International Digital Economy and Society Index (I-DESI) : final report.
Date: 2018-01-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Subjects: Internet, benchmarking, digital literacy, digital technology, information technology, information technology profession, professional qualifications, provision of services, single market

International Digital 
Economy and Society 
Index (I-DESI) 

FINAL REPORT  

A study prepared for the European Commission 
DG  Communications  Networks,  Content  &  Technology 
by: 

Digital 
Singel 
Market 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  study  was  carried  out  by  Capgemini  Consulting  for  the  European 
Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and 
Technology  

For more information about this paper, please contact:  
European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and 
Technology 
Unit F.4 European Semester and Knowledge Base  
Alexandre Mateus – Policy Analyst and Project Officer 
E-mail: alexandre.mateus@ec.europa.eu  

Project team Capgemini: 
Niels van der Linden – Managing Consultant and project lead 
niels.vander.linden@capgemini.com 

Martien Hols – Principal Consultant 
martien.hols@capgemini.com 

Jorn Berends – Consultant 
jorn.berends@capgemini.com 

Brenda Bos – Consultant 
brenda.bos@capgemini.com 

Internal identification 

Contract number: 0-CE-0762897/00-00 
SMART number: 2015/0088 

DISCLAIMER 

By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology.  

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 
the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible 
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

ISBN 978-92-79-58273-8 

doi:10.2759/185010 

© European Union, 2016. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.  

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 5 

1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................11 

1.1  Background .............................................................................................11 

1.2  Objectives ...............................................................................................11 

1.3  Data gathering .........................................................................................12 

1.4  Overview of the (International) Digital Economy and Society .........................12 

1.5  Structure of this document ........................................................................14 

2 

Approach ......................................................................................................15 

2.1  Structure of two tiers in the I-DESI ............................................................15 

2.2  Detailed description of dimensions and indicators .........................................17 

2.2.1  Connectivity dimension .......................................................................17 

2.2.2  Human Capital dimension ....................................................................17 

2.2.3  Use of Internet dimension ...................................................................18 

2.2.4 

Integration of Digital Technology Dimension ..........................................18 

2.2.5  Digital Public Services Dimension .........................................................19 

2.3  Comparability I-DESI with the DESI ............................................................19 

2.4  Methodological considerations ....................................................................21 

2.4.1 

Indicator criteria ................................................................................21 

2.4.2  Weighting .........................................................................................22 

2.4.3  Normalisation ....................................................................................23 

2.4.4  Data imputation I-DESI 2015...............................................................24 

2.4.5  Data imputation I-DESI 2014...............................................................26 

2.4.6  Method of aggregation ........................................................................28 

3  Results for Tier-1 ...........................................................................................29 

3.1  Overall results .........................................................................................29 

3.1.1  The I-DESI ranking for Tier-1 ..............................................................29 

3.2  Connectivity ............................................................................................32 

3.3  Human Capital .........................................................................................34 

3.4  Use of the Internet ...................................................................................36 

3.5 

Integration of Digital Technology ................................................................38 

3.6  Digital Public Services ...............................................................................40 

3.7  Tracking progress .....................................................................................41 

4  Results for Tier-2 ...........................................................................................46 

4.1  Differences between Tier-2 and Tier-1 ........................................................46 

4.2  Overall results .........................................................................................47 

4.2.1  The I-DESI ranking for Tier-2 ..............................................................47 

4.3  Connectivity ............................................................................................50 

3 

 
 
4.4  Human Capital .........................................................................................52 

4.5  Use of the Internet ...................................................................................54 

4.6 

Integration of Digital Technology ................................................................56 

4.7  Digital Public Services ...............................................................................58 

4.8  Tracking progress .....................................................................................59 

5  Conclusion and insights ..................................................................................64 

5.1  Europe’s strengths ...................................................................................64 

5.2  Areas for improvement .............................................................................65 

Annexes ..............................................................................................................66 

Annex 1 List of country acronyms ...........................................................................67 

Annex 2 Detailed description of the indicators comprised in the I-DESI .......................69 

4 

 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Reviewing digital performance of Europe at global level 

The  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  aims  to  enhance  the  transformation  and  the  growth 
potential  of  the  European  Digital  Economy,  and  is  currently  one  of  the  top-priorities  of 
the Juncker Commission. To achieve a truly Digital Union, reforms are needed at the EU 
level, as well as at national and regional levels. The European Commission has introduced 
The  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  to  yearly  evaluate  the  evolution  of  five 
key dimensions of the Digital Economy in EU member states in order to understand what 
these  reforms  should  address.  Each  dimension  reflects  a  relevant  policy  area: 
Connectivity, Human Capital, Use of Internet (citizens), Integration of Digital Technology 
(businesses),  and  Digital  Public  Services.  Each  dimension  consists  of  both  supply  and 
demand indicators. 

Obviously,  the  Digital  Economy  is  not  something  typically  European,  but  a  global 
phenomenon.  In  order  to  leverage  the  potential  of  the  digital  economy  in  Europe  and 
identify  room  for  improvement,  it is  also important  to  review  the  digital  performance  of 
the  EU  on  a  global  level.  This  report  introduces  the  International  DESI  (I-DESI),  which 
evaluates the performance of both the individual EU countries and the EU as a whole in 
comparison  to  15  other  countries:  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Iceland,  Israel, 
Japan, Korea (Rep.), Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey and the 
United States. 

The International DESI is structured like the DESI, but not strictly comparable 

The  I-DESI  follows  the  same  structure  as  the  existing  DESI,  but  it  differs  significantly 
from the  DESI with respect to the indicators used.  Ideally, the  I-DESI would have been 
prepared with indicators identical to those used in the DESI. However, experience shows 
that there are many differences in data collection and definitions when moving outside of 
Europe.  This  is  not  necessarily  a  bad  thing  (even  though  one  would  wish  for  global 
consistency  in  statistical  data  collection),  nor  does  it  result  in  a  less  valuable  analysis, 
just a different analysis. 

Indicators included in the I-DESI seek to portray the same phenomena as those included 
in the DESI. However, the specific definitions of many indicators in the I-DESI differ from 
those in the DESI. The I-DESI uses data from various internationally recognised sources, 
such  as  the  OECD,  the  United  Nations,  commercial  data  providers  (e.g.  ITU  and 
Google/TNS Infratest) and also national statistical offices. This results in the fact that the 
I-DESI and the DESI are not directly comparable. The I-DESI scores and rankings for EU-
countries  on  individual  indicators,  sub-dimensions,  dimensions  and  in  the  overall  index 
may  differ  from  the  scores  and  rankings  in  the  DESI.  In  order  for  a  country  to  learn  in 
which areas improvements are necessary and to fully comprehend the I-DESI, how it is 
composed,  what  definitions  are  used  and  how  calculations  were  performed,  it  is  highly 
advisable to carefully read the  methodological note and the  indicator descriptions in the 
annex  of  this  report.  This  is  especially  helpful  in  understanding  differences  between  I-
DESI and DESI. The Commission and project team are open for questions or feedback. 

In  addition,  due  to  different  availability  of  indicators  for  different  countries  outside  the 
EU,  the  I-DESI  2015  was  developed  using  a  tiered  approach.  Tier-1  comprises  the 
countries  for  which  a  richer  set  of  indicators  could  be  gathered.  It  was  calculated  using 
28  indicators,  for  the  EU28  countries,  Australia,  Canada,  Iceland,  Japan,  Korea  (Rep.), 
Norway,  Switzerland,  and  the  United  States.  Tier-2  was  calculated in order  to  include  a 
broader  set  of  countries  for  which  there  are  less  indicators  available  than  for  the  Tier-1 
countries.  Tier  2  is  based  on  a  smaller  set  of  18  indicators  and  comprises  all  the  Tier-1 

5 

 
 
countries  plus  Brazil,  China,  Israel,  Mexico,  New  Zealand,  Russia  and  Turkey.  The  two 
tiers  are  in  fact  separate  indices  and  should  not  be  directly  compared  to  each  other  as 
they consist of different indicators (and different weighting schemes). 

Overall  results:  top  European  performers  also  lead  globally,  but  Europe  as  a 
whole has room for improvement  

The main ranking of countries in the I-DESI 2015 (Tier-1) shows that the top European 
performers  are  also  leading  countries  at  the  global  stage.  The  top-three  performing  EU 
countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Finland) are closely followed by Korea (Rep.), Iceland 
and the United States. The other non-EU countries (Norway, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, 
and Australia) are also performing above the EU average. 

Regarding  Connectivity,  Korea  (Rep.)  and  Japan  are  ahead  of  Europe.  Korea  (Rep.)  is 
among the top performers on all sub-indicators of this dimension, and excels especially in 
the speed of their internet connections. Japan is leading in mobile broadband (both take-
up  and  coverage).  The  top-three  performing  EU  countries  are  on  par  or  just  behind  
Japan. Switzerland also reaches a high level of connectivity. 

The  Human  Capital  dimension  focuses  on  digital  knowledge  and  skills.  The  results  show 
that EU countries are in the lead. The top-three of EU countries is also leading at a global 
stage,  followed  by  Norway  on  par  with  the  first  non-European  country:  Korea  (Rep.). 
Canada performs well above the EU average. Japan, the United States and Australia are 
still above but closer to the EU average. Zooming in to the individual indicators, Iceland 
leads in frequency of internet use, and Finland and Sweden have the highest percentage 
of  people  with  ICT  specialist  skills  as  well  as  the  highest  share  of  graduates  with  STEM 
education. 

Use  of  the  Internet  focuses  on  the  performance  of  a  wide  mix  of  online  activities  by 
citizens. On average, the EU is far ahead of Japan, Korea (Rep.) and the United States. 
Iceland is the best performer in this dimension, and it even leads in two of the three sub-
dimensions  (Content  and  Communication).  Top  EU  countries  complement  Iceland in  the 
top-three. Japan and Korea (Rep.)  score far below the EU average in this dimension. In 
particular, usage of social networks is very low in Korea (Rep.), whereas online shopping 
and  banking  is  very  low  in  Japan.  Australia,  which  has  low  usage  of  social  networks, 
scores  particularly  well  in  online  banking  and  shopping.  The  United  States  rank  below, 
but close to, the EU average. 

Results  in  Integration  of  Digital  Technology,  which  focuses  on  the  digitisation  of 
businesses,  show  the  United  States  as  the  clear  world  leader.  The  top  three  best 
performing EU countries (Finland, Denmark and Sweden) are following the United States, 
but  at  some  distance.  In  the  United  States,  businesses  exploit  the  advantages  of 
technologies  such  as  RFID  and  cloud  services.  In  particular,  a  high  share  of  companies 
has an online presence. Ireland and the Czech Republic are Europe’s top performers in e-
commerce.  The  EU’s  three  worst  performers  (Greece,  Bulgaria  and  Romania)  are  well 
behind, explaining the relatively low EU average. 

The  Digital  Public  Services  dimension  focuses  on  the  demand  for  and  supply  of  online 
public services as well as the countries' commitment to open data. Results show that the 
United  States  is  leading  this  dimension,  closely  followed  by  the  average  of  the  best 
performing EU countries (being France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands).   They 
are  followed  by  Korea,  Japan,  Australia  and  Canada,  all  being  way  ahead  of  the  EU 
average. Quick wins for the EU could be realized by improving the state of online public 
services in countries lagging behind. 

6 

 
 
 
Figure I. I-DESI 2015 main ranking (Tier-11) 

1 Consult Annex 1 for the list of country acronyms. EU28-top indicates the average of the three best performing EU countries. EU28-bot provides that insight for the worst performers. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Closing the gap within Europe to realise the potential of a Digital Single Market 

The  results  of  this  report  show  that  European  countries  can  compare  with  the  best 
worldwide,  and  some  are  even  ahead.  It  also  shows  that  the  European  countries 
combined - the ultimate goal of a Digital Single Market  - are not on  par with global top 
performers. Is Europe closing the gap? 

The analysis also allows to compare countries over time (I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015). 
In  figure  II,  countries  are  displayed  based  on  their  absolute  performance  in  2014 
(vertical axis) and their growth in performance (horizontal axis). It reveals that, although 
the  European  Union  as  a  whole  (EU28)  is  behind  major  economies  in  terms  of  absolute 
performance, it is advancing faster than for instance Korea and the United States. It also 
shows that European countries outperform their global counterparts  on one or the other 
axis:  the  three  top-performers  of  the  EU  reach  highest  absolute  scores,  while 
demonstrating  a  faster  growth  than  countries  such  as  Norway,  Korea,  Switzerland  and 
the  United  States.  The  potential  of  a  European  Digital  Single  Market  arises  from  this 
analysis; the challenge – and unmistakable need to remain competitive in the Digital era 
– is to unite and close the gaps within the Union itself. That would deliver on the promise 
of a European advantage. 

Figure II. Country performance and progress over years 
(Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)2 

EU top score 

IS 

NO 

KR 

US 

CH 

e
r
o
c
S

EU bot  
growth 

EU28  

CA 

JP 

AU 

EU top growth 

EU bot score 

Growth 

Results for countries only included in  Tier-2 (Brazil, China, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Russia  and  Turkey)  show  them  typically  performing  below  the  EU  average  across  all 
dimensions,  except  for  a  few  exceptions.  China  is,  for  instance,  a  top-performer  in  the 

2 EU28-top indicates the average of the three best performing EU countries. EU28-bot provides that insight for the worst 

performers. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Human  Capital  dimension,  and  Russia  also  scores  above  the  EU  average  on  this 
dimension.  Another  notable  positive  exception  is  New  Zealand,  which  consistently 
performs  above  the  EU  average,  and  is  even  leading  in  two  dimensions  (Use  of  the 
Internet and Integration of Digital Technology). 

9 

 
 
 
Abstract 

This  report  introduces  the  International  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (I-DESI), 
which  evaluates  the  digital  performance  of  EU  countries  and  the  EU  as  a  whole,  in 
comparison  to  15  other  countries  (Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Iceland,  Israel, 
Japan, Korea (Rep.), Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey and the 
United  States).  The  I-DESI  benchmarks  the  development  of  the  digital  economy  and 
society  in  Europe  against  top  world  peers  so  as  to  identify  room  for  improvement.  The 
results  show  that  the  top  countries  in  Europe  are  also  leading  in  the  global  stage.  The 
three  top  performing  countries  (Sweden,  Denmark  and  Finland)  are  closely  followed  by 
Korea (Rep.), United States and Japan. The EU as a whole scores high in three out of the 
five  main  dimensions  (Use  of  the  Internet,  Human  Capital  and  Integration  of  Digital 
Technology).  However,  the  results  also  show  that  the  EU  is  behind  the  non-EU  top 
performers in the other two dimensions (Connectivity and Digital Public Services) and on 
specific  individual  indicators.  Moreover,  there  are  substantial  differences  between  EU 
member  states  concerning  both  score  and  progress  over  time  (I-DESI  2014  vs.  I-DESI 
2015).  Europe  is  progressing  to  slowly  bridge  this  gap,  which  is  pivotal  to  realise  the 
potential of a Digital Single Market. 

10 

 
 
 
 
1 Introduction 

1.1  Background 
Enhancing  and  improving  the  Digital  Single  Market  is  one  of  the  top-priorities  of  the 
Juncker Commission3. Internet and digital technologies have become the driving force for 
transforming  the  modern  world  and  its  economy.  The  vast  economic  potential  of  this 
digital  transformation  for  European  economies  has  captured  the  attention  of  both 
national  governments  and  European  policy-makers  due  to  its  potential  to  contribute  to 
Europe’s  competitiveness,  employment  and  industrial  leadership.  Transforming  into  a 
digital economy, and ensuring that Europe’s economy, industry and employment take full 
advantage  of  what  digitalization  offers,  has  the  potential  to  contribute  €415  billion  per 
year to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Europe’s strategy to 
embrace the digital economy is laid out in its Digital Single Market strategy4, unveiled in 
May 2015. It focuses on:  

  better access for consumers and businesses to digital goods and services across 

 

Europe: facilitating e-commerce, tackling geo-blocking, modernising copyright and 
simplifying VAT arrangements;  
creating the right conditions, by levelling a playing field and environment for 
digital networks and services to flourish: infrastructure as a backbone for 
innovative digital services, 4G, increasing transparency and trust, personal data 
protection;  

  digital for growth - maximizing the growth potential of the digital economy: 

industry 4.0, standards, data economy, cloud computing, interoperable e-services 
and digital skills. 

The  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  aims  to  maximise  the  growth  potential  of  the 
European Digital Economy and of its society, so that every European citizen can enjoy its 
full benefit. But in order to get there, a lot of work remains to be done. To achieve a real 
Digital Union and to reap the benefits of a Digital Single Market,  reforms are needed at 
EU-level,  but  they  are  also  needed  at  national-  and  regional-level  in Member  States.  In 
order  to  know  what  is  needed  at  these  different  levels,  it  is  important  to  regularly 
evaluate  the  current  stage  of  the  several  components  of  aspired  digital  economy.  The 
European  Commission  has  therefore  introduced  The  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index 
(DESI).  The  DESI  is  a composite  index  that  summarises  relevant indicators  on  Europe’s 
digital  performance  and  tracks  the  evolution  of  EU  member  states  in  digital 
competitiveness. 

But  in  order  to  leverage  the  potential  of  the  digital  economy  in  Europe  and  to  discover 
where  Europe  could improve, it is also of great relevance to benchmark  Europe’s digital 
performance on a global scale. 

1.2  Objectives 
The  objective  of  the  study  is  to  develop  the  International  Digital  Economy  and  Society 
Index  (I-DESI),  and  to  calculate  the  index  for  two  years  (covering  data  for  2013  and 
2014, or as recent as possible when these years are not available).  

This  is  done  trough  procuring  existing  data  suitable  for  the  development  of  the  I-DESI. 
This international index allows for comparisons between the  EU and other leading world 

3 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/index_en  
4 http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/  

11 

 
 
  
                                           
economies,  and  reveals  where  the  EU  stands  with  regards  to  its  digital  maturity  as 
compared  to  these  other  countries.  By  including  2013  and  2014  data,  progress  on  the 
five dimensions in the index can be tracked. 

The  International  DESI  (I-DESI)  measures  progress  towards  a  digital  economy  and 
society  of  EU  countries  individually  and  the  average  EU  performance  compared  to  15 
other  countries:  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Iceland,  Israel,  Japan,  Korea  Mexico, 
New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. 

The  outcome  of  the  study  enables  European  and  national  policymakers  to  draw 
international  comparisons  regarding  the  digital  performance  of  their  region  or  country. 
These comparisons are important, because they define Europe’s performance at a global 
scale  with  regards  to  their  digital  maturity.  Europe  has  the  ambition  to  embrace  the 
digital  economy,  with  the  aim  of  enhancing  Europe’s  competitiveness,  creating 
employment and strengthening Europe’s industrial leadership.  

