Intersectoral mobility and knowledge transfer : preliminary evidence of the impact of intersectoral mobility policy instruments.
Date: 2016-09-05
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: EU Member State, economic consequence, job access, job mobility, knowledge management, organisation of research, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, research and development, research report, social impact

Intersectoral mobility and knowledge 
transfer. 
Preliminary evidence of the impact of 
intersectoral mobility policy 
instruments 

Hristo Hristov, Milena Slavcheva, Koen 
Jonkers and Katarzyna Szkuta 

2016 

EUR 28027 EN  

 
 
 
 
 
This  publication  is  a  Science  for  Policy  report  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC),  the  European  Commission’s 
science  and  knowledge  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. 

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

JRC102534 

EUR 28027 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-60074-6 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2791/041776 

LF-NA-28027-EN-N 

© European Union, 2016 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

How  to  cite:  Hristo  Hristov,  Milena  Slavcheva,  Koen  Jonkers  and  Katarzyna  Szkuta;  Intersectoral  mobility  and 
knowledge  transfer.  Preliminary  evidence  of  the  impact  of  intersectoral  mobility  policy  instruments;  EUR  28027 
EN; doi:10.2791/041776 

All images © European Union 2016, except: cover page, Julien Eichinger, 2016. Source: Fotolia.com 

Title:  Intersectoral mobility and knowledge transfer. Preliminary evidence of the impact of intersectoral mobility 
policy instruments 

Abstract 

This report aims to map the policy measures supporting intersectoral mobility in the Member States and based on 
the policy measures evaluations analyse the available evidence of their impact. The analysis shows that policies 
to  foster  intersectoral  mobility  are  in  place  in  almost  all  MS.  Many  of  them  have  been  implemented  for  several 
years now, yet the readily available evaluations are scarce. The existing evaluations are also often coming short 
of  evaluating  the  broader  socio-economic  impact.  Yet,  the  evaluations  provide  evidence  of  positive  impact  of 
those measures on researchers' skills and employability. To a lesser extent data points to the impact on patents' 
and publications' propensity and R&D intensity of companies. The strongest evidence is provided in the industrial 
PhDs evaluations and the impact on skills and employability of PhD researchers can be clearly attested. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................... 3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... 4 

1  INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 6 

2  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .......................................... 7 

3  QUANTITATIVE  ASSESSMENT  OF  EU  COUNTRIES 
PERFORMANCE  IN  KNOWLEDGE  TRANSFER  AND 
INTERSECTORAL MOBILITY ....................................... 10 

4  METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .................................. 13 

5  ANALYSIS  OF  INTERSECTORAL  MOBILITY  POLICY 

MEASURES ................................................................. 16 

6  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  IMPACT  OF  INTERSECTORAL 
MOBILITY  MEASURES  BASED  ON  EVIDENCE  FROM 
THE EVALUATIONS .................................................... 23 

7  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................... 44 

REFERENCES ................................................................... 45 

ANNEX 1 ......................................................................... 48 

ANNEX 2 ......................................................................... 55 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................ 65 

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................. 66 

 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements  

This  report  draws  among  other  sources  on  the  RIO  Country  Reports  2015  which  were 
drafted as a collaborative effort by the country analysts of DG JRC B7.(Robert Gampfer, 
Hristo  Hristov,  Jessica  Mitchell,  Giovanni  La  Placa,  Milena  Slavcheva,  Maren  Sprutacz, 
Blagoy  Stamenov,  Katarzyna  Szkuta,  Jana  Zifciakova),  and  the  network  of  experts 
(Susan  Alexander,  Liviu  Andreescu,  Vladimir  Balaz,  Pierre  Bitard,  Paul  Cunningham, 
Tibor Dőry, Ana Fernández Zubieta, Radu Cristian Gheorghiu, Christoph Grimpe, Kimmo 
Halme,  Pim  Den  Hertog,  Merle  Jacob,  Matthijs  Janssen,  Stijn  Kelchtermans,  Gundars 
Kulikovskis,  Krzysztof  Klincewicz,  Tom  Martin,  Manuel  Mira  Godinho,  Leopoldo  Nascia, 
Agne  Paliokaite,  Domagoj  Račić,  Ruuta  Ruttas-Kuttim,  Veli-Pekka  Saarnivara,  Klaus 
Schuch, Vitor Simoes,  Hulda Skogland, Wolfgang Sofka,  Espen Solberg, Martin Srholec, 
Angelina Todorova, Lena Tsipouri, Boštjan Udovič and Brian Warrington). 

We  would like  to  thank  Maren  Sprutacz  for  providing  additional  analysis  of  the  German 
spin-offs programmes evaluations as well as Giovanni La Placa for his participation in the 
initial reflections on the shape of this project. 

The  report  benefitted  from  comments  from  Karen  Vandenvelde  of  Ghent  University, 
Andrea  Patel  of  the  University  of  Birminigham,  Paul  Cunnigham  of  the  University  of 
Manchester  and  our  colleague  Robert  Gampfer  of  DG  JRC  B7.  Finally  we  would  like  to 
thank  Xabier  Goenaga  Beldarrain  for  encouraging  us  to  write  this  report  and  for  all  his 
valuable suggestions and comments. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

Policy context 

The  paper  analyses  knowledge  transfer  through  the  prism  of  intersectoral  mobility  of 
researchers.  That  is  the  temporary  or  permanent  mobility  from  one  sector  to  another, 
mainly  from  the  public  to  the  private  sector  and  back.  It  analyses  the  impact  of  policy 
measures  in  EU  Member  States  by  building  on  existing,  readily  available  evaluations  of 
different types of policy measures.  

The  importance  of  knowledge  transfer  policies  for  Europe's  competitiveness  has  long 
been  recognised  by  the  European  Commission  and  its  Member  States.  The  2012 
Communication on 'A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and 
Growth' lists optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge including 
via digital ERA among its five priorities. Commitment 21 of the Innovation Union points 
out the importance of collaborative research and knowledge transfer within the research 
Framework Programmes. 

In the period 2011-2016, the European Semester process has delivered thirteen Country 
Specific  Recommendations  related  to  knowledge  transfer.  In  2015,  the  European 
Commission raised the  issue of knowledge transfer and the necessity to strengthen the 
links  between  academia  and  business  for  fifteen  Member  States,  which  shows  an 
increasing policy attention to that matter.  

Key conclusions  

Policies to foster intersectoral mobility are in place in almost all MS. Many of them have 
been implemented for several years now, yet readily available evaluations are scarce. In 
the small sample of the evaluations we have analysed, the evaluations provide  evidence 
of  the  positive  impact  of  those  measures  on  researchers'  skills  and  employability.  Also, 
there  are  some  evaluations  which  report  some  limited  positive  impact  on  patents'  and 
publication propensity as well as the R&D intensity of companies. 

The  strongest  evidence  is  provided  in  the  evaluation  of  "industrial  PhD  programmes", 
where the impact on skills and employability of PhD researchers is clearly attested. 

The  analysis  of  policies  supporting  spin-offs  provides  evidence  for  increasing  the 
entrepreneurial  capacity  of  research  organisations  and  promoting  the  translation  of 
research results into economic value. 

The  policy  measures  also  build  industry  awareness  of  knowledge  transfer,  increase  the 
absorptive  capacity  of  firms  for  internal  and  external  R&D,  strengthen  academia  – 
industry collaboration and build trust between actors.  

The  main  barriers  relate  to  the  unclear  benefits  to  participating  firms,  the  high 
administrative  burden  on  companies  as  well  as  the  additional  workload  linked  to 
integrating  new  people  into  the  company.  The  need  to  understand  the  impact  of  the 
various  types  of  programmes  and  the  observed  lack  of  high  quality  evaluations  for 
existing  programmes  provide  a  strong  argument  for  strengthening  the  evaluation 
capacity in member states and encouraging frequent and systematic assessments.  

Main findings  

The mapping of the intersectoral mobility policies per country shows that the most often 
implemented  types  of  policy  interventions  are:  1)  funding  and  regulatory  support  for 
Industrial  PhDs  and  industrial  traineeships;  2)  post-doctoral  researcher  placements 
(Industrial  Post-Docs  and  other  similar  measures)  stimulating  the  uptake  of  PhDs  by 
private sector firms/SMEs; and 3) support measures for creating spin-offs. One observes 
that  most  countries  have  implemented  a  broad  range  of  policy  instruments  to  promote 
intersectoral  mobility.  This  holds  both  for  countries  with  high  and  lower  levels  of 
business employment of researchers. EU-13 countries in general deployed the measures 
quite recently and on a pilot basis – which partially explains the lack of evaluations.  

4 

 
 
For the three types  of  measures  a limited number of  readily available  evaluations were 
identified.  In  total,  we  have  found  19  evaluations,  covering  9  countries  (8  EU  Member 
States and Canada), of the three aforementioned types of measures.  

In  terms  of  the  impact  on  career  perspectives  and  employment  the  industrial  PhD 
programmes are reported to represent "good value for money". Participating candidates 
acquire new skills, practical experience and improved qualifications, thus increasing their 
chances  on  the  labour  market  but  also  representing  highly  qualified  personnel  which 
contribute  to  increasing  the  firms'  "absorptive  capacity".  Several  evaluations  report  a 
positive  impact  on  a  series  of  outputs,  such  as  larger  number  of  patents,  increased 
exports  and  annual  sales,  bigger  market  shares  and  additional  R&D  funding  from  the 
industry.  

The  potential  in  relation  to  the  level  of  mobility  these  measures  create  is  significant: 
since  the  primary  goal  for  this  type  of  policy  measures  is  to  ensure  an  industry 
placement  of  PhD  students  while  they  pursue  their  doctoral  studies  at  a  university, 
intersectoral mobility represents a natural outcome  of  such schemes.  Some  evaluations 
also  report  longer  term  impacts  on  mobility.  Moving  back  and  forth  between  the  public 
and  private  sector,  the  researchers  create  a  network  of  contacts  and  serve  themselves 
as  intermediates  between  public  and  private  entities.  Well-designed  PhD  projects, 
previous  knowledge  of  the  partner  organisation  and  the  development  of  a  research 
strategy by the firm are prerequisites for success of the policy measure.  

As  far  as  the  uptake  of  post-doctoral  researchers  by  industry  is  concerned,  evidence 
shows  that  in  all  long  term  placements  the  recipients  are  directly  employed  by  the 
company  and  only  the  research-related  part  is  reimbursed  by  the  programme.  This 
creates a stronger relation with the company. Short placements may increase awareness 
among  companies  of  knowledge  and  technology  transfer  activities  and  build  trust 
between the actors. However, the evaluations do not point to significant tangible outputs 
such  as 
increased  patenting  activities  or  co-publications.  Longer  post-doctoral 
placements  create  a  personal  relation  with  the  company  and  often  result  in  prolonged 
collaboration  and/or  in  the  offer  of  permanent  employment  in  the  host  company. 
Programmes  targeting  specific  groups  (e.g.  women,  SSH  researchers)  are  mostly  pilots 
and too limited in scope to yield sufficient measurable impact.  

The  policy  measures  supporting  spin-off  creation  have  had  an  indirect  impact  on 
intersectoral  mobility.  By  fostering  a  culture  of  entrepreneurship  in  university  teaching, 
research  and  management;  developing  the  potential  for  business  ideas  at  universities 
and  research  institutions  in  a  targeted  manner;  and  promoting  the  translation  of 
research  findings  into  economic  value;  they  have  helped  increasing  the  number  of 
innovative business enterprises and created employment for public sector researchers in 
the  private  sector.  In  general  the  spin-offs  supported  through  these  programmes  have 
remained small. 

The main barriers include the lack of awareness by industrial firms, unclear expectations 
from the programmes on the side of businesses, the high administrative burden linked to 
application as well as additional costs for the hosting company (financial participation but 
also human resources devoted to mentoring).  

The  combination  of  different  instruments  could  create  synergies  and  this  is  an  avenue 
worth exploring in order to achieve a systemic change. 

Related and future JRC work 

This report ties into forthcoming work by the JRC on Entrepreneurial universities, which 
will  analyse  the  impact  of  national  policies  on  the  extent  to  which  different  types  of 
universities succeed in building fruitful interactions with their innovation ecosystem. 

5 

 
 
 
1  Introduction  

Knowledge  transfer  between  research  organisations  and  business  enterprises  plays  an 
important  role  in  innovation  which  makes  understanding  the  mechanisms  of  these 
knowledge flows important to the design and application of adequate innovation policies. 
The  strong  performance  of  public  research  institutes  and  universities  in  Europe  is  not 
fully  matched  by  the  innovation  performance  of  the  economy.1 Increased  intersectoral 
collaboration  can  facilitate  access  to  knowledge,  its  co-production  by  different  actors 
through  new  research  collaboration,  and  enhance  its  dissemination.  It  can  also  ensure 
industry-relevant  teaching  and  create  new  employment  oportunities  by  stimulating 
economic growth.  

The  importance  of  knowledge  transfer  policies  for  Europe's  competitiveness  has  long 
been recognised by the European Commission and the EU Member States.2   

The  2012  Communication  on  'A  Reinforced  European  Research  Area  Partnership  for 
Excellence  and  Growth'  lists  optimal  circulation,  access  to  and  transfer  of  scientific 
knowledge  including  via  digital  ERA  among  its  five  priorities.  Commitment  21  of  the 
Innovation  Union  pointed  out  the  importance  of  collaborative  research  and  knowledge 
transfer  within  the  research  Framework  Programmes  and  beyond,  as  well  as  of 
intellectual property protection models and of knowledge transfer offices.  

In the period 2011-2016, the European Semester process has delivered thirteen Country 
Specific  Recommendations  related  to  knowledge  transfer.  In  2015,  the  European 
Commission3 raised the issue of knowledge transfer and the necessity to strengthen the 
links  between  academia  and  business  for  fifteen  Member  States,  which  shows  an 
increasing policy attention to this issue. 

This  report  is  focused  on  intersectoral  mobility  (ISM)  as  a  key  mechanism  for 
transferring knowledge. The document presents an overview of national policy measures 
supporting  intersectoral  mobility.  Building  on  evaluations  of  selected  measures,  the 
report provides insights into the results that the different types of policy initiatives have 
achieved. It aims to take stock of the outcomes, outputs and socio-economic impacts of 
those schemes, such as increasing the absorptive capacity of private firms and increased 
employability of researchers in industry. 

The report is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the conceptual framework of the 
analysis.  Section  3  discusses  the  performance  of  the  European  Member  States  and 
selected  third  countries  using  selected  indicators  related  to  intersectoral  mobility. 
Section 4 outlines the methodology applied in the study. Section 5 presents and analyses 
policy measures supporting intersectoral mobility. Based on evaluation reports, section 6 
provides  evidence  of  the  impact  of  policies  supporting  intersectoral  mobility.  Finally, 
section  7  draws  conclusions  and  presents  the  key  policy  messages  stemming  from  the 
study. 

1 For a critical discussion of this argument see Jonkers and Sachwald (forthcoming) 
2  2007  Communication  on  Improving  knowledge  transfer  between  research  institutions  and 
industry across Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/com2007182_en.pdf  
3 In the Country Reports (Commission Staff Working Documents) which are part of "The European 
Semester", the EU's annual cycle of economic policy guidance and surveillance.  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                           
2  Conceptual framework 

Knowledge  transfer encompasses all the functions that “may lead to improved use of 
knowledge  developed  and  held  in  the  research  sector  for  the  benefit  of  society  and  its 
individuals”  (Finne  et  al.  2011).  Early  innovation  policies  were  based  on  the 
conceptualisation of knowledge transfer as  a linear process  of public sector  researchers 
producing new knowledge, which is then transferred to industry and subsequently used 
in  innovative  products,  processes  and  services  (Arnold  et  al.,  2012;  DeBackere  et  al, 
2014).  However,  a  broad  body  of  theoretical  and  empirical  literature  suggests  that  the 
linear  model  does  not  offer  an  adequate  explanation  of  the  way  in  which    knowledge 
flows and innovation occur in practice. Innovation is nowadays understood as a complex, 
interactive,  non-linear  and  risky  process,  involving  multiple  feedback  routes  between 
research,  development  and  innovation  processes  and  the  people  involved  in  them  both 
inside  and  outside  specific  firms  (Faberber  (2005),  Rothwell  (1994),  Benoit  (2005)  in 
Arnold  et  al,  2012).  The  open  innovation  model  has  more  recently  conceptualised 
innovation as a more fluid process: authors like Chesborough (2003)  argue that one can 
no  longer  strictly  demarcate  between  actors  performing  distinct  roles  in  innovation 
processes.  Firms  not  only  rely  on  both  external  as  well  as  internal  knowledge  and 
expertise,  but  become  co-creators  of  knowledge,  which  can  be  used  by  themselves  or 
other firms and  research organisations in their innovation ecosystem.  In these systems 
that  are  characterised  by  more  open  boundaries  between  knowledge  producers,  public 
research  organisations  need  to  incorporate  the  needs  of  knowledge  users  in  their 
activities and become co-creators of new solutions together with private actors. (Arnold 
et al, 2012; Finne et al., 2011) 

Knowledge  transfer  between  academia  and  business  is  a  complex  phenomenon,  which 
takes  place  through  a  number  of  mechanisms  like  informal  interactions  among  people, 
formal  partnerships  and  exploitation  of  intellectual  property.  The  present  study  is 
focused  on  the  flow  of  research  skills,  which  are  inherently  tacit:  i.e.  person  bound.  
Intersectoral  mobility is at the core of knowledge transfer between the academic and 
non-academic  sectors.  In  its  narrow  sense,  intersectoral  mobility  is  defined  as  "the 
physical [temporary or permanent] mobility of researchers from one sector (academia in 
particular)  to  another  (industry  in  the  first  place,  but  other  sectors  of  employment  as 
well)  [and  return  mobility  from  industry/other  sectors  back  to  academia]  (Vandevelde, 
2014).  However,  intersectoral  mobility  can  also  be  considered  in  a  broader  context  of 
knowledge  exchange  through  people.  This  therefore  includes  the  hiring  of  higher  level 
university  graduates  and  researchers,    PhD  projects  involving  placements  in  private 
companies,  dual  career  paths  in  public  research  organisations  (PROs),  universities  and 
industry as well as spin-off creation. 

There  are  three  main  groups  of  stakeholders  in  the  knowledge  transfer  process: 
business,  research  organisations  and  governmental  bodies  and,  although  not 
subject of our study, we may also identify a fourth group of actors  –  civil  society  and 
the  non-profit  sector.  Characteristics  of  these  groups  that  are  interesting  for  the 
purpose  of this study are  entrepreneurship,  graduate training and public research  for 
the research organisations, absorptive capacity and private research for business, and 
policy measures designed and implemented by the governmental bodies.   

