that  reflect  the  technological  importance  of  patents  for  the  development  of 
subsequent  technologies  (…).    Secondly,  we  contribute  to  the  existing  literature  by  analyzing  the 
effects of innovation on labor demand using a large EU wide panel dataset, while most of previous 
studies rely on single country databases. Thirdly, we present evidence for separately manufacturing 
and  services  and  for  high-tech  versus  low-tech  manufacturing  sectors  and  so  we  are  able  to 
disentangle  the  emergence  (or  the  absence)  of  job-creating  effects  across  the  different  economic 
sectors.” 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 [1.5] Innovation and standardization as drivers of companies’ success in public procurement – 

An empirical analysis,  
by Blind, K. and Rainville, A.  

“No  research  has  looked  both  at  the  innovativeness  of  companies  and  their  involvement  in 
standardization  as  a  potential  success  factor  in  the  receipt  of  contracts.  (…).  Simultaneously 
analyzing  companies’  engagement  in  standardization  at  standards  developing  organizations 
(SDOs), which create many standards that are also relevant to public procurement and companies’ 
innovation activities is required to provide additional insights into how to optimize the interaction 
between  innovation,  standardization  and  public  procurement  in  order  to  push  their  impacts  on 
growth. This paper provides a first attempt to do so.” 

SESSION II. Entrepreneurship, firms' performance and territorial innovation policies  

[2.1] Scientist entrepreneurship and the strategic management of places?, 
by Audretsch, D.B. 

“The  ability  of  a region  to  absorb university-based  knowledge  also  contributes  to  the  effectiveness  of 
university  spillovers.  Such  absorptive  capacity  mechanisms  exist  outside  of  the  university  and 
include  the  existence  of  complementary  research  oriented  large  and  small  firms,  non-profit 
organizations with a mandate to generate links between the regional economy and the university, 
and  a  rich  set  of  entrepreneurial  networks  constituting  the  basis  for  vibrant  entrepreneurship 
capital.(…)  By  creating  linkages,  interactions  and  networks  across  all  of  these  boundaries,  policy 
can make a vital contribution to facilitating the spillover of knowledge that generates growth and 
employment.” 

[2.2]  Data  as  basis  for  assumptions  underlying  policy  measures  with  respect  to  high  growth 

entrepreneurship,  

by  Brännback, M. 

“Entrepreneurship  and  innovation  have  been  shown  to  be  two  important  sources  of  national  wealth 
creation. In fact there are those who will argue at great length that without innovation there is no 
entrepreneurship  and  without  entrepreneurship  there  is  no  innovation.(…)  Another  widely  held 
assumption  is  that  wealth  creation  is  the  reason  for  creating  a  venture  and  becoming  an 
entrepreneur.(…) A third assumption with respect to entrepreneurship is related to job creation.(…) 
Why are assumptions and reality worlds apart? In this paper I will show that the data underlying 
some of our key assumptions are not coherent because we confuse absolute and relative measures, 
we  use  data  from  different  levels  of  analysis  and  we  fail  to  accommodate  for  individual 
entrepreneurial desires in considering national interests.” 

[2.3] Patent boxes design, patents location and local R&D, 
 by Alstadsæter, A., Barrios, S., Nicodeme, G., Skonieczna, A. and Vezzani, A.  
“In  this  paper,  we  provide  novel  empirical  evidence  on  the  determinants  of  the  geographical 
distribution of patent applications made by the 2,000 top corporate R&D investors. (…) Our sample 
covers 33 countries (the EU28, the USA, Canada, Switzerland, the Republic of Korea and China) and 
three  sectors  of  activity  (the  pharmaceutical  industry,  the  car  industry  and  the  Information  and 
Communications Technology, ICT), (…). We disentangle the general effects of the corporate income 
tax  (CIT)  rate  from  tax  and  non-tax  characteristics  of  patent  boxes  such  as  their  scope  and 
eligibility conditions, and investigate whether or not these characteristics influence local research 
activity. (…) To  the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to analyse the various specific 
designs of patent boxes and to test their impacts on patent location and local inventorship.” 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
[2.4] Innovation strategies and firm growth: New longitudinal evidence from Spanish firms,  

by Bianchini, S., Pellegrino, G. and Tamagni, F. 