1.3  Data gathering 
The  index  is  partly  based  on  desk  research,  consulting  the  databases  and  reports  of 
relevant  organizations.  Among  these  organizations  are  international  organizations  like 
the OECD, the United Nations, and the European Union (Eurostat). Data stemming from 
the  databases  of  these  organizations  is  complemented  by  data  from  national  statistical 
(census)  bureaus,  and  by  data  originating  from  commercial  data  providers  (e.g.,  ITU). 
For  some  indicators  related  to  the  use  of  internet,  the  OECD  relies  on  the  Google 
Consumer Barometer5. We followed their approach in using these data, which is gathered 
and developed by TNS Infratest on behalf of Google.  

To tap into (knowledge of) data sources that are difficult to find online or understand due 
to  language  issues,  the  study  team  relied  on  its  network  of  contacts.  Ideally  the  team 
contacted researchers within the statistical bureau of each non-EU country.  

The  collected  data  (either  through  web  research  or  received  from  contacts)  is  checked 
and validated, a ‘logic control’ and quality control on the data received: 

 

Is it the right data: is it the data we are looking (definition) for and does it comply 
with our criteria? 
Is the data complete?  

 
  Are the data values conform expectations? 

1.4  Overview of the (International) Digital Economy and 

Society 

This  I-DESI  is  structured  around  the  same  5  dimensions  as  the  original  European  DESI 
(table  1.1).  Together  they  compose  the  key  elements  of  the  Digital  Economy: 
Connectivity  and  Human  capital  (digital  skills  of  users  and  practitioners)  can  be 
considered as the enablers of the digital economy and society,  of which citizens (‘Use of 
internet’)  and  businesses  (‘Integration  of  Digital  Technology’)  and  governments  (‘Digital 
public services’) can and should benefit. 

5 https://www.consumerbarometer.com/en/  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 1.1 (I-)DESI dimensions 

Dimension 

Description 

Connectivity 

Human Capital 

Use of Internet 

Integration of Digital 
Technology 

Digital Public Services 

The  Connectivity  dimension measures 
broadband 
broadband-enabled  services 
competitiveness. 

infrastructure  and 

to 
is  a  necessary  condition 

the  deployment  of 
fast 
for 

its  quality.  Access 

The Human Capital dimension measures the skills needed to take 
advantage  of  the  possibilities  offered  by  a  digital  society.  Such 
skills  go  from  basic  user  skills  that  enable  individuals  to  interact 
online and consume digital goods and services, to advanced skills 
that empower  the workforce  to take advantage of  technology for 
enhanced productivity and economic growth. 

The  Use  of  Internet  dimension  accounts  for  the  variety  of 
activities  performed  by  citizens  already  online.  Such  activities 
range from consumption of online content (videos, music, games, 
etc.)  to  modern  communication  activities  or  online  shopping  and 
banking. 

The  Integration  of  Digital  Technology  dimension measures  the 
digitisation of businesses and their exploitation of the online sales 
channel.  By  adopting  digital  technology  businesses  can  enhance 
efficiency, 
customers, 
collaborators and business partners. Furthermore, the Internet as 
a  sales  outlet  offers  access  to  wider  markets  and  potential  for 
growth. 

costs  and  better  engage 

reduce 

The Digital Public Services dimension measures the digitisation of 
public  services,  and  focuses  in  particular  on  eGovernment. 
Modernisation  and  digitisation  of  public  services  can  lead  to 
efficiency  gains  for  the  public  administration,  citizens  and 
businesses  alike  as  well  as  to  the  delivery  of  better  services  for 
the citizen. 

The I-DESI, much like the DESI, allows for four main types of analysis:  

  General  performance  assessment:  to  obtain  a  general  characterisation  of  the 
performance  of  individual  Member  States  and  the  EU  as  a  whole  by  observing 
their overall index score and the scores of the main index dimensions.  

  Zooming-in:  to  pinpoint  the  areas  where  the  EU  and  Member  State  performance 
could  be  improved  by  analysing  the  scores  of  the  index’s  sub-dimensions  and 
individual indicators, in comparison with non-European countries.  

  Follow-up: to assess whether there is progress over time (2013-2014).  
  Comparative  analysis:  to  cluster  Member  States  according  to  their  index  scores, 
comparing  countries  in  similar  stages  of  digital  development  in  order  to  flag  the 
need for improvement in relevant policy areas.  

Ideally, the I-DESI would have been prepared with indicators that are identical 
to  the  ones  used  in  the  DESI.  The  experience  is  however  that  there  are  many 
differences  in  data  collection  and  definitions  when  moving  outside  of  Europe. 
This  is  not  necessarily  a  bad  thing  (even  though  one  would  wish  for  global 
consistency in statistical data collection), and does not result in a less valuable 
analysis,  just  a  different  analysis.  The  next  chapter  will  further  explain  the 
differences. 

13 

 
 
1.5  Structure of this document 
This  document  presents  the  methodology  used  for  the  study  and  the  results  of  the 
assessment for all Member States and the selected external countries, gathered through 
desk research and provided by national statistics offices and international sources. 

This final report is structured around five chapters:  

1.  Introduction providing the background and context of the study;  
2.  The research approach; 
3.  The ranking and results for Tier-1 
4.  The ranking and results for Tier-2; 
5.  The conclusion and insights. 

A detailed description of the indicators comprised in the I-DESI is included in Annex 2. 

14 

 
 
 
 
2 Approach 

This  chapter  explains  how  the  I-DESI  is  structured,  which  criteria  have  been  used,  how 
the data is gathered and what kind of analyses have been performed in order to  obtain 
robust data and valuable insights. The methodology builds on the method of the existing 
DESI, and is structured around the same dimensions as the DESI. Therefore, this chapter 
is based on the DESI Methodological Note6, which served as the starting point for I-DESI 
research. 

2.1  Structure of two tiers in the I-DESI 
The I-DESI 2015 uses a tiered approach as it was proven impossible in practice to collect 
comparable  data  for  all  indicators  for  all  countries.  Based  on  availability  of  indicators  it 
was possible to make two groups of countries, based on the following approach: 

 

 

 

the  first  tier  is  computed  for  the  EU  countries  plus  at  least  the  USA,  Japan  and 
Korea. The second tier is computed using a shallower set of indicators for the EU 
countries plus all the remaining countries; 
the first tier includes as many indicators as possible that correspond with the DESI 
indicators. 
the  first  tier  is  not  limited  to  EU  countries  and  the  USA,  Japan  and  Korea.  If  for 
other  countries,  e.g.  Australia,  the  same  amount  of  data is  available as  for  USA, 
Japan and Korea, then Australia will be added to the first tier; 

This  lead  to  two  subsets  of  countries:  the  first  subset  of  countries  (Tier-1,  EU28  plus 
Australia,  Canada,  Iceland,  Japan,  Korea,  Norway,  Switzerland,  the  United  States)  is 
calculated  based  on  28  indicators,  whilst  the  second  subset  of  countries  (Tier-2:  Tier-1 
plus  Brazil,  China,  Israel,  Mexico,  New  Zealand,  Russia  and  Turkey)  is  calculated  based 
on a shallower set of 18 indicators7.  

The  structure  of  both  Tier-1  and  Tier-2  is  presented  in  table  2.2.  The  two  tiers  are 
separate  indices  and  cannot  be  directly  compared,  since  they  consist  of  different 
indicators and consequently, different weightings were applied. In particular dimension 4 
differs  significantly  between  Tier-1  and  Tier-2.  The  progress  of  the  several  countries  is 
tracked by comparing I-DESI 2014 scores with I-DESI 2015 scores. For both Tier-1 and 
Tier-2 in the I-DESI 2014 some indicators had to be dropped due to data availability. It is 
important  to  take  these  different  sets  of  indicators  into  account  when  interpreting  the 
results. 

Table 2.1 Countries included in Tier-1 and Tier-2 

Tier-
1  

Tier-
2 

All  EU28 
countries 

All Tier-1 
countries 

Japan 

Korea 
(Rep.) 

United 
States 

Australia  Canada 

Iceland   Norway  Switzerland  

Brazil 

China 

Israel  Mexico 

New 
Zealand 

Russia 

Turkey 

The main dimensions of the I-DESI represent the five principal policy areas of concern for 
a digital economy and society. These are not isolated areas that contribute separately to 
digital development, but are in fact interconnected. As such, developments in the digital 

6 Available at  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/desi-2016-methodological-note  
7  Not  included  are:  Fixed  Broadband  Coverage,  ICT  specialists,  Online  News  reading,  Online 
banking, Electronic Information Sharing, RFID, Social Media, Web Presence, Cloud, eCommerce 
Turnover 

15 

 
 
  
                                           
economy  cannot  be  achieved  through  isolated  improvements  in  particular  areas  but 
through concerted improvement in all areas. 

Table  2.2  Structure  of  the  I-DESI  2015  and  2014  for  Tier-1  and  Tier-2  (●  =  indicator  is 
used) 

Main 
dimensions 

Sub-dimensions  Indicators 

Tier-1 

Tier-2 

2015  2014  2015  2014 

1. Connectivity 

2. Human 
Capital 

3. Use of 
Internet 

1.1. Fixed 
Broadband 

1.2. Mobile 
Broadband 

1.3. Speed 

1.4. Affordability 

2.1. Basic Skills 
and Usage 

2.2. Advanced 
skills and 
development 

3.1. Content 

3.2. 
Communication 

3.3. Transactions 

4.1. Business 
digitization 

4. Integration of 
Digital 
Technology 

4.2. eCommerce 

5. Digital Public 
Services 

5.1. 
eGovernment 

1.1.1. Fixed BB Coverage 

1.1.2. Fixed BB 
Subscriptions 

1.2.1. Mobile BB 
Subscriptions 
1.2.2. 3G Coverage 

1.3.1. Average Connection 
Speed 

1.3.2. Fast BB 
Subscriptions 
1.4.1. Fixed BB 
Subscription charge 
2.1.1. Daily Internet Users 

2.1.2. Regular Internet 
Users 

2.2.1. ICT specialists 

2.2.2. STEM graduates 

3.1.1. Reading News 
Online 
3.1.2. Music, Videos and 
Games 
3.1.3. Video on Demand 

3.2.1. Social Networks 

3.3.1. Online Banking 

3.3.2. Purchase online 
products 
4.1.1. Electronic 
Information Sharing 

4.1.2. RFID  

4.1.3. Social Media  

4.1.4. Online Presence 

4.1.5. Cloud Services 

4.2.1. SMEs Selling Online 

4.2.2. eCommerce 
Turnover 
5.1.1. eGovernment Users 

5.1.2. Transactional 
services 

5.1.3. Connected Services 

5.1.4. Open Data 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2  Detailed description of dimensions and indicators 

2.2.1  Connectivity dimension  
This  dimension  covers  both  the  supply  and  demand  side  of  connectivity.  A  necessary 
condition for the development of a digital society is the ability of its members to connect 
to the Internet. Nowadays however, a simple Internet connection is no longer sufficient. 
In  order  to  benefit  from  the  full  spectrum  of  developments  offered  by  the  Internet,  the 
availability  of  high-speed  Internet  connections  start  to  be  desirable,  if  not  mandatory. 
Hence connectivity is a necessary infrastructure of the digital economy and society.  

The  Connectivity  dimension  is  divided  into  four  sub-dimensions,  each  focusing  on  a 
relevant aspect of connectivity to the Internet. 

2.2.1.1  Fixed Broadband 
This  sub-dimension  focuses  on  whether  citizens  have  the  possibility  to  connect  to  the 
Internet  via  a  fixed  broadband  connection,  and  on  the  extent  to  which  they  do  in  fact 
connect  to  the  Internet  that  way.  These  phenomena  are  captured  respectively  by  the 
Fixed BB Coverage and by the Fixed BB Subscriptions indicators. 

2.2.1.2  Mobile Broadband 
This  sub-dimension  focuses  on  whether  citizens  use  the  broadband  capabilities  of  their 
mobile  devices  (Mobile  BB  Subscriptions  indicator)  and  the  extent  to  which  they  have 
access to the Mobile 3G network (3G coverage indicator).  

2.2.1.3  Speed 
The  Speed  sub-dimension  focuses  on  the  availability  and  use  of  high-speed  Internet 
connections (defined as those offering at least 10 Mbps download speed). The actual use 
of such connections by the population is captured in the Subscriptions to Fast broadband 
(BB)  indicator,  whilst  the  actual  speed  offered  is  measured  in  the  Average  Connection 
Speed indicator. 

2.2.1.4  Affordability 
Finally,  this  sub-dimension  measures  the  affordability  of  having  a  broadband  Internet 
connection  by  means  of  the  Fixed  broadband  (BB)  Subscription  Charge  indicator.  This 
indicator  captures  the  monthly  subscription  charge  that  a  potential  user  would  have  to 
pay  to  obtain  a  basic  fixed  broadband  connection  as  a  percentage  of  her  gross  income 
(i.e.  fixed  broadband  is  considered  to  be  any  dedicated  connection  to  the  Internet  at 
downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s). 

2.2.2  Human Capital dimension  
Having  a  connection  to  the  Internet  is  not  sufficient;  it  must  be  paired  with  the 
appropriate  skills  to  take  advantage  of  the  Internet  and  of  the  myriad  of  possibilities 
unravelled  by  a  digital  society.  Those  skills  range  from  basic  usage  skills  that  enable 
individuals to take part in the digital society and consume digital goods and services, to 
advanced  skills  that  empower  the  workforce  to  develop  new  digital  goods  and  services 
and  to  take  advantage  of  technology  for  enhanced  productivity  and  economic  growth. 
Digital skills are also a necessary infrastructure for the digital economy and society. 

The Human Capital dimension is divided into two sub-dimensions. 

2.2.2.1  Basic skills and usage 
The  Basic  Skills  and  usage  sub-dimension  captures  the  digital  skills level  of  the  general 
population.  In  particular,  it  assesses  whether  citizens  are  able  to  use  the  Internet  and 
use it on a regular and frequent basis (Daily Internet Users indicator, Frequent  Internet 
Users indicator).  

17 

 
 
2.2.2.2  Advanced skills and development 
The  Advanced  skills  and  development  sub-dimension  concerns  the  workforce  and  its 
potential to maintain and grow the digital economy. It takes into account the percentage 
of  people  in  the  workforce  with  ICT  specialist  skills  (ICT  Specialists  indicators)  and  the 
share  of  the  graduates  with  STEM  education  (Science,  Technology,  Engineering  and 
Mathematics; STEM graduates indicator). 

2.2.3  Use of Internet dimension  
Citizens,  who  are  empowered  with  an  Internet  connection  and  the  necessary  skills  to 
take  advantage  of  it,  can  engage  in  a  wide  range  of  online  activities.  These  can  be 
through  consumption  of  online  content  (e.g.,  news,  music,  videos,  or  games,  obtaining 
media-rich  information  or  engaging  in  online  social  interaction),  through  modern 
communication activities (e.g., using social networks), or through eCommerce. Nowadays 
this mix of activities can only be enjoyed to its fullest using the high-speed connectivity 
provided by a broadband subscription.  

The Use of Internet dimension is divided into three sub-dimensions. 

2.2.3.1  Content 
The Content sub-dimension measures the extent to which a country’s Internet users get 
online  content  via  their  broadband  connections.  It  uses  three  indicators  to  portray  the 
country’s consumption of content online: the percentage of Internet users that read news 
online  (Reading  News  Online  indicator);  the  percentage  of  Internet  users  that  consume 
music, videos or games online (Music, Videos and Games indicator); and the percentages 
of Internet Users who used the internet for video-on-demand services (Video on Demand 
indicator). 

2.2.3.2  Communication 
The  Communication  sub-dimension  measures  the  extent  to  which  a  country’s  Internet 
users  communicate  and  interact  online  using  their  broadband  connections.  To  do  so,  it 
concentrates  on  one  indicator:  and  the  percentage  of  Internet  users  that  use  social 
networks (Social Networks indicator). 

2.2.3.3  Transactions 
The  Transactions  sub-dimension  captures  the  propensity  of  Internet  users  to  perform 
transactions  online.  It  concentrates  on  two  indicators:  whether  users  go  online  to  fulfil 
their  banking  needs  (Online  Banking  indicator),  or  to  purchase  products  or  services 
(Shopping indicator). 

2.2.4  Integration of Digital Technology Dimension  
On  the  business  side,  digitization  is  one  of  the  main  contributors  to  competitive 
advantage  and  growth.  Adoption  of  digital  technologies  can  enhance  efficiency,  reduce 
costs or allow for closer engagement with customers, collaborators or business partners, 
and is becoming a mandatory requirement for being competitive. This, together with the 
ability  to  use  the  Internet  as  a  point-of-sale,  can  contribute  significantly  to  the 
modernisation of businesses.  

The Integration of Digital Technology dimension is divided into two sub-dimensions. 

2.2.4.1  Business digitization 
The  Business  digitization  sub-dimension  measures  the  level  of  adoption  of  digital 
technologies  by  a  country’s  businesses.  It  focuses  on  five  technologies:  the  sharing  of 
information  electronically  inside  companies  via  ERP  (Electronic  Information  Sharing 

18 

 
 
 
indicator),  the  use  of  Radio-frequency  Identification  technologies  (RFID  indicator),  the 
engagement with clients, partners and other stakeholders via social media (Social Media 
indicator), the extent to which they have an online presence (Online Presence indicator) 
and the use of Cloud services (Cloud Services indicator). 

2.2.4.2  eCommerce 
The eCommerce sub-dimension focuses on the exploitation of the online sales channel by 
a  country’s  small  and  medium  enterprises.  It  captures  this  via  two  indicators:  the 
percentage of SMEs that have sold online (SMEs Selling Online indicator) and the average 
turnover they realised from online sales (eCommerce Turnover indicator). 

2.2.5  Digital Public Services Dimension  
Business  and  citizen  interaction  with  the  Public  Sector  can  be  improved  and  made 
significantly  more  efficient  through  the  use  of  digital  technologies.  Such  efficiency  gains 
materialise  both  on  the  side  of  the  Public  Administration  as  well  as  on  the  citizen  and 
business side. Public Administrations can take advantage of technology to better address 
the  increasingly  demanding  set  of  business  and  citizen  needs,  while  simultaneously 
realising  significant  cost  reductions.  With  better  and  more  streamlined  Public  Services, 
citizens  and  businesses  gain  in  efficiency,  both  due  to  more  functionality  as  well  as  to 
reductions in time spent. The Digital Public Services consists of one sub-dimension.  