Academic  entrepreneurship  refers  to  economic  development  initiatives  focused  on 
stimulating  the  commercialisation  of  technological,  social  and  service  innovations 
developed  by  academic  scientists  (Grimaldi  et  al.,  2011;  Abreu  et  al,  2009;  Abreu  and 
Grinevich,  2013).  The  development  of  academic  entrepreneurship  is  influenced  by  the 
extent to which individual scientists and research teams are willing and are incentivised 
to  become  involved  in  the  commercialisation  of  their  research  results.  Academic 
entrepreneurship  is  manifested  in  several  forms  like  university  patents,  licencing,  the 
creation  of  academic  spin-offs,  contract  research  and  consulting,  networking  with 
practitioners,  staff  exchange  and  joint  supervision  of  students.  There  has  also  been  a 
proliferation of technology transfer  offices (TTOs), established to enhance the academic 

7 

 
 
patenting  and  licensing  of  results.  This  report  is  focused  on  1)  staff  exchange,  2)  joint 
supervision  of  doctoral  researchers,  and  3)  the  setup  of  university  spin  offs.  While 
normally  studied  for  their  potential  impact  on  the  economic  development,  spin-offs  are 
also clearly tied to the intersectoral mobility as a mechanism through which public sector 
research staff moves to the private sector.  

The concept of absorptive  capacity is key to the involvement of a firm in a process of 
collaborative  R&D  and  knowledge  transfer.  Cohen  and  Levinthal  (1990)  argue  that  the 
ability  of  a  firm  to  recognise  the  value  of  new,  external  information,  assimilate  it,  and 
apply  it  to  commercial  ends  is  critical  to  its  innovative  capabilities.  Absorptive  capacity 
can  be  generated  as  a  by-product  of  a  firm's  R&D  investment  or  manufacturing 
operations.  Firms  also  invest  in  absorptive  capacity  directly  when  they  send  personnel 
for  advanced  technical  training  or  hire  new  highly  skilled  staff  (Cohen  and  Levinthal, 
1990).  A  more  highly  skilled  workforce,  it  is  argued,  increases  the  potential  to 
collaborate  with  outside  knowledge  producers  and  users.  Literature  shows  that  direct 
collaboration  with  scientific  partners  can  give  access  to  tacit  scientific  knowledge 
(Cockburn  and  Henderson  1998),  unpublished  codified  knowledge  (Fabrizio,  2009),  as 
well  as  access  to  cutting  edge  scientific  equipment  (Leten  et  al.  2012).  Hiring  highly 
qualified  staff  trained  in  the  public  research  sector  and  direct  collaboration  with  public 
sector researchers can bring new knowledge directly to the company, thus reducing the 
costs involved in the screening, evaluation and assimilation of new knowledge.  

Intersectoral  mobility,  which  involves  the  supply  and  recruitment  of  skilled  labour  by 
industry,  addresses  several  problems  related  to  the  integration  of  knowledge  and  skills 
into  a  firm's  activities.  This  integration  of  external  knowledge  can  be  a  very  complex 
process.  Laursen  and  Salter  (2006),  following  the  work  of  Katila  and  Ahuja  (2002), 
showed on the basis of  innovation survey data of a large sample of manufacturing firms 
that over-search in terms of depth and breadth (number of sources or search channels) 
has  a  negative  effect  on  the  performance  because  it  takes  too  much  of  the  firm's 
resources.  The  resources  allocated  to  research  could  be  shifted  to  employing  and 
integrating  a  skilled  worker  that  can  directly  deliver  a  limited  number  of  solutions. 
Intersectoral  mobility  may  therefore  address  the  attention  allocation  problem  (Koput 
1997),  i.e.,  the  abundance  of  external  ideas  is  difficult  to  process  and  acquire,  so  they 
need to be given a proper attention in order to be implemented. Knowledge can also be 
better  integrated  when  knowledge  bases  are  similar  (Kogut  and  Zander  1992)  but  not 
too  close (Sapienza et  al. 2004) as the latter situation can limit the  novelty of selected 
solutions.  Attracting  highly  skilled  workers  into  the  company  can  contribute  to  finding 
the  right  balance  between  the  similarity  and  difference  of  internal  and  external 
knowledge bases.  

Governments  implement  intersectoral  mobility  programmes  allowing  companies  to 
access  new  knowledge  by  contracting  students  and  researchers  from  public  research 
centres and universities. In most European countries legal and administrative measures 
are in place to facilitate the intersectoral mobility of researchers. Governments can play 
a role in facilitating, promoting and funding placements for researchers, i.e., researchers 
spend a limited period of time in other sectors in order to gain sector-specific experience 
and share research expertise. Those policies could be regarded as "soft measures" which 
could  potentially  have  long-lasting  effects  on  researchers’  employability,  employers’ 
perception  of  sources  of  innovation  and  the  use  of  outside  knowledge  as  well  as  the 
mindset  of  academics  by  introducing  a  commercial  perspective  to  their  research,  and 
finally, trigger long-term collaborative activities.  

The  literature  evaluating  intersectoral  mobility  policies  and  presenting  insights  into 
outputs  and  the  impact  of  such  measures  is  growing.  Scholars  analyse  additionality 
effects  in  terms  of  innovation  efforts  and  capabilities  of  firms  (Herrera  et  al,(2010); 
Martinez et al. (2015)), salaries and employment of R&D workers (Thomson and Jensen, 
2010), the overall role of researchers in stimulating knowledge transfer (Levy, 2005) or 
exploring the European community innovation survey (CIS) to investigate the firms  co-

8 

 
 
operation patterns (Tether, 2002). Different approaches are used to measure the impact 
of  intersectoral  mobility,  relying  both  on  qualitative  and  quantitative  assessments. 
Indicators  used  include:  level  of  R&D  investment  (in-house,  from  external  sources  and 
total),  propensity  to  patent,  innovative  firms  cooperating  with  external  partners, 
researchers  employed by sector, level and sector of  employment of  PhDs. Results from 
the empirical studies confirm the positive effect of intersectoral mobility. However, they 
also point to some constraints and unknowns which can limit the potential benefits from 
intersectoral mobility (Herrera, 2010).  

This  report  investigates  policy  efforts  at  country  level.  By  analysing  relevant  policy 
instruments  and  their  evaluations,  the  report  aims  to  address  the  following  research 
questions: 

1.  Which  are  the  most  commonly  used  measures  to  support  intersectoral  mobility  in 

the Member States? 

2.  To what extent are the intersectoral mobility policy measures evaluated and how?  

What  is  the  evidence  of  the  impact  of  intersectoral  mobility  policy  instruments 

3. 
based on those evaluations?  

  And more specifically,  how is the  effect  of the policies measured  – what are the 

input, output/outcomes and impact indicators? 

9 

 
 
 
 
3  Quantitative  assessment  of  EU  countries  performance  in 

knowledge transfer and intersectoral mobility 

The  EU  Member  States  show  stark  differences  in  performance  on  a  number  of  widely 
adopted  knowledge  transfer  (KT)  indicators.  While  acknowledging  the  fact  that  a  mere 
quantification  of  KT  activities  may  lead  to  a  biased  assessment  of  a  KT  system's 
effectiveness,  this  section  provides  a  more  general  picture  of  the  EU  Member  States' 
performance in order to place the rest of the analysis into context.  This section is based 
on  a  series  of  indicators  which  are  described  in  more  detail  in  Annex  1.  This  Annex 
provides an overview of the Member States' performance on three additional indicators: 
innovative firms' cooperation patterns (CIS, Eurostat); publicly performed R&D financed 
by  the  business  sector  (Eurostat),  and  public-private  co-publications  (Scopus,  Scival). 
The  Annex  also  provides  some  methodological  background  for  the  figures  on  inter-
sectoral mobility presented in this section.  

When considering the share of companies reporting collaboration with universities 
or  public  research  organisations,  one  observes  that  there  is  no  clear  distribution 
between  the  countries  on  the  basis  of  overall  innovation  performance.  The  innovation 
leaders  and  innovation  followers  in  general  have  a  relatively  high  level  of  performance 
on  the  extent  to  which  companies  collaborate  with  academia.  A  notable  exception, 
however, is Germany where this type of collaboration is relatively low. Especially the UK, 
Belgium  and  Austria  show  relatively  high  levels  of  academia-business  interaction.  The 
moderate  and  modest  innovators  tend  to  score  lower  on  this  indicator,  but  there  are  a 
number of exceptions including Cyprus, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia, which 
score  higher  rates  than  some  of  the  leading  innovators.  Another  frequently  used 
indicator of knowledge transfer activities is the share of public R&D directly funded by 
the  business  enterprise  sector as a share of the gross domestic expenditure on R&D 
(GERD). Again the picture that emerges from the figures is mixed, but not in the same 
way as for the first indicator. While for Germany a small share of companies reported to 
depend  on  universities  or  PROs,  the  relative  volume  of  business  funding  to  these 
organisations is the highest in Europe4. Other differences include the relatively low share 
of  British  business  funding  of  public  R&D  and  the  very  high  score  of  such  funding  in 
Lithuania. The number of public-private  co-publications as share of the total number 
of  publications  by  contrast  provides  a  fairly  straight-forward  picture.  The  innovation 
leaders  and  innovation  followers  clearly  show  high  shares  whereas  the  moderate  and 
modest innovators score below the EU28 average. 

This  brief  description  of  the  relative  performance  across  the  EU  Member  States  on  KT 
indicators  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  KT  process  is  multifaceted  and  difficult  to 
capture  by  a  single  indicator.  Thus  it  is  important  to  consider  multiple  indicators  in 
combination,  but  due  to  the  big  variation  in  the  performance  of  the  EU  Member  States 
on  the  three  indicators  it  is  difficult  to  draw  clear  conclusions  on  the  relative  KT 
performance of the different countries.  

4 A  potential  explanation  for  this  observation  is  that  in  Germany,  the  Fraunhofer  institutes  stand 
out as a major contributor to translational research.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 1 Countries according to the number of researchers employed in industry as share of total employment 
(Eurostat, 2016) 

The  number  of  researchers  employed  in  industry  as  share  of  total  employment 
(Figure  1)  may  be  considered  as  an  indicator  of  past  intersectoral  mobility  and 
absorptive  capacity  of  the  firms 5  in  the  different  EU  Member  States.  It  is  also  an 
indicator  of  the  investment  of  governments  in  PhD  training.  If  the  number  of  PhD 
candidates funded exceeds the turnover of academic personnel, a surplus of researchers 
is  available  for  the  non-academic  labour  market.  One  observes  that  leading  innovators 
such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark have relatively high levels of full time equivalent 
(FTE) researchers employed in the business sector. This partially reflects the structure of 
their economy with a relatively high share of knowledge intensive sectors (such as high-
tech  manufacturing  or  financial  services).  Germany,  however,  rates  close  to  the  EU 
average.  

The  MORE  2 6  survey  of  doctorate  holders  currently  employed  in  the  Member  States 
universities  shows  that  the  mobility  of  doctorate  holders  to  industry  and  back  to 
academia7 is  particularly  high  in  Bulgaria,  Hungary,  Greece,  Cyprus  and  Poland  (Figure 
2).  This  suggests  that  these  countries  may  be  less  in  need  of  policy  instruments 
stimulating  temporary  intersectoral  mobility,  as  this  process  already  occurs  at  high 
levels.  Alternatively  it  may  be  due  to  the  relative  unattractiveness  of  industry 
employment  compared  to  academic  employment.  The  permanent  recruitment  of 
researchers by the business sector (see  Figure 1) remains at relatively low levels which 
may  also  impact  on  the  propensity  of  researchers  to  choose  university  employment. 
Therefore,  there  remains  a  rationale  in  these  countries  for  measures  supporting 
intersectoral  mobility.  Among  knowledge  intensive  economies  such  as  those  of 
Switzerland,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium,  the  levels  of  temporary 
intersectoral  mobility  (as  measured  by  MORE  2)  are  relatively  high.  In  some  countries, 
such  as  Italy,  Portugal,  Slovakia  and  Romania,  the  indicators  of  both  permanent  and 
temporary  mobility  from  the  public  to  the  private  sector  have  low  values.  This  is  also 
true for France concerning the indicators for temporary mobility derived from the MORE 

5 See also Annex 1 
6 ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/more2/Final%20report.pdf   
7 A limitation of the MORE  II study  is that the sample only covered doctorate holders working in 
universities. Respondents must thus have returned to academia when taking part in the survey.  

11 

 
 
 
 
                                           
II  study.  In terms  of the share of researchers  employed in industry, France scores well 
above  the  EU  average.  One  explanation  for  this  observation  is  that  the  Eurostat 
definition of researchers includes engineers8 and that in France (as well as in some other 
countries)  engineers  play  an  important  role  in  private  sector  research.9 Another  reason 
could  be  that  academia  is  relatively  closed  to  the  reintegration  of  researchers  with 
business experience10. 

Figure 2 Intersectoral mobility to private industry (per country) 

Data: MORE2 HEI survey (2012) 

Report: IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, HEI report (WP1). European Commission, DG Research and 
Innovation. 

The MORE 2 study focuses on researchers currently employed in academia and therefore 
gives  only  a  partial  view  of  the  intersectoral  mobility  of  researchers.  We  adopt  the 
measure "researchers employed in business" as an indicator11 of mobility from the public 
to the private sector as well as the absorptive capacity of private sector firms. In general 
the performance of countries on this indicator is in line with indicators like business R&D 
intensity and a number of the broader KT indicators presented in Annex 1.    

8  "Researchers  are  professionals  engaged  in  the  conception  or  creation  of  new  knowledge, 
products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned" 
(OECD Frascati Manual, 2002). 
9 https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/europe/france/2016/3/PhD-holders-play-
second-fiddle-to-engineers-in-French-industry.html  

10

http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/AcademicCareersbyC
ountry/France.aspx 

11  See  definition  for  "researchers"  above.  In  addition,  several  studies  acknowledge  that  the 
employment of university researchers is an effective way to transfer knowledge from  universities 
to firms (Zucker et al., 2002; Gübeli and Doloreux, 2005). See Annex 1 for more information 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
4  Methodological approach 

Evaluations  can  be  viewed  as  case  studies  of  the  impact  of  individual  R&I  policy 
interventions.  This  report  follows  Ebersberger  et  al.  (2006)  in  arguing  that  a  combined 
analysis  of  evaluations  can  provide  us  with  an  insight  beyond  specific  policy 
interventions. Through  the approach outlined in this section, the intention is to analyse 
the  impact  of  different  types  of  policy  initiatives.  The  combined  use  of  existing 
evaluations  to  come  to  a  more  grounded  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  types  of 
policy interventions knows a considerable history and is being used to inform R&I policy 
(Ebersberger et al, 2006; Edler et al, 2008; Gok and Edler, 2012), education policy (e.g. 
Scriven,  2009),  developmental  aid  (e.g.  Olsen  &  O'Reilly,  2011;  The  Copenhagen 
Consensus, 201612) and health policy (e.g. Greenalgh, 2004).   

The emergence of systematic evaluation has accompanied the development of R&I policy 
making  since  the  1980s  (Georghiou, 13 ).  A  first  step  in  the  analysis  of  R&I  policy 
evaluation  was  made  by  the  OECD  in  1997 14  in  order  to  compare  approaches  and 
identify  best  practices  in  R&I  policy  evaluation  (Papaconstantinou  and  Polt,  1997, 
followed  among  others  by  the  JRC  IPTS  in  Fahrenkrog  et  al,  2002).  Based  on  R&I 
evaluation  reports  collected  through  several  EU  funded  programmes  (INNO-appraisal 
(Edler  et  al,  2010)  followed  by  SIPER),  a  literature  is  emerging,  which  seeks  to  exploit 
existing evaluations to address questions regarding the nature and quality of evaluations 
of  R&I  policy  measures  carried  out  in  the  member  states,  the  nature  of  evaluations 
themselves  in  the  R&I  realm  (Edler  et  al,  2012;  Gok  and  Edler,  2012),  their  impact  on 
the  policy  making  process,  R&I  policy  performance  at  the  system  level  (Edler  et  al, 
2008;  Ebersberger  et  al,  2006)  and,  most  relevant  for  this  study,  to  gain  an  insight  in 
the  impact  of  specific  types  of  policies  beyond  the  singular  cases  to  which  individual 
evaluations are applied (Edler et al, 2008, Ebersberger et al, 2006).  

Evaluation  synthesis  is  best  understood  as  a  content  analysis  of  multiple  evaluation 
reports  on  similar  programmes  or  projects  in  the  field  of  evaluation  of  interest.  Such  a 
synthesis  is,  in  contrast  to  a  meta-analysis  in  which  the  data  from  a  larger  number  of 
evaluations are "re-analysed" to increase the number of cases, mainly based on the key 
messages from the evaluation reports and thus does not directly rely on the raw data on 
which  these  evaluations  are  based  (Bewyl  &  Associates,  2016;  Ebersberger  et  al, 
2006)15:  

Figure 3 provides a schematic overview of the research design and the approach taken. 

12 http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/bangladesh-priorities  
13 http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/1907894.pdf  
Papaconstantinou G, Polt W. 1997. ‘Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: An Overview’. 
in Proceedings from OECD Conference on Policy evaluation in innovation and Technology, Paris 26–
27 June 1997 < http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/1822393.pdf > accessed May 2016. 
15 http://eval-wiki.org/w_glossar/index.php?title=Kategorie:A_bis_Z&pagefrom=Meta-
Evaluation#mw-pages 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 3 Scheme of the methodological approach used for the purpose of the report 

A  first  phase  is  to  come  to  a  broad  and  comprehensive  overview  of  the  national  policy 
measures taken in the Member States (with the exception of Belgium where the research 
and  innovation  policy  is  devolved  to  regions)  to  promote  the  short  and  long  term 
intersectoral  mobility  of  academic  researchers  to  industry  (and  potentially  also  in  the 
other direction – from industry to academia). It should be noted that there is a wealth of 
policy  measures  implemented  on  a  regional  level,  by  individual  universities  and 
companies.  

The national policy measures in all Member States are identified and classified according 
to the type of interventions and beneficiaries.  

Countries are then grouped applying a two-step classification: 

1)  The  countries  are  grouped  into  two  groups  based  on  the  number  of 

intersectoral mobility measures. 