“Innovation  is  the  search  for,  and  the  discovery,  development,  improvement,  adoption  and 
commercialization  of,  new  processes,  new  products  and  new  organizational  structures  and 
procedures. It involves indeed uncertainty, risk taking, probing and re-probing, experimenting and 
testing.  Thus  the  process  of  innovation  itself,  and  its  ensuing  effects  on  various  aspects  of  firm 
performance,  can  be  extremely  heterogeneous  and  difficult  to  predict.  (…)  This  paper,  by  taking 
advantage  of  a  rich  panel  on  innovation  activity  of  Spanish  manufacturing  firms,  provides  new 
evidence on the relationships between success on the market, in terms of sales growth, and a richer 
set of innovation dimensions, capturing innovation inputs and outputs as well as different modes of 
sourcing new knowledge.” 

[2.5] Current status and future prospects of evidence-based research and innovation policy: the 

case of Smart Specialisation, 

by Dosso, M. and Hardeman, S. 

“Despite a call for evidence-based research & innovation policy (EBR&IP) becoming ever more vocal, its 
meaning and prospects remain more often than not in the midst. Going from its main antecedents, 
evidence-based  medicine  and  evidence-based  policy  at  large,  this  paper  first  seeks  to  clarify  the 
potential  for  and  challenges  of  EBR&IP.  Particularly  from  an  evidence-based  perspective,  it 
addresses  the  conceptual  challenges  and  the  shortcomings  in  the  operationalization  the  Smart 
Specialization  Strategies  (S3)  concept.  (…),  the  paper  supports  the  development  of  an  evidence-
based  heuristics  for  the  S3  policy  approach,  (…);  this  is  even  more  relevant  as  the  S3  approach 
claims to be evidence-driven.” 

SESSION III. Impact of public policies and their additionality in supporting corporate R&D and 

innovation  

[3.1] Research evaluation: who and how is learning from it? 

by Borrás, S.  

“In  spite  the  large  literature  on  research  evaluation,  little  is  still  known  about  the  use  that  policy 
makers do of the evaluations, and the learning processes associated to that. This presentation digs 
into  this  gap  in  the  literature,  elaborates  an  analytical  framework  based  on  the  learners’ 
perspective, and studies some relevant cases of policy learning from research evaluation exercises, 
showing the modalities of learning and the prospects in that.” 

[3.2] Public innovation policy and firm innovation strategies: public risk capital funding should 

be seed funding – but additionality is not there! ,  

by Edquist, C. 

“The paper will address that kind of public financing, i.e. policy that is directly related to the adoption 
and  transformation  of  knowledge  into  new  products  (and  processes)  by  firms  through 
commercialization.  (…)  We  will  use  considerable  effort  to  discuss  where  (in  which  situations) 
private funding is not available and why this is so. The reason is that such unavailability means that 
public involvement is justified, i.e. additionality is at hand. (…)If private capital is available, there is, 
of course, no need for public risk capital funding. (…)This means that private initiatives shall not be 
duplicated or crowded out. The additionality criteria will be developed in detail in the paper. ” 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[3.3] R&D subsidies and firms’ cost of debt,  

by Demeulemeester, S. and Hottenrott, H. 

“The  major  aim  of  this  study  is  therefore  to  investigate  how  a  firms’  cost  of  debt  is  affected  by  the 
receipt  of  an  R&D  grant.  (…)This  paper  contributes  to  the  existing  literature  on  the  certification 
effect  of  R&D  grants  in  two  ways.  First,  while  most  studies  examine  whether  the  receipt  of  R&D 
subsidies increases a firm’s ability to raise debt levels, no study has investigated the impact on the 
cost of debt capital. Second, scholars generally attribute the effect to quality signaling, albeit only 
few  attempts  have  been  made  to  identify  multiple  effects  of  obtaining  the  public  support  on 
external financing.” 

[3.4]  Additionality  effects  of  public  support  programmes  on  cooperation  for  innovation: 

evidence from European manufacturing SMEs  

by Radicic, D., Pugh, G. and Douglas, D. 