2.2.5.1  eGovernment 
The  eGovernment  sub-dimension  captures  the  level  of  development  of  a  country’s 
eGovernment services. It does so using four indicators: the percentage of the population 
that have engaged with the public administration online (eGovernment Users indicator); 
the  extent  to  which  government  websites  offer  transactional  services  (Transactional 
Services  indicator);  the  extent  to  which  government  websites  offer  connected  services 
(Connected  Services  indicator);  and  the  government  commitment  to  open  data  (by 
means of the Open Data indicator). 

2.3  Comparability I-DESI with the DESI 
There are a few  significant differences between the DESI and I-DESI that are important 
to  understand  when  interpreting  the  results.  Both  indices  follow  the  same  structure  but 
use different sources  for the indicators. Furthermore, instead of the 30 indicators in the 
DESI-2015, the I-DESI 2015 uses less indicators and applies a tiered structure. 

The  DESI  includes  the  28  EU  member  states,  whilst  the  I-DESI  is  an  international 
comparison, including the EU28 and 8 other countries in a first tier and 15 countries in a 
second  tier  (see  Table  1.2).  In  order  to  establish  the  international  comparison,  some 
other indicators had to be included in the I-DESI as compared to the DESI, mainly due to 
data availability for this broader set of countries.  

The  I-DESI  includes  a  smaller  set  of  indicators  (28  indicators  in  Tier-1,  18  indicators  in 
Tier-2  –  see  paragraph  2.1  for  the  tiered  structure)  along  the  same  dimensions  as  the 
DESI. The data included in the index were mostly collected by the European Commission 
services  (Eurostat),  the  OECD,  the  United  Nations,  the  International  Telecommunication 
Union  and  TNS  on  behalf  of  Google,  complemented  by  data  originating  from  national 
statistical offices, commercial databases and commercial studies. 

This resulted in the fact that the majority of the indicators used in the I-DESI is 
not  exactly  the  same  as  the  ones  used  in  the  DESI.  Still,  the  indicators 
comprised in the I-DESI aim to picture the relevant phenomena measured in the 

19 

 
 
 
DESI  to  the  highest  possible  degree  of  accuracy  given  the  data  availability 
constraints. 

In  table  2.3  the  correlations  between  the  I-DESI  (both  Tier-1  and  Tier-2)  and  the  DESI 
scores and rankings of the EU countries are presented for both 2014 and 2015. 

Table 2.3 Correlations between scores and rankings DESI with I-DESI Tier-1 and Tier-2 

Overall index 

1. Connectivity 

2. Human Capital 

3. Use of Internet 

4. Integration of Digital Technology 

5. Digital Public Services 

Tier-1 

Tier-2 

2015 

2014 

2015 

2014 

93% 
94% 
76% 
75% 
94% 
94% 
73% 
79% 
94% 
89% 
62% 
61% 

92% 
91% 
75% 
76% 
93% 
93% 
80% 
81% 
82% 
81% 
56% 
59% 

92% 
93% 
81% 
81% 
69% 
62% 
72% 
80% 
83% 
84% 
67% 
66% 

90% 
91% 
79% 
81% 
74% 
67% 
78% 
82% 
88% 
88% 
56% 
60% 

score 
rank 
score 
rank 
score 
rank 
score 
rank 
score 
rank 
score 
rank 

Whilst a high correlation can be noticed between both indices on the overall index (above 
90%), the specific scores and rankings for the EU countries on the five dimensions in the 
I-DESI show some differences compared to their counterparts in the DESI. Tier-1 shows 
lower  correlations  on  the  dimensions  Connectivity,  Use  of  Internet  and,  most  notably, 
Digital  Public  Services.  As  regards  Tier-2,  the  correlation  on  Human  Capital  is  relatively 
low though still acceptable.  

There  are  a  few  countries  that  show  considerable  differences  with  regards  to  their 
performance  in  the  I-DESI  as  compared  to  the  DESI,  as  for  instance  shown  by  France 
The relative big difference for France is caused by different definitions and data used for 
Connectivity  and  Digital  Public  Services  in  the  I-DESI.  For  both  Spain  and  Greece,  the 
difference  is  mainly  due  to  a  better  I-DESI  performance  in  the  dimension  Connectivity. 
The lower position in the I-DESI as compared to the DESI for Poland is mainly caused by 
a lower performance on Digital Public Services.  

In order to prepare an international comparison, the I-DESI had to rely for the majority 
of the indicators on different sources than the  sources used in the DESI.  Indicators and 
definitions  used  in  the  I-DESI  are  not  directly  comparable  with  those  comprised  in  the 
DESI. For this reason, it is possible that countries score higher or lower on indicators and 
dimensions that seem to be the same (in the I-DESI and the DESI).  

Two examples to illustrate and explain these differences: 

  France  ranks  third  (of  EU28  member  states)  in  the  I-DESI  indicator  Fast 
Broadband  Subscriptions  (1.3.2)  from  the  ITU  database,  which  uses  10  Mbps  as 
threshold,  while  they  rank  23nd  in  the  DESI  indicator  Subscriptions  to  Fast 
Broadband  (1.c.2)  from  the  EC  data  collection,  which  uses  a  30Mbps  threshold. 
This  example  shows  that  slight  changes  in  definitions  and  indicators  can  have 
impact on scores and rankings. However, in terms of generating insights for policy 
on  what  to  improve,  this  analysis  teaches  us  that  France  is  doing  very  well  on 
providing  broadband  subscriptions  with  a  lower  speed,  while  having  room  to 
improve in providing faster broadband internet. 

20 

 
  
 
 
 

In  the  I-DESI,  the  dimension  ‘Digital  Public  Services’  uses  different  sources  to 
compare countries. The DESI builds on the European Commission’s eGovernment 
benchmark  and  uses  the  indicators  Pre-filled  Forms  (5.a.2)  and  Online  Service 
Completion  (5.a.3).  However,  this  research  does  not  include  countries  outside  of 
Europe and hence the I-DESI uses the UN eGovernment benchmark and consists 
of  the  indicators  Transactional  Services  (5.1.2)  and  Connected  Services  (5.1.3). 
While France performs much better in the UN benchmark, Poland performs much 
better  in  the  EU  benchmark.  Even  though  both  sources  are  well  recognized  and 
authoritative  data  collections,  there  are  clear  differences  between  the  indicators 
used.  Pre-filling  online  forms  with  personal  data  that  is  already  known  by 
government  is  a  very  important  element  of  eGovernment  and  shows  both 
efficiency  of  the  internal  public  administration  as  well  as  ease  of  use  for  citizens 
and  businesses.  The  definition is  more  specific  compared  to  the  UN  description8. 
Another  difference  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  UN  benchmark  mostly  focuses  on 
national websites, whereas the EU benchmark also includes local websites that are 
part of the Life Events under assessment.  

The I-DESI is very well suited for comparing Europe to other global economies. The DESI 
is very well suited for drawing comparisons between European countries. For this reason, 
this report will show in respective charts the average of all EU member states (EU28) and 
also the spread of scores obtained in the EU. The latter is illustrated by including ‘EU28-
top’ (calculated as the average of the three best performing countries in a category) and 
‘Eu28-bot’  (‘bottom’  which  is  calculated  as  the  average  of  the  three  worst  performing 
countries in a category).  

2.4  Methodological considerations 
To  create  the  I-DESI,  we  relied  on  existing  archival  data,  which  mainly  originated  from 
international  organizations  and  national  statistical  bureaus.  It  was  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  assignment  to  collect  additional  primary  data,  e.g.  questionnaires.  This  paragraph 
describes the method used for gathering this data.  

2.4.1  Indicator criteria 
Indicators used in the I-DESI preferably comply with the following requirements:  

  Must be collected on a regular basis. In order to fulfil the monitoring function, the 
indicators used in the index must be collected ideally on a yearly basis (or at least 
with a pre-defined regularity).  

  Must be  relevant for a  policy area of interest.  All indicators in the index must be 

accepted as relevant metrics in their specific policy areas.  

  Must  not  be  redundant.  The  index  should  not  contain  indicators  that  are 

redundant, either statistically or in terms of interpretation.  

As a principle, data originating from 2014 is included in the I-DESI 2015. Similarly, data 
originating  from  2013  is  included  in  the  I-DESI  2014.  These  criteria  guided  the  data 
collection, but in some  cases the  study team had to slightly deviate from these  criteria, 
for instance,  regarding regularly updated data. There are cases in which we had to  rely 
on the most  recent available data, for instance with regards to  OECD  data. As a  rule, a 
cut-off  date  of  five  years  is  used:  data  is  not  older  than  five  years,  starting  from  the 
respective I-DESI years (2014 and 2015). In cases where the most recent available data 
was older than five years, the value was estimated based on least available data.  

8  UNITED NATIONS E-GOVERNMENT SURVEY 2014. Available online on: 

https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/portals/egovkb/documents/un/2014-survey/e-
gov_complete_survey-2014.pdf 

21 

 
 
                                           
The  I-DESI  has  a  three-layer  structure.  It  is  composed  of  5  main  dimensions,  each 
divided in a set of sub-dimensions, which are in turn composed by individual indicators. 
The  study  team  aimed  to  stay  as  close  as  possible  to  the  structure  of  the  original 
European data, but due to limited data availability (i.e. too many missing observations in 
the  added  countries)  some  indicators  have  been  dropped.  When  encountering  missing 
values for a certain indicator, the following steps have been taken (in order): 

  First try to impute the missing data point; 
 
 

Investigate the feasibility of a proxy-indicator; 
If  not  sufficient:  drop  the  indicator  (and  adjust  the  weightings  within  the  sub-
dimension accordingly); 

2.4.2  Weighting 
Some  dimensions,  sub-dimensions  and  individual  indicators  are  more  relevant  than 
others, and for this reason they were given higher weight in the computation of the final 
index score for each country (table 2.4)9.  

Table 2.4 Weighing per dimension 

Dimension 

Connectivity 

Human Capital 

Use of Internet 

Weight 

25% 

25% 

15% 

Integration of Digital Technology 

20% 

Digital Public Services 

15% 

Connectivity  and  Human  Capital  can  be  considered  as  the  most  relevant  dimensions 
because  they  represent  the  infrastructure  of  the  digital  economy  and  society.  Hence, 
they were given higher weights. Integration of Digital Technology captures the use of ICT 
by the business sector, which, according to growth accounting theories is one of the most 
important drivers of growth. It was given a relatively high weight, but not as high as the 
previous two dimensions. Finally, Use of Internet (by citizens) and Digital Public Services 
are enabled by the infrastructure and their contribution is strengthened by the quality of 
such infrastructure. For this reason, they received a relatively lower weight. 

Weights were also assigned at the sub-dimension and individual indicator level. Weights 
used at the sub-dimension level are summarised in table 2.510. 

Within  the  Connectivity  dimension,  the  sub-dimensions  Fixed  Broadband  and  Speed  are 
considered to be the most important sub-dimensions (weighted 33%), followed by Mobile 
Broadband  (22%)  and  then  by  Affordability  (11%)11.  All  sub-dimensions  within  the 
Human  Capital  and  Use  of  Internet  dimensions  are  considered  of  equal  importance  and 
are  therefore  weighted  equally.  Regarding  Integration  of  Digital  Technology12,  the 
Business  Digitisation  sub-dimension  is  considered  as  more  important  than  the 

9 The same weightings as applied in the DESI are used in the I-DESI 
10  Since  the  weight  assignment  for  sub-dimensions  is  local  to  the  dimension  that  they  are  part  of,  then  the 
sum of weights of the sub-dimensions within each dimension should add up to 100%.  
11 Again, same weightings as in the DESI were applied, except for the subdimension eGovernment 

12 4.1 indicators are not included in Tier-2. Therefore, a weight of 100% is attributed to subdimension 4.2 in 
Tier-2.  

22 

 
 
                                           
eCommerce  sub-dimension,  and  therefore  weighted  higher  at  60%.  Within  the  Digital 
Public Services dimension, eGovernment is the only sub-dimension, weighted 100%. 

Table 2.5 Weighing per sub-dimension 

Dimension 

Sub-dimension 

Weight 

1. Connectivity 

1.1 Fixed Broadband 

1.2 Mobile Broadband 

1.3 Speed 

1.4 Affordability 

2. Human Capital 

2.1 Basic Skills and Usage 

3. Use of Internet 

3.1 Content 

2.2 Advanced skills 

4. Integration of Digital 
Technology 

3.2 Communication 

3.3 Transactions 

4.1 Business Digitization 

4.2 eCommerce  

33% 

22% 

33% 

11% 

50% 

50% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

60% 

40% 

5. Digital Public Services 

5.1 eGovernment 

100% 

2.4.3  Normalisation 
In  order to aggregate indicators into the sub-dimensions and main dimensions of the  I-
DESI,  the  indicators  were  normalised.  Normalisation  was  done  by  using  the  min-max 
method,  which  consists  on  a  linear  projection  of  each  indicator  onto  a  scale  between  0 
and 1. For indicators with positive direction (i.e., where higher is better), the 0 value in 
the normalised scale was anchored to the minimum value in the indicator original scale, 
and  the  value  1  in  the  normalised  scale  was  anchored  to  the  maximum  value  in  the 
indicator’s scale. The opposite happened for indicators with negative direction. 

To allow for inter-temporal comparisons of index scores, the minima and maxima for the 
normalisation of each indicator were fixed and will be used for normalisation in the future 
versions of the I-DESI. Table 2.6 presents the values that were chosen as the minimum 
and maximum of each indicator for normalisation purposes. 

Table 2.6 Minima and maxima used for normalisation  

Indicator 

Unit 

1.1.1. Fixed BB Coverage 

% of households 

1.1.2. Fixed BB Subscriptions 

per 100 inhabitants 

1.2.1. Mobile BB Subscriptions 

per 100 inhabitants 

1.2.2. 3G coverage 

% of population 

1.3.1. Average Connection Speed 

in Mb per second 

1.3.2. Fast BB Subscriptions 

%  of  subscriptions  equal  to  or 
above 10 Mbps 

Min 

Max 

70% 

100% 

0 

0 

50 

160 

60%13 

100% 

0 

0% 

30 

100% 

1.4.1.  Fixed  BB  Subscription 
Charge 

% of individual gross income 

0% 

4% 

13  The  value  for  China  in  the  I-DESI  2015  is  below  the  minimum  value.  Therefore,  a  normalized 

value of 0 is attributed to China for this specific indicator. 

23 

 
 
                                           
Indicator 

Unit 

2.1.1. Daily Internet Users 

% of internet users 

2.1.2. Regular Internet Users 

% of individuals who used Internet 
in the last 3 months 

2.2.1. ICT Specialists 

% of total employment 

2.2.2. STEM graduates 

% of graduates in STEM subjects 

3.1.1. Reading News Online 

% of internet users 

3.1.2. Music, Videos and Games 

% of internet users 

3.1.3. Video on Demand 

% of internet users 

3.2.1. Social Networks 

% of internet users 

3.3.1. Online Banking 

% of internet users 

3.3.2. Purchase Online Products  % of internet users 

4.1.1. Electronic Information 
Sharing 

4.1.2. RFID 

4.1.3. Social Media 

% of enterprises 

% of enterprises 

% of enterprises 

4.1.4. Online presence 

% of enterprises 

4.1.5. Cloud Services 

% of enterprises 

4.2.1. SMEs selling online 

% of SMEs 

4.2.2. eCommerce turnover 

% of turnover 

5.1.1. eGovernment users 

% of population 

5.1.2. Transactional Services 

% of services 

5.1.3. Connected Services 

% of services 

5.1.4. Open Data 

% of datasets 

Min 

Max 

30% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

50% 

33% 

100% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

50% 

50% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

60% 

60% 

60% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

2.4.4  Data imputation I-DESI 2015 
Some  indicators  had  missing  observations  for  some  countries.  Values  for  those 
observations  were  estimated  by  using  a  previous  year’s  indicator  value  (not  older  than 
five  years)  or  by  using  the  Amelia  II14  (in  the  statistical  program  R).  The  Amelia 
estimation  process  uses  as  an  input  the  set  of  other  indicators  for  which  the  squared 
correlation with the indicator with missing observations is the highest. 

In  the  I-DESI  2015,  42  missing  observations  are  imputed  by  using  Amelia  II,  which 
corresponds  to  3,7%  of  all  observations  (overall  total  of  1.148  observations).  The 
indicators with the highest number of missing observations are Video on Demand (3.1.3), 
Purchase  Online  Products  (3.3.2)  and  Social  Media  (4.1.3),  with  each  4  missing  values 
(9% of the total 43 observations). In the  I-DESI 2015 there are 57 values estimated by 
using  data  from  previous  years,  of  which  38  (67%)  originate  from  2013  and  14  (25%) 
from 2012. Table 2.7 presents the list of all missing observations in I-DESI 2015 and the 
values resulting from both the estimation process Amelia and previous year values. 

14 James Honaker and Gary King and Matthew Blackwell, “Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data”, 
Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 45, Issue 7, Dec 2011. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i07/ 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Table 2.7 Missing data points I-DESI 2015 

Indicator 

Country 

Method 

Value 

3.1.3 Video on Demand 

1.3.2 Fixed BB Subscriptions 

3.2.1 Social Networks 
3.3.1 Banking 

1.1.1 Fixed BB Coverage 
1.2.2 3G Coverage 

1.4.1 Fixed BB Subscription 
Charge 

2.1.1 Internet Users 
3.1.1 News 
3.1.2 Music, Videos and Games 

Korea (Rep.) 
Mexico 
Russia 
Turkey 
Austria 
Finland 
France 
Japan 
United States 
Israel 
Mexico 
Japan 
Israel 
Switzerland 
Greece 
Iceland 
Malta 
Luxembourg 
Australia 
Cyprus 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Cyprus 
Iceland 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Malta 
Australia 
United States 
Israel 
New Zealand 
Brazil 
Mexico 
Russia 
3.3.2 Purchase Online Products  Cyprus 
Iceland 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Australia 
Japan 
United States 
Canada 
Switzerland 
Korea (Rep.) 
Canada 
Japan 
Korea (Rep.) 
United States 
Australia 
Switzerland 
Switzerland 
France 
Korea (Rep.) 
United States 
Canada 
Japan 

4.1.1 Electronic Information 
Sharing 

4.1.3 Social Media 

4.1.2 RFID 

value 2013 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2011 
value 2012 
value 2013 
value 2012 
value 2013 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2011 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2012 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2011 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2012 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2013 

98% 
87% 
95% 
89% 
96% 
95% 
98% 
100% 
100% 
99% 
46% 
89% 
42% 
3.6% 
1.1% 
0.9% 
0.8% 
82% 
73% 
36% 
33% 
37% 
22% 
36% 
25% 
29% 
73% 
85% 
51% 
39% 
75% 
32% 
17% 
38% 
5.4% 
7.0% 
10% 
7.4% 
27% 
35% 
36% 
21% 
39% 
36% 
3.0% 
8.0% 
42% 
52% 
17% 
14% 
39% 
44% 
28% 
43% 
32% 
16% 

25 

 
Indicator 

4.1.4 Online Presence 

4.1.5 Cloud Services 

4.2.1 SMEs Selling Online 

4.2.2 eCommerce Turnover 

5.1.1 eGovernment Users 

5.1.4 Open Data 

Country 

Method 

Value 

United States 
Brazil 
China 
Israel 
Russia 
Australia 
Canada 
Switzerland 
Korea (Rep.) 
Israel 
Russia 
Iceland 
Canada 
Switzerland 
Japan 
Korea (Rep.) 
United States 
Brazil 
China 
Turkey 
Mexico 
Belgium 
Iceland 
Korea (Rep.) 
Luxembourg 
Australia 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
United States 
Canada 
Switzerland 
Japan 
Japan 
China 
Mexico 
Australia 
Canada 
Brazil 
Israel 
New Zealand 
Russia 
Estonia 
Luxembourg 

value 2013 
value 2013 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2012 
value 2011 
value 2013 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2011 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2012 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2013 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2013 
value 2012 
value 2013 
value 2013 
value 2012 
value 2013 
imputed 
imputed 

82% 
56% 
55% 
62% 
63% 
19% 
31% 
8.6% 
12% 
20% 
7.4% 
33% 
17% 
34% 
22% 
15% 
28% 
18% 
5.2% 
8.1% 
7.2% 
14% 
14% 
28% 
23% 
9.0% 
12% 
11% 
20% 
17% 
18% 
19% 
57% 
33% 
15% 
50% 
55% 
27% 
35% 
51% 
16% 
65% 
63% 

2.4.5  Data imputation I-DESI 2014 
The same process for coping with missing values in the I-DESI 2014 is used as for the I-
DESI 2015: using values no more than five years old or using Amelia II.  