2)  Within  the  groups  identified,  the  countries  are  divided  into  two  groups  – 
above  and  below  EU-28  average  -based  on  the  number  of  researchers 
employed in industry as share of total employment 

The result is a matrix of 6 country groups.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
The national policy measures are identified on the basis of the following sources: 

  RIO Country Report series 2014 covering 28 Member States and 2015 series 
covering 28 Member States and five associated countries (Iceland, Israel, 
Norway, Switzerland, Turkey)16 

  The DG RTD commissioned Researchers' Report 201417 
  Complementary desk research 

The  second  phase  involved  more  in  depth  analysis  of  those  policy  instruments,  whose 
impact has been evaluated by the Member States. We collected data on the selection of 
policy  measures,  using  readily  available  evaluation  reports  of  intersectoral  mobility 
schemes.  The  main  source  of  the  evaluations  is  the  SIPER  database 18 ,  which  is 
complemented  by  desk  research  and  information  from  the  Research  &  Innovation 
Observatory  (RIO)  policy  repository 19 .  In  view  of  the  limited  search  outcomes,  the 
analysis also includes additional sources, such  as self-evaluations, progress reports and 
scientific articles, which evaluate more than one scheme. 

Although there have been important policy initiatives, evaluating their success is difficult, 
because there is little agreement as to what evaluation method is appropriate. Moreover, 
there  is  no  easy  way  to  measure  the  counter-factual  of  what  would  have  occurred  if 
these initiatives had not been implemented (Grimaldi et al., 2011). 

The evaluations used in this study vary considerably in their design, nature and the input 
and output variables they use. The report aims to both do justice to some of the breadth 
of  the  evaluations  covered  and  to  zoom  in  into  a  number  of  shared  elements.  Clearly, 
there are many challenges regarding the use of evaluation reports to assess the impact 
of  intersectoral  mobility  measures.  In  terms  of  coverage,  the  evaluations  are  very 
scarce:  only  a  limited  number  of  documents  have  been  identified.  Moreover,  the 
evaluations differ in approaches, scope, metrics used, etc. This makes it even harder to 
build  a  comprehensive  picture  for  benchmarking  and  comparison  across  countries.  This 
heterogeneity  also  limits  the  extent  to  which  the  data  sources  can  be  used  to  draw 
robust  conclusions  about  the  effect  of  the  respective  types  of  policy  instruments. 
Nevertheless, the evaluations represent a valuable source of information which allows us 
to grasp the complexity of the whole process.  

16 https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/country-analysis  
17 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/services/researchPolicies  
18 SIPER  (Science  and  Innovation  Policy  Evaluations  Repository)  database  is  a  central  source  of 
knowledge  on  research  and  innovation  policy  evaluations.  Its  aim  is  twofold:  to  provide  on-line 
access  to  a  unique  collection  of  policy  evaluation  reports,  located  at  a  single  location;  to  allow 
policy  learning  by  providing  an  informed  analysis  of  the  database  contents  in  a  way  that  is  both 
searchable for policy makers and other stakeholders and provides the basis for additional academic 
analysis. 
19 Research  and  Innovation  Observatory  (RIO)  is  an  initiative  of  the  European  Commission  to 
monitor  and  analyse  research  and  innovation  developments  at  country  and  EU  levels  to  support 
better 
here: 
https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/library  

documents 

Europe. 

making 

stored 

policy 

R&I 

are 

in 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                           
5  Analysis of intersectoral mobility policy measures 

The large scale mapping of the national policy measures (based on the sources described 
in the previous section quantifying the number of measures without in-depth analysis of 
their scale and amount of funding) in the Member States showed that the main types of 
policy interventions are focused on bringing skilled personnel to the business sector and 
only  sporadically  to  other  sectors  (non-profit  or  government).  We  have  not  identified 
specific national policy measures focused on bringing back researchers to academia20 but 
some measures do not specify the direction of the mobility and allow for both directions. 
The  mapping  does  not  include  policy  measures  targeting  mediating/intermediary 
structures such as Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) that may also support 
intersectoral  mobility  but  have  not  been  created  for  this  purpose.  We  have,  however, 
included  regulations  supporting  intersectoral  mobility  (see  annex),  but  as  such 
instruments are rarely evaluated, they were not taken into account in the analysis.  

The results of the policy measures mapping is as follows:  

Member States: 17 Member States have 3 types of policy measures; 8 Member 
States have 1-2 types; 2 Member States do not have any relevant measures;  

Associated  countries:  3  countries  have  each  3  measures,  1  country  has  only  1 
measure, and 1 country has no measures. 

Figure 4 Countries according to the number of researchers employed in industry as share of total employment 
(Eurostat, 2016) 

As discussed in the section on methodology, the countries are grouped according to the 
number of researchers employed in industry as share of total employment (see figure 4) 
and the number of policy measures related to the intersectoral mobility that are in place. 

20 At the EU level the MSCA programme does have an instrument with this objective.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 1 Country grouping based on the number of researchers employed in the business sector and range of 
intersectoral mobility measures 

Above EU-28 average level 
of  researchers  employed 
in the business sector 

Below EU-28 average level 
of  researchers  employed 
in the business sector 

AT,  BE,  DE,  DK,  FR,  IE,  NO, 
SE, 

BG,  HR,  EL,  ES,  HU,  IT,  LT, 
PL, PT, TR, UK 

FI, LU, NL, SI  

CH, CY, EE, MT,SK, RO , 

Countries  with  a  wide 
ISM 
range 
three 
measures  (all 
types) 

of 

Countries  with  limited 
ISM 
number 
measures (1-2) 

of 

Countries  with  no  ISM 
measures 

IS 

CZ, LV 

Countries with a wide range of measures 

One  observes  that  most  countries,  both  those  with  high  and  lower  levels  of  business 
employment  of  researchers,  have  implemented  a  broad  range  of  policy  instruments  to 
promote  intersectoral  mobility.  The  Netherlands,  Finland  and  Slovenia  have  not 
implemented  as  broad  an  array  of  measures  but  do  have  relatively  high  levels  of 
business employment of researchers. Two Member States (Czech Republic and Latvia) 
and  one  associated  country 21  (Iceland)  do  not  yet  have  any  measures  specifically 
targeting intersectoral mobility of researchers. Slovakia and Slovenia have  discontinued 
measures  aimed  at  intersectoral  mobility.  Slovakia  has  not  implemented  new  ones  and 
Slovenia  merged  the  measure  in  a  programme  funded  by  the  European  Social  Funds 
"Strengthening R&D departments in business enterprises (KROP)" . 

Cluster  1  –  Above  EU-28  average  level  of  researchers  employed  in  business 
sector and wide range of ISM measures 

  Austria  has  introduced  quite  a  variety  of  mobility  schemes  including  an  Industrial  PhD 
Programme,  Young  Experts  programme  targeted  at  PhD  students  and  PhD  holders  and  a 
specific programme targeting women researchers (FEMtech Career Paths). The country has 
introduced  also  two  measures  aimed  at  the  creation  of  spin-offs  (AplusB  -  Academia  plus 
Business and Phoenix Award). 

  Belgium, given its regional competences in the area of R&I, has a wide range of 
measures  such  as  PhDs  targeted  Baekeland  Mandates  in  Flanders,  Doctiris  in 
Brussels Capital, and PRODOC programme in Wallonia. Wallonia has also a FIRST 
Higher  Education  Institutes  measure  targeting  researcher  and  Flanders  support 
research  take  up  by  industry  through  R&D  tax  credits  and  Flanders  support 
research take up by industry through R&D tax credits and Beware Fellowships. All 
three  regions  support  spin-offs  creation  (Spin-off  Mandates  in  Flanders,  the 
Industrial  Research  Fund  for  universities  (in  Flanders),  Spin-off  in  Brussels,  and 
First spin-off in Wallonia). 

  Denmark  has  a  long  standing  tradition in  an  Industrial  PhD  programme  (since 

21 Israel,  for which we do not have data about the number of researchers, runs two programmes 
supporting  PhDs  –  MAGNET  and  Nofar.  The  National  Programme  supporting  the  Return  of  Israeli 
Academics also assists the Israeli industry to absorb qualified personnel. The Young Entrepreneurs 
scheme supports the creation of spin-offs. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                           
1994) and introduced also an Industrial Post-doc measure fairly recently (2011). 
Both programmes have been evaluated and the results are used subsequently in 
this study. 

  Germany  offers  a  number  of  measures,  including  Industrial  PhDs,  Fraunhofer 
Attract  Programme  aimed  at  researchers,  and  Fraunhofer  Institutes  Shared 
Professorship  programme.  The  spin-offs  are  supported  through  Helmholtz 
Enterprise,  High-tech  Start-up  Fund  (High-tech  Gründerfonds)  and  EXIST  - 
University-Based Business Start-Ups programme, which has been evaluated. 
  France  is  one  of  the  Member  States  with  a  long  lasting  PhD  intersectoral 
mobility programme (since 1981) - CIFRE fellowship. It also supports in a wider 
context  researchers  uptake  in  industry  through  the  research  tax  credit  (CIR). 
Finally  it  has  introduced  a  spin-off  policy  measure  -  JEU-JEI  and  PEPITE 
programme.  
Ireland  offers PhD students an IRC Employment-based Postgraduate Programme 
and seasoned researchers can choose between many programmes, including SFI 
Industry  Fellowship  Programme,  the  loan  of  qualified  personnel  (for  SMEs), 
Enterprise  Partnership  Scheme,  Elevate  SFI  Short-term  Industry  Visiting 
Fellowship. Enterprise Ireland New Frontiers Programme supports the creation of 
spin-offs.  

 

  Norway  runs  since  2008  an  Industrial  PhD  scheme  and  evaluated  it in  2012.  In 
2016 the country has introduced a new pilot scheme for support to students and 
PhDs who want to engage in entrepreneurship.  

  Sweden  runs  two  schemes  targeted  at  PhDs  -  Company  graduate  schools 
(Företagsforskarskolor)  and  Industrial  PhD  project  (Industridoktorand  projekt  - 
ID-projekt). Four different schemes were put in place to facilitate the uptake of 
researchers  by  the  private  sector  (Development  of  the  Knowledge  Triangle; 
Mobility for Growth; VINNMER; FLEXIT) 

Cluster  2  –  Above  EU-28  average  level  of  researchers  employed  in  business 
sector and limited number of ISM measures 

  Finland  supports  researchers'  mobility  on  national  level  through  Academy 

Project funding. 

  Luxembourg  offers  Public-Private  Partnerships  under  the  AFR  (Aides  à  la 

Formation-Recherche) for PhD researchers.  

  The  Netherlands  supports  the  uptake  of  researchers  in  business  through  the 

Kenniswerkers programme. 

  Slovenia supported PhD students through the scheme Young researchers in the 
business  sector  (closed  in  2010)  and  PhD  holders  through  the  Call  for 
(KROP), 
strengthening 
Interdisciplinary teams in the business sector and Mobility grants for researchers 
from  public  sector  to  enter  business  enterprises.  None  of  those  schemes  are 
available in the current programming.  

departments 

enterprises 

business 

R&D 

in 

18 

 
 
 
 
Cluster  3  –  Below  EU-28  average  level  of  researchers  employed  in  business 
sector and wide range of ISM measures 

  Bulgaria  has so far introduced two measures aimed at PhD students  - Stipends 
for doctoral students preparing their theses in a national company and Industrial 
PhDs. It finances also the spin-off creation through the Tehnostart programme - 
Encouraging the innovation activity of young people in Bulgaria.  

  Croatia,  within  its  Operational  Programme  Human  Resources  Development, 
supports  PhD  students'  mobility,  and  has  introduced  a  specific  intersectoral 
policy  measure  Young  Researchers'  Career  Development  Project  –  Training  of 
Doctoral Students. It has also specific measures for PhD graduates - NEWFELPRO 
and spin-off creation (PoC PUBLIC). 

  Greece  has  used  the  structural  funds  (2007-2013)  to  support  enterprises  in 
recruiting  high-level  scientific  personnel  and  to  encourage  spin-off  creation 
through the Creation programme. 

  Hungarian  researchers  can  use  the  industry  sponsored  PhD  programmes,  as 
well  as  Kozma  László  and  5LET/IDEA  support  researchers  mobility  to  industry. 
New Hungary Venture Capital Programme supports the creation of spin-offs. 
  Italy  has  introduced  a  national  measure  PhD  ITalents  and  high  level 
apprenticeship  contracts  are  offered  by  regions.  The  uptake  of  researchers  in 
business is also supported by a tax credit for hiring 'highly-qualified' personnel.  

  Lithuania  has  just  introduced  the  PhD  doctorates  scheme  (2015).  A  previous 
scheme,  State  Support  for  Employment  of  skilled  personnel  in  companies,  has 
attracted  only  a  few  companies  and  researchers  (17  researchers  and  4 
companies).  The  country  is  running  also  a  couple  of  schemes  targeting  spin-offs 
(Technostart, INOVEKS, and Joint initiatives since 2016). 

  Poland  offers a scheme for PhD students allowing them to engage in internships 
in business (SKILLS  Impuls). It has  also introduced a pilot scheme  of  short term 
placements  KadTech  but  there  has  been  little  interest  in  it  (only  two  companies 
granted support). Nevertheless, the regions run a similar, albeit more successful, 
TEKLA  programme  that  allows  for  both  directions  of  mobility  (from  and  to 
academia). Recently, Poland has introduced also a set of measures aimed at spin-
offs, including BRIdge Alfa. 

  Portugal runs since 2008 a doctoral degree grants in enterprises BDE scheme. It 
also  supports  PhD  holders  through  a  similar  measure  (Mobility  grants  between 
R&D institutions and enterprises or other entities - BMOB (bolsa de Mobilidade)).  

  Spain  runs  schemes  for  both  PhD  students  -  Industrial  PhDs  (PECTI),  and 
experienced  researchers  -  Torres  Quevedo  programme.  It  also  supports  spin-offs 
through EMPLEA and NEOTEC schemes. 

  The  UK  runs  schemes  supporting  PhD  students  (Industrial  CASE,  Knowledge 
Transfer  Partnerships  (KTP),  Doctoral  Training  Centres).  It  also  supports  PhD 
holders  to  gain  experience  in  industry  through  Support  to  Secondments: 
Knowledge  Transfer  Secondments,  Knowledge  Transfer  Networks  and  dedicated 
industry  fellowships  (e.g.  Royal  Society).    The  UK  has  long  lasting  intersectoral 
mobility measures, which are frequently evaluated.  

  Turkey  runs  an  Industrial  Thesis  Supporting  Programme  (SAN-TEZ).  The 
Technology  Development  Zones  (TDZs)  programme  provides  specific  tax 
incentives to spin-offs. 

19 

 
 
 
Cluster 4 – Below EU-28 average level of researchers employed in the business 
sector and limited number of ISM measures 

  Cyprus  has  supported  young  researchers  through  the  PENEK  programme  and 
placements  of  students  in  industry  through  the  network  of  Industry  Liaison 
Offices.  

  Estonia supports  PhD  mobility through DoRA  programme (currently DoRa  Plus) 
and  researchers'  mobility  through  the  Competence  Centres.  The  SPINNO 
programme supports the creation of spin-offs. 

  Malta supports the researchers' uptake in business through the Loan of Qualified 

Experts and restricts its support to SMEs only. 

  Romania  has  used  structural  funds  to  support  Mobility  projects  for  PhDs  and 
secondments to SMEs. In the current programming period, Romania plans to run 
a Competence centres scheme which will also support PhDs uptake in industry. 
  Swiss  CTI Entrepreneurship (formerly Venturelab) provides courses and training 
for academics in entrepreneurship and the Swiss university system is very active 
in promoting and launching start-up initiatives. 

Cluster  5  –  Above  EU-28  average  level  of  researchers  employed  in  business 
sector and no ISM measures 

  Iceland 

Cluster  6  –  Below  EU-28  average  level  of  researchers  employed  in  business 
sector and no ISM measures:  

  Czech Republic 
  Latvia 

As  we  can  see  from  the  country  grouping  presented  above,  the  share  of  researchers 
employed in business is not correlated with the number of measures in place in a given 
country.  

The EU-13 countries in general have deployed the measures quite recently and on a pilot 
basis.  It  would  be  interesting  to  explore  why  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  have  decided  to 
discontinue the measures. 

The  mapping  of  policy  measures  shows  that  there  are  three  main  types  of  mobile 
personnel supported through the policy measures – recent graduates of higher education 
institutions, PhD students, and researchers (most often already holding a PhD title).  

As far as the policy interventions are concerned, one can distinguish between: 

  graduates supported by offers of  subsidised placements and  tax credits covering 

their salaries; 

  PhD  students'  mobility  supported  through  internships,  entrepreneurship  skills 

 

 

from 

training and industrial PhD programmes; 
researchers 
placements, 
benefiting 
entrepreneurship trainings and tax credits that alleviate the costs of companies in 
recruiting highly skilled personnel; 
fellowships,  industrial  chairs  and  dual  path  career  regulations  supporting  the 
industry  researchers'  mobility  to  academia  (those  measures  are  rarely 

short-time 

academia 

from 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 

implemented on the national level, they are rather introduced by universities in a 
partnership with industry); 
specific subset of measures that support the stemming of new knowledge-based 
firms from research organisations, the so called spin-offs. The latter is a channel 
for the mobility of university/PROs staff to the private sector as well.  

Figure  5  provides  a  schematic  representation  of  the  types  of  policy  instruments  EU 
Member States have adopted with the aim to increase knowledge transfer through short 
and long term intersectoral mobility of public sector researchers to the private sector.   

Figure 5 Intersectoral mobility measures by type of personnel and policy intervention 

The majority of the Member States have introduced at least one measure focused on the 
support of the uptake of researchers in industry and most EU-13 countries that have not 
done it yet are planning such measures in the current programming period financed from 
the structural funds (e.g., the Czech Republic).  

The mapping shows that the most often implemented types of policy interventions are: 

  Funding and regulatory support for Industrial PhDs and industrial traineeships; 
  Post-doctoral  researchers  placements  (Industrial  Post-Docs  and  other  similar 

measures) stimulating the uptake of PhDs by private sector firms/SMEs;  

  Support measures for creating spin-offs. 

For those types of measures available evaluations have been identified. The subsequent 
chapter presents an analysis of their outcomes. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 Summary table of intersectoral mobility policy measures 

22 

 
 
 
 
6  Analysis  of  the  impact  of  intersectoral  mobility  measures 

based on evidence from the evaluations 

In  this  section  we  examine  the  demonstrated  outputs,  outcomes  and  socio-economic 
impact  of  the  policy  measures  targeting  intersectoral  mobility.  To  do  so,  we  went 
through a thorough search for available evaluations and a selection process.  

We focus on three main sources to assess the impact of the policy instruments:  

  external evaluations;  
 
 

self-reported assessments (progress reports, internal evaluations);  
scientific literature analysing specific intersectoral mobility policies.  

The  retrieved  documents  were  studied  for  1)  evidence  on  the  impact  of  selected  policy 
measures,  2)  methodologies  used  for  the  evaluations,  and  3)  lessons  learnt  when 
implementing the measures. 

The  evaluations  of  intersectoral  mobility  schemes  that  we  were  able  to  identify  (given 
the language restriction our search was based mostly but not entirely on English, French 
and  German  language  sources)  proved  to  be  rather  scarce.  In  total,  we  have  found  19 
evaluations covering nine countries (eight EU Member States and Canada) for the three 
aforementioned types of measures.  