“We draw on a unique dataset of SMEs mainly in six manufacturing industries across seven EU regions, 
and employ  several matching estimators to  investigate the impact of public support measures on 
cooperation  for  innovation.  (…)  In  general,  public  intervention  can  result  in  additionality  (or 
complementarity) of public funding and firms' private innovation activities, or it might produce a 
crowding-out  effect,  whereby  public  funding  substitutes  firms'  own  privately  funded  activities 
(…).This  study  departs  from  existing  empirical  literature  by  focusing  on  the  behavioural 
additionality in SMEs as well as by conducting sensitivity analysis to indirectly test one of the main 
assumptions underlying matching estimators.” 

 [3.5] Mix and match: evaluating the additionality of the R&D policy mix,  

by Neicu, D. 

“In  a  bid  to  build  on  these  two  streams  of  literature,  my  paper  addresses  behavioural  additionality 
induced  in  Belgian  firms  by  subsidies  and  tax  credits  for  R&D  from  a  systemic  perspective, 
comparing different mixes to draw a more comprehensive picture. Specifically, I test whether using 
both measures – direct R&D grants and a partial exemption on researchers’ wage withholding tax – 
changes  the  way  in  which  firms  manage  R&D  projects  in  terms  of  increasing  or  shifting  funds 
between  applied  and  fundamental  research  or  development  activities.  Moreover,  I  use  a  rich 
dataset  to  compare  the  two  policies  with  each  other  in  order  to  reveal  whether  heterogeneous 
support translates into heterogeneous effects on the R&D behaviour of companies.” 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex II 
Programme of CONCORDi-2015 

                 5TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON CORPORATE R&D  
           AND INNOVATION: CONCORDI 2015 
                      INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION: EVIDENCE FOR POLICY 

Organised by the Joint Research Centre's  
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European Commission 

Seville, 1-2 October 2015 

Conference Venue: Escuela de Organización Industrial (EOI) 
Calle Leonardo da Vinci, 41092 Isla de la Cartuja, Seville (Spain)  

PROGRAMME  

Thursday, 1 October 2015 

OPENING 

8h00 – 8h50 Registration 

8h50 – 9h00 Opening: John Bensted-Smith (Director, European Commission JRC- IPTS, ES) 

9h00 – 9h15 Welcome speech: José Domínguez Abascal (Chief Technology Officer, ABENGOA, ES) 

9h15 – 9h45 Keynote speech:  Evidence-based policy, Ben Martin (Professor of Science and 
Technology Policy, Sussex University, UK) 

9h45 – 10h00 Open discussion  

10h00-10h30 Coffee break and Poster session 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10h30 – 12h30 PLENARY SESSION I  
Theory, measurement and evidence on corporate R&D and innovation dynamics  

Chair: Reinhilde Veugelers (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BE)  

 Knowledge appropriability and economic policy by Cristiano Antonelli (University of Torino, IT) 

 Evolution of EU corporate R&D: intensity gap, sector dynamics and firms demographics by Pietro 

Moncada-Paternò-Castello (European Commission, ES) 

  The new EU 2020 innovation indicator: a step forward in measuring innovation output?  by  Petra 
Andries (University Ghent, BE) Machteld Hoskens (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BE), Jürgen 
Janger (Austrian Institute for Economic Research, AT), Christian Rammer (Centre for European 
Economic Research, DE), Torben Schubert (University of Lund, SE) 

  Innovation and employment in patenting firms:  empirical evidence from Europe  by  Vincent  Van 
Roy (European Commission, IT), Daniel Vertesy (European Commission, IT) and Marco Vivarelli 
(Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, IT)  

  Innovation  and  standardization  as  drivers  of  companies’  success  in  public  procurement  –  An 

empirical analysis by Knut Blind (Technische Universität Berlin, DE) and Anne Rainville. 

12h30-13h30 Lunch and Poster session 

13h30 – 15h30 PLENARY SESSION II  
Entrepreneurship, firms' performance and territorial innovation policies  

Chair: Mariagrazia Squicciarini (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, FR)  

  Scientist  entrepreneurship  and  the  strategic  management  of  places?  by  David  B.  Audretsch 

(Indiana University, USA) 

  Data  as  basis  for  assumptions  underlying  policy  measures  with  respect  to  high  growth 

entrepreneurship by Malin Brännback (Åbo Akademi University, FI) 