Amelia  estimation  has  been  done  for  40  missing  observations,  which  corresponds  to 
4,2%  of  all  observations  (overall  total  of  947  observations).  The  indicator  with  the 
highest  number  of  missing  observations  is  eGovernment  Users  (5.1.1)  with  6  missing 
values  (14%  of  the  total  43  observations).  In  the  I-DESI  2014  there  are  19  values 
estimated  by  using  data  from  previous  years,  of  which  15  (79%)  from  2012.  Table  2.8 
presents the list of all missing observations in I-DESI 2014 and the values resulting from 
both the estimation process Amelia and previous year values. 

26 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.8 Imputation of missing data points I-DESI 2014 

Indicator 

Country 

Method 

Value 

1.1.1 Fixed BB Coverage 
1.2.2 3G Coverage 

1.3.2 Fixed BB Subscriptions 

2.1.1 Internet Users 

2.2.1 ICT Specialists 
3.1.1 News 

3.1.2 Music, Videos and Games 

3.2.1 Social Networks 
3.3.1 Banking 

3.3.2 Purchase Online Products 

4.2.1 SMEs Selling Online 

4.2.2 eCommerce Turnover 

5.1.1 eGovernment Users 

5.1.4 Open Data 

Switzerland 
Luxembourg 
Finland 
France 
Hungary 
Netherlands 
Sweden 
United States 
Mexico 
New Zealand 
Israel 
Netherlands 
China 
Luxembourg 
Mexico 
Korea (rep.) 
Australia 
Belgium 
Switzerland 
Cyprus 
Iceland 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Mexico 
Mexico 
Switzerland 
Brazil 
Mexico 
Russia 
New Zealand 
Cyprus 
Iceland 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Mexico 
Israel 
Russia 
Switzerland 
Brazil 
Mexico 
Australia 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Iceland 
Korea (rep.) 
Luxembourg 
Canada 
Switzerland 
Japan 
Japan 
Korea (rep.) 
United States 
China 
Mexico 
Turkey 
Estonia 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Turkey 

imputed 
imputed 
value 2011 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2011 
value 2012 
value 2012 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2012 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
value 2011 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2010 
value 2012 
value 2012 
value 2012 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 
imputed 

99% 
95% 
95% 
98% 
97% 
99% 
100% 
100% 
36% 
69% 
42% 
59% 
16% 
81% 
74% 
4.1% 
68% 
69% 
68% 
35% 
34% 
31% 
34% 
36% 
46% 
76% 
40% 
20% 
41% 
75% 
3.1% 
8.4% 
9.4% 
4.7% 
5.0% 
19% 
14% 
34% 
14% 
7% 
9% 
14% 
17% 
14% 
28% 
23% 
16% 
15% 
19% 
52% 
49% 
48% 
29% 
22% 
24% 
61% 
53% 
41% 
38% 

27 

 
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
2.4.6  Method of aggregation 
In I-DESI, the aggregation of indicators into sub-dimensions, of sub-dimensions into 
dimensions, and of dimensions into the overall index was performed from the bottom up 
using simple weighted arithmetic averages following the structure of the index (table 
2.1). As an example, the top-level I-DESI score for country X was calculated using the 
formula: 

𝐼 − 𝐷𝐸𝑆𝐼𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑋

=  0,25 ∗   𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑋   +  0,25 ∗ 𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛_𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑋   +  0,15
∗ 𝑈𝑠𝑒_𝑜𝑓_𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑋   +  0,2 ∗ 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛_𝐷𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑇𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑋   +  0,15
∗ 𝐷𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙_𝑃𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐_𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑋 

Where  𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦𝑋   is  the  score  obtained  by  country  X  in  the  Connectivity 
dimension, and so on for the remaining dimensions in the formula. 

The sources and the calculations are provided at the indicator-level in the Appendix.  

28 

 
 
 
3 Results for Tier-1 

This chapter presents the results of the I-DESI study for Tier-1. It presents key findings 
concerning the ranking of EU countries, the EU as a whole and 8 other relevant countries, 
as  well  as  their  progress  over  time.  The  scores  are  normalized  between  0  and  1  (with 
higher values meaning better performance). As explained in the methodological chapter, 
results are divided in two tiers: Tier-1 includes Japan, Korea, the United States, Norway, 
Canada, Australia, Iceland and Switzerland. Tier-2 includes Brazil, China, Israel, Mexico, 
New  Zealand,  Russia  and  Turkey,  using  a  smaller  set  of  indicators.  The  average  of  the 
three  best  performing  EU  member  states  (‘EU28-top’)  is  included  in  each  graph  in  this 
chapter, as well as the average of the three worst performing EU member states (‘EU28-
bot’), the overall EU28 average and the country score of the non-EU countries. 

First, the overall results are presented.  Next, the results per dimension are discussed in 
the five subsequent paragraphs. Findings regarding the progress over time (I-DESI 2014 
to I-DESI 2015) are presented in paragraph 3.7. 

3.1  Overall results 

3.1.1  The I-DESI ranking for Tier-1 
Figure  3.1  presents  the  main  ranking  of  countries  in  the  I-DESI  2015.  I-DESI  scores 
range from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The height of each bar in the chart corresponds to the 
score  achieved  by  the  corresponding  country,  and  the  height  of  each  colour  within  the 
bar  corresponds  to  the  contribution  of  the  corresponding  dimension  to  the  overall  score 
(taking into account the weight attributed to the dimension).  

29 

 
 
Figure 3.1 I-DESI 2015 main ranking (Tier-115) 

15 Consult Annex 1 for the list of country acronyms 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Top  European performers are leading countries on a global stage as well.  In the  I-DESI 
2015, the best performing  EU countries are Sweden, Denmark and Finland (‘EU28-top), 
closely followed by Korea,  Iceland and the United States. With a score of 0.57, Japan is 
also  performing  above  the  EU  average  of  0.52.  Other  non-Member  States  that  are 
performing  above  the  EU  average  are  Norway,  Switzerland,  Canada  and  Australia.  The 
EU  average  is  negatively  impacted  by  the  scores  of  most  notably  Romania,  Poland  and 
Bulgaria (’EU28-bot’).  

Table 3.1 presents the scores and ranking positions for all countries in the I-DESI and for 
each of the five main dimensions. 

Table 3.1 Scores in I-DESI 2015 Tier 1 (overall index and dimensions) 

I-DESI 

1 
Connectivity 

2  
Human 
Capital 

3  
Use of 
Internet 

score 

rank 

score 

rank 

score 

rank 

score 

rank 

4 
Integration 
of Digital 
Technology 
rank 
score 

5  
Digital 
Public 
Services 

score 

rank 

0.63 

EU28 
top 
0.63 
KR 
0.63 
IS 
0.63 
US 
0.61 
NO 
0.57 
JP 
0.57 
CH 
0.57 
CA 
AU 
0.55 
EU28  0.52 
0.41 
EU28 
bot 

1 

0.77 

4 

0.70 

1 

0.52 

3 

0.53 

2 

0.77 

2 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

0.84 
0.72 
0.71 
0.69 
0.78 
0.77 
0.66 
0.56 
0.66 
0.49 

1 
5 
6 
7 
2 
3 
8 
10 
9 
11 

0.67 
0.66 
0.58 
0.67 
0.60 
0.62 
0.64 
0.58 
0.57 
0.47 

3 
4 
8 
2 
7 
6 
5 
9 
10 
11 

0.36 
0.66 
0.41 
0.52 
0.21 
0.35 
0.45 
0.46 
0.42 
0.32 

8 
1 
7 
2 
11 
9 
5 
4 
6 
10 

0.45 
0.48 
0.62 
0.49 
0.44 
0.48 
0.37 
0.45 
0.38 
0.23 

6 
5 
1 
3 
8 
4 
10 
7 
9 
11 

0.73 
0.58 
0.79 
0.63 
0.71 
0.49 
0.67 
0.69 
0.47 
0.26 

3 
8 
1 
7 
4 
9 
6 
5 
10 
11 

31 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
3.2  Connectivity 
A prerequisite for developing a digital society is having the digital infrastructure in place. 
High-speed  and  affordable  internet  connections  are  crucial  in  the  development  of  the 
digital economy. Figure 3.2 presents the composite score per  non-EU country, the three 
best  and  worst  performing  EU  countries  and  the  EU28  average  on  the  Connectivity 
dimension. 

Figure 3.2 Performance per country on dimension 1 Connectivity (Tier-1, I-DESI 2015) 

KR

JP

CH

EU-TOP

IS

US

NO

CA

EU28

AU

0.84 

0.78 

0.77 

0.77 

0.72 

0.71 

0.69 

0.66 

0.66 

0.56 

EU-BOT

0.49 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

It  is  clear  that  Korea  and  Japan  are  ahead  of  Europe  with  regards  to  connectivity  .  In 
particular  Korea  is  far  ahead  of  all  other  countries  (0.84).  Korea  is  among  the  top 
performers on all sub-dimensions, and excels at the speed of their internet connections. 
Leading European countries are Denmark, the United Kingdom and Sweden. As a non-EU 
member  state,  Switzerland  is  on  par  with  the  EU  top  performers  (scoring  0.77).  The 
three worst performing EU countries are Slovakia, Cyprus and Poland.  

32 

 
 
 
With regards to fixed broadband (both take-up and coverage), Switzerland leads the way 
in the global stage, followed by the Netherlands, Denmark and France. While Korea is the 
7th worldwide performer with regards to this sub-dimension. Japan and the United States 
score just above the EU average. Australia is the second-worst performing country.  

Whilst Japan is an average performer with regards to fixed broadband, they are leading 
the  way  with  regards  to  mobile  broadband  (take-up  and  coverage).  Japan  is  closely 
followed  by  the  Nordic  countries  (Finland,  Sweden  and  Denmark)  and  Estonia.  Australia 
is the 6th best performer, followed by Korea and the United States.  

With  regards  to  speed,  Korea  is  the  top  performer,  offering  by  far  the  highest  average 
internet speed. Japan is second, and leading European countries such as Bulgaria and the 
Netherlands are way behind Korea. The EU average is on an equal level as compared to 
the United States, Canada and Australia.  

Internet  is  offered  at  high  speed  in Korea,  but it is  relatively  expensive  as  compared  to 
other countries. Korea is performing below the EU average when it comes to affordability 
of  their  internet  connections.  The  affordability  of  fixed  broadband  is  best  in  the  United 
States, followed by the United Kingdom and Romania.  

Fixed broadband connections are relatively expensive in some countries that perform well 
on  other  Connectivity-dimensions,  such  as  Denmark,  Sweden  and  the  Netherlands.  The 
most  expensive  country  for  fixed  broadband  is  Australia,  whilst  Canada  is  relatively 
expensive as well.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
3.3  Human Capital 
A  physical infrastructure  is  not  the  only  prerequisite  for  a  digital  society:  it  needs  to  be 
complemented  by  the  appropriate  knowledge  and  skills  to  take  advantage  of  the 
possibilities  offered  by  the  internet  and  the  digital  society.  Figure  3.3  presents  the 
composite score per country of the Human Capital dimension. 

Figure 3.3 Performance per country on dimension 2 Human Capital (Tier-1, I-DESI 2015) 

EU-TOP

NO

KR

IS

CA

CH

JP

US

AU

EU28

EU-BOT

0.70 

0.67 

0.67 

0.66 

0.64 

0.62 

0.60 

0.58 

0.58 

0.57 

0.47 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

European  countries  lead  the  way  with  regards  to  human  capital,  with  Sweden,  Finland 
and the United Kingdom performing better than Korea (0.67). Japan performs above the 
European average (0.60 versus 0.57), while the United States and Australia are average 
performers  with  scores  slightly  above  the  European  average  (0.58  both).  Bulgaria, 
Romania  and  Italy  clearly  lag  behind  on  this  dimension.  They  are  the  three  worst 
performing EU countries.  

When zooming in to the frequency of internet use, Iceland is in the lead. The frequency 
of  internet  use  is  high in  Iceland,  far  ahead  of  number  2,  3,  and  4  (Japan,  Norway  and 

34 

 
 
 
Denmark). The top-five is complemented by Korea, whilst the United States and Australia 
are average performers, but still above the EU average.  

Considering  the  workforce  and  the  potential  to  maintain  and  grow  the  digital  economy, 
Finland  and  Sweden  are  clearly  leading  the  way.  The  advanced  skills  and  development 
sub-dimension measures the percentage of people with ICT specialist skills and the share 
of graduates with STEM education. The top-seven countries on this sub-dimension are all 
European  countries,  followed  by  Korea.  On  average,  the  EU  is  well  ahead  of  the  United 
States,  Australia,  and  most  notably  Japan.  After  Latvia,  Japan  is  the  worst  performing 
country on this sub-dimension.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
3.4  Use of the Internet 
Through the high-speed connectivity provided by a broadband subscription, and the basic 
skills  to  take  advantage  of  this  connectivity,  a  wide  mix  of  online  activities  can  be 
enjoyed  by  both  citizens  and  businesses.  These  elements  enable  citizens  to  consume 
online content such as music, videos, games, shopping and banking. Figure 3.4 presents 
the composite score per country of the Use of Internet dimension. 

Figure  3.4  Performance  per  country  on  dimension  3  Use  of  the  Internet  (Tier-1,  I-DESI 
2015) 

IS

NO

EU-TOP

AU

CA

EU28

US

KR

CH

0.66 

0.52 

0.52 

0.46 

0.45 

0.42 

0.41 

0.36 

0.35 

EU-BOT

0.32 

JP

0.21 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

On  average,  the  EU  is  far  ahead  of  Japan,  Korea  and  the  United  States  with  regards  to 
the  use  of  the  internet.  Especially  the  relatively  low  consumption  of  online  content  in 
Japan (0.21) is remarkable, while Korea is among the lowest performers as well (0.36). 
The three best performing EU member states are Latvia, Luxembourg and Malta. Iceland 
is  streets  ahead  of  all  the  others  (0.66).  The  consumption  of  online  content  is 
unparalleled  in  Iceland  at  a  global  stage.  When  zooming  in  on  the  sub-dimensions, 
Iceland  is  leading  two  out  of  the  three  sub-dimensions,  again  streets  ahead  of  others: 

36 

 
 
 
Iceland is leading with regards to Content (e.g., reading the news online, online gaming, 
online music and online videos), and Communication (usage of social networks). Nine out 
of the ten countries in the top-ten of sub-dimension Content, are European countries: the 
United States is ranking 10th. Australia, Korea and Japan are below the EU average with 
regards to the usage of online content, with Japan scoring even below the average of the 
three worst performing EU member states (Italy, Romania and Germany).  

The  top-ten  of  countries  with  regards  to  Social  Network  usage  consists  of  European 
countries only. The EU is well ahead of all non-European countries under consideration in 
Tier-1,  and  leading  European  countries  such  as  Iceland,  Latvia  and  Portugal  are  way 
ahead  of  Canada,  Australia,  the  United  States,  Japan  and  Korea.  Compared  to  all  other 
countries, the usage of social networks in Korea is very low. 

Although  Australia  is  lagging  behind  with  regards  to  the  usage  of  social  networks,  they 
are  leading  the  way  with  regards  to  online  banking  and  online  shopping.  Australia  is 
followed by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,  and the top-five is complemented 
by Norway and Korea. The weak performance of Japan on this sub-dimension is notable. 
Online shopping, and online banking in particular,  has not quite caught on to the extent 
that it has in other countries. Canada and the United States are above the EU average.  

37 

 
 
 
 
3.5  Integration of Digital Technology 
The  adoption  of  digital  technologies  can  contribute  significantly  to  the  modernisation  of 
businesses,  and  ultimately  their  and  Europe’s  competitiveness.  Hence,  it  is  of  great 
importance to evaluate how European businesses are performing in comparison to other 
leading  world  economies,  most  notably  Japan,  Korea  and  the  United  States.  Figure  3.5 
presents  the  composite  score  per  country  of  the  Integration  of  Digital  Technology 
dimension. 

Figure  3.5  Performance  per  country  on  dimension  4  Integration  of  Digital  Technology 
(Tier-1, I-DESI 2015) 

US

EU-TOP

NO

CH

IS

KR

AU

JP

EU28

CA

0.62 

0.53 

0.49 

0.48 

0.48 

0.45 

0.45 

0.44 

0.38 

0.37 

EU-BOT

0.23 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

The  United  States  is  the  clear  world  leader  with  regards  to  the  integration  of  digital 
technologies  by  businesses,  way  ahead  of  other  countries  (scoring  0.62).  The 
Scandinavian  countries  Finland,  Denmark  and  Sweden  constitute  the  three  best 
performing  countries  of  the  EU,  performing  better  than  all  the  others  except  the  United 
States.  When scrolling down to the EU average (0.38), we see that Australia, Korea and 
Japan  are  all  performing  above  the  EU  average,  taking  the  advantage  of  the 

38 

 
 
 
opportunities  that  digital  technologies  offer  to  businesses.  Canada  (0.37)  is  just  below 
the EU average. The three worst performing EU member states are Latvia, Romania and 
Bulgaria. 