Table 3. Evaluations of intersectoral mobility measures 

Industrial PhD 
programmes 

Post-doctoral 
researchers placements 

Support measures for 
creating spin-offs 

9  evaluation  reports  and 
surveys  and  two  research 
articles 

6 evaluation reports  

evaluations 

3 
scientific articles. 

and 

3 

(Industrial 

CASE 
UK 
Denmark 
scheme), 
(Industrial 
PhD 
programme), France (CIFRE 
Slovenia 
fellowships), 
(Young 
from 
the  business  sector)  and 
(Industrial  PhD 
Sweden 
projects). 

researchers 

the 

recherche), 

Austria 
(FEMtech  Career 
Paths), France (Crédit impôt 
de 
Poland 
(TEKLA+),  Sweden  (Flexit). 
These  were  benchmarked 
with 
Canadian 
experience  (Industrial  R&D 
the 
Fellowships) 
design  of  this  measure  was 
similar, 
evaluation 
appeared  to  be  of  good 
quality  and  was  publicly 
available. 

since 

the 

Austria  (AplusB  –  Academia 
plus  Business),  Germany 
(EXIST  –  University-based 
and 
business 
Belgium (FIRST Spin-off) 

start-ups) 

19 evaluations for 9 countries 

Evaluation of the impact of supporting policies 

a.  Industrial PhDs and industrial traineeships: Innovative Doctorate Training 

Policy  measures  promoting  the  linkages  between  business  and  academia  through  PhD 
candidates'  traineeships  in  the  private  sector  are  among  the  most  wide  spread  ISM 
measures  in  the  EU28  Member  States  and  the  associated  countries.  They  usually  take 
the  form  of  an  "Industrial  PhD"  or  other  type  of  related  training/apprenticeship 
programme  for  doctoral  candidates  in  the  business  sector  (i.e.,  "Young  researchers" 
programmes). One of the main features of the industrial PhD schemes is that they span 

23 

 
 
 
two cultures: the students are placed in a company while at the same time they pursue 
doctoral studies at a university.  

Country  Type of the scheme 

Title of the evaluation 

Denmark 

Industrial 
Programme 

PhD 

France 

CIFRE fellowships 

Slovenia*  Young  researchers 
the  business 

in 
sector 

The  Industrial  PhD  -  an  effective  tool  for  innovation 
and  knowledge  sharing  (Summary  of  analyses  and 
studies), 200722 

Analysis of the Industrial PhD Programme, 201123 

Les doctorants CIFRE : médiateurs entre laboratoires 
de  recherche  universitaires  et  entreprises  (Article), 
200524 

Enquête  sur  le  devenir  professionnel  des  docteurs 
ayant  bénéficié  du  dispositif  Cifre  l’année  2000 
(Survey), 201225 

Effectiveness  of  the  actions  of  the  Ministry  of  Higher 
Education,  Science  and  Technology  to  promote 
innovation  and 
technological  development  of 
Slovenian companies in the years 2005-2007, 201026 

ERAC  Policy  Mix  Peer  Reviews:  Country  Report 
Slovenia, 201027 

Sweden 

Industrial 
projects 

PhD 

Planning Industrial PhD projects in practice: speaking 
both 'academia' and 'practitionese' (Article), 201128 

United 
Kingdom 

Industrial CASE 

Knowledge 
Transfer 
Partnerships  

Evaluation  of  Biotechnology  and  Biological  Sciences 
Research  Council  (BBSRC)  Industrial  CASE  scheme, 
2012  &  2013 29 ;  Natural  Environment  Research 
Council (NERC) CASE Studentship Review30 

Knowledge  Transfer  Partnerships  (KTP)  Strategic 
Review, 201031 

*The  scheme  was  discontinued  as  a  separate  measure.  It  was  merged  into  a  EUSF  funded  programme 
"Strengthening R&D departments in business enterprises (KROP)" 

22 http://ufm.dk/en/publications/2007/the-industrialphd-an-effective-tool-for-innovation-and-
knowledge-sharing  
23 http://innovationsfonden.dk/sites/default/files/analysis_of_the_industrial_phd_programme.pdf  
24 Levy Rachel. Les doctorants CIFRE : médiateurs entre laboratoires de recherche universitaires et 
entreprises. In: Revue d'économie industrielle, vol. 111, 3e trimestre 2005. pp. 79-96.  
25 http://www.anrt.asso.fr/fr/espace_cifre/pdf/Enquete-devenir-professionnel-docteurs-Cifre.pdf  
26 The document is available in Slovenian: 
http://www.arhiv.mvzt.gov.si/fileadmin/mvzt.gov.si/pageuploads/MSZS/GradivoSZT/2._seja/POR
OCILO_CRP_Ucinki_ukrepov_za_Direktorata_za_tehnologijo_MVZT.pdf  
27

http://www.arhiv.mvzt.gov.si/fileadmin/mvzt.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf/znanost/ang_verzija/Sloveni
a_OMC_Report-FINAL_dec.pdf  
28 DS  68-8:  Proceedings  of  the  18th  International  Conference  on  Engineering  Design  (ICED  11), 
Impacting  Society  through  Engineering  Design,  Vol.  8:  Design  Education,  Lyngby/Copenhagen, 
Denmark, 15.-19.08.2011  
29http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/1306-ind-case-evaluation-report-pdf/; 
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/icase-evaluation-conclusions-pdf/  
30 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/focused/industrial-case/case-review/  
31 http://www.techuk-e.net/Portals/0/Content/ValleyofDeath/KTP%20Strategic%20Review.pdf  

24 

 
 
 
                                           
 
In  most  of  the  countries  where  evaluations  of  Industrial  PhD  programmes  were  found, 
the  measures  are  well-established  and  embedded  in  the  policy  mix.  For  example,  UK's 
Industrial  CASE  scheme  was  introduced  in  1994,  in  France  the  scheme  dates  back  to 
1981 and in Denmark to 1970.  

In general, the evaluations prove that the schemes are beneficial to all parties involved. 
The reports focus on different outputs and impacts of measures depending on the design 
of the measures. Most of the evaluations focus on the impact on the career [prospects] 
of the participants and their labour market situation, the benefits for the companies and 
the  economy.  Some  evaluations  focus  on  the  formal  and  informal  interaction  between 
the  parties  involved,  such  as  networking  and  further  mobility  of  staff  (at  the  post-doc 
level).  

The  following  paragraphs  explore  the  impact  of  the  programmes  reported  in  the 
evaluations,  distinguishing  between  the  impact  on  individuals  (PhD  candidates),  private 
companies and public research organisations and on the R&I system as a whole. Possible 
drawbacks  and  incentives  to  participate  in  intersectoral  mobility  schemes  as  well  as 
recommendations for improvement of the policies were also examined. 

Quality of training  

In  most  cases,  the  evaluations  survey  the  quality  of  the  training  provided  by  both 
industry  and  universities.  While  the  "bi-cultural"  aspect  of  the  programmes  is  generally 
praised by all, the perceptions of the training received vary. In some cases, the training 
provided by academia is better appreciated compared to that provided by industry (UK's 
CASE) and in other cases (e.g., Danish  Industrial PhD Programme) participants tend to 
favour the industrial training. 

The  UK's  CASE  survey 32  reports  that  similar  proportions  of  both  the  students  and 
academic supervisors rated the quality of training as good or very good in all categories 
but  one  (i.e.,  commercial  and  entrepreneurial  awareness).  The  quality  of  training 
provided by industry partners was more variable than that provided by academia, which 
in general was rated more positively by participants. In addition, the evaluation raises a 
potential  concern,  i.e.  that  industry  placements  (or  other  types  of  interactions)  are  not 
recognised as training by some students33. 

Denmark – the industrial PhD Programme34 

The Industrial PhD Programme was conceived already in 1970 as a 2-year course and in 
1989  –  redesigned  as  it  is  now  to  a  3-year  doctoral  programme.  The  aims  of  the 
programme  are:  increasing  the  number  of  PhDs,  intensifying  knowledge  circulation 
between academia and business, promoting research with commercial perspectives, and 
taking advantage of competences and research facilities in the industry.  

The  Danish  industrial  PhD  programme  has  been  evaluated  regularly.  High  levels  of 
satisfaction  are  observed  among  all  the  participants  –  candidates,  universities  and 
industrial  partners.  More  PhD  students  are  satisfied  with  the  collaboration  with 
enterprises  (92.5%  are  extremely  or  somewhat  satisfied)  than  with  the  university 
supervisor (86.4%). 

All  evaluations  studied  draw  the  general  conclusion  that  the  industrial  doctoral 
programmes  have  provided  the  participants  with  the  opportunity  to  tap  into  knowledge 
and specific expertise from industry and provided hands-on training. 

32 Evaluation of BBSRC’s Industrial CASE scheme, June 2013 – pp.17-20 
33 Potential drivers, barriers and recommendations are examined to a certain extent at the end of 
the section 
34 http://innovationsfonden.dk/en/application/erhvervsphd  

25 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Impact on individual careers and labour market 

New  recruits,  trained  by  the  industry,  are  more  likely  to  fit  the  needs  of  the  firm  if 
recruited  by  the  same  employer.  On  the  other  side,  researchers  and  PhDs  come  with 
their knowledge and represent highly skilled and qualified personnel. This contributes to 
increasing the firms' absorptive capacity. Indeed, the evaluation reports provide data on 
the  general  employment  situation  of  the  PhD  students,  the  sector  in  which  they  are 
employed, and compare their salaries to those of the PhD students that have not taken 
part  in  the  scheme.  Some  of  the  reports  analyse  also  the  wider  impact  on  the  job 
market. 

UK  –  Industrial  Collaborative  Awards  in  Science  and  Engineering  (CASE) 
scheme35 

UK's  Industrial  CASE  scheme  was  introduced  in  1994.  The  measure  is  opened  to  and 
used  by  several  UK  Research  Councils. 36  In  this  report  we  examine  the  BBSRC's 
Industrial  CASE.  The  research  students  spend  part  of  their  time  with  the  partner 
company  (between  3  and  18  months).  Placements  in  industry  are  mainly  in  health 
research related companies, which makes the comparison with other countries/schemes, 
covering broader fields, complicated.  

"The  [UK's]  Industrial  CASE  scheme  [is  considered  to  have]  delivered  highly  skilled 
workers". Also, "the  scheme has  enabled industry to influence student training and this 
has  helped  ensure  that  the  training  meets  the  needs  of  industry  and  the  wider  UK 
economy."37 Only 4% of the industrial CASE students are not employed (which does not 
differ  from  the  average  unemployment  of  PhD  holders  in  the  UK).  Interestingly,  the 
majority  of  the  students  obtained  a  post  within  the  higher  education  sector  and  only  a 
quarter  of them in industry and  commerce. Still, the share of  students being employed 
by the industry is higher than for any other BBSRC scheme (see section on mobility and 
networking below). 

The  outcomes  of  the  Danish  Industrial  PhD  programme  reveal  similar  level  of 
employment among participants as in the UK Industrial CASE. Yet, a much larger share 
of beneficiaries than in the UK (ca. 80%) work subsequently in the private sector. What 
is more, the "Industrial PhDs earn approx. 7-10 percent higher wages than both regular 
PhDs and comparable university graduates". The  study  reports that 335 new jobs have 
been created as a result of the 50 Industrial PhD projects38 included in the evaluation. 

UK - Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP)39 

In  the  Knowledge  Transfer  Partnerships  (KTP)  a  "KBI  [Knowledge  Based  Institution] 
promotes knowledge transfer between KBIs and businesses, by  placing  a  graduate  or 
higher  level  associate  in  a  business  to  undertake  a  specific  research  project. 
KTP  focuses  on  businesses  needs,  increasing  their  capacity  to  innovate  and  their 
competitiveness, thereby creating  economic and wider social benefits. KTP also enables 

35 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/skills/investing-doctoral-training/case-studentships/  
36  e.g.  Medical  Research  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Research  Council,  the  National 
Engineering Research Council and the Science and Technology Facilities Council 
37 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/1306-ind-case-evaluation-report-pdf/  
38 The  public  sector  invested  ca.  DKK  70  million  and  the  private  DKK  170  million  in  2006  for 
approximately 90 Industrial PhD projects (The Industrial PhD - An effective tool for innovation and 
knowledge sharing). 
39 http://ktp.innovateuk.org/  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
KBIs  to  find  practical  applications  for  the  knowledge  they  create,  therefore  contributing 
to their capacity to carry out research and to teach."40 

The  evaluation  of  the  UK's  KTP  scheme  reports  that  between  5,550  and  6,010  net 
additional jobs were created by partnerships supported between 2001/02 and 2007/08. 
On  average,  each  KTP  partnership  has  created  (or  is  expected  to  create)  three  jobs 
excluding that of the associate. 

The evaluation of the French Cifre fellowships scheme focuses mainly on the professional 
future of the individual participants41. 

France  -  CIFRE  (Conventions  Industrielles  de  Formations  par  la  Recherche) 
fellowships42 

The CIFRE scheme dates back to 1981. The programme duration is similar to the one in 
Denmark  –  3  years.  The  measure  is  financed  by  the  Ministry  for  Higher  Education  and 
Research and is managed by the National Association for Research and Technology. 

The  CIFRE  fellowships  scheme  reports  that  around  90%  of  the  successful  participants 
find  a  job  within  six  months.  What  is  interesting  is  that  46%  of  the  respondents  are 
employed  thanks  to  the  scheme  directly  in  either  the  participating  company  (35%)  or 
the  university  lab  (11%).  Around  2/3  of  the  CIFRE  participants  are  employed  in  the 
private  sector  and  around  25%  in  HEIs.  39%  of  the  respondents  confirm  that  their 
doctorate allowed them to make "significant jumps" (usually associated with an increase 
of  salary)  in  their  professional  path.  The  salary  levels  of  both  groups  are  comparable 
with the ones of engineers – a profession receiving high wages in France and sought by 
the private companies43. 

Slovenia - Young researchers from the business sector 

This measure was considered a build-up on the young researchers programme with the 
idea to provide PhD students with the opportunity to acquire practical experience. It was 
discontinued as a stand-alone policy initiative.  The measure  was  evaluated as part  of a 
bigger scope exercise assessing the schemes of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science 
and Technology, covering the period 2005-2007. The report is based on a survey among 
the different participants. 

As a result of the training, almost 69 % of respondents remained employed in the same 
organisations  in  which  they  have  been  trained.  Further  to  that,  for  50%  of  the 
participants  this  was  their  first  job.  There  is  a  specific  aspect  of  the  scheme  which 
tackles  the  "brain-drain"  issue  and  the  report  concludes  that  almost  all the  participants 
remained in Slovenia. 

40

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140827133341/http:/www.innovateuk.org/_assets/p
df/corporate-publications/ktp%20strategic%20review%20feb%202010.pdf  
41 The report used is based on surveys of two cohorts of participants from 2000-2005 and 2006-
2011 and whenever it was deemed suitable, a comparison was made between those groups 
42 http://www.anrt.asso.fr/fr/espace_cifre/accueil.jsp#.Vzscu0bIaPw  
43 It  has  to  be  noted  this  is  a  topic  for  discussion  in  France  and  the  industrial  PhD  scheme  is 
reported to perform better than the regular ones in terms of labour market insertion.  

More  at:  https://www.ccomptes.fr/Accueil/Publications/Publications/L-insertion-professionnelle-
des-jeunes-docteurs (Report of the Court of auditors on the professional prospects of PhD holders) 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
In  fact,  in  some  cases  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish  between  different  types  of  PhD 
schemes  in  a  certain  country.  For  example,  compared  to  the  level  of  unemployment 
among PhD holders in general, the data reported do not differ from the official statistics 
(Eurostat) – UK: 4% in 2009, 4.3% in 2011 and 3.9% in 2013; Denmark: 3.7% in 2009, 
5.2% in 2011 and 4.6% in 2013 (levels 5-8 ISCED 2011).  

However,  all  the  evaluations  suggest  that  the industrial  PhD  programmes  have  positive 
effect  on  employment  through  the  new  positions  opened,  lowering  the  levels  of 
unemployment of the PhD graduates and shortening the periods between graduation and 
first job.  

Among  the  notable  achievements  of  this  type  of  measures  are  better  job  prospects  in 
terms of wages and faster career paths. What is more, some of the measures report the 
additional job creation effect. 

We  can  therefore  conclude  that  the  industrial  PhD  programmes  have  a  potentially 
positive impact on beneficiaries' career prospects and their employment. 

Companies' growth, additional funding and commercialisation 

The  industrial  PhD  programmes  do  not  only  target  students  but  also  aim  at 
strengthening  the  links  between  business  and  academia.  Usually,  identifying  standard 
financial/economic  impacts  of  "soft"  measures  is  not  an  easy  task.  However,  the 
evaluations  report  positive  impacts  on  a  series  of  outputs  such  as  larger  number  of 
patents,  increased  exports  and  annual  sales,  bigger  market  shares.  Some  panels  (e.g., 
UK's KTP) go  even further in their findings and consider the  return  of investment to be 
very positive, value added and turnover grow faster for participating companies than the 
average firm in the economy as a whole. 

Although  based  on  limited  data,  the  UK's  industrial  CASE  scheme  is  reported  to  have 
triggered  additional  funding  from  the  private  sector  partner  to  academics:  "…36%  and 
41%  of  current  and  former  academic  supervisors,  respectively,  reported  that  they  had 
obtained  further  funding  from  their  CASE  partner." 44  Another  notable  achievement, 
though  limited  in  scope,  is  the  commercialisation  of  research  performed.  As  the  report 
points out, "[a] small number of Industrial CASE studentships resulted in new intellectual 
property  or  the  commercialisation  of  research  findings.  However,  this  was  not  common 
and it is important for BBSRC to manage industry partners’ expectations in this area."45 

In  addition,  the  evaluation  of  the  UK  KTP  reports  that  partnerships  supported  between 
2001/02  and  2007/08  have  created  between  £4.2  and  £4.6  billion  new  sales  for 
company partners and between £1.6 and £1.7 billion gross value added (GVA).  "Return 
on investment is positive […] at £4.70 - £5.20  net additional GVA per  £1  public money 
invested by sponsors". The largest average GVA impact and best return on investment is 
generated by partnerships with a medium sized company partner.  