 Patent boxes design, patents location and local R&D by  Annette  Alstadsæter  (University  of  Oslo, 
NO),  Salvador  Barrios  (European  Commission,  ES),  Gaetan  Nicodeme  (European  Commission, 
BE),  Agnieszka  Skonieczna  (European  Commission,  BE)  and  Antonio  Vezzani  (European 
Commission, ES) 

 Innovation strategies and firm growth: new longitudinal evidence from Spanish firms by Stefano 
Bianchini (University of Strasbourg, FR), Gabriele Pellegrino (WIPO and EPFL, CH) and Federico 
Tamagni (Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, IT) 

 Current status and future prospects of evidence-based research and innovation policy: the case of 
Smart Specialisation by Mafini  Dosso  (European  Commission,  ES)  and  Sjoerd  Hardeman  (CPB 
Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, NL). 

15h30-16h00 Coffee break and Poster Session 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16h00 – 18h00 PLENARY SESSION III  
Impacts of public policies and their additionality in supporting corporate R&D and 
innovation  

Chair: Bronwyn Hall (University of California, Berkeley, USA; and University of Maastricht, NL) 

 Research evaluation: who and how is learning from it? by  Susana  Borrás  (Copenhagen  Business 

School, DK) 

  Public innovation policy and firm innovation strategies: public risk capital funding should be seed 

funding – but additionally is not there! by Charles Edquist (Lund University, SE) 

  R&D  subsidies  and  firms’  cost  of  debt  by  Sarah  Demeulemeester  and  Hanna  Hottenrott 

(Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BE) 

  Additionality effects of public support programmes on cooperation for innovation: evidence from 
European  manufacturing  SMEs  by  Dragana  Radicic  (Bournemouth  University  School  of 
Management,  UK),  Geoffrey  Pugh  (Staffordshire  University  Business  School,  UK)  and  David 
Douglas (Leeds Beckett University Business School, UK) 

  Mix and match: evaluating the additionality of the R&D policy mix  by  Daniel  Neicu  (Katholieke 

Universiteit Leuven, BE). 

18h00 End of the first day 

20h30 COCKTAIL DINNER AND BEST PAPER AWARD CEREMONY  

Venue: Casa Palacio Condesa de Lebrija – Address: Calle Cuna, No. 8; 41003 Seville, Spain 

Friday, 2 October 2015 

CLOSING 

8h30-8h45 Welcome 

Francisco J. Velasco Cabello (Director, Escuela de Organización Industrial Andalucía, ES)  

8h45-8h50 Opening of the second day 

John Bensted-Smith (Director, European Commission JRC- IPTS, ES) 

8h50-9h20 Keynote speech: Europe’s twin deficits: Excellence and Innovation in new sectors 

Frédérique  Sachwald  (Deputy  head  of  the  Transfer  and  Innovation  Division,  Ministry  of 
Education, Higher Education and Research,  FR): Europe's twin deficits: excellence and innovation 
in new sectors 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9h20 -10h15 Summary of the scientific output of the Conference  

Cristiano Antonelli (University of Torino, IT)  
David B. Audretsch (Indiana University, USA)  
Susana Borrás (Copenhagen Business School, DK) 

10h15 – 11h00 Scientific round table discussion  

Chair: Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello (European Commission, ES) 

Panellists:  

Chairs of Plenary Sessions I-III and Members of the Scientific Committee  

11h00-11h30 Coffee break 

11h30-13h00 Statements and round table discussion by Policy Stakeholders  

Chair: Alessandro Rainoldi (European Commission – JRC, Unit J.2:  Knowledge for Growth) 

Panellists: 

Richard Deiss (European Commission – Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Unit 
A.4: Analysis and monitoring of national research policies) 

Markus  Berndt  (European  Investment  Bank  –  Economics  Directorate,  Policy  and  Strategy 
Division) 

Isabel  Grilo  (European  Commission  –  Directorate-General  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs, 
Unit B.2: Product Market Reforms)   

Kamil  Kiljanski  (European  Commission  –  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Unit 01: Economic Analysis) 

Nicola Pesaresi  (European  Commission  –  Directorate-General  for  Competition,  Unit  A.3:  State 
Aid Strategy) 

Agnieszka Skonieczna (European Commission – Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs, 
Unit D4:  Economic analysis, Evaluation and Impact assessment support) 