In the United States, businesses exploit the advantages of technologies such as RFID and 
cloud  services,  and  a  relatively  high  share  (82%)  of  the  companies  has  an  online 
presence.  This  results  in  a  high  score  on  the  sub-dimension  business  digitization, 
followed by the Scandinavian countries. Australia and Canada are below the EU average 
on this sub-dimension.  

Ireland and the Czech Republic are Europe’s top performers with regards to eCommerce, 
and  are  leading  in  the  global  league  as  well.  They  are  followed  by  Australia  and  the 
United  States.  eCommerce  adoption  is  measured  in  terms  of  the  percentage  of  SME’s 
that  sell  online  and  the  eCommerce  turnover  as  a  percentage  of  total  turnover.  Korea 
and Japan are way above the EU average, and Canada is on an equal level as compared 
to the EU average. Greece, Bulgaria and Romania are lagging behind. 

39 

 
 
 
 
3.6  Digital Public Services 
Business  and  citizen  interaction  with  the  Public  Sector  can  be  improved  and  made 
significantly  more  efficient  through  the  use  of  digital  technologies.  Such  efficiency  gains 
materialise both on the side of the Public Administration as well as on the business side. 
Therefore,  an  efficient  provision  of  public  services  enhances  the  competitiveness  of 
Europe,  whilst  realizing  significant  cost  reductions.  Figure  3.6  presents  the  composite 
score per country of the Digital Public Services dimension. 

Figure 3.6 Performance per country on dimension 5 Digital Public Services (Tier-1, I-DESI 
2015) 

US

EU-TOP

KR

JP

AU

CA

NO

IS

CH

EU28

0.79 

0.77 

0.73 

0.71 

0.69 

0.67 

0.63 

0.58 

0.49 

0.47 

EU-BOT

0.26 

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

The United States is in the lead regarding eGovernment, performing slightly better than 
EU  top  performers  (France,  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Netherlands).  Countries  are 
assessed  on  four  indicators  in  this  dimension,  being  eGovernment  users  (percentage  of 
population  using  the  internet  to  interact  with  public  authorities),  Transactional  services 
offered  by  the  public  authorities,  Connected  services  offered  by  the  public  authorities, 
and  the  extent  to  which  data  is  publicly  available  (open  data).  Korea  and  Japan  are 

40 

 
 
 
ranking just behind the EU top performers. Australia and Canada are present in the top-
ten list of countries, performing above the EU average. Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta (‘EU-bot’) 
need to step up and improve and digitalize their public services.  

3.7  Tracking progress 
An annual update of the I-DESI allows for comparisons over time. Due to the availability 
of 2013 data, progress can be tracked over the 2013 - 2014 period (I-DESI2014 – I-DESI 
2015). Table 3.2 presents the scores and ranking positions for all countries in the I-DESI 
2014 (and the average of the three best and worst performing EU countries) and for the 
five main dimensions. 

Table 3.2 Scores and rankings I-DESI 2014 (overall index and dimensions) Tier-1 

I-DESI 

1. 
Connectivity 

2. 
Human 
Capital 

3. 
Use of 
Internet 

EU top 3 
NO 
KR 
IS 
US 
CH 
JP 
CA 
AU 
EU28 
EU bottom 3 

score 
0,67 
0,65 
0,65 
0,64 
0,63 
0,62 
0,59 
0,59 
0,56 
0,54 
0,44 

rank 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

score 
0,72 
0,66 
0,83 
0,70 
0,69 
0,74 
0,77 
0,63 
0,50 
0,63 
0,46 

rank 
4 
7 
1 
5 
6 
3 
2 
9 
10 
8 
11 

score 
0,69 
0,65 
0,68 
0,65 
0,56 
0,60 
0,58 
0,62 
0,56 
0,56 
0,46 

rank 
1 
3 
2 
4 
8 
6 
7 
5 
9 
10 
11 

score 
0,56 
0,59 
0,48 
0,64 
0,47 
0,41 
0,22 
0,47 
0,48 
0,44 
0,34 

rank 
3 
2 
5 
1 
7 
9 
11 
6 
4 
8 
10 

4. 
Integration 
of Digital 
Technology 
rank 
score 
2 
0,68 
6 
0,63 
10 
0,51 
4 
0,65 
5 
0,65 
1 
0,71 
3 
0,67 
8 
0,57 
7 
0,62 
9 
0,53 
11 
0,34 

5. 
Digital 
Public 
Services 

score 
0,76 
0,76 
0,68 
0,53 
0,76 
0,53 
0,60 
0,64 
0,66 
0,51 
0,34 

rank 
3 
2 
4 
8 
1 
9 
7 
6 
5 
10 
11 

Figure  3.7  presents  the  performance  and  progress  of  countries  over  time  (I-DESI  2014 
vs.  I-DESI  2015).  In  this  figure,  non-EU  Tier-1  countries  are  plotted  based  on  their 
absolute  performance  in  I-DESI  2015  (vertical  axis)  and  their  growth  in  performance 
(horizontal  axis).  The  EU  average  is  plotted,  as  well  as  the  EU  top-three  average 
regarding  absolute  performance  (‘EU  top  score’)  and  growth  (‘EU  top  growth’).  The 
averages  of  the  three  worst  performing  EU  countries  regarding  score  (‘EU  bot  growth’)  
and  progress  (‘EU  bot  growth’)  are  also  shown.  From  this  graph,  it  could  be  observed 
how  countries  are  performing  and  developing  as  compared  to  the  EU28  average 
(displayed in red). To allow for a good comparison over the two years, the I-DESI 2015 
score  on  the  vertical  axis  is  recalculated  with  the  same  subset  of  indicators  that  is 
available  for  I-DESI  2014.  EU  scores  are  plotted  in  green,  the  EU  average  in  red  and 
other countries in blue. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.7 Country performance and progress over years (Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 
2015)  

EU top score 

IS 

NO 

KR 

US 

CH 

e
r
o
c
S

EU bot  
growth 

EU28  

CA 

JP 

AU 

EU top growth 

EU bot score 

Growth 

In  light  of  the  scores  and  growth  of  the  countries,  it  should  be  noticed  that  Australia, 
Canada,  Iceland  and  Japan  score  above  and  grow  faster  than  the  EU  average.  Norway, 
Korea, Switzerland and the United States are amongst the countries that score above the 
EU average, but at the same time they are growing slower than the EU average. 

Figure  3.8  –  3.12  are  similar  to  figure  3.7,  portraying  the  performance  and  progress  of 
the countries for each of the five specific dimensions.  

The  best  overall  performer  regarding  growth  on  Connectivity  is  Korea,  with  a  relatively 
high  score  but  a  slow  growth  over  2014-2015.  Although  the  majority  of  the  countries 
performs  above  the  EU  average,  many  of  them  (Korea,  Japan,  Iceland,  Norway,  the 
United States) are growing slower than the EU on average. 

Korea  shows  the  slowest  growth  on  Human  Capital.  The  best  performing  EU  countries 
(‘EU top score’) report a relatively high growth rate. In contrast, the worst performing EU 
countries on this dimension remain behind, and show no progress as compared to 2013.  

On  the  dimension  Use  of  Internet  Iceland  is  doing  best  on  both  performance  as  well  as 
growth.  Iceland  leaves  all  the  others  far  behind.  Japan  has  the  lowest  score,  but  has  a 
slightly higher growth than de EU28 average. Korea and the United States are performing 
just under the EU28, but are showing the lowest growth of all Tier-1 countries. 

The improvement rate of the EU top performers is similar to other top performers such as 
Switzerland and Iceland on  the Integration of Digital Technology. Korea is behind the EU 
average, both on absolute performance and on growth.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
On  the  fifth  dimension  Digital  Public  Services  the  United  States  is  the  best  performing 
country on score, but Japan, Korea, Canada, Iceland and the three top-performers of the 
EU all show a higher growth than the United States.  

Figure 3.8 Country performance and progress over years dimension 1. Connectivity 
(Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

KR 

JP 

IS 

US 

CH 

EU top score 

NO 

EU28 

CA 

EU bot growth 

EU top growth 

e
r
o
c
S

AU 

EU bot score 

Growth 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.9 Country performance and progress over years dimension 2. Human Capital 
(Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

EU top score 

KR 

NO 

IS 

e
r
o
c
S

CA 

CH 

JP 

EU bot growth 

EU bot score 

US 

EU28 

EU top growth 

Figure 3.10 Country performance and progress over years dimension 3. Use of Internet 
(Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

Growth 

IS 

e
r
o
c
S

NO 

EU top score 

AU 

EU28 

CA 

KR 

US 

EU bot growth 

EU top growth 

CH 

EU bot score 

JP 
Growth 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.11 Country performance and progress over years dimension 4. Integration of 
Digital Services (Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

CH 

EU top score 

IS 

JP 

US 

NO 

AU 

CA 

EU28 

KR 

EU top growth 

e
r
o
c
S

EU bot growth 

EU bot score 

Growth 

Figure 3.12 Country performance and progress over years dimension 5. Digital Public 
Services (Tier-1, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015) 

US 

EU top score 

KR 

AU 

CA 

JP 

EU top growth 

IS 

NO 

e
r
o
c
S

EU bot growth 

EU bot score 

CH 

EU28 

Growth 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
4 Results for Tier-2 

4.1  Differences between Tier-2 and Tier-1 
This chapter presents the results of the I-DESI study for Tier-2. Tier-2 differs from Tier-1 
on two elements: the countries that are included and the indicators that are used. In the 
tables 4.1 and 4.2 (presented here again for convenience) the differences are shown. 

Table 4.1 Countries that are included in Tier-1 and Tier-2 

Tier-
1  

Tier-
2 

All  EU28 
countries 

All Tier-1 
countries 

Japan 

Korea 
(Rep.) 

United 
States 

Australia  Canada 

Iceland   Norway  Switzerland  

Brazil 

China 

Israel  Mexico 

New 
Zealand 

Russia 

Turkey 

Table 4.2 Indicators that are used (●) in Tier-1 and Tier-2 

Main 
dimensions 

Sub-dimensions  Indicators 

Tier-1 

Tier-2 

2015  2014  2015  2014 

1. Connectivity 

2. Human 
Capital 

3. Use of 
Internet 

1.1. Fixed 
Broadband 

1.2. Mobile 
Broadband 

1.3. Speed 

1.4. Affordability 

2.1. Basic Skills 
and Usage 

2.2. Advanced 
skills and 
development 

3.1. Content 

3.2. 
Communication 

3.3. Transactions 

4. Integration of 
Digital 
Technology 

4.1. Business 
digitization 

1.1.1. Fixed BB Coverage 

1.1.2. Fixed BB 
Subscriptions 

1.2.1. Mobile BB 
Subscriptions 
1.2.2. 3G Coverage 

1.3.1. Average Connection 
Speed 

1.3.2. Fast BB 
Subscriptions 
1.4.1. Fixed BB 
Subscription charge 
2.1.1. Daily Internet Users 

2.1.2. Regular Internet 
Users 

2.2.1. ICT specialists 

2.2.2. STEM graduates 

3.1.1. Reading News 
Online 
3.1.2. Music, Videos and 
Games 
3.1.3. Video on Demand 

3.2.1. Social Networks 

3.3.1. Online Banking 

3.3.2. Purchase online 
products 
4.1.1. Electronic 
Information Sharing 

4.1.2. RFID  

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

46 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
dimensions 

Sub-dimensions  Indicators 

Tier-1 

Tier-2 

2015  2014  2015  2014 

4.2. eCommerce 

5. Digital Public 
Services 

5.1. 
eGovernment 

4.1.3. Social Media  

4.1.4. Online Presence 

4.1.5. Cloud Services 

4.2.1. SMEs Selling Online 

4.2.2. eCommerce 
Turnover 
5.1.1. eGovernment Users 

5.1.2. Transactional 
services 

5.1.3. Connected Services 

5.1.4. Open Data 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

The key findings concerning the ranking of EU countries, the EU as a whole and 15 other 
relevant  countries  (together  Tier-2)  are  presented  in  this  chapter,  as  well  as  their 
progress  over  time.  The  scores  are  normalized  and  range  from  0-1  (with  higher  scores 
meaning better performance).  

First, the overall results are presented.  Next, results per dimension are discussed in the 
five subsequent paragraphs. Findings regarding the progress over time (I-DESI 2014 – I-
DESI 2015) are presented in paragraph 4.7. 

4.2  Overall results 

4.2.1  The I-DESI ranking for Tier-2 
Figure  4.1  presents  the  main  ranking  of  countries  in  the  I-DESI  2015  Tier-2.  I-DESI 
scores range from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The height of each bar in the chart corresponds 
to the score achieved by the corresponding country, and the height of each colour within 
the  bar  corresponds  to  the  contribution  of  the  corresponding  dimension  to  the  overall 
score  (taking  into  account  the  weight  attributed  to  the  dimension).  The  average  of  the 
three  best  performing  EU  member  states  (‘EU28-top’)  is  included  in  each  graph  in  this 
chapter, as well as the average of the three worst performing EU member states (‘EU28-
bot’), the overall EU28 average and the country score of the non-EU countries. 

Just as is in  Tier-1, top European performers are leading countries on  a global stage as 
well.  The  best  performing  country  is  Iceland,  followed  by  the  top-EU  member  states 
(Denmark,  the  United  Kingdom,  Sweden).    Korea  complements  the  top-three,  scoring 
0,64.  With  a  score  of  0.62,  Japan  and  the  United  States  are  performing  above  the  EU 
average of 0.54, but are behind of Norway and New Zealand (both scoring 0.63).  

Whilst  Australia  and  Canada  are  performing  above  the  EU  average,  Russia  lags  behind 
the EU with a score of 0.47. But Russia is still ahead of China, Turkey, Brazil and Mexico, 
with Turkey, Brazil and Mexico ranking behind all EU countries. They are even below the 
three  worst  performing  EU  countries  Romania,  Bulgaria  and  Poland.  In  particular  Brazil 
(0.38) and Mexico (0.34) score low in the overall ranking.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1 I-DESI 2015 main ranking (Tier-2) 

1. Connectivity

2. Human Capital

3. Use of Internet

4. Integration of Digital Technology

5. Digital Public Services

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

48 

 
 
 
 
Table 4.3 presents the scores and ranking positions for all countries in the I-DESI Tier-2 
and in each of the five main dimensions.  

Table 4.3 Scores in Tier-2, I-DESI 2015 (overall index and dimensions) 

I-DESI 

1 
Connectivity 

2  
Human 
Capital 

3  
Use of 
Internet 

score 

rank 

score 

rank 

score 

rank 

score 

rank 

4 
Integration 
of Digital 
Technology 
rank 
score 

5  
Digital 
Public 
Services 

score 

rank 

0.66 
0.66 

IS 
EU28 
top 
0.64 
KR 
0.63 
NO 
0.63 
NZ 
0.62 
JP 
0.62 
US 
0.61 
CH 
0.60 
AU 
CA 
0.59 
EU28  0.54 
0.52 
IL 
0.47 
RU 
0.45 
CN 
0.43 
EU28 
bot 
TR 
BR 
MX 

0.41 
0.38 
0.34 

1 
2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 

0.69 
0.73 

0.81 
0.70 
0.62 
0.71 
0.66 
0.75 
0.59 
0.63 
0.61 
0.53 
0.50 
0.27 
0.43 

0.39 
0.41 
0.33 

6 
3 

1 
5 
9 
4 
7 
2 
11 
8 
10 
12 
13 
18 
14 

16 
15 
17 

0.66 
0.69 

0.75 
0.65 
0.59 
0.66 
0.56 
0.61 
0.56 
0.62 
0.59 
0.61 
0.63 
0.76 
0.50 

0.49 
0.40 
0.46 

5 
3 

2 
6 
11 
4 
14 
9 
13 
8 
12 
10 
7 
1 
15 

16 
18 
17 

0.61 
0.48 

0.29 
0.45 
0.44 
0.22 
0.37 
0.30 
0.42 
0.42 
0.38 
0.37 
0.32 
0.44 
0.28 

0.35 
0.27 
0.20 

1 
2 

14 
3 
4 
17 
9 
13 
7 
6 
8 
10 
12 
5 
15 

11 
16 
18 

0.73 
0.71 

0.47 
0.66 
0.79 
0.67 
0.68 
0.78 
0.75 
0.58 
0.55 
0.50 
0.43 
0.37 
0.35 

0.39 
0.46 
0.30 

4 
5 

12 
8 
1 
7 
6 
2 
3 
9 
10 
11 
14 
16 
17 

15 
13 
18 

0.58 
0.77 

0.73 
0.63 
0.65 
0.71 
0.79 
0.49 
0.69 
0.67 
0.47 
0.55 
0.36 
0.35 
0.26 

0.38 
0.34 
0.35 

9 
2 

3 
8 
7 
4 
1 
11 
5 
6 
12 
10 
14 
16 
18 

13 
17 
15 

49 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
4.3  Connectivity 
A prerequisite for developing a digital society is having the digital infrastructure in place. 
High-speed  and  affordable  internet  connections  are  crucial  in  the  transformation  into  a 
digital economy. Figure 4.2 presents the composite score per country of the Connectivity 
dimension. 

Figure 4.2 Performance per country on dimension 1 Connectivity (Tier-2, I-DESI 2015) 

KR

CH

EU-TOP

JP

NO

IS

US

CA

NZ

EU28

AU

IL

RU

EU-BOT

BR

TR

MX

CN

0.81 

0.75 

0.73 

0.71 

0.70 

0.69 

0.66 

0.63 

0.62 

0.61 

0.59 

0.53 

0.50 

0.43 

0.41 

0.39 

0.33 

0.27 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

It  is  clear  that  Korea  is  ahead  of  Europe  and  all  other  countries  with  regards  to 
connectivity  (scoring  0.81).  Korea  is  among  the  top  performers  on  all  sub-dimensions, 
and  excels  at  the  speed  of  their  internet  connections.  Leading  European  countries  (as 
indicated  by  ‘EU-top’)  are  Denmark,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom. 
Switzerland  is  the  second  best  performing  country,  whilst  Japan  is  amongst  the  top 
performers as well (scoring 0.71).   

The United States and Canada are performing just above the EU average, whilst the EU is 
on  average  ahead  of  Australia  (EU  scoring  0.61,  and  Australia  0.59).  Among  the  poor 
performers are Brazil (0.41), Turkey (0.39), Mexico (0.38) and in particular China (0.27). 

50 

 
 
 
They  are  ranked  behind  the  three  worst  performing  EU  member  states,  being  Cyprus, 
Croatia and Slovakia.  