Interestingly,  the  panel  evaluating  the  Danish  Industrial  PhD  programme  distinguishes 
between expectations and real outcomes. The section on economic effects is very telling: 
between  36  and  48  percent  of  the  enterprises  expect  a  larger  number  of  patents, 
increased  market  shares,  annual  sales  or  exports.  In  comparison,  after  the  end  of  the 
project, only 26.7 percent state that the project has led to/will lead to attainment of one 
or more patents. This discrepancy "may be due to the fact that the Industrial PhDs look 
at  whether  their  project  resulted  in  a  patent  from  a  narrower  perspective,  while  the 
enterprise  looks  at  this  from  a  broader  perspective  in  relation  to  the  knowledge  it  has 
contributed to the enterprise"46. The large majority of the enterprises report increase in 
theoretical and practical knowledge. University supervisors acknowledge the progress in 
theoretical  and  practical  skills;  development  of  business-relevant  knowledge  at  the 

44 http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/1306-ind-case-evaluation-report-pdf/  
45 Ibid 
46 http://ufm.dk/en/publications/2007/filer-2007/the-industrial-phd-programme-2007.pdf  

28 

 
 
                                           
universities through an Industrial PhD project; and insight into the research needs of the 
business world. "A very rough estimate shows an increased turnover of DKK 640 million, 
an increase in exports of DKK 150-200 million […]”47. 

Evaluators of the Slovenian "Young researchers from the business sector" scheme have 
found  that  companies  which  have  benefited  from  the  measure  in  comparison  with  the 
overall development of the economy as a whole enjoy 10 percent higher annual average 
growth  rate  of  value  added,  25  percent  higher  profit  growth  rate;  2  percent  higher 
growth rate of net turnover.  

Industrial PhD projects in Sweden48 

The  Swedish  scheme  is  a  longstanding  policy  initiative,  but  no  evaluations  have  been 
identified. The purpose of this measure is to promote knowledge flows between 
Swedish  universities  and  the  private  sector  by  supporting  doctoral  projects  in 
industry and commerce.  

The  analysis  of  the  Swedish  industrial  PhD  projects  is  based  on  a  research  article 
examining three individual cases. Due to the limited coverage of this article one cannot 
draw general conclusions on the impact of this scheme. Nevertheless, the article reports 
that  the  industrial  PhD programme  participants  acquire  and  transfer  specific  knowledge 
from one type of organisation to another.  

It is clear that the assessments of the impact are very positive as regards to additional 
funding  for  universities  and  increased  growth  and  sales  of  companies.  In  addition,  the 
evaluations  report  on  the  enterprises  increasing  their  theoretical  and  practical 
knowledge, academia developing a better perception of business-relevant knowledge  at 
the universities and insight into the research needs of the business world.  

Impact on mobility and networking 

The  evaluations  report  that  the  programmes  also  have  longer  term  impacts  on  the 
intersectoral mobility of their beneficiaries. The mobility experience acquired during the 
PhD thesis enables the participants to create a network of contacts and the students can 
serve  as  intermediaries  between  public  and  private  entities.  Developing  a  professional 
network  in  industry  and  academia  is  reported  as  an  important  impact  and  prime 
motivation  for  participating  in  these  schemes  in  the  evaluations  of  CASE  scheme,  the 
Danish Industrial PhD programme and the Cifre programme. The latter evaluation tracks 
mobility  patterns  following  defence  of  the  PhD  thesis  and  finds  that,  save  from  those 
employed  in  large  firms,  (intersectoral)  job  mobility  remains  high,  especially  that  from 
the private sector to academia.   

The  CASE  evaluation  report  finds  the  broadening  of  the  professional  network  as  one  of 
the  main  drivers  for  PhD  students  to  participate.  Also  the  majority  of  the  Cifre 
participants  (64%)  reported  acquiring  networking  skills.  In  relation  to  their  current 
employment,  the  beneficiaries  confirmed  the  importance  of  the  networking  as  a  useful 
competence (75%). 

The  Danish  Industrial  PhD  programme  contributes  to  promoting  collaboration  and 
creating  networks  between  universities  and  enterprises.  In  addition,  Danish  industry 
reports  it  enjoys  broader  contacts  with  partners  and  universities  from  abroad,  which 

47 Ibid 
48

http://www.vr.se/inenglish/researchfunding/applyforgrants/callforproposals/closedgrants/industry
phdproject.5.4b1cd22413cb479b8054185.html  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
could  lead  eventually  to  the  internationalisation  of  their  activities.  Academics  also 
confirm the measure helped in strengthening their business contacts. 

The majority of the Cifre doctorates are employed in the private sector and 46% of them 
have remained in the company or the university lab that participated in the programme. 
Another 1/4 of the doctorate PhDs not directly engaged by any of the Cifre partners are 
recruited by another employer within three months and another 45% within six months. 
By  linking  these  two  indicators  –  time  to  get  a  job  and  change  in  the  workplace,  the 
evaluators  conclude  that  the  measure  had  a  high  mobility  potential.  According  to  the 
evaluation report, after eight years the number of Cifre PhDs employed in big enterprises 
has remained almost unchanged, while it has decreased in SMEs. The number of former 
Cifre participants working in HEIs  or PROs increases  over time, indicating mobility from 
the  private  to  the  public  sector.  The  Cifre  schemes  note  only  a  modest  impact  on 
international mobility, 85% of the total participants work in France.  

To  sum  up,  the  policy  measures  had  positive  impact  on  mobility  and  networking 
activities among participants.  

Drivers, barriers and recommendations 

The  evaluations  of  the  British  and  Slovenian  schemes  point  to  the  relatively  heavy 
workload  in  industry,  which  is  difficult  to  balance  with  academia  expectations 
(publications  of  articles  and  thesis  preparation).  The  UK  KTP  evaluation  points  that 
academics  are  less  likely  to  get  involved  if  the  participation  in  the  programme  will  not 
contribute  to  Research  Assessment  Exercise  ratings 49.  The  CASE  evaluation  reports  a 
need  to  balance  business  side  expectations  towards  the  desired  outcomes,  since  the 
primary  focus  is  student  training.  The  potential  financial  and  at  times  heavy 
administrative  burden  can  be  a  disincentive  for  (especially  smaller)  companies  to 
participate in the respective schemes.  In Slovenia and France the  evaluations point out 
the relative lack of awareness  of the needs  of  the company  on the part of beneficiaries 
and  their  supervisors,  whereas  the  evaluations  of  the  Danish  and  Swedish  schemes 
stress that it is important for the companies to be aware of the objectives of the scheme 
and  to  engage  in  advanced  preparation.  Previous  contacts  between  academia  and 
industrial partners are therefore important. 

Conclusions 

In  terms  of  the  impact  on  career  perspectives  and  employment  the  industrial  PhD 
programmes  are  reported  to  represent  good  "value  for  money"  initiatives.  A  note  of 
caution: the outcomes of these evaluations may not be specific to this type of measures, 
but could apply also to regular PhD programmes for which no benchmark is provided. 

Participating  candidates  acquire  new  skills,  practical  experience  and 
improved 
qualifications, thus increasing their chances  on the labour  market but  also representing 
highly  qualified  personnel,  which  contributes  to  increasing  the  firms'  "absorptive 
capacity".  Several  evaluations  report  a  positive  impact  on  a  series  of  outputs  such  as 
larger number of patents, increased exports and annual sales, bigger market shares and 
additional R&D funding from the industry.  

The potential in relation to the level of mobility that these measures create is significant: 
since  the  primary  goal  for  this  type  of  policy  measures  is  to  ensure  an  industry 
placement  of  PhD  students  while  pursuing  their  doctoral  studies  in  a  university, 
intersectoral mobility represents a natural outcome  of  such schemes.  Some  evaluations 
also report longer term impacts on mobility.  

49 At  the  time  of  the  KTP  evaluation,  the  REFs  predecessor  the  Research  Assessment  Exercise 
(RAE)  was  in  place.  The  RAE  (now  REF)  is  a  process  undertaken  on  behalf  of  four  UK  higher 
education  funding  bodies  which  assesses  the  quality  of  UK  research  and  informs  the  selective 
distribution of institutional research funding (Jonkers & Zacharewicz, 2016). 

30 

 
 
                                           
Moving  back  and  forth  between  the  public  and  private  sector,  the  researchers  create  a 
network  of  contacts  and  serve  themselves  as  intermediates  between  public  and  private 
entities.  

Well-designed PhD projects, previous knowledge of the partner and the development of 
a  research  strategy  by  the  firm  are  prerequisites  for  success  of  the  policy  measures. 
Other  elements  that  should  be  taken  into  consideration  are  linked  to  IP  regulation, 
workload and managing the expectations of the parties involved. 

b.  Building on Industrial PhDs - Industrial Postdocs 

The programmes supporting the uptake of researchers in industry are different in nature 
compared  to  the  measures  analysed  in  the  preceding  section.  In  general  they  are 
designed to reduce the risk and costs involved in hiring a doctorate holder in a company. 

We  can  distinguish  among:  funding  for  temporary  employment  of  experts  or  post-doc 
researchers (e.g., loans of qualified personnel from academia) with a time span ranging 
from  3  months  to  3  years;  programmes  addressing  specific  gaps  in  employment  in 
industry,  e.g,.  female  employment  in  industry  or  the  humanities,  and  employment  of 
social science researchers via different means (typically financing 1-3 years placements). 

Additionally, we analyse the French R&D tax credits covering researchers' salaries, which 
help the companies to absorb the qualified workforce and, in this way,  have an indirect 
effect on the intersectoral mobility. 

Country 

Type of the scheme 

Title of the evaluation 

Austria 

Female 
placements 
industry 

students 
in 

FEMtech  evaluation  (part  on  Career  Paths) 
2011 

Poland 

Short  placements  of 
academics/business 
researchers 
SMEs 

from 

Tekla  +  - 
Evaluation report 2015 (regional scheme)50 

the  capital  of  placements. 

Sweden 

postdoctoral 

Flexit programme progress report 201351 

SSH 
researchers 
placements 
industry 

in 

France 

R&D tax credits 

Développement  et  impact  du  crédit  d’impôt 
recherche : 1983-2011 (Evaluation, 2014)52 

Canada 

Industrial  fellowships 
for 
PhD 
recent 
graduates 

Evaluation  of  NSERC’s 
Fellowships (IRDF)53 

Industrial  R&D 

50 http://docplayer.pl/10749085-Vi-edycja-tekla-plus-stolica-stazy.html 
51 http://www.rj.se/globalassets/engelska-sidan/progress-reports/flexit-progress-report.pdf 
52 http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/144000685.pdf 
53 http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Evaluations/IRDFReport2013_e.pdf 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Building on results of Industrial PhDs - Industrial Fellowships 

The evaluation of the Canadian scheme – Industrial R&D Fellowships (IRDF) –shows that 
nearly  all  IRDF  recipients  were  working  full-time  after  the  period  of  the  fellowship  and 
the  vast  majority  of  them  identified  research  and  development  as  their  primary  work 
activity.  Almost  half  of  the  recipients  were  subsequently  offered  a  job  in  the  hosting 
organization. 

Canada  -  Industrial  R&D  Fellowships  -  Natural  Sciences  and  Engineering 
Research Council of Canada 

The  Industrial  R&D  Fellowships  were  established  in  1980  to  provide  financial 
contributions  that  support  the  most  promising  recent  doctoral  graduates  to  engage  in 
research  and  development  in  the  private  sector  and  with  not  for-profit  and  non-
governmental  organizations.  By  minimizing  the  cost  for  companies  to  hire  a  talented 
PhD  graduate  for  a  two-year  period,  these  fellowships  promote  the  development  of 
industrial  research  capacity  (especially  in  small-  and  medium-sized  companies). 
Furthermore,  the  IRDF  allows  companies  to  consider  a  fellow  for  potential  long-term 
employment  with  reduced  risk.  The  programme  was  discontinued  in  2014  as  the 
support was taken over by MITACS54 - the single delivery agent of federal support for 
postdoctoral industrial R&D fellowships. 

Short placements – building awareness and trust 

In  Poland  several  projects  funded  from  the  regional  structural  funds  facilitated  the 
temporary  employment  of  scientists  by  companies,  with  the  largest  example  being 
TEKLA+.  In  the  period  2013-2015  this  scheme  had  supported  altogether  115  science-
industry collaborations through six months placement of researchers in SMEs and SMEs 
researchers  in  academia  (2013-2015).  The  qualitative  evaluation  showes  the  general 
high satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the scheme (both companies and researchers) 
but  does  not  provide  any  data  on  the  impact  of  the  scheme  on  companies' 
competitiveness  and  innovativeness.  The  programme  was  seen  as  one  of  the  means  to 
raise awareness in industry of the potential of academia-industry cooperation as well as 
to  build  trust  among  the  actors.  The  short  six-month  time  spent  on  exchange  indeed 
does not presume yielding significant tangible results such as preparing and co-authoring 
a  scientific  publication  or  a  patent.  At  least  the  evaluation  does  not  report  on 
quantitative outcomes. 

POLAND – REGIONAL STRUCTURAL FUNDS – TEKLA+ 

Short  six-month  placement  of  business  researchers  in  academia  and  academic 
researchers  in  industry  (SMEs).  In  2013-2015,  the  programme  financed  115 
placements in Mazovia.  TEKLA+ was financed from the regional structural funds. 

Addressing specific gaps in employment of researchers - pilot programmes 

54  MITACS  stands  for  Mathematics  of  Information  Technology  and  Complex  Systems.  It  is  a 
national,  not-for-profit  organization  that  has  designed  and  delivered  research  and  training 
programs in Canada 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Austria  - FEMtech Career Paths - the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, 
Innovation and Technology 

FEMtech is a programme of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and 
Technology  (Bundesministerium  für  Verkehr,  Innovation  und  Technologie  –  BMVIT) 
initiated in 2004 to promote women and to secure equal opportunities in research and 
technology.  FEMtech  Career  Paths  aims  at  improving  the  career  opportunities  for 
(potential)  entrants  in  companies  and  organisations  of  industrial  and  non-university 
research.  The  intention  is  to  boost  the  attractiveness  of  technical  and  science  related 
professions for women in order to increase the total number of highly qualified women. 

Sweden – FLEXIT - Riksbankens Jubileumsfond 

Set  up  in  2009  by  Riksbankens  Jubileumsfond  (RJ),  Flexit  is  a  pilot  postdoctoral 
programme  that  seeks  to  improve  contacts  between  higher  education  institutions 
(HEIs) and the business sector on a trial basis. It targets humanities and social science 
postdoctoral  researchers  and  offers  placements  up  to  three  years  in  the  business 
sector.  These  placements  are  composed  of  75%  research  and  25%  service  in  a 
company with the fund financing the research-related salary costs and other expenses.  

The  examples  of  highly  specific  programmes  (FEMtech  and  Flexit)  are  very  difficult  to 
evaluate - they are small and the effects of the interventions are therefore also limited. 
As  the  FEMtech  evaluation  shows,  the  programmes  demand  considerable  efforts  with 
unknown  impact  on  the  actual  career  paths  of  the  targeted  group.  Besides,  several 
approaches  and  methods  are  applied  at  the  same  time  –  industrial  PhD  and  Master 
thesis,  coaching,  mentoring,  training  and  awareness  raising.  In  total  the  measure  has 
reached  140  female  students  with  the  average  support  of  €15.000.  Those  programmes 
are also characterised by low interest from industry and the push comes rather from the 
higher education side that secures the funding and identifies companies interested in the 
placements rather than the other way round.  

Failure cases 

The analysis of the Member States schemes  shows that in some countries the schemes 
were  introduced  but  shortly  afterwards  closed  due  to  the  lack  of  interest  from  industry 
(e.g. Poland, Lithuania and Sweden).This does not mean that the schemes do not work 
as such, but probably they demand a different design to attract companies. For example, 
the  Polish  KadTech  programme,  co-funding  salaries  of  scientists  temporarily  employed 
by  business  enterprises  and  delegated  by  public  research  organisations  or  higher 
education institutes to  carry  out R&D projects, was not popular among applicants: only 
two  companies  were  awarded  the  support,  and  the  programme  was  soon  discontinued. 
One of the explanations might be the hidden costs for the company. 

The  evaluation  of  the  Swedish  Flexit  programme 55 ,  where  the  company  provides  a 
mentor  for  the  researcher,  shows  that  the  business  side  had  to  cover  additional  costs 
from the time spent  on writing an application form to the time when the senior  staff is 
allocated to the mentorship. The sometimes unclear expectations from the project or the 
difficulties  in  motivating  the  researchers  are  additional  factors  that  drew  back  industry 
from more active participation in the Flexit programme.  

Another way of supporting intersectoral mobility – the French case study 

55 Swedish  Research  Council  abandoned  the  scheme  due  to  lack  of  interest  in  2014.  More  at: 
http://vr.se/franvetenskapsradet/nyheter/nyhetsarkiv/nyheter2013/nyheter2013/ingennyutlysning
avindustridoktorandprojekt.5.7e727b6e141e9ed702b15e5.html  

33 

 
 
 
 
                                           
The  evaluations  of  the  French  tax  credit  (CIR)  shows  that  49%  of  R&D  costs,  which 
qualified for the tax credit in France, are researchers' salaries, while only 12% qualified 
as  external  research.  The  tax  credit  is  therefore  one  of  the  main  policy  instruments  to 
support the absorption of a qualified work force in French industry56.  

France - CREDIT IMPOT RECHERCHE   

The  French  tax  credit  regime  was  implemented  in  1983  but  revamped  in  2008  to 
become  entirely  volume  based.  France’s  research  tax  credit  covers  30%  of  all  R&D 
expenses up to €100 million, and 5% above this threshold. Salaries for research staff 
are  wholly  integrated,  plus  50%  of  R&D  operating  costs  and  75%  of  investments  in 
R&D operations. 

The  evaluation  of  the  French  R&D  scheme  shows  that  the  combination  of  schemes  (in 
this case the Industrial Doctorate - CIFRE with the tax credit) has the highest potential. 
The tax credit can be used to complement the funding of the industrial PhD or to employ 
the CIFRE recipient after his/her thesis is finalised. That means that those measures are 
complementary. 

In  France  the  policy  mix  is  designed  to  support  the  highly  qualified  business  R&D 
workforce and therefore there are little restrictions on combining the direct and indirect 
funding support. The evaluation report explores the possible synergies between the R&D 
tax  credit  and  even  goes  further  in  giving  concrete  examples  on  how  to  cumulate 
different financing sources.57 

Conclusions 

 

In all long term placements the recipients are directly employed in the company 
and only the research-related part from the salaty of the employee is reimbursed. 
This creates a stronger relation between the researcher and the company. 

  Short  placements  may  increase  awareness  of  companies  of  knowledge  and 
technology  transfer  activities  and  build  trust  between  the  actors  based  on 
personal  relationships  but  the  evaluations  do  not  point  to  significant  tangible 
results such as increased patenting activities or co-publications (see also Edler et 
al. (2011) 

  Longer post-doctoral placements create a personal relation with the company and 
often result in the prolonged collaboration of the sectors and/or in the offer  of a 
permanent employment in the host company. 