Colin Wolfe (European  Commission  –  Directorate-General for Regional and Urban  Policy,  Unit 
DGA2.G1: Competence Centre for Smart and Sustainable growth) 

13h00-13h30 Concluding remarks  

Annette Borchsenius (Ministry for Science and Innovation and Higher Education – DK, and 
Member of the JRC Board of Governors) 

John Bensted-Smith (Director, European Commission JRC- IPTS, ES) 

13h30 End of the conference 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
POSTERS 

Author(s) 

Affiliation(s) 

Poster title 

Alex Coad, 
Mercedes Teruel 
and Agustí 
Segarra 
Hugo Pinto and 
Tiago Santos 
Pereira 

Michele Cincera, 
Virginie Maghe 
and Anabela 
Santos 
Dina Pereira and 
João Leitão 

Antoine Schoen, 
Patricia Laurens, 
Lionel Villard 
Maria Elena 
Bontempi, Luca 
Lambertini, Erica 
Medeossi 
Petra Turkama 

Néstor Duch-
Brown and 
Ibrahim Kholilul 
Rohman 

Science and Technology Policy 
Research Unit (SPRU), Brighton, 
UK 

Innovation and firm growth: Does 
firm age play a role? 

Centre for Social Studies 
University of Coimbra & Faculty of 
Economics, University of Algarve, 
PT 
iCite – Solvay Brussels School of 
Economics and Management 
Université Libre de Bruxelles, BE 

Resilience, persistence and 
innovation under the economic 
turmoil: Insights from the 
Portuguese CIS Data 
Impact of environmental factors on 
public R&D spending efficiency: 
Stochastic Frontier Analysis  

Universidade da Beira Interior 
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e 
Humanas Departamento de Gestão 
e Economia, PT 
Université Paris-Est, Lisis, Ifris, FR  The value of internationalisation of 

Absorptive capacity and firms’ 
generation of innovation: Revisiting 
Zahra and George’s Model 

industrial R&D 

Department of Economics, 
University of Bologna, IT 

Market power and duration of R&D 
investment  

Center for Knowledge and 
Innovation Research (CKIR), Aalto 
University School of Business, FI 
European Commission JRC-IPTS, 
ES 

Discussion on the renewed 
dynamics of policy, science and 
industry in digitalization  
Determinants of R&D, barriers to 
innovation and productivity in the 
ICT-producing sector: Evidence 
from Spain 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex III  
Members of the Scientific and Steering Committees 

Scientific Committee  

Cristiano Antonelli (University of Torino, IT) 
David B. Audretsch (Indiana University, USA) 
Susana Borrás (Copenhagen Business School, DK)  
Malin Brännback (Åbo Akademi University, FI) 
Charles Edquist (Lund University, SE) 
Ben Martin (University of Sussex, UK) 
Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello (European Commission, ES) 
Frédérique Sachwald (Ministry of Education, Higher Education and Research, FR) 
(Bios in the Annex) 

Steering Committee (European Commission, Joint Research Centre) 

Mafini Dosso 
Petros Gkotsis 
Fernando Hervás 
Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello (Coordinator) 
Alessandro Rainoldi 
Rosy Rueda 

Contact 

CONCORDi 2015 website: http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/concord/2015/index.html  
Email: JRC-IPTS-IRI@ec.europa.eu  
Information on previous editions of CONCORDi can be found here: 
http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/concord.html 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex IV 
BIOs of the Scientific Committee Members 

CRISTIANO ANTONELLI 

Cristiano Antonelli holds the chair of Political Economy of the University of Torino. He is editor 
of  the  Economics  of  Innovation  and  New  Technology  journal,  President  of  the  International 
Center  for  Economic  Research  (ICER)  and  the  Director  of  BRICK  (Bureau  of  Research  on 
Innovation,  Complexity  and  Knowledge)  of  the  Collegio  Carlo  Alberto.  He  is  an  Advisor  to  the 
Ufficio  Studi  of  the  Banca  d'Italia.  He  is  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Fondazione 
CRT. He has been the Director of the Department of Economics Cognetti de Martiis. He has been a 
Rockefeller Fellow at the MIT (1982-1985) and a junior economist at the OECD (1978-1980). He 
has been a member of the Board of Telecom Italia (1998 and 1999), and of the Scientific Board of 
ENEA (from 1999 to 2003). He has held appointments at the Victoria University of Manchester, 
the University of Paris-Dauphine, the University of Nice, the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro 
and  the  University  of  Aix-en-Provence.  He  has  been  vice-president  of  the  International 
Schumpeter  Society  in  the  years  2000-2004.  The  main  results  of  his  recent  research  are  now 
available  in  ‘Localized  technological  change.  Towards  the  economics  of  complexity’  (London, 
Routledge, 2008) as well in his previous books ‘The Microeconomics of Technological Systems’ 
(Oxford  University  Press,  Oxford,  2001),  ‘The  Economics  of  Innovation,  New  Technologies  and 
Structural Change’ (Routledge, London, 2003) and ‘The Path Dependent Complexity of Localized 
Technological  Change:  Ingredients,  Governance  and  Processes’  (Routledge,  London,  2007 
forthcoming). 