With regards to fixed broadband (both take-up and coverage), Belgium leads the way at 
a global stage, followed by the Iceland and Denmark. Whilst Canada is the 4th worldwide 
performer with regards to this sub-dimension, New Zealand and the United States are on 
par with the EU average (0.62). Countries such as Japan (0.59) and Australia (0.55) are 
behind  the  EU,  and  in  particular  China  (0.29),  Turkey  (0.23),  Brazil  (0.23)  and  Mexico 
(0.21) are way behind the EU, and even behind the worst performing countries in the EU.  

Whilst  Japan  is  just  below  the  EU  average  with  regards  to  fixed  broadband,  they  are 
leading  the  way  with  regards  to  the  take-up  and  coverage  of  mobile  broadband  (both 
scoring  0.88).  Japan  is  closely  followed  by  Finland,  Estonia  and  Sweden  –  the  EU’s  top 
performers  on  this  sub-dimension.  .  Australia,  Korea  and  the  United  States  are  among 
the  top  performers  as  well,  while  also  New  Zealand  (0.75)  is  performing  above  the  EU 
average (0.69). Countries such as Turkey and China are not only behind with respect to 
fixed broadband, but also in the take-up and coverage of mobile broadband. In particular 
in China, the mobile broadband coverage and take-up is very low.  

With  regards  to  speed,  Korea  is  leading  the  way,  offering  by  far  the  highest  average 
internet speed. Japan is second, and leading European countries such as Bulgaria and the 
Netherlands  are  way  behind  Korea.  The  EU  average  (0.49)  is  on  an  equal  level  as 
compared to the United States (0.51), Canada (0.50) and Australia (0.48). The average 
connection  speed  in  Turkey,  Mexico,  Brazil  and  China is low,  but  still  higher  than in the 
European countries Italy, Croatia and Cyprus.  

Internet  is  offered  at  high  speed  in Korea,  but  it is  relatively  expensive  as  compared  to 
other countries. Korea is performing below the EU average if it comes to affordability of 
their  internet  connections.  The  affordability  of  fixed  broadband  is  the  greatest  in  the 
United States and Russia, followed by the United Kingdom and Romania.  

Fixed broadband connections are relatively expensive in some countries that perform well 
on  other  Connectivity-dimensions,  such  as  Canada,  New  Zealand  and  Australia.  The 
Nordic  countries  are  below  the  EU  average,  and  the  most  expensive  country  for  fixed 
broadband is Mexico.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
4.4  Human Capital 
A physical infrastructure is not the  only prerequisite for a digital society.  It needs to be 
complemented  by  the  appropriate  knowledge  and  skills  to  take  advantage  of  the 
possibilities  offered  by  the  internet  and  the  digital  society.  Figure  4.3  presents  the 
composite score per country of the Human Capital dimension. 

Figure 4.3 Performance per country on dimension 2 Human Capital (Tier-2, I-DESI 2015) 

CN

KR

EU-TOP

JP

IS

NO

RU

CA

CH

IL

NZ

EU28

AU

US

EU-BOT

TR

MX

BR

0.76 

0.75 

0.69 

0.66 

0.66 

0.65 

0.63 

0.62 

0.61 

0.61 

0.59 

0.59 

0.56 

0.56 

0.50 

0.49 

0.46 

0.40 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

China (0.76) and Korea (0.75) lead the way with regards to human capital,  followed by 
Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom (‘EU-top’). Japan ranks 4th, and countries such 
as Australia and the United States are below the EU average (0.59). With a score of 0.63, 
Russia  is  performing  better  than  the  EU  average.  Turkey,  Mexico  and  Brazil  clearly  lag 
behind  on  this  dimension,  and  are  below  the  three  worst  performing EU  member  states 
Poland, Italy and Romania.  

When  zooming  in  on  the  frequency  of  internet  use  (average  of  daily  and  regular  use), 
Iceland  is  in  the  lead.  The  frequency  of  internet  use  is  very  high  in  Iceland  (0.96), 
leading  the  ranking  before  Japan,  Norway  and  Denmark.  The  top-five  is  complemented 
by Korea and Sweden, whilst the United States, New Zealand and Australia are average 

52 

 
 
performers, but still above the  EU average.  China (0.64)16 and Russia (0.70) are below 
the EU average (0.75), and Mexico is scoring very low (0.38).  

Considering  the  workforce  and  the  potential  to  maintain  and  grow  the  digital  economy, 
China clearly leads the way, being ahead of all the others: China is scoring 0.88, followed 
by  Korea  (0.62).  The  high  Chinese  score  is  most  likely  caused  by  the  definition  of  the 
STEM indicator in the I-DESI index. Leading for China to a (much) higher indicator value 
than  when  the  original  DESI-definition  would  be  used,  because  of  the  very  large 
population and a relatively high proportion of technically oriented students.  

The advanced skills and development sub-dimension measures the percentage of people 
with  ICT  specialist  skills  and  the  share  of  graduates  with  STEM  education.  Worth 
mentioning  in  this  regard  are  the  relatively  high  scores  of  Russia  (0.56)  and  Mexico 
(0.54),  both  performing  above  the  EU  average.  On  average,  the  EU  is  well  ahead  of 
Japan,  Canada,  New  Zealand,  the  United  States,  Australia  and  Brazil.  As  compared  to 
other  sub-dimensions,  the  low  performances  of  the  United  States  and  Australia  (both 
being amongst the four worst performing countries) are remarkable. 

16 The score and rank of China on Daily Internet Use (0.79 / 10) is much better than on Regular Internet Use (0.49 / 43). 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
4.5  Use of the Internet 
Through the high-speed connectivity provided by a broadband description, and the basic 
skills  to  take  advantage  of  this  connectivity,  a  wide  mix  of  online  activities  can  be 
enjoyed  by  both  citizens  and  businesses.  These  elements  enable  citizens  to  consume 
online content such as music, videos, games, shopping and banking. Figure 4.4 presents 
the composite score per country of the Use of Internet dimension. 

Figure  4.4  Performance  per  country  on  dimension  3  Use  of  the  Internet  (Tier-2,  I-DESI 
2015) 

IS

EU-TOP

NO

NZ

CN

CA

AU

EU28

US

IL

TR

RU

CH

KR

EU-BOT

BR

JP

MX

0.61 

0.48 

0.45 

0.44 

0.44 

0.42 

0.42 

0.38 

0.37 

0.37 

0.35 

0.32 

0.30 

0.29 

0.28 

0.27 

0.22 

0.20 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

On average, the EU is ahead of Korea, Brazil, Russia, Turkey and Mexico with regards to 
the  use  of  the  internet.  Especially  the  relatively  low  consumption  of  online  content  in 
Korea  and  Japan  is  striking.  Iceland  (0.61)  is  clearly  in  the  lead,  followed  by  the  top 
performing  countries  of  the  EU,  being  the  United  Kingdom,  Malta  and  Latvia.  The  three 
worst performing EU member states of this dimension are Italy, Romania and Germany, 
but they are still performing better than Brazil, Japan and Mexico.  

54 

 
 
 
When zooming in to the sub-dimensions, it stands out that Iceland is high performing on 
two  out  of  the  three  sub-dimensions:  Iceland  is  second  with  regards  to  Content  (e.g., 
online  gaming,  online  music  and  online  videos),  and  leading  with  regards  to 
Communication (usage of social networks). Eight out of the ten countries in the top-ten 
of sub-dimension Content, are European countries: Canada is ranking 6th, and the United 
States  7th.  Australia,  Korea  and  Japan  are  below  the  EU  average  with  regards  to  the 
usage  of  online  content,  with  Japan  and  Korea  scoring  very  low:  0.16  and  0.17 
respectively, against an EU average of 0.27.  

The  top-ten  of  countries  with  regards  to  Social  Network  usage  consist  of  European 
countries  only.  The  EU  is  well  ahead  of  almost  all  non-European  countries  under 
consideration in Tier-2, and only Turkey (0.56) and Russia (0.54) are performing above 
the  EU  average  (0.49).  New  Zealand,  Australia  and  Canada  are  below  the  EU  average. 
Remarkable  are  the  low  performances  of  countries  that  rank  high  on  the  overall  Tier-2 
ranking, such as the United States (0.35), Japan (0.30) and Korea (0.14).  

Although  Australia  is  lagging  behind  with  regards  to  the  usage  of  social  networks,  they 
are leading the way (0.62) with regards to online shopping. Australia is followed by the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, whilst the top-five is complemented by Norway and 
Korea.  New  Zealand  is  among  the  top  performers.  The  weak  performance  of  Japan  on 
this sub-dimension stands out (0.20). Online shopping has not quite caught up in Japan 
to the extent that it has in other countries. Canada and the United States are above the 
EU average. Although countries as Russia, Brazil and Mexico are behind the EU average 
on this indicator, they are still ahead of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania.  

55 

 
 
 
 
4.6  Integration of Digital Technology 
The  adoption  of  digital  technologies  can  contribute  significantly  to  the  modernisation  of 
businesses, and ultimately their and Europe’s competitiveness. Hence, it is of importance 
how European businesses are performing in this regard when compared to other leading 
and  emerging  world  economies.  In  Tier-2,  the  integration  of  digital  technologies  by 
businesses  is  captured  by  the  percentage  of  enterprises  with  online  presence  and  the 
percentage of SMEs selling online. Figure 4.5 presents the composite score per country of 
the Integration of Digital Technology dimension.  

Figure  4.5  Performance  per  country  on  dimension  4  Integration  of  Digital  Technology 
(Tier-2, I-DESI 2015) 

NZ

CH

AU

IS

EU-TOP

US

JP

NO

CA

EU28

IL

KR

BR

RU

TR

CN

EU-BOT

MX

0.79 

0.78 

0.75 

0.73 

0.71 

0.68 

0.67 

0.66 

0.58 

0.55 

0.50 

0.47 

0.46 

0.43 

0.39 

0.37 

0.35 

0.30 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

New Zealand is the world leader with regards to the integration of digital technologies by 
businesses  (0.79),  closely  followed  by  Switzerland  (0.78)  and  Australia  (0.75).  Iceland 
ranks  fourth,  followed  by  the  top  performing  EU  countries  Denmark,  Sweden  and  the 
Netherlands.  

56 

 
 
 
When zooming in further on the EU average, it appears that the United States, Japan and 
Canada  are  all  performing  above  the  EU  average,  taking  the  advantage  of  the 
opportunities that online selling offers to businesses. Korea, on the other hand, is below 
the  EU  average  (0.47).  Emerging  economies  such  as  Turkey  (0.39),  China  (0.37)  and 
Mexico  (0.30)  are  lagging  behind  the  EU  average.  However,  Turkey  and  China  are  still 
ranking  above  the  three  worst  performing  EU  member  states,  being  Romania,  Bulgaria 
and Latvia.  

57 

 
 
 
 
4.7  Digital Public Services 
Business  and  citizen  interaction  with  the  Public  Sector  can  be  improved  and  made 
significantly  more  efficient  through  the  use  of  digital  technologies.  Such  efficiency  gains 
materialise both on the side of the Public Administration as well as on  the business side. 
Therefore,  an  efficient  provision  of  public  services  enhances  the  competitiveness  of 
Europe,  whilst  realizing  significant  cost  reductions.  Figure  4.6  presents  the  composite 
score per country of the Digital Public Services dimension. 

Figure 4.6 Performance per country on dimension 5 Digital Public Services (Tier-2, I-DESI 
2015) 

US

EU-TOP

KR

JP

AU

CA

NZ

NO

IS

IL

CH

EU28

TR

RU

MX

CN

BR

0.79 

0.77 

0.73 

0.71 

0.69 

0.67 

0.65 

0.63 

0.58 

0.55 

0.49 

0.47 

0.38 

0.36 

0.35 

0.35 

0.34 

EU-BOT

0.26 

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

The  United  States  is  in  the  lead  regarding  eGovernment  (0.79),  closely  followed  by  the 
best  performing  EU  member  states  (France,  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Netherlands). 
Countries  are  assessed  on  four  indicators  in  this  dimension,  being  eGovernment  users 
(percentage  of  population  using  the  internet  to  interact  with  public  authorities), 
Transactional  services  offered  by  the  public  authorities,  Connected  services  offered  by 
the  public  authorities,  and  the  extent  to  which  data  is  publicly  available  (open  data). 
Korea  (0.73)  and  Japan  are  just  behind  the  best  performing  EU  countries,  followed  by 

58 

 
 
 
Australia  and  Canada  New  Zealand  is  performing  above  the  EU  average  as  well,  but 
Turkey,  Russia,  Mexico,  China  and  Brazil  are  lagging  behind  as  compared  to  the  EU 
average. However, the  European countries Malta, Croatia  and Bulgaria have the lowest 
score of all countries on this dimension.  

4.8  Tracking progress 
An annual update of the I-DESI allows for comparisons over time. Due to the availability 
of 2013 data, progress can be tracked over the 2013 - 2014 period (I-DESI2014 – I-DESI 
2015).  Table  4.4  presents  the  scores  and  ranking  positions  for  all  countries  (and  the 
average of the three best and worst performing EU countries) in the I-DESI 2014 and for 
the five main dimensions. 

Table 4.4 Scores and rankings I-DESI 2014 (overall index and dimensions) Tier-2 

I-DESI 

1. 

Connectivity 

2. 
Human 
Capital  

3. 
Use of 
Internet  

NZ 
IS 
KR 
EU top 3 
NO 
AU 
CH 
US 
JP 
CA 
EU28 
IL 
RU 
CN 
EU bottom3 
MX 
TR 
BR 

score 
0,60 
0,59 
0,59 
0,59 
0,59 
0,58 
0,56 
0,56 
0,53 
0,49 
0,46 
0,46 
0,41 
0,37 
0,36 
0,35 
0,32 
0,32 

rank 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

score 
0,50 
0,63 
0,77 
0,65 
0,60 
0,53 
0,65 
0,60 
0,67 
0,52 
0,52 
0,43 
0,41 
0,22 
0,35 
0,28 
0,27 
0,27 

rank 
11 
5 
1 
3 
7 
8 
4 
6 
2 
9 
10 
12 
13 
18 
14 
15 
17 
16 

score 
0,58 
0,65 
0,73 
0,67 
0,64 
0,55 
0,59 
0,55 
0,64 
0,60 
0,58 
0,59 
0,60 
0,70 
0,49 
0,54 
0,48 
0,36 

rank 
11 
4 
1 
3 
6 
13 
9 
14 
5 
8 
12 
10 
7 
2 
16 
15 
17 
18 

score 
0,46 
0,56 
0,41 
0,49 
0,49 
0,44 
0,37 
0,41 
0,25 
0,43 
0,40 
0,38 
0,38 
0,43 
0,32 
0,33 
0,40 
0,30 

rank 
4 
1 
9 
3 
2 
5 
14 
8 
18 
7 
11 
13 
12 
6 
16 
15 
10 
17 

4. 
Integration 
of Digital 
Technology  
score 
0,82 
0,55 
0,26 
0,44 
0,45 
0,74 
0,57 
0,47 
0,37 
0,28 
0,26 
0,31 
0,24 
0,09 
0,12 
0,12 
0,14 
0,23 

rank 
1 
4 
12 
7 
6 
2 
3 
5 
8 
10 
11 
9 
13 
18 
16 
17 
15 
14 

5. 
Digital 
Public 
Services  
rank 
7 
10 
4 
3 
2 
5 
11 
1 
8 
6 
12 
9 
15 
16 
17 
13 
18 
14 

score 
0,61 
0,53 
0,68 
0,76 
0,76 
0,66 
0,53 
0,76 
0,60 
0,64 
0,51 
0,57 
0,39 
0,37 
0,34 
0,47 
0,29 
0,45 

Figure  4.7  presents  the  performance  and  progress  of  countries  over  time  (I-DESI  2014 
vs.  I-DESI  2015).  In  this  figure,  all  Tier-2  countries  are  plotted  based  on  their  absolute 
performance  in  2014  (vertical  axis)  and  their  growth  in  performance  (horizontal  axis). 
The  EU  average  is  plotted,  as  well  as  the  EU  top-three  average  regarding  absolute 
performance  (‘EU  top  score’)  and  growth  (‘EU  top  growth’).  The  average  of  the  three 
worst performing EU countries regarding score (‘EU bot growth’)  and progress (‘EU bot 
growth’)  are  also  shown.  From  this  graph,  it  can  be  observed  how  countries  are 
performing and developing as compared to the EU28 average (displayed in red). To allow 
for  a  comparison  over  time,  the  I-DESI  2015  score  on  the  vertical  axis  is  recalculated 
with  the  same  subset  of  indicators  that  is  available  for  I-DESI  2014.  EU  scores  are 
plotted in green, the EU average in red and other countries in blue. 

59 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 4.7 Country performance and progress over years (Tier-2, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 
2015)  

NZ 

KR 

NO 

AU 

EU top score 

CH 

US 

JP 

e
r
o
c
S

CA 

EU28 

IL 

EU bot growth 

RU 

EU bot score 

EU top growth 

CN 

TR 

BR 

MX 

Growth 

 In  light  of  the  scores  and  growth  of  the  countries,  countries  can  be  clustered  in  four 
groups:  

Countries scoring above and growing faster than EU average: 
Canada, Japan and New Zealand. 

Countries scoring above EU average, but growing slower:  
Australia, Korea, Norway, Switzerland, the United States. 

Countries scoring below EU average, but growing faster: 
Brazil, China, Turkey.  

Countries scoring below and growing slower than EU average:  
Israel, Mexico, Russia.  

Figure  4.8  –  4.11  are  similar  to  figure  4.7,  portraying  the  performance  and  progress  of 
Tier  2  countries  on  four  out  of  the  five  dimensions.  No  graph  is  made  for  the  fourth 
dimension Integration of Digital Technologies, because in the I-DESI 2014 this dimension 
consists of only one indicator in Tier-2.  

Korea  is  the  Tier-2  country  with  the  highest  score  on  Connectivity,  but  it  shows  slow 
growth. Mexico has the lowest growth and the lowest score of all countries. Brazil, China, 
Turkey,  Luxembourg  and  New  Zealand  are  the  countries  with  the  highest  growth:  in 
particular  Brazil  is  growing  fast.  But  the  first  three  of  them  still  have  a  relatively  low 
score. 

60 

 
 
 
On  Human  Capital  China  shows  both  the  highest  growth  and  the  highest  score.  Mexico 
has  the  slowest  growth  of  all  Tier-2  countries  and  is,  after  Brazil,  de  country  with  the 
lowest score.  

On  the  dimension  Use  of  Internet  Iceland  is  performing  well  on  both  score  as  growth. 
China is growing even faster, but has a lower score. Mexico, Korea, Switzerland and the 
United States have relatively low performances on both score and growth. 