  Programmes targeting specific groups (e.g. women, SSH researchers) are mostly 
pilots  (for  now)  and  too  limited  in  scope  to  yield  sufficient  impact  and  thus 
difficult to measure. 

  Main barriers include the lack of awareness of industry, unclear expectations from 
the  programmes  for  the  business,  high  administrative  burden  linked  to  the 
application  as  well  as  additional  costs  for  the  hosting  company  (financial 
participation but also human resources devoted to mentoring). 

  Combination between different instruments could create synergies and this is an 

avenue worth exploring in order to achieve a systemic change. 

56 According to the conditions necessary to receive the CIR, salaries are indeed accounted as R&D 
expenses 
box: 
http://www.impots.gouv.fr/portal/deploiement/p1/fichedescriptive_6914/fichedescriptive_6914.pd
f 
57 Développement et impact du crédit d’impôt recherche: 1983-2011 (p. 60) 

following 

(see 

doc, 

p.6 

the 

the 

in 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
c.  Academic entrepreneurship and spin-offs 

A special case of intersectoral mobility is the creation of spin-offs by academic staff that 
exploit research outcomes. It is difficult to confine this new business creation to a strict 
definition,  as  spin-offs  vary  depending  on  the  origin  and  the  objectives  of  the 
entrepreneurs,  their  relations  with  the  public  sector  research,  as  well  as  on  the  firms' 
output (Mustar 2002). According to Mustar et al. (2006), one of the streams of literature  
takes a resource-based perspective to spin-offs. Within that perspective, the category of 
human resources directly relates to the issue of intersectoral mobility as it refers to the 
attributes of the personnel of the company. Usually, human resources are measured as 
size  of  the  founding  team,  background  of  the  founders,  professional  management 
experience, and organisational size (Mustar et al. 2006). 

A commonly accepted justification for the  support  of spin-offs is "that economic growth 
depends  strongly  on  the  development  of  technology  transfer  between  public  research 
and  industry,  especially  through  the  creation  of  new  knowledge-based  firms"  (Mustar 
2002). In addition to that the creation of companies can improve the image of the public 
research  organisations  and  can  increase  their  possibilities  to  attract  skilled  young 
researchers. (Mustar 2002)  

According  to  Clarysse  et  al.  (2007),  during  the  1990s  many  universities  in  Europe  had 
financing  difficulties  and  were  seeking  additional  sources  of  income.  Policy  makers  also 
considered universities to be a part of the innovation process and introduced changes in 
the  legislation  as  well  as  policy  measures  for  supporting  young  companies.  The  policy 
instruments aim at  increasing the number of academic spin-offs, enhancing their quality 
and their likelihood to succeed.  

Mustar  (2002)  defines  six  main  groups  of  public  policies  that  support  spin-offs  from 
higher  education  and  research  organisations:  researchers'  status,  intellectual  property, 
training  in  entrepreneurship,  competitions,  incubators  and  seed  capital.  The  policy 
measures  related  to  the  researchers'  status  are  especially  relevant  to  the  intersectoral 
mobility issue. A policy framework has to be in place in a given country, which allows the 
academic  staff  to  participate  in  the  creation  and  development  of  private  enterprises. 
Training  programmes  on  entrepreneurship  are  a  wide-spread  instrument  for  enhancing 
the mobility of researchers between the scientific and the industrial sector.    

Although policies supporting the creation of spin-offs are in place in the member states, 
we could find just a small number of evaluations of those measures. 

Austria – AplusB (Academia plus Business)58 

Launched  in  2002,  the  AplusB  programme  supports  innovative,  technology-oriented 
spin-offs from the academic sector in Austria. The programme funds the so-called AplusB 
centres that provide professional support for  scientists in the process  of turning a good 
idea into a viable business. The centres were initiated by the Austrian Federal Minister of 
Transport,  Innovation  and  Technology  (bmvit),  and  the  Austrian  Research  Promotion 
Agency (FFG).  

The programme AplusB is evaluated in Tangemann et al (2010). In the report, all AplusB 
supported start-ups from July 2002 to December 2009 are analysed on the basis of 1943 
questionnaires.  The  analysis  covers  the  pre-incubation,  incubation  and  early  stage 
phases of the companies development.  

According  to  the  report,  the  AplusB  objective  of  ensuring  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
academic spin-offs has been achieved.  It is also indicated that the likelihood of success 
was increased and the reported survival rate is 96% for the covered period. At the time 

58https://www.ffg.at/en/aplusb-academia-plus-business 

35 

 
 
 
                                           
when the evaluation was performed, the average age of the newly created firms was 2.5 
years.  The  total  number  of  the  created  jobs  was  1323  (full  time  equivalents),  72  %  of 
which were held by staff having university degrees. The firms were relatively small: one 
quarter of them had six and more employees, and only 10% - more than 11 employees. 
As for the average annual growth rates, two thirds of the newly created firms grow, 13% 
annually  double  the  number  of  their  employees.  29%  of  the  firms  stagnate  and  5% 
reduce the number of employees. The maximum average annual growth rate  with 95% 
is  observed  in  the  first  business  year.  It  decreases  to  31%  in  the  second,  28%  in  the 
third,  and  to  13  %  in  the  fourth  business  year.  The  distribution  of  the  average  annual 
growth  rate of turnover  is as follows:  86%  of the firms have  a positive average annual 
growth rate, 13% have zero growth, and 11% have a negative growth rate. Companies 
that  increase  their  turnover  do  not  necessarily  increase  the  number  of  employees. 
AplusB  start-ups  are  characterized  by  a  high  degree  of  knowledge  input  and  higher 
growth  rates  compared  to  newly  created  companies  in  R&D  intensive  sectors  in  Austria 
in general (Egeln et al., 2007 in Tangeman, 2010). 

The  biggest  barrier  to  the  companies  is  funding  in  the  early  stage  as  venture  capital is 
limited.  Public  funding  is  very  important  for  the  majority  of  the  new  companies 
(Tangeman, 2010). 

Germany - EXIST (University-based business start-ups)59 

Launched  in  December  1997,  EXIST  is  a  support  programme  of  the  German  Federal 
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi). The key objectives of the programme 
are  to  establish  a  culture  of  entrepreneurship  in  university  teaching,  research  and 
management for the long term; consistently translate the findings of academic research 
into  economic  value;  significantly  increase  the  number  of  innovative  business  start-ups 
and create secure new jobs in the process.  

The  long  lasting  EXIST  programme  has  undergone  a  number  of  changes  in  its 
development.  At  the  beginning  the  programme  supported  exclusively  institutions  and 
only  indirectly  supported  individuals  and  companies.  In  March  2000,  a  funding  line  for 
individuals was introduced in the form of "EXIST-SEED" (a broad approach, replaced by 
the EXIST "Business Start-up Grant" programme in 2007) and another such scheme was 
introduced in May 2007 in the form of the "EXIST Transfer of Research" programme (an 
approach based on excellence). (Kulicke, 2014)  

The EXIST programme currently consists of three funding lines, which form its core: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

EXIST  Culture  of  Entrepreneurship  supports  universities  in  formulating  and 
implementing  a  comprehensive  and  sustained  university-wide  strategy  for 
increasing entrepreneurial culture and spirit. 

EXIST Business Start-up Grants supports students, graduates and scientists in 
preparing innovative technology and knowledge based start-up projects. 

EXIST Transfer of Research funds both the resource development necessary to 
prove  the  technical  feasibility  of  start-up  ideas  based  on  research  and  the 
preparation necessary to launch a business. 

The  development  of  the  EXIST  funding  programme  between  1998  and  2013  has  been 
evaluated  in  several  reports:  Kulicke  (2006),  Becker  et  al.  (2011),  Kulicke  and  Kripp 
(2013), Kulicke (2014).  

59http://www.exist.de/EN/Home/home_node.html 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                           
During  the  long  lasting  development  of  the  programme,  there  have  been  a  lot  of 
initiatives  with  different  priorities,  funding  models  and  incentives  schemes.  Some 
quantitative data excerpted from the evaluation reports can give a notion of the impact 
of the EXIST programme. 

The  initial  programme  period  1998-2005  is  assessed  in  Kulicke  (2006),  which  is  a 
predominantly qualitative evaluation. The report stresses the pioneering character of the 
EXIST programme that managed to introduce the concept of academic start-ups into the 
university  culture.  Much  of  the  programme  at  this  early  stage  was  focused  on  creating 
the right framework conditions for academic entrepreneurship. Its main focus was not to 
financially  support  researchers  in  their  individual  start-up  projects.  However,  EXIST-
SEED  (the  predecessor  to  the  EXIST  line  of  funding  evaluated  in  Kulicke  and  Kripp 
(2013)), which does directly financially supports spin-offs, already existed.  

Initially, there were just five EXIST model-initiatives. EXIST SEED funding was available 
from  2000.  In  2002,  the  scope  of  the  whole  EXIST  programme  was  extended  to  ten 
additional  transfer  initiatives.  EXIST-SEED  funding  for  the  transfer  initiatives  was 
available  from  2004.  In  2005  EXIST-SEED  funding  became  available  nationwide. 
(Kulicke, 2006) 

Until 2004, the total number of spin-offs in the model-initiatives was 1031, i.e., 40% of 
all  "supervised"  (not  necessarily  funded)  initiatives.  By  2005,  the  total  number  of  spin-
offs in transfer-initiatives  was 926, i.e., 26%  of all "supervised" initiatives.  At least 10-
16% of the supported spin-offs failed. The size of the spin-offs created within the model-
initiatives  is  limited.  In  2004,  3-4  employees  were  recruited  on  average  in  addition  to 
the  founders.  The  total  number  of  employees  in  the  supported  companies  was 
approximately 3000. In 2005, within the model-initiatives, no additional employees were 
hired.  The  total  number  of  employees  in  the  newly  created  firms  was  approximately 
1100.  As  for  the  gender  balance  of  the  applicants  for  the  grants,  88%  of  the  total 
number of applicants were male, and 12 % female. (Kulicke, 2006) 

Overall,  the  evaluation  sees  the  early  EXIST  programme  as  a  success  in  so  far  as 
awareness  raising  and  creation  of  framework  conditions  are  concerned.  As  regards  the 
actual creation of spin-offs, it is more critical, namely:  

"The number of start-ups that served explicitly the transfer of scientific research results 
into  economic  value  added  remained  significantly  below  expectations.  Start-ups  in  the 
context  of  EXIST  did  result  in  a  person-bound  transfer  of   technology,  but  only  in  few 
cases  in  the  form  and  intensity  as  it  is  intended  by  Key  Objective  2  (Consistent 
translation  of  scientific  research  results  into  economic  value).  The  planned  realignment 
of EXIST should therefore - as recommended by Kienbaum ( 2005) – put a higher weight 
on measures, which are explicitly tailored to the target group of the academic staff and 
cover  the  whole  process  from  the  development  of  business  ideas  to  the  exploitation  of 
scientific research results." (Kulicke, 2006) 

The study carried out in 2011 (Becker et al., 2011) considers the line of funding Transfer 
of  Research  (Forschungstransfer  -  EFT  in  addition  to  Business  Start-up  Grant 
(Gründerstipendium  -EGS).  The  difference  between  the  two  lines  of  funding  is  that  the 
former  is  exclusively  focused  on  excellent,  complex  and  high  risk  spin-off  projects, 
whereas  the  latter  is  more  general.  Within  the  Gründerstipendium,  at  the  time  of  the 
survey, 60.3% of the funded projects resulted in a spin-off that still existed, 31% were 
still considering to  set  up a spin-off, 5% definitely gave up, and 4%  founded a  spin-off 
that  failed.  Within  the  Forschungstransfer,  at  the  time  of  the  survey,  54.2%  of  the 
funded  projects  resulted  in  a  spin-off  that  still  existed,  43%  were  still  considering  to 
establish a spin-off, and 2% definitely gave up. 

The survival rate of the spin-offs after two years is as follows: within Gründerstipendium, 
the  survey,  and  within 
90%  out  of 
Forschungstransfer,  100%  out  of  the  9  spin-offs  that  responded  to  the  survey.  (Becker 
et al., 2011) 

the  78  spin-offs 

responded 

that 

to 

37 

 
 
As  far  as  the  patent  creation  is  concerned,  32.9%  of  the  spin-offs  registered  patents 
within the Gründerstipendium, and 43.3% within the Forschungstransfer. (Becker et al., 
2011) 

In terms of employment, 40.5% of the spin-offs hired employees (4.9 persons hired on 
average)  within  the  Gründerstipendium,  and  46.7%  (2.8  persons  on  average)  –  within 
the Forschungstransfer. (Becker et al., 2011) 

Further  funding  was  received  as  follows:  within  Gründerstipendium,  17.7%  of  the  spin-
offs  secured  additional  private  funding  (on  average  700  000  €)  and  32.9%  applied  for 
further  public  funding;  within  Forschungstransfer,  23.3%  secured  additional  private 
funding (on average 440 000 €) and 43.3% applied for further public funding. (Becker et 
al., 2011) 

The  evaluation  carried  out  in  2013  (Kulicke  and  Kripp,  2013)  reports  that  752  spin-off 
projects  received  funding  between  2007  and  2011.  The  results  of  the  projects  are  as 
follows: 

 

 
 

realisation  rate  (i.e.,  after  one  year 
realised/founded and became commercially active):  78%; 
failure rate (no spin-off was founded): 16% 
survival rate (i.e., the spin-off was still existing and commercially active in 2013): 
65%  of  the  funded  projects,  while  out  of  the  actually  realised  spin-offs  85% 
survived. (Kulicke and Kripp, 2013). 

funding  period  the  spin-off  was 

In  2013,  the  average  of  the  employees  in  the  spin-offs  was  6.5  (median  of  2).  The 
estimated  total  number  of  employees  in  2013  for  all  still  existing  spin-offs  out  of  the 
founded  752  is  3000.  In  2012,  the  turnover  of  the  spin-offs  was  between  10  and  50 
million  euro  for  the  top  1%,  and  over  0.5  million  euro  for  85%.  In  2013  the  R&D 
intensity of the spin-offs was quite high: 54% of the spin-offs invested more than 20% 
of  their  turnover  in  R&D.  The  most  important  modes  of  financing  were  own  financial 
resources  for  60%  of  the  firms,  realised  profits  for  65%,  public  funding  for  52%  and 
equity  financing  for  29%.  Within  the  equity  financing,  business  angels  or  other  private 
persons were the most important sources for 72% of the firms. 

Belgium  -  FIRST  Spin-off  ("Formation  et  Impulsion  à  la  Recherche  Scientifique  et 
Technologique" (Training and Promotion of Scientific and Technological Research) 

Launched  in  1999,  the  FIRST  Spin-off  programme  supports  projects  aiming  at  the 
development  of  a  new  product,  process  or  service,  and  the  undertaking  of  a  technical-
market feasibility study for the  exploitation of the results and a business plan over five 
years with the general view of launching a spin-off in the Walloon Region. The projects 
must be achievable in two years with a possible extension of one year.  

Table  4  below  provides  the  number  of  grants  awarded,  as  well  as  the  budget  (in 
thousands of euros) allocated per year within the FIRST Spin-off programme.   

Table 4. Number of grants awarded and budget (in thousands of euros) allocated within FIRST Spin-off 

Year 

2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013 

Number of grants 

15 

17 

13 

17 

12 

12 

10 

13 

13 

Budget 

3386  5240  4191  5888  3880  4476  3187  3018  3046 
Source: Evaluation de la politique scientifique de la Wallonie et de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles 2012-2013, 
Conseil Wallon de la politique scientifique (CPS)60 

60 http://www.cesw.be/index.php?mact=publications,cntnt01,default,0&cntnt01what=publication&c
ntnt01alias=Rapport-du-CPS&cntnt01returnid=57&a=view  

38 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Between 1999 and 2012, 182 grants have been awarded out  of 292  applications under 
FIRST  Spin-off. 61 According  to  the  evaluation  of  the  Conseil  economique  et  social  de 
Wallonie (CESW) of the scientific policy of the region 2010-2011, more than 50 spin-offs 
have been created over this period.62  

According  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Walloon  Science  Policy  Council  on  the  public 
support awarded to spin-offs in Wallonia (2011)63, the following factors may explain why 
this rate is not higher: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The researcher does not always have the required entrepreneurial and managerial 
skills. 

The prospects of economic exploitation of the research results is sometimes taken 
into account too late. 

The  negotiation  with  the  parent  institution  to  award  the  project  owner  a  license 
for  the  exclusive  and  free  use  of  research  results  during  the  first  years  of  the 
spin-off also appears too late in some cases. 

Some  adjustments  have  been  implemented  to  the  scheme,  which  aim  at    ensuring  the 
quality of the supported projects and fostering the economic exploitation of the research 
results: 

(1) 

(2) 

The  funding  is  dependent  on  the  prior  identification  of  the  prospects  of  the 
potential economic exploitation of the research results via a spin-off; 

The funding is extended by one year and gives the possibility to hire a "business 
developer" responsible for the economic exploitation of the research results.64 

Conclusions 

The policy instruments related to spin-offs are focused on increasing the entrepreneurial 
potential of research organisations through training and professional support to scientists 
in the exploitation of research results. Support is extended mainly to the pre-incubation, 
incubation and the early development phase of the business venture in order to raise the 
likelihood  of  success.  Most  businesses  stemming  from  public  sector  research  remain 
small.   

The policy measures have had the following impact: 

  establishing  a  culture  of  entrepreneurship  in  university  teaching,  research  and 

management; 

  developing  the  potential  for  business  ideas  at  universities  and  research 

institutions in a targeted manner; 

  promoting the translation of research findings into economic value; 
 

increasing the number of innovative business enterprises and creating new jobs, 
although in general the spin-offs remain small. 

The  policy  measures  targeting  academic  entrepreneurship  are  an  important  component 
of the innovation systems.   

61  Source:  DG  Growth,  Regional  Innovation  Monitor,  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/regional-innovation-monitor/support-measure/first-spin 
62 Ibid 
63 Ibid 
64 Ibid 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evaluation methods 

Table  5  summarises  the  methodologies  used  in  all  the  evaluations  analysed  in  this 
report. Only 3 evaluations out of 13 used a control group to control for the effects of the 
interventions, including one case where the results were not robust enough to allow for 
comparison.  None  of  those  control  groups  were  used  for  a  full-fledged  counterfactual 
analysis but they do still give some perspective on the additionality of the outputs of the 
policy measure. 

Most  of  the  evaluations  use  a  triangulation  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods, 
mainly  surveys,  programme  monitoring  data  and  interviews  with  beneficiaries,  project 
managers and other stakeholders.  

Only  rarely,  the  evaluations  analysed  were  conducted  with  a  sufficient  time  lag  to  be 
able  to  study  also  the  longer  term  outputs  and  impacts.  Most  of  the  measures  were 
evaluated  just  after  the  end  of  the  treatment  and  therefore  could  only  capture  the 
immediate outcomes of the measure and often concentrated on beneficiaries satisfaction 
and perceived future changes of behaviour as declared by participants. 