DAVID AUDRETSCH 

David  Audretsch  is  Professor  and  Ameritech  Chair  of  Economic  Development  at  Indiana 
University, where he also serves as Director of the Institute for Development Strategies. He also 
is  an  Honorary  Professor  of  Industrial  Economics  and  Entrepreneurship.  He  is  member  of  the 
Advisory  Board  to  a  number  of  international  research  and  policy  institutes,  including  the 
Deutsches  Institut  fuer  Wirtschaftsforschung  (German  Institute  for  Economic  Analysis).  He  is 
presently  Editor  of  the  following  Journals:  Small  Business  Economics:  An  Entrepreneurship 
Journal;  Foundations  and  Trends  in  Entrepreneurship  (with  Zoltan  Acs);  International 
Entrepreneurship  and  Management  Journal;  International 
Journal  of  Entrepreneurship 
Education. 

SUSANA BORRÁS 

Susana  Borrás  is  Professor  of  innovation  and  governance  at  Copenhagen  Business  School, 
Denmark. She is currently serving as the Head of the Department of Business and Politics at the 
same university. She conducts research on the interaction between governments and innovation. 
As a social scientist expert on public policy, two of her leading questions are, what governments 
can  do  to  foster  and  to  improve  socio-technical  innovation  in  the  economy,  and  what  makes 
some decisions regarding socio-technical and innovation change to be democratically legitimate 
importance  that  socially  and 
and  others  not.  Her  comparative  analyses  show  the 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
governmentally-defined  institutions  have  on  innovation  performance  and  on  democratic 
legitimacy of science and technology. Her main  attention is  in  the European  Union, both at  the 
supra-national  level  as  well  as  national  and  local  (cluster)  levels.  In  particular  she  studies  the 
complex interactions between public and private realms, which have been recently called ‘new 
modes of governance’. 

MALIN BRÄNNBACK 

Malin Brännback is currently Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics at Åbo Akademi 
University  (2015-2018)  and  Chaired  Professor  (international  business)  at  Åbo  Akademi 
University. Moreover, she does  many additional activities  as  for example the  supervision of an 
average  of  7  under  graduate  theses  per  year,  board  member,  ad  hoc  reviewer  of  manuscripts, 
chair and scientific committee member, among others.  She has reached 196 publications up  to 
now and she speaks five languages: Swedish, Finnish, English, French and German. 

CHARLES EDQUIST 

Charles Edquist is the holder of the Ruben Rausing Chair in Innovation Research at CIRCLE, Lund 
University,  Sweden,  since  February  2003  and  has  previously  held  a  Chair  at  the  University  of 
Linköping.  His  publications  include  books  and  articles  on  innovation  processes,  innovation 
systems  and  innovation  policy.  Of  these,  the  edited  volumes  “Systems  of  Innovation: 
Technologies,  Institutions  and  Organizations”  (1997)  and  “Small  Country  Innovation  Systems: 
Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe” (2008; in 2012 also in Chinese) constitute 
contributions to the development of the so-called Systems of Innovation (SI) Approach. So does 
the  chapter  “Systems  of  Innovation:  Perspectives  and  Challenges”  (2005),  in  the  Oxford 
Handbook of Innovation. He has made many contributions to the field of innovation policy and 
governance  of  innovation  systems,  the  latest  being  articles  in  Research  Policy  (2012)  and 
Industrial  and  Corporate  Change  (2011).  The  fact  that  he  is  among  the  50  (or  so)  most  cited 
innovation researchers (out of 6 – 7 000) in the world is testimony to the impact of his research. 
His most cited book is on public procurement for innovation.  He was given the award for best 
paper  for  “Competence  Building:  A  Systemic  Approach  to  Innovation  Policy”  at  the  Atlanta 
Conference of Science & Innovation Policy, Georgia, USA, 26-28 September 2013.  