On the fifth dimension Digital Public Services Japan is the fastest growing country, before 
the  best  performing  country  on  score:  the  United  States.  Top  performing  EU  countries 
(‘EU  top  score’)  are  growing  faster  on  average  than  amongst  others  the  United  States, 
Korea, Australia and Canada. The worst performing EU countries are way behind all non-
EU countries, and report only slow growth.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.8 Country performance and progress over years dimension 1. Connectivity 
(Tier-2, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

KR 

e
r
o
c
S

EU top score 

CH 

NO 

JP 

IS 

US 

AU 

CA 

EU28 

EU top 
growth 

NZ 

IL 

RU 

EU bot 
growth 

EU bot score 

MX 

Growth 

BR 

TR 

CN 

Figure 4.9 Country performance and progress over years dimension 2. Human Capital 
(Tier-2, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

KR 

CN 

EU top score 

IS 

JP 

e
r
o
c
S

MX 

NO 
IL 

CA 

RU 
EU top 
growth 

EU bot  
growth 

NZ 

CH 
EU28 

AU 

US 

EU bot score 

TR 

Growth 

BR 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.10 Country performance and progress over years dimension 3. Use of Internet 
(Tier-2, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015)  

IS 

CN 

EU top score 

NO 

NZ 

IL 

EU bot grow 

EU28 

TR 

EU top 
growth 

RU 

IL 

EU both  
score 

BR 

JP 

Growth 

e
r
o
c
S

CA 

KR 

US 

CH 

MX 

Figure 4.11 Country performance and progress over years dimension 5. Digital Public 
Services (Tier-2, I-DESI 2014 vs. I-DESI 2015) 

US 

EU top score 

NO 

e
r
o
c
S

KR 

JP 

AU 

CA 

NZ 

IS 

EU top 
growth 

IL 

CH 

EU28 

MX 

BR 

RU 

CN 

TR 

EU bot  
growth 

EU bot score 

Growth 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
5 Conclusion and insights 

This  chapter  presents  the  key  findings  related  to  Europe’s  performance  as  a  digital 
economy  and  society,  in  comparison  with  leading  and  emerging  economies  at  a  global 
stage. The I-DESI that has been developed to allow for such comparisons.  It consists of 
two  tiers:  Tier-1  includes  all  the  European  Union  member  states  plus  Japan,  Korea,  the 
United  States,  Australia,  Canada,  Iceland,  Norway  and  Switzerland.  The  second  tier  is 
computed  using  a  reduced  set  of  indicators  for  a  second  set  of  countries:  all  Tier-1 
countries plus Brazil, China, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia and Turkey.  

5.1  Europe’s strengths 
Top  countries  in  Europe  are  also  leading  at  a  global  stage.  The  topthree  of  best 
performing  European  countries  are  also  leading  the  I-DESI:  Sweden,  Denmark  and 
Finland. They are closely followed by Korea, Iceland and the United States, whilst Japan 
comes in at a 6th place. Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Australia rank higher than the 
EU  average.  This  means  that  in  general,  the  selected  non-EU  countries  are  performing 
better than the  EU  as a whole. This is not surprising, as the EU average is based on all 
EU  member  states,  including  those  that  have  lower  performances,  such  as  Bulgaria, 
Poland  and  Romania  (being  the  worst  three  performers  of  the  European  Union).  As  the 
top  players  in  Europe  are  also  in  the  lead  at  a  global  level,  it  is  important  that  the  EU 
member  states  that  are  underperforming  step  up  in  order  to  come  closer  to  the 
performance  of  countries  such  as  Australia,  Canada  and  Japan.  In  this  respect,  it  is 
worrisome that the worst performing EU countries are  falling behind: they are  currently 
below the EU average and their development over the last year was slower than that of 
the  EU  as  a  whole.  These  countries  are  already  less  developed  than  the  EU  (and  the 
other  economies  included  in  Tier-1  of  the  I-DESI),  and  by  showing  anemic  growth  they 
are distancing themselves further from the rest of the pack.  

Europe  leads  the  way  with  regards  to  Use  of  the  Internet.  Using  the  widespread 
availability of broadband, and in possession of the required  skills to take the advantage 
of such connectivity, citizens can enjoy a wide range of online activities, such as listening 
to music online, playing games, reading online news, participate in online social networks 
such  as  Twitter  and  Facebook,  purchasing  products  online  and  use  internet  banking. 
Overall,  Europe  is  far  ahead  of  all  the  other  countries  with  regards  to  the  use  of  these 
kinds  of  activities.  Nine  of  the  ten  top  performing  countries  in  the  Use  of  Internet 
dimension  are  European  (seven  of  which  are  in  the  EU),  with  Iceland  in  the  lead.  On 
average, the EU is (far) ahead of the United States, Korea, and Japan on this dimension. 
The consumption of online content in Japan is very low. 

Another  area  where  Europe  performs  well is  Human  Capital:  the  appropriate  knowledge 
and  skills  to  take  advantage  of  the  possibilities  offered  by  the  internet  and  the  digital 
society.  Again,  top  performers  in  Europe    excel  on  a  global  stage,  with  the  top-four 
countries  in  this  dimension  being  European  countries  followed  by  Korea.  Japan,  the 
United  States  and  Australia  are  just  above  the  European  average.  When  less  developed 
countries  in  this  field  (most  notably  Italy,  Bulgaria  and  Romania)  improve  their  digital 
skills base, it is reasonable to assume that the EU  will pass Australia, the United States 
and Japan. 

Although  the  United  States  are  the  undisputable  world  leader  with  regards  to  the 
adoption of Digital Technologies by businesses, nine out of the first ten countries on this 
dimension  are  European  countries.  Businesses  in  these  countries  take  advantage  of  the 
opportunities  offered  by  online  sales  and  digital  technologies  such  as  cloud  services, 
Electronic Information sharing and RFID. Korea and Japan are average performers, being 
just ahead of the EU average. Canada is performing behind the EU average. 

64 

 
 
When adding the Tier-2 countries Brazil, China, Mexico, Israel, Russia and Turkey to the 
analysis,  we  see  that  these  countries  are  consistently  performing  below  the  EU  average 
across  all  dimensions.  However,  there  are  a  few  exceptions.  On  the  dimension  Human 
Capital  Israel,  Russia  and  China  are  performing  above  the  EU  average.  China  is  also 
scoring  better  than  EU  average  on  the  Use  of  Internet  and  Israel  on  Digital  Public 
Services.    

Another important exception is New Zealand, who is a top-ten performer in Tier-2. New 
Zealand  is  consistently  performing  above  the  EU  average,  and  is  even  leading  the 
dimension Integration of Digital Technology. 

5.2  Areas for improvement 
Europe  is  lagging  behind  with  regards  to  Connectivity.  Connectivity  refers  to  availability 
and take-up of mobile and fixed broadband, as well as the average connection speed and 
affordability of fixed broadband. Korea leads the way with regards to connectivity, being 
far  ahead  of  followers  Japan,  Switzerland  and  the  top-three  of  best  performing  EU 
countries. Korea is among the top-performers  on all sub-dimensions,  and is the guiding 
light  for  the  other  countries  with  regards  to  speed:  the  average  connection  speed  of 
broadband is unparalleled at a global stage.  The United States is an average performer, 
being just ahead of Canada and the EU average, which are on a equal level. Australia is 
lagging behind as compared to the  EU average, but is still ahead of  European countries 
such  as  Poland,  Cyprus  and  Slovakia.  For  the  EU,  it  might  be  a  concern  that  countries 
such as Croatia and Slovakia did not show any progress in the 2013-2014 period, not on 
the overall ranking and neither on the ranking of the connectivity dimension. 

There is some room for improvement for the EU with regards to Digital Public Services: 
the provision of public services online, which makes business and citizen interaction with 
public  authorities  more  efficient  through  the  use  of  digital  technologies.  Five  out  of  the 
first ten countries in this dimension's ranking are non-European: the United States are in 
the  lead,  performing  slightly  better  than  the  EU  top  performers  (France,  the  United 
Kingdom, the Netherlands). They are followed by Korea, Japan, Australia and Canada, all 
being way ahead of the EU average. Quick wins for the EU could be realized by improving 
the state of online public services in countries lagging behind, most notably the top-three 
worst  performing  EU  countries  (Bulgaria,  Malta,  Croatia):  they  are  way  behind  all  the 
others,  in  particular  with  regards  to  the  transactionality  of  public  services,  how  public 
administrations are connected and offer services in a citizen-centred way, and the usage 
of  online  public  services.    Malta,  Croatia  and  Bulgaria  are  the  three  lowest  performing 
countries on this dimension, and their situation has not improved as compared to the I-
DESI 2014: both their score and their ranking have deteriorated.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

66 

 
 
 
Annex 1 List of country acronyms 

Code 

Country 

AT 

AU 

BE 

BG 

BR 

CA 

CH 

CN 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

Austria 

Australia 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Brazil 

Canada 

Switzerland 

China 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

EU28 

The average of the 28 EU Member States 

EU28 
bot 
EU28 
top 
FI 

The average of the three worst performing 
countries of the EU 
The average of the three best performing 
countries of the EU 
Finland 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IL 

IS 

IT 

JP 

KR 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

MX 

NL 

NO 

NZ 

PL 

PT 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Israel 

Iceland 

Italy 

Japan 

Korea Republic 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Mexico 

The Netherlands 

Norway 

New Zealand 

Poland 

Portugal 

67 

 
 
RO 

RU 

SE 

SI 

SK 

TR 

UK 

US 

Romania 

Russia 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Turkey 

The United Kingdom 

The United States 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex  2  Detailed  description  of  the 
indicators comprised in the I-DESI 

69 

 
 
 
1.1.1. Fixed BB Coverage17 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Canadian 

Standard fixed broadband coverage 
All households 
% households 
EU  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  2014  &  2015,  Australian 
Communications  and  Media  Authority  –  Communications  report  2013-
201418, 
Telecommunications 
Commission  –  Communications  Monitoring  Report  2015,  China 
Statistical  Yearbook  201419,  Ministry  of  Communications  Israel  – 
Telecommunications  in  Israel  2013,  Ministry  of  Internal  Affairs  and 
Communications  Japan  –  White  paper  2015,  Korea  Yearbook  of 
Information  Society  Statistics  201420,  Federal  Communications 
Commission USA – 5th International Broadband Data Report  
EU28 average is weighted in the original data source 

Radio-television 

and 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Switzerland 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014 (2013: Korea (Rep.))  
- 

17 Indicators are numbered based on the tier-1 structure. 
18 Percentage of total population aged 18 years and over.  
19 Percentage of Administrative Village with access to the Internet by Broadband 
20 Including access to mobile internet 

70 

70%75%80%85%90%95%100%TRNZCHCABRAUILEESKPLROCNLVBGHUSIIEESISFINOUSRULTHREU28DEKRCZITMXSEDKATELPTFRBEMTUKLUNLCYJP70%75%80%85%90%95%100%TRRUNZMXKRILCNBRAUPLSKEEROLVNOHUESBGSIIEISHREU28FICADEUSLTCZSEDKITATELFRPTCHBEUKLUCYNLMTJP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
1.1.2. Fixed BB Subscriptions 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

The number of fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 
Total population 
Subscribers per 100 inhabitants 
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 201521  
EU28 average is weighted by the total population per member state 

I-DESI 2014: 
I-DESI 2015: 

2013 
2014 

21 For all data originating from ITU: due to data restrictions, we could not publish the original values, but normalized scores. 

This applies to indicators 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.2 and 2.1.2. 

71 

0.00.20.40.60.81.0NZBRCACNTRROPLBGCYSKHRITPTLVSIILIEMXHUESELATCZLTEEJPCHEU28USFISELUMTRUBEDEISUKKRNOFRDKNLAU0.00.20.40.60.81.0MXBRTRCNRUROPLBGCYSKHRITLVPTSILTIEILESHUAUATCZELEEJPEU28NZUSFISELUMTCADEISBEUKKRNOFRNLDKCH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
1.2.1. Mobile BB Subscriptions 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

The  number  of  active  mobile  broadband  subscriptions  per  100 
inhabitants 
Total population 
Subscribers per 100 inhabitants 
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2015  
EU28 average is weighted by the total population per member state 

I-DESI 2014: 
I-DESI 2015: 

2013 
2014 

72 

0.00.20.40.60.81.0CNHUCYNZCAELPTROSIDELTRUSKBRBECZMXPLMTFRBGTREU28ITLVATNLAUHRESIEISLUCHNOUKEEUSDKKRSEILJPFI0.00.20.40.60.81.0HUELMXCNCYTRPTSIROILCAPLMTBESKLVLTDERUFRBGCZATHRNLEU28ITESBRIEISCHNOUKNZUSKRLUAUDKSEEEJPFI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2.2. 3G Coverage 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Percentage of the population covered by at least a 3G mobile network 
Total population 
% population 
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2015, EU Study 
on Broadband Coverage in Europe 2013 & 2014  
EU28 average is weighted by the total population per member state 

I-DESI 2014: 

N.a.: 

2013 (2012: France, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, 
United States, 2011: Finland)  
Luxembourg 

I-DESI 2015: 

N.a.: 

2014 (2013: Austria, Israel, Japan, 2012: France, United States, 2011: 
Finland) 
Mexico, Russia, Turkey 

73 

0.00.20.40.60.81.0TRNZLUCNCAUSSENLHUFRFICHDKSKBRCYCZDESIPLLTIEISATPTEU28NOESHRELRUMXLVKRILAUUKBEITROBGJPMTEE0.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.00MXRUTRATFIFRILJPUSCNSKCYBRDEIEISLUNZEU28NOCZHUELESHRAUCAITKRLTMTNLPTLVUKSIBEDKROBGPLSECHEE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.3.1. Average Connection Speed 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Average connection speed in Mbps 
Total number of unique IP addresses 
Average connection speed in Mbps normalized between 0 and 30 Mbps 
Akamai  -  quarterly  analysis  of  the  broadband  adoption  and  speed 
across the World  
EU28 average is calculated as the simple average of member states 

I-DESI 2014: 
I-DESI 2015: 

2013 Q4 
2014 Q4 

74 

0510152025BRCNCANZHRCYELITCHILMTPTEESILUSKFRESHUROBGTRLTPLISDEEU28MXNORUFIATUKUSBEDKIELVSECZAUNLJPKR0510152025BRCNMXCYHRITTRELFRNZAUMTEEPTSKESLUSIHUPLISDERUEU28ATILCABEUKBGUSNOROLTDKFICZIELVNLCHSEJPKR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.3.2. Fast BB subscriptions 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

Percentage of fixed broadband subscriptions equal to or above 10 Mbps 
All fixed BB subscriptions 
% of subscriptions equal to or above 10 Mbps 
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2015  
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  households  per 
member state 
Australia: number of Fibre subscriptions / all fixed BB subscriptions 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 (2012: China, the Netherlands, 2011: Israel) 
New Zealand, Mexico 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 (2013: Japan, 2011: Israel) 
Mexico 

75 

0.000.200.400.600.801.00NZCHMXCYHRCNITCABRPLSKCZTRATSILUEENOIEDERUNLLTLVEU28ILELFIUSSEAUHUUKROESDKBEPTMTJPFRBGISKR0.00.20.40.60.81.0MXJPILCYHRITCNSKPLCZTRATBRSILUDERUEEIECAUSEU28LVAULTFINOCHELHUSENLRONZUKBEDKPTESFRMTBGISKR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.4.1. Fixed BB Subscription Charge 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 

Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Monthly  subscription  charge  for  fixed  broadband  Internet  service 
offered by the  Internet  Service Provider with the largest market share 
(i.e.  fixed  broadband  is  considered  to  be  any  dedicated  connection  to 
the  Internet  at  downstream  speeds  equal  to,  or  greater  than,  256 
kbit/s) 
All  standalone  Fixed  Broadband  Internet  Access  Offers  by  the  Internet 
Service Provider with the largest market share 
Percentage of individual gross income (USD PPP) 
Access  cost  (A):  Broadband  access  costs  from  the  ITU  World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2015  
Income (B): GNI per capita, PPP from The World Bank WDI 
Indicator = (A*12) /B 
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  households  per 
member state 

I-DESI 2014: 
I-DESI 2015: 

2013  
2014 (2013: Greece, Iceland, Malta, Switzerland) 

76 

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%CHCNILHUMXRUDKPTSKESELLVBRSIDEHRNZSEEEKRBEISITNOCZFIEU28NLBGFRCYMTAULUCAJPATPLIEROLTUKUSTR0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%MTISELCHMXNZAUCNHRILHUPTCADKDEESSEFINLSIITKRBREENOBEEU28SKCYFRBGLVLTCZLUIEATTRJPPLROUKRUUS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1. Daily Internet Users 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Individuals whose frequency of Internet access is at least daily 
All Internet users 
% of internet users 
Google  Consumer  Barometer  2014  &  2015  administered  by  TNS 
Infratest,  Statistical  Service  of  Cyprus  (CYSTAT),  Statistics  Iceland, 
National Statistics Office Malta  
EU27 average is calculated as the simple average of member states  

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Luxembourg, Mexico 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014 
Luxembourg 

77 

30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MXLUBRCZATRUPTCNSKROELDETRPLCHBELTITUKFIBGEU28LVESCYSIHUUSNLIEHRFRAUNZILSEEECAMTNODKKRJPIS30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LUMXBRCZTRSKATPLRODEELITBECYBGCHLTFIHUPTRUEU28FRIEUSLVESNZAUHRNLSIEEUKCNMTSEILDKNOCAKRJPIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2. Regular Internet Users 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

Percentage of individuals using the Internet in the last 3 months22 
Total population (16-74 years)23 
% of individuals who used Internet in the last 3 months 
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2015 
EU28 average is weighted by the total population per member state 

I-DESI 2014: 
I-DESI 2015: 

2013 
2014 

22 China and Switzerland: in the last 6 months. Turkey & New Zealand: in the last 12 months.  
23 United States & Japan: Age 3 +. China, Mexico & Korea (Rep.): Age 6 +. Brazil: Age 10 +. Switzerland: Age 14 +. Australia: 

Age 15 +. Russia: Age 15-72 years. New Zealand: Age 15 +. Canada: Age 16 +. Israel: Age 20 +.  