The  Industrial  PhD  programme  in  Denmark,  the  CIFRE  fellowships  in  France,  Industrial 
CASE in the UK, Aplus B in Austria and the EXIST programme in Germany can be used 
as  good  practice  examples,  given  the  frequency  of  evaluations  and  the  relative 
sophistication  of  the  evaluation  methods  used.  We  should  however  mention  that  those 
programmes  have  been  in  place  for  many  years  and  therefore  allowed  for  a  more 
systematic approach to their evaluation, whereas in many countries the programmes are 
relatively new. Yet, the examples above provide a good opportunity for policy learning. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5. Evaluation methods used in the evaluations analysed in the study 

Evaluation 

Survey 

Programme 
monitoring 
data 

X 

X 

Industrial 
PhD 
Programme 
DK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CIFRE 
fellowships 
FR 

Young 
researchers 
in 
business 
sector SI 

the 

Industrial 
PhD  projects 
SE 

Industrial 
CASE UK 

X 

X 

Interviews  Focus 

Case studies  Control 

groups 

group 

Other 
methods 

Timeline 

on 

Based 
previous 
evaluation 
data 

Policy  measure  runs  since 
1970  (with  revamps  based 
on evaluations) 

X  

Comparison 
between 
employment 
rates 
beneficiaries 
and  other  PhD 
holders 

of 

2000-2001 cohort 

x 

41 

Expert  Panel 
of 
review 
data 

timeline 

Different 
for 
different  data  but  core 
data related to 2004-2010. 
Evaluation  carried  out  in 
2012 with data gathered in 
2011. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 

Survey 

Programme 
monitoring 
data 

Interviews  Focus 

Case studies  Control 

groups 

group 

Other 
methods 

Timeline 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Knowledge 
Transfer 
Partnerships 
UK 

Industrial 
fellowships 
for 
PhD 
graduates 
CA 

recent 

x 

x 

x 

Femtech 
Career  Paths 
AT  (part  of 
larger 
evaluation  of 
Femtech 
programme) 

SE 

x 

FLEXIT 
(Progress 
report) 

Tekla + PL 

x 

AplusB AT 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x  

Low  response 
rate 
from 
unfunded 
applicants  
(data 
used) 

not 

Assessment  of  immediate 
and  intermediate  impact, 
analysis 
2000-2011 
programmes run in 2012.  

of 

Assessment  of  medium-
term  effects  and  impact  – 
2-3  years  since  the  set-up 
of the policy measure. 

Outreach 
analysis 

Self-
assessment 
(implementa
tion body) 

Assessment  of  progress  – 
4  years  since  the  setup  of 
the policy measure  

Assessment  of  short  term 
effects – maximum a  year 
after  the  placement  took 
place 

X 
(questionnaire) 

Use 
national 

of 

2002-2009 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 

Survey 

Programme 
monitoring 
data 

Interviews  Focus 

Case studies  Control 

groups 

group 

Other 
methods 

Timeline 

EXIST DE 

x 

x 

FIRST  Spin-
off BE 

statistics 

Evaluations 
of 
policy 
measures  in 
other 
countries  as 
benchmark 

Use 
national 
statistics 

of 

2007-2011 
programme 
evaluation  carried  out  in 
2013 

Use 
national 
statistics 

of 

time  period, 
1999-2011 
evaluation  carried  out  in 
2011 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Conclusions 

Policies to foster intersectoral mobility are in place in almost all MS. Many of them  have 
been implemented for several years now, yet readily available evaluations are scarce. 

The reasons for such a limited availability vary – publication issues (the evaluations are 
considered  "for  internal  use  only"),  lack  of  systematic  evaluations  or  schemes  are  not 
evaluated at all. In addition, language restrictions (evaluations available only in national 
language)  would  necessitate  an  investment  of  considerable  resources  to  build  a 
comprehensive collection and analysis of documents. 

The limited evaluation culture also has an impact on the quality of the evaluations. Some 
evaluations  seek  to  prove  that  the  scheme  works  and  report  on  largely  positive 
outcomes  and  effects  (as  initially  designed  and  laid  down  in  the  programmes).  As  a 
result of this, some of them measure only direct outputs of the schemes, coming short of 
evaluating their broader socio-economic impact. Counterfactual evaluations are very rare 
(for an exception see: Herrera et al, 2010).  

Given  that  quite  a  number  of  measures  have  been  discontinued,  it  would  be  very 
valuable to analyse the failure cases but so far they have been not (openly) discussed. 

All  the  reasons  above  restrict  the  possibility  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  intersectoral 
mobility policies, which would allow for greater policy learning. 

Yet,  in  the  small  sample  of  the  evaluations  we  have  analysed,  the  evaluations  provide 
proof of positive impact of those measures on researchers' skills and employability. To a 
lesser  extent  data  are  provided  also  about  patent  and  publications  propensity  and  R&D 
intensity of companies. 

The  strongest  evidence  is  provided  in  the  industrial  PhD  programme  evaluations  where 
the impact on skills and employability of PhD researchers can be clearly attested. 

The analysis of the policies supporting spin-offs provides evidence that they increase the 
entrepreneurial  capacity  of  research  organisations  and  promote  the  translation  of 
research results into economic value.    

The  policy  measures  build  also  industry  awareness  of  knowledge  transfer,  increase  the 
absorptive  capacity  of  firms  for  internal  and  external  R&D,  strengthen  academia  – 
industry collaboration and build trust between actors.  

The  main  barriers  to  the  success  of  the  schemes  relate  to  the  unclear  benefits  to 
participating  firms.,  which  further  strengthens  the  case  for  good  impact  evaluations, 
administrative  burden  on  companies  as  well  as  the  additional  workload  linked  to 
integrating new people into the company. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Arnold, E., Knee, P., Brown, N., Javorka, Z., Giarracca, F., Sidiqui, S. (2012). Knowledge 
Transfer 
from  Public  Research  Organisations.  Science  and  Technology  Options 
Assessment. 

Autio, E., Kanninen, S. and Gustafsson, R. (2008). First- and second –order additionality 
and  learning  outcomes  in  collaborative  R&D  programs.  Research  Policy  37  (2008),  59-
76. 

Becker,  C.,  T.  Grebe,  T.  Lübbers.  (2011).  Evaluation  der  Fördermaßnahmen  „EXIST- 
Gründerstipendium“ 
für 
Innovationsforschung und Beratung mbH, Berlin. 

„EXIST-Forschungstransfer“. 

Gesellschaft 

und 

Chesbrough  H  (2003).  Open  Innovation:  the  New  Imperative  for  Creating  and  Profiting 
from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 

Clarysse,  B.,  M.  Wright,  A.  Locket,  P.  Mustar  and  M.  Knockaert  (2007).  Academic  spin-
offs,  formal  technology  transfer  and  capital  raising,  Industrial  and  Corporate  Change, 
Volume 16, Number 4, pp. 609-640, Oxford University Press. 

Clarysse,  B.,  Tartari,  V.  and  Salter,  A.  (2011).  The  impact  of  entrepreneurial  capacity, 
experience and organisational support on academic entrepreneurship, Research Policy 40 
(2011), 1084-1093. 

Clarysse,  B.,  Wright,  M.  and  Mustar,  P.  (2009).  Behavioural  additionality  of  R&D 
subsidies: a learning perspective, Research Policy 38 (2009), 1517-1533. 

Cockburn, I. and Henderson, R. (1998). Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and 
the  Organization  of  Research  in  Drug  Discovery.  Journal  of  Industrial  Economics,  XLVI 
(2). 157-182. 

Cohen W.M. and Levinthal D.A. (1989). Innovation and learning: two faces of R&D. The 
Economic Journal 99, 569-596. 

Cohen  W.M.  and  Levinthal  D.A.  (1990).  Absorptive  capacity:  a  new  perspective  on 
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1). 128-152.   

Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J.P.  (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public 
research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48(1). 1-23. 

Cunningham, P. and Gök, A. (2012). The Impact and Effectiveness of Policies to Support 
Collaboration for R&D and Innovation, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.  

Du,  Leten  and  Vanhaverbeke  (2014).  Managing  open  innovation  projects  with  science-
based and market-based partners, Research Policy 43, 828-840. 

E3M, (2012). Conceptual Framework for Third Mission Indicator Definition, Report of the 
project  "European  Indicators  and  Ranking  Methodology  for  University  Third  Mission", 
http://e3mproject.eu/ 

Edler J, Berger M, Dinges M, Gok A (2012) The practice of evaluation in innovation policy 
in Europe, Research Evaluation 21:167–182 

European Commission (2011). Towards a European framework for research careers. 

Fabrizio K.R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy 
38, 255-267. 

Finne,  H.,  Day,  A.,  Piccaluga,  A.,  Spithoven,  A.  Walter,  P.  &  Wellen,  P.  (2011).  A 
Composite  Indicator  for  Knowledge  Transfer.  Report  from  the  European  Commission’s 
Expert Group on Knowledge Transfer Indicators. 

Georghiou, L. Evaluation of behavioural additionality. Concept paper.   

45 

 
 
Georghiou,  L.,  (2002).  Impact  and  additionality  of  innovation  policy.  IWT  Studies  40, 
57–65. 

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M. Siegel, D.S. and  Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: 
reassessing academic entrepreneurship, Research Policy 40 (2011), 1045-1057. 

Herrera, L. et al. (2010). Herrera, L., Munoz-Doyague, M.F., Nieto, M. Mobility of public 
researchers,  scientific  knowledge  transfer,  and  the  firm's  innovation  process,  Journal  of 
Business Research 63 (2010), 510–518. 

Hirsch, C, E. Tambuyzer (2015). Innovative entrepreneurship via spin-offs of knowledge 
centres, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium. 

Jonkers,  K.  &  Zacharewicz,  T.,  Research  Performance  Based  Funding  Systems:  a 
Comparative Assessment, EUR 27477 EN; doi10.2791/134058 

Katila  R.and  Ahuja  G.  (2002).  Something  old,  something  new;  a  longitudinal  study  of 
search behaviour and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45 (6), 
1183-1194. 

Katz R and Allen T (1982).  Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look 
at  the  performance,  tenure,  and  communication  patterns  of  50  R&D  projects.  R&D 
Management 12 (1). 7-19. 

Kogut B. and Zander U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the 
replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3). 383-397. 

Koput KW (1997). A chaotic model of innovative search: some answers, many questions. 
Organization Science 8(5). 528-542. 

KSV 
Pressemeldungvom, 12.08.2010 

1870(2010). 

Jungunternehmer: 

Gefährdete 

Spezies  mit 

Mumm. 

Kulicke,  M.  (2006).  EXIST  –  Existenzgründungen  aus  Hochschulen.  Bericht  der 
wissenschaftlichen  Begleitung  zum  Förderzeitraum  1998  bis  2005  (Kurzfassung). 
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Berlin. 

Kulicke, M., Dornbusch, F., Kripp, K., Schleinkofer, M. (2012). Nachhaltigkeit der EXIST-
Förderung  Gründungsunterstützung  an  Hochschulen,  die  zwischen  1998  und  2011 
gefördert  wurden.  Bericht  der  wissenschaftlichen  Begleitforschung  zu  "EXIST  – 
Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft". Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag. 

Kulicke,  M.,  K.  Kripp.  (2013).  Ergebnisse  und  Wirkungen  des  Förderprogramms  EXIST-
Gründerstipendium. Fraunhofer Institut für System und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe. 

Kulicke,  M.  (2014).  15  Years  of  EXIST  "University-based  start-up  programmes", 
Fraunhofer Institut für System und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe. 

Laursen  K.  and  Salter  A.J.  (2006).  Open  for  innovation:  the  role  of  openness  in 
explaining 
firms.  Strategic 
Management Journal 27, 131-150. 

innovation  performance  among  UK  manufacturing 

Leten B, Landoni P, Van Looy B. (2014).Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from 
the proximity of universities?, Research Policy  43 (8). 1398 - 1412. 

Levy Rachel (2005). Les doctorants CIFRE : médiateurs entre laboratoires de recherche 
universitaires  et  entreprises.  In:  Revue  d'économie  industrielle,  vol.  111,  3e  trimestre 
2005. pp. 79-96. 

Martinez,  C.,  Cruz-Castro.  L.,  and  Sanz-Menendez,  L.  (2015).  Innovation  capabilities  in 
the  private  sector:  evaluating  subsidies  for  hiring  S&Tworkers  in  Spain.  Research 
Evaluation, 2015, 1–13 

MORE  2  (2013).  Support  for  continued  data  collection  and  analysis  concerning  mobility 
patterns and career paths of researchers, Higher Education Sector Report. 

46 

 
 
Mustar,  P. (2002).  Public support for the spin-off  companies  from higher  education and 
research  institutions,  Proceedings  of  the  STRATA  consolidating  workshop,  Session  4: 
New  instruments  for  science  and  technology  policy  implementation,  Unit  RTD-K.2  - 
"Science and technology foresight; Links with IPTS". 

Mustar,  P.,  M.  Renault,  M.  G.  Colombo,  E.  Piva,  M.  Fontes,  A.  Lockett,  M.  Wright,  B. 
Clarysse,  N.  Moray.  (2006).  Conceptualising  the  heterogeneity  of  research-based  spin-
offs: A multi-dimentional taxonomy, Research Policy 35 (2006) 289-308. 

Spithoven,  A.,  Clarysse,  B.  and  Knckaert,  M.  (2011).  Building  absorptive  capacity  to 
organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 31 (2011), 10-
21. 

Tangemann,  K.,  S.  Vössner  and  S.  Laimgruber  (2010).  Effectiveness  of  the  Austrian 
business  incubator  programme  AplusB  (Academia  plus  Business)  –  learning  for  future 
programme design, Abstract, Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). 

Tether  B.S.  (2002).  Who  co-operates  for  innovation,  and  why.  An  empirical  analysis. 
Research Policy 31 (2002) 947–967 

Thomson,  R.  and  Jensen,  P.  A.  (2010)  ‘The  Effects  of  Public  Subsidies  on  R&D 
Employment: Evidence from OECD Countries’. Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series. 
Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Working Paper No.11/10. 

Vandevelde,  K.  (2014).  Intersectoral  Mobility.  Report  from  the  2014  ERAC  mutual 
learning workshop on Human Resources and Mobility. 

von Hippel E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press. New York. 

47 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1  

Indicators on Knowledge Transfer and Intersectoral mobility 

The  purpose  of  this  annex  is  to  give  an  overview  of  how  the  countries  perform  in 
selected,  widely  acknowledged  knowledge  transfer  indicators.  We  conduct  the  analysis 
on  the  basis  of  available  indicators,  which  allow  the  widest  comparison  between  all 
countries  covered  in  this  paper.  While  we  acknowledge  the  fact  that  a  mere 
quantification  of  KT  activities  may  lead  to  a  biased  assessment  of  a  KT  system's 
effectiveness,  we  do  believe  it  is  important  to  give  a  more  general  picture  of  the 
countries' performance.  

The annex provides information on the following indicators:  

  Mobility patterns of researchers (MORE2);  

  Researchers (PhDs) employed by business (BES) sector (Eurostat);  

  Public-private co-publications (Scopus);  

 

Innovative firms cooperation patterns (CIS, Eurostat);  

  Publicly performed R&D financed by the business (Eurostat).  

On  the  next  few  pages  we  will  provide  justification  of  our  selection  of  indicators  and 
depict  the  performance  of  the  countries  (EU28  Member  States  and  Associated 
Countries). 

Mobility patterns of researchers (MORE2) 

For  the  mobility  patterns  of  researchers  we  use  as  data  source  the  MORE  2  Study65 to 
reveal  patterns  for  the  intersectoral  mobility  patterns  across  Member  States.  Two 
indicators  are  of  particular  interest  for  this  study:  1)  intersectoral  mobility  during  PhD 
and  2)  intersectoral  mobility  in  post-PhD  career.  Both  indicators  take  into  account  only 
researchers currently working in the academic sector, who have experience subject to a 
more  than  3-month  intersectoral  mobility  period  to  one  or  several  destination  sectors. 
The modalities of the two indicators are defined as follows:  

  Work  placement  or  internship  during  PhD  related  intersectoral  mobility 
groups  all  the  sectors  different  from  academiathe  academics  into  a  "non-
academic sector". This makes the data more difficult to interpret thus complex to 
use. The indicator covers percentage of: R1 PhD candidates and R2 (post-doctoral 
researchers or(or equivalent). 

  As  far  as  post-PhD  intersectoral  mobility  is  concerned,  there  is  data  broken 
down  by  public/  government  sector,  private  not-for-profit  sector  and  private 
industry.  The  indicator  covers  the  percentage  of:  R1  PhD  candidates  and  R2 
(post-doctoral or equivalent) PhD holders and post-PhD only for R2 (post-doctoral 
researchers  (or  equivalent),  R3  (established  researchers)  or  R4  (leading) 
researchers. Multiple destination sectors per respondent are possible.  

48 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Figure 6 Work placement or internship in the non-academic sector during PhD (per country of PhD)  

Data: MORE2 HEI survey (2012) 
Report: IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, HEI report (WP1). European Commission, DG Research and 
Innovation. 

Figure 7 Intersectoral mobility per country. Survey of doctorate holders currently employed in the Member 

States universities that have spend more than 3 months in industry. 

Data: MORE2 HEI survey (2012) 
Report: IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, HEI report (WP1). European Commission, DG Research and 
Innovation. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 Intersectoral mobility to private industry (per country) 

Data: MORE2 HEI survey (2012) 
Report: IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, HEI report (WP1). European Commission, DG Research and 
Innovation. 

Researchers (PhDs) employed by BES (Eurostat) 

The number of doctorate holder by sector of employment is a relevant indicator for this 
report.  Unfortunately,  a  full  coverage  of  all  Member  States  is  not  feasible  given  data 
scarcity. In fact, the only source which provides harmonised information on this topic is 
the  OECD/UNESCO  Institute  for  Statistics/Eurostat  Careers  of  Doctorate  Holders  (CDH) 
project. However, oIn fact, only half of the EU Member States (14: BE, BG, DK, ES, HR, 
HU,  LT,  LV,  MT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  RO  and  SI)  are  covered  by  the  CDH  project.  To  overcome 
this shortcoming, we use a similar indicator instead, i.e. number of researchers by sector 
of  performance  and  as  percentage  of  the  total  employment.  We  consider  this  a 
reasonable  proxy  based  on  the  following  definition:  "Researchers  are  professionals 
engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods 
and  systems  and  also  in  the  management  of  the  projects  concerned"  (OECD  Frascati 
Manual,  2002).  In  addition,  several  studies  acknowledge  that  the  employment  of 
university  researchers  is  an  effective  way  to  transfer  knowledge  from  universities  to 
firms (Zucker et al., 2002; Gübeli and Doloreux, 2005 ). A reasonable assumption is that 
many of the  researchers either have already  received their doctorate  or are involved in 
R&D  activities  in  order  to  obtain  a  PhD.  In  any  case,  this  indicator  is  linked  to  ISM, 
because  researchers  are  initially  trained  in  academia  and  then  they  move  to  other 
sectors (see supra) and also their presence in the firm unveils the absorptive capacity of 
the  company.  Last  but  not  least,  this  indicator  allows  cross-country  comparison  at  EU 
level. 