BEN MARTIN 

Ben  Martin,  SPRU  Chief  editor  of  Research  Policy,  Professor  of  Science  and  Technology  Policy 
Studies  BA  (first  class  honours)  degree  in  Natural  Sciences,  University  of  Cambridge,  and 
Kitchener  Scholar  (Churchill  College,  Cambridge);  MSc  ('The  Structure  and  Organisation  of 
Science and Technology'), University of Manchester. Professor Ben Martin studied physics as an 
undergraduate at Cambridge and science policy as a postgraduate at Manchester. He has carried 
out research for 30 years in the  field of science policy, serving as  the  Principal Investigator or 
Project Leader on over 50 research projects and commissioned studies. These have been mostly 
concerned  with  the  development  of  techniques  for  generating  systematic  information  to  aid 
decision-making in relation to science, engineering and technology. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
PIETRO MONCADA-PATERNÒ-CASTELLO 

Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello is Senior Analyst at the European Commission JRC-IPTS. He is 
Facilitator  of  the  Cluster  of  sixteen  JRC  projects  on  "Innovation,  Knowledge  Transfer, 
Competitiveness  and  Employment".  Before  joining  IPTS  in  1995  he  worked,  as  Founder  and 
President, in the Agency for Natural Resources Energy and Technology (ANETEC, BE), in the MIT 
Energy  Laboratory,  Electric  Utility  Program  (USA)  and  in  the  EC's  Directorate  General  for 
Research and Technological Development (BE). Former responsibilities within the IPTS include, 
e.g.:  Acting  Head  of  Unit,  "Knowledge  for  Growth";  Action  Leader,  "Economics  of  Industrial 
Research  and  Innovation";  Manager,  “European  Science  and  Technology  Observatory”.  His 
scientific  experience  includes  being  author  of  scientific  papers,  member  of  scientific  panels, 
member  of  editorial  boards  of  scientific  journals,  speaker  at  conferences  and  lecturer  at 
university courses. His research interests include  economics of corporate  R&D and innovation, 
firm  dynamics,  employment  and  competitiveness;  management  of  technological  change,  and 
research & innovation policy. 

FRÉDÉRIQUE SACHWALD 

Frédérique  Sachwald  is  Deputy  Head  of  the  Transfer  and  Innovation  Division  at  the  French 
Ministry  of  Education,  Higher  education  and  Research.  This  division  is  in  charge  of  various 
schemes  to  develop  technology  transfer  and  manages  the  French  R&D  tax  credit  scheme. 
Frédérique Sachwald is more specifically in charge of designing indicators and evaluation for the 
French research and innovation policy, which involves interministerial coordination. She is the 
French delegate to OECD Committee for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP). At the EU level, 
she is a member of the RISE (Research, Innovation and Science policy Expert) high level group of 
DG  Research  and  Innovation.   Formerly,  Frédérique  Sachwald  has  been  Head  of  Economic 
studies at IFRI (French Institute for International Relations) a think tank based in Paris. She has 
published extensively in the fields of international economics and innovation studies. She has in 
particular  studied  the  development  of  global  production  and  innovation  networks  and  their 
impact  on  trade,  knowledge  flows  and  local  economies.    She  holds  a  PhD.  in  Economics  from 
Ecole  des  Hautes  Etudes  en  Sciences  Sociales  (Paris)  and  degrees  from  the  Institut  d’Etudes 
Politiques in Paris and Cambridge University (UK). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 
EUR 27443 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Title: 5th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation: CONCORDi 2015. Industrial Research and 
Innovation: Evidence for Policy – Background Note 

Authors: Mafini Dosso, Fernando Hervás, Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 

2015 – 27 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

ISBN 978-92-79-51568-2 (PDF) 

doi:10.2791/000195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
F
-
N
A
-
2
7
4
4
3
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2791/000195 

ISBN 978-92-79-51568-2