78 

0.00.20.40.60.81.0NZCNCAROBRBGITELPTPLCYHRTRLTMTMXESHUSICZLVEU28SKIEEEATFRBECHILDEUSKRRUAUJPUKFILUNLDKSENOIS0.00.20.40.60.81.0MXCNTRROBGBRITELPTPLHRCYRUILSILTMTLVHUESEU28IECZSKATFREEKRAUBENZDECHCAUSJPUKFISENLLUDKNOIS 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
2.2.1. ICT Specialists 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Employment of ICT specialists across the economy 
Total employment 
% of total employment 
EU  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  2014  &  2015,  OECD  Measuring 
the  Digital  Economy:  A  New  Perspective  2014,  OECD  Science, 
Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015, Japan Statistics Bureau 
EU28 average is weighted in the original data source 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Korea (Rep.) 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014  
-  

79 

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%TRRUNZMXKRILCNBRELJPPTLTLVBGCYROITHRESPLFRISEU28DEAUUSATSKDKMTBENOSICZCAIENLHUCHUKLUEESEFI0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%RUNZMXILCNBRTRELJPBGLTLVCYPTITROHRKRPLESFREU28ISDEATAUDKUSSKCZBEMTIECACHSINOHUUKEENLLUSEFI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2. STEM Graduates 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Science and technology graduates 
Total number of graduates 
% of graduates in STEM subjects 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD  World  Indicators  of  Skills  for  Employment  (WISE)  database, 
Federal  Statistical  Office  of  Germany  (DESTATIS),  China  Statistical 
Yearbook 2014, Statistics Canada, Central Bureau of Statistics Israel 
EU28 average is calculated as the simple average of member states 

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 

2013 (2012: Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, Mexico, 
Netherlands,  New  Zealand,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  Turkey, 
United States, 2011: Australia, Germany, Romania, 2010: Israel, 2009: 
Russia) 

I-DESI 2015: 

2013 (2012: Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, Mexico, 
Netherlands,  New  Zealand,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  Turkey, 
United States, 2011: Australia, Germany, Romania, 2010: Israel, 2009: 
Russia) 

80 

0%10%20%30%40%50%BRNLILUSLUBEPLHULVISCHRUMTNOITROJPDKSKCADECYBGCZEU28MXAUEELTESIEHRFRSIUKPTNZSEFIATTRELKRCN0%10%20%30%40%50%BRNLAUUSLUBEPLHULVISNZCAMTNOITROJPDKSKTRDECYBGCZEU28ILCHEELTESIEHRFRSIUKPTMXSEFIATRUELKRCN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.1. Reading News Online  

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Individuals  who  used  the  Internet  to  read  online  news  sites, 
newspapers or news magazines 
Total number of internet users 
% of internet users 
Eurostat  -  Community  survey  on  ICT  usage  in  Households  and  by 
Individuals, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015, 
Pew  ResarchCenter  for  United  States  data,  Statistical  Office  Japan, 
China Internet Development Research and Statistics 2014 
EU28 average is calculated as the simple average of member states  

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Australia, Belgium, Switzerland 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014 
Australia  

81 

30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BEBRAUILRUMXCHJPIENZPLFRATSKRONLUKDEITESMTEU28BGCAPTCYDKUSTRELSICNLUHUKRHRSECZLVFIISEELTNO30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%RUMXILBRAUJPNZIEFRITNLBEUKSKATRODEPLCACYTRPTMTDKBGEU28USCHESHRCNSIKRLUFIELLVHUCZSEEENOLTIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.2. Games, Videos and Music 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Individuals  who  used  the  Internet  to  play  games,  watch  online  videos 
or listen to music at least once a week 
Total number of internet users 
% of internet users 
Google  Consumer  Barometer  2014  &  2015  administered  by  TNS 
Infratest, Statistics Iceland  
Indicator  is  calculated  by  taking  the  simple  average  of  the  percentage 
of individuals that use the Internet to (i) play games, (ii) watch online 
videos,  and  (iii)  listen  to  music.  For  2013  Greece  and  Bulgaria  the 
average excl. Listen to music 
EU25 average is calculated as the simple average of member states 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013  
Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014 
Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta 

82 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%CYLUMTMXISDEATUKNLCHIEBRJPAUBENZFRELESITUSNOSEDKFIPLILRUEU28SKKRCZCAEEHULTPTSIBGROTRHRLVCN0%10%20%30%40%50%60%MTLUCYMXDECHUKUSAUKRIEATJPITCANLESDKBRNZSKBESENOFRFIPLILEU28HURUCZEESILTELPTROHRLVTRBGCNIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.3. Video on Demand 

No data 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

Individuals  who  used  the  Internet  for  video-on-demand  or  streaming 
services at least once a week 
Total number of internet users 
% of internet users 
Google Consumer Barometer 2015 administered by TNS Infratest 
EU24 average is calculated as the simple average of member states  

I-DESI 2014: 

Indicator not in I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 
Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta  

83 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%MTLUCYAUROTRBRJPELRUMXHUCZCNDEITBGSKLTKREEATESPLHRSIFICHEU28LVNODKSENZNLBEISPTIEILUSCAFRUK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1. Social Networks 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Individuals who used the Internet to visit social networks at least once 
a week 
Total number of internet users 
% of internet users 
Google  Consumer  Barometer  2014  &  2015  administered  by  TNS 
Infratest,  Statistical  Service  of  Cyprus  (CYSTAT),  Statistics  Iceland, 
STATEC Luxembourg, National Statistics Office Malta 
EU28 average is calculated as the simple average of member states  

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Mexico 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014 (2013: Malta) 
- 

84 

0%20%40%60%80%100%MXKRJPDEATCHFRBRAUCZITUKUSIENLBESISECADKESFICNNZPLILEU28HRSKLTEEELROBGRUNOLUTRPTCYLVHUMTIS0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MTKRMXCHJPDEUSATFRFIITCZAUCAUKSIILBRSENLDKIEBEPLNZSKHRESEU28LTNOEERUROELTRHUBGPTLVLUCNCYIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.1. Banking 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Individuals who used the Internet to use online banking 
Total number of internet users 
% of internet users 
EU  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  2014  &  2015,  OECD  Measuring 
the  Digital  Economy:  A  New  Perspective  2014,  OECD  Science, 
Industry  Scoreboard  2015,  Canadian  Bankers 
Technology  and 
Association, China Internet Development Research and Statistics 2014, 
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Japan 
EU27 average is weighted in the original data source  

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 (2012: New Zealand)  
Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Switzerland 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 (2013: Australia, United States, Israel, 2012: New Zealand) 
Brazil, Mexico, Russia 

85 

0%20%40%60%80%100%BRRUMXCHNZBGROJPELTRHRCYPTHUITILCNSIESKRSKPLUSEU28DECZIEUKATMTLULTFRBECALVAUSEDKNLISEENOFI0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%RUMXBRUSNZILAUROBGJPELHRTRCYPTHUITCNSIPLESSKKREU28DECZATIECHMTUKFRLUBELTLVCADKSENLEENOFIIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.2. Purchase online products 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

Individuals who used the Internet to purchase products at least once a 
week 
Total number of internet users 
% of internet users 
Google  Consumer  Barometer  2014  &  2015  administered  by  TNS 
Infratest 
EU24 average is calculated as the simple average of member states  

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Mexico, Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 
Cyprus, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta 

86 

0%10%20%30%40%50%CYLUMTMXISELBRRUBEBGHRROFIPTCNTREEESHUITLVSEFRSIEU28ATCHIECAILCZDKLTNLSKNOPLDEJPAUUSNZUKKR0%10%20%30%40%CYISLUMTRUITROBRBEESFIPTEEELHRHUBGLVFRSIMXEU28CHSEILATCACZLTSKCNNODKPLTRIEJPNLDENZUSAUUKKR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.1. Electronic Information Sharing 

No data 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Enterprises  who  have  ERP  software  package  to  share  information 
between different functional areas 
Enterprises with ten or more persons employed 
% enterprises 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Scoreboard  2015,  EU  Digital 

Calculation: 

Economy and Society Index 2015 
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  enterprises  per 
member state  

I-DESI 2014: 

Indicator not in I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 (2013: Canada, Korea (Rep.), 2011: Switzerland) 
Australia, Japan, United States  

87 

0%10%20%30%40%50%USRUNZMXJPILCNBRAUKRCHCALVISUKTRHUEEPLIEBGCZHRSKROSIMTEU28LTNODEFRCYESITLUFIELPTNLDKSEATBE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.2. RFID 

No data 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Enterprises  using  Radio  Frequency  Identification  (RFID)  technologies 
for  after  sales  product  identification  or  as  part  of  the  production  and 
service delivery 
Enterprises with ten or more persons employed 
% enterprises 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Scoreboard  2015,  Eurostat  – 
Community survey on ICT usage and eCommerce in Enterprises, VILRI 
Report on Item-level RFID in the USA 
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  enterprises  per 
member state  

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 

Indicator not in I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 (2013: Canada, Japan, Korea (Rep.), 2012: United States) 
Australia, Switzerland 

88 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%RUNZMXILCNCHBRAUUSKRJPCAELTRUKCZIEPLFRHUROLVCYNOEESEISEU28ITDKLTESSKNLHRSIDEPTMTLUBEBGATFI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.3. Social Media 

No data 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Enterprises that use social media 
Enterprises with ten or more persons employed 
% enterprises 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Scoreboard  2015,  Australian 
Bureau  of  Statistics,  Bulgaria  National  Statistical  Institute,  Brazilian 
Internet  Steering  Committee  (CGI.BR)  –  ICT  Households  and 
Enterprises  2012,  Croatian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Statistical  Service  of 
Cyprus  (CYSTAT),  Central  Statistical  Bureau  of  Latvia,  National 
Statistics Office Malta, United Kingdom Office for National Statistics 
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  enterprises  per 
member state  

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 

Indicator not in I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 (2013: Canada, Japan) 
France, Korea (Rep.), Switzerland, United States 

89 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%USRUNZKRILFRCNCHMXJPCABRLVPLROCZHUEESKTRITLTBGDEAULUESELEU28PTATSIHRBEFISEDKNOCYNLUKIEISMT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.4. Online Presence 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Enterprises using  
Total number of internet users 
% of enterprises 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD Measuring the Digital Economy: A New  Perspective 2014, OECD 
Digital  Economy  Outlook  2015,  Eurostat  –  Community  survey  on  ICT 
usage  and  eCommerce  in  Enterprises,  Brazilian  Internet  Steering 
Committee (CGI.BR)  –  ICT  Households and  Enterprises 2012, National 
Small Business Association USA24  
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  enterprises  per 
member state  

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
- 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a. 

2014 (2013: United States, Brazil) 
China, Israel, Russia 

24 Survey among small business (less than 500 employees) 

90 

0%20%40%60%80%100%CNILRUMXROBGTRLVBRPTKRELHUFRCYPLITESHREU28AUIELTEECABEMTNZLUNOCZSISKUKUSISDENLATJPSECHDKFI0%20%40%60%80%100%RUILCNUSBRMXROBGPTLVTRHUKRELFRPLHRITCYEU28IEESSKLTAULUCANZEENOMTBEUKCZSIISDEATJPSENLDKCHFI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
4.1.5. Cloud Services 

No data 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Enterprises using cloud computing services 
Enterprises with ten or more persons employed 
% enterprises 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Scoreboard  2015,  Eurostat  – 
Community  survey  on  ICT  usage  and  eCommerce  in  Enterprises, 
Australian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Bulgaria  National  Statistical  Institute, 
Croatian  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Statistics  Finland,  Ministry  of  Internal 
Affairs  and  Communications  Japan  –  White  paper  2015,  Korea 
Yearbook  of  Information  Society  Statistics  2014,  Central  Statistical 
Bureau  of  Latvia,  National  Statistics  Office  Malta,  Statistics 
Netherlands,  Neovise  report  “Enterprise  Cloud  Essentials:  Multiple 
Clouds,  Hybrid  Environments  and  Support 
for  Mission-Critical 
Applications” 2013 
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  enterprises  per 
member state  

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 

Indicator not in I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015: 

N.a. 

2014 (2013: Korea (Rep.), Australia, 2012: Canada, 2011: 
Switzerland) 
- 

91 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%TRRUNZMXILCNBRKRCHCAAUROLVPLELBGHUCYDEATFRLUPTLTESEECZSIMTEU28SKBEHRUKIENLNODKJPSEITISFIUS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.1. SMEs Selling Online  

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

SMEs (10-249 employees) engaged in sales via e-commerce 
Total number of SMEs (10-249 employees) 
% SMEs 
Eurostat  –  Community  survey  on  ICT  usage  and  eCommerce  in 
Enterprises,  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Scoreboard 
201525,  Brazilian  Internet  Steering  Committee  (CGI.BR)  –  ICT 
Households  and  Enterprises  2012,  China  Statistical  Yearbook  2014, 
National Small Business Association USA26 
EU28  average  is  weighted  by  the  total  number  of  enterprises  by 
member state 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 (2012: Brazil, Mexico, 2011: Switzerland) 
Israel, Russia 

I-DESI 2015: 

N.a. 

2014  (2013:  Canada,  China,  Iceland,  Japan,  Korea  (Rep.),  Turkey, 
United States, 2012: Brazil, Mexico, 2011: Switzerland) 
Israel, Russia 

25 For Canada and Turkey, data refer to small businesses. For Japan and China, data refer to all firms.  
26 For the USA, small business imply less than 500 employees 

92 

0%10%20%30%40%50%RUILMXCHBRCNITBGCYTRROLVPLELHUEEFRSIPTESKREU28ATCALUMTFISKBEUKNLHRLTJPIESEDECZNOUSDKISAUNZ0%10%20%30%40%50%RUILUSTRMXKRJPCNCHCABRROITLVBGELPLCYHULUSKPTFREEEU28SIATFIESMTLTUKNLBESEDEIEHRDKCZNOISAUNZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
4.2.2. eCommerce Turnover  

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 

N.a.: 

I-DESI 2015: 

N.a. 

Enterprises’ total turnover from e-commerce 
All enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more) 
% turnover 
Eurostat  –  Community  survey  on  ICT  usage  and  eCommerce  in 
Enterprises, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013, 
OECD Measuring the Digital Economy 2014, US Census Bureau 2013 
EU28 average is calculated as the simple average of member states 

2013  (2012:  Belgium,  Iceland,  Korea  (Rep.),  Luxembourg,  Australia, 
2010: Denmark) 
Canada, Japan, Switzerland 

2014 (2013: Portugal, Slovenia, United States, 2012: Belgium, Iceland, 
Korea (Rep.), Luxembourg, Australia) 
Canada, Japan, Switzerland 

93 

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%TRRUNZJPILCNCHCABRMXLUKRISDKBEAUELBGCYROLVLTITSIPLHRPTEEATEU28NLMTSEFRESDEHUFISKUKNOUSCZIE0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%TRRUNZJPILCNCHCABRMXLUKRISDKBEELBGROLVLTITCYMTAUSIPTPLNLHRDEATEU28EEFRESSKSENOFIUSUKHUCZIE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.1. eGovernment Users 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Individuals using the Internet to interact with public authorities 
Total population 
% population 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source:  OECD  Government  at  a  Glance  2013,  OECD  Science,  Technology  and 
Industry Scoreboard 2015, Eurostat – Community survey on ICT usage 
in Households and by Individuals, Pew Research Center for US data 
EU28 average is weighted by the total population per member state  

Calculation: 

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2012 (2013: Australia, Israel, Russia, Brazil) 
Korea (Rep.), Turkey, United States, Japan, China, Mexico 

I-DESI 2015: 

N.a.: 

2014  (2013:  Australia,  Brazil,  Israel,  Russia,  2012:  Canada,  New 
Zealand)  
Japan, China, Mexico 

94 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%USNZKRJPCNCATRITHRBGBRCZCYROPLELMXLTPTMTSKHUUKEU28ESRULVSIIEILBEDECHATEELUFRAUNLFISENODKIS0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CNJPMXAUBRCAILNZRUROBGITPLTRHRCZMTCYPTLTELEU28ESHUEEUKIEDESILVBESKATFRLUCHKRNLUSFISENODKIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.2. Transactional Services  

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

The  extent  to  which  government  websites  offer  transactional  services 
identity). 
(including  electronic  authentication  of 
Government  websites  process  non-financial  transactions,  e.g.  filing 
taxes online or applying for certificates, licenses and permits. 
Services assessed in the UN eGovernment Survey 
% of services 
UN eGovernment Survey 2012 and 2014 
The  EU28  average  is  calculated  as  the  simple  average  of  member 
states 

the  citizen’s 

I-DESI 2014: 

2012 

I-DESI 2015: 

2014 

95 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CACZSKROTRLVISELCNBGPTPLIEHRCYAUMTITBRLTHUEU28SIDENZLUEEBEATCHSENLESMXJPFIDKUKNOILRUFRUSKR0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BGSIMTSKROCHTRCZHRBRCNHUCYPTMXEU28PLLUIEELBESENOLVFIDELTISITATRUEEDKUKNLESUSKRJPNZCAILAUFR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.3. Connected Services 

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 

Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

The  extent  to  which  government  websites  offer  connected  services 
(including  a  citizen-centric  approach,  where-services  are  targeted  to 
citizens  through  life  cycle  events  and  segmented  groups  to  provide 
tailor-made  services).  E-services  and  e-solutions  cut  across  the 
departments  and  ministries  in  a  seamless  manner,  information,  data 
and  knowledge  is  transferred  from  government  agencies  through 
integrated applications. 
Services assessed in the eGovernment Survey 
% of services 
UN eGovernment Survey 2012 and 2014 
The  EU28  average  is  calculated  as  the  simple  average  of  member 
states 

I-DESI 2014: 

2012 

I-DESI 2015: 

2014 

96 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BGPLCAISIECYROCNBESKITELAUSIMTHRLVCZLUPTEU28HUATNZCHBRESLTTRSEDKFRFIRUDENOJPILMXEEUKUSKRNL0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%HUMTBGHRCZPLBRSIRODEMXCNRULUISSKCYELPTCHATEU28TRSEILBENZLVIENOITEEDKLTFIAUCAESUKNLKRJPFRUS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.4. Open Data  

I-DESI 2014 

I-DESI 2015 

Description: 
Breakdown: 
Unit: 
Main source: 
Calculation: 

Index evaluating the openness of government datasets 
Total number of pre-selected government datasets 
% datasets 
Global Open Data Index 
EU28 average is calculated as the simple average of member states  

I-DESI 2014: 
N.a.: 

2013 
Estonia, Luxembourg, Latvia, Turkey 

I-DESI 2015: 
N.a.: 

2014 
Estonia, Luxembourg 

97 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LVLUEECACYBELTSKIEELPLHUCNTRKRJPHRCZESNZMXBRATMTITBGEU28ISPTRORUFRAUDEILCHSEFISINLNOUSDKUK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EELUCYLTSKCNELBEBGHRPLRUILPTHUIELVESMTMXTRKRBRSIITEU28CHATCAJPISNLROCZSEDEUSNOAUNZFIFRDKUK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 

International Digital Economy and Society Index 
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union 

2016 – 99 pages  

ISBN 978-92-79-58273-8 
doi:10.2759/185010 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
K
-
0
1
-
1
6
-
4
8
4
-
E
N
-
N

                                    doi:10.2759/185010                      ISBN 978-92-79-58273-8