50 

 
 
 
 
Figure 9 Countries according to the number of researchers employed in industry as share of total employment 

(Eurostat, 2016) 

Public-private co-publications  

Public-private  co-publications,scientific  publications  co-authored  by  both  researchers 
from academia and industry,  are considered as one  of the ways to measure university-
industry  interactions  (Calvert  and  Patel,  2003),  a  proxy  of  the  collaborations  between 
both  (Tijssen  et  al.,  2012)  or  one  of  the  co-authorship-based  indicators  relevant  to 
knowledge transfer (Abramo et al., 2009). The indicator does have certain drawbacks. It 
covers  only  one  aspect  of  co-authorship  activities  between  industry  and  academia 
(scientific papers) and leaves out other forms of collaboration (e.g. patenting); the data 
is  rather  stable  over  time  and  is    slow  to  react  immediately  to  changes  in  policies. 
Despite  the  limitations  described,  the  indicator  is  a  useful,  if  partial,  indicator  of  public 
private collaboration / knowledge transfer. 

For the purpose of the analysis, the indicator is elaborated on the basis of Scival (based 
on  Scopus  data).  The  indicator  is  described  as  the  number  and/or  percentage  of 
scholarly  outputs  that  have  been  co-authored  by  researchers  from  both  academic  and 
corporate,  or  industrial,  affiliations.  We  provide  the  2003-2014  overall  score  (in 
percentage)  of  academia-industry  co-publications  by  country  and  field  as  well  as  the 
number of public-private co-publications per thousand of researchers (FTE) of population 
for 2014 (or latest year available).  

51 

 
 
 
 
Figure 10 Public-private co-publications per country for the period 2003-2014 (in percentage of total 

publications) 

Data: SciVal, Scopus based platform (last accessed 18 March 2016) 

Figure 11 Public-private co-publications per country for the period 2003-2014 (per 1,000 FTE Researchers in 

2014) 

Data: SciVal, Scopus based platform (last accessed 18 March 2016); Eurostat*, OECD** 
* Latest year available for FTE Researchers: Iceland and Turkey – 2013; Switzerland – 2012 
** Latest year available for FTE Researchers: Israel - 2012 

Innovative firms' cooperation patterns 

The data derive from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) 2012. The CIS (Eurostat) 
is based on the Oslo Manual, 3rd edition, 2005, where innovation co-operation is defined 
as active participation with other enterprises or institutions on innovation activities. Both 
partners  do  not  need  to  commercially  benefit.  The  indicator  excludes  pure  contracting 
out  of  work  with  no  active  co-operation  with  higher  education  institutions  or  public 
research institutions for their innovation activities.  This EU-wide survey is often used in 
studies investigating the innovation and knowledge transfer activities of European firms 
(Tether,  2002,  Frenz  and  Ietto-Gillies,  2009,  Cunningham  and  Gök,  2012).  Although 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
most  respondents  still  consider  internally  developed  knowledge  the  most  important  for 
the  firms'  capabilities  to  innovate,  R&D  carried  out  by  other  organizations  and 
collaborations in R&D with external actors is gaining a more prominent place (Frenz and 
Ietto-Gillies, 2009). Among the motivations for industry to tap into academic knowledge 
is  the  fact  that  research  grows  increasingly  expensive.  Employing  a  broad  range  of 
specialised  staff  and  experts  bears  high  costs  and  companies  are  looking  to  leverage 
external knowledge, including from universities and government research institutes (Tidd 
et  al.,  1997).  HEIs  are  considered  a  highly  valuable  source  for  basic  and  long-term 
strategic  research,  which  many  firms  regard  as  too  expensive  to  undertake  using  only 
their own resources (Tether, 2002). 

For  the  purpose  of  our  analysis  we  therefore  picked  up  the  1)  overall  share  of 
collaboration (i.e. the percentage of "enterprises engaged in any type of cooperation) as 
well  as  the  2)  share  of  innovative  companies  that  are  engaged  in  the  cooperation  with 
universities  or  other  higher  education  institutions  and  3)  with  Government,  public  or 
private  research  institutes.  The  CIS  results  should  be  treated  with  caution  since  it 
surveys  only  innovative  companies  with  more  than  10  employees  and  a  sample  of 
companies from a given country. 

Figure 12 Types of co-operation of the enterprises (2012) 

Data: Eurostat (CIS 8, 2012); data for Iceland, Israel and Switzerland are missing 

Public expenditure on R&D financed by the business enterprise sector (BES)  

This indicator is one of the often used measures of level of knowledge transfer. It reveals 
the  volume  of  research  expenditure,  financed  by  the  business  sector  and  performed  in 
the  public  sector,  and  therefore  constitutes  a  monetary  measurement  of  business 
engagement  towards  academia.  This  indicator  is  particularly  relevant  for  "consulting 
activities"  and  "contract  research"  -  services  (outflow  of  knowledge)  offered  by 
universities  to  external  clients  in  exchange  for  funding  (influx  of  money).  Both  are 
usually  combined  with  license  agreement  and  jointly  developed  intellectual  property 
(Perkmann  and  Walsh,  2007;  Perkmann  and  West,  2014).  Furthermore,  contract  and 
collaborative research are considered to be among the main mechanisms of collaboration 
for  R&D  and  innovation  (Cunningham  and  Gök,  2012).  Although  it  is  difficult  to 
investigate on the nature of the financed activities (active cooperation or acquisition), we 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
think that direct investments by private companies in research carried out by academia 
provide clear indications of strong public-private links in R&I. 

This  indicator  is  based  on  Eurostat  data.  The  "BES-financed"  R&D  is  the  amount  of  the 
R&D directly funded by the business enterprise sector. The "public expenditure on R&D" 
part  includes  the  R&D  performed  by  both  higher  education  (HERD)  and  government 
(GOVERD) sectors. The values are expressed in both percentages of GERD and GDP.  

Figure 13 BES-funded public R&D per country as % of GERD (up) and GDP (below) in 2013 

Data: Eurostat* and OECD**; own calculations  
* All data from Eurostat (except Israel and Turkey – OECD); latest year available for Switzerland – 2012 
** Data from OECD may differ because it was calculated based on USD; latest year available for Israel – 2012 

54 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2 

MS 

Industrial 
traineeships 
Training 

PhDs 

and 

industrial 
Innovative  Doctorate 

Uptake  of  PhDs  by  private  sector 
firms/SMEs 

Academic  entrepreneurship 
and spin offs  and spin-ins 

sector 

research 
Public 
organisations: 
legal 
framework incentives (ex., 
for 
career  paths 
dual 
professors) 

Title 

Period 

Title 

Period 

Title 

Period 

Title 

Period 

Austria 

Young  experts  (before 
Nachwuchsförderung) 

2009 

Young experts (before 
Nachwuchsförderung) 

2009 

AplusB 
2.0 
Academia  plus 
Business 2.0 

2001/201
0- 

Industrial 
programme 

PhD 

2014 

FEMtech Career Paths 

2004 

Belgium 

Flanders 
Mandates 

-  Baekeland 

active 

Brussels Capital: Doctiris 

PRODOC Programme  

2003 

2007-
2013 

Research 
Competences 
Industry 

for 

Ongoing 
2013 

Wallonia 
Higher 
Institutes 

- 
FIRST 
Education 

1994 

BEWARE 
FELLOWSHIPS 
Industry 

2014 

– 

R&D tax credit 

2003 

55 

2012 

2006 

active 

Phoenix Award 

(BMWFW) 

Brussels-Capital 
in 
-  Spin-off 
Brussels 

Launch  spin  off 
programme  

Flanders:  Spin-
off Mandates 

SOFI 
programme 

Wallonia:  First 
spin-off 

Flanders: 
Industrial 
Research  Fund 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bulgaria 

Stipends 
for  Doctoral 
Students  Preparing  Their 
Theses 
in  a  National 
Company 

2009 
(closed) 

x 

Innovation 
Industrial PhDs 

Fund 

– 

ongoing 

for universities 

"Tehnostart 
- 
Encouragement 
innovation 
of 
of 
activity 
young  people  in 
Bulgaria" 

2014 

Law 
Innovation 

on 

Planned 
for 2013 

Croatia 

Operational  programme 
"Human 
Resources 
Development",  Measure 
of 
"Development 
3.2 
human 
in 
resources 
research 
and 
development" 

Researchers' 
Young 
Career 
Development 
Project  –  Training  of 
Doctoral Students 

Cyprus 

Penek 
Researchers of 

– 

Young 

Cyprus Programme 

Czech 
Republic 

2007-
2014  

NEWFELPRO 

ongoing 

PoC 
(BICRO) 

PUBLIC 

ongoing 

2015 

2009-
2010 

Industry 
Offices 
placements 
students 

(ILOs) 

Liaison 
– 
of 

2010 

Denmark 

Industrial PhD 

1994 

Industrial Post-doc 

2011 

Innovation 
strategy 
PhD strategy 

and 

2012 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia 

DoRa Doctoral Studies  

Internationalisation 
Programme 

2008-
2015 

Competence Centres 

2007 

DoRa Plus 

2016 

SPINNO 

In 
evaluation: 
"The  Ministry  is 
also 
considering  the 
introduction  of 
a 
mobility 
scheme  and  a 
feasibility study 
is currently 

underway.  Our 
experience 
from  elsewhere 
suggests that it 
could  be  an 
important 
component  of 
the 

national 
innovation 
system 
would 
complement 
SPINNO 
well." 

and 

very 

Finland 

Academy Project 

ongoing 

France 

CIFRE fellowships 

1981 

funding 

research 

The 
Credit (CIR) 

Tax 

JEU-JEI 

PEPITE 
programme 

Law 
on 
Innovation  and 
research 

1999 

Industrial 
Chairs 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

Industrial Phds 

Fraunhofer 
Programme  

Attract 

X 

Helmholtz 
Enterprise 

2005 

2005 

Fraunhofer Institutes 

Shared  Professorship 
programme (KIT) 

High-tech  Start-
up  Fund  (High-
tech 
Gründerfonds) 

- 

EXIST 
University-
Based  Business 
Start-Ups 

1997 

Greece 

Supporting 
enterprises 
recruiting 
scientific personnel 

for 
high-level 

2007-2013  CREATION 

2007 

Presidential 
Decree 
17/2001 

Hungary 

ERICSSON  –  BME,  ELTE 
Industrial PhDs 

x 

New 
Hungary 
Venture  Capital 
Programme 

2009, 
2012, 
2013 

Kozma László 

2006-2009 

2005 

2005/2007 

2014-2020 

5LET/IDEA 

Industry 
sponsored 
departments  (Bosch, 
Audi) 

Human Resource 

Development 

Operational 
Programme 

(2014-2020) 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ireland 

IRC Employment-based 

Postgraduate Programme 

Industry 
SFI 
Fellowship Programme  

2013 

The  loan  of  qualified 
personnel (for SMEs) 

2014 

Enterprise Partnership 

Scheme 

Elevate 

Ongoing 

2013-2018 

SFI 
Industry 

Short-term 

2012 

Visiting Fellowship 

2013 

2013 

Tax  credit  for  hiring 
"highly-qualified" 
personnel 

59 

Italy 

PhD ITalents 

2015 

High  level  apprenticeship 
contract (regions) 

Latvia 

Enterprise 
Ireland New 

Frontiers 
Programme 

ongoing 

Knowledge 
Transfer 
Ireland 

2013 

Legislation  on 
industrial 
doctorate 

Suppporting 
mobility 
legislation 

2013 

Legislation  on 
start-ups 

2012-
2013 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

Industrial doctorates 

2015-
2020 

for 
State  Support 
Employment  of  skilled 
personnel 
in 
companies   

2010-2015  Technostart  and 

INOVEKS  

Joint initiatives 

2016 

Luxembourg  Public-Private 

x 

Partnerships 

under the AFR 

Malta 

The 
Netherlands 

Loan 
Experts (for SMEs) 

of  Qualified 

2009-2015 

Kenniswerkers  

2009 

Take off 

2014 

Poland 

SKILLS internships 

2014-
2015 

KadTech 

2010-2011 

BRIdge Alfa 

2013 

2007-2013 

Portugal 

Doctoral degree grants in 
enterprises BDE 

2008 

Tekla 

2008 

grants 
Mobility 
R&D 
between 
institutions 
and 
enterprises  or  other 
entities BMOB 

Romania 

Mobility  projects  PhD  - 
type MD 

2007-
2013 

secondments to SMEs 

2007-2013 

2009 

Support 
for 
secondment  of 
researchers 
from  the  public 
sector 
the 
private secto 

to 

"bijzonder 
hoogleraar" 
(double  career 
of 
university 
professors) 

Law  on  Higher 
Education 

2011 

2010 

Article 30 §1 of 
Decree  Law  No 
74/2006  of  24 
March 2006 

Competence 
(NP3) planned 

centres 

2014-2020 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden 

Company 
schools 
(Företagsforskarskolor) 

graduate 

1996 

Development  of  the 
Knowledge Triangle 

2013 

Mobility for Growth 

2012 

Industrial  PhD  project 
(Industridoktorandprojek
t - ID-projekt) 

Till 2013 

Slovakia 

VINNMER 

FLEXIT  

SUSPP 

Slovenia 

Young researchers in the 

business sector66 

2007-
2010 

Call  for  strengthening 
R&D  departments  in 
business  enterprises 
(KROP)  

2007-2014 

- 

VSMP 

2007-
2009 

2007 
2010 

2011 

Swedish  Higher 
Education 
Ordinance 
adjunct 
professor 
function 

– 

Interdisciplinary 
teams  in  the  business 
sector  

2007-2010 

Mobility  grants 
for 
from 
researchers 
public  sector  to  enter 
business enterprises 

2007-2010 

Spain 

Industrial PhDs (PECTI) 

Torres Quevedo 

ongoing 

EMPLEA 2015 

2015 

Programme 

NEOTEC 

2011 

Science, 
Technology and 
Innovation  Law 
(LCTI) 

66 Scarce info found in ERAC evaluation and a national one, focused on brain-drain 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
United 
Kingdom 

Industrial CASE 

1994 

Knowledge 
Partnerships (KTP)67 

Transfer 

Doctoral Training 

Centres 

Switzerland 

2012 

for 

Spanish 
Strategy 
Science, 
Technology and 
Innovation 
2013-2020 
(EESTI) 

PECTI 
2016 

2012-

to 

Support 
secondments: 
Knowledge 
Secondments  

Transfer 

Knowledge 
Networks 

Transfer 

Dedicated 
fellowships 
Royal Society) 

industry 
(.e.g. 

active 

(formerly 

CTI 
Entrepreneurshi
p 
Venturelab) 
provides 
courses 
and 
training  and  is 
mostly  divided 
into members of 
universities 

67 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467141/KTP_Report_July_2015__1-SEP-15_.pdf 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
active 

Swiss 

the 
university 
system  is  very 
active 
in 
promoting  and 
launching  start-
initiatives:  
up 
ETHZ 
(253 
start-ups),  EPFL 
the 
(201), 
University 
of 
Zurich  (50),  the 
of 
University 
Gallen 
Saint 
the 
(33)  and 
University 
of 
Basel (33) 

Young 
Entrepreneurs 

2016 

pilot 
New 
for 
scheme 
to 
support 
students 
and 
PhDs  who  want 
in 
to  engage 
entrepreneurshi
p  

Israel 

MAGNET 

Nofar 

Iceland 

Norway 

Industrial PhD scheme 

2008,  

National  Program  for 
the  Return  of  Israeli 
Academics 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Turkey 

Industrial 
Supporting 
(SAN-TEZ)68 

Thesis 
Program 

2007? 

Technology 
Development 
Zones (TDZs) -  

2014? 

Co-Funded 
Brain 
Circulation 
Scheme 

and 

National 
Science 
Technology 
Human 
Resources 
Strategy 
Action 
(2011-2016) 

and 
Plan 

68 https://biltek.sanayi.gov.tr/Sayfalar/en-us/santez.aspx  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
List of figures 

Figure 1 Countries according to the number of researchers employed in industry as share 
of total employment (Eurostat, 2016) .................................................................... 11 

Figure 2 Intersectoral mobility to private industry (per country) ................................ 12 

Figure 3 Scheme of the methodological approach used for the purpose of the report ... 14 

Figure 4 Countries according to the number of researchers employed in industry as share 
of total employment (Eurostat, 2016) .................................................................... 16 

Figure 5 Intersectoral mobility measures by type of personnel and policy intervention . 21 

Figure  6  Work  placement  or  internship  in  the  non-academic  sector  during  PhD  (per 
country of PhD) .................................................................................................. 49 

Figure  7  Intersectoral  mobility  per  country.  Survey  of  doctorate  holders  currently 
employed  in  the  Member  States  universities  that  have  spend  more  than  3  months  in 
industry. ............................................................................................................ 49 

Figure 8 Intersectoral mobility to private industry (per country) ................................ 50 

Figure 9 Countries according to the number of researchers employed in industry as share 
of total employment (Eurostat, 2016) .................................................................... 51 

Figure  10  Public-private  co-publications  per  country  for  the  period  2003-2014  (in 
percentage of total publications) ........................................................................... 52 

Figure 11 Public-private co-publications per country for the period 2003-2014 (per 1,000 
FTE Researchers in 2014) ..................................................................................... 52 

Figure 12 Types of co-operation of the enterprises (2012) ........................................ 53 

Figure  13  BES-funded  public  R&D  per  country  as  %  of  GERD  (up)  and  GDP  (below)  in 
2013 ................................................................................................................. 54 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of tables 

Table 1 Country grouping based on the number of researchers employed in the business 
sector and range of intersectoral mobility measures ................................................ 17 

Table 2 Summary table of intersectoral mobility policy measures .............................. 22 

Table 3. Evaluations of intersectoral mobility measures ............................................ 23 

Table 4. Number of grants awarded and budget (in thousands of euros) allocated within 
FIRST Spin-off .................................................................................................... 38 

Table 5. Evaluation methods used in the evaluations analysed in the study ................ 41 

66 

 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Free phone 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. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
F
-
N
A
-
2
8
0
2
7
-
E
N
-
N

X
X
-
N
A
-
x
x
x
x
x
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2791/041776 

ISBN 978-92-79-60074-6